Muzzle brake

Al
I have what is considered the best muzzlebrake on the market today the K-M Clamshell on my 50 BMG.I bring this up because it has rear facing ports just like your supplied article says are best.You seem to be in disagreement with your own article if I'm reading your posts correctly?
Lynn

All's I'm saying is that the fact that the ports face to the rear is incidental to the effectiveness of the brake. You could change the angle or even add blocking plates behind the plates and direct the blast forward again.......... Your brake works well because it has HUGE impact surfaces :)

al
 
I have read as much literature on brakes as I can find. While I am not an expert, I can read the work of experts and repeat what they say. The concept of the reverse jet, while some component may be present, is not significant. The real recoil reduction effect is caused by the momentum of the gas striking the brake and trying to force it in a direction opposite to the recoil. If you think of the powder in terms of weight. You load say 80 grains of powder into a 416Rigby. You ignite that powder to convert it to a gas to propel the bullet. Where did that 80 grains of powder go? It all goes out the barrel, but as a gas. The total weight of the gas remains the same 80 grains. All striking the brake. If we wonder why brakes perform better with overbore cartridges, just think in terms of bullet weight versus powder weight. The 416Rigby is some 400grain bullet and 80 grains powder for a ratio of 5.0, a 220 swift would be 55 grains bullet with 42 grain powder for a ratio of 1.15. So we can see that overbore cartridges have much more gas weight in relation to their bullet weight.

Angling the plate of the brake rearward does improve efficiency. I am looking at a chart now that compares a single disk 3x as wide as the caliber at different distances from the muzzle. The flat plate peaks at 68% efficiency at 2x cal diameter away from muzzle. The disk angles are compared at 20, 30, 35, 50 degress, Cupped (cake pan shape) and 30 degree Curved (progressive curve). All peaked at 2x cal diam distance from muzzle. The efficiency results are:
20=82%
30=83%
35=85%
50=82%
Cupped=89%
30 Curved=90%

The author talks about 'gas deflection' around the brake while looking at still photos of the gas stream. You can see a greater volume of gas going around the flat disk in comparison to the angled.

So angling the plates does improve efficiency. But its best efficiency is in the 30 to 35 degree range. If we look at this deflection angle and contemplate the 'jet effect' the vectors for a 30 degree jet stream would have little propulsion effect forward on the barrel. The majority of the gas is going sideways. Radial force perpendicular to the barrel would just cancel itself and have zero effect to propel the barrel forward.

What I believe the angle is doing is to retard the ability of the gas to 'slip' around the brake. This retarding effect causes the gas to exert force on the plate for a slightly longer time those improving efficiency. We are not talking much difference between worse (flat) 82% and best (30 Curve) 90% a 8% difference. If the jet effect was at work we would expect the efficiency to improve as the angle was increased to deflect more gas rearward and thus exert more force to propel the barrel forward. But we see the 50 degree plate had less efficiency. Thus projecting more gas back, jet effect, reduced efficiency. Hence I speculate that the jet effect is near insignificant. This would also explain why the the cupped brake performed so well even though it is not angled back at all.

For multiple plate brakes the best spacing of the plates is not uniform. Adding a second flat plate is good for a 8 to 15% gain in efficiency. The third plate adds very little, maybe 2%. Thats why you don't see three plate brakes on the WWII tanks, but you saw both the US and Germans using the 2 baffle 30 degree curved brake on tanks. The testing showed that max brake efficiency occurred for a double baffle with the first baffle located at 1.0x cal dia and and the second at 3.5x cal dia, both from the muzzle. So second baffle is spaced further away than the first baffle.

The highest efficiency for the best perforated brake tested was 52%.

Brake efficiency is the most important number if you are only concerned with recoil reduction. But, good brakes also take into effect the 'overpressurization' (shock wave) to the shooter, as well as the sound increase in db.

I personally don't like the look of the barrett or JP brake. they are big and ugly when compared to the graceful lines of barrel diameter perforated brakes such as the Vais. A 50% reduction is often all that is needed for a 223 or even a 308, but if I were building a 338 Lapua, it would have the best double baffle brake I could find.

In addition to the previously mentioned book, if you want to get more data on brakes, google "Defense Technical Information Center". You have to buy each paper and most have little information of value.

What really amazed me, is talking with the manufacturers of perforated brakes. They seem to have little science behind there inventions or know the results of experiments published by the Defence Dept.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The flat plate peaks at 68% efficiency at 2x cal diameter away from muzzle. The disk angles are compared at 20, 30, 35, 50 degress, Cupped (cake pan shape) and 30 degree Curved (progressive curve). All peaked at 2x cal diam distance from muzzle. The efficiency results are:
20=82%
30=83%
35=85%
50=82%
Cupped=89%
30 Curved=90%

We are not talking much difference between worse (flat) 82% and best (30 Curve) 90% a 8% difference.

Not sure I follow your comment here. It appears that a flat baffle was 68% efficiency, not 82%. 20 deg angle appears to be 82% efficient. Interesting material. Could you tell us how to find and acquire the materials?
 
Sorry, mind fart. Comparison of the flat (worst) to curve (best) was indeed the 68% vs 90%, for a 22% difference. Much more significant, but still doesn't change the comparison to the 50 degree which throws more gas backwards - to show that the brake is a 'momentum' device and not a 'jet redirection' devive.

This the link for the book from amazon. There is only one chapter on brakes:

http://www.amazon.com/Muzzle-Blast-...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1235921888&sr=1-1

Here is a link for declassified military experiments on brakes.


http://www.dtic.mil/srch/search?tem...q=muzzle+brake&submit.x=0&submit.y=0&s=1&c=t2

The difficulty is that you have to lay out a reasonably high amount of money to get each piece of limited information. The book is $100 and there is only one chapter on muzzle brakes, and it is not all inclusive. The military papers are often just 5 to 15 pages long and cost $22 each. I lot of them don't even give specifics on brake design or efficiency. Read the titles carefully and look for design and efficiency inthe titles. The information they have is better for baffle brakes than for perforated, but there is some info on perforated.
 
Sorry Aliwa. Hate to do it to you, but in being right, you are also a bit wrong. Rocket thrust is nothing more than recoil. Generaly at quite a bit lower pressure than a freshly uncorked high powered rifle bore, but it's still an unbalanced reaction to pressure, and it's momentum is equal to the mass and velocity of the ejecta. And it is the same principle upon which muzzle brakes and thrust reversers work.

As I recall, the limiting velocity for the escaping gas from a rifle bore is in the neighborhood of 6000fps. For some reason I want to say that refered to a 30 cal, bore, but I'm not positive. The limit on bullet velocity seems to be in the 5000-5200fps range, so a bit faster than that would be normal.

We could take the following example and micro-engineer the dog squat out of it, but it'd get way too complex. So I'm going to address it in fairly large generalities.

Let's assume that we have a 200 grain bullet, in front of 50 grains of a powder that launches it at 3000 fps from a 26" barrel. (This is just to set up the math - the values can be changed later to fit any particular load you have)
Bullet data
200*3000= 600000 grain-ft/sec
Gas Data
50*6000=300000 grain-ft/sec

So a full 33.3% of the recoil is due to the ejected gas
(granted not all of that portion is felt at the exact same time, but we'll get to that - before the bullet leaves the barrel this portion is "only"
50*1500=75000 grain-ft/sec or 11% of the total recoil impulse)

We've been using the assumption that the average velocity in the barrel is the average between the intial velocity and the muzzle velocity, or

(3000-0)/2 = 1500fps

I know that this is way conservative on the slow side because the bullet is traveling much faster than that by the time it gets to the 13" mark. But that fact causes the "time in barrel" number to be a lot smaller and that causes a few things to show up that really scare some folks, so we'll stay with the conservative figure for now. :D

At the point where the 200gr bullet has gone 26", and the 50 gr or powder gas has gone 13" (some has gone 26" some hasn't moved, and there is uniform pressure through the bore) The rifle has generated some 670000 grain-ft/sec of...well data at this point.

The cumbersome problem of dealing in feet and inches here is the problem of getting grains and pounds into a unit of mass. The Imperial unit of mass is the Slug - and it is the unit ones need to use (unless you like flip-flopping to metric and back for the conversions - which is just as bad)

There are 7000grains/lb, and 32lbs/Slug, (224000 grains/slug)
and a Slug-ft/sec/sec is a pound force. (grains/224000)
* 32ft/sec/sec = pounds force

Some folks may notice that there aren't enough "seconds" factors to come up with pounds force yet...And we haven't. We need a figure for the acceleration that got us to 3000fps - which is where the "average velocity" come in.

If our "average velocity" was 1500fps, and our barrel is 26" long - our time in barrel was 0.001444 Seconds.

So our momentum is (670000 grain-ft/sec)/0.001444 seconds
(670000/224000)Slug-ft/sec/0.01444sec.
or 2086.26 (.259248 rounded) pounds of force - double checked.

Some will D A M N that's a lot...Yes it is. However look at how far that has moved our (let's say 9 pound) rifle in that time.

F=MA or A=2086.26/(9/32) (It's that mass thing again)
A=7417.8 Ft/sec/sec (232 Gs or there abouts - and you wondered why scopes slipped)
Distance=Velocity*time=1/2At^2
So 3708.9 *0.001444 *0.001444 =0.007738 feet
0r 0.093"

Up to this point it didn't make any difference if you had a brake or not, as the bullet has not uncorked the barrel.

Any questions?

Hello?


It this thing on?? :rolleyes:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sorry Aliwa. Hate to do it to you, but in being right, you are also a bit wrong. Rocket thrust is nothing more than recoil. Generaly at quite a bit lower pressure than a freshly uncorked high powered rifle bore, but it's still an unbalanced reaction to pressure, and it's momentum is equal to the mass and velocity of the ejecta. And it is the same principle upon which muzzle brakes and thrust reversers work.

As I recall, the limiting velocity for the escaping gas from a rifle bore is in the neighborhood of 6000fps. For some reason I want to say that refered to a 30 cal, bore, but I'm not positive. The limit on bullet velocity seems to be in the 5000-5200fps range, so a bit faster than that would be normal.

We could take the following example and micro-engineer the dog squat out of it, but it'd get way too complex. So I'm going to address it in fairly large generalities.

Let's assume that we have a 200 grain bullet, in front of 50 grains of a powder that launches it at 3000 fps from a 26" barrel. (This is just to set up the math - the values can be changed later to fit any particular load you have)
Bullet data
200*3000= 600000 grain-ft/sec
Gas Data
50*6000=300000 grain-ft/sec

So a full 33.3% of the recoil is due to the ejected gas
(granted not all of that portion is felt at the exact same time, but we'll get to that - before the bullet leaves the barrel this portion is "only"
50*1500=75000 grain-ft/sec or 11% of the total recoil impulse)

We've been using the assumption that the average velocity in the barrel is the average between the intial velocity and the muzzle velocity, or

(3000-0)/2 = 1500fps

I know that this is way conservative on the slow side because the bullet is traveling much faster than that by the time it gets to the 13" mark. But that fact causes the "time in barrel" number to be a lot smaller and that causes a few things to show up that really scare some folks, so we'll stay with the conservative figure for now. :D

At the point where the 200gr bullet has gone 26", and the 50 gr or powder gas has gone 13" (some has gone 26" some hasn't moved, and there is uniform pressure through the bore) The rifle has generated some 670000 grain-ft/sec of...well data at this point.

The cumbersome problem of dealing in feet and inches here is the problem of getting grains and pounds into a unit of mass. The Imperial unit of mass is the Slug - and it is the unit ones need to use (unless you like flip-flopping to metric and back for the conversions - which is just as bad)

There are 7000grains/lb, and 32lbs/Slug, (224000 grains/slug)
and a Slug-ft/sec/sec is a pound force. (grains/224000)
* 32ft/sec/sec = pounds force

Some folks may notice that there aren't enough "seconds" factors to come up with pounds force yet...And we haven't. We need a figure for the acceleration that got us to 3000fps - which is where the "average velocity" come in.

If our "average velocity" was 1500fps, and our barrel is 26" long - our time in barrel was 0.001444 Seconds.

So our momentum is (670000 grain-ft/sec)/0.001444 seconds
(670000/224000)Slug-ft/sec/0.01444sec.
or 2086.26 (.259248 rounded) pounds of force - double checked.

Some will D A M N that's a lot...Yes it is. However look at how far that has moved our (let's say 9 pound) rifle in that time.

F=MA or A=2086.26/(9/32) (It's that mass thing again)
A=7417.8 Ft/sec/sec (232 Gs or there abouts - and you wondered why scopes slipped)
Distance=Velocity*time=1/2At^2
So 3708.9 *0.001444 *0.001444 =0.007738 feet
0r 0.093"

Up to this point it didn't make any difference if you had a brake or not, as the bullet has not uncorked the barrel.

Any questions?

Ohhh vibe, you're not "doing it to me" my man! :D You're doing it to yourself.

Read my first post C A R E F U L L Y before ya jumps in on this one....The other one is a semantics issue....... some are arguing rate, some are arguing the actual amount of work DONE. I answered for actual work done.... this one ain't semantics!

You're right that a rocket is a recoil machine. Duhh..... But a rifle differs in that the impulse is rapid, momentary and acts primarily on a solid. It's NOT analogous to a rocket. THE QUESTION is, for a muzzle brake to arrest the forward motion of the rifle is it the inertia of the gas IMPINGING on plates like heavy hail or is it redirection of the gas to achieve a "JET EFFECT?" My only point is that it's the arresting of the gas that does the work, NOT "jet effect" (meaning redirection.) The gas pushes the rifle forward because it impacts the baffles. It's like a sail, the baffle. A thrust reverser is NOT the same thing as a muzzle brake. A thrust reverser IS affected by the angle of the baffling.


I think you'll get it once you work through it.

Start with this....... use your figgers to 'splain how a suppressor reduces recoil. Where is the "jet" directed?

Or do you argue that suppressors DON'T suck the gun up?

BTW, you ever DO rocketry or pyro? Or read Heinlein/Asimov and their ilk? I've got several thousand volumes of classic sci-fi, always looking for bang heads.

A rifle is a mortar in pyro........ a rocket is, well, a rocket. Two entirely different ways to send a charge to altitude. Rockets is friggin' SLOWWWW dude...stopping a rifle with a rocket wouldn't feel so veryvery good.

:eek:

al
 
Ohhh vibe, you're not "doing it to me" my man! :D You're doing it to yourself.
I know. I'm discovering that I must be an absolute glutton for freaking punishment. :D

Read my first post C A R E F U L L Y before ya jumps in on this one....The other one is a semantics issue....... some are arguing rate, some are arguing the actual amount of work DONE. I answered for actual work done.... this one ain't semantics!

You're right that a rocket is a recoil machine. Duhh..... But a rifle differs in that the impulse is rapid, momentary and acts primarily on a solid. It's NOT analogous to a rocket. THE QUESTION is, for a muzzle brake to arrest the forward motion of the rifle is it the inertia of the gas IMPINGING on plates like heavy hail or is it redirection of the gas to achieve a "JET EFFECT?" My only point is that it's the arresting of the gas that does the work, NOT "jet effect" (meaning redirection.) The gas pushes the rifle forward because it impacts the baffles. It's like a sail, the baffle. A thrust reverser is NOT the same thing as a muzzle brake. A thrust reverser IS affected by the angle of the baffling.
The duration of the pulse is really not relevant to the physics, other than it makes some of the resultant numbers a bit larger or smaller. But they are just numbers, and numbers do not change how your shoulder will look after 10 rounds of Earplittinloudenboomer.
I think you have the concept partially grasped, it has to do with the difference between elastic and inelastic collisions, and the interaction and mix of the two. 100% elastic collisions absorb very little momentum and energy from the collision (impact) and return the colliding object (in this case gas molecules) along a different course with the same (or almost the same) energy as before. A 100% inelastic collision absorbs all of the impacting object momentum and energy (and dissipates most of this). Most real world situations are a mix of the two - including sails, baffles, rocket nozzles and thrust reversers...Oh yeah, and rifles, with or without brakes. So in that matter Muzzle brakes are exactly like thrust redirectors, but you are also correct in that many designs merely attempt to stop the forward momentum of the gas and transfer that momentum back to the rifle. :D

I think you'll get it once you work through it.

Start with this....... use your figgers to 'splain how a suppressor reduces recoil. Where is the "jet" directed?
For the most part a very efficient suppressor will follow the behavior of an inelastic collision, absorbing the forward momentum and energy of the gas it stops (or rather slows down drastically before releasing it as a much lower velocity).
Or do you argue that suppressors DON'T suck the gun up?
Unless the cartridge is WAY overbore, a suppressor will not pull the gun forward with more force than the recoil, but it can reduce the recoil by a good 30% or better if properly designed and built. (too many factors here between device design and cartridge in question to be any more exact).
BTW, you ever DO rocketry or pyro? Or read Heinlein/Asimov and their ilk? I've got several thousand volumes of classic sci-fi, always looking for bang heads.
I did quite a bit of model rocketry as a kid. And I'm not going to claim to have read all of Heinlein or Asimov...But I used to have a sizable collection myself. :D
A rifle is a mortar in pyro........ a rocket is, well, a rocket. Two entirely different ways to send a charge to altitude. Rockets is friggin' SLOWWWW dude...stopping a rifle with a rocket wouldn't feel so veryvery good.

:eek:

al
You're right rockets are slow. Because they are pretty low pressure...like your fireforming rounds. But have you ever seen any of the "shoulder fired" 20mm "Boys Rifles"? With the "Muzzle brake" exhaust pipe that extends to the rear of the shooter? Rocket arrest is about what that amounts to.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This has been a very interesting thread! Alinwa has handled it masterfully so no reason for me to get in on it. I also tend to steer clear when there are those really intellectual discussions such as "there is no jet effect" and the retort is "it's the jet effect"! Now Vibe has really opened up things when he brings in "elastic collisions" and "inelastic collisions"! Now we, or I mean you all, are going to have to bring out the ole particle physics handbook!

However I just gotta say this to Alinwa. Try bringing F=Ma into the discussion more often. It may not do much good with most posters but you never can tell. It's a pretty simple equation and it does govern this whole recoil thing. For that matter it almost governs our whole life!
 
All I can add at this point is that muzzle blast exhaust is both a rocket exhaust and a jet exhaust, not all the materials that make up the propellant charge are oxidized before reaching the outside air. Propellants do generate oxygen but not enough to fully combust all the mater in the load itself and they eat up all free oxygen in the airspace as well, which is one reason why wadding and shot cups remain intact even the card wads used with early Cordite charges. Those card wads could impact the wooden propeller of WW1 fighters and damage them.
The double base powders produce a greater amount of superheated but as yet non oxydized gases and the military ball generally contains additives to cut down on the oxydization of the muzzle blast gases.

What effect this would have on the recoil countering effect would depend on the propellant and barrel length.

Also the muzzle brake used by the Soviet PPSH SMG works by the unrestrited gases impinging on an angled plate that is part of the barrel jacket rather than the barrel. Its meant to reduce muzzle flip rather than recoil of course.
 
Pacecil
I think they are both right and are now caught in the ever popular verbiage battle.

If you place a venitian blind(sp) in a stream of running water and hook it to a scale then you start adjusting the angle of the slats there will be a point were the blind exerts its maximum tug on the scale.A muzzlebrake works the same way.If you can cup the baffles you gain a little more efficiency.
Lynn
And if you cup them enough so that they catch ALL of the water, and redirect it 180°, without splashing it...The scale will register TWICE as much as it will by simply stopping ALL of the water. Why?

Because F=MA...and it takes twice the Acceleration to totally REVERSE a mass from one velocity to the same velocity in the opposite direction, as it does to simply stop that mass.

Same with muzzle brakes. The more gas you can redirect, without causing turbulence, to a direction farther away from it's forward direction, and closer to a rearward direction, the closer to that doubling effect you will get.

Impingement, works - redirecting works better. :D

But what has been suggested about redirection to the rear in a shroud, then redirecting AGAIN to the front, will also work. Because by the time the gas is redirected the 2nd time, it's velocity has dropped to the point that F=MA is no longer as meaningful a quantity. But accelerating 49 grains of exhaust gas from +6000fps to -6000fps in the space of a few inches, will get you some VERY large F=MA. (Heck, just capturing it all in a suppressor tube going from +6000fps to +500fps in a 12" tube does a danged good job.)
 
Vibe
You simply can't make a "U" turn work or the military would have done it already.
Yes you can, and yes it has. But since this "exhaust" can be so damaging to the shooter when so directed, it had to be enclosed in an exhaust pipe that extended well to the rear of the shoulder stock pad. Makes for a very unwieldy assembly. But it apparently did as designed.
 
I would imagine the pressure in the bore to be very low at this point as well.
Lynn

I'm not sure but I don't think the velocity of the gases of combustion are always that much lower at the muzzle, due to acceleration from breech to the end of the burning curve and molecular weight. Ball and similar double base propellants (NC/NG) erode the bore further up than Single base due to the high velocity of the gases and particulates they carry as the acceleration continues for a greater length of time than when NC alone is the energetic component.
Barrel length is of course a major factor.

Oxidized superheated gases may increase in velocity though theres not much of a combustion chamber effect.
Then theres the venturi effect to consider.
 
Vibe
You wouldn't happen to have a link or name for the project would you?
Unfortunately I have not been able to relocate any pictures or writeups on it now. It was years ago when I read about it. It was used on the (IIRC) the 20mm Anti Tank Rifles.
Not the one I was referring to, but one that uses a similar "reactive recoil reducer" can be seen here
http://world.guns.ru/sniper/sn56-e.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT-20_(rifle)
rt20_1.jpg


If you look at a Armalite brake they have added deflector wings to the outside so the rear venting gases don't bother the shooter as much.If the rear venting worked better as the angle kept increasing one would think they would have used a larger angle on there design and let the deflector wings do there job.
From my very limited experience it seems if you make the rearward angle too steep the brake works much worse.It seems like no brake at all or that the gas exits out the end of the barrel rather than redirecting out of the brake.I would imagine the pressure in the bore to be very low at this point as well.
Lynn
Thats because their design depends upon the gas impacting upon the plates as it passes through and they are attempting to redirect the "splash". If they would carve the gas away from the bullets path instead it would be much more effective. Something like the Reflex suppressors do.
tx4cut.jpg



http://guns.connect.fi/gow/highpow.html
Sound Level and Recoil

Even though the supersonic crack remains, the overall sound level is greatly diminished. The report sounds like a rapid hiss of compressed air as the slowed gasses issue from the muzzle of the suppressor. The suppressed .223 and .308 rifles become quite comfortable to shoot without hearing protection.

Since propellant gas is responsible for about half of a rifle's recoil, and since that gas is captured and released slowly, the recoil level will be about half that of an unsuppressed rifle. A .308 has a propellant charge weighing about 50 grains. This is of course converted to 50 grains of gas, and this gas only moves forward about 60 cm or 2 feet before the suppressor baffles intercept it. The fact that the gas doesn't leave the muzzle of the suppressor at high speed is responsible for much of the reduction in recoil. The interception of forward momentum (which results when that gas is captured in the can) is responsible for much of the remainder of the reduction in felt recoil. In addition, the weight of the heavy can on the rifle's muzzle acts as a pendulum, limiting muzzle rise and swing as the rifle recoils, and then pivots around the shooter's body mass.
suppre5.gif

MUZZLE BRAKES? RECOIL? All brands of Suppressor Project tested muzzle brakes increased the shooter's exposure by 5 to 10 dB. The increase in noise exposure is proportional to the recoil reducing effect of the muzzle brake. Replacing it by even a modest suppressor may thus produce a considerable 20 dB improvement at the shooter's position. This principle is valid for all weapons equipped with muzzle brake. Suppressors reduced recoil energy by 20 to 30 per cent, or about as much as muzzle brakes. They also prevented muzzle climb of assault rifles, firing full-auto bursts or continuous rapid fire. The page Suppressors and Shooting Range Structures page tells more about the topic.

We have said all of this about recoil only because many people have a hard time understanding how 50 grains of gas can he responsible for as much felt recoil as 168 grains of rapidly departing bullet. The answer of course is that the bullet, being heavy and inelastic, issues forth at a relatively slow speed when compared to the lighter and (we are told) perfectly elastic gas. Since energy is a product of mass times the square of velocity, it can be seen that the gas doesn't have to exit many times faster than the bullet to equal its energy. Empirically, we know that recoil from a suppressed rifle carrying a high powder charge is much gentler with a suppressor than without. All theoretical argument stops after that point. If a rifle hurts you to shoot it before suppression, it becomes quite comfortable to shoot after it's been suppressed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
vibe,

The only Boys (or Boyes) rifles of which I'm aware are the 55cal "anti-tank rifles" which used conventional muzzlebrakes. You've got me here.

Simple tube-type and baffled tube type launchers like the old bazookas use an open rear and a rocket drive which virtually eliminates recoil... and some of the open-chambered counterweight designs like the Armbrust use equal weight wadding, irrelevant.

regarding this statement "Because F=MA...and it takes twice the Acceleration to totally REVERSE a mass from one velocity to the same velocity in the opposite direction, as it does to simply stop that mass." .......

While this all seems very logical and intuitive to the point of "well that HAS to be right"....

:eek:

It ain't.

To "REVERSE a mass" as you so blithely state requires a SECOND IMPULSE of equal and opposite duration in reverse. This impulse does not exist. We're talking about a rifle here, not a rocket.

We're talking about a slug of ejecta WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN ACCELERATED, to all intents and purposes IT'S COASTING. Yeahh, it's still accelerating a little but it's all residual energy, "pressure" as it were.




Picture several objects of identical mass and volume BUT WHICH HAVE DIFFERENT CHARACTERISTICS in that one is a bean bag and one is a "superball" and the last is a spring steel sphere.

Drop them on a steel plate.

Which one transfers the most energy???

Certainly not those two which "reverse"......

al
 
To "REVERSE a mass" as you so blithely state requires a SECOND IMPULSE of equal and opposite duration in reverse. This impulse does not exist. We're talking about a rifle here, not a rocket.

We're talking about a slug of ejecta WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN ACCELERATED, to all intents and purposes IT'S COASTING. Yeahh, it's still accelerating a little but it's all residual energy, "pressure" as it were.
What we have in the case of the act of reversing the gas flow is not so much a second impulse as it is a continuation of the same impulse. True the gas has already been accelerated, but it would continue upon the same line of motion if not acted upon by another force, which in this case is the fact that the muzzle brake vane causes it to change direction, the farther from it's original line it's forced to be diverted, the larger the force required to do it.

Picture several objects of identical mass and volume BUT WHICH HAVE DIFFERENT CHARACTERISTICS in that one is a bean bag and one is a "superball" and the last is a spring steel sphere.

Drop them on a steel plate.

Which one transfers the most energy???

Certainly not those two which "reverse"......

al
The problem here is that you are apparently picturing items of the same size, not the same mass. I say this because you could not be more wrong.
The superball is accelerated to a stop and then that acceleration continues to reverse the direction, all in one impulse (which is stored in the balls material). The steel ball will give up some of it's energy to permanent deformation so the reverse acceleration is reduced and it will not "bounce" as far. The beanbag simply transfers all of it's energy and momentum to the target and stops. But a superball of the same mass as the bean bag will impart a larger reaction force to the target. Just as a stream of gas will impart a larger force to a vane that reverses it's direction than that same stream would have imparted to a vane that merely dedirected it 90° or worse yet had it simply impacted a flat plate.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What we have in the case of the act of reversing the gas flow is not so much a second impulse as it is a continuation of the same impulse. True the gas has already been accelerated, but it would continue upon the same line of motion if not acted upon by another force, which in this case is the fact that the muzzle brake vane causes it to change direction, the farther from it's original line it's forced to be diverted, the larger the force required to do it.


The problem here is that you are apparently picturing items of the same size, not the same mass. I say this because you could not be more wrong.
The superball is accelerated to a stop and then that acceleration continues to reverse the direction, all in one impulse (which is stored in the balls material). The steel ball will give up some of it's energy to permanent deformation so the reverse acceleration is reduced and it will not "bounce" as far. The beanbag simply transfers all of it's energy and momentum to the target and stops. But a superball of the same mass as the bean bag will impart a larger reaction force to the target. Just as a stream of gas will impart a larger force to a vane that reverses it's direction than that same stream would have imparted to a vane that merely dedirected it 90° or worse yet had it simply impacted a flat plate.


Just, WOW!.......

We've now found the root of the thing.

So then my frien'... why do dead blow hammers exist and what is their function? According to you the bounciest hammer possible is the sheezat because it "stores" and "transfers" betterest and BOTH!

You SAID this..... "The beanbag simply transfers all of it's energy and momentum to the target and stops. But a superball of the same mass as the bean bag will impart a larger reaction force to the target."

Do you understand what you said?


You should have stopped with "The beanbag simply transfers all of it's energy and momentum to the target and...." :eek: "Holy Cow!!! There's my answer!

al


Ohhhh, and BTW I use the terms "mass" and "size" advisedly, this isn't college, I LIVE and work here..... and make stuff work here, for real.
 
So then my frien'... why do dead blow hammers exist and what is their function? According to you the bounciest hammer possible is the sheezat because it "stores" and "transfers" betterest and BOTH!.
And transfering too much too quick is sometimes a very bad thing, which is why deadblow hammers are exactly what is called for in many situations. They do not impart the shock that the rapid high force application caused by a metal hammer would deliver. Our 50 grain stream of high velocity gas will not impart a shock either, anltough impingment erosion might become an issue.

You SAID this..... "The beanbag simply transfers all of it's energy and momentum to the target and stops. But a superball of the same mass as the bean bag will impart a larger reaction force to the target."

Do you understand what you said?.
Basicly I said a suppressor makes a fairly good muzzle brake.


You should have stopped with "The beanbag simply transfers all of it's energy and momentum to the target and...." :eek: "Holy Cow!!! There's my answer!

al.
But a reverse directing brake works better at reducing felt recoil. :D
Though by itself it doesn't do much for reducing felt muzzle blast. :D


Ohhhh, and BTW I use the terms "mass" and "size" advisedly, this isn't college, I LIVE and work here..... and make stuff work here, for real.
LOL. As do I my friend, and this IS the way it is.
Advisedly or not, you still made the mistake of assuming that you could have mass and volume equal when dealing with things which normally have very different densities. And part of your confusion issue here may very well be that the time duration of the 3 impacts are very different, with the steel ball being the very shortest, (thus more "powerful" as far as damage is concerned, deadblow hammers are used so as NOT to damage the steel,wood,brass item that the force is being applied to) - but power in this case also is not overtly related to momentum.
 
Same planet, different world.....


Wheewww vibe!


your answers are untrue on so many levels I can't begin to help you......but this change to "damage" as the deciding factor here is, WEAK!!

We're talking about E N E R G Y T R A N S F E R, get it?

You've just illustrated better than I could just WHY we builders hire you number crunchers after the problem is already well in hand!


Thanks to muddy thinking like yours, America is being led down the rosy path of "alternative energy" just because folks can't parse simple physics....... Everyone's impressed with "numbers" and "formulas" without understanding the most basic premises regarding energy transfer. It's energy TRANSFER, not friggin' magic.


just... WOW!! A'gain..


Here I've just GOTTA' brag on my kid some. He's 16 and unpolluted by folks "teaching him to think," (that'll all come later, in college or whatever! :rolleyes:) So far his thinking is basically his own.

As I was reading your reply to the "dropping objects problem", he was on Skype with his older brother who's in 29 Palms where it's HOT. They were discussing how to best utilize the hp sleeting down on the base every day. So your answer pops up and I laughed and called him over to read the "problem" and the "answer"......... he doesn't read this forum and wasn't aware of the discussion but I told him to just read this one set of posts, my little thought problem and your answer.

I popped them up together so he could read first the proposition re the three objects and then your answer.

He read the proposition, "picture several objects," . . . hmmmmm.

He started reading your answer and about halfway through he started roaring! "Dude's pulling energy out of the ambient! He's making energy from AIR!!!!"

And then he made me so proud... :D:D .... THEN he proved himself to be MY SON :)

He said it much better than I possibly could........









"Dad, you've GOTTA' get with this guy! You'll be RICH! He's invented FLUBBER!!!"

LOLOL

from the mouth of babes......

al
 
I just went over and read the hp thread and saw the ref to resurrecting this one. I guess to really burn up some bandwidth we should resurrect the Mother Of All Wind Drift Threads and let vibe have at it eh!

I hope Henry Childs doesn't read any of these ;)

LOL

al
 
Al
Damage absorbs energy - not "weak", it's a fact. How many fortunes did Mercedes make when they incorporated "Crumple zones" into their car designs? Ever wonder why that works? Because it disipates energy away from the momentum "reaction" and prevent's it from being transfered to the driver. It takes force and energy to deform a material, deform it beyond it's elastic limit and only a small fraction of that force and energy gets returned as rebound. The beanbag has a very low elastic limit, practically non existant, same as the deadblow hammer much lower than the steel plate target. The steel ball and the steel plate have similar limits, though one may be harder than the other, The softer of the two will sustain the most yeilding due to the very small initial contact area, and a permanent mark will be left indicating where this "failure" occured. The superball will fully deform, but not past it's elastic limit, and will spread the force over a large enough area that it will not damage the steel plate, and then rebound leaving no mark on either target or ball (A rubber ball will act similarly, but will lose more energy to internal hysteresis heating) point being that the superball loses the least amout of energy to by products and keeps closer to the same energy in the opposite direction. Now the force that causes the ball to bounce is also "felt" by the target.

Has your son ever seen one of the "real" old school Super Balls? They did act lot like Flubber, or as close as one could get without defying the laws of nature. Drop one from 10' up and it would bouce back to 9'-6".
Now where do you suppose it gets the power to lift itself over 9' in the air?
And did it have to shove against the ground once to stop and once again to bounce back?

Nope.

Getting energy from air? Well sort of. :D
We're getting it from a high velocity stream of combustion gas. :D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top