- #1

- 1

- 0

If anyone can explain this to me in simple terms without equations, I'd be extremely grateful. Thanks very much.

- Thread starter tdp2010
- Start date

- #1

- 1

- 0

If anyone can explain this to me in simple terms without equations, I'd be extremely grateful. Thanks very much.

- #2

- 3,244

- 2,382

Fundamentally, you are probably right, given any physical configuration, raising the pressure in the combustion chamber will raise the exhaust velocity. It's not a hard upper limit, but matter diminishing returns.

- #3

- 3,141

- 815

Second, as a gas expands, it gets colder. The maximum speed of gas coming from the nozzle is therefore limited by the gas's ability to cool further. Since it can't reach absolute zero, there is a hard maximum velocity.

Finally, this maximum is related to the reservoir conditions, not the outside pressure. Given that the flow is supersonic, information about atmospheric pressure can't propagate upstream through the nozzle throat anyway. I could provide more detail if you weren't anti-equations.

- #4

- 3,244

- 2,382

Help me out here. The equations I've seen for the exhaust velocity depend on the square root of the temperature, which suggest diminishing returns rather than a hard upper limit. You can't lower the final temperature below zero, but you can keep increasing the initial temperature if you can contain the pressure, which is why it is impractical given weight constraints. I see how the techniques suggested by the OP will not work, but how does the hard upper limit apply if one instead increases the temperature?

Second, as a gas expands, it gets colder. The maximum speed of gas coming from the nozzle is therefore limited by the gas's ability to cool further. Since it can't reach absolute zero, there is a hard maximum velocity.

Finally, this maximum is related to the reservoir conditions, not the outside pressure. Given that the flow is supersonic, information about atmospheric pressure can't propagate upstream through the nozzle throat anyway. I could provide more detail if you weren't anti-equations.

- #5

- 3,141

- 815

Maybe I just wasn't clear but that is what I was talking about.Help me out here. The equations I've seen for the exhaust velocity depend on the square root of the temperature, which suggest diminishing returns rather than a hard upper limit. You can't lower the final temperature below zero, but you can keep increasing the initial temperature if you can contain the pressure, which is why it is impractical given weight constraints. I see how the techniques suggested by the OP will not work, but how does the hard upper limit apply if one instead increases the temperature?

[tex]u_{\mathrm{max}} = \sqrt{2h_0} = \sqrt{2c_p T_0}.[/tex]

For a given reservoir condition, there is a hard upper limit. That limit can be moved by changing the reservoir conditions (specifically ##T_0##). This also doesn't mean that the velocity will reach that speed for s given expansion, just that this is the theoretical maximum given the reservoir conditions in question.

I should add that this equation involves several assumptions that aren't strictly valid for a rocket nozzle such as adabaticity, but it's still illustrative.

- #6

- 3,244

- 2,382

Thanks for the clarification.

- #7

- 3,141

- 815

Do you mind expanding on why you think the preceding discussion is incorrect?No there is no limit on rocket engine exhaust velocity. Amplified exhaust flow by change of lost motion in the exhaust flow environment.

- #8

- 1

- 1

- #9

- 26

- 3

Ion propulsion engines are already in use.

A exploding nukes engine was proposed in the 1950s (Project Orion).

A successfully tested nuclear thermal engine (Superheated liquid hydrogen propellant)(Projects Rover and NERVA 1959-1972).

The NERVA engine, even thought it had twice the impulse power of a chemical rocket, was never flown. NASA lost its mojo (funding) after the moon shots.

(In government success often breeds failure because you then become a high profile target.)

- #10

Baluncore

Science Advisor

2019 Award

- 8,007

- 2,868

The strength of the combustion chamber at the maximum temperature of operation determines the maximum pressure available to accelerate exhaust through the jet.

Cooling the outside of the combustion chamber with the fuels prior to injection into the chamber is one way of pushing that limit.

- #11

berkeman

Mentor

- 58,011

- 8,071

Thread locked temporarily for Moderation...

Thread re-opened after some cleanup of misinformation posted by a PF newbie.

Thread re-opened after some cleanup of misinformation posted by a PF newbie.

Last edited:

- #12

- 13

- 8

- #13

- 3,141

- 815

As previously discussed, the theoretical limit is due to the limited pool of thermal energy in the gas that can be converted to kinetic energy through the expansion. At some point the gas will theoretically approsch absolute zero and simply can't attain any more velocity. In practice, this manifests as material limits on the combustor, as the only way to raise that velocity limit is to raise the total temperature of the gas, but there are practical maxima on that.

- #14

DaveC426913

Gold Member

- 18,904

- 2,413

Such the aerospike engine for the Venturestar back in the 90's.

Ah VentureStar. We miss ye. You were going to take us to orbit in style.

- #15

- 743

- 142

I seem to recall from my days of math porn that the hard maximum is dependent on the molecular weight of the propellent with lower weight causing higher impulse. That was from the thought of using a gas gun as a space launch system.

As previously discussed, the theoretical limit is due to the limited pool of thermal energy in the gas that can be converted to kinetic energy through the expansion. At some point the gas will theoretically approsch absolute zero and simply can't attain any more velocity. In practice, this manifests as material limits on the combustor, as the only way to raise that velocity limit is to raise the total temperature of the gas, but there are practical maxima on that.

I'm older now and my desires are fading ... My days of solving differential equations are behind me. No more evil math porn for me.

- #16

256bits

Gold Member

- 3,225

- 1,245

And also practical limits from the divergent section. The increase in area of the divergent section would have to be how large to obtain the temperature to approach absolute zero. After a certain exit area, diminishing returns on the exit velocity and thrust might not be worth it, just due to the extra mass of the nozzle.

As previously discussed, the theoretical limit is due to the limited pool of thermal energy in the gas that can be converted to kinetic energy through the expansion. At some point the gas will theoretically approsch absolute zero and simply can't attain any more velocity. In practice, this manifests as material limits on the combustor, as the only way to raise that velocity limit is to raise the total temperature of the gas, but there are practical maxima on that.

- #17

cjl

Science Advisor

- 1,864

- 437

This is correct - the limit will basically be dependent on the mean molecular weight of the exhaust products and the temperature in the combustion chamber. Ideally, you'd want extremely low molecular weight and extremely high temperature. This isn't related to being in the atmosphere either. The presence of an atmosphere just limits how low you can make the exit pressure before you'll have flow separation, but you can still run your pressure ratio arbitrarily high (in theory) just by increasing chamber pressure. This will be limited by the structure of the chamber and pressure capability of your turbopump, but that's fundamentally a design/engineering problem, not a limit of the fundamental physics.I seem to recall from my days of math porn that the hard maximum is dependent on the molecular weight of the propellent with lower weight causing higher impulse. That was from the thought of using a gas gun as a space launch system.

I'm older now and my desires are fading ... My days of solving differential equations are behind me. No more evil math porn for me.

As for 15kft/s being the limit? Certainly not. The Space Shuttle main engine had an exhaust velocity around 4.3-4.4 km/s, which is around 14,400 feet per second, but higher is definitely possible. Experiments performed by Rocketdyne in the 1960s with certain highly volatile tripropellant rockets (liquid fluorine, liquid lithium, and hydrogen, if memory serves...) achieved specific impulses upwards of 540 seconds, which corresponds to an exhaust velocity of 5.3 km/s (17,500 feet per second). NERVA, a nuclear thermal rocket using hydrogen as its reaction mass achieved exhaust velocities of over 8 km/s (26k ft/s). Admittedly, in that last case, it didn't run a high enough pressure ratio to really be useful in the atmosphere, but with a higher chamber pressure, there's no physical reason it couldn't.

- Last Post

- Replies
- 9

- Views
- 17K

- Replies
- 1

- Views
- 836

- Last Post

- Replies
- 8

- Views
- 952

- Last Post

- Replies
- 5

- Views
- 5K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 22

- Views
- 5K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 14

- Views
- 4K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 1

- Views
- 629

- Replies
- 1

- Views
- 4K

- Replies
- 7

- Views
- 3K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 7

- Views
- 2K