pistonless pump

[spacy600]

<p>Will this pump find it's way on big grown up rockets?</p><p>or is it just a toy?</p>http://www.flometrics.com/rockets/rocket_pump/rocketpump.htm

 

[coeptus]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Will this pump find it's way on big grown up rockets?or is it just a toy?http://www.flometrics.com/rockets/rocket_pump/rocketpump.htm <br /> Posted by spacy600</DIV></p><p>Energy density of the prepressurized helium supply might be hard to scale up to a SSME class engine.&nbsp; Note how high the He pressure has to be to get 600 psi pump output over a useful time, and then imagine it scaled&nbsp; up for 3000+ psi pump output for a high efficiency H/LOX engine.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Another concern is you have essentially a pendulum in your vehicle in that you are alternately filling and emptying large tanks astride the center line of the vehicle.&nbsp; At some interval during launch and fuel depletion you might trigger a weird resonance in the vehicle and break it up.&nbsp; Maybe you burn fuel off fast enough to not be in resonance very long (if ever) but maybe you don't . . .</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>It isn't a default 'bad idea' but scaling it up might entail some nasty gotchas.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Basic idea, BTW, is used in Kinetico water conditoners.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-surprised.gif" border="0" alt="Surprised" title="Surprised" /></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff00ff">If not for bad Pluck, I'd have no Pluck at all . . .</font></p><p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff">This is your vogon, posting under coeptus, and trying IE and Firefox  to see if either is faster with fewer misloads.  Erf !!</font></p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[coeptus]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Will this pump find it's way on big grown up rockets?or is it just a toy?http://www.flometrics.com/rockets/rocket_pump/rocketpump.htm <br /> Posted by spacy600</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>And the grammar police weigh in:</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>I note turbo pumps (main competitor of this new technology) are NOT piston pumps, and this alternating tank pressurizing concept is essentially a large 2 gaseous piston pump. </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Just real wierd how they worded their whole press release.&nbsp; The engineering isn't nearly as muddled as the marketing departments understanding of what their employers are trying to do.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><br /> <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/14/14/aead5be9-46f9-4512-beef-54f96884f13e.Medium.jpg" alt="" /></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff00ff">If not for bad Pluck, I'd have no Pluck at all . . .</font></p><p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff">This is your vogon, posting under coeptus, and trying IE and Firefox  to see if either is faster with fewer misloads.  Erf !!</font></p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[scottb50]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;And the grammar police weigh in:&nbsp;I note turbo pumps (main competitor of this new technology) are NOT piston pumps, and this alternating tank pressurizing concept is essentially a large 2 gaseous piston pump. &nbsp;&nbsp;Just real wierd how they worded their whole press release.&nbsp; The engineering isn't nearly as muddled as the marketing departments understanding of what their employers are trying to do.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <br /> Posted by coeptus</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>It seems like a pretty busy idea to me and adds quite a bit of mass to the vehicle. Much simpler would be a Nitrogen pressure system that would use the engine for pressurization. The only moving part would be four valves and four free-floating pistons. The rocket body would consist of a single piece tube with the pistons inside. LOX would be loaded on one side of the pair of piston and the fuel on the other, Nitrogen gas would be used to separate the pistons and pressurize the tanks for engine start. Liquid Nitrogen would be carried in two external tanks with floating pistons and Nitrogen gas pressurization for start.</p><p>Liquid Nitrogen would be used to cool the cumbustion chamber and nozzle with the resulting&nbsp; super-heated Nitrogen gas vented to the piston chambers to sustain operation. </p><p>For a re-usable stage the Nitrogen gas in the mainbody and the Nitrogen tanks would be recovered and re-used and the LOX and fuel tanks refilled. </p><p>&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacy600]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;It seems like a pretty busy idea to me and adds quite a bit of mass to the vehicle. Much simpler would be a Nitrogen pressure system that would use the engine for pressurization. The only moving part would be four valves and four free-floating pistons. The rocket body would consist of a single piece tube with the pistons inside. LOX would be loaded on one side of the pair of piston and the fuel on the other, Nitrogen gas would be used to separate the pistons and pressurize the tanks for engine start. Liquid Nitrogen would be carried in two external tanks with floating pistons and Nitrogen gas pressurization for start.Liquid Nitrogen would be used to cool the cumbustion chamber and nozzle with the resulting&nbsp; super-heated Nitrogen gas vented to the piston chambers to sustain operation. For a re-usable stage the Nitrogen gas in the mainbody and the Nitrogen tanks would be recovered and re-used and the LOX and fuel tanks refilled. &nbsp; <br /> Posted by scottb50</DIV></p><p>Did you see this page?</p><p>http://www.flometrics.com/rockets/rocket_pump/pfcalcs.pdf</p><p>I don't understand the math, so I can't comment.&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p>

 

[scottb50]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Did you see this page?http://www.flometrics.com/rockets/rocket_pump/pfcalcs.pdfI don't understand the math, so I can't comment.&nbsp;&nbsp; <br /> Posted by spacy600</DIV></p><p>While I was away on vacation I unplugged my computer, it's monsoon season here so I figured it would be safer. When I got home and powered it up the hard-drive seems to have bite the big one. Now I am using an anemic laptop and it just took an hour to update Adobe to look at the PDF.</p><p>As a first response I see the point they are making and based on their opposing designs agree with their thinking. The difference is my approach greatly reduces the weight of the tank as well as removing the complex hardware involved with a conventional rocket. Not only is it much lighter then a conventional pressure feed tank the savings in turbopumps makes it only marginally heavier then a thin wall tank. Add the inherent safety of removing the failure prone mechanical pumps and the mounting requirements they have and it could be much more efficient.</p><p>Instead of a thick wall high pressure tank use a thin wall, single piece composite tube contained by a high strength composite outer cage that also mounts the engines and payloads. &nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacy600]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>While I was away on vacation I unplugged my computer, it's monsoon season here so I figured it would be safer. When I got home and powered it up the hard-drive seems to have bite the big one. Now I am using an anemic laptop and it just took an hour to update Adobe to look at the PDF.As a first response I see the point they are making and based on their opposing designs agree with their thinking. The difference is my approach greatly reduces the weight of the tank as well as removing the complex hardware involved with a conventional rocket. Not only is it much lighter then a conventional pressure feed tank the savings in turbopumps makes it only marginally heavier then a thin wall tank. Add the inherent safety of removing the failure prone mechanical pumps and the mounting requirements they have and it could be much more efficient.Instead of a thick wall high pressure tank use a thin wall, single piece composite tube contained by a high strength composite outer cage that also mounts the engines and payloads. &nbsp; <br /> Posted by scottb50</DIV></p><p>Your response seemed timely. Sorry abot your main computer.</p><p>Can you make a proof of concept device? </p><p>I would think that the Aerospace world would beat a path to your door</p><p>if you had a pump that was proven to be reliable, lighter weight, less costly.</p><p>And did everything a turbopump dose. </p><p>&nbsp;Or would it suffer from the not invented here problem? </p>

 

[scottb50]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Your response seemed timely. Sorry abot your main computer.Can you make a proof of concept device? I would think that the Aerospace world would beat a path to your doorif you had a pump that was proven to be reliable, lighter weight, less costly.And did everything a turbopump dose. &nbsp;Or would it suffer from the not invented here problem? <br /> Posted by spacy600</DIV></p><p>First of all I wouldn't call it a pump. It depends solely on pressurized gas. A precharge of Nitrogen starts the process and cooling the combustion chamber and nozzle of the motor heats and expands the gas raising the pressure. The only mechanical parts would be valves to control the flow of liquid and gas.</p><p>Not invented here is another thing. Upper stages, Centaur and Falcon, for the second stage, use pressure feed as does the Shuttle for the RMS engines. Similarly the SME's and nozzles are cooled by Hydrogen now. The only difference is instead of channeling Hydrogen into the combustion chamber Nitrogen would be used and routed back to the tank as high pressure gas to force Hydrogen and Oxygen to the combustion chamber.</p><p>Instead of turbopumps you would have four off/on valves.&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacy600]

<p><br />http://archived.thespaceshow.com/shows/1015-BWB-2008-09-12.mp3</p><p>Is a link to the Space Show. The frist part is a SpaceX interview.</p><p>At about the 40 minute mark (half way through)</p><p>is a 40 minute interview with the guy who invented the pump.</p><p>&nbsp;I would like th know what everyone thinks.</p><p>It was done at the latest AIAA conference. </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Thanks. </p>