How powerful is your blaster?

I've tried to keep my nose from this topic, just because I wanted to focus on my exam studies, and know that I would be a bit distracted... but I'm kinda over anatomy, so...

@MIG - The problem with the information calculated by mathematics is the fact you've negated the effect of air resistance - friction, and weather/variable conditions. the mathematical formulae will only apply if they are conducted within a frictionless environment, and I know you've stated it before. That said, the results from the mathematical equations will give a result far higher than what the real world would most likely see, resulting in what seems to be overkill in some eyes.

I know that a spherical shape will encounter approximately 3 times the velocity that it is travelling (not technically correct, but that's how I can describe it, ie increase velocity, increase the friction, therefore decrease acceleration), in terms of friction due to air 'particles', the darts, which for argument's sake will be a hemisphere - will encounter a similar resistance.

Also it would probably be better to quote initial muzzle velocities instead of average velocities, as you said, the speed of the dart decreases over time; as most blasters are like paper aeroplanes, their flight, dictated by the initial force behind the plane. The average velocity doesn't really give an accurate power indication of the blaster, neither would ranges (to the disappointment of many people, I'm sure). What would, would be either kinetic energy or the force exhibited by the blaster at a certain range. Although, the force rating would be a more realistic representation, over kinetic energy as force is the 'energy' transferred onto the player.


But then again, we are talking about toy blasters. Albeit, very interesting toy blasters...

^ that

Apart from range, I like to test all my blasters on their ability to shoot through cardboard and 1" thick foam boxes at a couple of different ranges with different darts. My singled PAS and Longshot both get similar range but the LS has much more punch. The PAS can shoot a sill tip through the foam from up to 50cm away, whereas the LS can do that up to a few meters away.

phuonguyen wrote:
What would, would be either kinetic energy or the force exhibited by the blaster at a certain range. Although, the force rating would be a more realistic representation, over kinetic energy as force is the 'energy' transferred onto the player.

I take it you didn't read my last reply. In which I addressed those issues. Plus, you are incorrect about the transfer of 'Force'. Force does not get transfered, energy does.

Technically, by using the muzzle velocity, you cannot determine the Force. F = ma.

The mass is a known constant; the dart is approximately 1g. But the acceleration is unknown. If you were to use a chrono to determine the muzzle 'velocity' you still would not know the acceleration. Therefore you would not be able to determine the force. Plus, force is the wrong variable to determine. The correct variable is kinetic energy.

But to save you from going back a page where I outlined this in detail I'll re-type the formula for kinetic energy:

Ek = 1/2 m v^2

This can be determined with the muzzle velocity.

I hope you weren't studying for physics because you would be inncorrect with many of your statements. Just as a note, when describing force, 'energy' is the wrong term to use. The term you're looking for when describing force is 'work'.

You might want read this over before taking your exam:
http://www.av8n.com/physics/kinetic-energy.htm

oxymoron wrote:^ that

Apart from range, I like to test all my blasters on their ability to shoot through cardboard and 1" thick foam boxes at a couple of different ranges with different darts. My singled PAS and Longshot both get similar range but the LS has much more punch. The PAS can shoot a sill tip through the foam from up to 50cm away, whereas the LS can do that up to a few meters away.

You're post about plunger tube sizes (volume) has a great deal to do with this. Along with barrel length and the potential energy in the respective springs, these would determine both power and range. The lack of power in your PAS may be do to the incorrect barrel length for that plunger tube. And possibly your spring(s)(combo).

According to your chart, the PAS should out range and out power your LS.

So I would lean towards your spring selection(s) as the culprit.

According to your chart, the LS spring is much longer and to the respective plunger tube lengths, is more 'pre-compressed' than the PAS spring. By understanding this, the spring in the PAS begins to lose kinetic energy before the plunger reaches the end of the plunger tube. Thus, decreasing the potential energy being transfered to the dart. Where as, the LS spring has less loss in kinetic energy, therefore, transferring more energy to the dart.

Another way to look at is, the LS spring transfers it's volume of air to the dart faster than does the spring of the PAS.

The other variable might be the length of your chosen barrel. If it's too long you're losing power due to friction and/or, it's creating a vacuum effect within the barrel. If it's too short, the dart escapes the barrel before all the volume of air can be utilized efficiently.

As an example, if you've seen my BalloonFinder, the first barrel I chose was a 4 inch barrel. The dart came out but not very hard or very far. I already knew that it was because the barrel was too short so I then used a 12 inch barrel. The range increased exponentially but I knew it should have more power. So then I tried a 10 inch barrel. VOILA!!!

Although the range remained pretty much the same, the power was now there. In terms of cardboard. It pierced cardboard at 20 feet away. And when it leaves the barrel now, it goes, "POP!"

Some really good insight there MIG, really making me think about moving to Canada.. haha

I don't think anyone's really had much chance to experiment with the PAS yet, as compared to the thousands of Longshot's that have been modded (on this forum obviously).

Due to the extended length of the PAS spring, I haven't been able to easily find a replacement spring. It should really smash the Longshot for range/power due to the larger plunger volume, but you're spot-on with spring selection.

I think I've got a decent barrel length. After a few trials, I've got it dialled in to around 10 inches, seems to work best for myself. I'm hoping to locate a decent spring at some stage, but there's very poor choice where I live (actually, no choice at all. I seem to spend most of my free time looking at things, and wondering if I can steal the spring out of it!! haha)

Using a L/strike spring, I've had reasonable range increase, but the spring is still about 2" too short to provide constant force over the full travel of the plunger head.

(Please excuse my lack of technical terminology, I'm just a lowly boiler-maker with limited education)

Cheers,

clunk07 wrote:

(Please excuse my lack of technical terminology, I'm just a lowly boiler-maker with limited education)

Cheers,

LOL!!!

Your internal pics of the PAS are eye opening. I didn't realize how simple it actually is. However, the plunger rod does look a little flimsy. It looks like it has the potential to snap if you were to add a more powerful spring. I've seen a brass reinforcement somewhere but I can't find it now.

Have you tried SS's V2 spring in it yet?

You're right, according to the table the PAS should smash every other blaster out of the water... minus the SGN-R series. Do you have a 100% seal? That's a huge factor to.

I know from being hit with Pearson's PAS that it was probably the most powerful springer at M6.. Angel's Doomsayer is head and shoulders above everyone else's Doomsayer. There were 3 others there and they were not anywhere near as powerful Angel's was. Still, Pearson's PAS hurt me the most. Angel was just a better shot.
Pearson kept hitting me in the side or the legs. Angel hit me in the head or chest every single time.

I've got a really good seal on the PAS - actually, factory seal is quite good. All the springs are a little short. I've got plans to beef-up the plunger rod these days off, but I doubt I'll get much chance in between commissions and brass breeches - but hey, I can be hopeful.

That brass reinforcement was by TantumBull on NH, I'll be doing similar, but with alu.

Cheers,

Well I was talking about newtons, when talking about the 'force rating' but whatever....

And you are wrong about your assumptions of my physics knowledge and my reading of your last post prior to my post. I know that some of what I addressed was explained by your post and I felt like I was repeating myself, but the crux of my post was to say that "without calculating air friction, any mathematical results would be void".

I saw Angel did the brass re-inforcement of the plunger rod also.

I'm thinking, yes, the PAS should smash everything, but i'm also thinking, sometimes less can be more. A larger tube is great and everything, but its taking longer to compress that air into the barrel....i think, well thats what i'm thinking anyway. The PAS, maximum range should reach over 230tf, 160-170ft flat if i'm wrong.

phuonguyen wrote:Well I was talking about newtons, when talking about the 'force rating' but whatever....

"without calculating air friction, any mathematical results would be void".

To your first statement; It's still not 'force' and newtons you should be interested in it's energy and joules.

And to your second statement; Try using that answer on your physics exam. Please. Use it. I dare you. I especially would like to see your professors' reaction to, "...any mathematical results would be void."

What you are stating in fact, is that "v = d/t" is a null and void equation because it does not include the coefficient of friction. What you are stating is that Sir Isaac Newton was mistaken.

The co-efficient of friction would be so small that it's negatible!

I've provided a distance and the time it takes to hit the ground from a 5' height. What part of those variables is null and void?!?

39.6 milliseconds is the difference, unbelieveable.
They did it perfectly, was great to see thanks MIG.

That vid was awesome.

That's excellent, thanks MIG!

Again, all of the newtonian formulae are calculated under a vacuum therefore, there is no friction; you cannot include friction when there is no friction within the environment. Air friction is not negligible, it's quite significant.... why do you think that there is a massive deceleration in the first second of any moving object through air? It's not kinetic energy, as that remains constant due to the potential energy.

In the real world, there is friction, so in the theoretical setting/environment, the values will be higher than what physical testing would result in.

And why not newtons, they are an SI unit just like joules? All I'm saying is that newtons would be a better representation of the power of a blaster.

If all I said was "any mathematical results would be void", then yes I would be signing my death sentence, but that by itself has been taken out of context, I would have to say the entire statement for it to be true.

Just on the topic of air friction. It is a big issue. What I found out in my research into wind resistance for when I was building a bike to attempt the 50cc LSR and my current attempts to crack the low altitude bicycle LSR is as speed doubles wind resistance squares. ( I believe it was Allan Moffet that lost Bathurst one year in the 70s for not factoring this into choosing a diff ratio) So working with this would it be wrong to assume that the faster a dart is traveling the faster it will decelerate?

@MIG I am sure most of us are greatfull for this to get a rough estimate of the power our blasters have
@phuonguyen Is it really worth getting all bent out of shape over this?

Actually this is my entire point - All I'm saying is that newtons would be a better representation of the power of a blaster.

Why bother with kinetic energy when a simple force gauge, could calculate the power, sorta like them arcade punching games, you know?

EDIT: And regarding the air friction, different shapes have different coefficients, so the shape of the bike compared to the shape of the dart tip will have different proportional differences.

Wind resistance will square regardless of the shape as it squares from a 'base point' for want of a better term.

A force gauge would be the best for measuring the power of a blaster but for those who don't have one math will have to do.

tl;dr

Am I just content with:
- How far does it go and with what dart?
- How well does it damage stuff at close range with a specific dart?

There's sort of 2 trains of thought when dealing with the physics and mathematics involved with this matter.
(1) Simplified equations in an ideal environment (basic fundamentals, textbook material).
(2) Advanced stuff, factoring all variables in real world environment.

I think MIG's intention was to have something relatively simple, so that we can compare it with other things that launch projectiles.
In this case, I think we should be only concerned with muzzle velocity.

However, it appears that we're deviating away from the main point of this thread.

Someone's bound to over-complicate things when physics is involved...

Strictly speaking, there's a LOT of aerodynamics at play on something like a nerf dart. I can achieve nearly a 100% difference in ranges from the same gun by re-forming a dart's head to be more or less aerodynamic. So I think air resistance is important for the sake of this discussion, at least in relation to how powerful a blaster is. Also, joules are clearly the correct unit of measurement when discussing this element of physics. @ phuong - You may merely have woreded it very badly, but Kinetic Energy is not constant if an object is decelerating. Kinetic energy is calculated according to mv^2/2 where v = velocity. Therefore, if velocity is reduced (a dart slows down), kinetic energy is reduced.

Look. I can see that you hate to admit when you're wrong but in this case you are. I understand what you're trying to say but your use of terms is incorrect. I'm not just saying you're wrong and leaving it at that. I'm correcting your misuse of terms.

phuonguyen wrote:Again, all of the newtonian formulae are calculated under a vacuum therefore, there is no friction; you cannot include friction when there is no friction within the environment. Air friction is not negligible, it's quite significant.... why do you think that there is a massive deceleration in the first second of any moving object through air? It's not kinetic energy, as that remains constant due to the potential energy.

I know the coefficient of friction is a factor in the real world and it's not as if it were not a factor in this case. The facts are, that the dart traveled a certain distance in a certain amount of time. The dart didn't travel in a vacuum. It traveled through the air and landed on the ground at a determined distance. The world was far from perfect.

It is kinetic energy that you're trying to calculate not force. And the kinetic energy is not constant. It decreases as the velocity of the dart decreases.

phuonguyen wrote:
And why not newtons, they are an SI unit just like joules? All I'm saying is that newtons would be a better representation of the power of a blaster.

Joules is the measure you're trying to find not newtons.

phuonguyen wrote:
If all I said was "any mathematical results would be void", then yes I would be signing my death sentence, but that by itself has been taken out of context, I would have to say the entire statement for it to be true.

That is what you said. It wasn't taken out of context. Here it is,

phuonguyen wrote:
Well I was talking about newtons, when talking about the 'force rating' but whatever....

And you are wrong about your assumptions of my physics knowledge and my reading of your last post prior to my post. I know that some of what I addressed was explained by your post and I felt like I was repeating myself, but the crux of my post was to say that "without calculating air friction, any mathematical results would be void".

phuonguyen wrote:
Actually this is my entire point - All I'm saying is that newtons would be a better representation of the power of a blaster.

Why bother with kinetic energy when a simple force gauge, could calculate the power, sorta like them arcade punching games, you know?

Again, force in newtons is not what you're looking for. It's energy in joules.

Here are the equations and terms that you're confused about:

• F = ma, Force is any influence that causes a free body to undergo a change in speed, a change in direction, or a change in shape.
  
  
• P = W/t, Power is the amount of work performed over a period of time.
  

By definition, neither of these tells how much a Stefan fired from a blaster will hurt. You used the terms 'force' and 'power' to describe your intended argument.

This is what you're trying to get across which is what I've stated already.

• Ek = 1/2 m v^2, Kinetic energy of an object is the energy which it possesses due to its motion.

I still think the best measurement is what type of cardboard the dart punches through, and from how far away. Or, alternatively, how long someone swears for after being shot by said blaster.

That would be backyard physic's people - Welcome to Clunk'sWorld... haha

Cheers,

Rictus wrote:Strictly speaking, there's a LOT of aerodynamics at play on something like a nerf dart. I can achieve nearly a 100% difference in ranges from the same gun by re-forming a dart's head to be more or less aerodynamic. So I think air resistance is important for the sake of this discussion, at least in relation to how powerful a blaster is. Also, joules are clearly the correct unit of measurement when discussing this element of physics. @ phuong - You may merely have woreded it very badly, but Kinetic Energy is not constant if an object is decelerating. Kinetic energy is calculated according to mv^2/2 where v = velocity. Therefore, if velocity is reduced (a dart slows down), kinetic energy is reduced.

I agree with you 100% on the darts shape in relation to ranges but the energy produced at point blank range would have nothing to do with the shape of the dart head if the masses of the darts were exactly the same.

For the sake of argument, 2 darts made of the same material, weighing exactly the same with different shaped heads, would produce the same amount of energy at point blank range. They would be different the further out you would go since their respective velocities would differ due to friction. You are correct on that note. However, people are quick to point out 'muzzle velocity' which is what my last few arguments have addressed.

Initially, this thread never claimed energy produced or that a specific dart whether it be domed, flat, hotglue or felt would travel a certain distance from a specific blaster but the initial intent of this thread was to give an idea of the average velocity our darts (regardless of shape) are travelling if they achieve a certain distance.

This discussion has deviated from 'average velocities' calculated by distances achieved to energy produced at muzzle velocities and aerodynamics. I don't mind at all it's just people have started 2 different arguments and keeping the arguments separate has confused a lot of people.

I've read every single post that people have put up here so when I make a statement, I try to make sure it also addresses the issues previously brought up. However, individuals who have not read every single post before making an argument, are only concerned with their own argument.

The 2 different topics created are ranges due to aerodynamics and energy of a dart at muzzle velocities. Yes, they are related but they are different. People have to be aware of the terms they are using and how they relate to the other argument(s).

I find I keep repeating myslef.

This isn't directed at you specifically, Rictus but to the public in general. I guarantee, that if you keep reading this thread, some one else will bring up the same argument(s), not having read the other posts or responses.

clunk07 wrote:I still think the best measurement is what type of cardboard the dart punches through, and from how far away. Or, alternatively, how long someone swears for after being shot by said blaster.

That would be backyard physic's people - Welcome to Clunk'sWorld... haha

Cheers,

LOL!!! I love it! I've thought of doing something to that effect with pop cans.

Create a trough type rig and line up cans within it. Preferably all the same make. ie all Coke Classic cans. Then see how many cans your preferred blaster can penetrate with a specific dart at point blank range. ie a hot glue tipped Stefan with 3/0 weighted fish weight.

I've done this with my Titan and Super Soaker XP150. 4 cans with my Titan. And 4 cans plus a cardboard box denting a metal trash bin with my XP150. Yeh, that thing is ridiculous!

I still think my method sums it up better MIG - haha

Some pics taken just before with my Titan Icarus. 20 feet away from my gym door, and colourbond steel garage door:

Colourbond door inside



Colourbond door outside



Gym door



Close-up



I will have to try the coke cans MIG!!

Cheers,

Ok after reading this through, I've identified 2 things that I reckon we've defined differently. So we may have been talking about two different thing

"Although, the force rating would be a more realistic representation, over kinetic energy as force is the 'energy' transferred onto the player."

In the above sentence, when referring to force as the 'energy' transferred to the player, I did not mean that force is literally transferred. Rather, the force (technically the pressure) is what you feel when the dart hits. In other words, it is "transferred", in layman's terms (not the physics definition).

"All I'm saying is that newtons would be a better representation of the power of a blaster."

Here, when I refer to the "power of a blaster", I don't mean power in the physics sense, but rather how strong the blaster is (e.g. this blaster is more powerful than yours because it hurts more).

EDIT: Another thing that I've picked up, is that you're talking about the entire time the dart travels as a measure of how powerful the blaster is. Whereas I'm considering the moment it hits the ground/target at a distance, and how hard it hits it as the measure. That was what I suggested in my first post.

- Try using that answer on your physics exam. Please. Use it. I dare you. I especially would like to see your professors' reaction to, "...any mathematical results would be void." -

You've just taken the end of the statement, and quoted it by itself. For it to be 'in context', you need the first part of the statement, the qualifier, that is "without calculating air friction". The second part by itself is wrong, but the whole statement, taken in full is true. The word void may not have been the best choice, a better word would have been inaccurate.

phuonguyen wrote:

EDIT: Another thing that I've picked up, is that you're talking about the entire time the dart travels as a measure of how powerful the blaster is. Whereas I'm considering the moment it hits the ground/target at a distance, and how hard it hits it as the measure. That was what I suggested in my first post.

This makes no sense.

First of all, aside from the title of this thread, never did I state that how far a blaster fires a dart is the measure of it's power. I've always, from the VERY beginning to presently, have stated that the average velocity is V = d/t (see what I mean Rictus?).
No where in that equation does 'power' come into play.

It's only when the notion of 'muzzle velocity' was mentioned that I introduced the equation for kinetic energy, Ek = 1/2 m v^2.

You and many others are quick to jump on the coefficient-of-friction band wagon not realizing that the dart did travel a determined distance in a determined amount of time regardless of friction, "air resistence", wind sheer, blah, blah, blah....

If an object, ANY OBJECT, moves from its current position to a different poistion in a determined amount of time its average velocity is still, v = d/t!

If a car, a boat, a man, a women, a child, a balloon, a dog, a foam dart all moved from their current position to a new position 100m away in 1 sec in a hurricane. All of their velocities would be 100m/s!!!!!

Ask any physicist or mathematician. They will tell you the same thing.

And Yes!! Their kinetic energies would all be very different. To use incorrect terminology so many will understand, they would all have different power and force if they were to hit something or someone.

<-- Studying astrophysics. What MiG says.

Instead of doing a heap of maths I went to the science centre and they had I thing to to test how fast you throw. I fired my NF though the sensors and it came up with 115 KPH and 98KPH (I tired it twice)

killerbunny wrote:Instead of doing a heap of maths I went to the science centre and they had I thing to to test how fast you throw. I fired my NF though the sensors and it came up with 115 KPH and 98KPH (I tired it twice)

Do you know what the range is of your NF, fired flat?

It's also called a chronograph. It measures the FPS of projectiles. There are paintball and airsoft ones. Then there are also real fire arm based ones.

makeitgo wrote:

killerbunny wrote:Instead of doing a heap of maths I went to the science centre and they had I thing to to test how fast you throw. I fired my NF though the sensors and it came up with 115 KPH and 98KPH (I tired it twice)

Do you know what the range is of your NF, fired flat?

About 90ft I can do some tests in the morning... the darts I use are heavies blue foam small cap. The sensor rig thing was two meters long with a sensor at each end the gun was fired just before the first sensor.

killerbunny wrote:
About 90ft I can do some tests in the morning... the darts I use are heavies blue foam small cap. The sensor rig thing was two meters long with a sensor at each end the gun was fired just before the first sensor.

Please do. However, at those velocities I wouldn't suspect the ranges to reach over 60' - 65' flat. Angled maybe, but not flat.

Good luck. Video would be cool too.

Actually I've seen his NF and been shot by it a few times and it does get up to 90ft flat.

Unknown wrote:Actually I've seen his NF and been shot by it a few times and it does get up to 90ft flat.

that's ridiculous for a nitefinder.

Did you have measuring tape with you when you saw it being shot? Were you at the 90 feet mark when you got shot? The reason why I'm doubting this is just a matter of previous evidence stacking against your claims.