SpudFiles

By the way, is there any chance you could stick a camera inside this thing? You know, just for the hell of it.

_Fnord wrote:By the way, is there any chance you could stick a camera inside this thing? You know, just for the hell of it.

'Tis possible. I'm also considering using a cheap camera as a dmonstration projectile; saboted, of course. 'Twould make a very good demonstration of being able to launch fragile payloads without destroying them.

Quick aerial photography

We can now replace the hopeful wait with an expectant one ^_^

The no talking about it part is a bit of a drag but small price to pay for being at the front of the queue to get the released goodies.

LikimysCrotchus5 wrote:Two words "Awesome"

Two syllables perhaps but I'll agree with the general gist of that

Hotwired wrote:

LikimysCrotchus5 wrote: Two words "Awesome"

Two syllables perhaps but I'll agree with the general gist of that

I dont know, its supposed to be a joke that my friends say alot, but atleast you know what i am talking about; awe some

_Fnord wrote:By the way, is there any chance you could stick a camera inside this thing? You know, just for the hell of it.

Would be cool.
As projectile, it would need to be a high-speed cam which directly transmits its recording wireless to the outside. Normal cameras will just record a few faded frames and then black.

Adding a camera (or a see through glass ) in the chamber would also be awesome. You could see the flame propagation and when adding some lightweight particles in it, also flow.

Twould make a very good demonstration of being able to launch fragile payloads without destroying them.

Do you mean you want to launch it with out destroying it or do you mean you want to launch and land it without destroying it?
The last one would be somewhat harder to do unless you fire it up into the sky, with a parachute.

psycix wrote:Do you mean you want to launch it with out destroying it or do you mean you want to launch

Just launch it. Single use. If I can get 1 second of normal 30 fps video, that would be enough. That's 300 yards. I've got *miles* of gun range to work with.

Hmm but dont you think that the opening time per frame will be too long for such high speed? I mean, stuff could probably get faded out because of the speed.
Realize that the camera travels about 15 meter per frame recorded...
Not even talking about possible rotation.
One of those 250 fps sport cameras would be better.

psycix wrote:Hmm but dont you think that the opening time per frame will be too long for such high speed? I mean, stuff could probably get faded out because of the speed.
Realize that the camera travels about 15 meter per frame recorded...
Not even talking about possible rotation.
One of those 250 fps sport cameras would be better.

1) Two words: Shuttered video.
2) I don't need it to be perfect video in any way shape or form. If the observer can see that it worked, that's all I need as mostly I'd just be trying to prove that the gun didn't kill the electronics. In other words, it's not that I want video per se, it's that video provides proof of survivability.
3) Start bumping the fps and the cost shoots through the roof pretty quickly. Too, high speed cameras (in my experience) rely on onboard storage (ie, aren't typically wireless). If the storage media gets killed in the impact (or you can't find the projectile), you've got nothing.
4) Choosing the trajectory wisely should minimize this issue.

Who knows what the term "cheap camera" could cover ^_^

Still, the less expensive the more impressive as long as the SD card survives with some amusingly recognisable objects in the recorded frames.

The camera would be fun. You can get one of those $20 0.1 megapixel kids cameras...

If a $20 "Hanna Montana" camera can survive ...
http://www.toysrus.com/product/index.js ... Id=3125465

I've got a $20 "spy camera" (0.1 MP or so) that includes ~20 FPS "video mode".