Proposed: Linear FWE Rebuild
Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2011 2:47 am
Now, here's my plan ...
After thoroughly testing the Heater FWE Type I (the linear FWE) the client reported it to be a very powerful air mover. He reported sensible warm air movement at a distance of 45 to 50 ft (13.7 to 15 m) behind the engine. His problem in using the linear engine was the strong projection of VERY hot gas out the intake, up to 15 ft (4 m) out in front of the flare. The other problem was poorly engineered mounting structures, which I corrected (at my cost, naturally) in the rebuild (Type II).
I believe this engine is very good in one particular regard: It breathes very efficiently, even though the intake is small (2.5 inches OD to match a 4 inch OD tailpipe). This is mostly because of the fairly long front cone of the chamber. I feel this is probably a far better way to design a "linear FWE" than trying to use a fairly flat front plate (which inevitably moves the explosion center somewhat rearward). That front cone acts as a smooth diffuser for incoming air, and as a very smooth nozzle for exhaust expulsion through the intake. There is some indication that sonic flow is achieved during brief parts of the engine cycle, and it is certainly very fast through most of its active duty cycle, both in and out.
The drawing shows a proposed means of making a really effective and usable engine out of it. I still have the bi-conical chamber (though it is slightly heat warped) and could easily have a new intake and tailpipe parts fabricated to complete it. Unfortunately, the Sanitary Tubing U bend would be several hundred dollars (remember, this is 4-inch stainless tubing) and it would take a few hundred more to make the mounting hardware. So, don't look for this anytime soon ;-) It would, of course, be my first "bent" engine.
What do you think, gentlemen?
L Cottrill
After thoroughly testing the Heater FWE Type I (the linear FWE) the client reported it to be a very powerful air mover. He reported sensible warm air movement at a distance of 45 to 50 ft (13.7 to 15 m) behind the engine. His problem in using the linear engine was the strong projection of VERY hot gas out the intake, up to 15 ft (4 m) out in front of the flare. The other problem was poorly engineered mounting structures, which I corrected (at my cost, naturally) in the rebuild (Type II).
I believe this engine is very good in one particular regard: It breathes very efficiently, even though the intake is small (2.5 inches OD to match a 4 inch OD tailpipe). This is mostly because of the fairly long front cone of the chamber. I feel this is probably a far better way to design a "linear FWE" than trying to use a fairly flat front plate (which inevitably moves the explosion center somewhat rearward). That front cone acts as a smooth diffuser for incoming air, and as a very smooth nozzle for exhaust expulsion through the intake. There is some indication that sonic flow is achieved during brief parts of the engine cycle, and it is certainly very fast through most of its active duty cycle, both in and out.
The drawing shows a proposed means of making a really effective and usable engine out of it. I still have the bi-conical chamber (though it is slightly heat warped) and could easily have a new intake and tailpipe parts fabricated to complete it. Unfortunately, the Sanitary Tubing U bend would be several hundred dollars (remember, this is 4-inch stainless tubing) and it would take a few hundred more to make the mounting hardware. So, don't look for this anytime soon ;-) It would, of course, be my first "bent" engine.
What do you think, gentlemen?
L Cottrill