| Author |
Message
|
| thrasmussen |
 Posted: 12/21/2006 15:38 PM Post subject: Hydraulic Ram |
 |
|
Corporal
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 75
126.05 Spud Bux
|
What if you used a Hydraulic Ram for a combustion chamber!
I'll bet you could get some pretty big bangs with that guage of steel. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
|
| markfh11q |
| Posted: 12/21/2006 15:48 PM Post subject: |
|
|
Magic Dust Man
Joined: 06 May 2006
Posts: 1585
61.83 Spud Bux
|
Ehh... depends on what fuel and oxidizer you're using. Also depends on what size cylinder and type you've got what pressures you could take it to.
I've seen somebody use a pneumatic cylinder for a gun here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Hotwired |
| Posted: 12/21/2006 16:05 PM Post subject: |
|
|
UK Spudgunner
Joined: 13 Oct 2006
Posts: 1807
3910.89 Spud Bux
|
Depends on what the hydraulic cylinder was from.
If it was something off building site type machinery then you could fill it halfway with black powder and it'll not fail on you.
But it'll be as heavy as hell and the recoil would need a massive chunk of concrete to keep it still.
For anything reasonable you don't need a hydraulic cylinder. Copper tube is more than enough for a powerful gas combustion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| thrasmussen |
| Posted: 12/21/2006 16:13 PM Post subject: |
|
|
Corporal
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 75
126.05 Spud Bux
|
| The only draw-back that I see is that the cylinder would have to be large. Weight is not a problem with me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Tshylea |
| Posted: 12/22/2006 17:45 PM Post subject: |
|
|
Corporal
Joined: 18 Oct 2006
Posts: 78
237.23 Spud Bux
|
With a heavy gun the recoil would be less. It is the weight of the ammo that affects recoil. If the gun is really heavy, that means there is more mass that needs to be pushed backwards, so it wouldn't move as fast.
I think a hydraulic cylinder is a great idea because it is already pressure rated. The only problem would be getting one. A junkyard would probably be your best bet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| thrasmussen |
| Posted: 12/22/2006 17:52 PM Post subject: |
|
|
Corporal
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 75
126.05 Spud Bux
|
| I think they are at least pressure rated for 2000 -3000 PSI. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Tshylea |
| Posted: 12/22/2006 17:57 PM Post subject: |
|
|
Corporal
Joined: 18 Oct 2006
Posts: 78
237.23 Spud Bux
|
The pressure rating would depend on how big and what kind you got. I'm sure there are hydraulic rams that you could completely fill with C-4 and not worry about having it blow up.
DISCLAIMER: That was just an example. C-4 should not be your primary method of pressure testing a chamber. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| FiveseveN |
| Posted: 12/23/2006 3:59 AM Post subject: |
|
|
Captain
Joined: 14 Oct 2005
Posts: 340
766.01 Spud Bux
|
That was funny 
Yeah, powerlabs made a guncotton cannon from a ram. I'm looking into acquiring one myself for some acetylene detonation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| markfh11q |
| Posted: 12/23/2006 8:08 AM Post subject: |
|
|
Magic Dust Man
Joined: 06 May 2006
Posts: 1585
61.83 Spud Bux
|
| FiveseveN wrote: |
Yeah, powerlabs made a guncotton cannon from a ram. I'm looking into acquiring one myself for some acetylene detonation.
|
I think I've seen that. Shot golfballs? Muzzle energy equal to a .38 special? Looked pretty cool.
But, remember that there is not a pressure vessel ON THIS EARTH that can hold a closed ignition of blackpowder, (disregarding drilling, like, a 1/32" hole through a 3' wide cylinder of steel and plugging with about 5 tons of weight over it). So basically, any cannon you build will do whichever is easier: sending the ammo flying, or grenading the cannon.
EDIT:
| Tshylea wrote: |
The pressure rating would depend on how big and what kind you got. I'm sure there are hydraulic rams that you could completely fill with C-4 and not worry about having it blow up.
|
You people just don't get it do you? Not even some hydraulic grease fittings, (10,000 PSI), can hold that. You would need 15 times that pressure rating just to safely hold blackpowder. Think of what you would need to hold C-4. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| pyro86 |
| Posted: 01/14/2007 14:25 PM Post subject: |
|
|
Private First Class
Joined: 17 Nov 2006
Posts: 34
83.03 Spud Bux
|
there is garbage cans that will stay together with TEN pounds of C4 blown up in them
also detonation is not dangerous if your hiding behind somthing
soliders use gernades all the time without blowing themselves up |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Tater Salad |
| Posted: 01/14/2007 14:46 PM Post subject: |
|
|
Private First Class
Joined: 05 Nov 2006
Posts: 35
7.03 Spud Bux
|
| the powerlabs cannon was inspirational, i think he said it had the same kinetic energy as an AA round? and it went somewhere around 6 miles, which is huge. Anywho, as for the hydraulic cyilinder, alomost any hydrolic cylinder should be able to take about a ton of psi, i asked my dad who's in construction once about them, and the huge ones for caterpillars and dump trucks are even around a couple tons. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| markfh11q |
| Posted: 01/14/2007 19:22 PM Post subject: |
|
|
Magic Dust Man
Joined: 06 May 2006
Posts: 1585
61.83 Spud Bux
|
| pyro86 wrote: |
there is garbage cans that will stay together with TEN pounds of C4 blown up in them
also detonation is not dangerous if your hiding behind somthing
soliders use gernades all the time without blowing themselves up
|
For the record, I said CLOSED ignition. I guarantee you if you weld the lid on that trashcan, you won't have a trashcan anymores. Goes for pretty much anything, as well. Ever heard of a pipe bomb? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Bluetooth |
| Posted: 01/14/2007 19:48 PM Post subject: |
|
|
Brigadier General
Joined: 27 Jun 2006
Posts: 828
34.79 Spud Bux
|
| I think 10lbs of c4 in a trash can would be enough to disprove "Matter can never be destroyed." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
