Dave_G wrote:It reminds me of this one...wonder what's different?
Dave_G wrote:leo wrote:...Still canâ€™t find a patent of it...
It reminds me of this one...wonder what's different?
Mark wrote:It would be nice to see a thrust to weight ratio up front.
hagent wrote:Wow It's quite short for a valveless. I wonder what the frequency is.
10 to 1 is now a secured thrut to weight ratio.
At one point we had readings showing 209 lbs. of thrust from a 9 pounds engine, but this reading still needs to be secured steady from one engine to another.
Our last one is 337 lbs. of thrust from a 36 pounds engine (9.36 to 1 ratio). But we had to kill that big engine very fast for it was generating so much heat that it was dangerously heating our new test cell walls up to a point we could not stand our hands on it and we were affraid of fire.
This engine's testing is still on standby and until we get the walls modified so they don't heat-up so much.
What is the Thrust-specific fuel consumption when it is configured as "propulsor"?
Mitchell wrote:62.4 lbs per hour fuel consumption (1.04lb/min X 60min/hr) producing an average thrust of 102 lbs yields a thrust-specific fuel consumption of 0.61 lb Fuel per lb thrust per hour.
THAT IS ASTOUNDING!! This beats even the very best fully augmented valveless pulsejets, and many early gas turbines. Is this a new record for pulse combustors?!?
Does anyone else know of any pulse combustor that has done better, or even come close??
Was this STATIC thrust, or was the engine tested in an airstream (wind tunnel) that contributed energy via ram effect?
Again, AMAZING!and CONGRATULATIONS!!
hagent wrote:Hey Luc,
That's really amazing. I'm happy for you and hope you will succed in getting this to the market place.
It's nice when you can take a hobby? or obsession and pay for the roof over your head.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest