Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology

Commercial Flamethrower Successfully Crowdfunded 181

Posted by Soulskill from the for-clearing-that-stubborn-ice-off-your-roof-and-that-stubborn-roof-off-your-house dept.
ColdWetDog writes: You've always wanted one, of course. Zombies, the occasional alien infestation. The neighbor's smelly roses. You just need to be prepared for things. You can get freeze dried food, AR15's, enough ammo to start a small police action (at least here in the U.S. -- YMMV), but it has been difficult to get a modern, portable flamethrower until now. CNET has a brief explanation on the XM42, which doubled its Indiegogo funding target in just a few days.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Commercial Flamethrower Successfully Crowdfunded More

Commercial Flamethrower Successfully Crowdfunded

Comments Filter:

  • Merchandising, Merchandising (Score:5, Funny)

    by bkmoore ( 1910118 ) on Saturday March 28, 2015 @01:44PM (#49361735)
    "....where the real money from the movie is made. Spaceballs-the T-shirt, Spaceballs-the Coloring Book, Spaceballs-the Lunch box, Spaceballs-the Breakfast Cereal, Spaceballs-the Flame Thrower.... The kids love this one."

  • The snow season is almost past us.

  • Chris Byars, CEO of Ion Productions, the company behind the XM42, told me: "It is legal where there are no laws or codes written against such a device."

    Incoming legislation in 3... 2... 1...

  • There are different types of flamethrowers. Agricultural flamethrowers are legal but have a range of inches to over a foot. A military flamethrower throws a fuel gel mixture tens to hundreds of feet. Stage flamethrowers are for special effects and also have short range and non-sticking fuel. This article's device seems to be trying to extend the ag and stage effects end a little bit.

    • We made flame throwers when I was a kid - the old vacuum cleaners could be reversed and used, along with the included spray accessory, to do things like wash cars. We filled the spray jar up with varsol and ignited it with a propane torch. Total cost? $0.00.

      • Total cost? $0.00

        Does that include medical bills?

        • Surprisingly, considering all the crazy "experiments" we tried as kids, nobody ever got hurt. Though there were some pretty close calls.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Rufty ( 37223 )
            I swear, eyebrows grow back bushier than ever.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by dbIII ( 701233 )
            I've got a couple of relatives missing a few fingers each from playing with relatively low powered things that go bang, and a friend who got really bad burns from a plastic bag and candle balloon. Meanwhile an uncle who stole cordite and picric acid from an army dump, who made his own gun cotton and made his own toy cannon got away with just causing a bit of property damage.
    • here's the napalm site: http://throwflame.com/products... [throwflame.com]
  • there just has to be.

    • Using the flameCloud4000 app, you can quickly access your flamethrower controls from around the world. Do you not want to to put a cloud-controllable flamethrower on top of your roof, to get rid of stupid flanders neighbours showing up, or pidgins shitting onto your roof? Using our patented BirdAway algorithm, the cloud-connected camera quickly scans for birds on your roof and roasts them with the remotely controllable 360 degrees flameWielder flamethrower[1]. With the flameCloud4000 app, you can access you

  • Mr President we have a flamethrower gap (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Crashmarik ( 635988 ) on Saturday March 28, 2015 @02:05PM (#49361829)

    On a more serious note but nonetheless just as funny, the liability suits from this should be hilarious.

  • Loadsa uses! (Score:3)

    by Twinbee ( 767046 ) on Saturday March 28, 2015 @02:07PM (#49361837)
    I'm sure this has hundreds of uses!

    Such as erm...... uh....... well... bonfire lighter! Er, and you know.......... other things!

    Now this [amazon.co.uk] on the other hand....

    • I use my flamethrower for gardening - my back yard has a strip of asphalt for parking, but all the rest is gravel, so it's easy to keep the weeds down by hosing the place down with fire every now and then. It's a great way to start fires in the firepit - no need to mess around with kindling and wait an hour for the flame to really get going; just toss in some logs, torch 'em for a minute, and you're set. Beyond that, it's also a great way to grill vegetables - hold a bell pepper or an ear of corn in a pair

  • If ever there was a weapon that would be classified as only a weapon of terror with no practical application beyond fear.

    This is it.

    I hope this fails, and i'm an NRA member who is often caught saying things like "from my cold dead hand"

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Whorhay ( 1319089 )

      As someone else pointed out far above, there is actually a variety of legal uses for flamethrowers. I've seen them used by landowners to conduct controlled burns to keep underbrush down and help prevent wild brush fires.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by PCM2 ( 4486 )

      If ever there was a weapon that would be classified as only a weapon of terror with no practical application beyond fear.

      Well, fear and burning people to death so they're no longer a threat. Not very efficient, but effective.

      And I guess the "practical applications" of your guns, if they don't involve fear, involve gunning people down, right? Don't bother with scaring them off, just kill them.

      Between you and me, it seems like the practical application of creating fear is working just great on you, quick-draw.

    • Re:OMG america is stupid (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Aighearach ( 97333 ) on Saturday March 28, 2015 @02:47PM (#49362007)

      If ever there was a weapon that would be classified as only a weapon of terror with no practical application beyond fear.

      This is it.

      I hope this fails, and i'm an NRA member who is often caught saying things like "from my cold dead hand"

      The only time I ever used a flame thrower was to put out a forest fire. I don't doubt that the deer were frightened of me, but in my defense I was trying to protect their home.

      Why are NRA members so dim-witted? Do you even understand your own propaganda, or do you just spew it like a mindless zombie? It isn't the flame-thrower that scares people, it is the asshole waving it around.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by u38cg ( 607297 )
        No. No, it really is the flamethrower that frightens me. If the asshole didn't have a flamethrower, I wouldn't be frightened.

        • No. No, it really is the flamethrower that frightens me. If the asshole didn't have a flamethrower, I wouldn't be frightened.

          Right, but if he puts it down and picks up a pointy stick, the fear of him remains. The flamethrower won't look very scary just sitting there unless you're exceptionally fearful. It is certainly still something to be concerned with regarding safety, just like a pile of dynamite or a propane tank.

          But even if the flamethrower remains a safety concern, getting poked with the stick is much scarier. And that too goes away as soon as he puts it down.

          Attaching the fear to the tool instead of the operator is pretty

    • Re:OMG america is stupid (Score:4, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 28, 2015 @02:47PM (#49362011)
      I wanted so desperately for there to be a comment on this that I could mod flamebait. Thank you for your contribution.
    • What happened to America the Free? Is there really a danger of someone using a flamethrower as a weapon, despite it NEVER happening before? It's not a practical weapon. If we're going to outlaw things based on how dangerous is it regardless of actual threat, let's start with trebuchets.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by dbIII ( 701233 )

      who is often caught saying things like "from my cold dead hand"

      Likely to be hot burning hands. An ex-army guy I know who got to play with military flamethrowers before training on them became limited noted that they are tempremental things that don't just roast the thing you are pointing them at unless you are out in the open on a perfectly calm day. Such weapons are "on the backburner" due to it being a real bitch if the bad guys have them, it looking really bad in the press to roast kiddies with them an

  • Welcome to the USA (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Qbertino ( 265505 )

    Sorry to the 90% U.S.ians here on /. for my upcoming rant, but bear with me please:

    WTF? I mean, seriously, WTF??? Who in hell would think that what the world needs now is a small concealable commercially available *FLAMETHROWER* ?!??. This is so bizarly US american, words fail me.

    When's the first one going to run amok with one of these? Who's gonna pay the medical bill of the first rampage victims with 80% burnt skin for life? The people who built this thing? ... I hope as soon as the first one falls victi

    • Let's be clear, absolutely no-one is going to be using this as a weapon. It's not even a "last line of defense" weapon for home invasion, because while some may want to watch the world burn, they have different feelings about their own home specifically.

      There are actually some pretty valid uses for this thing - farming an pyrotechnic displays being just two. There are a lot of people in the U.S. with large properties that could have very good uses for these things.

      But basically, this is just fun, because

    • Re:Welcome to the USA (Score:4, Insightful)

      by physicsphairy ( 720718 ) on Saturday March 28, 2015 @03:53PM (#49362273)

      While you're linking to youtube, you might checkout the homemade flamethrowers [youtube.com]. I can't claim to have made one but plenty of my friends have (including my school physics club). The mechanics of a flame thrower is just a squirt gun + a match. I can buy propane "flame throwers" as is at the local hardware store (used for burning weeds).

      Why are people making all these flame throwers? Because something that shoots jets of flame is freaking cool. As far as I could discern on a quick google search, none of them have been used to commit murder.

      What I personally find horrific is the idea that anyone would be so afraid of their fellow citizens that their first assumption on hearing they have access to a projectile shooter/flame maker/etc. is "OH GOODNESS HOW ARE THEY GOING TO USE THAT MURDER ME?" I realize unhinged people are out there, and will do bad things, but there are also bears in the woods which could find their way to my house and easily maul me to death. But the statistics are low enough that I don't worry about. I suppose my luck could run out some day, but trusting my fellow citizens not to murder me has worked so far, and I wouldn't care to live any other way. I like the idea of a society and a government that assumes I have good intentions until proven otherwise and I consider it worth some risk to have it even if I am not personally a person who is interested in owning a weapon.

    • And communicating to members of such a regime that you're effing serious and now won't stop short of total surrender.

      Get the fuck off your moral high horse. What was Churchill trying to communicate with Dresden?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by gtall ( 79522 )

        Yep, that Brit must have Churchill genes or something, so he should be held directly responsible for Dresden.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by schnell ( 163007 )

        What was Churchill trying to communicate with Dresden?

        I understand this comment is actually a rhetorical question to comment on the morality of the Allies in the Dresden firebombing. (BTW, Dresden was never intended to be "Dresden." It was an area bombing with incendiaries and was thus expected to cause indiscriminate damage to civilians alongside the military targets; but nobody involved had any clue it would turn out to be the indescribable charnel house it became.)

        But in case anyone is interested in the actual question for purposes of historical context: th

        • It is a comment on morality in war. Dresden was a historical cultural landmark without defenses; it was known to be of large wood constructions, it was known to harbour fugitives. This is exactly the reason why it was never bombed before.
          (firebombing was in effect since 1942 on major German cities).
          War has never been a place for ethics, ashing thousands of (civilian) people and claiming to save humanity is a fucking joke.
          It didn't work either, because Japan had to be nuked twice afterwards.

          “Dresden, the seventh largest city in Germany and not much smaller than Manchester, is also far the largest unbombed built-up the enemy has got. In the midst of winter with refugees pouring westwards and troops to be rested, roofs are at a premium. The intentions of the attack are to hit the enemy where he will feel it most, behind an already partially collapsed front, to prevent the use of the city in the way of further advance, and incidentally to show the Russians when they arrive what Bomber Command can do.” RAF January 1945

    • Re:Welcome to the USA (Score:5, Interesting)

      by foreverdisillusioned ( 763799 ) on Saturday March 28, 2015 @04:26PM (#49362381) Journal
      1. If I recall correctly they were very popular in South Africa as a self defense weapon at one point. So, not quite uniquely American

      2. The "clearing snow" thing might be a reasonable usage case. Depends on the efficacy.

      3. Regarding deadliness, there are flamethrowers and then there are flamethrowers. Glancing at the pics and vids, I'm not seeing any burning fuel on the ground. If this thing spews a fireball that burns itself out instantly without coating anything with the still-burning fuel, it's probably not something you can accidentally maim someone with. Singe their hair off and give them second degree burns, sure, but it's not napalm. Barring fuel tank rupture, I'd say this thing appears to be significantly safer than a gun.

      4. I appreciate the desire to stop bad ideas before they snowball, but having a society based liberty (and generally averse to the idea of a nanny state) means asking "why not?", not "why?" Europe is safer in a lot of ways, but there's a reason why it's not the main driver of innovation despite having a higher GDP and a population 50% higher than the USA. The side effect of letting people innovate is that sometimes someone goes and starts selling flamethrowers. Oh well.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Allow me to take a moment to mourn what Slashdot has become as many of the interesting people have left for other pastures.

      There was a time I'd come to an article about this and learn all sorts of neat details, such as why flame throwers existed, the mechanics and challenges involved with producing something like this, why it hasn't been done before and speculation as to how this is working... along with stories of where their usage has gone wrong by those with interesting backgrounds, and yes, a healthy do

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Crash24 ( 808326 )
        Your problematic nostalgia is triggering me, harasses women, someone think of the children, contribute to my Patreon.

        More seriously, the decline to shit here coincides with Slashdot Beta and the rise of Reddit. Of course, that place has spiraled into a corrupt cesspool of censorship and social manipulation.

  • Gas is good, liquid bad (Score:3)

    by Checkered Daemon ( 20214 ) on Saturday March 28, 2015 @03:22PM (#49362153)

    We played around with what were known as 'Flame Effects Generators', also known as 'Fire Cannons', for years out at Burning Man. We even shot them directly at people, clad in fire suits of course (search YouTube for 'Dance Dance Immolation'). As far as I know no one ever got hurt, or even burned a little, and we compared notes a lot. But these were all pressurized propane. The subject line above was something of a motto. These things use liquid, and the potential for an accident is pretty high. I've used FEGs for years, but I wouldn't want to be within a city block of a liquid based flame thrower.

    One early year a guy had a kerosene-based torch, a big one. I heard him tell the Black Rock Rangers, "You know, if anything goes wrong here you're gonna have to move 2,000 people 100 yards in about 20 seconds".

  • A flame thrower, however powerful, is a short range weapon. A zombie by definition doesn't feel pain. Result? Getting up close and personal with a zombie . . . only now it's a flaming zombie.

  • ... how could this have any hope of not being classed as a destructive device?

  • Basically a disposable, one-shot flame thrower that's set off by a trip wire. Used by the Russians and the Germans in WW2.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

    For when you really want the kids to stay off your lawn.

  • Would anyone really want to use one? (Score:3)

    by FrozenGeek ( 1219968 ) on Saturday March 28, 2015 @06:47PM (#49362855)
    If something goes wrong, you're carrying a boatload of highly flammable material while playing with fire. Sounds like a setup for a Darwin award.

  • ... of napalm in the morning.

  • It needs a sayhellotomylittlefriend tag.

  • After these are delivered, how long will it take for the first person to die from one?

    Anybody want to buy a date? Drum up enough interest in the pool and you could make a killing.

Slashdot Top Deals

Every nonzero finite dimensional inner product space has an orthonormal basis. It makes sense, when you don't think about it.

Close