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
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Double Radius vs Straight Taper Brass
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="Buffalobob" data-source="post: 1331862" data-attributes="member: 8"><p>In fluid mechanics, as was described earlier, there are two type of flow, laminar and turbulent. In the mid 20th century the state of science was that we knew laminar flow was more efficient energy wise than turbulent flow. Sharp corners induce more turbulence than radius-ed shoulders therefore there is more internal energy loss of the fluid flow. I remember the old NASA induction scoops on the mustangs where the design was to induce laminar flow. The same principles are used in car headers and intake runners as well as household plumbing - no sharp corners. </p><p></p><p>As science and understanding advanced, we found there are places in cars where turbulent flow is better than laminar flow and thus we see the Blue oval Turbo swirl heads and the Bowtie tumble flow heads because you get improved mixing of the gasoline and air. I even had a pair of aluminum turbo swirls at one point in my life. So in a cartridge case if you simply analyze the mixture of powder granules and gas as a fluid then you will come to the conclusion that radius-ed shoulders are more energy efficient in moving gas out of the cartridge and into the barrel. However if ignition is not uniform in the powder and you analyze the mass as two separate fluids then you are into the same issue as Ford and Chevy and need to induce turbulence (mixing) which means disrupting laminar flow in order to gain mixing and uniformity of the blend.</p><p></p><p>It is logical as a physicist and an engineer to assume that Roy W at the time he developed his cartridges understood the science of combustion in a cartridge case about as well as Chevy and Ford at that time understood combustion in a cylinder. We have come a ways in half a century or so both in cartridge case design and cylinder head design. One of the things we can conclude is that science moves on along and we learn more and more. It is not at all clear to me that we have a very full understanding of the internal dynamics of a cartridge even today ( I admit I don't keep up with it and it was never my area of scientific focus).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Buffalobob, post: 1331862, member: 8"] In fluid mechanics, as was described earlier, there are two type of flow, laminar and turbulent. In the mid 20th century the state of science was that we knew laminar flow was more efficient energy wise than turbulent flow. Sharp corners induce more turbulence than radius-ed shoulders therefore there is more internal energy loss of the fluid flow. I remember the old NASA induction scoops on the mustangs where the design was to induce laminar flow. The same principles are used in car headers and intake runners as well as household plumbing - no sharp corners. As science and understanding advanced, we found there are places in cars where turbulent flow is better than laminar flow and thus we see the Blue oval Turbo swirl heads and the Bowtie tumble flow heads because you get improved mixing of the gasoline and air. I even had a pair of aluminum turbo swirls at one point in my life. So in a cartridge case if you simply analyze the mixture of powder granules and gas as a fluid then you will come to the conclusion that radius-ed shoulders are more energy efficient in moving gas out of the cartridge and into the barrel. However if ignition is not uniform in the powder and you analyze the mass as two separate fluids then you are into the same issue as Ford and Chevy and need to induce turbulence (mixing) which means disrupting laminar flow in order to gain mixing and uniformity of the blend. It is logical as a physicist and an engineer to assume that Roy W at the time he developed his cartridges understood the science of combustion in a cartridge case about as well as Chevy and Ford at that time understood combustion in a cylinder. We have come a ways in half a century or so both in cartridge case design and cylinder head design. One of the things we can conclude is that science moves on along and we learn more and more. It is not at all clear to me that we have a very full understanding of the internal dynamics of a cartridge even today ( I admit I don't keep up with it and it was never my area of scientific focus). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Double Radius vs Straight Taper Brass
Top