backtop


Print 81 comment(s) - last by Chocobollz.. on Nov 10 at 11:13 AM


NRL's model of a Rotating Detonation Engine  (Source: nrl.navy.mil)
Currently, the Navy has 129 ships with 430 gas-turbine engines that burn $2 billion of fuel annually

The U.S. Navy is working on new technology for its gas-turbine engines in order to decrease fuel consumption without sacrificing performance.

The answer, according to the Naval Research Laboratory (NRL), is equipping current gas-turbine engines with Rotating Detonation Engine (RDE) technology. These engines could not only efficiently provide propulsion for Navy planes and ships, but also create electricity for an all-electric propulsion system.

The Navy currently uses gas-turbine engines that are based on the Brayton thermodynamic cycle, where air is compressed, combined with fuel, combusted at a constant pressure and expanded. This allows for propulsion or generating electricity, just like the RDEs. However, the Brayton cycle is less efficient than the detonation cycle.

Dr. Kazhikathra Kailasanath, head of NRL's Laboratories for Computational Physics and Fluid Dynamics, noted the following in a 2011 paper for the NRL Review:

The challenge with detonation engines is realizing the efficiency of the detonation cycle. Concepts such as oblique detonation-wave engines have failed to be able to recover the efficiency of this detonation cycle, because much of the energy of the inflow is bound up in kinetic energy, which does not increase the pressure and thus does not improve the efficiency. Pulse detonation engines have taken a different approach by creating an unsteady process that removes the requirement of having high velocity inflow. This creates a whole new set of issues, such as rapid initiation of detonations and the requirement of efficient detonators.

The rotating detonation engine takes a different approach toward realizing the efficiency of the detonation cycle. By allowing the detonation to propagate azimuthally around an annular combustion chamber, the kinetic energy of the inflow can be held to a relatively low value, and thus the RDE can use most of the compression for gains in efficiency, while the flow field matches the steady detonation cycle closely.

Currently, the Navy has 129 ships with 430 gas-turbine engines that burn $2 billion of fuel annually. By equipping engines with RDE technology, power could be increased by 10 percent while fuel consumption would decrease by 25 percent. The Navy could also save $300-$400 million annually.

Source: U.S. Navy



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Why not clean coal?
By EricMartello on 11/3/2012 8:57:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What's wrong with being a "hippie"?


The overwhelming disconnect between how things are and how you think things are and should be. i.e. - Attaining world peace through pacifism.

quote:
What's wrong with the EPA, you hate living nature or something?


The basic idea of protecting our environment and natural resources is sound...but like anything, once the government is involved it becomes a bloated, ineffective wad of red tape that's far off from its stated mission.

That, plus the EPA pushing forth mandates and regulations based on pseudo-scientific research like "global warming" and "climate change".

quote:
Try surviving without breathable air, drinkable water and non-toxic food for five minutes. There's your answer why we need both "hippies" and EPA (or equivalent thereof in other countries.)


Don't hippies spend most of their time huffing weed instead of air...or medicinal herbs as they call it now?

There is no doubt that we need strong policies that protect our environment - but these protections need to be based on real data and rather than populist theories that are not scientifically verifiable (or repeatable, in terms of experimentation).


RE: Why not clean coal?
By maugrimtr on 11/5/2012 8:53:21 AM , Rating: 1
Climatologists do not engage in "pseudo-science". If some people are hippies, and you're fine using stereotypical labels, than that makes you a nutjob rightwing skeptic.

Climatology is a real science. The pseudo-scientists are those who rely on premises not based on hard data and experimental modelling, i.e. they rely on fanciful imagined scenarios that can't be proven experimentally or downplay the impact of climate change because it was already much warmer in the past...long long ago when Humanity's ancestors were tiny mammals who lived in underground burrows hiding from dinosaur predators.

I find it absolutely depressing that you can both refer to the Scientific Method as justification right after denying the existence of a Science itself. You can't have it both ways or select whichever suits your then prevailing set of personal beliefs (belief systems are not Science).


RE: Why not clean coal?
By EricMartello on 11/5/2012 1:56:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Climatology is a real science.


So is astrology if you believe that sort of thing.

quote:
They rely on fanciful imagined scenarios that can't be proven experimentally or downplay the impact of climate change because it was already much warmer in the past.


The fact that the earth was substantially warmer in the past for a longer period of time than it has been at its current temperature is not an imagined scenario.

We've only been tracking weather stats for about 200 years, and of that 200 years only within recent decades have we been able to deploy a network of sensors around the globe to monitor various conditions. You're arguing that we should ignore millions, if not billions, of years of geological evidence with regards to the earth's climate and jump on the "man-made global warming" bandwagon because of 50-60 years of data - a lot of which is cherry-picked to support flawed doomsday theories.

quote:
I find it absolutely depressing that you can both refer to the Scientific Method as justification right after denying the existence of a Science itself.


So...what about the overwhelming majority of scientists self-identifying as liberals, working in liberal institutions that receive large amounts of tax-payer money to fund "research"...much of this research being manipulated to predict some doomsday scenario, grossly overstating the effect that man-made activities have on the climate, in order to secure continued funding for said research?

A bunch of scientists, who are essentially drones, agreeing with each other is proof of nothing.

This is how science works:

1) Formulate a Theory
2) Devise an experiment to test theory
3) Perform experiment and observe results
4) Repeat and notate if results are consistent or varied
5) Confirm or deny theory based on consistency or lack thereof in results.

This is how the "man-made global warming" scientists work:

1) Decide theory that is likely to attract funding
2) Devise experiment that produces results supporting theory
3) Perform experiment and achieve desired results
4) Ensure your grant letters are ready to go
5) Claim you've discovered that the sky is falling because of big bad corporations polluting mother earth and that you need more funding to find out the solution, plus you need your tenure extended another 20 years.

So you can see the disparity between what real scientists do and what liberals pretending they are scientists do.

What I find hilarious is how liberals believe they're "evolved" because they denounce religion and replace it with pseudo-science as their belief system, believing that it is more "real" than a some spiritual deity. Sorry to say but you're still the collective of human stupidity that you have been all along.


"Death Is Very Likely The Single Best Invention Of Life" -- Steve Jobs

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki