Just Another Valveless Front End

Moderator: Mike Everman

Mike Everman
Posts: 4939
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2003 7:25 am
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: santa barbara, CA
Contact:

Post by Mike Everman » Thu Nov 06, 2003 3:17 pm

Yes, exactly, it is essentially an 8 tube design. I'm clear with preserving the areas and lengths as shown in the 4-tube diagram, about the calculating level I'm up to without an in-depth design guide. Must I preserve the volume/internal surface area ratios by varying the section lengths? there is a disparity.
when preserving this ratio, all lengths become a bit shorter when moving to a rectangular section. The exhaust section for the lockwood is a lot shorter, but as you say still long; though a 4" dia combustion chamber in a rectangular section goes from 67" over-all to 49.5.
I wonder, does the bend the intakes go through demand a reduction in thier length, owing to the resistance in flow
I'll re-tool the spreadsheet for the four-pipe design.
Thanks.

Pieter van Boven
Posts: 181
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2003 2:54 pm
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: the Netherlands
Contact:

Post by Pieter van Boven » Thu Nov 06, 2003 4:45 pm

Could somebody send me a copy of the Kentfield paper?
p_van_boven@hotmail.com

Thanks,
Pieter.

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

Post by Bruno Ogorelec » Thu Nov 06, 2003 4:58 pm

>Must I preserve the volume/internal surface area ratios by varying the section lengths? there is a disparity.

Mike, preserve the lengths as much as you can. At this size of the engine, the survace/volume ratio is less critical.

I wonder, does the bend the intakes go through demand a reduction in thier length, owing to the resistance in flow

Ditto. Preserve the lengths and sections (cross-sectional areas). Fudge the rest.

See if you can make some things variable. Kentfield made both the intakes and the exhaust adjustable. That's a very useful trick, though I don't think Bill Hinote needed the adjustments all that much. He built it and fired it and it worked. He has converted it to gasoline injection and again it just works. A great engine. Kentfield has built a lot of them; he knows what he's doing.

Bruno

Mike Everman
Posts: 4939
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2003 7:25 am
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: santa barbara, CA
Contact:

adjustability

Post by Mike Everman » Thu Nov 06, 2003 5:43 pm

Yeah, I think some adjustability is in order, especially since I am morphing this thing around so much from known geometry. Sure would be nice if I could adjust it while it's running...
I sent Pieter the paper.
Mike
Oh, and Viv, I did some work for Motorola once, I like your tag line for them; they certainly were resistant to my "attachment of the electrodes of knowledge to the teats of ignorance" !

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

Re: adjustability

Post by Bruno Ogorelec » Thu Nov 06, 2003 5:53 pm

Mike Everman wrote: they certainly were resistant to my "attachment of the electrodes of knowledge to the teats of ignorance" !
----------

The approach reminds me of my late grandmother on the mother's side. She was convinced that children had a special nerve running between the brain and the backside. "You have to stimulate them at the backside," she would say, "and suddenly their brains work better!"

Bruno

Mark
Posts: 10820
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 10:14 pm

Re: adjustability

Post by Mark » Thu Nov 06, 2003 7:45 pm

Mike Everman wrote:Yeah, I think some adjustability is in order, especially since I am morphing this thing around so much from known geometry. Sure would be nice if I could adjust it while it's running...
I sent Pieter the paper.
Mike
Oh, and Viv, I did some work for Motorola once, I like your tag line for them; they certainly were resistant to my "attachment of the electrodes of knowledge to the teats of ignorance" !
Wasn't their slogan, "From the mind of Motorola..." ?
Mark

Graham C. Williams
Posts: 571
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2003 11:33 pm
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: England
Contact:

Post by Graham C. Williams » Thu Nov 06, 2003 11:26 pm

Dear Mike.
Very nice idea.
Viv's idea of 8 induction channels sounds about correct. These channels may need to be about the same length as the combustion chamber or a little longer.
I'm trying to imagine the reverse gas flow, the hot gas flow under positive combustion chamber pressure. Do you think it'll get flushed down the augmenter channels?

Graham.

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

Post by Bruno Ogorelec » Thu Nov 06, 2003 11:36 pm

Graham C. Williams wrote:I'm trying to imagine the reverse gas flow, the hot gas flow under positive combustion chamber pressure. Do you think it'll get flushed down the augmenter channels?Graham.

Why not? It shoots straight into the augmenter channels and will vbe helped additionally by the increased static pressure in the intake area (a result of ram pressure), which will be relieved through those same channels.

Bruno

Graham C. Williams
Posts: 571
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2003 11:33 pm
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: England
Contact:

Post by Graham C. Williams » Thu Nov 06, 2003 11:55 pm

brunoogorelec wrote:
Graham C. Williams wrote:I'm trying to imagine the reverse gas flow, the hot gas flow under positive combustion chamber pressure. Do you think it'll get flushed down the augmenter channels?Graham.

Why not? It shoots straight into the augmenter channels and will vbe helped additionally by the increased static pressure in the intake area (a result of ram pressure), which will be relieved through those same channels.

Bruno
And under static running conditions?
Graham.

Viv
Posts: 2158
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2003 2:35 pm
Antipspambot question: 125
Location: Normandy, France, Wales, Europe
Contact:

Post by Viv » Thu Nov 06, 2003 11:59 pm

yes but we also have opposed high velocity gas streams, the vortexs set up should be interesting

Viv
"Sometimes the lies you tell are less frightening than the loneliness you might feel if you stopped telling them" Brock Clarke

Viv's blog

Monsieur le commentaire

Mike Everman
Posts: 4939
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2003 7:25 am
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: santa barbara, CA
Contact:

Post by Mike Everman » Fri Nov 07, 2003 12:58 am

Thanks Graham, I'm hooked. It's a good thing I have a full machine shop...
Hmmm. Vortices... Can we harness that? Never mind. I'll be making some changes tonight to get the proper proportions based on the Kentfield dimensions. As to augmentation, I think I need to push forward the inlet diffuser (pre-diffuser?) so there is more of an augmenter inlet area. Currently I think there was only enough augmenter inlet area to account for expansion of the (let's call them:) cross-jets.
There's some interesting relationships between the Lockwood/Snecma and the Kentfield, and hell, the rectangular section equivalents. I've attached a first cut spreadsheet (in progress) that allows you to look at this and draw your own conclusions of course if the mistakes aren't too many... Like the inlet area to chamber area ratio is the same, the chamber surface to volume ratios are the same, as are the tailpipes. Cool stuff. Seems everyone says "let's just use 45 deg" for the CC to tail taper, etc.
Anyone know what the thrust of a Kentfield with a 4" dia CC would be? It's lookin like it's only 36" long; nice manageable size.
Mike
Attachments
cylinder vs rectangular snecma lockwood vs four pipe.zip
Excel file in progress
(4.71 KiB) Downloaded 478 times

Mike Everman
Posts: 4939
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2003 7:25 am
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: santa barbara, CA
Contact:

vortices

Post by Mike Everman » Fri Nov 07, 2003 1:06 am

One more thing Viv's got me thinking about. What if there is a similar interlacing of intake streams in the CC, if we inject fuel in any or all of the high shear regions we'd get some good mixing, I think...

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

Post by Bruno Ogorelec » Fri Nov 07, 2003 5:09 am

Viv wrote:yes but we also have opposed high velocity gas streams, the vortexs set up should be interesting
I don't think so. You need time to get vortices. The streams themselves should be slipping by each other unhindered, I think. Remember, their speed relative to each other should be well above Mach 1, possibly above Mach 2. For all practical purposes, they will be laminar.

But, things are never simple in pulsejets.

We also have wavefronts to consider. How those will behave is anyone's guess. Having four sets propagate within a square-section duct in two opposed pairs boggles imagination. It may well boggle the air, too, expelling it out of the intake tract with a highly amplified 'bang'. I hesitate to pronounce on this but get a headache trying to imagine what happens.

Hey you acoustical experts out there, care to comment on this?

Bruno

Mike Everman
Posts: 4939
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2003 7:25 am
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: santa barbara, CA
Contact:

something similar

Post by Mike Everman » Fri Nov 07, 2003 9:28 am

Here's something along the same lines that might be machinable in mirrored halves, maybe a chance at a mini since the NC contours will be so smooth.
got sidetracked.
Attachments
mini.jpg
(76.21 KiB) Downloaded 457 times

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

Post by Bruno Ogorelec » Fri Nov 07, 2003 9:49 am

Yes indeed. When I was rather younger, I toyed with a similar layout that aped an airfoil in section, thinking it could be used as an engine integral with wing. Your layout can also fit withinn an airfoil. It never occurred to me that it would shake itself loose from the aircraft quickly -- or shake the aircraft to pieces -- given the hammering pulsejets normally produce.

However, the layout just might be squeezed inside a somewhat fattened end of a helicopter rotor...

Bruno

Post Reply