Logo
HomeForumCannonsWikiAlbumArchive
SpudFiles
Users  Rules   Search  Search   Chat  Chat   FAQ  FAQ   Memberlist  Memberlist   How-To  How-To   Other  Other
Register  ::  Log in Private Messages


Random Cannon

Recent topics
» Grenade Launcher- Meat Te
by starman on 12/05/2008 1:02 AM

» Regulator
by starman on 12/05/2008 0:53 AM

» Damage Vid Party!
by jackssmirkingrevenge on 12/05/2008 0:50 AM

» My new copper coax with a
by jook13 on 12/05/2008 0:41 AM

» Mass flow and De Laval no
by Lentamentalisk on 12/05/2008 0:09 AM

» C4 Tripwire Mine
by FordGtMan on 12/04/2008 23:53 PM

» PVC Rocket Engine Powered
by Lentamentalisk on 12/04/2008 23:38 PM


Donate

Hi Guest!
As you're not registered, some features could be unavailable. Click here if you want to become a member of SpudFiles
Username:    Password:      Log me on automatically each visit    

Post new topic  Reply to topic
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
 Working designs for parachute ammo (with a difference...) « View previous topic :: View next topic » 
Author Message
BigGrib
PostPosted: 12/06/2007 2:25 AM    Post subject: Reply with quote

GribNation Founder
Colonel

Joined: 01 Oct 2007
Posts: 627
220.47 Spud Bux

i think you would need a spring or something to pop those wings open at max height or something
Back to top
Carlman
PostPosted: 12/06/2007 2:30 AM    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Aussie
Brigadier General

Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Posts: 1171
376.06 Spud Bux

rubber band worx aswell as JSR has put in one of the posts on the previous page.
Back to top
jackssmirkingrevenge
PostPosted: 12/06/2007 3:39 AM    Post subject: Reply with quote

space monkey
<b>Donating Member</b>

Joined: 15 Mar 2007
Posts: 7098
11428.06 Spud Bux

Carlman wrote:
would it 'glide' and hit slow enough to preserve the camera though?


It will be a fast glide but if the camera's in a well padded housing it should survive. Of course first I would recommend a few dummy runs with a counterweight in place of the camera, and even before firing a few hand thrown launches to make sure you have the CG right would not go amiss.

Quote:
what kind of lab work u in?, ive just finished skwl and am considering lab tech/analysist as a career


I work in a pharmaceutical lab, we manufacture APIs, so basically I get paid to play with expensive white powder Smile I would recommend it as a career if you're technically and chemically inclined, certainly beats an office job Very Happy
Back to top
rna_duelers
PostPosted: 12/06/2007 4:33 AM    Post subject: Reply with quote

Major General
Major General

Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 1641
3118.23 Spud Bux

It also means that your on a list of "watch" if lots of exotic drugs become available around were you live.

Just shoot and hope for the best!
Back to top
jackssmirkingrevenge
PostPosted: 12/06/2007 4:36 AM    Post subject: Reply with quote

space monkey
<b>Donating Member</b>

Joined: 15 Mar 2007
Posts: 7098
11428.06 Spud Bux

Highly unlikely anyone would be using what we make recreationally, unless they enjoyed skin rashes and weak bones with no beneficial narcotic effects.
Back to top
rna_duelers
PostPosted: 12/06/2007 4:39 AM    Post subject: Reply with quote

Major General
Major General

Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 1641
3118.23 Spud Bux

So very true,do you think that the ingredients and time going into making the drugs is worth the amount the companies charge?Because some of my medication is...Well expensive,very expensive.
Back to top
jackssmirkingrevenge
PostPosted: 12/06/2007 4:54 AM    Post subject: Reply with quote

space monkey
<b>Donating Member</b>

Joined: 15 Mar 2007
Posts: 7098
11428.06 Spud Bux

It's very, very expensive to manufacture, the profit margins aren't that great - aside from patents and licensing, the materials, equipment and facilities are all extremely costly, some of the instruments I use come close to $100,000 and they're just as costly to maintain. When you're talking about people's health, you can't afford to be less than 100% safe with everything you do, and that costs money.
Back to top
Carlman
PostPosted: 12/07/2007 1:26 AM    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Aussie
Brigadier General

Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Posts: 1171
376.06 Spud Bux

yes i will definetly do a test run or 20 lol

just had a brainwave, what if the chute was ejected via the force of a mini combustion inside the projectile activated from a mercury switch?

yea ill be thinking more into that career mite hav a few Qs sumtime aswell if thts all good.
Back to top
jackssmirkingrevenge
PostPosted: 12/07/2007 1:36 AM    Post subject: Reply with quote

space monkey
<b>Donating Member</b>

Joined: 15 Mar 2007
Posts: 7098
11428.06 Spud Bux

Quote:
just had a brainwave, what if the chute was ejected via the force of a mini combustion inside the projectile activated from a mercury switch?


That sounds like a plan, if you're willing to pack stungun/camera flash electronics into your projectile. Another (lighter, cheaper) idea would be to use a model rocket ingitor in the middle of your fuel/air mix.
Back to top
Carlman
PostPosted: 12/07/2007 1:53 AM    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Aussie
Brigadier General

Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Posts: 1171
376.06 Spud Bux

how about a bit of steel wool between two screws conected to a mercury switch and a 9v battery??
Back to top
jackssmirkingrevenge
PostPosted: 12/07/2007 1:59 AM    Post subject: Reply with quote

space monkey
<b>Donating Member</b>

Joined: 15 Mar 2007
Posts: 7098
11428.06 Spud Bux

Just as good, even better if you tape a match head to it, and I'll stop there as this forum does not allow discussions about solid propellant.
Back to top
Carlman
PostPosted: 12/07/2007 2:02 AM    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Aussie
Brigadier General

Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Posts: 1171
376.06 Spud Bux

its all good thn just gotta get the time 2 make 1 now Very Happy
Back to top
jimmy101
PostPosted: 12/07/2007 11:15 AM    Post subject: Reply with quote

Major General
Major General

Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Posts: 1780
7550.13 Spud Bux

BigGrib wrote:
Quote:

Jack, you would be surprised, water rockets typically pull 100~200 G's at launch. I looked it up and Estes rockets only do 10~30 G's.

A 300 FPS spud gun with a 3' barrel has an average accelation of about 470g. A lot more than an Estes rocket but not that much more than a water rocket (only a factor of 3 or so Very Happy ).


umm check on page 2 of this thread, because i did the math at 300 fps and a 3' barrel and it's almost twice as much coming in at 928.57 g's


ummm, I think you made an error in your math. The acceleration is gross estimate is ~470 Gs.

Accelerating from 0 to 300 FPS and assuming constant acceleration means the average velocity in the barrel is 150 FPS.

Time to travel 3' at 150 FPS is 0.02 seconds.

Acceleration = dV/dT = 300 FPS/0.02 seconds = 15,000 FPSS.

G=32 FPSS so 15,000 FPSS/32 FPSS = 470 G.
Back to top
jimmy101
PostPosted: 12/07/2007 12:12 PM    Post subject: Reply with quote

Major General
Major General

Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Posts: 1780
7550.13 Spud Bux

jackssmirkingrevenge wrote:
Shocked

Water rockets accelerate better than their solid propellant burning cousins?!

Someone should tell NASA Very Happy


Yep, water rockets typical outperform, in terms of maximum acceleration, solid fuel burning rockets by an order of magnitude or more. It is "all the other stuff" that makes water rockets impractical.

A very good water rocket flight simulator is
http://www.et.byu.edu/~wheeler/benchtop/sim.php
With all defaults values the acceleration peaks out at ~300G. But, the rocket only maintains that acceleration for a small fraction of a second. (This programs is to water rockets what GGDT is to pneumatic spud guns. It is generally considered to be reasonably accurate if the input parameters are correct.)

NASA already knows about water rockets.
NASA has an extensive set of pages on the design, building, testing and simulation of water rockets.

For example;
http://exploration.grc.nasa.gov/education/rocket/BottleRocket/journey. htm

Some of the NASA water rocket simulators;
http://exploration.grc.nasa.gov/education/rocket/BottleRocket/WRSimApp let/BRocket.html
http://exploration.grc.nasa.gov/education/rocket/BottleRocket/RM2.html
Back to top
BigGrib
PostPosted: 12/07/2007 14:24 PM    Post subject: Reply with quote

GribNation Founder
Colonel

Joined: 01 Oct 2007
Posts: 627
220.47 Spud Bux

Hey Thanks for going over and correcting everyone and I'm sure that NASA did know about water rockets and I think it was a smart ass coment that JSR wrote. And 928.57 g's sounds more impressive. oh yeah and since you can't tell a smart ass comment when you see one, THIS IS ONE OF THEM.
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic  Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Jump to:  



You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


SpudFiles Version 7.0
Template based off DAJ Glass Template by Dustin Baccetti
Photo Album Addon © 2002-2003 by Smartor
Powered by modified phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group