Liquid Rocket Engine

eggtimer rocketry
rocket sok
Shop deals on ebay
The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
GregGleason said:
IIRC, in Chuck Yeager's autobiography, there were some test flights that were carried out on the ME-163 after WWII that Yeager was associated with. On one occasion, one of these aircraft had a problem and wound up upside down. The result was death for the pilot, the details being too graphic, if you know what I mean.

Greg
Click to expand...
Yep...very nasty stuff... OL JR :)
 
dave carver said:
...ummm... it takes extreme pressure to make LOX but it's use can be under atmospheric pressure. I have a friend that works glass and he has a large dewar(think big Thermos bottle) of LOX. With proper gear LOX is easy to work with, it can be poured like water.

You might look at System Solaire' out of Canada. Their liqued fueled rockets use unleaded gas and 50% H2O2(hydrogen peroxide)
Click to expand...
Dave

Liquid oxygen boils at 92K (294F, -181C) at 1 atmosphere (14.7 psia, 0 psig) and is shipped in a dewar (thermos bottle) as a 100 K (-280F, -173C) liquid, self pressurized to 2.5 atmospheres (37 psia, 22 psig). Oxygen can exist as a liquid up to its critical temperature of 155.6K (-181.5F, -118.6C) with a vapor pressure of 49.77 atmosphere (731.4 psia, 716.7 psig). At any higher temperature, oxygen is always a gas, regardless of pressure. (Refer to vapor pressure curve below.)

Oxygen_Vapor_Pressure.GIF

Liquid oxygen is made from air by first compressing air to very high pressures, then sequentially removing water and then carbon dioxide (to make dry ice and liquified CO2) from the compressed air, and then expanding the high pressure gas where the gas is cooled and liquified in a Joule-Thomson expansion. The liquid air is fractionally distilled to separate the oxygen from the nitrogen. The liquid products are stored in large insulated cryogenic tanks and can be dispensed into smaller delivery dewars or gassified and put in high pressure compressed gas cylinders. Many folks with lung disease have liquid oxygen their homes for filling portable medical oxygen dewars, however this equipment is specifically made for this and is quite safe. (Note the Linde method uses large zeolite towers to separate the oxygen for the nitrogen before J-T expansion.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_separation

The standard industrial liquid oxygen dewars are a bit different, and can get an untrained person in trouble very quickly. While liquid oxygen can be poured like water, and can be used safely if you have properly cleaned handling equipment, it will cause immediate explosions if put into uncleaned or improperly clean containers or hardware. Any oil, fingerprints, rubber o-rings, paint, clothing, etc., can burn violently burn or explode when contacted with liquid oxygen, and that makes it dangerous. If you were to attempt to fill an improperly cleaned and passivated propellant tank with liquid oxygen, you would likely not survive the explosion. Furthermore the boil-off is 100% oxygen and this will support vigourous combustion or detonation of any fuel in the presence of a spark, static, or heat. Skin exposure to liquid oxygen causes instant frostbite, so an untrained person using homebrew equipment is more likely to have a life threatening accident with liquid oxygen than to make a useful liquid fueled rocket motor.

The Systeme Solaire liquid rocket motor is a piece of junk. If you can get it to work after performing a number of needed modifications, you will find that the thrust to weight ratio of the unit is so poor that it isn't worth the $1000 it costs. TRF and the achieve have several threads on the subject.

Bob
 
ghrocketman said:
Rocketry would be BORING without a good measure of DANGER !
Click to expand...

There's risk and then there's danger. Risk is something we live with every day. Danger is something we often have to deal with and the difference comes in how intelligently we deal with it.

The main difference is between the ears of the person doing the activities...

In other words, there's danger and then there's stupid dangerous.

Walk around a farm show sometimes and you'll see what I mean... You'll see plenty of guys with missing digits and limbs... I haven't kept all of mine (so far) by being stupid-dangerous. Yet I deal with dangerous stuff all the time (not that I haven't had close calls!)

But you've GOT to look at things as "what's gonna happen if..." and respect it.

Later! OL JR :)

PS... there's a risk every time we push a launch button-- nature of the beast. But it's acceptable if you're doing things intelligently and according to accepted safety practices. Doing stupid stuff, on the other hand, is more often than not going to end badly...
 
shreadvector said:
(Kind of like "microwave oven" is not the same thing as "microwave")
Click to expand...
Kind of like "radio" isn't the same thing as a "radio receiver." and a "transistor" isn't the same thing as a "transistor radio."

Words are *very* often, if not indeed always, defined and then re-defined by the way they are used.
 
Chemicals for liquid fuel (even for hypergolics like RFNA, WFNA, and Hydrazine) used to be realtively easy to obtain. Thanks to the baloney policies of BATFE, etc after 9/11, it is assumed one is guilty if you want anything even like 50% H202 and is almost all but unavailable unless you have some laundry list of asinine useless licenses.
 
if you starting to make this engine, I would like to see some pictures,
I'm always interesting about engine built,

I would like to make a Jet engine with an after burner in a rocket about a few years,

like a rc plane, but in a shape of a rocket!

I work a lat with jet engine technology's.

I know this guy have made a liquid engine by him self,

maybe you can find some good information and tips on his website,
he's also made a huge amount of hybrid motors/solid-motors
from M to P class

https://www.thefintels.com/aer/biprop1.htm
 
ghrocketman said:
Chemicals for liquid fuel (even for hypergolics like RFNA, WFNA, and Hydrazine) used to be realtively easy to obtain. Thanks to the baloney policies of BATFE, etc after 9/11, it is assumed one is guilty if you want anything even like 50% H202 and is almost all but unavailable unless you have some laundry list of asinine useless licenses.
Click to expand...
I'm a physical chemist who has worked with rocket propellants for 39 year. RFNA, WFNA, 50% Peroxide and hydrazine are dangerous chemicals. They are all toxic. The first 3 are strong oxidizers and will cause life threating chemical burns if spilled on exposed skin, and will spontaneous cause many materials to ignite. Hydrazine is carcinogenic and can spontaneous decompose and ignite if dropped on a number of surfaces.

I don't want my tax dollars paying the medical expenses to fix up folks trying to prove that Darwin was right. How about doing some research on the hazards and safe handling practices of these materials before you post. Your tax dollars have paid millions to NASA and DoD do figure out how to mitigate the hazards so they you use these materials in a relatively safe manner. These puplications are downloadable for free from NASA's and DoD's technical websites.

Bob
 
Bob,
I'm not a P-Chemist but have had numerous experiences with those chemicals in the past both long ago in my college days and some before.
As long as PROPER procedures are followed, they need not be any more dangerous than any other chemicals. Its all in the following of proper procedures.
Back when I was a teenager (early 80's), there was a pharmacy that would order ANYTHING you wanted for "home chemistry" provided you had the cash. Back then, yes I did get RFNA and Hydrazine from that source.
The look on the Pharmacists face was a little strange when I placed my order and even stranger when I picked it up.
Next to none of the NUISANCE regs from BATFE, DEA, insert any other useless regulatory body here, existed then.
Quite frankly, I think if people are stupid enough to do foolish things and injure themselves, so be it. That's Darwin at it's finest. I just don't have a bleeding heart that thinks we need to do anthing for them after. Left up to me, I would not let one thin dime of public money be spent on recovering the stupid.
 
The rub comes in when they take others with them or burn down their neighbor's houses.
 
ghrocketman said:
Bob,
...As long as PROPER procedures are followed, they need not be any more dangerous than any other chemicals. Its all in the following of proper procedures...
Click to expand...
Your answer is correct, and you make my point. The vast majority of the folks on TRF are unaware of the proper procedures for handing liquid propellant, and that why it's dangerous for untrained individuals. It's even dangerous for professionals.

...Quite frankly, I think if people are stupid enough to do foolish things and injure themselves, so be it. That's Darwin at it's finest. I just don't have a bleeding heart that thinks we need to do anything for them after. Left up to me, I would not let one thin dime of public money be spent on recovering the stupid...
Click to expand...
We do not want inexperienced folks proving Darwin's theory on our watch.

This is a moderated forum and as such, the moderators decide what is or isn't a proper response to a question, and Sir, none of us believe this is a proper response.

Please refrain from such remarks in the future.

Bob Krech, Propulsion Moderator
 
GregGleason said:
IIRC, in Chuck Yeager's autobiography, there were some test flights that were carried out on the ME-163 after WWII that Yeager was associated with. On one occasion, one of these aircraft had a problem and wound up upside down. The result was death for the pilot, the details being too graphic, if you know what I mean.

Greg
Click to expand...

Me163... Favorite intercepter of WWII, it used the T-Stoff, C-Stoff configuration, T-Stoff was just a highly concentrated hydrogen peroxide , and it was an unfortunate choise, as it was the fuel of choice for the V1 launchers. C-stoff was just methanol achohol and hydrazine hydrate, both T-stoff and C-stoff would dissolve organic matter instantly, and they would spontaneously combust if they came into contact, Heini dittmar actually broke his back when he landed in a poorly sprung landing skid, the irony of landing was that the Me 163 was actually a glider at heart, and the slightest wind would put it back in the air. It was literally an early SAM, as with a 34 mile range, and an 8 minute duration for powered flight, it was truly a point defense intercepter.Furthermore, only 6 were lost to enemy action, 9 lost due to accidents, and they shot down 16 aircraft.JG400, the largest me 163 squadron was in charge of protecting the synthetic fuel plants not to far away. As a precaution, pilots wore full asbestos suits, which I doubt did them any good. Me love Flying stuff.
 
ScrapDaddy said:
Me163... Favorite intercepter of WWII, it used the T-Stoff, C-Stoff configuration, T-Stoff was just a highly concentrated hydrogen peroxide , and it was an unfortunate choise, as it was the fuel of choice for the V1 launchers. C-stoff was just methanol achohol and hydrazine hydrate, both T-stoff and C-stoff would dissolve organic matter instantly
Click to expand...

Most unpleasant, to be sure.
 
DontBlow said:
Gday guys,

Now, i know i will get a thousand replies saying that i am either, a) crazy or b) i will get myself killed and that this is not a adequate engine. However i shall continue with my plans.

Im just posting to get some thoughts of my Liquid Rocket Engine design.

This engine is a hybrid based off a jet engine/liquid propelled rocket.

the rocket will consist of a metal combustion chamber. Either side of this is injection nodes which on the left inject a fine mist of kerosene and on the right a short burst of air. This will be ignited by either a spark plug or a naked flame.

the fuel and air will be pumped in by fuel pumps and are controlled remotely by a remote. On the end of the chamber will be an afterburner to extend the amount of thrust that can be obtained.

Any thoughts on this design will be appriciated. I realise that this design is extremely dangerous and that the risk factor included is extremely high.

Cheers.
Click to expand...
Dear DontBlow
Don,t blow yourself up! The design you are considering is in effect a PDE ( PULSE DETONATION ENGINE ) this as I am sure you are aware differs from a PULSE JET ENGINE as the fuel air / oxidiser mixture in a PDE chamber DETONATES as opposed to the much less powerful CONFLAGRATION of a PULSE JET ENGINE. The PDE is in effect a pipe BOMB open at one end. I would advise the use of machined stainless steel if you intend to go ahead with construction. Be careful and good luck Richard.
 
Well seeing how the poor fellow stopped posting.....perhaps he already blowed himself up ...real good like !

Or he took the advise and thought it was all a big mistake to even think of such a plan.:confused2:

Hope it is the latter.

paul
 
luke strawwalker said:
There's risk and then there's danger. Risk is something we live with every day. Danger is something we often have to deal with and the difference comes in how intelligently we deal with it.

The main difference is between the ears of the person doing the activities...

In other words, there's danger and then there's stupid dangerous.

Walk around a farm show sometimes and you'll see what I mean... You'll see plenty of guys with missing digits and limbs... I haven't kept all of mine (so far) by being stupid-dangerous. Yet I deal with dangerous stuff all the time (not that I haven't had close calls!)

But you've GOT to look at things as "what's gonna happen if..." and respect it.

Later! OL JR :)

PS... there's a risk every time we push a launch button-- nature of the beast. But it's acceptable if you're doing things intelligently and according to accepted safety practices. Doing stupid stuff, on the other hand, is more often than not going to end badly...
Click to expand...

I still think that, when all launch and engine safety rules are followed, the most dangerous aspect of rocketry is driving on public roads to and from the launch site.
 

Similar threads

Z
GOX liquid motor
Replies
8
Views
2K
rocket_troy
R
Z
High altitude liquid rocket
3 4 5
Replies
131
Views
6K
cerving
cerving
the_mell0nator
UTK Rocket Man
Replies
15
Views
834
Hobie1dog
Hobie1dog
S
Old Russian Liquid Fuel Rocket Engine - Complete
2
Replies
39
Views
3K
bad_idea
bad_idea
S
Hello from Maryland!
Replies
15
Views
719
teepot
teepot

Latest posts

Back
Top