In short these engines do as there name implies, using an annular cylinder to contain a rotating detonation front. Detonation is important to this design as the supersonic combustion of fuel is more efficient than subsonic.
This engine could become a fundamental backbone of our military as they are capable of providing thrusts powerful enough for hypersonic travel and can be used as the power generation units on naval vessels.
This seems to be the next big leap in chemical propulsion that will effect many military and civil applications just as the jet turbine did.
Link to article: https://www.sandboxx.us/blog/darpas-new-missile-hints-at-truly-game-changing-technology/
>he doesn't know that rotating detonation sonic booms have been observed since the fricking 1990s
NGMI
>New subcategory of military technology autism
Thanks for the heads up
Ah, yes. Detonation: known for playing nice with machinery and having no ill long-term effects.
There are already engines that run off of supersonic detonation, anon.
It's literally just a flame front shockwave it's not that dangerous if controlled, we're already dealing with similar levels of shock in supersonics
Yea but these work without having to go mach 3. Also these were probably the "rockets" on the bottom of the tr-3b.
what do you think an internal combustion engine does you fricking homeschooled mormon moron
He's talking about detonation, also known as engine knock, you fricking idiot. Internal combustion engines do NOT like detonation, it'll put massive strain on the cylinder heads and rods.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Diesel
...which is why it hasn't been done before. It's not easy, and takes some fairly serious engineering that hasn't been completely worked out yet. So, it's promising, but it's not guaranteed to arrive on schedule or anything.
seems like more trouble than it's worth.
its more fuel efficient and faster so its probably worth pursuing
Same could have been said for the early jet engines. They were obviously desirable due to their power to weight ratio.
>plenum
>annular
>detonation front
>Micronozzles
This is arousing
Japan tested this in a sounding rocket a little while back (for civilian purposes). It lasted only 6 seconds and produced just 500N, but was meant as a Proof of Concept:
https://cosmos.isas.jaxa.jp/the-worlds-first-space-flight-for-the-rotating-detonation-engine-and-a-glimpse-at-a-new-sample-return-capsule/
Are these Chinese bait threads to try and fish info out of engine Autists that have figured out how they work or work in the industry?
The only detonation propulsion I care about is external nuclear pulse drives a la Project Orion.
Yeah what could possibly go wrong in a ship with a huge suspension with a shield being propelled by nuclear bomb blasts.
It is fricking meme level shit.
Alright, name a safer propulsion method that can take me to Neptune in a month, I'll wait.
Wouldn't the G-force flatten you?
No, the pusher plate absorbs the force allowing for somewhat smooth acceleration. There are also more modern designs which use smaller nuclear reactions and magnetic nozzles to propel the ship.
Another question, wouldn't this irradiate the orbit area around earth or would the movement of the earth around the sun disappate this?
>us is working on rotating detonation engine for years
>dozens of youtube videos made about this by random basedboys
>china finally sees one of these videos years after they are uploaded and announces UH WE'RE TOTARRY WORKING ON ONE OF THOSE TOO
>changs start posting about on /k/
like clockwork
if the rolling detonation wave rotates so fast it outruns ignition and catches its own tail, it becomes a scramjet?
if it catches its own tail it burns out and needs to relight.
think of the detonation chamber as a ring where you're adding fuel and air into the ring everywhere. The detonation wavefront moves along this ring-racetrack in a circle, burning the fuel and air mixture. If the detonation wave gets to a spot where the fuel and air isn't ready to burn, then it doesn't burn and the wave doesn't gain any more energy.
Air isn't moving at supersonic speed in this engine. Only the shockwave is traveling around the annular chamber. If there is a mechanical rotating component that shoveling air in and out at supersonic speed and maintain a burn inside then you can call it scramjet inside.
Instability like catching the tail of another wave does happen. It may keep debilitating the burn and kill one of the detonation wave because the second wave is eating exhaust not fresh reactants.
there's also the vibrational load of a nonuniform thrust vector to consider. seems to me like it would be trying to shake itself apart while operating
Ninicece
Ah frick yea I knew people liked these things
>effect
Affect, dumbass.