Wiki Renovation- BCP Style.

[BC Pneumatics]

DYI, I do not particularly care to draw a line, and I certainly never said anything about us being closer to -43* than to 0*. My point was simply that Jimmy picking a liquid with a boiling point 4x farther from STP than the one I was talking about in order to "make his point" was just stupid.
I already explained "why not use STP?" for the cut off point. We were talking about a volatile substance being one that "normally" has a very strong tendency to evaporate. And most times a person normally sees propane, evaporation is a simple valve twist away.

Like I said, I do not particularly care about being bound by STP and technicalities when I am trying to write something to help beginning spudders along. If everybody wrote everything using only strict definitions, concrete rules, and quibbled about every slight brush with improper syntax, there'd be no one around that could stand to read it. It would be dull, repetitive, lacking in excitement and for a lot of people, clarity. Not the road I am looking to take the wiki down. Everybody that is hung up on wasting time with inconsequential things needs to focus on the big picture.

[jimmy101]

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

Hey David. I reverted the changes you made to the BBMG page.

I'm not aware of any BBMGs that fire at the rate you posted. Furthermore, you removed the details of BBs in a brakeline barrel and replaced with data on airsoft ammo and a "real" barrel. Feel free to add the airsoft stuff but don't remove what was already there since many (most?) BBMGs have been built for copper/steel BBs.

Do you have a citation for the ROF and velocity you quoted?

[jimmy101]

BC

Feel free to do whatever you think is best for the Wiki. It's your time and effort so i'll leave you alone.

One thing though, it should be written like a master's thesis and not like a comic book. To be useful the Wiki needs to be accurate. Furthermore, it should set the example that spud gunning is well thought out and based on sound principles. You can't do that if the language is sloppy or if the technical aspects are incorrect.

No "OMG elventyones" stuff.
No Joe SixPack with a Pringle can, duct tape, gasoline and a lighter.
Nothing that is inaccurate.
Nothing that makes spudguns look like toys.

[jimmy101]

BTW

Calling anything that is a gas at room temperature "volatile" is just wrong. Acetone is volatile. So is ether. So is water.

Propane is not, it is a gas. Doesn't matter if it boils at 3C below RT or -270C, it's still a gas at RT. To keep it as a liquid it has to be stored under pressure in a steel container that is pressure rated to several hundred PSIG. Hardly the description of a "volatile liquid".

BTW2: NTP = "normal temperature and pressure" which I had in the same post as STP.

BTW3: In MSDS sheets "volatile" only means that the substance evaporates easily. It does not mean it is flammable or explosive. Look up the MSDSs for carbon tetrachloride or any of the heavier freons. They are described as "volatile" but they are non-flammable.

[BC Pneumatics]

Jimmy, if you are honestly trying to tell me that saying "combustion of volatile fuels" instead of "combustion of combustible gases" makes the wiki any less useful, or makes it seems as if it is written in a "comic book" style then you surely have a screw loose. If you want to talk about usefulness, then lets do it. How useful is something that doesn't get read, because it is purposely written to sound big and important, rather than written to teach it's target audience? Everything you post just backs up the point I tried to make earlier. You are writing for strict scientific interpretation. There is nothing wrong with that, but the front page of a document intended to teach people primarily in their teens is not the place for it.

I am glad that you want spudding to come across as well thought out, and for spudders to seem smart and intelligible. I have the same feelings, and I am going to be frank, since you seem very intent on not letting this go. I think someone that says spud launchers use "volatile fuels" (Which BTW does not only refer to the propane that you are having so much fun complaining about, but includes some of the very substances you have posted as examples of volatile liquids) sounds like they thought things out a hell of a lot more than someone who throws together terms like "combustion of combustible gases", that are too repetitive to be found even in comic books.

Now for your eleventyone and Pringles can comments.
Again you have left examples that make you look like a babbling idiot, as they are so far detached from the things I am saying. I have tried to use words that include variety, a reasonable accurate description, and a hook to lure readers in to learn more, and you try to peg me as someone that makes up words and condones unsafe practices.

You are also trying to argue points that have already been determined moot. With the wording as is, volatile does not need to mean flammable to be correct, and never once is propane referred to as volatile directly. You say you will leave me alone, but I try to end this conversation at the end of nearly every recent post, and you keep bringing it back up.

I do not know if you are just such an elitist that you cannot help yourself, or if you are angry that some of the things you have posted on the wiki are getting deleted and updated. What I do know is that if you really give a damn about the hobby, any further than enjoying being very good at it and applying advanced concepts to it's principles, you will stop trying to be confrontational and just be glad someone is finally doing something to convert the wiki from a half as</i>sed attempt at knowledge to a tool to teach future spudders easily and efficiently.

[Davidvaini]

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

Hey David. I reverted the changes you made to the BBMG page.

I'm not aware of any BBMGs that fire at the rate you posted.
Do you have a citation for the ROF and velocity you quoted?

yes I do. Numerous guns on this site have achieved that ROF. Some have even exceeded it.

The RCP240 shoots at 115, my bullpup shoots at 125 and I think neospud's UltimateInline mark 2 shoots 115 as well. Some unregulated Co2 guns shoot even higher.

As cheap as brakeline is, New information about BBMG's should be included. Such as the higher ROF of Vortex caps, improved velocity of tighter bore barrels and vortex block designs.

As useful as that brake line information was, it encourages guests and members to use brake line as their primary choice for a barrel. Not only that but a 3 foot barrel is too long and at 120PSI you will lower your velocity after 16 inches due to friction. So setting the standard information of velocity on a 3 foot brake line barrel is a little out dated. Velocity and ROF have improved due to the advances in BBMG construction.

So plz don't delete the new updated info, If more people are encouraged to use better materials and better construction techniques they will see that ROF and Velocity can be improved.

And the statement that more BBMG's use copper bb's rather than airsoft bb's is an old statement as well. Every day more and more BBMG's are built for airsoft bb's. I agree a lot of bbmg's in the past have been built for copper bb's but here lately the trend has been airsoft.

Anyway, I kept your information and just added airsoft BBMG information.

[clide]

Regarding combustion of volatile fuels. Can't we just solve this problem with a thesaurus?

How about:
Combustion of flammable gases
Combustion of gaseous fuel
Ignition of combustible gases
Burning of combustible gases
Deflagration of flammable gases
etc...

Changing it doesn't mean you are wrong, and there is no point in keeping it when it can easily be changed to something that won't cause objections.

[BC Pneumatics]

Clide, anyone can change it any time, as anybody can edit the wiki. I never asked anyone not to, and would not care if Jimmy decided to change it right now. Of course if it is changed to something that is not as well written, I will change it back, (or to something new, I just didn't particularly care to think of something new.) like I did before.

[jimmy101]

Jimmy, if you are honestly trying to tell me that saying "combustion of volatile fuels" instead of "combustion of combustible gases" makes the wiki any less useful, or ... many words or ranting omitted for brevities sake ... , you will stop trying to be confrontational and just be glad someone is finally doing something to convert the wiki from a half as</i>sed attempt at knowledge to a tool to teach future spudders easily and efficiently.

Feel free to stop the the discussion whenever you want.

The wiki should be written at a "thesis level" taking into account the background of the typical reader. That is how pretty much everything in life should be written, particular when you are talking about the construction of homemade devices that are potentially lethal. That is why there is a "stoichiometry" page, for example. In a thesis we wouldn't have to define that word. In the Wiki we do. Same with "blow-by" and ROF and muzzle velocity and kinetic energy and ....

BTW, I quit arguing about "combustion of combustible gases" about five posts back. It is you that keeps harping on that particularly poorly worded example.

[Davidvaini]

Could someone update the main page to include a link to the BBMG.

[BC Pneumatics]

I am not going to just stop posting on the matter. I have been trying to get us to both mutually agree that no more needs to be said, so that we can both go on. Just dropping the conversation mid way through would indeed stop it, but I am more looking to reach a conclusion.

Your statement about "everything should be written at a thesis level" is an opinion, just as it is my opinion that most things should not be. Luckily far more people in the world agree with my opinion (actually, I took this into account before forming it) and the wiki is no doubt intended to be geared towards the majority of the people that will be using it, not towards the people who already reside on these forums and enjoy reading things that are written in the scientific report format. I know you are just saying "that is how pretty much everything should be written" to stretch your point, and while it may be true if we humans always wanted to interpret things strictly for the purpose of extracting data, we don't. I cannot imagine that any less than 99.9% of people that build spud guns are looking for a couple hours of fun, or for a nice hobby to get into at most. Gearing the wiki toward the .1% or so of people that look at spudding as more than a hobby, as a science, or a passion, or whatever they feel, is not the right thing to do.

I am not saying that we cannot be very scientific on the wiki, I am just saying that turning it from a "Handbook" to get spudders started to something that resembles an O Chem term paper is not the right thing to do. We like to look around the forums and marvel at how well everybody behaves, and how they treat the hobby so responsibly and so professionally, but few of us ever think back to the start of things. Most of our 'advanced' members learned all their technical jargon from here. (Or, at least bothered to remember it from high school because of Spudfiles.)

If we want to keep 'converting' people from ones who would read something written "thesis style" for about 20 minutes before giving up half way down the page into those who could actually write something in this 'style', we are going to have to create a learning curve, not expect them to get up to a level that very few can before being able to join in all our reindeer games.

I cannot believe you are actually trying to defend the point that we shouldn't use creative writing techniques all over the wiki, that we should instead adopt the style of a chemist reporting his findings on bond polarization in exotic halogen compounds. Even the people I know with Masters and Ph. Ds in sciences would not disagree that there is a place for technical writing, and a place for 'normal' writing. The front page of the wiki is a place for the latter.

I also am not a fan of you trying to convince people that just because something is dangerous, we should treat it like only those who are 'intellectually gifted' can safely deal with it. At least, that is what I got out of your statement in bold. Cars are potentially lethal if driven wrong, but is a driver's ed class about the physics of a collision? Do we spend our time calculating the tensile strength in rubber and how it relates to the blowout rate of tires? Cannons are potentially lethal if built wrong, and I do not want to knock you off your high horse, but even so, you hardly have to be a rocket scientist, or even terribly smart, to build one safely.

If you want to write something very scientific, structured, and checked twenty times over to make sure everything is kosher, go ahead. If you write a twenty page report on a screw's angle entering the chamber and the ramifications it has on the combustion process, I will read it the whole way through. You just have to realize that things like that, things written the way you want them to be, only appeal to a very, very small portion of the people out there that the wiki is written for.

Look at the actual Wikipedia. Do you really think a physicist is going to reference the page on physics? Not a chance, because he knows more than it can teach. In this same way, our wiki is not mean to be terribly useful to people like us, it is meant for the people who do not know a reducer from a cleanout. The beauty is that you can post all the advanced content you want, just stop trying to say the entire wiki should be written in that fashion. It is bullsh</i>it, plain and simple.

And Jimmy, just because your statement was too poorly worded to be worth you defending, does not mean I can be faulted for 'bringing it up' and 'harping on about it'. I have been looking to resolve this issue quickly and painlessly, but instead you insist on evolving it further and further. If you make a new point that requires me to go back and mention something from the past, I cannot be the one faulted for it.

[Biopyro]

I have to say I'm with BCarms here. Volatility is volatility. It has its definition, and the dictionary is (fortunately) not run with a wiki engine. Despite this I don't think it it is going to make some huge difference to the reliability of the wiki, most people will still understand exactly what is meant. The wiki doesn't need to be some sort of degree level peer reviewed journal, it just needs to have relevant and reliable information. Most people who have already built a few cannons won't find the wiki especially useful, and so it really doesnt need to be written to some incredible standard with too much jargon.
Just my $0.02

[Davidvaini]

sorry Jimmy but I agree with BC. I prefer a thesis format along with the appropriate citations (MLA would be sufficient) for certain applications, however with our target audience a more creative, easy-to-read, energetic style should be used. I do believe we should have good solid statistics but in a separate paragraph. If you mix the technical specifications along with the beginners information you will lose a lot of people in the process.

Keep it simple, easy to read, and informative to beginners on the main page, but then If you want more advanced information create a page for that and link to it.

Also only delete or edit information that you are completely sure is wrong. An example is that you were not aware of any BBMG's that fired at 115bb/sec. So you reverted the changes back even though there are multiple BBMG's that fire at that rate and even higher. If you change new updated information without being 100% sure it is incorrect, then you will discourage new, innovative, and creative methods that could and will move this wonderful HOBBY forward.

When I was trying to explain to a friend how BBMG's work, I first went on a the wiki to find some useful information for him to read up on first and ask me questions later. Well after looking at the information I noticed a huge section of it is outdated. When new barrels with less blow by are more readily available, the information should be updated. Blow by can effect the performance of these guns greatly, with that said new statistical information (your bread and butter) should be updated as well.

People come on the forums of spudfiles all the time with their creations that are simply outdated. They come up with T section vortex's with brake line barrels for airsoft that have huge amounts of blow by. Times have changed buddy and people should be informed about the tighter bore barrels and increased performance with a plunger system. The new information should be used as the standard for the learning curve rather than the outdated information of the "T" vortex with brakeline barrels.

[jimmy101]

... I have been looking to resolve this issue quickly and painlessly...

Hence you've felt the need to post several thousand words in response? It takes two to flamewar.

Look, when you've contributed 50 or so <u>significant</u> additions to the Wiki then you can get the beanie with the propeller on top.

[Davidvaini]

... I have been looking to resolve this issue quickly and painlessly...

Hence you've felt the need to post several thousand words in response? It takes two to flamewar.

I am not going to just stop posting on the matter. I have been trying to get us to both mutually agree that no more needs to be said, so that we can both go on. Just dropping the conversation mid way through would indeed stop it, but I am more looking to reach a conclusion.

He is posting several thousand word responses to reach a conclusion, rather than forgetting about it. Notice how he said resolve, that means come to a conclusion. BC has contributed a lot to this community and I don't believe you should be trash talking him. I applaud his attempt at improving the wiki and not being close minded and ignorant. God knows we have too many of those kind of people around.