h a l f b a k e r yLike a magnifying lens, only with rocks.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Cans of R134a are cheaper, ounce for ounce, than cans of CO2. Since they're packaged under high pressure with a convenient metal diaphragm waiting eagerly to be pierced on the top, why not make a paintball gun that accepts auto refrigerant cans as propellant?
Wikipedia: 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-134a
Also known as R-134a [jutta, Jun 14 2007]
Airsoft BB-Gun powered by "duster gas"
http://www.airsoftr.../reviews/tanakasaa/
[jutta, Jun 14 2007]
[link]
|
| |
Because the R134 would be released into the atmosphere. |
|
| |
Still, with the current hysteria surrounding CO2, I guess R134 might be preferred by some. |
|
| |
R134a was developed because it isn't an ozone depleter, to replace R12, which is harmful. R134a better be safe, because it's also used as the propellent in many aerosols, including the asthma inhaler I use. |
|
| |
[neutrinos_shadow], you may want to reconsider that inhaler: "In a two-year inhalation study, HFC-134a at a concentration of 50,000 ppm, produced an increase in late-occurring benign testicular tumors, testicular hyperplasia and testicular weight." |
|
| |
You probably want to go by pressure, not weight. How do the prices compare then? |
|
| |
There are BB guns powered by R134a; can't see why there couldn't be paintball guns. (Eagerly awaiting commentary from all the paintball experts on this site, though.) |
|
| |
I stand corrected regarding assumed toxicity. CO2 would be much preferred in regard to global warming though. |
|
| |