just a quick question
does theshape of the chamber effect how the gun shoots or its recoil or anything?
thanks
chamber shape
-
SpudBlaster15
- First Sergeant 3
- Posts: 2400
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 11:12 pm
- Has thanked: 2 times
- Been thanked: 10 times
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.
Last edited by SpudBlaster15 on Wed Jul 14, 2021 5:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
BC Pneumatics
- Sergeant
- Posts: 1053
- Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2005 6:55 pm
- Location: Fresno, CA
- Contact:
SpudBlaster15 is correct. A spherical chamber should be ideal, but the cost is generally too high to justify it's use.
<a href="http://www.bcarms.com/"><img src="http://www.bcarms.com/images/store_logo.png" border="0"> </a>
found this a few months back. i was gonna make a sweet pneumatic but never got around to it. and these are a lil pricey.
http://www.aeroconsystems.com/plumbing/ ... pheres.htm
kinda small and rather expensive.
but they would be great for a small hybrid..
"""The sphere on the left is 3.5" OD with 1/8 NPT fitting.
Pressure rating from manufacturer is 700 PSI with wall thickness is 20 gauge.
The sphere on the right is 5.5" OD with 1/4 NPT fitting.
Pressure rating from manufacturer is 400 PSI with wall thickness of 20 gauge.
Both vessels have been proof tested over 1,500 PSI. """
http://www.aeroconsystems.com/plumbing/ ... pheres.htm
kinda small and rather expensive.
but they would be great for a small hybrid..
"""The sphere on the left is 3.5" OD with 1/8 NPT fitting.
Pressure rating from manufacturer is 700 PSI with wall thickness is 20 gauge.
The sphere on the right is 5.5" OD with 1/4 NPT fitting.
Pressure rating from manufacturer is 400 PSI with wall thickness of 20 gauge.
Both vessels have been proof tested over 1,500 PSI. """
Marvin the Martian: Where's the kaboom? There was supposed to be an earth-shattering kaboom!
Marvin the Martian: The Earth? Oh, the Earth will be gone in just a few seconds.
Marvin the Martian: The Earth? Oh, the Earth will be gone in just a few seconds.
PCGUY wrote:Congrats, your the first donating member I have had to ban.
-
iknowmy3tables
- Staff Sergeant
- Posts: 1596
- Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 3:57 pm
- Location: maryland
- Has thanked: 3 times
- Been thanked: 9 times
the opening is really small other than that it really does looks like a nice hybrid
-
frankrede
- Sergeant Major 2
- Posts: 3220
- Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 9:47 pm
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 1 time
"These spheres are just terrific for your mono or bi-propellant project."trae08 wrote:found this a few months back. i was gonna make a sweet pneumatic but never got around to it. and these are a lil pricey.
http://www.aeroconsystems.com/plumbing/ ... pheres.htm
kinda small and rather expensive.
but they would be great for a small hybrid..
"""The sphere on the left is 3.5" OD with 1/8 NPT fitting.
Pressure rating from manufacturer is 700 PSI with wall thickness is 20 gauge.
The sphere on the right is 5.5" OD with 1/4 NPT fitting.
Pressure rating from manufacturer is 400 PSI with wall thickness of 20 gauge.
Both vessels have been proof tested over 1,500 PSI. """
Current project: Afghanistan deployment
-
jimmy101
- Sergeant Major
- Posts: 3199
- Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2007 9:48 am
- Location: Greenwood, Indiana
- Has thanked: 5 times
- Been thanked: 17 times
- Contact:
Not so sure about the spherical chamber being optimal.
A closed spherical chamber burns faster than other closed chamber shapes.
But a spud gun is not a closed chamber.
Here is a thought I've been toying with...
A laminar flame front moves very slowly (~15"/second). A turbulent flame front moves much faster, perhaps 10X faster or more. In a spud gun the gases start to move when the spud starts to move. When the gases get going fast enough the gases' movement transitions from smooth (laminar) to turbulent. Not exactly sure what the speed needed is for this transition but I believe the Reynolds number of a typical spud gun combustion is reached at pretty low velocities, e.g., tens of fps.
When the flow of the gases in the chamber exceeds the Reynolds number and switches to turbulent flow, the flame front should also switch to turbulent and accelerate substantially.
The simple modeling I've done suggests that a short fat chamber is better than a long skinny one of the same total volume. But my modeling assumed laminar flow and flame fronts and doesn't take into account laminar to turbulent transitions.
So, who knows? Anybody have any data?
Lots of possible affects, hard to tell which is/are most important;
1. Spherical closed chamber burns faster than other shapes.
2. The most practical shape for spuders would be a cylinder with length=diameter.
3. A long skinny chamber has a much higher surface to volume ratio and will loose heat faster than a shorter fatter chamber of the same volume.
4. A long skinny chamber will have higher gas velocity and will transition to turbulent flow sooner than will a short fat chamber.
It is possible that a chamber fan will negate the "skinny chamber, early turbulent flow transition" affect since the fan is already making the gases (and hence the flame fronts) turbulent. Even in a closed spherical chamber a fan will substantially increase the burn rate.
A closed spherical chamber burns faster than other closed chamber shapes.
But a spud gun is not a closed chamber.
Here is a thought I've been toying with...
A laminar flame front moves very slowly (~15"/second). A turbulent flame front moves much faster, perhaps 10X faster or more. In a spud gun the gases start to move when the spud starts to move. When the gases get going fast enough the gases' movement transitions from smooth (laminar) to turbulent. Not exactly sure what the speed needed is for this transition but I believe the Reynolds number of a typical spud gun combustion is reached at pretty low velocities, e.g., tens of fps.
When the flow of the gases in the chamber exceeds the Reynolds number and switches to turbulent flow, the flame front should also switch to turbulent and accelerate substantially.
The simple modeling I've done suggests that a short fat chamber is better than a long skinny one of the same total volume. But my modeling assumed laminar flow and flame fronts and doesn't take into account laminar to turbulent transitions.
So, who knows? Anybody have any data?
Lots of possible affects, hard to tell which is/are most important;
1. Spherical closed chamber burns faster than other shapes.
2. The most practical shape for spuders would be a cylinder with length=diameter.
3. A long skinny chamber has a much higher surface to volume ratio and will loose heat faster than a shorter fatter chamber of the same volume.
4. A long skinny chamber will have higher gas velocity and will transition to turbulent flow sooner than will a short fat chamber.
It is possible that a chamber fan will negate the "skinny chamber, early turbulent flow transition" affect since the fan is already making the gases (and hence the flame fronts) turbulent. Even in a closed spherical chamber a fan will substantially increase the burn rate.
