Pulseramjet

Moderator: Mike Everman

leo
Posts: 380
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 5:53 pm
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: netherlands
Contact:

patent

Post by leo » Sun Dec 09, 2007 3:39 pm

found it here
luc and viv's jet
Last edited by leo on Sun Dec 09, 2007 3:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

leo
Posts: 380
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 5:53 pm
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: netherlands
Contact:

side inletports

Post by leo » Sun Dec 09, 2007 3:54 pm

picture
Attachments
pulseramjet.jpg
pulseramjet.jpg (28.46 KiB) Viewed 5566 times

leo
Posts: 380
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 5:53 pm
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: netherlands
Contact:

luc and viv's patent

Post by leo » Sun Dec 09, 2007 8:26 pm

Luc and Viv you sure protected it worldwide, must have cost a lot of money.
On the specs you provided in earlier post, it most be worth it, undoubted we will hear a lot of this engine / burner in the future.
Nice to hear that it is possible to make a living of pulsejets.
A question Luc and Viv, would you have come to this without the internet, and pulsejets.com?.

espacenet
WIPO

Jim Berquist
Posts: 1396
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 1:34 am
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: DEMING NM 88030

*Wild card

Post by Jim Berquist » Sun Dec 09, 2007 10:54 pm

* Wild card
WHAT TO FRAP, IT WORKED![url=callto://james.a.berquist]Image[/url]

LINZ
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 7:25 pm
Antipspambot question: 125
Location: Simi Valley, Southern California

Post by LINZ » Mon Dec 10, 2007 4:19 am

Congratulations you guys! - on both the progress you've made and getting the patent. Thanks for posting the performance details too. I'm sure we're all keen to hear more.

LINZ

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

Re: luc and viv's patent

Post by luc » Mon Dec 10, 2007 2:21 pm

leo wrote:would you have come to this without the internet, and pulsejets.com?
Hi,

Most certainly, the inline shape engine was something in my mind way back then and as it does not take a genius to imagine the advantages of this engine over a conventional PJ.

Regards,
Luc
Designer & Inventor

Mike Everman
Posts: 4894
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2003 7:25 am
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: santa barbara, CA
Contact:

Re: re: Pulseramjet

Post by Mike Everman » Mon Dec 10, 2007 3:12 pm

luc wrote: Looking a data sheet we have here, our PulseRam in its 100 lbs. thrust engine configuration was burning liquid propane at a rate of 1.04 Lbs/min or 2.04 Litres/min, while delivering between 94 to 110 lbs. of thrust (102 Lbs. of thrust average).
Hi Luc,
Better check your numbers, the lbs/min do not match the litres/min by a factor of 2.
Mike
__________________________
Follow my technical science blog at: http://mikeeverman.com/
Get alerts for the above on twitter at: http://twitter.com/mikeeverman

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

Re: re: Pulseramjet

Post by luc » Tue Dec 11, 2007 2:32 pm

Mike Everman wrote:Hi Luc,
Better check your numbers, the lbs/min do not match the litres/min by a factor of 2.
Welll ... you're 50% correct Mike.

The fuel consumption of 1.04 Lbs./min. is correct and as it was calculated from a recording where an engine ran at full power for 3 minutes and burned through 3.12 lbs. of liquid propane in that 3 minutes.

So 3.12 lbs. of fuel divided by 3 minutes = 1.04 Lbs. of fuel per minute.
This is the real and important value.

Now, the screw-up is in the Lbs. to Liter conversion and where you are correct Mike and for which I will have to plee "Not guilty" for the following reasons :

According to specification CAN/CGA-B149.2-M95, they state that propane (C3H8) has a mass per liter of liquid @ 15.5 C of .51 lbs.

So ... If you do the following calculation 1.04 lbs/min divided by .51 Lbs per liter (liquid propane mass property as per CAN/CGA-B149.2-M95) you then come to the 2.039 (2.04) liter/min.

But after reading your message, I have looked into that spec again to find a contradiction.

At one place, the CAN/CGA-B149.2-M95 specification state that propane (C3H8) has a mass per liter of liquid @ 15.5 C of .51 lbs. and on the following page, the same specification state that propane has a mass per gallon of liquid @ 15.5 C of 5.1 lbs.

Now ... If you do the math on this last one, thus, 5.1 lbs. divided by 4.546 (Number of liters per gallon) you will get a 1.12 lbs. mass per liter of propane, which contradict the preceeding .51 claimed in that same spec sheet and basically where you have spoted the "factor 2" mistake.

So ... the real numbers would be 1.04 Lbs/min (.928 Liter/min), which is even better for us ... He he he (Thanks Mike).

The sad thing about all this, is "Who can you trust if you can't trust a damn official spec sheet". I will have to repport that.

Anyway ... Thanks for your keen eyes Mike,

Regards,
Luc
Designer & Inventor

Mark
Posts: 10720
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 10:14 pm

Propane

Post by Mark » Wed Dec 12, 2007 4:18 am

~4.2 pounds per gallon @ 15C

http://tinyurl.com/39lont
http://www.npga.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=633


"But sometimes it's mixed with butane, and not identified as other than propane. Coming home to northern states from AZ with a full tank of mostly butane -- which won't vaporize until it gets above 32F -- can cause a problem, since butane needs to be above feezing to vaporize. If it doesn't vaporize, your appliances won't work. If you fill up with Butane in Texas and drive home to Minnesota in winter months, you'll find none of your "propane" appliances will work."
http://www.rversonline.org/02Propane.html

"Propane, composed primarily of propane and butanes with smaller amounts of propylene and butylenes, is supplied in four grades of different composition. HD-5, the only grade appropriate for automotive applications, is 95 percent propane and five percent butanes. The terms liquefied petroleum gas and propane are often used interchangeably."
http://www.ethanol-gec.org/clean/cf11.htm

1 US gallon = 3.7854118 liters

0.5077 kg/L, liquid
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propane

2.2046 pounds per kilogram
0.5077 kg X 2.2046 = 1.1193 pounds
1.1193 pounds/liter X 3.7854118 liters/gallon = 4.2370 pounds per gallon
(I think, I am very tired.)

?
"Now ... If you do the math on this last one, thus, 5.1 lbs. divided by 4.546 (Number of liters per gallon) you will get a 1.12 lbs. mass per liter of propane, which contradict the preceeding .51 claimed in that same spec sheet and basically where you have spoted the "factor 2" mistake."
?
"At one place, the CAN/CGA-B149.2-M95 specification state that propane (C3H8) has a mass per liter of liquid @ 15.5 C of .51 lbs. and on the following page, the same specification state that propane has a mass per gallon of liquid @ 15.5 C of 5.1 lbs."


imperial gallon = litres 4.546

http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/RegSe ... actors.htm

Apples, oranges, and grapefruit.
"The idiom is not unique. In Quebec French it may take the form "comparer des pommes avec des oranges" while in Latin American Spanish usually is "comparar papas y boniatos" or "comparar peras con manzanas." In some other languages the term for "orange" derives from "apple", suggesting not only that a direct comparison between the two is possible, but that it is implicitly present in their names. Fruit other than apples and oranges can also be compared; for example, apples and pears are compared in Danish, Dutch, German, Spanish, Swedish, Czech, Romanian, Luxembourgish and Turkish. However, apples are actually more closely related to pears — both are rosaceae — than to oranges. In fact, in the Spanish-speaking world, a common idiom is sumar peras con manzanas - that is, "to add pears and apples". The same thing applies in Romanian where a popular idiom is a aduna merele cu perele - that is again, "to add apples and pears"."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apples_and_oranges
Presentation is Everything

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

Post by luc » Wed Dec 12, 2007 1:23 pm

He he he,

It will always amaze me how a simple question or subject can turn into a 30 threads and thousand words posting here.

Maybe a good lesson here too ... Such as "All details is often ... To many details" and where peoples get tangled.

Anyway ... The bottom line is;
3 minutes run
Full power
3.12 pounds of liquid propane (or apple juice or grape fruit juice or what ever you want) ... Consummed.

By the way ... The propane smelled like propane, I could not see the color and the tank is in aluminium of silver color.

As for the rest (i.e : liters, gallons or coffee cups) I will leave it to you ...

Regards,
Luc
Designer & Inventor

Mark
Posts: 10720
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 10:14 pm

About all that I am certain of

Post by Mark » Wed Dec 12, 2007 2:09 pm

I thought my recently worked out organic chemistry/volumetrically equivalent formula was significant.

~1 Florida grapefruit = 1 Dynajet Redhead

I'm trying to learn more each day.
Thanks for the math Luc, and good luck with your half rocket devices. ha
Presentation is Everything

Mark
Posts: 10720
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 10:14 pm

Meters, Mr. Towns, meters.

Post by Mark » Wed Dec 12, 2007 2:56 pm

For some reason, this script came to mind.

After a blessedly safe landing near an oasis...

"How far did you say that Henson and Stringfellow flew that rubber-powered model in 1851, Mr. Dorfmann?"

"Six hundred meters, Mr. Towns."

"Is that meters or yards?"

"Meters, Mr. Towns, meters."

http://gulliver.cc/film/phoenix.htm
"If you've seen this film, you'll remember Dorfmann rattling off an amazing claim about, of all things, the early history of model airplanes. He says, "In 1851 Henson and Stringfellow built a rubber-powered model that flew 600 meters before encountering an obstruction." For years I thought this was an odd invention of the screenplay (I don't remember it being in the book) ... but it turns out to be entirely true."

Interesting tidbit.
"I suppose it's on this metaphorical level that I appreciate this story the most. The question raised here is about our potential as human beings to re-invent ourselves and our surroundings -- to gather the remnants of a hopeless situation and rebuild them into a potential for growth, for success, for happiness. If that isn't a worthwhile concept to ponder, I don't know what is."
Presentation is Everything

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

Re: Meters, Mr. Towns, meters.

Post by luc » Mon Dec 17, 2007 5:52 pm

Mark wrote:For some reason, this script came to mind.

After a blessedly safe landing near an oasis...

"How far did you say that Henson and Stringfellow flew that rubber-powered model in 1851, Mr. Dorfmann?"

"Six hundred meters, Mr. Towns."

"Is that meters or yards?"

"Meters, Mr. Towns, meters."

http://gulliver.cc/film/phoenix.htm
"If you've seen this film, you'll remember Dorfmann rattling off an amazing claim about, of all things, the early history of model airplanes. He says, "In 1851 Henson and Stringfellow built a rubber-powered model that flew 600 meters before encountering an obstruction." For years I thought this was an odd invention of the screenplay (I don't remember it being in the book) ... but it turns out to be entirely true."

Interesting tidbit.
"I suppose it's on this metaphorical level that I appreciate this story the most. The question raised here is about our potential as human beings to re-invent ourselves and our surroundings -- to gather the remnants of a hopeless situation and rebuild them into a potential for growth, for success, for happiness. If that isn't a worthwhile concept to ponder, I don't know what is."
And your point is in regards of the above matter ?????

As I still don't get it after reading all these words and text ...

Maybe to mutch words or it's my english ... But I still don't get your point.

Regards,
Luc
Designer & Inventor

Mark
Posts: 10720
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 10:14 pm

Meters, Mr. Towns, meters

Post by Mark » Tue Dec 18, 2007 2:38 am

Well in the movie, Jimmy Stewart argues with this fellow who is an airplane designer, who takes on the task of deciding how to build the "Phoenix" from the wreckage of the old plane. Later in the movie, Stewart is stunned to find out Mr. Dorfmann is only a toy airplane designer, that he has never built a "real" full-sized airplane, only these model airplanes. Still, "the principle is the same" he says.
So, they don't get along at all, Stewart thinks Dorfmann is insane, but goes along with the idea thinking there is little hope they will ever get out of the desert anyway, and why alarm the other men with this revelation.
When they finally do take off and land near an oasis, all are grateful, and Jimmy Stewart asks/recounts with Dorfmann about the little rubberband powered model that flew so many meters way back when. But Stewart is just toying with Dorfmann when he asks was that yards or meters, knowing that meters are a little bit longer than yards. Stewart was just being friendly, making up with Dorfmann in a way.
The reason I brought this story up is that it illustrated some humor about how measurements can sometimes be contentious, for one thing having different systems of measurements - meters or yards, gallons or imperial gallons, and liters to gallons and/or imperial gallons. I guess I was just seeing an abstract analogy. All meant in good will.
I don't think my propane is the same as your propane either, because they add more butane in hotter climes. And I guess the ratio isn't a constant evaporation rate, the propane wants out more, so you end up with a tank richer in butane as time goes on. But this probably isn't important for your propane up in Frostville, which is probably 95% pure propane or maybe you get 100% propane?
I suppose if you inverted your tank then that would help solve some problems to some extent, such as icing and fractional distillation/evaporation of the propane/butane mix?
Presentation is Everything

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

Re: Meters, Mr. Towns, meters

Post by luc » Tue Dec 18, 2007 1:53 pm

Mark wrote:... for your propane up in Frostville, which is probably 95% pure propane or maybe you get 100% propane?
Haaaaaa ..... Okeyy, I do remember that part of the story and indeed, that was a funny one. Soory for being that slow ... He he he.

As a matter of fact, my father is a retired "Cell Tech" as they call the ones that build air frame and he first told me that no matter what airframe you build, they ALL fly under the same principals.

By the way, I have attached pictures of Pratt & Whitney's Boeing 720 air lab, which most of the modifications where done by my father. If you look at the airplane's new nose ... He built it and I was part of the team who installed it.

The nose nacel is for PW100 serie turbo prop testing, the side nacel is for small jet engine testing such as the JD15D and if you look the last picture #0017062[1], you will note the wing outboard engine is a smaller original JT8D and the inboard engine is actually a much bigger V2500 turbo fan.

This last inboard pillon was a pain to install as we had to run all these wires through the wing, pass the fuel tank and into DAS consoles.

Today and even if retired, my father still works part times on Pratt & Whitney's new 747 airlab stationned at Platsburg New York and still claims the same thing ... Airframe, drones, UAV, airplane, garbage can (When flying) all fly under the same principals, no matter what size.

As for our propane here, you will be amazed to learn that our propane provider can only guaranty a purity between 92 to 97%.

I hope you will enjoy these pictures ...

Regards,
Attachments
0017062[1].jpg
0017062[1].jpg (9.18 KiB) Viewed 4899 times
0084108[1].jpg
0084108[1].jpg (14.19 KiB) Viewed 4901 times
0116014[1].jpg
0116014[1].jpg (12.46 KiB) Viewed 4900 times
0219210[1].jpg
0219210[1].jpg (8.5 KiB) Viewed 4902 times
0680640[1].jpg
0680640[1].jpg (8.17 KiB) Viewed 4901 times
0808017[1].jpg
0808017[1].jpg (6.41 KiB) Viewed 4906 times
0151222[1].jpg
0151222[1].jpg (11.06 KiB) Viewed 4903 times
Luc
Designer & Inventor

Locked