Claiming the BCVP Title Back

[Mike Everman]

I couldn't regret more that my grasp of higher math is so rudimentary. I rely almost entirely on my software tools in this respect, and on the engineers that I employ, to my shame as a wannabee scientist.

[WebPilot]

If you are referring again to me as "holier than thou", then kiss my ass.

I let it go the last time, but not this time.

I have two engineering degrees, and if I see someone I respect up here
making errors in what they are trying to portray or say, then I'll correct them.

They don't have to believe me, but if they do a bit of research they'll
know I am not steering them wrong.

For the rest ... I just get a good chuckle out of reading science fiction.

-fde

[Viv]

I couldn't regret more that my grasp of higher math is so rudimentary. I rely almost entirely on my software tools in this respect, and on the engineers that I employ, to my shame as a wannabee scientist.

I have to agree with you Mike I am in the same boat but if its any consolation they work for us rather than us for them;-)

Viv

[Mike Everman]

Back to the subject of the thread, I've given a lot of thought to the concept, and I keep coming back to the same conclusion:

If the CC's alternate and make pressure pulses of the same magnitude, then the mid-length could be replaced by a closed end.

The pressure pulse would return from the closed end just as if it were arriving from the other CC, and so I think "let's optimize it as a single hole breather to save on cut and try effort", and consequently wonder why, if that is do-able, would you want to connect two of them having accomplished that?

You wouldn't have the drag of the u-bend if you just put two single hole breathers side by side and allow them to "find harmony". ;-)

[Eric]

I totally agree that in a lot of cases degrees mean nothing. Anyone who has went to school for an engineering or science knows a load of people that should not become, or should not have been allowed to become engineers or scientists.

I have had one teacher, who has at least one engineering degree, that just may qualify as one of the dumbest people on the planet. In his case a degree is just a piece of paper. As an assignment freshman year we had to build a popsicle stick bridge, and see what it could hold, and then when it broke we would divide the max weight held by the number of sticks, simple concept right?. Long story short our bridge could not be broken with the weights present, it exceeded the weight held per stick of any other bridge, but because it did not break, he called it a failure and was going to give us an F until we verbally belittled him in front of the class and showed on the blackboard that our bridge was actually the best pound/stick.

It takes a special kind of idiot for something like that. We later took the bridge to the gym and put a bench press bar and 400 pounds (455 total) of weight on it and it didn’t break, a show of what 487 Popsicle sticks and about 7 tubes of high strength epoxy can do. That summer we blew it up, although the first explosion didn’t actually damage the thing, we ended up lighting it on fire for a while, putting it out, and then blowing it to oblivion in its weakend state.

I know many 3rd and 4th year engineering majors who can not grasp the subtle complexities of thermodynamics, or that you can not have an motor running a generator, charging the battery, that powers the motor for the rest of eternity.... Perpetual motion machines are just the tip of the iceberg, sadly these people are the ones who are extremely good with calc, and have 4.0 averages. I swear if some of those aerospace majors actually get a degree that I am not going to fly on any future airlines.

The science behind the math is lost to these kind of people, and there is nothing that they can do that a computer cannot do, since they are basically plugging numbers into equations instead of understanding what those numbers are.

Innovation often proves much more valuable than being able to do advanced calc. When it comes down to it we know nothing, all we can do is observe things and speculate. Building things and collecting hard data reign supreme in my books.

People like Forrest who are good with math and innovative have the best deal. I would say that most of the people on this forum are of the innovative type, the people who aren’t don’t usually get into designing and playing with jets.

If you are only a math genius you end up working for innovative people for 6 figures or less, if your innovative like Mike you can have a staff of those smart people doing all the unpleasant math stuff for you ;)


Bruno if all you want is your name in the history books as coming up with the concept or specific design, take your valveless paper and write a little book about it and send it in for copyright. If a working prototype is a few or many years on the horizon then your patent could likely expire before you even begin production.

Eric

And now to lighten the mood here is the bridge which represents everything bad about degrees, and idiots who manage to get them that make the rest look bad:

And here is the bridge getting blown to bits:

Enjoy

[Greg O'Bryant]

Bruno: I wish you luck on the idea of you bcvp. I have a few ideas that i did want to try out concerning bcvp's but untill I get a stable financial background they wont go anywhere. So I guess what I'm saying is that if you do come to market with a working engine and it is similar to my ideas then congratts to you you deserve it. I can only be happy for some one else who was able to acomplish what, for what ever reason, I wasn't able to. I have been watching the forum for the past while and, although people have come close, nobody apears to be thinking or considering developing an engine in the way that I would want to, except you. so good luck!

[serverlan]

A degree does not make a human being. Some of you guys make we wanna hand mine back in. And thats a Physics degree. You engineering scum can call me God ;p




Bruno,
are you laying claim to your design, and similar derivatives,
or to any VPJ that creates a high pressure environment for the pulse?
Does it need to have two chambers to qualify?
Does more than two chambers qualify?
I'm nopt trying to be difficult. Just trying to narrow down the scope of the features that you believe characterise your design.

Two bits of info that might be of use to BCVP designer that I have recently had confirmed by UFLOW:-

1) Nice neat sharp pulses tend to disapate as they travel down a pipe, becoming broader and less intense. However, they can be shaped back up again using conical or exponential or similar shaped constrictions.

2) If a pressure pulse hits a closed end, it will reflect back. If it hits an open end, or goes into a much larger chamber, a negative wave will be reflected. If you want it to pass into the larger chamber without any reflection (either positive or negative), then restrict the pipe diameter to about 50% with a washer or similar, just as it enters the large chamber.
UFLOW be used to optimise if the conditions are less than ideal.
I thought this might be useful in the BCVP at the constriction where the blast tube meets the combustor.

I still have some of my design thoughts lying around from the old BCVP days. If I ever revive them, and they prove of value (ha) I promise to share with you. I still think the main problem with my main version was in getting fresh mix to flow to the desired combustion point. I think it choked itself. Those were the days, eh?
The older I get, the better I was.

Don

[serverlan]

Mike,
your comment on halving the engine.
I had the same idea a few years back.
I even made a first prototype that didn't work.
Which doesn't mean much because its the only
VPJ prototype I have ever made, and my failure rate is 100%
But the theory sounds good.
;-)

another way to look at it is:-

take any old basically working VPJ (ha)
Add a closed end pipe sticking out of the combustion chamber.
The pipe's lengh, allowing for temperature, etc. should transmit the pressure pulse and reflect it back just in time for the next combusion.
In all practicality, better make that pipe slide adjustable.
Will probably need different lengths for starting and running temperatures.

Now, is that a BCVP, a Half BCVP, or something else?
Don

[Mike Everman]

Well, Don, I suspect it becomes a weak Reynst pot with the CC in the wrong place, that will choke itself on it's own gases! Gives itself the never-ending "dutch oven" ha ha ha

[Eric]

Why have a closed end at all?

[Bruno Ogorelec]

Whew! I should not have come out with this at all. Jesus, what a conflagration! M. is right, quoting 'Much Ado About Nothing'.

Look, guys, maybe it wasn’t quite obvious from my first posted notice, but I don't want to stake any really serious claim on anything. And I probably couldn't even if I tried. What I really wanted is to let people who might want to do work with the BCVP concept to know that I may be returning to the fray. I wanted to avoid us running into each other with unnecessary force.

Apart from publishing this notice on the forum, I have also written to most people who have written me directly about BCVP so far. Their number is quite impressive. Incredibly, I am still getting maybe one message a month or so from someone intrigued by the thing. Not a few of those are people with very serious engineering background – people quite capable of analyzing the concept quite thoroughly.

I have long since written a detailed message explaining the status of the BCVP and its short history, to use as a stock response and save myself the effort of writing the same story from scratch every time.

Most of those expressions of interest remain just that, but every one in a while someone up and tries to build the thing. I wanted such people to know I'm back at it.

Should anything come out of the fresh effort, I will try to protect my rights in a formal way, the best I can. (It will be a tall order under the circumstances, but I'm entitled to try.)

Chances are that my new foray into engine development will end up in a cul-de-sac again and that no protection will be needed. The experience so far has shown that the BCVP is a temperamental engine at best. Some say that it is even completely unworkable. OK. I disagree with that assessment, but it's neither here nor there. Time will tell.

Meanwhile, I have absolutely no objection to anyone else doing the same thing -- I'd just like to know about it and talk to the people doing it.

I am sorry that M. has found it necessary to slam me about it, but it's his privilege. This is an open forum and -- as Mike Everman has pointed out -- I'm a big boy and can take such things. When you conduct your affairs in public, you have to expect (and handle) occasional brickbats.

Forrest/WebPilot -- another man with a bit of disdain for me (and for a similar reason) -- is equally entitled to his opinion and to making that opinion public. Neither M. nor Forrest have said anything terrible. Both are often unnecessarily supercilious and generally unpleasant, but so what? No harm done except for my nerves. I just have to take an extra beer.

Let's close this unpleasant topic and go do something more productive.

[paul skinner]

And they all lived happily ever after.

The End.

[serverlan]

Eric,

good one.
I'll reply in the non-Eric the half a BCVP thread

(It does mean non-you. Just a reference to a
Monty Python joke about Eric the half-a-Bee)

Don