View Full Version : Circular Direct Imprintment Gas System
http://img851.imageshack.us/img851/1386/effdis.png
The conceptual diagram is quite self-explanatory.
Advantage of this concept:
1. Utilize the same blow back gas for the entire reciprocating shell extraction and shell feeding cycle.
2. Require less materials to construct.
3. More simple design.
4. Majority of the gas vented through the exhaust port.
Is this concept workable? Do you think this concept is more efficient?
Belmont31R
05-26-11, 19:04
I will stick with a $10 spring that lasts k's of rounds.
militarymoron
05-26-11, 19:11
can you draw the gun around it, with a magazine to help us visualize what it'd look like? from the diagram, it looks more complex, requiring more materials to construct.
please explain in detail why it's a simpler design.
FWIW, i think that the gas would be vented long before it can ever be used for the feeding cycle.
from the diagram, it looks more complex, requiring more materials to construct.
This...
I can't tell if this is serious or not.
So you have a standard BCG riding inside this "BCG platform"? so a carrier for a carrier...
I'm really not following the how or the why on this one.
The BCG secured on the BCG platform so the entire assembly move as one. The upper valve of the BCG platform is used to regulate the flow of the gas. It ensures the same gas can successfully push the entire BCG platform back to its original position, and then the upper valve would move back to its original position.
This...
I can't tell if this is serious or not.
So you have a standard BCG riding inside this "BCG platform"? so a carrier for a carrier...
I'm really not following the how or the why on this one.
I think this concept may be able to utilize the same gas for the entire cycle, but it is more complex than the conventional AR design. Let me think about this...
I sort of think I understand what you're envisioning here, but the whole thing seems more than a little half-baked to me... Things like your carrier-within-a-carrier still having a gas key make me think you really don't know a lot about the functioning of the direct impingement system to begin with...
I see this same post has been made on another forum under the screen name Zollen, coincidentally the SN of a member who was banned from M4C the same day you joined... How very interesting.
SpaceWrangler
05-26-11, 19:43
Seems like an AR version of the desmodromic valvetrains on Ducati motorcycle engines... links and cams to open and close the intake and exhaust valves with no valve springs.
It works, but has scads of moving parts and is very sensitive to adjustment.
A high-quality spring sure makes things easier.
Or a two stroke w/reed valves. Either way it'll prolly sound like a bag of bolts when cycling.
Looks awful tedious in general and the 'valving' is definitely going to give two or more potential fail points that don't exist on current models.
Mr. Goodtimes
05-26-11, 20:39
I fail to understand what this design does that is any improvement what so ever over the current design. It seems like an answer to a problem that doesn't exist.
Smuckatelli
05-26-11, 22:56
It looks like it takes away the need for a buffer without needing a piston system. Major problem is that if there is any gas left...depending on the ammo used....that hot gas is going to blast your non shooting hand.
RAM Engineer
05-27-11, 07:19
I see this same post has been made on another forum under the screen name Zollen, coincidentally the SN of a member who was banned from M4C the same day you joined... How very interesting.
That's some funny stuff right there.:D
mike boufford
05-27-11, 08:23
Maybe I'm missing something but the engineering side of me is thinking that a substantially taller and longer upper receiver will be required to house the BCP. The BCP has no place to go as the BCG currently does which will require additional real estate in the receiver. Machining on a mass production basis appears to be far more complex than the current design.
Coming soon to a theater near you: "Rube Goldberg Meets Son Of Stoner"
Looks like it'd be a bigger, bulkier, less efficient, and more complex version of what we have now.
I see this same post has been made on another forum under the screen name Zollen, coincidentally the SN of a member who was banned from M4C the same day you joined... How very interesting.
Where I'm from, that's called Ownage :p
what will hold the bolt in battery after the high pressure gas has dissipated? :confused:
from what i gather gas moves the bolt back and forward?
I think you're not really understanding things like dwell time... :confused:
FromMyColdDeadHand
05-27-11, 14:48
Kind of like a P7, but a lot more complex. Interesting concept, but I think you need to look at pressure curves again for an AR operating system. I think by the time the bolt has moved to the rear and ejected, the pressure in the system will drop, you will then be relying on the momentum of the gas in you tuba to move the bolt back into position.
Interesting design on the delayed gas system, I just think it will run out of steam before getting a new round stripped and chambered.
I could improve the concept with the following:
1. Re-position the upper valve much closer to the gas tube. This would help the entire BCG + BCP get pushed backward sooner.
2. Re-position the lower valve much closer to the returning gas. This would help pushing the BCG + BCP forward sooner.
3. Shorten the path require for the gas to travel through the entire gas channel.
This should help improve the condition once the bullet leave the barrel and the pressure begin to drop.
As the diagram #3 illustrated, the upper valve should remain open until the lower valve returns at the original position.
With the above improvements, would you all think there would be enough gas pressure to push the lower valve (BCG + BCP) return to the original position?
The design would leak like a sieve
The design would leak like a sieve
Where would be the leakage(s)?
eternal24k
05-29-11, 08:24
I still cant picture this beyond the concept of the idea. And as mentioned by MM, I dont think there would be enough pressure on the return cycle to feed and return to battery, it would definitely need a spring assist to provide positive lockup, but if you do that you might as well keep the system exactly as it is. It also seems like it would be filthy, the current DI system utilizes the piston on the bolt, I dont really get how this would work at all. It seems overly complex.
eternal24k
05-29-11, 08:26
and when you say "exhaust", is this dumping hot gas all over the user?
I still cant picture this beyond the concept of the idea. And as mentioned by MM, I dont think there would be enough pressure on the return cycle to feed and return to battery, it would definitely need a spring assist to provide positive lockup, but if you do that you might as well keep the system exactly as it is. It also seems like it would be filthy, the current DI system utilizes the piston on the bolt, I dont really get how this would work at all. It seems overly complex.
I agree with your assessment. Once again, this is a dead end for me. Clearly the existing time proven AR design has already matured. Let me look for other problems to solve.
I have been thinking an alternative method of storing an returning energy, without the use of buffer tube + spring in a standard AR platform, methods such as using circular disc, torsion spring, metal deformation placed at the strategical spots in a upper receiver. Perhaps I should have focus on attacking one component at a time and not an overall AR design, then I would have better results.
What the ****?
I think telling you the problems you are looking to solve DO NOT exist isn't going to cut it...
Dionysusigma
05-29-11, 10:15
http://img851.imageshack.us/img851/1386/effdis.png
The conceptual diagram is quite self-explanatory.
Advantage of this concept:
1. Utilize the same blow back gas for the entire reciprocating shell extraction and shell feeding cycle.
2. Require less materials to construct.
3. More simple design.
4. Majority of the gas vented through the exhaust port.
Is this concept workable? Do you think this concept is more efficient?
It might just work. However, the issues I see (not yet addressed, mainly):
1) Cleaning. The exhaust port (and, of course, the entire system) is going to get dirty, and fast. Finding a way to keep everything running smoothly and cleanly is going to be quite difficult.
2) It may require less material to construct, but the parts count is going to increase. Specifically, it has more moving parts than an AR. Add to that the parts that are going to interface are smaller, and they're going to be exposed to more heat, means they're going to wear out faster than an AR (unless some creative metallurgy is going to happen). The importance of proper lube is also going to become apparent, and unless there are specific "lube holes" (think LaRue levers) and drain holes for solvent/excess oil/fouling sludge, the system will gum itself together quite well.
3) The majority of the gas, even if it does indeed end up going out the exhaust port, is going out the front of the rifle and as such may increase recoil. I'd suggest looking at venting it out the top, maybe near the muzzle, to possibly act as a built-in compensator.
I have been thinking an alternative method of storing an returning energy, without the use of buffer tube + spring in a standard AR platform, methods such as... metal deformation placed at the strategical spots in a upper receiver. I'd also suggest against this, as it would basically work-harden the metal to the point of brittleness and eventual fracture.
I think your ideas are interesting, but need further refinement. They might just work, but probably not at their current stage.
PS Why is the picture titled "Eff Dis?" :confused::D
I could improve the concept with the following improvements:
1. Re-position the upper valve much closer to the gas tube. This would help the entire BCG + BCP get pushed backward sooner.
2. Re-position the lower valve much closer to the returning gas. This would help pushing the BCG + BCP forward sooner.
3. Shorten the path require for the gas to travel through the entire gas channel.
NOTE: As the diagram #3, #4 already illustrated, the upper valve should remain open until the lower valve returns at the original position.
Here is my major concern:
On an M4, the pressure is completely lost before the bolt even unlocks. I was envisioning this as some sort of smooth hydraulic action, when it reality, its more like an air hammer. The gas pressure hits the BCG assembly hard and fast, and then dissipate very quickly. It is possible that there may not have enough gas pressure (impulse) to push the the lower valve forward to its original position. Again, I have no way to know this is really an issue until experiments were conducted.
It might just work. However, the issues I see (not yet addressed, mainly):
1) Cleaning. The exhaust port (and, of course, the entire system) is going to get dirty, and fast. Finding a way to keep everything running smoothly and cleanly is going to be quite difficult.
If you look closer, the upper and lower valves are protected by movable seals to minimize the lost of gas pressure. The exhaust port is supposed to be extended out much further so it does not affect the shooter. I was too lazy to put any more detail to the exhaust, I thought it was pretty self-explanatory.
2) It may require less material to construct, but the parts count is going to increase. Specifically, it has more moving parts than an AR. Add to that the parts that are going to interface are smaller, and they're going to be exposed to more heat, means they're going to wear out faster than an AR (unless some creative metallurgy is going to happen). The importance of proper lube is also going to become apparent, and unless there are specific "lube holes" (think LaRue levers) and drain holes for solvent/excess oil/fouling sludge, the system will gum itself together quite well.
I also think it is possible to use less material with a clever design, but the parts count no doubt would be higher. At this point, I was not too worry about the durability of the concept until the major issues were resolved.
3) The majority of the gas, even if it does indeed end up going out the exhaust port, is going out the front of the rifle and as such may increase recoil. I'd suggest looking at venting it out the top, maybe near the muzzle, to possibly act as a built-in compensator.
I also thought it wasn't a difficult problem to solve.
At this point in time, I decided to focus on rethinking some of the individual components, instead of an entire AR design.
This thread does a disservice to M4C.
Zollen, you have a greatly flawed understanding of the existing device you're trying to improve. Generally, great inventors don't petition the general public to help them improve their designs.
M4C should not be in this list.
http://www.google.com/search?q=Circular+Direct+Imprintment+Gas+System&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
Suwannee Tim
05-29-11, 15:18
The spring is the most effective, most reliable and simplest mechanical energy storage device extant and has a rather high energy density. It's really hard to improve on it.
Where would be the leakage(s)?
It will leak where the connector rods go through the gas tube to the bolt carrier. A groove would have to be cut in the tube to let the rods reciprocate with the bolt carrier
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.