XP 70 - 0.9x?
Recently, while browsing on isoaker.com, I noticed that he had given the XP 70's nozzle a rating of 0.9x. But the XP 70 is supposed to be the soaker that all other soakers are rated against. Like the CPS 3200 has 5x, 10x, 20x and Typhoon, and the CPS 1700 supposedly has 5x and 10x the water of the XP 70. But how can the XP 70 shoot 0.9x the water per second of the XP 70? This confuses me. ???
- Field Marshal Yang
- Posts: 376
- Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2004 9:45 pm
- Location: Setauket, NY
- Contact:
I rememver vaguely from a thread a while ago at WWN that isoaker bases his statistics more on output than on nozzle size. Accoridng to output, the CPS 3000's 20X is more like 15X-17X and the CPS 2500's 20X is a few notches above 20X. I may be wrong but I think that this is how is goes on Isc.
Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fate of Human Societies, by Jared Diamond
He's saying the XP 70 is supposed to be the base 1x rating from which all the other guns are rated in terms of output, but apparently the Isoaker.com rating is 0.9x. I always thought the XP 70 was the 1x soaker from which all ratings were measured, as well.Falcon wrote:Recently, while browsing on isoaker.com, I noticed that he had given the XP 70's nozzle a rating of 0.9x. But the XP 70 is supposed to be the soaker that all other soakers are rated against. Like the CPS 3200 has 5x, 10x, 20x and Typhoon, and the CPS 1700 supposedly has 5x and 10x the water of the XP 70. But how can the XP 70 shoot 0.9x the water per second of the XP 70? This confuses me. ???
That makes me wonder... which soaker can we say is definitively 1x, or the "base soaker"?
abusing the ellipsis since before you n00bs got here
- Field Marshal Yang
- Posts: 376
- Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2004 9:45 pm
- Location: Setauket, NY
- Contact:
Or perhaps the standard measurement of 1X was Larami's original interpretation of a 1X, from one of their prototypes. The XP 70 might've been a little off but it was close enough to call it a 1X. Then again, Larami never said what output per second was equal to the original 1X.
Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fate of Human Societies, by Jared Diamond
Excelite is on the right track. According to Larami, the XP 70 is supposed to be the base soaker that everything else is rated against. So if you say that "My CPS 1200 has a 5x stream." then it's supposed to mean it's 5 times as powerful as the XP 70. The whole "Times" thing is supposed to be the output of that particular nozzle setting when compared to the XP 70. So if you say that the XP 70 has a 0.9x stream then it doesn't really make sense because the XP 70 can't really have 0.9x the output of itself. Get what I'm saying?
No need to be confused. It is true that Super Soaker supposedly rates its nozzles against the XP70. They defined 1x as the output of an XP70. Me, when I give a nozzle rating, it is done in oz./sec. I'd rather define nozzle output in terms of measured output than believe the rating that Larami/Hasbro put on the nozzle. As many have seen, not all 5x Super Soaker rated nozzles are equal.
Granted, my own statistics are limited by the fact that I usually only get to test one specific blaster. If the blaster I'm testing is above or below the average performance of the same type of blaster, it, unfortanately, will get skewed stats. However, one should always remember that stats are just a sampling of an entire population of soakers. The stats I measure are hopefully close to average, but to get a better representation, I'd need to test a lot more of the same type of soaker to be sure.
Granted, my own statistics are limited by the fact that I usually only get to test one specific blaster. If the blaster I'm testing is above or below the average performance of the same type of blaster, it, unfortanately, will get skewed stats. However, one should always remember that stats are just a sampling of an entire population of soakers. The stats I measure are hopefully close to average, but to get a better representation, I'd need to test a lot more of the same type of soaker to be sure.
:: Leave NO one dry! :: iSoaker.com .:
- Field Marshal Yang
- Posts: 376
- Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2004 9:45 pm
- Location: Setauket, NY
- Contact:
In that case, all of us who have XP 70s or 270s could measure the output per second, which we'd post here for isoaker who'd use his special formula to to give us a number rating. With enough soakers, the average should be about one. Is there a difference between the average output/second of a 70 and a 270?
Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fate of Human Societies, by Jared Diamond
^ from my own tests, an XP270 outperforms an XP70 (XP70: 0.93oz/sec | XP270 1.2oz/sec)
As for those who can add in their own output measurements, the more available, the closer we could get an indication of the true average output of an XP70. No 'special forumlas' needed, well, not at first. First would just be an averaging of all the output numbers received.
As for those who can add in their own output measurements, the more available, the closer we could get an indication of the true average output of an XP70. No 'special forumlas' needed, well, not at first. First would just be an averaging of all the output numbers received.
:: Leave NO one dry! :: iSoaker.com .:
-
- Posts: 1005
- Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2004 4:23 pm
- Location: Indianapolis (North Side)
- Contact:
It's true that not every single XP 70 can be completely identical, but if you are measuring nozzle sizes in ounces per second, then why say that the nozzle is 10x? 10 times the power of what? You might as well say it is a 10oz. nozzle rather than a 10x nozzle. One way that output could be measured is if someone got 4 or 5 XP 70s and found the average output, then devided the output of your soaker's nozzle by the average XP 70 rating. That way you could have a true "Times" rating rather than an ounces per second rating. If you did it like that then the output of the XP 70 would be an infinitely accurate 1x nozzle, which is true according to what Larami originally did to rate nozzles. (Although the nozzle ratings were approximations and weren't completely accurate.)
- Triforce Elite
- Posts: 42
- Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2004 12:35 am
- Location: Sydney, Australia
Falcon wrote:It's true that not every single XP 70 can be completely identical, but if you are measuring nozzle sizes in ounces per second, then why say that the nozzle is 10x? 10 times the power of what? You might as well say it is a 10oz. nozzle rather than a 10x nozzle. One way that output could be measured is if someone got 4 or 5 XP 70s and found the average output, then devided the output of your soaker's nozzle by the average XP 70 rating. That way you could have a true "Times" rating rather than an ounces per second rating. If you did it like that then the output of the XP 70 would be an infinitely accurate 1x nozzle, which is true according to what Larami originally did to rate nozzles. (Although the nozzle ratings were approximations and weren't completely accurate.)
Yup.. 'tis true... but many like seeing the "x" after a number and, for sake of accuracy, the "times" still works as a 5x-iSoaker-rated soaker is still basically equivalent to 5-times the output of an iSoaker-rated-XP70 (though my XP70 actually only got rated at 0.9x, but I'm assuming that the average XP70 actually has an output of 1 oz./sec) Based on that, everything else works...
:: Leave NO one dry! :: iSoaker.com .:
-
- Posts: 1005
- Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2004 4:23 pm
- Location: Indianapolis (North Side)
- Contact:
-
- Posts: 1005
- Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2004 4:23 pm
- Location: Indianapolis (North Side)
- Contact:
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 63 guests