2newhybs

FAR

..... and the results: well .... not satisfying. But considering those were only our burn tests 4 and 5, one can say that we are steadily improving.

With both tests, we had trouble building pressure and thus failed to reach the calculated engine parameters. As a result, we had a) an oxygene-rich mixture which burned one nozzle and b) had some heavy burning instabilities. On the other hand, we had some smooth burning as well and the burning instabilities observed are at the same time good proof for the intrinsic safety features of hybrid technology (because liquid/liquid engines would have doubtlessly disintetrated).

First, the PE engine:

This engine lasted for 30 seconds before it burned through at the injection head. Two good results: the nozzle held up very well and fuel consumption was smooth over the whole port length (a very essential prediction of our new injection system and usually a problem in large hybrids).

As you can see, this engine sent bullets of molten steel our way, which was the first and only critical phase so far encountered in any test. We never had fear of explosion, as you can tell by the cars parked a mere 20 yards away. In essence, PE is a very good-natured fuel.

The asphalt engine:

We chose this fuel because we wanted something we could cast and because the fuel gasifies easily thus producing a high regression. Essentially, regression is more a function of temperature as compared to PE, where, up to a pressure of appx. 20 bar, regression is more a function of pressure. The expected higher regression led us to inject correspondingly more oxygene, but unfortunately, since engine parameters were not met, the mixture was essentially too oxygene-rich, which burned away the carbon/carbon nozzle. We are doubtful if we want to use this fuel again.

More to come .....