SpudFiles

lol I see that this post is growing too fast... but at least we already have found someone who can draw them (davidvaini)

I think that an inovative badge is a must... I am not sure about the rest... why don't we introduce inovative badge first just to see how well this would work and then add next types of badges later ?

Ah, but the innovations can come in to form of ammo, sabots, flamefront manipulation, etc. There are tons of way to get massive amounts of power. Size is just cheap and easy.

We have been talking about having a form to submit a cannon, that would be reviewed by the mods, or perhaps a specially appointed mod. (STHORNE seems keen on the job.)

Like everything else, we are still working on rules for proof, but videos seem to be the best bet. Luckily technology is to the point where nearly anyone has access to a video recording device. The worst part would be having to buy a chrony, and most people around here are looking for an excuse to do that anyway.

lol we are definatly not on the limit of power... or how to get that power...

Innovation can be found in power...


Think about this... Before the atomic bomb we thought we reached the limit of power but we were wrong... after the atomic bomb we thought we reached the limit but we were wrong (hyrodgen bomb). Not only can you be innovative in the amount of power but also in how to get there....

A lot of people here didnt even know about a electro thermal gun or how it works until here recently when someone posted one..

It may not have much power but what about heating up a steel pipe with popcorn kernels inside to create power? No matter how silly that idea sounds... I haven't seen it done before.

POLAND_SPUD wrote:lol I see that this post is growing too fast... but at least we already have found someone who can draw them (davidvaini)

Operantly you have not read the entire thread

By the time any sort of system actually gets implemented, we will undoubtedly need a badge commemorating anybody who has read the entirety of this damn topic.

hmmm sorry I post it again but I think its something to consider--->

I think that an inovative badge is a must... I am not sure about the rest... why don't we introduce inovative badge first just to see how well this would work and then add next types of badges later ? there would be one voting each month that would award the most inovative member after some time we would see how well it works...

so what do you think ?

lol I dont think doing a vote to see who gets it is a good idea... there should be more than 1 innovation award given in a month...

The reason for the innovation badge would be to encourage people to be more innovative... now if someone sees that they might not get it even if they create something innovative they might not be as eager to do so.


I think a committee would be a good idea. Either any of the moderators could give out the badges or a committee could be formed.

POLAND_SPUD wrote: so what do you think ?

Actually, the truth is that we would have to get the entire system up and running before a 'test badge' could give us any useful information anyway. By then it would only be a matter of saving a couple hours work, (when the system will take hundreds of hours to install), so we might as well launch relatively close to full bore.

I believe that some of the people posting here don't quite understand the difficulty of building on the monstrous scale. Actually, as far as I can tell, everyone that has posted so far about big guns being simple to build has never even built a gas gun as powerful as a .50BMG rifle, much less something like a light cannon. I'd just like to say, don't comment on the ease of building big guns before you've tried it. It isn't near as easy as it looks, and I haven't even reached the monstrous scale yet.

DYI, I do not want to get too off topic, but perhaps you can be a bit more specific about the troubles you have with larger scale builds?

BC-
I said that smaller rapid fire guns would be less innovative in general, but that doesn't mean they are any less capable of introducing innovation. My whole point for wanting small calibers to be equally capable for receiving an achievement is that it would be more likely to drive innovation, not because I want to knock down the standards.

Actually I think power/overall length would be a pretty decent method. I think it would be more interesting than just overall power.

The problem is you can't just set a limit like a factor of safety of 3 because you won't know the burst pressure of all the components. Plus different factors of safety are appropriate for different situations. A safety factor of 3 would probably be more than enough for an aluminum launcher that is always going to be remote fired from a good distance. But if you are going to shoulder fire a PVC gun then a safety factor of 3 is pretty small.

More often than not we are dealing with things without known limits. Why should we encourage people to push those limits? I hear all too often on these forums something like "Oh yeah I've used that 150psi rated valve at 300 psi and I was fine, you should be fine too."

Yeah in an ideal world everybody would use hydrostatic testing on their gun at well over the operating pressure, but I know of VERY few who have in the entire time I've been in the spudding community.

Clide- Of course smaller cannons are not less capable of producing innovation, just less likely. I never meant to make any statement contrary of this, and do not think I did. What I wanted to prevent was putting no size restrictions on the badge, and having everybody opt for making smaller bore autos, bypassing the larger bore ones that are more likely, though no more capable, of driving innovation.

Again, with a size subdivision, no longer a problem. In fact, having both categories instead of one (be it large bore or not) should raise the overall innovation that comes out of auto badges as a whole.

Power:Weight was a badge proposed in addition to the Muzzle Energy badges, it was not intended to replace them. Sure, Power/X is more interesting than just power, but we could come up with a million and one things to plug into X. And to be honest, Power:Length doesn't get me very excited at all.

Of course a "safety factor of 3" doesn't work for everything, and of course not for every situation. We are trying to build up a set of rules and safety regulations that will eventually be like a flagstone wall made of many smaller stones. The small specialized safety rules will have to provide us protection in conjunction with each other. There is no one rule that can act as a one piece cement barrier to danger. And yes, there will always be more holes in the wall. All we can do is fill them in as we get to them.

If you tell us one more time that one of our safety ideas do not 'cover all the basis' I will likely be found the following morning with my brains scattered across the side of my computer. What we need is input on how to close the holes the the rules we have already talked about leave. We know they are there, you can stop telling us. We have already acknowledged their existence numerous times.

I have also already addressed the "some things don't have ratings" issue in my last post. I also never said that a 300% safety factor meant "3x Burst Pressure" In fact, I intentionally left it vaguely defined so that mods could use it to turn away any cannon not meeting an accepted safety level. The truth is, it was closer to a "Be 3 times safer than a reasonable person would be." system than anything. Also, PVC is already rated at about 1/3 the burst pressure, is it not? A safety factor of 3, if strictly implemented, would be 3x relative to us, not to the materials max. That means a PVC cannon would be operating at about 1/9 it's burst pressure. Surely even you, someone who is obviously incredibly concerned with safety, thinks that is reasonable? Truth is, I am perfectly comfortable shoulder firing a cannon that is charged to the pipe's max working pressure, and think that anyone who is not is being a bit unreasonable.

I also must ask... If we do not know what somethings limits are, how can we encourage people to push them? For all we know, we are encouraging them to do the equivalent of blow a spit wad at an elephant.

Since your reiteration proves you are rather concerned about this 'unknown limits' problem, I will propose a challenge. Name for me a building material that someone would (reasonable) use to construct a launcher, who's 'limits' can not be found, derived, or estimated with reasonable accuracy.

BTW, Rag, I hate to rain on your parade, but Clide's combined posts in this thread are officially more valuable than yours

I suppose you could cover all rule as you come to them, but who is going to make up these rules? To do it right requires a lot of time. Do you feel qualified for setting the safety limit on high power launchers? Do you have the time to deal with every launcher individually and check every component? What is the safe working pressure for a piece of SCH 40 steel that you buy at the hardware store? OK, say you find that, what is the safe working pressure if I drill a 3/8" hole in the side of it?

I'm telling you that it is impracticable to set these safety regulations. You've shown that you understand the problem, but you haven't given a solution.

"I also must ask... If we do not know what somethings limits are, how can we encourage people to push them?"
Because if someone has built a gun and are operating it at a pressure they feel is reasonable but learn that they can get a reward if they up the pressure a little bit then they will probably do it. Even though they were content with the power given by their working pressure before. Or even worse is the case where two people with similar powered launchers start battling over a reward that changes hands. Ideally one of them would build a new launcher that dominates their previous one, but I believe it is more likely the case that they will keep edging farther and farther to the limits of their guns. Ok, lets say a mod steps in and says that one of them have reached their limit. Not only does he have to say exactly what that limit is, but what component has reached the limit. Say the guy now decides to wrap the component mentioned in carbon fiber. Has that changed his limit? By how much?


"I will propose a challenge. Name for me a building material that someone would (reasonable) use to construct a launcher, who's 'limits' can not be found, derived, or estimated with reasonable accuracy."

The problem isn't the material's limits, but the limits of the shape of that material. As I mentioned before, say you drill a hole in a pipe, how has that changed its limit?
If you want another example, I have a monstrous cast iron valve from a company that has been out of business for decades. No pressure rating is available. How would you go about determining what pressure is safe to use in it?

Just so you don't try to feed your brains to your computer. I'll reiterate and give a conclusion to my points. There is no practical way to cover all basis, and because of that, rewarding people for taking it to the limits is inherently unsafe. My suggestion is simply, don't do it.
You apparently think otherwise and it doesn't look like you are going to change your mind. I just wanted to make sure that my opinion on the matter was known, so unless your next reply tries to shove more words into my mouth then I am done regarding this topic.

In case I want to reference this later, I'll sum up what I think the ultimate outcome of a power/weight completion would be. Any combination of the following:
- Someone endangering themselves and others
- A bunch of whining about unfair limits being put on a gun
- A major headache for whoever is involved with moderating it

clide wrote:Do you feel qualified for setting the safety limit on high power launchers?

I myself, although not strictly qualified, would be pretty damn confident to set a safe working pressure on most materials, components or items you could name, as long as I had a reasonable amount of data about the part.

What is the safe working pressure for a piece of SCH 40 steel that you buy at the hardware store? OK, say you find that, what is the safe working pressure if I drill a 3/8" hole in the side of it?

These are actually fairly easy questions - at least for me - given that such questions have already been covered on my engineering course.
Any hole in a material increases the stress around said hole by 3 times, more so with a threaded hole (yes, that's right, drilling holes in your chamber wall cuts your rating down by two thirds - or more).

I'm telling you that it is impracticable to set these safety regulations. You've shown that you understand the problem, but you haven't given a solution.

I'm completely prepared to be part of the solution to said problem if needs be - as you might well know, I'm pretty fastidious about safety, perhaps more so than just about anyone but D_Hall.

Ok, lets say a mod steps in and says that one of them have reached their limit. Not only does he have to say exactly what that limit is, but what component has reached the limit. Say the guy now decides to wrap the component mentioned in carbon fiber. Has that changed his limit? By how much?

That will change his limit, however, information about the weave of said carbon fibre, what material that carbon fibre is suspended in, and what ratio of fibre there is would be needed for a calculation...

Of course, there is another question raised. How do we know that the user is being honest when they say they stayed within the limits?

I assume that will need video evidence - with a single shot (no cut) video, proving the launcher is at an acceptable pressure (or any other questionable factor), then loading with a weighed projectile, then firing over a chrony.

Okay, these post are getting long and hard to keep track of, so I am going to do the individual breakdown type response.

clide wrote:I suppose you could cover all rule as you come to them, but who is going to make up these rules? To do it right requires a lot of time. Do you feel qualified for setting the safety limit on high power launchers? Do you have the time to deal with every launcher individually and check every component? What is the safe working pressure for a piece of SCH 40 steel that you buy at the hardware store? OK, say you find that, what is the safe working pressure if I drill a 3/8" hole in the side of it?

You make it sound like a much more difficult job that it really is. How many launchers do you really thing people are going to be submitting for these badges? Even if many were submitted, that is why we have a staff of mods. A staff that can grow very easily.

If you really think that I am not qualified to 'eyeball' a cannon and give a fairly accurate report of it's safety, then I must say I am rather offended. I have been building cannons since I was twelve, and I have even geared my curriculum towards them for the last 4 years. I have spent literally hundreds of hours studying their construction, and possible construction materials. I am not trying to sound pretentious, but I honestly think that I would be one of the most appropriate people to do the aforementioned job of 'safety inspector'.

Don't worry too much about time. You do realize that Spudfiles has thousands and thousands of man hours put into it already, right? There are plenty of people around here that are qualified and willing to do the work.

I'm telling you that it is impracticable to set these safety regulations. You've shown that you understand the problem, but you haven't given a solution.

I am telling you (Well, just told you above) that it is not impracticable at all, and I have actually been in the dark underbelly of Spudfiles where all the nitty gritty details are worked out, so I can see it from a much better perspective than you are able to.
As far as I am concerned, the 'cobblestone wall' is a perfectly fine solution. In fact, you seem to be the only one that is strongly opposed, and have not (in my opinion of course) given reasonable cause and justifications to your hard stance against it. I know you are concerned, and that is very much appreciated, but your worry seems to be slowly shifting to unreasonable paranoia.

Because if someone has built a gun and are operating it at a pressure they feel is reasonable but learn that they can get a reward if they up the pressure a little bit then they will probably do it. Even though they were content with the power given by their working pressure before.

Okay, again, your not paying attention. We are talking about safety factors of 300%. Lets say we are off by 50% on our safety estimates, and the cannon is only 1.5 times as strong as is required for the application. To put someone in the "danger zone" your "little" pressure bump would have to be a 50% increase. That seems incredibly unreasonable to me.

Or even worse is the case where two people with similar powered launchers start battling over a reward that changes hands. Ideally one of them would build a new launcher that dominates their previous one, but I believe it is more likely the case that they will keep edging farther and farther to the limits of their guns.

Again, a 3x estimated margin leaves a lot of room for 'edging up' before a mod jumps in.

Ok, lets say a mod steps in and says that one of them have reached their limit. Not only does he have to say exactly what that limit is, but what component has reached the limit.

First, mods do not have to say what the limit is, all they have to say is that they do not consider the cannon safe, and will not longer award it any badges until it is reinforced to their satisfaction.
Also you make it sound like telling them what part is up to the limit is difficult... What is that about?

Say the guy now decides to wrap the component mentioned in carbon fiber. Has that changed his limit? By how much?

My money says yes, it has changed the limit. How much? Between physical testing and Google, I bet a damn good answer could be developed.
Also, the fact that no one here knows off the top of their head is the point of this whole damn thing. If someone wants to use it and all the help of the community can't produce reasonable assumptions, then they will have to test it. That leads to advancements. That is what we want.

The problem isn't the material's limits, but the limits of the shape of that material. As I mentioned before, say you drill a hole in a pipe, how has that changed its limit?

When I said 'material' I did not mean 'steel, PVC, ABS, etc.' I meant steel pipe, bronze valve, etc. Building materials who's shapes are intrinsic properties of them. Also, there is tons of research on what modifications do what to a pipes integrity. Thank god for Google.

If you want another example, I have a monstrous cast iron valve from a company that has been out of business for decades. No pressure rating is available. How would you go about determining what pressure is safe to use in it?

Provided an inspection shows you the valve is in good condition, I would look around for similar items, and see what ratings they have, and factor in any differences that your valve may have. I can not imagine it would be at all difficult to come up with a safe and reasonable estimate of it's limits within a couple hours of trying.

Just so you don't try to feed your brains to your computer. I'll reiterate and give a conclusion to my points.

Much appriciated

There is no practical way to cover all basis, and because of that, rewarding people for taking it to the limits is inherently unsafe. My suggestion is simply, don't do it.

I think that my above methods are practical, and you again seem to be forgetting that the point people take things to will not be the physical limit of the material, but 1/3rd or so of the (safely, responsibly, reliably, and cautiously) estimated failure point.

You apparently think otherwise and it doesn't look like you are going to change your mind.

What you seem to be regarding as bullheadedness is actually one of the best points of my character. I do not give up on a task just because it is impossible. Am I ignorant for doing so? Possibly, you seem to think so, but I am reminded of words I heard long ago about the birth of the computer industry.
"What we were doing was impossible. It is just a good thing that we didn't realize it was, and that no one told us it was, or we never would have done it."

I just wanted to make sure that my opinion on the matter was known,

Of course, fair enough. Although I was hoping there was more to your posts than that alone...

so unless your next reply tries to shove more words into my mouth

Okay, I have been glad to read every word you have written in this topic up to this point. This seriously, honestly, pisses me off more than most people would be able to.
I never put words in your mouth. I tried to show you how I was interpreting your statements, so that you would understand where I was coming from with my posts, and could correct me if I had misunderstood you. It is obviously impossible to do this with a direct quote, and if you think I was trying to manipulate your words into something that they are not, then you must also think I am a pretty s</i>hitty person. I know I would think that way about anyone who tried to talk for me.

then I am done regarding this topic.

That is a damn shame, since as I said, you have already contributed the most to it.
I never had you pegged from someone who gave up.

In case I want to reference this later, I'll sum up what I think the ultimate outcome of a power/weight completion would be. Any combination of the following:
- Someone endangering themselves and others
- A bunch of whining about unfair limits being put on a gun
- A major headache for whoever is involved with moderating it

Your first point is what we are working so hard on right now. Again, I would have to be a pretty sh</i>itty person to move forward before this problem was solved, so don't expect it to happen.

I can guarantee your second and third points will happen one, two, maybe even dozens of times a week. People seem to think being a moderator is a glamorous job or something. The truth is, we put ourselves through hell trying to do good things for the community, and I am willing to go through amazing amounts of pain and trouble for a system like this one, with all the promise of advancement it brings.

I hope that your resignation from this topic was wrought from frustration and misunderstanding of my intentions, and that you will in fact post some more. Even if it is not about the power:weight issue, or safety concerns. I cannot imagine someone as prominent as you in the spudding world doesn't have a whole lot more input.

Rag got his post in before mine, and it reinforces a lot of my points.
People here are not afraid of work, they do not shy away from challenges, and they are willing to sacrifice a lot for the community. We have a huge group of qualified people, and practically endless information and data, with the resources to make many times more.

These types of people are the ones that drew me into this hobby, and they are the ones that keep me here, loving every minute I spend torturing myself with the pains that are part of being a moderator.