|
|
Ed,
Looking at that design ( which is very interesting) would you need more than
one 5" cone - I would suggest not.
Mine and Bill's design don't have holes in the cone, but merely used the
cone to redirect the shock wave.
I must say I do like this particular design, but I wonder how well it works,
it looks interesting enough to work well.
George ( down under)
Hadn't really thought about it, Bob. But, I would say they need to be
make
out of SS (304, 316 or 321), would need at least a 30-45 deg angle to the
cone and be a min of 0.090 thick. The diameter would depend on the size
of
tube being used. I would think not smaller than around 2 1/2 - 3". They
would need some perforations punched in the metal before making them into
cones. The idea is to break up the shock wave but not seriously hinder
the
flow of gas. This is the design that you see on the market for exhaust
inserts. See this URL
http://www.secureperformanceorder.com/dynatechstore/getproduct.cfm?CategoryI
D=30&ClassID=278&SubclassID=1309&ProductID=2476
(Note: need to past both halves of URL address into your browser's address
window).
From what I think I understood in reading about exhausts, my idea was to
have a series of cones in a tube such that the would form a series of
expansion chambers. The cone would force the exhaust gas against the
sides
of the tube (area between cone and tube), then expand into a chamber
between
a pair of cones and then again have the gas forced against the outside (to
the tube wall) by a cone and then into another expansion chamber.
Supposedly this contraction/expansion is good for reducing the shock wave.
I do know that after several experiments that 1/8" thick stainless steel
just won't stand up to the shock wave of a turbo block (without exhaust
splitters) for any period of time if oriented perpendicular to the shock
wave.
Ed
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Perkinson" <bobperk@bellsouth.net>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2006 7:26 AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: new hangar
> Ed,
> What would be the dimensions of the cones if someone were to make them?
>
> Bob Perkinson
> Hendersonville, TN.
> RV9 N658RP Reserved
> If nothing changes
> Nothing changes
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Sounds like the right formula, George - will wait for your project's
> outcome
> before I try cones. Yes, I did find some cone inserts at $60.00 USD
> each.
> I would need 4 for my two tubes - hummm makes one tube sound better all
> the
> time.
>
> Ed
>
>>
>>> Just the shells, TJ, the 1/8" thick SS washers are history. I have
>>> concluded that no reasonable thickness of metal will stand up to the
>> exhaust
>>> pulse for long if it is perpendicular to the shock wave. I believe
that
>> if
>>> I could shape them into cones where by the shock wave would hit the
side
>> of
>>> the cone at an oblique angle would probably survive - now all I have
>>> to
>> do
>>> is find some {:>).
>>>
>>> Ed
>>
>> Ed,
>> There plenty of SS cones available in 1.6mm, I'm using them in my
exhaust
>> which is a joint venture design with Bill Jepson - the idea is to
>> redirect
>> the shock waves but not restrict the exhaust, as you have alluded to.
>> George ( down under)
>
>
> --
> Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/
> Archive and UnSub: http://mail.lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/
>
--
Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/
Archive and UnSub: http://mail.lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/
|
|