Login    Register
User Information
Username:
Password:
We are a free and open
community, all are welcome.
Click here to Register
Sponsored
Who is online

In total there are 80 users online :: 4 registered, 0 hidden and 76 guests


Most users ever online was 155 on Mon Aug 15, 2016 1:40 am

Registered users: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] based on users active over the past 5 minutes

The Team
Administrators
Global Moderators
global_moderators.png CS

have an idea on a combustion cannon AFTERBURNER ?

Post questions and info about combustion (flammable vapor) powered cannons here. This includes discussion about fuels, ratios, ignition systems, safety, and anything else relevant.
Sponsored 
  • Author
    Message

Unread postAuthor: jimmy101 » Sun Mar 29, 2009 2:30 pm

D_Hall wrote:
CpTn_lAw wrote:What if you were to find a flammable liquid that contains its own oxidizer?

Then you're most likely playing with hydrazine. Would it work? Yes.

But let me put it this way... From time to time "play" with hydrazine at work. We wear "moon suits" when we do so and it *still* scares the crap out of me.

I think the "would it work? yes" is a bit misleading and/or optimistic.

Could you get it to work in a plastic pipe system with parts you picked up at the local hardware store? Probably not. At least not more than once, and not without taking pretty significant risks to life and limb.

There are other monopropellants that could be used, high conc. H2O2 springs to mind. All are about as dangerous as hydrazine.
  • 0

Image

jimmy101
Lieutenant General
Lieutenant General
 
Posts: 3127
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2007 9:48 am
Location: Greenwood, Indiana
Country: United States (us)
Reputation: 7

Unread postAuthor: chrissilvermancs » Sun Mar 29, 2009 3:46 pm

this might be a dumb comment because this is going a little out of my understanding.

1 i don't think it would at all decrees the power because it would be the same as putting the spud 2 ft from the barrel but with a extra boots if anything i will make picture to explain what im taking about

2 because the propane is in the large chamber and the after burner is separated from it with a burst disk their is oxygen in the second chamber for it to light right or would the combustion from the propane burn that too fast
  • 0

Attachments
comparison.JPG
this was the comparison between what i meant about it not losing power if anything giving it more

you have to view the picture too see it i think
User avatar
chrissilvermancs
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Mar 07, 2009 2:18 am
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: Biopyro » Sun Mar 29, 2009 3:50 pm

Yes, you gain power in that comparison, but why not just have the potato all the way down or fuel it with propane.
It really isn't worth the effort when you could get the same gain by doing something much simpler.
  • 0

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. -Benjamin Franklin
User avatar
Biopyro
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 656
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 5:32 am
Location: UK
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: chrissilvermancs » Sun Mar 29, 2009 4:33 pm

yes well that's the resion i posted it because i wasn't sure that it is posible but tell me this though, why dose it give jet engines more thrust, when they can as u say just increase the size.
  • 0

User avatar
chrissilvermancs
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Mar 07, 2009 2:18 am
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: D_Hall » Sun Mar 29, 2009 5:12 pm

jimmy101 wrote:Could you get it to work in a plastic pipe system with parts you picked up at the local hardware store? Probably not. At least not more than once, and not without taking pretty significant risks to life and limb.

True, but since he opened the monopropellant door he's already in effect stated that he's not dealing with systems that can be had via the local hardware store.

There are other monopropellants that could be used, high conc. H2O2 springs to mind. All are about as dangerous as hydrazine.

Again true, but I don't think it quite fits the definitions the poster was asking for. He was asking about a combustion system. Peroxide (as a monopropellant) doesn't burn; it simply decomposes. If that's all we're after, a better system would probably be nitrous oxide. At least it's readily available.
  • 0

Simulation geek (GGDT / HGDT) and designer of Vera.
User avatar
D_Hall
Donating Member
Donating Member
 
Posts: 1759
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 7:37 pm
Location: SoCal
Reputation: 6

Unread postAuthor: D_Hall » Sun Mar 29, 2009 5:14 pm

chrissilvermancs wrote:yes well that's the resion i posted it because i wasn't sure that it is posible but tell me this though, why dose it give jet engines more thrust, when they can as u say just increase the size.

Because jet engines don't normally burn all the oxygen that's available to them. The same can not be said of gun systems.
  • 0

Simulation geek (GGDT / HGDT) and designer of Vera.
User avatar
D_Hall
Donating Member
Donating Member
 
Posts: 1759
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 7:37 pm
Location: SoCal
Reputation: 6

Unread postAuthor: chrissilvermancs » Sun Mar 29, 2009 11:51 pm

thanks that makes sence

but it could give a nice flame effect.

off topic, i have cool flame thrower can i post that on spud files or is that not aloud

thanx for the input from every one! :)
  • 0

User avatar
chrissilvermancs
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Mar 07, 2009 2:18 am
Reputation: 0

Sponsored

Sponsor
 


Unread postAuthor: jackssmirkingrevenge » Mon Mar 30, 2009 12:32 am

Sounds like a bit of a dead end to me, along the lines of the multi-chambered gun.
  • 0

User avatar
jackssmirkingrevenge
Donating Member
Donating Member
 
Posts: 24225
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 11:28 pm
Country: Holy See (Vatican City State) (va)
Reputation: 66

Unread postAuthor: jimmy101 » Mon Mar 30, 2009 9:56 am

D_Hall wrote:
jimmy101 wrote:Could you get it to work in a plastic pipe system with parts you picked up at the local hardware store? Probably not. At least not more than once, and not without taking pretty significant risks to life and limb.

True, but since he opened the monopropellant door he's already in effect stated that he's not dealing with systems that can be had via the local hardware store.

There are other monopropellants that could be used, high conc. H2O2 springs to mind. All are about as dangerous as hydrazine.

Again true, but I don't think it quite fits the definitions the poster was asking for. He was asking about a combustion system. Peroxide (as a monopropellant) doesn't burn; it simply decomposes. If that's all we're after, a better system would probably be nitrous oxide. At least it's readily available.

Yes, but isn't hydrazine a monofuel? Or, at least, hydrazine can be used as a monofuel so it to dosn't "burn" in the normal sense. Not really any different than high conc. H2O2. With both you have a pretty significant toxicity worry (hence the "moon suits") as well as the worry of something unexpectedly catalyzing the fuel's decomposition.

Heck, even acetylene can be used as a monofuel, though I woudn't recomend it. :shock:
  • 0

Image

jimmy101
Lieutenant General
Lieutenant General
 
Posts: 3127
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2007 9:48 am
Location: Greenwood, Indiana
Country: United States (us)
Reputation: 7

Previous

Return to Combustion Cannon Discussion

Who is online

Registered users: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], Yahoo [Bot]

Reputation System ©'