Re: Thanks for Patent help.
- From: "Christina Peterson" <tinapetrsn@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 14:10:22 -0800
Uh-oh. I did say 79%. That was a typo. I meant 69%, or almost 70%.
Tina
<nicksanspam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:df47c2$cbg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Christina Peterson <tinapetrsn@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >As previously noted, NASA, DARPA, and DOE are satisfied that, though his
> >engine hasn't been tested on a dynamometer, his claims are consistant
with
> >their understanding...
>
> Sounds like this engine might be valuable for its high power to weight
ratio.
>
> I've just looked over a few thousand postings, trying to find the high
> efficiency you mentioned. Somebody seemed to be saying 79%. Seems to me
> that might be a "combustion efficiency," eg an estimate of the amount of
> burned vs unburned fuel, or some other efficiency, but it's probably not
> the ratio of mechanical output to heat input, measured in the same units.
>
> I wonder what sort of high temperatures that would require. In the best
> case, if (Thot-Tcold)/Thot = 0.79 and Tcold = 460+70 R (room temp, with
> a perfect radiator), Thot = 2523 R, ie 2064 F. That's pretty hot. What
> material would this engine be made of?
>
> Nick
>
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Walter's F1 experience?, was: Re: Thanks for Patent help.
- Next by Date: Re: Meat Rabbits Breeding Stock Wanted
- Previous by thread: Re: Thanks for Patent help.
- Next by thread: Re: Thanks for Patent help.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
