That pulse jet concept is quite old, in fact, it was one of the firsts reaction engines considered, I'm surprised to be considered now as revolutionary and breakingthrough
@@chpsilva No, V1 bombs used pulsejet engines. Pulse detonation engines work with supersonic combustion (detonation), instead of the subsonic combustion (deflagration) of pulsejet, allowing, in one hand, higher rate of pulses keeping higher momentum and decreasing vibrations. And in the other hand less stress due to less volume change in the combustion chamber, the expansion takes place at the exhaust. At least this is what I've been able to figure out, please correct me if I'm wrong.
@@danielperaza9655 Its close but from what I understand the difference is actually the speed of the exaust as you can make a pulse detonation rocket engine which can't have supersonic airflow entering it. Basically a fire burning slowly is what a normal engine works off of and is then accellerated to supersonic, a pulse detonation would already be supersonic with its exaust so it would be more like a bomb. Both "burn" but the expansion speed is different
Here is the information I found to answer the questions about the German V-1 A pulsating jet engine (PuVRD) is a variant of an air jet engine. The PUVRD uses a combustion chamber with inlet valves and a long cylindrical outlet nozzle. Fuel and air are supplied periodically. The first patents for a pulsating jet engine were obtained (independently of each other) in the 1860s by Charles de Louvrier (France) and Nikolai Afanasyevich Teleshov (Russia). German designers, even on the eve of World War II, were conducting a broad search for alternatives to piston aircraft engines, did not ignore this invention, which remained unclaimed for a long time. The most famous aircraft (and the only serial one) with the Argus As-014 PUVRD manufactured by Argus-Werken was the German V-1 projectile. The chief designer of the V-1 Robert Lusser chose a PuVRD for him not for the sake of efficiency (piston aircraft engines of that era had the best characteristics), but mainly because of the simplicity of the design and, as a result, low labor costs for manufacturing, which was justified with a massive the production of disposable shells, mass-produced in less than a year (from June 1944 to March 1945) in an amount of over 10 thousand units. V-1 engine After the war, research on pulsating jet engines continued in France (SNECMA) and in the USA (Pratt & Whitney, General Electric). The results of these developments interested the military of the USA and the USSR. A number of prototypes and experimental samples were developed. Initially, the main problem with air-to-surface missiles was the imperfection of the inertial guidance system, the accuracy of which was considered good if the missile hit a square with sides of 3 kilometers from a range of 150 kilometers. This led to the fact that with a warhead based on a conventional explosive, these missiles had low efficiency, and nuclear charges, at the same time, had too large a mass (several tons). When compact nuclear charges appeared, the design of more efficient turbojet engines had already been worked out, so pulsating air-jet engines did not become widespread. Representatives of air-to-surface rockets with a pulsating jet engine. Third Reich Fi-103 USSR 10X · 14X · 16X - thanks to the use of two engines, the practical limit of flight speed for the PuVRD was reached - 980 km / h (270 m / s). USA JB-2 In the early 2010s, there is a revival of interest in PuVRD: their development and testing are carried out by General Electric, Pratt & Whitney, SNECMA, as well as the domestic NPO Saturn Scope of PuVRD PUVRD is characterized as noisy and wasteful, but simple and cheap. The high level of noise and vibration arises from the very pulsating mode of its operation. The uneconomical nature of fuel use is evidenced by an extensive torch "beating" from the PUVRD nozzle - a consequence of incomplete combustion of fuel in the chamber. Tests of the American Mustang P-51 with PUVRD Comparison of the PUVRD with other aircraft engines makes it possible to fairly accurately determine the area of its applicability. A PUVRD is many times cheaper to manufacture than a gas turbine or piston internal combustion engine, therefore, with a single use, it wins economically over them (of course, provided that it "copes" with their work). With long-term operation of a reusable device, PuVRD loses economically to the same engines due to wasteful fuel consumption. In terms of simplicity and low cost, the ramjet is practically not inferior to the PuVRD, but at speeds less than 0.5M it is inoperative. At higher speeds, the ramjet is superior in efficiency to the PuVRD (when the valve is closed, the drag of the PuVRD sharply increases and at transonic speeds it “eats up” almost all the thrust created by this engine). Homemade stainless steel motor The combination of these circumstances determines the niche in which PUVRDs are used - single-use unmanned aerial vehicles with operating speeds of up to 0.5M, - flying targets, unmanned reconnaissance aircraft. For the same reasons, the engine is also used in aircraft modeling. Due to the simplicity and low cost, PUVRDs are widespread in amateur aviation and aircraft modeling. Small engines of this type have become very popular among model aircraft designers and in amateur aviation. For this reason, commercial firms have appeared that manufacture for sale for these purposes PUVRD and valves for them (a high-wear spare part). The PUVRD can be used not only as an engine, but also as a stationary unit for generating heat. Other pulsating WFD Valveless PUVRD Samples of valveless (U-shaped) PUVRD. In the literature, there is a description of engines similar to the PUVRD. Valveless PuVRD, otherwise - U-shaped PuVRD. In these engines there are no mechanical air valves, and so that the reverse movement of the working fluid does not lead to a decrease in thrust, the engine path is made in the form of the Latin letter "U", the ends of which are turned backward in the direction of movement of the apparatus, while the outflow of the jet stream occurs immediately from both ends path. Fresh air is supplied to the combustion chamber due to the rarefaction wave that appears after the impulse and "ventilates" the chamber, and the sophisticated shape of the tract serves for the best performance of this function. The absence of valves allows you to get rid of the characteristic drawback of the valve PUVRD - their low durability (on the V-1 projectile, the valves burned out after about half an hour of flight, which was quite enough to complete its combat missions, but absolutely unacceptable for a reusable device). Detonation PuVRD. (English name PDE) In these engines, the combustion of the fuel mixture occurs in the detonation mode (in contrast to deflagration, which occurs during the combustion of fuel-air mixtures in all WFDs discussed above). The detonation wave propagates in the fuel mixture much faster than the sound wave, therefore, during the chemical reaction of detonation combustion, the volume of the fuel mixture does not have time to increase significantly, and the pressure increases abruptly (up to values over 100 atm), thus isochoric (at constant volume) heating takes place working fluid. After this, the phase of expansion of the working fluid in the nozzle begins with the formation of a jet stream. Detonation PuVRD can be with or without valves. A potential advantage of a detonation jet engine is considered to be a higher thermal efficiency than any other type of jet engine. The practical implementation of this engine is in the experimental stage. Detonation PuVRD has been studied for over 70 years. The main problems: fast and efficient mixing of fuel and oxidizer, prevention of spontaneous combustion, integration of the nozzle and air intake. Not mass-produced, but several test engines were demonstrated on low-speed aircraft in 2008. In July 2016, the world's first tests of an experimental detonation rocket engine took place at the Energomash stand in Russia. At the end of December 2016, the American company Aerojet Rocketdyne received a contract from the US National Energy Technology Laboratory to develop a new gas turbine power plant based on a rotary detonation engine. The work, as a result of which a prototype of the new installation will be created, was planned to be completed by mid-2019, but the completion date of the project was postponed. Engine tests were carried out in 2020. In 2021, Russia completed the first stage of testing a demonstrator of a direct-flow pulsating detonation engine developed at NPO Energomash (UEC; developed at the Lyulka Design Bureau, which formed a separate direction for the study and development of such power plants), the model runs on kerosene and gaseous oxygen (the first tests of a liquid-propellant detonation rocket engine took place in the summer of 2016; for the first time a model of a pulsating detonation engine was presented at the Army-2017 International Forum). In some operating modes, the engine showed a 50% increase in specific thrust compared to traditional power plants. In the future, it will be used in rocket and space systems, orbital aircraft and hypersonic aircraft. On July 26, 2021, Japan tested a rotating detonation engine. He worked for 6 seconds. This video presents Detonation PuVRD. Russia is making an impulse, and the United States is rotating. This is their difference.
They never showed tests with their engine actually working though. All their video tests were made using small jet engines or electric turbines mounted on the aircraft. If these things really can fly, they haven't showed it yet. It works in theory, so they can get funding for it, but in practice it may not even work.
But they weren't pulse DETONATION engines where explosion wave moves faster than speed of sound. This may seem a small thing but it changes really everything. They don't no longer suffer sucking air back into exhaust. There could be even multiple detonation waves going out at same time.
Pulsejet engines are also some of the simplest kinds of Jet engine. Unlike the pulse detonation engine or the rotating detonation engine. It is quite interesting how these engines are in essence so similar. But when you look in to them, they become dramatically more complicated.
number 2 and 1, ww2 Germany had already a working model in Argus V-1 engine. that is just a pulse motor of the V-1 rocket brought to modern day really.
same thought lol, some dudes at my university built literally a v2 engine and even colin furze has slammed one on a bike... but the others were quite interesting designs
A pulsating jet engine (PuVRD) is a variant of an air jet engine. The PUVRD uses a combustion chamber with inlet valves and a long cylindrical outlet nozzle. Fuel and air are supplied periodically. The first patents for a pulsating jet engine were obtained (independently of each other) in the 1860s by Charles de Louvrier (France) and Nikolai Afanasyevich Teleshov (Russia). German designers, even on the eve of World War II, were conducting a broad search for alternatives to piston aircraft engines, did not ignore this invention, which remained unclaimed for a long time. The most famous aircraft (and the only serial one) with the Argus As-014 PUVRD manufactured by Argus-Werken was the German V-1 projectile. The chief designer of the V-1 Robert Lusser chose a PuVRD for him not for the sake of efficiency (piston aircraft engines of that era had the best characteristics), but mainly because of the simplicity of the design and, as a result, low labor costs for manufacturing, which was justified with a massive the production of disposable shells, mass-produced in less than a year (from June 1944 to March 1945) in an amount of over 10 thousand units. V-1 engine After the war, research on pulsating jet engines continued in France (SNECMA) and in the USA (Pratt & Whitney, General Electric). The results of these developments interested the military of the USA and the USSR. A number of prototypes and experimental samples were developed. Initially, the main problem with air-to-surface missiles was the imperfection of the inertial guidance system, the accuracy of which was considered good if the missile hit a square with sides of 3 kilometers from a range of 150 kilometers. This led to the fact that with a warhead based on a conventional explosive, these missiles had low efficiency, and nuclear charges, at the same time, had too large a mass (several tons). When compact nuclear charges appeared, the design of more efficient turbojet engines had already been worked out, so pulsating air-jet engines did not become widespread. Representatives of air-to-surface rockets with a pulsating jet engine. Third Reich Fi-103 USSR 10X · 14X · 16X - thanks to the use of two engines, the practical limit of flight speed for the PuVRD was reached - 980 km / h (270 m / s). USA JB-2 In the early 2010s, there is a revival of interest in PuVRD: their development and testing are carried out by General Electric, Pratt & Whitney, SNECMA, as well as the domestic NPO Saturn Scope of PuVRD PUVRD is characterized as noisy and wasteful, but simple and cheap. The high level of noise and vibration arises from the very pulsating mode of its operation. The uneconomical nature of fuel use is evidenced by an extensive torch "beating" from the PUVRD nozzle - a consequence of incomplete combustion of fuel in the chamber. Tests of the American Mustang P-51 with PUVRD Comparison of the PUVRD with other aircraft engines makes it possible to fairly accurately determine the area of its applicability. A PUVRD is many times cheaper to manufacture than a gas turbine or piston internal combustion engine, therefore, with a single use, it wins economically over them (of course, provided that it "copes" with their work). With long-term operation of a reusable device, PuVRD loses economically to the same engines due to wasteful fuel consumption. In terms of simplicity and low cost, the ramjet is practically not inferior to the PuVRD, but at speeds less than 0.5M it is inoperative. At higher speeds, the ramjet is superior in efficiency to the PuVRD (when the valve is closed, the drag of the PuVRD sharply increases and at transonic speeds it “eats up” almost all the thrust created by this engine). Homemade stainless steel motor The combination of these circumstances determines the niche in which PUVRDs are used - single-use unmanned aerial vehicles with operating speeds of up to 0.5M, - flying targets, unmanned reconnaissance aircraft. For the same reasons, the engine is also used in aircraft modeling. Due to the simplicity and low cost, PUVRDs are widespread in amateur aviation and aircraft modeling. Small engines of this type have become very popular among model aircraft designers and in amateur aviation. For this reason, commercial firms have appeared that manufacture for sale for these purposes PUVRD and valves for them (a high-wear spare part). The PUVRD can be used not only as an engine, but also as a stationary unit for generating heat. Other pulsating WFD Valveless PUVRD Samples of valveless (U-shaped) PUVRD. In the literature, there is a description of engines similar to the PUVRD. Valveless PuVRD, otherwise - U-shaped PuVRD. In these engines there are no mechanical air valves, and so that the reverse movement of the working fluid does not lead to a decrease in thrust, the engine path is made in the form of the Latin letter "U", the ends of which are turned backward in the direction of movement of the apparatus, while the outflow of the jet stream occurs immediately from both ends path. Fresh air is supplied to the combustion chamber due to the rarefaction wave that appears after the impulse and "ventilates" the chamber, and the sophisticated shape of the tract serves for the best performance of this function. The absence of valves allows you to get rid of the characteristic drawback of the valve PUVRD - their low durability (on the V-1 projectile, the valves burned out after about half an hour of flight, which was quite enough to complete its combat missions, but absolutely unacceptable for a reusable device). Detonation PuVRD. (English name PDE) In these engines, the combustion of the fuel mixture occurs in the detonation mode (in contrast to deflagration, which occurs during the combustion of fuel-air mixtures in all WFDs discussed above). The detonation wave propagates in the fuel mixture much faster than the sound wave, therefore, during the chemical reaction of detonation combustion, the volume of the fuel mixture does not have time to increase significantly, and the pressure increases abruptly (up to values over 100 atm), thus isochoric (at constant volume) heating takes place working fluid. After this, the phase of expansion of the working fluid in the nozzle begins with the formation of a jet stream. Detonation PuVRD can be with or without valves. A potential advantage of a detonation jet engine is considered to be a higher thermal efficiency than any other type of jet engine. The practical implementation of this engine is in the experimental stage. Detonation PuVRD has been studied for over 70 years. The main problems: fast and efficient mixing of fuel and oxidizer, prevention of spontaneous combustion, integration of the nozzle and air intake. Not mass-produced, but several test engines were demonstrated on low-speed aircraft in 2008. In July 2016, the world's first tests of an experimental detonation rocket engine took place at the Energomash stand in Russia. At the end of December 2016, the American company Aerojet Rocketdyne received a contract from the US National Energy Technology Laboratory to develop a new gas turbine power plant based on a rotary detonation engine. The work, as a result of which a prototype of the new installation will be created, was planned to be completed by mid-2019, but the completion date of the project was postponed. Engine tests were carried out in 2020. In 2021, Russia completed the first stage of testing a demonstrator of a direct-flow pulsating detonation engine developed at NPO Energomash (UEC; developed at the Lyulka Design Bureau, which formed a separate direction for the study and development of such power plants), the model runs on kerosene and gaseous oxygen (the first tests of a liquid-propellant detonation rocket engine took place in the summer of 2016; for the first time a model of a pulsating detonation engine was presented at the Army-2017 International Forum). In some operating modes, the engine showed a 50% increase in specific thrust compared to traditional power plants. In the future, it will be used in rocket and space systems, orbital aircraft and hypersonic aircraft. On July 26, 2021, Japan tested a rotating detonation engine. He worked for 6 seconds. This video presents Detonation PuVRD. Russia is making an impulse, and the United States is rotating. This is their difference.
There's plans to try air ram intakes with air separators for rockets your really only want the o2 going to the engine but the nitrogen and co2 could actually be used to cool the ram lowering its drag with evaporative cooling and micro grooves Still have to take lox for after your out of the atmosphere could even use helium for the evaporative barrier and reclaim it to reuse it with centerfugial air separation
Say for hypersonic passenger travel using rocket engines could be very efficient Me personally I like to take the design to its limits be the fastest woman to ever rocket across the sky Have a few concepts structural and aerodynamic plan to have a ejection capsule that could survive almost anything
Just a slight correction: For the for see able future RDEs are heavier then standard rocket engine due to needing a inner and outer combustion chamber walls and the walls need to be thicker. They are still a improvement for upper stages thanks to the 20-25% increase in efficiency, allowing a smaller engine to just run longer and save on fuel weight.
Detonation, whether pulse or rotating, would be way too loud for aircraft use, but could be a game changer in rocketry. Detonation could in theory boost the specific impulse of a fuel fourfold.
I love the linear design of most of these engines like the new fighter jet by Rolls. Rolls has always produced some quality engines though in the past so it should be no surprise they should lead the cutting edge designs
this is great man like finally an tech channel that doesn't just show some photoshoped jet with blue highlights this was actual really informative shit that i'd read up on in my spare time
Combustion (burning) is a process by which energy is released. ... If the combustion process propagates outward at subsonic speeds (slower than the speed of sound), it's a deflagration. If the explosion moves outward at supersonic speeds (faster than the speed of sound), it's a detonation.
how about laser propulsion? (for use in outer space) i've had an idea which uses part of the laser lightsail concept that stephen hawking and that russian billionaire plan to make and a nuclear power source or energy generator, although my idea doesn't need a huge sail or remote laser source because you can have the laser as part of the spacecraft, you could control the laser diffraction or use it to control acceleration speeds, overheating issues etc. have lasers that extend out the back of the spaceship on poles which are aimed back at the spacecraft (have the lasers aimed at those ceramic materials that can withstand huge temp spikes without breaking, or make a new type of material that gives off small explosions without much degradation (but this could be for version 2.0) then use super capacitors powered by a nuclear energy generator which would charge up and fire the lasers in pulses at the back of the spacecraft ceramic or metallic panel. now normally you'd not be able to do this with a substance because of it pushing against itself but you could with laser light because the speed of light is the speed of light no matter how fast the spacecraft is travelling at, so it would always deliver a blast from the laser at the speed of light which in time would continually speed up the spacecraft with each firing of the laser. you could have multiple lasers firing off so it gives a smoother acceleration. you could maybe diffuse the laser a bit too to stop overheating or use microwaves, infra red or ultra violet. the key to this is having it fire back at the ship from extendable pods and not fire directly out the back at the ship into the nothingness of space as the laser has nothing to push off of within the near as dammed it vacuum of space, but if the lasers are aimed back at the craft a push in the opposite direction would happen propelling the craft forward. or maybe the spacecraft could be doughnut shaped with the propulsion in the centre but could be changed to any angle which when fired back at the ship would propel it in the opposite direction. this might not be the quickest craft to accelerate but over time it would build up to immense speeds. been toying with this idea for several years and have posted it on various platforms but always been too afraid to actually send it to an engine or laser design company. do you folks reckon it would work, or if it won't please feel free to tell me why
A Japanese rotating detonation engine was successfully tested in space on July 27, 2021. The technology demonstrator was launched from a S-520 sounding rocket and fired in space for six seconds producing 520N of thrust.
Really nice video. Thanks! Though I will be _really_ impressed if Fenris is _not_ a scam. Their website has absolutely zero info on how the concept works. It just sounds too good to be true. "Totally game changing", "no moving parts", "incredible cheap", "high efficiency", "never seen before". Those are scam buzzwords.
You should check out the Pulse Detonation Engine at Punjab Engineering College, which is the college where late Indian Astronaut Kalpana Chawla got her bachelor's in Aerospace Engineering.
4:44 - The pulse detonation engine was first used by Germany in WW2, on the V1 AKA "Doodle-bug", which was also the first cruise missile used in war - Very effective and VERY loud too!
so... i already see a way to incorporate at least three of these different types of engines into a single engine that should play off all the strong positive aspects of each other...
For the loud Pulse type engines, cant they use some form of noise cancellation technique? Certainly if they can desing these new types of propulsion they can figure a way out to use a technology that has been around for a few decades.
Noise cancellation would steal a lot of energy, though, which isn't worth it. It's all about operating at the maximum possible power efficiency when it comes to rockets.
@@ejegbavworuemu2129 yeah... “condense it” would’ve been better. Liquid oxygen has a really high energy density, no pollution, reusable. it used to power rockets, and if you use it as a fuel you don’t need a fuel tank because it’s what you traveling through and could be condensed on demand.
-Jetoptera has yet to produce footage of successful square wing takeoff/landing using their fluidic propulsion on any of their 3 concepts. Instead they show a glider in flight. A bike on the road (not kidding) and an unstable hover on a tether. I'm not convinced. -Pulse Detonation has been in the works since 1940. Not quite new. -Fenris "rocket" engine footage has no mach cone. No power.
The V1 had a pulse jet, but the fuel burned and did not detonate. A detonation has a supersonic pulse, its like being propeller by a rapid firing canon.
@@PBGetson A Friend of mine is an Englishmen. He said, his mother mentioned that the V1 was more terrifying than the V2. V2 was supersonic. You where dead or not. V1 was heard some seconds beforehand and you got enough time to panic.
That is true but rotating pulse detonation engines (which actually are stable) are fairly new. I'm not sure if they will go anywhere though because of the decibel level.
All the "new" propulsion systems shown in this video are not new. Ion propulsion dates back to Michael Faraday who described how you could use charged ions to move air in the 1830s. The Air Force and Navy have both experimented with pulsed high voltage and high current type engines in the past. Plasma engines have been built and tested for more than fifty years, The first electric thrust engine was invented by the Father of Rocketry, Dr, Robert Goddard about 1900. Tesla and Dr. Townsend Brown had experimented with very high voltage capacity systems prior to 1940 that were very promising. With the creation of Space Force and a renewed interest going to space and now Mars Its amazing to see how these technologies will develop into the future.
The British ones, have been tested successfully, the sabre engine & the tempest engine. The Russian one is now in service. Russia is the only country that has hypersonic missiles in service. The missiles use this technology. The Sabre engine can operate in space as well as our atmosphere, the Russians have openly stated their next gen fighter aircraft will be able to operate in both as well.
4:05 Wasn't the old German V1 (or V2?) rockets driven by an engine with the exact same technology? 4:18 ...Air goes in, mixes & detonates, then continues out the other side & the under-pressure after the shock-wave sucks in new air. Those rocket engines had a problem with the "flaps" that closed off the air intake, they got worn out, but because it was meant to explode anyway, it wasn't a real problem, but if you put it on an airplane for long time use, then it WILL be a problem.
A pulsating jet engine (PuVRD) is a variant of an air jet engine. The PUVRD uses a combustion chamber with inlet valves and a long cylindrical outlet nozzle. Fuel and air are supplied periodically. The first patents for a pulsating jet engine were obtained (independently of each other) in the 1860s by Charles de Louvrier (France) and Nikolai Afanasyevich Teleshov (Russia). German designers, even on the eve of World War II, were conducting a broad search for alternatives to piston aircraft engines, did not ignore this invention, which remained unclaimed for a long time. The most famous aircraft (and the only serial one) with the Argus As-014 PUVRD manufactured by Argus-Werken was the German V-1 projectile. The chief designer of the V-1 Robert Lusser chose a PuVRD for him not for the sake of efficiency (piston aircraft engines of that era had the best characteristics), but mainly because of the simplicity of the design and, as a result, low labor costs for manufacturing, which was justified with a massive the production of disposable shells, mass-produced in less than a year (from June 1944 to March 1945) in an amount of over 10 thousand units. V-1 engine After the war, research on pulsating jet engines continued in France (SNECMA) and in the USA (Pratt & Whitney, General Electric). The results of these developments interested the military of the USA and the USSR. A number of prototypes and experimental samples were developed. Initially, the main problem with air-to-surface missiles was the imperfection of the inertial guidance system, the accuracy of which was considered good if the missile hit a square with sides of 3 kilometers from a range of 150 kilometers. This led to the fact that with a warhead based on a conventional explosive, these missiles had low efficiency, and nuclear charges, at the same time, had too large a mass (several tons). When compact nuclear charges appeared, the design of more efficient turbojet engines had already been worked out, so pulsating air-jet engines did not become widespread. Representatives of air-to-surface rockets with a pulsating jet engine. Third Reich Fi-103 USSR 10X · 14X · 16X - thanks to the use of two engines, the practical limit of flight speed for the PuVRD was reached - 980 km / h (270 m / s). USA JB-2 In the early 2010s, there is a revival of interest in PuVRD: their development and testing are carried out by General Electric, Pratt & Whitney, SNECMA, as well as the domestic NPO Saturn Scope of PuVRD PUVRD is characterized as noisy and wasteful, but simple and cheap. The high level of noise and vibration arises from the very pulsating mode of its operation. The uneconomical nature of fuel use is evidenced by an extensive torch "beating" from the PUVRD nozzle - a consequence of incomplete combustion of fuel in the chamber. Tests of the American Mustang P-51 with PUVRD Comparison of the PUVRD with other aircraft engines makes it possible to fairly accurately determine the area of its applicability. A PUVRD is many times cheaper to manufacture than a gas turbine or piston internal combustion engine, therefore, with a single use, it wins economically over them (of course, provided that it "copes" with their work). With long-term operation of a reusable device, PuVRD loses economically to the same engines due to wasteful fuel consumption. In terms of simplicity and low cost, the ramjet is practically not inferior to the PuVRD, but at speeds less than 0.5M it is inoperative. At higher speeds, the ramjet is superior in efficiency to the PuVRD (when the valve is closed, the drag of the PuVRD sharply increases and at transonic speeds it “eats up” almost all the thrust created by this engine). Homemade stainless steel motor The combination of these circumstances determines the niche in which PUVRDs are used - single-use unmanned aerial vehicles with operating speeds of up to 0.5M, - flying targets, unmanned reconnaissance aircraft. For the same reasons, the engine is also used in aircraft modeling. Due to the simplicity and low cost, PUVRDs are widespread in amateur aviation and aircraft modeling. Small engines of this type have become very popular among model aircraft designers and in amateur aviation. For this reason, commercial firms have appeared that manufacture for sale for these purposes PUVRD and valves for them (a high-wear spare part). The PUVRD can be used not only as an engine, but also as a stationary unit for generating heat. Other pulsating WFD Valveless PUVRD Samples of valveless (U-shaped) PUVRD. In the literature, there is a description of engines similar to the PUVRD. Valveless PuVRD, otherwise - U-shaped PuVRD. In these engines there are no mechanical air valves, and so that the reverse movement of the working fluid does not lead to a decrease in thrust, the engine path is made in the form of the Latin letter "U", the ends of which are turned backward in the direction of movement of the apparatus, while the outflow of the jet stream occurs immediately from both ends path. Fresh air is supplied to the combustion chamber due to the rarefaction wave that appears after the impulse and "ventilates" the chamber, and the sophisticated shape of the tract serves for the best performance of this function. The absence of valves allows you to get rid of the characteristic drawback of the valve PUVRD - their low durability (on the V-1 projectile, the valves burned out after about half an hour of flight, which was quite enough to complete its combat missions, but absolutely unacceptable for a reusable device). Detonation PuVRD. (English name PDE) In these engines, the combustion of the fuel mixture occurs in the detonation mode (in contrast to deflagration, which occurs during the combustion of fuel-air mixtures in all WFDs discussed above). The detonation wave propagates in the fuel mixture much faster than the sound wave, therefore, during the chemical reaction of detonation combustion, the volume of the fuel mixture does not have time to increase significantly, and the pressure increases abruptly (up to values over 100 atm), thus isochoric (at constant volume) heating takes place working fluid. After this, the phase of expansion of the working fluid in the nozzle begins with the formation of a jet stream. Detonation PuVRD can be with or without valves. A potential advantage of a detonation jet engine is considered to be a higher thermal efficiency than any other type of jet engine. The practical implementation of this engine is in the experimental stage. Detonation PuVRD has been studied for over 70 years. The main problems: fast and efficient mixing of fuel and oxidizer, prevention of spontaneous combustion, integration of the nozzle and air intake. Not mass-produced, but several test engines were demonstrated on low-speed aircraft in 2008. In July 2016, the world's first tests of an experimental detonation rocket engine took place at the Energomash stand in Russia. At the end of December 2016, the American company Aerojet Rocketdyne received a contract from the US National Energy Technology Laboratory to develop a new gas turbine power plant based on a rotary detonation engine. The work, as a result of which a prototype of the new installation will be created, was planned to be completed by mid-2019, but the completion date of the project was postponed. Engine tests were carried out in 2020. In 2021, Russia completed the first stage of testing a demonstrator of a direct-flow pulsating detonation engine developed at NPO Energomash (UEC; developed at the Lyulka Design Bureau, which formed a separate direction for the study and development of such power plants), the model runs on kerosene and gaseous oxygen (the first tests of a liquid-propellant detonation rocket engine took place in the summer of 2016; for the first time a model of a pulsating detonation engine was presented at the Army-2017 International Forum). In some operating modes, the engine showed a 50% increase in specific thrust compared to traditional power plants. In the future, it will be used in rocket and space systems, orbital aircraft and hypersonic aircraft. On July 26, 2021, Japan tested a rotating detonation engine. He worked for 6 seconds. This video presents Detonation PuVRD. Russia is making an impulse, and the United States is rotating. This is their difference.
This video is dope! Funny thing is, I'm an aerospace engineering grad student, and when I was looking for a topic for my thesis my professor actually recommended that I work on some design elements of the rotation detonation rocket engine! Sadly, I didn't choose it (as awesome as it sounds lol) BUT instead have been working on a pulsed plasma thruster for CubeSats. Those are cool too but definitely not as awe-inspiring haha
1:19 number 6 on this list has already been proven by UCLA plasma propulsion lab to have displayed highly misleading and inaccurate results. The thrust in their experiment is based on pressure in the tube that the jet is in rather than force in free air.
@@blurglide I trust your information. It was described as a "pulse jet" in my books as a child but obviously the term has a different meaning. I must say, a "deflagration" engine sounds like its for adults only!
The rotating pulse engine comment was amusing. For upper stage rockets, then a few sentences later, its very loud. I don’t think you would damage anyone’s ears in space...
Honestly you could get more out of a plane if you just have the engine in the center of the playing and have like four or five electric motors in series with the coils in a vortex like design and a 9 12 15 18 21 blade propellers on each one to compress the air that the plane would be pushed and that air will go through the plane not just around it. Like a mig-15 or 18
@@boundlessmatter4361 Given they say it would be compressing air and that there is a bit of a lack of air in space, I'm going to go with no for this one
Need to tell you this. In 1975 I was being tested for my technical aptitude Afterwards the airforce officer told me I had a high aptitude for electronics he want me to go on secret project. I asked him what it is he said it was so Secret that he could not tell me what it is. I said I wanted to work on jet engines he said that jet engines wore Wore antiques and I will be unhappy working on them. He was right to this day I wish I had gone for that other project.
The PULSEJET is NOT new tech, it's pre WWII tech, i.e. the V-1 flying bomb using an Argus As 014 pulsejet engine. Saying it's revolutionary is ridiculous, unless you mean revolutionary for the 1930's. Paul Schmidt received a patent for the Argus 014 PULSEJET engine in 1931.
Nothing new here . Auxiliary Venturi's with a hint of Bernoulli's thrown , pulse jets of various types and the super inefficient microwave enginr and a big jet turbine engine . The Rolls Royce engine is simply a much more advanced lighter and more compact version of the Ultra Fan engines already common on commercial aircraft and as a retrofit to the US B52 upgrade programme , which deliver more power , greater efficiency in a lighter package at higher altitude than offered by any other manufacturer . The USAF went to the right engine company to meet their needs . The Tempest 6+ gen fighter engine with both Italy and SWEDEN joining the project , is said to have a design capability of up to Mach 6 which means there is a little more than just an integral starter going on here . Considering how easy it is to down a fighter with a low cost hypersonic missile the idea is to produce an aircraft with full stealth capability that will out run the missile . The brief is to design a fighter to accept these loads and have the ability to be upgraded as newer engine designs progress to the point of extremely high altitude and speed .
Best of the bunch is the Dyson type engine. Already proven to work. The pulse engine seems similar to the nazi V-1 with wings that flew into London in WW2.
@@onebacon_ the pressure is higher, as the turbine flow is within, the amount of volume outer may not be, to carry the craft into flight the same. Unless thats what they are asuring.
I struggle with the theory on this one. So it has a compressor that pulls in a volume/mass of air and turns it into a high speed compressed airflow which is routed to the thrusters where it is used to accelerate the air flowing through the thruster. This will slow the high speed compressed air down right, basically force = mass × acceleration. So basically it's trading a lower mass of high speed air for a higher mass of lower speed air. I'm guessing the thrusters could be more efficient and make sure the force is more aligned with the desired direction of work than a simple high speed nozzle outlet, so better efficiency maybe. I can see some safety benefits with no fans in the thrusters, but it still has fan blades for the compressor which as per other aircraft you'll want to keep stuff away from. What is it about the trusters that are an improvement over just accelerating air directly with blades?
@@nic.h most of them are doing pulse wave effects, similar to fictional theory with mass particles, which I would call geoscoptic motion, so your technicly correct , it wouldn't work in the classic calculation, but in pulse deprive & go waves... like I said, "the others have future potential."
3:22 The majority of electric power production in some countries, and large amounts elsewhere, has been JET POWERED for a long time. GE has quite a few words to say to you about their VERY long lasting high power Jet engined power generators. The Rolls system is just a "more integrated" design, not anything particularly innovative.
One has to remember, these things are built with and tested with and maintained with fossil fuels. I certainly am in favor of going full speed ahead to see what we can accomplish. I want to see if we can eliminate most fossil fuels. Let’s see if we can eliminate all lubricants as well. When I look at these developments I think about my car, my EV has a sticker on the back window that says the following, “ This vehicle runs on natural gas, coal and nuclear energy”. We do have wind power in our area but it is negligible and they’re taking down most of the wind turbines because of inefficiency. This is after just 15 years of use. I just watched a video from CDI which means “controlled demolition Inc’. and they just took down 21 wind turbines, look it up. I am all for alternate fossil fuels, I’m also for common sense. Go Brandon.
