Any Input?

[Ghrey]

Just some thoughts from the recesses of my much tortured mind;

1. A Messerschmitt style flame holder may prove to be mandatory, or a corrugated version there of...
2. My work ( so far all failures, as in parts melt... ) with annular designs shows a propensity toward thermal material failure. The inside of the intake is generally not cooled enough. Greater intake flow ( working on this now ) // May // solve this problem. Either that or use a very robust ( $$$ ) material for that section...

3. Tuning is nuts. One possible solution ( also in the works here ) is to shorten the intake path to the point of near irrelevance, sadly this is also nuts...


Just my .02 worth

Cheers.

[PyroJoe]

FWIW
I wonder if Bruno's swirl can design could sustain under considerable ram pressure, its one of the few designs that avoid a "through and through" intake path. If you could apply two intakes, one into the flow and one away, it would almost have the same characteristics. (of course the overall intake area would need to be maintained)

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1819

Bruce S. also built a interesting swirl type intake on his test bed called the Calgary Valveless Pulsejet. It had a Foa flavor without many of the problems of a complete annular system. Maybe just a partial annular system will do?

[PyroJoe]

Here was one idea for utilizing ram flow. Was in the Marconnet style and had a small forward facing intake pipe that could be valved. I think the Marconnet style lends itself to good diffusion of ram air and could tolerate it well. The intake also had a Foa like intake path leading back into the duct body.

After working with the annular types I decided against this type intake and would replace it with two intake pipes along the same path as the rear flowing annular. Also the engine length could be reduced, but thats in the works.


My apologies for rambling on.