I don’t think this has much practical application as an entire system. Nor is it supposed to. It was built just to achieve and artificial goal with arbitrary constraints. That doesn’t make it any less cool or interesting, but that doesn’t make it useful.

Some of the features he used are pretty cool though, like varying the winding drum diameter to vary the delivered torque over the course of the weight drop.

> without requiring fire-arms training.

You'd need trebuchet training instead, which is probably not better in the long run. I bet there's still lots of ways to kill/mangle yourself with one of these, especially once you've been around them long enough to get casual and sloppy.

I also loved the video. But I'd think if one wanted to deploy "simple" mechanical projectile weapons at scale, pneumatic launchers would be easier, more compact and more reliable (way less cool-looking and operating, though!).

Or we can just accept it as a cool gimmick, we don't have to kill animals with supersonic trebuchets really

> deal with avalanche conditions

Swiss solution: chuck some explosives out of a helicopter https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H519qhLnRtM (start at 1:20)

(In the image at https://swisshelicopter.ch/de/aktuelles/721-lawinensprengen-... the explosive pack says "do not eat". I'm not reassured that we need this warning for people allowed to handle that.

I think the only real advantage of this, compared to gas driven projectiles, is the lack of need for gas sealing and explosion resistance of the projectile. The projectile is accelerated much more gently. You can launch combustible, rather fragile and irregularly shaped projectiles. That said, I don't think there is much need for supersonic exit velocities for most scenarios. Maybe you could use it for impact testing without introducing a gas blast or the need of a gas sealing delivery vehicle. But I don't think you would opt for a gravity powered, purely mechanical device then.

Drone defense? :-)

[flagged]