Waterzooka LR© - Piston Water Gun with Hydraulics

[Ben]

Alright. Put your system (with the spring in the tube) on the table. Now push on the end of the spring, and tell me that the spring is being compressed.

Now put your other hand on the opposite end of the tube. Push on the spring but leave the first hand fixed, and tell me that you don't feel any force on the fixed hand.

Just because one hand isn't moving doesn't mean it's not already being pushed against. Keeping one hand fixed but pushing twice as hard with the other does the same thing as moving both--it's their relative positions that count. Although the pump will be moving in a different direction, the force is the same.

When you say that you're pushing on a lawnmower, that's correct in the sense that there's force on both hands. Which just proves my point. And you would be wasting energy by trying to actually move the mower part--you'd be fighting against it's inertia.

You still don't understand that the outer pipe of a piston water gun moves fairly smoothly and relatively independently of the outer pipe. Aside from what is transfered a little bit of friction, most of the force is not going into your hand. Take a piston water gun and pull only - you will not feel as much force as what you will if you take a pipe and push it into your hand. If I take a pipe and push it into my hand with one hand, that's not like pulling on a piston water gun. That's like pushing something into my hand.

It's not empirical data, but I believe it gets the point across. Sorry about the potentially unconventional description--I haven't taken physics (yet), so my terminology and knowledge is limited.

There is nothing in physics that says any sort of power or force multiplication will occur how you described. That's what I mean when I say there is no science behind this. I won't go further into this, but if you firmly believe it I would suggest testing it out. It seems that I'm the only one who actually tests things. This is one thing that I gaurantee will not work.

Of course I agree that moving more water is harder. Which is why I don't see how you'd get better results with any PPP that has a 2" pump tube diameter, regardless of whether or not it uses the faulty LR theory. Maybe 1" is the best, I don't know. But if that's the case, then 1" would work whether or not it uses the LR system.

Because as I said using the numbers, the end result of the force is the same either way you look at it--LR or not. Which means that a PPP with a 2" pump and a 6" LR section is no better than a PPP with just the 2" pump--which as we know is probably worse than one with a 1" pump.

The LR theory is not faulty. I wish you people would learn a thing or two. SilentGuy, I think in a few months you might think that you're coming across as a little harsh on new improvements. There is a noticable measurable difference in the range that fits perfectly into the force model. It was MEASURED and that is undeniable.

You do know that the LR system and the earlier Waterzooka both use different diameters for the piston that you say matters? In fact, it completely conflicts with your theory. The 2 inch seal Waterzooka shoots 7 feet less than the 1 1/4 inch seal LR system. The LR system does have more range with a considerably smaller seal. Explain this inconsistency.

But what are you using in the pumping position for a soaker? For the pumping arm, the pectorals maybe, and whatever you use in rowing machines/pull ups. And for the firing hand, maybe the pectorals and the muscles used for bench pressing/push ups. I agree that some of those activities can involve decent weights, but pumping a soaker does not take advantage of those muscles in the way that a rowing machine or bench pressing would.

300 pounds is feasible and I'm not going to argue or test any further.

The equation is not reliant on expansive water. It is reliant on water pressure.

I think we have different definitions of "compressed". 1)I'm using it to describe a fluid that is under pressure. 2)You seem to be using it to describe a fluid with a change in volume.

Under the first definition, water is compressible. Under the second, it is a negible change in volume, so, can be ignored.

If you cannot accept Case 1, then I'm wasting my time.

In a counter to your experiment - fit a pressure gauge to the bottom half. Close the valve. The pressure doesn't suddenly disappear - the valve will not fall to zero.

Air pressure water guns are reliant on the expansion of the air to maintain the pressure of the water. Your experiment, seperating the air and water will stop it working - because the pressure is not maintained.

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that the water will exert a normal force back onto the air. That's basic physics and I've said it before to make sure that you know I know it, but you haven't either read what I said or paid much attention. The water is not being pressurized in our systems. Really. It will exert a normal force, but it will not truly pressurize.

The air is pushing the water out. If the water did indeed go under any pressure, you could still measure the pressure after a separation was made and still get the water to shoot out with some power. Sure, with the water being pushed into the spring setup of a pressure gauge, the gauge will still read a pressure after the separation is made. The water in the gauge isn't moving back because it was forced in earlier. But it's not really under pressure. When given the opportunity to expand, it would not extert the force the air would. At our pressures it is akin to a barrier, like the PVC. It will exert a normal force but will not extert a force from being pressurized as air would. Hopefully you will see what I mean. Water is NOT being pressurized significantly in our systems if at all.

You would not use the pressure argument on projectiles. That's because this is a water projectile system. The expanding air is pushing (forcing) the water out. Really simple.

Ok, we now have four options:

1) Amazingly, we've created 500 psi from 100, and broken the laws of conservation of energy - we can save the planet with this.
2) The force is on the nozzle, and nowhere else. Thus, we can use clingfilm for chambers if we want.
3) We've broken physics.
4) Your model is incorrect.

Your hypothetical situation is not something I said and you can't say it violates anything from that. This is true: the air pushes 1250 pounds of force on the water and the water pushes with a normal force back. I don't know how you got 500 PSI after that, but I don't even really care.

Until you can come up with an explantion for the fact that Supercannon II can create a stream with a 1/2 inch diameter nozzle orifice at 40 PSI and an XP water gun at a higher pressure can't push out a 1/4 inch stream, you don't understand what actually is happening. The force of pressure is the

[joannaardway]

The water is not being pressurized in our systems. Really. It will exert a normal force, but it will not truly pressurize.

If you truly believe that, then my time is wasted. Fluids can pressurize - liquid or gaseous. Liquids don't change in volume, but they can take pressures.

The equations I've shown wouldn't exist if water couldn't carry pressure.

Look up how water towers work. Pressure is created without the requirement of pumps (other than to get the water into the tower), or compressed air. Explain that if water pressure doesn't exist.

300 pounds is feasible and I'm not going to argue or test any further.

I have test the same thing, and only got 30 pounds - I've already explained this. Sure, I could exert 300 pounds for some things, but not on a system like this.

You would not use the pressure argument on projectiles. That's because this is a water projectile system. The expanding air is pushing (forcing) the water out. Really simple.

No, you're right. I wouldn't use the pressure argument. Because the projectiles are solid, and cannot maintain a pressure.

And I do have an argument to explain your situations - I've already put it.

By the way, your last post appeared to be incomplete.

[Silence]

Originally Posted by joannaardway

I think we have different definitions of "compressed". 1)I'm using it to describe a fluid that is under pressure. 2)You seem to be using it to describe a fluid with a change in volume.

Originally Posted by Ben

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that the water will exert a normal force back onto the air. That's basic physics and I've said it before to make sure that you know I know it, but you haven't either read what I said or paid much attention. The water is not being pressurized in our systems. Really. It will exert a normal force, but it will not truly pressurize.

I am unsure of the actual physics here, but I'm with Ben on this one. Boyle's law states that the pressure and the volume are inversely related, or so I believe--so joannaardway's two definitions can't be all that different. If there is a difference, then the physics have been messed up somewhere, or I need to catch up. (Maybe some exception for water? or air?)

Originally Posted by Ben

The air is pushing the water out. If the water did indeed go under any pressure, you could still measure the pressure after a separation was made and still get the water to shoot out with some power. Sure, with the water being pushed into the spring setup of a pressure gauge, the gauge will still read a pressure after the separation is made. The water in the gauge isn't moving back because it was forced in earlier. But it's not really under pressure. When given the opportunity to expand, it would not extert the force the air would. At our pressures it is akin to a barrier, like the PVC. It will exert a normal force but will not extert a force from being pressurized as air would. Hopefully you will see what I mean. Water is NOT being pressurized significantly in our systems if at all.

Interesting...I'll have to think about it. The data does seem to support Ben's argument though, although it does lead back to joanaardway's claim of two different definitions.

Originally Posted by Ben

You would not use the pressure argument on projectiles. That's because this is a water projectile system. The expanding air is pushing (forcing) the water out. Really simple.

Definitely correct. However, there is a difference between a fluid and a solid.

Originally Posted by joannaardway

1) Amazingly, we've created 500 psi from 100, and broken the laws of conservation of energy - we can save the planet with this.

Alright, this time I'm with joannaardway. Just using the LR system isn't going to magically create the energy to put more water farther, when energy inputted stays the same. It just doesn't work. I do concede that variation can occur due to our pumping faster or slower depending on the pump area, but as I said, that stays the same--regardless of whether or not there is a diaphragm there.

The other problem, although perhaps it is just me misinterpreting the procedure of Ben's experiment, is that turning a ball valve won't pressurize the water. The ball occupies no more space when closed than when open, so the volume stays the same and no pressure is created. Unless the experiment works in a different way.

Originally Posted by Ben

You still don't understand that the outer pipe of a piston water gun moves fairly smoothly and relatively independently of the outer pipe. Aside from what is transfered a little bit of friction, most of the force is not going into your hand. Take a piston water gun and pull only - you will not feel as much force as what you will if you take a pipe and push it into your hand. If I take a pipe and push it into my hand with one hand, that's not like pulling on a piston water gun. That's like pushing something into my hand.

Ah, but it's not friction that would be making either the tube or the plunger move (depending on what you're pushing on); it's the actual resistance. If you're pushing on the plunger, then past some point of friction or whatever, the force of the spring will increase to the point where it will just transfer the force to your other hand. If your other hand doesn't get pushed back, then it will exert a reaction force of its own and compress the spring.

Your pipe vs. soaker case isn't the best. Some day, I'll try to do an experiment like that--but I'll promise that the force on one hand will be the same as the force on the other, no matter what. The pressure might be greater with the pipe and you might feel it more, but the force will be the same for both hands.

Originally Posted by Ben

There is nothing in physics that says any sort of power or force multiplication will occur how you described. That's what I mean when I say there is no science behind this. I won't go further into this, but if you firmly believe it I would suggest testing it out. It seems that I'm the only one who actually tests things. This is one thing that I gaurantee will not work.

I believe I have already admitted that I have neither empirical data nor use conventional math/physics. And while you're the only one with the evidence, I'll also take it for granted that you're right. But that's no excuse for writing off my argument.

Correct, I could come back next year after taking AP Physics and decide that you and waterzooka were right after all. Seeing as I'm missing about half the science in the debate between you and joannaardway, I will also assume that I'm missing the concept entirely, especially since it sounds like a nice eureka one.

Originally Posted by Ben

The LR theory is not faulty. I wish you people would learn a thing or two. SilentGuy, I think in a few months you might think that you're coming across as a little harsh on new improvements. There is a noticable measurable difference in the range that fits perfectly into the force model. It was MEASURED and that is undeniable.

Perhaps I am coming across as harsh, especially with little to no knowledge of physics. I don't doubt that I'm looking like a fool for it. But in my defense, I did receive the idea openly and I still appreciate the concept. I naturally wouldn't like to be seen as one who puts down all new concepts. I do, however, feel that there are a few flaws with this theory, and whether I support or oppose the theory should not reflect my actual attitude. waterzooka, if you find my opinions offensive, please say so and note that they are meant to be constructive criticism, even if it sounds harsh.

Yes, there have been other situations in which I haven't really accepted new idea, most notably kanigett's post. Later I came to accept his idea about the use of a bag, although I did find a flaw with the theory after all. But I do regret such a hostile reply.

Originally Posted by Ben

You do know that the LR system and the earlier Waterzooka both use different diameters for the piston that you say matters? In fact, it completely conflicts with your theory. The 2 inch seal Waterzooka shoots 7 feet less than the 1 1/4 inch seal LR system. The LR system does have more range with a considerably smaller seal. Explain this inconsistency.

Actually, my theory is manifest with that comment. My argument was that the LR got better range because of its smaller pump. The area of the LR pump is 25/64 the area of the regular Waterzooka's pump, so you get more than twice the "leverage." That's half of my argument in a nutshell, as to why it got greater range; the other half of the argument is that the LR section with the wider tubing and the diaphragm is unnecessary, for the reasons I've already stated.

Originally Posted by joannaardway

The water is not being pressurized in our systems. Really. It will exert a normal force, but it will not truly pressurize.

If you truly believe that, then my time is wasted. Fluids can pressurize - liquid or gaseous. Liquids don't change in volume, but they can take pressures.

The equations I've shown wouldn't exist if water couldn't carry pressure.

Look up how water towers work. Pressure is created without the requirement of pumps (other than to get the water into the tower), or compressed air. Explain that if water pressure doesn't exist.

300 pounds is feasible and I'm not going to argue or test any further.

I have test the same thing, and only got 30 pounds - I've already explained this. Sure, I could exert 300 pounds for some things, but not on a system like this.

You would not use the pressure argument on projectiles. That's because this is a water projectile system. The expanding air is pushing (forcing) the water out. Really simple.

No, you're right. I wouldn't use the pressure argument. Because the projectiles are solid, and cannot maintain a pressure.

And I do have an argument to explain your situations - I've already put it.

By the way, your last post appeared to be incomplete.

I agree to all three points.

[Ben]

If you truly believe that, then my time is wasted. Fluids can pressurize - liquid or gaseous. Liquids don't change in volume, but they can take pressures.

The equations I've shown wouldn't exist if water couldn't carry pressure.

Look up how water towers work. Pressure is created without the requirement of pumps (other than to get the water into the tower), or compressed air. Explain that if water pressure doesn't exist.

I sure wish that you read my posts. I've said on multiple occasions that water can pressurize. You should stop telling me what I already know and have said. I am getting the impression that you are only skim reading my posts because you have missed this multiple times.

I'm saying that water guns do not work on water pressure. Note that I mentioned water jet cutters earlier... those pressurize water and operate at literally 30,000 - 40,000 PSI. Water towers technically work because the weight of the water is pushing down on the water, so those are actually gravity systems. Miners in the US west used water towers with big weights on top of the water like a piston to do very powerful water jet mining. A water gun, water tower, or whatever surely will be under a little pressure, but negligible pressure as far as the water gun cares. I'm saying that it is not the water pressure that makes water guns work.

Weird that my last post was cut off. Luckily, my last post is only missing a few words. They seem to have been cut off during the transfer. I was only saying that force is the determining factor of a water gun's power.

Anything else to argue? I've answered everything you've thrown at me and I think I've torn a lot of it really apart. I would have gone through your spreadsheet with my brother and pointed out numerous flaws, but I felt that was a little irrelevant.

You still are yet to adequately answer one thing however that I have asked multiple times: why can Supercannon II perform like it does when an XP water gun at the same pressure can't even support a nozzle half the diameter? For example, I put a 1/2 inch diameter nozzle on Supercannon II and it shot 60 feet. I take the nozzle off my Max-D 6000, pump it to a higher pressure, and it doesn't even shoot 30 feet with a 1/4 inch nozzle. According to you, if the pressure is the same, so should be the water gun's power. That is very inconsistent with the reality of the matter. Answer this question please. I already know the answer, but I want to see if you do. You're very keen about pointing out supposed faults in the force model, but when there are true and major faults such as this one you don't even respond any longer.

[Silence]

Did you see my above post? Guess not, they were both posted at the same time.

I have to say that it does sound like force is the determining factor, in light of your previous post. I remember bringing up an argument about it in Air-Powered CPS Without a Regulator, as it sounded like an infraction of the law of conservation of energy, but nevermind.

However, I still don't quite believe in the LR system, although I will accept it for the moment. I still stand by my own argument.

[Ben]

Okay, well, here's some responses to a few things you've posted.

Alright, this time I'm with joannaardway. Just using the LR system isn't going to magically create the energy to put more water farther, when energy inputted stays the same. It just doesn't work. I do concede that variation can occur due to our pumping faster or slower depending on the pump area, but as I said, that stays the same--regardless of whether or not there is a diaphragm there.

Force is not energy. Work is the measurement of energy expended, and the LR system works by taking advantage of the energy put in. It turns a long stroke into a short stroke, increasing the total force. Work = Force * distance.

I mentioned all of this in a previous post as well: http://forums.sscentral.org/33385-post20.html

I would suggest reading that post because it seems that people skip over a lot of what I have said. The second link explains how a hydraulic press or lift takes advantage of the energy input.

Ah, but it's not friction that would be making either the tube or the plunger move (depending on what you're pushing on); it's the actual resistance. If you're pushing on the plunger, then past some point of friction or whatever, the force of the spring will increase to the point where it will just transfer the force to your other hand. If your other hand doesn't get pushed back, then it will exert a reaction force of its own and compress the spring.

The spring will always push back. That's one of Newton's laws and it's why you can't just push it and hold it there easily. The piston water guns on the other hand don't use springs. They use two separate handles in a simplified setup. Think of it as a smaller pipe in a larger pipe that both push smoothly and independently of each other. I mentioned friction because I knew someone would try to tear my thing apart about that.

I believe I have already admitted that I have neither empirical data nor use conventional math/physics. And while you're the only one with the evidence, I'll also take it for granted that you're right. But that's no excuse for writing off my argument.

It's based on nothing but assumptions and not science or proof. I'd be fine believing it, but I'm not inclined to without science behind it or data. That and it is hard to argue against something that there is nothing written about. I'll be honest with you when I say that was the real reason I pushed it off.

I also have another "revelation." I just remembered a few minutes ago about the SS 300's patent name. It is titled "Low pressure, high volume pressurized water gun." That's right. The SS 300 was designed to be a low pressure water gun. This allows for the pump to use a similar ratio to that of other water guns, keeping it easy to pump but allowing it to pump more water. It also made the SS 300 the most powerful air pressure water gun because of the surface area. It's no coincidence. Surface area matters a lot, more than most people realize.

Anything other concerns?

[Silence]

Originally Posted by Ben

Force is not energy. Work is the measurement of energy expended, and the LR system works by taking advantage of the energy put in. It turns a long stroke into a short stroke, increasing the total force. Work = Force * distance.

I understand this part. But how is this different from a similar gun that doesn't have the wider part and the diaphragm? A PPP with just the 1" section would distribute the force over greater distance, and it fires the same amount of water (the hydraulic liquid in an equivalent LR system can only displace so much water).

Originally Posted by Ben

The spring will always push back.

...unless there's no resistance on the other side and it's just easier to expand in that direction instead. Unless you're expending energy (no work, of course) holding the other side back, you will just push the gun.

Originally Posted by Ben

It's based on nothing but assumptions and not science or proof. I'd be fine believing it, but I'm not inclined to without science behind it or data. That and it is hard to argue against something that there is nothing written about. I'll be honest with you when I say that was the real reason I pushed it off.

Fine then, we'll see how well everything holds up. I guess we're at a stalemate, where you win by default...but you haven't convinced me yet.

I believe some of my points have also been ignored. Namely, why a PPP implementing LR is better than a regular PPP in the first place. Here's the thought experiment:
Soaker A: 1" pump, 2" LR section, 1/4" nozzle
Soaker B: 1" pump, 1/4" nozzle
Now tell me why soaker A is inherently better than soaker B. There are also scenarios comparing the pump size to 2"...

EDIT: How did you justify the use of the LR system? By starting off with a short 2" pump as in the Waterzooka, and adding on a longer 1.25" section to spread out the force and reduce the work? If so, then there is equal volume in both parts and they displace each other, so you might as well remove the 2" section. The hydraulic fluid is literally dead weight.

[Ben]

I understand this part. But how is this different from a similar gun that doesn't have the wider part and the diaphragm? A PPP with just the 1" section would distribute the force over greater distance, and it fires the same amount of water (the hydraulic liquid in an equivalent LR system can only displace so much water).

Are you referring to a water gun that just has the reducer and no second piston? If that is the case, that doesn't redistribute the force. Let me know if that's not right or you need a better explanation.

I believe some of my points have also been ignored. Namely, why a PPP implementing LR is better than a regular PPP in the first place. Here's the thought experiment:
Soaker A: 1" pump, 2" LR section, 1/4" nozzle
Soaker B: 1" pump, 1/4" nozzle
Now tell me why soaker A is inherently better than soaker B. There are also scenarios comparing the pump size to 2"...

Soaker A is better because it has 4 times as much force. That is considerably better. And I think you knew this already.

How did you justify the use of the LR system? By starting off with a short 2" pump as in the Waterzooka, and adding on a longer 1.25" section to spread out the force and reduce the work? If so, then there is equal volume in both parts and they displace each other, so you might as well remove the 2" section. The hydraulic fluid is literally dead weight.

I don't get what you mean. Could you explain in greater detail?

[Silence]

Okay...so this goes back to the clash relating to the use of the diaphragm. I still do not think the diaphragm adds anything, and you might as well have the wider part but without anything separating the two bodies of water. In which case the extra liquid is wasted.

In the scenario, exactly where are you getting 4 times more force? You're just saying that you're getting more force, but I really don't see where.

Originally Posted by Ben

Could you explain in greater detail?

Okay. Did the LR system start off as an "improvement" to the 2" Waterzooka as opposed to a system on its own? (That's where we get the wider diameter of 2")

If yes, then: Is the purpose of having pump tubing narrower than the firing chamber tubing to increase the distance and reduce the force?

If yes, then: Is there an equal amount of liquid for the hydraulic fluid and for the water that is being shot?

If yes, then: Is it correct that you're just using the hydraulic fluid to displace the water that you're firing?

If yes, then: Why not actually pump that much liquid instead of hydraulic fluid which has to displace and shoot the water?

In other words, it seems like the only reason you'd justify using the LR system is because it displaces the water and uses a narrower pump for more work in the process. I'm pretty sure that one can make a connection and understand that it's a roundabout method of actually firing the water that the pump is directly pushing.

All in all, my arguments have very little scientific basis, whether empirical or theoretical. But I believe that I do have a point.

[Ben]

The second piston is necessary because it is what is actually pushing against the water. The hydraulic fluid does not do the change in the force. It is the separation that actually changes the force. That second piston will move less distance, giving it more force according to the work equation because the energy stays the same the entire time. Having no second piston would only be as powerful as a regular piston water gun.

You can read in the Hydraulic press page on Wikipedia that a hydraulic press works by pressurizing a fluid (water, yes, which I know can be pressurized for you people who keep insisting that I don't) with one piston and redistributing the pressure over a larger area piston to get more force. The second piston is necessary to redistribute the pressure.

Of course, I see what you are saying, but just because something is moving slower does not necessarily mean it has more force. I'm sure the transfer medium is necessary. I'll test this out myself when I make my own if it will make you happy. If it turns out that the transfer medium is not necessary, there's no reason to have one then, but I am sure it is necessary.

[joannaardway]

@SilentGuy: Boyle's law is specifically for gases. It's also not perfectly accurate, except for an ideal gas.

Anything else to argue? I've answered everything you've thrown at me and I think I've torn a lot of it really apart. I would have gone through your spreadsheet with my brother and pointed out numerous flaws, but I felt that was a little irrelevant.

I've had an aeronautical enginneer look over my spreadsheet and they found only one flaw - the lack of transonic and supersonic drag modelling. But that doesn't matter in 99.99% of cases.

My argument covers your Max-D/Super cannon II argument perfectly well.

You may remember that for a few hours, I agreed with your theory. However, even then my thought chain was based on pressure in water.

Ok, saving the arguments about my 3xA being inefficent, your theory hasn't yet explained how with three different chamber areas all fill to the same pressure with the same pump.

You claim that the greater forces on the larger chamber areas would result in me creating a smaller pressure.

It doesn't. It was damn on the nail each time, getting 100 psi with the minimum 3 square inches and maximum 20 square inches.

Also remember the "sideways chamber" theory?
If I take the old external chamber from my 3xA and pressurize it when it's vertical (About 8 or 9 square inches), and when it's horizontal (About 25 square inches), I get the same pressure each time, in spite of the different "forces". I was ultra careful to ensure a balanced test, ensuring an identical fill method (and pump force) each time.

Your force argument can't explain this.

Neither can it explain how I get identical range with the chamber both vertical and horizontal.

Pressurization does not have to equal an inversely proportional volume change. In fact, even in air they are not directly in inverse proportion. There's a few fractions of a percent difference.

EDIT: Waterzooka, have you tried filling your air space with water? I reckon that you'll get better results - you'll get an effect like hydraulic lifts get, but without the volume changes of air. (And of course, this works because water pressurizes)

[waterzooka]

Well, I never thought a simple idea would spark such a discussion. This stuff is great!

Originally Posted by SilentGuy
waterzooka, if you find my opinions offensive, please say so and note that they are meant to be constructive criticism, even if it sounds harsh.

Your comments are fine. I don't see any personal attacks here, just comments, concerns, questions, etc. All good stuff. Honestly, I don't see the need to defend the waterzooka LR design - the mechanic advantage is produces is akin to the lever, compound pulley or transmission. It's just a simple system.

Originally Posted by Ben
...but if you firmly believe it I would suggest testing it out. It seems that I'm the only one who actually tests things...
The LR theory is not faulty. I wish you people would learn a thing or two. ...There is a noticable measurable difference in the range that fits perfectly into the force model. It was MEASURED and that is undeniable.

Thanks for attempting to educate the doubters. I agree with your statement about testing. IMHO - I would like to see more data, diagrams and pictures. Therory is good, but nothing beats holding a watergun in your hand.

Originally Posted by joannaardway
EDIT: Waterzooka, have you tried filling your air space with water? I reckon that you'll get better results - you'll get an effect like hydraulic lifts get, but without the volume changes of air. (And of course, this works because water pressurizes)

You may be mistaken. There is no air space in the LR design. The digrams below I posted a couple of weeks ago show the different stages(chambers). The red fluid is not air, in fact, I used vegetable oil. Water may be a better choice for a hydraulic fluid, however, the vegetable oil provided some needed lubrication. And yes, the whole idea was based on a hydraulic lift. I will be constructing the first diagram soon. The second diagram was already constructed and tested.





To all - A few items I stated in earlier posts, but I thought I would summarize.

• Using a pressure gauage for checking cylinder compression in an automobile, I measured 25 psi on the standard waterzooka and 75 psi on the waterzooka LR.
• I believe the merits of the LR design is "Less Force" not "More Distance". (Maybe a name change is needed!)

[Ben]

I've had an aeronautical enginneer look over my spreadsheet and they found only one flaw - the lack of transonic and supersonic drag modelling. But that doesn't matter in 99.99% of cases.

I was mainly referring to what could have been an error that Drenchenator told me about that I can't seem to find right now. It doesn't matter much anyway because it wasn't on a cell that should affect anything major.

How does this work without such things as barrel length, pressure, shape of the back of the projectile (which is necessary), friction, and other stuff I probably forgot? I realize now that it operates on empirical data. But I was getting the impression from the way you described it in the past that it calculated all of that stuff itself. That's how it would work without those things previously mentioned. I don't think it's too impressive if you just take empirical data and do all of that. There was an equation in our physics book that pretty much calculated projectile range with drag, wind, and other stuff in one sweep and that's what I would rather use personally.

The way the spreadsheet works is through the massive stuff on the side that could be completely avoided and done faster had you used calculus (and I'm not even sure if Excel offers calculus functions aside from min, max, and maybe a basic integral or derivative). It also would have made the spreadsheet smaller. I won't argue whether or not you know calculus, but from the impression I am getting here you do not. I assume that this works by recalculating the position of the projectile thousands of times, which is a way to do it, but not the best way to do it due to speed, size, and ease of typing. It also won't work for things that are in the air for more than 15 seconds. I don't know too much about how this huge spreadsheet works and I'm not going to tear it apart. I just wanted to say that I found an error and I don't know why you didn't use calculus as opposed to thousands of small calculations.

Ok, saving the arguments about my 3xA being inefficent, your theory hasn't yet explained how with three different chamber areas all fill to the same pressure with the same pump.

You claim that the greater forces on the larger chamber areas would result in me creating a smaller pressure.

It doesn't. It was damn on the nail each time, getting 100 psi with the minimum 3 square inches and maximum 20 square inches.

Again, as something you said before, this is not something I said. Please point out where I argued this. I never argued that a larger chamber area would result in less pressure as far as I can tell.

Pumping in a set volume each time creates the same pressure. The pressure is created because the air has less volume... that's simple. It does not however create the same force. The force is determined by the force of pressure equation and for the pump, hydraulics equations. That's why smaller diameter pumps usually are easier to pump than larger diameter pumps. You won't deny that because it's well known.

Also remember the "sideways chamber" theory?
If I take the old external chamber from my 3xA and pressurize it when it's vertical (About 8 or 9 square inches), and when it's horizontal (About 25 square inches), I get the same pressure each time, in spite of the different "forces". I was ultra careful to ensure a balanced test, ensuring an identical fill method (and pump force) each time.

Your force argument can't explain this.

Neither can it explain how I get identical range with the chamber both vertical and horizontal.

Again, the first thing is pressure, not force, and I wasn't setting out to explain that. That's already explained. By rotating, nothing changes the pressure. A set pump volume creates a set pressure for each pump. I don't even know why you're trying to argue against something so basic as this.

I do know why the range is poor for both angles however. And I explained this earlier. Yes, with more surface area the water gun should be more powerful. That is not because there is more energy in the system (the energy stays the same and it is erroneous to believe that it increases), rather, it is taking advantage of the work equation to expend the energy differently. There are limiting factors on this modified water gun. The internal diameter limits flow so much as to limit performance completely. That's the main problem, but there are others. That is not an ideal situation.

If you insist, I will complete the construction of Supercannon III in about a month and pressurized it to less pressure than Supercannon II's 73 feet range test and beat that range. I guarantee that it will at least tie Supercannon II's range at half the pressure.

You still are yet to offer any explanation to the 40 PSI dilemma Joanna. You just said that you have provided an explanation, yet you have not in reality. I don't know what your argument about that is aside from "Because it's the same pressure, and they are highly efficent, with wide streams." which does not explain why smaller water guns perform very differently at the same pressures. If you keep pushing this off I will only assume that you have no explanation.

Why does Supercannon II perform like it does when an XP water gun at the same pressure can't even create a stream half the diameter? Why is the SS 300 more powerful than other water guns of its era when it is described by its makers as a "Low pressure" water gun? The answer is that force matters, not pressure.

Joanna, I have provided an explanation for everything you have pointed out so far (and if I have not, let me know). I'm only trying to let people know what the actual truth is about water gun design, and believe me, this is it.

Also, I concede that my 300 pounds of force guess was high. It was what I said - a guess. It's not even what my Range = 8.3 * Force ^ 0.3 equation says for 50 feet of range and I'm surprised no one pointed that out to me. I noticed this when I was working on a design for a single pump spring powered water gun that used hydraulics. The force model equation I made from the little data I had taken (mainly for 60 feet, 73 feet, and estimations for 55, 50, and 40 feet) and I felt it was accurate. Looking at my earlier equations however, this one is probably faulty for ranges less than 60 feet because it contains only guesses for those ranges.

I'll be honest with everyone. It took all my strength to hold the 385 pounds that the spring was pushing back for a bit. The way it was set up also was not exactly like the pumping action of the piston water gun because I had to push the spring against the ground (I had no endcaps). I would guess right now that the force necessary for 50 feet of range is closer to 150 - 200 pounds.

I'll also admit that my force model wasn't exactly ready for general use. I had intended to do some detailed testing to find out which forces returned approximately which ranges, but temperatures dropped and I postponed that for a while. It probably would have been good to have continued then, but at least now it's high on my list of priorities.

There are no problems with the force model as far as I can see. Keep pointing them out, and hopefully answer my problems as well.

Edit:

Here's another problem with the pressure theory: CPS water guns. The LRT I bought creates about 30 PSI by itself. A CPS 1000 creates 23 PSI. A CPS 1500 creates 22 PSI. Yet the XP 85 uses 40 PSI. I understand that XP water guns have smaller internal diameters than CPS water guns do, but we all know which water gun would be more powerful given the same limiting factors. Seems that there is some other factor that decides power... I wonder what it could be...

Edit again: Fixed URLs.

[Silence]

I believe this diagram shows where the idea of the LR system was going. Please tell me if I'm wrong.

This design would actually give you the leverage needed, because the first diaphragm's large area puts force on the second diaphragm's smaller area. Whatever.

Originally Posted by joannaardway

@SilentGuy: Boyle's law is specifically for gases. It's also not perfectly accurate, except for an ideal gas.

Originally Posted by joannaardway

Pressurization does not have to equal an inversely proportional volume change. In fact, even in air they are not directly in inverse proportion. There's a few fractions of a percent difference.

Okay, that explains it. Thanks.

Originally Posted by joannaardway

I've had an aeronautical enginneer look over my spreadsheet and they found only one flaw - the lack of transonic and supersonic drag modelling. But that doesn't matter in 99.99% of cases.

I believe the problem here is that your spreadsheet might now always apply to shooting liquids. However, I might be completely wrong about this.

Originally Posted by joannaardway

Also remember the "sideways chamber" theory?
If I take the old external chamber from my 3xA and pressurize it when it's vertical (About 8 or 9 square inches), and when it's horizontal (About 25 square inches), I get the same pressure each time, in spite of the different "forces". I was ultra careful to ensure a balanced test, ensuring an identical fill method (and pump force) each time.

Your force argument can't explain this.

Neither can it explain how I get identical range with the chamber both vertical and horizontal.

I remember this theory...that's what I was referring to in the thread I linked to, and maybe that's where the first pressure/force argument was. Makes sense.

I was completely unaware of your experiment, but I presume it involves that crazy mod you did to the 3XA which allows for quick fill or another PC or whatever. Interesting--that theory had only been a theory.

Originally Posted by Ben

There are limiting factors on this modified water gun. The internal diameter limits flow so much as to limit performance completely. That's the main problem, but there are others. That is not an ideal situation.

No offense, but that does not sound like a good explanation. Very much like the efficiency of the SS 300/Supercannon II problem.

Actually, on second thought, you might be correct with the redistribution of the work in the sideways PC problem. I was under the impression that because distance vs. force is logarithmic, that force vs. energy must also be logarithmic. In reality, while the distance vs. energy might be logarithmic, the force vs. energy is linear or something. I guess it's just like using a narrower but longer pump...

Originally Posted by joannaardway

EDIT: Waterzooka, have you tried filling your air space with water? I reckon that you'll get better results - you'll get an effect like hydraulic lifts get, but without the volume changes of air. (And of course, this works because water pressurizes)

I believe he was using a fluid anyway--the vegetable oil, maybe water now. It would completely defeat the point of hydraulic fluid to use something that easily compressed when under pressure.

Originally Posted by waterzooka

I believe the merits of the LR design is "Less Force" not "More Distance". (Maybe a name change is needed!)

Yup, a name change is probably needed...if "long range" isn't what you were going for. However, the two terms work fairly well together, and why not aim for more distance?

Originally Posted by Ben

Also, I concede that my 300 pounds of force guess was high. It was what I said - a guess. It's not even what my Range = 8.3 * Force ^ 0.3 equation says for 50 feet of range and I'm surprised no one pointed that out to me. I noticed this when I was working on a design for a single pump spring powered water gun that used hydraulics. The force model equation I made from the little data I had taken (mainly for 60 feet, 73 feet, and estimations for 55, 50, and 40 feet) and I felt it was accurate. Looking at my earlier equations however, this one is probably faulty for ranges less than 60 feet because it contains only guesses for those ranges.

I'll be honest with everyone. It took all my strength to hold the 385 pounds that the spring was pushing back for a bit. The way it was set up also was not exactly like the pumping action of the piston water gun because I had to push the spring against the ground (I had no endcaps). I would guess right now that the force necessary for 50 feet of range is closer to 150 - 200 pounds.

Whatever the true value is--150-200 pounds or not--I don't even remember where this number was significant. I don't think it's really part of the argument anymore, just a (major) problem on the side.

[Ben]

This design would actually give you the leverage needed, because the first diaphragm's large area puts force on the second diaphragm's smaller area. Whatever.

This design would only add extra parts and reduce the amount of water the gun could hold. It would have the same amount of force as the normal LR design. No improvements really.

No offense, but that does not sound like a good explanation. Very much like the efficiency of the SS 300/Supercannon II problem.

Actually, on second thought, you might be correct with the redistribution of the work in the sideways PC problem. I was under the impression that because distance vs. force is logarithmic, that force vs. energy must also be logarithmic. In reality, while the distance vs. energy might be logarithmic, the force vs. energy is linear or something. I guess it's just like using a narrower but longer pump...

I don't think it's a bad explanation at all. You know as well as I do that there are limiting factors in a water gun's performance. If any water gun is hitting those factors, it would be a modified less powerful air pressure water gun. There's a very good reason that Supercannon II has a 1 1/2 inch internal diameter. Flow is the main limiting factor and it is something that the 3A does not have.

Not only that, but I don't think it would be unreasonable for me to feel that those "tests" were made up for the sake of the argument. I have videos of my tests and I don't just bring them up when they are convenient.

I even go as far as to offer to prove exactly what I am saying by finishing Supercannon III and showing that you can achieve the same distance with less pressure on the same design with only one change. If someone denies anything after that, they probably don't want to believe that force is what matters.

Whatever the true value is--150-200 pounds or not--I don't even remember where this number was significant. I don't think it's really part of the argument anymore, just a (major) problem on the side.

I mainly said this because I was sure that someone would eventually notice that the equation did not indeed say that 300 pounds got about 50 feet of range. And I don't want someone using that against my force argument, regardless of how much of a logical fallacy it would have been.

I'll say this again too: I respond to every one of your problems with my system and explain it to you Joanna. The least you could do is respond to the one I have been saying for several posts. It's perfectly fine to be wrong about something. I've been wrong about so many things that I couldn't name them all. But I'm not wrong about this because it's real physics I learned at school first but then applied with complete success here in the water gun world. Supercannon II is complete verification of the fact that force is what matters. I designed it with that in mind and consequently it performed well.