-3
$\begingroup$

Starlite is liquid paint like substance invented in 70s and perfected in the 80s by the late British inventor Maurice Ward (1933-2011). It is said to be able to withstand heat from 78 nuclear explosions. It can be coated on numerous applications requiring heat resistance namely aircraft engines, and can function without losing its structure or heat resistance properties withstanding heat of up to 78 nuclear explosions.

Is it possible to calculate possible fuel savings of known turbofan engines if operational heat could be increased to starlite insulation temperatures

This question is not spam please vote to reopen it.

It is basedon the relationship between heat or running engines hotter achieving fuel efficiency. The current drawback to achieving higher fuel efficiencies by running engines hotter has been materials operating at their thermal limits which is quite phenominal for achieving this feat. Praises to the scientist and engineers who have relentlessly taken efficiencies and materials to their safe operations limits, and further praises to materials scientists for your unrelenting work in discovering new materials that make for a better world like Stalite. New discoveries like Starlite could take efficiencies to higher levels in this day and age of pollution and higher oil prices and finite oil resources. Such discoveries discussions and questions are good for aviation and for this site.

This question is not spam please vote to reopen it. let us defeat the close bregade

For further reading

read here,

What is Starlite

How does the 'wonder material' Starlite actually work? - BBC Reel

$\endgroup$

closed as unclear what you're asking by Ralph J, fooot, David Richerby, Sean, Pondlife Nov 22 '18 at 1:16

Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • $\begingroup$ Been gone a while please do not close this question, many people could learn a lot from the answers $\endgroup$ – securitydude5 Nov 21 '18 at 9:07
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I think if you focused on the question in the title, and avoided the salvation of jumbos (probably opinion-based) and the dubious "78 nuclear explosions" starlite bit, I think you'd have a better question. $\endgroup$ – fooot Nov 21 '18 at 16:01
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it appears to be spam thinly disguised as a fuel-efficiency question. $\endgroup$ – Sean Nov 21 '18 at 22:41
  • $\begingroup$ @Sean all links are from the BBC. We cannot find any sign of spam here. $\endgroup$ – Federico Nov 22 '18 at 8:24
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The fact that you think this site competes with Starlite isn't doing you any favors. If you want this question reopened, I would remove the sales-pitch stuff (e.g. "praises to") and focus on an actual question. You have a lot of text here that isn't asking anything, and is saying how awesome over product is. That sounds like spam to me. Focus your question on a question, and you'll have better luck with "the close brigade." $\endgroup$ – yshavit Nov 22 '18 at 12:27
4
$\begingroup$

Here is why any painted-on coating will not have the benefit you seek.

After a jet engine has run long enough to reach normal operating temperature, its turbine blades are not just hot on their exterior surfaces- the heat they are exposed to has soaked into them and they are hot all the way through. To resist the tremendous stresses they are subject to, those blades must be strong not just at their surfaces but all the way through as well.

For a thin coating to successfully protect a turbine blade from long-duration heat exposure, it would have to possess zero thermal conductivity, which is impossible for any solid made of ordinary matter- including Starlite.

In stark contrast, the thermal loads imposed on objects exposed to atomic bomb explosions are so brief in duration that there is no time for even a thin coating of paint to conduct that incident energy to the metal underneath it. And the magnitude of the thermal pulse is so great as to simply vaporize the paint, leaving the metal underneath intact. High-speed movies of things like buses and trucks exposed to the thermal pulse of an atomic explosion show this effect very clearly.

This means that whatever Starlite is made of, its purported resistance to exfoliation and vaporization in response to a millisecond thermal pulse are of no utility at all in protecting metal parts which must withstand tens of hours of exposure to high temperatures.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ The point is minimum conductivity. That minimum conductivity protects against heating even from compression. That is the function of insulation. It prevents the heat from soaking into them in the first place. If it does, soak into them, it will do so at the most minimum rate. See the egg experiment in the link $\endgroup$ – securitydude5 Nov 22 '18 at 10:43
3
$\begingroup$

From the BBC videos you clearly see that the material expands when heated.

This is something you don't want in a jet engine. If your engine changes shape, and reduces the available cross-section for air to go through, your efficiency cannot do anything else than go down.

Said otherwise: coating the interiors of a jet engine is not the ideal application for Starlite in its current form. If in the future the Starlite formula will be released and improved in such a way that the material won't expand unpredictably under intense heat, then this might be an application worth considering, but until then it remains pure speculation, since we don't know the real limits of the material (such as thickness required for the coating to be effective, resistance of the coating to prolonged exposure, etc.)

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for the answer but I'm sure as a last resort though, and all attempts to use starlite in jet engines without modification are exhausted, jet engines themselves could be modified to expand at temperature to accomodate starlite, in turn exploiting the resulting efficiencies from running engines much much hotter $\endgroup$ – securitydude5 Nov 21 '18 at 13:38
  • $\begingroup$ @securitydude5 that's once again in the realm of speculation, so I won't discuss that further. $\endgroup$ – Federico Nov 21 '18 at 13:46
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Random expansion of parts that are fitted in extremely close tolerance to each other is also a Bad Thing™. $\endgroup$ – FreeMan Nov 21 '18 at 13:47
  • $\begingroup$ @Federico Attempt to Modify Starlite we shall then $\endgroup$ – securitydude5 Nov 21 '18 at 13:51
1
$\begingroup$

Thermodynamically, you can calculate the efficiency of a Brayton cycle engine (gas turbine) based on the difference between the peak "hot" temperature and the exhaust temperature ("cold" temperature), assuming you don't change the pressure ratio between atmospheric and engine maximum. Increasing the (absolute) temperature ratio between burner and exhaust with other factors held equal will increase the thermal efficiency by a similar ratio.

That's very difficult to do, however. Kerosene only burns so hot, and modern engines do a good job of protecting the turbine blades from the heat -- adding a heat rejecting coating would gain very little in terms of burner temperature, hence add little to efficiency. Most recent improvements in efficiency in gas turbines have revolved around running the burner at higher pressure, and finding a better compromise between exhaust mass flow and exhaust velocity.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ "Kerosene only burns so hot" What do you mean there? You mean that the reaction rate decreases with increasing temperature? $\endgroup$ – Sanchises Nov 22 '18 at 8:16
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Sanchises no, any fuel-oxidiser reaction has a maximum temperature, reached when you have a stoichiometric relationship between the two. that's because temperature is energy, and there is only so much energy you can extract from a specific reaction, and the maximum is when you have stoichiometric ratios. $\endgroup$ – Federico Nov 22 '18 at 8:28
  • $\begingroup$ @Federico But the compression can add (in theory) arbitrary amounts of energy. So my point is that the combustion chamber temperature is not limited by the kerosene burning temperature in atmospheric conditions. $\endgroup$ – Sanchises Nov 22 '18 at 10:28
  • $\begingroup$ @Sanchises if you really want to go that road, autoignition of the fuel will put a hard limit. $\endgroup$ – Federico Nov 22 '18 at 11:22

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.