Radial inlet

Moderator: Mike Everman

GRIM
Posts: 474
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 2:43 am
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: British living in Chile

Radial inlet

Post by GRIM » Thu Oct 04, 2007 12:49 am

Heres an idea that keeps coming back to me ,
until someone tells me why it wont work it will keep bugging me.

I am not sure theres much to be gained , maybe more symetrical combustion?

Thinking along the lines of a 3Lb size

OK guys rip it to pieces and put me out of my misery !
Attachments
RADIAL INLET.pdf
(11.49 KiB) Downloaded 390 times

pezman
Posts: 613
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 4:13 am
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: USA

Radial Inlet

Post by pezman » Thu Oct 04, 2007 1:20 am

I think that there have been a few coaxial engines that have been made and I'm pretty sure a few of these have actually been successfully operated.

One problem with having OD of the inlet "annulus" match that of the combustion chamber is that you are basically maximizing the friction. It might be better to make the coaxial intake be as small in diameter as possible (e.g. if the CC diameter is Dcc, then the exhaust diameter might be Dcc/2 and the shell for the coaxial inlet might be 1.414 * Dcc/2. This gives you the same intake area with an inner wall whose surface area is a bit over 60% of that shown in your design (less interior surface -> less friction -> less damping effect).

The integrated fueling is probably good, since it is desirable for the inlet to be cool relative to the exhaust and sharing a wall with the exhaust is likely to undermine this a little. The cooling effect of the fuel seems like it would offset that, which seems a good thing.

If you can get it to work, it would be great -- the radial designs are certainly a lot simpler to fabricate.

Mike Everman
Posts: 4930
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2003 7:25 am
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: santa barbara, CA
Contact:

Post by Mike Everman » Thu Oct 04, 2007 4:13 am

I agree. More surface area per area has been bad in my experience. It's a lot of drag when you want to move gas out quickly.
I don't know how many times I've sketched different approaches to that, so yes, it is compelling!

Another thing to consider is that you'd think centering isn't that important, if your mindset is Ao-Ai being the intake area. There is a boundary layer that is attached to all surfaces, it's thickness effectively reducing the area by a small amount, 1-2mm as an example scale. When you calculate the area you need for your intake, with the outer wall as your CC, you see that it is a very small annular distance, and easily lets you overlap your boundary layers, even if you accounted for them.

So, in one sense you've got a variable intake just by moving your centerbody around, but I think the narrow side will make the exact wrong kind of turbulence. Otherwise, all ideas are worth a try. you can't predict what you'll learn in the process.
Mike
__________________________
Follow my technical science blog at: http://mikeeverman.com/
Get alerts for the above on twitter at: http://twitter.com/mikeeverman

Jutte
Posts: 332
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 11:01 am
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: NZ

Query?

Post by Jutte » Thu Oct 04, 2007 6:36 am

Would such a small annular gap of such an intake cause a toroidal
vortex ala the Reynst?But wouldn't the resulting boundary 'friction' also cause a 'choking' of the inflow from the intake resulting in only a low resultant rate of pulsating combustion? Also if you extend a secondary enclosed cylinder around the intake you sort of get what the Argus engineers were playing with.
What marvelous questions arise from what essentially are empty tubes - man these things are neat!

Bruno Ogorelec
Posts: 3542
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2003 7:31 am
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: Zagreb, Croatia

Post by Bruno Ogorelec » Thu Oct 04, 2007 9:09 am

Mike Everman wrote:I agree. More surface area per area has been bad in my experience. It's a lot of drag when you want to move gas out quickly.
Well, who says the section of the annular duct has to be the same as in a corresponding tubular duct? What you want is the same flow rate.; never mind the section.

Don't just recalculate circular area values into annular areas. Recalculate the area to give you the same cool air flow. Or, if calculation is uncertain due to unknown temperature and pressure values, fiddle with different duct sections.

Given the greater drag, you will obviously need greater duct area to maintain the required gas flow. That's probably all there is to it.

Dave Gibbel has made a superbly simple design work well.
Attachments
DaveG_test_setup_278.jpg
DaveG_test_setup_278.jpg (136.35 KiB) Viewed 5259 times
DaveG_cover_off_178.jpg
DaveG_cover_off_178.jpg (110.85 KiB) Viewed 5258 times
DaveG_concentric_inlet_161.jpg
DaveG_concentric_inlet_161.jpg (105.26 KiB) Viewed 5259 times

Mark
Posts: 10751
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 10:14 pm

Radial Inlet

Post by Mark » Thu Oct 04, 2007 12:52 pm

I remember Tharratt did one of those capped pulsejets and the results were less than he had hoped for.
Just shooting from the hip, I imagine as air charges in and out around the sleeve all 360 degrees, that the charge has more of an opportunity to become uneven/defrayed, or on one side for whatever reason or vagary, an erratic flame front develops from several points and might dampen/baffle the feedback, moreso than a straight duct that conveys a confined charge, a pressure that can't "explore" escape routes so easily or get ahead of itself.
Last edited by Mark on Thu Oct 04, 2007 10:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Presentation is Everything

PyroJoe
Posts: 1743
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2007 5:44 pm
Antipspambot question: 125
Location: Texas

Post by PyroJoe » Thu Oct 04, 2007 1:24 pm

The surface turbulence will probably be your weak point. If I where to approach that design, I would polish the close proximity surfaces to near mirror finish.

pezman
Posts: 613
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 4:13 am
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: USA

Annular engines

Post by pezman » Thu Oct 04, 2007 1:46 pm

Bruno Ogorelec wrote:Well, who says the section of the annular duct has to be the same as in a corresponding tubular duct?
No one, as far as I can tell. I think that there is general agreement that you would need to fiddle with the duct dimensions to get them where they need to be. I just proposed "1/4 CC cross section" as a starting point. My gut feeling is that the size would ultimately need to be adjusted upward

I guess that it comes down to how important the "inductance" of the intake is in a valveless pj, since the increased friction of an annular intake seems like it would effectively lower the "Q" of the system (quotes here to denote a degree of irony in using linear, electrical, lumped parameter concept to describe effects in a non-linear, mechanical, spatially distributed system). If the intake inductance is unimportant (or relatively unimportant vs that of the exhaust), then for sure, you could tweak the system by adjusting the diameter to offset frictional effects -- and the resulting decrease in "inductance" could probably be disregarded.

Just as a note, if I recall correctly, the mechanical equivalent of inductance is "inertance" (and the mechanical equivalent of capacitance is "compliance"?) -- but if I'm going to abuse terminology, I figure why not go the whole nine yards.

At any rate, it seems like a question that is best settled empirically, since any simulations of that geometry probably need a pretty serious CFD code.

The more I think about this, the more I want to build one. The seeming ease of fabrication appeals to me.

Mike Everman
Posts: 4930
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2003 7:25 am
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: santa barbara, CA
Contact:

Post by Mike Everman » Thu Oct 04, 2007 1:54 pm

Hi Bruno!
Yes, Dave can make a good motor. I wish he could play nice. And of course I was not proposing simple conversions of area, I was preaching exactly the opposite.

What do you mean, "made it work well"? Yes, it's a layout we've all considered and some of us have made, but the point is, is it really better than an equivalent minimum surface area intake?
Mike
__________________________
Follow my technical science blog at: http://mikeeverman.com/
Get alerts for the above on twitter at: http://twitter.com/mikeeverman

larry cottrill
Posts: 4140
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2003 1:17 am
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: Mingo, Iowa USA
Contact:

Post by larry cottrill » Thu Oct 04, 2007 3:35 pm

Note that (with considerably more effort) you could make this so the clear area could be experimentally adjusted. The trick is, once you know what length range is right for the intake cap, make a new engine just the same but with the end cap wall and chamber wall as matching cones (very narrow ones, I mean) - a tiny adjustment in cap depth can then be used to make a fairly large difference in the clear passage area between the cones, for a wide range of "tuneability".

Just an idea - probably, few builders would consider it worth the effort.

L Cottrill

Bruno Ogorelec
Posts: 3542
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2003 7:31 am
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: Zagreb, Croatia

Post by Bruno Ogorelec » Thu Oct 04, 2007 7:00 pm

Mike Everman wrote:the point is, is it really better than an equivalent minimum surface area intake?
Better at what? Engineering is always a compromise. You gain at one end by losing on the other. You just make sure you're gaining where it's really important for you and losing where you don't care about it as much.

Theoretically, the best shape for a combustor chamber is a sphere. Yet, as far as I know, only liquid-fuel rockets use spherical chambers. Others come in all kinds of weird shapes -- because other important considerations outweigh the theoretical advantage of the spherical shape.

Same here. Look at the short length, for instance. Or the neat profile. No penile appendages sticking out to the side, as on the 'Chinese'. That engine, if mounted out in the airstream, would gain a lot simply by offering less drag than almost any other pulsejet.

To me, the layout looks like being ideal for supercharging, because it allows you to keep the combustor out of the forced air stream and lets it take from the stream as much air as it wants. It lets the pulsejet be pulsejet, in other words.

At the same time, it lets both the intake and the exhaust add momentum to the same gas flow.

Here's a very simple sketch.

(I have let out details of the drive to the blower because they are unimportant at the moment. The discontinuity in the duct after the end of the combustor tailpipe should function as the Bertin wave trap. It is not particularly necessary on the blower side, as the blower impeller and housing decouple the pulsation pretty effectively.)
Attachments
capped_tube_supercharged.GIF
capped_tube_supercharged.GIF (1.88 KiB) Viewed 5135 times
Last edited by Bruno Ogorelec on Thu Oct 04, 2007 7:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Bruno Ogorelec
Posts: 3542
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2003 7:31 am
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: Zagreb, Croatia

Post by Bruno Ogorelec » Thu Oct 04, 2007 7:02 pm

larry cottrill wrote:Note that (with considerably more effort) you could make this so the clear area could be experimentally adjusted. The trick is, once you know what length range is right for the intake cap, make a new engine just the same but with the end cap wall and chamber wall as matching cones (very narrow ones, I mean) - a tiny adjustment in cap depth can then be used to make a fairly large difference in the clear passage area between the cones, for a wide range of "tuneability".

Just an idea - probably, few builders would consider it worth the effort.

L Cottrill
As ever from you, a smart idea. I like it a lot.

Mike Everman
Posts: 4930
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2003 7:25 am
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: santa barbara, CA
Contact:

Post by Mike Everman » Thu Oct 04, 2007 7:53 pm

Yeah, I like Larry's idea, too. I added a movable CC head as well so if you did make an adjustment to the intake, you could bring the acoustic distance back in tune...
Attachments
Adjustable Chinese variant.JPG
(104.5 KiB) Downloaded 205 times
Mike
__________________________
Follow my technical science blog at: http://mikeeverman.com/
Get alerts for the above on twitter at: http://twitter.com/mikeeverman

Mike Everman
Posts: 4930
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2003 7:25 am
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: santa barbara, CA
Contact:

Post by Mike Everman » Thu Oct 04, 2007 7:56 pm

Then there's one where I got concerned that the tail throat region would just melt, but had a nice length reduction as a feature...
Attachments
tubular variant, shorty.JPG
(181.42 KiB) Downloaded 202 times
Mike
__________________________
Follow my technical science blog at: http://mikeeverman.com/
Get alerts for the above on twitter at: http://twitter.com/mikeeverman

Mark
Posts: 10751
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 10:14 pm

Radial inlet

Post by Mark » Thu Oct 04, 2007 9:08 pm

One thing I remember with Tharratt's engine was that if you slid the cap down or was it up, anyway as you gradually moved the occlusion/cap, thrust decreased and as you kept moving it even more in the same direction the thrust once again started to increase as shown on some graph.
Presentation is Everything

Post Reply