Car engine that gives a minimum of 1000mpg

Haven't been through any of your calculations, but can you please explain how "The Wankle does not give pure rotary out" ?

Referring to SparkY's excellent graphics here illustrates that the Wankel output is purely rotational. Your statement has rather put me off further investigation of your thread.

Agreed John, and why is it that some questioners refuse to use the 'enter' key to insert a paragraph?

It would make it far easier to read...

John.

Haven't been through any of your calculations, but can you please explain how "The Wankle does not give pure rotary out" ?

That would be almost the same as asking "can you explain how the IC piston engine does not give pure rotary output! The fact is that the wankel output is eccentric not rotary, it is cyclic gearing that yields the rotary output.

James, James, James what are you doing! Your data (and hence calculations and assertions) are wrong by quite a bit!

Where did you get an energy density of 12,000Wh/L for gasoline? Its too high. Try 9000Wh/L (13,500Wh/kg) for gasoline. Also the stored energy density of a flywheel is in the order of 210 Wh/L (120 Wh/kg), which is much lower.

Try using the above figures in your calculations and you will realise why we don't use wind-up spring or flywheel-powered vehicles. Flywheels still have their uses in special applications (such as certain forms of UPS and of course vehicles), but not as an inefficient form of energy storage and transfer that will replace the petrol engine.

Theoretical 1000 mpg!! Sorry, but your theoretical vehicle calculations and actual practical vehicle results are out by orders of magnitude (you have in fact yourself conceived of a free energy process powered vehicle). Have a closer look at the gyrobus example and compare it to a standard diesel bus. The primary reason to go with a flywheel is not increased mpg over gasoline, it is in fact the same reason to use far less energy efficient fuels such as air and hydrogen. The key is that it is moving the pollution (much more by the way) to a remote power station, rather than belching it out into the residential street. This sort of "rob Peter to pay Paul" deception is very popular (especially when it is marketed to politicians as a 'clean' energy source and actually producing the electricity is never mentioned).

Other practical end existing flywheel energy storage examples can be found on the internet. Have a look at them, it will give you a better understanding of what is actually going on.

James, James, James what are you doing! Your data (and hence calculations and assertions) are wrong by quite a bit!

Where did you get an energy density of 12,000Wh/L for gasoline? Its too high. Try 9000Wh/L (13,500Wh/kg) for gasoline. Also the stored energy density of a flywheel is in the order of 210 Wh/L (120 Wh/kg), which is much lower.

In your dreams Jack, every fact and figure quoted in my post is accurate. So why don't you start from there, you say 9000 Wh, I said 12000 Wh, what is there to quibble about, actually my figure is closer, in any case those figures yield the energies I am talking about, if you would just sit down and calculate you will see what I mean.

ANDY ENGINE GETS 150 HP / 1000 CC Nasp

COSUMES A FUEL OF 4 Lit/1000 CC/HOUR FUEL NORMAL

FOR A 2 TON CAR LOAD*SPEED/VDF= HP VEHICLE DESIGN FACTOR VDF

SPEED= HP*VDF/LOAD = 150*40/2 =3000 KMPH

KMPL = SPEED/FUEL-HOUR = 3000/4 = 750 KMPL

MPG = KMPL*2.36 = 1750 MPG

Any heavy flywheel, spinning fast enough to store the energy you anticipate needing will most certainly pose a risk to passengers as well as people standing nearby.

I did some experiments with far lighter flywheels and modest shaft speeds. I can recall the consequences of a very slight trauma to the spinning flywheel and the explosion that occurred immediately afterwards which sent shrapnel flying everywhere.

Even if you could develop a wheel that could withstand the forces and design appropriate safeguards, you would still have to face a machine that is reluctant to change directions because of the reactions common to gyroscopic energy.

"Where there's a will there's a way" so by-all-means do follow your bliss. Be aware however, that there are other alternative solutions that might not pose such formidable obstacles.

Any heavy flywheel, spinning fast enough to store the energy you anticipate needing will most certainly pose a risk to passengers as well as people standing nearby.

Do you not read ??? I stated that a 5 Kg flywheel spinning at 64000 rpm (do you read me?) was crash tested under Formula 1 racing conditions and survived. What is it with you guys. Every post means extra work !!!

One piece of information you're missing out here (in every case, as far as I can see), is the flywheel radius.

Rotational KE = ½.I.ω²,

where I is the moment of inertia, ω is the angular velocity.

For a cylinder, I = ½.M.r² ,

where M is the mass, and r the flywheel radius.

So KE = ½.½.M.r².ω²,

i.e. KE 'goes as' the square of the flywheel radius. Knowing the mass and rpm alone is not enough, and clearly, without this information you can't compare the stored energy in the F1 example with your application.

One piece of information you're missing out here (in every case, as far as I can see), is the flywheel radius.

Hi John. I agree, without the radius we are nowhere! But if you are really interested, got to the flybrid website and have a dekko at the flywheel Jon Hilton is holding in his lap! From that you can get a pretty good idea of the radius of the flywheel!

You wrote: "Do you not read ??? I stated that a 5 Kg flywheel spinning at 64000 rpm (do you read me?) was crash tested under Formula 1 racing conditions and survived"

Good. lets see it!

Show us the test, the equipment used, the results and the conclusions.

Dear DDJames, Very interesting premise. I believe I read the preliminary studies on the bus that a flywheel boosted system was used on. Please forgive me if I have not remembered correctly. That article was written in the seventies.

As far as some not "reading you", it happens often with engineers, they get stuck on one idea and worry it to death, and do not necessarily move on.

Regards Dragon

DDjames,

While I like your spunk and creativity, gasoline is mostly naphtha and about 8.7kWh/l

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/ArthurGolnik.shtml

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline#Energy_content

This is before MTBE or Ethanol reduce its power density further.

Diesel is about 10% more.

You can increase efficiency by upping compression thus heat (Carnot's theorem) at the cost of higher NO_Xs.

Also any shaft power output rotating in 1 axis is pure rotary output, but above a certain RPM Wankel and piston IC engines will shake themselves apart from the non rotary masses.

As for your flywheel try copper beryllium 200Ksi @513 lb per ft³ and SWNTs holding your magnets on the rim. Hard vacuum and high speed bearings are the real trick.

Brad

You can increase efficiency by upping compression thus heat (Carnot's theorem) at the cost of higher NO_Xs.

Listen! This is all about doing things a little bit at a time, like your data base software, OK?? No need for continuous combustion, do you read me???

Who said anything about continuous? Only efficiency. A piston does things a bit at a time just repeatedly and poorly.

There is only so much carbon and hydrogen to combine with oxygen for power.

Most cars are about 22% efficient at best. Any major gain is not in the oil companies interests. Its a tough field but doable. Just don't expect any help from the big companies.

Brad

A piston does things a bit at a time just repeatedly and poorly.

I could tell you things about pistons that would turn your hair white!!

Ahhhh come on James....

In the UK we would say you're flogging a dead horse with this one mate!!!

John

Sorry hair is going white already. I don't know everything about pistons including steam, hydraulic, liquid, etc. but I'm no novice.

I,m working on my own design of very efficient ICE but it uses pistons, just no rods or crank.

Brad

While I like your spunk and creativity, gasoline is mostly naphtha and about 8.7kWh/l is all you can expect???

Right, but remember that 8.7 Kwh or 9 Kwh, is a lot of energy!!! If we are talking in terms of gallons, that works out to about 43Kwh right?? What can't you do with that kind of energy???

DDJames,

As so many before you, you've forgotten about the second law of thermodynamics. There's no engine in the world that can convert 100% of the thermal energy of a particular fuel into kinetic energy.

Your example in F1 is not relevant as they use the system as a tiny surplus, delivering a max output of 400 kJ per lap at a max. power output of 60kW, giving a boost time per lap of 6.667 seconds, hence the small flywheels used.

I agree that using flywheels can improve the mpg-rate, but 1000 mpg is impossible, unless you use frictionless bearings and start driving on the moon due to the lack of atmosphere.

As so many before you, you've forgotten about the second law of thermodynamics. There's no engine in the world that can convert 100% of the thermal energy of a particular fuel into kinetic energy.

Hi! there! You seem to be missing the point, it's not about Carnot, it is all about what can and can't be done!!! Am I correct? By referring to the amount of energy in 1 litre of petrol, this is just what I was trying to illustrate!!!! OK your IC piston engine is not exactly optimum, alright, and this is where your problem lies!!!

Tell me, how are you going to convert the energy in 1 liter of gasoline into kinetic energy of the flywheel. That's the real question.

Converting mechanical energy into another type of mechanical energy is simple. F.i. gearboxes have efficiency rates of over 95%, depending on speeds, oil temperatures etc etc.

But my understanding, based on the title of this thread, is that you start out with a liquid fuel and want to convert the chemical energy of it into kinetic energy in a flywheel (=mechanical energy). I'm not interested in the path behind the flywheel to the driven appliance, but the path from fuel towards your flywheel.

Now that's the challenge.

If you're only interested in converting kinetic energy from the flywheels into the motion of vehicles, then there are many solutions already commercially available with excellent efficiencies. F.i. Torotrak. But those technologies do not convert chemical energy into mechanical energy (which creates a lot of mechanically unusable heat).

And, if you can convert liquid fuel to motion energy at 95% eff, why do it, just run the vehicle and forget trying to transport a few 100 pounds of dead weight and figuiring how to make it safe and not interfeer with steering. The whole proposal looks like a candidate for a Rube Goldberg award.

Shall we remind them?

Entropy is a function of a quantity of heat which shows the possibility of conversion of that heat into work. The increase in entropy is small when heat is added at high temperature and is greater when heat is added at lower temperature. Thus for maximum entropy there is minimum availability for conversion into work and for minimum entropy there is maximum availability for conversion into work.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics.

As so many before you, you've forgotten about the second law of thermodynamics. There's no engine in the world that can convert 100% of the thermal energy of a particular fuel into kinetic energy.

Hey! Hold on! I am not talking about anything near a hundred per cent conversion. Figure it out, one fifth multiplied by 10 minutes!!! What is that 3000 ??? I am just saying , there is a lot of potential there which we can use!! Right ??

Nope

I don't remember the details but some years ago I believe one of the major universities had designed and built a flywheel generating system prototype in their engineering department. The flywheel and generator would spin up to over 100,000RPM. The flywheel weighted about 150lbs. and was built of a composite materials to prevent it from exploding from the centrifugal force generated. The entire assembly floated on air bearings in a vacuum and was capable of spinning for months under no load. The major concern at that time was containing the flywheel in the event of an accident and the damage cause if the flywheel was break free. The article also mentioned the Swiss bus project.

I don't remember the details but some years ago I believe one of the major universities had designed and built a flywheel generating system prototype in their engineering department. The flywheel and generator would spin up to over 100,000RPM. The flywheel weighted about 150lbs. and was built of a composite materials to prevent it from exploding from the centrifugal force generated. The entire assembly floated on air bearings in a vacuum and was capable of spinning for months under no load. The major concern at that time was containing the flywheel in the event of an accident and the damage cause if the flywheel was break free. The article also mentioned the Swiss bus project.

You are absolutely right, the research and the experimentation have been done. The Russians were the ones who came up with magnetic bearings and a vacuum. Yeah! The technology has a hell of a lot of potential, providing one can get a prime mover that gives pure rotational output.

Now there you' re right on the money.

Figure out that particular prime mover, then collect the Nobel Prize, then we'll talk.

Some of us are a little slow.

Can you fill in more details on how your numbers work to get 1000 MPG?

How you get a such alarge output from the rotary pulse engine?

Is a working model of the rotary pulse engine available for purchase and experimentation?

Can you fill in more details on how your numbers work to get 1000 MPG?

Basically what it is, is that you use the prime mover (motivator) ( I.e the engine) only for a few seconds or fractions of a second in each cycle. If the engine runs for one second the flywheel runs for ten minutes, and so on! The numbers( and prcatical experience in the form of the gyrobus) say that it can be done. All that is needed is an engine that gives pure rotational output and which can be switched on and off ( unlike a turbine or a rocket). By doing this you are making maximum use of the energy in the fuel, using it when you need it, instead of a steady output from which you take what you need. That's the only difference and it is what gives such potentially high mileage.

How you get a such a large output from the rotary pulse engine?

Imagine going for a drive one cold winter evening. As you set off it begins to snow. Halfway to your destination you have a flat, you are miles from anywhere and when you open the trunk you find that your son has removed the wheel spanner and you have nothing with which to take off the wheel. BUT hold on a minute all is not lost, don't lose heart, as you are sitting there on the side of the road a Leprechaun comes along. You ask him for help. He takes out a wheel spanner from his pocket, the only problem is that the handle is only 1.75 ins. long. (N.B. The throw of the crankshaft can only be less than half the diameter of the piston!!) To add to your worries he tells you that you can only apply pressure on this 1.75 inch handle at an angle of 10 degrees. So tell me after this, do you believe in fairies????

I love the Feynman quote at the bottom of your post!

Yours is not that bad either...

In your case, the amount of mechanical energy derived from the chemical energy in the fuel (about 20% of it) will dictate how fast your flywheel will turn by your prime mover. The laws of mechanics will dictate, based on the amount of torque your prime mover develops, how fast your flywheel will accelerate. Your flywheel won't instantly reach your target speed, it will take a while during torque application. The same reason why the flywheel loses it's speed when taking of kinetic energy to the vehicle applies when recharging the flywheel: polar moment of inertia.

Right one would have thought so, take the example of the 1000 Kg flywheel in the gyrobus, that is a lot of weight and a lot of inertia, so a large amount of energy would be needed to get it up to speed. Yet charging times between the shorter stops, (2 kms) when the KE had not been fully expended, was only 30 seconds. Who would have believed it ? Of course to charge up from a stationary flywheel took much longer about 3 minutes.

Those figures are not extraordinary, but you keep forgetting something. Charging times are one thing, Power exchange from prime mover to the flywheel is another.

P.charge * time.charge = efficiency.mech * P.charge * time.discharge

This equation for your flywheel agrees with first and second law of thermodynamics and is the concept you are missing.

Okay, charging times are a lot shorter dan discharging times, but that does by no means mean that you can create a device with - as you mentioned earlier - an efficiency of 3000%. In the efficiency calculation, you have to take the exchanged power into account. Remember: Power * time.applied = Energy.exchanged

And for recharging, the exchanged mechanical power from your prime mover will be a lot less than the thermal energy content of fuel, thus rendering your 1000 mpg-car to the reign of fairy-tales.

The concept of thermodynamics for some people seems to be one hurdle to far. Another - more obvious - misconception is this one: http://www.waterengine.org/

I could fill a complete website with things like this one.

Hey... now this could be a good idea, starting to think of it...

"All that is needed is an engine that gives pure rotational output and which can be switched on and off . . . "

Build one and they will come!

"So tell me after this, do you believe in fairies????"

Sure do! Every time my daughter loses a tooth, a fairy brings her a Sakakawea dollar. And then a miracle happens! (as quoted in cartoon in my previous post!) Similar to the theoretical 1000 MPG car!

Look before this gets into a slugging match people, please refer to the previous threads DDjames posted (and the comments) regarding the rotary pulse get engine concept he is talking about

http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/12624

http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/12052

As the inventor you can understand why he is so defensive regarding negative comments against it and his proposed flywheel design energy storage.

Could you all take that into consideration and perhaps one of you write a more detailed mathematical explanation of WHY flywheel energy storage won't work like he is proposing in a practical application. If anyone has any links to the existing fixed-installation flywheel energy storage systems (such as data centre fly-wheel UPS) that may help illustrate the practical aspects and limitations of flywheel energy storage densities.

Thanks.

I do credit Mr. James perserverence in presenting his ideas for a fairly hostile and cynical audience. I hope he is taking the effort to understand the various critiques and comments pointing out that his ideas are far fetched.

I too have had an occasional "great" idea, and have been shot down by people that "know better". I have had to lick my wounds, and on further review realize maybe it wasn't such a hot idea after all.

On this forum, I do not think it is the critic's requirement to detail proof that an idea will not work. Rather it is up to the champion of the idea or theory to develop, defend, and prove that the idea has merit and worthy of pursuit and further study. In my limited understanding, I do not think Mr. James has presented sufficient, credible data to support some extravagant claims.

Mr. James has choosen a very harsh audience to pitch his ideas to, and I credit him for continuing his pitch. However, he will need a lot of experimental data, proof, and scientific explanation that can survive a tough scrutiny from people far more intelligent than I to pass muster. He is in a harsh battle field, and he will take lumps for inadequate explanations of his wonderful claims. The fact he keeps coming back makes me hope that he really wants to increase his understanding and knowledge of the mechanics and processes involved.

Personally I like a harsh critic to show me what my holes in my idea are. Saves me time, and time is life not money. I can make more money but not life.

Yes Mr. James has left out much data, but the links to his prior posts did let me understand his direction of thought more.

Here is an idea for your turbine Mr James. Given this is not a system I'm in my forte. Picture the scrolls of a turbo charger shape (the snail ) parts of the housing not the intake and exhaust at the ends of the turbo shaft. Purpose is to provide clean air through one scroll and exhaust out the other. To do this tilt your ram jets slightly into the input scroll and exhaust into the output scroll. now put a bisecting flat plate between all ram jet motors tangent to the rotation of the main shaft of your turbine limiting the crossover of air from the intake to exhaust scrolls. You create a thrust in the direction of the intake side that can be pushed back by a magnetic thrust bearing.

Just a just conceived idea no charge

Brad

I was thinking the same when reading through the blog: I know this rotary pulse engine.

In an earlier blog I tried to explain that he will not be able to get a decent energy conversion with this rocket driven flywheel. But somehow he forgot to fully work out all remaining questions and hopped on the next part of the world peace enhancer.

To start: a big bus or a small car: the consumption is not due the total mass but friction: wheels run over the road = friction, the vehicle has speed regards the surrounding air = friction. In normal out of the city driving up to 80% of your power consumption is lost due friction. In the city you break away your money.

Did they do a normal bus trip or just start at on point and drove 12 km before coming to a standstill?

The big challenge of getting flywheels in a bus is to implement regenerative breaking, which would reduce pollution in the cities.

100mpg is already achieved long time ago: they even run more than 100 km with one litre of gasoline. But to be honest: I would not buy such a car as it can only take the driver, which has to be small and light (F1 style) and are highly aerodynamic shaped.

But if you drive in a vacuum, on magnetic levitation some grams of gasoline will bring your car (a 3 ton SUV) 10000 miles from home.

To you Greg, I have just this to say. I re-post one of my earlier posts in a more readable form. Do what you want with it!

Hi! I didn't realize that my story about the leprechaun and the flat tyre would raise so many hackles. It was meant to be an allegory demostrating the inefficiency of the IC piston engine.

However it did serve its purpose in a manner of speaking because it shows that with that configuration a man would have trouble moving the wheel nut even with a sledge hammer.

Translating this into figures using a 4" bore x 3" stroke piston engine to illustrate. The pressure in the combustion chamber after ignition works out to 500 psi. Converting these figures to metric gives us

3.14 x 5.08 ^^2 = 25.80 cm sq. x 35 kg cm sq = 2,836.12 Kgf

on the head of the piston. But this force is acting at a distance of only 1.75" (i.e throw of the crankshaft) from the central axis

1.75 " = 0.044m so, 2836.12 x 0.044 = 126.06 Nm, but the force is being applied at 10 degrees from the vertical,

Sin 10 = 0.1736 , so 126.06 x 0.1736 = 21.89 Nm. So a total force on the piston head of 2,836.12 Kg translates to just 21.89 Nm!!!

OK, now let us see how the pulse jet works out, using the same pressure configuration. There have been many comments that the full pressure would not be available using reaction forces, so we can take 40% of 2836.12 Kgf ( this is more than fair since in the IC piston configuration I have used the full figure of 2,836.12 Kgf in the calculations).

So 40% of 2,836.12 Kgf = 1,134.4 Kgf. Assuming that the combustion chambers are 9" from the main shaft and that the force acts at 90 degrees. We have:

0.228m x 1,134 Kgf = 259.32 Nm, since the sin of 90 degrees is 1.

The total torque is 2 x 259.32 Nm ( since two combustion chambers fire simultaneously in the same direction creating a force couple) = 518 Nm approx.

OK, now coming to the problem of how much power is needed to spin up the 50Kg flyhweel to 24000 rpm, this can be calculated from

Torque = inertial mass x angular acceleration. OK, so the inertial mass of the flywheel can be calculated by mr^^2. Mass x radius squared. Assuming the flywheel has a dia of 15" . This works out to 38 cms. so:

0.19^^2 x 50 = 0.036 x 50 = 1.805 Kg m^^2.

and the angular acceleration in this case is equal to the angular velocity. Since the flywheel has to spin at 24,000 rpm, this works out to

2 pi x 400 = 2512 rad/s^^2. T = 4534 Nm.

It can be seen that the RPJ would have more than sufficient power to bring the flywheel to speed in less than a second, this is especially so if the KE of the flywheel is only partially depleted!!!

"Sin 10 = 0.1736 , so 126.06 x 0.1736 = 21.89 Nm. So a total force on the piston head of 2,836.12 Kg translates to just 21.89 Nm!!!"

Where does the 10° come from? Although the force decreases as the piston moves down (and the angle increases), it does not disappear.

Who said it disappears John. It may just get vanishingly small! Try imagine taking a frozen wheel nut of a punctured car, when you have a wheel spanner only one and a half inches long and aren't even allowed to hit it striaght on, but from an angle of 10 degrees!! James

Where does the 10° come from? Although the force decreases as the piston moves down (and the angle increases), it does not disappear.

Ok! think about where the connecting rod joins the piston, and all the angles it goes through. And maybe do some calculations! Sine 10 was just a rough approximate, if you can do better. LET ME KNOW!!!!

James,

In the first equation you are lost in a factor 10 and forgot to use Pi, which is then used to arrive at the result.

kgF and kg cm sq is not an acceptable unit. (it should be Newton and Pascal, but I admit that it is looking for nails in low water)

Assume that you are rigth did you ever try to calculate how many air/gas mixture you have to pump into the combustion chamber to reach a pressure of 3.5 MPa while burning?

To have the correct comparison your opening should be D 101.6mm (4").

Do you really think that with the exhaust speed you will achieve that your combustion will be total before the gas leaves the chamber?

Rocket engines are known to have a very bad fuel efficiency! But are also known as the sole method to escape the atmosphere as they don't need external oxigen for the combustion. They also have a fantastic power over own wheight ratio.

It is also the reason rocket engines are vented horizontally and not laterally. Good point.

The fuels optimal flash point...ie......from the moment of ignition to full ignition to downburn would determine the exhaust ports size..... which would have to increase proportionately as the engine gained in rpm.

In the first equation you are lost in a factor 10 and forgot to use Pi, which is then used to arrive at the result.

Boss! You are absolutely correct ! Take it as kilograms force and not as Nm, you calculate it for yourself! James

As to the rest of your post, all I am saying is that action is equal to reaction, which does not seem to be getting through to you. Forget calculations, think on your butt! If expansion can do that to a piston than reaction forces can do (at least 40% of that) to my combustion chamber! If you can't accept that, I am going to have to take exception. D.James

I think "Jack of All Trades" used a very important word, "densities".

Off the top of my head I know a hydroturbine runner can have very high peak efficiences on the order of 93% with cold water, a steam turbine I don't recall, but know where to look and people to ask. Thus the liquid, steam engine or superheated air, auto's, battery, and ICE all become a part of the question and info to lead to the answer. Just like the ion engines operating in the vacuum of space slowly accelerating the spacecraft. From India, as I recall, There was another new invention using magnets and an electrical wheel with bursts of electricity to maintain the speed, once in motion, the bursts came from the wheel output along with more power, similar to perpetual motion+, the inventor is elusive, maybe patenting or selling. The residual heat unused by an ICE can be used to cool and compress the intake air.

The concept of "spinning up" anything mechanical is typically not instantaneous, change of WR2 requires time relative to the mass accelerated and the pressure applied at some efficiency.

An "accumulator" for energy storage may figure into the picture.

Scatter shields for flywheels and superchargers have been required for years on drag race cars.

I gave you a good answer for that. Liquid and high density gases have have a much higher transfer rate that rarefied burning fuel.

Dragon

Hi! I didn't realize that my story about the leprechaun and the flat tyre would raise so many hackles. It was meant to be an allegory demostrating the inefficiency of the IC piston engine. However it did serve its purpose in a manner of speaking because it shows that with that configuration a man would have trouble moving the wheel nut even with a sledge hammer. Translating this into figures using a 4" bore x 3" stroke piston engine to illustrate. The pressure in the combustion chamber after ignition works out to 500 psi. Converting these figures to metric gives us 3.14 x 5.08 ^^2 = 25.80 cm sq. x 35 kg cm sq = 2,836.12 Kgf on the head of the piston. But this force is acting at a distance of only 1.75" (i.e throw of the crankshaft) from the central axis 1.75 " = 0.044m so, 2836.12 x 0.044 = 126.06 Nm, but the force is being applied at 10 degrees from the vertical, Sin 10 = 0.1736 , so 126.06 x 0.1736 = 21.89 Nm. So a total force on the piston head of 2,836.12 Kg translates to just 21.89 Nm!!! OK, now let us see how the pulse jet works out, using the same pressure configuration. There have been many comments that the full pressure would not be available using reaction forces, so we can take 40% of 2836.12 Kgf ( this is more than fair since in the IC piston configuration I have used the full figure of 2,836.12 Kgf in the calculations). So 40% of 2,836.12 Kgf = 1,134.4 Kgf. Assuming that the combustion chambers are 9" from the main shaft and that the force acts at 90 degrees. We have 0.228m x 1,134 Kgf = 259.32 Nm, since the sin of 90 degrees is 1. The total torque is 2 x 259.32 Nm ( since two combustion chambers fire simultaneously in the same direction creating a force couple) = 518 Nm approx. OK, now coming to the problem of how much power is needed to spin up the 50Kg flyhweel to 24000 rpm, this can be calculated from Torque = inertial mass x angular acceleration. OK, so the inertial mass of the flywheel can be calculated by mr^^2. Mass x radius squared. Assuming the flywheel has a dia of 15" . This works out to 38 cms. so 0.19^^2 x 50 = 0.036 x 50 = 1.805 Kg m^^2. and the angular acceleration in this case is equal to the angular velocity. Since the flywheel has to spin at 24,000 rpm, this works out to 2 pi x 400 = 2512 rad/s^^2. T = 4534 Nm. It can be seen that the RPJ would have more than sufficient power to bring the flywheel to speed in less than a second, this is especially so if the KE of the flywheel is only partially depleted!!!

YO.................use the darn "enter" key on your keyboard to make a separate paragraph. It is difficult to read your continuous mono-paragraphic litany of words.

Definitely. Mr James, the second principle of communication is to make sure your message can be understood by your audience.

With written communication (especially in the internet age) it is very imprortant to use punctuation, and paragraph breaks to give the reader a chance to focus and place your presentation in proper context.

A long paragraph without white space gets glazed over without understanding. Semi-educated people as myself will not understand what you are trying to say.

Make it easy for your audience to try to understand your message, and you might get better responses. Even if the responses say you are wrong!

"...My calculations show that the Rotary Pulse Jet will produce about 500 Nm of torque per power stroke. So if the engine is revving at 3000 rpm it means that it can bring the flywheel(s) to speed in 1/5 th of a second...."

OK, maybe a jet engine can bring the flywheel to speed in 1/5 sec, but ONLY if the flywheel can survive the forces applied to it in so doing. First, prove to me that the flywheel does not have to be made of pure unobtanium. Then explain to me how you get the jet engine up to speed instantaneously...I'm thinking it will take at least a minute for it to reach maximum rotation, so using it for 1/5 sec seems sort of inefficient. By the time it has wound down to a stop, you'll want to fire it up again for the next 1/5 sec power drive moment. I'm thinking you'll run out of pixie dust 'way too soon...

24K Rpm's max...Waaaoouuhh...! That's a lot of speed off the hook. Then such puppy will hold two rotors spinning opposite directions which would produce an 6.2MJ. Gosh..! So it's flywheels diametrically positioned opposite each other ? Yeah it may happen but probably it will require few extra gears and planetarys around, I guess. In order to transfer these flywheels motion down to torque shafts, I believe. In general is very interesting stuff what you have there absolutly. 1000mpg waaouuh.. Imagine this outhere! This will be selling like 'hot bread with butter' I'll bet, geeehh..

I did read out recently this last week that, 'I'm not sure 100% now', but that this gentelman, a racing cars pilot I believe, came out with an idea of a pneumatic motor concept and they going to develop it near future officially, if I understood rigth, awesone! He noticed that those formulas racing cars have like a pneumatic motor or turbine, I dont know, that are able to impulse the race car in rush out of the pits faster to be able to catch on with the oncoming speeding cars on track. So he start thinking about a concept to develop a pneumatic motor for auto application, awesone. And he came out with such idea of modification into an auto motor/engine power plant, waauuooh. Nice deal this will do save a whole bunch in fuel no doubth.

Is always room to keep on improving as well once having some of the facilities or proper circumstances to build-up something like that, definetly I agree. Sometimes the price involve in testings and facilities conditions have to be in place alltogether in order to -make things happens- absolutly. He got it. And also like everything else the time out from distractions which are too often specially when trying compliance with priorities upfront. Yeappp is not a piece of cake no doubth about but is nice to learn and stay put within all these inventions, great deal. Allset Buddies keep on the good work anyway and..Hehehahiiii..

Crank that Puppy Up,

MC

There have been wide-spread comments on this thread that my posts are over long, monolithic in style and just too complicated. I apologise to all those whose sentiments might have been hurt and will try to use the enter key more often in future. I have been away for a few days and return to find that the thread seems to have moved totally off context. I would like to add a few remarks. (N.B This is going to be another long post.)

Firstly as regards the dangers posed by the flywheel system. There is a wide-spread (and totally misplaced) apprehension that a flywheel spinning at 24,000 rpm, poses a potentially hazardous threat and that this makes the technology unsafe. To counter this allegation, I would like to point out that a 25 Kg. Flywheel spinning at 64,000 rpm has been crash tested under Formula 1 racing conditions, and had passed the test with flying colours. (You can Google flybrid F1 crash test and ascertain this information.)

In considering the above comments remember that many piston engine cars, exceed 20,000 rpm. Take BMW, Chrysler and Mercedes to name just a few companies producing cars that exceed 20,000 rpm. Now compare the numerous (more than 500) parts of an IC piston engine going in all directions, and tell me if a (monoblock) flywheel in a fail-safe helium filled air tight housing, spinning at 24,000 rpm would not be a safer bet than an IC piston engine with parts flying in all directions working at 20,000 rpm.After all to what speeds do the pistons accelerate (and decelerate at 20000 rpm) something like 300m/sˆ2 ?

The second apprehension is that an engine (any engine) could never have the capability of accelerating a 15 inch (40 cms) diameter, 50 Kg. Flywheel to 24,000 rpm in one second or less than one second. To this I put forward the argument that many cars weighing 1500 Kg and more can accelerate to 100km/hr in 3.7 seconds ( some can do it in 2 seconds. ) isn't it plausible then that, using the same amount of power it should be possible to accelerate a mere 50 Kg, (beautifully balanced) flywheel weighing a mere thirtieth of the weight of the car to 24000 rpm in one second or a few fractions of second. The idea of a Rotary Pulse Jet/ flywheel combination to give amazing mileage, zero pollution, and more importantly, open the way for discrete generation units for households, is a good one.

In the meantime I think UV has a good point when he says that, leaving aside for the moment the flak, it is still very useful to hear adverse comments if they are based on scientific fact.

Thanx for the complement james,

Now back to business, Have you given any thought to your turbine being divided for intake and exhaust? You could even put a slight S shape to offset the intake and exhaust leaving the jet body tangent with the axis.

I don't know how you are for funding but Copper Beryllium alloy is heaver than steel and can be HT04 to 200Ksi for a strong flywheel. The high conductive can make wires to 140Ksi.

Zero pollution is a misnomer, pollution will be created in the making of the unit and the running of the pulse jet. How about minimum, low or ultra low emissions?

2283 year old fortune cookie comment- An idiot can a good idea and a genius can make a mistake. Advice is not a take it or leave it [adhesion contract] thing. Each concept must be judged on its own merits, not because of emotional convictions.

Brad

Hi! UV, you don't seem to have grasped the concept of the Rotary Pulse Jet, I am sorry to say.

Intake of air is from a pre-compressed air source (like a compressed air-tank etc), leading directly to an inlet poppet valve in the combustion chamber, correctly calibrated amounts of fuel are added to the compressed air stream at the point where the compressed air stream enters the rotary valve. The exhaust is a fully sealable valve closing the CDN nozzle. So as you can see, inlet and outlet valves are widely separated, fully sealable and the inlet valve, in particular is designed so that enough air/fuel always reaches the combustion chamber.

As regards material for the flywheel, I really think you should visit the flybrid web-site where it states that the flywheel is made out of ordinary high tensile steel only the rim is composite fibre and this is pressed on. Remember this is a flywheel that can spin ( and has been tested ) at 64000 rpm!!

OK! So surely you have heard about the arguments between the evolutionists and the creationists ! While the evolutionists claim that the earth is at least 4.5 billion years old and that all species had evolved in response to their environment, the creationists, followed an eighteenth Century Bishop in England (I just can't find his name!!) , who claimed that the world was created exactly 4500 years ago! Exactly how he came to this conclusion, is unknown, maybe he looked up genealogical tables from the bible. But the fact is Darwin has more evidence in his favour.

The same might be said of those who believe in Newton's third law and those who don't. For instance when you walk, you are pushing on the earth with a certain force and the earth is pushing back at you with exactly the same force. According to Newton, action and reaction are equal, that being so the Rotary Pulse Jet will work.

Ok! So the Anglican Bishop who said that the world was created on such and such a day, 4500 years ago, was Bishop James Ussher! For your information.

For your consideration.

http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/24553/What-will-the-new-technology-be?frmtrk=CR4digest

Hello DDjames,

Thanxs for more info on the Pulse Jet. So what powers your compressor? Does your Pulse jet turn or does it power a turbine?

As regards material for the flywheel, I really think you should visit the flybrid web-site where it states that the flywheel is made out of ordinary high tensile steel only the rim is composite fibre and this is pressed on. Remember this is a flywheel that can spin ( and has been tested ) at 64000 rpm!!

If a high tensile steel flywheel with pressed rim of composite fiber goes 64,000 rpm, then one of better material can go the same or faster with the same or better efficiency.

I don't doubt it will work. It comes down to what is possible, and how close the design comes to that possibility.

Brad

DDjames,

OK. Here's the math:

T = Iα (Torque = moment of inertia x angular acceleration)

I = mk² (moment of inertia = mass x radius of gyration squared)

W = TΘ (Work = Torque x angle)

P = W/t (Power = work divided by time)

Using Θ = ωt and α = ω/t (ω is angular velocity) and combining gives

P = mk²ω²/t

So, for your example, m = 50 kg, k = 0.2 m, ω = 2512 s^-1, and t = 1 s

This calculates to 12.6 MW or about 16,900 hp.

Certainly a doable motor but a lot of overhead.

Good! That seems to be about right, but what in this is there to question ? Look at my example of the 1500 Kg car accelerating from 0 – 100 km/h in 2 secs. (OK, it is an extreme example, but it still exists in fact i.e there is such a car.). The using the momentum equation:

1500 x 14 = 50 x ? = 420m/sec ,

which is less than the surface speed of a 0.4 m flywheel at 24000 rpm which works out to 502 m/sec but still well within the realms of possibility, since:

(a) The flywheel is turning in a vacuum.

(b) Is optimally balanced.

(c) Encounters minimum friction and air-resistance.

So, it is as you say doable, but I question the overhead part of your post.

Compared to the example of pushing a huge object(i.e the car) along the ground (albeit) on rolling tyres and against air resistance, there is no question it is more efficient. Also the power thus generated, 6.3 MW (and not 12.6 MW as erroneously stated by you in your post), can then be used over the next ten or twenty minutes!!! I would have thought it was not only doable but optimum.

Other than the value for k (I assumed a standard configuration where k = 0.2 m and you seemingly use a solid wheel with k= 0.14 m), what is questionable? You asked for the science and I provided it. This stuff is pure boilerplate, unchanged in at least the past 150 years. I'm not sure what answer you're looking for?

You guys still keep on acting as if an engine (your 'fuel to momentum'-converter) with 100% efficiency is a a sure thing.

It's not, it's a fairy tale.

Multiply any thermodynamic power conversion calculation by at least a factor of 5 (= 1/20%), then compare your figures. Pulse engines or whatever trick you have in your magic hat do not have those efficiencies.

That's pure science, that's pure thermodynamics and mechanics.

Read an engineering book on the matter and get on with it.