X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com ([64.102.122.149] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2c1) with ESMTP id 2605547 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 13:07:56 -0500 Received-SPF: softfail receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.102.122.149; envelope-from=echristley@nc.rr.com Received: from rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com ([64.102.121.158]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 19 Dec 2007 13:07:09 -0500 Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (rtp-core-1.cisco.com [64.102.124.12]) by rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id lBJI79SP029201 for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 13:07:09 -0500 Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id lBJI6nvj006137 for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 18:07:09 GMT Received: from xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.38]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 19 Dec 2007 13:06:33 -0500 Received: from [64.102.38.143] ([64.102.38.143]) by xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 19 Dec 2007 13:06:33 -0500 Message-ID: <47695DB1.40602@nc.rr.com> Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 13:06:41 -0500 From: Ernest Christley Reply-To: echristley@nc.rr.com User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.14pre (X11/20071023) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Supercharging References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Dec 2007 18:06:33.0165 (UTC) FILETIME=[E33F87D0:01C84269] Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-1; header.From=echristley@nc.rr.com; dkim=neutral Ed Anderson wrote: > Gee, Ernest, I don't know. > > But, perhaps we can get a handle on it starting with F = m*a. > > lets take one cubic foot of air and assume no losses in accelerating > it from 0 to 150 Mph. Now we need a time interval and it has to be > around 1 rpm (one revolution of the blades) so that is approx 60/7000 > = 0.00857 sec/rev. Since we want 600 cfm of air to flow at 150 mph we > need to have the blower flow 600/7000 = 0.857 CF per revolution. > 0.857 * 7000 = 600 CFM - checks! > > At 7000 rpm the e shaft needs 0.00857 sec per rev. So we want to > accelerate 0.857 CF of air from zero to 150 mph in 0.00857 seconds. > > A cubic foot of air has a mass of 0.0765 lbs at sea level. So M = > 0.0765 lbs. We need to accelerate it to 150 mph or 220 ft/sec > velocity in 0.0086 seconds. So dV/dt = A = 200 ft/sec/0.0086 sec = > 25,666 ft/sec^2 or 25666/32 = 802 Gs acceleration. Therefore F = m*a > = 0.0765 * 25666 = 1963.5 lbf/sec = 1963.5*0.001818 = 3.56 HP Since > we continuously need to accelerate that amount of air it would appear > that not counting for any losses that you would need approx 3.56 HP or > approx 1/2 of the amount your increase air supply might contribute to > power increase in the engine. I've been double checking your numbers, and I think I have a correction. -"We want to accelerate 0.857 CF of air from zero to 150 mph in 0.00857 seconds" and "A cubic foot of air has a mass of 0.0765 lbs at sea level. " So M = .857 * .0765 = .0656 - You change the velocity from 220 ft/sec to 200ft/sec, but I think this was just a typo, and you're actually doing the numbers in a seperate calculator. The numbers I'm getting don't come up exactly with what you have...but close. - With the correction, F=m*a=0.0656*25670=1684 lbf/sec * 0.001818 => 3.06 Hp. This is for delivery of 600CFM. 300CFM would use half of that. Even 50% efficiency should yield significantly more power than is used. I did have some numbers before, but they're just marketing numbers and therefor offer no guarantee of resembling reality. In fact, Tanaka's claims appear to be very suspect.