Do hope that you are still out there and working on this, Great to see that someone has one and is doing the research.
What is the latest!
: ) thanks
tom D
Zoltan Szakaly
Moderator: Mike Everman
-
thomas.dye
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 5:21 pm
- Antipspambot question: 0
- Location: atlanta ga
-
Bruno Ogorelec
- Posts: 3542
- Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2003 7:31 am
- Antipspambot question: 0
- Location: Zagreb, Croatia
Gluhareff 130 pressure Jet ... Read this before
Okey guys....Read this before investing close to $130,000.00 of research on this engine like we just did.
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.
Guys ... You need to know that after extensive testing, monitoring and data acquisition with precice instrumentation, we came to the conclusion that follows.
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, and a qualibrated load cell aligned with the thrust axis of those 3 engine. Maybe this could happened with 1 engine, but with 3 engine? ... I don't think so.
Also and after all those 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 was invested in it because this engine was suppose to be part of another machine. But after we encountered this engine power failure, 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... Unless you are rich or you know something that I don't know or missed ... Don't fall in the trap. This engine maybe big in size and numbers, but it is still not what it's suppose to be.
Remember ... 60 pounds instead of 130. Tested and proven.
Regards,
Luc
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.
Guys ... You need to know that after extensive testing, monitoring and data acquisition with precice instrumentation, we came to the conclusion that follows.
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, and a qualibrated load cell aligned with the thrust axis of those 3 engine. Maybe this could happened with 1 engine, but with 3 engine? ... I don't think so.
Also and after all those 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 was invested in it because this engine was suppose to be part of another machine. But after we encountered this engine power failure, 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... Unless you are rich or you know something that I don't know or missed ... Don't fall in the trap. This engine maybe big in size and numbers, but it is still not what it's suppose to be.
Remember ... 60 pounds instead of 130. Tested and proven.
Regards,
Luc