Page 5 of 6

Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 9:57 am
by RJB INDUSTRIES
Look i am european...

I mean glued the PVC and after put bolts around....


RJB INDUSTRIES

Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 10:04 am
by Labtecpower
That isn't neccessary, when properly glued it can hold a lot of pressure. Putting bolts in will only weaken the PVC.

Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 10:28 am
by RJB INDUSTRIES
ok thanks man...

Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 4:47 pm
by Zeus
RJB, believe me, DYI is to be feared. I've been in discussion with him on alternate propellant systems, and what's in the reach of most is quite suprising.

MrC, the concept DYI and I have been discussing, you'd better be afraid. He's working through me. :lol:

Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 6:16 pm
by SpudBlaster15
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Cras nec placerat erat. Vivamus dapibus egestas nunc, at eleifend neque. Suspendisse potenti. Sed dictum lacus eu nisl pretium vehicula. Ut faucibus hendrerit nisi. Integer ultricies orci eu ultrices malesuada. Fusce id mauris risus. Suspendisse finibus ligula et nisl rutrum efficitur. Vestibulum posuere erat pellentesque ornare venenatis. Integer commodo fermentum tortor in pharetra. Proin scelerisque consectetur posuere. Vestibulum molestie augue ac nibh feugiat scelerisque. Sed aliquet a nunc in mattis.

Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 8:45 pm
by ramses
I think it's pretty obvious at this point that RJB INDUSTRIES is trolling, but I'll reply anyway.

DYI's aluminum/h2o gun uses enough electricity to kill you 750 times over in each shot. It creates peak pressures well in excess of the tensile strength of the chamber material. (not the burst pressure, but the yield strength of the material) It is held together by inertia. He designed a PLASTIC insulator that can contain this pressure without extruding itself. Earlier designs extruded the plastic thorough a metal hole.

If you can shoot a .12g airsoft BB through a steel coin, your arrogance may be forgiven by this forum.

Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:28 pm
by Technician1002
Set your system up to measure, inject, vapourize, and effectively diffuse a stoichiometric quantity of liquid nitromethane, and I may be slightly impressed.
Simply filling the chamber will do the job fine. No additional oxizider is needed. Power will be impressive too. :D

Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 12:54 pm
by RJB INDUSTRIES
my arrogance?? What a f...??? Are you sleeping?? Read how they talk to me... Ok ? I see you like a baby with your papa "DYI"... Be a man, talk nice....

Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 2:05 pm
by wyz2285
RJB case you DIDN´T see this, take a look
http://www.spudfiles.com/forums/viewtop ... tml#330314

Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 2:27 pm
by velocity3x
RJB came here to talk about a design which he thought was good and it was certainly no worse than some of the crap that's proposed here from time to time. The conversation deteriorated to subtle jabs immediately after his first post. He didn't know DIY or his qualifications....so what! Quit acting like a pack of Rabid Hyenas and give him a chance to fit in.

Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 4:14 pm
by ramses
velocity3x wrote:RJB came here to talk about a design which he thought was good and it was certainly no worse than some of the crap that's proposed here from time to time. The conversation deteriorated to subtle jabs immediately after his first post. He didn't know DIY or his qualifications....so what! Quit acting like a pack of Rabid Hyenas and give him a chance to fit in.
All right, arrogance may have been a strong word.

A quick search for DYI's posts would have shown his qualifications quite plainly. I think it is reasonable to do a basic search like that before saying what he said.

His idea was reasonable, and he was gently shown why it is not necessarily worthwhile. He was shown how he would only shrink the chamber by 20%, and that the addition of an actual liquid fuel injection.

DYI then gently explained that yes, fans help (and why), conceded that there could be advantages to using gasoline. He responded with a blatant challenge. I think Fnord's post on page 4 summarizes how all the experienced members felt.

He responded to aggression/frustration with more aggression. that is essentially what we have done, except we used facts to argue. It's not right, but its better.



Re-reading the thread, I take back my first line. You could be arrogant, naive or both.

Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 6:31 pm
by RJB INDUSTRIES
Thanks velocity 3x... Please take a look on this, all of you... my vortex is the only picture i have in this computer of my BBMG...

http://www.spudfiles.com/forums/vortex- ... rt,15.html

I didn t know how to see what DYI did...so what...
Please check it and change the way of this conversation....

RJB INDUSTRIES

Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 6:34 pm
by Technician1002
Reading this makes me think rule #1 got bent somewhat. :D

Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 6:48 pm
by jimmy101
RJB, you are getting dissed because your original post looked like it was writen by an idiot.
I made a H2 reactor to adapt in a cannon but i sleep thinking on other thing... Why are we using gas as a fuel...
First place let´s compare the density of a gas with a liquid one...
What did Nasa when wanted increase the mass of fuel inside the fuel chamber in a shuttle...?
they began to use liquid fuel to could in the same volume hade much more fuel...
what i take and my revolutionary idea in this world is that we may use a liquid fuel and i have already thought in a simple way to do that...
remember one simple detail, look at the ergonomic point of a spud gun...??
WAF??
a gas bottle is so big and reduce quality of a cannon...
This year I will show you what i´m working on...

RJB INDUSTRIES
Even allowing for English not being your first language it comes across as idiotic. People tend to not respect idiots.

A "liquid fuel" is a brilliant idea? Give me a break. Been there done that. Works fine but is not really any better than a gaseous fuel, indeed it is more difficult and gives no real advantage. That is engineering speak for "it is a stupid idea if your goal is better performance".

The controlling characteristics of the energy in a combustion chamber is not the fuel. The actual choice of fuel has a fairly minor affect. The controlling variable is the amount of oxidizer. If you don't increase the amount of oxidizer then the energy in the chamber is basically the same regardless of the fuel. The heat of combustion of gasoline is basically identical to propane. The amount of air in the chamber for a gasoline fueled vs. propane fueled chamber is basically the same (4% of the chamber volume as injected gaseous propane is insignificant). Put those two concepts together, work out the combustion stoichiometry then look up the low heat values for combustion of various hydrocarbon fuels and you'll discover the fuel (butane, propane, hexane, gasoline, ...) has basically zero affect on the energy in the chamber.

Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 8:44 pm
by Fnord
OKAY,

With that I think we've pretty well demolished his original idea.
RJB, you can build it if you want, no one is stopping you, but it probably won't be revolutionary. Even if you only want a smaller fuel tank, you can make a custom propane cylinder from some off-the-self fittings.

If it was my call I'd say lets just throw this whole discussion out and give him a chance to start over.
RJB, How bout you get that vortex gun together and show us some shredded targets, mmkay? The block itself looks very well-crafted so I look forward to seeing what the rest will look like.