Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Chatting and General Stuff
General Discussion
Anybody want to discuss this?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="royinidaho" data-source="post: 104247" data-attributes="member: 2011"><p>Meister,</p><p></p><p>You are hitting around where I have interest.</p><p></p><p>In the image linked, I don't understand how what is being shown is being explained. The powder can't begin burning at the base of the bullet can it?</p><p></p><p>I think that buffalobob expressed the thought that everything that happened in the chamber was a chemical reaction. I look at the moment of initial ignition as combination of chemical (if that's what a controlled explosion is) and mechanical reactions.</p><p></p><p>Igintion happens, powder burning begins at or near the flash hole followed by mechanical movement of unburned powder and bullet into the bore, if you haven't crimped the bullet as with the hornet. Then powder continues to burn beyond the chamber as the bullet progresses toward the muzzle.</p><p></p><p>Shoulder angle/curve seems to be designed to deflect the expanding gas and moving powder onto the neck of the case rather than onto the throat.</p><p></p><p>Am I correct in believing that all the powder does not burn in the case? If not, why not? I'm thinkingto Kirby's powder bridging discussion.</p><p></p><p>Also do the gases flow, expand or both to make push the bullet? It seems that expansion it the prime mover as I can see the muzzle flash which appears as a flow of gas, which doesn't seem to have much velocity.</p><p></p><p>My only studies/experience has been with steam turbine nozzles. All rifle cartridges are convergent nozzles which have an upper limit of rate of gaseous flow. Weatherby's idea, hasn't their patent expired, seems a new twist but its still convergent.</p><p></p><p>To gain any addtional gaseous velocity advantage one would have to design a convergent-divergent nozzle, pretty much like the space shuttle main booster engine has. It would be easy to design but would be one helluva task to rig up an action to handle it. Talk about case extraction problems. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="royinidaho, post: 104247, member: 2011"] Meister, You are hitting around where I have interest. In the image linked, I don't understand how what is being shown is being explained. The powder can't begin burning at the base of the bullet can it? I think that buffalobob expressed the thought that everything that happened in the chamber was a chemical reaction. I look at the moment of initial ignition as combination of chemical (if that's what a controlled explosion is) and mechanical reactions. Igintion happens, powder burning begins at or near the flash hole followed by mechanical movement of unburned powder and bullet into the bore, if you haven't crimped the bullet as with the hornet. Then powder continues to burn beyond the chamber as the bullet progresses toward the muzzle. Shoulder angle/curve seems to be designed to deflect the expanding gas and moving powder onto the neck of the case rather than onto the throat. Am I correct in believing that all the powder does not burn in the case? If not, why not? I'm thinkingto Kirby's powder bridging discussion. Also do the gases flow, expand or both to make push the bullet? It seems that expansion it the prime mover as I can see the muzzle flash which appears as a flow of gas, which doesn't seem to have much velocity. My only studies/experience has been with steam turbine nozzles. All rifle cartridges are convergent nozzles which have an upper limit of rate of gaseous flow. Weatherby's idea, hasn't their patent expired, seems a new twist but its still convergent. To gain any addtional gaseous velocity advantage one would have to design a convergent-divergent nozzle, pretty much like the space shuttle main booster engine has. It would be easy to design but would be one helluva task to rig up an action to handle it. Talk about case extraction problems. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Chatting and General Stuff
General Discussion
Anybody want to discuss this?
Top