[DYI]

The thing here is, not many people want a cannon thirty feet long that requires its own trailer for transport and takes an hour to reload, not even me. At some point, most will decide that to get more power they have to use more pressure.

I think BC has come up with the best set so far. 600 feet is in the range of almost any remotely advanced cannon of an average size, and 900 feet isn't that much more. To hit anything at 1/2 mile or 1 mile with a homemade launcher, even if the target is the size of a barn, is an impressive achievement.

I would go so far as to say that we should have badges for Mach 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 3.8 (SOS in hydrogen), 4, and 5, as well as an over all highest velocity badge. It will be interesting to see how long it will be before someone chronos a hypersonic shot.

[STHORNE]

nice idea...I'll have to add those to the list

[BC Pneumatics]

Rag- It should be noted I threw in a power:weight badge that will hopefully get us some interesting cannons that do not follow the "bigger is better" mentality.
You also made mention of it turning into a "if you have a place to build it" competition. This limit of space is another thing that will hopefully lead us to new advancements. Instead of simply building bigger, people will look for more efficient shapes, things like flamefront accelerators, higher energy density fuel mixtures, etc.
The upward spiral you describe is exactly what I hope would come out of a system like this. As you said, months ago 300psi was powerful novelty, now it is working towards being common place. A couple years ago a hybrid was a detached concept built only by a small handful of potato masters, and now there are 3 pages of them in the gallery.
Could you imagine a world where, through the endless struggle of "Keeping up with the Jones'", the hybrid is as lowly as a spray and pray, and metering systems are advanced enough to provide perfect fuel mixtures to cannons a couple CCs in volume?

[Ragnarok]

Title of Topic = Badge System

I was pointing out that a high energy competition may well equate to a "who can build the biggest cannon" competition, which is perhaps not quite what is wanted - and that is more on topic than some things you will see.
Besides, there is little need to quote my entire post - if your concern is cluttering the topic with unnecessary posting, you are being a touch hypocritical.

Power to weight is a different matter, but again, it has concerns. It's unduly unfair on those who use safer (and heavier) materials, such as metals - and those who are most prepared to push lighter materials such as PVC past their limits will have the edge.
Perhaps power divided by the volume of the barrel/chamber (I would suggest barrel) would be a better move, to avoid limiting those with the heavier cannons.

I do have to raise my eye a little at the >1.5" limit on the ROF category. 100+ or 250+ rpm from that size, other than using golf balls, would be a challenge.
Perhaps instead it should be applied to any cannon that has a mechanical loading system. So with a bolt or such - instead of a design like a vortex.

[STHORNE]

ok, my bad...no need to get defensive about it....

[DYI]

the hybrid is as lowly as a spray and pray, and metering systems are advanced enough to provide perfect fuel mixtures to cannons a couple CCs in volume?

My universal fuel meter is already that advanced

And after all this talk of competition, I've got to go order those 2" 3000 psi unions from McMaster, and find some seamless tube I can put to use. With all the hours I'm getting now (about 50 this month), I can gear everything back up to its previous state

[Ragnarok]

@BC Pneumatics: Missed your post as you posted it while I was typing.

Indeed, the increasing use of new advances, such as the rise of the use of 300 psi is a good thing - if it's done safely.
Although I can see that there is much to come from a successful growth of spudding, a worry is that people will start to push materials past their recommended limits.

Perhaps things that exceed pressure ratings (or a general consensus of safe limits) should be considered exempt from awards for reasons of safety? Where things are not rated, an educated guess as to whether it is too much would probably suffice.

@STHORNE:I'm just tired, and I should be in bed, so apologies for being a bit snappy.

@Everyone: Stop keeping me up with interesting posting!!!

[BC Pneumatics]

You could also say that boring out a block on a drag car is unfair to those that prefer the safety insurance offered by a factory thick block.
A Power:Volume badge would be practically worthless, as it is simple a competition of who uses the highest energy density fuel, with cannon efficiencies making a small difference on the overall scale. (In combustions at least. You already pointed out the problem with pneumatics, that energy density = pressure)

I'm not sure I want to respond to the >1.5", only GB statement, since your point was "it would be a challenge".
Is Mach 2 not a challenge? Is a mile long shot not a challenge? Is 1.5" of steel penetration not a challenge? It has been said time and time again, the sole purpose of this system is to provide people with a challenge!

Also Rag, I must thank you for making two of them most valuable posts in this entire topic. Every word of criticism and critique is worth a thousand words of praise.

Edit- Same thing happened to me. Part of the application rules I have been chatting about with people include eliminating people that break any Laws, Forum Rules, or Safety Codes while trying to earn a badge.

[Ragnarok]

Fair point on the power:volume.
I am still concerned that power to weight would encourage unsafe practise though. However, if I suggested above, unsafe cannons were exempt from awards, that would help prevent such risks.

As for the drag car engine block... I'm working with a diesel engine at the moment that has the same kind of problem. When they were made, the 1.5 litre engines and 1.8 litre engines were bored into the same size block, which leaves the 1.8 prone to the head gaskets blowing through the thinner walls between cylinders. I've mentioned it elsewhere, but it (sort of) came up.

I'm not sure I want to respond to the >1.5", only GB statement, since your point was "it would be a challenge".

But perhaps too much of a challenge. We already have seen the GB semi, which does meet your 100+ rpm requirement, but I feel that asking over four golf balls a second is a very large demand - not just on the builder, but even if spudguns can advance, a compressor of practical scale would not practically keep up with that ROF for long - nor in fact would an average bore of airline hose supply the required flow very well.

In fact, other than the GB semi, I can't think of <s>m</s>any other high ROF cannons in 1.5" or above. Hmm, it might promote innovation, but given the compressor requirement, I can't see it becoming too popular.

It might need to be brought down to a smaller bore. Perhaps the required ROF could be decided on a sliding scale of sorts, where small cannons needed more rpm to get the award than larger bores, so instead of it relating to 100+ rpm for all sizes. That would allow both small and large cannons to compete, for a general "Rapid fire" award, or whatever name seems most appropriate.

Perhaps even there should be some kind of "difficulty" break on the ROF for the higher bores, so that the objectives are a little less tough to compensate for the difficulty and unpopularity of building an auto loader in that size.

[BC Pneumatics]

Compressor? Pft, you are thinking inside the box again! What about bottled air? What about combustions? What about the stuff that neither of us are thinking about, or maybe have never even heard of?
If you put an average bore hose on a cannon like this, it would be the only thing about it that was average. Besides, if the construction industry can use pneumatic jackhammers to bust up solid rock, I don't think 4+GB/S with air is unreasonable.

Breaking ROF down into subclasses with one category for large bore and one for small bore may solve the problem more simply (though much less accurately and elegantly) than a sliding scale.

I have a full auto GB cannon that got... 120rpm? And DR made a full auto TB cannon that shot faster, though it is on the border line between automatic and simple shotgun

While your safety concerns are fair and well based, I think that anyone participating will have safety in mind anyway. While it is true that some would think "Less weight? Thinner PVC!" I think most that put in a serious effort are likely to think more along the lines of "Less weight? Carbon Fiber!"

[STHORNE]

done. this is using bcarms' idea...

[DYI]

I don't know, it would be interesting to see what Dave could do with that 150 horsepower compressor, some 8" hose, and a big bag of bowling balls...

I think that the 150 rpm golfball gun could be done, but it would certainly require some type of revolutionary development.

[STHORNE]

any input on my pic at all?....been working on it for the last 1.5 hrs

[BC Pneumatics]

I don't know, it would be interesting to see what Dave could do with that 150 horsepower compressor, some 8" hose, and a big bag of bowling balls...

I think that the 150 rpm golfball gun could be done, but it would certainly require some type of revolutionary development.

Actually, it doesn't. 120 is easy as pie, and the same design I used to get it can be easily scaled to get higher numbers. (I was just limited by my compressor and average bore air hose! )

STHORNE- All your images are very nice my prickly friend. The badges are coming out great

[STHORNE]

anyway, im goin to bed, i gotta get up early for work tomorrow...

night everybody!