Super Soaker Central

mchaos · 07-16-2007, 12:44 AM

This looks impressive but not practical, as you need to hook it to a faucet...

http://www.xinventions.com/main/spud/water_cannon.htm

In thought.....

A hybrid design has come to mind incorporating the design of mine, and a basic air pressured cannon. Use my design for the water pressure, and the pressure from the tank on a air pressure system.

the result should be a much more powerful blast in a smaller diameter which would make the water supply last long and making for excellent range.

I am thinking a 5 gallon tank coupled with a PVC air tank the same length, then running through the same system.

could be interesting, but heavy. There is also a smaller way to go with just one 2 gal tank.

EDIT:

Eureka!

I have had a brain storm after posting the above. Ultimate hybrid!

A. Bladder tank.
B. Regulator.
C. Air Tank.
D. Ball valve 1.
E. Ball valve 2.
F. Quick Disconnect.
G. Pressure Gauge.
H. Shrader Valve.
I. Ball Valve 3.

D and E closed, I open. Fill with water at F. Once Tank A full with water, Close I and open D with Reg B set to about 95 psi. Tank A can handle 100psi so setting Reg B to 95psi will ensure safe operation. Tank C should be filled to at least 125psi up too 150psi using valve H, using gauge G to confirm psi. Valve E can now be opened to charge line to nozzle unit.

A bladder tank is tested to 100 psi max. When the bladder is empty, the air pressure in the top of the tank is at about 30 psi normally. As the bladder is filled with water, the pressure is increased. The bladder ensures constant water pressure. Using Just a bladder tank filled by a tap is pretty good, but there are some draw backs. Then tank bladder is never totally filled with water, and the tank pressure is only as great as the pressure from the tap source. Normally around 50 to 60 psi. As well as the pressure in the top of the tank drops, the water pressure drops equally. Thus the water stream will loose stream power progressively.

This system will eliminate both problems. With valve I you can relieve the pressure in the top of the tank while filling to fill bladder completely. There should be a small air space at the top of the tank to keep the bladder from sealing the air entry from tank C, this space will be minimal. Now with tank C and regulator B after opening valve D after valve I is closed after water filling, you can pressurize the top of a filled tank to near max 100psi, about 95psi should do. This will allow for maximum pressure and water volume. While blasting water, there will be a constant water pressure and will not drop below 95psi unless air volume in tank C drops below 95psi.

Edit #2:

To get the most out of this design, the air tank would either have to be bigger then the bladder tank in volume by almost 2x, or the pressure in the Tank C would have to be or at least close too 200 psi. unfortunately compressors that can compress up too 200 are expensive. mine only goes up to 125, mainly why above I state 125-150psi. 2 options... manual pump (eek!) or get an electric tire pump that can pump up the tank too 200 psi, or close.

this should be the ultimate hybrid water cannon.

Ben · 07-16-2007, 08:49 AM

Wow! I appreciate the depth you go into a lot. Keep it up!

There's a reason no one here's made the hybrid design. The hybrid design adds a bunch of turbulence to the stream due to the air bubbles moving through it. The hybrid system also is an inefficient use of air. It would be more worthwhile to use a single "pressure system" at a higher pressure.

mchaos · 07-16-2007, 07:39 PM

my design will have no air in the water. It uses a bladder system. Air is separate from the water.

It takes a bladder system and uses air pressure to increase the pressure in the tank pressing against the bladder.

Like the super soaker CPS, it uses a bladder system, the water is pumped into a bladder creating air pressure on one side of the bladder and on the other. But as the water leaves the pressure drops lowering the velocity. It also uses an air pressure system like the original super soaker 50. My idea is like putting them together, using the bladder system to maintain constant pressure, but then using air pressure on the air side of the bladder to increase and maintain pressure against the bladder.

one of many bonuses, if you run with it, you will not get any air in the stream. not to mention the power of it.

Ben · 07-16-2007, 07:50 PM

I thought you were talking about design #2 on XInventions. Seems I didn't read closely enough.

There is no advantage to this system unless it increases the total pressure of the water. Due to the fact that the pressure in the system is homogenous, adding an air chamber would not increase the pressure, rather, it would increase the total volume. I don't think you'll get any real improvement from this design for that reason.

mchaos · 07-16-2007, 09:28 PM

Yes, you would have the same power as an air pressure setup with no bladder at 100psi as you would a bladder system that has the air side of the bladder tank at 100psi, But there are major advantages..

1) It will not matter which way the tank is, right side up, up side down, it will not matter where the water line comes out because of the bladder. You would be able to move around a lot with out worry of air spurts.

2) continuous stream at steady pressure. there will be no pressure drop in this system.

3) No air pressure loss when out of water. When the water is depleted, the stream will stop, and no air will come out at all, meaning less air refilling. you will loose some pressure when you release the pressure from the top of the tank for filling, but you could get several water fills befor having to recharge the air system.

4) easy fill system, Just hook to a quick disconect on a garden hose and open the valve until full. ( I know some one will say, but then you need a garden hose, but how else do you fill your water tank before a water fight?? does every one at the battle take turns at the kitchen sink?? LoL)

5) 2 pressure systems! The system is still functional if you run out of air pressure all together and have no way of charging the air system, Just fill from hose, and use like a standard bladder tank system with no added pressure. With my 4 gallon bladder tank setup, I get excellent range and stream with just the bladder alone. With an air charge system alone, you cannot fill the water under a pressurized state, and even if you use a separate air tank, you sill have to pump up the air tank. if needed closing off the bladder tank from the air system, and filling the bladder will charge as its filled meaning its ready to do as soon as it full. No pumping, no hassle.

6) With the air pressure system, you can branch off it too charge air pressure powered water balloon cannons. This gives you the ability to make a gun mounted water balloon launcher that is able to be fired over and over again, at least until air charge is depleted, and then you still have the bladder system to rely on.

7) because there will be a check valve between the air tank and water bladder tank, if there is a problem with the air tank, like an air leek, you still have a high psi air charge in the top of the bladder tank to defend your self until such time as you are able to get to a safe place for repairs, and if you can't remember, you can still use the bladder system alone.

8) If the bladder fails, like a tear or hole, It can be used as an air pressure system.

This system has many advantages over a single non hybrid air pressure system or a bladder system alone. It is very tactical.

_____

I have decided if I am going to make a prototype of this, I will not use a bladder tank for a water system, I will make my own using PVC and 3/4 ID LRT. Found a good site to get it in 5 or 10 foot lengths.

I will probably make the system first with 4 " sch 40 pvc. Max psi of 240. then maybe in 6", but then the max psi will be 180, unless of course I use sch 80 LoL.

Ben · 07-17-2007, 07:32 AM

Well, I don't think you quite understand what I'm saying. If the pressure is constant, nothing will come out of the air pressure side. That's what I'm saying. This dual pressure system will only use the rubber tubing because the pressure has to be homogeneous.

To put it in different terms, air pressure and bladder systems are incompatible. Air pressure has variable pressure while bladder systems have constant pressure. When using both, the variable pressure will change to match the constant pressure, meaning no increase in pressure and therefore no increase in flow aside from a minimal increase due to a increased number of water outlets.

Again, what I'm saying here is that there will be no increase in pressure and the only side that would work in this water gun would be the rubber side.

With that being said, if you had regulated air pressure (a system I would very highly recommend) and regulated it at the same pressure as the latex tube, you could do the hybrid system, though there would be absolutely no reason to do this. Part of the idea of regulated air pressure is to get high constant pressure, and rubber tubing gets moderate to low constant pressure, so you'll have to drop the pressure a lot.

#1 also isn't correct. If you angle the water gun up or put it upside down, you'll definitely have air spurts because the air always floats on top of the water. If the system is the bladder alone, of course there would be no air spurts because there is little to no air.

Quote:

5) 2 pressure systems! The system is still functional if you run out of air pressure all together and have no way of charging the air system, Just fill from hose, and use like a standard bladder tank system with no added pressure. With my 4 gallon bladder tank setup, I get excellent range and stream with just the bladder alone. With an air charge system alone, you cannot fill the water under a pressurized state, and even if you use a separate air tank, you sill have to pump up the air tank. if needed closing off the bladder tank from the air system, and filling the bladder will charge as its filled meaning its ready to do as soon as it full. No pumping, no hassle.

Could you explain this again? I'm having a hard time understanding what you're saying here.

I may not be reading this right, but are you saying that air pressure systems can't be charged by a garden hose? If so, that's definitely incorrect. I've pressurized plenty of air pressure water gun with a garden hose.

Quote:

7) because there will be a check valve between the air tank and water bladder tank, if there is a problem with the air tank, like an air leek, you still have a high psi air charge in the top of the bladder tank to defend your self until such time as you are able to get to a safe place for repairs, and if you can't remember, you can still use the bladder system alone.

Putting a check valve in a place that is supposed to be higher flow isn't a good idea. The flow will be reduced a lot because of the flow coefficient of the valve, unless you use a very large check valve, which would get expensive. I would recommend a ball valve for the worst case scenario due to the high flow. Of course, if you built this, the air pressure side wouldn't do anything. The most the air would do is expand to match the pressure of the bladder.

Quote:

I have decided if I am going to make a prototype of this, I will not use a bladder tank for a water system, I will make my own using PVC and 3/4 ID LRT. Found a good site to get it in 5 or 10 foot lengths.

I would not recommend 3/4-inch ID LRT. Too much "dead space" and no improvement in performance over other variations. The flow benefit seems to be a good idea initially, but I haven't seen it in my testing. You can stretch a 3/8-inch ID over a larger barb and that tube generates 35 PSI. I buy my LRT from McMaster-Carr because you don't have to buy in bulk there.

SilentGuy · 07-17-2007, 08:34 AM

Ben, he's essentially suggesting that you pressurize the bladder case with air after filling, as others have suggested before. The difference here is that the air is regulated.

The rubber generates pressure in addition to the external pressure (which is one atmosphere for most water guns). With this system, there's more than 15 PSI in the case, so the maximum pressure is increased. The rubber generates a constant 35 PSIg and the regulated air supplies, say, 40 PSIg, for a total of 75 PSIg.

By using hose pressure in addition to pressurized air, the pressure inside the chamber is immediately increased to 60 PSIg. That means there's less work for the compressed air, so it's a bit more efficient and a bit faster.

mchaos, I wouldn't worry about backups in water wars if something fails. Seriously, if there's a bladder rupture in the middle of a fight, just call a break or run away and switch guns. I also would recommend using a different water gun if there were no compressed air available...using this system without the compressed air just adds extra weight.

In the past, when people have suggested pressurizing a chamber with air after filling the bladder, Ben pointed out that the bladder may contort and rupture. It might, or it might not. There's a chance that this water gun wouldn't work, although you could still try it and see.

Ben · 07-17-2007, 11:54 AM

Okay, I now see what he's doing. Thank you SilentGuy! My main focus was what's on the Xinventions page and nothing there is like this at all. I suppose I should have focused on the image more, but I was pressed for time and imagined what he was talking about from my quick skim... mchaos, I apologize for seeming a little pushy and not reading thoroughly. I just wanted to explain that what you're doing wouldn't work, but this will.

This idea has been thought of before and it's not a good idea either. Having worked with LRT extensively, I know it can be dangerous when used incorrectly. This sort of design puts a lot of stress on the rubber. Replacing the rubber will be necessary and the replacement must be done more often than had the water gun simply been a LRT alone one. Now, as every time someone brings this idea up, I do invite them to try it out and prove me wrong. It will work, but I don't think it's a practical system at all. This design is overly complicated.

Use regulated air pressure with a piston if you want to shoot at any angle. I still haven't seen anyone use that design and I don't really know why. Such a design would be extremely powerful and versatile. The only problem would be air supplied, which can be extended over many many shots with the right design, so the problem is minimized.

mchaos · 07-17-2007, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SilentGuy

mchaos, I wouldn't worry about backups in water wars if something fails. Seriously, if there's a bladder rupture in the middle of a fight, just call a break or run away and switch guns. I also would recommend using a different water gun if there were no compressed air available...using this system without the compressed air just adds extra weight.

Blah hahahahaha! Yeah I know. I am just being too in depth. But they are advantages...

the bladder will have neutral pressure on it because it has pressure on both sides. if there is 100 psi of air in the top of the tank there will be 100 psi of water pressure. The bladder will stretch yes, but that is the only stress. As long as the bladder is stretching with in it limits, it should be fine. The actual stress would be on the tank it self, this is what the pressure will be ultimately pressing on. Basically what I am saying is, weather there is 60 psi in the tank, or 100, the bladder will be under the same stress because the pressure is equal in the bladder side and air side. Of course this changes when you open the valve to shoot. But the pressure would be pushing the bladder closed.

Ben, we have different opinions, and this is fine. The system is no more complicated the a normal pressure system, there is just a bladder separating the water from the air. A piston system would however, not be so much as complicated but, would have to have much greater precision to get to work correctly. IMO of course.

If you look at it from this point of view...

My water cannon uses 2, 2 gallon well tanks. Which have bladders. this type of system has been used for a long long time, because it is very reliable. rarely does something go wrong with them, that is not related to old age and ware and tear. So bladders are very reliable. In a houses well system, the bladders are constantly expanded and contracted. If that isn't a clear bench mark of a bladder system i dunno what is.

basically what I am doing is the same thing. Its a bladder tank. In a bladder tank, the tank is sealed, and when the bladder is empty, there is normally 30 psi in the tank. as you add water, the pressure is increased. the tanks are rated to at least 100 psi or more with bigger tanks. Normally in a well system they only have 50 or 60 psi, depending on the pressure switch that is installed in the system, so the most psi you can get in my water cannon is 60 psi filled from my houses well system.

with what I am doing, I am making a system, that once it has been filled, it is already at 60 psi before opening the air pressure system. if I have 200 psi in the air tank, when you open the valve, the pressure will equalize, and both tanks will have the same psi. it will drop from 200, but minutely. so now the bladder system has a high pressure system but with the benefits of a bladder system.

I would of course be regulating the system, so that the air in the air tank, is greater then what is going to the bladder tank, so that there will be no pressure drop in the stream as it expends it water. A little math involved to figure out at what psi to regulate it, depending on the volume of the tanks will have to be done, but nothing hard.

Again, in rebuttal to

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben

This design is overly complicated.

, my deign has less plumbing as this standard APH dsign. Nothing at all wrong with it either. http://www.sscentral.org/tech/homemades/aph.php

EDIT: I know quite a bit of plumbing such as I sell it. This knowledge comes from experience.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben

I would not recommend 3/4-inch ID LRT. Too much "dead space" and no improvement in performance over other variations. The flow benefit seems to be a good idea initially, but I haven't seen it in my testing. You can stretch a 3/8-inch ID over a larger barb and that tube generates 35 PSI. I buy my LRT from McMaster-Carr because you don't have to buy in bulk there.

Remember, my bladder will be air pressure assisted. An, I am looking for maximum expansion of the LRT with as little over stretching. I am looking for the bladder to expand up to 4 to 6 inches in diameter, expanding to fill out the inside of the pvc tank. 3/8 LRT will not expand that much. I use to use 3/8 tubing for the paint ball mines I used to make and sell. it expands to about 1-1/4". I put a small check valve in one side, it was a 3/16th check valve. on the other end, a cap that goes over that end folded, to keep the paint in. it was housed in 1-1/4 pvc, and it just touched the sides. It works great with water too! you tie a trip line to the cap, and when you trip it, the cap pulls off and lets the water blast out erratically all over the person who tripped the line. I may even end up using an inner tube from a bicycle if the lrt will not expand enough.

some 3/8 tubing I had lying around...

not even close... I may need bigger then 3/4

if I have a 4" diameter tank, 15" long i.e., the bladder will expand to the total inner diameter of that tank, and up too 95 -98% of the length of it, leaving a small gap at the top of the tank.
____

Trust me, this system will work amazingely. Its gonna be a while before I actually build it, but when I do, I will post vids.

Ben · 07-18-2007, 07:48 AM

Well, this system shouldn't work any better than a higher pressure regulated air pressure system. Adding 25 to 30 PSI to an air pressure system isn't that big of a deal.

The hybrid air pressure and rubber CPS method is also not the best way to implement such a system. Believe me when I say this. Using a piston will still allow you to have a water gun similar to the APH design, but also with an "air pressure assist" feature. Not only that, but the piston has a much higher tensile strength and consequently will last much longer. Some pistons I've used before were rated to pressures something like 10 times higher than the PVC I used them in. The only advantage the LRT may have would be constant pressure, but that can be created with an air regulator, especially if you make a "re-regulating" design. But, a piston has advantages in longevity, capacity, and certainly reliability. You'll never have to worry about a well made piston failing.

I also could see a combination air pressure and spring design pulled off very nicely. In fact, that would be the best way to do a hybrid design in my opinion because you'd get both the benefit from air pressure and a spring even without the air pressure assist. There are a lot of better ideas for "hybrid" systems than rubber CPS and air pressure. Basically, that's what I'm saying here.

The 1 inch ID tubing I used before expanded to over 4 inches in diameter. I realize that you're looking for lots of volume, but in reality the size differences do not translate into as much volume as you may think. A less than 4 inch diameter chamber with a 1 inch diameter thing of dead space in the center is significantly less than simply a 4 inch diameter chamber, which is perfectly doable.

Quote:

The actual stress would be on the tank it self, this is what the pressure will be ultimately pressing on.

Pressure vectors go against every point where there is pressure. There will be as much stress on the bladder as there is on the pipe, that is, per unit area. Besides, don't you want the pressure vectors to put force on the tube? I mean, that's what the entire idea here is. And, even if the pressure is the same on both sides (and of course it will be), the rubber still is being pushed on from both sides. Rubber thinning will be accelerated from the additional stresses, requiring replacement of the bladder much more often. Believe me too. I've experienced this sort of thing and the replacement is the one reason I don't think this is a viable option. A piston is a much more viable option because no replacement is necessary.

Quote:

A piston system would however, not be so much as complicated but, would have to have much greater precision to get to work correctly. IMO of course.

I'm terrible when it comes to precision fabrication and I made a perfectly sealing piston water gun with piston cups I ordered off the internet.

Quote:

My water cannon uses 2, 2 gallon well tanks. Which have bladders. this type of system has been used for a long long time, because it is very reliable. rarely does something go wrong with them, that is not related to old age and ware and tear. So bladders are very reliable. In a houses well system, the bladders are constantly expanded and contracted. If that isn't a clear bench mark of a bladder system i dunno what is.

Well, this is where my experience and knowledge come in. Those tanks are designed (as were the older CPS water guns) to limit the expansion of the rubber. The rubber still thins slightly, but at a much reduced pace when the expansion is limited to perhaps 50% of what it can do. That also, of course, limits total pressure created, but not by a factor of 50%. The reason they last a long time is because they were designed to.

What you propose however can not limit the expansion of the rubber due to it's design. So, it won't last anywhere near as long. The rubber thins noticably from something like 10 expansions. I have LRT that is about half as thick as it was new because I've used it to much. Larami definitely knew about the rubber thinning and reduced it by limiting the expansion. If you want this design to have any sort of longevity at all, you should take this into account with your design.

Quote:

, my deign has less plumbing as this standard APH dsign. Nothing at all wrong with it either. http://www.sscentral.org/tech/homemades/aph.php

Umm, no it doesn't, at least from my view of it. Your design essentially is a new pressure chamber. Replace the pressure chamber in the APH with your one and that is what I see in my mind. More complicated than the APH. Though, I remember now that you intend to charge with a hose rather than a pump, which would reduce the amount of pipe, but still be largely the same design.

Quote:

Remember, my bladder will be air pressure assisted. An, I am looking for maximum expansion of the LRT with as little over stretching. I am looking for the bladder to expand up to 4 to 6 inches in diameter, expanding to fill out the inside of the pvc tank. 3/8 LRT will not expand that much. I use to use 3/8 tubing for the paint ball mines I used to make and sell. it expands to about 1-1/4". I put a small check valve in one side, it was a 3/16th check valve. on the other end, a cap that goes over that end folded, to keep the paint in. it was housed in 1-1/4 pvc, and it just touched the sides. It works great with water too! you tie a trip line to the cap, and when you trip it, the cap pulls off and lets the water blast out erratically all over the person who tripped the line. I may even end up using an inner tube from a bicycle if the lrt will not expand enough.

What you have appears to be 3/16-inch ID tubing, not the 3/8 inch ID tubing I was talking about. The tubing expands about 8 times in diameter (and 3 times in length), so that makes sense. To find approximate expanded outer diameter, I use the formula 8*ID+2*Wall. 3/4-inch should expand to at least 6 inches, unless this formula falls apart for larger diameters.

Now, please realize I might be pushing you hard on this, but from everything I've done I firmly believe this design is not only a bad idea, but there are much better and easier ways to implement it. I'm only trying to help you. You probably won't take my advice, but I implore you to at least consider what I'm saying. This all comes from experience. I can see that you definitely have a lot of plumbing experience, but water guns are not plumbing. I have minimal plumbing experience but a lot of water gun experience. Take it from my experience that there are a lot of better ways to implement a "hybrid" system.

Again, there's no reason this wouldn't work, but it's a lot more complicated than a simple regulated air pressure system and will have a lot more maintenance than a different style hybrid system. I love the hybrid idea you had, but this wouldn't be a good way to do it.

SilentGuy · 07-20-2007, 09:13 AM

I agree with Ben: it's not worth it, although you should feel free to try.

The well system is used to collect overflow water, I believe. It's not meant to separate air and water and at higher pressures - and even then the only advantages are a couple dozen extra PSI from the rubber and being able to fire at any angle. A piston or even a thick plastic bag would reliably let you fire at any angle, and those extra PSI won't make much of a difference.

For water guns, the stream velocity is relative to the square of the gauge pressure. If you have 225 PSIg with the well system and 200 PSIg with a piston system (because there's no rubber), then the stream velocity ratio is sqrt(225)/sqrt(200) = 15/14.14 = 1.06. You'll get 6% extra velocity from using a well system, which probably translates to 1-2% more range.

Is that worth the extra complexity? I don't think so. I don't know how easy it is to replace the rubber in the bladder either. A simple inline piston version would have more flow with more lamination, and way more reliability.

It's not fair to compare the complexity of a modified well system and Ben/Doom's (same person) APH. The APH is a solid piece of plastic once cemented, whereas the well system involves a perhaps irreplaceable bladder taken well beyond its limit and used with much modification. Ben's SuperCannon II is an extremely simple water cannon that you could plug a regulator and pump into.

Ben, your formula for calculating the maximum (practical) expansion of a rubber tube seems accurate enough. However, I don't think you can use the wall thickness in the formula directly because the rubber becomes thinner as it expands.

I derived this formula:
D1 = original ID
D2 = final ID
W1 = original width

D2 = 4*D1 + sqrt( (D1+8)^2 + 8*D1*W1 )/2

It was a clunky, inelegant proof using the quadratic formula, hence I'm not posting it. Plus the results are just plain wrong. (It doesn't help I did the formula in the post editor, and not on paper.) It's 100% guaranteed that differentiation would be more effective. Regardless, the effect of the wall thickness isn't very noticeable because it does thin out a bit.

EDIT: Sorry for hijacking the thread...

wetmonkey442 · 07-22-2007, 08:27 AM

While I can honestly say that every time Ben or SilentGuy introduces a mathematical formula into a homemade thread I lose interest (

), I can also honestly say that I at least understand the futility of this design. While this is a much more complicated version, is it not essentially the same concept that has been jauntily thrown about the forums since the conception of homemade constant pressure? The contraction if the rubber of the bladder is the thing that motivates force or pressure or whatever is the accepted term. Adding additional air pressure to the outside of the bladder is largely incosequential to the overall power. At least that's what I understood.

And as far as applying a constant pressure to all areas of the bladder, that can't be entirely perfect. There are always irregularities, especially in a material as imperfect as latex tubing. As many have discovered before, the width of the rubber varies from point to point on the tubing.

Just my thoughts, Ben and SilentGuy feel free to rip me apart...

Soak On

SilentGuy · 07-22-2007, 08:53 AM

Absolutely fair point.

All we're saying is that when you have hundreds of PSI from the air, the little bit you can get from the rubber makes little difference. That's because the rubber/hose pressure can only provide a limited amount of pressure, and also because of the physics that relate pressure and velocity.

Durability is a much larger concern, and I think Ben's covered all the bases. With so few benefits to using rubber with regulated air, you might as well just use a piston.

mchaos · 07-25-2007, 12:21 PM

wait until I build the prototype. I am working on a small scale design right now. From what I have so far, when its finished, I will show you a video demo, and you will see how well the design works.

the design is not complex at all. it is the same as a standard air pressure system , just a rubber bladder added. thats it.

I am not looking for anything extra pressure from the bladder.

Also, you really are not seeing my points from your responses. It is most likely my poor communication. Sorry.

From this small scale design i am sure from a video demo, you will be impressed. until such time, i can do nothing else but to tell it will work great, and you will have to wait L o L.

EDIT: the replace of l o l, to "hey thats funny" is somewhat annoying...

07-16-2007, 07:50 PM	#4
Ben Founder Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Maryland Posts: 5,793 UserID: 1	I thought you were talking about design #2 on XInventions. Seems I didn't read closely enough. There is no advantage to this system unless it increases the total pressure of the water. Due to the fact that the pressure in the system is homogenous, adding an air chamber would not increase the pressure, rather, it would increase the total volume. I don't think you'll get any real improvement from this design for that reason. __________________ Ben Trettel / email: ben at sscentral dot org Please read this page before emailing me.

07-17-2007, 08:34 AM	#7
SilentGuy Administrator Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Virginia Posts: 3,073 UserID: 576	Ben, he's essentially suggesting that you pressurize the bladder case with air after filling, as others have suggested before. The difference here is that the air is regulated. The rubber generates pressure in addition to the external pressure (which is one atmosphere for most water guns). With this system, there's more than 15 PSI in the case, so the maximum pressure is increased. The rubber generates a constant 35 PSIg and the regulated air supplies, say, 40 PSIg, for a total of 75 PSIg. By using hose pressure in addition to pressurized air, the pressure inside the chamber is immediately increased to 60 PSIg. That means there's less work for the compressed air, so it's a bit more efficient and a bit faster. mchaos, I wouldn't worry about backups in water wars if something fails. Seriously, if there's a bladder rupture in the middle of a fight, just call a break or run away and switch guns. I also would recommend using a different water gun if there were no compressed air available...using this system without the compressed air just adds extra weight. In the past, when people have suggested pressurizing a chamber with air after filling the bladder, Ben pointed out that the bladder may contort and rupture. It might, or it might not. There's a chance that this water gun wouldn't work, although you could still try it and see. __________________ Forum Rules

07-17-2007, 11:54 AM	#8
Ben Founder Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Maryland Posts: 5,793 UserID: 1	Okay, I now see what he's doing. Thank you SilentGuy! My main focus was what's on the Xinventions page and nothing there is like this at all. I suppose I should have focused on the image more, but I was pressed for time and imagined what he was talking about from my quick skim... mchaos, I apologize for seeming a little pushy and not reading thoroughly. I just wanted to explain that what you're doing wouldn't work, but this will. This idea has been thought of before and it's not a good idea either. Having worked with LRT extensively, I know it can be dangerous when used incorrectly. This sort of design puts a lot of stress on the rubber. Replacing the rubber will be necessary and the replacement must be done more often than had the water gun simply been a LRT alone one. Now, as every time someone brings this idea up, I do invite them to try it out and prove me wrong. It will work, but I don't think it's a practical system at all. This design is overly complicated. Use regulated air pressure with a piston if you want to shoot at any angle. I still haven't seen anyone use that design and I don't really know why. Such a design would be extremely powerful and versatile. The only problem would be air supplied, which can be extended over many many shots with the right design, so the problem is minimized. __________________ Ben Trettel / email: ben at sscentral dot org Please read this page before emailing me.

07-20-2007, 09:13 AM	#11
SilentGuy Administrator Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Virginia Posts: 3,073 UserID: 576	I agree with Ben: it's not worth it, although you should feel free to try. The well system is used to collect overflow water, I believe. It's not meant to separate air and water and at higher pressures - and even then the only advantages are a couple dozen extra PSI from the rubber and being able to fire at any angle. A piston or even a thick plastic bag would reliably let you fire at any angle, and those extra PSI won't make much of a difference. For water guns, the stream velocity is relative to the square of the gauge pressure. If you have 225 PSIg with the well system and 200 PSIg with a piston system (because there's no rubber), then the stream velocity ratio is sqrt(225)/sqrt(200) = 15/14.14 = 1.06. You'll get 6% extra velocity from using a well system, which probably translates to 1-2% more range. Is that worth the extra complexity? I don't think so. I don't know how easy it is to replace the rubber in the bladder either. A simple inline piston version would have more flow with more lamination, and way more reliability. It's not fair to compare the complexity of a modified well system and Ben/Doom's (same person) APH. The APH is a solid piece of plastic once cemented, whereas the well system involves a perhaps irreplaceable bladder taken well beyond its limit and used with much modification. Ben's SuperCannon II is an extremely simple water cannon that you could plug a regulator and pump into. Ben, your formula for calculating the maximum (practical) expansion of a rubber tube seems accurate enough. However, I don't think you can use the wall thickness in the formula directly because the rubber becomes thinner as it expands. I derived this formula: D1 = original ID D2 = final ID W1 = original width D2 = 4D1 + sqrt( (D1+8)^2 + 8D1W1 )/2 It was a clunky, inelegant proof using the quadratic formula, hence I'm not posting it. Plus the results are just plain wrong. (It doesn't help I did the formula in the post editor, and not on paper.) It's 100% guaranteed that differentiation would be more effective. Regardless, the effect of the wall thickness isn't very noticeable because it does thin out a bit. EDIT: Sorry for hijacking the thread... __________________ Forum Rules*

07-22-2007, 08:27 AM	#12
wetmonkey442 Super Moderator Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 255 UserID: 47	While I can honestly say that every time Ben or SilentGuy introduces a mathematical formula into a homemade thread I lose interest (), I can also honestly say that I at least understand the futility of this design. While this is a much more complicated version, is it not essentially the same concept that has been jauntily thrown about the forums since the conception of homemade constant pressure? The contraction if the rubber of the bladder is the thing that motivates force or pressure or whatever is the accepted term. Adding additional air pressure to the outside of the bladder is largely incosequential to the overall power. At least that's what I understood. And as far as applying a constant pressure to all areas of the bladder, that can't be entirely perfect. There are always irregularities, especially in a material as imperfect as latex tubing. As many have discovered before, the width of the rubber varies from point to point on the tubing. Just my thoughts, Ben and SilentGuy feel free to rip me apart... Soak On __________________ Join the fight! Support water warfare in your area today! Downpour-A Reliable Source of Water Warfare Information

07-16-2007, 12:44 AM	#1
mchaos Junior member Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 15 UserID: 1259	found this one, looks impressive... This looks impressive but not practical, as you need to hook it to a faucet... http://www.xinventions.com/main/spud/water_cannon.htm In thought..... A hybrid design has come to mind incorporating the design of mine, and a basic air pressured cannon. Use my design for the water pressure, and the pressure from the tank on a air pressure system. the result should be a much more powerful blast in a smaller diameter which would make the water supply last long and making for excellent range. I am thinking a 5 gallon tank coupled with a PVC air tank the same length, then running through the same system. could be interesting, but heavy. There is also a smaller way to go with just one 2 gal tank. EDIT: Eureka! I have had a brain storm after posting the above. Ultimate hybrid! A. Bladder tank. B. Regulator. C. Air Tank. D. Ball valve 1. E. Ball valve 2. F. Quick Disconnect. G. Pressure Gauge. H. Shrader Valve. I. Ball Valve 3. D and E closed, I open. Fill with water at F. Once Tank A full with water, Close I and open D with Reg B set to about 95 psi. Tank A can handle 100psi so setting Reg B to 95psi will ensure safe operation. Tank C should be filled to at least 125psi up too 150psi using valve H, using gauge G to confirm psi. Valve E can now be opened to charge line to nozzle unit. A bladder tank is tested to 100 psi max. When the bladder is empty, the air pressure in the top of the tank is at about 30 psi normally. As the bladder is filled with water, the pressure is increased. The bladder ensures constant water pressure. Using Just a bladder tank filled by a tap is pretty good, but there are some draw backs. Then tank bladder is never totally filled with water, and the tank pressure is only as great as the pressure from the tap source. Normally around 50 to 60 psi. As well as the pressure in the top of the tank drops, the water pressure drops equally. Thus the water stream will loose stream power progressively. This system will eliminate both problems. With valve I you can relieve the pressure in the top of the tank while filling to fill bladder completely. There should be a small air space at the top of the tank to keep the bladder from sealing the air entry from tank C, this space will be minimal. Now with tank C and regulator B after opening valve D after valve I is closed after water filling, you can pressurize the top of a filled tank to near max 100psi, about 95psi should do. This will allow for maximum pressure and water volume. While blasting water, there will be a constant water pressure and will not drop below 95psi unless air volume in tank C drops below 95psi. Edit #2: To get the most out of this design, the air tank would either have to be bigger then the bladder tank in volume by almost 2x, or the pressure in the Tank C would have to be or at least close too 200 psi. unfortunately compressors that can compress up too 200 are expensive. mine only goes up to 125, mainly why above I state 125-150psi. 2 options... manual pump (eek!) or get an electric tire pump that can pump up the tank too 200 psi, or close. this should be the ultimate hybrid water cannon. Last edited by mchaos : 07-16-2007 at 02:36 AM.

07-16-2007, 08:49 AM	#2
Ben Founder Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Maryland Posts: 5,793 UserID: 1	Wow! I appreciate the depth you go into a lot. Keep it up! There's a reason no one here's made the hybrid design. The hybrid design adds a bunch of turbulence to the stream due to the air bubbles moving through it. The hybrid system also is an inefficient use of air. It would be more worthwhile to use a single "pressure system" at a higher pressure. __________________ Ben Trettel / email: ben at sscentral dot org Please read this page before emailing me.

07-16-2007, 07:39 PM	#3
mchaos Junior member Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 15 UserID: 1259	my design will have no air in the water. It uses a bladder system. Air is separate from the water. It takes a bladder system and uses air pressure to increase the pressure in the tank pressing against the bladder. Like the super soaker CPS, it uses a bladder system, the water is pumped into a bladder creating air pressure on one side of the bladder and on the other. But as the water leaves the pressure drops lowering the velocity. It also uses an air pressure system like the original super soaker 50. My idea is like putting them together, using the bladder system to maintain constant pressure, but then using air pressure on the air side of the bladder to increase and maintain pressure against the bladder. one of many bonuses, if you run with it, you will not get any air in the stream. not to mention the power of it.

07-16-2007, 09:28 PM	#5
mchaos Junior member Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 15 UserID: 1259	Yes, you would have the same power as an air pressure setup with no bladder at 100psi as you would a bladder system that has the air side of the bladder tank at 100psi, But there are major advantages.. 1) It will not matter which way the tank is, right side up, up side down, it will not matter where the water line comes out because of the bladder. You would be able to move around a lot with out worry of air spurts. 2) continuous stream at steady pressure. there will be no pressure drop in this system. 3) No air pressure loss when out of water. When the water is depleted, the stream will stop, and no air will come out at all, meaning less air refilling. you will loose some pressure when you release the pressure from the top of the tank for filling, but you could get several water fills befor having to recharge the air system. 4) easy fill system, Just hook to a quick disconect on a garden hose and open the valve until full. ( I know some one will say, but then you need a garden hose, but how else do you fill your water tank before a water fight?? does every one at the battle take turns at the kitchen sink?? LoL) 5) 2 pressure systems! The system is still functional if you run out of air pressure all together and have no way of charging the air system, Just fill from hose, and use like a standard bladder tank system with no added pressure. With my 4 gallon bladder tank setup, I get excellent range and stream with just the bladder alone. With an air charge system alone, you cannot fill the water under a pressurized state, and even if you use a separate air tank, you sill have to pump up the air tank. if needed closing off the bladder tank from the air system, and filling the bladder will charge as its filled meaning its ready to do as soon as it full. No pumping, no hassle. 6) With the air pressure system, you can branch off it too charge air pressure powered water balloon cannons. This gives you the ability to make a gun mounted water balloon launcher that is able to be fired over and over again, at least until air charge is depleted, and then you still have the bladder system to rely on. 7) because there will be a check valve between the air tank and water bladder tank, if there is a problem with the air tank, like an air leek, you still have a high psi air charge in the top of the bladder tank to defend your self until such time as you are able to get to a safe place for repairs, and if you can't remember, you can still use the bladder system alone. 8) If the bladder fails, like a tear or hole, It can be used as an air pressure system. This system has many advantages over a single non hybrid air pressure system or a bladder system alone. It is very tactical. _____ I have decided if I am going to make a prototype of this, I will not use a bladder tank for a water system, I will make my own using PVC and 3/4 ID LRT. Found a good site to get it in 5 or 10 foot lengths. I will probably make the system first with 4 " sch 40 pvc. Max psi of 240. then maybe in 6", but then the max psi will be 180, unless of course I use sch 80 LoL.

07-22-2007, 08:53 AM	#13
SilentGuy Administrator Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Virginia Posts: 3,073 UserID: 576	Absolutely fair point. All we're saying is that when you have hundreds of PSI from the air, the little bit you can get from the rubber makes little difference. That's because the rubber/hose pressure can only provide a limited amount of pressure, and also because of the physics that relate pressure and velocity. Durability is a much larger concern, and I think Ben's covered all the bases. With so few benefits to using rubber with regulated air, you might as well just use a piston. __________________ Forum Rules

07-25-2007, 12:21 PM	#14
mchaos Junior member Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 15 UserID: 1259	wait until I build the prototype. I am working on a small scale design right now. From what I have so far, when its finished, I will show you a video demo, and you will see how well the design works. the design is not complex at all. it is the same as a standard air pressure system , just a rubber bladder added. thats it. I am not looking for anything extra pressure from the bladder. Also, you really are not seeing my points from your responses. It is most likely my poor communication. Sorry. From this small scale design i am sure from a video demo, you will be impressed. until such time, i can do nothing else but to tell it will work great, and you will have to wait L o L. EDIT: the replace of l o l, to "hey thats funny" is somewhat annoying...

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