Totally Hypothetical, probably incorrect, Shock Wave Generation Mechanism

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around generating shock waves without supersonic travel or explosions, focusing on a hypothetical setup involving a dense metal block attached to a rotating rod. The proposed system requires the rod to rotate at approximately 17,905 RPM to achieve Mach 1.1, with calculations estimating bow shock pressure around 110,000 Pa. The conversation also touches on the challenges of measuring pressure in a sealed environment and the implications of various factors affecting shock wave generation. Additionally, alternative methods for creating shock waves, such as using projectiles in water or oxy-acetylene devices, are briefly mentioned as practical approaches.
aseylys
Messages
22
Reaction score
0
So I was sitting around pondering about forces, and I found myself thinking about shock-waves. Whether they're caused by supersonic travel, or explosions, the pressure at the front of the wave-bow shock pressure is a force.

So I started thinking of a way to generate them without having to go Mach 1 or detonate something. And here is what I came up with, and please be as brutal as you want with the criticism. This is all hypothetical and done out of curiosity.

So imagine, if you will, a block .1 m x .1 m x .1 m of some super dense metal and this block weighs about .5 lbs (.2267 kg). Now imagine this block is at the end of a .1 m rod and this whole contraption rotates around the other end of the rod. (Hoping that you're still with me) This rod will need to rotate at least at 33422 RPM to go 350 m/s which is a little more than Mach 1 (v=r*RPM*.10472). Which isn't hard for today's electric motors, so let's bump it up to Mach 1.1 (so 17905 RPM).

That's the setup. Now for some more math. So going off some math off a great technical paper (linked at the bottom), I was able to calculate the bow shock pressure with some generous assumptions.

Bow Shock Pressure:
Δp=Kp*KR*√[pv*pg](M2-1)1/8he-3/4L3/4*Ks

Kp: Pressure Amplification Factor
KR: Reflection Factor (assumed 2.0)
pv: Atmospheric pressure of aircraft (Pa)
pg: Atmospheric pressure of ground (101325 Pa)
M: Mach number
he: Altitude
L: Length of object
Ks: Object shape factor

To find Ks, we have this equation:
Ks=.685*√[Ae]/(L¾*Le¼)

Ae: Effective area
L: Length
Le: Effective length

Because it's a cube, L=Le

So we get
Ks=2.166 (In that ballpark)

Now onto our assumptions, as crazy as they may be. I'm assuming that the whole system is sealed and the environment is pressurized to 3atm and we have some technology (magic?) to transfer the pressure generated in the system to the outside to be measured.

I think I've assigned all the variables except Kp and he. So without doing those we get
Δp=111244*Kp/he¾

Now, Kp is usually in the ballpark of .8-2.1 for supersonic aircraft, so that factor won't have much affect on the order of magnitude of the pressure.
he affects how the bow shock travels through the air s it's really not relevant to my system because it's closed. Unless someone can give me an idea of what to assign it, I'll just ignore it, because like Kp, it won't affect the order of magnitude much.

Wrapping this up, we have somewhere in the vicinity of 110000 Pa, which is 110000 N/m2. Supersonic aircraft are usually within 50-100 Pa, and I was trying to get as large of a pressure as possible.

Can someone comment on this, or just tell me that this idea is completely ludicrous and shut me up?

http://www.pdas.com/refs/tp1122.pdf
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Now where's the hypothetical fun in that?
 
We've done a lot of work inventing several shock wave and simulated blast wave generators.

One idea we tested was simply shooting a bullet into water. It gives a true shock wave with a repeatable peak pressure, but the shape is too poor to serve as a simulated blast wave in any practical application. It will kill fish though. It will also burst old Igloo ice chests requiring the need to mop the lab.

Most of our better simulated air blast waves use oxy-acetylene based devices. I still think projectile based devices have potential in water.
 
Thread ''splain this hydrostatic paradox in tiny words'
This is (ostensibly) not a trick shot or video*. The scale was balanced before any blue water was added. 550mL of blue water was added to the left side. only 60mL of water needed to be added to the right side to re-balance the scale. Apparently, the scale will balance when the height of the two columns is equal. The left side of the scale only feels the weight of the column above the lower "tail" of the funnel (i.e. 60mL). So where does the weight of the remaining (550-60=) 490mL go...
Consider an extremely long and perfectly calibrated scale. A car with a mass of 1000 kg is placed on it, and the scale registers this weight accurately. Now, suppose the car begins to move, reaching very high speeds. Neglecting air resistance and rolling friction, if the car attains, for example, a velocity of 500 km/h, will the scale still indicate a weight corresponding to 1000 kg, or will the measured value decrease as a result of the motion? In a second scenario, imagine a person with a...
Scalar and vector potentials in Coulomb gauge Assume Coulomb gauge so that $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A}=0.\tag{1}$$ The scalar potential ##\phi## is described by Poisson's equation $$\nabla^2 \phi = -\frac{\rho}{\varepsilon_0}\tag{2}$$ which has the instantaneous general solution given by $$\phi(\mathbf{r},t)=\frac{1}{4\pi\varepsilon_0}\int \frac{\rho(\mathbf{r}',t)}{|\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r}'|}d^3r'.\tag{3}$$ In Coulomb gauge the vector potential ##\mathbf{A}## is given by...

Similar threads

Back
Top