Talk:Potato cannon

Suggested Change

This is a nice web page! One thing I would change though is that there is a link to an instructions website in the "Combustion" section. This I think should be moved to the "Links" section.

My edit

I added a "cleanup" box. I feel this article could use some grammatical cleanup as well as elimination of lay terms and abbreviations. I hope the article will flourish.

I've overhauled the page for clarity and correctness. --BoilingLeadBath 01:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

dimensions?

could someone get some dimensions that people can use?

I don't think this is quite the place - and the dimensions are a bit too variable anyways.
Regardless, I stated this size range in my new edit. --BoilingLeadBath 01:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article tone and style

This article is not in line with what should be in an encyclopedia. The should not contain advice to the reader, and should not make judgements on anything. I have removed a few of the most blatant violations of this from the Safety section, but much of the article needs to be changed in this way as well. The article currently sounds more like a guide to building Spud guns than an encyclopedia article. Perhaps the guide information should be moved to Wikibooks, and removed from here? --Philosophus ^T 07:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, but many inexperienced spud gunners might come to this site, and decide to build a device without proper knowledge. I think essential safety precautions should be mentioned, but in-depth how-to sections should be removed. Kyrin Blair 13:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed in a variety of articles, especially medical articles. It has been decided that we shouldn't have disclaimers, warnings, or advice on such matters, but I am too tired to find the reference for that right now besides everyone on IRC telling me it is so. Some of the disclaimer can probably be added back in as descriptive text, but other things can't - for example, we cannot assume that the reader doesn't intend to injure someone. --Philosophus ^T 15:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point, I never knew about that unofficial policy. I guess it's still better than stuff out there like the anarchist's cookbook. BTW I've only had a Wiki account for a couple weeks now, so if I make novice mistakes like that just correct it, I won't be offended. I generally learn faster by mistakes anyways.Kyrin Blair 14:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

I decided to be bold and to remove a comment on the talk page. Why? Because simply Wikipedia is not a manual and Spud guns can be EXTREMELY dangerous. They should be considered as loaded fire arms at all time. Wikipedia is not the place to ask question about spud guns, or anything else like that. If you need information, please follow the links in the article or search on google. A lot of sites have interesting forums that can help you. --Deenoe 21:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia is not the place to ask question about spud guns, or anything else like that." Ref desk anyone?

Yes, Ref Desk sure, but not an article's talk page.

Hmm...

Down where I live (Australia), what we call spud guns are toy handguns that shoot bits of potato via air pressure. Does anyone else know anything about this? oTHErONE _(Contribs) 10:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seen them, used them. You may know these spud guns as "citrus canons". Viridae ^Talk 13:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I always knew then as lemon shooters. Also whats with the bit about them being legal here? That's not right I'm shure, unfortunatly I do not have a source.

Thanks. :D oTHErONE _(Contribs) 16:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of questionable truth

1) Is embrittlement really an issue? It was my understanding that this was an issue with storing hydrogen gas at a few thousand psi - and it would really surprise me if casual contact with mixed gasses was enough to noticably weaken the steel. --BoilingLeadBath 01:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Critereon for inclusion?

I've written something of a muzzle-velocity "estimater" for combustion spudguns. It's accuracy (probably, I've not got that many test cases) isn't on GGDT-like levels - and that's for it's most aplicatable case... but it's out there.
Would it be acceptable to link to my EVBEC? --BoilingLeadBath 01:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We of the spudding community have a rather comprehensive "spudwiki" going... but I see you've removed the link. Would you reconsider it? (I realize that you only link to "well developed" wikis... but (IMO) this counts. There's not much more we can add.) --BoilingLeadBath 01:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]