|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#291
|
|||
|
|||
"Henry Spencer" wrote in message ... (NB, there is disagreement about whether four chambers with one pump set is considered one engine or four.) My old car has four combustion chambers and one fuel pump. Definitely only one engine |
#292
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Derek Lyons wrote: But the baffles are in a very harsh environment, and they probably have to be cooled, e.g. by feeding a bit of fuel (and only fuel) out through holes in them... Why only fuel? For effective cooling, you want to avoid combustion near the baffle surfaces. (This is why it's better to feed the fuel out than to just circulate it through them -- the fuel vapor fends the hot gas off from the surface, greatly increasing the effective cooling value.) So you want to use only one of the two propellants, at least in a given region. As for why you might choose fuel rather than oxidizer... several reasons. One obvious one is that the safe service temperature of typical baffle materials is higher in a non-oxidizing environment. More subtly, in traditional engine designs running at relatively low pressures, LOX is not a good coolant, because it boils too quickly -- its liquid range is fairly narrow, and gas is not *nearly* as good a coolant as liquid. (Even if you are about to feed it out into the chamber, you want it to cool the baffle material first.) This ceases to be important when pressures go beyond the critical pressure of LOX -- 730 psi -- and the liquid range effectively becomes unlimited. -- MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. | |
#293
|
|||
|
|||
Neil Gerace wrote: "Henry Spencer" wrote in message ... (NB, there is disagreement about whether four chambers with one pump set is considered one engine or four.) My old car has four combustion chambers and one fuel pump. Definitely only one engine I tried the same argument with Henry years ago; it didn't work.... I look at it this way; if the company that makes the motor considers it to be a single motor, then that's good enough for me. Pat |
#294
|
|||
|
|||
|
#295
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Dan DeLong wrote: ...There *were* successful alcohol-to-kerosene conversions of existing engines, without too much modification, in the 1950s, but it strikes me as iffy... What we're doing can't be called a "conversion", Henry. It's a new design from clean paper. Yeah, that's what I expected -- both because it's a bigger engine anyway, and because too many of the details have to change. (I'm amazed that some of those 1950s conversions actually worked. In addition to the alcohol-to-kerosene conversions, there was at least one experimental dense-fuels-to-hydrogen conversion!) ...this is an international forum and we have to be sensitive to ITAR issues. True, alas. The US has come a long way from "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...". there is the intangible reason of not having to repeatedly answer the questions "Why are you using alcohol? Isn't that 1950s technology?" and "Where's the plume?" Yes, I can imagine that it would get tedious answering those questions for the hundredth time... -- MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. | |
#296
|
|||
|
|||
"Herb Schaltegger" wrote in message ... *I think Henry thinks too much for any one human. Either: a) he's really 73 different people all posting using the same account; b) he's one man who uses time-warp technology to learn as much as 73 people all at the same time; c) he's another of Pat's atom-brained zombies, but just a really, really smart one! ;-) Multiple brains tied together- an organic multiple processor. |
#297
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 12 May 2004 13:08:00 -0400, "Scott Hedrick"
wrote: "Herb Schaltegger" wrote in message ... *I think Henry thinks too much for any one human. Either: a) he's really 73 different people all posting using the same account; b) he's one man who uses time-warp technology to learn as much as 73 people all at the same time; c) he's another of Pat's atom-brained zombies, but just a really, really smart one! ;-) Multiple brains tied together- an organic multiple processor. ....I'm getting freudian dyslexic in my old age. The first time I read that, i thought Scott said "multiple orgasmic processor". OM -- "No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society - General George S. Patton, Jr |
#298
|
|||
|
|||
"OM" om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_researc h_facility.org wrote in message ... The first time I read that, i thought Scott said "multiple orgasmic processor". Mrs Henry- is that you? |
#299
|
|||
|
|||
"OM" om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_researc h_facility.org wrote in message ... ...I'm getting freudian dyslexic in my old age. The first time I read that, i thought Scott said "multiple orgasmic processor". Didn't Jane break the orgasmatron? OM -- "No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society - General George S. Patton, Jr |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|