The jet propulsion with closed combustion type

[qumf]

I am a new member.

I have a thought to design a new jet engine. The combustion in current jet engine is under consistent high pressure created by compressor. A lot of energy out off from combustion cabinet is used to drive turbine for compressor. But I know the efficiency of compressor is very low and the compressor is very heavy, its weight occupies 70% of total engine. My idea is to adopt closed combustion type to increase pressure. It consist of several same components cooperate to get steady propulsion. By the closed combustion, we can get high pressure easily. Meanwhile the total weight is much smaller. It also utilizes the other advantage of closed combustion in mixture gas : easily igniting, burning rapidly.easy to get high pressure. On the other side I must overcome the weakness: the stress on some parts isn’t consistent and regulate difficultly in different work condition. I have thought methods to solve them basically. I have applied for a Chinese patent ZL95237295.9 Name: the jet propulsion with the closed combustion type.

 

The main advantage are: the new jet engine is lighter and has more whole efficiency than current jet engine.

 

I hope you think if it is feasible?

I beg you propose your idea and tell me how to promote it into market.

 

My E-mail: [email protected]

[qumf]

deleted

[qumf]

deleted

[Tormod]

I hope you think if it is feasible?

I beg you propose your idea and tell me how to promote it into market.

 

I have no idea how feasible this is since I'm no aviation expert and your explanation is quite brief. I don't know what you mean by "I beg you propose your idea" but as far as I know the only way to market such a product would be to approach the aviation industry as soon as your patent is secured.

[qumf]

Turelly it is hard to spread into market. meanwhile it will take a lot of money and overcome some big technical issues.

to let more people know is that I must draw or make a detailed description. I will do later.

[GAHD]

If you can do a 'top' 'side' 'back' and 'front' drawing of each part, and an isometric drawing of the engine itself, I'll be glad to offer any insights I have.

 

I must say that proposing to remove the turbine as the main compressive force is a bold move, since that moves the engine closer to the scramjet category. Please, do tell more.

[qumf]

If you can do a 'top' 'side' 'back' and 'front' drawing of each part, and an isometric drawing of the engine itself, I'll be glad to offer any insights I have.

 

I must say that proposing to remove the turbine as the main compressive force is a bold move, since that moves the engine closer to the scramjet category. Please, do tell more.

dear Sir:

to make the new jet engine work steady in any work condition that the engine must have a part to suck enough air and increase the pressure properly.I call the part blower. to make the blower work that the engine must have a little turbine to get power from flowing gas. But then the scale of the turbine is much smaller than the current jet engine. the effience of blower is much higher the compressor.We may use other component to get power.

 

I will draw a picture and state the work procedure later show us.

[GAHD]

Excellent, I'm looking forward to that drawing.

 

So you want to make the turbine Smaller? Are you referring to number of blades, size of the blades, or both? I'd say one of the main problems with jets is that most of the force created is helical rather than linear; straightening and directing the exaust should increase power output considerably.

[goku]

i think they already use what you are talking about, they call it a rocket engine

if that's what you're talking about.

the other engine you could be talking about is the german, so called because of the sound it males, buzz bomb engine that was used in WW2

 

i'm thinking jet engines are about as efficient as they can get, sure the compresser fan is heavy but it is doing two fuctions. it is compressing and acting as a propeller.

[qumf]

Excellent, I'm looking forward to that drawing.

 

So you want to make the turbine Smaller? Are you referring to number of blades, size of the blades, or both? I'd say one of the main problems with jets is that most of the force created is helical rather than linear; straightening and directing the exaust should increase power output considerably.

 

I would like the change the external dimensions of turbine;change the position of the turbine in engine; change the angle of blades.

meanwhile I can't understand what you explain upper totallly. could you explain further?

[qumf]

i think they already use what you are talking about, they call it a rocket engine

if that's what you're talking about.

the other engine you could be talking about is the german, so called because of the sound it males, buzz bomb engine that was used in WW2

 

i'm thinking jet engines are about as efficient as they can get, sure the compresser fan is heavy but it is doing two fuctions. it is compressing and acting as a propeller.

 

The commen rocket engine isn't as I new designed. As I know,the common rocket engine's combustion is steady, mine is discontinuous.

 

the compressor has two function: compressing,as a propeller. If we can find another one instead of it and have same function at whole engine, We should do.

[CraigD]

i think they already use what you are talking about, they call it a rocket engine … i'm thinking jet engines are about as efficient as they can get, sure the compresser fan is heavy but it is doing two fuctions. it is compressing and acting as a propeller.

I agree – qumf’s idea seems a form of rocket, since the system that supplies oxidant – air in this case – isn’t, from what I can gather, meant to provide much if any propulsion.

 

It also appears to share features of pistons engine and pulse jets – the engine used in the V-1 “buzz bomb” goku mentions. This is an interesting, promising design, because it suggests that the engine’s fuel-air ratio could be carefully regulated, and the combustion pattern made very clean and efficient. While it might be less efficient than a conventional, high-bypass turbofan jet engine, the design might prove much cleaner, especially if a natural gas or hydrogen is used as fuel.

 

Other advantage that come to mind: unlike most turbofan engines, the design could work well at super-sonic speeds; the flexibility in placing the intake lends itself to the flexible placement of exhausts, making it promising for crafts like the Moller Skycar. Despite popular enthusiasm this vehicle, it continues to be plagued by such severe technical problems that I seriously doubt that the current design will every fly – doubts apparently shared by the US SEC, which recently filed this lawsuit for fraud agains Moller.

 

I’m interested in seeing some preliminary numeric estimates of the proposed engine’s power, weight, and efficiency, and hope that qumf can provide them, as well as sketches, soon.

[qumf]

I draw in a hurry, sorry, I will explain soon.

You can see that patent ZL 95237295.9 . Those pictures are good,but it is old thoght about the jet engine.You can refer it.

[qumf]

who can tell me how to attach picture from my picture?

 

Qumf

[GAHD]

Don't count your chickens before they're hatched fellas, qumf might surprise us all.

 

@qumf: I was just referring to the way the air moves coming out aof a jet; it spins. if the air was forced into a straight path there would be an increase in the thrust provided. check it out when you build your prototype: run smoke in th intake and watch it spin as it comes out the rear.

[GAHD]

when you reply, click the 'go advanced' button below the typing box. Scroll down untill you see a button that says 'manage attachments', use this button to upload your files.

[qumf]

when you reply, click the 'go advanced' button below the typing box. Scroll down untill you see a button that says 'manage attachments', use this button to upload your files.

 

I can't find the button" 'go advanced' button below the typing box. what shape is it?