Technician1002 wrote:This gives the piston a "running start" on the portion of the curve where the piston is mostly closed and the opening forces are still low.
Sure. But even if I slowed things down a thousand fold, that part of the curve would STILL be a blink and you'll miss it event!
And at the same time, low forces on the piston means low forces on the projectile - it moves very little during this "slow part of the curve", and the distance it moves under full acceleration is scarcely changed.
With the piston decoupled from the rod, the moving mass is lower. Force=Mass X Acceleration.
Yes, but assuming a negligible initial velocity* doubling of acceleration only reduces the opening time by 30%. After all,
s = ut + at<sup>2</sup>/2.
*In this case, a QDV piston's initial velocity is pretty small and won't much change that relationship
And anyway, the rod is irrelevant - a regular piston doesn't have that either, so saying "it doesn't count towards the accelerated mass" is moot - and as a consequence, you can't say that a QDV piston is lighter. It might be, it might not be.
Due to the acceleration early in the curve, the performance is closer to a burst disk in the beginning of the curve as this portion takes less time.
Yes, the QDV is
usually faster to open, but not by a huge amount, and you've missed the more important point. The faster opening adds very little to performance.
Phrasing it as if it's some scientific law:
"As a valve's opening time approaches zero, the effect on the muzzle velocity also approaches zero."
In other words, the faster a valve already is, the less improving it will help.
QDVs have other advantages (and disadvantages), and there are places I may well use the design. But the marginally better opening time does not make enough difference to performance for it to be a sensible reason to choose between the two.