vz800 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Yep, no valves just pipe

attackangle (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Are designs like this one valveless?

xlt888 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

looks like a old muffler

paronfisk (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Fully automatic tuba :)

RyuDarragh (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

With ramjets then can achieve mach 15.. with the aerospike, they hope to reach mach 30, or just about escape velocity, at very high altitude.

RyuDarragh (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

You missed both of my points. A "Pulse Jet" of the old german design is low efficiency, but ultra simple. The low efficienct and low power (low thrust) are well worth it *because* its so simple for throwaway missions. The sound is the symptom of wasted power. As much as 10% to 20% of its power is wasted in going "Pbtpbtpbtpbtpbtpbt~~" through the air :P Ramjets and aerospikes operate by very different principles.

darkrashan (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Nasa and a few others are actually working on that one... they think they can reach mach 10 or something like that..

psychomelon (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

it's not to make sounds!! it's a cheap jet engine. V1 buzz bomb!!

hyuckmin94 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

why you guys doing this for?? is there any point to use RPG gas to make those sounds?

RyuDarragh (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

MichelleDri, in a word, yes. You're thinking of the Venturii tube and they are related in that both are resonant tubes exploiting differences in gas temperature. The problem with pulse jets is they waste a lot of power on the *sound* you hear and not on thrust. Advantage is simplicity, tolerance for high temperature and low cost. So, no one in their right, left or other mind would use one to launch a moon mission, but for cheap disposable rockets ? BZZZZZZZZZZ~~