I have to disagree. What I have drawn is what I call the Constant Flow engine, which has two combustors working in antiphase, using common toroidal plenums on inatkes and exhausts to produce constant -- NOT intermittent -- intake flow and constant -- NOT intermittent -- exhaust flow.
Bill, those nozzles will blow a steady stream, not pulses.
Theory says that pulsation should be confined to the engine -- therefore no battering. This thing should at the very least be BETTER than a single combustor, not worse. Experiments have proved that this is so at least to some extent. But, very little experimentation has been done. What such a layout can really do is still anyone's guess.
Noise will certainly not be annulled -- a great deal of the noise is combustion noise, after all, which will not be affected. However, some of the nose of pulsation will be removed (that much has been proved by experiment). Also removed will be some of the shear noise produced by the speed differential between ambient air and the gas jet. My layout will slow down the flow considerably, lowering the noise.
Again, the thing will be far from quiet, but I am hoping to have it no noisier than a noisy two-stroke. Call me optimist.
Rocket belts and such
Moderator: Mike Everman
-
- Posts: 3542
- Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2003 7:31 am
- Antipspambot question: 0
- Location: Zagreb, Croatia
-
- Posts: 209
- Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 4:03 am
re: Rocket belts and such
What do you guys think of the Vortex Thruster? Befor the inventor died he gave a conservative estimate of 17 times the thrust of a direct thrust jet? I can see having two pulse jets in the chamber to start the vortex. If the jet intakes were placed closer to the center of the chamber centrifugal forces would draw fresh air toward the intakes so you wouldn't have to worry about it ingesting exhaust. Any way it is totally undeveloped.
-
- Posts: 3542
- Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2003 7:31 am
- Antipspambot question: 0
- Location: Zagreb, Croatia
re: Rocket belts and such
The two issues here, really are (a) whether two augmented pulsejets generating 300 lbs of thrust together can be fit into a package you can strap on a man's back and (b) whether the noise generated by two 150 lbs pulsejets can be brought down to tolerable levels.
I admit that the chances don't look too good on either of the two problems and I'm putting a greater hope into a flying platform and probably the highest hope into a jet-powered gyroplane, but still... a backpack flying machine is such a sexy thought...
I admit that the chances don't look too good on either of the two problems and I'm putting a greater hope into a flying platform and probably the highest hope into a jet-powered gyroplane, but still... a backpack flying machine is such a sexy thought...
-
- Posts: 4140
- Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2003 1:17 am
- Antipspambot question: 0
- Location: Mingo, Iowa USA
- Contact:
re: Rocket belts and such
As I understand it, the original idea for the flying platform was to get a soldier into the field. This turns out to be a really dumb idea. BUT, a good application I can see would be to make it just a little bigger - big enough for a pilot, a guy on a built-in stretcher and some minimal but essential medical stuff (an IV setup, etc.). Then, use it for one-man rescue in spots so tight no helicopter can land. It would be hard to beat, because the piloting requirements would be minimal and the skills easily learned by your average paramedic. A platform should be minimally affected by gusts and updrafts that would keep other aircraft out of the picture.
L Cottrill
L Cottrill
-
- Posts: 3542
- Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2003 7:31 am
- Antipspambot question: 0
- Location: Zagreb, Croatia
re: Rocket belts and such
With pulsejet power, the platforms would be really cheap. I bet people would soon find plenty of uses for such a device. Border police might find it very effective. Fuel consumption would be punitive, though.