#11
|
|||
|
|||
Pulse Jets
A week or so ago I saw a rather neat Junkyard Wars episode on
pulse-jets. I'm also rather intrigued that it was felt to be a safe enough gadget to build for the TV show. It was an amazingly simple contraption, a jet with no moving parts. I was wondering where I could find out more about the history of these devices, and perhaps some information as to why they are apparently outdated and no longer in use. I believe they were used in the V2 rockets in WWII (?). One of the big reasons they are out-dated, is the noise. They are incredibly loud, even compaired to other types of jet engines. Not to mention that the sound is a much lower bass sound, so it travels further than the higher pitched sound of a turbo jet. for some info on them try these pages. http://www.aardvark.co.nz/pjet/ http://home.earthlink.net/~famcaine/...s/PulseJet.htm The first one is a page by the expert from the Junkyard Wars show you mention. -Chuck. (www.wormspeaker.com) __________________________________________________ ___ Spread love and understanding... but don't be afraid to bloody your knuckles doing it. -Alex Ross |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Pulse Jets
On 06 Dec 2003 02:36:54 GMT, (MattWriter) wrote:
A week or so ago I saw a rather neat Junkyard Wars episode on pulse-jets. BRBR I'm curious why the pulse-jet keeps cropping up in discussions of possible or alleged advanced high-speed aircraft. Isn't the thing inefficient as heck? Yes, conventional pulsejets are as inefficient as heck -- maybe even less efficient than heck :-) What pulsejets do have going for them however are the attributes of cost and simplicity. You can build a pulsejet that produces around 200lbs of thrust for under $200 -- there's no other engine on the planet that will produce more thrust per dollar (that I can think of). What's more, you can make that engine out of plain old sheets of stainless steel -- with out the need for CNC machining, expensive bearing assemblies/balancing, etc. Obviously therefore, on short-range "disposable" craft, the pulsejet is a very cost-effective option. The other reason pulsejets are experiencing something of renaissance is the huge mount of money and effort being invested into PDEs (Pulse Detonation Engines). PDEs offer the promise of very efficient propulsion for supersonic craft but are currently still, based on all the examples I've seen and the research I've read -- quite a few years away from being actually viable for such applications. There's more info on PDEs and pulsejets on the website I mentioned in my last posting. -- you can contact me via http://aardvark.co.nz/contact/ |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Pulse Jets
A week or so ago I saw a rather neat Junkyard Wars episode on
pulse-jets. BRBR I'm curious why the pulse-jet keeps cropping up in discussions of possible or alleged advanced high-speed aircraft. Isn't the thing inefficient as heck? Matt Bille ) OPINIONS IN ALL POSTS ARE SOLELY THOSE OF THE AUTHOR |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Pulse Jets
A week or so ago I saw a rather neat Junkyard Wars episode on
pulse-jets. BRBR I'm curious why the pulse-jet keeps cropping up in discussions of possible or alleged advanced high-speed aircraft. Isn't the thing inefficient as heck? Matt Bille ) OPINIONS IN ALL POSTS ARE SOLELY THOSE OF THE AUTHOR |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Pulse Jets
In article ,
pervect wrote: It was an amazingly simple contraption, a jet with no moving parts. I was wondering where I could find out more about the history of these devices, and perhaps some information as to why they are apparently outdated and no longer in use. I believe they were used in the V2 rockets in WWII (?). The V-1 flying bomb (essentially a primitive cruise missile), actually. They're no longer used for a couple of reasons. They are not actually very good jet engines, compared to more sophisticated designs (which can be made in quite small sizes at relatively low cost, if you try hard). And the noise and vibration are tremendous -- the Germans looked into pulsejet fighters but the idea never went anywhere, partly because it was very difficult to provide a livable environment for the pilot. -- MOST launched 30 June; first light, 29 July; 5arcsec | Henry Spencer pointing, 10 Sept; first science, early Oct; all well. | |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Pulse Jets
In article ,
pervect wrote: It was an amazingly simple contraption, a jet with no moving parts. I was wondering where I could find out more about the history of these devices, and perhaps some information as to why they are apparently outdated and no longer in use. I believe they were used in the V2 rockets in WWII (?). The V-1 flying bomb (essentially a primitive cruise missile), actually. They're no longer used for a couple of reasons. They are not actually very good jet engines, compared to more sophisticated designs (which can be made in quite small sizes at relatively low cost, if you try hard). And the noise and vibration are tremendous -- the Germans looked into pulsejet fighters but the idea never went anywhere, partly because it was very difficult to provide a livable environment for the pilot. -- MOST launched 30 June; first light, 29 July; 5arcsec | Henry Spencer pointing, 10 Sept; first science, early Oct; all well. | |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Pulse Jets
On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 03:38:17 GMT, (Henry Spencer)
wrote: They're no longer used for a couple of reasons. They are not actually very good jet engines, compared to more sophisticated designs (which can be made in quite small sizes at relatively low cost, if you try hard). And the noise and vibration are tremendous -- the Germans looked into pulsejet fighters but the idea never went anywhere, partly because it was very difficult to provide a livable environment for the pilot. Indeed. My most recent engine (200lbs-thrust) has been measured at 145dB and no amount of hearing protection can stop the pressure waves from rattling your skull -- thereby rattling the bones of the inner ear. However, if you think pulsejets are bad news -- wait until you've experienced being within close proximity of a PDE. I did build a simple yet intermittently capable pulsed detonation chamber using acetylene and oxygen as fuel. It was very small, just 50mm diameter and 2.5 metres long. However, the shock waves that it generated felt like someone beating on your skull with a ball peen hammer. By comparison,a pulsejet, even a very large one, is more like someone beating you rapidly about the head and body with a pillow. There is no way that a PDE will ever be used on a manned craft that doesn't have excellent acoustic insulation. between the occupants and the engine when travelling at sub-sonic velocities. It's also an engine that will most definitely not be used anywhere near a populated area. If the bitched about the Concorde and its single shockwave, imagine what they'd say about a reasonably sized PDE spitting out anywhere from 60-300 shockwaves a second! -- you can contact me via http://aardvark.co.nz/contact/ |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Pulse Jets
On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 03:38:17 GMT, (Henry Spencer)
wrote: They're no longer used for a couple of reasons. They are not actually very good jet engines, compared to more sophisticated designs (which can be made in quite small sizes at relatively low cost, if you try hard). And the noise and vibration are tremendous -- the Germans looked into pulsejet fighters but the idea never went anywhere, partly because it was very difficult to provide a livable environment for the pilot. Indeed. My most recent engine (200lbs-thrust) has been measured at 145dB and no amount of hearing protection can stop the pressure waves from rattling your skull -- thereby rattling the bones of the inner ear. However, if you think pulsejets are bad news -- wait until you've experienced being within close proximity of a PDE. I did build a simple yet intermittently capable pulsed detonation chamber using acetylene and oxygen as fuel. It was very small, just 50mm diameter and 2.5 metres long. However, the shock waves that it generated felt like someone beating on your skull with a ball peen hammer. By comparison,a pulsejet, even a very large one, is more like someone beating you rapidly about the head and body with a pillow. There is no way that a PDE will ever be used on a manned craft that doesn't have excellent acoustic insulation. between the occupants and the engine when travelling at sub-sonic velocities. It's also an engine that will most definitely not be used anywhere near a populated area. If the bitched about the Concorde and its single shockwave, imagine what they'd say about a reasonably sized PDE spitting out anywhere from 60-300 shockwaves a second! -- you can contact me via http://aardvark.co.nz/contact/ |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Pulse Jets
In article ,
MattWriter wrote: I'm curious why the pulse-jet keeps cropping up in discussions of possible or alleged advanced high-speed aircraft. Isn't the thing inefficient as heck? Pulsejets and Pulse Detonation Engines are completely different devices, despite the similarity in name and the vague similarity in operating principle. (One important difference is that pulsejets went from concept to flying hardware very quickly, while PDEs have been The Engine Of The Future for nearly half a century now.) -- MOST launched 30 June; first light, 29 July; 5arcsec | Henry Spencer pointing, 10 Sept; first science, early Oct; all well. | |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Pulse Detonation Engine, first stage or .. | Abrigon Gusiq | Space Shuttle | 1 | April 1st 04 01:00 AM |
Investor or Company needed for Pulse Detonation Engine concepts/designs | RDButler | Technology | 0 | October 31st 03 03:32 PM |
Pulse detonation? | Arthur Hansen | Technology | 12 | September 9th 03 04:05 PM |
Ladies and Gentlemen of the 51-L Jury | John Maxson | Space Shuttle | 86 | August 19th 03 01:25 PM |
Sad turn | Charleston | Space Shuttle | 93 | August 12th 03 02:31 AM |