Hello- I've noticed that the Americans are starting to call what is called elsewhere an Augmentor an Ejector. Sort of like the division in root semantics that has tyre and tire or hood and bonnet.
Bangers and rashers to you all. Hank
Wordz
Moderator: Mike Everman
-
Bruno Ogorelec
- Posts: 3542
- Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2003 7:31 am
- Antipspambot question: 0
- Location: Zagreb, Croatia
Hank, the two are not the same thing. Every augmentor is an ejector, but not every ejector is an augmentor.
Ejector is any mechanism that introduces a secondary flow into a primary in order to influence it in some way, usually to increase the mass flow rate.
What we call the thrust augmentor is but one specific form of fluid ejector.
Bruno
Ejector is any mechanism that introduces a secondary flow into a primary in order to influence it in some way, usually to increase the mass flow rate.
What we call the thrust augmentor is but one specific form of fluid ejector.
Bruno
I disagree
Hello, Bruno- Both appelations apply to a device whose purpose is to increase the mass flow past the burner and exaust duct. Where do you draw a distinction between them? Are you considering active systems in your distinction?
Hank
Hank
-
Mike Kirney
- Posts: 517
- Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2003 11:11 pm
- Antipspambot question: 0
- Location: Round Lake Centre, Ontario, Canada
Ejectors and Augmentors
Perhaps an ejector is inside the duct and an augmentor is outside the duct. A Lempnor ejector on a steam locomotive is inside the smokestack and serves to increase draft through the firebox. A pulsejet augmentor is outside of the duct and serves to increase draft behind the jet.