WaterWar.net

[the oncoming storm]

I have recently been thinking about APWCs and the Super Cannon's so I decided to try improveing the Super Cannon. Not so much in power but cost SC 2 was estamated to cost 200$ to build, my goal is for it to cost a more afordable 50-60$. Design would be based on Super Cannon (it used a 1 1/2" pipe as an intake) vs the more costly air piston Super Cannon 2
I have a design but the photo is to large to post, as I plan on ultimately building this please share any tips or desines you may have.

[Drenchenator]

I would not recommending building a design based on the original Supercannon. The original Supercannon was pretty difficult to operate and never really performed that well anyway. There was no way to separate the air and water, so adding air to pressurize the chamber was difficult. Supercannon II fixes that by separating the air and water, so pressurizing is really easy.

I don't remember how much Ben spent on Supercannon II, but I don't think it was 200 dollars. To be honest, a lot of parts were expensive (I think the piston cups were 10 dollars each and the fire hose nozzle was like 25 dollars) but I don't think it reached the 200 dollar mark.

Still, there's a lot that can be done to lower the price. Using a smaller pipe size for the chamber would be one thing. Using a smaller pipe size for the valve and nozzle section would be another. Both of these may decrease performance though. A lot of the pressurization assembly could be simplified further. What could save the most money, however, would be just avoiding expensive parts like the big red nozzle and looking for cheaper parts in general.

[the oncoming storm]

Drench the biggest problem with Super Cannon was Ben's fancy filler nozzle that he used instead of a shradner valve. From what I have read he had problems getting it off without losing pressure, I don't recall a problem with air in the shot at all. and he himself estamated that it would cost $200 to replacate due to price incresses

[Fishfan]

SuperCannon 3 has been built, SuperCannon 4 has been already designed, by me! Maybe you can name it SuperCannon lite or something.
Also, I wouldn't replicate the original super cannon, simply because it failed, I would just try making the super cannon 2 cheaper.

[Andrew]

Drench the biggest problem with Super Cannon was Ben's fancy filler nozzle that he used instead of a shradner valve.

And that SC1 didn't have a piston separating the air and water, so when you fired it at too shallow an angle, only air came out!

[wetmonkey442]

SuperCannon 3 has been built, SuperCannon 4 has been already designed, by me! Maybe you can name it SuperCannon lite or something.
Also, I wouldn't replicate the original super cannon, simply because it failed, I would just try making the super cannon 2 cheaper.

Wait, you built a SuperCannon? Could I have a link to the thread and/or pictures?

[atvan]

I think he is referencing adronl's 6 inch pipe cannon from awhile back on SSC.

[Fishfan]

I have not built a SuperCannon. I designed the supercannon 4, and it will be awesome. As soon as I get the money to build it.

[Drenchenator]

Drench the biggest problem with Super Cannon was Ben's fancy filler nozzle that he used instead of a shradner valve. From what I have read he had problems getting it off without losing pressure,

I agree that it was a big problem. I should have been clearer, but I was alluding to the fancy filler nozzle when I said it was difficult to pressurize.

At the time, to replace the fancy filler nozzle, I recommended attaching the entire air and water filler assembly to a tee in the middle of the gun. The tee would allow air to get to the top directly, instead of having to travel down the feed tube and then up the chamber again. It would also remove the troublesome threaded cap that allowed water into the chamber. Ben mentioned this idea in the SuperCannon article. In retrospect, it wasn't a bad idea, but it still didn't fix the main problem with the original Supercannon design: the feed tube. The fact that you can't shoot the gun horizontally really limits how useful it is. The Supercannon II design is a much more solid design, which is why I recommended a cheap version of that rather than the original Supercannon design.

[atvan]

I always felt like the original SuperCannon's design had promise for very small blasters that would be used for games like assasins. Made with 1 or 1 1/4 inch pipe and perhaps a 1/4 inch feed tube, It could easily fit in a pocket and then be pulled out and fired from the waist level at the target. Because it is so simple and has no moving parts except the valve, it could be made quite powerful for its size. A similar design could perhaps be used for a sort of underslung shotgun type weapon for a primary.

[Ben]

The original feed-tube idea just didn't work well. I recommend using smaller diameter pipe (2 or 3 inch) and a single smaller piston. You can get a 2 or 3 inch plastic disk to keep the piston from rotating like the piston on the air side did. This will greatly reduce the cost.

The large diameter is not so necessary for performance in terms of output, though with less water, the performance might not build up to a good steady-state flow. Smaller nozzles will change this.

[Poseidon2000]

pistons at the moment are the godly force for cannons.