Multy-stage combustion
-
chosen_way
- Specialist
- Posts: 106
- Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 4:31 am
i just had the craziest idea, what you do is get a combustion cannon and a heap of smaller ones that can slide into each other, and set it all up so they go off 10 seconds after the other on so if you have 5 cannons, the first cannon is a would slide into b and the next into c the next into d the next into e and then set of e and then mid flight the next one would go off so on anf so fourth would this work? it might be classified as propelling an explosive out of a cannon so if it is just lock it.
-
killagorrila99
- Sergeant 2
- Posts: 1100
- Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 2:35 am
- Location: Australia.
wow. stupidest idea ive ever heard. but if u want to waste that much propelant its up to u.
"I'm sorry, Mr.Bush cant come to the phone right now, He's playing cleudo with Mr. Cheney And he has him in the Cupboard with a broom stick" -White house receptionist.
I don't think it would work anyways. The ammo is propelled because the explosion is pushing against the ammo, if the gun is in midair the explosion will push against the back with a much greater force, the gun will fly back and the ammo will basically "fall" out of the barrel.
"There isn't a problem in the world that can't be solved by the proper application of explosives"
-
LucyInTheSky
- Specialist 2
- Posts: 293
- Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2006 11:46 am
killagorilla, a waste of propellant?
Is propane really that expensive in austrailia?
Is propane really that expensive in austrailia?
-
boilingleadbath
- Staff Sergeant 2
- Posts: 1635
- Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 10:35 pm
- Location: Pennsylvania, USA
What's the advanteage?
Combustion spudguns are already capable of delivering several thousand fps (with proper ignition system and B:C ratio).
Until you start approching that velocity, complex systems don't make much difference.
Combustion spudguns are already capable of delivering several thousand fps (with proper ignition system and B:C ratio).
Until you start approching that velocity, complex systems don't make much difference.
Frick'! lol
Ratios display a relationship between two numerical figures. So it doesnt matter which side of the : there on, as long as it is understood what side is which. Although, the ratio of Chamber and Barrel is usally stated and listed as C:B, instead of B:C.
Quite frankly I get annoyed at such posts... Personages stating ideas that they will never construct, and are far to complicated or plain in-effective. Like you know how many people have talked about PVC/ ballon cartiages? I dont think ive ever seen such a gun built in the spudding realm of guns.
Ratios display a relationship between two numerical figures. So it doesnt matter which side of the : there on, as long as it is understood what side is which. Although, the ratio of Chamber and Barrel is usally stated and listed as C:B, instead of B:C.
Quite frankly I get annoyed at such posts... Personages stating ideas that they will never construct, and are far to complicated or plain in-effective. Like you know how many people have talked about PVC/ ballon cartiages? I dont think ive ever seen such a gun built in the spudding realm of guns.
-
boilingleadbath
- Staff Sergeant 2
- Posts: 1635
- Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 10:35 pm
- Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Ehh... yeah, what pimpmann said.
Methinks the people who commented about my "reversed" wording are just searching out any opertunity to up their postcounts.
Or, well, I'll give them the benifit of the doubt.
And now that I've gone and done the same, I best acctualy say something.
For high-velocity use, one will probably be best served by a relitivly low B:C ratio. The reason is simple; with high B:C ratios, each portion of gas does alot of work and thus lowers it's temperature significantly - note the condensing clouds of water vapor at the muzzle, folks. Lower temperatures mean lower mean gas partical velocitios - lower speed of sound - which (as all of us except "supersonic" acnolage) lowers the potential velocity.
Note that with the smaller B:C ratio, you'll really need a nice ignition system (with well distributed sparkgaps) to provide a fast pressure ramp-up.
Can't be wasting our precious barrel pushing things along at low pressures, especialy if you have any desire to get supersonic velocities!
("B:C" used instead of "C:B" intentionaly, to bother you inflexable peoples.)
Methinks the people who commented about my "reversed" wording are just searching out any opertunity to up their postcounts.
Or, well, I'll give them the benifit of the doubt.
And now that I've gone and done the same, I best acctualy say something.
For high-velocity use, one will probably be best served by a relitivly low B:C ratio. The reason is simple; with high B:C ratios, each portion of gas does alot of work and thus lowers it's temperature significantly - note the condensing clouds of water vapor at the muzzle, folks. Lower temperatures mean lower mean gas partical velocitios - lower speed of sound - which (as all of us except "supersonic" acnolage) lowers the potential velocity.
Note that with the smaller B:C ratio, you'll really need a nice ignition system (with well distributed sparkgaps) to provide a fast pressure ramp-up.
Can't be wasting our precious barrel pushing things along at low pressures, especialy if you have any desire to get supersonic velocities!
("B:C" used instead of "C:B" intentionaly, to bother you inflexable peoples.)
-
chosen_way
- Specialist
- Posts: 106
- Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 4:31 am
guys i did ask if this would work i didnt say it was going to work for sure, and who ever said propane is expensive is retarded a bottle of it is AUS$15.00 that is cheap for me. why is it when you post something everyone has to be reall mean about it and not just be nice and say that it wouldnt work and state why and no just say it wouldnt work it is a stupid idea.