FAQ - Revision history

Ramses: added hybrid section

2009-04-19T20:05:09Z

added hybrid section

@@ Line 52: / Line 52: @@
 * More complicated to construct and much less forgiving of construction problems (such as weak or leaking joints and fittings).
 * Leaks are a greater problem since the gun needs to maintain pressure for the entire time between filling and firing. (And, leaking can cause a valve to open prematurely.)
 ----

DYI: /* Combustion vs. Pneumatic */

2008-03-21T02:01:27Z

Combustion vs. Pneumatic

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:01, 20 March 2008
Line 37:		Line 37:
	* Often inconsistent and unreliable (Advanced Combustion launchers can overcome this, but often cost more to construct).		* 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\|Chamber to Barrel Ratio]].		* 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.		* 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 10m or more, depending on a whole host of other variables. The diameter of a tube is directly related to its DDT runup distance, i.e. the wider the tube, the less likely detonations are

	'''Pneumatic cannons'''		'''Pneumatic cannons'''

Jimmy101: /* Combustion vs. Pneumatic */

2008-02-16T16:29:02Z

Combustion vs. Pneumatic

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:29, 16 February 2008
Line 8:		Line 8:
	==Combustion vs. Pneumatic==		==Combustion vs. Pneumatic==

	''"Which is better? Combustion or 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.		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.
	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:		However, most experienced spudgunners will agree on this short list ''if muzzle velocity or muzzle kinetic energy is the only criteria used for ranking the guns'':

	* [[Combustion Cannon\|Combustion]]		* [[Combustion Cannon\|Combustion]]
Line 19:		Line 18:
	* [[Hybrid Cannon\|Hybrid]]		* [[Hybrid Cannon\|Hybrid]]

	Where down is ~~ascending order of~~ "power" but also difficulty to use and ~~build~~.		Where down is increasing "power" but also increasing difficulty to use, build and cost.

	~~But, here~~ are the main advantages and disadvantages in easy lists ~~for~~ you to decide on your own:		Below are the main advantages and disadvantages in easy lists to help you decide on your own:

	'''Combustion cannons'''		'''Combustion cannons'''

	Advantages:		Advantages:
	* Usually cheaper and easier to build		* Usually cheaper and easier to build.
			* Less sensitive to minor leaks (such as around a threaded cleanout plug).
	* Usually quicker to refuel and reload.		* Usually quicker to refuel and reload.
	* More portable. Just needs a can of some flammable vapour~~, not a pump or compressor~~.		* More portable. Just needs a can of some flammable vapour.
	* Can be made bigger, but still kept practical.		* Can be made bigger, but still kept practical.
	* Easier to later upgrade.		* Easier to later upgrade.
Line 44:		Line 44:
	* Normally more powerful, with less of a "ceiling" to power (The particle speed of the gas does limit power to some extent).		* 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.		* 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~~.		* Easier to simulate, with reasonable accuracy, in a modeling program such as [[GGDT]].

	Disadvantages:		Disadvantages:
	* Takes longer to fill, unless you have a decent [[compressor]] or [[Gas bottle\|bottled gas]] (Especially true with large chambers).		* Takes longer to fill, unless you have a decent [[compressor]] or [[Gas bottle\|bottled gas]] (Especially true with large chambers).
			* More expensive, particularly if you include the cost of a compressor or regulated CO2.
	* Less portable.		* Less portable.
	* More complicated to construct.		* More complicated to construct and much less forgiving of construction problems (such as weak or leaking joints and fittings).
	* Leaks are a greater problem, ~~as they~~ can cause a valve to open prematurely~~, and waste gas~~.		* Leaks are a greater problem since the gun needs to maintain pressure for the entire time between filling and firing. (And, leaking can cause a valve to open prematurely.)
	----		----

Ragnarok at 00:37, 16 February 2008

2008-02-16T00:37:23Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:37, 15 February 2008
Line 47:		Line 47:

	Disadvantages:		Disadvantages:
	* Takes longer to fill, unless you have a decent compressor or bottled gas (Especially true with large chambers).		* Takes longer to fill, unless you have a decent [[compressor]] or [[Gas bottle\|bottled gas]] (Especially true with large chambers).
	* Less portable.		* Less portable.
	* More complicated to construct.		* More complicated to construct.
	* Leaks are a greater problem, as they can cause a valve to open prematurely.		* Leaks are a greater problem, as they can cause a valve to open prematurely, and waste gas.
	----		----

Pilgrimman: Stipulated certain situations and facts in the cannon pros/cons.

2008-02-15T23:33:32Z

Stipulated certain situations and facts in the cannon pros/cons.

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:33, 15 February 2008
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 (~~Power is very hard to change~~)		* 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 ~~load~~, unless you have a decent ~~compressore~~		* 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 is more common.		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==
	* PVC vs. ABS
	* Metal vs. Plastic		* Metal vs. Plastic
	* Boys vs. Girls (I'm kidding about this one)		* Boys vs. Girls (I'm kidding about this one)

Ragnarok: 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...

2008-02-15T22:00:01Z

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...

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 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:

* [[Combustion Cannon|Combustion]]
* [[Pneumatic cannon|Pneumatic]]
* [[Hybrid Cannon|Hybrid]]

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.
* Less controlled (Power is very hard to change)
* Often inconsistent and unreliable.
* Potentially noisier

'''Pneumatic cannons'''

Advantages:
* Normally more powerful, with less of a "ceiling" to power.
* More controllable, as power can be varied with pressure.

Disadvantages:
* Takes longer to load, unless you have a decent compressore
* Less portable.
* More complicated to construct.
* Leaks are a greater problem.
----

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 is more common.

==To come soon==
* PVC vs. ABS
* Metal vs. Plastic
* Boys vs. Girls (I'm kidding about this one)