So, it is a shame...If Rolls-Royce bought it, it was something worth mentioning not like this "scientific breakthrough of the century".. (also this phrase doesn't belongs to me but to inventor of this machine. You can see it in his website)
In theory a 3KN TurboJet and 330 KN low bypass TurboFan works on the same principles...but to be able produce them is a whole different matter....
And like we don't have the science to develop a piston engine.....check out Engine thread mate.
Bring me the science to produce Nickel IBR's of a TurboFan engine i would applause you.... bring me the science of an Otto engine which has been produced more than century ago..i would just laugh at you.
In a similar fashion should we congratulate the dean of Pamukkale University whom produced an indigenous car with his students ?
View attachment 187595
we have piston engine production, but if that man really brought a new shaft system to increase efficiency it is really good thing, i havent seen blueprints of that ,i dont know whether its only applicable in one piston enginer because main issue in those engines are counter acting piston.
But if its something like what he said,that really improves efficiency of fuel in the burnt than its something really good, as it seems patent is done that means they also completed experiments.
What he is done really quite different than what PAU does,or perpetual engine. He is just improving otto cycle which is still employed in diversity of large power output engines.
Additionally shaft systems are easily applied between the engine types, it doesnt matter how many cylinders you have ,its all about adjusting timing. Even while engine manufacturer offers the engines, they do it like 4/6/12/16/8 cylinder options with different power outputs. So this means you can apply the technology on other piston engine types.
I dont know about turbofan engine, even what he has done isnt related to it, but from the smallest pump engine to largest piston engine ( which 100000 bhp) uses the same the background . It doesnt mean you can produce the other once you have done it in another but they use the shared technology, means you can apply from another to other.
What you talk about is material science ,even more related to production technique. But i know different scientific devlopment ,which will help to produce advanced materials and its not like something we will consider as scientific. One more note, along material science, math is also a science , thermodynamics also, physics or mechanics also a science. I also would applause a article about differential equation, or one about phase transformation of fluid in a compressed area.
Also i laughed hard when i had seen PAU's 3 different model
specially when dean or rector has driven them. Doesnt he tell " wth" .
