Pressure Vs Pulse Jets

Moderator: Mike Everman

hagent
Posts: 413
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2005 9:01 pm
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: Simi Valley CA

Pressure Vs Pulse Jets

Post by hagent » Sat Sep 10, 2005 5:28 am

I just recently started to look at the pressure jet forum only to discover a whole new type of PJ.

I'd like to know how they compare in performance to a Valved and valveless pulse jet.

For example, fuel effiency and thrust for a comparable PJ.

Thanks!
Hagen Tannberg

Viv
Posts: 2158
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2003 2:35 pm
Antipspambot question: 125
Location: Normandy, France, Wales, Europe
Contact:

Re: Pressure Vs Pulse Jets

Post by Viv » Sat Sep 10, 2005 6:16 pm

hagent wrote:I just recently started to look at the pressure jet forum only to discover a whole new type of PJ.

I'd like to know how they compare in performance to a Valved and valveless pulse jet.

For example, fuel effiency and thrust for a comparable PJ.

Thanks!
Its not a new type of engine its just a differant type:-)

Just to start you off on your investigations Hagent let me warn you that probably 80% of the stuff written about the pressure jet is just plain wrong!

Most of this stems from the fact that the original inventor put nearly as much time in to the engine as he did in to protecting it:-)

The published technical manual and patent discriptions of the pressure jets operating principles are wishfull physics and pure misdirection.

The technical manual, the maths are wrong, proven by better mathmatitions than me, acoustic wave diagrams are wrong, thats simple acoustics proving that.

He gave you what you needed to build his engine but not what you needed to design and build your own! he never wrote down how it worked, consider it smoke and mirrors.

One of the main proponents and self styled experts was less than accurate in his oppinions and statements.

The pressure jet is a valveless pulse jet, this is a fact proven by testing and data gathered from a test stand.

You can consider it a form of Logan or chinese type engine with a clever intake system.

It does have a complex acoustic nature due to the fact the intake is also resonating, this has led to a lot of old wives tales and mysterious legends about how it works.

The engine will start from cold with no compressed air or other aids, just a spark and turn the fuel on, engine throttles from idle to max smoothly but with a jump as the acoustics lock up and it goes in to major resonance.

Fuel effiency, turning fuel in to heat pretty good:-) fuel figures will be published later.

Thrust comparison, our 20 pound size engine delivers 45 pounds thrust at 155Hz from a 3.5" tailpipe so thats 4.67 pounds per inch of tailpipe area, thats a good way to compare other engines of differnt types, The chinese with a 2" tailpipe and 4.5 pounds of thrust gives 1.43 pounds of thrust per inch of tailpipe area.

Dave Raibec has built a 20 pounder that worked first time and is currently building a second one, pretty damn impressive for a 16 year old kid I think.

Building an engine is simple, good plans not the old ones as those only produce 50% power, stainless 321 grade, any thing else dissolves:-) good shop skills and welding is next.

All plans availible on the internet and built engines sold do not produce full thrust or performance, GLC is the only company with engines delivering full thrust or better than.

We recently got 45 Lbs from the 20 Lbs design, thats from understanding how it works and building it right.

It is not a stationary ram jet of any discription.

It is not any kind of super none resonating burner akin to a ram jet.

It is not a pulsating ram jet.

It is nothing to do with any kind or type of burner, ram jet or any thing you want to speculate it might be or have been claimed to be by any one.

It does not contain a stationary flame front any were! in particular it does not contain a stationary flame front in the third stage inlet tube.

It does not have a magical supersonic nozzle design that defeats the laws of physics and endows the engine with the ability to extract more energy from the fuel flow (mass) than is there to begine with.

It does not recieve any special dispensation to ignore the laws of physics by using a heat exchanger coil! it just raises the fuel temperature and that raises the local speed of sound of the fuel leaving the nozzle.

It does resonate! it does rely on resonance and acoustics for its operation, thrust is delivered in time with the pulsations in the combustion chamber.

It is a valveless pulse jet, any one claiming otherwise should show you results from two years work and $40k worth of test equipment to prove what they say:-)

Drilling holes in the engine or intakes positioned by secret arcane methods is a bodge to get round incorect acoustic sizes in the original plans! build it right and they are not needed! ours does not have them.

Exhaust fishtail is also a fix for incorect acoustics! it broadens the resonace point, ours does not have a fishtail:-)

It does run on contaminated propane, you do not need regent grade propane! this was a lie told to cover the 130R not working, our 500 gallon propane tank is contaminated with oil! this was sprayed in side to stop rust by the supplyier, our engines work fine thanks but a bit smokey at idle:-)

Conception GLC inc. has not only patented the actual theory of operation of the pressure jet it has also patented the modifications to the Gluehareff derived L shape pressure jets and designed and patented a completly new type of inline pressure jet.

The L shape pressure jet is now obsolete and we will release plans in to the public domain for your enjoyment when we get the time, you are welcome to build and incorporate our patented developments in your own engines as long as its for you and not for comercial gain:-)

We can help you out with the difficult to make parts and advice on your own project, ask Dave, with in the bounds of our comercial activities we help as much as we can.

Hope that helps, any questions from what you find written about the pressure jet just post them, I love debunking the myths:-)

Viv

marksteamnz
Posts: 408
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 1:42 am
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

re: Pressure Vs Pulse Jets

Post by marksteamnz » Sat Sep 10, 2005 9:24 pm

Viv THANKS!! That was a wonderfully concise and thoughtful post re pressure jets. Just one of those points would have been gold.
"It does not have a magical supersonic nozzle design" brilliant I've always read the puffery about that and thought huh?
Thanks once again to you and Luc.
Cheers
Mark Stacey
www.cncprototyping.co.nz

hagent
Posts: 413
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2005 9:01 pm
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: Simi Valley CA

re: Pressure Vs Pulse Jets

Post by hagent » Mon Sep 12, 2005 7:55 am

Thanks Viv!

I appreciate all that you wrote.

Would you say that the pressure jet is the best design around?
Most effiecent VS thrust?

Looking forward to seeing some of your drawings.


I was trying to finish my first PJ today but welding 0.025" thick steel is very hard. My PJ looks more like Frankenstein now... If I get this one to work I'll deffinitly move over to a much thicker material. I was cheap and used the steel from a can of air.

I will bow down to anyone who can neatly gas weld 0.025" thin mild steel!


Thanks again Viv!
Hagen Tannberg

Bruno Ogorelec
Posts: 3542
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2003 7:31 am
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: Zagreb, Croatia

re: Pressure Vs Pulse Jets

Post by Bruno Ogorelec » Mon Sep 12, 2005 12:34 pm

I'm so f***ing proud of you, Viv I want to kiss you. That's the way to do it. Took balls, too. Good luck!

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

Re: re: Pressure Vs Pulse Jets

Post by luc » Mon Sep 12, 2005 3:03 pm

Hi Hagent,
hagent wrote: Would you say that the pressure jet is the best design around?
Most effiecent VS thrust?
That question was the ground for debates for quite a while now. Today, with the figures Conception GLC inc. is frequently publishing on the subject, I would say that peoples are starting to reconsider or re-evaluate this question.

For this, you need to understand that the Pressure-jet was for many years, a technology that was a No No and covered with secreties, misleading information and misunderstanding. For this, I beleive the community put all its devotions on the valved pulse-jet and the other vavleless.

Someone, once told me that a "Pressure jet" was an unsolvable "Pathology" and I know for fact today, that the real pathology reside in the valved pulse-jet as we know them.

Today and with the knowlegde and understanding Viv and I have gained on the pressure-jet, we can claim high and loud today, that our 2nd generation will beat any other types of pulse-jets in any aspect you might think of and this, is without considering our 3rd generation pressure jet.

This new engine, when time will come, will leave ALL its predecessors, miles behind. Fabrication wise, SFC wise and speed capability wise.

Just this last weekend, Viv and I have unvealed and destroy other myth on the pressure jet and we can't stop behing stund by the amount of bullshit this engine was covered with. No wonder why most peoples turned their back on it, but this is over now.

Now, thinking of the PJ community, I can't stop thinking and asking my self what would have happen if all those years, this community would have put as much efforts on the pressure jet, as it did on the pulse jet. I beleive what Viv and I have found and and doing today, would have been found and done long ago.

I still hope and dream of the day when guys like Mike, Bruno, Mark, Larry, us and many others here, will get in a big haggar with alot of steel and fuel and will get together and say ... Let build the perfect Thermo-acoustic engine and I know for fact today, that this new engine would be much more closer to a pressure jet, then a pulse jet ... This, I know for a fact today.

A day will is soon to come, when most of you will have the oportunity to participate and get involved in the further developpement of the thermo-acoustic jet engine ... And gain from it. Beleive me, you will see it when this day comes.

Regards,

Luc




I hope of engine building, thinking that the day if one d

Viv
Posts: 2158
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2003 2:35 pm
Antipspambot question: 125
Location: Normandy, France, Wales, Europe
Contact:

re: Pressure Vs Pulse Jets

Post by Viv » Mon Sep 12, 2005 3:03 pm

Thanks for the nice words guys:-) we have worked long and hard on this and are on the brink of succes finaly:-)

Is a pressure jet better or worse than a valveless? I suppose the comparison depends on the application, the thrust per inch of tailpipe comparison puts it up near the top of the range of availible engines and also the length of the engine is shorter in comparision due to its harmonic frequency operation rather than fundamental operation.

With that said its what its being used for that decides weather its better than another engine design, we think it has a lot of milage in its development and use for sure.

So size, weight, thrust per unit volume, yes its pretty good.

We did SFC testing this weekend and that gave us a few suprises! our initial figures put us 1.2 SFC higher than a comparable mini turbine! now that suprised the hell out of me as I thought we would have been two or three times higher not just a over a pound higher, this was done from an 18 minute run and six three minute runs so we have plenty of data to check the calculations against.

This was all done on what we affectanly call the crash test dummy:-) its been cut and shut more times than a second hand car on a dodgy dealers car lot:-)

Welding thin steel with gas you had better speak to the gas welding Guru Larry, we weld stainless with TIG so its pretty easy.

Viv

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

Re: re: Pressure Vs Pulse Jets

Post by luc » Mon Sep 12, 2005 4:24 pm

Heyyyy ... That not fair at all.
Bruno Ogorelec wrote:I'm so f***ing proud of you, Viv I want to kiss you. That's the way to do it. Took balls, too. Good luck!
Look at this ... He gets to get all the kisses (Not that I really care about those) and the credits.

Bull shitttttt ... He is the thermo-acoustic specialist in GLC ... But I AM the "Pressure jet" specialist ... He he he.

So ... Bring those kiss along ... Bruno.

He he he....

Cya mate.

Luc

Viv
Posts: 2158
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2003 2:35 pm
Antipspambot question: 125
Location: Normandy, France, Wales, Europe
Contact:

Re: re: Pressure Vs Pulse Jets

Post by Viv » Mon Sep 12, 2005 4:39 pm

Luc wrote:Heyyyy ... That not fair at all.
Bruno Ogorelec wrote:I'm so f***ing proud of you, Viv I want to kiss you. That's the way to do it. Took balls, too. Good luck!
Look at this ... He gets to get all the kisses (Not that I really care about those) and the credits.

Bull shitttttt ... He is the thermo-acoustic specialist in GLC ... But I AM the "Pressure jet" specialist ... He he he.

So ... Bring those kiss along ... Bruno.

He he he....

Cya mate.

Luc
Yea he is the pressure jet expert but ask him who told him how it works:-)

Viv (heh heh heh)

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

Re: re: Pressure Vs Pulse Jets

Post by luc » Mon Sep 12, 2005 4:57 pm

Pfffffffffff......
Viv wrote:
Luc wrote:Heyyyy ... That not fair at all.
Bruno Ogorelec wrote:I'm so f***ing proud of you, Viv I want to kiss you. That's the way to do it. Took balls, too. Good luck!
Look at this ... He gets to get all the kisses (Not that I really care about those) and the credits.

Bull shitttttt ... He is the thermo-acoustic specialist in GLC ... But I AM the "Pressure jet" specialist ... He he he.

So ... Bring those kiss along ... Bruno.

He he he....

Cya mate.

Luc
Yea he is the pressure jet expert but ask him who told him how it works:-)

Viv (heh heh heh)
Yeaaaa ... The acoustic part of it .... ONLY.

But the rest .... I am the mannnnnnnnnnn .... He he he.

I want a kiss toooo.

Cya,

Luc

Ray(GB)
Posts: 42
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 3:44 pm
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: England

re: Pressure Vs Pulse Jets

Post by Ray(GB) » Tue Sep 13, 2005 4:48 pm

Congratulations to Viv and Luc for their success after long and hard endeavours inventing and understanding the principles of Thermo-acoustic jet engines.

How much would two 100kg static thrust such engines cost to buy from you?.
Thanks,Ray

Viv
Posts: 2158
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2003 2:35 pm
Antipspambot question: 125
Location: Normandy, France, Wales, Europe
Contact:

Re: re: Pressure Vs Pulse Jets

Post by Viv » Tue Sep 13, 2005 4:53 pm

Ray(GB) wrote:Congratulations to Viv and Luc for their success after long and hard endeavours inventing and understanding the principles of Thermo-acoustic jet engines.

How much would two 100kg static thrust such engines cost to buy from you?.
Thanks,Ray
Ray, go to www.glc-inc.ca and use the contact form, Luc will sort you out a quote.

Viv

Nick
Posts: 359
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:36 am
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: Somerset, UK
Contact:

Re: Pressure Vs Pulse Jets

Post by Nick » Fri Sep 23, 2005 7:48 pm

hagent wrote:I just recently started to look at the pressure jet forum only to discover a whole new type of PJ.

I'd like to know how they compare in performance to a Valved and valveless pulse jet.

For example, fuel effiency and thrust for a comparable PJ.

Thanks!
spendid work on behalf of TEAM GLC guys, over here in dear old blighty soon hope to be able to provide some yard stick figures for comparison in respect to the Phoenix/BCVP Engine, which is an altogether different beast, incidentally Viv was there at the birth of this as well!.
:D
Nick

Stuart
Posts: 83
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2003 9:35 pm

Re: re: Pressure Vs Pulse Jets

Post by Stuart » Thu Nov 24, 2005 5:47 am

Luc wrote:Hi Hagent,
hagent wrote: Would you say that the pressure jet is the best design around?
Most effiecent VS thrust?
A day will is soon to come, when most of you will have the oportunity to participate and get involved in the further developpement of the thermo-acoustic jet engine ... And gain from it. Beleive me, you will see it when this day comes.

Regards,

Luc




I hope of engine building, thinking that the day if one d
I have a novel design that is closer to a pressure jet than to a pulsejet, I've just gotten it to run. I think it would be great to have everyone in one big hangar together. Amazing things might happen.
I'm writing an automated airplane designer in java, useful later when you guys get ready to bolt a p-jet onto some wings

Mike Everman
Posts: 4907
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2003 7:25 am
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: santa barbara, CA
Contact:

re: Pressure Vs Pulse Jets

Post by Mike Everman » Thu Nov 24, 2005 6:19 am

Stuart, wow. Start a new thread and tell us about it!
Mike
__________________________
Follow my technical science blog at: http://mikeeverman.com/
Get alerts for the above on twitter at: http://twitter.com/mikeeverman

Post Reply