Timeline for Use of fast-burning high-performance solid rocket fuel as gunpowder
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 21, 2021 at 14:57 | comment | added | PcMan | Does 5MJ/kg really count as "much a higher energy density than smokeless powders", which is at 3Mj/kg? Also, most solid rocket propellant would detonate at the pressures needed for firearm propulsion. Detonation is bad, it imposes ludicrous requirements on your firearm's structural strength. | |
| Sep 21, 2021 at 14:22 | comment | added | Christopher James Huff | Also, as @MolbOrg indicates, typical guns aren't limited by the gunpowder that can be used per shot. They use the amount needed to achieve the desired result, within the limits of what the gun can safely handle. There's considerations of material strength, weight, recoil, etc that you need to deal with before a tremendously higher energy density propellant makes a real difference. | |
| Sep 21, 2021 at 14:15 | comment | added | Christopher James Huff | Gunpowders are typically used in granular or flake form to increase the surface area and allow faster burning. This unavoidably also increases void space and decreases overall density. The volumetric energy density difference may not be that great when you take this into account. Also, solid rocket propellants aren't formulated to keep gun barrels in good shape. Their energy density comes in part from things like aluminum powder, which burns to produce aluminum oxide, a very good abrasive and something you very much don't want in your gun barrel. | |
| Sep 21, 2021 at 13:55 | comment | added | JDługosz | As I recall, classic gunpowder and modern cordite are "low velocity", and generate lots of gas. It's optimized for pushing things. | |
| Sep 21, 2021 at 13:38 | comment | added | MolbOrg | What is wrong with taking more gun powder if you need a more powerfull shot? I mean what is the difference which is important for you, between gun powder and propelant. Also a little bit curious where you get it that solid rocket fuel significantly more energy dense than a gunpowder? If we talk about not black gunpowder. Double-base (DB) propellants in in here en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid-propellant_rocket is basically your typical gunpowder mixed with good old explosives they are equivalent. High performance wiki says it +14-20 percent boost, or you have some other numbers? | |
| Sep 21, 2021 at 13:36 | answer | added | MichaelK | timeline score: 7 | |
| Sep 21, 2021 at 13:14 | comment | added | Demigan | I think the point is that using more powerful powders heavily increases wear and tear on weapons, increasing the chance the chamber will blow up in your face or parts of the weapon to fail. Machining the materials that could withstand it is prohibatively expensive. The only alternative I can think of is successfully creating cheap and accurate gyrojet ammunition (IE rocket-propelled bullets). | |
| Sep 21, 2021 at 13:07 | answer | added | DWKraus | timeline score: 4 | |
| Sep 21, 2021 at 12:59 | comment | added | Postlim Fort | you may want to take a look at high explosives. but you may run the risk of the tool explode in your face with those. | |
| Sep 21, 2021 at 12:58 | comment | added | NuclearWill | We have been using gunpowder for centuries for a very particular reason. I don’t remember exactly but I’m pretty sure it has something to due with having the gun not explode in your hands. | |
| S Sep 21, 2021 at 12:46 | review | First questions | |||
| Sep 21, 2021 at 13:44 | |||||
| S Sep 21, 2021 at 12:46 | history | asked | user90307 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |