Minutes of ERPS General Meeting #284
03 June 2004
The President called the meeting to order at 8:12 PM. Members present were
Rick Eversole, Sean Lynch, Dave Masten, Julie Porter, and Chris Winter.
Reports and discussion on agenda items were as follows:
DOCUMENTATION
-
Chris Winter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But there is no apparent reason for that tip velocity to equal the
exhaust velocity "v", and I should think the ultimate tip velocity
would be very much higher.
Sadly not.
The fuel of mass 'dm' must have been accelerate
Good news...
The results came back from the state DTSC lab last Friday. The results
were that they found NO DETECTABLE levels in any of the recent samples
from our property.
For those on the list who haven't been to the Ranch, the "his" below refers
to our unfriendly neighbor who told the state
Apologies for not changing the title on my last post on this.
<>
Okay, in an "ideal" drag=free system, thrust increases with centrifugal force
as chamber pressure, etc., increase.
The specific kinetic energy of the propellant in the inertial frame must
increase as it flows to the tip engines,
<< Now from momentum considerations you can show that the tip speed should
be equal to the exhaust velocity- in this case ~200 m/s >>
I may be missing part of this scenario, but there seems no reason for rotor
tip speed to equal exhaust velocity. I would think rotor tip speed would
increase un
John Carmack wrote:
JC> I do think that most everyone drastically underestimates the increase in
JC> fabrication and operational work that a biprop will bring.
A vehicle with the capacity to hover must have the possibility of deep and fine
throttling.
Realising that with a classic biprop prop
