Im not sure that there is an actuall advantage of this over the conventional method. One would need a power source to cycle the weapon and to ignite the fuel mixture. Then you would need two seperate storage cylinders for the gases. It would seem to a large and overly complex system, and all for no actual purpose that couldnt be more easily fulfilled with conventional arms.
Crazy Idea--Gas with its own Oxidizer?
- Thread starter Cosmoline
- Start date
- Status
I am getting a sense of "diggie vouse" here. One of the ideas dates to the Volcanic, a predecessor of the Winchester, another is the same idea as the old Gyrojet revived.
Rocket type projectiles failed for two reasons. The first is that they are worthless at close range since the projectile does not have time to build up velocity. The second is that they are not accurate since a guidance system can't be built into something as small as a handgun bullet.
Other types of caseless ammo usually fail because of problems in breech sealing, priming, and other factors, including standing up to rough handling. About every 5 or 10 years, we read in the gunrags that someone has a new caseless ammo system and that it is a miracle, will instantly make all conventional guns obsolete, has been tested by somebody's army, etc., etc. Then it is never heard from again until the next cycle when we read that someone has a new caseless ammo....
Jim
Rocket type projectiles failed for two reasons. The first is that they are worthless at close range since the projectile does not have time to build up velocity. The second is that they are not accurate since a guidance system can't be built into something as small as a handgun bullet.
Other types of caseless ammo usually fail because of problems in breech sealing, priming, and other factors, including standing up to rough handling. About every 5 or 10 years, we read in the gunrags that someone has a new caseless ammo system and that it is a miracle, will instantly make all conventional guns obsolete, has been tested by somebody's army, etc., etc. Then it is never heard from again until the next cycle when we read that someone has a new caseless ammo....
Jim
Thefabulousfink
Member
True...in no way am I saying we should all throw out our old bullets and start tearing apart our printers, it had just struck me as an ineresting concept. Just because it may not be feasable now doesn't mean that we should dismiss it outright. Plenty of crack-pot ideas have paved the way for brilliant advances, look at the volcanic compared to the winchester and the old pepper-box compared to the modern revolver.
Fuel + oxidizer
The closest compound to this is hydrazine (N2H4), which is used in the maneuvering jets on the shuttle and other spacecraft. Fuel and oxidizer in one compound (vacuum of space and all) but it still needs an ignition source. Hydrazine is nasty, dangerous stuff. You could make a small amount by mixing ammonia with bleach. Try not to poison youself....
The closest compound to this is hydrazine (N2H4), which is used in the maneuvering jets on the shuttle and other spacecraft. Fuel and oxidizer in one compound (vacuum of space and all) but it still needs an ignition source. Hydrazine is nasty, dangerous stuff. You could make a small amount by mixing ammonia with bleach. Try not to poison youself....
Vern Humphrey
Member
Preacherman said:
The Crusader, which I worked on, did not use gaseous or liquid propellants. The US Army had abandoned research on liquid propellants long before the Crusader reached the point of consideration.
Grape Ape
Member
It might be doable using a mix of air and nitrous oxide for the oxidizer. Since nitrous oxide doesn’t breakdown and release its Oxygen until you get it pretty hot. This lack of oxygen would delay the burning of some of the fuel, thereby spreading out the pressure curve some.
Using a fuel like propane or butane that liquefies at a fairly low pressure would lighten the tanks (thinner walls). And using the recoil energy to compress air for subsequent rounds might save the need for a third tank.
But it still doesn’t seem that practical to me, and I’m that F Troop would require enough paperwork to ruin all the fun.
Using a fuel like propane or butane that liquefies at a fairly low pressure would lighten the tanks (thinner walls). And using the recoil energy to compress air for subsequent rounds might save the need for a third tank.
But it still doesn’t seem that practical to me, and I’m that F Troop would require enough paperwork to ruin all the fun.
bogie
Member
Ahh... But the fuel source could run the dealie too, at least until it got going... I actually think that one could probably, with the correct cam, build the thing onto half of a V8 engine...
cracked butt
Member
There isn't enough chemical energy in any gasses to make it work.
Molecules in solids are packed very tight compared with gasses, so more energy can be contained. How smokeless powder works is that when its burned, It gives off a large amount of nitrogen and oxides of nitrogen, the tightly packed nitrogen molecules in the solid become much more loosely packed molecules in a gas form, producing a very high pressure- add heat to the gas from the burning, and the pressure goes up even further.
Burning a gas to produce another gas doesn't give off an appreciable change in pressure as compared to burning a solid propellant.
Molecules in solids are packed very tight compared with gasses, so more energy can be contained. How smokeless powder works is that when its burned, It gives off a large amount of nitrogen and oxides of nitrogen, the tightly packed nitrogen molecules in the solid become much more loosely packed molecules in a gas form, producing a very high pressure- add heat to the gas from the burning, and the pressure goes up even further.
Burning a gas to produce another gas doesn't give off an appreciable change in pressure as compared to burning a solid propellant.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
