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
Why use a carbon wrapped barel?
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="UniqueUserName" data-source="post: 2071706" data-attributes="member: 92845"><p>What good are volumes without dimensions; bore diameter; liner thickness; specific barrel and liner material compositions; specific CF composite formula; composite thickness; thermal conductivity coefficients for each specific material, compound (directional for the CF), and bonding agent; circumference/material thickness at intervals along the barrel; fluting depth, width and profile; surface emissivity (based on materials, coatings, finish texture); ambient temperature, humidity, air density, air velocity and direction relative to the firearm; stock material; space between barrel and stock at intervals along the common length; Amount of thermal energy to be imparted to the bore, number of iterations, intervals between iterations; breech open time between iterations; breech state (open or closed) during the idle cool-down period; relevant measurement points (bore surface? barrel surface? mid-thickness? at what points along the length of the barrel?; Maximum acceptable temperature at each point for each barrel (how hot is too hot)?</p><p></p><p>These are but a few variables to be defined and incorporated into the cooling model for each barrel/firearm variant. I'm sure I have omitted at least as may as I have enumerated. If you think that modeling the cooling process in terms of a time/temperature scale is a simple formulaic expression, I think you underestimate the complexity and number of factors involved. I'm certainly not capable of creating the model, even if all of the variables were defined. In this instance, I know enough to be aware of what I don't know.</p><p></p><p>I can tell you with confidence that the single overriding factor is migrating heat away from the bore (the greater thermal conductivity and thermal capacity win), then, secondarily, dispersing that heat from the inner and outer surfaces of the barrel via the combination of radiation, convection and to some degree conduction.</p><p></p><p>Given that we can be confident that barrel steel will have substantially greater thermal conductivity than a graphite/resin composite, we can reasonably postulate that under any normal conditions the steel barrel will conduct heat away from the bore more rapidly than the CF wrapped barrel.</p><p></p><p>If you want someone to build a model to prove it true/false and to what degree, it appears that burden falls back to you. If you can't define the control variables and how they relate, you can't build the model or define a practical test.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="UniqueUserName, post: 2071706, member: 92845"] What good are volumes without dimensions; bore diameter; liner thickness; specific barrel and liner material compositions; specific CF composite formula; composite thickness; thermal conductivity coefficients for each specific material, compound (directional for the CF), and bonding agent; circumference/material thickness at intervals along the barrel; fluting depth, width and profile; surface emissivity (based on materials, coatings, finish texture); ambient temperature, humidity, air density, air velocity and direction relative to the firearm; stock material; space between barrel and stock at intervals along the common length; Amount of thermal energy to be imparted to the bore, number of iterations, intervals between iterations; breech open time between iterations; breech state (open or closed) during the idle cool-down period; relevant measurement points (bore surface? barrel surface? mid-thickness? at what points along the length of the barrel?; Maximum acceptable temperature at each point for each barrel (how hot is too hot)? These are but a few variables to be defined and incorporated into the cooling model for each barrel/firearm variant. I'm sure I have omitted at least as may as I have enumerated. If you think that modeling the cooling process in terms of a time/temperature scale is a simple formulaic expression, I think you underestimate the complexity and number of factors involved. I'm certainly not capable of creating the model, even if all of the variables were defined. In this instance, I know enough to be aware of what I don't know. I can tell you with confidence that the single overriding factor is migrating heat away from the bore (the greater thermal conductivity and thermal capacity win), then, secondarily, dispersing that heat from the inner and outer surfaces of the barrel via the combination of radiation, convection and to some degree conduction. Given that we can be confident that barrel steel will have substantially greater thermal conductivity than a graphite/resin composite, we can reasonably postulate that under any normal conditions the steel barrel will conduct heat away from the bore more rapidly than the CF wrapped barrel. If you want someone to build a model to prove it true/false and to what degree, it appears that burden falls back to you. If you can't define the control variables and how they relate, you can't build the model or define a practical test. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Why use a carbon wrapped barel?
Top