Hi peter...
Thanks for your response. I too had the wish to understand the inventor's explanation. The part on which I fixed was in his 'descriptions' and 'claims'. My takeaway was his solution to the problem as he stated it: 1) ram air caused excessive temps, and choked the compressor, functionally limiting its performance to mach 2 (or so). 2) bleeds that removed flow from the core reduced these unwanted temps, and in unblocking the compressor, ennabled the engine to increase its potential (his claim was twenty per cent, as you state)
I am unnable to copy the patent here, so please check my perceptions of the document?
You have read his claim that the bleed, escaping the rest of the core, (and combustion) was
"cool, and utilized to cool the afterburner, and liner"?
My expertise is not technical; I have never tried to portray my skills as anything they are not. So I am remaindered in logic, reading, and a license to fly, which is in itself a license to learn.....
In his description of the invention, do you not see where a person might conclude that the inventor who has identified 'Ram' Air as a distinct 'problem' to
solve would not likely then claim that he had invented a way to turn a Turbojet into an RJ? I did, so especially when he claimed cooling instead of heating, and flow, rather than compression, it seemed that a conclusion of "Ram Jet" was not in order.
I am in your debt, for your patience, and intellect shown in your response....
and your restraint, in limiting your post to single color, and consistent font....