[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

But there is no apparent reason for that tip velocity to equal the exhaust velocity "v", and I should think the ultimate tip velocity would be very much higher.

Sadly not.

The fuel of mass 'dm' must have been accelerated by an overall velocity increment of V to enter the engine (actually slightly less, but typical flow rates are only a few meters/second typically, so I will neglect it). This gives it a momentum increment of dm V.

The mass then leaves the nozzle with a velocity dm Ve. For the tip to have reached a maximum speed, the linear momenta balance:

dm V = dm Ve

i.e. V = Ve

(You can complicate things by considering angular momentum, but the result is the same- the above linear momentum relationship is for in the instantaneous frame of reference of the tip.)

From an energy point of view:

Let the kinetic energy of the exhaust be 0.5 dm Ve2. But the rocket nozzle is not 100% efficient, with an efficiency of e. For example 0.9. So the overall energy of the exhaust shall be 1/e * 0.5 dm Ve2, including thermal energy of the exhaust.

Let the propellent energy be dm P.

Then for energy conservation (again in the instantaneous frame of reference of the tip.):

0.5 dm V2 + dm P =  1/e*0.5 dm Ve2

But V = Ve, so putting this in and rearranging:

V = sqr(2P e/(1-e))

So that is a closed form estimate for the final speed of the rotor. Note that e mostly depends on the expansion ratio of the nozzle; and in any case is generally pretty high. If we put it to 0.9 (90%) we get:

V = 3 sqr(2P)

The energy of a kg of propellent is generally in the multiple megajoules, so the rotation speed is likely to be rather excessive :-)

The kinetic energy of the exhaust in the inertial frame should equal the chemical energy of the propellant-which, at a large distance, would be apparent as a positive radial velocity of propellant mass increments moving outward in spiral waves. This seems not that much different from what happens in a lawn sprinkler, except that some of the exhaust energy comes from chemical reactions rather than feed pressure.

I believe that it is the friction, air drag and viscosity losses that cause the water to radiate out; in the lossless case the water presumably would simply fall to the ground.

--Best, Gerald
_______________________________________________
ERPS-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listinfo/erps-list




_______________________________________________ ERPS-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listinfo/erps-list

Reply via email to