Water Balloon topic

[Drenchenator]

Take a sound recording (preferably digital) of you shooting at a target a few metres off. If you have the right programs you can measure the time between shot sound and impact sound.

This is a pretty good idea, and the only program that you would really need is any sound editor that lets you visualize the sound. But if you take a video, you can get both audio and video to measure the speed.

Video is a bit edgy - exposure times blur the projectile flight.

I was talking about increasing the frame rate of a camera so that you can see the projectile and get a more accurate reading. Many video cameras have different frame rates that you would use. In this case, you would want the frame rate to be as high as possible. I am sure that anyone can get a camera into focus, and since you would position the camera parallel to the path of the projectile, its depth would not in respect to the camera. If you know what you are doing, you can easily make the video work.

Speed = Distance/time

v=dx/dt (velocity equals the change in distance over change in time)

If it is that simple, why do you need a computer to do it for you? Honestly, If you give the projectile a long enough distance to travel, you could do this with a stopwatch and tape measure (though it won't be as close to "muzzle velocity" as the other tests). Measure the distance and the time that it took the projectile to go that distance, and then divide the distance by time. It really is that simple.

[joannaardway]

You don't need a computer to do it for you - a computer can get an incredibly accurate time reading from the sound file.

As I said - I can get a 3 d.p. time reading from the sound file with a program I've got.

Ideally, the recorder needs to be an equal distance from muzzle to impact - to ensure the time delay due to the speed of sound is equal for both sounds.

Frame rate - yes, perhaps if you know the frame rate, and you can guess the distance travelled then it's doable - not very accurate but doable. Many cameras have a limit of 30 fps, so a reasonably high speed projectile of 100m/s would have travelled 3 and a half meters in that time, which might be hard to make out.

Exposure time - that's the issue. A 1/200th frame time is fairly fast - and the projectile would have moved 50 cm - which is a bit inaccurate for the purposes.

[SSCBen]

As for the sound, Drenchenator and I were talking before this post and I can explain what he meant better. What he meant with the sound editor was that you could determine the time interval by opening the recorded sound file (easy given that we have loads of portable digital "voice" recorders). I don't have much experience with other sound editors, but I use Audacity all of the time, and if you select an interval it can tell you exactly how long it is. Nothing special needed.

[Drenchenator]

Ben pretty much said what I meant about using a sound recording. However, if you are using a video method, you don't need to guess the distance, you can know the distance. Anyone can create a large scale "ruler" for this. Take a length of wood and spray paint it black for one foot, white for the next, black for the next, and so on. Use it to measure the distance that projectile has gone. Then, even if the projectile is traveling very fast and you can only get one frame of it, you can know how far it traveled by counting the number of feet that it went. Then you know that traveled a certain distance in a certain amount of time (the number of frames divided by the frame rate) and can find the velocity.

You are correct though about exposure rate though, that completely slipped my mind. To get a nice sharp image you would need a high exposure rate, but if you don't have the frame rate to back it up it would not really matter (if your exposure rate is 1/200 of a second but your frame rate is 5 frames per second, it would not work out very well due to the limited number of frames).

[joannaardway]

That's more or less what I meant.

I was saying that if someone wanted, I could measure the time interval with a program I have - not everyone has the programs.

I would prefer the incredibly high sample rate of sound over video, but a sound wave means very little if not well enough spaced.

Video is usable - if people want to use video I'm not going to stop them. I would say that audio was easier though.

[champ021]

1.) - get water balloons
2.) - get super soaker
3.) - put balloon on end of gun
4.) - pump up gun
5.) - fire water into balloon
6.) - take off water balloon from gun CAREFULLY
7.) - tie the balloon so NO water escapes
8.) - voila!, you are done
9.) - you may throw the balloon at whatever you want (or launch it )

Arent you glad you got my help now?...now you can fill balloons on the spot on the field with no hose!

Also...to carry multiple balloons, just get a cheap 5 dollar belt and put tennis ball tubes onto it all the way around the belt

[wetmonkey442]

Amazing to think that no one has ever thought of that before. I tell you, where would this site be without contributing members?

Squirt On

[SSCBen]

Actually, I think one of the reviews on our website from Freakymist recommends a certain water gun just for that purpose. I know I've read that somewhere before. It does work pretty well for filling water balloons.

[Silence]

Actually, I think Ben is right. Off the top of my head, I'd guess that the gun I read about was the Max-D 5000, but a quick check of the reviews (at least, this soaker and those with reviews done by Freakymist) turns up absolutely nothing. Strange...

[DX]

You might be thinking of one of my really old posts, because I have mentioned that as early as the 2nd battle that the Ridgewood Militia ever fought, in August of 2004. We used a pair of Max-D 5000s to fill water balloons right on Reed Hill in the 2nd Battle of Ridgewood. In fact, I made a topic on it, something like "alternate use for a max-d 5000" or something. And Ben replied that it would work on several guns, and said that that was one of the recommended uses of the SoakerTag guns. I have extremely powerful photographic memory!

And I filled balloons from my CPS 2500 as recently as 4 wars ago. So the idea is anything but new, sorry. Any gun with nozzles that stick out can be "used to fill water balloons mobily" -my exact phrase, which I remember because "mobily" is a stretch as far as real words are concerned.

[champ021]

I use XP-270 Super Soaker it works quite well. Can anyone tell me what THE. BEST. Super soaker is? I mean the best you can buy for under $40.00.

[DX]

There is no such thing as an overall "best" gun. At least no stock gun can have the best range, output, stream speed, or capacity. "Under $40" is also too general, as you can mod, build, or buy older guns for under $40. Most would recommend something from this year, but I would take that limitation further, as in you could buy a CPS 2000 for $40 if you get lucky with weird-search term Ebay auctions. [Yes, I have seen a CPS 2000 for $40, $10 shipping, in the summer]. Money limits are too subjective.

[champ021]

What is`best gun in YOUR opinion? And idont care about money this time.

[DX]

For a stock gun, I would go with a CPS 2500, CPS 1500, CPS 2000, or SS 300. For a modded gun, I would go 15K, 12K, 10K, 15.10K, or 15.12K. For a homemade, I would choose a water cannon. That's when both money and tech ability/interest is not a factor.

[joannaardway]

This doesn't look like it belongs in the WB topic...

The idea for filling balloons is doable, but I would only use this techinque if I were then going to launch it.

I would sooner shoot the water at the person rather than throw it - with a greater chance of missing.

Someone suggested the use of a 1-3-5 - perhaps even earlier in this topic.

EDIT: I checked it, and these ideas are documented in the first dozen or so posts in this thread. Sorry, but I would say that given the dates, your idea is nothing new.