Part V: Adiabatic Gun Model

Post questions and info about combustion (flammable vapor) powered launchers here. This includes discussion about fuels, ratios, ignition systems and anything else relevant to launchers powered by igniting things like hairspray or propane.

Postby SPG » Fri Feb 16, 2007 8:44 am

I'm wondering looking at all of this (and I should admit I only understood about a third of it) is there wouldn't be some merit in what I'll call a dual-friction barrel.

Imagine that the first couple of inches of the breach end of the barrel is high-friction, then leading in to low friction. Surely this would allow a higher pressure to build in the chamber during combustion, and thus more gas to be combusted, before the spud makes any initial movement, but also allow the spud to move freely once this high rate of combustion has been acheived.

I'd be interested to see for instance if there was any difference in performance between barrels with internal and external chamferings of the spud knife.

Effectively what you're trying to reproduce is the "burst-disc" effect, but without a burst disc.

Secondary to this, what conclusions can we draw from this on hybrid performance in relation to disc burst pressures, can we model an optimal pressure (as a ratio of peak chamber pressure) for the disc to burst at.
Posts: 983
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2004 4:51 am
Location: France

Postby jimmy » Fri Feb 16, 2007 2:02 pm

I think you are probably right, the model is a bit slow. I suspect the model is slow because it assumes the flame front is laminar. In an actual spudgun chamber the flame front probably becomes turbulent at some time during the firing process. Turbulent flame fronts propagate faster than do laminar ones. One reference I have says up to 10X faster for a turbulent front in a closed chamber.

I have measured the launch dynamics of the standard gun. Using a piezo in the chamber the time from trigger pull to spud leaving the barrel is ~50mS. The current adiabatic model predicts ~75mS (see the pressure vs. time graph in the OP) for this gun (calculated using an 0.43m/s initial flame front speed). So the model does indeed appear a bit slow.

I've been fiddling with a non-adiabatic model and it is beginnning to look like an initial flame front speed of about 0.8 m/s is going to be needed to get everything to work out correctly. With a flame front speed of 0.8 m/s the time to exit drops from ~75mS to ~45mS. I believe the higher flame front speed can be rationalized by turbulence in the flame front.

A "dual friction" barrel is a great idea. Any ideas on how? Glue a sheet of sand paper on the inside of the barrel at the breach end? Ream out the breach end of the barrel a bit, for a breech loader, so that the spud in the breech is a bit wider than the barrel?

<i>"I'd be interested to see for instance if there was any difference in performance between barrels with internal and external chamferings of the spud knife."</i> I believe there is evidence that an internal bevel increases the muzzle velocity, presumably by increasing the static friction. Of course, playing with the geometry of the muzzle knife changes both the static and dynamic friction. As you suggest, you probably want high static and low dynamic friction.

The current adiabatic model makes a very simple prediction for the optimal burst pressure of a hybrid. The burst pressure should be as close to the peak pressure as possible. I suspect that that is a bit simplistic and probably is not the best answer to the question. To correctly answer that question I think the model will have to be non-adiabtic so that heat loss is taken into account. The higher the burst pressure the better, <u>but</u> at high pressure the temperature is high and heat is being lost quickly. Hard to say if there is an optimal burst pressure that maximizes pressure but minimizes heat loss.
Posts: 790
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 11:02 am
Location: USA

Postby FLONE » Fri Feb 16, 2007 5:06 pm

In terms of the dual diameter barrel, use a 2" sched 80 barrel with SDR 21 or 26 1.5" inside for the first couple inches?
Posts: 135
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2006 5:49 pm

Return to Combustion Launchers