@silentguy: It originally said "diameter" - a mistake on my part.
@kevinthenerd: Try reading the fuzzy nozzle patent - that sheilds the stream in a vacuum, limiting break up slightly
@Ben: Completely excusable. I saw that as the most likely explanation - I have no huge problem with that mistake - I'm just being a bit picky.
Perhaps when you give the site it's makeover, it would be worth asking people to go over the articles to help improve accuracy and understandability.
Water cutter
-
joannaardway
- Posts: 855
- Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 10:04 pm
"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
"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
-
SSCBen
- Posts: 6449
- Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2003 1:00 pm
I've been wondering where you were kevin! Good to know that you haven't forgotten about us. Good luck on the exams. I actually have finals in two weeks myself, but they're probably easier than college finals (AP exams).
What you suggest however is the opposite. If I understand correctly, your design gives the water a "shield" of air that is moving in the same direction as the stream. The stream will be affected later by the stationary air because the moving air will be interrupted before the stream. Sounds like a good idea, in fact, it probably is better than the vacuum shroud. The only problem I can see is how to implement this design. One problem would be designing a system to eject air for a longer interval. Another problem would be making the nozzle work without getting air to blow into the stream, removing any benefit by interrupting the stream.
Good idea. I can't wait to see this implemented. I might try it myself. Would you mind discussing your design?
This seems to be the opposite of the fuzzy nozzle's vacuum shroud, and it might be superior, though admittedly harder to implement. Part of the fuzzy nozzle was the "shroud" which, as joanna mentioned, creates a vacuum "shield" around the stream. The purpose of the vacuum is to lessen the effect of stream interruption because the vacuum must fill with air prior to the stream being affected by the air.Nozzle design, it seems, is going to be the most critical aspect of my design. One idea I recently had was to deisign a system that "wraps" the water with a blanket of air shortly after leaving the gun to absorb turbulent energy, using high air pressure instead of putting the surface tension in jeopardy. I think this would yield better agglomeration without introducing the viscosity of a solid chamber. (The air flow is going to be partially parallel with the water flow, cancelling out any relative velocity effects.)
What you suggest however is the opposite. If I understand correctly, your design gives the water a "shield" of air that is moving in the same direction as the stream. The stream will be affected later by the stationary air because the moving air will be interrupted before the stream. Sounds like a good idea, in fact, it probably is better than the vacuum shroud. The only problem I can see is how to implement this design. One problem would be designing a system to eject air for a longer interval. Another problem would be making the nozzle work without getting air to blow into the stream, removing any benefit by interrupting the stream.
Good idea. I can't wait to see this implemented. I might try it myself. Would you mind discussing your design?
-
Silence
- Posts: 3825
- Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 9:01 pm
Concerning what I said earlier, has anybody actually performed tests comparing conical nozzles and endcap nozzles? I haven't seen any arguments that actually cite some factor other than a non-conical nozzle as the reason small streams have low range.
Getting back into the new trend of this discussion...
As joannaardway and kevinthenerd have already said, all water streams will break up due to external forces; however, I truly do not see how one can reduce or eliminate the effects of these forces. Theoretically speaking, a blanket of air might act as a buffer; but it would probably just transfer the external forces, and because of its greater density, it will have low absorption. Assuming we could figure out how to blanket a stream of water with air, we would also have to counter the effects of forces created by propelling a blanket of air--it appears far too complicated for use in water guns.
At any rate, kevinthenerd, everybody would like to see your, or other peoples', concepts for a blanket of air.
How does the "fuzzy nozzle" work? Does it only use a vacuum inside the gun? I haven't heard of this, so it would be nice if somebody could explain this for me. And no, I'm not in the mood to read through a long patent application
.
Getting back into the new trend of this discussion...
As joannaardway and kevinthenerd have already said, all water streams will break up due to external forces; however, I truly do not see how one can reduce or eliminate the effects of these forces. Theoretically speaking, a blanket of air might act as a buffer; but it would probably just transfer the external forces, and because of its greater density, it will have low absorption. Assuming we could figure out how to blanket a stream of water with air, we would also have to counter the effects of forces created by propelling a blanket of air--it appears far too complicated for use in water guns.
At any rate, kevinthenerd, everybody would like to see your, or other peoples', concepts for a blanket of air.
How does the "fuzzy nozzle" work? Does it only use a vacuum inside the gun? I haven't heard of this, so it would be nice if somebody could explain this for me. And no, I'm not in the mood to read through a long patent application
.