(.7+1.
/2=1.25 So arithmetic mean is only .25 atm over ambient, or less than 4 psi. I did another calc some time ago, and 5 psig came out of that, as I recall.Pressure Gain Combustion (Now Proven)
Moderator: Mike Everman
-
Mike Everman
- Posts: 4969
- Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2003 7:25 am
- Antipspambot question: 0
- Location: santa barbara, CA
- Contact:
Re: Pressure Gain Combustion (Now Proven)
As to calculating pulse jet pressure, Luc. Just quick idea would be the RMS over ambient, from an estimated .7 atm to 1.8 atm would get you in the ballpark, though the game changes with back pressure, right? I'm not sure it's RMS or just arithmetic mean, come to think of it, but the two should bound the problem.
(.7+1./2=1.25 So arithmetic mean is only .25 atm over ambient, or less than 4 psi. I did another calc some time ago, and 5 psig came out of that, as I recall.
(.7+1.
/2=1.25 So arithmetic mean is only .25 atm over ambient, or less than 4 psi. I did another calc some time ago, and 5 psig came out of that, as I recall.Mike Often wrong, never unsure.
__________________________
__________________________
Re: Pressure Gain Combustion (Now Proven)
Hi again John ...
Here is my answer to all you have posted above ....
Yes ... Yes ... True ... Probably ... I hear you ... Correct ... You're right ... or Probably very close if not ...
I fully acknowledge what you say and your knowledge for the matter and I am reading and hearing you loud and clear budy ...
I am just not there yet for you and I seems to have a totally different way to work or progress and there is probably 300 subjects or issues in what we wrote above.
Lets put it this way ... I probably am a very very very slow and cautious guys to progress most of the time (And maybe stupid also and often ...
) ... I really don't like to burn steps and/or scared like shit to do so, therefore, I do crawl first, then walk and later run.
All this is like a Puzzle ... One piece at the time and double check if at the right spot for sometime, puzzle pieces look alike.
Lets go easy for now for we will sure cross all the above roads in all Due times ...
I told you above ... I am not in Fu***** the lady before getting her naked and warmed-up ... He he he ...
Keep writting budy ... I hear you ...
Regards,
Okey John ... There is something your obviously not getting budy.I wish Luc all the best with his efforts , I hope he succeeds , but at present I see some glaring fundemental mistakes being made , which if he'd like some imput from me to help rectify , I'd be only too happy to give , having already walked some way along the road he's on)
Here is my answer to all you have posted above ....
Yes ... Yes ... True ... Probably ... I hear you ... Correct ... You're right ... or Probably very close if not ...
I fully acknowledge what you say and your knowledge for the matter and I am reading and hearing you loud and clear budy ...
I am just not there yet for you and I seems to have a totally different way to work or progress and there is probably 300 subjects or issues in what we wrote above.
Lets put it this way ... I probably am a very very very slow and cautious guys to progress most of the time (And maybe stupid also and often ...
) ... I really don't like to burn steps and/or scared like shit to do so, therefore, I do crawl first, then walk and later run.All this is like a Puzzle ... One piece at the time and double check if at the right spot for sometime, puzzle pieces look alike.
Lets go easy for now for we will sure cross all the above roads in all Due times ...
I told you above ... I am not in Fu***** the lady before getting her naked and warmed-up ... He he he ...
Keep writting budy ... I hear you ...
Regards,
Luc
Designer & Inventor
Designer & Inventor
-
racketmotorman
- Posts: 503
- Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 11:11 pm
- Antipspambot question: 0
- Location: Australia
Re: Pressure Gain Combustion (Now Proven)
Hi Luc
Now just calm down .............ego is such a destructive emotion when combined with intellect
(
When I wrote ...........
"Myself also being a direct guy, can only say that ,from the comments you've made so far you know very little about turbine engines , either 1 or 2 shafters"
......I was refering to your comments earlier in the thread about there being a pressure rise in the combustors of turbine engines , everyone knows theres normally a ~5-8% pressure drop across the combustor , if there was a pressure rise , flow reversal would occur , and thats surge , something to be avoided at all cost ,.........which you would undoubtedly know from your extensive test cell experiences .
There was also another comment about hanging onto the prop of a PT6 engine to heat it up quickly , a comment which I could "dissect", but won't , to save you your embarrassment .
As for my playing with an axial setup vs your "impellor"(radial inflow turbine wheel) , anyone who has had your vast range of experience would appreciate the similarities , as well as the differences , and be able to compensate accordingly .
There are undoubtedly more examples I could find , but 3 should suffice to justify my comment that you know "bugger all about turbines" , lets be honest here)
Just because one works with turbines , doesn't mean one understands them , or how they will behave when used "out of context"
None of us knows everything !!
You're in the extremely fortunate position of using a reportedly well sorted gas producer and supposedly having extensive knowledge of its workings , unlike my amateurish concoction .
Good luck with the development ..........you'll need it , ..........LOL....I'm a lot further along "that road" than you can imagine
)
Cheers
John
Now just calm down .............ego is such a destructive emotion when combined with intellect
(When I wrote ...........
"Myself also being a direct guy, can only say that ,from the comments you've made so far you know very little about turbine engines , either 1 or 2 shafters"
......I was refering to your comments earlier in the thread about there being a pressure rise in the combustors of turbine engines , everyone knows theres normally a ~5-8% pressure drop across the combustor , if there was a pressure rise , flow reversal would occur , and thats surge , something to be avoided at all cost ,.........which you would undoubtedly know from your extensive test cell experiences .
There was also another comment about hanging onto the prop of a PT6 engine to heat it up quickly , a comment which I could "dissect", but won't , to save you your embarrassment .
As for my playing with an axial setup vs your "impellor"(radial inflow turbine wheel) , anyone who has had your vast range of experience would appreciate the similarities , as well as the differences , and be able to compensate accordingly .
There are undoubtedly more examples I could find , but 3 should suffice to justify my comment that you know "bugger all about turbines" , lets be honest here
)Just because one works with turbines , doesn't mean one understands them , or how they will behave when used "out of context"
None of us knows everything !!
You're in the extremely fortunate position of using a reportedly well sorted gas producer and supposedly having extensive knowledge of its workings , unlike my amateurish concoction .
Good luck with the development ..........you'll need it , ..........LOL....I'm a lot further along "that road" than you can imagine
)Cheers
John
-
racketmotorman
- Posts: 503
- Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 11:11 pm
- Antipspambot question: 0
- Location: Australia
Re: Pressure Gain Combustion (Now Proven)
Hi Mike
The drawing with the NGV set and impulse turbine ................unless the inlet to outlet crossectional area is the same thru the NGV stator , there will need to be a static pressure drop , ........with my setup, the NGV/IGV blades became longer as they curved towards the turbine wheel , no change in area, therefore no "significant" pressure drop required , I actually increased area slightly to compensate for frictional slowing of the gases as they were turned .
Cheers
John
The drawing with the NGV set and impulse turbine ................unless the inlet to outlet crossectional area is the same thru the NGV stator , there will need to be a static pressure drop , ........with my setup, the NGV/IGV blades became longer as they curved towards the turbine wheel , no change in area, therefore no "significant" pressure drop required , I actually increased area slightly to compensate for frictional slowing of the gases as they were turned .
Cheers
John
-
Mike Everman
- Posts: 4969
- Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2003 7:25 am
- Antipspambot question: 0
- Location: santa barbara, CA
- Contact:
Re: Pressure Gain Combustion (Now Proven)
Well, my impulse turbine has no change in area, and the stator has a slight bit of area reduction as it approaches the turbine, but only because it was a cartoon, and not for the elegant reason you mention. Just luck.racketmotorman wrote:Hi Mike
The drawing with the NGV set and impulse turbine ................unless the inlet to outlet crossectional area is the same thru the NGV stator , there will need to be a static pressure drop , ........with my setup, the NGV/IGV blades became longer as they curved towards the turbine wheel , no change in area, therefore no "significant" pressure drop required , I actually increased area slightly to compensate for frictional slowing of the gases as they were turned .
Cheers
John
Mike Often wrong, never unsure.
__________________________
__________________________
-
racketmotorman
- Posts: 503
- Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 11:11 pm
- Antipspambot question: 0
- Location: Australia
Re: Pressure Gain Combustion (Now Proven)
Hi Mike
Yep , the impulse turbine wheel blading is the right shape , ideally the blade length to overall wheel diameter needs to be less than what both your drawing and my own construction ended up at , I was a little worried about increased losses if I split the flow and directed it to too large a diameter , ideally individual blade lengths should be ~10-20% of overall diameter so that there isn't a huge differance in blade velocity between root and tip , it makes design work easier .
When I designed my setup I used "conservative" angles of ~30 degrees for both stator and rotating blading because of the fear that "tighter" angles may have produced too many deflection losses for the PJ to handle , it didn't , the gas producer ran exactly the same with or without the freepower downstream , and with or without the transition sleeve between PJ and freepower covering the gap between them .
My conclusion was that the stator and turbine blading could have had reduced angles for greater gas deflection and increased energy transfer , this would have required a larger diameter stator and turbine to accomodate the reduced axial velocity across the annulus .
The increased diameter would also have increased the torque from both the diameter increase as well as the shallower angles giving a greater impulse force on the blading , as well ,the increased blade speed for the limited rpm imposed by the chain drive , would have increased the other component of the horsepower equation , for a better outcome overall .
My setup with the turbine shaft in line with the PJ axis was not the best arrangement , but was dictated by the frontal area requirement and transmission layout .
Losses are the one thing we must reduce to a minimum , everytime the gases are turned, diffused or accelerated there are more losses , so a setup where the turbine shaft axis is at ~110 degrees to the gas producers exhaust axis , producing an approach angle of ~20 degrees to the turbine blades /disc , minimises the losses . the gases come straight out of the delivery tube at the correct approach angle to feed into the turbine buckets .
I hope someone succeeds at producing an engine with shaft power , theres no comparison between a pure jet and shaft horsepower when it comes to low speed vehicles , our DIY gas turbines made from turbochargers can me made to produce maybe 100 lbs of thrust , but that same engine with the "exhaust" fed thru a freepower turbine can produce >100 shp , which with the aid of a suitable transmission can produce several hundred pounds of "thrust",
Hopefully the same sort of thrust increasing outcomes can be achieved by Luc and his engine , I really do wish him and all of you well in that quest)
I'm currently constructing a turbine engine with a 200 hp potential , using a Garrett GT60 turbo compressor flowing ~2.75 lbs/sec mated to a TV94 turbo turbine wheel ( same as in FM-1) ,in homemade housings the engine as a purejet should produce ~150lbs of thrust "dry" and ~220 lbs "wet" , whilst weighing in at ~30 -35 lbs.
The "heavy" FM-1 engine weighs ~43 lbs and should produce ~110 lbs of thrust and close to 150 shp , the transmission for it and the future 200 hp'er is currently being constructed , patterns for the casing have been made and the casting done a month ago , final maching last week , with freepower turbine mounted it should weigh ~40 lbs .
With the lighter 200 hp gas producer , the entire engine will weigh in at less than 80 lbs , should make my next bike an "interesting??" ride)
Cheers
John
Yep , the impulse turbine wheel blading is the right shape , ideally the blade length to overall wheel diameter needs to be less than what both your drawing and my own construction ended up at , I was a little worried about increased losses if I split the flow and directed it to too large a diameter , ideally individual blade lengths should be ~10-20% of overall diameter so that there isn't a huge differance in blade velocity between root and tip , it makes design work easier .
When I designed my setup I used "conservative" angles of ~30 degrees for both stator and rotating blading because of the fear that "tighter" angles may have produced too many deflection losses for the PJ to handle , it didn't , the gas producer ran exactly the same with or without the freepower downstream , and with or without the transition sleeve between PJ and freepower covering the gap between them .
My conclusion was that the stator and turbine blading could have had reduced angles for greater gas deflection and increased energy transfer , this would have required a larger diameter stator and turbine to accomodate the reduced axial velocity across the annulus .
The increased diameter would also have increased the torque from both the diameter increase as well as the shallower angles giving a greater impulse force on the blading , as well ,the increased blade speed for the limited rpm imposed by the chain drive , would have increased the other component of the horsepower equation , for a better outcome overall .
My setup with the turbine shaft in line with the PJ axis was not the best arrangement , but was dictated by the frontal area requirement and transmission layout .
Losses are the one thing we must reduce to a minimum , everytime the gases are turned, diffused or accelerated there are more losses , so a setup where the turbine shaft axis is at ~110 degrees to the gas producers exhaust axis , producing an approach angle of ~20 degrees to the turbine blades /disc , minimises the losses . the gases come straight out of the delivery tube at the correct approach angle to feed into the turbine buckets .
I hope someone succeeds at producing an engine with shaft power , theres no comparison between a pure jet and shaft horsepower when it comes to low speed vehicles , our DIY gas turbines made from turbochargers can me made to produce maybe 100 lbs of thrust , but that same engine with the "exhaust" fed thru a freepower turbine can produce >100 shp , which with the aid of a suitable transmission can produce several hundred pounds of "thrust",
Hopefully the same sort of thrust increasing outcomes can be achieved by Luc and his engine , I really do wish him and all of you well in that quest
)I'm currently constructing a turbine engine with a 200 hp potential , using a Garrett GT60 turbo compressor flowing ~2.75 lbs/sec mated to a TV94 turbo turbine wheel ( same as in FM-1) ,in homemade housings the engine as a purejet should produce ~150lbs of thrust "dry" and ~220 lbs "wet" , whilst weighing in at ~30 -35 lbs.
The "heavy" FM-1 engine weighs ~43 lbs and should produce ~110 lbs of thrust and close to 150 shp , the transmission for it and the future 200 hp'er is currently being constructed , patterns for the casing have been made and the casting done a month ago , final maching last week , with freepower turbine mounted it should weigh ~40 lbs .
With the lighter 200 hp gas producer , the entire engine will weigh in at less than 80 lbs , should make my next bike an "interesting??" ride
)Cheers
John
Re: Pressure Gain Combustion (Now Proven)
Well anyway ... That's not important to me John ...racketmotorman wrote:Hi Luc
Now just calm down .............ego is such a destructive emotion when combined with intellect
When I wrote ...........
"Myself also being a direct guy, can only say that ,from the comments you've made so far you know very little about turbine engines , either 1 or 2 shafters"
......I was refering to your comments earlier in the thread about there being a pressure rise in the combustors of turbine engines , everyone knows theres normally a ~5-8% pressure drop across the combustor , if there was a pressure rise , flow reversal would occur , and thats surge , something to be avoided at all cost ,.........which you would undoubtedly know from your extensive test cell experiences .
There was also another comment about hanging onto the prop of a PT6 engine to heat it up quickly , a comment which I could "dissect", but won't , to save you your embarrassment .
As for my playing with an axial setup vs your "impellor"(radial inflow turbine wheel) , anyone who has had your vast range of experience would appreciate the similarities , as well as the differences , and be able to compensate accordingly .
There are undoubtedly more examples I could find , but 3 should suffice to justify my comment that you know "bugger all about turbines" , lets be honest here
Just because one works with turbines , doesn't mean one understands them , or how they will behave when used "out of context"
None of us knows everything !!
You're in the extremely fortunate position of using a reportedly well sorted gas producer and supposedly having extensive knowledge of its workings , unlike my amateurish concoction .
Good luck with the development ..........you'll need it , ..........LOL....I'm a lot further along "that road" than you can imagine
Cheers
John
The important is that I know where I am going and that's plain enough. Not liking to write at first and especially 20,000 paragraphs to explaint stuff or what I do, I have the bad habit to only write 50, which most of the time gets other peoples thinking I am dead lost and/or I loose the counter part. But that's okey for I am in no position to judge and certaintly questions any jugements based on plain writings and words.
This is why I keep saying to my self ... "Stop writing you idiot ... Either you won't say enough because you hate it or they won't catch because you don't say enough" ... But I keep doing it ... Damnnnnnn ...
Mike ... I am addicted to your site man ..... Can't ........ Stop ........ Fingerss ..... Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa ...
But heyyy ... If you feel you are further down the road ... Welll, good for you man and keep on going ... Don't wait for me ....
By the way .... next to Mike ... I don't recall seing other answers on my two questions ... He he he
Come on John, I am sure you can answer those ... Cheers,
Luc
Designer & Inventor
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)
....Kittens...with spikes coming out of them......
Sorry just had to upload this pic somewhere for my little tag down the bottom... this is as good a place as any...Go Caboose!
Sorry just had to upload this pic somewhere for my little tag down the bottom... this is as good a place as any...Go Caboose!
- Attachments
-
- 5703193_l.jpg (7.62 KiB) Viewed 87009 times
[/url]-
Zippiot
- Posts: 1190
- Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2005 7:55 pm
- Antipspambot question: 0
- Location: california
- Contact:
Re: Pressure Gain Combustion (Now Proven)
Why are there 6 levers if there are only 4 directions!
Sailing Student- How do I know if my life jacket is tight enough?
Me- Can you breathe?
Sailing Student- Yes
Me- Then its too loose!
Me- Can you breathe?
Sailing Student- Yes
Me- Then its too loose!
-
milisavljevic
- Posts: 855
- Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2003 9:36 am
- Antipspambot question: 125
Shut your trouth!
.
John, aka "racketmotorman", you are my hero!
Cheers!
M.
John, aka "racketmotorman", you are my hero!
Indeed. Caboose: bringer of LOL! Go Caboose!Irvine.J wrote:Go Caboose!
Cheers!
M.
no safe haven for merchant scum
for ye merchants who do the prop'r t'ing only if
ye be haul'd-up on charges b'fore ye ship-mates
an' threat'nd wit' forfeiture of all ye precious loot
hear this - so-called stand-up guys YE BE NOT
avast!
Cap'n M.
for ye merchants who do the prop'r t'ing only if
ye be haul'd-up on charges b'fore ye ship-mates
an' threat'nd wit' forfeiture of all ye precious loot
hear this - so-called stand-up guys YE BE NOT
avast!
Cap'n M.
-
Viv
- Posts: 2158
- Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2003 2:35 pm
- Antipspambot question: 125
- Location: Normandy, France, Wales, Europe
- Contact:
Re: Pressure Gain Combustion (Now Proven)
Yes hugely entertaining, normally you have to buy tickets for a comedy like this
Viv
Viv
"Sometimes the lies you tell are less frightening than the loneliness you might feel if you stopped telling them" Brock Clarke
Viv's blog
Monsieur le commentaire
Viv's blog
Monsieur le commentaire
Re: Pressure Gain Combustion (Now Proven)
But at least ... Useful for something obviously ...
One said once ... "If not worth a laugh ... is worth NOTHING" ... Haaaaaaaaa
One said once ... "If not worth a laugh ... is worth NOTHING" ... Haaaaaaaaa
Luc
Designer & Inventor
Designer & Inventor
-
Zippiot
- Posts: 1190
- Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2005 7:55 pm
- Antipspambot question: 0
- Location: california
- Contact:
Re: Pressure Gain Combustion (Now Proven)
Think about it
Sailing Student- How do I know if my life jacket is tight enough?
Me- Can you breathe?
Sailing Student- Yes
Me- Then its too loose!
Me- Can you breathe?
Sailing Student- Yes
Me- Then its too loose!
Re: Pressure Gain Combustion (Now Proven)
Why should IZippiot wrote:
Think about it
... You layout for us, is totally out of scope and out of "Aimed goals".Anyway ... Our goals have been fully reached with all the above
.Now ... You think about it and try to figure out ... "How"
.Thanks and best regards,
Luc
Designer & Inventor
Designer & Inventor