3 ms·
Stopped reading when the author referred to the combustion in an engine as a detonation.
by mgarfias 5y ago
Stopped reading when the author referred to the combustion in an engine as a detonation.
- Enginerrrd 5y agoThis is intentional! That's quite literally why this is interesting. from wikipedia: "Detonation is a type of combustion involving a supersonic exothermic front accelerating through a medium that eventually drives a shock front propagating directly in front of it." This test was able to actually stabilize a detonation shockwave in a way it could be used for propulsion!
- mgarfias 5y agoIt was referring to deflagration in a normal jet engine that I saw and stopped.
- Enginerrrd 5y agoI just reread it and either you misread or you don't understand, but my money is on the former. At no point does the article misuse the term "detonation" in the way you are suggesting. You should reread the article more carefully, especially since you were motivated enough to comment, but are very much mistaken.
- mgarfias 5y agoI just reread it as well, and what was clear is that the description of the engine, initially, was unclear. I assumed upon initial reading that the engine he was describing was conventional, and the author was talking about "detonations" in there, like the firing of a cylinder. If it was a turbine he was describing, there is no pulse, its a continuous burn. So overall, it didn't make sense to me, to describe an engine to use to compare the new tech to, that doesn't exist. Therefore I assumed that the author was comparing to an existing one, which does not detonate (well, they do, but its a BAD thing).