265 replies to this topic

[Pineapple]

Just reading the last page of this topic makes me see who really Nerfs, and who just shoots their blasters around imagining it's a video battle field.


Sluggy is right on all counts. I wouldn't necessarily be hampered by #1, since I'm in pretty decent shape. #2, I'm not intimidated by large, scary looking weapons...just the ones that I KNOW will deliver some hurt. #3 is pretty much where experience in real Nerf warring (by NerfHaven's definitions) proves that practicality will rule in Nerf warring situations everyday.

You want scary?




Fear me and the mighty Seg-Nerf-way. With four yellow Mavericks.




-Piney-

[shadowkid33]

Wow Piney, that's hysterical. Mad photo-shopping skillz you have.

Anyway, number 3 seems to be the biggest issue in my opinion. If it's hard to fix, you won't use it as much. I don't want to see the project die though, it's such a good idea.

[CaptainSlug]

I'll have to run some practical experiments once my newer scientific regulator arrives. The current question is whether or not I can find an efficient way of substituting pneumatic power for electric power so that I can get rid of the really heavy battery and the electric motor.
If I can drive the firing of the darts, the barrel rotation drive, and ammo feed system all from compressed air then the weight could be reduced significantly. I could run all functional tests from a compressor.
My thinking is I could replace the electric motor with a air powered hand drill, then the exhaust gas from the air tool could be used to drive the vacuum motor that feeds the ammo.

It will take some time though. I just graduated from college and my place of employment is hoping to see me work full-time from now on.

Edited by CaptainSlug, 11 August 2007 - 05:59 PM.

[Z-man12]

Well if you ever get to the point where you want to totaly abandon the project I will be sad. I find this intresting. I really would like to carry it on if you let it die some day.

[bored kid93]

I'm glad this topic pulled a jesus. I have to see this thing completed.
P.S. Piney, you redefine the word "bad ass" with that awesome SegWay.

[GeorgeZIMMERCeo]

If you become entirely sure that you won't do this, you should sell your plans to someone who would.

I'd be glad to take them.

=GZ

[the essence of death]

having only read the first and last page of this topic (i was looking for mod ideas on my new rapid fire) i have to ask, the rate of fire on this system would have at least some dependancy on the diameter of the wheel the barrels are mounted to wouldnt it? im new to modding and my only jobs done so far is a front gun integration on my ls with a nf spring added and a ar removal to both weapons, so i wont claim to be an expert but as far as help i can try to ask my dad for opinions, he used to work on gatling guns

[CaptainSlug]

The rate of fire is dependent upon the rotations per minute, which is determined by the speed output and gearing from the motor to the barrels, and that number is then multiplied by the number of barrels rotating.
So 3 barrels multiplied by 60 RPM would equal 180 darts per minute. Or roughly 3 darts per second since a single rotation would mean that all 3 barrels have gone through their full firing sequence in one second.

Like in an actual gatling gun, this design has a separate feeding, advancing, and firing sequence for each barrel that is triggered by the rotation sequence.

Lately I've been doing a lot of contemplation on ways to simplify the construction by using off-the-shelf components. I haven't come across anything solid yet because I'm stuck on what kind of valves to use for one specific part of the mechanism.

Edit: "sipler" as in more off-the-shelf parts and fewer custom machined assemblies.

Edited by CaptainSlug, 15 August 2007 - 12:02 AM.

[Z-man12]

I know this sort of kills the whole point of this thing. But if your going for simpler. I think it would be simpler to go with a straight up machinegun. Just my thoughts on a simpler one. It would also be lighter, and more practical and use only say 30 darts a minuet defiantly enough for suppressive power. Also Lighter means you could carry more darts, for longer firing uses.

[the essence of death]

i understand this much but what i suppose im reffering to is that a larger diameter of the wheel would mean that it takes more time per revolution resulting in a lower rate of fire than a smaller diameter rotating at the same speed which is fairly simple mechanics and such although while im thinking of it if you were planning on using a variable speed drill the rate of fire could easily be adjusted on the fly by simply pulling the trigger farther back or releasing it some

[CaptainSlug]

The "simple" plan I'm working on at the moment is to make the ram-rod out of an air cylinder and have the cycle of the air cylinder controlled by two valves triggered by a cam track. It could be made with less machining time. The question on my mind is finding a valve with a high enough flow rate to act as a trigger valve for firing the darts. Most directional control or solenoid valve have pathetically low flow rates. I need to run a few tests at high pressure with the valve I have to see how well it will fire a dart. Then I need to figure out the optimum pressure and volume from which to fire a dart.

i understand this much but what i suppose im reffering to is that a larger diameter of the wheel would mean that it takes more time per revolution resulting in a lower rate of fire than a smaller diameter rotating at the same speed which is fairly simple mechanics and such although while im thinking of it if you were planning on using a variable speed drill the rate of fire could easily be adjusted on the fly by simply pulling the trigger farther back or releasing it some

No, you kind of have your theory out of wack with reality. 60 RPM is 60RPM no matter the size of what is spinning. The only variance is the relative travel speed the further away you are from the center. 60RPM would dictate the rate of fire no matter how far away from the center of rotation the barrels are.

And I don't really want the trigger to vary the rate of fire. At the moment I'm not sure what the trigger will be controlling. Whether it's an electrical trigger or a pneumatic one.

Edited by CaptainSlug, 15 August 2007 - 12:25 AM.

[rockfordnerfer]

i understand this much but what i suppose im reffering to is that a larger diameter of the wheel would mean that it takes more time per revolution resulting in a lower rate of fire than a smaller diameter rotating at the same speed which is fairly simple mechanics and such although while im thinking of it if you were planning on using a variable speed drill the rate of fire could easily be adjusted on the fly by simply pulling the trigger farther back or releasing it some

Actually, the farther out the outer edge of a wheel is, the faster a point on it moves. it will complete a rotation in the same amount of time that a point closer to the center will, but it will have moved a greater distance. this means that if you were to make a gun based on the tommy mech 20 design, and used the same motors with larger wheels, the darts would come out faster.

Edited by rockfordnerfer, 15 August 2007 - 08:09 AM.

[younggunner]

The inner point of the wheel is still spinning at the same rpm so no matter how large or small the wheel is made its rpm wont change.

[shadowkid33]

The inner point of the wheel is still spinning at the same rpm so no matter how large or small the wheel is made its rpm wont change.

Correct, but it would take less power to turn a smaller wheel, whereas a big wheel would need more power to move it, I'd imagine.

[younggunner]

Moters have two major properties rpm and tourque. RPM is its rounds per minute(obviously). Tourque in this case is basically its ability to turn larger amounts of weight. So if the motor does not have enough tourque the RPMs will slow. But if the motor has enough tourque it will be able to continue at its origional rpms without slowing.

Edited by younggunner, 17 August 2007 - 11:06 AM.

[telekinetic]

Moters have two major properties rpm and tourque. RPM is its rounds per minute(obviously). Tourque in this case is basically its ability to turn larger amounts of weight. So if the motor does not have enough tourque the RPMs will slow. But if the motor has enough tourque it will be able to continue at its origional rpms without slowing.

Motors do have two major properties, but they are Horsepower and Torque, not RPM and 'tourque'. Horsepower is a measure of a motor's ability to maintain its torque as it increases its RPM (which is Rotations per minute, not 'rounds per minute')

I'm sure CS understands both of these things completely, but I thought I'd toss this in for the benefit of the peanut gallery.

Edited by telekinetic, 17 August 2007 - 01:35 PM.

[younggunner]

Yea i had it a little bit off sorry. I was going off what i learned from airsoft forums.

[bored kid93]

The feeding system of a Minigun is extremely complex, and the main reason for multiple barrels is to prevent the awesome rate of fire ( 2000 RPM ) from melting the barrels. Why not try a design like the german MG42 ? Less difficult, but I'm guessing that the difficulty is the main motive.

Edited by bored_kid93, 20 August 2007 - 01:17 PM.

[SHADOW HUNTER ALPHA]

Why not try a design like the german MG42 ? Less difficult, but I'm guessing that the difficulty is the main motive.

That would require a belt-fed loading system, which would be difficult. Disintegrating-link belts, or even other forms of loaders will require a bolt to push darts out of the links and into the chamber, which may or may not require shells depending on your design, and will also have to expel the spent links of the belt. The belt itself also takes up space, and will still weigh something after firing, while the vacuum-loading system Slug designed for this project only needs caseless stefans, and will not use extra materials like belts.

[Grenada]

You have forgot two other advantages of belts. The reload time is increased, and loose ammo is much harder to store than ammo in belts.

[CaptainSlug]

The end goal is: being able to simply drop darts into a hopper and have the gun do the rest.
The Gatling design so far lends itself to this best because you have separate barrels at different points in the cycle loading in sequence. The rotation also simplifies the carriage of the ammunition to some degree.

I could accomplish this in a single barrel design in a semi-automatic fashion, but not in full auto. I am working on a new version of the ABP to act as a test-bed for this project.

[Z-man12]

The end goal is: being able to simply drop darts into a hopper and have the gun do the rest.
The Gatling design so far lends itself to this best because you have separate barrels at different points in the cycle loading in sequence. The rotation also simplifies the carriage of the ammunition to some degree.

I could accomplish this in a single barrel design in a semi-automatic fashion, but not in full auto. I am working on a new version of the ABP to act as a test-bed for this project.

How about just using two barrels then. If I remember the original one had four.

[CaptainSlug]

Nah, that would look weird.

[bored kid93]

Why not try a design like the german MG42 ? Less difficult, but I'm guessing that the difficulty is the main motive.

That would require a belt-fed loading system, which would be difficult. Disintegrating-link belts, or even other forms of loaders will require a bolt to push darts out of the links and into the chamber, which may or may not require shells depending on your design, and will also have to expel the spent links of the belt. The belt itself also takes up space, and will still weigh something after firing, while the vacuum-loading system Slug designed for this project only needs caseless stefans, and will not use extra materials like belts.

Ok, now I understand.

[Z-man12]

Nah, that would look weird.

Yes it would but I was trying to think up ways to make it easier to build. Thats the first thing that came to mind. You could always slap two false barrels on there.