Talk:Big-Bang Cannon

NPOV

The reason I tagged this article non-NPOV is mostly due to the first sentence. If noone objects, I'd like to rephrase that first sentence somewhat... more to come. MagnusW 07:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Corrected first sentence to state that product is still manufactured to this day while still maintaining the unique quality of the item and company within a historical American toy context. Hopefully this clears issue up.--Davidjohn2006 18:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, my main argument was that the entire wording of the first paragraph is non-NPOV and not substantiated by anything else than links to the manufacturer's website. I'm inclined to remove most of the first paragraph if no one objects within, say, a week. MagnusW 19:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Edited first paragraph. Concentrated on factual reason for product's (company's) origin. Also, removed link and corrected wording to read "consumer fireworks." All facts are supported by book (see "References") which has references to articles and interviews. Please advise if any further changes necessary to meet non-NPOV guidelines. Thank you.Davidjohn2006 19:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Removed Citation and added Footnote under "References". Information on the pages in the footnote was gained from Archival Data at Lehigh U. and also from direct interviews with descendants/co-workers of the parties involved. Davidjohn2006 (talk) 15:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Safety record

I was looking for safety records of toys of this type (the bamboo cannon being the another, but as this is a commercial product its record would be more importantly scrutinized). The only thing I could find was a thorough review at [davescooltoys.com/bigbangcannons/ Dave's Cool Toys], in which the author reports that the only thing they could find is a thermal burn from direct contact with Bangsite that spilled while undergoing exothermic reaction (i.e., the acetylene was not burning). A photo is on the page, but reverse image search and google-fu reveals no online source for the original story, so it may have been scanned from elsewhere or lost to the early days of the internet. One can always contact the site owner.

But one anecdotal case is not enough to produce a safety record, and I would think in all the years the cannon has been around at least a few kids would have aimed it at their face which could easily damage the eardrum or eyes. Alas, no source on that. (With the bamboo cannon, most injury cases I saw came from either breech failure or loudness (a function of volume).)

I think it would be encyclopedic to include "safety information" of a sort using said website and the original manual as a source, as well as the heat of reaction of the Bangsite to show that it can potentially cause burns, as well as perhaps the heat released from the ignition of the high acetylene/air ratio in the cannon, just to add some theoretical background as well. For now I'll just add Dave's review in the "External Links", but please let me know if you find any extra safety information or have thoughts.

P.S.: There may also be legal incidents regarding use of these cannons, even if they are not banned. The discussion of a SF arrest claims the person in the subreferenced news article had fired a Big-Bang Cannon. As this claim didn't seem backed up elsewhere (is there even a 2-foot BBC?), I don't think it merits inclusion, but there are surely other such cases. SamuelRiv (talk) 00:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)