Mole wrote:
Nah! I've never studies aeronautical engineering so I can't argue that this isn't what's taught in the profession but it really doesn't work in automotive engineering. The engines ARE doing work, they're moving something with a mass through a distance in a particular time.
OK, got it...just need to hunt around the wood to find some trees
To find the answer I had to look away from the standard use of a reaction jet engine (to move an aircraft) and to look elsewhere, i.e. where might a jet be used in another application. Aha
In an MRD of course. A what you ask
Oh sorry, an MRD - Machine Runway Deicer. The military are great for acronyms
Basically, 2 * Derwent turbojets strapped to a chassis with a diffuser nozzle in place of the jet exhaust nozzles pointing roughly towards the ground pushed along by a fuel bowser to which it was attached. This heath-robinson device was used to clear runways and aprons of snow and ice during the 70s and 80s; basically a 'kin enormous hairdryer. So, this device must develop power even though its not pushing the bowser, its being pushed itself right? Yes! Providing we know the amount of thrust being produced
and the actual exhaust gas velocity at the nozzle exit we can work out the (new term to me here), e(equivalent)hp. This isn't something normally considered partially because, for a given engine RPM we can change the exhaust exit velocity simply by changing the shape of the exit nozzle. In fact, we can almost reduce it to zero by designing a crappy stupid nozzle that simply slowed the exhaust gas down and passed it to atmosphere, but pedantic arguments aside the basic idea works so hurrah for that discovery!
BTW, picture the scene...its 05:00 hours on a freezing February morning and you are sat in a plywood cabin behind two 30 year old turbojets which were recalcitrant SOBs to start due to their tendency to overtemp, and 10 ft behind you are several thousand gallons of aviation fuel
Eee we earned our corn back then lad...