Silver Bullet

[Ben]

This is a better design than the previous one. Now I feel the reservoirs should go on top to make holding between your arm and your side (a common position) easier, but that might not be necessary. I'll agree with DX. The PC does look a little larger compared to the reservoirs.

One thing that has been ignored is the ability of the pump to suck water. Ideally the cap will have a small hole or flap (to act as a check valve) to let air come in to replace the pumped water (or else the three liter bottles will collapse, which is not a good thing). You may already have that planned, but if you don't, it is something to consider. Also consider the fact that once the water has been removed and replaced with air (that floats on the top), in this design you'll only be pumping air unless you pump it upside down. That's one reason I think all previous designs have had the intake port above the pump, or have used a tube to suck water from the bottom. Either is fine, but placing the reservoirs on top would be easier to do.

As for how wide the LRT gets, I believe I posted a formula recently about that. The LRT expands 800% in length, which is 9 times as wide (though this is sketchy in my mind at the moment--I usually check on McMaster-Carr, but they removed that factoid). The formula is 9*ID+2*Wall should provide a good approximation. In this case, additional layers of LRT add more to the wall, so if you have a 1/4 inch tube stacked over a 1/4 inch tube, the wall is 1/2 inch.

[WaterWolf]

I did have the formula, but I wasn't sure how big a difference the layers of bike inner-tube would make.

I've run through some calculations and the scale size of the LRT in this model is actually quite close, but keep in mind that this is a heavily layered PC, so its OD is noticeably greater than its ID.

I understand the concern about the air, but I would really like to keep the under-arm design, since it makes the whole gun a lot more balanced.

Something that I hadn't gotten around to mentioning before was that I'm going to put a bike-tire valve in the bottoms of each bottle. With its valve held open by a small piece of plastic, this would allow air into the reservoirs and prevent the vacuum issue.
When you pump, you will normally be holding the gun pointed somewhat upwards, so the air will stay out of the system then.
While moving around, the air will end up going upwards into the tubes, but air getting in the PC isn't too much of a problem.

Another, possibly better solution, would be short lengths of hose that feed down into the bottom of both bottles. I know which pieces I would use for this.

The only real way to truly prevent the issue of air in the LRT would be to built a reservoir version of your SC-II's water/air separation PC. While it would likely work quite well, it would also be much heavier.

[Ben]

Why would having the reservoirs lower make the gun better balanced? On the vast majority of Super Soakers the reservoir is higher than the pump and balance is no issue. You are overstating how much balance will be a problem. Balance never was a problem in any of the water guns I built (except for maybe SuperCAP, but the problem was that turning around felt really weird). And even if balance was a major problem, using a strap would alleviate it.

[WaterWolf]

Have you ever held a loaded Flash-Flood? It feels very natural to carry with the weight below your holding point rather than above it. I'm trying to work this into the SB.

@DX:
Since you built the newest N-Rev gun, you here among us have had the most experence with this kind of weight configuration.
How do you think it shapes up against the conventional system?

[Ben]

Yes, I have held a Flash Flood, and I own an Arctic Blast. I wasn't saying that those guns are not balanced well. I was saying that having the reservoirs on top is not balanced poorly. The fact that most Super Soakers use such a design is a testament to the design. And I bet the reason they have the reservoirs on top is simply because the pump works better that way and it requires less parts.

What matters for balance is having the center of gravity where the handle is. This gun does not use that design and few designs will due to the changes in weight as the gun is shot.

But, as I said, the balance isn't bad whether the gun has the reservoirs on top or on the bottom. If two hands are used (as in the typical handle and pump holding style), the balance issue is more about left vs. right weight. Poor balance exists mainly on guns with the bulk of the weight too far from the handle. Straps and having two holding spots fix most any balance problem.

The Flash Flood seems to have been designed to be held with one hand and the center of gravity is about in the hand. That's good design. However, larger water guns use two hands and the center of gravity becomes a lot less important as I explained. You're focusing on this as if it were a major problem in past water guns, and I can't recall anyone complaining about poor balance.

[DX]

I really don't know how to phrase this...because of the kind of guy I am, I'd probably wait for pigs to grow wings and fly before telling someone bluntly that they might just be wrong, forget are wrong. Ben, you need to read your past two posts again, but read them in the mind of someone else. You need to realize that...oh God how do I put this...that your opinions and fighting style are not the end-all that affect everyone else's. What works for you does not work for everyone else, considering that the vast majority of water warfare is totally subjective. You need to respect the styles and opinions of others. I managed to avoid this very post many times in the past, but have finally lost the strength to surpress the need to post it. You do not even realize the depth of the wound that you are opening up. I have a tremendous amount of respect for you, despite it being rocked by a lack of the reciprocal. I always forgive, but I never forget, and I notice too many things that no one else does. I keep them all bottled up and surpressed until triggered by something, usually something minor. And then thoughts come pouring out, thoughts I don't want to think or share, but they come out anyway, the way a dam gives way to a swollen lake. I hardly feel respected, and it is this negative energy that powers my drive to pursue change, innovation, and leave the past in the dust. Read your past two posts again, in the mind of someone else. In your personal bubble, the world is perfect the way it is. Things are hardly perfect the way they are. Innovation is hardly spent, especially in the field of homemades. Change is necessary and we are falling way behind because ideas that conflict with yours are wrong. They are allowed to be said, but are wrong and should never be promoted. N-Rev should be on the blacklist, along with hardcore water warfare, complex tactical combos, camo, anything other than The Standard APH, any CPH that uses balloons instead of LRT, oh yeah, and pumps anywhere but below a gun. I'm really sorry, but I had to say these things. I'm not even angry, not even frustrated, so please don't get that impression. I'm just disappointed because "my kind" are not respected [you've said some pretty damning things about hardcore water warfare, N-Rev, etc. in the past and even not so past]. Disappointed that I had to post this. How many times did I type something like this and then erase it? Most people are only too eager to burn their bridges when they are wronged. I do not. I have not broken so much as ONE friendship in the LAST 6 YEARS. When I give someone my sacred trust, I do not revoke it, because that should never be necessary. Again, I am not anrgy at all, [I can control anger since it is a feeling subject to the Tactical Theory] just disappointed. Please PM.

@DX:
Since you built the newest N-Rev gun, you here among us have had the most experence with this kind of weight configuration.
How do you think it shapes up against the conventional system?

Not the newest, but the first and have played around with many possible layouts, since my mind is very, very open. Normally I would suggest to contour the reservoir to balance the gun, but I am not sure that such an option would make the Silver Bullet better. The design started before reservoir contouring, so the whole thing would have to be changed in order to do that.

Based on the balance, I would leave the reservoirs low on the gun. Basically, vertical balance is not about a center of gravity like horizontal balance is. Vertical balance is good when the weight is centered OR is low, which agrees with gravity. "Top-heaviness" is how poor vertical balance is described. My standard APH is a bitch to hold upright, even with a strap [straps DO NOT solve all weight and balance issues at the wave of a magic wand for everyone]. When you hold it upside down, you think about what a great gun it would be if it could be fired in that position. The balance upside down is amazingly good because all of the weight is at the bottom.

Balance is less of a problem in stock soakers because A: they have the manufactured casing and B: most reservoirs are not exactly at the top or bottom, but in the middle behind the pc. They drain at the bottom obviously for the ease of pumping, but draining down does not mean that the reservoir is "at the top"! Look at the things, they are often level with the pc. That's middle, with some distribution low and some high. As noted, setups like the Flash Flood have lovely vertical balance, when the reservoir is at the very bottom.

You're focusing on this as if it were a major problem in past water guns, and I can't recall anyone complaining about poor balance.

It is only really a problem in homemades, since reservoirs have to be done much differently than stock soakers. Contouring them is the best way [in my most humble opinion, based on experience with N-Rev reservoir experimentation, which very few people have] to distribute the weight and balance the gun. As long as you shape it well [so that the water drains to the pump with little or no choke points] you can create a very agreeable, though possibly strange-looking, homemade. After contouring, putting the weight somewhere low on the gun is the next best way. After low weight, then you go to middle, with high positioning as an absolute last resort. The reservoir is often the heaviest part of any soaker, the weight you don't want high, even with a deluxe strap, unless your fighting style allows it. I can't tell you what is best for you and no one else can, unless everything they do in water wars matches yours. Your body type, your attitudes, your fighting styles, your progression levels, your degree of seriousness, your game types, they basically have to be your twin.

[Ben]

Sorry, but I don't have the time to read all of that. I barely even have time to check the one forum I run. I think I get the basic gist of the post.

I'll admit the tone might be wrong, but I can't remove my opinion from my posts. If someone doesn't like my suggestions, just don't take them! I give my honest opinion, and it's not always "my idea" that I promote. Take CAP, latex tubing, heck, even the APH (as a derivative of Pepper's design). If I tell someone that LRT is better than balloons for a PC, it's my opinion and I think people should listen because I'm one of the few who can make the comparison. There are loads of other ideas I have helped promote. For some reason when I don't like an idea and offer a suggestion, I'm bashed for apparently only promoting my idea. I could say the same about everyone else, you included DX. Your Tactical Theory monopolizes current tactical thought, yet you don't see me ranting about that. I may disagree about parts and I have brought those parts up with you before, but I don't "black list" anything to control people's thoughts. Realize that while my experience might not be someone else's, I still have the right to give my opinion.

To reiterate, if you don't like my opinion, don't take it! I have no control over the posters motivations aside from my suggestions. For some reason everyone thinks they're the expert and any other suggestion is shameless self promotion. I am only trying to help people, not promote my own ideas.

There is one quote I want to reply to however.

up. I have a tremendous amount of respect for you, despite it being rocked by a lack of the reciprocal.

I take offense to that. I always have fully respected you. Why are you on my moderating team? Why did I offer you hosting to help start your website? I don't know what to say other than that.

[DX]

I take offense to that. I always have fully respected you. Why are you on my moderating team? Why did I offer you hosting to help start your website? I don't know what to say other than that.

I don't mean lack of respect on a very personal level, I mean for what I stand for. Until recently, my team set the standard for hardcore warfare, so any insult to that type of fighting was an insult to me. It is difficult to explain - I've just felt uncomfortable as a "hardcore" warrior here, much like the way you've been uncomfortable wth tech matters at iScF. I post about basically anything here, but not much in the wars department. Notice that the version of the Tactical Theory posted here is the original, not even worth reading anymore because I took your advice for v1.3 and v1.4.

Your views of us have remained largely the same since 2004 [we're looked upon negatively as early as the Aquabatalicus]. You've said how we scare you and why hardcore elements in water warfare are totally unnecessary, as well as why complex tactics are unncessary. We've also been the butt of many, many of your jokes. I know they've been jokes, but the tone has rarely been one you'd expect for harmless fun, especially since it's been over several years. There was one where I think you basically said that someone who puts on a Napoleon hat belongs in an asylum. It was a joke, but certainly did not sound like one. I can't figure out where I found that earlier, but I know it was not imagined. What you say is influential, other members may view hardcore war as something to avoid now. People do not easily disregard your advice, as it is highly valued by most of us [RAK was an exception].

[Ben]

To go off topic...

The term "hardcore" I associated more with excess back in 2003 than I do now, but I still don't like the term. Back then I associated the term with the extremes of wearing camouflage, guile suits, and such. That's just what I thought it was about back then. I still don't like the term because I think it gives the wrong impression of dedicated water warriors. But that's beside the point.

As I've told you before, I agree with most of what you're saying in your Tactical Theory. What I don't like is the added layer of complexity. The perfect strategy will be one that takes into account every facet of the war. Sadly, such a strategy requires one to make perfect decisions and memorize much, making it unlikely to occur. Your ability to execute a strategy is important. My own strategy, unlike what you may think it is, is more of a guerrilla type strategy. For some reason you think I'm anti-tactics and high power. I'm for effective, easily executed tactics and superior statistics.

I don't see how the Aquabatalicus is incompatible with "hardcore" water warriors. It's just a collection of simple but effective tactics. Maybe you're reading me too closely. I don't know how I've insulted hardcore warriors. I don't know what jokes you are talking about because I never made any. I definitely did not say that anyone who wears a Napoleon hat belongs in an asylum. In fact, I just did a search and it was ZOCCOZ who said that. Perhaps you should get your facts straight before making a judgment.

Could you please point out to me in a PM the posts where you feel I am bashing the hardcore warriors? I honestly don't recall when I did if I ever did. I haven't tried to do anything against hardcore warriors.

[DX]

If you want the term changed, it can be changed. That level can also be dropped entirely, though I think there should be some kind of medium between a casual player and a very serious player.

I think we both need to re-evaluate our impressions. I've long seen you as too simple, and you've probably seen me as too complex. If you think the Tactical Theory is complex, then you should see it in action. I never say something like "We are going to do a staggered split ambush to an overrun at sector A2-K". I say something like "Go hide in there, when I trigger the ambush, count to 5 and then jump out. When the enemy recoils, make them run like they stole something". Often, I don't even say a second part, I'd use my unique attack handsignal or yell for a rush, or my guys would know to follow up without direction. The fancy names are for reference, analysis, and simulation, since there are countless many tactics and combos. The confusing descriptions are an attempt to account for various variables such as numbers, weaponry, battlefield size, terrain, skill, etc. I still want the theory to be more inclusive, as while I've seen a lot, err seen a hell of a lot, there's still holes in my experience [like large scale war].

And I am very, very sorry about the Napoleon hat reference. I usually make sure of something before saying it. There was a semi-recent post at iScF that might not have sounded like much to you, but it did at the time to me. I haven't been able to find that since I think it was in the middle of an unrelated topic, as most of the comments have been. In order to find them, I'd have to search all your posts, which would take all night and all morning. There aren't any comments that just jump out, they are embedded and hard to pick up. Tone also has been a factor. It's more the tone than anything else. I've been accused of posting as if I know everything, but I'm definitely not alone with tone that comes across as superior. I know that the Tactical Theory certainly comes across that way, as it is meant to get at the very mechanics of water warfare, the way Google wants to "organize the world's information". Any "end-all" entity is bound to come under fire for its ambition.

I feel better at the moment, seeing as a substantial amount of negative energy I've been holding for years is now used. If you try and make the tone of your opinions less...I don't know what word to use...blunt, bordering dismissive I guess, I'll work on making the Tactical Theory simpler and easier to use/understand, and we can move on. I just wanted to let you know how I feel, see how you feel, and correct mutual misunderstandings.

[Silence]

I'll vouch for Ben's take on the balance issue. Having stability (ie, a low center of gravity) is not the same as having balance. For example, in auto racing, having too much stability from mass in the front causes understeer. And for cycling, the reason it's so hard to bike with no hands is the front axle lies ahead of the front post - a very unstable configuration, because if the wheel is pointing just a bit off, it will turn even more. somewhat irrelevant examples, but the point is that stability is unbalanced and not necessarily a good thing.

I agree balance is something I've never really noticed. I've only ever pointed it out on the Orca, and that's because the balance is so good. The center of gravity is still above your hand, but since it's not off-center, you can still hold the water gun comfortably.

You may be frustrated by Ben's insistence on how unimportant balance is...but I'm more frustrated by how this one water gun is supposed to be the silver bullet. Because different people might prefer the center of gravity of their water guns indifferent places, no one water gun can be ideal. (I also think Tactical Theory is fairly overhyped, but it doesn't really change the way I respond to articles about it...)

[WaterWolf]

@Ben and DX:
Good. Air cleared with minimum amount of argument.

@SilentGuy:
If you don't like the name, then you don't have to call it that.
I am simply trying to come up with a solid design, that has pretty high range, ergonomics, shot-time, capacity, etc.
Essentially a CPS 1500 among homemades.

Sure there are guns with better range (SC-II), better capacity (back-pack homemades), are cheaper to build, or are of lighter weight. But I'm trying to combine as many technical advantages into one gun as possible, without making something that is a pain to lug around the battle-field.

I would even encourage you to experiment with the ratios of different parts when/if you build one of your own, to find a configuration that fits you best.

[Ben]

If you want the term changed, it can be changed.

I don't care whether or not the term changes. Some people are comfortable with it. To prevent confusion, all terms should stay the same unless the term was made in error, as in the case of check valve freezing.

I've long seen you as too simple, and you've probably seen me as too complex.

You are not complex. The Tactical Theory is simply bloated. Knowledge of every possible tactic is not necessary for victory. Good general guidelines are easy to execute, which was my idea in the Aquabatalicus. Simplifying the Tactical Theory down into essential tactics would make it a lot easier to write.

And no, I don't think you say stuff like that.

My other problem with the Tactical Theory is it's "problems" with homemade water guns. That entire Homemades vs. modded guns thread went nowhere because no one arguing for modded guns would say anything other than "I like modded guns better." Sorry, but not having a reason isn't justification.

There was a semi-recent post at iScF that might not have sounded like much to you, but it did at the time to me. I haven't been able to find that since I think it was in the middle of an unrelated topic, as most of the comments have been. In order to find them, I'd have to search all your posts, which would take all night and all morning. There aren't any comments that just jump out, they are embedded and hard to pick up. Tone also has been a factor. It's more the tone than anything else.

With no examples, I don't know what I did to offend you, so I can't provide much help.

I am simply trying to come up with a solid design, that has pretty high range, ergonomics, shot-time, capacity, etc.
Essentially a CPS 1500 among homemades.

Sure there are guns with better range (SC-II), better capacity (back-pack homemades), are cheaper to build, or are of lighter weight. But I'm trying to combine as many technical advantages into one gun as possible, without making something that is a pain to lug around the battle-field.

I agree with SilentGuy that the required gun depends on a variety of factors and there can not be one perfect gun for all situations. I'm okay with designing a gun to excel in a multitude of situations, but as far as I'm concerned my CPH already does that, and it's cheaper, and easier to build than this gun, as well as battle tested and highly approved. My friend didn't call it the best water gun he ever used for no reason.

What I don't like about this design and the entire N-Rev concept is the thought that the older homemade designs are somehow inferior. A lot of the great ideas I have posted have been ignored simply because everyone wants something new. Tried and true methods exist and I'm still not seeing them. People forget that the basic APH, when made as I described, works great in a variety of situations. There's not much that needs to be fixed.

What do need fixing are on-board reservoir systems, as demonstrated by DX and in this gun. I've experimented with putting some reservoirs on the sides of my CPH (similar to the V0.3.2 posted here) but I never got around to cementing them on. I thought my CPH design with two tubes on the side around where the pump were would work great. 4 inch sewer pipe would have been good for this. This would be MUCH easier to build and maintain than the current design here.

The "Silver Bullet" should have a backpack. For those who can use one (the majority), a backpack add so much versatility. I recall a poll here where backpacks were preferred 2 to 1 to included reservoirs. The weight is spread out over multiple muscle groups. This allows you to carry more water and be less tired--a win-win situation. Your arms will be far less tired, resulting in improved accuracy. You will refill less often. You also avoid the supposed "balance" problem completely. Seems a backpack is extremely practical.

I'd like to see some more valid reasons why the "Silver Bullet" can't use a backpack. It was decided near the beginning that a backpack wouldn't be good because "most people" wouldn't prefer it, but I don't think that's the case. There's a reason that the top of the line Super Soakers have a backpack. Of course, I could care less if WaterWolf includes a backpack in his design because this is more his "Silver Bullet" than anyone else's, but I'd like to see some more reasoning.

[Drenchenator]

I think I realized why I think it is so large. The gun, like most homemades, has a lot of unavoidable dead space. Though, the latest design does look much smaller than earlier ones.

The PC will carry aproximatly 1200 ml (Using some caluculations Ben gave me)

You can probably get more than that. What are the internal dimensions of the PC casing?

[DX]

Originally, this was to be the silver-bullet solution for practicality in powerful homemades. We came to the conclusion that there can be no silver bullet, as everyone has different needs and preferences. The name should stay, for the sake of familiarity.

I also agree that a powerful homemade should have a backpack. That is a different view than in the past, but I'm also working with different homemade ideas than in the past. If you are going through the trouble of creating a CPH, you might as well get the most you can out of it, meaning larger pc and no worries about capacity. My next homemade will have a backpack, as I want the piston/air pc to be almost water cannon sized. Backpacks are totally a preference thing. I have figured out how to successfully fight while wearing one, but it requires significant shifting of my fighting style. Do I lose the potency of my reflex abilites? Absolutely. Do I gain something else? Absolutely - I have more direct offensive power. I prefer less of that and more crazy dodging antics, but it still works. One should not be for or against backpacks, they should be for or against in regard to certain styles. If you are going minimalist and intend to outdance the enemy, you probably don't want one. If you want to overpower the enemy in long firefights, you might want one.

Your thoughts on N-Rev are pre-theory. The current function of N-Rev design is to expand the overall pool of homemade designs by trying out new ideas. Like the defense of tactics in the next paragraph, the design ideas can be ignored at will by those who do not wish to use them, but they should be allowed to exist. All the options should be available. The most obvious use of N-Rev at the moment is shaping reservoirs to fit a gun, rather than just attaching them and hoping for the best.

Knowledge of every tactic known to man is not needed. However, I don't see why we should be limited to just a couple of simple things. The most basic level is that of flanks, ambushes, rushes, retreats, tricks, pincers, bombardments, defenses, offenses, and maneuvers. Special variants of certain base tactics, such as an ambush, exist for a reason. A split ambush may be used because an enemy can counter a normal ambush. A staggered split ambush may be used because an enemy can counter a split ambush. It snowballs until a tactic becomes too complex to be properly executed. When that happens, a mistake is made, something bad may happen, and then one can develop it no further. Tactical complexity moderates itself. If something is unreasonable, it will be identified as so when the entity trying to use it screws up. Tactics can be made simpler by combining variants in the same article [for example, an article about the pincer can include the variants, of which there are not many].

Problem is, not everyone's enemy fights using the simple basic level of tactics. They're not going to use standard flanks, standard ambushes, and standard rushes. I know that MOST don't take it that far, but I do not cator to what MOST people want. Anything can be watered down, but what happens when you start with water? I'd rather give people the option of all options. They can then choose how far they want to dive. If they are not given that choice, they will not know that the rest of the options even exist. The great multitude of tactics I have listed so far needs not be "memorized". One does not need to know them all. One should know, however, that they are all there ready to be called upon if one so chooses.

@Silence: I am very aware of a gun's characteristics when I pick one up. Balance is one of the first things I notice. I can't imagine how you can't notice it. Think about the 1500 - if you haven't got water in the pc, the thing really strains your hand. I also don't see why stability is a bad thing with water guns. They are not like cars or bikes; they are held in the air and the dynamics are much different. If 10 people were to pick up my standard APH and compare it to the N-Rev Challenger, they'd probably all say that the Challenger is better balanced and more stable. The weight of my APH is all in the pcs, it is extremely top-heavy and wobbles when you hold it. The Challenger's weight is all in the reservoirs, it is very easy to hold without strain on either hand.