John Carmack wrote: > > At 11:20 PM 11/18/2002 -0500, you wrote: > >Not sure what you mean. Can you elaborate? > > > >Dan > > > >In a message dated 11/18/02 8:14:21 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > ><< In that case, it might very well be the foam catalyst pack. I could > >easily > >see 5G acceleration opening and closing pores. >> > > The relatively loosely packed foam discs are probably the element of the > system most easily impacted by dynamic effects. > > Have you fired the engine in the vehicle with it restrained, and had it run > smooth there, only to run rough when it is unrestrained? > > You had it run rough in a blow-down flight, then run smooth on the test > stand afterwards?
It's a little hard to compare, since the good runs on the test stand had a flex hose in between the valve and the engine inlet, which may have provided some sort of damping effect. (The hose allowed us to mount the engine independently of the tankage, in order to facilitate coupling its thrust force into the load cell.) We haven't done much if any real test work in the "as-flown" configuration with the engine close-coupled to the valve outlet (which gives a straight shot from the tank into the engine inlet dome). We went to the "remote mount" in order to get good load cell data, when we realized that our restraint scheme for static testing in the "all-up" configuration was applying spurious forces that masked the measured thrust. -dave w _______________________________________________ ERPS-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listinfo/erps-list
