Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 11
05-13-2012, 04:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalolorn
I do however believe that you need to 'launch' something out of the craft, as if you throw, say, superheated air, into a wall, trying to conserve fuel, you will have negated the thrust of the engine by having the engine exhaust hit the ship again.
Have thought of that too. Maybe start off with a simpler design. Reactor generates electricity which powers lasers which superheats air in a pulsejet like appendage = thorium/electric hybrid jet engine proof of concept.

Mark II of the above uses OP's internal 'Zero' airfoils to make it even more efficient.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 12
05-13-2012, 09:18 AM
The whole problem is in the fact that eventually you consume the air, thus consuming either your only source of oxygen, your fuel supply, or both. I think you should figure out a way to release some sort of particles at high speeds, rather than adapt existing engines
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 13
05-13-2012, 09:25 AM
Upon seeing the turbine stage I presumed it was an atmospheric only engine anyway.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 14
05-13-2012, 10:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalolorn
I do however believe that you need to 'launch' something out of the craft, as if you throw, say, superheated air, into a wall, trying to conserve fuel, you will have negated the thrust of the engine by having the engine exhaust hit the ship again.
I agree with this. It's great to think about ways to propel things in space, but Newton's 3rd law is gonna get you. You have to throw something out the back to move forward. The ion engines are pretty awesome at this already. They accelerate a particle to high speed and shoot it out the back to get a lot more momentum from the mass.

Also... the thorium reactor in a compact, nonservicable engine is probably a bad move. They are much more complicated than the simple uranium guys, even if they work in practice. Fewer things that can go wrong usually means fewer things will go wrong.

Just my thoughts on your thoughts about thoughts on mankind's longterm thoughts.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 15
05-13-2012, 11:58 AM
...I'm trying to think of where to start with my critique... with Newton's Laws, fluid dynamics, terminology...

I think I'm going to start by saying I have absolutely no idea from an engineering standpoint how this is supposed to provide thrust or lift, other than through the Troll Science principle. Any thrust you gain is going to be cancelled out by redirecting the flow to go back into the engine, and a pressure vessel with a radially-symmetric O-shaped airfoil in the center will not generate any lift...

The turbine is not a turbine, it's a compressor fan. Turbines extract work from flows, compressors exert work on them. Also, I'd be concerned about the fatigue and strain properties of a polymer in an axial compressor type system...

The airfoil... doesn't look like it'll work, either. You'll end up with major issues with your flow, including highly non-laminar flow, vastly increasing the drag and thus stress on the supports...
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 16
05-13-2012, 06:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MandoKnight;4213315[URL="http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/troll-science-troll-physics"
Troll Science principle[/url]
Not quite bud, but nice try starting a flamming fest. I think you need to show me your idea.........if you have an original one to share.Your caveman approach to 'Let's kill the thing we can't understand' is unbecoming. If I were trolling you'd know. This is a genuine idea of mine that I put some thought into.:rolleyes:

For the smart people in here......

Oh hey guys for the heated air part I know I said superheated but what I really meant was heated like a hot summer day in Iraq. Whe it is cooler outside a plan requires less speed to generate lift. I know someone on here asked about that.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 17
05-13-2012, 06:56 PM
No, I just honestly can't see how that thing produces thrust. It simply doesn't make sense other than in a "I'll put a magnet in front of my car and another one on a boom in front of the first and they'll pull my car along" manner.

What it looks like to me is an oddly-shaped wind tunnel.

What I would like to see is what you're sending to the Patent Office, the experimental data from any prototypes, a detailed analysis of the theoretical model, etc.

I remain highly skeptical because you propose a system that supposedly breaks the conservation of energy and momentum. You can't get momentum change of a system from forces only within that system.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 18
05-13-2012, 08:25 PM
Quote:
It simply doesn't make sense other than in a "I'll put a magnet in front of my car and another one on a boom in front of the first and they'll pull my car along" manner.
Maybe I will draw a cut away and further explain. I alos do not believe in the whole magnet in front of the car thing either. This is just a theoretical design and concept.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 19
05-13-2012, 09:10 PM
I like that you're so gung ho about an idea! I too love to sit around and try to figure things out or make up some new way of doing things. It's good for your brain and it's alot of fun.

I hope you don't get discouraged by the flaming going on.. I understand the guy's questions, but i thought it really came off as condecending, arrogant and rude.

That being said, can you answer the question of where the thrust is coming from? It seems to me that the engine is circulating air around inside of a close space. Specifically, as you said, it isn't interacting with the space around it.. that means no thrust right?

I dunno, ask Newton I guess.

Awesome start, though. Please keep working on it. i figure we gotta get this interstaller travel thing going pretty soon if i'm ever gonna get to go. (starting to get up there in years, but don't tell anyone.)
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 20
05-13-2012, 09:17 PM
I don't think that there's any flaming going on. What I see is a proper competitive discussion about the merits of the OP's design. There will always be criticism against new and innovative ideas and these ideas ultimate survive to see reality if they can satisfy said concerns and criticism. Negative criticism is IMO not trolling but a unique exclusive offer to try and prove the workings of the new concept.

IMO everyone's concerns and observations are valid and relevant to the scope of the discussion.

If we were in Victorian England and we draw up a proposal for a compact gas turbine we'd probably be labelled far worse than trolls ourselves. Yet, less than a century later (in the 30s) there already were working models and plans for jet aircraft, that due to wartime research rapidly moved to revolutionalize air travel as we know it today.

I see that today, advanced jet propulsion systems and computer technology too is progressing by leaps and bounds. Just a decade ago we'd never thought to see jetliners with ultra-quiet turbofans and flexible wings cruising at near-stratospheric altitudes but now we do. Can you imagine a plane with flexible wings? Composite technology + supercritical wing research at Boeing made all that possible.

Granted, both the 787 and the Joint Strike Fighter faced large cost penalties partly from being so radical in design but at the end they have become superb marvels of next-generation technology. 25 years ago, who would have thought the US would produce a low observable lift-fan powered hovering aircraft? It's something exclusive and wonderful to watch in action. (Although last I heard the V/STOL F-35C may not be deployed at all? Got any sources?)

What's stopping space travel technology from going bonkers next?
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:54 PM.