Stream Speed Standard

[DX]

Originally posted at Soaker Media:

I was thinking about creating a standard formula for stream speed, so we can base it off math, not eyeballing it. Stream Speed is such a crucial stat, yet you almost never hear about it.

I was thinking about having the time it takes a CPS 2100, 4100, or similar gun's stream to cross the 30ft. mark as 1x stream speed. The only major variable is the size of the stream, as a 20x can travel faster or slower than a 5x stream, for example. But now that I think about it, the difference is not that great because the stream is still coming out of the same pc which has a set amount of power. Maybe measure stream speed with the largest setting possible on each gun, or the smallest? Feed me some ideas...

Maybe use a smaller gun to set 1x? I really want to do this, to finally give us a way to rate this often unheard-of stat.



Edited By Duxburian on 1138506057

[isoaker]

Why restrict the nozzle size when measuring stream speed? I'd think it more valuable (and practical) to measure the speed of the natural stream as opposed to reducing it. The trick is how does one accurately time when your shot has travelled a certain distance. Perhaps if shooting a wall (or other fixed object) at a set distance, one at least has a visual queue to when the stream has reached the distance.

Tricky to measure, but potentially interesting and useful.

[DX]

For some guns, measuring the largest nozzle size would not give a good representation of the speed. For example, a homemade riot blast moves so slowly becuase it has to move over 50x of water, while most other homemade nozzles yield faster streams. With modded guns, a 21K riot blast sucks while a 21K 1/4" stream is among the fastest in all soaking. With stock guns, a gun like the 2500 would be the expection there, because the 20x differs from the 5x and 10x in speed.

I would measure out 30ft and shoot at the barn wall, or the fence. I would run quite a few tests and average the times, so that the margin of error could be reduced.

[ZOCCOZ]

I think I mentioned stream speed aswell a few months ago in one of my rants about pressure power. FPS is already universal standard for measuring energy/muscle power in paintball, archery, airsoft and firearms. I suggested 1x as a universal comparison, since one could create a custum test nozzle that can be applied/adapted to most soakers. For comparison it has to be a unified nozzle size, since the heavier the projectile, the less the FPS will be.

I would measure out 30ft and shoot at the barn wall, or the fence. I would run quite a few tests and average the times, so that the margin of error could be reduced.

Distance should have nothing to do with measuring it, since the FPS is measured directly infront of the nozzle.(If you decide you use a chrono).
In any case, getting the actual FPS would not be hard with all those chrographs out there. All one has to do is wanting to spend $60-$200 depending on the Chrono tool typ.

This chronograph will work definatly on a soaker:


This chronograph should work on a soaker:




Edited By ZOCCOZ on 1138521289

[isoaker]

For example, a homemade riot blast moves so slowly becuase it has to move over 50x of water, while most other homemade nozzles yield faster streams. With modded guns, a 21K riot blast sucks while a 21K 1/4" stream is among the fastest in all soaking.

Actually, that's why I'd say leave the nozzle as is. Measure the speed of the streams at the different settings. However, forcing all the streams through, say a 1x opening, will not tell you how fast the stream is coming out at its normal (or modded) size.

As for measuring it, if those chronographs can work,those things would be optimal thanks to improved accuracy of measuring (though on the more expensive side... )

[m15399]

Personally, I'm not going to spend $60 to find out how fast my soaker shoots... If you do several tests, timing the stream should be pretty accurate.

[DX]

I would rather keep this to speed to a set distance, rather than force per second. FPS is more for power, and I'm looking for speed/velocity [not sure which quantity is accurate for streams], not power.

It should be kept simple, and as iSoaker noted, using what nozzles are already there, not forcing one size to be a standard. The only reason I suggested 30ft is because that is the limit for some guns. While 40 or 50 ft would be better, not all guns can reach those.

[isoaker]

Uh, Dux, I believe FPS in this case is for Feet Per Second, not Force Per Second.

That said, I took a look at the 'Prochrono' and it seems to have a limitation. If things travel slower than 22 FPS, it won't measure it properly. While I'm not sure how quickly typical water blaster streams travel, I fear it may be in that range for some of them.

[LIGHT ANNIHILATOR]

I agree with m15399, I am not going to spend $60 to find out how fast my gun shoot's.

BTW: I posted this with my psp.



Edited By LIGHT ANNIHILATOR on 1138565392

[DX]

Whoops, sorry. I should know that, too, seeing as FPS is a common unit. As for stream FPS, it probably is not very high. I think it takes 400 FPS to break skin? So water guns would probably have a very low number.

[sbell25]

According to This Article a CPS 1000 shoots at 64.9fps. Unfortunately they didn't give any results for other guns, but at least that gives an indication of what to expect.

[isoaker]

According to This Article a CPS 1000 shoots at 64.9fps. Unfortunately they didn't give any results for other guns, but at least that gives an indication of what to expect.

That was a fun article to read. The author has an amusing sense of humour (though hopefully no ducks were euthanized).

That said, from the article, it seems they had problems using the chronograph to determine stream speeds. I have a feeling it partly due to the near-transparency of the water stream combined with the fact that soakers fire streams, not projectiles.

What I'd love to have is a device that started timing once the stream started and stopped once the stream stops. I'd get much more accurate output measurements with that as opposed to relying on the good ol' stopwatch pull.

[m15399]

I'm sure you could rig some kind of setup that could do that. Any robotics kit, or some parts (timed switches, motors) would work.

[ZOCCOZ]

I would rather keep this to speed to a set distance, rather than force per second. FPS is more for power, and I'm looking for speed/velocity [not sure which quantity is accurate for streams], not power.

It should be kept simple, and as iSoaker noted, using what nozzles are already there, not forcing one size to be a standard. The only reason I suggested 30ft is because that is the limit for some guns. While 40 or 50 ft would be better, not all guns can reach those.

The decision is yours. The reason why i personaly would prefer measuring FPS from the front of the nozzle is becasue of a more accurate reading. Plus in order to call a stat officialy FPS, it has to be measured from the nozzle. The speed of a distance of 30 feet will already be affected by wind and even lamination. But I supose it should be enough for basic gaimg stats.

Posted on SMF:

Plus I think hat people should be allowed to say the fps on different nozzles. Like for modded guns if they shoot slower on 1x nozzles and you don't use them, why bother using that nozzle. As long as you specify the size it should be okay.

People can of course measure it from different nozzles. But lets say it that way, FPS is unfortunatly not always proportional when reducing or increasing size. A pure energy data comparison would no longer be possible. At least not for purely accurate stats(or as acurate as possible.)

Like I said, Chonos are just an option. Granted it will take serval shots to determine a general acuarate reading, but it should be still worth the try. I might buy one(prochrono probably) myself one day, since I have to use it sooner or later for my marial arts data.

[m15399]

Shouldn't the goal be to let people know how long it will take the stream to reach the target? You want the reader to visualize the speed. 35 FPS wouldn't be accurate if measured at the nozzle. One needs to know how far away a typical target is, such as 30 feet. If you say "30 feet in 1.2 seconds", the reader would imagine 30 feet and then imagine a stream of water going that distance in 30 feet.

[DX]

I agree with m15399 that this should be more a practical thing than a purely scientific one. The original point was to make a useful and informative stat. While an FPS measurement may be more accurate, it doesn't make the same kind of impression as simply giving the speed to a certain point. Just like the difference in how a car buyer takes in a stat like "250 horsepower" compared to "does 0-60 in 4.5 seconds."

[isoaker]

So I suppose for a soaker, we'll be seeing 0-30' in 0.55 seconds one of these days?

My main concern is that without a good measuring device, the error in trying to do timing of when a stream reached the end point will add a good amount of variability into the speed stat.

[isoaker]

Additional thought: stream speeds can be roughly calculated from ranges of level streams (actually, this is how it is described at SSCentral). If held at a height of 1m from the ground, a level shot will hit the ground in ~0.452 seconds thanks to gravity (assuming it stays constant throughout the duration of the stream). Thus, take the range of a level shot and divide it by 0.452 seconds (can be done for all the stats here at iSoaker.com since I used a height of 1m when doing level shots) to find out the stream speeds.

Use that, here are some numbers:
Flash Flood nozzle ~46.4 feet/sec
Flash Flood stream ~53.1 feet/sec
CPS2000 ~65.3 feet/sec
CPS1000 ~50.8 feet/sec
XP150 ~43.6 feet/sec

[LIGHT ANNIHILATOR]

^ Intresting discovery.

[DX]

I still like "0-30" although that iSoaker's finding is a very good way of obtaining the speed per second. Of course, it still has a major con: it relies on measured range, which varies greatly between users. For example, I used to measure from the last drop, meaning larger base numbers for stream speed. Even the "middle of the largest puddle of water" leaves plenty of margin for error and dispute.

So basically, we have range error vs time error. Which is the lesser of two evils? Either way, it is close, +/- 1-5 feet vs +/- .1-.9 of a second.