New Incredible Hulk Gun

[Drenchenator]

Hasbro or Larami can really only say they have a patent for spherical CPS. I believe Ben told that Ohio Art was sued because the Speedloader line used cylindrical CPS, but Ohio Art won the case. As demonstrated by the Water Worm, it looks like cylindrical CPS is safe for marketing; spherical seems to be a distinctly Larami-style system.

Soakers are also thought to be solely summer waters, which is for the most part true. You can have a water war in late spring or early fall, but for the most part water wars happen during the summer. This really makes them a seasonal product--and I imagine this has some reason to do with the manufacturer's overall lack of interest in improvements.

[cantab]

Hmmm...I wonder if toroidal CPS might not be covered by any patents? It could be distinctly tricky to make however, and would probably force an unusual gun shape. Something similar to the 'Tommy Gun' (with the drum magazine) could work.

[Goldfish4209]

Hmmm...I wonder if toroidal CPS might not be covered by any patents? It could be distinctly tricky to make however, and would probably force an unusual gun shape. Something similar to the 'Tommy Gun' (with the drum magazine) could work.

How would a toroidal CPS work? I can't exactly picture it.

I really don't see much difference between Super Soakers and Nerf guns. They both shoot stuff, and when you play with them the gameplay is generally similar (war game style). But for some reason, not only does Hasbro develop Nerf guns for the older ones, but people somehow group water guns with young kids automatically.

And if cylindrical CPS is not patented, then I wish BBT would use it. In fact I can't think of a reason why not. Even a small CPS like the FF or something would at least be a step towards the right direction

[Silence]

Ben, have you asked Big Bee why BBT hasn't used cylindrical bladders? Even in small water guns they would require much less structural support, and they'd be much cheaper and lighter than diaphragms.

[cantab]

How would a toroidal CPS work?

It would basically be like a scaled-down inner tube, in a doughnut-shaped casing.

You might have some trouble with differential expansion, I'm not sure. Fitting a big inlet to a small tube may be more challenging than in the cylindrical design. And I'm not sure if it's possible to make rubber toroids without having a seam somewhere (start with a seamed base and dip it to build up the rubber springs to mind as a possibility). But it should certainly be easier than the diaphragm.

In fact, has anyone ever tried using a whole bike inner tube as a CPS chamber? I expect it wouldn't work that well because inner tubes don't really have the right properties, and the valves are too small, but I wonder if it's been tried.

[C-A_99]

Hm, I'm surprised that the breakability of modern guns is actually part of their strategy. You would think that people wouldn't want to spend all that money on water blasters whose triggers will just break in a few months, but looks like people just go back and buy them, which, on second thought, isn't much of a surprise given the ignorance (and sometimes stupidity) of a lot of people these days.

As for safety, I've worked with a CPS 2000 myself and there is absolutely no way it could harm someone on the scale that its mythed to. Nerf guns are much more likely to hurt one's eye and do so much more than a CPS 2000 would. Just look at the Nerf Longshot. Either way, they are still extremely safe. The safety talk doesn't begin until we get to WBL's, cannons, and high powered/modified/homemade Nerf blasters.

I thought the company who created the ARM 4000 XL lost the lawsuit since they used cylinderical chambers. Also, you'd think that the cylinderical chambers would be more heavily patented (for the lack of better words) than spherical since thats the only one Hasbro uses. Either way, it seems to be very evident that Hasbro is, for the most part, hoarding the patents to create some obstacles for other companies to create better guns than theirs. Still, that shouldn't stop powerful air pressure guns from being created, but it seems to have deterred BBT from using true CPS.

[Goldfish4209]

Either way, it seems to be very evident that Hasbro is, for the most part, hoarding the patents to create some obstacles for other companies to create better guns than theirs. Still, that shouldn't stop powerful air pressure guns from being created, but it seems to have deterred BBT from using true CPS.

If Hasbro wanted to stay the best water gun company in terms of product performance, they shouldn't have started producing weak guns like the Bottle Shot and adding gimmicks to target the younger customers. At this point I'm pretty sure they don't care about Super Soakers' quality or power anymore, they just want to make money.

[SSCBen]

Hmmm...I wonder if toroidal CPS might not be covered by any patents? It could be distinctly tricky to make however, and would probably force an unusual gun shape. Something similar to the 'Tommy Gun' (with the drum magazine) could work.

Sounds unique to me but I haven't done any research directly on the subject of toroidal bladders. I don't know how well it would work either. The shape seems unusual as you mentioned.

Ben, have you asked Big Bee why BBT hasn't used cylindrical bladders? Even in small water guns they would require much less structural support, and they'd be much cheaper and lighter than diaphragms.

I haven't asked but I think it's safe to assume that they don't want a lawsuit. I'll ask to learn exactly why though.

One thing I'd like to say though is that CPS patents aren't expiring any time soon. The earliest CPS patents were made in 1996, the year that they changed the amount of protection from 17 years after issue to 20 years after filing. For the most part that makes no difference but it's important to know so we know exactly when the patents expire. That means that the earliest CPS patents will expire in 2016. Later patents will expire in 2019 and later.

I have every patent by Larami and Hasbro about Super Soakers listed here: http://www.sscentral.org/patents/

Check it out to see for yourself.

I thought the company who created the ARM 4000 XL lost the lawsuit since they used cylinderical chambers. Also, you'd think that the cylinderical chambers would be more heavily patented (for the lack of better words) than spherical since thats the only one Hasbro uses. Either way, it seems to be very evident that Hasbro is, for the most part, hoarding the patents to create some obstacles for other companies to create better guns than theirs. Still, that shouldn't stop powerful air pressure guns from being created, but it seems to have deterred BBT from using true CPS.

Ohio Art won that patent case: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... _105389713

I think BBT might be best off using something definitely not patented like a bladder or diaphragm tank design. If those designs are more constant than their current diaphragm design than it would be better. Of course, those designs likely would cost more money too, so perhaps it's not completely realistic.

[Goldfish4209]

Hasbro has a huge advantage over the other companies right now, with the CPS patents, and they aren't using it. None of the new 2008 blasters had CPS (Bottle Shot, Quick Blast). They weren't even air powered. They were piston pressured. I think someday it's going to get to a point where the water guns are so weak, even little kids won't buy them.

[Drenchenator]

I'm sure Hasbro doesn't care that they have the patents. They out to make money, and they seem to think that they make more money selling bad guns than good. They probably do.

I don't think a toroidal CPS gun would work that well just because it really doesn't allow much linear flow by nature. I don't know though. I keep thinking about a toroidal solenoid, so maybe I have the wrong idea in mind. cantab, could you elaborate more on your idea? It may be feasible.

From what I know, bike tubes aren't good CPS chambers because they don't expand much. Needless to say, a CPS chamber must expand for it to shoot water.

[SSCBen]

Guessing based on his bike tube example he means a torus shaped bladder. That should work but it won't be linear unless you do it slightly differently. Not that it matters much though. As long as it's decently powered I'd be okay with it.

[cantab]

Well, there won't be linear flow in the bladder, but does that really matter? Once the water is forced out, you can still have a straight line through the firing valve to the nozzle. Maybe at really high outputs it would be an issue, but otherwise, the inflated bladder is probably going to have a bigger internal diameter than the pipework anyway.

[Silence]

I still don't see the big fuss over shapes and CPS patents in general. These are the only patents that address CPS bladders/shapes themselves.

"Bladder for water gun" specifies a cylindrical bladder that is purposefully weakened at one end so it expands in the correct pattern. No thin tubing there = no patent infringement.

"Toy gun having an expandable tear drop shaped bladder" protects a specific shape of bladder, as does the first patent. This one specifies a tear drop shaped bladder. You can use any spherical bladder that doesn't have a tear drop shaped (more specifics in the patent). Balloons, for example, don't violate the patent.

Ben, patent 5,906,295 links to http://www.google.com/patents?id=TmkZAAAAEBAJ (the entry above it, whose author should be Lonnie Johnson) instead of http://www.google.com/patents?id=eg4YAAAAEBAJ.

Many of the patents in the first section on the patents page might be better suited to the second section. It's hard to tell just from the names what they actually talk about, and harder still to sift through the claims, but there were quite a few water gun designs in the first section.

So only two patents actually cover any potentially controversial items. The first idea is compensated for by natural usage anyway - the bladder will start expanding on one side and move to the other. Which side it starts on may change depending on the soaker, but from what I've heard you say, it usually starts near the front of the water gun. Not that it really matters.

The second invention is irrelevant to us. True spherical (or a different version of it) may (or may not) work just as well as teardrop - we'll probably never know. As homemade builders, we don't have the capacity to make teardrops anyway, unless balloons count as teardrops. It could be a possibility for manufacturers, though, if not for the patent.

[Drenchenator]

SilentGuy, you just convinced me that cylindrical CPS is okay for commercial purposes. The only patent for cylindrical CPS in effect now is for one with a "weakened section" to quote the article. This is great.

Well, there won't be linear flow in the bladder, but does that really matter? Once the water is forced out, you can still have a straight line through the firing valve to the nozzle. Maybe at really high outputs it would be an issue, but otherwise, the inflated bladder is probably going to have a bigger internal diameter than the pipework anyway.

It makes it less efficient. It's much easier to get better performance with less turns than more. Turns and bends take extra work to get around, and this extra work drops the pressure from the chamber to the nozzle. You're just wasting energy if you make the water go through several bends before going out. Each bend reorients how the water flows, redistributing some of the energy into the walls among other things (viscous forces take away some too). That's why you want there to be a straight path through the chamber, past the firing valve and out the nozzle. This orients all the flow out the nozzle instead of other directions, which uses energy more efficiently.

Actually, this would be less important

[SSCBen]

I've corrected the wrong link you pointed out SilentGuy

Many of the patents in the first section on the patents page might be better suited to the second section. It's hard to tell just from the names what they actually talk about, and harder still to sift through the claims, but there were quite a few water gun designs in the first section.

I'm not quite sure what you mean. The first section is for normal patents and the second section is for design patents. They're two different things and are named differently. Design patents start with a D.

It's interesting to read about what is patented though. After giving it some thought, I really am unsure why Buzz Bee doesn't use a different system. The HydraPak uses spherical bladders. The Speedloaders were still sold after Hasbro received patents for cylindrical water guns. I guess I will email Big Bee. No promises on a response in any reasonable time frame though. He's very busy all the time from what I can tell.