Timeline for How effective would a stone cannon be?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 12, 2018 at 13:11 | history | edited | Gryphon | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
corrected grammar and spelling
|
| May 8, 2017 at 19:18 | comment | added | user25972 | Interesting answer. If we accept the use of a binder but reject the idea of re-melting all the rock, it may be possible to build a rudimentary cannon from asbestos fibre and a binder. | |
| May 8, 2017 at 5:41 | comment | added | user64742 | @Schwern I'm well aware how stack exchange works. I just don't like questions that leave wrong answers in their edited post. I personally prefer when people delete the old when editing. I'm just voicing my opinion. I know how the site works. | |
| May 7, 2017 at 22:57 | history | edited | Catalyst | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
fixed line spacing
|
| May 7, 2017 at 20:37 | comment | added | Schwern | @TheGreatDuck That's fine, they improved the answer, system is working as intended. It's ok for answers to drift a bit if its relevant and they otherwise answer the question (for example, several answers talk about wooden cannons). Like I said, this is a community moderated site, so downvotes by the community are the preferred method for dealing with poor answers. Deletions and other moderator interventions are reserved for severe problems. | |
| May 7, 2017 at 20:35 | comment | added | user64742 | @Schwern it still contains the controversial non-answer... | |
| May 7, 2017 at 20:33 | comment | added | Schwern | @TheGreatDuck Because it's been edited to talk about making cannons from basalt fibers (ie. high tech stone). Also because we delete only for severe problems, downvotes serve otherwise. | |
| May 7, 2017 at 20:22 | comment | added | user64742 | Why is this answer still not deleted? | |
| May 7, 2017 at 19:20 | history | edited | Catalyst | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Expaned answer (per coments) to include a possible way to make usable stone cannon barrels.
|
| May 7, 2017 at 18:43 | comment | added | HDE 226868♦ | @Catalyst This is one of the review queues, and you do have access to it. | |
| May 7, 2017 at 16:18 | comment | added | Catalyst | Where is this 'low-quality review queue? I will be interested to see whether it treats my and other good-faith answers to a rather ambiguously phrased question. Or is this a club that only some special folks can participate in?? | |
| May 7, 2017 at 15:35 | comment | added | Secespitus | Your answer is currently in the low-quality review queue. You might want to edit your answer to elaborate what you mentioned in your comment in greater detail. | |
| May 7, 2017 at 15:25 | review | Low quality posts | |||
| May 7, 2017 at 19:44 | |||||
| May 7, 2017 at 13:05 | comment | added | Catalyst | The question, as stated, does not specify projectile vs. barrel material. That said, I'd be quite surprised by a stone-barreled 'gun' surviving a second firing. I provided the closest historical info I know of. YMMV. | |
| May 7, 2017 at 13:03 | comment | added | Mormacil | The question deals with cannons not projectiles. | |
| May 7, 2017 at 13:02 | history | answered | Catalyst | CC BY-SA 3.0 |