Moderators: Tom, larry cottrill, Mike Everman
Viv wrote:and it may sound silly but I want to do a full kit for a jam jar:-) some thing dead cheap so people can play:-)
viv
Viv wrote:
But the main thing I think is to get them drawn properly first so people can choose for themselves, I for one am fed up of all the time wasted with bad plans instead of people getting on with testing their engines and enjoying themselves.
I am quite happy to do the donkey work at this end and then update the plans with peoples modifications as they perfect them, that way we perfect these old engines and learn something new as well.
This is a good way for the forum to progress, too many people would love to experiment but do not have the facilites to make there own engines, this way they can get an engine and join in the fun.
The Lockwood we have drawn up but I cant find any decent fueling information for it! now this is one of the most populer engines and no one has written down or drawn a succesful fuel feed for it, and I think thats a big point to make, lots of these engines are talked about but the plans are incomplete! this is one every one is told to build for high thrust and we cant say exactly how the best way to fuel it is.
The Kentfield is on my list to do as soon as we can, along with a load of others, I have a lot of the plans but I need to prioritise the time, so I need a straw poll to work it out:-)
Larry Cottrill wrote:Viv wrote:and it may sound silly but I want to do a full kit for a jam jar:-) some thing dead cheap so people can play:-)
viv
Viv -
No, that's not silly at all, if you do it right. It would be neat to have a jam jar with a lid that would provide an outer ring of openings that could be adjusted from zero to full open [via a rotatable 'waterhouse stop' type shutter] and a threaded center hole, with different length stacks that could be threaded on to experiment with. A tad more sophisticated than what you might be thinking of, but it would be a flexible, "Lego" kind of approach. Maybe, even include a couple different size jars that fit the same lid.
If the price was right and it was marketed properly, I'll bet the Physics departments of a lot of schools would buy them!
I've thought of doing a similar thing with 5- or 10-dollar spectroscope kits, using replica diffraction grating and surplus lenses.
L Cottrill
Mike Everman wrote:Viv, you need to start a new thread. You're blatantly puffing this one out of proportion! ;-)
hinote wrote:Viv wrote:
But the main thing I think is to get them drawn properly first so people can choose for themselves, I for one am fed up of all the time wasted with bad plans instead of people getting on with testing their engines and enjoying themselves.
I am quite happy to do the donkey work at this end and then update the plans with peoples modifications as they perfect them, that way we perfect these old engines and learn something new as well.
This is a good way for the forum to progress, too many people would love to experiment but do not have the facilites to make there own engines, this way they can get an engine and join in the fun.
The Lockwood we have drawn up but I cant find any decent fueling information for it! now this is one of the most populer engines and no one has written down or drawn a succesful fuel feed for it, and I think thats a big point to make, lots of these engines are talked about but the plans are incomplete! this is one every one is told to build for high thrust and we cant say exactly how the best way to fuel it is.
The Kentfield is on my list to do as soon as we can, along with a load of others, I have a lot of the plans but I need to prioritise the time, so I need a straw poll to work it out:-)
Viv:
I can offer you the following about the Kentfield:
1. The engine runs REALLY good, with the dimensions taken right off the SAE paper.
2. I can provide you with a simple propane fueling system, if you want it; the engine can be operated with barbecue tanks that have the overfill restrictor in them (but not at full throttle).
3. The engine isn't hard to build, but there's no way to reverse the intake outflow without either the 4 recuperators, or a complex megaphone and u-bend combo (you could probably work this out). Another possible option (not tried) would be a single recup that would handle the outflow from all 4 intakes.
4. This engine starts very easily, and throttles well.
Let me know if you need some help--I think I'm still the only one who has run this engine--other than Kentfield.
Bill H.
Acoustic Propulsion Concepts
".......some day soon we'll be flying airplanes powered by pulsejets."
Mike Everman wrote:Viv, you need to start a new thread. You're blatantly puffing this one out of proportion! ;-)
Viv, you need to start a new thread. You're blatantly puffing this one out of proportion! ;-)
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest