:( What I've Decided to Do About The Fate Of My Fire Organ Project.

Overview

The creator explains that after receiving feedback from a museum attendee (via Johnny) and later email responses from “pyro” professionals, they became concerned that their flame-organ project could be interpreted as a firearm under UK law. They briefly panicked and considered redesigning or stopping, but have now decided to continue—arguing the project is not intended to function as a weapon and does not meet the key legal definitions of a firearm.

Core argument: why it isn’t a firearm

Technical framing of the device

They describe the device as an artistic musical pyrotechnic that releases ignited propane upward from organ pipes. Gas exits the pipes (whistling), and then it ignites outside the pipes, rather than acting as a projectile launcher.

Firearms Act criteria they focus on

Their main argument is legal/technical and centers on the UK Firearms Act framework, specifically the definition involving a “lethal barreled weapon” capable of discharging a “shot/bullet/missile” with more than one joule of kinetic energy at the muzzle.

They claim their setup visibly does not produce the kind of energy transfer or projectile discharge associated with firearms, noting that:

• The flames are visibly low-energy relative to an air rifle analogy.
• The practical meaning of measuring joules in this context is unclear.
• Even if energy thresholds were disputed, the broader function still isn’t weaponized.

“Noxious liquid, gas, or other thing” criterion

They also address the second firearm-related criterion involving the discharging of “noxious liquid, gas, or other thing.” They argue that:

• Propane is not a toxic/noxious gas.
• The design purpose is to burn/ignite propane, not to discharge harmful agents (e.g., like chemical weapons or pepper spray).

Safety and compliance-oriented modifications

To reduce the chance of the device being treated as weapon-like and to improve compliance, they plan safety modifications based on expert suggestions—especially:

• Adding a tilt switch so the flame cannot be directed forward or toward people if the device tilts.

They also mention additional engineering measures such as:

• Redundancy, including multiple shutoff solenoids
• Improved switching/controls
• Higher build standards

Logistics and regulatory complexity (operating “on wheels”)

They discuss the complexity of transporting/operating the device “on wheels,” linking the plan to a festival deadline about three weeks away. Their approach includes:

• Potentially not moving the device during the festival.
• Recognizing that on-the-move operation may require additional regulatory controls, such as a “dead man switch” and stewards/marshals.
• Considering practical braking solutions, including:
  • Using a lawnmower as a brake
  • Or adding tire-clamping/brakes if needed

They also note that the project is not for profit (Patreon-funded). They suggest commercial operation would likely trigger different requirements.

Contingency plans if guidance contradicts their interpretation

If later guidance undermines their current interpretation, they mention possible changes such as:

• Converting the concept into a “fridge-freezer organ” using CO₂ to create vapor-like effects instead of fire (or running both).
• Briefly considering alternatives like colored powders, but preferring vapor/fire for aesthetic reasons.

Ongoing communication and request for feedback

They reiterate that they will continue building and publishing updates, and they ask viewers for reactions to their conclusions.

Presenters or contributors

• The video creator (unnamed)
• Johnny (mentioned as attending the museum and relaying information)
• Miles (named contributor who outlined relevant legal points via email)
• Colin Furze (mentioned as someone who previously required a license for firearm-adjacent projects)
• “EMF” / “EMF” event/festival organizers (referenced, not shown as a person)
• Patreon supporters / patrons (funding and support referenced)