Login    Register
User Information
Username:
Password:
We are a free and open
community, all are welcome.
Click here to Register
Sponsored
Who is online

In total there are 62 users online :: 5 registered, 0 hidden and 57 guests


Most users ever online was 218 on Wed Dec 07, 2016 6:58 pm

Registered users: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], MSNbot Media, Yahoo [Bot] based on users active over the past 5 minutes

The Team
Administrators
Global Moderators
global_moderators.png CS

Wiki Renovation- BCP Style.

Comments, Suggestions, Questions, anything to do with the website or community it's self. This is a place to express thoughts about making this community better.
Sponsored 
  • Author
    Message

Wiki Renovation- BCP Style.

Unread postAuthor: BC Pneumatics » Sat May 31, 2008 2:48 am

I was recently browsing around the wiki looking for a few references, only to find that I knew far about the subjects I was looking into than the wiki did. A lot of the information is outdated, and most of it does not flow together as well as it could.

I have decided to spend some time over the next few months (as if I'm not busy enough) and go around editing some things, adding a lot of information, and blending some of the bits together more seamlessly. As it is now you can easily tell where a paragraph has been cobbled together sentence by sentence, each from a different member.

I am hoping that by the time I am done the wiki is a lot more useful place, and can be a better resource for everybody here. I will keep track of some of the more major modifications I make in this topic, and let you guys all know what is going on.

So far today I have updated the <a href="http://www.spudfiles.com/spud_wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page">Main Page</a> (still far from done) as well as started working on a page for <a href="http://www.spudfiles.com/spud_wiki/index.php?title=BCARMS">BCARMS</a> that I hope to finish by Monday. I also completely rewrote the <a href="http://www.spudfiles.com/spud_wiki/index.php?title=IPLA">IPLA page.</a>

I printed a list of every page the wiki has, and I am crossing them off as I go. (Though I am going in no particular order) I will consider myself "done" when every page has a strike through it. I will not be editing all of these pages, but I have found that most of them have a thing or two that could be added, or spelling/grammar corrections to be made.

Like I said, I will keep you posted as I go. And if anyone is curious, a full list of changes can be found <a href="http://www.spudfiles.com/spud_wiki/index.php?title=Special:Recentchanges">here.</a>
Wish me luck...
  • 0

<a href="http://www.bcarms.com/"><img src="http://www.bcarms.com/images/store_logo.png" border="0"> </a>
User avatar
BC Pneumatics
Donating Member
Donating Member
 
Posts: 1089
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2005 6:55 pm
Location: Fresno, CA
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: BC Pneumatics » Sat May 31, 2008 3:26 am

I just did some work on the <a href="http://www.spudfiles.com/spud_wiki/index.php?title=Sprinkler_valve">Sprinkler Valve</a> page. I only got about half way through, I will pick up at Pneumatic Actuation tomorrow.
  • 0

<a href="http://www.bcarms.com/"><img src="http://www.bcarms.com/images/store_logo.png" border="0"> </a>
User avatar
BC Pneumatics
Donating Member
Donating Member
 
Posts: 1089
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2005 6:55 pm
Location: Fresno, CA
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: Hotwired » Sat May 31, 2008 5:37 am

Good stuff, there's lots of known but not written things that would be useful to see in there :)

I put hundreds of edits into the wikipedia version, was amused to recently see it bunged together with a load of other things under "pneumatic guns" for a few days before said editor realised it didn't look anywhere near as good and put it all back :lol:
  • 0

User avatar
Hotwired
Lieutenant General
Lieutenant General
 
Posts: 2599
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 5:51 am
Location: UK
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: jimmy101 » Sat May 31, 2008 10:05 am

Hey BC, thanks for all your changes, the Wiki needs it.

If you (or anyone for that matter) makes a change on top of a recent change please say why you did so in either the change page or on the discussion page.

I've made a few changes on top of some of the recent changes. Mostly minor things like adding the interwiki links, fixing incorrect words ("volatile gases" makes no sense) and the some other things (sprinkler valves are not "designed to open slowly to prevent water hammer").

Edit: BTW, does anybody know if there are any tools to help better structure a Wiki? I know you can get a list of dead-end links. Is there a way to semi-automatically deal with alternate names for the same concept? Is there a way to get a map of what pages link to what other pages?
  • 0

Image

jimmy101
Lieutenant General
Lieutenant General
 
Posts: 3129
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2007 9:48 am
Location: Greenwood, Indiana
Country: United States (us)
Reputation: 7

Unread postAuthor: BC Pneumatics » Sat May 31, 2008 2:32 pm

Jimmy, I am not sure how "volatile gases" makes no sense, (well, volatile fuels is the correct term) since my dictionary calls a 'volatile' substance "something that readily evaporates" (a very desirable quality in spudding fuels) in one definition, or gases that are "readily ignited, flammable, or explosive" in another. Also, "combustion of combustible gases" seems rather redundant itself, while something like "volatile gases" cannot be redundant since a volatile substance has to be easily evaporated (gases don't evaporate, liquids do) or be combustible (which all gases are not.)

When I got to the water hammer thing I was a bit suspect, and wanted to look it up and get some cross references. (That is obviously something I never got to last night). Digging through the archives can be more time consuming that you may think. Took me the better part of an hour to get the proper dates and do the formatting required for that short IPLA page.

Jimmy, when I started editing, I had all the same questions, Particularly the "cross link" page.

Edit-- Also, does anyone know where the "sprinkler design lowers performance 60-70%" data came from? It would be nice to have a reference sited for that one. Or is it from GGDT?
  • 0

Last edited by BC Pneumatics on Sat May 31, 2008 5:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
<a href="http://www.bcarms.com/"><img src="http://www.bcarms.com/images/store_logo.png" border="0"> </a>
User avatar
BC Pneumatics
Donating Member
Donating Member
 
Posts: 1089
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2005 6:55 pm
Location: Fresno, CA
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: clide » Sat May 31, 2008 3:51 pm

Sounds like BS to me. I don't really have documentation, but from my many guns I typically find that a tee piston valve has around 40% for a flow coefficient, a coaxial is around 35%, and a sprinkler is around 30%.

So a sprinkler is about 10% less efficient. I guess if you do (40-30)/40 you get about 25% less flow. Exactly how much less overall performance that equates to would depend on the gun, but I would guess that it is less than 25% in most cases.
  • 0

<a href="http://gbcannon.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://gbcannon.com/pics/misc/pixel.png" border="0"></a>latest update - debut of the cardapult

clide
Donating Member
Donating Member
 
Posts: 785
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2005 3:06 am
Location: Oklahoma, USA
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: BC Pneumatics » Sat May 31, 2008 5:25 pm

Okay, I toyed around with GGDT, and using the same size seat diameter (.988" for an Orbit Watermaster) I get about a 8.5% increase in muzzle velocity from a 40% piston valve over a 30% sprinkler. I also compared two models with different seat diameters. The sprinkler I modeled with a .988" seat diameter, and the piston I modeled with the seat diameter that you would see using a 1" Sch 40 pipe for the ports, 1.029". In this case, I got a 11.2% increase in muzzle velocity.

These are rough numbers, but the percentages hold pretty constant as the launcher is scaled, so I think it is safe to say a piston valve will result in about 10% higher muzzle velocity.

I will go ahead and use these numbers for the wiki, but it would be nice to see the results of a side by side chrony test. I suppose the glory of the wiki is we can put in this new data in place of the grossly exaggerated current data, and update again when we have the results of some physical testing, or even a more in depth analyzation of simulation data.
  • 0

<a href="http://www.bcarms.com/"><img src="http://www.bcarms.com/images/store_logo.png" border="0"> </a>
User avatar
BC Pneumatics
Donating Member
Donating Member
 
Posts: 1089
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2005 6:55 pm
Location: Fresno, CA
Reputation: 0

Sponsored

Sponsor
 


Unread postAuthor: BC Pneumatics » Sat May 31, 2008 5:51 pm

Made a few more updates, nothing too major. I must say I like this method of posting information. With anybody able to correct and alter anything, we are essentially proof reading another's work every time we look at the wiki, and can make corrections to spelling, grammar, etc, whenever required.

--Edit: I just noticed that of all the edits to the wiki made in the last 30 days, roughly 50% were made within the last 24 hours.
  • 0

Last edited by BC Pneumatics on Sat May 31, 2008 6:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
<a href="http://www.bcarms.com/"><img src="http://www.bcarms.com/images/store_logo.png" border="0"> </a>
User avatar
BC Pneumatics
Donating Member
Donating Member
 
Posts: 1089
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2005 6:55 pm
Location: Fresno, CA
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: jimmy101 » Sat May 31, 2008 6:08 pm

BC Pneumatics wrote:Jimmy, I am not sure how "volatile gases" makes no sense, (well, volatile fuels is the correct term) since my dictionary calls a 'volatile' substance "something that readily evaporates" (a very desirable quality in spudding fuels) in one definition, or gases that are "readily ignited, flammable, or explosive" in another. Also, "combustion of combustible gases" seems rather redundant itself, while something like "volatile gases" cannot be redundant since a volatile substance has to be easily evaporated (gases don't evaporate, liquids do) or be combustible (which all gases are not.)

When I got to the water hammer thing I was a bit suspect, and wanted to look it up and get some cross references. (That is obviously something I never got to last night).

"Volatile gases" is redundant since if it is a gas it doesn't have to evaporate. So, propane isn't a "volitaile liquid" it is a gas at room termperature.

As to volatile="easily evaporated" versus volatile="combustable", I think we should stick the the definition listed in a typical dictionaries concerning liquids. Water is a volatile liquid but it is not flammable. (Oil would be a non-volatile liquid.)

Accroding to the several dictionary definitions <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/volatile">here</a> the "combustable" or "explosive" defintions are only applied to people, situations and the like. Not to solvents, burning or combustion. "Five spudgunners discussing the relative merits of pneumatic guns versus combustion guns is a volatile situation." "Water is a volatile solvent." Both useages are correct but when talking about fuel the second useage is the correct one.

I agree that "combustion of combustable gases" sucks, but it is at least correct. "Combustion of volatile gases" doesn't need "volatile". "Combustion of volatile liquids" would be correct but we rarely use liquids in spud guns. (Liquid propane really doesn't count as a liquid since it vaporizes instantly when used in a typical spud gun.)

The "water hamming" thing has been in the Wiki for ages. It also occurs on D_Halls GGDT pages. I am 99.9% certain that they are both wrong. Water hammer only occurs when the valve in a water line is closed. It doesn't happen when the valve is opened. In my house the water control solenoid valve on the dishwasher makes the water pipes bang when it closes. No water valve in the house causes banging when they are opened.
  • 0

Image

jimmy101
Lieutenant General
Lieutenant General
 
Posts: 3129
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2007 9:48 am
Location: Greenwood, Indiana
Country: United States (us)
Reputation: 7

Unread postAuthor: BC Pneumatics » Sat May 31, 2008 6:26 pm

jimmy101 wrote:"Volatile gases" is redundant since if it is a gas it doesn't have to evaporate. So, propane isn't a "volitaile liquid" it is a gas at room termperature.

As I said, "volatile fuel" is the term I should have used, but "volatile gases" isn't redundant, it is a misuse of terminology, since as we have both said, gases do not have the ability to evaporate. (Evaporated gases would however be redundant.)

As to volatile="easily evaporated" versus volatile="combustable", I think we should stick the the definition listed in a typical dictionaries concerning liquids. Water is a volatile liquid but it is not flammable. (Oil would be a non-volatile liquid.)

Correct, water is volatile, but not flammable. That is why I used the term "volatile fuels". Volatile = easily evaporated, fuel = combustible.

Accroding to the several dictionary definitions <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/volatile">here</a> the "combustable" or "explosive" defintions are only applied to people, situations and the like. Not to solvents, burning or combustion. "Five spudgunners discussing the relative merits of pneumatic guns versus combustion guns is a volatile situation." "Water is a volatile solvent." Both useages are correct but when talking about fuel the second useage is the correct one.

This is just a matter of the internet dictionary not lining up with the bound version I have here, which uses the word "flammable", one typically associated with fuels, not people. (Though people are flammable, their interactions and situations are not.)

I agree that "combustion of combustable gases" sucks, but it is at least correct. "Combustion of volatile gases" doesn't need "volatile".

"Volatile Gases" was replaced, it has since said "volatile fuels", which is both correct terminology, and does not 'suck'.

(Liquid propane really doesn't count as a liquid since it vaporizes instantly when used in a typical spud gun.)

Erm, that is what makes it so volatile. We have already agreed, as do our two dictionaries, that volatile means it vaporizes very quickly. You are saying liquid propane should not be considered a volatile fuel, for the simple reason that it is incredibly volatile...

Now, since as written the terminology is both correct and an improvement over what was there before, I think we should stop wasting time quibbling over definitions and technicalities, and make more progress on the wiki. There is a damn long road ahead.
  • 0

<a href="http://www.bcarms.com/"><img src="http://www.bcarms.com/images/store_logo.png" border="0"> </a>
User avatar
BC Pneumatics
Donating Member
Donating Member
 
Posts: 1089
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2005 6:55 pm
Location: Fresno, CA
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: BC Pneumatics » Sat May 31, 2008 7:35 pm

Does anybody know that town the KY IPLA meet was held in? (or at least an adjacent town?) I didn't see it in the archive topic for the KY meet.
Thanks.
  • 0

<a href="http://www.bcarms.com/"><img src="http://www.bcarms.com/images/store_logo.png" border="0"> </a>
User avatar
BC Pneumatics
Donating Member
Donating Member
 
Posts: 1089
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2005 6:55 pm
Location: Fresno, CA
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: jimmy101 » Sun Jun 01, 2008 5:18 pm

BC Pneumatics wrote: You are saying liquid propane should not be considered a volatile fuel, for the simple reason that it is incredibly volatile...

Now, since as written the terminology is both correct and an improvement over what was there before, I think we should stop wasting time quibbling over definitions and technicalities, and make more progress on the wiki. There is a damn long road ahead.


I disagree. Propane at STP and NTP is a gas. The term "voltatile" does not apply to something that is a gas at normal conditions. You would not describe nitrogen as "volatile".
  • 0

Image

jimmy101
Lieutenant General
Lieutenant General
 
Posts: 3129
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2007 9:48 am
Location: Greenwood, Indiana
Country: United States (us)
Reputation: 7

Unread postAuthor: BC Pneumatics » Sun Jun 01, 2008 5:40 pm

Jimmy, I think you are running into the same problem I sometimes do- everything you learn is in terms of science and chemistry. STP is nice, but the truth is that propane is in it's liquid state every time a spudder goes to use it. Every day thousands of people use bottles of liquid propane. Those are normal enough conditions for me. We are not writing a dissertation for a masters in chemistry, we are writing for The Spudding Handbook. We are writing to spudders.

Also, the reason I would not describe nitrogen as "volatile" is because it boils at -196*C. Trying to make your point by comparing that to propane's BP of -43*C is nothing short of ridiculous.
  • 0

<a href="http://www.bcarms.com/"><img src="http://www.bcarms.com/images/store_logo.png" border="0"> </a>
User avatar
BC Pneumatics
Donating Member
Donating Member
 
Posts: 1089
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2005 6:55 pm
Location: Fresno, CA
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: Davidvaini » Sun Jun 01, 2008 5:42 pm

If you need any help with the BBMG section of the Wiki let me know.
  • 0

User avatar
Davidvaini
Major General
Major General
 
Posts: 1315
Joined: Tue May 29, 2007 8:58 pm
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: DYI » Sun Jun 01, 2008 8:10 pm

Also, the reason I would not describe nitrogen as "volatile" is because it boils at -196*C. Trying to make your point by comparing that to propane's BP of -43*C is nothing short of ridiculous.


So where exactly do you draw the line? Would you consider CO<sub>2</sub> to be volatile? What about oxygen? I don't think most spudders live in temperatures of -43*C, or anywhere close to it. On average, I'd bet that we live closer to STP than to the boiling point of propane, so why not use STP?
  • 0

Spudfiles' resident expert on all things that sail through the air at improbable speeds, trailing an incandescent wake of ionized air, dissociated polymers and metal oxides.
User avatar
DYI
Lieutenant General
Lieutenant General
 
Posts: 2861
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 8:18 pm
Location: The People's Republic of Canuckistan
Country: Turks and Caicos Islands (tc)
Reputation: 9

Next

Return to Website Discussion

Who is online

Registered users: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], MSNbot Media, Yahoo [Bot]

Reputation System ©'