Bypass motor

[gidge348]

Syler,

Build something and I will listen to you..... Until that time your comments aren't worth sh*t....

[syler]

Any deflagration or detonation is caused primarily by the change from the densely formed and high energy molecules to looser ones of lower energy. That's about as basic as it gets. The problem is that one must know organic chemistry to get a visual. There are also confirmation changes that are another thing all together. That's why trans-fats are worse than unsaturated fats. It's the way they fit together - or don't. Look, a tablespoon of Kerosene when burned takes up a fuckload more space. If you allowed the N2 and CO2 to cool down, they would still take up a fuckload more space. If you compressed those products back down to a tablespoon, you would have a great deal of pressure which yields kinetic energy. So there you have it.

Heat has intensive and extensive properties which have nothing to do with each other. The extensive properties have to do with raising the temp of a given mass - in other words how much heat, not how hot. If wood burns at 300C that means a wooden match and a forest fire burn at the same temperature. Obviously if we harnessed the two, the latter would give us a lot more work. That's why a hot water heater tells you how many BTUs and not how hot the flame burns. Same thing with torpedo heaters. Both burn kerosene but some more of it giving more BTUs.

Now, Charles' law does say that if given a liter of gas in a confined space, and temp C doubles, pressure will double. But you don't get too many doubling events before you are maxed out for obvious reasons.

Now, let me see if I can explain this another way. If Kerosene gives off 300KJ/mole it's obvious that the more moles we burn the more kJ we get and the more expanding N2+O2 we have to heat so it will expand even more. Clearly we agree that more moles = more kJ = more pressure = more thrust? So how do we get more moles. Well, cool air is more O2 dense than hot air due to Charles' law right? So, if we keep incoming air cool, we have more O2 per CC of air to react right? Plus, cool air is more dense so each CC has more mass right?

Now, that increased density and mass means we will be putting more pressure on the turbine. Plus, the amount we need to burn won't change. If one needs 10 moles of kerosene to create adequate force to spool it, it should take less when given greater air flow because we don't need to be stoic. So now, we are reacting a lessor percentage of the passing air. Thus, we are putting more pressure against the turbine with less heat. A) 1000BTU at 400CFM B) 700BTU at 600CFM.

Downstream, we will have far more O2 to burn in the AB for the same reason turbo cars use intercoolers. Hot enough air is practically inert due to lack of O2 and it has low mass. So you have shit for an oxidizer in your AB. Pumping O2 rich air on the other hand gives fuel for the fire.

When I do get time to build a motor, it will probably have multiple combustion chambers to keep surface area high and internal area low. I will probably mist water into the compressor and have a valve for controlling the cooling portion of the flame tube. I may also run nitrous through a radiator in front of the compressor to bring in ice cold air before injecting it downstream. And, I will have a heat sinked AB that can pass more heat and not fail. And, from the looks of most of the commercial units, a small exhaust turbine coupled with larger compressor seems like a good way to force greater cool pressure through the turbine.

As far as having built something - I find ironic that the guy who thinks that's all that matters has an avatar of Wiley Coyote. Maybe if old Wiley spent more time at the drawing bored and less time wasting money on trial and error, he would have caught the Road Runner.

[rexhunt]

Hi Syler,

As someone who hasn't built anything in the field also I don't feel I can comment on the much that is being said.

However I have a moderate amount of experiance of the theory and practical applications of steam locomotives.

In steam locos most of the published information is on the full scale and my practical experience is limited to scale models, this is very similar to what I see here... There is a lot of info about larger engines that is published but that cannot be directly translated to a scale engine. You can't scale the engine out of an A380 down to 6 inches and get it to run with the same efficiency.

When I was starting in steam locos I felt similar to how I imagine you do but now that I have done some practical work I understand where you run into diminishing returns and where the costs to efficiency become higher than the costs. This sort of information can only come from understanding both the practical and theoretical side of things and the differences between the two.

My 2 bob worth.

Cheers,
Rex

[racket]

Hi Syler

NO NO NO ..... "And, from the looks of most of the commercial units, a small exhaust turbine coupled with larger compressor seems like a good way to force greater cool pressure through the turbine"

If you try doing this you'll send that "LARGE" compressor wheel into surge and wreck your engine ..................we CANNOT force air/gases through a turbine wheel , the turbine wheel MUST willingly swallow the air/gases , to do this it MUST be correctly proportioned .

Your misconception that gases can be forced through a turbine wheel is "AUTOMOTIVE THINKING" where its possible for the pistons to force the exhaust gases thru an "undersized" turbine wheel, BUT , at greater pressures than the air pressure in the inlet manifold ......................our "inlet manifold" and "exhaust manifold" are one and the same , with virtually the same pressure in "both" , actually our "exhaust manifold" is always at a slightly lower pressure otherwise the gases would flow "backwards" out the "inlet manifold" .....thats surge , and surge wrecks turbine engines .

I can't understand why you resist accepting well meaning advice ...............I don't know if its arrogance , or stupidity , all I do know is, if and when you do build a turbine engine you'll have a lot of lessons to learn , very expensive ones at that .

Purchase the books I've recommended in my Emails and read them if you want to succeed

Cheers
John

[finiteparts]

You do realize that bringing in more dense air requires more work to be done on the fluid by the compressor???...which means that you can't burn the same amount of fuel, it will require more fuel.

Your logic is seriously flawed and I am not going to waste any more time trying to discuss things with you...obviously, you feel that your knowledge exceeds ours and all of us are wrong, so good luck on your projects!

[Richard OConnell]

Hey guys,
I'm locking this thread. If any tangible evidence can be provided that this is applicable to turbines and is a viable alternative to traditional/accepted methodology, I will gladly reopen the topic. I want to thank everyone for taking the time to help Syler in his brainstorming and I wish him the best of luck in turning his ideas into a reality