Welcome to the Inert Ordnance Collectors.
  • Login:
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 32 of 32
  1. #31
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    wichita,ks U.S.A.
    Thanked 14 Times in 14 Posts
    I would like to say this has been a very interesting article,and apricate everybodys time and research.
    I can add from my experence on researching history for my collection and for researching on and off for a couple museums I have work at.Sometimes I have seen two different books on the same subject,with different outcomes.Even as fare has who received the pat.,( which is easey to solve ).
    So I like some of you fellows take internet research with a grain of salt,and still look for the truth.
    Again thank you all for a good informative read.

  2. #32
    Sprockets, that was of great of you to share the patent with us.
    I believe this is the nitromethane/nitroethane patent:

    PS Sorry, I just cannot help myself tonite.
    Dave ^^

    Quote Originally Posted by Sprockets View Post
    Dear pzgr40,
    Once again you excel yourself. The two items that are not mentioned in the patent are the "Arming Piston Retainer" and the "Spring Retainer". Presumably the movement of the piston that allows one component to mix with the other is slowed by viscous drag, so that it still has not completed its full stroke before ground impact. Thus the transient pressure spike that then occurs will not release the striker, due to the spring lock being active. Am I on the right track?
    V.I that Popov (Must be the only Designer to feature his designs on his Face Book) chose not to use a Binary Mixture-Perhaps he was worried about Patent Infringement!?



Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Back to top