I just watched a CAD model animation that is built by a Brilliant young designer. Anyone that has this grasp of CAD can make lots of money selling their services. Farrukh keep on doing what you love. If engineering is what you love to do, then you probably will get a scholarship to go to any school you want to go to.
At Rolls Royce we spent a lot of resource on turbine tip clearance reduction- it is a major factor to improve efficiency. Here, having no multiple stages of compressor to deal with, is the possibility of fixing an outer casing onto the helical blade set to rotate with them, thus reducing compression losses. The compressor exit will have very high swirl, which is no good for the combuster cans. Can this swirl be put to good use and controlled by some kind of geared down pre combuster turbine? BTW you can't rotate the cans, that's a definite No.
Yes, absolutely - the spinning compressor would essentially act like a Tesla turbine, spinning the air EXTREMELY fast by the exit. I wonder if that's why the design rotates the 'cans', to try and counteract the extreme air swirl at the compressor exit?
Nifty idea, I don't care if it works or not, I like you imagination. Keep inventing and "failing" designs as quickly as possible, eventually you'll arrive at something imaginative and worth prototyping. Thanks for sharing.
@@isaacaran6928 This is FAR from random junk. First, this guy had combined the turbine and combustor units into one, in an ingenious way. Second, he has created a novel compressor stage where air is compressed by ram pressure, narrowing helices, and narrowing cross-sections. The only unviable part is the fuel delivery which is too complex and would leak.
@@isaacaran6928 ahh, the classic naysayer who believes good designs come from perfect theory. Do YOU realize that most absolutely revolutionary technology came from "impossible" and ludicrous "random junk"? Love to see your theories, or are you just around to give people "motivation"?
@@wowalamoiz9489 and the extremely high air swirl at the compressor exit since the compressor would essentially act almost like a Tesla turbine from the surface tension. I'm thinking that's why they used the rotating fuel delivery to counteract the swirling air at combustion. It's interesting regardless. You never get anywhere without trying something different.
In the very early days of water propellers, engineers started off with a "screw" a bit like this helix. When the screw broke, leaving a single turn, they found that it was actually much more efficient. Thrust was down very slightly at a particular RPM, but drag was dramatically reduced.
This is the best design I have ever seen to make long filaments of spun molten metal from hot rotating combustion chamber. Good though. Keep on designing such innovative ideas. Like your animation all the same.
Mmm. I'll say to you what my earliest engineering teacher told me about my designs. "Build one." That's the real rub, isn't it. It's fun to dream up ideas and new principles of operation. It's the whole 'Make it work" part that get's us down in the trenches, isn't it?
The combustion chambers will spin at high RPM and may leads to increase in engine weight to improve durability ( new durable lighter material may be needed), the fuel line coupling seals will spin at high RPM may lead to leaking risk and safety concern. The centrifugal force in the combustion chamber may affects the fuel burning efficiency. Many researchers may not like these technical challenges, However, the good is this design offers a new idea of improvement to modern jet engines for many many years to come. Good work!
What is the expected advantage here? Technically, it is a Turbo-Fan jet engine, I expect some serious airflow drag from the surface area of the screw thus reducing usable thrust. The design adds significant mass to the rotating parts, which including the combustion will further reduce efficiency. To be faster and more efficient there has to be less mass in the moving parts, or you will be forced into exotic materials.
I see major problems with two areas of this engine, (1). The area of the fuel delivery system where the static components connect to the dynamic (spinning) components is going to be a nightmare. (2). You're going to need a MUCH larger pitch on the helical blades (and fewer of them). Using the pitch and blade spacing shown in your illustration, I believe that compressor is going to have to spin WAY faster than would be desirable in order to deliver the flow required. I would love to be able to join you folk in discovering cures for these ailments, it's always been a passion for me and had kept me a happy man working in Aerospace for quite a number of years.
While I don't see this working as is and would need many many modifications to be functional, serviceable, reliable, practical, etc, what problems are you solving in this design from existing designs?
An interesting design. What is the purpose of having the combustion chambers rotating with the turbine though and why so many? You could probably get more power out of it with a single stationary combustion chamber as then you will have less rotating mass and be able to spin it faster safely.
Great idea, fewer moving parts. Depending on the compressor size, the amount of thrust could be much larger than the engines of today. Fewer parts more power. An idea to improve what is used today. For all of those who turn up their noses at new/different ideas......Please go to the mirror, look deeply into it, stick out your tongue and blow lightly, making a rude noise. To you.
keith freeman Yes it is a clever idea. And granted, there are plenty of rude and non-constuctive folks chiming in, as well as mocking and dismissal over weak 'engineer-able' problems like rotating combustion chambers and gyroscopic issues from classic naysayers. Unfortunately, the helical copressor doesn't physically work for very concrete reasons. As some have put it, this is an expensive way to spin air, not compress it. An important thing in conceptualizing or evaluating new devices is to be constantly aware of the lines between different operating principles - recognizing equivalence in very different looking devices, or distinction between similar ones. *This is a highly elongated fan*, Actually not unlike early "airscrew" concepts from centuries back. They only became efficient as they evolved into propellers and rotors with narrower (higher aspect ratio) blades. In simple terms, narrow blades are able to push air mosly axially, and only spin it a little. So now with a narrow-bladed fan we have an efficent way to create a small pressue difference in an axial flow... Enter the axial compressor which does that like 20 times in a row to the same flow. To keep that small amount of rotation from accumulating, there is a stator (basically a backwards, fixed fan) after each rotor stage. So even if this helical rotor was shortened untill it was an effective fan, it would only be comparable to one stage of a conventional compressor. If only solid objects could pass through eachother, a stator of radially fanned walls could share the chamber with the helix and then it would be a compressor! Really, this creator seems like a smart person. Add a solid foundation in engineering and they may be a potent inventor:)
Great. Is there a working model? How much more efficient is this than other turbofans? How about robustness; will it swallow barrels of water and keep operating? Will it eat a frozen chicken and not explode?
Whether it works or not, is it easy to produce a single, high-strength, continuous and continually varying spiral structure that runs the entire length of the turbine? As I understand it, the much smaller blades made for turbines now are already a real technical challenge.
Hi. Congratulations for this nice concept. I have one observation. The fixed blades in a traditional axial compressor changes the direction of the air flow to direct it to the next blade and to prevent it to spin inside de turbine. In your concept how you prevent the air to spin in almost the same speed as the corkscrew?
This is a nice presentation and it's over 6yrs ago, but the most important point had turned out to be not so true but just one minor important mistake. No pun intended, nicely put it. In this graphic video, I see that "all stationary parts" is shown in green. Great, except for the rotational green part at the end where the fuel line distributed to each chamber, as you can see toward the end of this video that this so-called, stationary green is not so( stationary,) it's spinning along with the rotor. How important this is to point out, the fact that this fuel line at this junction had to be made so it can rotate with the rotor, therefore, correctly it should be in red, not green. Hope you don't mind I'm pointing this out, and how many people missed this point, lol. Thank you.
Beyond the fact that the corkscrew won't compress the air though you could replace it with a conventional axial compressor, It would be near impossible for the combustion chamber to rotate as the centrifugal forces would push the air and flame radially outwards effecting the burn, not to mention it would be very hard to design cannular flame tubes to withstand the forces of spinning at high RPM though possibly a annular design would work.
So either it works and its extremely inefficient because of the way the power is captured to create rotation, or it doesn't work at all because you need more then just spinning blades to create compression. Whats to stop the air from just spinning with the blades instead of being pushed back and compressed?
I suppose that will exploit ramjet effect, when gases behave as liquids. But for this high speed rotation is needed - peripheral speed of intake wheel must be supersonic to achieve dynamic compression need to ignite.
I like it, and think it has potential. I think you could add a turbine on the out put side for more use of the energy. StarGateSG7 I agree mostly with what you have concluded, however I would like you to also consider. 1) is air not a fluid? Yes it is! 2) A grain auger actually moves grain from one area to another at a given speed, ie, there is no (great) rotational force here, it mostly pushes the grain through one end to the other, you dip that auger into a dam while it is running and the force of water can nearly blow the end out of the auger , it is that great! I tend to feel that his design does have certain merits and real potential. A Ramjet basically just forces air in one end and increases velocity to a combustion chamber via conical shape ( or a funneling type effect), where it re-expands and is combusted with added fuel in the combustion chamber to add the excess energy as it expands out tail jet pipe exhaust. 3) also consider the pulse jet engine with or without valves using sonic waves from the combustion process without the use of any external air compression, and my thoughts are that this will work as a compressor and any compression must be better than none to start with. I think he has most of the elements needed for the concept to work, with perhaps more of a focus on varying the spacing of his helical elements perhaps for a better compression process and even adding a turbine after the combusters to make more use of the exhausting gasses maybe. I liked the vid and concept overall. Good comments and arguments here though for the nay sayers too. Just my 2 cents worth.
An issue I forsee is supersonic air impacting the blades. Would need a complex inlet diffuser system to decelerate the airflow to subsonic speeds so the engine doesn't get beaten to death by the air stream.
Consider that any engineer since DiVinci could have chosen helical compressor design and didn't. I would take that as a message. The compression in an axial compressor comes from constantly (at each stage) exchanging velocity for pressure. The helix would work in a non-compressible (fluid). Having said that, the spinning combustion chambers are creative. it's curious that they are always (in my experience) placed aiming straight back. It would be interest to see if an angle would be more efficient. A challenge to the spinning chambers might have something to do with flame propagation changes that would occur across different RPMs. And one would have to tear down the engine to swap fuel nozzles.
Look at jet engine M-701 used in famous Aero L-29 Delfin (www.leteckemotory.cz/motory/m701/m701_07.jpg). Its combustion chambers were slanted from straight back direction into spiral shape. The reason was to reduce the lenght of engine and also to reduce losses of energy into too perpendicular knees of cold and hot gases channels. (compare e.g. with VK-1 as a template www.leteckemotory.cz/motory/vk-1/vk1_05.jpg) The part of final thrust of jet engine is created within combustion chamber, but it is marginal. The most of thrust of single-jet is created in a nozzle and of course in the fan in a case of by-pass design. Thus, above mentioned engine M-701 have had a no observable torque momentum, despite there is the same configuration of combustion chambers expected as a source of torque for a "helix compressor". moreover, the helix design can work with concrete, mud or so, with high viscosity, but not with the gases. Small exception are so called diffusion high-vacuum pumps, but these works on the little bit different principle. Simply, it could not work and even if, with zero efficiency. Much more interesting is a Tesla turbine/compressor design, based on the friction and centrifugal force in the boundary layer on very simple discs configuration.
Peter Kandráč another design that you would enjoy that's only slightly more conventional is the Pratt & Whitney J58 on the SR-71. most of it's thrust comes from mixing extra fuel with air siphoned out of the compressor at stage 7 of 13 (I believe) and runs more similarly to an air-breathing rocket engine or scram jet than a conventional afterburner.
How do you spin those compressors? You need turbine to sent that generated thrust to transfer it to fan and later compressors but here i all energy is wasted it will work till compressors are spin by extornal forces lol
Even if this would work , how are you going to get the 300:1 compression ratio that some jet engines run at by reducing the passage size by roughly a half?
All you have done is replace the blades with Archimedes' screw. It will move some air but will not deliver enough to get the job done. Who thought this one up?
with no stators in the compressor the air will simply enter and exit the spiral because the pressure it does try to build will simply become back pressure to the air entering the engine. It will simply spin up and not take any more air in that it can’t compress. Just my thoughts. Like if you take a computer fan or even a strong ducted fan and block off the exhaust side with a book or something the air just creates turbulence in front of the inducer with no pressure. Enjoy your creativity keep it up.
I am curious... How would it do if it had stators and compressor-blades ? My instincts say "not enough torque" , but perhaps changing the combustor angles ? The components would likely not be happy at 10k.rpm .
The only turbine-less jet engine in the sense that turbine blades are not subjected to high temperatures is my design. That design uses a hollow shaft that takes fuel from the rear end. There are three pulsejets attached to the tips of three hollow blades. The turbine blades recieve fuel and centrifuge it to the the tip pulsejets. The each of the pulsejets have a tesla valve. The pulsejets are spinning and thrusting at the same time, that is they are angled at 45 degrees. The connection between the hollow shaft and the static spokes that pump the fuel into the cavity of the shaft is leaky thus the fuel is burned in afterburning mode.Sinse the blades recieve cold compressed air and the hot gasses are not touching the liquid cooed blades this is a kind of turbineless engine... Russians have this engine since the 50's.
To power the sparkplugs on the tip pulse jets the shaft has coiled wires that are co-spinning and a permanent magnet that is static. Current is generated in the spinning wires and it is transfered from the front of the engine to the rear through the shaft. At the rear end a transformer spinning with the shaft powers the sparkplugs.
Interesting idea but I doubt this is going to be efficient. I expect there'll be a lot of friction between the air and the helical compressor plus a lot of energy will be converted into rotational movement of the air instead of thrust.
The air won't be rotating at all, it'll be moving straight through the engine as the compressor rotates. The walls of the compressor will be pushing and compressing the air towards the rear of the engine.
There's nothing stopping the air from rotating. In a standard jet engine, the compressor has static fins between the stages of blades to streighten the air and stop it from spinning.
ADRIAAN1007 is right. Clever idea, but i'm afraid you're missing the purpose of stator vanes. Any rotating axial compressor (including your helical one) works only if the flow is being guided largely in the axial direction. Without stators, it just begins spinning with the rotor and there's no compression.
Jet engines have stators every 2 inches for a reason. Without the stators the air just spins and will never be compressed and pushed back towards the combustion chamber.
I'll do so for him as pertains to this video. There are no stator blades on this engine. Any compression achieved by this corkscrew design would only be attributed to friction on the outer "stator". Current aircraft use stator blades to change momentum from spinning air(following the blades) to compressed air by directing it out the back of the engine into the compression section. Thus the volume of air moving/compressing would be almost negligible and just spin some air.
TATiSWEAR then can you explain how radial turbines work ? You know, the kind used in early jet engines and even today on model jet engines and car "turbos" ? Because they don't have a stator either.
Jean Roch I disagree. Fundamentally compression works in gas turbines by first accelerating the air and then decelerating it. The kinetic energy is converted to pressure energy, ie an increase in pressure. The helical screw here doesn't do this. Also in radial or centrifugal compressors you do have areas where the air is decelerated essentially behaving like the stators.
Mayur you're not very clear. I still fail to see why you think the design in the video can't compress air. Clearly, the rotor's rotation will suck in air, and the only way it can go is "deeper" into the compressor. The cross section between two walls of the rotor, the rotor axis, and the casing, diminishes as you go deeper into the compressor, so why wouldn't it compress ? Is there a leak somewhere ? Is air somehow not getting sucked in by the "blades" or impeller or whatever you want to call it ? Let's be clear : I'm not saying it's an efficient design, and it's definitely a loser in terms of manufacturing, but I don't see anything wrong with the theory of operation.
Combustors as rockets.....? Without any turbo effect and gas expansion each combustor is part of a single "turbine"? What accelerates the gas? Take the combustors out, squirt fuel from the front instead? Seems like some magnets need to be added.
Issue 1: high rpm required to get enough PR (structural limitations) Issue 2: compared to conventional design, this has much less air flow, so will produce a lot less thrust
1. I'm not engineer and english isn't my native language. 2. If combustion chamber and compressor be one enclosed chamber ( i can't fine word to write ), seem like it'll prevent air leakage but it'll not be cheap when beak down. 3. From my view, movable fuel line will be big problems when it get any fuel leakage. 4. I feel like it'll be better if it be generator not a jet engine because seem like we can extract more energy from exhaust gas but it'll have some leak. 5. I not have any idea about starter.
That compressor would be way harder to manufacture than axial designs. Also, rotating combustion chambers ? Nope, never gonna get certified for flight. Rotating couplings on the fuel lines, at high RPM, under highly variable temperature... if you can engineer one that will also work for years, you probably deserve a Nobel prize. Brownie points for originality, though.
It won't work that way because the combustion chambers might dislodge when rotates at high speed, and there are no stator vanes to compress the air. Your idea is good for solid waste separator like a decanter filtration system.
This is an absolutely wonderful concept. It's similar to a turbofan-style engine. The spinning fuel injectors are an interesting design, because they are both producing thrust simultaneously with radial movement of the shaft. The spiral blades are more like an Archimedes screw, and I'm sure if the area behind the screw were narrowed even more to form a restrictive venturi, the gases would be compressed rather than just flow.
The angled burners will not rotate the assembly fast enough to do any real work. And a spiral compressor will just spin, doing nothing. What you suggest are ideas tried and cast aside in the 1900s.
I have backspaced out 6 different comments before completing this one. I don't know where to start with this guy/video. Novel idea (though not original) and would not work.
Nice mechanical simplicity, but I'm not sure it's going to work. Remember, the compressed air not only has to feed the combustion chambers, but cool them off so the flame doesn't melt through them. Also, the combustion chambers don't produce much thrust, hence why an exhaust rotor would be necessary. Perhaps a helical winding in the opposite direction would provide the right surface for this engine to work.
Rotating combustion chambers? Do you guys ever saw how do they look? A combustion chambers is super uneven and rough surface. Few of them started to rotate at a high rate, those will create a very high vibration. Thats not just a 100 or 1000rpm...
A turbine works most efficiently through and energy transference gradient. In this case, any air passing through the system will insure huge molecular frictional losses through continuous contact with the blades resulting in excessive overheating. Get air in, expand it and get it out as fast as possible with minimal frictional losses is the key.
Holy crap. The drag on such a huge surface area would me immense. Also, the inertia of the thing would be a massive problem. It would be so incredibly slow to spool up due you the immense weight of the rotating parts. No.
It wouldn't need pressurisation (the spin would generate enough pressure to cause fuel flow), but the problem would be generating airflow to allow the combusters to actually work. It's hard enough to get a gas turbine engine to light up and not stall during the process (hot start = burned turbine). This would be even harder as it would be stalled continuously.
It would need pressurisation. Typical turbofan combustion pressure is around 600psi. Since you need to spray fuel into that enviroment delivery has to be at an even higher pressure. I don't think your going to get that by spinning the fuel pipes...
+ChinnuWoW Not sealed bearings in high temp environments entrusted with keeping fuel where it should be:) Anyway the main problem with this is the compressor won't compress... like at all.
There's nothing which would create compression. You can't just taper the inlet with static screw impellers, the air itself would never compress.. there's nothing separating the air inlet, so it will simply form a pocket of non moving air. You need to separate the rotor stages, and the air needs to go through multiple stages of compression to be able to compress to a usable ratio.. This is nothing more than a screw pump for liquids. I mean, if you want to do something outside the ordinary, there's more ways to create compression than the standard turbine engine. How about multiple turbo charger impellers, running in series, or, a highly efficient screw type compressor like a roots type supercharger , but in stages, feeding a bank of ignitors. There's tons and tons of ways to re-package a turbine engine.. but efficiency will suffer. I won't bash you though. Great graphics and this type of thinking is what has led to the amazing designs we have today.. just not this. You cannot compress air, without having separation between stages. I have built a turbine engine before. It wasn't highly efficient, it didn't do anything out of the ordinary, and it burnt up.. but I've got a tiny bit of experience in this area.
Wouldn't ram pressure and centrifugal force against the shroud lead to compression? Also, the screw pumps would impart momentum to the air, just like a propeller, but with more friction. The first use of the propeller for propulsion was originally a screw, which broke off into half a helix and improved efficiency. However, in this case, increased friction would cause more momentum to be transferred, especially as the helices tightened. The design could be improved by having the combusters themselves being small ramjets. The screw would act to accelerate air to very high speeds which would be converted to high pressure in the angled ramjet combustors.
No...he's correct, this type of compressor would leak really badly. How are you going to seal the blades to the housing? Even if you came up with something that could run in such close proximity that air leakage wouldn't be severe....what happens when it heats up and expands? Not good. Modern axial-flow engines incorporate variable stator vanes which are computer controlled to allow the compressor to actually compress air at more than one power setting and speed. The original jets were VERY sensitive to throttle movements...especially when trying to spool them up for takeoff. Fixed blades only work in one condition of temperature, air pressure and thrust output. Everywhere else they can be very laggy and not produce much thrust. Watch one of the ME-262 training videos and notice how gently he advances the throttles. Just tiny little bumps forward and a wait inbetween as the inefficient fixed stator compressor struggles to pump air below its design point. And....we also seal the ends of the compressor blades with a knife edge seal that looks a lot like a razor blade. It fits into a rubber seal on some and on the J-58 the sealing material was a titanium honeycomb that the blades cut into during assembly. This is what it takes to seal the compressor. We won't even go into what spraying fuel into a rapidly spinning combustion chamber and trying to get it to burn properly would entail as it would be a nightmare. The currently used combustion chambers have had a LOT of development to keep them burning in the turbulent hellish environment where they live. Sorry to say....I'm pretty sure this helical thing will never be produced.
I could be wrong, but I thought the whole housing was meant to spin. So the helix is sealed on inside and outside. The cans and the housing would be a lot of weight but i guess it's just a idea they were throwing arround
I think this design is cool but still needs testing and improvements.Then you would need to find away to prevent the combustors from breaking out the place.
Ram air recovery will not be effective while the jet is stationary therefore no compression of the air will take place due to ram recovery will take place if it could not get itself moving in the first place. The stator vanes in a traditional axial flow compressor are there to help control the speed of the air through the compressor as well as directing it most effectively in to the next stage of compression. If you look at a high bypass engine on the ground you will see all of the stators are connected to rings which allow for their angle to be adjusted inside the engine this is what prevents compressor stalls and surging.
Tributary House Ltd. First of all, if you have a convergent conduct air cannot go supersonic. The only thing that'll happen is that you'll have a choked flow where total pressure is increased. So there goes ya theory and superiority complex. Think a little bit before calling someone an idiot.
stators are not the sole contributor to gas compression. This engine would work fine but I suspect the single stage turbine would make it very inefficient and the rotating combustion chambers would present some serious design challenges. In order for an engine to work all you need is some air compression and heat, and it'll work.
So you have to rely on the hot gasses pushing against a stationary object to spin the compressor? That's dumb. Can style combustion chambers are also less efficient than annular style.
Interesting idea, superb animation. I did give a reply earlier, but thought it worth replying again. Firstly, and most importantly this is untried technology and people don’t know whether it’ll work or not, despite their apparent ‘expertise’. The comments do highlight a key element of your idea, namely “would a helical compressor work!” So the second point is either you need to provide a mathematical/theoretical engineering proof, or do a proof of principle (POP). I would suggest 3D printing a simple helical turbine (you’re obviously good with computers) connect it to an electrical motor and see if it compressed air as hoped. If the POP works, then would be a number of venture capital funds willing to support unique and patentable technologies. Lastly, don’t be put off by the negative comments, the world is full of ‘experts’ who never contributed anything new. Good luck with idea.
This engine might work in a perfect universe, unfortunately not in reality. Viscous forces would cause air ingested to begin to rotate with the helical blades. The result being that the air is not transported backwards and compressed, but that it simply spins around. This is why stators are necessary and important. An axial compressor is battling to add dynamic pressure (kinetic energy) via rotor blades, and recover that energy into static pressure (compressed gas) in the stator section. If these sections are too long, viscous forces cause the compressor blades to become less efficient (drag caused by viscous forces) and air is simply rotated instead of driven into the stators. This can happen suddenly in modern turbofan engines, resulting in the compressed gas at hundreds of PSI exploding out of the front of the engine. This is called compressor surge or stall.
since the turbine doesnt spin, this is basically a rocket engine, where thrust only comes from the mass flow of the system. The rotation of the compressor is only established by mass flow impetus. I doubt that this machine is efficient for following reasons: 1. The efficiency of the screw compressor is very low. This makes the thermodynamic cycle inefficient - and this is what counts in the end. 2. The motion of the rotating combustion chamber is directed against the direction of flow. It is braked by flow friction and additional energy is lost. 3. The blades of the exit have to be bent at least to deflect the flow continously. all in all, it does not really have future in my opinion...
I second that. B.S. This is what you get by using FLUID dynamics to design an AEROdynamic engine. HOWEVER, I see a very efficient underwater thruster here. Add external lithium ion battery pack and hand grip controls. Remove the fan/cowling and combustor cans and fuel system. uprate the starting motor. AND of course downsize the whole thing to around 6 feet or so. Hmmmmm...
Wish I could see the text. Brilliant, but resonant vibration and centrifical force would be an obvious hurdle. Even a solid billet-machined central rotor would need to be made to take the stress.
It won't work, the combustion chambers should not rotate but be stationary straight forcing thrust backward, just right above the combustion chamber you will need a low pass to keep the axial bearings from overheating.. The combustion chamber will spin apart like a CD at 55 million RPMS otherwise the helical compressor is a great idea, it does eliminate stator vanes.
Nice design ! Next Step : now try one (or two) of the two ways : Shape and Try, or put your design inside an opensource simulation platform (like OpenFOAM or Code Saturne)
Won’t work at all the compressor stage is too long axial wise and effect produced will just be stirring the air inside without compressing it you need stators as well as well shaped blades to minimize blade drag and redirect air in the axial direction
Красивая идея! Условие прохождения воздуха... конусность компрессора соблюдено! Воздух будет прижиматься центробежной силой к неподвижной наружной стенке компрессора и будет передвигаться и сжиматься! Другой вопрос, как эффективно! Никакого излишнего веса у компрессора нет... в осевом компрессоре турбины вращающегося металла не намного меньше! Камеры сгорания будут находиться в самом узком месте, а там центробежная сила меньше всего...Порекомендовал бы сделать одну камеру сгорания, несколько на практике не проявили себя... из-за неравномерности горения... К тому же ее легче бы было отбалансировать... По поводу подачи керосина у меня тоже есть неплохие идеи.... Делайте или дайте мне разрешение сделать...
Beautiful idea! Air flow condition ... compressor taper observed! The air will be pressed by the centrifugal force to the fixed outer wall of the compressor and will move and contract! Another question is how effective! The compressor has no excess weight ... in the axial compressor of the rotating metal turbine is not much less! The combustion chambers will be located in the narrowest place, and there the centrifugal force is the least ... I would recommend to make one combustion chamber, in practice they didn’t manifest themselves in practice ... due to uneven burning ... Besides, it would be easier to balance ... Regarding the supply of kerosene, I also have some good ideas .... Do it or give me permission to do it ...
If I may be so bold to add my ignorant comment. Based on what little I've read & heard, the compressor blades only work up to a certain speed, then, they're in the way, this seems to be in the way a lot.
I came up with this when I was 9, the turbine section I mean. Also the people in this comment section seem to have never heard of turbo pumps and how they compress.
I don't see how using the combustor outlets as rockets like a pinwheel firework can generate enough power for the compressor, let alone a bypass fan. A normal engine's turbine recovers some of the compression power as well as generating much more from combustion expansion... and this design seems to throw away a lot of the gas generator energy as hot exhaust. With the angled combustors the exhaust velocity will be too low to generate usable thrust, you need to extract most of its energy to spin the compressor. Nice idea but not practical IMO. Build one and see?
![[4K] Watch SpaceX Catch A Starship Rocket From Space!!! #IFT5](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/pIKI7y3DTXk/mqdefault.jpg)
I just watched a CAD model animation that is built by a Brilliant young designer. Anyone that has this grasp of CAD can make lots of money selling their services. Farrukh keep on doing what you love. If engineering is what you love to do, then you probably will get a scholarship to go to any school you want to go to.
At Rolls Royce we spent a lot of resource on turbine tip clearance reduction- it is a major factor to improve efficiency. Here, having no multiple stages of compressor to deal with, is the possibility of fixing an outer casing onto the helical blade set to rotate with them, thus reducing compression losses. The compressor exit will have very high swirl, which is no good for the combuster cans. Can this swirl be put to good use and controlled by some kind of geared down pre combuster turbine? BTW you can't rotate the cans, that's a definite No.
youre insane ahahahahah will never work
instablaster
Yes, absolutely - the spinning compressor would essentially act like a Tesla turbine, spinning the air EXTREMELY fast by the exit. I wonder if that's why the design rotates the 'cans', to try and counteract the extreme air swirl at the compressor exit?
Nifty idea, I don't care if it works or not, I like you imagination. Keep inventing and "failing" designs as quickly as possible, eventually you'll arrive at something imaginative and worth prototyping. Thanks for sharing.
do you realize good designs come with competence and not just trying random junk, right?
@@isaacaran6928 This is FAR from random junk.
First, this guy had combined the turbine and combustor units into one, in an ingenious way.
Second, he has created a novel compressor stage where air is compressed by ram pressure, narrowing helices, and narrowing cross-sections.
The only unviable part is the fuel delivery which is too complex and would leak.
@@wowalamoiz9489 use carburetor maybe
@@isaacaran6928 ahh, the classic naysayer who believes good designs come from perfect theory.
Do YOU realize that most absolutely revolutionary technology came from "impossible" and ludicrous "random junk"?
Love to see your theories, or are you just around to give people "motivation"?
@@wowalamoiz9489 and the extremely high air swirl at the compressor exit since the compressor would essentially act almost like a Tesla turbine from the surface tension. I'm thinking that's why they used the rotating fuel delivery to counteract the swirling air at combustion.
It's interesting regardless. You never get anywhere without trying something different.
In the very early days of water propellers, engineers started off with a "screw" a bit like this helix. When the screw broke, leaving a single turn, they found that it was actually much more efficient. Thrust was down very slightly at a particular RPM, but drag was dramatically reduced.
Plenty of refinement necessary, but I'm really attracted to the simplicity of the core concept here. And, good presentation.
This is the best design I have ever seen to make long filaments of spun molten metal from hot rotating combustion chamber. Good though. Keep on designing such innovative ideas. Like your animation all the same.
Mmm. I'll say to you what my earliest engineering teacher told me about my designs. "Build one." That's the real rub, isn't it. It's fun to dream up ideas and new principles of operation. It's the whole 'Make it work" part that get's us down in the trenches, isn't it?
The combustion chambers will spin at high RPM and may leads to increase in engine weight to improve durability ( new durable lighter material may be needed), the fuel line coupling seals will spin at high RPM may lead to leaking risk and safety concern. The centrifugal force in the combustion chamber may affects the fuel burning efficiency. Many researchers may not like these technical challenges, However, the good is this design offers a new idea of improvement to modern jet engines for many many years to come. Good work!
Failure is the steep path to success. No inventor in history ever succeeded without failing one thousand times more.
What is the expected advantage here?
Technically, it is a Turbo-Fan jet engine, I expect some serious airflow drag from the surface area of the screw thus reducing usable thrust. The design adds significant mass to the rotating parts, which including the combustion will further reduce efficiency. To be faster and more efficient there has to be less mass in the moving parts, or you will be forced into exotic materials.
If it won´t fly, at least you have a Meat Grinder Grill.
Cow goes in, stroganoff comes out.
I see major problems with two areas of this engine,
(1). The area of the fuel delivery system where the static components connect to the dynamic (spinning) components is going to be a nightmare.
(2). You're going to need a MUCH larger pitch on the helical blades (and fewer of them). Using the pitch and blade spacing shown in your illustration, I believe that compressor is going to have to spin WAY faster than would be desirable in order to deliver the flow required.
I would love to be able to join you folk in discovering cures for these ailments, it's always been a passion for me and had kept me a happy man working in Aerospace for quite a number of years.
While I don't see this working as is and would need many many modifications to be functional, serviceable, reliable, practical, etc, what problems are you solving in this design from existing designs?
An interesting design. What is the purpose of having the combustion chambers rotating with the turbine though and why so many? You could probably get more power out of it with a single stationary combustion chamber as then you will have less rotating mass and be able to spin it faster safely.
Great idea, fewer moving parts. Depending on the compressor size, the amount of thrust could be much larger than the engines of today. Fewer parts more power. An idea to improve what is used today. For all of those who turn up their noses at new/different ideas......Please go to the mirror, look deeply into it, stick out your tongue and blow lightly, making a rude noise. To you.
keith freeman Yes it is a clever idea. And granted, there are plenty of rude and non-constuctive folks chiming in, as well as mocking and dismissal over weak 'engineer-able' problems like rotating combustion chambers and gyroscopic issues from classic naysayers.
Unfortunately, the helical copressor doesn't physically work for very concrete reasons. As some have put it, this is an expensive way to spin air, not compress it.
An important thing in conceptualizing or evaluating new devices is to be constantly aware of the lines between different operating principles - recognizing equivalence in very different looking devices, or distinction between similar ones.
*This is a highly elongated fan*, Actually not unlike early "airscrew" concepts from centuries back. They only became efficient as they evolved into propellers and rotors with narrower (higher aspect ratio) blades. In simple terms, narrow blades are able to push air mosly axially, and only spin it a little. So now with a narrow-bladed fan we have an efficent way to create a small pressue difference in an axial flow... Enter the axial compressor which does that like 20 times in a row to the same flow. To keep that small amount of rotation from accumulating, there is a stator (basically a backwards, fixed fan) after each rotor stage. So even if this helical rotor was shortened untill it was an effective fan, it would only be comparable to one stage of a conventional compressor.
If only solid objects could pass through eachother, a stator of radially fanned walls could share the chamber with the helix and then it would be a compressor!
Really, this creator seems like a smart person. Add a solid foundation in engineering and they may be a potent inventor:)
Great. Is there a working model? How much more efficient is this than other turbofans? How about robustness; will it swallow barrels of water and keep operating? Will it eat a frozen chicken and not explode?
Congratulation for this design and designer. That solution can be practically used as soon as possible instead of traditionally wing blades...
Whether it works or not, is it easy to produce a single, high-strength, continuous and continually varying spiral structure that runs the entire length of the turbine? As I understand it, the much smaller blades made for turbines now are already a real technical challenge.
Hi. Congratulations for this nice concept. I have one observation. The fixed blades in a traditional axial compressor changes the direction of the air flow to direct it to the next blade and to prevent it to spin inside de turbine. In your concept how you prevent the air to spin in almost the same speed as the corkscrew?
This is a nice presentation and it's over 6yrs ago, but the most important point had turned out to be not so true but just one minor important mistake. No pun intended, nicely put it. In this graphic video, I see that "all stationary parts" is shown in green. Great, except for the rotational green part at the end where the fuel line distributed to each chamber, as you can see toward the end of this video that this so-called, stationary green is not so( stationary,) it's spinning along with the rotor. How important this is to point out, the fact that this fuel line at this junction had to be made so it can rotate with the rotor, therefore, correctly it should be in red, not green. Hope you don't mind I'm pointing this out, and how many people missed this point, lol. Thank you.
combustion changer is rotating as well which at high rpm may disintegrate.
Beyond the fact that the corkscrew won't compress the air though you could replace it with a conventional axial compressor, It would be near impossible for the combustion chamber to rotate as the centrifugal forces would push the air and flame radially outwards effecting the burn, not to mention it would be very hard to design cannular flame tubes to withstand the forces of spinning at high RPM though possibly a annular design would work.
So either it works and its extremely inefficient because of the way the power is captured to create rotation, or it doesn't work at all because you need more then just spinning blades to create compression. Whats to stop the air from just spinning with the blades instead of being pushed back and compressed?
I suppose that will exploit ramjet effect, when gases behave as liquids. But for this high speed rotation is needed - peripheral speed of intake wheel must be supersonic to achieve dynamic compression need to ignite.
The engine would probably tear itself apart if it got to the necessary speed to produce meaningful thrust.
Can it work like a ramjet without moving the compressor? Not sure what kind of pressure ratio we can get though.
I like it, and think it has potential. I think you could add a turbine on the out put side for more use of the energy.
StarGateSG7 I agree mostly with what you have concluded, however I would like you to also consider.
1) is air not a fluid? Yes it is! 2) A grain auger actually moves grain from one area to another at a given speed, ie, there is no (great) rotational force here, it mostly pushes the grain through one end to the other, you dip that auger into a dam while it is running and the force of water can nearly blow the end out of the auger , it is that great!
I tend to feel that his design does have certain merits and real potential. A Ramjet basically just forces air in one end and increases velocity to a combustion chamber via conical shape ( or a funneling type effect), where it re-expands and is combusted with added fuel in the combustion chamber to add the excess energy as it expands out tail jet pipe exhaust.
3) also consider the pulse jet engine with or without valves using sonic waves from the combustion process without the use of any external air compression, and my thoughts are that this will work as a compressor and any compression must be better than none to start with.
I think he has most of the elements needed for the concept to work, with perhaps more of a focus on varying the spacing of his helical elements perhaps for a better compression process and even adding a turbine after the combusters to make more use of the exhausting gasses maybe. I liked the vid and concept overall.
Good comments and arguments here though for the nay sayers too. Just my 2 cents worth.
An issue I forsee is supersonic air impacting the blades. Would need a complex inlet diffuser system to decelerate the airflow to subsonic speeds so the engine doesn't get beaten to death by the air stream.
You dont want to spun the air, you want to compress it. As others have said, it needs the static blades.
Air velocity is transformed into pressure in duffuser.
The static thrust would be very poor, but once it was flying fast enough to get some ram pressure it should work ok.
It is interesting whether the heated combustion chambers will withstand the centrifugal force at 10-12 thousand RPM?
Consider that any engineer since DiVinci could have chosen helical compressor design and didn't. I would take that as a message. The compression in an axial compressor comes from constantly (at each stage) exchanging velocity for pressure. The helix would work in a non-compressible (fluid). Having said that, the spinning combustion chambers are creative. it's curious that they are always (in my experience) placed aiming straight back. It would be interest to see if an angle would be more efficient. A challenge to the spinning chambers might have something to do with flame propagation changes that would occur across different RPMs. And one would have to tear down the engine to swap fuel nozzles.
Look at jet engine M-701 used in famous Aero L-29 Delfin (www.leteckemotory.cz/motory/m701/m701_07.jpg). Its combustion chambers were slanted from straight back direction into spiral shape. The reason was to reduce the lenght of engine and also to reduce losses of energy into too perpendicular knees of cold and hot gases channels. (compare e.g. with VK-1 as a template www.leteckemotory.cz/motory/vk-1/vk1_05.jpg) The part of final thrust of jet engine is created within combustion chamber, but it is marginal. The most of thrust of single-jet is created in a nozzle and of course in the fan in a case of by-pass design. Thus, above mentioned engine M-701 have had a no observable torque momentum, despite there is the same configuration of combustion chambers expected as a source of torque for a "helix compressor". moreover, the helix design can work with concrete, mud or so, with high viscosity, but not with the gases. Small exception are so called diffusion high-vacuum pumps, but these works on the little bit different principle.
Simply, it could not work and even if, with zero efficiency.
Much more interesting is a Tesla turbine/compressor design, based on the friction and centrifugal force in the boundary layer on very simple discs configuration.
Peter Kandráč another design that you would enjoy that's only slightly more conventional is the Pratt & Whitney J58 on the SR-71. most of it's thrust comes from mixing extra fuel with air siphoned out of the compressor at stage 7 of 13 (I believe) and runs more similarly to an air-breathing rocket engine or scram jet than a conventional afterburner.
How do you spin those compressors? You need turbine to sent that generated thrust to transfer it to fan and later compressors but here i all energy is wasted it will work till compressors are spin by extornal forces lol
Even if this would work , how are you going to get the 300:1 compression ratio that some jet engines run at by reducing the passage size by roughly a half?
The flame won’t be stable in the rotational chamber. And the chambers will fly apart and modern engines use ring chamber to increase efficiency
All you have done is replace the blades with Archimedes' screw. It will move some air but will not deliver enough to get the job done. Who thought this one up?
ok for low power requirements and low cost. however the rotating combustion chambers can be done away with
@@786ALHAQ ahahahahahaaha
with no stators in the compressor the air will simply enter and exit the spiral because the pressure it does try to build will simply become back pressure to the air entering the engine. It will simply spin up and not take any more air in that it can’t compress. Just my thoughts. Like if you take a computer fan or even a strong ducted fan and block off the exhaust side with a book or something the air just creates turbulence in front of the inducer with no pressure. Enjoy your creativity keep it up.
I am curious...
How would it do if it had stators and compressor-blades ?
My instincts say "not enough torque" , but perhaps changing the combustor angles ?
The components would likely not be happy at 10k.rpm .
The only turbine-less jet engine in the sense that turbine blades are not subjected to high temperatures is my design. That design uses a hollow shaft that takes fuel from the rear end. There are three pulsejets attached to the tips of three hollow blades. The turbine blades recieve fuel and centrifuge it to the the tip pulsejets. The each of the pulsejets have a tesla valve. The pulsejets are spinning and thrusting at the same time, that is they are angled at 45 degrees. The connection between the hollow shaft and the static spokes that pump the fuel into the cavity of the shaft is leaky thus the fuel is burned in afterburning mode.Sinse the blades recieve cold compressed air and the hot gasses are not touching the liquid cooed blades this is a kind of turbineless engine... Russians have this engine since the 50's.
To power the sparkplugs on the tip pulse jets the shaft has coiled wires that are co-spinning and a permanent magnet that is static. Current is generated in the spinning wires and it is transfered from the front of the engine to the rear through the shaft. At the rear end a transformer spinning with the shaft powers the sparkplugs.
In a compressor, flow has to be accelerated (energy addition) and then diffused in stator to increase the static pressure.
Thanks exactly what i was looking for
Interesting idea but I doubt this is going to be efficient. I expect there'll be a lot of friction between the air and the helical compressor plus a lot of energy will be converted into rotational movement of the air instead of thrust.
The air won't be rotating at all, it'll be moving straight through the engine as the compressor rotates. The walls of the compressor will be pushing and compressing the air towards the rear of the engine.
There's nothing stopping the air from rotating. In a standard jet engine, the compressor has static fins between the stages of blades to streighten the air and stop it from spinning.
ADRIAAN1007 is right. Clever idea, but i'm afraid you're missing the purpose of stator vanes. Any rotating axial compressor (including your helical one) works only if the flow is being guided largely in the axial direction. Without stators, it just begins spinning with the rotor and there's no compression.
Jet engines have stators every 2 inches for a reason. Without the stators the air just spins and will never be compressed and pushed back towards the combustion chamber.
Congratulation ! Very good idea !
Fundamental lack of understanding how a compressor works I'm afraid - you have invented an expensive way to spin air, not compress it.
Mark Tillotson please explain.
I'll do so for him as pertains to this video. There are no stator blades on this engine. Any compression achieved by this corkscrew design would only be attributed to friction on the outer "stator". Current aircraft use stator blades to change momentum from spinning air(following the blades) to compressed air by directing it out the back of the engine into the compression section. Thus the volume of air moving/compressing would be almost negligible and just spin some air.
TATiSWEAR then can you explain how radial turbines work ? You know, the kind used in early jet engines and even today on model jet engines and car "turbos" ? Because they don't have a stator either.
Jean Roch I disagree. Fundamentally compression works in gas turbines by first accelerating the air and then decelerating it. The kinetic energy is converted to pressure energy, ie an increase in pressure. The helical screw here doesn't do this. Also in radial or centrifugal compressors you do have areas where the air is decelerated essentially behaving like the stators.
Mayur you're not very clear. I still fail to see why you think the design in the video can't compress air. Clearly, the rotor's rotation will suck in air, and the only way it can go is "deeper" into the compressor. The cross section between two walls of the rotor, the rotor axis, and the casing, diminishes as you go deeper into the compressor, so why wouldn't it compress ? Is there a leak somewhere ? Is air somehow not getting sucked in by the "blades" or impeller or whatever you want to call it ?
Let's be clear : I'm not saying it's an efficient design, and it's definitely a loser in terms of manufacturing, but I don't see anything wrong with the theory of operation.
Combustors as rockets.....? Without any turbo effect and gas expansion each combustor is part of a single "turbine"? What accelerates the gas? Take the combustors out, squirt fuel from the front instead? Seems like some magnets need to be added.
Brilliant idea - needs the standard rotor/stator setup but yes no turbine could work.
Issue 1: high rpm required to get enough PR (structural limitations)
Issue 2: compared to conventional design, this has much less air flow, so will produce a lot less thrust
1. I'm not engineer and english isn't my native language.
2. If combustion chamber and compressor be one enclosed chamber ( i can't fine word to write ), seem like it'll prevent air leakage but it'll not be cheap when beak down.
3. From my view, movable fuel line will be big problems when it get any fuel leakage.
4. I feel like it'll be better if it be generator not a jet engine because seem like we can extract more energy from exhaust gas but it'll have some leak.
5. I not have any idea about starter.
That compressor would be way harder to manufacture than axial designs. Also, rotating combustion chambers ? Nope, never gonna get certified for flight. Rotating couplings on the fuel lines, at high RPM, under highly variable temperature... if you can engineer one that will also work for years, you probably deserve a Nobel prize.
Brownie points for originality, though.
It won't work that way because the combustion chambers might dislodge when rotates at high speed, and there are no stator vanes to compress the air. Your idea is good for solid waste separator like a decanter filtration system.
This is an absolutely wonderful concept. It's similar to a turbofan-style engine. The spinning fuel injectors are an interesting design, because they are both producing thrust simultaneously with radial movement of the shaft. The spiral blades are more like an Archimedes screw, and I'm sure if the area behind the screw were narrowed even more to form a restrictive venturi, the gases would be compressed rather than just flow.
The angled burners will not rotate the assembly fast enough to do any real work. And a spiral compressor will just spin, doing nothing. What you suggest are ideas tried and cast aside in the 1900s.
I have backspaced out 6 different comments before completing this one. I don't know where to start with this guy/video. Novel idea (though not original) and would not work.
Nice mechanical simplicity, but I'm not sure it's going to work. Remember, the compressed air not only has to feed the combustion chambers, but cool them off so the flame doesn't melt through them. Also, the combustion chambers don't produce much thrust, hence why an exhaust rotor would be necessary. Perhaps a helical winding in the opposite direction would provide the right surface for this engine to work.
I don't know why did you decided to choose a rotary fuel injector but its unusual since its mainly used on Military MBT Turbine Engines.
The centrifugal forces will ripp everything apart.
Rotating combustion chambers? Do you guys ever saw how do they look? A combustion chambers is super uneven and rough surface. Few of them started to rotate at a high rate, those will create a very high vibration. Thats not just a 100 or 1000rpm...
I do not think you can get enough compression of the incoming air for it to be efficient but don't stop thinking out of the box
I am not sure the fire-chambers attached at the end will stand the forces at high speed rotation?!
A turbine works most efficiently through and energy transference gradient. In this case, any air passing through the system will insure huge molecular frictional losses through continuous contact with the blades resulting in excessive overheating. Get air in, expand it and get it out as fast as possible with minimal frictional losses is the key.
Holy crap. The drag on such a huge surface area would me immense.
Also, the inertia of the thing would be a massive problem. It would be so incredibly slow to spool up due you the immense weight of the rotating parts.
No.
Interesting idea, but I think having a pressurized rotating fuel rail might be a major safety issue.
Why? Just put a bearing on it. Bearings are reliable.
It wouldn't need pressurisation (the spin would generate enough pressure to cause fuel flow), but the problem would be generating airflow to allow the combusters to actually work.
It's hard enough to get a gas turbine engine to light up and not stall during the process (hot start = burned turbine). This would be even harder as it would be stalled continuously.
Alan Brown Why would it be stalling? You can direct the airflow in the combustors whether or not they spin with the compressor.
It would need pressurisation. Typical turbofan combustion pressure is around 600psi. Since you need to spray fuel into that enviroment delivery has to be at an even higher pressure. I don't think your going to get that by spinning the fuel pipes...
+ChinnuWoW
Not sealed bearings in high temp environments entrusted with keeping fuel where it should be:)
Anyway the main problem with this is the compressor won't compress... like at all.
There's nothing which would create compression. You can't just taper the inlet with static screw impellers, the air itself would never compress.. there's nothing separating the air inlet, so it will simply form a pocket of non moving air. You need to separate the rotor stages, and the air needs to go through multiple stages of compression to be able to compress to a usable ratio.. This is nothing more than a screw pump for liquids. I mean, if you want to do something outside the ordinary, there's more ways to create compression than the standard turbine engine. How about multiple turbo charger impellers, running in series, or, a highly efficient screw type compressor like a roots type supercharger , but in stages, feeding a bank of ignitors. There's tons and tons of ways to re-package a turbine engine.. but efficiency will suffer. I won't bash you though. Great graphics and this type of thinking is what has led to the amazing designs we have today.. just not this. You cannot compress air, without having separation between stages. I have built a turbine engine before. It wasn't highly efficient, it didn't do anything out of the ordinary, and it burnt up.. but I've got a tiny bit of experience in this area.
Wouldn't ram pressure and centrifugal force against the shroud lead to compression?
Also, the screw pumps would impart momentum to the air, just like a propeller, but with more friction. The first use of the propeller for propulsion was originally a screw, which broke off into half a helix and improved efficiency.
However, in this case, increased friction would cause more momentum to be transferred, especially as the helices tightened.
The design could be improved by having the combusters themselves being small ramjets. The screw would act to accelerate air to very high speeds which would be converted to high pressure in the angled ramjet combustors.
pressure would escape from between the engine housing/ducting and the screw compressor.
Mystic Virgo not more than it does in an axial flow engine. In fact it may be a little less here since the "blades" are uninterrupted.
No...he's correct, this type of compressor would leak really badly. How are you going to seal the blades to the housing? Even if you came up with something that could run in such close proximity that air leakage wouldn't be severe....what happens when it heats up and expands? Not good.
Modern axial-flow engines incorporate variable stator vanes which are computer controlled to allow the compressor to actually compress air at more than one power setting and speed. The original jets were VERY sensitive to throttle movements...especially when trying to spool them up for takeoff. Fixed blades only work in one condition of temperature, air pressure and thrust output. Everywhere else they can be very laggy and not produce much thrust. Watch one of the ME-262 training videos and notice how gently he advances the throttles. Just tiny little bumps forward and a wait inbetween as the inefficient fixed stator compressor struggles to pump air below its design point.
And....we also seal the ends of the compressor blades with a knife edge seal that looks a lot like a razor blade. It fits into a rubber seal on some and on the J-58 the sealing material was a titanium honeycomb that the blades cut into during assembly. This is what it takes to seal the compressor. We won't even go into what spraying fuel into a rapidly spinning combustion chamber and trying to get it to burn properly would entail as it would be a nightmare. The currently used combustion chambers have had a LOT of development to keep them burning in the turbulent hellish environment where they live. Sorry to say....I'm pretty sure this helical thing will never be produced.
How would you seal a blade tip that doesn't maintain a radial path?
I could be wrong, but I thought the whole housing was meant to spin. So the helix is sealed on inside and outside. The cans and the housing would be a lot of weight but i guess it's just a idea they were throwing arround
Wow, this is a ram jet that could be stable at low speeds. Love to see a prototype in action.
usas autocad?
I think this design is cool but still needs testing and improvements.Then you would need to find away to prevent the combustors from breaking out the place.
it wont work without stators the air will not compress
ramjet wouldent need a helical compressor
i would love to see the ramjet you built. not participating in this argument just out of curiousity
Ram air recovery will not be effective while the jet is stationary therefore no compression of the air will take place due to ram recovery will take place if it could not get itself moving in the first place. The stator vanes in a traditional axial flow compressor are there to help control the speed of the air through the compressor as well as directing it most effectively in to the next stage of compression. If you look at a high bypass engine on the ground you will see all of the stators are connected to rings which allow for their angle to be adjusted inside the engine this is what prevents compressor stalls and surging.
Tributary House Ltd. First of all, if you have a convergent conduct air cannot go supersonic. The only thing that'll happen is that you'll have a choked flow where total pressure is increased. So there goes ya theory and superiority complex. Think a little bit before calling someone an idiot.
stators are not the sole contributor to gas compression. This engine would work fine but I suspect the single stage turbine would make it very inefficient and the rotating combustion chambers would present some serious design challenges. In order for an engine to work all you need is some air compression and heat, and it'll work.
So you have to rely on the hot gasses pushing against a stationary object to spin the compressor? That's dumb. Can style combustion chambers are also less efficient than annular style.
Did you build a working model of this? I would like to know the burnt off fuel could create a low pressure zone behind it
Interesting idea, superb animation. I did give a reply earlier, but thought it worth replying again.
Firstly, and most importantly this is untried technology and people don’t know whether it’ll work or not, despite their apparent ‘expertise’. The comments do highlight a key element of your idea, namely “would a helical compressor work!”
So the second point is either you need to provide a mathematical/theoretical engineering proof, or do a proof of principle (POP).
I would suggest 3D printing a simple helical turbine (you’re obviously good with computers) connect it to an electrical motor and see if it compressed air as hoped. If the POP works, then would be a number of venture capital funds willing to support unique and patentable technologies.
Lastly, don’t be put off by the negative comments, the world is full of ‘experts’ who never contributed anything new.
Good luck with idea.
This engine might work in a perfect universe, unfortunately not in reality.
Viscous forces would cause air ingested to begin to rotate with the helical blades. The result being that the air is not transported backwards and compressed, but that it simply spins around.
This is why stators are necessary and important. An axial compressor is battling to add dynamic pressure (kinetic energy) via rotor blades, and recover that energy into static pressure (compressed gas) in the stator section. If these sections are too long, viscous forces cause the compressor blades to become less efficient (drag caused by viscous forces) and air is simply rotated instead of driven into the stators. This can happen suddenly in modern turbofan engines, resulting in the compressed gas at hundreds of PSI exploding out of the front of the engine. This is called compressor surge or stall.
Impellers don't have stators and they work.
since the turbine doesnt spin, this is basically a rocket engine, where thrust only comes from the mass flow of the system. The rotation of the compressor is only established by mass flow impetus. I doubt that this machine is efficient for following reasons: 1. The efficiency of the screw compressor is very low. This makes the thermodynamic cycle inefficient - and this is what counts in the end.
2. The motion of the rotating combustion chamber is directed against the direction of flow. It is braked by flow friction and additional energy is lost.
3. The blades of the exit have to be bent at least to deflect the flow continously.
all in all, it does not really have future in my opinion...
DankseidirLG instead of using screw compressor maybe use tesla turbine disk style?
DankseidirLG .... That statement is the BIGGEST LOAD OF BULLSHIT I’ve heard in a long time, The whole Concept is a Morons Fantasy!
Conceptually it's extremely interesting; practically, the fuel delivery system is very problematic
nice animation! what program did you use to make it?
I second that. B.S. This is what you get by using FLUID dynamics to design an AEROdynamic engine. HOWEVER, I see a very efficient underwater thruster here. Add external lithium ion battery pack and hand grip controls. Remove the fan/cowling and combustor cans and fuel system. uprate the starting motor. AND of course downsize the whole thing to around 6 feet or so. Hmmmmm...
The shift in relative trans axial forces, as well as the underlying problem of farts
Labyrinth seals are not possible in this design, so the leaks will be high I suppose, but the idea is beautiful anyway
I am curious about how well this would work with a normal axial flow compressor.
I think that is different. It would be interesting to see how it compares to other types of jet engines.
worthless
spinning combustion chambers might not work because the fuel would be spun to the sides.
Wish I could see the text. Brilliant, but resonant vibration and centrifical force would be an obvious hurdle. Even a solid billet-machined central rotor would need to be made to take the stress.
So, where is your thrust bearing?
very cool, you should build it
Hello... consider centrifugal force at the rear (combustor chamber) part
Is this a high school project?
It won't work, the combustion chambers should not rotate but be stationary straight forcing thrust backward, just right above the combustion chamber you will need a low pass to keep the axial bearings from overheating.. The combustion chamber will spin apart like a CD at 55 million RPMS otherwise the helical compressor is a great idea, it does eliminate stator vanes.
what's the compression rate at this type of turbine?
Not turbineless, the angled chambers reacting against fixed blades is basic turbine principals.
Good luck with balancing the compressor and hot section, especially after a few hours of damage and buildup. Interesting concept though!
Nice design ! Next Step : now try one (or two) of the two ways : Shape and Try, or put your design inside an opensource simulation platform (like OpenFOAM or Code Saturne)
Won’t work at all the compressor stage is too long axial wise and effect produced will just be stirring the air inside without compressing it you need stators as well as well shaped blades to minimize blade drag and redirect air in the axial direction
The bearing-sealed fuel delivery tube would be a critical issue and very likely fail due to stress-induced forces.
Not a logical design.
its kinda dangerious because the fuel line if front of the fan so if it breaks its gonna go into the fan
Красивая идея! Условие прохождения воздуха... конусность компрессора соблюдено! Воздух будет прижиматься центробежной силой к неподвижной наружной стенке компрессора и будет передвигаться и сжиматься! Другой вопрос, как эффективно! Никакого излишнего веса у компрессора нет... в осевом компрессоре турбины вращающегося металла не намного меньше! Камеры сгорания будут находиться в самом узком месте, а там центробежная сила меньше всего...Порекомендовал бы сделать одну камеру сгорания, несколько на практике не проявили себя... из-за неравномерности горения... К тому же ее легче бы было отбалансировать... По поводу подачи керосина у меня тоже есть неплохие идеи.... Делайте или дайте мне разрешение сделать...
Beautiful idea! Air flow condition ... compressor taper observed! The air will be pressed by the centrifugal force to the fixed outer wall of the compressor and will move and contract! Another question is how effective! The compressor has no excess weight ... in the axial compressor of the rotating metal turbine is not much less! The combustion chambers will be located in the narrowest place, and there the centrifugal force is the least ... I would recommend to make one combustion chamber, in practice they didn’t manifest themselves in practice ... due to uneven burning ... Besides, it would be easier to balance ... Regarding the supply of kerosene, I also have some good ideas .... Do it or give me permission to do it ...
Wow. An amazing proposal. Take it to the end. I bed it will work. You'll make it work.
The helical blade IS the compressor and it just uses the after burner. And what powers the compressor and fan? ALIENS
If I may be so bold to add my ignorant comment. Based on what little I've read & heard, the compressor blades only work up to a certain speed, then, they're in the way, this seems to be in the way a lot.
I came up with this when I was 9, the turbine section I mean. Also the people in this comment section seem to have never heard of turbo pumps and how they compress.
I don't see how using the combustor outlets as rockets like a pinwheel firework can generate enough power for the compressor, let alone a bypass fan. A normal engine's turbine recovers some of the compression power as well as generating much more from combustion expansion... and this design seems to throw away a lot of the gas generator energy as hot exhaust. With the angled combustors the exhaust velocity will be too low to generate usable thrust, you need to extract most of its energy to spin the compressor. Nice idea but not practical IMO. Build one and see?