Pressure Gain Combustion (Now Proven)

Jets that defy normal classification

Moderator: Mike Everman

Post Reply
luc
Posts: 761
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2003 5:05 pm
Antipspambot question: 125
Location: Quebec, Canada

Pressure Gain Combustion (Now Proven)

Post by luc » Tue Jul 29, 2008 1:55 pm

Greetings guys,

This is what I ment when asked for a new section in the forum ...

The movie shows one of our PulseRam engine coupled with a turbo.

Please note the fact that this setup requires not starter or compressed air or any other means to start the assembly. Just plain ignition using a 9 volts battery and fuel ON ... And the thing is runing.

Up to now, I was able to do as many starts as I wanted, performed long runs to see if the turbo was capable of taking the heat without any "Bypass" and it does, the oil temperature never exceeded 127°F and we were able to reach above 5000 rpm easyly and although the engine is much to small for this turbo.

This was just a test to prove the concept and now we are at the point of optimizing the assembly so we can reach above 45,000 rpm or the 90,000 rpm like this turbo can.

Now, I think this is a significant advancement for put a gear box to this and one can only start imagining the numerous possible applications.

No starters, no batteries, no compressed or leef blowers and/or nothing else required ... Just plain ignition and fuel ... And still at 120 dbA.

Hope you like this,

Regards,
Attachments

[The extension wmv has been deactivated and can no longer be displayed.]

Luc
Designer & Inventor

Mike Everman
Posts: 4905
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2003 7:25 am
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: santa barbara, CA
Contact:

Re: Pressure Gain Combustion (Now Proven)

Post by Mike Everman » Tue Jul 29, 2008 2:28 pm

That is fantastic, Luc! A larger motor would be even more interesting. I expect it won't be as easy when the turbo represents more impedance to the motor. Very nice work!
Mike
__________________________
Follow my technical science blog at: http://mikeeverman.com/
Get alerts for the above on twitter at: http://twitter.com/mikeeverman

luc
Posts: 761
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2003 5:05 pm
Antipspambot question: 125
Location: Quebec, Canada

Re: Pressure Gain Combustion (Now Proven)

Post by luc » Tue Jul 29, 2008 5:17 pm

That is fantastic[/code]

I know ... :D
Luc! A larger motor would be even more interesting
Coming-up ... be patient ... He he he.
I expect it won't be as easy
And why not ???? ... It's always easy when you stay away from "Complicated" solutions. Having seen how the first tests went, I don't expect any problems with this combination. They only thing one must remember, is 1) Move slowly forward and don't burn steps, 2) Don't try to change the "World" in one shot ... But do single and small changes with success before moving to the next step.
When the turbo represents more impedance to the motor
Well .. If by "Impedance" you mean "Resistance"??? (Keep it simple Mike, talk backyard not NASA ... He he he) My answer is; Don't try to have a mouse swallow a 16 onces Steak in one meal. I was more concerned about the natural resonant frequency of the turbine it self, especially knowing that its frequency is always changing while power increases, but as it turned out to be (Must admit I did some test before) both the turbo and PulseRam works marvelously together. Of coarse, there is a bit of tricks, trade and knowledge behind all this.
Very nice work!
Thanks Mike ... :D :D :D

I just had this idea in mind :idea: for ages but just waited the proper timing to put this project forward :arrow: and now we are there ...

Watch the next episodes for I will honor my reputation not to waist time over useless details and progress in the most rapid manner ... As always.

Regards,
Luc
Designer & Inventor

Irvine.J
Posts: 1063
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 4:28 pm
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Contact:

Re: Pressure Gain Combustion (Now Proven)

Post by Irvine.J » Tue Jul 29, 2008 6:34 pm

Forgive me on this one luc, but I have to ask...

I have my reservations in the actual development of pressure gain within the turbine from your setup there.
Do you have any thermodynamic result backed independent proof that you are in fact achieving pressure gain, as what I think you
have there is a really nice and easy way of starting a turbine from the propane pressure in the bottle, not a pressure gain combustor.

I think M and others might actually agree with me here, but I'll wait for them to comment... Some one needs to be the devils advocate, keepin' it real so to speak.

Can you give us any proof cause its a really big development?
Cheers mate,
Regards,
James.
James- Image KEEPING IT REAL SINCE 1982
http://pulseairdefence.com
[url=callto://project42labs]Image[/url]

hinote
Posts: 1241
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2003 1:54 am
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: Central California

Re: Pressure Gain Combustion (Now Proven)

Post by hinote » Tue Jul 29, 2008 6:42 pm

luc wrote:Greetings guys,

This is what I ment when asked for a new section in the forum ...

The movie shows one of our PulseRam engine coupled with a turbo.
I hope I'm not being a "wet blanket" here.

This is a nice effort, and may prove to be a useful development.

I believe it's incorrect to use the term "pressure-gain combustor" on this, in the current popular definition of the term. You haven't placed your PulseRam engine between the compressor outlet and the turbine inlet, so it doesn't qualify as such. In a pressure-gain configuration the pressure would be raised to a higher level by your PulseRam than the compressor alone would have created. I hope I'm not wrong here--but the visual evidence of the compressor discharge in the vid clip is the basis for my statements.

A true PG configuration is very difficult to achieve due to the new operating parameters created for all the participating components. It's not just bolting in a PJ (or a PulseRam) I'm afraid.

Again, a great effort. Maybe we should call it a "PulseRam-driven freepower turbine", or something similar.
Bill H.
Acoustic Propulsion Concepts

".......some day soon we'll be flying airplanes powered by pulsejets."

luc
Posts: 761
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2003 5:05 pm
Antipspambot question: 125
Location: Quebec, Canada

Re: Pressure Gain Combustion (Now Proven)

Post by luc » Tue Jul 29, 2008 7:19 pm

Irvine.J wrote:Forgive me on this one luc, but I have to ask...

I have my reservations in the actual development of pressure gain within the turbine from your setup there.
Do you have any thermodynamic result backed independent proof that you are in fact achieving pressure gain ...
Honestly ... I am "Amazed" that you are asking ... Truely ... I am :?:

But for your knowledge, I will tell you this ... "Pressure Gain" is or can be defined as "Any pressure above ambient resulting from a process".

Some fill up tanks with air using pumps "To Gain pressure and volume", some puts fuel in a Jam Jar and lite it so the combustion achieves a "Gain" in "Pressure" to do what ever they want (Blow them self up if they wish too) and some builds little pulse jets fed with fuel and ignited to generate "Gain" of "Pressure", velocity and thrust.

Any engines you might think of (Pulse jets, PDE, pressure jets, jet engines, Ram Jet, Scram Jets, Gas turbines, Jam Jars ... Name it we call it) achieves pressure gain by means of combustion.

Now ... What you do with it is all up to you ... And YES, I have thermodynamic analysis done using our software and showing "Pressure Gain".

Anyway ... I will leave the theories for you ... And proceeds with our goals.

Regards,
Luc
Designer & Inventor

luc
Posts: 761
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2003 5:05 pm
Antipspambot question: 125
Location: Quebec, Canada

Re: Pressure Gain Combustion (Now Proven)

Post by luc » Tue Jul 29, 2008 7:39 pm

I believe it's incorrect to use the term "pressure-gain combustor" on this, in the current popular definition of the term. You haven't placed your PulseRam engine between the compressor outlet and the turbine inlet, so it doesn't qualify as such. In a pressure-gain configuration the pressure would be raised to a higher level by your PulseRam than the compressor alone would have created.
And may I ask who the hell here ... Has decided and/or defined that "Ambient pressure or our good old planet atmospheric process" RULES Out ...

This is exactly what I meant when I said :
1- First test (Do you really think I will not go to the step of inducing compressor air into the engine????).
2- Keep this simple and move step by step (Many guys here RUNS straight towards Wanky Wanky out of space complexe mathematical theories before learning to walk).

Heart Ambient pressure is 14.7 psi., the Moon is 0 psi. and our engines increases ambient pressure to higher levels.

To come back on the subject of "Your PulseRam is not between the compressor", I will comment this by saying that my posting was to "Share knowledge" and not to "Please the audience" for I will proceed to achieves our corporation's commercial goals. But be patient for we will come to the point of "Putting our engine in between compressor and turbine" but only when GLC and time will call for this.

It is to often a bad habit to look 20 miles ahead ... When answers and solutions are stuck to the one's nose.

Remember this ... Complexe wanky wanky difinitions, calculations and theories means nothing for me for only plain results and achievments does.

Regards,
Luc
Designer & Inventor

luc
Posts: 761
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2003 5:05 pm
Antipspambot question: 125
Location: Quebec, Canada

Re: Pressure Gain Combustion (Now Proven)

Post by luc » Tue Jul 29, 2008 7:48 pm

Anyway ...

Just to put my above posting in perspective ... This was done on a "Sharing" basis and not for "Debating" purposes.

Anyone here has the freedom to interprate, understand or see this (Name it) how he feels and it won't change our positions, purposes, goals and achievments.

Please remember that it has been ages since I came here saying "Help", but mostly saying "Heyyyy ... Have a look at this".

Thanks for your encouraging comments Mike ... We will proceed and keep Pulse-Jets.com informed.

Regards,
Luc
Designer & Inventor

Mike Everman
Posts: 4905
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2003 7:25 am
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: santa barbara, CA
Contact:

Re: Pressure Gain Combustion (Now Proven)

Post by Mike Everman » Tue Jul 29, 2008 11:51 pm

Thanks for the look. I think we've all wanted to drive a turbine with a pjet, and you've done it.
Mike
__________________________
Follow my technical science blog at: http://mikeeverman.com/
Get alerts for the above on twitter at: http://twitter.com/mikeeverman

luc
Posts: 761
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2003 5:05 pm
Antipspambot question: 125
Location: Quebec, Canada

Re: Pressure Gain Combustion (Now Proven)

Post by luc » Wed Jul 30, 2008 12:52 pm

Mike Everman wrote:Thanks for the look. I think we've all wanted to drive a turbine with a pjet, and you've done it.
Indeed Mike ... Indeed :wink:

There are no secrets in doing what we have done for I saw numerous postings on the subjects and there are no claims in the above for we will only stick to what we claim with the PulseRam it self.

It was obvious that one day someone would venture into such projet using the prefered engine. The only difference with us doing this comes from the fact that we are using our engines which obviously, offers some advantages such as lower noise level, autonomous starting and exemption of moving parts.

Anyway ... I am happy :D to see you're enjoying such project and progress for everyone will gain with this :wink:

Thanks and regards,
Luc
Designer & Inventor

luc
Posts: 761
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2003 5:05 pm
Antipspambot question: 125
Location: Quebec, Canada

Re: Pressure Gain Combustion (Now Proven)

Post by luc » Wed Aug 13, 2008 7:42 pm

Greetings guys,

Hear this ... he he he ... :D

Did another test today using a smaller turbo for our small engine and guess what ....

Above 95,000 rpm ...

And this ... Not even being at full power. At engine Idle power, the turbo turns apprx. 50,000 rmp and I reached above 95,000 only at 50% engine power.

Tomorow I will do other tests to records temp., noise, rpm readings and will push that turbo to engine maximum power ... he he he ... Hope the turbo won't blow-up for it is rated to a max. of 115,000 rpm. Our tubo expert guy who's working with us on this, believe that with our engine, this turbo will break a speed reccord for its kind and model.

Anyway, will bring you a nice movie of this tomorow ...

He he he ... Yessssssssss ... 95,000 rpm ....... :lol: :D :mrgreen:

Regards,
Luc
Designer & Inventor

Mike Everman
Posts: 4905
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2003 7:25 am
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: santa barbara, CA
Contact:

Re: Pressure Gain Combustion (Now Proven)

Post by Mike Everman » Wed Aug 13, 2008 9:10 pm

Question now is, how to get a load on it so you can get torque vs. rpm.
You could leave the compressor half on there and put a gate valve on it's output, then sense the torque that the housing sees. Poor man's high speed dynamometer.
Mike
__________________________
Follow my technical science blog at: http://mikeeverman.com/
Get alerts for the above on twitter at: http://twitter.com/mikeeverman

luc
Posts: 761
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2003 5:05 pm
Antipspambot question: 125
Location: Quebec, Canada

Re: Pressure Gain Combustion (Now Proven)

Post by luc » Wed Aug 13, 2008 10:08 pm

Mike Everman wrote:Question now is, how to get a load on it so you can get torque vs. rpm.
You could leave the compressor half on there and put a gate valve on it's output, then sense the torque that the housing sees. Poor man's high speed dynamometer.
Well ... The first goal here, is to take part of the compressor's air and send it to the turbine side to first, drop the temperature and second, to increase mass, pressure and then speed.

The other part of that compressor's air will be used for our application's need.

As for "Torque", we already have plans to hook-up the compressor's shaft at a reduction gearbox for other use we have planned.

I know you're a wise guy Mike and already figured out where we are going with all this :idea: ... He he he ... :lol:

For this new unit will be capable not only to suply "Direct" and "Indirect heat", but also rotational torque all at once and in one single unit.

And maybe later ... We will think of putting a Prop on this thing ... he he he :lol: :wink: Which would shure make a very simple and low cost turboprop ... :lol: ... Especially for UAVs.

But all this said, I think that 95,000 rpm clearly validates "Pressure Gain Combustion" ... No arguments about it.

Regards,
Luc
Designer & Inventor

luc
Posts: 761
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2003 5:05 pm
Antipspambot question: 125
Location: Quebec, Canada

Re: Pressure Gain Combustion (Now Proven)

Post by luc » Wed Aug 13, 2008 10:11 pm

Hooo ... By the way Mike,

Did one little test a few minutes ago and with more power ...

Got to 117,000 rpm ... And then ... I got scared ... :shock:

Tomorow ... I will put the "Scared" away and crank this thing to MAX. :twisted:

Cya,
Luc
Designer & Inventor

Mike Everman
Posts: 4905
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2003 7:25 am
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: santa barbara, CA
Contact:

Re: Pressure Gain Combustion (Now Proven)

Post by Mike Everman » Wed Aug 13, 2008 10:35 pm

To my way of thinking, running it without load is a "yes, but why?" And why risk your turbine at this point? A simple dyno can tell you what power you have to work with at some throttle level, and then it's easy generating a power curve. Having the compressor on there, and restricting the output of that will let you read torque at rpm. Torque can be read at the compressor housing with literally a torque wrench, if the housing is free to rotate a small angle (though you probably already have a torque transducer, don't you?), and you already have RPM.
Personally, I'd want to know that before spending any time at all on a gearbox.
Mike
__________________________
Follow my technical science blog at: http://mikeeverman.com/
Get alerts for the above on twitter at: http://twitter.com/mikeeverman

Post Reply