CliveL
I failed to make it sufficiently clear. I was not in denial about who said "Partial Ramjet" or other language.
I
was surprised to see Brian quote the inventor "I called it a Partial Ramjet"...Since I had previously stated "There is no such thing...."
I do not seek to perpetuate unpleasantness, and in my stubborn way, by defending the lack of a connection of "Partial Ramjet" to the actual mechanics of such, I put many people off. I note this, and am regretful.
Thank you for all your help.....
Brian, for the record, I did not claim that a "Turbo Ramjet" does not exist, only that the inventor specifically took the time in his patent to say that his device is NOT a "Turbo Ramjet".
So, I am left wondering WHY the good doctor claimed "partial Ramjet". There is no passive compression, there is no fuel introduced, and there is no "auto-ignition". I'll keep looking.
