Ok, I was thinking about the splat blaster and its spring powered PC, and I thought, "Why not a homemade Splat Blaster?" It wouldn't be to hard to build if it was simplified. What I'm worried about is the power. How much power did you think we can get from a spring?

With springs, it would be easy to make pistols, shot guns, bolt action, gatling guns, etc. The coolness factor would rise 200%! Plus they would be some of the first homemades with triggers.

I know all you people are going to say that they aren't practical, they won't be useful, they won't get enough range, but I think it would be cool to have a pistol that cocks like an air soft springer.



What do you guys think about spring pressure homemades?

I think that if you could find a reliable system that works with good range, output, and reliability it would be great. The problem is that for range you need a strong spring, output you need a large volume (or and extremely long chamber) and it would be awkward to get filled. I did experiment once with a small tracked pump (like a PPP mini) with a spring from a nerf nitefinder, and the results were bad, with a range of about ten feet and tiny output.

EDIT: Spelling

I looked on McMaster. Lots of springs. They even go up to 60 lb pull... yeesh... The NF feels like a 3-5 lb pull, so if I got some ~20 lb pull springs, it might just work!

I've been talking to a member of NerfHaven and he seems willing to try shooting water out of his spring homemades. I'll let you know how that turns out.

Spring homemades--I've been thinking about those.

Like Buzz Bee's PreChargers, I think the Splat Blaster has quite a bit of potential, but lacks a clean execution. In other words, a homemade version of the Splat Blaster could use what Buzz Bee uncovered in their first attempt to make a pretty crazy homemade.

Springs definitely carry a lot of power--as m15399 said, they can store a great amount of force, but more importantly, they release it all at once. The water can come out of the nozzle so quickly that an output "per second" measurement will be too inaccurate (you'll really be measuring how much water comes out in one second, not the rate). We need to measure a spring homemade's output in milliseconds, or something like that. That's what makes the Splat Blaster a great prototype for a shotgun soaker.

The problem with the use of a spring is that it will be hard--indeed, very hard--to release the water and empty the chamber at a rate that matches the spring's output rate is a tough challenge. Buzz Bee made a great attempt at this by using, instead of a slow ball valve, a cap that clamps down on the nozzle orifice. Unfortunately, this probably won't work for a spring of at least 20 pounds--the cap would just blow open, and even so, that would happen so slowly that it would disrupt the stream lamination. That' why Buzz Bee also uses a pin to secure the spring, which is probably too complicated for a homemade.

Okay, so using a pin isn't that complicated. However, there still lies a problem: if we were to use both a "clamp valve" for the nozzle and a pin for the spring, we'd have to get the timing perfect. There appear to be two workarounds for this: (1) allowing the clamp valve to blow open on its own, and (2) using no clamp valve.

I prefer the latter option, radical as it may seem, because of the inherent mechanical problems with the clamp valve. This new option, with absolutely nothing stopping the actual water from exiting the soaker, might still work for various reasons: (1) no force is being exerted by the spring because of the pin, and (2) the nozzle orifice is small enough (only a slight restriction to output), which prevents air from entering through the nozzle and displacing water.

Yes, there is a flaw with this proposal: while pumping, water will simply exit through the nozzle rather than compress the spring. However, we can still perform a workaround: a ball valve! Yes, we have come full circle, back to the ball valve. The idea is to close the valve while pumping, in order to force the spring to compress; however, the pin will always hold the spring back, no matter how much the spring is compressed, so the ball valve can be opened while not pumping. When it is opened, the user may squeeze the trigger to release the pin.

Yes, this design is a bit inefficient, but that is why I posted it. Is it possible to use a shortcut, like in the Splat Blaster, to use the trigger to open the ball valve and then release the pin? In addition, the pin can only lock the spring between the wire; thus, if the water has been pumped to a point where the wire is blocking the pin, then when the ball valve is opened, the spring will move slightly, shooting water, until the pin snaps back into place. This isn't good, and it will probably wear down the pin.

EDIT: Wow, this post is even longer than I expected it to be!

Pin should work fine. When you pump, you don't pump water into the front; you draw it out by pulling the plunger back. Think Nerf. You don't need a ball valve or anything.

Just to double check- would there be something for the pin to hold back on the plunger besides the o-ring? I'm assuming that that would be the case, because then water might leak and the seal might be compromised if the pin just held back the o-ring.

Also, did the guy at NerfHaven test shooting water out of the nerf homemade yet? Just trying it out seems to me to be the best way to see if it would work.

The pin enters a small hole in the piston in nerf guns, which would work well for super soakers. The guy at NH has not done this, yet, but I will ask him about it again. ;)

If anyone has any idea abotu how well these will perform, please speak now, or forever hold your peace.

Personally, I would create spring homemade water guns using completely conventional methods. No pins, nothing complicated. The spring is the power source and compressing it will create force. It can be compressed on the back of a piston.

Then again, rethinking the design, it would be extremely attractive to have a water gun that operates from one single pull.

Now, to get more technical, the force of the spring will not be constant and that really makes it a little more unattractive to me. Fs = -K*x, where Fs is the force of the spring, k is the spring constant, and x is the displacement. If the spring is compressed, x becomes negative and if the spring is stretched, x is positive. There will be drop-off in this system, but I don't suppose it will be too heavy.

I'll be talking to my brother about the possibility of a spring-powered water gun because I know he has experience making a few spring-powered homemade Nerf guns. ;)

If you would, try putting a nozzle on a spring Nerf gun and shoot it. I tried to get the guy at NH to do that but he hasn't yet.

Does conventional means mean using a ball valve? The only problem would be getting the valve to fully close while you pump.

What would a "spring powered" water gun really accomplish? You would still have to pump water in front of the spring, or manually pull the spring back to charge it. After that, the spring forces the water through the nozzle, and you repeat the process. I think that most people can pull more than 20 lbs., so why not just use a piston style soaker? As Doom said a spring's force is not constant. It's not going to push as hard as it de-compresses.

The responce to my reminder:

What do you think?

I think it would work and may even get a good distance but battle practicality needs to be considered. It would only have one shot and then the spring would have to be reset, plus as said before the force the spring exerts is not constant and so may behave differently from what you expect or need at that moment in the battle.
I would prefer a simple, air pressure design any day, especially when they show you can get good results without over-complicating anything.

That sounds like a pretty good result to me, one prime that can be done from any water source, and it has a trigger. With a bigger spring (like 30-25 pound pull) it would probably be a great homemade backup gun.

Forgive me for being the devil's advocate, however a homemade piston soaker is cheaper, easier to make, and has better stats.

The main thing about these are their consistency (when compared to a piston soaker), trigger, and compactness. I think that the gun he tested with was under a foot long.

I only intended my design, as I'm sure m15399 did when he started the thread, to be a backup weapon. This is for when 3 guys pop up out of nowhere--you just pull out your shotgun on riot blast and, in a single instant, unload your entire PC, 40 or 50 pounds' worth of force (a lot of pumps), on your target. Then you run away while pumping the soaker back up.

@ Doom: You pointed out that there will be dropoff--however, all the water will be released instantly (why the output per second is poor at iSc's review). If you meant that pressure depended on the number of pump, then you are correct. However, using a PreCharger-like setup, before battle you should be able to screw in the base that the spring is connected to, compressing and already charging it up. This way, you'll have at least partial reduction of dropoff.

@ wetmonkey442: Of course you need a pump and all. I'm not talking about a weak 20-pound spring, I'm talking about at least twice that much. That's what I call power.

@ wetmokey442, 20quid, etc.: It's natural that a standard APH will be more efficient, cheaper, etc.--and that's part of what makes this a situational gun. As I said, there are very specific uses for this, and nothing else (empties PC in one go, possibly low range, etc.). This is not anybody's primary weapon--it's a backup. Don't trust it with your life.

@ people who criticize the valve: I'm completely open to suggestions concerning what type of valve to use; it is a tough concept. We need something that can both seal well and that can open almost immediately, which is why the only idea I could think of was a ball valve/pin combination. Feel free to make comments on this.

Of course, ball valves aren't exactly needed. This gun doesn't need near-perfect lamination because it isn't designed for long range, whether it can handle that range or not. I'll look at other, more appropriate valves if the need arises. Besides, these would be much simpler to implement.

The water will not be released instantly. Output is a function of force and nozzle area. If the opening was large enough, it will release nearly instantly. However, with a nozzle of appropriate size, the drop-off will be quite obvious.

If this term is poor, what would be the preferred means of determining how much water a soaker pushes? The main problem with output/sec is simply that it's very hard to measure shots that last below a second accurately without requiring more sophisticated measuring equipment.

I've talked with Big Bee about potentially increasing the piston size inside the Splat Blaster to make the shot a little more hefty. The general idea of the Splat Blaster is good. However, the problems with putting in larger springs is that smaller kids may no longer be able to pressurize the system. The lever pump gives more leverage, but since it is single-pump based, more force is needed in the initial pull.

A more conventional pump to pressurize the spring similar to air and bladder-based CPS systems would reduce the strength needed per pump, but them increase the number of pumps required to charge things. If the system ends up being similar to how rubber bladder or air pressure systems are set up, why bother using a spring except, perhaps, for the possibility of creating a more linear PC set-up to improve stream flow lamination.

B)

Using multiple pumps would defeat the purpose of it being a shotgun. I would make it with a more powerful spring and a bigger (better shaped and placed) reservoir to keep parents of three year olds from buying them a soaker they can't pump.

Really? 40 PSI is not much.

A spring homemade would simply IMHO not be very powerful. As a backup weapon, it would be terrible because it would only have one shot before needing to be pumped again.

@ Ben: Okay, maybe not instantly. However, the amount of time is still only a fraction of a second, and cannot be measured by the second.

@ iSoaker_com: I know that it may be extremely hard to measure the output per second if it only lasts for a fraction of a second--but that's why I'm not holding this against you. I was just saying that, in this case, your review is (unfortunately) slightly misleading.

@ iSoaker_com and m15399: Maybe a spring homemade that uses multiple pumps to power an extremely powerful spring is not as practical as the single-pump Splat Blaster, but it can definitely be used more effectively in certain circumstances. Clearly, the output rate/PC size/range of the Splat Blaster is less than optimal, so the performance can really be increased with a more resistant spring. Maybe you can't rapid-fire such a weapon, but in a tight corner, you can pull it out and really soak your enemies. That's what shotguns are all about.

@ wetmonkey442:

I believe I was suggesting a 40-pound spring, not a 40-PSI one. There is a very large difference between these terms.

Because you only have one shot before needing to repump, I suggested it as a backup. This is literally a close-range, last-defense weapon--you pull it out, shoot, and run away. In this type of situation, you're not going to want to or be able to pump anyway.

@SilentGuy: which review are you referring to? I'd like to reduce, if possible, any misleading things. B)

As for having a soaker that charges using multiple pumped then blast it out, is the potential additional power from a large spring that much more advantageous versus many CPS/LRT layer PC?

I'm hoping BBT increases the Splat Blaster's PC for next year. A 3x increase (to 100mL/ ~3 oz) would be decent, IMO, without requiring a significantly stronger spring, thus not requiring any other internal changes to that soaker.

It'd be interesting to see what you guys can do with spring-based soakers. I should just note my concerns aren't intended to stop or ridicule attempts, but rather to help get energy into developing better things. If I ever find more time, I'd love to do some homemade experimenting, myself.

B)

Once again, my poor wording leads to confusion...

"Misleading" wasn't the best term that I could have used. I was referring to the official review in iSc Reviews, and I was going back to the fact that it is hard to measure the output per second can't be measured easily; but at least you didn't bother to say "15mL/second" for the output. I just think you need to point out the fact that its entire PC is emptied almost immediately, because by saying "N/A" for the output, people may think that the soaker is no more potent than, say, the Waterball SL175. Unfortunately, there isn't too much that anybody can do about this.

Stronger people could easily handle filling a more resistant and/or larger PC. However, when positioning the PC-filling piston along the lever, you have a tradeoff; and the question is, "Do we want more PC capacity, more resistance, or both?" Leverage can do either one, but getting both will mean much more resistance.

I don't think you're downplaying our spring homemade discussion. As usual, debates in the forums simply expand the borders of soakerdom :) . I'm thinking of smaller, cheaper and more portable solutions: High-Pressure Canisters (HPCs). I'm starting a thread about it over at SSC, and I will post the link soon. I might even start a similar thread here if there is a need for it and if I have enough time.

EDIT: The edge of spring homemades is that the water comes out almost immediately. The advantages of this will really only be seen after several have been built and used in water wars.

No, it won't be a fraction of a second either (nearly instantly as I said). It would be a fraction of a second if the nozzle area was large enough, but with a nozzle of a normal size, the shot will have a good duration. Think of a shot at 150 PSI - the power would be enough to support a shot of a fraction of a second, but with a normal sized nozzle, the shot will have duration.

This is correct. Pressure is not force (F), rather pressure = Force / area. They aren't interchangable.

I was assuming the spring had a front surface area of one square inch. How big is the spring?

I don't think pressure is that important in this situation; for example, a spring two inches in diameter can push a plunger anywhere from two to ten inches in diameter. Pascal's principle can be used to show that, regardless of how wide the plunger is, you should get the same amount of pressure and velocity at the nozzle. Obviously, of course, the piston moves back more easily with a narrow plunger but with more difficulty if you're using a wide plunger. Although this seems to be a fair tradeoff, you could use a wide PC/plunger with a narrow pump piston tube to get greater capacity (though it will take longer to pressurize). So many tradeoffs! Now back to the point...

It doesn't really matter how pressurized the spring PC is because of Pascal's principle. As I've stated at SSC, in an ideal situation (the closest is with a conical nozzle), small nozzles can achieve similar output when compared with larger nozzles, but at a greater velocity and thus at a greater range. I don't think there is too much besides friction, etc. that can restrict water flow, especially from a spring PC. Springs want to release their energy as quickly as possible, no matter what. In addition, though I may be incorrect, this is less influenced by PSI than one might think, due to the quick release of the water (the speed is manifest due to the Splat Blaster's single, wave-like shot and its use of a special, fast-opening valve). Naturally, of course, stronger springs and/or those further compressed will produce greater pressure, faster output, and range.

*I am stupid. Please ignore this. The stupid man has spoken. ;) *

So does air. The keyword is WANT. The water will not be released anywhere near as fast as you're thinking.

No, the formula you posted is the one for circumference. The one for area is: a=(pi)(r^2)
a=1
a/(pi)=(r^2); 1/(pi)=(r^2)
sqrt(a/[pi])=r; sqrt(1/[pi])=r
r=0.5642; d=1.1284
I know it's hard to write and read equations like this, but you should be able to see that the spring would be approximately the size of a quarter.

Well, I'm thinking that the springs will release the water at a much larger rate than air pressure or LRT will, and the difference will be increased if the nozzle size decreases.

By the way, here is a link to a thread at SSC: "High-Pressure Canister (HPC)" (the idea is a more practical version of the one shot per PC spring homemade). Apparently, similar ideas have been proposed, but this is the first spring PC version.

...Now I feel stupid. :huh: That's gotta be one of the stupidest mistakes I've ever made.

Hey, don't take it personally--nobody is holding it against you. Just be thankful that the correction was made and that nobody is deluded or confused. This is why communities like this are so effective--corrections are made quickly and everything gets cleared up.

Here is the link on how to make the gun that the nerfer, Carbon used to do this test. The barrel is not there though.
http://boltsniper.com/submitted/Carbon/Snap-1/SNAP1.html
Overall Length (using pump action breech).......28 in
Minus the 14.5" barrel he made for nerf darts/stefans, its 13.5"long, which is really short