SpudFiles

After reading this post yesterday http://www.spudfiles.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5070&
It got me thinking it would be pretty cool having a new kind of combustion
So after looking under my bed for bits i came up with these two simple designs....

click for clearer image
<img src="http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q291 ... oxguns.jpg" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting">

So pretty much co-ax combustions? Thats pretty cool. I was thinking about a co-ax hybrid but i don't plan on making it very soon or at all.

Does anyone remember that little issue of DTD in long chambers? Plus, I don't think the geometry is ideal for a flame front. You'd need a longer barrel to use the smoother pressure peak efficiently anyway.
Also, I do believe the spark should be in the front. Makes more sense to have the flame travel "with the wind". Or maybe the geometry would actually speed up the combustion. This needs further investigation, for sure.
Like others said, why don't just use an over-under design?

well it looks pretty sweet. hope you make one . i have actually wondered why anyone hadnt even thought of it, hmm maybe no one said anyting lol.i dont see why it woudn't work its just like makin a air powered one with a piston or diaphram.

They suck. I've made one and getting the mix right is a royal pain.

And this design actually makes it more difficult to carry. It weighs a ton more.

I don’t think it would weigh that much and to fix the flame front crap just rig up a camera stun gun with dual ignition.

<img src="http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q291 ... /stun1.jpg" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting">

(i know picture is a bit crap leave me alone)

The "flame front crap" is the heart and soul of any combustion spudgun. It is not to be taken lightly.
If Gort says they suck, I tend to believe him.

i know when i am beaten

oh well, back to the drawing bord

btw thanks for the advice and help