Worlds smallest engine.

LAST EDITED ON Jan-31-04 AT 02:32 PM (CDT)
 
Night before last I saw some of the worlds smallest engines on a Science TV show. The most amazine one was a real working jet engine that was only 1/8" long. They call it microtechnology. I wonder how long it would run on 1 drop of fuel. I would love to see that engine on the worlds smallest control line airplane. It would probably be like flying a Wasp with a spider web. lol

Gary Weaver [email protected]

[photo not recovered: jet.jpg]

http://www.wdv.com/Aerospace/NanoJet/

Heisenburg says you might have trouble flight testing that CL plane!

LAST EDITED ON Jan-30-04 AT 06:54 PM (CDT)
 
>Heisenburg says you might have trouble flight testing that
>CL plane!
Are you certain about that?
Pauli says they could never be flown in combat....

I wouldn't be too "certain" about anything Heisenburg says.

>I wouldn't be too "certain" about anything Heisenburg says.

The mere fact of stating the theory alters it.

LAST EDITED ON Jan-30-04 AT 09:32 PM (CDT)
 
by any act, error, or omission, I have, intentionally or
unintentionally, displayed any breedist, disciplinist, sexist, racist,
culturalist, nationalist, regionalist, localist, ageist, lookist, ableist,
sizeist, speciesist, intellectualist, socioeconomicist, ethnocentrist,
phallocentrist, heteropatriarchalist, or other violation of the rules of
political correctness, known or unknown, I am not sorry and I encourage you
to get over it.

I didn't realize that we were combating at the molecuilar level and had to keep everything in perfect alignment

Good show....Guess we can stay with Newtonian mechanics for our models, since they don't usually travel near the speed of light!

You could fly it in a brandy glass and you wouldn't need a wrist strap.

How about a microtechnology turboprop, that would be interesting for a stunt ship, imagine the gear size(or lack of).

How small were the internal combustion engines if they had any?

>Night before last I saw some of the worlds smallest engines
>on a Science TV show. The most amazine one was a real
>working jet engine that was only 1/8" long. They call it
>microtechnology. I wonder how long it would run on 1 drop
>of fuel. I would love to see that engine on the worlds
>smallest control line airplane. It would probably be like
>flying a Wasp with a spider web. lol
>
>Gary Weaver [email protected]

I am assuming this had to be a ram jet. I built one of these as a kid (had a local blacksmith shop a block away and I would stop in there on my way home from school.) It was not nearly this small but was built with the tank surrounding the jet, with the orifice coming out the inside. I put it on a car and would heat it with a blow torch untl the gasoline (yes, gasoline) would vaporize, start spitting out the inside, and ignite. Once ignited, it got hot enough to keep the process going until all the fuel was used up. You could let this thing go down the side walk and it was something a terrorist would be proud of today. The tethered route would be better, but I don't think it would be too suitable for an airplane.

LAST EDITED ON Jan-31-04 AT 02:57 PM (CDT) by LNeumann (admin)
 
Sounds like we're lucky to still have you...

Tim

If a Fox 15 falls from a tree in a deep, deep forest, and no one heard it, did it really fall?

Clarabelle (honk if you love Kangaroos)

Let's get this clear. Did anybody actually SEE the forest?

Dave,
I DID see the forest, but I never saw the Fox 15 because of the trees.
Bill <><

>Sounds like we're lucky to still have you...

Sorry, tim, I edited your message by mistake. I get a reply button right next to the edit button and I pushed the wrong one, and instead of replying with message, I edited message. Well, oops!

Anyway, I was trying to say that the plans for that ram jet were printed in Popular Mechanics or Science and Mechanics or some such back then (early 50's). It was welded up out of thin sheet metal. And it worked. People didn't consider it to be dangerous then. And it seemed like a neat contraption at the time. It wouldn't be very practical for airplanes, but it was a fun experiment.

True story, and it did work.

>>Sounds like we're lucky to still have you...
>
>Sorry, tim, I edited your message by mistake. I get a reply
>button right next to the edit button and I pushed the wrong
>one, and instead of replying with message, I edited message.
> Well, oops!
>
>Anyway, I was trying to say that the plans for that ram jet
>were printed in Popular Mechanics or Science and Mechanics
>or some such back then (early 50's). It was welded up out
>of thin sheet metal. And it worked. People didn't consider
>it to be dangerous then. And it seemed like a neat
>contraption at the time. It wouldn't be very practical for
>airplanes, but it was a fun experiment.
>
>True story, and it did work.

by any act, error, or omission, I have, intentionally or
unintentionally, displayed any breedist, disciplinist, sexist, racist,
culturalist, nationalist, regionalist, localist, ageist, lookist, ableist,
sizeist, speciesist, intellectualist, socioeconomicist, ethnocentrist,
phallocentrist, heteropatriarchalist, or other violation of the rules of
political correctness, known or unknown, I am not sorry and I encourage you
to get over it.

I remember the Mechanice Illustrated jet that had a little fuel pan undeneat the motor and you lit that and it heated water to steam in the jet and it kept running till the water was gone or the alcohol was used up. I always wanted one but never had $2.95 to spare to get one. Memories the stuff of life.
Dennis

Welding up an engine 1/8" long from sheet metal must have been quite a job especially in the 50's. It can't have been the same one anyway 'cause the picture above shows that it is a turbine not a ramjet.

>Welding up an engine 1/8" long from sheet metal must have
>been quite a job especially in the 50's. It can't have been
>the same one anyway 'cause the picture above shows that it
>is a turbine not a ramjet.

Mine was not 1/8 inch. It was probably a foot or so long. I just figured that the 1/8 inch model would have been a ram jet because I have difficulty believing that a turbo jet could be built that small and still be functional. I still do. I don't think the picture is of a real 1/8 inch long jet and would very seriously question if such an animal truly exists. In addition to the questions posed in the 1996 article dealing with screws and such, How do you meter the fuel and all? We have physics to deal with and I am a skeptic. There is too much stuff going around the Internet that is simply not believable.

The jet engine that they showed on TV had only 3 turbine blades. The guy showed it by holding it on the end of his finger tip. I have no idea how they can make something that small that really works. The fuel line would be larger than the engine. lol That pic I attached to the first post is a tiny jet engine too, 14" diameter, 41" long, thrust 700 lbs, 423 mph. The EJ22 turbofan engine weighs 85 pounds.