High-Pressure Canister (HPC)

Build a homemade water gun or water balloon launcher and tell us about it.
User avatar
Silence
Posts: 3825
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 9:01 pm

High-Pressure Canister (HPC)

Post by Silence » Wed May 03, 2006 12:48 am

At the springs thread at SoakerMedia, I have been trying to convince others of the effectiveness of a spring homemade (what abbreviation should we use? SH?) that require multiple pumps for high pressurization. However, after the overall consensus that such a weapon would be too bulky and take too long to pressurize for only one life-saving shot, I decided to design something that is a bit more practical and useful.

And now, introducing the High-Pressure Canister (HPC)...

The HPC is actually quite simple--more so than many soakers out there. It consists of a stationary filling apparatus, obviously with a very large reservoir (but small enough to allow for movement to bases before or during battles) or a hose connection/QFD; however, the QFD would be supplemented by pumping in order to obtain maximum pressure. Because it is mainly stationary, it might be possible to use a Schrader valve to pressurize the HPCs (is it possible to use dual Schrader valves without falling down :confused: ? That would be cool). However, it does not matter what pressurization technique is used.

The HPCs will form the PCs for the pumping station. Essentially, they are removable canisters and are quite simple; they only consist of a PC (wide PVC, endcap, and reducer), as in all homemades, a ball valve (hopefully a metal one or something that opens quickly), and a narrow male threaded endcap. The HPC is screwed into a female fitting at the pumping station, the ball valve is opened, the HPC is filled, the ball valve is closed, and the canister is removed. Because each canister is cheap and very portable, one can easily take 3 or 4 of them on a mission.

The true potential of HPCs can only be shown with spring PCs--that way, your entire chamber will be emptied almost immediately and for maximum effect. The idea is to have multiple, light, single-shot weapons that can be reloaded at a later time; if you're in a tight corner, you pull one out, blast your enemies, and go. You will also be able to pull more out if the need arises.

Naturally, there is no need for a variety of nozzles; the only reason each HPC has a male-threaded fitting is to enable pressurization at a station. Ultimately, even though HPCs may obtain tremendous pressure and the potential for large range, they are a close-quarters weapon to soak every opponent nearby at once. The no-nozzle riot blast is perfect for this. In addition, since this is a tool to quick draw, you're not going to have time to fit a nozzle onto it. Yes, you can fit nozzles at the base, but you'll save money and effort by not doing so. If it is neccessary to control the blast at all, then you can just use a smaller barrel than normal.

User avatar
m15399
Posts: 224
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2005 1:54 am

Post by m15399 » Wed May 03, 2006 1:06 am

Dux has been talking about these for a while (without the refill station). I was thinking about them at school today, actually. :p

They're actually a lot like shells... huge, oddly shaped, super soaker shells.

User avatar
Silence
Posts: 3825
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 9:01 pm

Post by Silence » Wed May 03, 2006 1:17 am

How are these even remotely like shells? You don't throw them or anything...

I don't see how this can work without a refilling station. I know Duxburian doesn't support the use of QFD or any stationary tools such as this or a fortified base, but that still doesn't make any sense...

User avatar
m15399
Posts: 224
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2005 1:54 am

Post by m15399 » Wed May 03, 2006 2:25 am

A metal or cardboard case containing the charge and primer for a piece of firearms ammunition, especially one also containing shot and fired from a shotgun.

Check this, too (it's the same idea):
http://people.howstuffworks.com/machine-gun2.htm

You're thinking of the wrong kind of shell. I'm sure someone could explain better.

They sound a lot like Dux's (actually, I think Some Guy mentioned it months before Dux even tried it). Maybe you could draw a diagram. I might be visualizing it wrong.

User avatar
Silence
Posts: 3825
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 9:01 pm

Post by Silence » Wed May 03, 2006 3:32 am

Well then, let me ask a very specific question: did Some Guy's and Duxburian's designs involve screwing new PCs into their weapons? If so, then this is slightly less refined but more convenient--it's very simple, but unfortunately, you won't be using nice nozzles or getting extended shot times out of these.

I know that quite a few people have suggested APHs similar to Ben's, but with many, many more PCs; the idea was to have ball valves leading to each PC, and each PC could be opened or closed in turn. You could use only one or two PCs for standard use and practicality, or you could open all the ball valves and, with enough time to pump, you could get some pretty incredible results...

Either way, this is just something that I came up with in my free time (though it may have been influenced by glances at the posts you were talking about long ago). Basically, they are a more practical version of short range, last-minute, and single use spring homemades. That's what distinguishes these from other suggested ideas--they can be used to implement a certain idea better than an actual soaker can.

You seem to like HowStuffWorks quite a bit...not that it's a bad thing of course.

User avatar
m15399
Posts: 224
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2005 1:54 am

Post by m15399 » Wed May 03, 2006 4:26 am

did Some Guy's and Duxburian's designs involve screwing new PCs into their weapons?

Nope. It sounds like a "soaker can" (nice name, by the way)/rechargable PC. Is that about right?
You seem to like HowStuffWorks quite a bit...

Yup. ;)

There is a thread on homemade clips around here where PC's that screw in were suggested. I always thought it was a good idea, but as far as I know it hasn't been used.

User avatar
SSCBen
Posts: 6449
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2003 1:00 pm

Post by SSCBen » Wed May 03, 2006 6:04 pm

Detachable and interchangable PCs are nothing new. There was at least one thread on the subject.

This idea does have potential, but no one has even made a prototype so there is no real way to determine the usefulness. To me, this idea wouldn't help much because I prefer larger PCs and longer shot time so that I do not have to recharge as often. To others however, this idea would be ideal.

Hopefully, someone will make a detachable PC soon. ;)

ben@sscentral.org / Please read this before emailing or PMing me

Do not ask me water gun questions by email or PM. Please post the question at the forum. Private questions and suggestions are welcome by PM and email. Also, I do not sell or buy water guns online.

User avatar
Silence
Posts: 3825
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 9:01 pm

Post by Silence » Wed May 03, 2006 8:28 pm

I've seen that thread, but thanks for pointing it out.

Once again, the point is not to use this as a large, long-lasting replacement PC in a soaker. It is a very compact and simple one-shot device that works on its own. I agree that this should not be used in all situations--it only works for unstable, close-range ones. The near-instant, complete water release from the spring is like a wave that hits everybody in front of you, especially since you don't use nozzles.

The link doesn't involve screwing in the PC, just a quick-attaching seal, but this saves even more time and doesn't allow for possible leaks. I do approve of the other idea, because it can be good in other circumstances, but unless you're using one shot per PC as in these HPCs, you probably will have time and the equipment (the soaker) to repressurize the PC.

User avatar
DX
Posts: 1780
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 1:00 pm

Post by DX » Wed May 03, 2006 8:35 pm

This is somewhat similar to the Super Cannon and unnamed inverted-T gun. Any pc using a threaded metal ball valve can be unscrewed, and therefore is detachable. All metal ball valves used with PVC in homemades have to be threaded, so both the pc and barrel can be switched at will.

However, the biggest difference of this idea in comparison to the inverted-T water launcher [I think I finally have a name for this: ITWL] is that it uses pcs in addition to a reservoir. The ITWL pc is the reservoir and vice versa. I designed it to launch a giant firehose-style stream long range for a few seconds, then be re-pressurized and partially refilled. The other difference is the ITWL is pure air pressure, so the water/air ratio has to be optimal for optimal preformance.
Mess With the Best, Get Soaked Like the Rest!

2004 Red Sox - World Series Champions
2007 Red Sox - World Series Champions!

User avatar
Silence
Posts: 3825
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 9:01 pm

Post by Silence » Wed May 03, 2006 8:42 pm

I don't seem to understand exactly what you want to be switched. Could you, or somebody else, make a diagram?

Is the ITWL the same one you proposed for the 70-foot challenge? It's good to know that you've followed up and elaborated on your plan for it...

Remember, if you're comparing HPCs (which I think you are) to anything else, make sure you point out the pressurization differences. HPCs are designed to only use springs, though I may eventually includer LRT and the like...

Maybe I should change the name to "SPC," for "Spring-Pressurized Canister" or something like that--it would be more appropriate and specific.

User avatar
DX
Posts: 1780
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 1:00 pm

Post by DX » Wed May 03, 2006 9:17 pm

I was just responding to those talking about detachable pcs. My point was that if you use metal ball valves, you automatically have detachable pcs because they can unscrew from the ball valve.
Mess With the Best, Get Soaked Like the Rest!

2004 Red Sox - World Series Champions
2007 Red Sox - World Series Champions!

User avatar
Silence
Posts: 3825
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 9:01 pm

Post by Silence » Wed May 03, 2006 11:18 pm

Okay, thanks for clarifying that. I haven't had a chance to look at metal ball valves since you first told me about them, but I am still very interested. As you said earlier, they have the click that allows for them to be used like a trigger, and I am obsessed with homemades that let you use triggers. Of course, I doubt I will use the screw functionality, but there's nothing wrong with it.

One question, then: do the metal ball valves have male threads, female threads, a combination, or a choice of any of the above? This is actually quite important, considering I could screw nozzles directly onto the ball valve if the ball valve had male threads.

User avatar
DX
Posts: 1780
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 1:00 pm

Post by DX » Thu May 04, 2006 1:41 am

Metal ball valves have female threads most of the time. The other option is no threads, which you can't used for a PVC homemade. Still, female threads beat the slow-moving, no-thread PVC ball valves. You can't screw/unscrew PVC valves and you can't tap shoot with them either. It is sad that many homemade builders/prospective ones still consider the PVC valves, they are terrible if you want the pressure out quickly, especially bad for battle practicality. Metal valves are often cheaper than their PVC counterparts, too!
Mess With the Best, Get Soaked Like the Rest!

2004 Red Sox - World Series Champions
2007 Red Sox - World Series Champions!

User avatar
Silence
Posts: 3825
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 9:01 pm

Post by Silence » Thu May 04, 2006 2:19 am

I guess I could work with female threaded metal ball valves if I really had to...it's really the same as male threaded valves, because you'll need some type of appropriate threading on your nozzle assemblies. Oh well.

Yes, you've convinced me that metal ball valves are better--long ago in a few sentences. They have basically none of the weaknesses of standard PVC ball valves. I'm assuming (because of another of your posts, somewhere else) that these open quickly enough to be used in a WBL or ITWL, so that's very good news. There's no need for solenoids (except if you want a fancy trigger system) if metal ball valves can work, and I'm assuming (I've never seen a solenoid) that it has much more linear flow--ideal for ITWL, even if it isn't neccessary in WBLs.

The only reason nobody uses metal ball valves is that they have not been advertised or supported at all. The only reason I ever came across them was through a reading of one of your posts that "accidentally" spilled this information. Other people must support metal ball valves (I will do my best)!

User avatar
joannaardway
Posts: 855
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 10:04 pm

Post by joannaardway » Thu May 04, 2006 9:30 am

Most solenoid valves are as linear as the M25 (the motorway that circles London - so not linear at all) - However they open incredibly fast, and thus are good for wbl stuff (better for over-under launchers - a modifed ball valve is good for inline types)

It is a natural assumption that they are linear - I assumed it at one point, but check out spudtech to see how they work.

Perhaps this idea could be applied to a large 5 gallon container, for use as a pressurized source in the field - a mobile hose.....
"Over the hills and far away, she prays he will return one day. As sure as the rivers reach the seas, back in his arms again she'll be." - Over the Hills and far away, Gary Moore

"So many people have come and gone, their faces fade as the years go by. Yet I still recall as I wander on, as clear as the sun in the summer sky" - More than a feeling, Boston

Locked