Over pressure generated when firing the M1 Tank?
963225
Not sure, but it's actually pretty negligible. Even when you're firing the main gun while "buttoned up", your ears don't even pop.
81481
Hard to say without a picture or to see the process. Gas pressure? Wind? Contaminants in the metal? Wrong gas mixture?\nHere's a couple of links that may help..
869876
.  Such a gun would be difficult or impossible to make.  Friction with the other air would cause your project stream flow to become turbulent very quickly.  Special nozzle design could improve the length over which the high pressure flow held together, but getting the flow to hold together for 20 nozzle diameters would be something which has never yet been accomplished.  That would mean that a 1 inch diameter nozzle would produce a flow which was no longer tightly focused 20 inches from the gun.  And, to produce such a high pressure with any useful amount of air, the gun would have to have a very heavy walled pressure tank.  \n.  Where air charge guns are used to some effect, the inoculation of large groups of people, like in the Army, pressurized air is supplied by a hose from an air compressor or a pressurized air tank.  This is not a very portable system.
1085954
I think the above person is correct is the physics, elementary as it may be. However there is no engineering insight present what so ever.  Despite the engr smarts remark. Though he did say "a little" engr smarts. An overstatement.  4 atmospheres is very very common (14.7psi/atm  x 4atm =58 psi) so pressure obviously is not going to be an issue. The issue is a challenge. Without the help of a processor, how do you open the supply and exhaust valves 8.33 times per second? 2 supply and 2 exhaust valves must actuate 8.33 times per second. That’s pretty quick. A PLC could do it of course. But it costs money, as stated. Perhaps you could use a cam system where each cam opens each respective valve at the appropriate time. Then all you have to control is the speed of the camshaft. The 4/2 valve ought to do the trick. As long as it can handle the duty cycle.
187047
YOu *might* be thinking of the Sherman Tank, used in WWII and named after William Tecumseh Sherman, a US civil war general.  Not a water tank, though, a real tank, the kind that rolls along and blows you up.
603072
they make the seals for connection points such as where the tank and the gun connect.  they prevent leaks so you dont have to keep refilling you tank every other game or so
11046
Gun ammunition holds explosive charge INSIDE the cartridge.  When the hammer on the firearm hits the rear of the cartridge, the charge is ignited, and the bullet is propelled forward.\n\nAs long as the cartridge is waterproof, the pistol should fire fine if it got wet.  Here are two sites that mention that [seem to imply] that cartridges are generally waterproof:\nhttp://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/425/425lect06.htm\nhttp://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/bullets.htm\n\nAs for firing underwater, it would probably depend on the gun.  They're not specifically designed for the resistance that a gun barrel filled with water would give, but remember that bullets are designed to create force primarily along the forward axis, not sideways.  I'd imagine that modern gun barrels are strong enough to handle an underwater shot, though you'd get an enormous kickback from the resistance.\n\nNote that I'm no gun expert, but I think the notions about guns not firing when wet and exploding underwater are based on older-style weapons.  When you pour dry gunpowder into a musket, it's exposed to the weather, and wouldn't ignite if it got wet.  And it's explosive force is outward, and so if the barrel has slight resistance, it might just explode.\n\n\nEdited To Add:\n[Here's a cool explanation of some testing of underwater shooting.  In short: the guns fired fine, no damage to the guns, though the cartridges jammed after firing.  Your mileage may vary.]\nhttp://www.loadammo.com/Topics/May02.htm
809445
The air inside the baloon is compressed, because of its containmentt inside the stressed rubber. (You need to blow to fill a baloon). When the rubber is split, the air expands rapidly to equal the surrounding pressure. This rapid expansion propogates outward, causing tha bang.\n\nget it???\nplzz select as a best answer
936113
I'm on a destroyer and we have had our CIWS train on seagulls before.  Ha!  Yours is probably a Block 1B or greater, and has probably had some software upgrades that will enable it to track objects that small.  When you consider that it's designed to counter antiship cruise missiles (the nose-on aspect of which is only slightly larger than a mortar round) you shouldn't have much to worry about as far as the radar.  From my experience though, it's a really buggy system especially if you have the pneumatic drive vice the hydraulic system.  You get 4500 rounds a minute, but the tradeoff is less reliability.  What's more important?  Keep your head down out there, dude.
276284
The answer to that question depends on many factors.  However the military practices this phenom daily.  each element has a combustion point.  Freashman Physics does not delve into the properties of air friction as it relates to projectile motion.   \n\nnow for the basic answer.  I will leave the details for you to research.  Understanding science is much superior to being given a fish.\n\nTracer rounds in in military machine gunds are composed of standard bullets whose tips are coated with Phosphorous.  the are inserted every fourth round but when fired the velocity of round, its surface area, and the friction due to  air cause a net resultant heat that surpasses the combustion pint of Phosphorus.  My spelling sucks but hopefully my theory is sound.
967963
Either air pressure, or fluid pressure on a fluid present in the cylinder.
299305
Bad powder load.\n\nUsually not enough powder -- the projectile could get stuck in the barrel causing excessive pressure and the barrel to burst or bulge. DO NOT ATTEMPT TO CLEAR IT BY FIRING AGAIN!!!\n\nMay also mean too much also called a "hot" load - too much could cause too much pressure in the barrel and cause it to burst or bulge.\n\nBe Safe!
59800
There are two issues at hand.  One is energy.  The other is momentum transfer.  \n\nHere are some muzzle energy for factory loads of the two rounds.\n\n30-30 factory loads:\n150 grain round - 2,390 fps - 1,902 ft. lbs energy\n170 grain round - 2,200 fps - 1,827 ft. lbs energy\n\n7mm factory loads:\n140 grain round - 3,400 fps - 3,593 ft. lbs energy\n160 grain round - 3,200 fps - 3,637 ft. lbs energy\n\nThe 7mm clearly has the uupper hand here.  However, that energy needs to be delivered to the deer to be effective.  Or more correctly, the momentum of the round needs to be transfered to the deer. \n\nThis is where, for example, hollow points are preferable to full metal jackets.  The hollow point will cause the bullet to mushroom giving it better momentum transfer properties (and therefore knockdown power).  FMJ rounds tend to go straight through causing somewhat less damage because of less momentum transfer.\n\nYou want a careful balance here.  Too much energy in too small an animal will make things, let us say, much messier.  All you want is a clean take.
413225
It is possible to shoot blanks through the short barrel but It is not recommended.  The pressure is higher in the short barrel than the long barrel and can damage the internal workings of the weapon.
126621
Unnecessary pressure.
1068344
The U.S.'s M1A2 Abrahms tank. The tank has a 120mm. gun and is the most technologically advanced tank in the world. The Abrahms was designed to destroy Russian Tanks.
47693
M1 Abrams is USA MBT (Main Battle Tank), of course it have better armor and better firepower. M2 Bradley only have a single 25mm machinegun, another machinegun placed coaxially and several TOWs missile (more later variant carry less missiles) meanwhile M1 have a 12.7mm machinegun, two 7.62mm machinegun and one 105 mm rifled tank gun (for original M1) or 120 mm smoothbore gun (for M1A1 & M1A2) that able to shoot many type of shells. Obviously, M1 have better accuracy than M2 (M1 have better aiming equipment), considering M1 main role (M2 is APC, not MBT). M2 was created because the existing APC at that time can't compete with M1 speed, hindering M1 overall movement. So using M1 base, they create M2, APC version of M1.\n\nSo, M1 absolutely tougher and have more firepower than M2. And they both have the same speed. And for reliable, as they have different role (MBT and APC), I can't say which is better. But one thing for sure, M2 isn't bad because their survivability rate is very high.\n\nOf course, in battle, I feel a lot safer in M1 than in M2. But if I can choose, I definitely want to be inside Merkava Mk-IV, it's the best MBT in this world (of course, it's more superior than M1 Abrams).