|
|
Post by silverdragon on Apr 4, 2016 8:31:09 GMT
"For every action"...
Turn a cannon round and load it on a well secured spike.
Add find if you want..... make the top end a spike..... fire?...
"early" form of rocket?... maybe.
The thing you fire does not have to be heavy enough to withstand repeat firing, just strong enough to withstand the initial charge.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Apr 4, 2016 11:12:10 GMT
seems an awkward sort of thing to me. not to say it wasn't done. but it would seem to be a concept where a person had to ask "who put in the effort to make this work?"
|
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Apr 4, 2016 22:22:25 GMT
I think a more realistic situation would be an improperly-secured cannon moving backwards, either because it's on four wheels or because the mounts holding the cannon to the frame have failed.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Apr 4, 2016 22:31:08 GMT
I think a more realistic situation would be an improperly-secured cannon moving backwards, either because it's on four wheels or because the mounts holding the cannon to the frame have failed. reminds me we had a discussion some time ago about making a cannon powered sled. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Apr 5, 2016 8:20:35 GMT
From what I can find, and this is knowledge of the ancients back when Gunpowder was a "new toy" to get a BIG heavy deck smashing object from one ship to another and able to make holes in the sides was considered a good idea?...
Now I aint suggesting anything like a half-ton cannon here, something a lot lighter, maybe something one man could carry, but the early form of a missile.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Apr 5, 2016 8:50:35 GMT
Half a ton is actually quite light for a cannon. When you see cannons lighter than this the powder was low powered.
There is a relationship between the weight of a cannon, and therefore the thickness and strength of the gun, and the strength of the powder. The more powerful the powder the heavier the gun.
A simpler way of looking at this is to point out that even modern guns, which have a much higher "power to weight ratio" in rocketry terms, will rarely fly vertically more than the length of the gun. (When they travel further than this its because they quickly stop being vertical and start spinning).
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Apr 5, 2016 9:01:25 GMT
I think where this originated from may have been an early form of rocketry.
The ancients knew the "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction" long before a european wrote it down..
I am suspecting they played about with a hollow spear of metal design, shall we call it a pipe?.. with Fins on it, filled part way with powder, and sat on a spike, fire it, and away it goes.....
Again cross threading, early forms of gunpowder fired spears.
Maybe this spear got heavier to the stage where it could take a chunk out of an enemy ships hull?...
Maybe the pipe has a ball at the top end that held a lot of powder to create a blast?...
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Apr 5, 2016 15:31:24 GMT
this begins to blur the line between cannon and rocket.
so would the question be regarding a device that was launched from an internal support, using fast burning powder, such that the support provided a launch boost?
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Apr 6, 2016 7:49:48 GMT
this begins to blur the line between cannon and rocket. I agree Yes, thats sort of what is described. |
|
|
|
Post by memeengine on Apr 23, 2016 9:16:30 GMT
this begins to blur the line between cannon and rocket. I agreeYes, thats sort of what is described. Those devices already exist, they're called spigot mortars. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Apr 23, 2016 13:33:51 GMT
I agreeYes, thats sort of what is described. Those devices already exist, they're called spigot mortars. So I aint "nuts" then, they DO exist....... [phew!] I think I can see ways of making them better as well. |
|
