Notices
Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Aircraft design and the ships propellor

  1. #1 Aircraft design and the ships propellor 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    72
    I posted 30 and 95 % fuel reduction in jet-engine design. Here I want to further develop the theory with two examples.
    The Ships propeller:
    Place the propeller inside the ship and in a box of water, and then place pipes at the end of the box that redirect the flow back to the propellor and against its turn: like a turbine -- and there you have a ship with greater thrust developed and the propeller isn't even outside the ship, it could be in the middle or anywhere.

    The single prop aircraft.
    Place the propeller in a box of denser air and now the propellor develops more thrust or pull of the aircraft, except it wont save on fuel.

    Are these ideas mad or what?

    I believe they come from God and God thinks outside of every box.

    I realise the pre-heating of the fuel was not a great idea, I just threw it out there at the time.

    Einsteins relativeity was thinking like a psychologist and not a physicist -- outside the box.


    I am seeking supporters for a qualitative basis of science, not quantative. Quality: precision,shape, color, pitch. Quantity: power,size,brightness,volume. A quality can be found as a ratio of quantities. Mass is a quality.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: Aircraft design and the ships propellor 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Joshua Stone
    I posted 30 and 95 % fuel reduction in jet-engine design. Here I want to further develop the theory with two examples.
    The Ships propeller:
    Place the propeller inside the ship and in a box of water, and then place pipes at the end of the box that redirect the flow back to the propellor and against its turn: like a turbine -- and there you have a ship with greater thrust developed and the propeller isn't even outside the ship, it could be in the middle or anywhere.

    The single prop aircraft.
    Place the propeller in a box of denser air and now the propellor develops more thrust or pull of the aircraft, except it wont save on fuel.

    Are these ideas mad or what?
    Ridiculous. You have to direct the exhaust out the rear to get any thrust.
    I believe they come from God and God thinks outside of every box.

    I realise the pre-heating of the fuel was not a great idea, I just threw it out there at the time.

    Einsteins relativeity was thinking like a psychologist and not a physicist -- outside the box.
    A psychologist? How do you figure?

    Get back in the box.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: Aircraft design and the ships propellor 
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by Joshua Stone
    I posted 30 and 95 % fuel reduction in jet-engine design. Here I want to further develop the theory with two examples.
    The Ships propeller:
    Place the propeller inside the ship and in a box of water, and then place pipes at the end of the box that redirect the flow back to the propellor and against its turn: like a turbine -- and there you have a ship with greater thrust developed and the propeller isn't even outside the ship, it could be in the middle or anywhere.

    The single prop aircraft.
    Place the propeller in a box of denser air and now the propellor develops more thrust or pull of the aircraft, except it wont save on fuel.

    Are these ideas mad or what?
    Ridiculous. You have to direct the exhaust out the rear to get any thrust.

    That isn't his mistake. You can redirect the intake/exhaust by using valves that switch the direction of the flow back and forth again and again.

    IE. Have two tubes for intake, one attached to the front of the chamber where the propeller is, and one attached to the rear. Then have two tubes for exhaust, one attached to the front of the chamber, and one to the rear. Open the intake valve for the front, and the exhaust valve for the rear until a certain amount of air has passed through, then close them. Then open the intake valve for the rear, and the exhaust valve for the front. However, this would not be efficient because the propeller would have to continually reverse direction. (Unless some kind of vacuum force were being used to assist with this.)


    His mistake is thinking that just because the propeller is encased in a more viscous fluid, it's going to be more efficient. If a propeller spins and spins and spins in order to move a little bit of air along, that doesn't really cost energy. The only loss to inefficiency is if there is friction in the bearings that the propeller is spinning on.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    It is a simple matter of conservation of momentum. If you want your airplane to move forward, you have to eject some material to the rear. Pumping fluid around in a loop results in no net change in momentum.

    I have no idea what you are getting at with the intake and exhaust valves.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    72
    Since the all the invention ideas I posted come from God, then nobody is allowed to have exclusive rights, and anybody can attempt to make the designs at any time. probably, patents and property rights hold back progress. These ideas of directing the fl0ow backward mean the flow is forced back and then directed forward and made to counter-spin against the blade(s) spin. The net force on the walls forawrd and back cancels out, and the propeller pushing the shaft is the only force indepenednt of the fluid: pushing the ship or plane. It does seem counter intuitive and ridiculous but how could it be wrong? Why does there have to be a fluid directed out the back of the ship or plane? Also as a plane or ship goes faster int he conventional system the vacuum created behind the blades (becaquse the faster the ship the faster the flow past the blades) means efficiency is lost and the vaccum pulls the blades and shaft back. Also fuel might be saved because the higher the ship-plane speed the more the energy stored as momentum (as transformational capacity opposite of inertial capacity or mass actually) and so less fuel is required to keep the vehicle going. Especially for a plane at higher altitude and less drag on the airframe. As for drag and speed, some work needs to be done to clarify the situation.
    I am seeking supporters for a qualitative basis of science, not quantative. Quality: precision,shape, color, pitch. Quantity: power,size,brightness,volume. A quality can be found as a ratio of quantities. Mass is a quality.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    72
    The extra efficiency comes from the fact you design a counter-spin-of-blades rotation in the fluid, and so the fluid hits the angles blades harder causing more thrust.
    I am seeking supporters for a qualitative basis of science, not quantative. Quality: precision,shape, color, pitch. Quantity: power,size,brightness,volume. A quality can be found as a ratio of quantities. Mass is a quality.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman Beard Baron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Halifax
    Posts
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by Joshua Stone View Post
    Place the propeller inside the ship and in a box of water, and then place pipes at the end of the box that redirect the flow back to the propellor and against its turn: like a turbine -- and there you have a ship with greater thrust developed and the propeller isn't even outside the ship, it could be in the middle or anywhere.

    The single prop aircraft.
    Place the propeller in a box of denser air and now the propellor develops more thrust or pull of the aircraft, except it wont save on fuel.

    Are these ideas mad or what?

    I believe they come from God and God thinks outside of every box.
    I don't know, it sounds more like this god fellow thinks inside a lot of boxes.
    "Science is more than a body of knowledge; it's a way of thinking. A way of skeptically interrogating the universe." - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •