How would that work? A vortex should increase the heat flux to the wall via
increased turbulence and pressure.
Troy
From: arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On ;
Behalf Of Wilson Reaction Research (Redacted sender "wilsonreactionresearch"
for DMARC) wilsonreactionresearch@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, 13 March 2018 7:55 PM
To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@xxxxxxxxx>;
arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [AR] Re: engine life (was Re: Nozzles for Amateur Solids)
What about vortex combustion? The spiral flow of the fuel about the interior of
the chamber and nozzle? This protects the wall material from the high
temperatures. More common materials can then be utilised. A recent British
experiment saw vortex combustion allows chamber to be made in a perspex type
material.
<https://go.onelink.me/107872968?pid=InProduct&c=MailPP_sig_Dec17&af_sub1=E-mail&af_sub2=YGrowth&af_sub3=US_Email_MailPP_Sig_V3>
Try the top-rated email app
On Sun, 11 Mar 2018 at 7:23, Robert Clark
<rgregoryclark@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:rgregoryclark@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote:
I suspect that is a matter of degree, literally. It’s one thing for the
melting point to be, say, 1,200 C and the jet engine to be operating at, say,
1,500 C, and quite another thing for the melting point to be 1,200 C and the
rocket engine to be operating at 3,000 C.
But let me ask the reverse question. Instead of getting exotic materials with
melting points above the engine operating temperature of 3,000 C, can we get
the engine to operate at lower temperatures say 1,000 C so more common metal
alloys can be used that are above the operating temperature? Then we can get
thousands of hours of use out of a rocket engine like for jet engines and for
automobile engines.
In this case the ISP would be significantly reduced, but you could still get a
orbital rocket by having very high mass ratio. The high temperature but
lightweight ceramics I mentioned might be able to get the T/W ratio for the
engine into the range of 300 to 1. But if you’re using these ceramics you might
as well just use their high temperature properties as well to retain the high
ISP.
But another method might be able to get even higher T/W for the engine when
the operating temperature is reduced to ca. 1,000 C. Use common metal alloys
for the engine but only for the surfaces exposed to the high temperature, then
use insulation around the engine, then finally use carbon fiber composites for
strength to contain the high pressure.
The carbon fiber doesn’t have very good temperature properties but the idea is
during a launch the engine might be operating less than 10 minutes. In this
case we’re also operating at a lower temperature, a third that of usual. Then
besides that we’ll have very effective insulation between the metal exposed to
the combustion temperatures and the carbon fiber. In this scenario since you
need only a thin layer of the metal inner surface, and the other materials for
the outer layers are lightweight, you might be able to get a markedly reduced
weight for the engine, perhaps an order of magnitude lower, bringing the T/W up
1,000 to 1(!)
We still need to get also the tanks reduced in weight multiple times. I’ll
discuss this in the next email.
Bob Clark
On Thursday, March 8, 2018, Henry Spencer <hspencer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:hspencer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote:
Robert Clark wrote:
But suppose we had a ceramic that had a melting point even higher than
the combustion temperatures? Then regenerative cooling would not be
needed and then like jet engines, rocket engines could operate for
thousands of hours, giving rockets reusability comparable to jet aircraft.
Modern jet engines use regenerative cooling *extensively*; in particular, their
turbine inlet temperatures routinely exceed the melting point (never mind the
maximum service temperature) of the turbine-blade materials. So the idea that
avoiding regenerative cooling is the magic that will confer long operating life
seems questionable.
By the way, conservatively-built rocket engines like the RL10A and the XCOR
engines already have reusability comparable to many jet engines (allowing for
the fact that one mission is hours of run time for a jet and minutes for a
rocket). The short useful lives of most large rocket engines have more to do
with their design philosophy (performance uber alles!) than with anything
inherent in rockets; jet engines designed the same way -- e.g. for cruise
missiles -- similarly have short lives and poor reliability.
Henry
