Sintering, porosity & combustion synthesis

Bruno Ogorelec · Post by **Bruno Ogorelec** » Wed Nov 26, 2003 9:31 pm

Mike Kirney wrote:By the way Bruno, I did notice that you maintained decorum throughout this entire thread.

What I am doing, Mike, is methodically preparing envelopes of itching powder to send to the various postal addresses I have collected by some dilligent investigation.

Mike Kirney · Post by **Mike Kirney** » Wed Nov 26, 2003 9:45 pm

Well if you went to Canada411.com to get my address, they got it wrong there. The municipality and postal code are wrong. I get my mail general delivery out here anyway, so only the post-mistress will suffer from your twisted scheme. Nice try though. Good luck in the future.

Post by **Mike Everman** » Thu Nov 27, 2003 12:50 am

Cudos on your composure, Bruno.
The scary thing to me is that so many engines gone by may actually have been pulsed fuel supply, but thought to be continuous. I feel loss at the possibility that some astonishingly efficient configuration failed muster and was shelved without a bit of consideration to this; or that the solid underpinnings of "what's tried and true" upon which we all extrapolate is just flat out wrong when this fueling issue is done right...
so many variables!

hinote · Post by **hinote** » Thu Nov 27, 2003 1:46 am

Mike Everman wrote:Cudos on your composure, Bruno.
The scary thing to me is that so many engines gone by may actually have been pulsed fuel supply, but thought to be continuous. I feel loss at the possibility that some astonishingly efficient configuration failed muster and was shelved without a bit of consideration to this; or that the solid underpinnings of "what's tried and true" upon which we all extrapolate is just flat out wrong when this fueling issue is done right...
so many variables!

Apparently there IS an alternative to electronically controlled timed fuel injection--and the claim is that SNECMA used it on their valveless engines in the '50's.

Does anybody have any details about this refinement? Apparently they used an injector that loaded a pre-set amount of fuel, and then discharged it with a reduced pressure signal. The opposite effect occurred on the "back-side" of the cycle, when the injector used the building pressure to reload the chamber and NOT put fuel into the high-pressure (combustion) side of the cycle. Ingenious, but can we duplicate the concept?

I can't help but think that there's some simple adaptation of automotive technology that would do the same job--as previously stated.

OK Bruno--be assured that I'm going to try the simpler alternatives first. Only then will I move to more "modern" alternatives.

Bill H.
Acoustic Propulsion Concepts, Inc.

Psignorian · Post by **Psignorian** » Fri Dec 05, 2003 5:33 pm

Why not put a spring valve like those used in valved pulsejets over the injector? Then, if what I've gleaned from conversations here is correct, pressure inside the chamber during the combustion phase would prevent fuel from flowing in. Granted, one would have to design a nozzle to allow this to work, I suppose, but it might be an idea to consider. Think it'd work?

Bruce · Post by **Bruce** » Sat Dec 06, 2003 4:22 am

Do you mean like this very simple unit I built about four years ago:

http://aardvark.co.nz/pjet/images/injector3.jpg

Or its somewhat more sophisticated cousin:

http://aardvark.co.nz/pjet/images/injector1.jpg

www.pulse-jets.com

Sintering, porosity & combustion synthesis

Re: Sponges, Timers, and Un-Necessary Fluidic Emmisions

Better Than Anthrax