Welcome
Username or Email:

Password:


Missing Code




[ ]
[ ]
Online
  • Guests: 20
  • Members: 0
  • Newest Member: omjtest
  • Most ever online: 396
    Guests: 396, Members: 0 on 12 Jan : 12:51
Members Birthdays:
One birthday today, congrats!
Terrorhertz (15)


Next birthdays
10/01 Avalanche (41)
10/02 Carl A. Willis (44)
10/03 TwirlyWhirly555 (32)
Contact
If you need assistance, please send an email to forum at 4hv dot org. To ensure your email is not marked as spam, please include the phrase "4hv help" in the subject line. You can also find assistance via IRC, at irc.shadowworld.net, room #hvcomm.
Support 4hv.org!
Donate:
4hv.org is hosted on a dedicated server. Unfortunately, this server costs and we rely on the help of site members to keep 4hv.org running. Please consider donating. We will place your name on the thanks list and you'll be helping to keep 4hv.org alive and free for everyone. Members whose names appear in red bold have donated recently. Green bold denotes those who have recently donated to keep the server carbon neutral.


Special Thanks To:
  • Aaron Holmes
  • Aaron Wheeler
  • Adam Horden
  • Alan Scrimgeour
  • Andre
  • Andrew Haynes
  • Anonymous000
  • asabase
  • Austin Weil
  • barney
  • Barry
  • Bert Hickman
  • Bill Kukowski
  • Blitzorn
  • Brandon Paradelas
  • Bruce Bowling
  • BubeeMike
  • Byong Park
  • Cesiumsponge
  • Chris F.
  • Chris Hooper
  • Corey Worthington
  • Derek Woodroffe
  • Dalus
  • Dan Strother
  • Daniel Davis
  • Daniel Uhrenholt
  • datasheetarchive
  • Dave Billington
  • Dave Marshall
  • David F.
  • Dennis Rogers
  • drelectrix
  • Dr. John Gudenas
  • Dr. Spark
  • E.TexasTesla
  • eastvoltresearch
  • Eirik Taylor
  • Erik Dyakov
  • Erlend^SE
  • Finn Hammer
  • Firebug24k
  • GalliumMan
  • Gary Peterson
  • George Slade
  • GhostNull
  • Gordon Mcknight
  • Graham Armitage
  • Grant
  • GreySoul
  • Henry H
  • IamSmooth
  • In memory of Leo Powning
  • Jacob Cash
  • James Howells
  • James Pawson
  • Jeff Greenfield
  • Jeff Thomas
  • Jesse Frost
  • Jim Mitchell
  • jlr134
  • Joe Mastroianni
  • John Forcina
  • John Oberg
  • John Willcutt
  • Jon Newcomb
  • klugesmith
  • Leslie Wright
  • Lutz Hoffman
  • Mads Barnkob
  • Martin King
  • Mats Karlsson
  • Matt Gibson
  • Matthew Guidry
  • mbd
  • Michael D'Angelo
  • Mikkel
  • mileswaldron
  • mister_rf
  • Neil Foster
  • Nick de Smith
  • Nick Soroka
  • nicklenorp
  • Nik
  • Norman Stanley
  • Patrick Coleman
  • Paul Brodie
  • Paul Jordan
  • Paul Montgomery
  • Ped
  • Peter Krogen
  • Peter Terren
  • PhilGood
  • Richard Feldman
  • Robert Bush
  • Royce Bailey
  • Scott Fusare
  • Scott Newman
  • smiffy
  • Stella
  • Steven Busic
  • Steve Conner
  • Steve Jones
  • Steve Ward
  • Sulaiman
  • Thomas Coyle
  • Thomas A. Wallace
  • Thomas W
  • Timo
  • Torch
  • Ulf Jonsson
  • vasil
  • Vaxian
  • vladi mazzilli
  • wastehl
  • Weston
  • William Kim
  • William N.
  • William Stehl
  • Wesley Venis
The aforementioned have contributed financially to the continuing triumph of 4hv.org. They are deserving of my most heartfelt thanks.
Forums
4hv.org :: Forums :: Electromagnetic Projectile Accelerators
« Previous topic | Next topic »   

Concept Coilgun

 1 2 3 4 
Move Thread LAN_403
rp181
Wed Sept 30 2009, 01:05AM
rp181 Registered Member #1062 Joined: Tue Oct 16 2007, 02:01AM
Location:
Posts: 1529
.2% efficiency is dead easy. With some tuning, you should be able to break 1%.
Back to top
Bonehead
Wed Sept 30 2009, 11:30AM
Bonehead Registered Member #2046 Joined: Sun Mar 22 2009, 01:12PM
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 23
Sounds like a cool project, you should be able to achieve better than 3-4% efficiency if you use SCR's and tuned coils.

Assuming 'kromsson' is correct with his calculations, the projectile weight of 130grams might be a tad too heavy though.
Back to top
Turkey9
Thu Oct 01 2009, 03:58AM
Turkey9 Registered Member #1451 Joined: Wed Apr 23 2008, 03:48AM
Location: Boulder, Co
Posts: 661
rp181, ".2% efficiency is dead easy. With some tuning, you should be able to break 1%."

I think by .2 he means 20% as it is in normal number form. .2% is really .002 not just .2...

1.2x.2%=2.4J
1.2x.2=240J

I think you should use 10% as a model efficiency, still difficult to reach but doable without having to use special projectile materials and advanced pulse circuitry. It'll have to extremely well tuned and heavier projectiles would be better.
Back to top
PYLEMET-mk2
Thu Oct 01 2009, 05:20AM
PYLEMET-mk2 Registered Member #1513 Joined: Sat May 31 2008, 12:08PM
Location: Russia Klin
Posts: 48
wrote ...
Do you think the guys at NASA just decided to slap together parts and build a space shuttle?
I think your coilgun is much simplier than Shuttle :) . I'm sure that you can figure it out in your mind, and no need in 3D modelling. Almost all guys who had made this coilguns Link2 haven't modelling them before building
wrote ...
I think you should use 10% as a model efficiency
Why he should use 10%, if only 1 man in the whole world has reached this efficiency after a lot of studying and experiments? I think using 5% will be more fair
Back to top
rp181
Thu Oct 01 2009, 12:17PM
rp181 Registered Member #1062 Joined: Tue Oct 16 2007, 02:01AM
Location:
Posts: 1529
Who said only one man has reached that? I have reached 10%, and I know for a fact the person who used a iron powder shell has too. What is wrong with modeling it? There is no harm at all. Is, somethings will change, but its still better to have a idea.

Sorry about the .2 misunderstanding.
Do you plan on portable of just a system?
Back to top
PYLEMET-mk2
Fri Oct 02 2009, 03:57AM
PYLEMET-mk2 Registered Member #1513 Joined: Sat May 31 2008, 12:08PM
Location: Russia Klin
Posts: 48
rp181, where I can read about your experiments when you reached 10%? Why don't you build a coilgun with such effectiveness?
wrote ...
What is wrong with modeling it?
I think that practice is better than modelling. Modelling spoils your time which you could use to build your coilgun in real
Back to top
Turkey9
Fri Oct 02 2009, 05:14AM
Turkey9 Registered Member #1451 Joined: Wed Apr 23 2008, 03:48AM
Location: Boulder, Co
Posts: 661
Wasting money and time in failing time after time is worth the effort of modeling. Especially with a coilgun that is more complex than just a pen tube with some hookup wire wound around it. Plus, 3d modeling is plain fun! :)

Are you going to model the coil dimensions with something like Barry's calculator? That would help a lot with tuning and thus getting a great efficiency.
Back to top
rp181
Fri Oct 02 2009, 12:01PM
rp181 Registered Member #1062 Joined: Tue Oct 16 2007, 02:01AM
Location:
Posts: 1529
I never wrote up that coilgun, and it is disassembled now, as the railgun is priority.
Modeling does help, but keep in mind the values change as the projectile moves. Take a look at FEMM, its actually quite easy once you take 1/2 hour to read the tutorial.
Back to top
klugesmith
Sat Oct 03 2009, 04:14PM
klugesmith Registered Member #2099 Joined: Wed Apr 29 2009, 12:22AM
Location: Los Altos, California
Posts: 1716
kromsson wrote ...
The energy of your capacitors is 1/2 x 6 x 2.000/1.000.000 x 450 x 450 = 1.215 J = 1.2kJ
Assuming efficiency of 0.2 (which is VERY difficult already) you have 1.2 x 0.2 = 0.24 kJ of kinetic energy to the projectiles.
OK so far, but...
A projectile will have a volume of (converting inches to cm) : 1/2 x pi x 1.27 x 1.27 x 6.35 = 16 cm3
I assume you will use iron (induction coilgun) with a weight of about 8.000 kg/m3. This means your projectiles will weigh about 0.13 kg each.
BZZZZZT! Your factor of half s/b quarter, so it's 8 cm^3 and 64 grams.
E = 1/2 x m x u2 ===> u = 2 m/sec = 6 fps.
For this matter you need greater capacitance, and a LOT smaller and lighter projectiles.
That would be the velocity for 130 kilograms!
u = sqrt(2E/m) gives 61 m/s with the mass you stated, and 86 m/s with corrected value.
The more conservative goal of 5% efficiency (muzzle energy 60 J) would yield 43 m/s.
Launched vertically at that speed, a projectile without drag would climb 96 m (from E = mgh) and fly for more than 8 seconds. [edit]I have made pumpkins fly longer than that, with almost 2 kJ from bursting 2 liter soda bottles pressurized with CO2, but that is a story for another day.

When working this kind of problem in a spreadsheet calculator, I generally use separate text cells for variable names and their units of measurement. One way to avoid magnitude errors is to have all physics formulas and their I/O in columns that use basic SI units (kilograms, farads, cubic meters, pascals...) exclusively. A different column can have the I and O values in practical, intuitive units (inches, grams, microfarads, square millimeters ...). Merging unit conversions into physics formulas invites mistakes. smile

On the other hand, the auto loading of the magazine and the revolving and the cooling of the coils sound VERY interesting, good luck and I would be VERY interested to see the final project!
Well said. smile
Back to top
Bird-Dawg
Sun Oct 04 2009, 02:35AM
Bird-Dawg Registered Member #2360 Joined: Sun Sept 13 2009, 05:43PM
Location: Kennesaw, Ga USA
Posts: 14
with 2 pneumatic pistons
How about using solenoids instead for the pneumatic pistons. This way you won't have to run an air hose to the gun also. The gun sounds sweets though, good luck and post pictures.
Back to top
 1 2 3 4 

Moderator(s): Chris Russell, Noelle, Alex, Tesladownunder, Dave Marshall, Dave Billington, Bjørn, Steve Conner, Wolfram, Kizmo, Mads Barnkob

Go to:

Powered by e107 Forum System
 
Legal Information
This site is powered by e107, which is released under the GNU GPL License. All work on this site, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 License. By submitting any information to this site, you agree that anything submitted will be so licensed. Please read our Disclaimer and Policies page for information on your rights and responsibilities regarding this site.