Talk:Hail cannon

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Weather Low‑importance

	Weather portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Operating principles[edit]

The long nozzle is designed to expand the high pressure gas in the combustion chamber down to atmospheric pressure and emerge first in the form of a thin blast shock wave followed by a slower moving, but massive vortex ring of spinning propellant gasses that expands in diameter with flight time. The spinning gas in the vortex ring is the whistling sound heard as it flies away from the gun. If a battery of these guns were positioned around a farm and rapid fire actually succeeded in disrupting hail, then the turbulence of the vortex rings moving through the atmosphere should be examined as the reason since other investigators discount shock waves. To see and hear a blast shock and a vortex in flight go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbAQcxmXeIk Luceyg (talk) 04:51, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly copyright infringement?[edit]

It appears that most of the text from this article is taken directly from the following URL which predates the creation of this article: http://www.hailcannon.com/how.html

This would indicate either copyright infringement or that the original creator of this article is also the author of http://www.hailcannon.com/how.html but either way the situation should be clarified. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.167.126.220 (talk) 08:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The article was pretty much created July 5, 2006. On July 20 I added some text about the viability of hail cannons that I think I can vouch for -- I linked my sources in as an external link ([1]). The edits since then have been largely administrivia. I can't speak for the initial blocks of text. --Mdwyer 20:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first version of the website appears to have been created on July 6th, 2006 (one day after the creation of this article): http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.hailcannon.com/how.html However, the archive.org date is when their spider first crawled and archived the page, not the first day that the article was published. Therefore, I would presume that the website predates this article. It appears that Dr. Blofeld copied the text verbatim without citation. I will leave a message on Dr. Blofeld's talk page to request his attention on the matter. FerrousCathode (talk) 15:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May have been a vio actually. I started it as a newbie on here and saw the request and started it. I don't recall but I know in the first week or two on wikipedia I wasn't really aware of our copyright entitlements and I created a few vios. Perhaps reword the article and restart it. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reference[edit]

A user added this to the bottom of the page. Can someone find this article and integrate it properly? --Mdwyer 20:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read PEPRO company's experience conducted by GIEFA (France) by Dr.P.Admirat since 1973. There are very negative experiences with this type of "antihail" systems. WHO does not evaluate this type of system by its no hail effects.

Straw Man[edit]

Ive tried a hail cannon, I fired supersonic rifle rounds through a traffic cone. Try it. A hail cannon is extremely effective, at directing shock waves.

Straw man says hail cannon is not effective.

Shoot the strawman, please? Or light him on fire.... ^[1]

References

^ Simple experimentation. Try it.

Note: similarity to church steeple?[edit]

? It seems to me that placing a bell underneath the wide end of an inverted 'hail cannon' would cause upward sound waves to be directed back into the bellfry. It seems that would enhance the bells functionality, by reducing the sound lost in the sky. That makes as much sense, or more, than other explainations ive heard for the purpose of a steeple. ? Fencelizard (talk) 22:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hail cannon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:14, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Simple experimentation. Try it.

[1]