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

[Viv]

I have been a bit busy recently with the trip to canada and then settling back in to life in england so I have not had a chance to comment.

I have always wondered what would happen if you built three identical engines and then ran them up? what would you get? identical power? or an average disribution? my best guess before they tried it was "no way guys"

The new engines are built to a degree of accuracyand workmanship that we can only aspire to in our workshops, Patrick is a superb welder and fabricator and the factory he works in has all the tools you could want including a 100 ton press to form the flares.

The new enines are a copy of the development engine that last ran at 145lb, those dimensions were carried over to the new engines so in theory the new engines should have run at the same level of thrust or as near as dammit!

In fact what has happened is they only ran at half the power! with careful tuning using the techniques we developed for the old engine the new one is now producing the same power levels.

But the fact remains it was as near an exact copy as you could hope to have and it only managed half the power untill it was tuned for max power.

So you can forget all about building an engine to the plans and it producing the rated thrust! it wont happen, you will need a load cell and a bottle or two of propane.

The other thing you will need though is a working set of plans and thats a little harder to come by:-)

Viv

[luc]

Hi guys,

Viv Said ...

So you can forget all about building an engine to the plans and it producing the rated thrust! it wont happen, you will need a load cell and a bottle or two of propane.

He he he ... A bottle or 2 you said ???? ... Make it more like 396 liters. Considering a liftruck propane bottle contains 33 liters of liquid propane, the figure would be more like 12 bottles.

Remember, this is my 4th engine, I have a fully adjustable intake stack and I have all the instrumentation (i.e : 4 thermocouples, 1 infrared 4000°F temperature scaner, a loadcell, an osciloscope, a sound console and a computer with a real time FFT program) and it took me close to 2 days, in which there was AT LEAST, a good hour of pure engine running MINIMUM, to bring this baby up to power.

So ... Make the calculations ... This engine burn aprx. 6.6 liters of liquid propane a minute. Therefore, 6.6 x 60 = 396 liters @ an average price of $.40 a liter = $158.40 ... And this is considering it is my 4th engine.

This why I said in my previous message ... "Have it pre-built and request a thrust test certificate or proff" or ... You will never know what is pushing your go-kart or else.

And this why also, I beleive and it is my opinion that ALL the 130R engine that were sold after Eugene death, were money rip-off engines. Now ... All you guys know were you got your engines and I know were I got my first one.

Draw your own conclusions ...

Good day,

Luc

[Mark]

That's a fair amount of dedication and fuel burning, you might be up for employee of the month on this pulsejet group.
One time I tried to soup up my little side port valveless Logan with some oxygen and succeeded in burning a hole straight through my side port in about one second. Funny how you would think O2 would help and it eats your jet instead.
What's next for your pressure jet now? Good work and all.
Mark

[luc]

Hi guys,

Okeyyy ... In cas you guys, plan one day to start a 130R in your back yeard, I think it sould be better if you guys know this before.

Today, we leasted the services of an acoustic firm and took sound level all around the engine. The sound level readings are in dBA and they were done while the was at 2 different power settings. The first one was at Mid Power (100 psig.) and the second one was at Max. Power (165 psig.) settings.

This bitch has a a sound output of 150 dBA at 10 feets from the exhaust pipe ... So, think twice before you start that engine into a residential neighborhood or when your neighbors are having a BBQ. You will end-up with the Cops at your door in no time ... He he he.

So ... Have a look at the Exel sheet attached. It is a sound level mapping of engine #4.

Cya Guys,

Luc

[decook1110]

Luc

Using your 6.6 litres/min I did a quick calculation on SFC and I come up with 3.5 lbs/lbs hr at 145 pounds thrust. I'm using the only density I can find a the moment of 583 kg/m^3 (@-40 celsius) .

Do you have a more accurate value you can share. Have you made an effort to quantify SFC pretty accurately.

Can you try running 2 of them close to each other and see if they affect each other. That was an observation made by the guy out here in Michigan that had two on his plane.

Thanks

Dave Cook

[Viv]

Luc

Using your 6.6 litres/min I did a quick calculation on SFC and I come up with 3.5 lbs/lbs hr at 145 pounds thrust. I'm using the only density I can find a the moment of 583 kg/m^3 (@-40 celsius) .

Do you have a more accurate value you can share. Have you made an effort to quantify SFC pretty accurately.

Can you try running 2 of them close to each other and see if they affect each other. That was an observation made by the guy out here in Michigan that had two on his plane.

Thanks

Dave Cook

Hi Dave

I can say that if you hold an 8' by 6' sheet of plywood near the engine (with in 2') it interferes and and stops it from resonating and producing any power.

We did some experiments with this to see if it would run near obsrtuctions and it simply wont! I assume it is feedback disrupting the intake from the exhaust.

I think I can say that you wont get two engines to run close together if the intakes or exhausts can interact.

Why do i think it is relavent? the sheet of plywood provides a good pressure wave reflection from the engine under test, moving it around allowed me to do a number of interesting experiments.

Viv

[luc]

Hi Dave ... Or Decook,

Were did you get that starnge name ... By the way ... Decook ... He he he ... What a name.

Okeyy Dave, you git me real mad this morning, you tipped me off this morning ... he he he. I am fed-up of seeing posting that talks about SFC, real SFC, I read this, I read that, Gluey wrote that ... I am gonna go to the bottom of this SFC things ...

Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa ... I can't hear anither ... "SFC"

So, this morning Patrick is setting-up a qualibrated bottle of liquid propane, "qualibrated" meaning we know the EXACT quantity of propane in it and it will hook-up in paralell to the actual engine fuel suply and very close to the engine.

This way the actual pump will feed the engine while warming-up and will bring it to full power reasonance. Once the engine will be in reasonance, the pump and related valves will be close and the bottle valve open. And we will feed and time the engine until it come out of reasonance ALONE.

SO ... You happy now ... Davy boy .... You happy now. You will get your REAL and Accurate ... SFC figure by the end of the day.

DAMNNNNNNN .... Sick of hearing about that SFC stuff........

He he he ... And said I did not have a good sens of humour ...

And don't you go saying I am not nice with you ... Dave... He he he. You spoiled.

Okeyyy,

Cya later ... Aligators

Luc

[Paul Thonnard]

Luc,

That should certainly put the SFC issue to rest once and for all !!!!

I think we were all suspicious of the SFC claims, but most of us were too trusting to realize that the thrust claims were unreliable.

Paul

[decook1110]

Thanks Luc, I feel spoiled :)

Anyway you're not the first to question the username, watch out, it tips me off. I just get sick of having to come up with a new user name everytime I go somewhere on the net. That name is very unique and the only time I have a problem using it is when I try to start a new account somewhere that I already had an account. The 'oh my god' you have to change your password also burns me. Is it me or is my life just really hard???

Well if I could find a profile setting where they have a nick name you can have displayed, I'd change it to something less ambiguous.

I really wasn't expecting a 'do it today' test, just wondering if you had done one and hadn't mentioned it. It will be really nice to have good data out there though. SFC isn't everything, but its pretty big. The difference between the fantasy '.78' that is put out and the 3 or 4 you'll probably get; is a range of 1/4 to 1/5 of what is advertised. That I think is the big fraud here, oh yeah, AND the 'sfc drops to a 1/3' with some ram pressure.

Anyway, thanks for getting the numbers.

Dave

[luc]

Hi again guys,

Okeyyy ... Dave Baby ... here is the real thing. Starting right here, is the end of the SFC saga. No more speculation, no more assumptions and no more secreties of what is the REAL Gluharefh 130R ... SFC...
Again, Luc the pressure jet man ... Will destroye another myth... He he he.

Remember, the engine was suplyed with the liquid propane bottle ONLY at max. power when the engine was delivering 130 pnds of thrust steady. We accomplished that using a switch valve, that switched the fuel suply going in the engine, from the pump to the bottle. A timer was started when the valve was switched, until the engine drop out of reasonance and loose power (Bottle empty).

Test results :
Test conditions : Static
Engine Orifice : .078" dia.
Ambient temp. : 61 °F
Bottle full : 58 pounds
Engine Thrust : 130 pnds
Fuel pressure : 165 psig.
Exhaust Temp. : 1820°
Running Time : 3 minutes 51 seconds
Bottle empty : 30 pounds even
Consumption : 26 pounds of liquid propane.

Now :
3 min. 51 sec. = 3.85 min. (3 x 60 + 51 = 231 sec. / 60 = 3.85)
26 pnds of liquid propane / 3.85 min = 6.75 lbs/min.
6.75 lbs/min. / 130 pnds thrust = .051 lb/lb/min.
.051 lb/lb/min x 60 = 3.115 lb/lb/hr

THAT IT AND THAT ALL ... End of the line, end of the fraud end of every thing your read, learned or heared.

This engine IS NOT burning .78 lb/lb/hr and never will.
A Gluhareff 130R burns 3.115 lb/lb/hr in a static condition.
And also remember the numbers I once said, when I said that our engine #1 was burning 6.6 lbs/min. Now we have 2 engines that have the same SFC figures. So, I guess this proof is pretty conclusive ... And FINAL.

He he he ... Another one down the drain ... And yes Dave, you were correct when you said the word "Fraud"

But it is over now ...

I am so nice with you... Davy baby .... he he he.

Cya Budy

Luc ....................... Out

[Paul Thonnard]

Luc,

Wow - The cat is out of the bag!

Not only did Eugene deceive us, but also Rory Eisele in his project at Iowa State University. Remember how they claimed to hit 1 lb/lb/hr. Now it makes sense why he did everything to avoid sending me the reprint. I think it was Dave who was able to get a copy of it for all of us to look at.

Thank you for dispelling this myth!

Paul

[Mike Everman]

beautiful work, Luc! Any plans of putting more points on the curve, like mid and low power settings? Maximum thrust is a good data point to have, but is almost certainly not the economical cruise power.

Again, thanks for the juicy data!

[luc]

Hi again guys,

Mike said :

beautiful work, Luc! Any plans of putting more points on the curve, like mid and low power settings? Maximum thrust is a good data point to have, but is almost certainly not the economical cruise power.

Okey ... One thing you have to understand, is that many of the features advertised by Eugene (i.e : Fully trottlable) were pure advertisment features.

Let me explain in details what "Trottle Settings" you have in a pressure jet operations (Almost none).

First, when you start this engine, you have to let it warm-up for aprx. 40 sec. At close to 100 psig. of pressure and if you go to low on the warm-up pressure, it won't lock and your 2nd stage will get red hot and difform. At this point, the maximum thrust you will see is probably lower then 50 pnds.

Then, when it is warm enough and you bring that pressure to 110 psig. the engine goes in reasonance and jump immediatly to 100 ponds of thrust.

The remaining 55 psig that you have (To reach 165 psig.) will give you your additional 25 to 30 pounds of thrust, for a 130 pounds total.

So, your real throttle capabilities are from aprx. 100 to 165 psig. and from 100 to 130 pnds of thrust. So, there is not alot to do with the additional curve point you refer to. That "Fully Throttlelable" feature is again, advertising bull shit.

And furthermore, there is a catch in the pressure jet. Let divide the engine operations as follow :
Setting #1 will be the start/warm-up/Lock setting.
Setting #2 will be reasonance Low Power (100 pnds of thrust)
Setting #3 will be reasonance Max. Power (130 pnds of thrust)

Okeyyy ... Know this now. Operating and 130R engine, you have to do the 1, 2 and 3 scequence and then you get that 130 pnds max. power figure.
If you throttle the engine between 2 and 3, without EVER dropping out of reasonance, you can always go back to that 130 pnds max. power figure.
BUT ... If ONCE ... You drop below that #2 setting and drop out of reasonance, then, when you will get back in reasonance ... NEVER Again, you will see that 130 pnds. max. power.

So that is why ... "Fully Throttlelable" becomes "Little throttlelable" and once your out of reasonance, there is no coming back there. You have to shut the engine down, let it cool and start again.

Now imagine ... You are flying an helicopter equipped with this engine and sudently, a draft of dusky wind bring your engine out of reasonance (Like we saw it happen so many time here). You are stuck in a "Must Shut Down" situation and you are going DOWN. I sure you will have a very UNPLEASANT experience.

Now you know...Why this engine never made it in the sky. It is a pretty risky buiness. But perfect for any vehicles that stay on the ground.
It is my beleive that what killed the possibility for this engine to find his place in our world ... Was Eugene Stuborness to put this engine on a flying machine.

And no Mike ... Considering the above, there is no more plans to find SFC's in different power settings ... It would be useless to do so.

I hope the above will clarify the SFC and throttle saga or issue.

Cya guys,

Luc ........ Out

[Mike Everman]

Thanks, and I understand. I do not understand why you would not want the 100 lb thrust SFC (other than it's a pain in the ass to do). It will be a number more economical for cruise. I'm sure it's not simple math, and I don't know how linear the mass flow rate is to PSI at your nozzle, but you're only getting 30% more thrust for 65% more propane pressure.

Am I not getting it?

[Viv]

Thanks, and I understand. I do not understand why you would not want the 100 lb thrust SFC (other than it's a pain in the ass to do). It will be a number more economical for cruise. I'm sure it's not simple math, and I don't know how linear the mass flow rate is to PSI at your nozzle, but you're only getting 30% more thrust for 65% more propane pressure.

Am I not getting it?

Mike.

Forget thrust as a relation to pressure in the fuel line! it is only loosly connected, I know every one says that it is but it only alters the mass flow rate of the fuel so that alters the mixtre the engine burns.

The engine shape and size define how much thrust it will produce when burning fuel at the optimum mixtre, altering the fuel pressure only swings the thrust over a small range that the engine will operate in.

As Ray put forward some time ago these engines are "acccoustic compreshion engines" "pressure jet is a misnomer and purely there to misdirect you.

its like throttling your car engine purely by altering the mixtre ratio by leaving the air butterfly valve open and just twiddling the fuel flow rather than altering the amount of air it gets as well, it will work over a narrow range but it wont do it from tick-over to max rpm.

Viv