Why are allot of people I read making cannons talking about trying for combustion ratios of 4:1 and 1.5:1, etc...
From everything I've read the optimal is less than 1:1 (I'm shooting for 0.7:1 for mine).
Am I right or are they wrong ?
Edited by jrrdw, descriptive topic title.
Combustion Ratios
- PaperNinja
- Specialist
- Posts: 190
- Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2012 7:51 pm
- Location: Droneland
I don't really know, but keep in mind that some of the ratios you saw might have been for hybrids, which tend to have much smaller chambers than 1x combustion.
- jackssmirkingrevenge
- Five Star General
- Posts: 26203
- Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 11:28 pm
- Has thanked: 569 times
- Been thanked: 344 times
The only real hard data I've seen available for chamber:barrel ratios is here:
http://www.burntlatke.com/launch.html
This seems to suggest the optimal ratio is in the region of 0.7-0.8:1
http://www.burntlatke.com/launch.html
This seems to suggest the optimal ratio is in the region of 0.7-0.8:1
hectmarr wrote:You have to make many weapons, because this field is long and short life
That data is for a constant chamber size, with variable barrel. If you have a fixed barrel length (like have a maximum overall length and an over/under design, I think the optimal ratio is closer to 2:1 (larger chamber). The general rule is that the bigger the chamber, the more powerful, but with quickly diminishing returns. That also assumes enough ignition points and turbulence to quickly burn through all of the chamber volume. If you have a lousy burn speed, it is conceivable that a small chamber would outperform an excessively large one.
Somewhere, there is data to back that up. I just don't know where.
Somewhere, there is data to back that up. I just don't know where.
POLAND_SPUD wrote:even if there was no link I'd know it's a bot because of female name
- jimmy101
- Sergeant Major
- Posts: 3199
- Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2007 9:48 am
- Location: Greenwood, Indiana
- Has thanked: 5 times
- Been thanked: 17 times
- Contact:
That should read "most fuel efficient ratio". Whether fuel efficiency is important is up to the designer, though I suspect most spudders don't care about efficiency since fuel is basically free.jackssmirkingrevenge wrote:This seems to suggest the optimal ratio is in the region of 0.7-0.8:1
I saw a ballistic graph where they measured the muzzle velocity of a spud and all indications were that the .6-.8 to 1 ratio yielded that highest veolicty in FPS. Allot of it was marginal but that window there was allot better than the readings they were getting for something like 1.5:1, etc.... (bigger cannon theoughmind you, and my plan is a 4" chamber and 3" barrel).That should read "most fuel efficient ratio".
- jimmy101
- Sergeant Major
- Posts: 3199
- Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2007 9:48 am
- Location: Greenwood, Indiana
- Has thanked: 5 times
- Been thanked: 17 times
- Contact:
Not sure what data you are referring to but it is most likely Lake's data. That was acquired with a fixed chamber size and variable barrel size. For a fixed chamber size ~0.8 chamber to barrel gives the highest muzzle velocity.Essohbe wrote:I saw a ballistic graph where they measured the muzzle velocity of a spud and all indications were that the .6-.8 to 1 ratio yielded that highest veolicty in FPS. Allot of it was marginal but that window there was allot better than the readings they were getting for something like 1.5:1, etc.... (bigger cannon theoughmind you, and my plan is a 4" chamber and 3" barrel).That should read "most fuel efficient ratio".
However, if you take that optimal barrel and put it on a larger chamber the muzzle velocity will go up. The efficiency will go down but the performance will go up.