Quantcast

20 - 40% more power from any motor

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

aviator

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
58
Reaction score
0
I am in the process of designing a simple system which will increase the thrust of any motor by at least 20%. Tests have already shown improvements in thrust in some APCP motors of up to 40%.

More information on the 'Avion-X Project' to follow..
 

Lentamental

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2009
Messages
363
Reaction score
1
Um... Any motor?
Are we talking the full range, 1/4A through R?
Knowing the physics of how a rocket engine works, I have a hard time imagining any strap on thing increasing the thrust it puts out, seeing as how they generally calculate the size and shapes of their nozzles pretty well. What are you getting at here?
 

aviator

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
58
Reaction score
0
The system works with any motor which uses an oxidizer and a fuel component.

Another interesting point is that, it is reusable; even on BP motors.

20 - 40% guaranteed for a very slight design change..

The math has shown so far that the larger the impulse the greater the return as an increase in thrust.
 

cjl

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
12,549
Reaction score
5
Any details? I find this rather unlikely, since a 40% thrust increase without a change in burntime on a standard APCP motor would result in an isp of around 260-300 seconds, which is higher than NASA is able to achieve on extremely large, extremely well optimized solid boosters. You could definitely gain a bit, since most APCP hobby motors are underexpanded, but a nozzle extension would be difficult and give at most a couple of percent gain.
 

DAllen

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
4,820
Reaction score
755
Ohhh...this could be interesting getting some strap-on system to pass through the NAR and TRA testing and motor certification process. If I understand it correctly, modifications to commercial motors need recertification even if you are flying a TRA research launch.

:pop:

Sorry, but I am having a REALLY hard time believing this one.

-Dave
 

shreadvector

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
9,041
Reaction score
198
Maybe you pop your motor inside a big metal casing with a much longer nozzle with a much smaller throat and it will increase the pressure which will either make the black powder motors blow through or make the APCP motors burn rate increase to the point they fail in any number of ways from a blow through to a casing rupture to a seal failure followed by uncontrolled burning surface and general flaming badness?

View attachment themodyn.zip
 

aviator

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
58
Reaction score
0
I hoped this thread would peak the interest of the wider rocketry community. It looks like it has.

Let me assure all readers that this is proven technology.


Any motor inc. hybrids, tribrids and experimentals in all sub, trans. and super sonic regions.

It works, every time, all the time.
 

jj94

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
4,026
Reaction score
0
I'm starting to get interested. When will details be released?
 

Peartree

Cyborg Rocketeer
Staff member
Administrator
Global Mod
Joined
Jan 6, 2009
Messages
5,072
Reaction score
598
Location
Alliance, Ohio
I hoped this thread would peak the interest of the wider rocketry community.
Sorry man, but I gotta do this...
(from Merriam Webster's Online Dictionary)

: peak
· Function: noun
· Etymology: perhaps alteration of pike
· Date: 1530
1 : a pointed or projecting part of a garment; especially : the visor of a cap or hat
2 : promontory
3 : a sharp or pointed end
4 a (1) : the top of a hill or mountain ending in a point (2) : a prominent mountain usually having a well-defined summit b : something resembling a mountain peak
5 a : the upper aftermost corner of a fore-and-aft sail b : the narrow part of a ship's bow or stern or the part of the hold in it
6 a : the highest level or greatest degree b : a high point in a course of development especially as represented on a graph


pique
· Function: transitive verb
· Inflected Form(s): piqued; piqu·ing
· Etymology: French piquer, literally, to prick — more at pike
· Date: 1669
1 : to arouse anger or resentment in : irritate <what piques linguistic conservatives — T. H. Middleton>
2 a : to excite or arouse especially by a provocation, challenge, or rebuff <sly remarks to pique their curiosity>
 

DaveHein

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2009
Messages
607
Reaction score
12
Any details? I find this rather unlikely, since a 40% thrust increase without a change in burntime on a standard APCP motor would result in an isp of around 260-300 seconds, which is higher than NASA is able to achieve on extremely large, extremely well optimized solid boosters. You could definitely gain a bit, since most APCP hobby motors are underexpanded, but a nozzle extension would be difficult and give at most a couple of percent gain.
Aviator's claim is that he can increase the thrust by 20% to 40%. He is not claiming an increase in effiency or Isp. If the burn time is shortened the thrust could be increased resulting in the same impulse and Isp. However, the pressure would be higher, which could result in a motor failure.

It's also possible to modify motors to have higher thrust, but lower Isp. I believe you could add inert materials to the propellant, which would increase the thrust, but make the motor much less efficient.

Dave
 

bobkrech

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2009
Messages
8,354
Reaction score
31
Paul

You can't get something for nothing.

In order to increase the thrust of a rocket motor, you have to increase the Isp. Just about the only way to do this without modifying the motor is to add an air-augmentation device and use atmospheric oxygen to afterburn the low molecular weight fuel rich exhaust. Typically the additional weight and drag of paractical air augmentation devices negate any potential advantages of air augemetation.

Purpose-built ducted rocket/ramjet motors used in the Orbital Sciences GQM-163 Coyote utilize air augmentation of an oxidizer-lean solid propellant. The sustainer propulsion system consists of an Atlantic Research Corporation (now Aerojet) MARC-R-282 solid-fueled ducted rocket/ramjet engine, which can propel the Coyote to speeds of up to Mach 2.8 at sea level. http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-163.html

If you have something different, NAR S&T would be willing to test it. PM me to make arrangements.

Bob
 
Last edited:

dave carver

Nam Myoho Renge Kyo
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
4,972
Reaction score
4
Well, when you consider that in most cases the nozzles are grossly under sized for the altitude they fly from. The diameter of the nozzle exit for flights at sealevel are vastly different from the dimensions for flights from, let's say, Hartsel(sp?) Colorado. 1 nozzle on a commerical(Aerotech) turned out to be optimized for flights from Death Valley, like 300 ft below sealevel:rolleyes:

So some kind of nozzle exit extension for proper expansion at a given altitude would work, setting it up would be the problem. With all the different perameters of all the different motor sizes and types and the almost limitless amount of different altitudes where the optimal nozzle would be required to work each and every nozzle extension would have to be made custom in a machine shop. The best compromize for exact expansion would be like shooting for an expansion that is perfect halfway through the burn, slightly oversized at the start, going through the perfect point, and finishing up slightly undersized.

Such a nozzle extension would give you a performance boost depending on how bad the design is, the worse it is the better for the nozzle performance boost.

Then it comes down to what the manufactures think, is it a mod to the motor?
 

jadebox

Roger Smith
TRF Sponsor
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
5,709
Reaction score
203
Aviator's claim is that he can increase the thrust by 20% to 40%. He is not claiming an increase in effiency or Isp.
'Course, the subject of this thread is "20 - 40% more power from any motor."

Aviator said the improvement is due to a "design change."

Obviously, simple changes to the design of the motor can affect the thrust curve of the motor. That's one reason why we have such a wide range of motors available to us.

But, "to any motor" does imply some sort of add-on or modification of an assembled motor. I find it hard to believe you can acheive a significant increase in performance of any rocket motor without some trade-off such as increasing the weight of the motor or sacrificing the safety margins built into the original design.

-- Roger
 
Last edited:

daveyfire

Piled Higher and Deeper
TRF Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Jan 26, 2009
Messages
3,218
Reaction score
54
Location
thank u, next
Let me assure all readers that this is proven technology.
So I guess that rules out the more exotic combined-cycle propulsion options...

Any motor inc. hybrids, tribrids and experimentals in all sub, trans. and super sonic regions.
...and that rules out rocket ramjets...

I hoped this thread would peak the interest of the wider rocketry community. It looks like it has.
I'm more incredulous than interested. If you can draw a diagram with calculated thermodynamic states at important points, I'd be more interested. Entropy bites.
 

DaveHein

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2009
Messages
607
Reaction score
12
'Course, the subject of this thread is "20 - 40% more power from any motor."
I am guessing that aviator is using the word "power" in an informal way, and not as the formal definition. Of course, if his modification increases the burn rate it will increase the thrust and the instantaneous power level. However, the total chemical energy generated will still be the same unless he has determined a way to get more energy out of the chemical reaction.

aviator has certainly peaked my interest in this subject. However, since it has already reached its peak, my interest is now declining on this subject. :)

Dave
 

kramer714

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2009
Messages
697
Reaction score
10
not to sound skeptical but....

It is amazing...... (but I'm not going to give any details)
It works on EVERYTHING....... (but I'm not going to tell you how)
It uses proven technology........ (but I wont tell you who proved it)

Add in a Nigerian person looking for someone to trust and this is half the spam e-mails I get
 

aviator

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
58
Reaction score
0
There are no new ideas just augmentations....

To all of you who have been good enough to reply to this thread thanks.
 

shreadvector

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
9,041
Reaction score
198
Maybe you pop your motor inside a big metal casing with a much longer nozzle with a much smaller throat and it will increase the pressure which will either make the black powder motors blow through or make the APCP motors burn rate increase to the point they fail in any number of ways from a blow through to a casing rupture to a seal failure followed by uncontrolled burning surface and general flaming badness?
http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~brians/errors/errors.html#errors

http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~brians/errors/peaked.html


As I said earlier:
 

Attachments

bobkrech

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2009
Messages
8,354
Reaction score
31
Well, when you consider that in most cases the nozzles are grossly under sized for the altitude they fly from. The diameter of the nozzle exit for flights at sealevel are vastly different from the dimensions for flights from, let's say, Hartsel(sp?) Colorado. 1 nozzle on a commerical(Aerotech) turned out to be optimized for flights from Death Valley, like 300 ft below sealevel:rolleyes:

So some kind of nozzle exit extension for proper expansion at a given altitude would work, setting it up would be the problem. With all the different perameters of all the different motor sizes and types and the almost limitless amount of different altitudes where the optimal nozzle would be required to work each and every nozzle extension would have to be made custom in a machine shop. The best compromize for exact expansion would be like shooting for an expansion that is perfect halfway through the burn, slightly oversized at the start, going through the perfect point, and finishing up slightly undersized.

Such a nozzle extension would give you a performance boost depending on how bad the design is, the worse it is the better for the nozzle performance boost.

Then it comes down to what the manufactures think, is it a mod to the motor?
It is better to err on the underexpansion side than overexpansion. The under expanison in many commercial hobby motors is not enough to make more than a few percent difference in Isp for a given chamber pressure. Run PROPEP and you'll see this.

Changing the throat diameter however can dramatically change the Isp and the thrust from a given motor. Decreasing the throad diameter will increase the chamber pressure and the Isp and total impulse but increases the risk of a CATO due to casing over-pressurization Increasing the throat diameter will increase the mass flow and increase the thrust, however this reduces the Isp and total impulse.

Both are motor modifications and decertifies the motor.

Bob
 

aviator

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
58
Reaction score
0
Sorry man, but I gotta do this...
(from Merriam Webster's Online Dictionary)

: peak
· Function: noun
· Etymology: perhaps alteration of pike
· Date: 1530
1 : a pointed or projecting part of a garment; especially : the visor of a cap or hat
2 : promontory
3 : a sharp or pointed end
4 a (1) : the top of a hill or mountain ending in a point (2) : a prominent mountain usually having a well-defined summit b : something resembling a mountain peak
5 a : the upper aftermost corner of a fore-and-aft sail b : the narrow part of a ship's bow or stern or the part of the hold in it
6 a : the highest level or greatest degree b : a high point in a course of development especially as represented on a graph


pique
· Function: transitive verb
· Inflected Form(s): piqued; piqu·ing
· Etymology: French piquer, literally, to prick — more at pike
· Date: 1669
1 : to arouse anger or resentment in : irritate <what piques linguistic conservatives — T. H. Middleton>
2 a : to excite or arouse especially by a provocation, challenge, or rebuff <sly remarks to pique their curiosity>
English was never my strong point... you should see my handwriting. Phew!
 

shreadvector

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
9,041
Reaction score
198
It is better to err on the underexpansion side than overexpansion. The under expanison in many commercial hobby motors is not enough to make more than a few percent difference in Isp for a given chamber pressure. Run PROPEP and you'll see this.

Changing the throat diameter however can dramatically change the Isp and the thrust from a given motor. Decreasing the throad diameter will increase the chamber pressure and the Isp and total impulse but increases the risk of a CATO due to casing over-pressurization Increasing the throat diameter will increase the mass flow and increase the thrust, however this reduces the Isp and total impulse.

Both are motor modifications and decertifies the motor.

Bob
Tsk, tsk. A smart guy like you using the incorrect false acronym "CATO". :eek: :p
 

ttabbal

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
1,080
Reaction score
21
I'm sure we'll all be quite interested once it's been tested by an independant third party, like the NAR S&T (they even offered to test it for you). Right now it's just vaporware as you are keeping the design secret. I certainly won't buy one until I see results from indepandant testing.
 

cjl

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
12,549
Reaction score
5
Aviator's claim is that he can increase the thrust by 20% to 40%. He is not claiming an increase in effiency or Isp. If the burn time is shortened the thrust could be increased resulting in the same impulse and Isp. However, the pressure would be higher, which could result in a motor failure.

It's also possible to modify motors to have higher thrust, but lower Isp. I believe you could add inert materials to the propellant, which would increase the thrust, but make the motor much less efficient.

Dave
You'll notice that I did specify "without a change in burntime" in my statement. If the burn rate is changed, you could increase the thrust, but that would require changing the propellant, the pressure, or both. You could not increase the thrust by adding inert materials to the propellant, but you could do it by adding catalysts. That would probably decertify the motor though...
 

cjl

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
12,549
Reaction score
5
It is better to err on the underexpansion side than overexpansion. The under expanison in many commercial hobby motors is not enough to make more than a few percent difference in Isp for a given chamber pressure. Run PROPEP and you'll see this.

Changing the throat diameter however can dramatically change the Isp and the thrust from a given motor. Decreasing the throad diameter will increase the chamber pressure and the Isp and total impulse but increases the risk of a CATO due to casing over-pressurization Increasing the throat diameter will increase the mass flow and increase the thrust, however this reduces the Isp and total impulse.

Both are motor modifications and decertifies the motor.

Bob
Bob - wouldn't an increase in throat diameter, all other things equal, decrease the mass flow and the thrust in a solid rocket motor due to the decreased burnrate of the propellant at a lower pressure?
 
Top