somebody's really big jet

dynajetjerry · Post by **dynajetjerry** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 5:15 pm

Sorry, Guys,
Aeromarine produced and sent to the Navy 16 PJ-101 generators, NOT the 60 I claimed. We produced 60 E19R1 generators for the Army a year later than the PJ-101. Otherwise, my statements are pretty accurate.
Jerry

dynajetjerry · Post by **dynajetjerry** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 5:33 pm

Hi, Guys,

As a follow-up to our discussions about patents, I point out the following: Long ago, I was given to understand that patent laws DO NOT require the submission of a working model of the invention, with one exception. Any device that claims or implies its power output is greater than its input (a "perpetual motion machine,") must demonstrate its successful operation.

Almost all others need only show that their design is unique and is not obvious to one well-versed in the art. Many "patent medicines" do not actually accomplish their advertised claims, as has been demonstrated hundreds of times by independent researchers, but their patents remain valid.

Jerry

larry cottrill · Post by **larry cottrill** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 6:21 pm

Jerry -

That is exactly right. There is NO requirement that a device be "practical", or be capable of manufacture, or be "marketable" or whatever. Thousands of "products" have been patented that don't work at all for their supposed "intended use". Uniqueness is the main criterion, which is why a careful search for and presentation of prior art is an absolute necessity.

Another interesting detail is that your primary drawing is supposed to show what you consider to be the "best embodiment" of the device - in other words, the configuration most likely to function as represented. That means, for example, that a pulsejet design would be shown properly proportioned, not artfully distorted so that someone duplicating it can't get it to resonate properly! (Of course, you can see how easy it would be to be deceptive about that in a drawing.) If some mathematical relationships have to exist for something to work, you are expected to reveal them in full. This is a common misunderstanding of patent protection - a patent is NOT a legal way of hiding something! It is a legal way of protecting your interests while revealing something, so that the state of the art can be advanced (usually by others who come after you). It is not true, for example, that you can't patent a significant improvement to a device that is still under patent protection - patents are granted on that basis every day.

L Cottrill

tufty · Post by **tufty** » Sat Mar 25, 2006 7:59 pm

Mike Everman wrote:Though he seems to have made the crudest possible valve head I've ever seen work, or did he really?

That's some of the foulest metalwork I've seen in a while. and I've done^H^H^H^Hseen some foul metalwork. "The valves take a beating" indeed. I'd be surprised if they last more than a couple of cycles without being torn apart by the head.

The big tube looks interesting, at least he should be able to sell it as a leg for an offshore drilling rig when he realises what it's going to do to his internal organs if he fires it up :)

Simon

grant richardson · Post by **grant richardson** » Tue Apr 18, 2006 2:44 pm

Check out this one

http://www.gas-turbines.com/engines/pj1 ... se_jet.htm

Jonny69 · Post by **Jonny69** » Tue Apr 18, 2006 3:30 pm

Eek, I wonder if they ever ran it? Judging by the stitch welds in the pictures my guess is no at the point the photos were taken.

grant richardson · Post by **grant richardson** » Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:25 pm

Jeez if it does run it will probably be louder than the space shuttle launch!

I wonder how much fuel it would take to make this bad boy go for 5 mins :D

hagent · Post by **hagent** » Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:28 pm

I wonder how fast that trailer will be going at the end of a 5 minute run :)

dynajetjerry · Post by **dynajetjerry** » Sat Apr 22, 2006 2:16 pm

Grant,

By making some wild-ass guesses that are based on existing pulsejets, I have come up with the following for the big jet you refer to: thrust of 350-450 lbs; gasoline requirement of about 150-200 gal. hour or 15 gal for 5 minutes.

Aeromarine's 8 inch, 200 lb. thrust engine was more efficient than its contemporaries (in 1950,) and burned 65 gallons per hour. Very few pulsejets, even today, can exceed this performance.

Jerry

dynajetjerry · Post by **dynajetjerry** » Tue May 05, 2009 3:46 pm

Sorry, Guys,
My Mar 18, 2008 note is not quite correct. Aeromarine designed and mfd 16 twin-engined smoke-screen generators for the US Navy, their PJ-101, not 60. We developed and produced 60 single-engine smoke-screen generators for the US Army, their E19-R1. The latter was a simplified version of the former and employed gravity feed to the float bowl, not a pump.
Incidently, a con game perpetrated by the US Army is what drove Bill Tenney out of the p-j business and caused him to swear that "I'll NEVER do business with any governmental department or individual again." We supplied complete blueprints to the Army for their "service and maintenance" of the E19-R1s and all were illegally copied onto government forms for (also illegal) submission to potential rivals of out company. We were underbid for producing 600 more, by a Michigan specialty company. That was what drove Bill to sell Aeromarine to Russell Curtis and return home to Minneapolis, in 1956.
Jerry