Super Soaker Central forums

DX · 10-22-2006, 10:11 AM

Oh cool. Tell me where to search for tubing barbs and a seal for 2" and I'll be on the case as early as next weekend.

You could use a ball valve instead of the 2nd check valve for better flow, however, it would get annoying flipping it twice for every shot [closed before in-stroke, open before out-stroke].

Silence · 10-22-2006, 01:06 PM

Yup, the ball valve would do the job well, except for the constant switching. You could rig it such that the pump handle turned it on and off, but that would detract from the pumping power.

For better lamination, you could try having a more standard PPP design--with you pulling on the pump handle instead of on the gun. The barrel would turn and double back along the length of the pump, perhaps increasing the lamination a bit. But the flow rate would still be in the dumps. Also, the length of the pump would have to be decreased.

After all, the river gun is an excellent design that takes advantage of the fact that you don't really need check valves or a reservoir. Still, PPPs get excellent range, even when factoring in the check valves.

waterzooka · 10-22-2006, 06:17 PM

Okay, it was late last night when I put this modification together. But I just had a moment to test the distance.

The stream is "very ugly" compared to the standard gun, so the check valve does create turbulence, however, I was still able to shoot 50'.

Both the standard model and the river rafting modification have 1/4" holes for the nozzle.

Also, the vinyl tubing is not rigid enough and the flow through it is restricted. When I removed it and used 1/2" pvc the inlet flow was great. I still plan on upsizing the the 3/4" check valves. As I stated earlier, the overall size of the check valve is the same whether it is a 1/2" or 3/4", but the flow through the 3/4" is greater.

Also, I plan on building a strainer to attach to the end of the inlet tube(or pipe) that prevent the gun from sucking up rocks, etc from the bottom of the river when I'm in shallow waters.

Silence · 10-22-2006, 08:52 PM

Yup, vinyl tubing tends to restrict flow--due to the tiny diameter of the tubing barbs. If you're increasing the size of the check valves, try to increase the size of the tubing as well.

A strainer would add complexity, but it would definitely be a good addition. Especially since a fast-moving river will also suck up dirt and other debris to areas close to the surface, even in deep rivers.

I would go for a longer barrel or something to increase lamination if possible.

waterzooka · 10-23-2006, 08:34 PM

Okay, here are a couple of diagrams of the Piston Water Gun I built over the weekend.

The first is the same as the photo except with 3/4" pvc pipe instead of 1/2". I added 1" vinyl inlet hose instead of 1/2". Also, I added a short piece infront of the checkvalve to help with the lamination.

This one is the same principal, except the inlet is attached to plunger handle. The water comes through the plunger and into the cylinder. The check valve is inline with the plunger, so the design looks cleaner. I haven't built this one yet, but it will work the same as the other. My only concern is that the inlet hose will interfere with the plunger action. I won't know until I build it and test it.

Okay I have a quiz for everyone - I have another design that uses only human power yet will deliver about 900 punds of force. (without being a bodybuilder). Can you guess how? If I get the right answer, I will show the diagram. Hint - Keep it simple!----I will be building and testing this super range waterzooka in the next few weeks.

Silence · 10-23-2006, 09:53 PM

Those designs look good, although I still doubt the lamination will be very good. The second one's pump would be easy to do.

My guesses (assuming I'm allowed to make more than one):
1) You step on the piston, although the force still won't come close.
2) It uses multiple people.
3) It implements Pascal's principle.
4) It uses the force of the water against an inlet tube in the water?

waterzooka · 10-23-2006, 10:10 PM

Correct!

Yes, #3 is is on target. I'll post the diagram when I receive a few more specifics. And yes, please use as many guesses as you like.

Hint - Simple mechanical advantage using hydraulics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SilentGuy

My guesses (assuming I'm allowed to make more than one):
1) You step on the piston, although the force still won't come close.
2) It uses multiple people.
3) It implements Pascal's principle.
4) It uses the force of the water against an inlet tube in the water?

Ben · 10-24-2006, 06:07 AM

I'm assuming that you're doing something with the seal diameter as to make it larger. If so, that won't work because you're already applying a force on the water, not a pressure.

It could also be like those older fire trucks that have a really good water pump. One person can operate those and get like 80 feet of range easily. Multiple people can go up into like 250 feet!

Then again, I really have no idea what you are doing. I'll wait and see.

Silence · 10-24-2006, 09:42 AM

It sounds like the diameter of the pump is different from the diameter at other points of the gun. But systems like that are already in use. And frankly, it won't be any different from having differing pump and nozzle orifice diameters.

waterzooka · 10-25-2006, 01:04 AM

All right, I think it's time to at least release a concept sketch and the basic principles. But first I need some of Ben's math.

How did you come up with the foot pounds you've discussed on other threads? What is your theoretical amount of foot pounds that an adult can apply to a piston water gun?

My concept will increase the force by a factor of 2.26.
And nozzle size is not a part of my calculations.
Yes there are different size diameters and yes it will make a difference.

Don't forget Pascal's simple equation. It's in the ratio of the areas. And since the area of a 2" circle is four times greater than the area 1" circle, it does not take much to increase the force by a factor of 2.26.

Hint - Think of two separate systems, one acting on the other. Hmmm, I'm thinking of using vegetable oil for my non-compressible liquid. That would be an environmentally safe choice for a hydraulic fluid, just in case there is a mishap on the river!

Ben · 10-25-2006, 06:45 AM

In my other threads, I used some basic math to find the pounds of force for my air pressure water guns. The force of pressure is the pressure * the area it is pushing on. So, in my 4 inch diameter air pressure piston water gun, I multiplied 100 * 2^2 * pi to get about 1250 pounds of force. This uses essentially the exact same stuff as Pascal's principle.

That is not foot pounds. Foot pounds is a unit of work, something very different from pounds of force. That is pounds of force, and only the pounds of force when the pressure is at its highest.

I know what you're doing now that I read what you wrote. It's just the same principle as a hydraulic lift! Good idea.

What you have described would make a lot of force. It has to however follow the equation Work = force * distance. Essentially, all the design is doing is changing the distance one part has to travel, with the same amount of work over the entire interval, as to increase the force. You're going to have way too long of a stroke, and you'll have to move the handle fast to get the increase. It would be worth trying however on a shorter version. Very interesting idea. I don't know why I never considered this before. Try it out. If it does work well, it'd be well worth the effort to create.

A good user of a piston water gun would push with one hand and pull with the other. The best piston water guns have a handle on the front for that purpose (I'll get you a link to tell how to do that on PVC). The only way to measure the force someone can get like that would be to make a piston water gun, seal off the end with a pressure gauge, and then make a video of the pressure gauge as someone pushes the piston as strong as they can. That would be definitely worth a try. You'll have to do the backwards version of the math I did above, but you can find the exact pounds of force from that.

Right now, I'm just going on my experience based upon the range of these water guns. I'd imagine that a strong person would be able to get 500 pounds of force. That's a body-builder though. A normal person should be able to get 300 pounds of force, potentially much more in the force multiplying design. If you can get over 800 pounds of force, you should easily be over 65 feet of range unless something goes terribly wrong on the nozzle. And we can help you with the nozzle too.

waterzooka · 10-26-2006, 02:31 AM

I was hoping to put together a better diagram/drawing, but for a concept sketch, this will have to do.

The first stage is basically a regular piston water gun with 1-1/4" pvc. I will use 1/4" ID braided vinyl tubing (rated at 250 psi) to attach the first stage to the second. 1/2" NPT x 1/4" ID Barb connectors will be inserted into reducing bushings at the ends of the pistons.

The second stage will be made from 2" pvc and will have a floating piston. I plan on using vegetable oil has my hydraulic fluid. It will be trapped after the piston seal of the first stage and before the piston seal of the second stage.

I have a few ideas for a bleeding valve, but nothing is final yet. I will need to bleed the system during assembly. (Just like bleeding your brakes in a car. Not sure if you have done that before) -this removes the air from the system and ensures a solid hydraulic force.

The first stage will be about 36". I have made waterzookas that long before and they are a little heavy but not to hard to manage. The second state will be about 16". It should hold about 1-1/2 quarts of water.

My goal is to build it from off-the-shelf items. Just like my waterzooka - easy for all to build. Of course the concept sketch shows all the parts separated, but I plan on attaching the second stage to the bottom of the first stage and just routing the tubing down the side.

I also had an idea of placing the 2" pvc on the end of the 1-1/4" pvc using a bell reducing bushing. The overall length of the unit would be about 4-1/2 feet. A little hard to hold up, but the design would be very simple, no braided tubing or extra fittings. (It would still need the bleeding valve)

One last note...The river modification could be attached and you would end of with something that looked like this. Yikes!

Silence · 10-26-2006, 05:53 PM

I must be missing out on some of the logic. Exactly how does an extra length of tubing help? To my knowledge, the only things that count for this are the pump tube diameter and the diameter of the nozzle orifice--anything in between won't affect the hydraulics, I think. And I do actually want to be proven wrong.

waterzooka · 10-27-2006, 12:39 AM

The first picture I posted leaves a lot for the imagination. What is not shown, is the floating pistion on the inside of the second stage. (The 2" pvc)

Posted below is the cut-away view.

The first plunger/piston is moved by human force, which acts upon the second piston. There will be hydraulic fluid between the two. So, the mechanical advantage occurs when the smaller diameter piston acts upon the larger diameter piston. Water is only contained in the 2" pvc. The 1-1/4" pvc holds the hydraulic fluid.

Let me know if you get your "ah ha" or "oh yeah" moment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SilentGuy

I must be missing out on some of the logic. Exactly how does an extra length of tubing help? To my knowledge, the only things that count for this are the pump tube diameter and the diameter of the nozzle orifice--anything in between won't affect the hydraulics, I think. And I do actually want to be proven wrong.

Ben · 10-27-2006, 06:40 AM

That's what I was thinking! My only suggestion would be to remove the tubing or at least use a larger diameter tubing. Smaller or medium diameter tubing would restrict the flow, and this design works by trading a lot of flow in for a lot of force.

By the way, what are you making these images with? Just a paint program?

10-22-2006, 10:11 AM	#16
DX Wicked Super Admin Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Easton / New London, CT Posts: 1,576 UserID: 75	Oh cool. Tell me where to search for tubing barbs and a seal for 2" and I'll be on the case as early as next weekend. You could use a ball valve instead of the 2nd check valve for better flow, however, it would get annoying flipping it twice for every shot [closed before in-stroke, open before out-stroke]. __________________ Mess With the Best, Get Soaked Like the Rest!! 2004 Red Sox - World Series Champions 2007 RED SOX - WORLD SERIES CHAMPIONS! 2003 Patriots - Super Bowl Champions 2004 Patriots - Super Bowl Champions 2007 Patriots - God Damnit! If I change my sig, will the world end?

10-22-2006, 01:06 PM	#17
Silence Administrator Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Virginia Posts: 3,293 UserID: 576	Yup, the ball valve would do the job well, except for the constant switching. You could rig it such that the pump handle turned it on and off, but that would detract from the pumping power. For better lamination, you could try having a more standard PPP design--with you pulling on the pump handle instead of on the gun. The barrel would turn and double back along the length of the pump, perhaps increasing the lamination a bit. But the flow rate would still be in the dumps. Also, the length of the pump would have to be decreased. After all, the river gun is an excellent design that takes advantage of the fact that you don't really need check valves or a reservoir. Still, PPPs get excellent range, even when factoring in the check valves. __________________ Forum rules

10-22-2006, 06:17 PM	#18
waterzooka Assistant Project Manager Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Colorado Posts: 38 UserID: 896	Distance Test with River Rafting Waterzooka Okay, it was late last night when I put this modification together. But I just had a moment to test the distance. The stream is "very ugly" compared to the standard gun, so the check valve does create turbulence, however, I was still able to shoot 50'. Both the standard model and the river rafting modification have 1/4" holes for the nozzle. Also, the vinyl tubing is not rigid enough and the flow through it is restricted. When I removed it and used 1/2" pvc the inlet flow was great. I still plan on upsizing the the 3/4" check valves. As I stated earlier, the overall size of the check valve is the same whether it is a 1/2" or 3/4", but the flow through the 3/4" is greater. Also, I plan on building a strainer to attach to the end of the inlet tube(or pipe) that prevent the gun from sucking up rocks, etc from the bottom of the river when I'm in shallow waters.

10-22-2006, 08:52 PM	#19
Silence Administrator Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Virginia Posts: 3,293 UserID: 576	Yup, vinyl tubing tends to restrict flow--due to the tiny diameter of the tubing barbs. If you're increasing the size of the check valves, try to increase the size of the tubing as well. A strainer would add complexity, but it would definitely be a good addition. Especially since a fast-moving river will also suck up dirt and other debris to areas close to the surface, even in deep rivers. I would go for a longer barrel or something to increase lamination if possible. __________________ Forum rules

10-23-2006, 08:34 PM	#20
waterzooka Assistant Project Manager Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Colorado Posts: 38 UserID: 896	Diagrams of River Rafting Piston Water Gun Okay, here are a couple of diagrams of the Piston Water Gun I built over the weekend. The first is the same as the photo except with 3/4" pvc pipe instead of 1/2". I added 1" vinyl inlet hose instead of 1/2". Also, I added a short piece infront of the checkvalve to help with the lamination. This one is the same principal, except the inlet is attached to plunger handle. The water comes through the plunger and into the cylinder. The check valve is inline with the plunger, so the design looks cleaner. I haven't built this one yet, but it will work the same as the other. My only concern is that the inlet hose will interfere with the plunger action. I won't know until I build it and test it. Okay I have a quiz for everyone - I have another design that uses only human power yet will deliver about 900 punds of force. (without being a bodybuilder). Can you guess how? If I get the right answer, I will show the diagram. Hint - Keep it simple!----I will be building and testing this super range waterzooka in the next few weeks.

10-23-2006, 09:53 PM	#21
Silence Administrator Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Virginia Posts: 3,293 UserID: 576	Those designs look good, although I still doubt the lamination will be very good. The second one's pump would be easy to do. My guesses (assuming I'm allowed to make more than one): 1) You step on the piston, although the force still won't come close. 2) It uses multiple people. 3) It implements Pascal's principle. 4) It uses the force of the water against an inlet tube in the water? __________________ Forum rules

10-24-2006, 06:07 AM	#23
Ben Founder Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: College Park, Maryland Posts: 6,054 UserID: 1	I'm assuming that you're doing something with the seal diameter as to make it larger. If so, that won't work because you're already applying a force on the water, not a pressure. It could also be like those older fire trucks that have a really good water pump. One person can operate those and get like 80 feet of range easily. Multiple people can go up into like 250 feet! Then again, I really have no idea what you are doing. I'll wait and see. __________________ email: / Forum rules / Read this page before emailing me. Do not send me a PM or email with a water gun question if someone else could answer the question. Post at the forums. You will get a response from me along with others' views or ideas.

10-24-2006, 09:42 AM	#24
Silence Administrator Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Virginia Posts: 3,293 UserID: 576	It sounds like the diameter of the pump is different from the diameter at other points of the gun. But systems like that are already in use. And frankly, it won't be any different from having differing pump and nozzle orifice diameters. __________________ Forum rules

10-25-2006, 01:04 AM	#25
waterzooka Assistant Project Manager Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Colorado Posts: 38 UserID: 896	Don't forget the physics All right, I think it's time to at least release a concept sketch and the basic principles. But first I need some of Ben's math. How did you come up with the foot pounds you've discussed on other threads? What is your theoretical amount of foot pounds that an adult can apply to a piston water gun? My concept will increase the force by a factor of 2.26. And nozzle size is not a part of my calculations. Yes there are different size diameters and yes it will make a difference. Don't forget Pascal's simple equation. It's in the ratio of the areas. And since the area of a 2" circle is four times greater than the area 1" circle, it does not take much to increase the force by a factor of 2.26. Hint - Think of two separate systems, one acting on the other. Hmmm, I'm thinking of using vegetable oil for my non-compressible liquid. That would be an environmentally safe choice for a hydraulic fluid, just in case there is a mishap on the river!

10-25-2006, 06:45 AM	#26
Ben Founder Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: College Park, Maryland Posts: 6,054 UserID: 1	In my other threads, I used some basic math to find the pounds of force for my air pressure water guns. The force of pressure is the pressure * the area it is pushing on. So, in my 4 inch diameter air pressure piston water gun, I multiplied 100 * 2^2 * pi to get about 1250 pounds of force. This uses essentially the exact same stuff as Pascal's principle. That is not foot pounds. Foot pounds is a unit of work, something very different from pounds of force. That is pounds of force, and only the pounds of force when the pressure is at its highest. I know what you're doing now that I read what you wrote. It's just the same principle as a hydraulic lift! Good idea. What you have described would make a lot of force. It has to however follow the equation Work = force * distance. Essentially, all the design is doing is changing the distance one part has to travel, with the same amount of work over the entire interval, as to increase the force. You're going to have way too long of a stroke, and you'll have to move the handle fast to get the increase. It would be worth trying however on a shorter version. Very interesting idea. I don't know why I never considered this before. Try it out. If it does work well, it'd be well worth the effort to create. A good user of a piston water gun would push with one hand and pull with the other. The best piston water guns have a handle on the front for that purpose (I'll get you a link to tell how to do that on PVC). The only way to measure the force someone can get like that would be to make a piston water gun, seal off the end with a pressure gauge, and then make a video of the pressure gauge as someone pushes the piston as strong as they can. That would be definitely worth a try. You'll have to do the backwards version of the math I did above, but you can find the exact pounds of force from that. Right now, I'm just going on my experience based upon the range of these water guns. I'd imagine that a strong person would be able to get 500 pounds of force. That's a body-builder though. A normal person should be able to get 300 pounds of force, potentially much more in the force multiplying design. If you can get over 800 pounds of force, you should easily be over 65 feet of range unless something goes terribly wrong on the nozzle. And we can help you with the nozzle too. __________________ email: / Forum rules / Read this page before emailing me. Do not send me a PM or email with a water gun question if someone else could answer the question. Post at the forums. You will get a response from me along with others' views or ideas.

10-26-2006, 02:31 AM	#27
waterzooka Assistant Project Manager Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Colorado Posts: 38 UserID: 896	Long Range Piston Water Gun Concept Sketch I was hoping to put together a better diagram/drawing, but for a concept sketch, this will have to do. The first stage is basically a regular piston water gun with 1-1/4" pvc. I will use 1/4" ID braided vinyl tubing (rated at 250 psi) to attach the first stage to the second. 1/2" NPT x 1/4" ID Barb connectors will be inserted into reducing bushings at the ends of the pistons. The second stage will be made from 2" pvc and will have a floating piston. I plan on using vegetable oil has my hydraulic fluid. It will be trapped after the piston seal of the first stage and before the piston seal of the second stage. I have a few ideas for a bleeding valve, but nothing is final yet. I will need to bleed the system during assembly. (Just like bleeding your brakes in a car. Not sure if you have done that before) -this removes the air from the system and ensures a solid hydraulic force. The first stage will be about 36". I have made waterzookas that long before and they are a little heavy but not to hard to manage. The second state will be about 16". It should hold about 1-1/2 quarts of water. My goal is to build it from off-the-shelf items. Just like my waterzooka - easy for all to build. Of course the concept sketch shows all the parts separated, but I plan on attaching the second stage to the bottom of the first stage and just routing the tubing down the side. I also had an idea of placing the 2" pvc on the end of the 1-1/4" pvc using a bell reducing bushing. The overall length of the unit would be about 4-1/2 feet. A little hard to hold up, but the design would be very simple, no braided tubing or extra fittings. (It would still need the bleeding valve) One last note...The river modification could be attached and you would end of with something that looked like this. Yikes!

10-26-2006, 05:53 PM	#28
Silence Administrator Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Virginia Posts: 3,293 UserID: 576	I must be missing out on some of the logic. Exactly how does an extra length of tubing help? To my knowledge, the only things that count for this are the pump tube diameter and the diameter of the nozzle orifice--anything in between won't affect the hydraulics, I think. And I do actually want to be proven wrong. __________________ Forum rules

10-27-2006, 06:40 AM	#30
Ben Founder Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: College Park, Maryland Posts: 6,054 UserID: 1	That's what I was thinking! My only suggestion would be to remove the tubing or at least use a larger diameter tubing. Smaller or medium diameter tubing would restrict the flow, and this design works by trading a lot of flow in for a lot of force. By the way, what are you making these images with? Just a paint program? __________________ email: / Forum rules / Read this page before emailing me. Do not send me a PM or email with a water gun question if someone else could answer the question. Post at the forums. You will get a response from me along with others' views or ideas.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)