I am looking for either a patent or a design for some type of pulsejet with a split combustion chamber and some type of diaphragm between them. I figure it is a simple idea that has been thought about long before I did, but I would like to know if it ever worked as a way to increase compression.
Anyone know anything near what I am talking about?
CB Romano
Split pulsejet chambers
Moderator: Mike Everman
-
- Posts: 35
- Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 6:20 am
- Antipspambot question: 0
- Location: Salt Lake, UT, USA
- Contact:
Split pulsejet chambers
- Attachments
-
- jet.jpg (2.42 KiB) Viewed 4783 times
I don't wish to know everything.
I just wish not to be ignorant.
I just wish not to be ignorant.
-
- Posts: 3542
- Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2003 7:31 am
- Antipspambot question: 0
- Location: Zagreb, Croatia
I don't know of such an attempt, but I don't think it would work, either. First, the diaphragm would have to be very elastic to have any impact on the volume. Such a diaphragm would lst only seconds in the pulsejet environment. second, it would squeeze the chamber and force the charge out, rather than compressing it.
I've thought of similar ideas.
One idea that springs to mind after seeing your design is rather than having a flexing membrane, have a sliding part, but then you have a moving part and all of its associated problems.
Another thing I thought of about ten years ago is to control the firing of the separate chambers by having a rotating valve on the front and rear which solves the problem that Bruno mentioned, but it also adds more moving parts which now must be powered in some way.
I personally think it is attractive to use the combustion of one side do the work of compression for another side. One simple way to achieve this is with a free-piston motor with combustion chambers on opposite ends. One side fires, moving the piston to compress on the other end.
cudabean
One idea that springs to mind after seeing your design is rather than having a flexing membrane, have a sliding part, but then you have a moving part and all of its associated problems.
Another thing I thought of about ten years ago is to control the firing of the separate chambers by having a rotating valve on the front and rear which solves the problem that Bruno mentioned, but it also adds more moving parts which now must be powered in some way.
I personally think it is attractive to use the combustion of one side do the work of compression for another side. One simple way to achieve this is with a free-piston motor with combustion chambers on opposite ends. One side fires, moving the piston to compress on the other end.
cudabean