Without spending the time to model it, I expect the foam is far safer due to its compressability in comparison to liquids.Quote:
Originally Posted by C Ward
It'd be interesting to see though.
Printable View
Without spending the time to model it, I expect the foam is far safer due to its compressability in comparison to liquids.Quote:
Originally Posted by C Ward
It'd be interesting to see though.
Anything that is going to stick around for 6 months is going to have more consistency than " foam " and with the muzzle pressures generated with centerfire rifle cans no thanks . Pretty sure no suppressor MFG is going to warranty a split centerfire rifle can that has been run wet especially since most tell you not to do it .
Probably works fine in rimfire and pistol cans but so does water and most other liquid .
Water is about 62 lb/cf, air is about 0.07 lb/cf. Polyurethane foam is about 1 to 1.5 lb/cf (just for reference). There are numerous industrial foams with densities in the range of 0.15 to 1.0 lb/cf. All foams are compressible and are modeled closer to air than water in the field of Fluid Dynamics. There are in fact water soluble foams that can maintain a structure when desiccated of a carrier that have extremely low densities. I ran a few brief analytical models with some assumptions using high temperature flow models like I used to evaluate compensator performance.
It is very probable that this stuff can work if properly formulated and result in the same, more or less pressure to the baffles and shell of a suppressor. Collapsing the pockets robs energy and I was able to find several references to foams that would certainly do that and be a candidate for this application. That is not an endorsement, but I would not say that comparing it with the traditional notion of running a suppressor "wet" is valid.
Shane's response verbatim , Wow, dB foam, gonna have to get some of that. , I know how this was meant to be taken but take it for what you will