Years ago Weirauch designed a unique airgun the HW35 Barracuda. This air rifle differed from those before it in that a small amount of an ether based substance was injected into the compression chamber before discharge. The result was a detonation (as opposed to a controlled burn) of the fuel and some very high pellet velocities. Unfortunately since the substance detonated the results were uncontrollable and very damaging to the gun in the long run.
Modern high powered airguns are known to burn small amounts of their lubricants upon discharge. This more controlled process add significantly to the velocities produced, even though the fuel is not optimized and generally a poor energy producer.
My question is this: What if a firearm were produced with the express purpose of burning a hydrocarbon fuel to propel a projectile? What kind of energy could be expected from such a device, would it be comparable to firearms using smokeless powders? What kind of ostacles would someone who wanted to produce such a device encounter (physical and design obstacles not political ones).
If the basic format of a spring piston rifle were used it would probably consist of a piston powered by a coil or air spring and a cylinder. A bullet would be set in the barrel with its aft end at the front of the gun's combustion chamber, possible held in place by a tensioning ring. The trigger would release the piston to surge forward, and the fuel to be dispersed into the combustion chamber, at some point when the compression ratio was compatible with burning the fuel to be used (as opposed to detonating it) the piston would rotate into lockup with a set of locking lugs and a heat source introduced (electrical, chemical or mechanical). The resulting reaction would produce the power to send the bullet down the barrel. The tensioning ring around the bullet would be designed to hold it in place until maximum pressure had been developed in order to produce higher velocities, the locking lugs would prevent the piston from being forced backward. The device would work similar to a gun that fires from an open bolt. The lock time would probably be pretty long.
Somewhere I remember that a cup of gasoline can produce as much energy as a 1/4 stick of dynamite (or something like that) and given that the combustion chamber volume could be designed to be much larger that the typical cartridge volume I wonder why performance similar to that of smokeless powder could not be produced?
The advantages would be:
-Easy availability of ammunition. Fuels are readily available and all you would have to do it buy or fashion the projectile itself.
-Cheap ammunition. Since ammunition production wouldn't be reliant on large manufacturing firms and plants designed to produce and handle partially nitrated cellulose and the primary high explosives (primers), costs per shot could be very low.
Anyone have any thoughts about this? Has someone already tried it? Any automotive engineers out there who might be able to determine what peak pressures might be produced?
=rod=
Modern high powered airguns are known to burn small amounts of their lubricants upon discharge. This more controlled process add significantly to the velocities produced, even though the fuel is not optimized and generally a poor energy producer.
My question is this: What if a firearm were produced with the express purpose of burning a hydrocarbon fuel to propel a projectile? What kind of energy could be expected from such a device, would it be comparable to firearms using smokeless powders? What kind of ostacles would someone who wanted to produce such a device encounter (physical and design obstacles not political ones).
If the basic format of a spring piston rifle were used it would probably consist of a piston powered by a coil or air spring and a cylinder. A bullet would be set in the barrel with its aft end at the front of the gun's combustion chamber, possible held in place by a tensioning ring. The trigger would release the piston to surge forward, and the fuel to be dispersed into the combustion chamber, at some point when the compression ratio was compatible with burning the fuel to be used (as opposed to detonating it) the piston would rotate into lockup with a set of locking lugs and a heat source introduced (electrical, chemical or mechanical). The resulting reaction would produce the power to send the bullet down the barrel. The tensioning ring around the bullet would be designed to hold it in place until maximum pressure had been developed in order to produce higher velocities, the locking lugs would prevent the piston from being forced backward. The device would work similar to a gun that fires from an open bolt. The lock time would probably be pretty long.
Somewhere I remember that a cup of gasoline can produce as much energy as a 1/4 stick of dynamite (or something like that) and given that the combustion chamber volume could be designed to be much larger that the typical cartridge volume I wonder why performance similar to that of smokeless powder could not be produced?
The advantages would be:
-Easy availability of ammunition. Fuels are readily available and all you would have to do it buy or fashion the projectile itself.
-Cheap ammunition. Since ammunition production wouldn't be reliant on large manufacturing firms and plants designed to produce and handle partially nitrated cellulose and the primary high explosives (primers), costs per shot could be very low.
Anyone have any thoughts about this? Has someone already tried it? Any automotive engineers out there who might be able to determine what peak pressures might be produced?
=rod=
