Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Ryujin
Yeah, looking at my figures I was over assuming the energy needed, in all reality if a battery or power cell has enough energy to power a flash bulb it's got more then enough to spark the propellant. ETC is still going to need a little more since its propellant is inert. Oh well, the more data points I get the more correct my models are going to be.
|
I think there may be some confusion here.
Electrical-ignition guns like the Voere VEC91 or the Armat M41A have chemical propellant and a primer. The difference is that the primer is designed to be ignited electrically, rather than by a firing pin. This doesn't take much power: the trick is to require enough that the primers don't get set off by static electricity. You don't need enough electrical power to ignite the propellant directly.
The M41A being caseless doesn't change this very much. The propellant is a solid block glued to the projectile, and the primer is embedded in or glued to the rear of the propellant. At least, that's that way the H&K G11 worked, and it's the best example we have.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ultra-Tech p139
Electrothermal-Chemical
(ETC) (TL9-10)
These weapons augment chemical energy with electri-
cal power. A controlled plasma burn provides a smoother
and more complete utilization of propellant, increasing
the projectile velocity without a significant increase in
recoil.
|
The electrical power is enough to alter the burning conditions for the propellant, but the chemical energy from the propellant is still important.