The X-jet was a Schmidt tube

Moderator: Mike Everman

Post Reply
Selvaraj Isaac
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2017 4:39 pm
Antipspambot question: 125

The X-jet was a Schmidt tube

Post by Selvaraj Isaac » Thu Mar 09, 2017 12:36 pm

Two extraordinary engines separated by years in their development Schmidt's SR 500 and Bruce Simpson's X-jet might have been the same thing, although they look worlds apart they might be quite similar or maybe the same,
here's what you should consider.

1) Schmidt's valve head and tail pipe design offered very little resistance to the incoming charge of air. He avoided diffusers and devised curious fuel atomizing methods to produce the mixture without turbulence. The goal was to get the fresh charge as deep and as far into the engine as possible .What he achieved was very good filling with fresh charge.

Because of the great amount of charge sucked into the engine and the extremely fast progression of the flame front (because it progressed from the greatest available surface towards the engine centerline), Schmidt achieved amazingly rapid pressure build-up. It was so rapid that he was convinced he was getting detonation. (he just observed a form of combustion faster than deflagration but not true detonations)

2) here's what Bruno said in another topic who supposedly knows the details of the X-jet, Bruce's valved X-Jet engine does look as if it contained Eric's double combustor layout. But, it's a single combustor engine. It just has a very unusual and original valve head, which offers little aerodynamic resistance to the incoming charge, protects the valves against heat and generates excellent mixing
Bruce also claimed he was achieving HMC or high magnitude combustion while not being a detonation was way more powerful than the deflagrations in normal pulse-jets, generating higher peak combustion pressures.

3) Both Schmidt and Bruce have made claims of higher than the normal 2.2 pounds/sq in thrust per unit average area Schmidt's SR 500 generated 50% better thrust and Bruce claimed 60% better thrust.

So if both have an unusual design with no defined combustion chamber, valve heads that offered very little resistance to the flow of incoming charge, higher than normal combustion pressures, both thought they were achieving a faster form of combustion than a deflagration and both had higher thrust per unit average area than the norm 2.2 pounds/sq in, they might have had the same principles of operation and even be the same thing even if they do not look alike.
Great balls of fire!

Selvaraj Isaac
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2017 4:39 pm
Antipspambot question: 125

Re: The X-jet was a Schmidt tube

Post by Selvaraj Isaac » Fri Mar 17, 2017 3:07 pm

Here are two pictures for comparison
can someone more experienced verify my assumptions
Attachments
xjet01.jpg
xjet01.jpg (7.39 KiB) Viewed 165 times
schmidt tube.jpg
Great balls of fire!

Post Reply