CPS 2000 PC musings

[Nemesis]

So today, curious to see how much pc capacity my CPS 2000 mk 2 really had, i measured off 1 liter of water and poured it into the reservoir. I then pumped up a full shot, and let loose. Following that, I dumped out the remaining water and measured. 400 ml remained, so that would suggest that roughly 600 ml is the PC capacity. Now i wonder how much difference there is between mk 1 and mk 2, and if it is even possible to somehow put 400 more ml into that PC casing by having nothing but a shorter chamber. Any knowledge? I'm curious.

[HBWW]

I heard the mk I bladders break very easily, so I would avoid that.

[DX]

Both marks can hold about 900 mL, but the shorter, more stretchable MK1 bladder can deliver about 880 mL, while the MK2 can deliver about 750. If you're only getting 600, make sure that it's primed before testing, aka shoot all the air out until the whole system is only filled with water. Because of how much air can be in the bladder, tubing, and pump, and the uncertain volume it takes to prime that out, you can't measure the PC capacity based on how much you can pump in. You need to measure it via shooting the water out, which is best done using some kind of large, deep container with a narrow enough neck that water won't splash out easily (OJ jugs work well).

I can't actually advise using an MK1 anymore, not even to test more than once or twice. My $300 investment ruptured on the 6th shot of stats testing. I haven't used my 2nd one other than cycling it every few months to keep it working, and dread pumping it up each time. The bladder can be replaced by an MK2, 2500, MX or LRT, but loses its "MK1" value to collectors. Once it ruptures, then you can use it heavily in wars, since there's nothing to lose. I have yet to decide which route to take for repairing mine. I might try using black LRT from McMaster and cutting it to MK1 stock length, if it looks visually like the original and performs like the original, the value can be restored. Wayne Schmidt did this to his busted MK1, but with amber LRT, and it did perform on par with the stock bladder.

[isoaker]

So today, curious to see how much pc capacity my CPS 2000 mk 2 really had, i measured off 1 liter of water and poured it into the reservoir. I then pumped up a full shot, and let loose. Following that, I dumped out the remaining water and measured. 400 ml remained, so that would suggest that roughly 600 ml is the PC capacity. Now i wonder how much difference there is between mk 1 and mk 2, and if it is even possible to somehow put 400 more ml into that PC casing by having nothing but a shorter chamber. Any knowledge? I'm curious.

See CPS2000 Mk1 vs Mk2 comparison, done by TechSoaker, reposted on iSoaker.com after his site was taken offline.

[SSCBen]

I can't actually advise using an MK1 anymore, not even to test more than once or twice. My $300 investment ruptured on the 6th shot of stats testing. I haven't used my 2nd one other than cycling it every few months to keep it working, and dread pumping it up each time. The bladder can be replaced by an MK2, 2500, MX or LRT, but loses its "MK1" value to collectors. Once it ruptures, then you can use it heavily in wars, since there's nothing to lose. I have yet to decide which route to take for repairing mine. I might try using black LRT from McMaster and cutting it to MK1 stock length, if it looks visually like the original and performs like the original, the value can be restored. Wayne Schmidt did this to his busted MK1, but with amber LRT, and it did perform on par with the stock bladder.

From what I understand about bladders, it's only a matter of time before burst bladders plague a substantial portion of extant CPS line blasters. The rubber neither ages or fatigues well.

Replacement with new rubber is the only option I see for the long-term. I'd suggest measuring all the dimensions of the original bladder (length, outer diameter, thickness) and testing different latex tubes to see which is closest to the original performance. In time, we could make a table for specific blasters. For example, the table might list the number of and size of balloons to use to replace a CPS 1000's bladder, or the dimensions of latex tubing to replace a CPS 2500's bladder.

On this note, the CPS troubleshooting page on iSoaker.com says "if the problem is due to a tear in the firing chamber, nothing much can be done to salvage the blaster." I'd recommend updating this to link to guides like Wayne Schmidt's or SSC's. The repair is not particularly difficult, and I'd hate to see some repairable blasters thrown away because of old information.

[HBWW]

This is why I created The Important Parts Dimensions Thread. Please use it, so we can have all of our parts references in one place.

[Nemesis]

The blaster was primed of course, but what duxburian said does make sense, that i should measure what is shot out. I am considering buying LRT and doing what wayne schmidt did, effectively turning my mk2 into an mk1 performance wise, since i do not care about collecting. I have also considered just cutting the PC and re-attaching the end. To test this, i first tried with the pc of my parted-out 2500, but when i put the shortened 2500 pc into my 2000 to test, the power was too much to handle and the pc's capacity started spraying out the point where the rubber tube that attaches to the pump on one end attached to the valve casing. I believe i might have cut the pc to short, and the force was too much, but i'm not sure if that would make sense, considering that the rubber applies basically the same force expanding backward weather it is short or long. thanks for the links!

[marauder]

The important dimensions thread post is boss. Unfortunately we have only been slowly adding statistics onto the page, but I expect it to pay dividends over the future.

My mk1 burst at Hydropoc and I ended up replacing the bladder with one from a broken 2500. The range only dropped about 1 ft. I was getting 50-52 feet before. Now I get 49 to 51 on range tests, typically hitting the 50 ft mark dead on. This is further evidence that the biggest reason for the 2000's massive range is its nozzle design. I have also compared 2500 and Monster X bladders and found no significant difference. I even put an MX bladder inside my 2000. No change. The difference in nozzle design between the 2000 and MX is enough to give you a 10 ft performance increase/drop! I would like to try this test with a Monster/4100 bladder or even a 600 bladder if possible.

I'm actually seeing this from a positive perspective. With this knowledge it should be possible to greatly increase the performance of such stock guns as the MX, 4100, 600, and even 500. Coming up with a way to add a laminator on par with the 2000's would be the next step. Of course, one thing that hasn't been determined for sure is if you have to have such a large nozzle to get such impressive stream performance. A ~30x nozzle on an SC 500 would be pretty useless. However, mods done by Toothpickmatt and Duxburian suggest that you can possibly bring the nozzle size down to about 10x and still get a max range around 50 ft. Further modification and testing will prove all the details of this issue.

[Nemesis]

Wow sweet! If you could create an equivalent to a 2000 on a smaller scale, with the same range, but smaller output and capacity, it could fill so many different roles on the battlefield!

[darthmeow]

I would guess a 12K with a nozzle mod would work well for this. I have a 1200 with a .5 inch PVC coupler on it so I ay get to testing it in the next few weeks...

[Nemesis]

Yes...with the right lamination and optimum nozzle size for whatever power a certain gun has, you could achieve Cps 2000 range with most any Cps gun. Although, nothing beats the 2000's nozzle size when you don't want wind interference.

*Edit* What is the Mk1 bladder's stock length? Wayne Schmidt's Page says 9 inches, but I know that must be a typo because my mk2 bladder isn't even that long.

[DX]

Only a 12K with a ton of balloons stands a chance. The Sprinkler Warehouse brass nozzle raised my best 1200 MK1's output to like 14.1x...but the range didn't change much. It was shooting 43-44ft stock and 43-42ft with the new nozzle. It feels like it needs substantially more power to support such increased output. The shot time also fell from 3.8 seconds to barely 1 second and the pumps to tap shots ratio migrated from 1:1 to 4:1. It's laminated with screens, straws, and a conical exit. Yet, this only brings the 1200 up to a 2500/1500-like soaker and not a 2000. The thing needs more power.

I've been meaning to K-mod this 1200 ever since I got it, but kept putting it off. I'm not sure that the stock shot time and pumps to taps ratio can be restored by any means other than taking the bladder out and sticking it in another 1200 MK1. The strengths of a 1200 are the weaknesses of a 2000, thus marrying them would produce quite the soaker. But, without the shot time and low pumping, a 1200 is ruined.

[SSCBen]

With this knowledge it should be possible to greatly increase the performance of such stock guns as the MX, 4100, 600, and even 500. Coming up with a way to add a laminator on par with the 2000's would be the next step. Of course, one thing that hasn't been determined for sure is if you have to have such a large nozzle to get such impressive stream performance.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure the laminator is what matters here. What I understand suggests that having a large nozzle is essential for high range. A lot of studies plot break-up distance of a nozzle divided by the nozzle diameter (as a function of other things they are looking at, e.g., Weber number), because it seems that the break-up distance is proportional to the nozzle diameter. Break-up distance isn't range, though, but the two are directly related. I am interested in determining the max range you can get for a certain nozzle size and improving efficiency. No guarantees this'll show you can get 60 feet with a 5X nozzle of the right design, but maybe it will.

[marauder]

Hmm. Very interesting. I get there's a lot more to nozzle design than just the nozzle size, but I thought I'd take a look at a few CPS blasters and their ranges by nozzle size according to stats I've gathered:

5x
CPS 2500 45 ft
CPS 1500 45 ft
CPS 2700 41 ft
CPS 2100 40 ft
Monster X 38 ft
Monster XL 34 ft (37 on double 5x)

Granted, these are just averages. Rob had a stock 1200 that shot up to 44 ft! I've also seen 1200s shoot as low as 37 or maybe even 36. Perhaps this has to do with the strength of the bladder. I'm really not sure. I do know that I was able to up my Arctic Blast's range from 36 ft to 42 ft just from changing the flood nozzle to a ~10x conical nozzle, proving that the stock PC is really not all that weak.

[SSCBen]

Nice comparison of different blasters. Given that, I guess it might be possible to get 50 feet with 5X, but you'd need an amazing nozzle and perhaps high pressure.

Perhaps this has to do with the strength of the bladder.

The pressure should partly explain the effect. The flow velocity is approximately proportional to the square root of the pressure, and range is a direct function of velocity.

It's interesting that you could get a fairly large increase in range by changing a nozzle on an Arctic Blast. Ultimately, real world testing like that is necessary to show what helps or hurts. The stream break-up process seems to be very sensitive to a large number of things, so it's really hard to see what influences what and under what conditions. Given the complexity of the physics, it might not be possible to say why something works, but you can know that it does.

[Nemesis]

Ok another question. Is the CPS 2000's nozzle the optimum size for its power? Could a smaller nozzle perhaps get more range? I wouldn't think so, since the big nozzle allows less stream break up, but perhaps it hasn't been optimised.

[the oncoming storm]

I can name one 5x nozzle that hits 50+ (my 300 at 55')

[Nemesis]

Good point storm. Perhaps the conical nozzle on the 300 helps with that.

[darthmeow]

I think the 300 is closer to 8x, but it is still low output for it's range. Also, I measured my 300's range and flat it only beats my 2500 by a bit. Here is what I found for range testing (ranges are in meters, and as close to firing flat as I could):
CPS 2500 SS 300
1.) 7.8m 8.4
2.) 7.7 7.9
3.) 7.9 7.8
4.) 8.1 8.3
5.) 7.8 8.1

The 300 consistently outranges the 2500, but not by much. Angled, the 300 probably has a larger range advantage because of it's better lamination. Also keep in mind my 2500 is used from ebay and my 300 was new and first fired about 2 months ago.

[DX]

Flat ranges are for nerfers (pet peeve). Water gun max ranges are always measured angled because of the properties of water as a projectile. Angled shots are terribly inaccurate and pretty much mocked in every other shooting game, but a stream of water can be directed to fall on a target in a more continuous fashion. Water is pretty much a beam weapon and not a projectile. It also shares physics with mortars. In a Nerf war, if the opponent posts up behind a wall, you just can't get at them. But, if you have a water gun, you can angle your shot so it dies right over the wall and all of it falls down on the defenders. These physics are what makes open battles so interesting, you can fire flat for speed and you can fire angled for distance, with a variety of types of shots and shot times.

Usually, we only fire flat when chasing or ambushing someone. The engagement ranges are usually within 10ft, maybe 15ft. Since everything remotely good can hit that flat, it's not worth bothering to measure.