Talk:Rotating detonation engine

Trimmed

Cleaned up a lot of verbose and woolly language. If you know the subject, please check that I've not thrown any babies out with this bathwater. Snori (talk) 04:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

annular channel -> circular channel

Why not? Means the same thing but clearer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.101.54 (talk) 14:18, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

If you google images: "circular channel", you'll see the problem. The phrase doesn't automatically convey in the mind what the geometry of the combustion innards is. Better than "annular channel" would be simply "annulus", or maybe even "cylindrical annulus", indicating extension of the chamber normal to the annular plane.

And as long as we're in this pleasant pedantic aside, revolving-detonation engine would both be more geometrically apropos than "rotating", and would avoid the frequent misconception that the engine or some physical element inside the engine is involved in the adjective. Just today I had a discussion with someone who typically construed the device as a rotating...detonation-engine. JohndanR (talk) 04:29, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

In China

This agency press of eurasiantimes.com can be sourced within the WP article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.46.52.19 (talk) 04:13, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

TWR-Engine : claims " It is theoretically 25% more efficient than conventional deflagrative combustion." and "The RDE is twice as efficient as turbo engines. The thrust-to-weight ratio of RDE can reach 20, while the F119 engine on the US F-22 fighter jet merely reaches 11,” - Rod57 (talk) 19:36, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

What advantages for different applications

Can we references advantages such a better fuel efficiency or better Isp ? How much better (for aircraft using air, and rockets using liquid oxidizer) ? Do any prototypes show the better Isp yet ? - Rod57 (talk) 19:33, 28 January 2023 (UTC)