Jump to content

calbiterol

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    733
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

12 Neutral

About calbiterol

  • Rank
    Molecule
  • Birthday December 14

Profile Information

  • Location
    Chicago (home), Cleveland (school)
  • College Major/Degree
    Case Western Reserve University; German and Mechanical Engineering
  • Favorite Area of Science
    Engineering, but everything else is fun too
  1. Would a white laser be sufficient? Given enough power? You can combine red, blue, and green lasers to produce a "white" laser. Lasers are collimated...
  2. That assumes that the sail is opaque to the entire electromagnetic spectrum.
  3. The rapid prototyping field is progressively moving towards being a viable form of manufacturing, particularly since one can now match the density of a forged part. There are currently a number of different methods by which one can RP a metal part. The general gist of the main ones is: Direct Metal Laser Sintering: This is powdered metallurgy, RP style. The working powder is used both as filler material and as part material. A laser then sinters a very small layer of powder, creating a solid metal part. Electron Beam Melting: Replace the sintering laser from DMLS with an electron beam that melts the base powder. Electron Beam Freeform Machining: This is a process still under development by Nasa, but has been proven, and parts are being made. Basically, an electron beam melts a feed wire (like in Fused Deposition Modeling) and "prints" it onto a table that moves in the Z-axis.
  4. AKA, "Am I doing this right?!" Note: I promise I didn't actually multiple post this many times, I'm just making use of the divider as a logical separation between edits! So, some background: I'm currently doing some design work with pneumatic rifles, and I want to actually go about this the *right* way - that is to say, I want to actually put some engineering skills to work - and hence want to describe the system mathematically. The gas under consideration is compressed air, and the temperatures follow the normal range of ambient outside temperatures in North America during anything but winter - aka, roughly 0-30 degrees centigrade. SO, given the fact that projectile acceleration to approximately 315 feet per second (I apologize in advance for the wankered units!) takes extremely little time, I thought it appropriate to assume an adiabatic condition. Since the temperature and pressure range are both moderate, I therefore grabbed the formulae for ideal gas adiabatic expansion and work from hyperphysics. After a little manipulation, I wrote an expression for the optimum length of a barrel for ideal adiabatic expansion to equalize with the ambient atmospheric pressure. I then substituted this equation for length in the adiabatic WORK equation (again, from hyperphysics) to get the final volume. I was then left with an implicit function in terms of initial pressure and initial volume that described the conditions necessary to accelerate the projectile (3.2 grams) to its final muzzle energy (130.5 lbs-in). Then, I fired up MATLAB and started writing a little bit of code... syms x y; syms p0 v0 A k pAtm W0; outputVars = [x y 1.400 .3685 14.696 130.5]; workingVars = [p0 v0 k A pAtm W0]; bL = v0 / A * (( p0 / pAtm) ^ (1 / k) - 1); deltaW = p0 * v0 * ((v0 + A * bL ) ^ (1 - k) - v0 ^ (1 - k)) / (1 - k) - W0; ezBarrel = subs(deltaW,workingVars,outputVars); ezplot(ezBarrel,[0 850 0 15]); ...just to see that everything was working out nicely. WELL, my code told me that .3117 cubic inches of 200psi compressed air should be enough. That, in turn, gives a barrel length of 4.68 inches - which would be completely fine, if I were sure it was correct! But I'm not, so I fired up the Gas Gun Design Tool (GGDT - nifty little app) with settings that as closely approximated this situation as the program would allow! For example, I used a burst disc valve with a 100% flow coefficient; barrel diameter, valve diameter, and reservoir diameter were all equal, etc etc. I then had GGDT optimize for barrel length - essentially repeating my former calculations with different programming and fewer assumptions. The results: ideal barrel length of 7.14 in (instead of 4.68), end muzzle velocity of 238 feet/second (instead of 315), with roughly the same initial volume and pressure. It did, however, give me an energy efficiency of only 13%. My question is: should I assume the discrepancy in the numbers is due to the differences in the situations being described between the GGDT and my numbers, or is there some gross error that I've missed? Also, if it would help, I can post up my calculations so you can all see the equations (and how I got them). Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged*cough* *cough* I think I figured it out... I missed an exponent when copying an equation down. I should say, I missed it TWICE, since I double-checked everything I was doing. I won't know for sure until I get home from work, but the barrel length is MUCH closer (7.3495 inches). If anyone wants to see the derivations and such (or the end curve), let me know and I'll post them up; otherwise, consider the question answered! *doh!* Merged post follows: Still no diceWell, re-ran the numbers in GGDT. They still don't jive with each other. I tried a number of different data points; it seems like the lower the pressure, the more accurate the velocity prediction is, and the less likely the barrel prediction is. I also checked again to make sure that I entered everything into MATLAB correctly, and I did. So, the question still stands. Merged post follows: My mathsMy maths: Okay, managed to turn it into a .pdf: Derivation
  5. Hello! We have created a science forum. Researchers, professors, post graduate students and undergraduate students are invited to join/register our forum.

    http://science.forumakers.com/

    This is the link to my forum. It is still under construction and will be fully active from 1is august. Last date of registration is 15th august, so please join it as soon as possible. It will be a great pleasure for me, if you join it.

     

    Nikhil aggarwal

    University of Delhi, India

    vedmecum@gmail.com

  6. Funny thing, I once met a guy named Jack Hoff. And my high school health teacher? His name was Dusty Seemans. True story.
  7. Well in Germany that doesn't really matter; fireworks are illegal there anyways.
  8. Plus, sure seems to me like one of the biggest reasons we keep getting taller (ever so slowly) is that our nutrition has improved. At any rate, from an evolutionary standpoint, I don't see any reason why it would be advantageous to be smaller or bigger in today's society.
  9. Just don't swallow it. It doesn't get a chance to evaporate if you swallow it. And that's NOT good.
  10. Not if it truly evaporates - I think dry ice would sublimate under those conditions. However, the visible difference between sublimation and evaporation could be difficult to detect. I think Phoenix has equipment to test for exactly this kind of thing, doesn't it? ... I've always wanted to go to Mars...
  11. calbiterol

    Fsae

    Anybody here participate/compete in FSAE? For those of you unfamiliar with the competition, it'd be interesting to note that there's a new hybrid competition as well.
  12. So that people know what DH is talking about, I made reference to generating electricity by dropping rubbish down a shaft. I actually think I already mentioned this somewhere on the forum, but it's been so long since I was active here that I don't really remember! EDIT: Oh jeez, didn't realize the rest of this thread was so old. I thought I remembered something like it... Scratch that, reverse it. I'll remove myself from what appears to be a buddingly unproductive argument. Cheers!
  13. Cogito ergo sum: Ich denke therefor, der ich bin

    (if German), should be

    "Ich denke also bin ich"

     

    Cheers

    Calbit

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.