Does size matter? -lol

Boom! The classic potato gun harnesses the combustion of flammable vapor. Show us your combustion spud gun and discuss fuels, ratios, safety, ignition systems, tools, and more.
broken_system
Private 3
Private 3
Posts: 42
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 11:02 am

Wed Jan 06, 2010 6:21 am

Question: Does the size, or rather the dimensions of the combustion chamber matter for a good combustion? I.e. Does it have to be a big round combustion chamber or can it be longer and skinnier?

Thanks!
User avatar
jackssmirkingrevenge
Five Star General
Five Star General
Posts: 26189
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 11:28 pm
Has thanked: 551 times
Been thanked: 328 times

Donating Members

Wed Jan 06, 2010 6:33 am

There's no doubt that a short fat chamber provides a better burn than a long skinny one of the same volume, though I don't think anyone has ever quantified the actual advantage.
hectmarr wrote:You have to make many weapons, because this field is long and short life
broken_system
Private 3
Private 3
Posts: 42
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 11:02 am

Wed Jan 06, 2010 6:36 am

Say the fuel/air mixture could be pulled into the chamber, evenly distributing it, would this still combust the same as a big chamber?
User avatar
jackssmirkingrevenge
Five Star General
Five Star General
Posts: 26189
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 11:28 pm
Has thanked: 551 times
Been thanked: 328 times

Donating Members

Wed Jan 06, 2010 7:37 am

Have a look at the high speed videos in this thread,it's to do with the propagation of the flame front.

Technically, a short and fat chamber is better, but I cannot tell you if it will give you 20% better power, 50% better power etc. because as far as I know no one has done any testing to find out what a difference it actually makes.
hectmarr wrote:You have to make many weapons, because this field is long and short life
User avatar
Brian the brain
Moderator
Moderator
Netherlands
Posts: 3496
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2005 2:06 am
Location: Holland
Been thanked: 3 times

Wed Jan 06, 2010 1:15 pm

Wouldn't ..one side going off prior to the other- result in the unburnt side being compressed before combustion??

wich would mean a higher peak perhaps, late in the process??

I'm not sure..no combustion guy..
Gun Freak wrote:
Oh my friggin god stop being so awesome, that thing is pure kick ass. Most innovative and creative pneumatic that the files have ever come by!

Can't ask for a better compliment!!
User avatar
JDP12
Staff Sergeant 5
Staff Sergeant 5
Posts: 1943
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2007 8:34 pm

Wed Jan 06, 2010 1:29 pm

I would say short and fat. That's how I've always built mine
broken_system
Private 3
Private 3
Posts: 42
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 11:02 am

Wed Jan 06, 2010 1:39 pm

Mainly the reason I wanted to go for longer and skinnier was to have a plunger-type-thingy that would vent the waste and bring in fresh air/fuel (I'm trying to make a semi-auto). So in my case for convinience a smaller longer chamber would be better. I could set up something similar for the larger rounder variety however I wanted to go for a more compact design.
jimmy101
Sergeant Major
Sergeant Major
United States of America
Posts: 3198
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2007 9:48 am
Location: Greenwood, Indiana
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 15 times
Contact:

Wed Jan 06, 2010 3:06 pm

Broken_

If you are actually going for a semi then I wouldn't worry about long skinny versus short fat chamber. The semi auto should be what is driving your design. If it is easier to do long and skinny then that is fine, the difference in performance isn't going to be all that great anyway.
Image
Post Reply