Need a Rocket Scientist!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Or, line the nozzle with a material that will burn from the compressed air, providing propellant, yet would not actually burn the bullet and would not ignite as it traveled down the barrel.

The same thought crossed my mind as well. Perhaps compressed air exiting the rear end of the projectile combined with a "quasi" incendiary round? I am pretty sure you could also pack some sort of solid rocket fuel around the nozzle. The ignition process could start in the barrel, the firearm could probably handle the extra stress. The chamber already has to hand thousands of pounds of pressure anyway.....
 
I think it could work IF the bullet's material were hot or contained some kind of fuel. The shape and hollow nature of the projectile could then be made to use that fuel efficiently. If there's some kind of discovery here, I'd guess it's in the material used to make the bullet.

But then, what the heck do I know!
 
I'm only an engineering student, but my first impression is that this violates the law of conservation of energy. My second impression is that it would actually create more drag than a normal bullet.
 
Scramjet designs are not known for being particularly dainty with their fuel requirements.

If there is no fuel, it's fiction.

If there's a layer of fuel on the inside surfaces the description is off as it'd start losing velocity as soon as the fuel layer was exhausted - something I'd guess would happen in a big hurry.

Modify the description to include fuel of some type, a limited "burn" time, normal velocity fall off and ballistics on fuel exhaustion and it sounds like a boosted version of a Gyrojet round with the advantage of greater efficiency as the Gyrojet composite propellant had to include its own oxidizer.

As originally described it sounds like an arty round based on the Bussard ram scoop, which is generally believed not to be viable either.

I'm not knowledgeable enough to poo-poo the thing out of hand but it violates the one immutable law of the universe: TANSTAAFL.
 
Just to be picky, the A-10 has a 30mm gun - not a 37 mm :D

There have been planes with 37mm but not the A-10s.

This bullet will go faster without burning fuel - nope.
 
Sounds REALLY hokey to me as described. Unless there's something else in that bullet to sustain a reaction after firing, I wouldn't count on it working.
 
I've been pondering this some more and I want to give your friend the benefit of the doubt. There are a million things whcih could be going on, but I had some thoughts using the following assumption: your friend is describing an actual bullet/projectile consept but grossly misundersands how it works.

That being the case, there is a history for shooting a ring co-axial to it's direction of travel. The "nozzle" profile could instead then be an aerodynamic cross-section.

I have heard of "less-leathal" munitions which are rings that use the rifleing to spin-stabilize and when they hit their target there is zero penetration due to the large fronal cross section. It's been a while since I remember seeing a demo on the Discovery Channel, but I can't remember if these were fired from a special barrel (3-5 inch diameter) or deployed in a simple yet effective fashion from a shotgun. (I don't recall the precise details other than a largish ring flying coaxial hitting the target in the chest - the rest is fuzzy... If you know more about the system I'm describing please enlighten).

A spinning ring of a certain mass will have greater angular inertia than a solid bullet of equal mass spinning at the same angular velocity - Think of the olyimpic ice-skaters who bring their arms in and out changing speed. This rotational inertia is what keeps the bullet spinning and oriented and helps it tend to maintain a straight flightpath. This would have the same effect of having a tighter twist rate. Here's the rub. Notice my carefully chosen words of BULLET OF EQUAL MASS. You can always make a heavier bullet by filling in the gap and if you can live with the weight you can get better stability/inertia as long as its radially balanced... There are phycial limits to this where you get deminished returns, but I wouldn't know where that demon lives...


Just more thoughts...
 
Before we pooh-pooh the idea completely to death, there is some merit to the idea. At first glance it seems impossible for the reasons many have stated here. However, the term "plasma" adds a different slant on the physics of the system. If the "bullet" with the decreasing diameter cavity can be propelled fast enough (regular bullet speeds would be a snails pace in comparison), and if a plasma can be created at the small end of the cavity, the resultant atomic bond energy now comes into play. That is the sought after chemical reaction we need to get something from nothing. In other words, the energy is inherent in the air atoms and molecules, but under normal conditions it cannot be released and therefore cannot be used for propulsion. Make it into a super hot plasma and you do get something from an apparent nothing.

I am familiar with some work being done with atmospheric pressure plasma jets at Los Alamos and other work at Phillips Lab which I won't go into, but it is very exciting and makes the accelerating bullet look plausible. (More properly it is probably a bullet with a slower deceleration rate.)
 
Actual rocket scientist here. I worked at Marshall Space Flight Center, on Redstone Arsenal. Specifically I was working on external aerodynamics on the Space Shuttle External Tank. I also specialize in thermodynamics.

Your guy is full of crap.

As others have said, this is a simple First Law problem. You can't get energy from nothing.

Interestingly enough, if you were to make a ring-shaped bullet, with an internal profile similar to a pair of airfoils (quickly narrowing, then slowly expanding), then put a solid fuel inside, you would effectively have a solid fuel ramjet. That could actually work. Perhaps you missed the part about the solid fuel?

But there is no way for compression to heat the air to a plasma, not short of something like re-entry velocity. Smokeless powder firearms are incapable of generating that kind of velocity. Only light gas guns (they use compressed hydrogen: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_gas_gun) can get that kind of velocity. And if a bullet was able to do that, it would spend its kinetic energy (speed) in order to do so. That little plug of plasma inside the bullet would push equally on the front and on the back of the bullet to get out - there would be no net force except for drag.

I saw a "science experiment" way back in high school (that was last millennium) where someone built a ramp and two wooden blocks with wheels. Both blocks had holes straight through them - one was a straight hole, the other had a constricting then expanding hole. He rolled them both down the ramp, and the one with the constriction went a few inches farther. He said basically what your guy was telling you - the forward motion compressed the air, which then expanded in the second section and provided thrust. Even in high school, I knew he was full of crap. How he made it to the state level science fair, I don't know. Probably stupid judges (they literally pull them off the street for every level of science fair up until state).
 
Accleration after launch would require some sort of propellant, as said.

However there has been some work in the field.

The Krnka-Hebler 8mm tubular bullet was rated for an effective range of 4000+ metres with remaining velocity 335 mps (1100 fps) and an ultimate maximum range of 8100+ metres, almost 9000 yards, 5 miles.
In 1910.
Accuracy was poor, but if you were hosing down an enemy company formation at extreme long range with volley or machine gun fire, that would not matter much.

There was an antitank weapon practice round that fired a tubular projectile lined with propellant. It did not add much if any to velocity but when it burned out, the projectile was unstable and tumbled to ground at much shorter range than the service round. Good only for training in civilized areas.
I do not recall the caliber or platform.
 
if you filled the inside of the proposed round with a good solid state rocket fuel, you would have a non explosive version of the napoleonic era congreve rocket.

Just another case of where a non to well informed person wants to sound big by claiming to be making a weapon based on the work of fine military writers like john ringo. If they were interested in turning weapons form that genre into reality, they wold work on webers bolt action rifle that can also go semiauto with a flick of a button.
 
Forget burning fuel to heat the air. What if the bullet itself is hot enough?

See posts 10 and 23.

Is there any penalty on this board for SOWRIP?
 
I say it won't work unless the bullet contains a fuel. An object propelled through the air cannot gain enough energy merely from the fact that it "is" moving through the air - to keep it moving through the air.

But let's say it did work, what then? Think what all those forces acting on it would do to its accuracy. It would have to have its own guidance system. Basically a tiny cruise missle fired from a rifle. And what does it do when it gets to the target? Does it also carry an ordnance? Or is it just a bullet? Hardly seems worth the effort.
 
"A rocket scientist is not needed, just a high school physics class."

Sorry, but this is way out of the realm of high school physics.

A saying that is apropos for this thread is over 400 years old and yet it means even more today than it did then:

"There are more things in heaven and earth, [insert skeptics name here], than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
 
There's no such thing as a 'free' lunch. This projectile does use fuel; the inner parts of it that are being 'burned' to create thrust. Every bit of this engine that is burned away would decrease its efficiency and the mass of the projectile. It might work, but sounds like money sink hole.
 
Since you don't know what the bullet is to be made of. Maybe it uses ITSELF as fuel. That should be possible. Though a bullet that gets lighter as it nears the target doesn't sound like a good idea to me.
 
I agree with those who are saying in various ways that the second law of thermodynamics does not go away just because you want it to.

However, I also agree that the concept might work if there were some kind of fuel that on the inside of the shell that provides an exothermic reaction and generates more thrust than the additional friction of the scramjet cavity creates. My ears did perk up at the mention of depleted Uranium. It's pryophoric, and it will burn under intense friction or kinetic impact. (which is one of it's properties that make it useful as an anti-armor shell in the first place.) And with Uranium's incredible mass for a given volume, ejected Uranium vapor would have an incredible specific impulse, making it a highly efficient reaction mass to be squirting out a nozzle at high pressure.

However, I have no idea if it's capable of burning at such a rate as to be a useable fuel, much less in a scramjet. Or, even if it could, if it wouldn't just destroy the projectile. It also seems that burning a solid scramjet fuel would change the internal geometry of the jet as fuel was consumed, causing the geometry required to produce the scramjet combustion to eventually fail.

There is however some partial validation for the theory of self-propelled projectiles these people have proposed. Gerald Bull, the European gun designer assassinated (most likely by Israel/Mossad) who built the Iraqi "super gun", got some of his fame for being an artillery genius with the South Africans. He developed a "base bleed" projectile for them which greatly extended the range of their guns. Essentially, a flying projectile has a low pressure area of eddies, or partial vaccuum etc. behind it that sucks velocity, and his solution was to add a system to the shell's base that held burning "whatever" that produced a high volume of gas that continually re-filled this void in the air and let the shell fly more efficiently.

Now that's a far, far, far, cry from turning a shell into a self-combusting scramjet, but it at least proves that shooting gas out the back of a projectile makes it fly further. (Do tracers fly a bit further, and if they do, because of that?)

It's a nifty concept, I can't say it's impossible, but I'd bet a fair amount of money it's darn tough to pull off...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top