Page 4 of 8
Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 7:29 pm
by zeigs spud
BC Pneumatics wrote:Zeigs- I am made in the USA thank you very much, and, if you would have bothered to read.... the compressed gas is in fact flammable. Bleed the tanks if it worries you.
I never said the US made shoddy products, be they are NOT precision grade instruments. (Not the flamethrowers I mean) An army of experience and sense will follow the KISS rule... Go T-34's!
so your saying all compressed gas is flammable? god....lol
Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 7:34 pm
by BC Pneumatics
No. I said "the compressed gas is in fact flammable" 'THE' referring the the gas used in flamethrowers
To meet your ludicrous standards, I would have to have said "compressed gas is in fact flammable" Notice the lack of 'the'.
Pay attention next time.
Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 8:19 pm
by zeigs spud
lol omg you are retarded. the military would not put a flammable gas to force out the fuel in the flame thrower. god...
EDIT- hmk i think i get whts goin on here. u think the compressed gas is the fuel huh? the military flame throwers don't just compress the fuel they use a separate chamber that has a nonflammable compressed gas in to to force out the fuel.
am i right or was my first response good lol?
Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 8:23 pm
by BC Pneumatics
zeigs spud wrote:lol omg you are retarded. the military would not put a flammable gas to force out the fuel in the flame thrower. god...
You are joking... right? Besides the use of N2, a flammable gas is almost always used.
Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 8:27 pm
by Killjoy
wait, but they do use a flammable gas to push out the fuel in military flamethrowers. Both you guys are confusing me. And this thread has seriosly gotten screwed up, lottery and flamethrowers, what the hell kind of combination is that?
Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 8:28 pm
by zeigs spud
lol the combination of fun!
why would they use flamable gas to push out the flame throwers fuel?! then ur left with an unpressuized tank of flamable stuff.
Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 8:29 pm
by BC Pneumatics
They used to use only flammable gases as far as I know. I know that some now-a-days use N2.
Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 8:30 pm
by BC Pneumatics
No, you are left with a stream of flammable gases flowing through a tank. The used flammable gases becasue they are cheap, easy to deal with, and don't contain oxidizers.
Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 8:36 pm
by zeigs spud
hmk you win this one but i'll be back! lol
hmk back to the vids ^_^
Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 8:36 pm
by BC Pneumatics
Indeed, let's try to get back on track.
Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 8:48 pm
by Killjoy
They also used them to allow fewer tanks, my grand dad had a world war 2 one and it was only two tanks but it was still really heavy. Like bc said (who double posted by the way...for shame.) The flammable gas was cheap, easy to obtain, and by using it to pressurize the fuel reduced the weight of the enitre setup because there was one less tank.
Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 8:51 pm
by zeigs spud
hmm intresting....i also have heard (from history channel cuz i am that cool) that they could only fire the ww1 and ww2 ones for a short while because it would literaly suck the air out of you.
Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 8:53 pm
by BC Pneumatics
What do you mean? As in replace their surrounding oxygen with propellant gases?
Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 8:54 pm
by zeigs spud
me? what lol?! no no a guy they interviewed said that they only could fire it in short bursts becuase the heat was intense and the flame was so big it would suck the air out of your lungs being so close to it that is.
Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 8:56 pm
by BC Pneumatics
Well there was no sucking going on, but being around an intense flame leaves some serious want of fresh air.