XP 70 - 0.9x?

Discussions of all varieties of stock water guns and water blasters.
Post Reply
User avatar
Falcon
Posts: 148
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2004 2:40 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Post by Falcon » Fri Jul 09, 2004 6:41 pm

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. ???

User avatar
Field Marshal Yang
Posts: 376
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2004 9:45 pm
Location: Setauket, NY
Contact:

Post by Field Marshal Yang » Fri Jul 09, 2004 6:58 pm

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

Veteran
Posts: 569
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2004 4:08 pm
Location: Redmond, WA

Post by Veteran » Fri Jul 09, 2004 7:02 pm

Falcon wrote:But how can the XP 70 shoot 0.9x the water per second of the XP 70? This confuses me. ???

Your reffering to the same gun "Xp70 ...... XP70" So why bother comparing the same gun together? Or did I just misunderstand the weird wording?




Edited By Veteran on 1089417761

Excelite
Posts: 41
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2004 7:49 pm
Location: Edmonton

Post by Excelite » Fri Jul 09, 2004 7:06 pm

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. ???
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.

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

SSCBen
Posts: 1447
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2004 4:15 pm
Contact:

Post by SSCBen » Fri Jul 09, 2004 7:09 pm

I measure 1x as 1 ounce of water per second. I believe that is 29 or 30 ml per second. It probably was just iSoaker's specific gun that underperformed a little bit. That and the fact that it's air pressure, output isn't constant and that may have thrown his calculation off.

User avatar
Field Marshal Yang
Posts: 376
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2004 9:45 pm
Location: Setauket, NY
Contact:

Post by Field Marshal Yang » Fri Jul 09, 2004 7:29 pm

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

User avatar
Exodus
Posts: 74
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2004 1:02 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Post by Exodus » Fri Jul 09, 2004 7:35 pm

Veteran, I think Falcon means that how can the gun that every other soaker is refered to, have 0.9x of itself? That would screw up all the other ratings of other soakers. I think that's what he means.

User avatar
Falcon
Posts: 148
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2004 2:40 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Post by Falcon » Fri Jul 09, 2004 11:23 pm

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?

User avatar
isoaker
Posts: 7113
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2004 1:51 pm
Location: Elsewhere
Contact:

Post by isoaker » Sat Jul 10, 2004 10:14 am

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.

:cool:
:: Leave NO one dry! :: iSoaker.com .:

User avatar
Field Marshal Yang
Posts: 376
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2004 9:45 pm
Location: Setauket, NY
Contact:

Post by Field Marshal Yang » Sat Jul 10, 2004 10:19 am

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

User avatar
isoaker
Posts: 7113
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2004 1:51 pm
Location: Elsewhere
Contact:

Post by isoaker » Sat Jul 10, 2004 10:26 am

^ 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.
:: Leave NO one dry! :: iSoaker.com .:

Soakologist
Posts: 1005
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2004 4:23 pm
Location: Indianapolis (North Side)
Contact:

Post by Soakologist » Sun Jul 11, 2004 11:48 pm

That's true. If one performs multiple trials of each gun, he'll get more accurate results.

User avatar
Falcon
Posts: 148
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2004 2:40 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Post by Falcon » Mon Jul 12, 2004 12:01 am

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.)

User avatar
Triforce Elite
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2004 12:35 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Post by Triforce Elite » Tue Jul 13, 2004 12:57 am

I get your point.
you know those really annoying people? don't you just feel like soaking them?:cps1500:

User avatar
isoaker
Posts: 7113
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2004 1:51 pm
Location: Elsewhere
Contact:

Post by isoaker » Tue Jul 13, 2004 7:37 am

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... :goofy:
:: Leave NO one dry! :: iSoaker.com .:

Soakologist
Posts: 1005
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2004 4:23 pm
Location: Indianapolis (North Side)
Contact:

Post by Soakologist » Tue Jul 13, 2004 2:02 pm

It took me five minutes to get through that last post because it was worded so strangely. :goofy:

I think that, for tradition's and simplicity's sakes, iSc is going to stay with the "x" ratings. Besides, the ounce ratings are right down there with the stats.

User avatar
Falcon
Posts: 148
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2004 2:40 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Post by Falcon » Tue Jul 13, 2004 6:19 pm

Sorry if it was worded strangely, but it was kind of hard to explain what I was trying to say without launching into some kind of complex explanation off the top of my head that no one could understand. :p



Edited By Falcon on 1089760856

Soakologist
Posts: 1005
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2004 4:23 pm
Location: Indianapolis (North Side)
Contact:

Post by Soakologist » Tue Jul 13, 2004 6:33 pm

I was actually referring to iSc's post... but in retrospect, yours is awfully complex as well. :goofy:

User avatar
trekkie00
Posts: 189
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 3:34 pm
Location: No longer in Mascoutah, IL
Contact:

Post by trekkie00 » Sun Aug 08, 2004 5:28 pm

Maybe it would be easier if the nozzle size was in comparison to the maximum size (a.k.a "Riotblast" nozzle).

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests