It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Video proof of pulse detonation propulsion?

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 07:54 PM
link   
Found this on youtube. Sort of hard to make out what exactly is going on since it is far away, but the contrail is very distinct. Whatever aircraft is creating this (if it is an aircraft and not fake) it is too far away to see. The contrail takes a moment to become apparent.



www.youtube.com...

It seems obvious to me, being ex-air force, that the aircraft in the second part of the video is actually most likely the F-117 and not the "Black Manta" or whatever is pointed out at the end of the video.

-ChriS




posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 07:59 PM
link   
Here's a video clip of a real PDE in action.

www.youtube.com...



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 12:32 PM
link   
i thought that the artists drawing of what he/she thought the plane looked like was pretty funny. it looked a lot like an F-117 with only a single tail fin. the artist's impression looked like an old-school 70's design of what the B-2 is now. as far as PDE's go i think they exist just a feeling, in no way can i back it up from a reputable source but it makes sense to me.

raptor



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by BlasteR
 


are we getting confused between an ordinary not-changed-since-the-40s pulse jet... see here:

en.wikipedia.org...

and something more exciting...

like this:

en.wikipedia.org...

or this...

www.seas.ucla.edu...

which is on the same principal but with an igniter...

i still wouldn't call it exotic...

this lot on the other hand...

www.daviddarling.info...

now these are exotic... (and all either theoretical or currently impossible)

[edit on 7/2/08 by rat256]



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by raptor1
 


Yeah I know!! I'm sure that the F-117's has been mistaken for UFO's on many occasions. I, personally, don't understand what the big fuss is over stealth technology anyway. It gave us a superior advantage in the past but this technology was being devleloped in the sixties and maybe further back? It's absurd to think we don't have much more than just stealth technology and satellite guided munitions. Stealth is antiquated technology (at least for our country).

With all the money going into black budget programs, I'm sure there's probably things we could only think of by watching sci-fi movies and tv shows. I worked in the air force in the 2w0x1 career field for 6 years until i got out in 2004 but in all my time of service I never saw any strange contrails or aircraft or anything like that. Probably since the military keeps a tight lid on such technology.

For some reason people attribute black budget programs to places like groom lake but I know for a fact that black budget programs are being conducted at many different air force bases simultaneously. (A colonel at Eielson AFB told me they even had black ops going on there but what they were i can only guess). but that's just one example. Eielson AFB does have the 3rd longest runway in the U.S. and is an alternate landing site for the space shuttle. Other than that I don't really know why they would conduct operations at such a site. It is fairly remote however.

-ChriS



posted on Feb, 9 2008 @ 12:01 AM
link   
If this unique contrail is being caused by the engine, and not some other means, then of course a pulse detonation engine is one highly possible powerplant for this aircraft. There may also be technology that is out there which we know nothing about which is creating this. It could also be a pulse jet as you stated, however the PDE is different in a few ways.

From what I read in the links you gave and what I've read in the past, the pulse detonation engine (PDE) would probably be the most likely candidate for such a contrail. This is from the PDE link on wikipedia you provided..

The main difference between a PDE and a traditional pulsejet is that the mixture does not undergo subsonic combustion but instead, supersonic detonation. In the PDE, the oxygen and fuel combination process is supersonic, effectively an explosion instead of burning. The other difference is that the shutters are replaced by more sophisticated valves. In some PDE designs from General Electric, the shutters are even removed because the process can be controlled by timing on the periodic sudden pressure drops that occur after each shock wave when the "combustion" products have been ejected in one shot.

The following is from an external link provided on wikipedia..

The Current State Of Development
It seems that nobody yet has the PDE developed to the point of being a practical propulsion device (or at least if they have, they're not telling anyone).
From what I've been able to gather, the main focus is currently being placed on researching and improving the detonation process. The current generation of PDEs don't seem capable of continuous running for any length of time -- they're more or less just single-shot devices requiring several seconds to recharge between detonations.

(comparable to the timing within this video. It seems about right)
PDE is nothing new. It was patented, originally, in 1952.
(click the following link to download the original patent in adobe PDF format)

www.google.com...

General Electric has also been trying to improve the design on their PDE for a long time. I found this idea on patents.com and thought it was interesting:
www.freepatentsonline.com...

I suppose some people call the PDE a "pulse detonation wave engine", but IMO that is just a fancy name for the same exact concept. The detonation of the air/fuel mixture creates a shockwave, however there is no reason to put the word "wave" into the name IMO because it is understood that the detonation of the air/fuel mixture will force air away from the blast (creating propulsion) in the form of a supersonic shockwave. What really amazes me is how the blast is not only contained but controlled.

The loads on the components must be ungodly..Not to mention a shutter system, which probably would be dependant on hydraulic force to open and close, would be vulnerable to constant failure. The valve system seems more likely to me and more cost effective (as is in use by the General Electric PDE according to reference material given on wikipedia.com).

The detonation of the fuel/air mixture would expand in all directions which means the design must be honed to deal with these loads. There are ways, however, that these detonations could be designed to take place within a giant, valved system that is conically shaped in order to minimize the blast wave from being pushed forward (which would ultimately result in inefficiency if not accounted for). Just an idea I had.. Who knows.

-ChriS





[edit on 9-2-2008 by BlasteR]



new topics

top topics
 
2

log in

join