I wonder if it's possible to make a “compressed air” turbine engine
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
I wonder if it's possible to make an efficient turbine engine that uses only hot compressed air to move but only that, meaning there is no ignition involved. To put it simple can we use compressors like turbo or superchargers to make a small turbine engine that will be able to move (not lift) 100+ kilos at high speed, well lets say around 40km/h (25 m/h)? I've studied it a bit and to actually know i need to make it but before that i thought to ask people that know certainly more than i do. Also if you can think of a way to do it i'd love to hear it cause iv'e thought of something but it might not work (i guess that's the fun of it tho doing tests and rebuilding and stuff). Ok, in addition to all that let's say that power for this comes from batteries and it's meant to work for short periods of time.
jet-engine engine turbine compressor
New contributor
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
I wonder if it's possible to make an efficient turbine engine that uses only hot compressed air to move but only that, meaning there is no ignition involved. To put it simple can we use compressors like turbo or superchargers to make a small turbine engine that will be able to move (not lift) 100+ kilos at high speed, well lets say around 40km/h (25 m/h)? I've studied it a bit and to actually know i need to make it but before that i thought to ask people that know certainly more than i do. Also if you can think of a way to do it i'd love to hear it cause iv'e thought of something but it might not work (i guess that's the fun of it tho doing tests and rebuilding and stuff). Ok, in addition to all that let's say that power for this comes from batteries and it's meant to work for short periods of time.
jet-engine engine turbine compressor
New contributor
Are you proposing a turbine engine that doesn't use any fuel or other type of input energy at all?
– Tanner Swett
4 hours ago
The way you use "turbine" is very confusing. Turbine is the thing that converts high pressure gas into motion. Compressor is the thing that converts motion into high pressure air. The way a jet engine works is the combination of the two. When you burn fuel, the turbine/exit side has more gas volume and velocity than the compressor/entrance side and you generate thrust. If you want to skip the turbine and use a electric motor or a piston motory, it's perfectly OK.
– user3528438
4 hours ago
I'm totally confused here. Do you want a electric-motor driving a compressor, or do you want compressed air to drive a gas turbine, or something else? Turbofan is basically turbine driving a fan with hot high pressure gas, which comes from a device called gas generator, which uses another turbine to drive a compressor to compress air to burn fuel with to generate hot and high pressure air.
– user3528438
4 hours ago
Why would you want to do this, instead of simply hooking your electric motor to a propellor, as with drones &c? I'm pretty sure it would be extremely inefficient to use batteries to heat & compress air, then push that through a turbine.
– jamesqf
2 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
I wonder if it's possible to make an efficient turbine engine that uses only hot compressed air to move but only that, meaning there is no ignition involved. To put it simple can we use compressors like turbo or superchargers to make a small turbine engine that will be able to move (not lift) 100+ kilos at high speed, well lets say around 40km/h (25 m/h)? I've studied it a bit and to actually know i need to make it but before that i thought to ask people that know certainly more than i do. Also if you can think of a way to do it i'd love to hear it cause iv'e thought of something but it might not work (i guess that's the fun of it tho doing tests and rebuilding and stuff). Ok, in addition to all that let's say that power for this comes from batteries and it's meant to work for short periods of time.
jet-engine engine turbine compressor
New contributor
I wonder if it's possible to make an efficient turbine engine that uses only hot compressed air to move but only that, meaning there is no ignition involved. To put it simple can we use compressors like turbo or superchargers to make a small turbine engine that will be able to move (not lift) 100+ kilos at high speed, well lets say around 40km/h (25 m/h)? I've studied it a bit and to actually know i need to make it but before that i thought to ask people that know certainly more than i do. Also if you can think of a way to do it i'd love to hear it cause iv'e thought of something but it might not work (i guess that's the fun of it tho doing tests and rebuilding and stuff). Ok, in addition to all that let's say that power for this comes from batteries and it's meant to work for short periods of time.
jet-engine engine turbine compressor
jet-engine engine turbine compressor
New contributor
New contributor
edited 4 hours ago
New contributor
asked 5 hours ago
anton siro
43
43
New contributor
New contributor
Are you proposing a turbine engine that doesn't use any fuel or other type of input energy at all?
– Tanner Swett
4 hours ago
The way you use "turbine" is very confusing. Turbine is the thing that converts high pressure gas into motion. Compressor is the thing that converts motion into high pressure air. The way a jet engine works is the combination of the two. When you burn fuel, the turbine/exit side has more gas volume and velocity than the compressor/entrance side and you generate thrust. If you want to skip the turbine and use a electric motor or a piston motory, it's perfectly OK.
– user3528438
4 hours ago
I'm totally confused here. Do you want a electric-motor driving a compressor, or do you want compressed air to drive a gas turbine, or something else? Turbofan is basically turbine driving a fan with hot high pressure gas, which comes from a device called gas generator, which uses another turbine to drive a compressor to compress air to burn fuel with to generate hot and high pressure air.
– user3528438
4 hours ago
Why would you want to do this, instead of simply hooking your electric motor to a propellor, as with drones &c? I'm pretty sure it would be extremely inefficient to use batteries to heat & compress air, then push that through a turbine.
– jamesqf
2 hours ago
add a comment |
Are you proposing a turbine engine that doesn't use any fuel or other type of input energy at all?
– Tanner Swett
4 hours ago
The way you use "turbine" is very confusing. Turbine is the thing that converts high pressure gas into motion. Compressor is the thing that converts motion into high pressure air. The way a jet engine works is the combination of the two. When you burn fuel, the turbine/exit side has more gas volume and velocity than the compressor/entrance side and you generate thrust. If you want to skip the turbine and use a electric motor or a piston motory, it's perfectly OK.
– user3528438
4 hours ago
I'm totally confused here. Do you want a electric-motor driving a compressor, or do you want compressed air to drive a gas turbine, or something else? Turbofan is basically turbine driving a fan with hot high pressure gas, which comes from a device called gas generator, which uses another turbine to drive a compressor to compress air to burn fuel with to generate hot and high pressure air.
– user3528438
4 hours ago
Why would you want to do this, instead of simply hooking your electric motor to a propellor, as with drones &c? I'm pretty sure it would be extremely inefficient to use batteries to heat & compress air, then push that through a turbine.
– jamesqf
2 hours ago
Are you proposing a turbine engine that doesn't use any fuel or other type of input energy at all?
– Tanner Swett
4 hours ago
Are you proposing a turbine engine that doesn't use any fuel or other type of input energy at all?
– Tanner Swett
4 hours ago
The way you use "turbine" is very confusing. Turbine is the thing that converts high pressure gas into motion. Compressor is the thing that converts motion into high pressure air. The way a jet engine works is the combination of the two. When you burn fuel, the turbine/exit side has more gas volume and velocity than the compressor/entrance side and you generate thrust. If you want to skip the turbine and use a electric motor or a piston motory, it's perfectly OK.
– user3528438
4 hours ago
The way you use "turbine" is very confusing. Turbine is the thing that converts high pressure gas into motion. Compressor is the thing that converts motion into high pressure air. The way a jet engine works is the combination of the two. When you burn fuel, the turbine/exit side has more gas volume and velocity than the compressor/entrance side and you generate thrust. If you want to skip the turbine and use a electric motor or a piston motory, it's perfectly OK.
– user3528438
4 hours ago
I'm totally confused here. Do you want a electric-motor driving a compressor, or do you want compressed air to drive a gas turbine, or something else? Turbofan is basically turbine driving a fan with hot high pressure gas, which comes from a device called gas generator, which uses another turbine to drive a compressor to compress air to burn fuel with to generate hot and high pressure air.
– user3528438
4 hours ago
I'm totally confused here. Do you want a electric-motor driving a compressor, or do you want compressed air to drive a gas turbine, or something else? Turbofan is basically turbine driving a fan with hot high pressure gas, which comes from a device called gas generator, which uses another turbine to drive a compressor to compress air to burn fuel with to generate hot and high pressure air.
– user3528438
4 hours ago
Why would you want to do this, instead of simply hooking your electric motor to a propellor, as with drones &c? I'm pretty sure it would be extremely inefficient to use batteries to heat & compress air, then push that through a turbine.
– jamesqf
2 hours ago
Why would you want to do this, instead of simply hooking your electric motor to a propellor, as with drones &c? I'm pretty sure it would be extremely inefficient to use batteries to heat & compress air, then push that through a turbine.
– jamesqf
2 hours ago
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
No. This won't work. Where does your hot compressed air come from? It comes from your compressor right? The compressor takes energy to run. Where does it get that energy from? From the turbine of course. But where does the turbine get its energy from? Well from the hot compressed air! But where does the hot compressed air come from? From the compressor of course.
Run through this loop about five or six times in your head, and you'll see that all you have is energy moving around and changing forms. Because you are not burning any fuel, you are not adding any energy into the system. Therefore you don't have an engine at all.
Google "perpetual motion machine" if this doesn't make sense. Because that is effectively what you are proposing here.
Hey Daniel. thank you for addressing that matter as i didn't cover it in my Question. The energy will come from batteries, there won't be any adding energy into the system mostly because i don't want it to run for long so to compress that air and do other operations as monitor the engine i was thinking of using batteries!
– anton siro
4 hours ago
"Where does it get that energy from? From the turbine of course. " where do you get this from? Also what's wrong with getting energy from turbine? Aren't all jet engines working this way?
– user3528438
4 hours ago
They most certainly do! but i can't really make this turbine from scratch and use fuel on it so to get power from it. it's too dangerous cause i don't know how to handle fuel but i do know how to handle electric circuits and it defeats the purpose i wanted to run free of fuel and as i said i don't want it to run for a long period of time.
– anton siro
4 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
Well, ships have been using turbine engines powered by super-heated water since the late 19th century. But you still have to have an energy source to heat the steam. And it's no good for a "jet" engine since the whole point is thrust by accelerating air through the engine, where the turbine and compressor are there just to keep the cycle going. It would only work for a turbo-prop or turbo-shaft where the turbine's job is to produce torque for doing the work.
Theoretically, you could have a turboprop powered with a steam turbine, or some other heated gas, but you still have to have an energy source. Maybe some kind of weird and wonderful battery powered water heater, or a tiny nuclear reactor? Then you also need a huge supply of water or other fluid or gas to heat up.
It is possible however to have a closed system that recycles the water used for the steam. You then have pretty much a small nuclear power plant or nuclear sub. It's theoretically possible though, to have a nuclear powered turboprop that could fly for months. If it works for subs and aircraft carriers, why not, if you could make the whole thing light enough.
Actually, none of that stuff is really new. There were nuclear powered aircraft concepts in the 50s, that weren't really practical.
The thing about turbine engines powered by kerosene is that it's still the most efficient way to convert potential energy to kinetic energy in a light weight and trouble free package. 50 years from now? Who knows.
I see. still let's say we can run it with a big amount of batteries (or a small nuclear reactor) would just a small turbo or supercharger like those used in cars (with a hint of thermal expansion im talking about getting the air out even hotter and more "charged" you can say) give me good results?
– anton siro
4 hours ago
To just heat the air itself with something, you would need to impart a crazy amount of BTUs of energy into the air to get the required expansion to create the required velocity in an air stream, and would still need a turbine/compressor to get and sustain the cycle because you have to pack a lot of air into a small space before you heat it. I mean, you could probably create some kind of nuclear reaction right in the burner can of a jet engine although you would have radio active exhaust. The basic issue is the sheer amount of energy and mass involved to move something by a jet exhaust.
– John K
3 hours ago
However, you CAN make a turboprop or turboshaft engine that runs on compressed air. It's done with piston engines all the time and there are compressed air cars. For a turboprop/turboshaft, you'd need one mega pressure air tank however. And you'd still need an energy source to compress the air in the first place. No free lunch under the sun....
– John K
3 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
As I understand it you want to have a compressor creating compressed air that exits in a high-speed jet, thus causing thrust, but you want the jet to be comprised only of air, not of combustion products.
That describes the air that is accelerated by the fan in a fanjet engine, which provides a substantial portion of the total thrust in such an engine.
Or if you prefer, rather than powering the fan by a turbine, you could power the fan or compressor by a piston engine. The "motorjet" concept (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorjet ) used in the The Caproni Campini N.1 -- ( see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caproni_Campini_N.1 ) might seem to approximate this idea, but in the "motorjet" concept the compressed air IS mixed with fuel and ignited after compression, to provide more thrust than would be provided simply by allowing the compressed air to exit the nozzle without ignition.
There was at least one piston-driven "jet" engine concept in which the air was NOT ignited after compression -- see for example the Coanda-1910 (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coand%C4%83-1910 ). This plane apparently never flew, but a similar engine was used to drive a slow sledge. That seems to be a good match to what you are envisioning.
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
No. This won't work. Where does your hot compressed air come from? It comes from your compressor right? The compressor takes energy to run. Where does it get that energy from? From the turbine of course. But where does the turbine get its energy from? Well from the hot compressed air! But where does the hot compressed air come from? From the compressor of course.
Run through this loop about five or six times in your head, and you'll see that all you have is energy moving around and changing forms. Because you are not burning any fuel, you are not adding any energy into the system. Therefore you don't have an engine at all.
Google "perpetual motion machine" if this doesn't make sense. Because that is effectively what you are proposing here.
Hey Daniel. thank you for addressing that matter as i didn't cover it in my Question. The energy will come from batteries, there won't be any adding energy into the system mostly because i don't want it to run for long so to compress that air and do other operations as monitor the engine i was thinking of using batteries!
– anton siro
4 hours ago
"Where does it get that energy from? From the turbine of course. " where do you get this from? Also what's wrong with getting energy from turbine? Aren't all jet engines working this way?
– user3528438
4 hours ago
They most certainly do! but i can't really make this turbine from scratch and use fuel on it so to get power from it. it's too dangerous cause i don't know how to handle fuel but i do know how to handle electric circuits and it defeats the purpose i wanted to run free of fuel and as i said i don't want it to run for a long period of time.
– anton siro
4 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
No. This won't work. Where does your hot compressed air come from? It comes from your compressor right? The compressor takes energy to run. Where does it get that energy from? From the turbine of course. But where does the turbine get its energy from? Well from the hot compressed air! But where does the hot compressed air come from? From the compressor of course.
Run through this loop about five or six times in your head, and you'll see that all you have is energy moving around and changing forms. Because you are not burning any fuel, you are not adding any energy into the system. Therefore you don't have an engine at all.
Google "perpetual motion machine" if this doesn't make sense. Because that is effectively what you are proposing here.
Hey Daniel. thank you for addressing that matter as i didn't cover it in my Question. The energy will come from batteries, there won't be any adding energy into the system mostly because i don't want it to run for long so to compress that air and do other operations as monitor the engine i was thinking of using batteries!
– anton siro
4 hours ago
"Where does it get that energy from? From the turbine of course. " where do you get this from? Also what's wrong with getting energy from turbine? Aren't all jet engines working this way?
– user3528438
4 hours ago
They most certainly do! but i can't really make this turbine from scratch and use fuel on it so to get power from it. it's too dangerous cause i don't know how to handle fuel but i do know how to handle electric circuits and it defeats the purpose i wanted to run free of fuel and as i said i don't want it to run for a long period of time.
– anton siro
4 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
No. This won't work. Where does your hot compressed air come from? It comes from your compressor right? The compressor takes energy to run. Where does it get that energy from? From the turbine of course. But where does the turbine get its energy from? Well from the hot compressed air! But where does the hot compressed air come from? From the compressor of course.
Run through this loop about five or six times in your head, and you'll see that all you have is energy moving around and changing forms. Because you are not burning any fuel, you are not adding any energy into the system. Therefore you don't have an engine at all.
Google "perpetual motion machine" if this doesn't make sense. Because that is effectively what you are proposing here.
No. This won't work. Where does your hot compressed air come from? It comes from your compressor right? The compressor takes energy to run. Where does it get that energy from? From the turbine of course. But where does the turbine get its energy from? Well from the hot compressed air! But where does the hot compressed air come from? From the compressor of course.
Run through this loop about five or six times in your head, and you'll see that all you have is energy moving around and changing forms. Because you are not burning any fuel, you are not adding any energy into the system. Therefore you don't have an engine at all.
Google "perpetual motion machine" if this doesn't make sense. Because that is effectively what you are proposing here.
answered 4 hours ago
Daniel Kiracofe
3,286522
3,286522
Hey Daniel. thank you for addressing that matter as i didn't cover it in my Question. The energy will come from batteries, there won't be any adding energy into the system mostly because i don't want it to run for long so to compress that air and do other operations as monitor the engine i was thinking of using batteries!
– anton siro
4 hours ago
"Where does it get that energy from? From the turbine of course. " where do you get this from? Also what's wrong with getting energy from turbine? Aren't all jet engines working this way?
– user3528438
4 hours ago
They most certainly do! but i can't really make this turbine from scratch and use fuel on it so to get power from it. it's too dangerous cause i don't know how to handle fuel but i do know how to handle electric circuits and it defeats the purpose i wanted to run free of fuel and as i said i don't want it to run for a long period of time.
– anton siro
4 hours ago
add a comment |
Hey Daniel. thank you for addressing that matter as i didn't cover it in my Question. The energy will come from batteries, there won't be any adding energy into the system mostly because i don't want it to run for long so to compress that air and do other operations as monitor the engine i was thinking of using batteries!
– anton siro
4 hours ago
"Where does it get that energy from? From the turbine of course. " where do you get this from? Also what's wrong with getting energy from turbine? Aren't all jet engines working this way?
– user3528438
4 hours ago
They most certainly do! but i can't really make this turbine from scratch and use fuel on it so to get power from it. it's too dangerous cause i don't know how to handle fuel but i do know how to handle electric circuits and it defeats the purpose i wanted to run free of fuel and as i said i don't want it to run for a long period of time.
– anton siro
4 hours ago
Hey Daniel. thank you for addressing that matter as i didn't cover it in my Question. The energy will come from batteries, there won't be any adding energy into the system mostly because i don't want it to run for long so to compress that air and do other operations as monitor the engine i was thinking of using batteries!
– anton siro
4 hours ago
Hey Daniel. thank you for addressing that matter as i didn't cover it in my Question. The energy will come from batteries, there won't be any adding energy into the system mostly because i don't want it to run for long so to compress that air and do other operations as monitor the engine i was thinking of using batteries!
– anton siro
4 hours ago
"Where does it get that energy from? From the turbine of course. " where do you get this from? Also what's wrong with getting energy from turbine? Aren't all jet engines working this way?
– user3528438
4 hours ago
"Where does it get that energy from? From the turbine of course. " where do you get this from? Also what's wrong with getting energy from turbine? Aren't all jet engines working this way?
– user3528438
4 hours ago
They most certainly do! but i can't really make this turbine from scratch and use fuel on it so to get power from it. it's too dangerous cause i don't know how to handle fuel but i do know how to handle electric circuits and it defeats the purpose i wanted to run free of fuel and as i said i don't want it to run for a long period of time.
– anton siro
4 hours ago
They most certainly do! but i can't really make this turbine from scratch and use fuel on it so to get power from it. it's too dangerous cause i don't know how to handle fuel but i do know how to handle electric circuits and it defeats the purpose i wanted to run free of fuel and as i said i don't want it to run for a long period of time.
– anton siro
4 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
Well, ships have been using turbine engines powered by super-heated water since the late 19th century. But you still have to have an energy source to heat the steam. And it's no good for a "jet" engine since the whole point is thrust by accelerating air through the engine, where the turbine and compressor are there just to keep the cycle going. It would only work for a turbo-prop or turbo-shaft where the turbine's job is to produce torque for doing the work.
Theoretically, you could have a turboprop powered with a steam turbine, or some other heated gas, but you still have to have an energy source. Maybe some kind of weird and wonderful battery powered water heater, or a tiny nuclear reactor? Then you also need a huge supply of water or other fluid or gas to heat up.
It is possible however to have a closed system that recycles the water used for the steam. You then have pretty much a small nuclear power plant or nuclear sub. It's theoretically possible though, to have a nuclear powered turboprop that could fly for months. If it works for subs and aircraft carriers, why not, if you could make the whole thing light enough.
Actually, none of that stuff is really new. There were nuclear powered aircraft concepts in the 50s, that weren't really practical.
The thing about turbine engines powered by kerosene is that it's still the most efficient way to convert potential energy to kinetic energy in a light weight and trouble free package. 50 years from now? Who knows.
I see. still let's say we can run it with a big amount of batteries (or a small nuclear reactor) would just a small turbo or supercharger like those used in cars (with a hint of thermal expansion im talking about getting the air out even hotter and more "charged" you can say) give me good results?
– anton siro
4 hours ago
To just heat the air itself with something, you would need to impart a crazy amount of BTUs of energy into the air to get the required expansion to create the required velocity in an air stream, and would still need a turbine/compressor to get and sustain the cycle because you have to pack a lot of air into a small space before you heat it. I mean, you could probably create some kind of nuclear reaction right in the burner can of a jet engine although you would have radio active exhaust. The basic issue is the sheer amount of energy and mass involved to move something by a jet exhaust.
– John K
3 hours ago
However, you CAN make a turboprop or turboshaft engine that runs on compressed air. It's done with piston engines all the time and there are compressed air cars. For a turboprop/turboshaft, you'd need one mega pressure air tank however. And you'd still need an energy source to compress the air in the first place. No free lunch under the sun....
– John K
3 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
Well, ships have been using turbine engines powered by super-heated water since the late 19th century. But you still have to have an energy source to heat the steam. And it's no good for a "jet" engine since the whole point is thrust by accelerating air through the engine, where the turbine and compressor are there just to keep the cycle going. It would only work for a turbo-prop or turbo-shaft where the turbine's job is to produce torque for doing the work.
Theoretically, you could have a turboprop powered with a steam turbine, or some other heated gas, but you still have to have an energy source. Maybe some kind of weird and wonderful battery powered water heater, or a tiny nuclear reactor? Then you also need a huge supply of water or other fluid or gas to heat up.
It is possible however to have a closed system that recycles the water used for the steam. You then have pretty much a small nuclear power plant or nuclear sub. It's theoretically possible though, to have a nuclear powered turboprop that could fly for months. If it works for subs and aircraft carriers, why not, if you could make the whole thing light enough.
Actually, none of that stuff is really new. There were nuclear powered aircraft concepts in the 50s, that weren't really practical.
The thing about turbine engines powered by kerosene is that it's still the most efficient way to convert potential energy to kinetic energy in a light weight and trouble free package. 50 years from now? Who knows.
I see. still let's say we can run it with a big amount of batteries (or a small nuclear reactor) would just a small turbo or supercharger like those used in cars (with a hint of thermal expansion im talking about getting the air out even hotter and more "charged" you can say) give me good results?
– anton siro
4 hours ago
To just heat the air itself with something, you would need to impart a crazy amount of BTUs of energy into the air to get the required expansion to create the required velocity in an air stream, and would still need a turbine/compressor to get and sustain the cycle because you have to pack a lot of air into a small space before you heat it. I mean, you could probably create some kind of nuclear reaction right in the burner can of a jet engine although you would have radio active exhaust. The basic issue is the sheer amount of energy and mass involved to move something by a jet exhaust.
– John K
3 hours ago
However, you CAN make a turboprop or turboshaft engine that runs on compressed air. It's done with piston engines all the time and there are compressed air cars. For a turboprop/turboshaft, you'd need one mega pressure air tank however. And you'd still need an energy source to compress the air in the first place. No free lunch under the sun....
– John K
3 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
Well, ships have been using turbine engines powered by super-heated water since the late 19th century. But you still have to have an energy source to heat the steam. And it's no good for a "jet" engine since the whole point is thrust by accelerating air through the engine, where the turbine and compressor are there just to keep the cycle going. It would only work for a turbo-prop or turbo-shaft where the turbine's job is to produce torque for doing the work.
Theoretically, you could have a turboprop powered with a steam turbine, or some other heated gas, but you still have to have an energy source. Maybe some kind of weird and wonderful battery powered water heater, or a tiny nuclear reactor? Then you also need a huge supply of water or other fluid or gas to heat up.
It is possible however to have a closed system that recycles the water used for the steam. You then have pretty much a small nuclear power plant or nuclear sub. It's theoretically possible though, to have a nuclear powered turboprop that could fly for months. If it works for subs and aircraft carriers, why not, if you could make the whole thing light enough.
Actually, none of that stuff is really new. There were nuclear powered aircraft concepts in the 50s, that weren't really practical.
The thing about turbine engines powered by kerosene is that it's still the most efficient way to convert potential energy to kinetic energy in a light weight and trouble free package. 50 years from now? Who knows.
Well, ships have been using turbine engines powered by super-heated water since the late 19th century. But you still have to have an energy source to heat the steam. And it's no good for a "jet" engine since the whole point is thrust by accelerating air through the engine, where the turbine and compressor are there just to keep the cycle going. It would only work for a turbo-prop or turbo-shaft where the turbine's job is to produce torque for doing the work.
Theoretically, you could have a turboprop powered with a steam turbine, or some other heated gas, but you still have to have an energy source. Maybe some kind of weird and wonderful battery powered water heater, or a tiny nuclear reactor? Then you also need a huge supply of water or other fluid or gas to heat up.
It is possible however to have a closed system that recycles the water used for the steam. You then have pretty much a small nuclear power plant or nuclear sub. It's theoretically possible though, to have a nuclear powered turboprop that could fly for months. If it works for subs and aircraft carriers, why not, if you could make the whole thing light enough.
Actually, none of that stuff is really new. There were nuclear powered aircraft concepts in the 50s, that weren't really practical.
The thing about turbine engines powered by kerosene is that it's still the most efficient way to convert potential energy to kinetic energy in a light weight and trouble free package. 50 years from now? Who knows.
answered 4 hours ago
John K
11.8k11138
11.8k11138
I see. still let's say we can run it with a big amount of batteries (or a small nuclear reactor) would just a small turbo or supercharger like those used in cars (with a hint of thermal expansion im talking about getting the air out even hotter and more "charged" you can say) give me good results?
– anton siro
4 hours ago
To just heat the air itself with something, you would need to impart a crazy amount of BTUs of energy into the air to get the required expansion to create the required velocity in an air stream, and would still need a turbine/compressor to get and sustain the cycle because you have to pack a lot of air into a small space before you heat it. I mean, you could probably create some kind of nuclear reaction right in the burner can of a jet engine although you would have radio active exhaust. The basic issue is the sheer amount of energy and mass involved to move something by a jet exhaust.
– John K
3 hours ago
However, you CAN make a turboprop or turboshaft engine that runs on compressed air. It's done with piston engines all the time and there are compressed air cars. For a turboprop/turboshaft, you'd need one mega pressure air tank however. And you'd still need an energy source to compress the air in the first place. No free lunch under the sun....
– John K
3 hours ago
add a comment |
I see. still let's say we can run it with a big amount of batteries (or a small nuclear reactor) would just a small turbo or supercharger like those used in cars (with a hint of thermal expansion im talking about getting the air out even hotter and more "charged" you can say) give me good results?
– anton siro
4 hours ago
To just heat the air itself with something, you would need to impart a crazy amount of BTUs of energy into the air to get the required expansion to create the required velocity in an air stream, and would still need a turbine/compressor to get and sustain the cycle because you have to pack a lot of air into a small space before you heat it. I mean, you could probably create some kind of nuclear reaction right in the burner can of a jet engine although you would have radio active exhaust. The basic issue is the sheer amount of energy and mass involved to move something by a jet exhaust.
– John K
3 hours ago
However, you CAN make a turboprop or turboshaft engine that runs on compressed air. It's done with piston engines all the time and there are compressed air cars. For a turboprop/turboshaft, you'd need one mega pressure air tank however. And you'd still need an energy source to compress the air in the first place. No free lunch under the sun....
– John K
3 hours ago
I see. still let's say we can run it with a big amount of batteries (or a small nuclear reactor) would just a small turbo or supercharger like those used in cars (with a hint of thermal expansion im talking about getting the air out even hotter and more "charged" you can say) give me good results?
– anton siro
4 hours ago
I see. still let's say we can run it with a big amount of batteries (or a small nuclear reactor) would just a small turbo or supercharger like those used in cars (with a hint of thermal expansion im talking about getting the air out even hotter and more "charged" you can say) give me good results?
– anton siro
4 hours ago
To just heat the air itself with something, you would need to impart a crazy amount of BTUs of energy into the air to get the required expansion to create the required velocity in an air stream, and would still need a turbine/compressor to get and sustain the cycle because you have to pack a lot of air into a small space before you heat it. I mean, you could probably create some kind of nuclear reaction right in the burner can of a jet engine although you would have radio active exhaust. The basic issue is the sheer amount of energy and mass involved to move something by a jet exhaust.
– John K
3 hours ago
To just heat the air itself with something, you would need to impart a crazy amount of BTUs of energy into the air to get the required expansion to create the required velocity in an air stream, and would still need a turbine/compressor to get and sustain the cycle because you have to pack a lot of air into a small space before you heat it. I mean, you could probably create some kind of nuclear reaction right in the burner can of a jet engine although you would have radio active exhaust. The basic issue is the sheer amount of energy and mass involved to move something by a jet exhaust.
– John K
3 hours ago
However, you CAN make a turboprop or turboshaft engine that runs on compressed air. It's done with piston engines all the time and there are compressed air cars. For a turboprop/turboshaft, you'd need one mega pressure air tank however. And you'd still need an energy source to compress the air in the first place. No free lunch under the sun....
– John K
3 hours ago
However, you CAN make a turboprop or turboshaft engine that runs on compressed air. It's done with piston engines all the time and there are compressed air cars. For a turboprop/turboshaft, you'd need one mega pressure air tank however. And you'd still need an energy source to compress the air in the first place. No free lunch under the sun....
– John K
3 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
As I understand it you want to have a compressor creating compressed air that exits in a high-speed jet, thus causing thrust, but you want the jet to be comprised only of air, not of combustion products.
That describes the air that is accelerated by the fan in a fanjet engine, which provides a substantial portion of the total thrust in such an engine.
Or if you prefer, rather than powering the fan by a turbine, you could power the fan or compressor by a piston engine. The "motorjet" concept (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorjet ) used in the The Caproni Campini N.1 -- ( see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caproni_Campini_N.1 ) might seem to approximate this idea, but in the "motorjet" concept the compressed air IS mixed with fuel and ignited after compression, to provide more thrust than would be provided simply by allowing the compressed air to exit the nozzle without ignition.
There was at least one piston-driven "jet" engine concept in which the air was NOT ignited after compression -- see for example the Coanda-1910 (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coand%C4%83-1910 ). This plane apparently never flew, but a similar engine was used to drive a slow sledge. That seems to be a good match to what you are envisioning.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
As I understand it you want to have a compressor creating compressed air that exits in a high-speed jet, thus causing thrust, but you want the jet to be comprised only of air, not of combustion products.
That describes the air that is accelerated by the fan in a fanjet engine, which provides a substantial portion of the total thrust in such an engine.
Or if you prefer, rather than powering the fan by a turbine, you could power the fan or compressor by a piston engine. The "motorjet" concept (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorjet ) used in the The Caproni Campini N.1 -- ( see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caproni_Campini_N.1 ) might seem to approximate this idea, but in the "motorjet" concept the compressed air IS mixed with fuel and ignited after compression, to provide more thrust than would be provided simply by allowing the compressed air to exit the nozzle without ignition.
There was at least one piston-driven "jet" engine concept in which the air was NOT ignited after compression -- see for example the Coanda-1910 (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coand%C4%83-1910 ). This plane apparently never flew, but a similar engine was used to drive a slow sledge. That seems to be a good match to what you are envisioning.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
As I understand it you want to have a compressor creating compressed air that exits in a high-speed jet, thus causing thrust, but you want the jet to be comprised only of air, not of combustion products.
That describes the air that is accelerated by the fan in a fanjet engine, which provides a substantial portion of the total thrust in such an engine.
Or if you prefer, rather than powering the fan by a turbine, you could power the fan or compressor by a piston engine. The "motorjet" concept (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorjet ) used in the The Caproni Campini N.1 -- ( see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caproni_Campini_N.1 ) might seem to approximate this idea, but in the "motorjet" concept the compressed air IS mixed with fuel and ignited after compression, to provide more thrust than would be provided simply by allowing the compressed air to exit the nozzle without ignition.
There was at least one piston-driven "jet" engine concept in which the air was NOT ignited after compression -- see for example the Coanda-1910 (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coand%C4%83-1910 ). This plane apparently never flew, but a similar engine was used to drive a slow sledge. That seems to be a good match to what you are envisioning.
As I understand it you want to have a compressor creating compressed air that exits in a high-speed jet, thus causing thrust, but you want the jet to be comprised only of air, not of combustion products.
That describes the air that is accelerated by the fan in a fanjet engine, which provides a substantial portion of the total thrust in such an engine.
Or if you prefer, rather than powering the fan by a turbine, you could power the fan or compressor by a piston engine. The "motorjet" concept (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorjet ) used in the The Caproni Campini N.1 -- ( see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caproni_Campini_N.1 ) might seem to approximate this idea, but in the "motorjet" concept the compressed air IS mixed with fuel and ignited after compression, to provide more thrust than would be provided simply by allowing the compressed air to exit the nozzle without ignition.
There was at least one piston-driven "jet" engine concept in which the air was NOT ignited after compression -- see for example the Coanda-1910 (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coand%C4%83-1910 ). This plane apparently never flew, but a similar engine was used to drive a slow sledge. That seems to be a good match to what you are envisioning.
edited 2 hours ago
answered 2 hours ago
quiet flyer
1,282324
1,282324
add a comment |
add a comment |
anton siro is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
anton siro is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
anton siro is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
anton siro is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faviation.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f57523%2fi-wonder-if-its-possible-to-make-a-compressed-air-turbine-engine%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Are you proposing a turbine engine that doesn't use any fuel or other type of input energy at all?
– Tanner Swett
4 hours ago
The way you use "turbine" is very confusing. Turbine is the thing that converts high pressure gas into motion. Compressor is the thing that converts motion into high pressure air. The way a jet engine works is the combination of the two. When you burn fuel, the turbine/exit side has more gas volume and velocity than the compressor/entrance side and you generate thrust. If you want to skip the turbine and use a electric motor or a piston motory, it's perfectly OK.
– user3528438
4 hours ago
I'm totally confused here. Do you want a electric-motor driving a compressor, or do you want compressed air to drive a gas turbine, or something else? Turbofan is basically turbine driving a fan with hot high pressure gas, which comes from a device called gas generator, which uses another turbine to drive a compressor to compress air to burn fuel with to generate hot and high pressure air.
– user3528438
4 hours ago
Why would you want to do this, instead of simply hooking your electric motor to a propellor, as with drones &c? I'm pretty sure it would be extremely inefficient to use batteries to heat & compress air, then push that through a turbine.
– jamesqf
2 hours ago