iSoaker.net: The iSoaker Network

Now that Fox got his hands on one and has graciously posted pics and stats of his new acquisition, here are some more stats on this new line of blasters. These are stats from the boxes that I am aware of:

Pulse Blaster:
1. Shooting distance: Blasts up to 40 feet
2. Water Capacity: Holds up to 37 oz. of water
3. Filled Weight: Around 3 ¾ pounds when filled

Pulse Strike:
1. Shooting distance: Blasts up to 40 feet
2. Water Capacity: Holds up to 55 oz. of water
3. Filled Weight: Around 5 ¼ pounds when filled

Pulse Master:
1. Shooting distance: Blasts OVER 40 feet
2. Water Capacity: Holds up to 86 oz. of water
3. Filled Weight: Around 8 ¾ pounds when filled

Of course, Fox is the only one so far who has handled one of these blasters in person. I'm still envious.

Working on getting more info and images to share as well.

The following images are some stock photos of the new Water Warriors Pulse Series. I really like the looks/styling of this series. If Fox's report of the blasters' performance is true for the rest of the line, the upcoming 2009 season looks like it'll be a great one! Of course, I also await to hear more reports from "Down-Under" about how these blasters perform in the field.

The Water Warriors Pulse Blaster


The Water Warriors Pulse Strike


The Water Warriors Pulse Master


Soak on!



BTW, notice anything funny about these pics (apart from the lack of stickers)?

How do you mean funny? The pistol grips look TINY. I'd be afraid of snapping them off.

Love the look of them, color, styling, size, everything. BuzzBee really did some good work here. I'll be interested in hearing how they perform.

Adrian

BTW, notice anything funny about these pics (apart from the lack of stickers)?

They're wooden models, right?

They look awesome, I'm really hoping that I can find the other 2 guns somewhere.

I hope I haven't overhyped the gun's performance though! Again, shot time is very short and the pump lags making pressurizing slower than it could be. In that respect it's about on par with the Xenon, so if you didn't like the Xenon then this gun isn't for you. However in every other respect (build quality, looks, capacity, ergonomics etc) it's a lot better than before.

I agree with Adrian in that the grip on the PulseMaster look too small and fragile, however the plastic they're using (at least on the PulseStrike) seems tougher than previous years so it shouldn't be a problem.

Really, really liking the look of that last one. Big and powerful, exactly what's missing in soakerdom.

Any chance we could see some length in soakers? Something we could actually aim? Everything so far seems to be best fired from the hip as opposed to the shoulder.

Adrian

I just sent a short email to their customer service dept raving about their better blasters. I figure that customer feedback is a good thing and putting in my $0.02 can only help them better assess the market. Here's what I sent:

I'm just taking a moment to thank your company for providing some truly fun and exciting summer toys. I've already purchased several of your "Hydro Power" series, specifically the Hydro Pak, Orca, and Tiger Shark models. I'm also quite elated to see the pictures that have been posted online of your new "Pulse" series of water blasters. I have been disheartened in recent years by the stagnation of the Super Soaker brand put out by Hasbro. To see a water blaster series that is intended to preform better than the competition brings me right back to the 90's when water blaster's were all about that very concept. I also must commend you on your packaging and toy design, both of which really stand out against the other water toys. I really like how the weight, features, and water capacity are clearly listed, as well as an approximate range. I have already encouraged my water-warring buddies to eschew Super Soakers and go straight for your products. Best of luck, I hope that companies like yours that put the consumer first stick around!
-Rob M.

@Fox: you're 90% right; I believe the soakers in the pics are the non-functional hand samples, but these days, they are more likely made of plastic, not wood.

@Rover: letting Buzz Bee Toys know that you, as a customer, are pleased with their direction is always a nice thing to do. Can't say how much it helps, per se, but it definitely doesn't hurt and makes those reading such emails feel better about the things they are making.

---------------------

That said, here are a few more "factory" stats on the pressure chamber sizes of the Pulse series:

Water Warriors Pulse Blaster : ~50 mL
Water Warriors Pulse Strike : ~85 mL
Water Warriors Pulse Master : ~115 mL

The Pulse Master seems to have a slightly smallish pressure chamber for a blaster of its size. For comparison-sake, here are the PC capacities I measured for the Aqua Master PreCharger Line
Water Warriors Argon : ~90mL
Water Warriors Xenon : ~120mL
Water Warriors Krypton : ~200mL

Of course, as soon as I can, I'd re-do measuring on the PCs. Fox measured 75mL on his Pulse Strike which may be closer to the true average capacity users will see (though he also did note that the pressure-release valve was opening somewhat early).

Soak on!

Just picked up the smallest gun at Target yesterday for $20AUD.





Functions similarly to the PulseStrike, around the same shot time so the nozzle is a bit smaller. Again, good stream speed and decent range, and quality construction. Pump is smoother and easier than the PS with less lag, however I've noticed that the pump catches badly on the shaft housing, it's a little hard to describe so here's a picture.



I've also noticed that the two 'faults' that my PS had are also present on the PulseMaster. The trigger still sticks for the intitial part of the shot and the PRV hisses early, however both problems are not as bad. This makes me think that they're not faults as such, but an inherent part of the design and it probably varies from model to model.

@isoaker: Those stats are quite interesting. At least now we know that the PC's are supposed to be that small, which also confirms what I said above. PC size probably varies slightly depending on how your particular PRV acts, and also how accurate your measuring abilities are!

This spring pressure chamber system does look very promising. It works very well in these smaller sizes, it's not too difficult to pump and gives good stream performance. I'm hoping that it can scale up in the future so we can see some big spring powered PC's!

Sweet pics, Fox! The smallest Pulse, the Pulse Blaster, looks good in "reality"; well, reality to you, virtual reality to the rest of us. Nozzle looks smallish, but then again, the blaster isn't too large, either. Looks like a rather rugged blaster as well.

As for bigger spring blasters in the future, I believe that really depends on both the market as well as the cost factor of how much bigger springs would add to the manufacturing costs.

[insert more envy statements here]

I have been looking at the pulse series and i have become very intrested in buzzbee's new guns, I have a sturdy tiger shark but i have been looking at their new spring based cps's and there are no range tests. I have looked at outputs and the new rifles get better output than my tiger shark but does anyone have any ranges on the pulse series or the vindicator?
thanks

Looking at these blasters, I'm getting a pretty big "Assault Rifle from Halo" vibe. Overall they look great, and the spring-loaded pressure chamber seems like a neat way to sort of find a middle point between conventional PC's and CPS tech. One thing I think would make them perfect is if the reservoirs were transparent. I really, really miss transparent reservoirs. Clear plastic is cool, regardless of context.

I wouldn't get too excited about more powerful spring powered water guns. It might be possible, but such a water gun would offer no significant advantages over air pressure. In fact, spring water guns have many specific disadvantages.

The most obvious is price--stronger springs do cost more.

Another major limit is the stress in the spring. Making a spring with long enough travel and prestressing it to ensure relatively constant pressure (from limited displacement) limits you to locations on the spring where the spring will not yield (become permanently deformed). Designing the spring to take many cycles puts more restrictions on its use.

Using a prestressed spring also introduces the problem of parts being under a constant load. This will increase the amount of material used and therefore the price. Unlike air pressure this load can not be disabled for storage.

The energy can only be stored in a line, unlike compressed air which can go into essentially any shape. This makes spring guns potentially very long. Adjusting the piston diameter can help with this a good bit, but you need a stronger spring to get a larger piston diameter, which increases cost, weight, and stress in the other components.

Safety is also a concern. If the chamber breaks, you have a spring with a good deal of energy stored coming at you or the gun.

Combine all of these together and it's very difficult to make a decently performing spring gun with good pressure chamber capacity. I actually spent much time doing the math to design spring powered water guns last year and I concluded it's best to avoid the trouble by using some sort of LPD air pressure.

With that being said, small pressure chamber capacities can allow for relatively constant pressure and a decent pressure level. It just seems you can't have all three very easily with springs. Large PC capacities with good pressure but not constant pressure is very possible too, but this offers no specific advantage over air pressure, so it is avoided.

Ahh, once again science dashes my hopes for a brighter future with it's cold, unfeeling logic. Is there really much that can be done to boost performance outside of CPS type pressure chambers?

Shadowstrike Prime wrote:Ahh, once again science dashes my hopes for a brighter future with it's cold, unfeeling logic. Is there really much that can be done to boost performance outside of CPS type pressure chambers?

Think happy thoughts and dream big. There are often ways to overcome what initially appear as "impossible" barriers.

Shadowstrike Prime wrote:Ahh, once again science dashes my hopes for a brighter future with it's cold, unfeeling logic. Is there really much that can be done to boost performance outside of CPS type pressure chambers?

The LPD (low pressure drop) air pressure system I mentioned is one way, though, I think I'm the only one to even try it. LPD design really is a design approach rather than a new design. LPD stands for "limited pressure drop", a design approach that accepts pressures will not be constant and limits how much it drops by adjusting the geometry. In reality everything aside from regulated pressure has pressure drop. Rubber CPS has a drop of about 25%. So this is a very valid idea.

I find rubber-type CPS to be nearly as limiting as springs. Achieving decent pressure can be very difficult, the rubber wears out unless you restrict its expansion (Hasbro/BBT do), the geometry can be odd (long cylindrical chambers or spheres), and it can pop. It's good for low to moderate pressures, however.

As previously mentioned, regulated pressure offers unlimited performance, capacity, and perfectly constant pressure. It also operates very differently from typical water guns, which is why it's uncommon.

There is compromise in all designs but I like the LPD air pressure approach. You can get high capacity, high pressure, and very constant pressure this way without operating any differently from typical water guns.

With all this being said, I can't see any toy company using LPD air pressure because it requires a charge of air to be added before the water gun can be used. It's not exactly practical for most people, but I could see it having its place for the more dedicated. The regulated pressure approach has the same problem.

Let me state too that spring water guns with good capacity, pressure, and constancy of pressure are not impossible, just difficult to design. It'd be easiest with more uncommon spring materials if I remember correctly. But that introduces cost. I don't anticipate anything greatly different than what BBT has already released, but if there's something I missed then it might be possible. As far as I can tell BBT is working within the limits I detailed.

I'm getting tired... something in this post probably doesn't make sense but I'll check it out tomorrow.

Edit: In my spare time I'll look into the spring design issues... maybe I could come up with something.

True, "impossible" was never stated earlier in this thread, but I was recalling another thread. In any case, I consider the term "impossible" in this context more along the lines of "difficult to design" or requiring some engineering and/or cost factors to be overcome.

As for the LPD design, I've been trying to find out exactly what you're referring to, but my casual search of SSC yielded no substantial info. I'm not quite clear in what is meant by changing/adjusting geometry to minimize pressure drop. EDIT: for those interested in reading more on LPD, see this new thread

Nevertheless, I'm quite happy with what BBT's been experimenting with and hope they continue to strive for better performance and innovation in their future water blasters. Of course, time will tell, but I, for one, am looking forward to it!