Hung on a minute,....the exploded tube is where you cheek the gun I don't think heavy clothing would make a difference, Am I wrong ?
Upvote 0
- The AGN App is ready! Search "Airgun Nation" in your App store. To compliment this new tech we've assigned the "Threads" Feed & "Dark" Mode. To revert back click HERE.
Leshiy 2 explodes
- Thread starter bckyrdsnpr52
- Start date
Last time I replied we were at 19 pages. Now 27 pages and still no information of ANY value to me as an end user. Looking forward to hearing what Ed says when the report is back.
For now - continue the useless
For now - continue the useless
Upvote 0
Most of the energy would have dissipated in the first milliseconds. He seemed to have all the parts so it appears to me that if he had a thick hood, he got a helluva punch to the jaw.
Upvote 0
Pretty sure he just means that he came through with actual measurements and tangible data, instead of just speculating. He wasn't referring to Ed when he said "run my mouth". How you manage interpret it as such is beyond me.
Upvote 0
My guess is that the rupture occured on roughly the opposite side of the tube from where his cheek was. So the blast was directed away from his face, rather than towards it. Which, if true... means he was very lucky. No doubt it would've given him quite the scare and ringing in his ears, but it could've been a lot worse.
Upvote 0
Look at the image close. Look at the non-anodized area that occurs in all these tubes. Match that with where the failure occurred. It’ll give you an idea of direction of blast.
Dave
Upvote 0
He has admitted to trolling, clearly you don't read his responses thoroughly, idc, its the internet...
Upvote 0
So kind of like you now, I guess. Blocked. I ain't got time for kiddie nonsense. You can't understand there is no place for this BS in a thread that concerns safety, the system has failed you.
Upvote 0
I would think that the .794 is the safety margin as in 100% rated capacity plus that so total of 1.794. But I may be wrong.
Upvote 0
Been watching this thread for some time now and would like the analysis on the actual parts which were sent to Ed.
I understand having outside analysis done but wouldn’t the results be exact if it was done on the same parts and not different ones? Simulations are great but having the actual parts which failed would give a true picture and if the results don’t match then there is an issue.
And if there is a simulation shouldn’t it be under the exact same conditions as when the explosion occurred?
Glad that there is a serious concern for everyone’s safety and looking forward to the results Ed finds.
I understand having outside analysis done but wouldn’t the results be exact if it was done on the same parts and not different ones? Simulations are great but having the actual parts which failed would give a true picture and if the results don’t match then there is an issue.
And if there is a simulation shouldn’t it be under the exact same conditions as when the explosion occurred?
Glad that there is a serious concern for everyone’s safety and looking forward to the results Ed finds.
Upvote 0
Safety factor is a product of mawp. Safety factor should always be above 1 or there is no safety factor.
Some determine safety factor based on yield and some on ultimate (burst). That is one reason so many numbers have been thrown around and aluminum vessels get a little odd on what is acceptable. The frustrating part is that safety factor ends up being an opinion, so therefore, I will never argue what is ‘right’ when it comes to sf.
Dave
Upvote 0
I hear you, I meant that it might be what he meant like language barrier type thing. If it was really .79 you'd think several would have exploded by now, which is why I think he meant 1.79. Good info Dave.
Upvote 0
For sure, maybe he’ll jump back in and let us know. Marko is legit, I for sure respect what he’s got going on. Just curious.
Dave
Upvote 0
I am probably going out on a limb and may be wrong but .79~ safety factor of a 300 bar pressure vessel or WHATEVER you want to define our air tubes as, should mean that area of the tube yields at around 300 * .79 = 237 bar, now generally those calculations are forgiving and maybe that area of the tube only yields .0001" at over 240-300 bar, which may not be detrimental under normal circumastances, but I am not here to be lenient, its far from acceptable imo, but thats what these forums are here for, to input ones opinions.
Upvote 0
What it means is that those of us who fill our Leshiys to 300 bar have all died tragically with chunks of aluminum embedded deep in our brains. This discussion is just our group afterlife experience. None of it is actually real. Either that or the model that estimated the 0.7x safety factor is inaccurate.
Last edited:
Upvote 0
I don’t know about you guys, but I’m not shooting my L2 until I check to see if my tube has a conical end and even then I’m not filling over 250 BAR. If it has the square end it will not see pressure and quickly become an expensive ornament. I don’t even care what the lab says, this is a bad detail on a pressure vessel.
The L2 is a great gun to shoot with some very unique features but my mind cannot ignore this perception of an inherent safety issue. If Ed does not revise the design to the more conventional industry standard of a threaded end cap with O ring at this location I’m not sure I can ever accept the gun as safe? If Ed fails to do this and provide parts to existing owners, then hopefully a third party will rise to the occasion. I would buy an improved reservoir just for peace of mind.
The L2 is a great gun to shoot with some very unique features but my mind cannot ignore this perception of an inherent safety issue. If Ed does not revise the design to the more conventional industry standard of a threaded end cap with O ring at this location I’m not sure I can ever accept the gun as safe? If Ed fails to do this and provide parts to existing owners, then hopefully a third party will rise to the occasion. I would buy an improved reservoir just for peace of mind.
Upvote 0