FUTURE Jet Engine Has ARRIVED!? -Turbojet Breaks RECORD
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 апр 2024
- Beehive Industries‘ new turbojet demonstrator was fired up for the first time marking a great stride for additive manufacturing and setting a record production time from design to prototype. Will this be the game changer for cheaper & more efficient jet engines?
Sources & Credits:
• High Efficiency Gas Tu...
• Rolls-Royce UltraFan o...
• Rolls-Royce | How Engi...
• EOS 3D printing techno...
• Idealab R&D - Small Je... 
Наука
![Eminem - Houdini [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/22tVWwmTie8/mqdefault.jpg)
Over 45 years ago I was just starting my career as a Technical Designer in the manufacturing and engineering fields.
Worked at a company that produced sintered powdered metal gears and other complex shapes using presses with complex tooling setups. It was great for producing lots of parts quickly without generating lots of waste like machining would. Thought it was the coolest thing I ever saw.
A few years later I starting working in the aviation industry. Experienced the transition from 2D board drawings to 2D CAD drawings to 3D CAD/CAM drawings and data sets. Saw the introduction of 3D Stereo Lithography of plastic test parts. Thought it was the coolest thing I ever saw.
Over twenty years ago I worked at a factory that machined large forgings. Then I started hearing about laser sintering of actual production metal parts. Thought it was the coolest thing I ever saw.
Just watched your video of the truly amazing complex Additive Manufacturing parts being produced now. Again thinking this is the coolest thing I ever saw.
Wonder what’s to come in the next 10, 20, 30 years in Additive Design/Manufacturing. It seems like we’re fast approaching the Replicator technology shown on Star Trek. Now that would be the coolest thing I ever saw!
Replicator in Star Trek I will take...
Replicators in Stargate, no thank you!
Thanks for sharing, it really is an exciting time to be alive and to see manufacturing evolve rapidly! Hopefully no Stargate replicators though heh
Million Hit Video:
with 3D sintering of high pressure/temp materials now available, find a 3D Turbine expert willing to proactively discuss Schauberger's implosion repulsine
with a built-in BLDC motor, it might even work with current techniques. (there was one account of Schauberger's design tearing up a room, though)
btw, if any arm-chair critics think that a google search includes confidential IP and buried technologies, you are accessing only about 20% of human knowledge
loving the info , i've been here for years and still loving the content
Thanks!
Hybrid aircraft are the dumbest thing ever proposed.
Hybrids are only efficient in stop-start applications.
Aircraft cruise at the same speed for hours.
So all the hybrid does, is increase weight, complexity, and cost.
Look at the Rolls Royce EfanX.
It was ti decrease CO2 by 70%.
But INCREASED CO2 by 400%.
And was so hot and heavy, if could not take off.
And they charged UK taxpayers £60 million for this monstrosity.
HYBRIDS DON’T WORK FOR AIRCRAFT.
T
Thanks for the information on the tech news bro Shalum!
nice video!
3D printing especially of refractory alloys like inconel really is changing the world. If hydrogen gas turbines can be made inexpensively then that makes a completely zero CO2 hybrid electric aircraft with decent range possible. And I know hydrogen still has to be made from renewables and that it presents problems of its own, with metal embrittlement and leaks and volume considerations, but everything comes with problems.
It sounds interesting, I hope we can somehow spot these kind of products in the future like we can with plastic injection molding.
I did not see any mention to the turbine blades being AM manufactured. An important omission. I suspect they are not because it can't be done yet.
Exactly, they are grown and already ~3d printed so...
No way can turbine Blades & rotors produces via AM: The stresses on them are just too high. The last thing you want is a blade or rotor failure, which would destroy the engine.
@@guytech7310 Well bud, turbine blades today are made by AM right now, so your treatise here has a MASSIVE Problem.
@@w8stral OK, I did some research. It looks like the turbine blades are printed via AM, but the forged using a hammer press. The advantage for AM is for cooling channels.
There are a lot of steps to go from a printed Blade before it can be used, so am not sure if this is any faster than standard production of blades.
I knew sintering wasn't strong enough for the forces applied to turbine blades. I also have not found any instances of the Turbine rotors that hold the blades are AM. But if you know, please share.
@@guytech7310 Oh yea, turbine blades have multiple steps. It is not one process. You can say they use ALL the processes.
As turbine size decreases below about 700 kW of output power the specific fuel consumption (SFC) rapidly increases (which is a bad thing). This is because things like blade tip clearance, and the tolerance on manufacturing to the desired shape (even with additive manufacturing) are pretty much fixed values regardless of total engine size. As a result, as the flow passages get smaller, the ratio of tip clearance to blade size gets larger and so there is more leakage at the tip. Also the percent deviation from desired blade shape gets larger the smaller the blades. Both cause the compressor and turbine efficiencies to decrease. Both of these factors limits the minimum absolute blade size for the last stage of the compressor. This means that the pressure ratio at which the flow area reaches the minimum blade size decreases as the total design point flow into the engine decreases. In a thermodynamic cycle, the thermal efficiency of the cycle is directly related to the overall pressure ratio of the compressor. The higher the OPR, the higher the thermal efficiency. So the combination of more tip leakage, percent error in blade shape and lower pressure ratio results in lower thermal efficiency and so higher SFC the smaller the turbine engine.
Intermittent combustion engines (ICEs) don't have the same scaling effects. As a result, the SFC for ICEs is relatively constant regardless of engine power (except in extremely small ICEs of a few kW.). The result is that for the power levels discussed in this video the SFC of turbine engines is about twice that of ICEs of equal power.
The advantage of small gas turbine engines relative to ICEs is they have a substantially better power to weight ratio. In fact the power to weight ratio of turbine engines *increases* as the engines get smaller. While weight is a major factor in any kind of aircraft, engine weight is only a portion of the weight of adding a range extender to a battery electric aircraft. The other portion is the weight of the fuel and fuel system required to provide power for a specified length of time. The better SFC of ICEs means that at some power level the weight of the fuel will be about half that of the turbine engine. At some power level the total weight of the engine and fuel will be less for an ICE than a turbine. And the point where the total power system weight including fuel where an ICE weighs less is happening at higher power levels due to the introduction of very high thermal efficiency *and* high power to weight ratio ICEs like those being developed by LiquidPiston. LiquidPiston use a novel take on the rotary engine that eliminates the issues that limited the Wankel type rotary. They basically turned the Wankel (Mazda) rotary inside out with a double lobed (peanut shaped) rotor with cusps in the case that separate the three chambers. The cusps contain the tip seals rather than the rotor like the Wankel. This allows the tip seals to be directly lubricated, eliminating the Wankel need to injected oil into the chamber through weep holes in the case so that the tip seals would pick up some oil as they swept past. The issue is that the oil is no in the combustion chamber and when it burns produces a lot of unburnt hydrocarbons. The peanut shaped rotor also allows the combustion chamber in the wall of the case to be completely covered during the majority of the combustion process. This constant volume combustion results in a much greater increase in peak chamber pressure than is possible with piston engines which can not dwell at TDC long enough. This "free" increase in pressure greatly increases the OPR of the LiquidPiston cycle and therefore yields a lower SFC than piston engines. These engines are much simpler and lighter since they don't have to contend with all of the stress of a piston engine. This gives them about 3 times the power to weight ratio of the most common aviation piston engines. Plus with only one moving part, they are simpler to build and easier to maintain than piston engines and likely more reliable with longer TBOs.
So for range extender engine to augment battery power in small aircraft, a turbine engine might not be the best choice.
Thanks, you brought up a lot of good points, it sounds like you have an extensive background. I have not really thought about about range extenders and comparing fuel weight ratios. The liquidpiston is an interesting development to pull away from conventional wankel seal problems yet the company has stalled for quite a few years & I'm not convinced of their design just yet. Even the INN engine (it's based on older sinusoidal config, wonder about bearings) is possibly incorporating a front propeller on a evtol plus battery charging (maybe I can talk about this next video) so you are definitely onto an interesting topic.
FASCINATING
Can this design also be applied to vehicle Superchargers or Turbochargers designs?
AM may enable gas turbine engines to power things that wouldn't pay for one made by conventional means. Though it's a tough challenge; modern CNC machining can readily make the most important part - the compressor and turbine.
The fancy combustor designs may or may not succeed; conventional combustors are mostly all about keeping the flame contained by the incoming high pressure air flow and away from any of the combustor components, and to cool the combustion products before they reach the nozzle stators / turbine.
Those porous designs look like there's quite a lot of contact between flame and the combustor structure (unless I've misunderstood them). So, they need to be made out of some pretty special stuff (interesting that Inconel was mentioned) to avoid being burned out quickly. Maybe that's OK for a smaller engine.
It may prove impractical for a large engine with a higher pressure ratio that tend to lead to higher combustion temperatures. A big part of "efficiency" is time-on-the-wing. A complex combustor that is a tiny bit more efficient to operate but burns out quickly is inefficient overall.
Until we can print the advanced materials(Inconel is not), the whole process is moot. Honestly until someone can make Silcion carbide nanotubes the whole process is moot as the savings are in the turbine, the gear reduction method to generator or turbofan, not compressor and not the housing weight. Could we argue for better reliability and cost? Uh, ok, but that is NOT where the cost is at. It is the Hot sections where ALL the $$$ is.
I agree that the combustor can't be scaled properly with porous membranes without some sort of special alloy. Yet it's intriguing that we can build that now at smaller scale and make it more efficient.
@@Tech_Planet Uh, the combusters aren't alloys, they are ceramics currently....
@@w8stral Hmmm. That could help. Silicon carbide especially so...
Without silicon carbide, one would have to resort to a less impressive ceramic. Ask owners of older Aston Martins about whether it's a good idea to have large scale ceramic components near by important moving parts of engines... You'd really not want any possibility of bits breaking off, so it'd probably take careful management of temperature differentials and thermal shocks.
For a larger engine, I'm left wondering what the advantage would be, and can see where losses could be. In a combustor one wants as little as possible in the way of the combustion mix / exhaust gas flow. There needs to be mixing of the flame and cooling air from the high pressure system to avoid melting downstream components, but too much turbulence robs the exhaust of energy. Putting in a gauzy ceramic matrix sounds like it'd slow everything down.
I guess with a larger engine there can be adequate space for combustion to complete ideally, and leave room for cooling to happen too. So maybe these combustor matrices in smaller engines slow the combustion mix down a bit? That'd result in an otherwise too-small combustor working a lot better.
@@abarratt8869 ? I said silicon carbide NANOTUBES... not silicon carbide.... and topic was the housing, not the internal bits, though silicon carbide nanotubes in a matrix of titanium could be used for all of the compressor and housing vastly reducing weight. The combuster with zero or near zero stresses are ALREADY ceramics. The Turbines are ALREADY ceramics. The exhaust nozzles are ALREADY ceramics. And all of those are ALREADY 3d printed.
*A Li-AIR battery has 11,520 Kh/Kg which is equal to jet fuel. It is not rechargeable but the battery can be refined back to Lithium metal at a dedicated recycling center very economically. This would give planes a 12 hour flight time or 5000 miles! I build Al-Air batteries for battle drones in Ukraine that have 600% longer life than Li-ion batteries so about 4 hours of flight time. Al/AIR batteries are very cheap to build and are not recoverable after a "Kamikaze" attack so recharging is not needed, only long flight times!*
really interested by additive manufacturing and the applications with 3d printing and the introduction of ai into it! Please share info if you have any good sources for this even research papers as its in its infancy
I would share research paper links but YT gave me complaints about linking 3rd source, sry :/
Hello sir can you explain turbo jet engine’s ignition system in combustion chamber?
This would work well for automobiles also.
I may be wrong, but I don't see any advantage to a hybrid propulsion system except maybe for some military applications
A close support aircraft could use the internal combustion engine while loitering and waiting for a mission, and then switch to full electric when attacking, greatly reducing its thermal signature
But for civilian purposes, it seems like adding all the costs of two systems for the same results of one
As an old IP generator for military (US) stuff, we are now seeing the tech of the 1970s getting media coverage...time makes "crazy expensive confidential tech" , profitable
Tilt wing or rotor is simplified with electric vs the use of mechanical transmission. Same with robots. Converting fuel to electric power and then using direct conversion to actuators or propulsion makes sense in many applications.
@@mefobills279 maybe, but what it we use small engines instead of electrical motors
@r.guerreiro140 For electric jump jets, it might be good to have a miniature jet engine to charge batteries. The Koreans just invented a sodium ion battery that charges in minutes and has 100 percent coloumbic efficiency. Big jets will probably not be electrified, but if you need to tilt wings, or rotors, or have a robot with actuators, electric power is the way to go.
"But for civilian purposes, it seems like adding all the costs of two systems for the same results of one"
10 years ago that absolutely would have been true.
But in that time span the state of EV inverter power density has drastically improved, and people are really getting serious about non superconducting high density electric motors for airplanes.
As long as the generator can be sufficiently shrunk/weight reduced while retaining power output it's possible that hybrid designs could exceed efficiency of that of conventional designs.
Especially in VTOL aircraft where maintaining vertical flight mode is cost prohibitive in cooling the engine for jets in the Harrier or F35 - you basically have a limited amount of coolant to keep the engine at viable temperature without forward air motion to cool it instead.
A hybrid system could potentially allow a future VTOL aircraft to significantly gain on vertical flight mode time relative to a fuel burning jet.
I told everybody yesterday to use the tornadoes as a model for a new jet engine
Given we still have only minimal data on active tornadoes from the inside that seems like a reach.
@@mnomadvfx not really because we know have AI and a lot of data with very good video. That debris and those videos may be enough. Kind of exactly what we would do in a wind tunnel. : ). We should take all of our aircraft designs we’re testing and throw them into tornadoes when they’re up and running. : ). I also told them to pick up as many Cicadas as they thought they could process and turn them into drones. They could throw them up into the tornado and recover them. They could go up in their swarm and measure a large part of the tornado and back up stream hopefully so we can see exactly what’s happening to generate it. We have 1 trillion free drone bodies. LOL
Great work all we need now is to eliminate nearly all the batteries and provide direct power to the electric motors and we might have something viable for small scale urban passenger transport.
That is definitely possible, maybe limit batteries to a backup. The energy density of a micro-turbine is 20X of batteries so it's not even close yet.
@@Tech_Planet wow, you are SO kind !!
use rest of the jet engine as vehicle thrust, so you get most out of the gasoline jet electric generator engine.
Thank you for your efforts.
Since long time, I have question:
What the different between fan (in turbofan engine) and the fan in pc (cpu fan for example)
There are not the same, they have a different shape.
Think of the turbofan outer part is designed to act more like a propeller (efficient for the bypass air) while the inner part is designed to act more like a compressor (efficient for the core). But it's complicated optimization for efficiency, noise, temp, vibrations etc. The cpu fan does not have to deal with two different objectives like a turbofan (I think that is what you are asking) so a turbofan is different.
@@Tech_Planet
Ok, thank you. That's was good answer.
AM will continue to evolve and increase its share of the manufacturing market. A combined AM tool with traditional subtractive machining would seem to be ideal by being able to add a layer and then refine that with subtractive machining. In rocket engines and many other things AM is great except the finish AM produces is usually not very good so being able to clean up and improve the finish between AM layers would be the best of both world albeit with substantially longer process times. Waiting until the AM part is finished in the AM phase before cleaning up with a subtractive system can be a problem if the finished AM part closes off the internal structures so subtractive efforts are impossible. If you put down an AM layer, then, within the same CNC tool, use various cutters and mills to refine the surface and improve the finish, then you should still have access to the internal structures until its closed off.
intersting ..
cool
So from oil to electric and then back to oil. Thet's Progress?
What you need arent batteries you need super efficient super capacitors to store enemrgy tonuse for flight while another hyper efficient tubrogenerator produces the required power.
So you are using non-linear slicing now
Laser additive manufacturing in metals is just another form of welding and has all the negatives of welding. This may be fine for 'throw-away part like cruise missile engines that only have to last 5 hours at most, in the commercial world, this becomes more dubious as parts that are meant to last have to be made to go through many more cycles and inspections.. The additive processes that you are referring to have been around for quite some time, abet at higher prices for almost 20 years. I doubt that the 'old' methods are going to be that easily replaced, as forging has decades of research and time proven service along with the past innovations of EMD micro drilling. What has happened is the cost of these additive 'welding' CNC machines has come way down with significant additional innovations and many new engineers with newer experience may hold these devices in favor with dubious accolades. .
Pretty sure casting and annealing steel is gonna be stronger than welding it all together with a robotic welding arm.
Unless they're using new an alloy that dwarfs the price of gold I'm certain it would be stronger, the advantage might be tolerance.
@brokens1097 the more welds, the more chance you have of something going wrong.
Casting is like one big weld. I've seen videos of 3D welded parts... and the grain structure is horrendous
They used to cast cannons. And they were practically invincible.
That could be true for LMD and I think that is why we see more SLM for turbine components. Inconel is another reason to go powder bed so it depends on the material.
Ther constraints on material & thickness considered to maintain minimal distortion throughout a proper heat treatment might be an incredible advantage on a micro/micron level.
@brokens1097 also, to fix tolerance issues with cast metal, you can always make the part slightly bigger, and grind away the excess material until it fits parameters.
What about ask AI for futuristic stretched luxe limousines, and a second video about other diferent limousines but with mad max style appearance, and/or future streetbattle looking.
Then, you could do a third with armed stretched limousines, with retractable weapons out, in transformers of michael bay style, or james bond cars (old and new), or even tumbler batmobile of justice league or batman begins style, but stretched limousine looking.
Then even a fourth video with other diferent limousines but flying-jet turbine at back and fighter jet wings, even some sharpen front hood for more aerodinamics, remembering only surfacially to a jet fighter nose....with missiles under wings and leaving drop a bomb from his downs, firing machineguns on wings birders, and a big one going out from nose( a giant vulcan or M130 o"giant" multitube minigun.
With adittional little turbine on each behind border of the wings.
A battle fighter-jet limousine breaking the sound barrier and firing all weapons at time.
The unfortunate thing is that this will be heavily weaponized, future drone warfare is a scary prospect
You're right - next to no one notices.
No more scary than the any of the many other ways we are dooming ourselves.
Unfortunately, humans are only productive when we learn from our mistakes. It’s a hurdle that we’ve not managed to overcome since our inception.
How dare the west continue to develop militarily, we should totally cede our sovereignty to our adversaries and get in line.
Everything is used for or was made from military porpuses. No surprise there tbh
There are hundreds of parts on commercial fans that are already in service. See 777X
Yes, but all those are not entirely 3d printed or to the level of the 500 is 90% built with AM(even though it's turbojet).
@@Tech_Planet they are looking at every opportunity. When your engines are half the price of the $370m airplane, it’s easy to justify complex low-volume exotic-material printing.
Supercritical CO2 turbines are much smaller than steam turbine. This tech could be used for them too. If the heat comes from Thorium then very cheap and small reactors can be made
Microturbines and drone warfare has me concerned.
With machine learning and AI we should be seeing some new shapes that we'd never dream up.
Yeah right. Humans are the input for AI. All it does is use algorithms to connect the right parts together. All the theories come from humans.
And there is a better turbine design, having the "wings" face inwards to a central void. AI didn't use that.
Demonstrating a lack of understanding of aerodynamics.
Jet engines aren't complex! They are some of the simplest engines on Earth! A lot of them only have two or three moving parts( like Trent engines with 3 spools, less on US engines) excluding accessories which are on any engine😅 piston included. Jet engines are soo simple it not funny. Wake up people, anyone can build a jet engine in their backyard, it's only scale that brings cost, but not complexity. They are all simple and you people 'talk' them up as if you 'worship' simple technology 😅😅😅
If you forget the stupid ass generator & elec. Drive the fucking jet engine can fly the plane....no....wait...that sounds sooooo stupid