Difference between revisions of "FAQ"
(New page: ==Introduction== This page aims to answer some of the common '''"Which is better?"''' questions seen on the forums in a simple manner. Normally, there is no simple resolution to the quest...) |
Pilgrimman (talk | contribs) (Stipulated certain situations and facts in the cannon pros/cons.) |
||
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
Disadvantages: | Disadvantages: | ||
| − | * Less power, with a upper limit to what is practically possible. | + | * Less power, with a upper limit to what is practically possible (with all safe fuels). |
| − | * Less controlled ( | + | * Less controlled (Maintaining consistency and altering power) |
| − | * Often inconsistent and unreliable. | + | * Often inconsistent and unreliable (Advanced Combustion launchers can overcome this, but often cost more to construct). |
| − | * Potentially noisier | + | * Potentially noisier. This can be remedied to some extent by having a good [[Chamber to barrel ratio|Chamber to Barrel Ratio]]. |
| + | * Very large chambers are more prone to [[DDT|DDT]], although this is only likely to occur in chambers that are very long, on the order of a meter or more, and depends on many variables. | ||
'''Pneumatic cannons''' | '''Pneumatic cannons''' | ||
Advantages: | Advantages: | ||
| − | * Normally more powerful, with less of a "ceiling" to power. | + | * Normally more powerful, with less of a "ceiling" to power (The particle speed of the gas does limit power to some extent). |
| − | * More controllable, as power can be varied with pressure. | + | * More controllable and consistent, as power can be varied with pressure. |
| + | * Easier to simulate in a program, although programs have been written for Combustion cannons. | ||
Disadvantages: | Disadvantages: | ||
| − | * Takes longer to | + | * Takes longer to fill, unless you have a decent compressor or bottled gas (Especially true with large chambers). |
* Less portable. | * Less portable. | ||
* More complicated to construct. | * More complicated to construct. | ||
| − | * Leaks are a greater problem. | + | * Leaks are a greater problem, as they can cause a valve to open prematurely. |
---- | ---- | ||
| − | As a final note, a large majority of the launchers that Spudfiles (and other similar spudgun forum) users build are pneumatic cannons, but amongst people who don't take it up as a hobby, combustion | + | As a final note, a large majority of the launchers that Spudfiles (and other similar spudgun forum) users build are pneumatic cannons, but amongst people who don't take it up as a hobby, combustion cannons are more common. |
| + | |||
| + | ==Working on== | ||
| + | |||
| + | * [[PVC vs. ABS]] | ||
==To come soon== | ==To come soon== | ||
| − | |||
* Metal vs. Plastic | * Metal vs. Plastic | ||
* Boys vs. Girls (I'm kidding about this one) | * Boys vs. Girls (I'm kidding about this one) | ||
Revision as of 23:33, 15 February 2008
Introduction
This page aims to answer some of the common "Which is better?" questions seen on the forums in a simple manner.
Normally, there is no simple resolution to the question, because if there were, you wouldn't need to ask it. For example, if we knew pneumatics were best, then you wouldn't see any combustions.
It's not as simple and clear cut as people asking the question might think. However, this page will hopefully give you the information you need to make the decision for yourself, depending on what is most important to you in your launcher.
Combustion vs. Pneumatic
"Which is better? Combustion or Pneumatic?"
This is probably the most common question that gets asked on the forums, and the big problem with it is that it is unanswerable. Without knowing what a person wants from a spudgun, nobody can put one type ahead of another.
However, most experienced spudgunners will agree on this short list:
Where down is ascending order of "power" but also difficulty to use and build.
But, here are the main advantages and disadvantages in easy lists for you to decide on your own:
Combustion cannons
Advantages:
- Usually cheaper and easier to build
- Usually quicker to refuel and reload.
- More portable. Just needs a can of some flammable vapour, not a pump or compressor.
- Can be made bigger, but still kept practical.
- Easier to later upgrade.
Disadvantages:
- Less power, with a upper limit to what is practically possible (with all safe fuels).
- Less controlled (Maintaining consistency and altering power)
- Often inconsistent and unreliable (Advanced Combustion launchers can overcome this, but often cost more to construct).
- Potentially noisier. This can be remedied to some extent by having a good Chamber to Barrel Ratio.
- Very large chambers are more prone to DDT, although this is only likely to occur in chambers that are very long, on the order of a meter or more, and depends on many variables.
Pneumatic cannons
Advantages:
- Normally more powerful, with less of a "ceiling" to power (The particle speed of the gas does limit power to some extent).
- More controllable and consistent, as power can be varied with pressure.
- Easier to simulate in a program, although programs have been written for Combustion cannons.
Disadvantages:
- Takes longer to fill, unless you have a decent compressor or bottled gas (Especially true with large chambers).
- Less portable.
- More complicated to construct.
- Leaks are a greater problem, as they can cause a valve to open prematurely.
As a final note, a large majority of the launchers that Spudfiles (and other similar spudgun forum) users build are pneumatic cannons, but amongst people who don't take it up as a hobby, combustion cannons are more common.
Working on
To come soon
- Metal vs. Plastic
- Boys vs. Girls (I'm kidding about this one)
