Gluhareff 130R power failure issue still open ... Any Idear?

Moderator: Mike Everman

Locked
luc
Posts: 761
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2003 5:05 pm
Antipspambot question: 125
Location: Quebec, Canada

Gluhareff 130R power failure issue still open ... Any Idear?

Post by luc » Fri Dec 05, 2003 5:42 pm

Okey guys... I am starting a new topic because the thrust problem of the Gluhareff 130R is still a big issue for us. Please read the story below and give us any idear if you think you know why.

2 years ago, our company purchase a Gluhareff 130 pressure jet from Robert Q. Riley. and was a key part of our new project, wich is still under secreties (Sorry about that) After, this engine was ran, tested damaged behone repair, after only 25 hours of running, we decided to build our self 2 prototypes. One that included many improvement for easy dismatle and part replacement and the 3rd one, following the exact method of fabrication and Gluhareff specifications. Prototype #3 is an exact copy of the real thing, +/- .015" tolerance.

After extensive testing, monitoring and data acquisition with precice instrumentation, we came to the following conclusion.

In all those 3 prototypes, none was capable of delivering the 130 pounds of thrust specified by Gluhareff. Even by suplying those engine with pressures up to 225 psig., equipped with a 5 axes intake adjustment and perfectly tunned. The maximum thrust achieved was no more then 60 pounds of thrust, measured by a qualibrated load cell aligned with the thrust axis of each engines tested. Maybe this could happened with 1 engine, but with 3 engine? ... I don't think so. If you guys go to our web site, you will sone find out that we are no backyard shop ... We are more then capable in building such engines.

Also and after all thrust failures, we have decided to contract a firm that would analyse our data and the Gluhareff calculations and method. They came to the conculsion that the calculations were incomplete and could not be prooved by a reverse calculation method. There conclusion is, and I quote "There is something missing" or this is a flaw.

In conclusion and the reason of my message is to make you guys understand that this is a R&D project. Alot of money and resources was invested in it because this engine was suppose to be part of another machine and after we encountered this problem we decided to investigate this, thinking we could solve it. hein... hein ...Big mistake. After 3 engines, An engineering firm and $130,000.00 we are stuck at the same point. This engine still wont push more then 60 pounds.

So... You guys have any idear?
Or have you made the same findings?

Regards,

Luc

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

Post by Viv » Fri Dec 05, 2003 8:00 pm

after three fails on the same load cell i would want to see a differant method used to measure the thrust.

But not the same type of cell or rig.

Interestingly the Schmidt papers that just turned up on the forum mention the same type of problem with the first V1s

The thrust rig intergrated the negative pulse from the engine under test in to the result!

It may not be helpfull but its worth mentioning.

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

Bruce
Posts: 95
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:47 am

Post by Bruce » Sat Dec 06, 2003 4:18 am

But don't forget that the Gluey is a pressure jet not a pulsejet.

Although it does produce a lot of noise, the magnitude of the thrust vector does not vary anywhere near as much as a pulsejet and I doubt it would ever become negative.

Is vibration going to be an issue in this project?

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

Post by Viv » Sat Dec 06, 2003 12:59 pm

Bruce wrote:But don't forget that the Gluey is a pressure jet not a pulsejet.

Although it does produce a lot of noise, the magnitude of the thrust vector does not vary anywhere near as much as a pulsejet and I doubt it would ever become negative.

Is vibration going to be an issue in this project?
Fair comment, the main point was just that the Argus works had a thrust problem.

I have never really looked to closely at the pressure jet untill now, Luc in your investigations did you apply forced air to the intake?

I just want to rule it out as an issue.

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

milisavljevic
Posts: 855
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2003 9:36 am
Antipspambot question: 125

Craig Wall

Post by milisavljevic » Sat Dec 06, 2003 1:19 pm

DELETED.
Last edited by milisavljevic on Wed Aug 18, 2004 8:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

luc
Posts: 761
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2003 5:05 pm
Antipspambot question: 125
Location: Quebec, Canada

Post by luc » Mon Dec 08, 2003 1:37 pm

Thank you guys for all your replies.

First of all ... Yes the loadcell issue has been eliminated by doing many different setup, using different loadcells and/or calibrated meters. Just as an hint, in my former job, I was a jet engine test cell designer and I have manage the Lakehrust Naval Warfare Center Jet Engine facilities, NJ, USA for 2 years. Setup here is not the problem.

As for using a Pulse jet, I would say on that, that our first engine was a pulsejet. The problem is that our machine is design to word under very cold temperature. And what happen to gas propane in at very cold temperature? That it, no more evaporation and pressure. Our need is for an engine that is autonomous, no heat blanket, no evaporator ... etc. The pressure jet is the perfect engine for our application.

Has for fuel quality, our engines runs from a 500 gallons liquid propane facilities, equipped with two 100 psi delta pressure pumps connected one into the other. At -30 Celcius (-22° F) I still supply propane at 165 psig. Also, this propane is straight from the truck and is continuously resupplied since the same tank supplies one of our shop heat system. It is clean, of good quality and filtered.

Sooo ... Come on you guys ... You little brainniacs, I know you can figure out something that I have forget. Setup is good, fuel is good, data acquisition is good and the engine is perfect.

What I am expecting now ... Is someone to tell me ... "Heyyy ... I have the same problem" or "Heyyy ... Mine pushs 130 pounds, tested and prooven". Will probably buy the darn thing or bring it over here, along with is owner, for testing.

Okeyyy ... waiting for your replies guys.

Luc

luc
Posts: 761
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2003 5:05 pm
Antipspambot question: 125
Location: Quebec, Canada

Post by luc » Mon Dec 08, 2003 1:45 pm

Hoooo .... By the way.

The application is static, it must work under very cold temperature (-40°F or C), and actually, the low frequency vibration are an asset but it must be autonomous, meaning no heat source requires, easy to start, without any compress air and must be capable of running continuously for hours, with any cooling or any order support.

You will soon realise the the Gluhareff pressure jet is perfect. So ... Where is that 130 pounds of thrust?

Regards,

Luc

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

Post by Viv » Mon Dec 08, 2003 2:57 pm

Luc wrote:Hoooo .... By the way.

The application is static, it must work under very cold temperature (-40°F or C), and actually, the low frequency vibration are an asset but it must be autonomous, meaning no heat source requires, easy to start, without any compress air and must be capable of running continuously for hours, with any cooling or any order support.

You will soon realise the the Gluhareff pressure jet is perfect. So ... Where is that 130 pounds of thrust?

Regards,

Luc
Hi Luc

So ok you can be trusted to measure accuretly the thrust of your engine but what about the other guy?

The 130lb quoted I have only ever seen on one site, any body got any more information on the history of the reading and better yet another reading to confirm it?

Did you try Craig? he has a lot of history and documentation for these engines so as Milisavljevic suggested he would be a very good p[lace to start.

I have never looked to closely at these engines but I would start with,

fuel pressure and nozzle, is the fuel leaving the nozzle at mach+ speeds?

Venture, are they sized and spaced correctly to get "sonic lock"

I allways assumed a standing shockwave in the inlet to the combustion chamber on these motors, is there one?

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

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

Post by Viv » Mon Dec 08, 2003 3:18 pm

Doh! sorry Luc I missed the obvious point, whats the air temperature? I just read the pressure jet paper availible on this site and one of the calculations requires the air mass.

As you are at such a low temp it will throw out your dimensions in the inlet stacks.

It also mentions the need to get "sonic lock" in the inlet stacks to get the full static thrust.

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

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

Post by Viv » Mon Dec 08, 2003 4:13 pm

This an FFT of the gluey on R Riallys web site, I ran it through just to have a quick look at some thing from the old forum.

They do pulsate! go on shoot me down in flames:-)

Have a look at the recorded waveform, yes its a bit clipped but I love that steep rise as it combusts.

A nice first,second,third harmonic series starting at 173.34Hz

looking at this engine it could be looked at (if you scuint) as a Logan with a gas fed supercharger on the inlet?

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

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

Post by Viv » Mon Dec 08, 2003 5:03 pm

Luc wrote:Thank you guys for all your replies.

First of all ... Yes the loadcell issue has been eliminated by doing many different setup, using different loadcells and/or calibrated meters. Just as an hint, in my former job, I was a jet engine test cell designer and I have manage the Lakehrust Naval Warfare Center Jet Engine facilities, NJ, USA for 2 years. Setup here is not the problem.

Luc
Soooooo are you testing it in a building?

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

Bruce
Posts: 95
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:47 am

Post by Bruce » Mon Dec 08, 2003 11:11 pm

Firstly you say:

>As for using a Pulse jet, I would
> say on that, that our first
> engine was a pulsejet. The
> problem is that our machine is
> design to word under very cold
> temperature. And what happen to
> gas propane in at very cold
> temperature? That it, no more
> evaporation and pressure.

And then you say:

> I still supply propane at 165 psig.

So I have to ask -- do you have pressure or not?

Since the pressure jet also operates on propane I don't see the problem -- just add a couple of vaporizer coils to your pulsejet -- these are internal to the pressure jet but you can simply wind copper pipe around the outside of the combustion chamber of a pulsejet and achieve exactly the same result -- perfect vaporization of the propane.

In fact, you might not even need to do that with something like a Lockwood engine because if you position your fuel injectors correctly, any fuel that isn't vaporized by the incoming air will be flashed to vapor when it hits the red-hot sides of the combustion chamber itself.

As for starting -- just setting the propane flow to a low rate -- so that it burns for a while to heat up the combustion chamber and vaporization coils should then allow you to initiate sustained pulsating combustion.

If you do it properly (and know exactly how to deign, place and orient the fuel jets) you won't need forced air to start a big lockwood either.

Check out this video of my big lockwood self-starting (albeit at slightly higher ambient temperatures -- but without pre-heat)

http://www.interestingprojects.com/crui ... epower.mpg (1.1MB MPEG file)

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

Post by Viv » Tue Dec 09, 2003 1:08 am

Some more basic questions Luc, what is the propane temoerature at the nozzle?

What is the bore size of the feed pipe to the nozzle, what sort of flow rate are you getting for your 60lbs of thrust? is it the same as the flow rate for 130lbs on the gluey charts?

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

Mark
Posts: 10692
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 10:14 pm

Post by Mark » Tue Dec 09, 2003 2:36 am

This is kind of off topic but with a simple propane canister and a few feet of 1/8 inch copper tubing, with that tiny diameter, you can make something that will frighten grown men, just wind some windings inside a empty starch can or similar enclosure with the top and bottom removed and then redirect the terminal end, direct it to blast into the chamber where the coils are wound, and heat the propane inside the tubing.
My older brother did this and I was playing it safe behind a wall for the most part, peeking out at the tremendous fury of fire. It is amazing the sound you can produce from so little. All from a small can of propane and some long length of thin copper tubing. It's not a pulsejet, just a pressure jet of sorts, but it is loud and frightening in it's own way, a strange but attention getting howl, seemingly a danger of detonation somehow, even though the copper tubing never blows up from too much pressure, red hot that it is in places.
The propane comes flying out of the copper tubing, expanded to a great pressure and the sound of it primed, hot and combining with the oxygen in the air produces a fierce roar, makes one quite edgy.
Mark

Bruce
Posts: 95
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:47 am

Post by Bruce » Tue Dec 09, 2003 3:04 am

Here's an interesting mental exercise for those reading.

In the setup described -- using the heat of the flame to vaporize the propane, will the pressure of the gas exiting the copper tube exceed the pressure inside the tank and, if so, will that pressure be appreciably higher, and if so, will it be consistently higher.

We assume the use of constant diameter line from tank to the point where the gas exits, no regulator and no check-valves

Think about it long and hard before answering :-)

Locked