15. The Argument
The Jet Powered Aircraft Industry does not regard the reduction of the GROSS THRUST to a NET THRUST value as a loss, particularly, at supersonic speeds but simply as a price to be paid for the privilege of Jet Powered flight. Indeed, the Industry goes further and argues most strenuously that the effect of this loss of thrust incurred at the inlets to the engines of the Concorde Aircraft in particular is, in its understanding, an absolute boon. The total/stagnation pressure rise incurred at the Inlet to the Aircraft which is created in the REACTION half of the Aircraft's MOTION SYSTEM by Air Mass Motion System No.2 is regarded as having a supercharging effect upon the capacity of the engine, thereby boosting its power in the same way as the use of a supercharger in the Merlin engine boosted its power.
The supercharger in the Merlin was incorporated directly into the ACTION half of the working cycle of the engine itself whereas here, the pressure boosting occurs in the REACTION half (Air Mass Motion System No.2) of the Aircraft's MOTION CYCLE. There is no way known to science whereby, a Thrust loss incurred in the REACTION half of an Aircraft's Motion System (Air Mass Motion System No2) can be reintroduced as pressure gain into the ACTION half of the Aircraft's own physical working Cycle (Air Mass Motion System No.1) to the Aircraft's Motion benefit.
This was accomplished by the incorporation of the supercharger in the Merlin simply because it was incorporated directly into in the Action half of the engine's physical cycle thereby contributing directly to the boost in power at the of disposal of the Aircraft via it's thrust bolts. This is simply not possible in the case where the increased total pressure is incurred at the inlet of a Jet Powered Aircraft in the REACTION half of it's Motion System Cycle at high forward speeds. That the stagnation pressure at the disposal of the Aircraft is markedly increased as indeed is the power at it's disposal via it's engine's thrust bolts is not in question but, that this can be translated into an improvement in the Velocity or speed that the Aircraft has attained or can attain is, a scientific impossibility. The stagnation pressure increase so incurred, is incurred in the REACTION half of the Aircraft's Motion System Cycle and is the Resultant product of the Aircraft's speed. The Aircraft Velocity/Speed is accomplished in spite of this thrust penalty and not as a result of it as is claimed. This effect occurs too late in the Aircraft's Motion System to positively enhance the Aircraft's Resultant speed/velocity and, this is the most important end result in judging the efficiency of any motion vehicle flying or otherwise. Acceptance of this Thrust Penalty in the conventional form of Jet Powered Aircraft can in no way be scientifically justified in the inventor's opinion.
This vast Industry in fact believes that at speeds above 500mph the greatest part of the thrust delivered to the Aircraft, particularly, at supersonic flight speeds, is in fact delivered by the engine intake. That the total pressure developed here at this, and, at higher forward speeds appreciably exceeds that which can be delivered by the engine's compressor at the same condition is not in question. This is not at all surprising because the principle component of the thrust equation at high forward speeds becomes the Velocity of the equation and not its Mass. The energy developed in the form of a thrust force increases as the square of the velocity consequently the capacity of the system to develop pressure, the principle component of a thrust force is switched, it would seem, from that delivered by the engine to, that created in it's intake. It is indeed true that at high supersonic and hypersonic velocities the pressure that can be developed in the intake can be a number times higher than that of the compressor of the engine providing the motive power. Although, the pressure at the disposal of the Aircraft is greatly enhanced as is the thrust power of the engine to argue that the greater part of the thrust delivered to the Aircraft is from the intake and not the engine and that this is a positive motion/velocity benefit to the Aircraft as a motion vehicle that is caused to fly is, simply not true, (reference to the Specific Thrust argument above).
There is no way known to science wherein a thrust loss incurred in the REACTION half of a Motion Vehicle's Motion System can in some way be recovered and reintroduced into the Action half of the same Motion System to the motion/velocity advantage of the vehicle. No way.
In the case of Concorde, the thrust power developed as a consequence of the above cannot conceivably enhance the RESULTANT VELOCITY attainable by the Aircraft occurring as it does in the REACTION half (Air Mass Motion System No.2) of the Aircraft's MOTION SYSTEM. This is after the event, i.e., it is after the desired flight speed of the Aircraft has already been achieved. It is a product of the Aircraft's speed through the atmosphere which is in itself, the product of the ACTION half of the Aircraft's Motion System represented by the Thrust force delivered to the Aircraft via it's mounting bolts. The Aircraft's Velocity is not enhanced by this thrust power boost to the engine. As a direct consequence, although the core engine is then capable of delivering far greater power, it is a power proportionately greater, as things are, than is actually required to achieve the flight Velocity state at which this negative Thrust Force is created.
This vast Industry has failed to distinguish the very fundamental difference between the effect of supercharging the ACTION half of the Merlin's physical working cycle upon the power and hence the speed attainable by the Aircraft it powered and, the effect achieved in the REACTION half (Air Mass Motion System No.2) of Concorde's, Motion Cycle. Here, in the case of all Jet Powered Aircraft today is the direct cause of the reduction of the GROSS THRUST delivered at all demand conditions to a Net Thrust value resulting in a total stagnation pressure rise at the Inlet to the Aircraft/engine hence, power boost to it's Air Mass Motion System. However, "as things are", this inlet pressure has still got to be recycled through the engine before it can register as a thrust force at the engine's mounting bolts. And yet, this is still not regarded as a Thrust Penalty, in spite of the fact that the potential speed of the Aircraft attainable at all Gross Thrust conditions is, seriously impaired.
By eliminating the principal cause of the reduction in the effectiveness of the GROSS THRUST to a NET THRUST value at all demand conditions the total thrust power required to meet any existing condition would be dramatically reduced. Add to this, a System by means of which an infinite Motion Gearing is achieved between the ACTION (Air Mass Motion System No.1) and REACTION (Air Mass Motion System No.2) halves of the Aircraft's Motion System and the Aircraft's structure then this will in affect transform its existing Motion System into a complete fully integrated, AIR MASS MOTION SYSTEM CYCLE.
Such a system makes possible the establishment of an infinite gearing between the Motion Action of it's Air Mass Motion System Cycle upon the Aircraft's structure and it's RESULTING mass momentum state. This makes possible the positive transformation of the economic and commercial viability of all Jet Powered Aircraft so equipped.
The inventor has invented such a system whereby the above advantages can be achieved by employing relatively simple technology. Patent rights to this system have been granted for France, Germany, United Kingdom, and the United States of America
|
