Does anyone have ideas for radical designs?

[whiterussian1974]

I didn't include our overseas brethren who could very much contribute, but because there are like 2 of them who contribute on the regular (gunny and Enfield) It's hard to say group.lol.

THANK you Dr.K.

I'm proud to be a member of the overseas group even if its small, I do however invite more overseas enthusiasts to become members of the brotherhood of two. so we can make a a brotherhood of euhhh 4 ore more?

Gunny

I'd add Kiwi Collector and the guys from Sweden. Don't remember their names.

[whiterussian1974]

I had a thought along the lines of posted earlier. Of using your normal K baffle or whatever, but having two tubes opposite of each other on the outside of the baffles, and drill varying size holes in them to control gasses going in, and at the last baffle have one large opening for gas to recirculate to the muzzle end.
On the muzzle end have a spring steel flap that would open from gasses coming back, but enough tension to keep it closed from the initial shot.
Kinda like a flap you would see on a front end loader or any diesel tractor.
Could be a problem with back pressure going back down the barrel...., but would keep gasses in and circulating, before exiting the can.

I neglected this post because of shockbottle's posts.
I apologize.
Yes, this is similar to the Thread ideas that I've posted links scattered through this Thread. Except 6 helical tubes instead of 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogallo_wing And bleed gas reentering stack the chamber before the last. That way turbulence delays exit by creating eddies and jet partially blocking the boreline apperature.

Also, have the tubes begin at blast chamber then empty at next to last chamber. This utilizes several Principles. Like an Octapus w arms twisting clockwise around the stack.

Please forgive my lack of attention repling to your post. I'm still interested in advancing your ideas and hope that you continue to contribute to this Thread.

[shockbottle]

Sorry to not-publish a full CV and what I and my company (that would be the "we") are working on, but we have IP agreements in place like many other "industry insiders". Hoped I could try and contribute a few "radical" idea directional nudges without getting the PTB's cranky, but it seems I can't balance both and what I can post is not very useful to most.

Anyway.

Good on the guys that did chase down (or had looked into already) the Pelton turbine and his further designs. There's some interesting areas there that do work, although they can't directly be ported over to powder gas. Not really a place for a Form 1 experiment, although somebody could try fiddling with bullet tails on a lathe and an existing can and see what they get.

[whiterussian1974]

Sorry to not-publish a full CV and what I and my company (that would be the "we") are working on, but we have IP agreements in place like many other "industry insiders". Hoped I could try and contribute a little "radical" idea direction without getting the PTB's cranky, but it seems I can't balance both.

Good on the guys that did chase down (or found sooner) the Pelton turbine and his further designs. There's some interesting areas there that do work, although they can't directly be ported over to powder gas. Not really a place for a Form 1 experiment, although somebody could try fiddling with bullet tails on a lathe and an existing can.

Your NDAs prohibit you from posting your 22 Patent #s and Company Name?

I was the guy (Thread Author) who tracked down Pelton concepts. I agree that they apply to initial baffles, just not sure how you intend to harness them for improved performance.

I posted a possibility, and can image some others. But not sure where you were taking us.

And all the Pelton Functions are directed at baffle allignment and stream diversion. Not projectile media geometry. Why would Ogive base enhance performance?

[whiterussian1974]

Perhaps you can explain the Theory and a diagram of how this works? It seems counter-intuitive.
People have loaded subsonics backward, but for stability and knockdown power. No increase in dB reduction in suppressors has ever been mentioned.

Can you list some of your 22 Patents? What 7/02 R&D you worked for?
Your post count was 5, so it was easy to presume that you were new to this topic. Not an Industry Insider.

To be clear not all of our (or my) R&D and patents are on firearms or suppressors and we are far from big-name Industry Insiders. Patents are a quick way to show we know our way around engineering and R&D.

...Much of that work is targeted at recoil control and muzzle brakes as there's not much funding for artillery suppressor research, so typically dealing with shorter distances to work, but the papers are out there.

For those that haven't run across him, you might get some value out of the works of Lester Pelton. He worked in incompressible fluid with a great deal more mass mostly, but some of his work turns out to have interesting applications elsewhere.

Your NDAs certainly can't prevent you from citing Published Papers? And many monocore designs utilize Pelton cups to strip gas from boreline. But those are baffles, not projectile bases.

Was the Lightcraft Capsule the basecone you were suggesting?

Arthur Robert Kantrowitz's work would seem a better resource than Pelton's.
And https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prandtl%E ... ansion_fan also helps.

I've thought of posting some physics links to a prior Academic Resource thread that I posted asking for links to published papers. But there is very little of the Type 4a Members that DrK referrenced. Mainly Historian, Gunny, Byrdman, Capt Link, Lava_red and I are the F1s that also are Design Theorheticians. Capt Link and Gunny are actually Industry Professionals, but Capt is semi-retired and Gunny is in Europe.

Anyway. I am a voracious Tech reader and would love for you to post links to (free) Published Sources/Papers including Patents. Pics are always good, but equations are also helpful.

[shockbottle]

Sorry to not-publish a full CV and what I and my company (that would be the "we") are working on, but we have IP agreements in place like many other "industry insiders". Hoped I could try and contribute a little "radical" idea direction without getting the PTB's cranky, but it seems I can't balance both.

Good on the guys that did chase down (or found sooner) the Pelton turbine and his further designs. There's some interesting areas there that do work, although they can't directly be ported over to powder gas. Not really a place for a Form 1 experiment, although somebody could try fiddling with bullet tails on a lathe and an existing can.

Your NDAs prohibit you from posting your 22 Patent #s and Company Name?

I was the guy (Thread Author) who tracked down Pelton concepts. I agree that they apply to initial baffles, just not sure how you intend to harness them for improved performance.

I posted a possibility, and can image some others. But not sure where you were taking us.

And all the Pelton Functions are directed at baffle allignment and stream diversion. Not projectile media geometry. Why would Ogive base enhance performance?

They probably don't specifically prevent me, but I would rather not make some of our private customers cranky. Y'all can decide if what I say is valuable or not as it stands.

Ogive is a poor shape for redirecting gas which makes it good for the front end but not so good for the back. My original post was intended to be a 'think about the bullet base' direction rather than ogives specifically, so I apologize for that being obscure.

[whiterussian1974]

Why would Ogive base enhance performance?

They probably don't specifically prevent me, but I would rather not make some of our private customers cranky. Y'all can decide if what I say is valuable or not as it stands.

Ogive is a poor shape for redirecting gas which makes it good for the front end but not so good for the back. My original post was intended to be a 'think about the bullet base' direction rather than ogives specifically, so I apologize for that being obscure.

That's why I asked if https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inlet_cone was the base cone you were suggesting.
A type of short, thick, reversed, compound-curved https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag-resistant_aerospike attached to the bottom of a boattail.

---Why would posting Patent #s make your customers cranky? If they were going to be upset, they would have gotten a court order to seal the Patents or else purchased the IP from you and refused to publish by filing for Patent.
Your argument just doesn't make sense. A_Canadian's "Man of Mystery" comment was spot on. WAY too much teasing. You're giving us "Blue Bells" .

[a_canadian]

You're giving us "Blue Bells" .

I believe the term is 'blue balls' and you've applied it correctly. Guy's as big a tease a wickedly cute, full of herself 16 year old on prom night.

[whiterussian1974]

You're giving us "Blue Bells" .

I believe the term is 'blue balls' and you've applied it correctly. Guy's as big a tease a wickedly cute, full of herself 16 year old on prom night.

I was trying to "keep it clean" by using Poetic License. That's why I added ":lol:"

There's a great joke to go along w this. About women wearing suggestive clothing and using enticing gestures like licking and partially swallowing a straw or bottle neck. Then saying that we should treat them w greatest respect and not according to how they dress and act.
Tosh said, "Yeah, like if I wear a Police Uniform and direct traffic. Then someone comes up to me and reports a crime or asks for help. I'd get in a big huff and lecture them on not making unwarranted assumptions."

[gunny50]

Why would Ogive base enhance performance?

They probably don't specifically prevent me, but I would rather not make some of our private customers cranky. Y'all can decide if what I say is valuable or not as it stands.

Ogive is a poor shape for redirecting gas which makes it good for the front end but not so good for the back. My original post was intended to be a 'think about the bullet base' direction rather than ogives specifically, so I apologize for that being obscure.

That's why I asked if https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inlet_cone was the base cone you were suggesting.
A type of short, thick, reversed, compound-curved https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag-resistant_aerospike attached to the bottom of a boattail.

check
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypersonic
Classification of Mach regimes - lots of explanations of GAS laws… Very interesting.

Gunny

[Dr.K]

Sorry to not-publish a full CV and what I and my company (that would be the "we") are working on, but we have IP agreements in place like many other "industry insiders". Hoped I could try and contribute a little "radical" idea direction without getting the PTB's cranky, but it seems I can't balance both.

Good on the guys that did chase down (or found sooner) the Pelton turbine and his further designs. There's some interesting areas there that do work, although they can't directly be ported over to powder gas. Not really a place for a Form 1 experiment, although somebody could try fiddling with bullet tails on a lathe and an existing can.

Your NDAs prohibit you from posting your 22 Patent #s and Company Name?

I was the guy (Thread Author) who tracked down Pelton concepts. I agree that they apply to initial baffles, just not sure how you intend to harness them for improved performance.

I posted a possibility, and can image some others. But not sure where you were taking us.

And all the Pelton Functions are directed at baffle allignment and stream diversion. Not projectile media geometry. Why would Ogive base enhance performance?

They probably don't specifically prevent me, but I would rather not make some of our private customers cranky. Y'all can decide if what I say is valuable or not as it stands.

Ogive is a poor shape for redirecting gas which makes it good for the front end but not so good for the back. My original post was intended to be a 'think about the bullet base' direction rather than ogives specifically, so I apologize for that being obscure.

And that itself lends to a totally different issue. Say I or someone in my situation did decide to try different bases on projectiles or ANY RADICAL DESIGN Feature on a suppressor. .....

How in blue blazes would I know if it worked or not? I have no testing equipment, and let's face it changing bullet bases would yield what....1-3 decibel differences? None at all? I can't hear these difference in levels with my own god given equipment.

[whiterussian1974]

Good on the guys that did chase down (or had looked into already) the Pelton turbine and his further designs. There's some interesting areas there that do work, although they can't directly be ported over to powder gas. Not really a place for a Form 1 experiment, although somebody could try fiddling with bullet tails on a lathe and an existing can and see what they get.

Lutz Mueller has done wonderful work on Extremely Low Drag "Viking" boattails. They have 5 thin driving bands just thick enough to engage grooves through the rifling. The bullet itself rides the rifling w little engraving. (ETA: And the boattail comes to a complete tip. Just like a Viking ship hull profile."

He also has done great work w muzzle breaks. His work w fast frame photography shows great examples of gas flow dynamics and how to divert it, stripping nearly all from boreline before it follows the bullet out the end.

He his "fishgill" that is 1"ODx6"L. It results in a thick, nearly stationary gas cloud out the sides w only a wisp out the front. It shows how Reflex designs can quickly drop PT environment early in suppressor and let the Baffle Stack break shock waves through https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prandtl%E ... ansion_fan and trap sound waves and distort harmonic resonance.

Lutz's Site isn't still up. Maybe it moved, but I saved them .mht while they were up. That's how I do my research when no Net during Summer.
I also emailed w Finnish Researchers back in 2002-4. Lots of great info. Not so much suppressor design, but atmospheric effects and gas flow properties. Including projectile shapes. (For Supersonic: basic info is long, sharp angle nosecone; 15* boattail to prevent laminar flow seperation causing cavitation. Subsonic: alot more complex.)

[whiterussian1974]

And that itself lends to a totally different issue. Say I or someone in my situation did decide to try different bases on projectiles or ANY RADICAL DESIGN Feature on a suppressor. .....

How in blue blazes would I know if it worked or not? I have no testing equipment, and let's face it changing bullet bases would yield what....1-3 decibel differences? None at all? I can't hear these difference in levels with my own god given equipment.

An observer 10m to your left side should be able to tell 2-3dB. That hearing threshold for perceiving loudness.

Highspeed photography would be a good tool. That's how I've experimented w various designs before. I used a water filled transparent tube w different colored glitter b/t the 1st 4 baffles. Rented a high framerate digital camera and observed how the glitter traveled when 150psi airhose injected a dynamic impulse. The low psi DOES show some differences b/t supersonic gas flow, but helps visualize what happening inside. Plus 150psi allows use of transparent polycarbonate or similar material.

But for bullet base profiles, stagnant open air is needed. Like inside a shop, shooting through an open window. The smoke gas plume will be highly visible and not be disturbed by wind.

[gunny50]

And that itself lends to a totally different issue. Say I or someone in my situation did decide to try different bases on projectiles or ANY RADICAL DESIGN Feature on a suppressor. .....

How in blue blazes would I know if it worked or not? I have no testing equipment, and let's face it changing bullet bases would yield what....1-3 decibel differences? None at all? I can't hear these difference in levels with my own god given equipment.

An observer 10m to your left side should be able to tell 2-3dB. That hearing threshold for perceiving loudness.

Highspeed photography would be a good tool. That's how I've experimented w various designs before. I used a water filled transparent tube w different colored glitter b/t the 1st 4 baffles. Rented a high framerate digital camera and observed how the glitter traveled when 150psi airhose injected a dynamic impulse. The low psi DOES show some differences b/t supersonic gas flow, but helps visualize what happening inside. Plus 150psi allows use of transparent polycarbonate or similar material.

But for bullet base profiles, stagnant open air is needed. Like inside a shop, shooting through an open window. The smoke gas plume will be highly visible and not be disturbed by wind.

What about the Italian compensator bullet?



Gunny

[whiterussian1974]

Gunny, do you have links to their site? Would love to read info on testing and function.

[Capt. Link.]

Gunny was that metered for sound or ballistics.
I smell some Bull in the design.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Bull
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Babylon
http://youtu.be/T08LK3RHawo

[hotbrass]

Looks like a whistler!

[whiterussian1974]

I definitely agree about Whistler.

"Cookie Cutter" disks have been tried. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_airfoil_projectile

Basically a circular wing w internal Camber.
They were tested to diminish Sonic crack but failed. The single nose point worked best. The longer and thinner (Sears-Haack body) the better.
Stability was great and drag was offset by interior taper. But it was regarded as dismal failure except for 40mm Less Lethal launchers. An alternate to bean-bag rds.

[whiterussian1974]

I smell some Bull in the design.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Bull

Bull mainly researched long caliber length Supercannon. An alternate and much more efficient spacelaunch method for non-human payloads. US Gov still paying contracts for research. A movable Ocean-based system is vary versatile. Can change Azimuth and Elevation for different orbits and can fire rocket-assisted payload at 1/20-1/100th the cost. But mammals can't handle the 100g acceleration.

These bullets remind me more of base-bleed shells. Plus I don't see how they would divert bore gas better than Flat or sunken base bullets. Like squeeze barrel bases that fold back during last few inches at muzzle.

BTW, I'm a HUGE advocate of rocket-assisted, cannon-launched spacecraft. Humans could be accellerated at 6.5-13g at 75* through a tall mountain. Then rocket base would fire at ~60k' to keep offsetting gravity and enter orbit. (Max Q is about 35k', so a Drag resistant Aerospike would need to deflect shock waves.)

Editted this sentence's position for clarity: (So I don't see his influence in the It bullets. Perhaps I misunderstood.)

[Capt. Link.]

I guess you don't know bull.
Base bleed and Rap rounds were some of G.V.B work.He put a major punch in artillery through his projectile designs.These ideas are showing up in small arms as well.

[whiterussian1974]

I guess you don't know bull.
Base bleed and Rap rounds were some of G.V.B work.

I thought that my post about his work on Supercannon and Rocket-assist illustrated my knowledge and great admiration of Bull's work.

Base bleed was developed before him. Sweden's Defense Research Agency actually designed and tested it during the 1960s and filed the Patent in 1971.

The international rights were sold out ending up with the Space Research Corporation (SRC), owned by Gerald Bull. His contribution was integrating solid rocket motors into the base. And of course the long calibre length barrels that derived from the German V-3 Pumpgun planned for use against London in 1946-47.

His work was instrumental in HAARP research and transitioning to Cannon-launched Space payloads that I referenced in that post.

And yet I still don't see his influence in the lateral air intakes of the Ital bullets that Gunny posted. Were you just referencing the hollow base? Without a Gas Generator (developed by Sweden) or solid fuel rocket, I think these bullets would actually create a suction effect. Leading to the Whistling.

There are even inlet ramp geometries that would be better on those bullets. I'd definitely like to see their research and testing papers.

[Dr.K]

Custom turned and machined bullets likely would be dipping outside of my price range.

If they were quieter, would I need to pay a tax on each one?

[shockbottle]

The Italian comp bullet was done by some IPSC gamers trying to be clever and tap off & redirect the gas jet right before the bullet left the barrel to reduce recoil. Pretty sure they didn't make many since it wasn't very practical or effective. Never tried one in a suppressor.

Testing on-the-cheap-wise, It should be possible to replicate something like the old Frankford setup with some basic hardware and a phone app these days (maybe there even is one already). The nut is calibrating across setups since without a SOT (in the US), there's a limit to how much experimenting one person can do.

[whiterussian1974]

Custom turned and machined bullets likely would be dipping outside of my price range.
If they were quieter, would I need to pay a tax on each one?

Actually lathe turning a .375" brass rod down to .308-.312"OD should be w/i your range. Then have a custom mould made to lead hardcast for subsonic use. There are some fantastic ribbed "bore-rider" designs already out there.

Research would mostly just cost time reading through Online Research Papers. Then doodling on paper on CAD until you are happy. Finally testing the turned brass rod bullets to perfect the design.

Even if no quieter, maybe it would somehow change the frequency? Frankly I have no starting point to suggest any base designs. The compound S-curve is my only idea. And yet I still have no reason to believe non-flatbases would divert gases better.

If there were links to free Online Papers, Patents, or Theories...

And No, a different base shape doesn't require a Stamp.
Only selling loaded ammo requires an Ammo Mfr Permit. But that's because of large-scale powder use and the Public Safety issues.

[gunny50]

Gunny was that metered for sound or ballistics.
I smell some Bull in the design.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Bull
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Babylon
http://youtu.be/T08LK3RHawo

I have not shot these, site is down when following links on the web on Comp bullets.

I'll as a contact in Italy to find out if they are still up.

But buy some solid, put them in a lathe and mill and one is ready to go.

I do NOT think Capt that they will fly as far as Bull's magical dream.

Gunny