Using a fuel that is more dense, while using the same amount of force to accelerate it will result in a lesser range stream. Always.
Now what is the point of designing a more cumbersome short range fuel when the mixture we've already tested works so well? A flamethrower that reaches 50-60 feet away is much more impressive than one that dumps all its fuel at your feet.
With every new post, it becomes more and more apparent you actually have no idea what is going on in the flamethrower.
why is vertebraille1 a nerd. i would like to see your flame thrower blow up in your face win that guy actually nows what the hell hes doingand his can actually shoot 50 to 60 feet away.
You mention that you "didn't say farther", yet you insist an aerosol type fuel will have greater range due to its higher density.
A higher density material weighs more, and as such requires more energy to be accelerated to the same velocity as a lighter material. More initial velocity = more range. Of course wood weighs less than oil so your point is invalidated.
Intensity has little to do with density - in our case it has to do with the light/heat released and the speed of the reaction.
I never told you to put in the wood, you retard! Matchheads are better than the air, which is a thousandfold as sparse. Despite the greater work, a wad has a better performance than a stream. You reason for shit.
Flamethrowers are foollish if they don't carry their own oxidizers—mest of the stream is wasted along the way. You should make your beam a 1000fold as intense with globs of fuel over white, metal-dusted matchheads or the like. They'll liht upon impact with your target or something like a two-walled baffel-nozzel a foot before your gun.
2) I think what your trying to suggest is that the fuel mixture be engineered so that it ignites only upon impact. Mixing the fuel with an 'oxidizer' does not negate the fact that you still need a catalyst to combust the fuel. The energy released from gasoline or other hydrocarbons striking a hard surface is not enough to initiate combustion.
2) I think you're suggesting that the fuel mixture be engineered so that it ignites upon impact. If you add an 'oxidizer' to the fuel mixture, you still need a catalyst to initiate combustion.
3) Making the beam 1000 fold as intense would require something other than gasoline, it can't produce that much light when burning. Making the range 1000 fold requires a different propulsion mechanism.
4) Mixing 'metal dusted' match heads with gasoline has a few problems. Mainly, gasoline will wet the surface of the match. Gasoline in its gaseous state is what you see burning, not the liquid. The gas on the match would have to totally volatilize in flight for this to have a chance of working.
So you'd basically be 'throwing' wet matches at your target. Of course, use a catalyst to start combustion at the nozzle and you negate the purpose of putting matches in the mixture in the first place.
You also would have to increase the nozzle size to allow solid matter to fit through. This would result in a lesser range for the weapon, as well as increasing the turbidity. More turbidity would cause the gasoline to spread more when it exits the nozzle - making it harder to control and have less range.
I didn't say farther. Learn what aerosols are. You dumbass, the matches are the /solid/ oxidizer. Do you even know what those are for? The solid nuclei are denser and stabiller than oil in fliht; thus the range is greater.
First of all, none of your replies or comments make an ounce of sense. We're trying to answer you but its hard when we have to decode what the fuck you're trying to say.
Using an aerosol fuel of gasoline and match heads still poses the same problems i talked about above. Take your own advice and read all that was said before posting.
The average matchstick is made from aspen or pine, both of which are less dense than the majority or readily available oils. But this is irrelevant, as there was never any oil in our mixture!
what is nozzil size and what psi?
MrStemkilla 6 months ago
THAT....WAS FUCKING AMASING! i am guna make that
corrosive44 9 months ago
Coolest flamethrower on Youtube, and that means a lot. Do you got some kind of construction-manual to share?
TheHulkhoran 1 year ago
dude looks like a ghostbuster
belipo 2 years ago
WHAT THE FUCK......THIS SHOULD HAVE LIKE 9,000,000 veiws.....this is AWESOME.......
addiecody 2 years ago
DUDE KICK ASS
royaltywears 2 years ago
AHAHAHA funny shit
EGoertzen 4 years ago
dont do that on your land...., do it to your friends lawn and tractor =)
talk2kiko 4 years ago
dude how do u make that? i want to have a kick-ass flamethrower!
spacemonky7 4 years ago
u need a watergun, q tip, lighter , + gasoline
s3xywill 4 years ago
no not that weak shit i man like the one in this vid!! :)
spacemonky7 4 years ago
What psi are you running with that?
AMP4 4 years ago
Using a fuel that is more dense, while using the same amount of force to accelerate it will result in a lesser range stream. Always.
Now what is the point of designing a more cumbersome short range fuel when the mixture we've already tested works so well? A flamethrower that reaches 50-60 feet away is much more impressive than one that dumps all its fuel at your feet.
With every new post, it becomes more and more apparent you actually have no idea what is going on in the flamethrower.
Vertebraille1 5 years ago
Nerd nerd nerd nerd nerd nerd nerd nerd nerd nerd nerd nerd nerd nerd nerd
noahstard 5 years ago
why is vertebraille1 a nerd. i would like to see your flame thrower blow up in your face win that guy actually nows what the hell hes doingand his can actually shoot 50 to 60 feet away.
splatterhead062 2 years ago
You mention that you "didn't say farther", yet you insist an aerosol type fuel will have greater range due to its higher density.
A higher density material weighs more, and as such requires more energy to be accelerated to the same velocity as a lighter material. More initial velocity = more range. Of course wood weighs less than oil so your point is invalidated.
Intensity has little to do with density - in our case it has to do with the light/heat released and the speed of the reaction.
Vertebraille1 5 years ago
I never told you to put in the wood, you retard! Matchheads are better than the air, which is a thousandfold as sparse. Despite the greater work, a wad has a better performance than a stream. You reason for shit.
alysdexia 5 years ago
test
alysdexia 5 years ago
Flamethrowers are foollish if they don't carry their own oxidizers—mest of the stream is wasted along the way. You should make your beam a 1000fold as intense with globs of fuel over white, metal-dusted matchheads or the like. They'll liht upon impact with your target or something like a two-walled baffel-nozzel a foot before your gun.
You're 63?
alysdexia 5 years ago
1) Gasoline is already capable of oxidizing on its own.
Vertebraille1 5 years ago
2) I think what your trying to suggest is that the fuel mixture be engineered so that it ignites only upon impact. Mixing the fuel with an 'oxidizer' does not negate the fact that you still need a catalyst to combust the fuel. The energy released from gasoline or other hydrocarbons striking a hard surface is not enough to initiate combustion.
Vertebraille1 5 years ago
2) I think you're suggesting that the fuel mixture be engineered so that it ignites upon impact. If you add an 'oxidizer' to the fuel mixture, you still need a catalyst to initiate combustion.
Vertebraille1 5 years ago
3) Making the beam 1000 fold as intense would require something other than gasoline, it can't produce that much light when burning. Making the range 1000 fold requires a different propulsion mechanism.
Vertebraille1 5 years ago
4) Mixing 'metal dusted' match heads with gasoline has a few problems. Mainly, gasoline will wet the surface of the match. Gasoline in its gaseous state is what you see burning, not the liquid. The gas on the match would have to totally volatilize in flight for this to have a chance of working.
Vertebraille1 5 years ago
So you'd basically be 'throwing' wet matches at your target. Of course, use a catalyst to start combustion at the nozzle and you negate the purpose of putting matches in the mixture in the first place.
Vertebraille1 5 years ago
You also would have to increase the nozzle size to allow solid matter to fit through. This would result in a lesser range for the weapon, as well as increasing the turbidity. More turbidity would cause the gasoline to spread more when it exits the nozzle - making it harder to control and have less range.
Vertebraille1 5 years ago
I didn't say farther. Learn what aerosols are. You dumbass, the matches are the /solid/ oxidizer. Do you even know what those are for? The solid nuclei are denser and stabiller than oil in fliht; thus the range is greater.
alysdexia 5 years ago
Why don't you read my whole message and not reply with these irrelevancies? beam ≠ light; intense ~ dense
alysdexia 5 years ago
First of all, none of your replies or comments make an ounce of sense. We're trying to answer you but its hard when we have to decode what the fuck you're trying to say.
Vertebraille1 5 years ago
Using an aerosol fuel of gasoline and match heads still poses the same problems i talked about above. Take your own advice and read all that was said before posting.
Vertebraille1 5 years ago
The average matchstick is made from aspen or pine, both of which are less dense than the majority or readily available oils. But this is irrelevant, as there was never any oil in our mixture!
Vertebraille1 5 years ago
How did you make it? Fuck - I want one.
heartlessryoko 5 years ago
sweet
toliseju 5 years ago
you say you used gas/diesel. did you have some kind of mix?
hotjamz5 5 years ago
like 3:1 gas to diesl
trecipticon 5 years ago
damn thats freakin crazy
fatjames82 5 years ago