What's new

Why Sarah Qureshi Decided to Build a Jet Engine?

Lastly, she said that technology is matured so no more efficient engine can be built.


LOL. Please look up orbital combustor technology. Those engines will be 20-30 percent more efficient compared to this "matured" tuknalojee.
 
LOL. Please look up orbital combustor technology. Those engines will be 20-30 percent more efficent compared to this "matured" tuknalojee.
Any link will help as I end up reading something wrong.
When we say no more efficient combustion engines, it means not bypassing the Carnot efficiency, and each engine's current limit. Like 4-stroke can reach maximum 30-32%. Diesel engine can get a bit higher than gasoline etc. Any feasible solution has reached its peak.
Like it is a good solution but has a lot of heat disposal problems.
 
Any link will help as I end up reading something wrong.


R-Jet Engineering is the developer of the Orbiting Combustion Nozzle (OCN) gas turbine engine. The OCN rotates the air and hot gases in the combustor with the compressor and turbine, eliminating the need for two sets of static blades. As a result, an OCN engine can be built at half the size of a conventional jet of similar power, with fewer components and at a lower cost. In addition, the OCN engine uses at least 25% less fuel than conventional engines, and its emissions of carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxide can be cut by three-quarters because of its ignition properties.
 
Incorrect.

She is aiming to reduce water vapor contrails, that is all.
The biggest contributor to green house effect. It is estimated that 60% of green house effect is because of it :agree:
 

R-Jet Engineering is the developer of the Orbiting Combustion Nozzle (OCN) gas turbine engine. The OCN rotates the air and hot gases in the combustor with the compressor and turbine, eliminating the need for two sets of static blades. As a result, an OCN engine can be built at half the size of a conventional jet of similar power, with fewer components and at a lower cost. In addition, the OCN engine uses at least 25% less fuel than conventional engines, and its emissions of carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxide can be cut by three-quarters because of its ignition properties.
Thank you for the link. It is an amazing feat however it is mainly reducing the weight or its better optimisation etc. It may have less fatigue life due to entire combustion chamber rotation. I really don't know more.

Something similar is making 3D printed turbine for cruise missiles, so lighter. However, it is not feasible for big engines, till yet.
 
Last edited:
Thank you for the link. It is an amazing feat however it mainly reducing the weight or its better optimisation etc. I really don't know more.

Something similar is making 3D printed turbine for cruise missiles. However, it is not feasible for big engines.


Let me just say that it takes a little bit more than graduating from the Agha Waqar School of Injuneering and Tuknalojee to be at the cutting edge these days. I will beg my leave from this thread now. Exit Stage Right. :D
 
It can be a real problem to meet regulations of some countries or attract more customer as water vapor is a greenhouse gas. Plus, it can provide a platform for small particles to cause smog.
Yeah.. The greenhouse effect could be significant. Would need to read more research into that.
 

R-Jet Engineering is the developer of the Orbiting Combustion Nozzle (OCN) gas turbine engine. The OCN rotates the air and hot gases in the combustor with the compressor and turbine, eliminating the need for two sets of static blades. As a result, an OCN engine can be built at half the size of a conventional jet of similar power, with fewer components and at a lower cost. In addition, the OCN engine uses at least 25% less fuel than conventional engines, and its emissions of carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxide can be cut by three-quarters because of its ignition properties.

This still does not exceed the Carnot efficiency which was what the 'efficiency' in 'technology is matured so no more efficient engine can be built' means.
 
Let me just say that it takes a little bit more than graduating from the Agha Waqar School of Injuneering and Tuknalojee to be at the cutting edge these days. I will beg my leave from this thread now. Exit Stage Right.
:D
I just know that university don't spend until it is worthy enough, and she has her credentials. Perhaps, someone can refute her but my specialty is catalysts, not engines.
Yeah.. The greenhouse effect could be significant. Would need to read more research into that.
EU regulations are getting very strict, especially after recent heatwave. So, its time may come. Such as Rankine cycle was invented in 1930s, but forgotten as fuel was cheap. It got resurrection in 80s and especially after the fuel embargo in 70s.
 
This still does not exceed the Carnot efficiency which was what the 'efficiency' in 'technology is matured so no more efficient engine can be built' means.

There is still a long way to improve current engines before that limit is actually reached. I really should stop here. :D
 
As for her project, I have been following her work and research since my own university days when we were doing stuff related to aeronautics.

Thing is, PhD projects are done even if you get a 1% efficiency or improved metrics at the end of the research. For that specific niche, it may be ground breaking and a big achievement, but on the whole, it's just a drop in the ocean. Take for example chevrons, or the alloy addition in Ti64, or many other such small steps. Nothing to be ridiculed.

Ab the problem is that our media latches on to anything, without doing actual research, and presents it as some shahkar of the world which will revolutionize the field. In many occassions, that is not the case.

There is still a long way to improve current engines before that limit is actually reached. I really should stop here. :D

Won't be reaching that limit any time soon!
 
Last edited:
There is still a long way to improve current engines before that limit is actually reached. I really should stop here. :D
I have never seen a 35% efficient 4-stroke engine. The Carnot cap is 43% (<8% left but since 2000, improved 3-4% in 8 decades or so from 27-28%). I am sure gas turbines are less efficient and for each category, they have reached their peak efficiency. Now better combustion control strategies or weight optimisation/reduction etc can make one engine better than the rest.
 
This thread reminds my why I hated thermodynamics class and didn't want to do anything with the field! :P
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom