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.
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.