Ordnance – Mounts – With recoil check
Reexamination Certificate
2003-02-28
2004-06-08
Eldred, J. Woodrow (Department: 3644)
Ordnance
Mounts
With recoil check
C089S177000, C042S001060
Reexamination Certificate
active
06745663
ABSTRACT:
FIELD OF THE INVENTION
This invention relates to an apparatus for mitigating the recoil of projectile-firing devices and methods thereof. More particularly, the present invention relates to utilizing friction for mitigating the recoil of projectile-firing devices designed to disarm explosives devices, commonly known in the art as an explosives disrupters. Even more particularly, the present invention relates to using friction for mitigating the recoil of projectile-firing devices attached to remote-control robots or robot arms, often used by law enforcement agencies and others for remotely disarming explosives devices.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
In any gun system, or more generally, projectile-firing device, conservation of momentum provides that the momentum carried by the projectile and the gases is equal to, but in the opposite direction of, the momentum imparted to the device. The momentum imparted to the device is, in turn, equal to the recoil force integrated over time, or the impulse. This is commonly referred to as the “kick” experienced when a device is fired. While the total amount of momentum for a given projectile fired at a given velocity cannot be changed, it can be managed. The force-time profile can be changed from a very high, short-lived force, to a longer, much lower amplitude force pulse.
Present recoil-mitigation devices utilize complex and expensive hydraulics, pneumatics, pistons, springs, friction, or some combination thereof. In addition, present devices are integral to the projectile-firing device and, therefore, not always easily or quickly adaptable to varying situations. Examples include U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,514,921 (coil spring compression), 4,656,921 (hydraulic fluid), 4,972,760 (adjustable recoil spring), 5,353,681 (recoil spring, friction, and pneumatics), and 5,617,664 (recoil spring).
In the particular case of some explosives disrupters, there may be no recoil mitigation. Disrupter devices are typically attached to a support frame mounted on the ground or mounted on a remote-controlled robot, whereby the device can be triggered from a relatively safe distance to fire a projectile into an article suspected of containing a bomb or other explosives. Such devices are generally of a single-shot design and produce a significant impulse—oftentimes sufficient to propel the support frame/robot backwards, cause it to topple over, and/or sustain significant damage. Depending upon the situation, such devices may be called upon to fire a variety of projectiles at a variety of velocities from a variety of support frame/robots. This in turn creates a variety of recoil forces requiring, in turn, a variety of recoil mitigation solutions tailored to each support frame/robot. For example, the momentum imparted to devices from a column of water, often used to disarm soft-package bombs, such as briefcase bombs, may vary from close to five pounds-force-seconds at a low velocity to over nine pounds-force-seconds at a high velocity (140 milliliter load at a velocity of 1,000 feet per second) and even as high as 12 pounds-force-seconds. It has been demonstrated that the recoil forces resulting from firing a high velocity water load reach as high as 15,000 pounds-force. Metal slugs impart momentum in the range of four pounds-force-seconds to six pounds-force-seconds.
A general rule of thumb for a device without recoil mitigation fired by a human is that the momentum should not exceed three pounds-force-seconds. By comparison, the momentum carried by a 150 grain projectile fired from a 30-06 rifle at a velocity of 2,810 feet per second is approximately 1.87 pounds-force-seconds. Thus, the momentum generated by an explosives disrupter can be relatively significant.
It is also important that the recoil system not appreciably affect the performance of the disrupter or its projectiles. Procedures have been developed over the years that allow users to successfully disrupt a variety of suspected bombs, and a recoil system that forces users to adjust techniques is not desirable.
Therefore, there is a need for a recoil-mitigation device which overcomes these disadvantages.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION
According to the present invention, a recoil mitigation apparatus and method is provided. The apparatus includes a brake assembly, comprising at least one brake shoe, adapted to enable frictional braking force to be imposed, directly or indirectly, upon a projectile-firing device, such that when the device is fired, the friction created mitigates the recoil of the device. In a preferred embodiment, the projectile-firing device is secured within a tube to form a firing assembly. The firing assembly is placed within the brake assembly, the at least one brake shoe of the brake assembly frictionally contacting the tube with force supplied by a spring-loaded clamp or similar device. The brake assembly is further restrained, for example, by a remote-control robot or robot arm, such that when the firing device is fired, the firing assembly frictionally recoils but is slideably restrained by the brake assembly, whereby the recoil force is mitigated. Although a tube is preferred, to at least protect the projectile-firing device, those skilled in the art will recognize that the projectile-firing device may be placed directly within the brake assembly and the frictional contact be applied directly to the projectile-firing device itself; for example, to the barrel.
REFERENCES:
patent: 3866724 (1975-02-01), Hollnagel
patent: 3951238 (1976-04-01), Dent et al.
patent: 4498517 (1985-02-01), Mase
patent: 4514921 (1985-05-01), Burkleca
patent: 4656921 (1987-04-01), Zierler
patent: 4709758 (1987-12-01), Preston, Jr.
patent: 4842234 (1989-06-01), Koch
patent: 4875402 (1989-10-01), Metz
patent: 4924751 (1990-05-01), Metz et al.
patent: 4972760 (1990-11-01), McDonnell
patent: 5180037 (1993-01-01), Evans
patent: 5215170 (1993-06-01), Rapa
patent: 5309817 (1994-05-01), Sims
patent: 5328180 (1994-07-01), Benavides et al.
patent: 5353681 (1994-10-01), Sugg
patent: 5617664 (1997-04-01), Troncoso
patent: 5652406 (1997-07-01), Phan
patent: 5794703 (1998-08-01), Newman et al.
patent: 6062350 (2000-05-01), Spieldiener et al.
patent: 6325148 (2001-12-01), Trahan et al.
patent: 6347505 (2002-02-01), Scheufeld
patent: 6578464 (2003-06-01), Ebersole, Jr. et al.
National Institute of Justice Final Report; Law Enforcement Robot Technology Assessment; 4.0 Validating & Prioritizing User Needs; Aug. 23, 2001; pp 1-14.
Mini De Armer Disruptor Recoilless Stand Off; RE 9-9; RE 6.1-12; Richmond EEI Limited; Armtec Estate, North Lopham, Norfolk IP22 2LR, England.
Midi De Armer Disruptor Recoilless Stand Off; RE 12-12/28; Richmond EEI LTD.; Armtec Estate, North Lopham, Norfolk IP22 2LR, England.
Maxi De Armer Disruptor Recoilless Stand Off; RE 70 M3; Richmond EEI Limited; Armtec Estate, North Lopham, Norfolk, IP22 2LR, England.
Proparms History Products Contacts News; Proparms Limited Products; Feb. 21, 2000; http://www.proparms.com/index.htm.
Ebersole Harvey N.
Mank James F.
Ratajczak Paul T.
Battelle (Memorial Institute)
Eldred J. Woodrow
Richards William B.
LandOfFree
Apparatus for mitigating recoil and method thereof does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.
If you have personal experience with Apparatus for mitigating recoil and method thereof, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Apparatus for mitigating recoil and method thereof will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-3303506