this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2026
9 points (100.0% liked)
Hydrogen
717 readers
9 users here now
A community about hydrogen and its use as a way to fight climate change.
Rules
- All posts must be about hydrogen, fuel cells, or a related topic.
- Posters that only attack hydrogen will not be tolerated.
This community has been migrated from:
fedia.io/m/hydrogen
fedia.io/m/hydrogen@kbin.social(Original server is defunct)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The article isn't very clear about how compression in this engine is achieved, but it's clear that compression is still required.
How is this different?
In a detonation wave, the exhaust gases reaches a very high pressure almost immediately, and you use this effect to drive a turbine. This eliminates the need for a compression stage.
Thank you, but that explanation is causing more confusion because it is at odds with the article. The article states that compression is required before ignition. Is that true?
If not, then in the detonation engine, is the fuel mixture already at explosive concentrations upon mixing?
You need to read the article more carefully. It is expilicitly pointing out that only conventional gas turbines need compression. A detonation wave engine does not.
I'm specifically referring to that line.
Please read that sentence more carefully. It is not saying what you think it is saying. The detonation wave generates pressure without compression.
I could be very pedantic here, but I'm actually trying to understand how this is different from a traditional engine.
In that sentence, what does the "required pressure" refer to? Presumably an elevated pressure is required, instead of a negative pressure? For what purpose? How is that pressure achieved? Is the pressure changed by a change in volume? Temp? Once the pressure has changed, does the gas do work on something?
The pressure increase is achieved via detonation. This happens without a compression stage. It then pushes on a turbine generating electricity.
It is clearly described in the article. Like I said, you need to read it more carefully.
You keep saying that, but it seems that you're only able to make sense of the article because you have some prior knowledge. I was hoping you would share that knowledge, but it seems you have no interest in doing so. What was the point of sharing the article then?
Since you seem to want to be reductive, it appears that this detonation engine is nothing more than a regular combustion engine with a fuel mix that is more reactive. That's great and cool, but it still isn't clear why this is any significant innovation.
It is a combustion engine, just minus the compression stage. If you actually read the entire article (which at this point, I suspect you have not), it is potentially more efficient than a regular combustion engine. That is the entire point of the thing.