At 02:53 PM 7/31/2002 -0400, you wrote:
>Did he use bi fuel?
>Silver screens?
>Where might I get more info?
>
>John Carmack wrote:
Both Beal and the British Black Knight program used silver plated screens
with kerosene injected below the pack. This is positively not a scaling
problem.
Kerosen
If you send me the .dwg file I can convert to a webable
format (JPEG/GIF/BMP whatever)
Original message
>Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2002 18:17:34 -0700
>From: Adrian Tymes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: [ERPS] Multiple chamber engine
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>Alex
Alex Fraser wrote:
> I am trying to figure out how to convert a .dwg into something web
> browserable. First program I tried puts a big advertisement in the middle
> of the conversion. It cost $40 to register program and remove it. It did
> create a nice jpg, but it was large at 4 meg. Ideal woul
I am trying to figure out how to convert a .dwg into something web
browserable. First program I tried puts a big advertisement in the middle
of the conversion. It cost $40 to register program and remove it. It did
create a nice jpg, but it was large at 4 meg. Ideal would be to post to
site in a br
On Wed, 31 Jul 2002 14:58:01 -0400 (EDT), Henry Spencer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Any correlation between engine size and Isp is pretty weak. *Very* small
>engines do tend to suffer, because of cooling problems, boundary-layer
>issues, etc... but even that isn't an inviolable rule, just a tend
On Wed, 31 Jul 2002 23:12:39 EDT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>If I did a drawing of an engine is there a common area on the ERPS
>>server that I could upload it for contemplation?
>
>Feel free to add an attachment up to 40K to an email. .Pdf or .jpg
>probably readable by most people. Anything la
On Wed, 31 Jul 2002 20:00:23 +0100, Ian Woollard
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1. 30 NK-33 LOX/kerosene engines; 10.1 million lb. total thrust.
> 2. 8 NK-43 LOX/kerosene engines; 3.1 million lb. total thrust.
> 3. 4 NK-39 engines; 360,800 lb. total thrust.
> 4. 1 NK-31 engine; 90,200 lb. t
Feel free to add an attachment up to 40K to an email. .Pdf or .jpg
probably readable by most people. Anything larger would be rejected
by the email overseer.
Dan
In a message dated 7/31/02 8:01:41 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< If I did a drawing of an engine is there a common area on the E
If I did a drawing of an engine is there a common area on the ERPS
server that I could upload it for contemplation?
--
<
Alex Fraser N3DER .
. [EMAIL PROTECTED] ...
[~]_><
___
ERPS-
Ian Woollard wrote:
> There's also the Russian N-1 'moon' rocket as a datapoint. It had:
>
>1. 30 NK-33 LOX/kerosene engines; 10.1 million lb. total thrust.
>2. 8 NK-43 LOX/kerosene engines; 3.1 million lb. total thrust.
>3. 4 NK-39 engines; 360,800 lb. total thrust.
>4. 1 NK-31
On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, Ian Woollard wrote:
> >likely to develop multi-engine vehicles in the foreseeable future.
> >
> There's also the Russian N-1 'moon' rocket as a datapoint...
> They NEVER managed to launch it successfully ;-)
That had much more to do with inadequate testing -- for example, the
At 11:25 AM 7/31/02 -0700, Bill Clawson wrote:
>But what about the contention that bigger engines are typically more
>efficient (higher Isp)? I'm not arguing for or against multiple cat packs,
>but about the size of engines in general.
All other things being equal, that's more or less
Michael Wallis wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">
The NUMBER of engines will be a big debate, but we're mostlikely to develop multi-engine vehicles in the foreseeable future.
There's also the Russian N-1 'moon' rocket as a datapoint. It had:
30 NK-33 LOX/kerosene engines; 10.1 million lb. to
On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, Bill Clawson wrote:
> But what about the contention that bigger engines are typically more
> efficient (higher Isp)? I'm not arguing for or against multiple cat packs,
> but about the size of engines in general.
Any correlation between engine size and Isp is pretty weak.
Did he use bi fuel?
Silver screens?
Where might I get more info?
John Carmack wrote:
> > I don't think anyone has scaled up a silver screen catpak enough to
> > really
> >know how large they can be built. I think the larger they get the harder
> >they will
> >be to fabricate, that is harder
Michael Wallis wrote:
> Alex Fraser wrote:
>
> > The catpack must catalyze the fuel. The wetted area must go up
> > to match fuel rate. Wetted area is a surface. The fuel exists as
> > a volume.
>
> Ah ... no, theat's incorrect. The cat pack catalyzes the oxidizer -
> HTP - not the fuel. Th
> I don't think anyone has scaled up a silver screen catpak enough to
> really
>know how large they can be built. I think the larger they get the harder
>they will
>be to fabricate, that is harder out of proportion to size. What is the
>largest
>built to date? At what diameter of screen w
Michael wrote:
> Alex wrote:
> As for weight if you compare multi catpac single nozzle to
> multiple engines of the same thrust which would be lighter?
Lighter isn't the sole issue. Servicability is a top consideration.
Reliability is a top consideration. Performance of the overall v
Alex Fraser wrote:
> The catpack must catalyze the fuel. The wetted area must go up
> to match fuel rate. Wetted area is a surface. The fuel exists as
> a volume.
Ah ... no, theat's incorrect. The cat pack catalyzes the oxidizer -
HTP - not the fuel. The exhaust from the cat pack - pure o
The catpack must catalyze the fuel. The wetted area must go up to match fuel
rate. Wetted area is a surface. The fuel exists as a volume.
I don't think anyone has scaled up a silver screen catpak enough to really
know how large they can be built. I think the larger they get the harder they
Sander Pool wrote:
> I'm no expert at this but I would guess that while it may be easier/cheaper
> to build lots of small engines the maintenance hassle must be humongous.
> It's tough enough to keep the shuttle space worthy with only 3 main engines.
> If it has 10 or more it must be even toughe
ot; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 11:47 PM
Subject: Re: [ERPS] Multiple chamber engine
> Didn't both Nasa and the Soviets try many motor designs? Does anyone know
> why they stopped using those designs?
>
> --
> Ben Zarzy
I was thinking cluster of gas generators, single nozzle.
Larger fuel/lox engines have multiple injectors. Catalyst pack size and
geometry will limit multiple injectors for large Peroxide engines. Each added
injector could have it's own catalyst pack.
This gas generator/injectors would be s
My idea was not for multiple engines. It was for multiple catalyst chambers
with one nozzle.
Ben Zarzycki wrote:
> Didn't both Nasa and the Soviets try many motor designs? Does anyone know
> why they stopped using those designs?
>
> --
> Ben Zarzycki
>
>
I may be coming around on the cluster-of-engines concept for economic reasons.
A lot of manufacturing costs (machining and tooling) scale with volume,
while thrust scales with area, which makes larger engines start to cost
more than I like. There are lots of variables, but I know that right no
Didn't both Nasa and the Soviets try many motor designs? Does anyone know
why they stopped using those designs?
--
Ben Zarzycki
___
ERPS-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listinfo/erps-list
--
From: "Alex Fraser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 12:58 PM
Subject: [ERPS] Multiple chamber engine
> Use multiple chambers in a H2O2 rocket. I was thinking arranging
> them like the cylinders in a radial piston engine wo
Use multiple chambers in a H2O2 rocket. I was thinking arranging
them like the cylinders in a radial piston engine would work. Three
would be a good number. Set them so that they joined the thrust chamber
off center so they would cause a vortex in it.
Some points in favor of multiple chamber
28 matches
Mail list logo
