[Hubb]

how do we set that limit for parts that don't have a clear rating?

We don't. Again, the people who would be going for the badge will probably end up building a launcher specifically designed for that badge. If not, I do not believe they would push their current launcher(s) to the extreme that they could be injured. They may test it, but most will know if their launcher can or cannot top the current badge holder's launcher. Example: My advanced combustion is plenty powerful, but I ain't going to be breaking the sound barrier with it. I'd be lucky to get half that.

As far as the ROF thing, I do agree with clide. I think there should be no set size (excluding, of course, vortex and clouds).

[POLAND_SPUD]

yeah I agree with clide - it's much more difficult to build a semi or fully automatic gun than to build a powerful gun.. morover I agree that we shouldn't give badges for powerful guns becasue it would encourage people to do crazy things.. I think there are some people here who really deserve recognition - not because they built another >2000 J gun but because they are doing something inovative - like ant

[Hubb]

You don't feel people like Killjoy should be recognized for the awesomeness of FEAR?

[Ragnarok]

As far as the ROF thing, I do agree with clide. I think there should be no set size (excluding, of course, vortex and clouds).

An idea I've just had to refine my earlier suggestion - is that any loader up for the badge should have a limitation on it that it must have at least one moving part, other than the projectile(s).

Although there are many ways that the venturi principle could be turned to other BBMG loaders, there won't be a vast amount to separate it from the current ideas.

Writing the requirement like that doesn't exclude stuff like JSR's (attempts at... ) innovation in that front from awards.
There is one idea I can think of that has not yet been used that would regrettably be ineligible - using an ejector principle that uses the Bernoulli effect to create a vacuum to draw through projectiles.

[POLAND_SPUD]

let me put it like this -> It's easier to impress people by powerful guns... spudguns are becoming more and more powerful but how many semis or fully autoguns (not including BBMGs) you can enumerate?

I think that there should be one badge given for doing something inovative - even for those who did something new and even for those who have been trying to do something new (JSR )
ofcourse we can't forget about members who do something for the whole community ( like D_Hall )

[BC Pneumatics]

Clide- What you are saying does not make much sense at all. I agree that "make a powerful cannon" will yield very simple monstrosities, with no innovation. That is why I like something like power:weight, since it helps drive innovation. After everything I have said about wanting people to be innovative, it is hard to believe you are using the argument you are for 'small mechs'- that they are less innovative, but who cares. You are saying that since not all categories are as much a haven for ingenuity as some, we should knock them all down to the same level. I say screw that, lets build others up to the higher level. BTW, I have already said I think breaking the auto class into sub classes by ammo size would be the way to go, so the point is really moot. I just thought the logic you were using was a bit faulty.

Can you think of any regulations to prevent the Monster Problem? Displacement restrictions don't work, and obviously you would be strongly opposed to any weight regulations. All an overall length rule would do is promote a bunch of those damn unipipe launchers with 24" bores.

You are 100% right on one account. Power:Weight pushes materials to the limit. (Though that isn't the idea, it is a side-effect.) If the limit for a particular material includes a 300% safety factor like I have already mentioned, then I see absolutely no problem with pushing things there.

The truth is, we will be playing with things without any pre-defined limits. Who the hell but us is going to define those limits pertaining to spud guns? As you know (but operantly have not thought about) PVC is one of those "Parts that don't have a clear rating", since they are rated for hydraulic pressure, and clearly say they are not intended for safe use with pneumatics. In fact, there is not a damn thing in the world professionally rated for use in tater cannons, we have had to make it all going off of burst pressures, yield strengths, trial and error, experience, and yes, accidents.

Anyone that is pushing the bounds of anything (again, cars make a good example) knows to start very low, and increase very gradually doing safety checks and employing safety measures along every step of the way. I do not see the members of this forum conducting themselves in any other fashion.

[BC Pneumatics]

Poland- I think that it is much harder to impress people with power for the specific reason you stated- it is not that hard to make a gun exhibiting raw power. Size alone is not impressive until built on the scale of FEAR, and even then the impressive qualities are largely limited to novelty. It is easy to get people to respect a fully automatic cannon, it is much more difficult to get them to respect a powerful cannon, since such a cannon would have to employ many unconventional and interesting aspects, just like an automatic would.

Of course, it could just be that you and others are much more easily impressed by power than I am. Or that you are impressed by power itself, and me by the means by which the power was created.

[SpudFarm]

Then again, by that interpretation, people should get "keeps asking the same question" for asking "Any Damage pics?" over and over...

like in: "how do i make a pneumatic" "plans for pneumatic" "how do i find pressure parts" and all those TOPICS from the same person if the answer is in a post in the "how do i make a pneumatic" topic..

i meant like topics that has the same answered question over and over again..

(did not read all the replies before i wrote this)

[Davidvaini]

I think vortex's could be included in the ROF battle... For example If I do build one of my plans which is a 36000 round per minute heavy vortex machine gun that would be impressive would it not?

I think it should be said that vortex's/clouds that only run 150bb/sec or less should not be included...

As for the innovative...you dont need to go big to be innovative... you can still be innovative with BBMG's... Just think about the vortex cap idea that I came up with not too long ago... Or even the remote activated sprinkler valve cannon was new at one point..

I think the biggest problem with spudfiles and the spudding community in general is there are few innovations... not nearly enough! So if badges are implemented, an innovation badge needs to be there, no matter how big or small the project may be.

With an innovative badge it would drive people to be more innovative, to stretch their mind a little bit and overall improve the spudding community.

[BC Pneumatics]

David, I like the innovation badge idea, one that could be issued time and time again. (For instance, someone like Clide, David, or Mark would already have 3 or 4.)

One for strictly Fastest BBMG would be okay, but I don't think I would expand it much beyond that.

[Davidvaini]

You wouldnt have to give us 3 or 4 innovation badges... you could do like www.pcapex.com does... You would get a single badge and thats it...

OR you could make 10 innovation badges... first innovation badge would have a tiny light bulb picture or something cool like that with a little number 1... your next innovation badge would then replace that picture and have either the same picture of the lightbulb but have a number 2 instead of 1.. or you could have a different picture with a number 2... either way you would just be replacing your old innovation badge picture...

[jrrdw]

So the politics of spudding come out into the light. Who knew it would take a basic "Boy Scout" award system to make it happen. Don't get me wrong guys, I like the idea of badges in this arena. What are the conclusions from the discussion?

A fair amount of territory has been covered, we need a good secretary to some up all the points to a outline or something. 10 pages is to hard to decipher.

Any takers on someone who can make all this make sense in a understandable shorter version?

[BC Pneumatics]

jrrdw, as of now, the discussion has very few clean cut conclusions. If you want to know what is going on, you are going to have to read all ten pages.

If you are not up to the task, I will write a Reader's Digest version when some of the ideas are more concrete.

[POLAND_SPUD]

I think that the idea to introduce several 'levels' of inovation badges is great... some members post a lot just to have higher post count or earn spudbucks... why don't use this fact to boost inovation here ?

[Hubb]

In other words, one should make a post outlining the highlights of these ten pages. I'm not up for it now, but I'm sure Sthorne would be, since he probably knows more about what's happening than me.