Can we create new propulsion methods (especially for aeroplanes)

>>8609543
I guess, if you figure out something smart and/or revolutionary.

>>8609543
>Aerospace Engineer here

No, we can't.
Propulsion systems are extremely complex and take years of research to make them stable enough. This is because they rely on 3 difficult subjects: fluid mechanics anf thermodynamics. Plus, you also need a control system, and sensors which do not interfere too much with fluid flow.
So it is already complicated enough but there's more. The system will also need cooling. Then, a system to control vibrations.
Finally, it also needs to be within a reasonable budget.
So, no.
Now, it is totally possible that you may discover a new propulsion system ato home. However, in order for it to be used on a plane/helicopter, it takes years of research to adapt it.

>>8609543
>without years of investigation and large budgets?

you have no idea how complex our machines are

>>8609614
Not OP but if you think a little ahead combustion engines, you wouldn't necessarily need a fuel based propulsion method. Though I agree when it comes to sensors/control systems, and it would probably take a while to develop.

I think OP is thinking about something out of sci fi, like plasma engines or something.

File: hawk.jpg (41KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 1024x683px

>>8609625
Pic related used to be sci-fi for our ancestors.

>>8609691
That's true my man

>>8609691
ancestors who didnt know science

i love how everyone think science is magic

yes, is magic for a non science religion person

a religion person is not knowledge

there is no magic le ebin constant acceleration of capacities beyond physical posibilities

we now know the limits of existing physics

physics existed forever it is constant objective truth of the universe


its like this: you have 2 retards using a computer as a paper weight, then a normal guy comes in and opens internet

then the retards see him and say: "WOW, HE USED THE PAPERWEIGHT TO LOOK AT THE INTERNET, SURELY ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE , SURELY THE PAPERWEIGHT WILL NOW TURN I)NTO A THOUSAND MILLIONS UNICORNS MADE OUT OF SAND AND COLOURED POOP OF MAGICIANS MASTERERS


yeah sure little bitty itty non educated boy, this is how YOU sound when talking about science

propellars are already invented and such is the science behind propulsion

it is discovered, propulsion is discovered physics, theyere not gonna rediscover itr, there is no magic

>>8609702
Oh boy...

>>8609543
>Can we create new (...) without years of investigation and large budgets?
no

>>8609708
"how he has increidble beated me to the point that my only retort is half assed irony, even tough that makes me feel ashamed of myself and comparably he deserves the nobel prize next to my ignorance"
i took the liberty of completeing your sentence
>>8609710
this to the maxy max, most people normals dont know how many years of effort ANYTHING takes

everyone is like children asking MOMMA WHEN PLANE TAKES OFF
well in a few minutes billy
BUT I WANT PLANE TAKE OFF NOW
PLANE TAKEOFF NOW!!!!!!

and they carry this on to their adult lives because they never have the time to concentrate and meditate into a full grown scienntific non tantrum non magic adultmasterperson and remain a yes tantrumyesmagic infantchildperson

>>8609702
kekkles
saved my friend

nice pasta

>>8609719

Im sorry idiot, but you have stumbled into a fighter of the mind, and no matter how much you insist on being a violence builly, i have read books all my life so i have an armor against idiots. Youre inferior non knowledge powers do nothign to me, so prepare to fight with thoughts or be declared inferiors to me dear sir.

>this shitstorm

>>8609736
kek
fuck off you are not that pajeet, but well memed nonetheless friendo

>>8609702
Dude! What if we just like,
Just invent new science?

>>8609625
Anything sci-fi is even worse.
Let's take plasma engines for examples. Now you require magneto hydrodynamics.
The reason for why we use combustion is because it is easy and cheap way.
Furthermore, it also happens to be extremely powerful when compared to other available alternatives.

>>8609543
>Can we create new propulsion methods

*I space is theoretically infinite.

>>8609614
> Plus, you also need a control system, and sensors which do not interfere too much with fluid flow.
> So it is already complicated enough but there's more. The system will also need cooling. Then, a system to control vibrations.

So, just with how many fucking DOFs do they even deal with?

>>8609718
Nobody is saying any of that shit. Stop sperging out.

>>8609889
The degrees of freedom required for those situations are even beyond murrican muh freedom

test

With a supercomputer, a genetic algorithm with a good fitness function and an accurate simulator, you can try.

>>8610272
Good luck getting an accurate simulator for combustion. SpaceX spent a gorillion CPU hours just modelling a 1 cm cube region in one if their rocket engines

It would be fucking nuts to evolve a new propulsion method this way. Our simulators aren't good enough to evolve other parts of the engine either.

>>8610309
>Good luck getting an accurate simulator for combustion

>>8609614
why they can't just admit that RANS is fucking garbage?