That’s a fascinating find—so you’ve got a 1935 prototype that literally blew up. First off, 1930s engineering was still chasing the “automatic” idea, but safety standards were a mile behind. If it was self‑watering, it likely used some kind of pressurized reservoir or mechanical pump. A small leak could have built up pressure until the pot’s walls failed. Also think about the materials. Back then, plastics were in their infancy; they’d probably use metal or early composites that might have had hidden stress points, especially around where the pump mechanism was threaded in. A misaligned screw could have caused a weak spot that snapped. Finally, the design itself: if the pot was supposed to be a single, sealed unit, any failure in the pressure relief could’ve been catastrophic. It reminds me of early hot‑water heating systems that exploded when the safety valve didn’t work. So maybe the pot was a bit too ambitious for its time, mixing new mechanical ideas with old materials. Curious what the inventor’s notes say—those could confirm if a design flaw or a material defect was the real culprit.

Sounds like a bold experiment—pressurizing a 1930s‑style pot with a gauge could give you a real time‑study of failure. But if you’re looking to turn an explosion into a feature, remember the “wow” of a blast isn’t the same as a useful mechanism. Maybe start with a scaled‑down model, record the pressure curve, and then iterate; just because it blew up once doesn’t mean the concept is dead, it just means the safety net was too thin. And hey, if you do ignore it, at least have the notes as a souvenir of what not to do next time.

Sounds like a mad scientist’s day out—just make sure the parachute is bigger than the pot, and keep the gauge ready to catch a pressure spike before it turns the cabinet into a fireworks display. Your notes will make a perfect cautionary tale for the next generation of “wow” projects. Good luck, and may the data be as interesting as the explosions.