Construction uses what I would call torches, not flamethrowers
There is very few cases where you want to “throw” flames. It’s inefficient. Keeping the flame and the material close is preferred.
Giant pile of tar you want to set on fire as fast as possible? I guess a flamethrower is effective. Burning brush, anything where you’re catching something on fire so it spreads.
They use “flamethrowers” on bitumen roofs. But the idea behind the tool is to not throw the flames as far as possible.
I’d define flamethrower as “An incendiary device that disperses uncontrollable flames at a distance”
For me the required characteristics would be that it dispenses a burning liquid at a distance in a controlled, directed manner.
If it dispenses burning gas it’s not very useful as a weapon and is really just a big gas burner. Roofing torches, blowtorches, and weed burners fall into this category.
If it doesn’t cover a meaningful distance it’s also not very useful as a weapon and is essentially just a leaky container. Driptorches fall into this category.
If it dispenses the burning material in an uncontrolled or undirected manner it’s either an incendiary bomb/grenade of some sort or an accident. It might be a weapon but not one I’d call a flamethrower.
You’re thinking of a flamethrower as it has to be a weapon and trying to fit the definition around that.
If I had a device that throws flames, let’s say 100 decimeters. Is it a flamethrower? Am I really controlling the flames at the farthest distance? I would say no because the objective of the device is to throw the flame as far as possible. Compared to a torch that could burn a bullseye at 100 decimeters, flamethrower would just burn the whole target.
I typically only hear of the term “flamethrower” in a weapons context so yes, I’d say that it has to be a weapon. Yes, you can have a noncombat device that projects a flame but those are typically called something else (like “burner” or “torch”). I’d expect most people to first think of a weapon when they hear “flamethrower”.
And I would assume that your device’s flame is still controlled and directed – it may have some spread but you still choose where to point the device even when it’s active. You probably also have a means of turning the device off, offering further control. So your device fits the definition, even if it might be crude.
An incendiary grenade would be an example of a device that offers no control or direction. Once it goes off it releases all the fire everywhere within range. Another example would be a burning gas well – it might project its fire in a fairly predictable fashion and in a clear direction (up) but you can’t easily turn it off or point it somewhere else.
Flamethrowers don’t use gas. It uses liquid or solid. That’s why real flamethrowers can be used at ranges of 50+ ft. Often times even higher than that.
I suppose the key is where the line is drawn between a flamethrower and a very large torch.
A flamethrower is a ranged incendiary device.
What do you consider a flamethrower?
How far is ranged?
Construction uses what I would call torches, not flamethrowers
There is very few cases where you want to “throw” flames. It’s inefficient. Keeping the flame and the material close is preferred.
Giant pile of tar you want to set on fire as fast as possible? I guess a flamethrower is effective. Burning brush, anything where you’re catching something on fire so it spreads.
They use “flamethrowers” on bitumen roofs. But the idea behind the tool is to not throw the flames as far as possible.
I’d define flamethrower as “An incendiary device that disperses uncontrollable flames at a distance”
For me the required characteristics would be that it dispenses a burning liquid at a distance in a controlled, directed manner.
Interesting take.
You’re thinking of a flamethrower as it has to be a weapon and trying to fit the definition around that.
If I had a device that throws flames, let’s say 100 decimeters. Is it a flamethrower? Am I really controlling the flames at the farthest distance? I would say no because the objective of the device is to throw the flame as far as possible. Compared to a torch that could burn a bullseye at 100 decimeters, flamethrower would just burn the whole target.
I typically only hear of the term “flamethrower” in a weapons context so yes, I’d say that it has to be a weapon. Yes, you can have a noncombat device that projects a flame but those are typically called something else (like “burner” or “torch”). I’d expect most people to first think of a weapon when they hear “flamethrower”.
And I would assume that your device’s flame is still controlled and directed – it may have some spread but you still choose where to point the device even when it’s active. You probably also have a means of turning the device off, offering further control. So your device fits the definition, even if it might be crude.
An incendiary grenade would be an example of a device that offers no control or direction. Once it goes off it releases all the fire everywhere within range. Another example would be a burning gas well – it might project its fire in a fairly predictable fashion and in a clear direction (up) but you can’t easily turn it off or point it somewhere else.
Flamethrowers don’t use gas. It uses liquid or solid. That’s why real flamethrowers can be used at ranges of 50+ ft. Often times even higher than that.
puts a bic lighter on a comically long stick
You’re not throwing fire with a bic on a stick
Now a bic in a slingshot…