Super Soaker Central forums

WaterWolf · 10-06-2007, 01:21 PM

Quote:

WaterWolf, if you want a choice that would be good for a water balloon launcher, try the "Quick acting gate valves" I mentioned earlier.

Interesting. The only qualm I would have with those is that their max PSI is only 75 PSI. The launcher I would be using them on is a fairly low pressure one (60 to 70 PSI), but its still pretty close to the valve's max.
I might try that though.

@Drench:
I'll experiment some more with the rubber and post any results I get.

Ben · 10-06-2007, 02:47 PM

The max pressure is 75 PSI at 120 degrees. The valve should be rated at approximately 187.5 PSI at 70 degrees, judging by PVC's temperature derating curve. The burst pressure is likely over twice of that too. With that being said, higher pressures aren't really necessary for good performance either. Ideally you'll regulate the pressure down to something low like 40 PSI anyway. The water balloon launcher I made a while ago could easily shoot 200 feet at 25 PSI. Any more pressure would just be a waste of air.

Something I considered doing before was finding the ideal pressure vs. distance ratio for maximum efficiency, but I never did that. It's something you might want to consider WaterWolf.

WaterWolf · 10-07-2007, 09:12 AM

200 feet at 25 PSI?
What were the measurements on your barrel, PC and valve?
The easist way I could think of achiving this would be a long barrel and high-volume low-pressure PC, with a massive valve.

One of my major projects recently has been to boost the efficiency of water balloon launchers, making them more practical with modern strategies.

My new water balloon launcher line only needs about 150-200 feet as its max range, so how did you achieve that with such a low pressure?

Ben · 10-07-2007, 09:55 AM

That shot was with a tennis ball, and I'm unsure if that would affect distance. So perhaps that was misleading already. Nonetheless, I am completely sure the gun would easily get a water balloon over 200 feet.

The gun was relatively simple. It had a 1 inch ball valve with a torque arm. We had a huge chamber and 10 foot long barrel. Definitely larger than your standard WBL. So yes, it was high volume low pressure, combined with relatively high initial flow that did it. I would highly suggest this because it puts less stress on the materials. You can still get good performance. If people ditched 3/4 inch ball valves, or ball valves in general, and went for larger diameter valves, we could see another increase in performance too.

With all this being said, over 200 feet of range is useless unless you are a serious sniper. We should aim for maximum efficiency at a set range to reduce wasted energy and keep WBLs safer (I think most of their proponents forget that you're shooting essentially a spudgun AT people).

Experimenting with the size of the water balloons might also prove worthwhile. With a smaller water balloon, you need less air to get similar speeds. I think a 3 inch water balloon is too big. A 2 or 2 1/2 inch one would be more efficient. The problem is that 2 1/2 inch barrel materials are hard to come by (My launcher used a 2 1/2 diameter barrel, but I got that from McMaster-Carr for steep shipping). I can't see this changing unless some people adopt the 2 inch balloons.

Drenchenator · 10-07-2007, 10:02 AM

Something that Ben didn't mention was that the chamber was 5 feet of 4 inch PVC, or about 750 cubic inches of air.

WaterWolf · 10-07-2007, 10:35 AM

Yes, I agree that excessive range is unnecessary, but if water-balloon-launchers are to become practical, then they must also be more compact.

I also agree that better valves will result in more efficiency. I myself have been working on this in the past few months.

But a launcher of that massive size is simply too cumbersome.

Ben · 10-07-2007, 05:10 PM

If practicality is a concern, a method of faster reloading must be made. There are no major improvements in this area. A backpack air supply combined with a bolt system would be the most ideal system for a water balloon launcher, combining capacity with mobility, but even then I don't think they're too practical. They're too easily defeated due to the reload time combined with the fact that water guns can adjust their trajectory during their shot.

I wouldn't suggest making a launcher the size ours was, but that's not the point. More efficient water balloon launcher designs can exist. If you scale down everything (including the size of the balloon), you can get a smaller design, if practicality is your concern. 3 inch water balloons, as I previously mentioned, are too big, and using something like 2 inch balloons still will get people adequately wet with a lot less air consumption (resulting in more practicality). You also can carry more balloons than before.

WaterWolf · 10-07-2007, 07:16 PM

I have both a Bolt-action loading barrel and a working back-pack reservoir system, on a launcher that is only about the size of a CPS 2000.
They are still in need of a few, small bug-fixes, but they work.
I also have a prototype for a simple, but working optical-sight, which will allow the user to take some of the guess-work out of their fighting.

The only thing I'm really missing is a good trigger for my setup, which I am hoping to find with the HLV.

The difference between a 3" balloon and a 2" is that with the smaller round, you have to get a direct hit on your target, while a bigger payload can kill one or more enemies with its large splash.

Once I have a good valve, I will be able to compare how effective the different calibers are in battle.
It may be that a small round is better, or it could turn out that you need the punch of a bigger balloon to make the launcher practical.

Specter · 10-07-2007, 10:17 PM

i feel that the 2" balloons don't work as well. unless its just the way my balloon launcher is. they're just too small. i devised a way to make them bigger, but sometimes they pop going in the barrel, or before they leave it.

I'm not too sure if it would work with other brand water balloons but the ones i use are from Walgreen's, and come with a filler you can attach to your hose. i think ill take a picture of the original size i used, then how i made them work bigger to show how much more water i got.

Silence · 10-07-2007, 10:45 PM

A gate valve is not really an improvement in launchers. Without an appreciable reduction in opening time, you would be better off with a piston or even solenoid or pull valve. A pull valve with a sealing face, such as Ben has looked into, would be really great because the pressure of the chamber opens the valve following the initial pull.

Gate valves probably have their merits in water guns, where high flow and linear flow are important, but those advantages do not outweigh the disadvantages for launchers.

You know you have too much air volume and too short a barrel when most of the air exits long after the projectile has. If you've seen the Blowhard 3000 from Mythbusters, you'll know what I mean - all the energy from the compressed air was dissipated in the five to ten seconds after launch. If you want efficiency with a short barrel, you need a quick-opening valve and a small pressure chamber.

WaterWolf · 10-10-2007, 07:29 PM

@SilentGuy:
The reason I need an HLV (or similar), is that the location of the trigger makes a ball-valve very difficult to use, but a pull-gate valve would be fairly easy.

I bought and pneumatically modified a Solenoid-valve, but it surprisingly seemed to launch rounds at a much slower velocity than a ball-valve.

My PC to barrel ratio is 1:3, so having too short a barrel is no issue with this launcher.

I may try a pull-valve in a more advanced version for myself, although I would prefer a somewhat easier-to-build launcher, so that it doesn't require quite as much skill from others to build.

You will notice that the Duxenator is the most popular of water balloon launchers, because it was simple to build and effective with tactics of the time.
For these reasons, I would like to try and keep my launcher's base desighn fairly simple, with optional add-ons such as seperate air-reservoirs, bolt-action barrels and semi-auto pull-valves.

Specter · 10-10-2007, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaterWolf

@SilentGuy:
I may try a pull-valve in a more advanced version for myself, although I would prefer a somewhat easier-to-build launcher, so that it doesn't require quite as much skill from others to build.

You will notice that the Duxenator is the most popular of water balloon launchers, because it was simple to build and effective with tactics of the time.
For these reasons, I would like to try and keep my launcher's base desighn fairly simple, with optional add-ons such as seperate air-reservoirs, bolt-action barrels and semi-auto pull-valves.

hope you have success with what you're doing/going to do.

oh and I have a comment about the "douchenator" - "douche" is actually not a "bad word", people have just come to use it as one. If anyone studies world languages, more specifically French, then you know what it is. "Douche" in French means "shower" so technically its the perfect name for that launcher haha!

WaterWolf · 10-10-2007, 08:25 PM

@Specter:
Yes, I understand the term's literal meaning. But to avoid weird looks, I've been trying to re-term it for my own use.
(No offense DX. Its a great name, the problem is with the current culture.)

Specter · 10-10-2007, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaterWolf

@Specter:
Yes, I understand the term's literal meaning. But to avoid weird looks, I've been trying to re-term it for my own use.
(No offense DX. Its a great name, the problem is with the current culture.)

Haha. i understand completely. todays society is messed up.

10-06-2007, 02:47 PM	#47
Ben Founder Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: College Park, Maryland Posts: 6,054 UserID: 1	The max pressure is 75 PSI at 120 degrees. The valve should be rated at approximately 187.5 PSI at 70 degrees, judging by PVC's temperature derating curve. The burst pressure is likely over twice of that too. With that being said, higher pressures aren't really necessary for good performance either. Ideally you'll regulate the pressure down to something low like 40 PSI anyway. The water balloon launcher I made a while ago could easily shoot 200 feet at 25 PSI. Any more pressure would just be a waste of air. Something I considered doing before was finding the ideal pressure vs. distance ratio for maximum efficiency, but I never did that. It's something you might want to consider WaterWolf. __________________ email: / Forum rules / Read this page before emailing me. Do not send me a PM or email with a water gun question if someone else could answer the question. Post at the forums. You will get a response from me along with others' views or ideas.

10-07-2007, 09:12 AM	#48
WaterWolf Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Central Vermont Posts: 132 UserID: 976	200 feet at 25 PSI? What were the measurements on your barrel, PC and valve? The easist way I could think of achiving this would be a long barrel and high-volume low-pressure PC, with a massive valve. One of my major projects recently has been to boost the efficiency of water balloon launchers, making them more practical with modern strategies. My new water balloon launcher line only needs about 150-200 feet as its max range, so how did you achieve that with such a low pressure? __________________ Captain-Canis: Founder of the Maple-Mountain-Marines. Terrifying, but oddly refreshing. -B.D.

10-07-2007, 09:55 AM	#49
Ben Founder Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: College Park, Maryland Posts: 6,054 UserID: 1	That shot was with a tennis ball, and I'm unsure if that would affect distance. So perhaps that was misleading already. Nonetheless, I am completely sure the gun would easily get a water balloon over 200 feet. The gun was relatively simple. It had a 1 inch ball valve with a torque arm. We had a huge chamber and 10 foot long barrel. Definitely larger than your standard WBL. So yes, it was high volume low pressure, combined with relatively high initial flow that did it. I would highly suggest this because it puts less stress on the materials. You can still get good performance. If people ditched 3/4 inch ball valves, or ball valves in general, and went for larger diameter valves, we could see another increase in performance too. With all this being said, over 200 feet of range is useless unless you are a serious sniper. We should aim for maximum efficiency at a set range to reduce wasted energy and keep WBLs safer (I think most of their proponents forget that you're shooting essentially a spudgun AT people). Experimenting with the size of the water balloons might also prove worthwhile. With a smaller water balloon, you need less air to get similar speeds. I think a 3 inch water balloon is too big. A 2 or 2 1/2 inch one would be more efficient. The problem is that 2 1/2 inch barrel materials are hard to come by (My launcher used a 2 1/2 diameter barrel, but I got that from McMaster-Carr for steep shipping). I can't see this changing unless some people adopt the 2 inch balloons. __________________ email: / Forum rules / Read this page before emailing me. Do not send me a PM or email with a water gun question if someone else could answer the question. Post at the forums. You will get a response from me along with others' views or ideas.

10-07-2007, 10:02 AM	#50
Drenchenator Administrator Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Maryland Posts: 718 UserID: 320	Something that Ben didn't mention was that the chamber was 5 feet of 4 inch PVC, or about 750 cubic inches of air. __________________ The Drenchenator, also known as Lt. Col. Drench.

10-07-2007, 10:35 AM	#51
WaterWolf Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Central Vermont Posts: 132 UserID: 976	Yes, I agree that excessive range is unnecessary, but if water-balloon-launchers are to become practical, then they must also be more compact. I also agree that better valves will result in more efficiency. I myself have been working on this in the past few months. But a launcher of that massive size is simply too cumbersome. __________________ Captain-Canis: Founder of the Maple-Mountain-Marines. Terrifying, but oddly refreshing. -B.D.

10-07-2007, 05:10 PM	#52
Ben Founder Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: College Park, Maryland Posts: 6,054 UserID: 1	If practicality is a concern, a method of faster reloading must be made. There are no major improvements in this area. A backpack air supply combined with a bolt system would be the most ideal system for a water balloon launcher, combining capacity with mobility, but even then I don't think they're too practical. They're too easily defeated due to the reload time combined with the fact that water guns can adjust their trajectory during their shot. I wouldn't suggest making a launcher the size ours was, but that's not the point. More efficient water balloon launcher designs can exist. If you scale down everything (including the size of the balloon), you can get a smaller design, if practicality is your concern. 3 inch water balloons, as I previously mentioned, are too big, and using something like 2 inch balloons still will get people adequately wet with a lot less air consumption (resulting in more practicality). You also can carry more balloons than before. __________________ email: / Forum rules / Read this page before emailing me. Do not send me a PM or email with a water gun question if someone else could answer the question. Post at the forums. You will get a response from me along with others' views or ideas.

10-07-2007, 07:16 PM	#53
WaterWolf Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Central Vermont Posts: 132 UserID: 976	I have both a Bolt-action loading barrel and a working back-pack reservoir system, on a launcher that is only about the size of a CPS 2000. They are still in need of a few, small bug-fixes, but they work. I also have a prototype for a simple, but working optical-sight, which will allow the user to take some of the guess-work out of their fighting. The only thing I'm really missing is a good trigger for my setup, which I am hoping to find with the HLV. The difference between a 3" balloon and a 2" is that with the smaller round, you have to get a direct hit on your target, while a bigger payload can kill one or more enemies with its large splash. Once I have a good valve, I will be able to compare how effective the different calibers are in battle. It may be that a small round is better, or it could turn out that you need the punch of a bigger balloon to make the launcher practical. __________________ Captain-Canis: Founder of the Maple-Mountain-Marines. Terrifying, but oddly refreshing. -B.D.

10-07-2007, 10:17 PM	#54
Specter Senior Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: bound brook, NJ -The flood town Posts: 363 UserID: 1090	i feel that the 2" balloons don't work as well. unless its just the way my balloon launcher is. they're just too small. i devised a way to make them bigger, but sometimes they pop going in the barrel, or before they leave it. I'm not too sure if it would work with other brand water balloons but the ones i use are from Walgreen's, and come with a filler you can attach to your hose. i think ill take a picture of the original size i used, then how i made them work bigger to show how much more water i got. __________________ My "arsenal": Storm 600 pistol (never finished fixing this), launcher- Model:Afterburner(AB) 1.0(Decommissioned), AB1.5, soon AB 1.1(2"rebuild) maybe ill get something else in the future My site

10-07-2007, 10:45 PM	#55
Silence Administrator Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Virginia Posts: 3,293 UserID: 576	A gate valve is not really an improvement in launchers. Without an appreciable reduction in opening time, you would be better off with a piston or even solenoid or pull valve. A pull valve with a sealing face, such as Ben has looked into, would be really great because the pressure of the chamber opens the valve following the initial pull. Gate valves probably have their merits in water guns, where high flow and linear flow are important, but those advantages do not outweigh the disadvantages for launchers. You know you have too much air volume and too short a barrel when most of the air exits long after the projectile has. If you've seen the Blowhard 3000 from Mythbusters, you'll know what I mean - all the energy from the compressed air was dissipated in the five to ten seconds after launch. If you want efficiency with a short barrel, you need a quick-opening valve and a small pressure chamber. __________________ Forum rules

10-10-2007, 07:29 PM	#56
WaterWolf Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Central Vermont Posts: 132 UserID: 976	@SilentGuy: The reason I need an HLV (or similar), is that the location of the trigger makes a ball-valve very difficult to use, but a pull-gate valve would be fairly easy. I bought and pneumatically modified a Solenoid-valve, but it surprisingly seemed to launch rounds at a much slower velocity than a ball-valve. My PC to barrel ratio is 1:3, so having too short a barrel is no issue with this launcher. I may try a pull-valve in a more advanced version for myself, although I would prefer a somewhat easier-to-build launcher, so that it doesn't require quite as much skill from others to build. You will notice that the Duxenator is the most popular of water balloon launchers, because it was simple to build and effective with tactics of the time. For these reasons, I would like to try and keep my launcher's base desighn fairly simple, with optional add-ons such as seperate air-reservoirs, bolt-action barrels and semi-auto pull-valves. __________________ Captain-Canis: Founder of the Maple-Mountain-Marines. Terrifying, but oddly refreshing. -B.D.

10-10-2007, 08:25 PM	#58
WaterWolf Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Central Vermont Posts: 132 UserID: 976	@Specter: Yes, I understand the term's literal meaning. But to avoid weird looks, I've been trying to re-term it for my own use. (No offense DX. Its a great name, the problem is with the current culture.) __________________ Captain-Canis: Founder of the Maple-Mountain-Marines. Terrifying, but oddly refreshing. -B.D.

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