Timestamps: 0:00: Welcome to Hard Reset 2:54: Astro Mechanica HQ 4:24: An affordable, electric plane 4:52: The tech powering AM 5:41: A turboelectric, adaptive engine 10:22: Chaos vs. order 13:13: Choosing liquified natural gas 14:53: The hot fire test 16:42: The toast test 18:30: A ‘Hard Reset’ on air travel
I kind of disagree with the closing statement of this video. Travel time hasn't been the primary blocker of international travel for decades, it is cost and security. A faster plane wouldn't make the world smaller as much as cheaper flights and lowering passport restrictions would.
Why - we have BETTER: "We don't need ANY of this. We have perfected ZPE (Zero Point Energy/Quantum Energy from the Aether). How do we KNOW this? Easy...it was WEAPONIZED and implemented as a TELEPORTER system (wormhole, whatever). Point A to Point B - ANYWHERE. There is VIDEO surveillance footage from TWO GOVERNMENT SOURCES...showing the technology in ACTION...we've had it for DECADES. The powers that be...do not want disclosure. WE MUSH PUSH for it. It is a civilization game changer. NO MORE POVERTY, WAR, HUNGER...ever.
A lot of people are missing the point in the comments. Yes adding a gas turbine adds weight and loses in efficiency. The strenght of such a design is decoupling the design constrains of a jet engine. Generally the higher one flyes the less drag but one needs to also fly faster to maintain lift. Problem is traditional jet engines stall out because they cant work well at low and high speeds. Think of it this way. You can fly at mach 1 and have X amount of drag thus needing X trust. Or you could fly at mach 3 but higher where the air is 9x thinner so again you only need X trust but now for only 1/3 of the time to reach your destination. But making an engine that is high power at mach 3 and doesnt blow up on take off at sea level is a rather difficult task. Now these guys are very very far away from making it work, but the concept is rational and plausible. The just wanna make a ramjet optimised for mach 3 and add an electic motor for getting up to speed and altitude.
@@JoeyBlogs007 that is also a factor. In my above example that aircraft would be taking in 1/3 the oxygen since 3x speed at 1/9 air pressure. So it would have 1/3 the power but would need to maintain X thrust.
Your right in that in the 3rd part of operation, it becomes a ramjet. However, the electric intake fan is completely bypassed at that point. Litterally no longer in use for any propulsion. The hard part is the 2nd mid section partial burn, where the burning mid section both provides aft thrust and generates power for an electric motor to spin the front fan. These two things work together upto near mach 1, but when going transonic, the fan will need a variable intake and bypass cone like the SR 71 had as its speed increases until the intake fan isn't providing thrust and can be bypassed. Also managing the shockwave, they must somehow heat the front fan section up with burning methane or bypass and direct the schockwave to the methane burning mid section and slow it to just under mach 1, which is around 1,500 mph at 1000 deg C . Methane or jet fuel is used to get the aircraft beyond 1.5-2.0 mach so that the ram effect using the afterburner can start. A problem not mentioned is Electric motors have horse power deficit limitations compared to a turbine engine which turns the front fan for low speed thrust. There are no 50,000 horse power electric motors that are light. In fact, there are NO 50,000+ hp electric motors period, whIch is what the front fan section on each engine on a supersonic airliner would need. The closest thing is 2,400 hp electric traction motors which rail road locomotives use (usually 2 to 4 per locomotive) These are beefy and too heavy for aviation use. Plus R.R. electric motors are simply not powerful enough. So there's that. Ramjets similar in design to the SR 71 used when the front fan and turbojet center section is bypassed, have mach 5 speed capability. But ironically, right now, the show stopper is the complete lack of a lightweight 50,000 horse power electric motor to go from a stop to about mach 0.8. I also fail to see why even if the was a 50,000 hp electric motor to turn the front section, even at 95% effeciency, a standard turbine section mechanically driving front fan blades would be more effecient than a turbine turning a generator to make electric power for a 50,000 hp electric motor that does not exist. At least at over mach 0.5 or so. A turbine generator set up would be more effecient with less fuel usage at idle, and low economy power, but not when pushing past mach 0.7 and into the mach 0.9 to mach 1.2 transonic range.
Power to them. I really hope they make it happen, it ticks so many boxes. It's surprising that the jet engine hasn't changed that much in all this time.
I've been pushing for this for years. Every time I said it was possible some Aerospace jet engineer said I was crazy. I want this design for a jet pack. Well mostly this design, it should be possible to add rotating detonation as well. If AI can get cold fusion to work, suborbital intercontinental ballistic jet packing should be possible. Anywhere to anywhere in 20-ish minutes. Depending on your reentry modality. Bringing an alibative surfboard would get you down faster than a retro burn.
US-based Venus Aerospace is currently developing a jet engine that it claims could go as fast as Mach 6. And reports of a Chinese aircraft has already completed its test at a speed of M4 recently was widely echoing amongst many reputable channels, I wonder it is true.
I built the perfect electric car. The front wheels were driven by an electric motor and the rear wheels powered a generator to provide the power. One push to get it going and off it went, or so I thought. LOL I was 9 years old at the time and the worst part was that my late father, (who was a chartered electrical engineer) sat and watched me building it. It sounded cruel, but I learned a lot more in those few weeks than they would have taught me at school. PS, All this was about 65 years ago and I went on to become a design engineer.
I had this idea as well years ago, drew it out and everything. But everything in Aviation runs on Green. I think now though I'm going to start patenting ideas when they pop into my head lol
So the turbine is replaced with a electric motor. This electric motor then gets electricity from a gas turbine generator. Where do you gain efficiency? If I guess its because a single gas turbine can run at max efficiency and power multiple electric motors. The Electric jet engines then are more efficient because no rotor is blocking the exhaust. Am i understanding this correctly? Love it, very cool!
The best land-based combined cycle gas turbines reach only 55% efficiency. I think you're correct, there are no efficiency gains but instead huge losses with this concept. A conventional turbine has an efficiency of 90+ %.
@@ihateemaelengines can be designed to be extremely fuel efficient when they are made to hold a very specific RPM, that could potentially make this kind of idea more efficient than the traditional gas turbine we use currently. It’s an idea we already use for our train engines, a very efficient diesel generator runs as needed to charge batteries that drive the electric powertrain.
I think there is a turbine in the exhaust. The efficiency comes from the ability to change the speed of the compressor independently of the turbine. Most jet engines only have one moving part. The turbine and compressor are moving together on the same shaft.
Turbo electric does not work. Look up the Rolls Royce EfanX. Rolls completely failed, because this set up is too complex, too heavy, and too hot. How on earth can this be lighter than a simple shaft drive? It is nuts. R
10 years ago, I may have agreed with you. But after watching SpaceX redefine the complexity of rocket engines in all the primary builders rocket engines told him it wouldn’t work and now he’s dominating them. Never discount the little guy with an idea and drive.
It just all depends on what you are trying to achieve. Personally, I think they would be better off having 1 electric and 1 2 stage mechanical compressor. When you taxi, you could be all electric. When you fire the engine, you use all 3 stages. When you are at cruise, you can shut off the electric stage and run on a smaller, more efficient mechanical compressor.
I don't think that it's more fuel efficient. A 90+% efficiency turbine is being replaced by a gas turbine that has at most a 55% efficiency, which then loses energy in the alternator, electronics, batteries and finally the electric motors that drive the compressor? Am I correct or did I miss something? About being able to fly at both subsonic, supersonic and hypersonic speeds, you just need a turbojet and a dual-mode ramjet in two different ducts. Check the SR-72 concept from Lockheed.
It's fuel efficient in the sense that losses are reduced in flight because the compressor stage can be turned off. Conventional engines cannot stop the compressor when the air velocity is high enough that it doesnt require a compressor anymore. As for the SR-72, that is a less viable solution for commercial flight. This electric hybrid turbojet should have less moving parts to work.
Yep you did. Gas turbines are very efficient, but most efficient in a very small RPM range. By designing a fixed RPM gas turbine running on methane to generate electricity, which then powers an electric motor without those flaws, you end up with a fuel source that has the energy density of hydrocarbons but the efficiency of battery power. Once the airflow is supersonic it then bypasses the entire compressor stage and converts into a pure ramjet (which isn't novel in itself), except now you don't have to restart the 1st stage compressor when it slows to subsonic, because its electric you just turn the power back on and spin it back up. Effectively what they have done is create an inverted high bypass electric ducted fan with an afterburner on the back.
@NeilStansbury you did not answer the question. How does replacing a turbine stage that has a 90+% efficiency with a gas turbibe that has a 55-% efficiency to drive the compressor would increase the overall efficiency? 😂
@@Quatuux I think you've misunderstood what they have done - it wasn't brilliantly explained in the video. A "Gas Turbine" is made of 3 parts - compressor, combustion chamber, turbine - their collective efficiency is based on a ton of factors, from compressor ratios, no. of shafts, air density & temperature (eg. altitude), speed etc etc. Aircraft also have the advantage of being able to use the "ram effect". These guys have taken a variable RPM "gas turbine" and made it a *fixed* RPM gas turbine that is used to generate electricity rather than accelerate air (as in a normal A/C engine). In other words the turbine stage is *still* there, it just runs continually at an optimal RPM, one (or all) of the turbine shafts are connected to a generator. The electricity is used to spin what is effectively a multi-stage ducted fan. Have a read up on the Rolls Royce E-Fan, RR thought it would be at least 10% more efficient
This configuration of electric driver fans with a turbo generator is extremely efficient because you can recoup a lot of heat through recirculation. I thought it would be suitable for Lilian's aerotaxi for similar reasons that it also suits a supersonic aircraft.
Jet engine 25-30% efficient Generator 90% Power cable Wires and control module Efficiency ? Unknown (less than 100%. ) Electric Motor 90% You are loosing efficiency every step.
I‘d rather have the world keep up with all the technological advances. That would help in dealing with misinformation and lying, narcissist politicians.🙃
I started talking about this being possible years ago. This has happened to me dozens of times. People forget engineers use the internet. The haters actually make comments more visible to the people who are capable of implementing them. The best way to motivate an engineer, is to tell them something is impossible, once it's proved possible.
This is what's AHEAD: "We don't need ANY of this. We have perfected ZPE (Zero Point Energy/Quantum Energy from the Aether). How do we KNOW this? Easy...it was WEAPONIZED and implemented as a TELEPORTER system (wormhole, whatever). Point A to Point B - ANYWHERE. There is VIDEO surveillance footage from TWO GOVERNMENT SOURCES...showing the technology in ACTION...we've had it for DECADES. The powers that be...do not want disclosure. WE MUSH PUSH for it. It is a civilization game changer. NO MORE POVERTY, WAR, HUNGER...ever.
@@jonahshill7084 I would like to hear what the issues with the idea is, I am only interested in engineering, I dont actually know what the problems might be.
@@uIz_slc it’s a bit long winded so I’ll just list. Hopefully my reply isn’t not too long. if it is here is the jist of it: ** the Concord program was shut down because of high fuel costs, high maintenance costs, small passenger capacity, limited market (flight route limitations and narrow customer base because of costs) and poor emissions. the idea that is proposed here has not addressed any of these.actually, it seems like this idea only makes these issues bigger. 1) assuming they manage to achieve the same efficiency for combustion as conventional engines, they would have compounded losses due to energy conversion (mechanical to electrical for the generator, electrical to mechanical for both motors). So assuming 60% combustion efficiency and 95% conversion efficiency you would have 60% x 95% (mech to elec) x 95% (elec to mech) = 54.15% overall efficiency. If you already had 60% efficiency without electrification, you lose 5.85% efficiency for no reason 2) even if electrification could save you 2 tons of fuel taxiing (compared to Concord), the losses in efficiency over long distances costs you more. Currently, supersonic air travel is banned over land because the sonic boom was so disruptive to people on the ground. And supersonic air travel doesn’t really have major benefits over short flights ie going twice as fast for a 60 minute flight could reduce travel by 30 minutes, but the cost of the tickets and higher maintenance costs wouldn’t really be worth the 30 minute benefit. So longer flights would have to be the operating territory. Over longer flights, taxiing losses make up a smaller and smaller percentage of fuel consumption. So if conventional planes are 5% more efficient in the air over a flight that consumes 100 tons of fuel they save 5 tons of fuel. This offsets taxiing losses by at least 3 tons (keeping in mind that 2 tons of taxiing losses is the losses for concord, not current planes, so that difference might be even bigger). so their design is inherently less efficient. 3) he claims that using liquid natural gasses generated using carbon dioxide extracted from the atmosphere will be the solution. Carbon dioxide makes up less than 0.1% of the atmosphere. The energy needed to sift through enough air to suck up 1kg of CO2 would be way more efficiently used by generating biofuels. beyond this, the energy efficiency of convert carbon dioxide into ethanol (which is way to volatile for planes to use) is currently 50% at the absolute maximum (typical values are 35%). to get less volatile, more usable fuels, the energy efficiency would be even worse. considering the amount of fuel need to operate at supersonic speeds, the production of infrastructure (CO2 capture, catalysts, renewable energy infrastructure, other reactants needed for the conversion, etc.), and infrastructure maintenance the overall energy consumption would be likely far surpass that of conventional planes. 4) synthetic fuels are EXPENSIVE, and the air travel industry is famously reliant on fuel prices to remain even slightly profitable. supersonic air travel requires more fuel to maintain their speed due to drag, so their planes would consume far more fuel, especially over long distances. 6) most people won’t be willing to pay a price which is exorbitantly high just to get to where they are going a few hour quicker. Especially if that same money could be spend getting first class tickets and better accommodation if spend on conventional planes. 7) weight and space are at a premium on planes. This systems effectively requires the space and weight of 3 engines to get the power output of a maximum of 2 engines. because of the added auxiliaries needed to operate the generators and motors the weight and space requirements might mean more energy even greater fuel requirements, while being able to transport fewer people. now, the Concord could carry a maximum of 128 passengers over 3 500 miles, using 94 000 litres of fuel. a Boeing 747-400 can also travel 3 500 miles while consuming 94 000 litres of fuel, but it can carry 500 passengers. even assuming that this guys company can come up with an engine design 50% more efficient than Concord that uses up half the space and weight so that the place can carry twice as many people, you would only be able to carry 384 passengers (128 *1.5 *2). I know it's a simplified calculation but the point is that the CO2 economies dont make sense, and the ticket prices would be outrageously high because all those aded costs cant be distributed across as many people. 8) the additional drag induced by having 3 engine inlets instead of 2 at supersonic speeds mean the fuel efficiency ‘gains’ they claim are nullified. one intake would be required for the generator unit. it would be inefficient to funnel the air from the generator unit to the motor-driven engines becuase, the a lot the kinetic energy of that air has been converted to electrical energy and that air is oxygen depleted because of the combustion in the generator unit. so you would waste energy speeding up that air, and you would have incomplete combustion in the motor-driven engines because of the lack of oxygen. so you would need additional air inlets for each of the motor-driven engines. even for a platform with the same number of inlets, the percentage increase in drag from 300 m/s (conventional plane speeds) to mach 1.5 is about 70-80% more drag. they want to operate at mach 2, which would result in drag increases of about 200-400% because drag increases with the square of speed and there are near exponential losses induced due to shock wave formation. at supersonic speeds, engine inlets contribute to about 20-30% of the aerodynamic losses of the plane. so the additional drag increase at mach 2 would be 240-520% increase because of the 3rd inlet. 9) the volume taken up per unit energy of liquid natural gas is far less than jet fuel. This means a lot more space is needed to store the same amount of energy. because drag is a function of the frontal area of the plane, this would only further increase the drag. if the plane was made longer to avoid increasing the frontal area, there would be added skin friction because of the increased surface area of the plane. so you could add another (conservative) 5-10% loss in efficiency. 10) the additional weight and complexity introduced because of the need to contain liquid natural gas in pressurized vessels, would require more fuel, which needs bigger, heavier pressure vessels, which adds weight, which needs more fuel to transport, etc. so that is yet another loss in efficiency.
using a gas turbine to generate electricity to power electric motors is adding cost, complexity and inefficiencies and is an absolute non starter. This is high grade snake oil. Motors and turbines aren't the problem, it's fuel/battery/energy density/weight that is the issue and this is more inefficient and more weight than current jets. If you really want an electric jet with current tech the only real answer is an unshielded nuclear reactor that will seriously harm all passengers.(yes that's been done before too). The reason why commercial planes don't go supersonic is because air resistance drives fuel costs up, going faster just costs a lot more.
@@Tehscottinator Every time you tell someone how impossible it is, it motivates one engineer out there to try. You're literally looking right at it and you're claiming it doesn't exist. If I had to guess I'd say you are probably a Boeing employee.
@@TehscottinatorThey didn’t explain any of these fundamental issues with this architecture. Red Flag. This felt more like a science entertainment video than an inside look.
Liquid methane... in _planes._ That should make for many more "Mayday: Air Disaster" episodes. They can have a permanent subheading: "Where every Incident is a Catastrophe". Like hydrogen, that ain't gonna fly. Save it for Starship and other rockets.
I think it’s simply a healthy consideration especially when using methane as a fuel. Even though it may be difficult to produce, at least it’s a method to consider it’s our engineers that have the task of getting this to work correctly and safely, and I have great confidence in our engineers to figure this out.
Love the guys enthusiasm and I think he will accomplish big things! This current concept is not near market ready though and I sincerely hope he can get it ready before he runs out of money 🙏
So it's an electric ducted fan, then you inject fuel into a combuster and blow it out the back in afterburner mode. The third stage is supposedly a ram jet? How do you recharge because you need batteries to turn the motor. Are they claiming they will free spin the compressor wheel while in ramjet mode?
@@Blanc2020 Mechanical systems have massive losses in friction. Getting mechanical energy from one point to another point 15 feet away can be solved by electrical systems that are very efficient and customizable. That’s what the original thought process was. But they decided to use this thought process to its logical limit if you can use mechanical energy to generate electrical energy maybe you could spool the turbine at faster speeds without needing heat. That’s the problem with turbines to get greater efficiency you need higher rpm which means you need to get the combustion gas very hot. Hot turbines melt warp and fail. So just use an electric compressor down stream. Of course I’m not a aero engineer but this is my general take away from their video. Of course I don’t think their main goal is efficient at least not with this fast turbine it seems to be overall speed so if they introduce inefficiency they seem fine with it so long as they can go fast.
@ This dude doesn’t know what a hybrid is and when he finds out he’s gonna be furious 😂😂 “how does adding a battery help the car!!!🤬🤬🤬” cmon grandpa I know you’re already 37 but that doesn’t give you a excuse to not know what a hybrid is.
Building a jet engine is one thing but being able to keep that same engine operating above Mach speeds is another level entirely. SR71 engines are a testament to that.
I like the concept, especially the atmospherically sourced fuel. I notice that P&W have a geared turbofan in development to address the efficiency issues but they aren't looking at the micro transport picture, or are they?
Have you considered the compressor being driven from the outside instead of the center? Then your center can be an open tube using venturi effect to draw more through at low speeds and a straight shot for ram jet?
Yes, all aircraft engines produce electricity by design to supply the aircraft with power. Only the aircraft, if you're thinking of ground use its pointless because you're wasting energy by dumping it off the side and not allowing it to build higher pressure.
They have the right idea, but they're trying to shoehorn electric driven compressors for some reason. I blame the fact that the electric motors are probably investor bait right now. Here is free consulting from someone with a lot of supersonic experience: Toss all your ideas of electric driven compressors in the garbage. Start with a Concord. Add 6 ramjets between the traditional low-bypass afterburning turbofan nacelles. Add hydraulic variable ramps that block the ramjet inlets at subsonic speeds and when accelerating to speed, and variable inlets/ramps that block the turbofans at supersonic+ speeds. In flight, swap to ramjets at mach 1.5-2.0 or so. Turn off turbofans, block inlets with ramps. Cruise at mach 2.5-3.2 or so, metallurgy dependent. On decel back to subsonic speeds, turn on turbofans, cut fuel to ramjets. If you try and turn a compressor fan into a ramjet you're just going to compound energy loss with both the electric motors and the compressor blades interrupting the supersonic compression of inlet air at supersonic speeds.
Will that scale to real engine sizes? That one they have in their shop looks quite small, compared to the ones powering real planes. There are full electric drones out there (you know, like DJI), but I have not yet seen a big electric helicopter yet. (Perhaps nobody tried.) Electric motors start to become very heavy when you need lots of power. Or you need a mechanical gearbox (which adds moving parts and weight). (That taxiing thing of planes could be solved by adding autonomous, electric tug vehicles to airports, though.)
8:10 where is the electric part in these 3 stages? Looks like a normal jet engine. Or is it the spinning in the first stage done by the electric motor?
Once you scale up the engine to make enough thrust (at least 30,000 Lbs thrust?) for larger airplanes, how much fuel burn would that take and could the aircraft carry enough fuel ? Also, what do you want to do with the BAN on supersonic flight over land ?
No matter what powers an aircraft, you still have to deal with the super sonic footprint. That's the main reason Concord traveled over water. Mach 3 is another matter, heat!
@@jameskelly8506 Now the sonic boom can be changed to a much quieter drawn out "thruummmphe" without out the window rattling sudden pressure wave. Google "X 59 no sonic boom". However, the show stopper is NO LONGER a sonic boom, but the much, MUCH higher cost of buildong, operating and maintaining a fleet of supersonic airliners, (as it always has been)even with the old sonic boom issue.
Yeah but it is a harder dream. They have released new, more efficient engines every decade or so, but has CA or entire US for the fact significantly expanded its long range rail in the past 15 years?
There is still limited takeoff and landing capacity to deal with. More people traveling in smaller planes can't be accommodated without a vast increase in runway capacity. While there might be more diffusion in where people want to go, I doubt it will be enough. Large aircraft will still rule.
That’s definitely a problem! However, you might be surprised to see how many smaller airports there are already. There are large numbers of under utilized airports because they don’t accommodate larger planes.
It sounds like he's talking about the basic diesel electric hybrid technology that's been used in the train industry since mid 20th century. It wouldn't surprise me if the german military came up with this stuff, it doesn't surprise me anymore.How much technology we don't realize came from the nazis.
You are just using a frigging jet engine (a gas turbine is just a jet angine with more turbine stages) to run EDFs with an afterburner. In essence you are using a jet engine to run a bigger compressor, that works with an afterburner. You are just physicaly separating the components of a fighter's turbofan engine (take the snecma m88, most of the thrust come from the turbofan part). You have one point : as a jet engine only works efficiently at certain thrust/speed/altitude points, it COULD be more efficient when changing altitude, but it's pointless during level flight
The power needed to spin an axial compressor hard enough to feed an actual jet engine has to come from the turbine making the engine self sustaining. Powering a generator to then power the electric motor just adds a lot of weight and complexity and parasitic losses. This is just another effort to make it look like you're breaking 'new ground' to attract unsophisticated investors while not having the slightest chance of ever working out as hoped. "Oh well...we tried" after working for years while burning other people's money.
Cheap electric supersonic flight carbon free, just like warp drive. I love those new sci-fi channels. They present stuff as if it was real or possible.
Why is it a good idea?!? Because it solves many issues with current engines in such a simple way that i go like "Daaa, why has nobody thought of that before🤦"
people have thought of it before. and they knew it was an exercise in futility as did their investors. but now we have generations of utter idiots with no knowledge of how anything works, fed a diet of hype and keywords and kindergarten level explanations of how things work...
as they stated, electric motors have been massive and heavy for a while. trains run on electric motors but trains also dont fly(hopefully). the catalyst here is electric motor innovation. it is to be seen if this works. I hope it does
Buy a retired Concorde refit it with modern electronics and aerodynamic tweaks, fit these engines. It would still be hugely inexpensive compared to building something from the ground up. And there’s more rich people now than ever that would be happy to pay the price to use it.
I think you have something here. The electric motor driving the fan would be reliable and easy to maintain, but the motors would add weight that doesn't exist in the current engine. I'm guessing ionic propulsion would be a more weight efficient way to drive the air, using electricity generated elsewhere in the plane. I don't know if ionic propulsion can be used in the compression phase. It definitely sucks, but I wonder if it can squeeze enough. However, if you have an over the wing external ionic propulsion with electric power generated by a turbine that's basically an oversized auxiliary power unit. You eliminate the weight of the engine on the wing, rather than adding weight of heavy magnets that make electric motors so heavy
Okay, when the opening has to use the line “environmentally friendly” along side the tech, I have my doubts. Make and promote the product, make it work THEN use the EF aspect as a BONUS of the technology
Methane for commerical aircraft is a no-no. basically you are building an hindenburg. The reason why Planes use kerosene is that harder to ignite than methane or gasoline. Issue is with methane is that if there is a gas leak, all it takes is a spark to set it off. I have doubt this is economical, since you need a separate turbine to run the generator, which will add a lot more weight, and if that single gas turbine fails all the engines running off it will also failure: ie single point of failure. Maybe it can be changed such that the the generator is incorporated in the engine: electric driven compressor -> combustion -> Exhaust turbine powered generator. But then your adding a lot of complexity back into the engine design. on a scale of 1 to 10 for this to be an economical\commercial success I would put this at 1.
I’ve thought of building a gas or diesel electric generator driven electric vehicle. That could be a car,truck, or aircraft. It’s already done in trains, why not on other vehicles. You could run the generator on hydrogen for an extremely clean burning vehicle! Are you building anything for the general aviation? Experimental aircraft like homebuilt aircraft? I’d love to see a set up on a Velocity XL!
trains have this peculiar characteristic that the heavier they are, the better they are... they rely on weight to get traction. steel wheels on steel tracks. and once moving, they continue rolling with very little effort... when kept below certain speeds and air resistance is negligible. tracks are arranged to be as flat and level as possible. as accelerating is the only part that really requires power, and is based on the rate of acceleration, you can get away with a limited amount of power moving extremely large amounts of weight around, and the payload is barely affected by the source of motive power. then once moving, those diesel engines can be backed right off to just a bit above idle, where they run on barely any fuel at all. so the cost of moving stuff around is rather minimal. its also really easy to plug in cables and distribute that power along multiple sets of driving wheels. no driveshafts, no special couplings or joints or bearings or gearboxes... any other vehicle? the weight of the source of power, versus the payload starts to become a problem. planes need to be LIGHT. as light as possible. any extra weight detracts from their ability to stay airborne, and retain their primary function... move many people large distances rapidly as cheaply as possible. cars and trucks have to deal with varying gradients, and carry as much payload as possible... they have to factor in tyre wear, suspension systems, road construction and weight bearing ability... and once you go over a certain speed, air resistance becomes an absolute killer. i am not even going to touch on hydrogen other than its more wishful thinking. go make a few phone calls to local industrial gas suppliers, ask for some quotes on hydrogen. then look at how the hydrogen is stored. the wight of the bottle, and the size of it. then run through the basic maths on how much energy you will get from a certain volume of hydrogen when consumed in an ICE. hint, a 2L engine at 3000RPM will need somewhere around 20L of hydrogen every SECOND, assuming full throttle and 100% VE. i calculated around about 7minutes of run time from an F size bottle, assuming "cruising" travel...
just two small problems that Concorde had, how loud the engines will be and the sonic boom, will be no quieter. This is why Concorde only flew over the atlantic after test flights over the USAS , Europe and asia, the complaints about the sonic boom stopped flights east or south from heathrow and Paris.
Just a flash thought from a non engineering layperson...The M3 mention in this video means what? This is a testing model bolted down on concrete pad, as a stationary object, how to est. / measures the M3?
Did he really said: @14:04 "LNG...and on the climate front it has 20% less CO2" That is true, but that is lying with numbers . Sure the 20% are correct, but any methan not burned has a factor of 29.8 of CO2 and that does not even account for the losses true leakages that you always have. If you care for climate then you wouldn't go for supersonic anyhow, but that is a different topic. So how should i trust someone that such easily is implying something, which he knows is not true or is that the bad student part?
And the presenter called it "more sustainable", while in reality it's pretty much the least sustainable fuel out there, as you explained. Since oil & gas form together the latter is usually a byproduct of oil drilling so it's the same industry anyway. This channel can't be trusted either.
Reading a few of the comments, I am surprised no one mentioned the sonic boom. Having the engine is one aspect, but getting the regulations to fly over population centers is another. Don't get me wrong, this is great, ( no pun intended ) but I wonder if this will get off the ground
Boom is flying at M1.7 (1800kmh, 500m/s) due to aero-heating issues and energy use. M3.05 (900m/s, 3240 kmh) is for military, government applications at present, perhaps also the business aircraft market.
Timestamps:
0:00: Welcome to Hard Reset
2:54: Astro Mechanica HQ
4:24: An affordable, electric plane
4:52: The tech powering AM
5:41: A turboelectric, adaptive engine
10:22: Chaos vs. order
13:13: Choosing liquified natural gas
14:53: The hot fire test
16:42: The toast test
18:30: A ‘Hard Reset’ on air travel
Look at that glorious, glorious cable management!
Look at that glorious, glorious fonts in War and Peace by Tolstoy! ??
I kind of disagree with the closing statement of this video. Travel time hasn't been the primary blocker of international travel for decades, it is cost and security. A faster plane wouldn't make the world smaller as much as cheaper flights and lowering passport restrictions would.
my back after a 16-hour flight would like to disagree with you
Travel time is so important that the industry was forced from hub and spoke model to a point to point model for air travel on smaller planes
@@abdulhfhd billions would take that 16 hour flight if it cost 100 dollars less. let alone half of its cost
I love this idea, I love his passion and I wish him and the team nothing but success! Would be amazing to experience this one day.
Why - we have BETTER: "We don't need ANY of this. We have perfected ZPE (Zero Point Energy/Quantum Energy from the Aether). How do we KNOW this? Easy...it was WEAPONIZED and implemented as a TELEPORTER system (wormhole, whatever). Point A to Point B - ANYWHERE. There is VIDEO surveillance footage from TWO GOVERNMENT SOURCES...showing the technology in ACTION...we've had it for DECADES. The powers that be...do not want disclosure. WE MUSH PUSH for it. It is a civilization game changer. NO MORE POVERTY, WAR, HUNGER...ever.
A lot of people are missing the point in the comments. Yes adding a gas turbine adds weight and loses in efficiency. The strenght of such a design is decoupling the design constrains of a jet engine. Generally the higher one flyes the less drag but one needs to also fly faster to maintain lift. Problem is traditional jet engines stall out because they cant work well at low and high speeds. Think of it this way. You can fly at mach 1 and have X amount of drag thus needing X trust. Or you could fly at mach 3 but higher where the air is 9x thinner so again you only need X trust but now for only 1/3 of the time to reach your destination. But making an engine that is high power at mach 3 and doesnt blow up on take off at sea level is a rather difficult task. Now these guys are very very far away from making it work, but the concept is rational and plausible. The just wanna make a ramjet optimised for mach 3 and add an electic motor for getting up to speed and altitude.
SR-71 says hold my beer.
combustion engines lose efficiency at higher altitudes due to the lower air density. Unlike electric motors.
@@JoeyBlogs007 that is also a factor. In my above example that aircraft would be taking in 1/3 the oxygen since 3x speed at 1/9 air pressure. So it would have 1/3 the power but would need to maintain X thrust.
And how do you think the generator-turbine will work with no air?
Your right in that in the 3rd part of operation, it becomes a ramjet. However, the electric intake fan is completely bypassed at that point. Litterally no longer in use for any propulsion. The hard part is the 2nd mid section partial burn, where the burning mid section both provides aft thrust and generates power for an electric motor to spin the front fan. These two things work together upto near mach 1, but when going transonic, the fan will need a variable intake and bypass cone like the SR 71 had as its speed increases until the intake fan isn't providing thrust and can be bypassed. Also managing the shockwave, they must somehow heat the front fan section up with burning methane or bypass and direct the schockwave to the methane burning mid section and slow it to just under mach 1, which is around 1,500 mph at 1000 deg C . Methane or jet fuel is used to get the aircraft beyond 1.5-2.0 mach so that the ram effect using the afterburner can start. A problem not mentioned is Electric motors have horse power deficit limitations compared to a turbine engine which turns the front fan for low speed thrust. There are no 50,000 horse power electric motors that are light. In fact, there are NO 50,000+ hp electric motors period, whIch is what the front fan section on each engine on a supersonic airliner would need. The closest thing is 2,400 hp electric traction motors which rail road locomotives use (usually 2 to 4 per locomotive) These are beefy and too heavy for aviation use. Plus R.R. electric motors are simply not powerful enough. So there's that. Ramjets similar in design to the SR 71 used when the front fan and turbojet center section is bypassed, have mach 5 speed capability. But ironically, right now, the show stopper is the complete lack of a lightweight 50,000 horse power electric motor to go from a stop to about mach 0.8. I also fail to see why even if the was a 50,000 hp electric motor to turn the front section, even at 95% effeciency, a standard turbine section mechanically driving front fan blades would be more effecient than a turbine turning a generator to make electric power for a 50,000 hp electric motor that does not exist. At least at over mach 0.5 or so. A turbine generator set up would be more effecient with less fuel usage at idle, and low economy power, but not when pushing past mach 0.7 and into the mach 0.9 to mach 1.2 transonic range.
Power to them. I really hope they make it happen, it ticks so many boxes. It's surprising that the jet engine hasn't changed that much in all this time.
I've been pushing for this for years.
Every time I said it was possible some Aerospace jet engineer said I was crazy.
I want this design for a jet pack. Well mostly this design, it should be possible to add rotating detonation as well.
If AI can get cold fusion to work, suborbital intercontinental ballistic jet packing should be possible.
Anywhere to anywhere in 20-ish minutes. Depending on your reentry modality. Bringing an alibative surfboard would get you down faster than a retro burn.
US-based Venus Aerospace is currently developing a jet engine that it claims could go as fast as Mach 6.
And reports of a Chinese aircraft has already completed its test at a speed of M4 recently was widely echoing amongst many reputable channels, I wonder it is true.
@@jtjames79 if humanity can make an AI in the first place.... and it can't.
I had this idea many years ago, happy to see someone else thought the same thing and has the means to explore it!
I built the perfect electric car. The front wheels were driven by an electric motor and the rear wheels powered a generator to provide the power. One push to get it going and off it went, or so I thought. LOL
I was 9 years old at the time and the worst part was that my late father, (who was a chartered electrical engineer) sat and watched me building it.
It sounded cruel, but I learned a lot more in those few weeks than they would have taught me at school.
PS,
All this was about 65 years ago and I went on to become a design engineer.
I had this idea as well years ago, drew it out and everything. But everything in Aviation runs on Green. I think now though I'm going to start patenting ideas when they pop into my head lol
So the turbine is replaced with a electric motor. This electric motor then gets electricity from a gas turbine generator. Where do you gain efficiency? If I guess its because a single gas turbine can run at max efficiency and power multiple electric motors. The Electric jet engines then are more efficient because no rotor is blocking the exhaust. Am i understanding this correctly?
Love it, very cool!
The best land-based combined cycle gas turbines reach only 55% efficiency. I think you're correct, there are no efficiency gains but instead huge losses with this concept.
A conventional turbine has an efficiency of 90+ %.
@@ihateemaelengines can be designed to be extremely fuel efficient when they are made to hold a very specific RPM, that could potentially make this kind of idea more efficient than the traditional gas turbine we use currently. It’s an idea we already use for our train engines, a very efficient diesel generator runs as needed to charge batteries that drive the electric powertrain.
I think there is a turbine in the exhaust. The efficiency comes from the ability to change the speed of the compressor independently of the turbine. Most jet engines only have one moving part. The turbine and compressor are moving together on the same shaft.
@ihateemael yes agree, this seems like such an obvious thing they should explain in the video
@nathanryweck3137 they said that they are using a second gas turbine. There is no turbine in this exhaust. They literally use 2 engines.
Turbo electric does not work.
Look up the Rolls Royce EfanX.
Rolls completely failed, because this set up is too complex, too heavy, and too hot.
How on earth can this be lighter than a simple shaft drive?
It is nuts.
R
because the fan is cooling the compressor which prevents the overheating which it will not be too hot because of the fan
10 years ago, I may have agreed with you. But after watching SpaceX redefine the complexity of rocket engines in all the primary builders rocket engines told him it wouldn’t work and now he’s dominating them. Never discount the little guy with an idea and drive.
It just all depends on what you are trying to achieve. Personally, I think they would be better off having 1 electric and 1 2 stage mechanical compressor. When you taxi, you could be all electric. When you fire the engine, you use all 3 stages. When you are at cruise, you can shut off the electric stage and run on a smaller, more efficient mechanical compressor.
The EfanX is a completely different design. Plus, it was just a half-assed test bed.
@@TwitchFlys SpaceX didnt revolutionize anything and is heavily subsidized.
I don't think that it's more fuel efficient.
A 90+% efficiency turbine is being replaced by a gas turbine that has at most a 55% efficiency, which then loses energy in the alternator, electronics, batteries and finally the electric motors that drive the compressor?
Am I correct or did I miss something?
About being able to fly at both subsonic, supersonic and hypersonic speeds, you just need a turbojet and a dual-mode ramjet in two different ducts. Check the SR-72 concept from Lockheed.
It's fuel efficient in the sense that losses are reduced in flight because the compressor stage can be turned off. Conventional engines cannot stop the compressor when the air velocity is high enough that it doesnt require a compressor anymore.
As for the SR-72, that is a less viable solution for commercial flight. This electric hybrid turbojet should have less moving parts to work.
@gasun1274 I disagree. The SR-72 concept with two ducts is much more efficient and cost effective imo.
Yep you did. Gas turbines are very efficient, but most efficient in a very small RPM range. By designing a fixed RPM gas turbine running on methane to generate electricity, which then powers an electric motor without those flaws, you end up with a fuel source that has the energy density of hydrocarbons but the efficiency of battery power. Once the airflow is supersonic it then bypasses the entire compressor stage and converts into a pure ramjet (which isn't novel in itself), except now you don't have to restart the 1st stage compressor when it slows to subsonic, because its electric you just turn the power back on and spin it back up. Effectively what they have done is create an inverted high bypass electric ducted fan with an afterburner on the back.
@NeilStansbury you did not answer the question. How does replacing a turbine stage that has a 90+% efficiency with a gas turbibe that has a 55-% efficiency to drive the compressor would increase the overall efficiency? 😂
@@Quatuux I think you've misunderstood what they have done - it wasn't brilliantly explained in the video.
A "Gas Turbine" is made of 3 parts - compressor, combustion chamber, turbine - their collective efficiency is based on a ton of factors, from compressor ratios, no. of shafts, air density & temperature (eg. altitude), speed etc etc. Aircraft also have the advantage of being able to use the "ram effect".
These guys have taken a variable RPM "gas turbine" and made it a *fixed* RPM gas turbine that is used to generate electricity rather than accelerate air (as in a normal A/C engine). In other words the turbine stage is *still* there, it just runs continually at an optimal RPM, one (or all) of the turbine shafts are connected to a generator. The electricity is used to spin what is effectively a multi-stage ducted fan.
Have a read up on the Rolls Royce E-Fan, RR thought it would be at least 10% more efficient
16:08 that sound of transition was amazing.
This configuration of electric driver fans with a turbo generator is extremely efficient because you can recoup a lot of heat through recirculation. I thought it would be suitable for Lilian's aerotaxi for similar reasons that it also suits a supersonic aircraft.
Jet engine 25-30% efficient
Generator 90%
Power cable Wires and control module Efficiency ? Unknown (less than 100%. )
Electric Motor 90%
You are loosing efficiency every step.
Love your idea bro❤ good luck 👊
Carbon-neutral is a marketing gimmick.
Who's here to be ahead of the world? 🚀
I‘d rather have the world keep up with all the technological advances. That would help in dealing with misinformation and lying, narcissist politicians.🙃
I started talking about this being possible years ago.
This has happened to me dozens of times.
People forget engineers use the internet. The haters actually make comments more visible to the people who are capable of implementing them.
The best way to motivate an engineer, is to tell them something is impossible, once it's proved possible.
@julianzurn1428 if it's done I surely bet there will no any single politicians who are in position now had been in position I bet worldwide.
This is what's AHEAD: "We don't need ANY of this. We have perfected ZPE (Zero Point Energy/Quantum Energy from the Aether). How do we KNOW this? Easy...it was WEAPONIZED and implemented as a TELEPORTER system (wormhole, whatever). Point A to Point B - ANYWHERE. There is VIDEO surveillance footage from TWO GOVERNMENT SOURCES...showing the technology in ACTION...we've had it for DECADES. The powers that be...do not want disclosure. WE MUSH PUSH for it. It is a civilization game changer. NO MORE POVERTY, WAR, HUNGER...ever.
Yay me!
Really shot yourself in the foot with that comment at 14:50 😂
Claiming this product is like time travel set off my BS detector to level 10 within the first minute
It seems to me like he wanted to say teleportation but by accident he said time travel.
Idk why else he would be saying that.
@@uIz_slcnah. The guy is just hyping his own product. A product that doesn’t even make sense from an engineering side. So many holes in this idea…
@@jonahshill7084 I would like to hear what the issues with the idea is, I am only interested in engineering, I dont actually know what the problems might be.
How will the electric motor be reliable at these temps and environments
@@uIz_slc it’s a bit long winded so I’ll just list. Hopefully my reply isn’t not too long. if it is here is the jist of it:
** the Concord program was shut down because of high fuel costs, high maintenance costs, small passenger capacity, limited market (flight route limitations and narrow customer base because of costs) and poor emissions. the idea that is proposed here has not addressed any of these.actually, it seems like this idea only makes these issues bigger.
1) assuming they manage to achieve the same efficiency for combustion as conventional engines, they would have compounded losses due to energy conversion (mechanical to electrical for the generator, electrical to mechanical for both motors). So assuming 60% combustion efficiency and 95% conversion efficiency you would have 60% x 95% (mech to elec) x 95% (elec to mech) = 54.15% overall efficiency. If you already had 60% efficiency without electrification, you lose 5.85% efficiency for no reason
2) even if electrification could save you 2 tons of fuel taxiing (compared to Concord), the losses in efficiency over long distances costs you more. Currently, supersonic air travel is banned over land because the sonic boom was so disruptive to people on the ground. And supersonic air travel doesn’t really have major benefits over short flights ie going twice as fast for a 60 minute flight could reduce travel by 30 minutes, but the cost of the tickets and higher maintenance costs wouldn’t really be worth the 30 minute benefit. So longer flights would have to be the operating territory. Over longer flights, taxiing losses make up a smaller and smaller percentage of fuel consumption. So if conventional planes are 5% more efficient in the air over a flight that consumes 100 tons of fuel they save 5 tons of fuel. This offsets taxiing losses by at least 3 tons (keeping in mind that 2 tons of taxiing losses is the losses for concord, not current planes, so that difference might be even bigger). so their design is inherently less efficient.
3) he claims that using liquid natural gasses generated using carbon dioxide extracted from the atmosphere will be the solution. Carbon dioxide makes up less than 0.1% of the atmosphere. The energy needed to sift through enough air to suck up 1kg of CO2 would be way more efficiently used by generating biofuels. beyond this, the energy efficiency of convert carbon dioxide into ethanol (which is way to volatile for planes to use) is currently 50% at the absolute maximum (typical values are 35%). to get less volatile, more usable fuels, the energy efficiency would be even worse. considering the amount of fuel need to operate at supersonic speeds, the production of infrastructure (CO2 capture, catalysts, renewable energy infrastructure, other reactants needed for the conversion, etc.), and infrastructure maintenance the overall energy consumption would be likely far surpass that of conventional planes.
4) synthetic fuels are EXPENSIVE, and the air travel industry is famously reliant on fuel prices to remain even slightly profitable. supersonic air travel requires more fuel to maintain their speed due to drag, so their planes would consume far more fuel, especially over long distances.
6) most people won’t be willing to pay a price which is exorbitantly high just to get to where they are going a few hour quicker. Especially if that same money could be spend getting first class tickets and better accommodation if spend on conventional planes.
7) weight and space are at a premium on planes. This systems effectively requires the space and weight of 3 engines to get the power output of a maximum of 2 engines. because of the added auxiliaries needed to operate the generators and motors the weight and space requirements might mean more energy even greater fuel requirements, while being able to transport fewer people. now, the Concord could carry a maximum of 128 passengers over 3 500 miles, using 94 000 litres of fuel. a Boeing 747-400 can also travel 3 500 miles while consuming 94 000 litres of fuel, but it can carry 500 passengers. even assuming that this guys company can come up with an engine design 50% more efficient than Concord that uses up half the space and weight so that the place can carry twice as many people, you would only be able to carry 384 passengers (128 *1.5 *2). I know it's a simplified calculation but the point is that the CO2 economies dont make sense, and the ticket prices would be outrageously high because all those aded costs cant be distributed across as many people.
8) the additional drag induced by having 3 engine inlets instead of 2 at supersonic speeds mean the fuel efficiency ‘gains’ they claim are nullified. one intake would be required for the generator unit. it would be inefficient to funnel the air from the generator unit to the motor-driven engines becuase, the a lot the kinetic energy of that air has been converted to electrical energy and that air is oxygen depleted because of the combustion in the generator unit. so you would waste energy speeding up that air, and you would have incomplete combustion in the motor-driven engines because of the lack of oxygen. so you would need additional air inlets for each of the motor-driven engines. even for a platform with the same number of inlets, the percentage increase in drag from 300 m/s (conventional plane speeds) to mach 1.5 is about 70-80% more drag. they want to operate at mach 2, which would result in drag increases of about 200-400% because drag increases with the square of speed and there are near exponential losses induced due to shock wave formation. at supersonic speeds, engine inlets contribute to about 20-30% of the aerodynamic losses of the plane. so the additional drag increase at mach 2 would be 240-520% increase because of the 3rd inlet.
9) the volume taken up per unit energy of liquid natural gas is far less than jet fuel. This means a lot more space is needed to store the same amount of energy. because drag is a function of the frontal area of the plane, this would only further increase the drag. if the plane was made longer to avoid increasing the frontal area, there would be added skin friction because of the increased surface area of the plane. so you could add another (conservative) 5-10% loss in efficiency.
10) the additional weight and complexity introduced because of the need to contain liquid natural gas in pressurized vessels, would require more fuel, which needs bigger, heavier pressure vessels, which adds weight, which needs more fuel to transport, etc. so that is yet another loss in efficiency.
Sees video title: "Wow this is complete bullshit, lets watch it"
watches first 10 minutes of video: "this is amazingly sensible"
using a gas turbine to generate electricity to power electric motors is adding cost, complexity and inefficiencies and is an absolute non starter. This is high grade snake oil. Motors and turbines aren't the problem, it's fuel/battery/energy density/weight that is the issue and this is more inefficient and more weight than current jets. If you really want an electric jet with current tech the only real answer is an unshielded nuclear reactor that will seriously harm all passengers.(yes that's been done before too). The reason why commercial planes don't go supersonic is because air resistance drives fuel costs up, going faster just costs a lot more.
@@Tehscottinator Every time you tell someone how impossible it is, it motivates one engineer out there to try.
You're literally looking right at it and you're claiming it doesn't exist.
If I had to guess I'd say you are probably a Boeing employee.
@@jtjames79 Or far more likely...was.
@@TehscottinatorThey didn’t explain any of these fundamental issues with this architecture. Red Flag. This felt more like a science entertainment video than an inside look.
Liquid methane... in _planes._ That should make for many more "Mayday: Air Disaster" episodes. They can have a permanent subheading: "Where every Incident is a Catastrophe".
Like hydrogen, that ain't gonna fly. Save it for Starship and other rockets.
Outstanding! Wish him well and thanks for the great video.
Wow!!! Great concept!
I think it’s simply a healthy consideration especially when using methane as a fuel. Even though it may be difficult to produce, at least it’s a method to consider it’s our engineers that have the task of getting this to work correctly and safely, and I have great confidence in our engineers to figure this out.
I hope they will succeed in the near future. Nice to integrate it directly in the energy transition with the methane and methanol.
Glad to here there are others looking into the future. Just keep it real.👍
this isnt the future, this is going backwards.
Fascinating. I hope I get to see where this goes.
Love the guys enthusiasm and I think he will accomplish big things! This current concept is not near market ready though and I sincerely hope he can get it ready before he runs out of money 🙏
The only Big Thing this doofus is likely to accomplish is to wind up in the Big House for investment fraud!
“Suck, Squeeze, Bang, Blow” 🤣 Stop… you’re killing me - Immature Me
So it's an electric ducted fan, then you inject fuel into a combuster and blow it out the back in afterburner mode. The third stage is supposedly a ram jet?
How do you recharge because you need batteries to turn the motor.
Are they claiming they will free spin the compressor wheel while in ramjet mode?
Planes already have vast complex electrical systems.
@Blanc2020 I'm an engineer too, not Aero but It doesn't make any sense to me. Vaporware to get investors money i think.
@@Blanc2020 Mechanical systems have massive losses in friction. Getting mechanical energy from one point to another point 15 feet away can be solved by electrical systems that are very efficient and customizable. That’s what the original thought process was. But they decided to use this thought process to its logical limit if you can use mechanical energy to generate electrical energy maybe you could spool the turbine at faster speeds without needing heat. That’s the problem with turbines to get greater efficiency you need higher rpm which means you need to get the combustion gas very hot. Hot turbines melt warp and fail. So just use an electric compressor down stream. Of course I’m not a aero engineer but this is my general take away from their video. Of course I don’t think their main goal is efficient at least not with this fast turbine it seems to be overall speed so if they introduce inefficiency they seem fine with it so long as they can go fast.
@ This dude doesn’t know what a hybrid is and when he finds out he’s gonna be furious 😂😂 “how does adding a battery help the car!!!🤬🤬🤬” cmon grandpa I know you’re already 37 but that doesn’t give you a excuse to not know what a hybrid is.
@@Neoprenesiren Which are powered by bleed air or generators attached to the engines. Doh!
this is amazing!!
Building a jet engine is one thing but being able to keep that same engine operating above Mach speeds is another level entirely. SR71 engines are a testament to that.
He said what Barbra said, iconic
What about batteries/power source?
Methane-powered turbine generator produces the needed electrical energy.
@@ARepublicIfYouCanKeepIt Its a bot, ignore it.
Take the time to watch the video and you will have your answer. Watch it two (2) time if needed.
I like the concept, especially the atmospherically sourced fuel. I notice that P&W have a geared turbofan in development to address the efficiency issues but they aren't looking at the micro transport picture, or are they?
My kinda dude!
"Suck, Squeeze, Bang, Blow" @ 7:10 sounds Like P Diddy's signature move 💀
If no one has suggested this, offer it to the US military.
This sounds like the perfect solution for them.
Have you considered the compressor being driven from the outside instead of the center? Then your center can be an open tube using venturi effect to draw more through at low speeds and a straight shot for ram jet?
Interesting concept
Wake me up when a guy called Daystrom joins the company and introduces the M5.
great video bro thanks
@@ranindunethsara887 thanks for watching!
@@NickFromHardReset Wellcome, your videos really make us think in a new way and understand the technologies in today's world. Thank you for that.❤
Some of here already become experts in jet engine.... 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Fantastic 👍
It's amazing what you can throw together from PCBWay parts. Just add some hyperbole and you've got funding for a job for five years... 🤣
So essentialy it's a variable cycle ramjet with an electric motor as the first stage.
Nice!
Can the engine be used to produce electricity?
Yes it's a full set Generator set by design.
Yes, all aircraft engines produce electricity by design to supply the aircraft with power.
Only the aircraft, if you're thinking of ground use its pointless because you're wasting energy by dumping it off the side and not allowing it to build higher pressure.
I've seem the AT-3 engines on the falcons, Guardian jets used for power generation. I figured we could do the same here with scaleability.
Interesting concept, fuel augmented electric fan.
Jet toasted marshamallow.... hehehe
A wonderful answer to a question we never thought to ask!
Astro how do you plan on cooling the motor(s)?
They have the right idea, but they're trying to shoehorn electric driven compressors for some reason. I blame the fact that the electric motors are probably investor bait right now. Here is free consulting from someone with a lot of supersonic experience: Toss all your ideas of electric driven compressors in the garbage. Start with a Concord. Add 6 ramjets between the traditional low-bypass afterburning turbofan nacelles. Add hydraulic variable ramps that block the ramjet inlets at subsonic speeds and when accelerating to speed, and variable inlets/ramps that block the turbofans at supersonic+ speeds. In flight, swap to ramjets at mach 1.5-2.0 or so. Turn off turbofans, block inlets with ramps. Cruise at mach 2.5-3.2 or so, metallurgy dependent. On decel back to subsonic speeds, turn on turbofans, cut fuel to ramjets. If you try and turn a compressor fan into a ramjet you're just going to compound energy loss with both the electric motors and the compressor blades interrupting the supersonic compression of inlet air at supersonic speeds.
Let them have their solar roadways for now. Bait the investors, live of their money and then close project.
There is so many red flags with this.
Will that scale to real engine sizes? That one they have in their shop looks quite small, compared to the ones powering real planes.
There are full electric drones out there (you know, like DJI), but I have not yet seen a big electric helicopter yet. (Perhaps nobody tried.)
Electric motors start to become very heavy when you need lots of power. Or you need a mechanical gearbox (which adds moving parts and weight).
(That taxiing thing of planes could be solved by adding autonomous, electric tug vehicles to airports, though.)
10:45 How curious that the exhaust looks like a RDE (rotary detonation engine)
And that "nozzle" they were talkin about lol. Guess most peeps just dont know what an aerospike is? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
@TheAceTroubleshooter I said it because of its shape and the sound it made.
8:10 where is the electric part in these 3 stages? Looks like a normal jet engine. Or is it the spinning in the first stage done by the electric motor?
Once you scale up the engine to make enough thrust (at least 30,000 Lbs thrust?) for larger airplanes, how much fuel burn would that take and could the aircraft carry enough fuel ?
Also, what do you want to do with the BAN on supersonic flight over land ?
They didn't mention the thrust. It would be nice if we could compare to the raptor.
This just SCREAMS "INVESTMENT FRAUD!!"
You need an open yoke, especially for supersonic.
So what is providing the electrical power?
I’m here for the taste treat, you spoke of.
"traveling the world in a fighter jet is ideal Ian life style"
Interesting...🤔
0:40 that's cuz its illegal in many countries💀💀
Electric hybrids with generators of some sort are the only ones that make sense
No matter what powers an aircraft, you still have to deal with the super sonic footprint. That's the main reason Concord traveled over water. Mach 3 is another matter, heat!
@@jameskelly8506 Now the sonic boom can be changed to a much quieter drawn out "thruummmphe" without out the window rattling sudden pressure wave. Google "X 59 no sonic boom". However, the show stopper is NO LONGER a sonic boom, but the much, MUCH higher cost of buildong, operating and maintaining a fleet of supersonic airliners, (as it always has been)even with the old sonic boom issue.
an EV induced ramjet is a brilliant idea.
If the marshmallow tastes that good, can we develop jet exhaust flavored liquid smoke for home cooking?
You’re asking the right questions.
The day it enters market i will buy that ✈️ 😂😂😂😂
When you arrive, I hope a half million dollar 5-axis machine in the office is the norm Sign me up
I would honestly much prefer SF to LA in 3 hours on rail so I could visit my nieces more easily.
Yeah but it is a harder dream. They have released new, more efficient engines every decade or so, but has CA or entire US for the fact significantly expanded its long range rail in the past 15 years?
I wonder if upon dissent and deceleration, the electric turbine with bypass could be used for regenerative braking.
There is still limited takeoff and landing capacity to deal with. More people traveling in smaller planes can't be accommodated without a vast increase in runway capacity. While there might be more diffusion in where people want to go, I doubt it will be enough. Large aircraft will still rule.
Not necessarily__they could utilize take-off and landing techniques of hovercraft. 😋😁
That’s definitely a problem! However, you might be surprised to see how many smaller airports there are already. There are large numbers of under utilized airports because they don’t accommodate larger planes.
Hes presenting a paradigm shift guy, where's your contribution?
(my contribution was the marshmallows)
*This is how Most German tanks worked in WWII Fuel - Gen - Electric.*
What are you yapping about here????
Is this a joke or do you actually believe that
It sounds like he's talking about the basic diesel electric hybrid technology that's been used in the train industry since mid 20th century. It wouldn't surprise me if the german military came up with this stuff, it doesn't surprise me anymore.How much technology we don't realize came from the nazis.
So are they using only one motor to spin the compressor. Or are they using multiple electric motors to spin different parts of the compressor?
Its MY vortex rocket entirely designed by myself
You are just using a frigging jet engine (a gas turbine is just a jet angine with more turbine stages) to run EDFs with an afterburner. In essence you are using a jet engine to run a bigger compressor, that works with an afterburner. You are just physicaly separating the components of a fighter's turbofan engine (take the snecma m88, most of the thrust come from the turbofan part).
You have one point : as a jet engine only works efficiently at certain thrust/speed/altitude points, it COULD be more efficient when changing altitude, but it's pointless during level flight
you're supposed to use hot dogs and marshmallows. and you need a chain link fence to support them, as well as bailing wire to secure the food.
Soon we will have this marshmallow toaster in every American home. Why travel at all?
cus im not in america!
but, as we dont have rabies here... im staying put!
The power needed to spin an axial compressor hard enough to feed an actual jet engine has to come from the turbine making the engine self sustaining. Powering a generator to then power the electric motor just adds a lot of weight and complexity and parasitic losses. This is just another effort to make it look like you're breaking 'new ground' to attract unsophisticated investors while not having the slightest chance of ever working out as hoped. "Oh well...we tried" after working for years while burning other people's money.
6:51 toast marshmallows🔥and flys🪰?🤔
Cheap electric supersonic flight carbon free, just like warp drive. I love those new sci-fi channels. They present stuff as if it was real or possible.
I love this concept. But why not marry this tech with personal VTOL craft?
Yes this is the way of the future 3ph motor will get the RPMs hope you did patents ?
Why is it a good idea?!? Because it solves many issues with current engines in such a simple way that i go like "Daaa, why has nobody thought of that before🤦"
people have thought of it before. and they knew it was an exercise in futility as did their investors.
but now we have generations of utter idiots with no knowledge of how anything works, fed a diet of hype and keywords and kindergarten level explanations of how things work...
as they stated, electric motors have been massive and heavy for a while. trains run on electric motors but trains also dont fly(hopefully). the catalyst here is electric motor innovation. it is to be seen if this works. I hope it does
I don't want to imagine the kind of torture airports are going to put us through before boarding one of these
Buy a retired Concorde refit it with modern electronics and aerodynamic tweaks, fit these engines. It would still be hugely inexpensive compared to building something from the ground up. And there’s more rich people now than ever that would be happy to pay the price to use it.
I don't believe the claims of that sponsored product in the slightest.
How about the generator? Still extra weight and complexity
Nice 👍
How do you deal with no-sonic boom supersonic flight ?
Where is the Kilowatts of electricity coming from once the engine takes flight??
Megawatts. Compressing the air entering a large jet consumes many thousands of HP / MW of electrical energy. This whole thing is a scam, I think.
if i have thought of this engine 5 years ago during padamic i am sure many have done so
imagine adding the principles of ionic propulsion
I think you have something here. The electric motor driving the fan would be reliable and easy to maintain, but the motors would add weight that doesn't exist in the current engine. I'm guessing ionic propulsion would be a more weight efficient way to drive the air, using electricity generated elsewhere in the plane.
I don't know if ionic propulsion can be used in the compression phase. It definitely sucks, but I wonder if it can squeeze enough. However, if you have an over the wing external ionic propulsion with electric power generated by a turbine that's basically an oversized auxiliary power unit. You eliminate the weight of the engine on the wing, rather than adding weight of heavy magnets that make electric motors so heavy
Okay, when the opening has to use the line “environmentally friendly” along side the tech, I have my doubts.
Make and promote the product, make it work THEN use the EF aspect as a BONUS of the technology
Methane for commerical aircraft is a no-no. basically you are building an hindenburg. The reason why Planes use kerosene is that harder to ignite than methane or gasoline. Issue is with methane is that if there is a gas leak, all it takes is a spark to set it off.
I have doubt this is economical, since you need a separate turbine to run the generator, which will add a lot more weight, and if that single gas turbine fails all the engines running off it will also failure: ie single point of failure. Maybe it can be changed such that the the generator is incorporated in the engine: electric driven compressor -> combustion -> Exhaust turbine powered generator. But then your adding a lot of complexity back into the engine design.
on a scale of 1 to 10 for this to be an economical\commercial success I would put this at 1.
I’ve thought of building a gas or diesel electric generator driven electric vehicle. That could be a car,truck, or aircraft. It’s already done in trains, why not on other vehicles. You could run the generator on hydrogen for an extremely clean burning vehicle!
Are you building anything for the general aviation? Experimental aircraft like homebuilt aircraft? I’d love to see a set up on a Velocity XL!
trains have this peculiar characteristic that the heavier they are, the better they are... they rely on weight to get traction. steel wheels on steel tracks. and once moving, they continue rolling with very little effort... when kept below certain speeds and air resistance is negligible. tracks are arranged to be as flat and level as possible.
as accelerating is the only part that really requires power, and is based on the rate of acceleration, you can get away with a limited amount of power moving extremely large amounts of weight around, and the payload is barely affected by the source of motive power. then once moving, those diesel engines can be backed right off to just a bit above idle, where they run on barely any fuel at all. so the cost of moving stuff around is rather minimal.
its also really easy to plug in cables and distribute that power along multiple sets of driving wheels. no driveshafts, no special couplings or joints or bearings or gearboxes...
any other vehicle? the weight of the source of power, versus the payload starts to become a problem. planes need to be LIGHT. as light as possible. any extra weight detracts from their ability to stay airborne, and retain their primary function... move many people large distances rapidly as cheaply as possible.
cars and trucks have to deal with varying gradients, and carry as much payload as possible... they have to factor in tyre wear, suspension systems, road construction and weight bearing ability...
and once you go over a certain speed, air resistance becomes an absolute killer.
i am not even going to touch on hydrogen other than its more wishful thinking. go make a few phone calls to local industrial gas suppliers, ask for some quotes on hydrogen. then look at how the hydrogen is stored. the wight of the bottle, and the size of it.
then run through the basic maths on how much energy you will get from a certain volume of hydrogen when consumed in an ICE. hint, a 2L engine at 3000RPM will need somewhere around 20L of hydrogen every SECOND, assuming full throttle and 100% VE.
i calculated around about 7minutes of run time from an F size bottle, assuming "cruising" travel...
hydrogen combustion engine is a futile effort. just run a fuel cell.
just two small problems that Concorde had, how loud the engines will be and the sonic boom, will be no quieter. This is why Concorde only flew over the atlantic after test flights over the USAS , Europe and asia, the complaints about the sonic boom stopped flights east or south from heathrow and Paris.
Just a flash thought from a non engineering layperson...The M3 mention in this video means what? This is a testing model bolted down on concrete pad, as a stationary object, how to est. / measures the M3?
Did he really said: @14:04 "LNG...and on the climate front it has 20% less CO2" That is true, but that is lying with numbers . Sure the 20% are correct, but any methan not burned has a factor of 29.8 of CO2 and that does not even account for the losses true leakages that you always have. If you care for climate then you wouldn't go for supersonic anyhow, but that is a different topic.
So how should i trust someone that such easily is implying something, which he knows is not true or is that the bad student part?
And the presenter called it "more sustainable", while in reality it's pretty much the least sustainable fuel out there, as you explained. Since oil & gas form together the latter is usually a byproduct of oil drilling so it's the same industry anyway.
This channel can't be trusted either.
Reading a few of the comments, I am surprised no one mentioned the sonic boom. Having the engine is one aspect, but getting the regulations to fly over population centers is another. Don't get me wrong, this is great, ( no pun intended ) but I wonder if this will get off the ground
Congratulations! First marshmallow supersonically tested...., sorry, toasted!
Boom is flying at M1.7 (1800kmh, 500m/s) due to aero-heating issues and energy use. M3.05 (900m/s, 3240 kmh) is for military, government applications at present, perhaps also the business aircraft market.