Paaign,
I know you've sent it but a couple of thoughts.....
a website with instructions on how to properly build and fire a potato gun
Brace yourselves for a wave of Noobs asking for step by step instructions and shopping lists.
if you put in too much fuel, the cannon will explode.
Not if he was referring to the solid propellants surely? I'm not a chemist but isn't it the case that you can "overfuel" a cannon that uses a solid propellant? I think you should have clarified that in standard SGs where the fuel is propane etc. that you can't put in too much fuel...
but with Sch40, no danger is there so long as it is used in a safe manner
Eek! Isn't cell core SCH40 extremely dangerous?
as long as the pressure of compressed air does not exceed the pressure rating of the weakest pipe fitting used, the gun will be completely safe
When you talking about the safety of SGs you can't really talk in absolutes. Nothing is "completely safe" there is always the risk of a failure. You should have said that the safety is dramatically increased.
Jo,
Although I do not wish to be disrepectful to Division Chief Jim Sideras, describing him as "a local expert" is far from accurate. True spudgun experts are very few and far between.
As someone that could reasonably be described as an expert in the field, I am therefore making a counter point to the following incorrect statements made both by your reporters and the Division Chief:
>"When something goes wrong with a potato gun, it goes very wrong".
Having built many potato guns, I can assure you that this point is an inaccurate generalisation which displays a very minor proportion of events as the majority situation. Well over 99% of cases of things going wrong with a potato gun are minor issues, like an air leak, or failed ignitor.
However, in fairness to Jim Sideras, I would imagine that when he hears about potato gun failure, it is because of it resulting in injury or fatality, but he is looking at a limited cross section of incidents which results in this distorted view.
Hmmm....I think you need to change it....One minute you saying that what this guy made was a firearm and not Spudgun and the next your saying (to put it very crudely) that they shouldn't have bothered asking him since he's not a SG expert and they should ask someone like you who's an expert.....Yet if it wasn't a SG why should they ask you a SG expert? Perhaps it's just the way you phrased it but that's how it comes accross.....
You might want to turn on the (this is painful to type
)US English Dictionary. Otherwise they'll think your just some UK member that's poking their nose into US business (although that make work for you if you imply that you've been so insulted by it).
Normally I'd also recommend you sign it as a male...but since the reporter was female that may work in your benefit.....
PCGUY,
I've yet to see any comment from the ATF regarding pneumatics....I thought it was only combustions that they talked about?
Overall the whole thread reminds me of the velocity vs speed argument....
People who want to sell a car will use velocity as it sounds good - yet those in the Physics community start cringing since that's not in their eyes the correct use of the word.
Same here thing here to the average person a potato gun is merely a device that uses a propellant, solid...liquid...gas...whatever to launch a potato or part of.
The member's on here start cringing since in their eyes that's not a Spudgun. I must admit I think if he was firing Spuds then it's a Spudgun regardless of the type of propellant used - yes it is extremely dangerous to use solid propellants but it doesn't mean that it's suddenly not a Spudgun. It's only not a Spudgun in the sense that this forum classes a Spudgun as something that doesn't use powerful propellants but not every one is a member of this forum and since we're not the ATF you can't expect people to follow our rules/regs and definitions.....