Ordnance – Mounts – With recoil check
Reexamination Certificate
2003-02-28
2004-09-14
Eldred, J. Woodrow (Department: 3644)
Ordnance
Mounts
With recoil check
C089S177000, C042S001060, C188S136000, C188S15100A, C188S25000B
Reexamination Certificate
active
06789456
ABSTRACT:
FIELD OF THE INVENTION
This invention relates to brake assemblies and methods of braking objects having an axis moving in a lateral direction and to brake assemblies and methods of braking rotating objects. More generally, this invention relates to assemblies and methods of absorbing energy, particularly high-impulse energy.
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 gun 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 disrupter devices for de-arming explosives devices, 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 explosive. 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 the device from a column of water, often used to disarm soft-package bombs such as suspected briefcase bombs, may vary from close to 5 pounds-force-seconds at a low velocity to over 9 pounds-force-seconds at a high velocity (140 milliliter load at a velocity of 1000 feet per second) and even as high as 12 pounds-force-seconds. Metal slugs impart momentum in the range of 4 pounds-force-seconds to 6 pounds-force-seconds.
A general rule of thumb for a weapon without recoil mitigation fired by a human is that the momentum should not exceed 3 pounds-force-seconds. By comparison, the momentum carried by a 150 grain projectile fired from a 30-06 rifle at a velocity of 2810 feet per second is approximately 1.87 pounds-force-seconds. Thus, the momentum generated by an explosives disrupter can be relatively significant.
Therefore, there is a need for a recoil-mitigation device which overcomes these disadvantages.
In addition to recoil mitigation, passive devices and methods which mitigate the motion of high-impulse systems in general and which spread the total momentum of such impulses over a longer period of time, thus reducing the peak force experienced by the support apparatus, could prove quite useful.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION
According to the present invention, a braking system is provided. The assembly includes at least one brake shoe, but preferably a pair of brake shoes, adapted to be interposed in a free space between a tube and an object whose motion is to be mitigated, the object being positioned coaxially within the tube. In the situation of mitigating linear motion, the brake shoes are laterally restrained relative to either the tube or the object, whereby when the object is subjected to an impulse, urging means, such as springs, create friction between the brake shoes and either the object or the tube respectively and the motion of the object is mitigated. Thus, it will be understood by those skilled in the art that the movement of the brake shoes may be first laterally restrained relative to the object and apply sliding friction to the inner surface of the tube. In the alternative, the brake shoes may be laterally restrained relative to the tube and apply sliding friction to the outer surface of the object. As it will be further understood by those skilled in the art, in the situation of mitigating rotational motion, the movement of the brake shoes may be first rotationally restrained relative to the object, or, in the alternative, rotationally restrained relative to the tube.
In a preferred embodiment of the present invention, the object is adapted to include a pair of flanges around the outer surface of the object. The flanges are in a facing, spaced-apart relationship such that a pair of substantially semi-cylindrical brake shoes is accommodated therebetween in a nesting position preventing lateral movement of the brake shoes relative to the object while allowing the brake shoes to move radially relative to the object. Coil or other suitable springs are provided between the edges of each brake shoe wherein the brake shoes are urged in a direction toward the inner surface of the tube. When the object-brake shoe-coil spring combination is positioned coaxially within an elongated tube and the object subjected to an impulse, the springs urge the brake shoes against the inner surface of the tube creating friction and thus the linear motion of the object is mitigated. A variety of springs and/or spacers to foreshorten the springs provides the flexibility needed to match the friction to a variety of mitigation needs.
Accordingly, the principle object of the present invention is to provide a friction brake motion mitigation apparatus that is readily adapted to a variety of supports, objects, and impulses for mitigating the motion of objects. Further objects, advantages, and novel aspects of the present invention will become apparent from a consideration of the drawings and subsequent detailed description.
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 6.7-12; 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.
Programs History Products Contacts News; Proparms Limited Products; Feb. 21, 2000; http://www.proparms.com/index.htm.
DeRoos Bradley G.
Ebersole, Jr. Harvey N.
Battelle (Memorial Institute)
Eldred J. Woodrow
Richards William B.
LandOfFree
Braking system does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.
If you have personal experience with Braking system, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Braking system will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-3206749