Silver Bullet

[joannaardway]

Originally Posted by SilentGuy

Silver bullets really can't suit anybody. Backpack/non-backpack is yet another difference, although your playing style probably depends a bit on your "progression."

I think joannaardway's "CPS 2700" (in quotations to note the modding) , Ben's CPHs, and DX's N-Rev all show that no one design is the silver bullet and that no one design is perfect. Which is part of why it's somewhat pointless to just draw models in CAD, no offense, or discuss fine details online. A performance rating system is okay if you also take into account personal preference and quirks of the gun.

This is an observation I was beginning to consider...

A silver bullet watergun (because it wouldn't have to be fully homemade) is entirely the opinion of the user.
What's perfect to one warrior might not be great for another. They'd probably agree it was "good"/"Alright", but they might well want to use something else.

I think the things that every person's "silver bullet" would look for would probably include:
-A long range (50+ feet, preferably 60+ feet)
-High stream speed, with laminar flow.
-Some form of nozzle selection
-A PC large enough for a short firefight, perhaps a bit larger.
-Low drop-off, either through a CPS or PCg chamber.
-A reservior as large as they could practically/easily move (Backpack or on-board - perhaps both)
-Well balanced centre of gravity (any reservior should be long, and balanced around the main hand - whichever one doesn't move - rather than being between both hands)
-As Big and intimidating as possible, without being cumbersome (for whatever purpose it's intended for)
-Ideally it would have a trigger rather than a ball valve handle, simply because of the higher practicality.
-Some might look for an auxillary WBL, but not everyone would.

Which theoricitically means that two basic "copper* bullet" designs (one with backpack, one without) could be created, which could then be scaled to each user's size requirements.

*not quite perfect for everyone, but the best generic design available

In terms of practicality, most would agree that a stock or modded watergun is better than a homemade. Ball valve handles, poor balance and odd/angular shapes don't make a soaker more easily used. So we need to look much more deeply, perhaps into grips made out of wood/vacuum moulded plastic. and parts made to be properly angled and comfortable.

So, although there is a "semi-perfect" design - I don't believe this to be it. It may be great for WaterWolf, but it wouldn't satisfy my requirements.

[WaterWolf]

If you were willing to spend the money, perhaps this valve with mod might be the way to go if you wanted an actual trigger. The only doubt I have with these is wether they will close back up after a quick burst if there is still pressure inside the PC.

Here is a V0.4.2 with the reservoirs bent backwards to (hopefully) give it better balance.



You've got your handle wedged right between the reservoirs and just behind the PC, so it may still be a little front heavy, but much less-so than before.

[Silence]

Even those priorities can vary, which is also a problem. I don't care for intimidation, a nozzle selector, or the like. Oh, and did you mean bronze?

Sprinkler solenoid valves aren't bad for launchers, but they have very limited flow. Better to go with a pull valve like with stock blasters--I mentioned this in one of the Silver Bullet threads. Stock soakers already get good lamination, no matter what type of valve they use. Nozzles and valve flow are a different story.

[WaterWolf]

Can you recommend one?
If you could find a pull-valve that can be connected to PVC fittings, has good flow and isn't too expensive, I could probably work it into the design.

[Silence]

Pull valves can be built without having to buy them. They do have more complexity though. Check out the thread at Soaker Media, I can link to it, or Drenchenator's second Nerf homemade.

It's basically an O-ring attached to the trigger rod. You pull the rod, the O-ring moves in the tube, and uncovers a hole in the side that is the air inlet.

[WaterWolf]

If you could give me a link to one, that would be helpful.
I seem to be having trouble finding them.

The more desighns you can send the better.

[Silence]

http://z8.invisionfree.com/soakermed...?showtopic=656
Post number 5, I think, and down.

Google search didn't bring it up, and the integrated search isn't functional.

[WaterWolf]

Thanks for that link Silence.
The biggest concern I see with the valve is that it would cause the flow to be interrupted by at-least one turn, if not two.

What do you people think?

[C-A_99]

I still think a ball valve trigger would work better, similar to the one Drechenator made here:

http://forums.sscentral.org/t3960/

Also, the Piranha's internals:

http://www.isoaker.com/Info/article....rnal_wwpiranha

Of course, if you can recreate Max-D triggers, that would be cool, but it's a bit hard to line up all of that stuff.

[Silence]

Most stock soakers have pull valves, like the Piranha pictured, and those that don't have Max-D ball valves.

What matters most for laminar flow is a smooth nozzle. It doesn't matter if you have somewhat-decent lamination inside, as that stream is just going to be broken up when you fire.

However, if you have a very clean nozzle like a pipe nipple or a sweeper nozzle, then you can focus on getting good stream lamination from the valve. Ben's SuperCannon II is the best example of when it's really worth it to have a ball valve, although some homemade soakers do use good nozzles.

Then, if your valve allows for laminar flow (remember, even ball valves create turbulence, just not as much), you can focus on linear design. Once again, SuperCannon II goes all-out by pushing the water in a straight line. But even then, turbulence is created in the reducers and joints.

Ultimately, it's the nozzle that determines lamination. Having rough gun internals actually isn't so bad if the water is then forced through a small, clean nozzle, I should believe.

Ben's writing an updated stream lamination article, which probably won't stress laminar flow and all as much. What is incredibly important, however, is to have high flow--obtained by a large bore throughout. Ball valves and larger pull valves both allow for that.

Upon further thought, even with SuperCannon II, the brute force and high flow are what gives you the range. It's not lamination, as the stream is very turbulent. On the other hand, many stock soakers have near-perfect lamination but low force and get relatively poor ranges.

I really should do some Fluent work to show how even the slightest protrusion from a joint or something can create massive eddies and turbulence. I'd also like to see whether a long "nozzle" like a pipe nipple reduces turbulence along its length.

Woah, I've gone off on an enormous tangent.

[WaterWolf]

I red, liked and understood your above post, but whats your oppinion?
Do you think it would be worth it to build in a pull-valve?

[Silence]

I think it is worth it, but if only to make it easier to connect a more "trigger-like" trigger. I'd rather have a trigger that can be used with the main hand, and have the other hand rest on the pump grip.

However, I can see why people would want a ball valve. Perhaps there is a slight improvement, maybe because of the greater flow if not because of linear design. And evidently it's easy to tap shoot if you get used to it.

Ball valves
- good linear design (for what it's worth, perhaps a little)

Pull valves
- easier to connect to a trigger so you can free one hand and it's easier to use for inexperienced people

[C-A_99]

If you take a closer look at the piranha internals, you'll see that it's actually a ball valve, so the trigger is pretty much no different than the Max-D triggers, except it doesn't have a complex setup that makes it click open and close quickly. (it just opens naturally) The problem is, PVC ball valves are typically never that small, and even at 1/2", it's not that easy to make a trigger like that.

Though it may not make as big of a difference on powerful guns, it did when they remade some XP's into Max-D's and used the ball valve and rapid opening and closing action.

[DX]

I don't see what's wrong with just using a ball valve. The most obvious plus is that there's virtually no work [unless you buy one without threads or a pvc one needing a torque arm or both]. It is much more important to have a good nozzle than a good valve, though it is important for the valve to open and close quickly. With those minimum requirements, the only reason you'd really want a pull valve would be for comfort.

I'd think being able to use a ball valve well would help with personal versatility. It helps you shoot sidearms, launchers, and water cannons better as well, for a ball valve usually improves your ability with your non-dominant hand if you have one. Personally, while I am not ambidextrous, I have dominance in neither hand. The combination of that, plus being ambipedrous [both feet/legs dominant] is a fun ability which opens up really neat running and gunning options. I'd at least give ball valves a try, and if you really still hate them after using them, then consider an alternate valve. If you ball valve is threaded [a big recommendation, not to mention way cheaper, especially with metal ones], you can replace it in a matter of seconds anyway.

[Silence]

Well, yeah, I'll admit it's for ergonomics. I'm not too shabby with a ball valve, but I would rather have one hand (or finger, rather) on the trigger and the other on the pump. That, plus the fact that you can have tons of neat design options with pull valves.

I would urge people to give ball valves a try too--there's a reason it's on the standard APH. Plus, they do take some extra work for building, as the most reliable method I can think of involves some sanding, precision sawing/dremeling, and plenty of O-rings.

Props for being the Devil's advocate though, I guess I wasn't being too neutral. That said, I'm even more against ball valves in launchers, unless they're spring loaded.