|
Post by the light works on Jan 5, 2017 14:18:36 GMT
A machine gun is a gun that uses its own firing energy to cycle the mechanism. no, a minigun is technically not a machine gun. it is a motor driven gun.
as for a multibarrel mechanism, it might make purging the chamber work better - the entire mechanism would cycle each time, but it would only load a projectile and fuel charge in alternating barrels.
as for the duff load sensor - the mechanism would fail to cycle, if it did not fire properly.
as for the whole cartridge/collapsible fuel cell thing. yes, I am talking about reinventing the gun, here, not just converting n existing gun. my original image was having an actual fuel injection system; but the hollow slug/integrated fuel cell gave the potential to eliminate the injector.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 6, 2017 10:12:24 GMT
A machine gun is a gun that uses its own firing energy to cycle the mechanism. no, a minigun is technically not a machine gun. it is a motor driven gun. as for a multibarrel mechanism, it might make purging the chamber work better - the entire mechanism would cycle each time, but it would only load a projectile and fuel charge in alternating barrels. as for the duff load sensor - the mechanism would fail to cycle, if it did not fire properly. as for the whole cartridge/collapsible fuel cell thing. yes, I am talking about reinventing the gun, here, not just converting n existing gun. my original image was having an actual fuel injection system; but the hollow slug/integrated fuel cell gave the potential to eliminate the injector. The "Duff load" sensor would hopefully just throw the brake on the whole thing and allow it to be safely ejected "by hand"?... And I agree, we are re-inventing the wheel, but this is a thought exercise so why not?. Yes we will need a rethink on a new barrel, this is why I was suggesting using the exhaust ports on the engine as barrels. There already exists "sliders" on exhausts to allow un-restricted "Noise" when extra power is needed, if you could chop off the silencer of an exhaust like that and use those sliders to open up enough to cycle a round into the exhaust, of course some adaptation needed, I suspect that would "Fire" the round through the pipes. Of course we are talking a heavily modified pipe, strengthened, maybe even rifled to spin the round up, and a hell of a lot straighter than your average exhaust pipe. Are we getting anywhere with this?.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 6, 2017 15:16:27 GMT
A machine gun is a gun that uses its own firing energy to cycle the mechanism. no, a minigun is technically not a machine gun. it is a motor driven gun. as for a multibarrel mechanism, it might make purging the chamber work better - the entire mechanism would cycle each time, but it would only load a projectile and fuel charge in alternating barrels. as for the duff load sensor - the mechanism would fail to cycle, if it did not fire properly. as for the whole cartridge/collapsible fuel cell thing. yes, I am talking about reinventing the gun, here, not just converting n existing gun. my original image was having an actual fuel injection system; but the hollow slug/integrated fuel cell gave the potential to eliminate the injector. The "Duff load" sensor would hopefully just throw the brake on the whole thing and allow it to be safely ejected "by hand"?... And I agree, we are re-inventing the wheel, but this is a thought exercise so why not?. Yes we will need a rethink on a new barrel, this is why I was suggesting using the exhaust ports on the engine as barrels. There already exists "sliders" on exhausts to allow un-restricted "Noise" when extra power is needed, if you could chop off the silencer of an exhaust like that and use those sliders to open up enough to cycle a round into the exhaust, of course some adaptation needed, I suspect that would "Fire" the round through the pipes. Of course we are talking a heavily modified pipe, strengthened, maybe even rifled to spin the round up, and a hell of a lot straighter than your average exhaust pipe. Are we getting anywhere with this?. well, the mythbusters potato-in-the-tailpipe exercise demonstrated that it is theoretically possible to convert an engine almost directly into a mortar; and it wouldn't take a whole lot of modification to build it into a repeating mortar. - as you said, build a loading mechanism into it. of course, they were only shooting the potato across the shop floor; but they also weren't configuring it for optimum performance.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 7, 2017 11:29:27 GMT
The "Duff load" sensor would hopefully just throw the brake on the whole thing and allow it to be safely ejected "by hand"?... And I agree, we are re-inventing the wheel, but this is a thought exercise so why not?. Yes we will need a rethink on a new barrel, this is why I was suggesting using the exhaust ports on the engine as barrels. There already exists "sliders" on exhausts to allow un-restricted "Noise" when extra power is needed, if you could chop off the silencer of an exhaust like that and use those sliders to open up enough to cycle a round into the exhaust, of course some adaptation needed, I suspect that would "Fire" the round through the pipes. Of course we are talking a heavily modified pipe, strengthened, maybe even rifled to spin the round up, and a hell of a lot straighter than your average exhaust pipe. Are we getting anywhere with this?. well, the mythbusters potato-in-the-tailpipe exercise demonstrated that it is theoretically possible to convert an engine almost directly into a mortar; and it wouldn't take a whole lot of modification to build it into a repeating mortar. - as you said, build a loading mechanism into it. of course, they were only shooting the potato across the shop floor; but they also weren't configuring it for optimum performance. Would you believe the Potato in the tailpipe is my exact starting point for how I am working this out in my own mind?.. Of course you can, because thats what the show did to us, it gave us all at least a starting point for science, if not expanded how we thought in graphic detail into how we can think things through... Of course the secret services are not going to allow us to practise with a spud gun on the south lawn of the Hhitehouse again any time soon, but, I am sure the current president and even the next may take an interest in just how far an infernal combustion engine may throw a projectile, "Just as a bit of fun".... I believe if you can attach the loading and firing mechanism to the engine flywheel and time it correctly, you will have a working machine-powered gun. I am optimising "An empty cylinder" of a donkey engine attached to the main engine to allow the full force of the blast from the fuel detonation/burn to project the projectile, because I believe if you change the cycling "just a little", you can get the full exhaust power to project the projectile on the right trajectile trajectory?.. As in, prevent the piston moving down on the power stroke to heighten the amount of exhaust gasses on the donkey engine. How you will do that may depend on cams or complicated delays in the movement of the cam shafts. You will of course have to enlarge the exhaust ports of the donkey engine, or, totally remove one side of the cylinder, or indeed completely re-think how a cylinder works, or its entire shape, maybe even "turn it upside down" and have the fuel enter in the side of the piston and make the whole of the top of the piston one huge exhaust port that is compressed only when round is in place?.. Or use the base of the round as one BIG exhaust port therefore eliminating the need for mechanically driven parts. I have yet to think all of this through just yet... But I am starting to think the donkey engine could be made to work as a "Two stroke" engine quite easily. Thus the intake valve on the side of the piston barrel would be sealed by just the movement of the piston?.. stroke 1, compression, fire and exhaust, [load new round]. Stroke two, induction and fuel intake by timed injection. Not quite sure on the position of load new round, should that be done as soon as the previous round clears the chamber, or, during the induction (suck) of new air... On one hand, it may alolow more air in, but on the other, that air coming in, if from the barrel, may be contaminated by exhaust gasses. I am thinking that if it stays where I have suggested, the "Suck" of induction may help seat the next round in place to seal the chamber with a friction fit. I am thinking the rise of the cylinder up to compression and firing may happen so quick that slight movement of the round wont matter?.. but if it does, how do you prevent the round moving until the right time?.. As the firing of the round has that equality of motion "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction", if the piston is allowed to move, and has a flywheel attached, would you even need a donkey engine at all once the mechanism starts to fire?.. Would it just re-load its self?..
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jan 7, 2017 13:13:24 GMT
Observation; Using an engine design would require the engine to be continually running, and based on what I'm reading while this might be enough to fire a projectile. The problem is the only way to stop it firing would be to remove the ammunition. You'd either get continuous fire or none at all. You'd need to include a trigger system to make sure the gun only fires when the trigger is pulled. Another issue with a continually running engine is smoke, which would quickly obscure whatever you are shooting at. This is especially true of something that is, based on the discussion thus far, going to be FAR too heavy to just pick up and move quickly.
I'd also add that an engine adds mechanical complexity, and hence issues with reliability, you could do without. Firearms are, when you look at them, actually rather simple in how they work. Those that are needlessly complex, such as Japanese rifles of WW2, tend to have poor reputations when it comes to reliability. Those that are well regarded tend to be simpler designs with much better reliability; The AK series of rifles spring to mind. Even firearms that are known to have issues with reliability if not maintained correctly, such as the HK submachine gun series, have issues due to the design tolerances rather than complex mechanics.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 7, 2017 14:41:36 GMT
Observation; Using an engine design would require the engine to be continually running, and based on what I'm reading while this might be enough to fire a projectile. The problem is the only way to stop it firing would be to remove the ammunition. You'd either get continuous fire or none at all. You'd need to include a trigger system to make sure the gun only fires when the trigger is pulled. Another issue with a continually running engine is smoke, which would quickly obscure whatever you are shooting at. This is especially true of something that is, based on the discussion thus far, going to be FAR too heavy to just pick up and move quickly. I'd also add that an engine adds mechanical complexity, and hence issues with reliability, you could do without. Firearms are, when you look at them, actually rather simple in how they work. Those that are needlessly complex, such as Japanese rifles of WW2, tend to have poor reputations when it comes to reliability. Those that are well regarded tend to be simpler designs with much better reliability; The AK series of rifles spring to mind. Even firearms that are known to have issues with reliability if not maintained correctly, such as the HK submachine gun series, have issues due to the design tolerances rather than complex mechanics. it is also something that is kind of a sideways go at redefining the problem to meet an existing solution rather than develop a solution to meet the proposed problem. basically to build a motor driven spud gun, you feed the exhaust into a pressure chamber, have an overpressure relief, and a gate valve on the discharge. put a loading mechanism after the valve, and connect a trigger to the system. or put a revolving cylinder type of loader into the exhaust pipe of an engine, if you want to sacrifice velocity for simplicity. at that point, you have essentially paired Jamie's pop gun with a gas powered air compressor, and added a mechanical loader. now, putting a flywheel on a machine that drives the plunger forward with a spring, so that the flywheel provides the motive power to recompress the spring? it may be necessary to get the gun to cycle, but adding another cylinder to turn the flywheel, changes it from a machine gun to a motor driven gun, and changes the challenge from a challenge in engineering to a challenge in sophistry.
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jan 8, 2017 1:49:36 GMT
A machine gun is a gun that uses its own firing energy to cycle the mechanism. The original Gatling gun used a manually operated crank to rotate the barrels, load the rounds into the chambers and fire the gun. Yet it is still technically a machine gun. The original question was about using diesel, or if we widen things somewhat a petroleum fuel, instead of gunpowder to create a firearm. The answer is yes; any fast combusting fuel can potentially act as a propellant*. It's just a question as to how much you need to get a muzzle velocity that would allow it to be fatal. This just leaves the related question as to how practical you could make such a weapon. So you have to address the following questions; 1; Is it safe to use? (The weapon has to pose no greater danger to the user than a conventional firearm. For example no risk of the user ending up getting sprayed with burning or unburnt fuel. This also means that the weapon has to fire only when the user wants to it and at no other time. So a system that automatically loads and fires the weapon has to only work as long as the trigger is pulled.) 2; Is it portable? (The weapon has to be capable of being picked up and carried around as easily as conventional firearms. This doesn't automatically mean as portable as a rifle, as you could go with heavier machine guns as a comparison which usually require a two man crew. Beyond that it starts to become less a firearm and more artillery.) 3; Is it reliable? (There is no point developing such a weapon if it tends to stop working after a couple of shots. If it does you'd be better off using a club and a bow) (*Note; This does NOT include high explosives as the pressure created by them will destroy any gun we can create.)
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 8, 2017 3:29:43 GMT
A machine gun is a gun that uses its own firing energy to cycle the mechanism. The original Gatling gun used a manually operated crank to rotate the barrels, load the rounds into the chambers and fire the gun. Yet it is still technically a machine gun. The original question was about using diesel, or if we widen things somewhat a petroleum fuel, instead of gunpowder to create a firearm. The answer is yes; any fast combusting fuel can potentially act as a propellant*. It's just a question as to how much you need to get a muzzle velocity that would allow it to be fatal. This just leaves the related question as to how practical you could make such a weapon. So you have to address the following questions; 1; Is it safe to use? (The weapon has to pose no greater danger to the user than a conventional firearm. For example no risk of the user ending up getting sprayed with burning or unburnt fuel. This also means that the weapon has to fire only when the user wants to it and at no other time. So a system that automatically loads and fires the weapon has to only work as long as the trigger is pulled.) 2; Is it portable? (The weapon has to be capable of being picked up and carried around as easily as conventional firearms. This doesn't automatically mean as portable as a rifle, as you could go with heavier machine guns as a comparison which usually require a two man crew. Beyond that it starts to become less a firearm and more artillery.) 3; Is it reliable? (There is no point developing such a weapon if it tends to stop working after a couple of shots. If it does you'd be better off using a club and a bow) (*Note; This does NOT include high explosives as the pressure created by them will destroy any gun we can create.) ** the more explosive the propellant, the thicker the firing chamber walls need to be. granted, there is a point at which it gets sort of silly.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 8, 2017 17:38:22 GMT
Observation; Using an engine design would require the engine to be continually running, and based on what I'm reading while this might be enough to fire a projectile. The problem is the only way to stop it firing would be to remove the ammunition. You'd either get continuous fire or none at all. You'd need to include a trigger system to make sure the gun only fires when the trigger is pulled. Another issue with a continually running engine is smoke, which would quickly obscure whatever you are shooting at. This is especially true of something that is, based on the discussion thus far, going to be FAR too heavy to just pick up and move quickly. I'd also add that an engine adds mechanical complexity, and hence issues with reliability, you could do without. Firearms are, when you look at them, actually rather simple in how they work. Those that are needlessly complex, such as Japanese rifles of WW2, tend to have poor reputations when it comes to reliability. Those that are well regarded tend to be simpler designs with much better reliability; The AK series of rifles spring to mind. Even firearms that are known to have issues with reliability if not maintained correctly, such as the HK submachine gun series, have issues due to the design tolerances rather than complex mechanics. I did mention a clutch between engine and donkey engine... Also if you just stop the ammunition getting loaded?... The trigger is wherever you decide, the running engine is just there as an engine and not a continuous firing unstoppable beast. I doubt when your firing in the rounds-per-second range it matter much how pedantic you are in stop on round 200... its stop ater 20 seconds or stop NOW which is asap?..
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 8, 2017 17:52:51 GMT
A machine gun is a gun that uses its own firing energy to cycle the mechanism. The original Gatling gun used a manually operated crank to rotate the barrels, load the rounds into the chambers and fire the gun. Yet it is still technically a machine gun. The original question was about using diesel, or if we widen things somewhat a petroleum fuel, instead of gunpowder to create a firearm. The answer is yes; any fast combusting fuel can potentially act as a propellant*. It's just a question as to how much you need to get a muzzle velocity that would allow it to be fatal. This just leaves the related question as to how practical you could make such a weapon. So you have to address the following questions; 1; Is it safe to use? (The weapon has to pose no greater danger to the user than a conventional firearm. For example no risk of the user ending up getting sprayed with burning or unburnt fuel. This also means that the weapon has to fire only when the user wants to it and at no other time. So a system that automatically loads and fires the weapon has to only work as long as the trigger is pulled.) 2; Is it portable? (The weapon has to be capable of being picked up and carried around as easily as conventional firearms. This doesn't automatically mean as portable as a rifle, as you could go with heavier machine guns as a comparison which usually require a two man crew. Beyond that it starts to become less a firearm and more artillery.) 3; Is it reliable? (There is no point developing such a weapon if it tends to stop working after a couple of shots. If it does you'd be better off using a club and a bow) (*Note; This does NOT include high explosives as the pressure created by them will destroy any gun we can create.) Answers. 1) depends on which end you are of the muzzle. We have discussed an on/off switch, which according to my own personal laws of robotics should be two stage, off, and "[emergency stop]" big RED thing anyone can punch from the friendly side. Further on, I would suggest remote testing from a bunker behind safety bullet proof glass until all foreseeable incidents can be logically worked, using that on/off remote switch. 2) define portable. The Browning 30 mil used on Spitfires was hardly one-man portable, but highly effective when in that fighter plane?... Could this be strapped to the back of a pickup truck?.. yes. Could it be stacked on a wheeled trolley and propelled over semi-rough ground in the way modern Stretchers are?.. maybe. Does it need to be that portable?.. We are looking for a "large bore" drain-pipe sized weapon in a weaponry spud gun type thing, none I know of that barrel size are that portable anyway?.. To be honest, in my own profession, the definition of "Portable" depends on how many wheels can you put under it?.. 3) were early machine guns either?.. there has to be a stage where the bgs are ironed out. To expect a new invention to be as reliable as the TG Toyota Pickup "Straight out of the box" is unfeasable, there will be R&D on this I suspect, we suspect, we are realists?..
|
|
|
Post by oscardeuce on Sept 3, 2017 21:42:09 GMT
A manual drive Gatling gun is a title 1 firearm and not an NFA "machine gun". Add an external drive (electric motor) and it is now a "machine gun" under NFA One can buy a crank to fire a semi auto Browning 1919 .30 at high rates of speed manually without having "machine gun" status. www.crankfiresystems.comOne can have an open bolt machine gun "diesel" when you let off the trigger if the recoil spring is too stiff, the ammo old or anything that causes the bolt to short stoke and not engage the sear. In this case the gun will fire until out of ammo while the finger is off the trigger. As to the original question the oxydizer need makes this very difficult unless you just hook the engine to the crank, but then unless you hold the appropriate paperwork you will end up in club fed.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 3, 2017 23:39:28 GMT
A manual drive Gatling gun is a title 1 firearm and not an NFA "machine gun". Add an external drive (electric motor) and it is now a "machine gun" under NFA One can buy a crank to fire a semi auto Browning 1919 .30 at high rates of speed manually without having "machine gun" status. www.crankfiresystems.comOne can have an open bolt machine gun "diesel" when you let off the trigger if the recoil spring is too stiff, the ammo old or anything that causes the bolt to short stoke and not engage the sear. In this case the gun will fire until out of ammo while the finger is off the trigger. As to the original question the oxydizer need makes this very difficult unless you just hook the engine to the crank, but then unless you hold the appropriate paperwork you will end up in club fed. well, yeah, legal factors need to be considered. but the original question was more about the laws of thermodynamics than about the laws of the BATF.
|
|
|
Post by oscardeuce on Sept 4, 2017 2:24:31 GMT
Newton' s got nothin' on the .gov
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 4, 2017 4:57:50 GMT
Newton' s got nothin' on the .gov I don't know. back before the cutoff of the statute of limitations, I managed to sneak a thing or two past the .gov so far I haven't managed to sneak much of anything past Newton.
|
|
|
Post by oscardeuce on Sept 5, 2017 2:09:51 GMT
Newton' s got nothin' on the .gov I don't know. back before the cutoff of the statute of limitations, I managed to sneak a thing or two past the .gov so far I haven't managed to sneak much of anything past Newton. Assuming you live it the US there was no statute of limitations. There was an amnesty in 1986,but none since. Anything not in the registry is now contraband. It was contraband in1987 and is still contraband today.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 5, 2017 3:17:07 GMT
I don't know. back before the cutoff of the statute of limitations, I managed to sneak a thing or two past the .gov so far I haven't managed to sneak much of anything past Newton. Assuming you live it the US there was no statute of limitations. There was an amnesty in 1986,but none since. Anything not in the registry is now contraband. It was contraband in1987 and is still contraband today. wasn't that sort of thing. we are talking about whether such a thing is possible, not about whether it is legal.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Sept 5, 2017 8:41:20 GMT
Newton was a legend. He didnt half do a lot, and totally re-invented harvesting apples. Before that, they used to tie a net over the tree and wait for the apples to float upwards?.. One law that apples MUST fall down later, and the nets can now go under the tree, and you get a hall of a lot more apples that way.
Back to on trend and on topic.
I am surmising that the idea is to be able to use diesel fuel as a possible way of replacing black powder or its more modern counter part.
This has progressed now beyond the idea of using the mechanics of an engine to cycle a potato into the exhaust in time with an exhaust stroke of the engine and propelling it as a missile that way.
Legality?.. they managed to get permission to build a proof of concept flame thrower to use against a fire extinguisher, and have several times fire "The whole nine yards" and then some out of a Mini-gun.
Look at the amount of explosives used to reduce a concrete mixer to atomised parts and a few larger lumps....
Mythbusters is a "Dont try this at home" program for good reason, its a place where you can suggest proof of concept weapons. Who knows, maybe it will give the military boffins a good idea.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 5, 2017 13:58:31 GMT
Newton was a legend. He didnt half do a lot, and totally re-invented harvesting apples. Before that, they used to tie a net over the tree and wait for the apples to float upwards?.. One law that apples MUST fall down later, and the nets can now go under the tree, and you get a hall of a lot more apples that way. Back to on trend and on topic. I am surmising that the idea is to be able to use diesel fuel as a possible way of replacing black powder or its more modern counter part. This has progressed now beyond the idea of using the mechanics of an engine to cycle a potato into the exhaust in time with an exhaust stroke of the engine and propelling it as a missile that way. Legality?.. they managed to get permission to build a proof of concept flame thrower to use against a fire extinguisher, and have several times fire "The whole nine yards" and then some out of a Mini-gun. Look at the amount of explosives used to reduce a concrete mixer to atomised parts and a few larger lumps.... Mythbusters is a "Dont try this at home" program for good reason, its a place where you can suggest proof of concept weapons. Who knows, maybe it will give the military boffins a good idea. it STARTED beyond the idea of using an engine to cycle a potato into the exhaust pipe. I just had to keep nudging some of you back on track.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Sept 6, 2017 7:18:13 GMT
Newton was a legend. He didnt half do a lot, and totally re-invented harvesting apples. Before that, they used to tie a net over the tree and wait for the apples to float upwards?.. One law that apples MUST fall down later, and the nets can now go under the tree, and you get a hall of a lot more apples that way. Back to on trend and on topic. I am surmising that the idea is to be able to use diesel fuel as a possible way of replacing black powder or its more modern counter part. This has progressed now beyond the idea of using the mechanics of an engine to cycle a potato into the exhaust in time with an exhaust stroke of the engine and propelling it as a missile that way. Legality?.. they managed to get permission to build a proof of concept flame thrower to use against a fire extinguisher, and have several times fire "The whole nine yards" and then some out of a Mini-gun. Look at the amount of explosives used to reduce a concrete mixer to atomised parts and a few larger lumps.... Mythbusters is a "Dont try this at home" program for good reason, its a place where you can suggest proof of concept weapons. Who knows, maybe it will give the military boffins a good idea. it STARTED beyond the idea of using an engine to cycle a potato into the exhaust pipe. I just had to keep nudging some of you back on track. ....But...but...but... There are so many wonderful interesting moments to be discovered by taking a branch line off this track?.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 6, 2017 13:30:18 GMT
it STARTED beyond the idea of using an engine to cycle a potato into the exhaust pipe. I just had to keep nudging some of you back on track. ....But...but...but... There are so many wonderful interesting moments to be discovered by taking a branch line off this track?. I'm reminded of a cartoon in one of my dad's old trade magazines - the Kaputi line - which I can find a few, but not the one in mind, which shows a guy firing mortar rounds out of a truck's stack, captioned something like "he was Kaputi's man in Vietnam."
|
|