An "R"-powered rocket build

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Is there enough O2 at the anticipated altitude to burn all the BP? Large amounts of BP really do not burn all that fast and the expanding gas may disperse what little oxygen is available

Any calculations or programs that can simulate the burn of BP in a low oxygen environment?

Good question.

Our friend and very-high-altitude rocketeer Jim Jarvis did a lot of research and testing on this issue.

Here’s his article:

https://www.rocketryfiles.com/files/Technicalarticles/Jim_Jarvis_Highaltitude_deployment_2013.pdf

I’m confident that at 40,000 ft we’ll get sufficient charge to blow the drogue chute.

Thanks!

Chuck C.
 
Last edited:
Got a report from Buddy.

The rocket flew today in Maryland and it landed straight up on its fins.

An 850lb rocket. He's not sure how slow it landed but he's thinking very soft if it can stand on its fins.

He's thinking a 60' chute is actually be overkill for ours but if we do go with Rocketman that will be the size.

At 50' he figured an 18 fps descent with a 400 lb rocket. Need to ask about the 60'.

Chuck C.
You have to be careful with too slow a descent rate...the impact with the ground is a combination of wind speed and descent rate
Got a report from Buddy.

The rocket flew today in Maryland and it landed straight up on its fins.

An 850lb rocket. He's not sure how slow it landed but he's thinking very soft if it can stand on its fins.

He's thinking a 60' chute is actually be overkill for ours but if we do go with Rocketman that will be the size.

At 50' he figured an 18 fps descent with a 400 lb rocket. Need to ask about the 60'.

Chuck C.
BP Charge Cannons:

This is one of the fun parts of the recovery system lol. Making cannons.

My philosophy is to keep all BP gasses completely isolated from the electronics bay.

Am thinking of making the cannons out of G-12 38mm airframe say 6” long. Epoxy in 2 bulkplates on the bottom. Then bolt the bottom of the cannons to the upper and lower aluminum bulkplates of the electronics bay. The bolt holes will then be sealed.

BP then goes into the bottom of each cannon. Am thinking of putting the BP into a small plastic container (film roll container?) and sealing it with the igniters inside. Then stuff in suitable wadding to keep the BP at the bottom. Put some type of plastic cap over the top of the cannon or a very thin coat of epoxy.

The wiring from the altimeters goes through the electronics bay bulkplates via insulated wires and terminal blocks on the outside of the e bay. Igniters get attached to those terminal blocks.

I’ve ordered some parts to build some cannons for testing. That will be fun. This system should work well. Having the sealed cannons keep surface air pressure will help when the BP gets ignited.

Of course there will be ground testing later with chutes installed.

Pretty cool the rocket is progressing enough to start working on this system.

Thanks!

Chuck C.
I doubt 38mm airframe tubing will contain large BP charges...I believe they'll be BP grenades...be careful
 
Is there enough O2 at the anticipated altitude to burn all the BP? Large amounts of BP really do not burn all that fast and the expanding gas may disperse what little oxygen is available

Any calculations or programs that can simulate the burn of BP in a low oxygen environment?

BP contains its own oxygen and doesn’t use O2 from the atmosphere. The issue with BP at high altitudes is heat transference. If contained long enough that’s not a problem.
 
Is there enough O2 at the anticipated altitude to burn all the BP? Large amounts of BP really do not burn all that fast and the expanding gas may disperse what little oxygen is available

Any calculations or programs that can simulate the burn of BP in a low oxygen environment?

Theory,

This might be ( probably is ) a crazy idea . . . "Bring along your own Oxygen" !

Use a latex balloon or condom, partially-filled with Oxygen ( It will expand as altitude increases and air pressure drops ). Place the "balloon" in close proximity ( touching, if possible ) to the Black Powder and when the E-Match fires it ignites the Black Powder and the balloon ruptures, releasing the Oxygen . . . B-O-O-M !

Dave F.



pirate-talk-clipart-1.gif
 
Theory,

This might be ( probably is ) a crazy idea . . . "Bring along your own Oxygen" !

Use a latex balloon or condom, partially-filled with Oxygen ( It will expand as altitude increases and air pressure drops ). Place the "balloon" in close proximity ( touching, if possible ) to the Black Powder and when the E-Match fires it ignites the Black Powder and the balloon ruptures, releasing the Oxygen . . . B-O-O-M !

Dave F.



View attachment 379529

You’re right. Crazy.
BP needs no extra oxygen.
What damage can pure oxygen do to inside of rocket in presence of ignition source? Think about Apollo 1.
 
You have to be careful with too slow a descent rate...the impact with the ground is a combination of wind speed and descent rate


I doubt 38mm airframe tubing will contain large BP charges...I believe they'll be BP grenades...be careful

Appreciate the input.

Yes if you contain the pressure it will grenade. I won’t discuss here the various BP tests I’ve done over the years. Suffice it to say if you duct tape something enough it will produce quite a punch.

There will be several tests done including much more BP than needed. All done using proper protection and safe distances. Worse case we go to metal cannons.

Thanks!

Chuck C.
 
BP contains its own oxygen and doesn’t use O2 from the atmosphere. The issue with BP at high altitudes is heat transference. If contained long enough that’s not a problem.
If you contained the BP inside an airtight vessel (to maintain the original air pressure), would that solve the heat transference problem at higher altitudes? Just thinking...
 
You’re right. Crazy.
BP needs no extra oxygen.
What damage can pure oxygen do to inside of rocket in presence of ignition source? Think about Apollo 1.

Apollo 1 was 100% Oxygen under pressure and, to simulate the pressure differential in space ( where the working pressure would have been 5 psi, with a vacuum externally ), they pressurized the capsule to almost 20 psi, to compensate for the external 14.7 psi atmospheric pressure, at sea level. Under those conditions, a sixteen-penny nail will burn like a candle ! Grissom, White, & Chaffee were killed by asphyxiation, not from burning to death.

Dave F.



pirate-talk-clipart-1.gif
 
If you contained the BP inside an airtight vessel (to maintain the original air pressure), would that solve the heat transference problem at higher altitudes? Just thinking...

The issue with BP at high altitude is that when the black powder charge goes off, the black powder goes from being a tightly packed bunch of powder to being a loosely packed, then just loose bunch of individual grains no longer in contact with each other. If that happens at low altitude , the air conducts heat from one grain to another and more of the grains burn. When that happens at higher altitude, the same separation between grains results in lower heat transference and a failure to ignite the entire powder charge.
Jim Jarvis and Tony Alcocer have both done a lot of research and have figured out how to ignite most, if not all of their powder charges, by doing just what you said, containing the charge, not to the point where there’s metal shrapnel, but so the powder is prevented from spreading out before completely combusting. Tony (TFish) really tweaked it by placing the ematch at the top, or open end of the charge container, rather than at the bottom. That allows the charge to burn down into the container rather than blowing the powder out of the container before it can ignite.
 
Apollo 1 was 100% Oxygen under pressure and, to simulate the pressure differential in space ( where the working pressure would have been 5 psi, with a vacuum externally ), they pressurized the capsule to almost 20 psi, to compensate for the external 14.7 psi atmospheric pressure, at sea level. Under those conditions, a sixteen-penny nail will burn like a candle ! Grissom, White, & Chaffee were killed by asphyxiation, not from burning to death.

Dave F.



View attachment 379532

Death by asphyxiation may have mercifully saved them from the agony of their third degree burns, but that wasn’t what I was concerned about.

Your suggestion to incorporate a balloon, pressurized with pure oxygen, to be ruptured when the ejection charge fires, would needlessly provide an excess of oxygen to the inside of the deployment cannon. Materials within the cannon might burn pretty well in that atmosphere.
 
The issue with BP at high altitude is that when the black powder charge goes off, the black powder goes from being a tightly packed bunch of powder to being a loosely packed, then just loose bunch of individual grains no longer in contact with each other. If that happens at low altitude , the air conducts heat from one grain to another and more of the grains burn. When that happens at higher altitude, the same separation between grains results in lower heat transference and a failure to ignite the entire powder charge.
Jim Jarvis and Tony Alcocer have both done a lot of research and have figured out how to ignite most, if not all of their powder charges, by doing just what you said, containing the charge, not to the point where there’s metal shrapnel, but so the powder is prevented from spreading out before completely combusting. Tony (TFish) really tweaked it by placing the ematch at the top, or open end of the charge container, rather than at the bottom. That allows the charge to burn down into the container rather than blowing the powder out of the container before it can ignite.

rodger. I was aware that BP had its own O2 (if it didn't BP motors wouldn't work), however I mistakenly equated the low O2 environment with the challenges of heat transfer that you are speaking too.

happy to hear that others have worked this challenge to such an extent.
 
The issue with BP at high altitude is that when the black powder charge goes off, the black powder goes from being a tightly packed bunch of powder to being a loosely packed, then just loose bunch of individual grains no longer in contact with each other. If that happens at low altitude , the air conducts heat from one grain to another and more of the grains burn. When that happens at higher altitude, the same separation between grains results in lower heat transference and a failure to ignite the entire powder charge.
Jim Jarvis and Tony Alcocer have both done a lot of research and have figured out how to ignite most, if not all of their powder charges, by doing just what you said, containing the charge, not to the point where there’s metal shrapnel, but so the powder is prevented from spreading out before completely combusting. Tony (TFish) really tweaked it by placing the ematch at the top, or open end of the charge container, rather than at the bottom. That allows the charge to burn down into the container rather than blowing the powder out of the container before it can ignite.
I think the reason Jim and Tony's system works is the same reason blank black powder artillery charges go boom....the way it was always explained to me is...that if the tube is long enough relative to the bore....it can't get out of it's own way ....blank charges in BP artillery don't use wadding...we simply double the charge over what you use behind a ball.....wadding is considered dangerous...
 
Last edited:
I think the reason Jim and Tony's system works is the same reason blank black powder artillery charges go boom....the way it was always explained to me is...that if the tube is long enough relative to the bore....it can't get out of it's own way ....blank charges in BP artillery don't use wadding...we simply double the charge over what you use behind a ball.....wadding is considered dangerous...

That’s interesting. I could believe that. But would they work the same at altitude?
 
Last edited:
Tom Cohens 850lb rocket landing on a 60ft, and 2-24ft Standard Rocketman Parachutes.
 
Theory,
BP does not 'need' oxygen to burn [the entire BP concept], what it does need is atmosphere to facilitate heat transfer between the grains. This is why it performs poorly at high altitudes if it is not contained adequately.
br/

Tony
 
That’s interesting. I could believe that. But would they work the same at altitude?
My belief is that the pressure produced within the cannon is very much higher than atmospheric, so I would expect no difference in the ability of the cannon to convert 100% of the powder to gas. I do think having the initial 1 atm of air in the cannon helps the ematch work, which is why I seal the tube. However, all of the testing that I initially did was with the tube exposed to a vacuum. Assuming that 100% of the BP burns, then there is also no difference between a ground test versus the performance at altitude. That is one of the nice things about the technique - you don't have to guess what the effect of altitude will be.

Jim
 
My belief is that the pressure produced within the cannon is very much higher than atmospheric, so I would expect no difference in the ability of the cannon to convert 100% of the powder to gas. I do think having the initial 1 atm of air in the cannon helps the ematch work, which is why I seal the tube. However, all of the testing that I initially did was with the tube exposed to a vacuum. Assuming that 100% of the BP burns, then there is also no difference between a ground test versus the performance at altitude. That is one of the nice things about the technique - you don't have to guess what the effect of altitude will be.

Jim
Would a small pyrotechnic cylinder (similar to a hydraulic cylinder) have an advantage if it allowed no gas to escape until the ram was all the way out? It’s just something I had a thought about I’m not certain if it would be practical.
 
There will be several tests done including much more BP than needed. All done using proper protection and safe distances. Worse case we go to metal cannons.

Thanks!



Chuck , just save a step . Duct tape a one lb plastic container of 4f to you bulk head with a few ematches going into it . You will get a deployment lol
 
Great stuff gentlemen. It’s confirming that putting the BP in a plastic film container with the e-matches, packing in some fireproof wadding and lightly sealing the top of the cannon should produce the desired results.

Jim your research and vacuum testing is appreciated. To the rest of you thanks also. I’m still a firm believer that the group as a whole will find the better answers than just the individual.

Chuck C.
 
Oh and there’s been a rocket name change via the Engineering Dept.

I do like “ARRRRR” but the new name is now “UpChuckR”.

Not my idea but it has a nice ring to it lol.

Chuck C.
 
Would a small pyrotechnic cylinder (similar to a hydraulic cylinder) have an advantage if it allowed no gas to escape until the ram was all the way out? It’s just something I had a thought about I’m not certain if it would be practical.

It’s not a bad idea Levi. We’ll be using the wadding as a type of cylinder. Holding back the BP so it can completely burn.

Appreciate the idea.

Chuck C.
 
There will be several tests done including much more BP than needed. All done using proper protection and safe distances. Worse case we go to metal cannons.

Thanks!

Chuck , just save a step . Duct tape a one lb plastic container of 4f to you bulk head with a few ematches going into it . You will get a deployment lol

The magic words "Binary Flash Powder" popped into my head . . . LOL !

On a serious note . . .

Would it be possible to build a sealed chamber, of sufficient size, vacuum-pumped down to the air pressure at 40,000 - 45,000 ft AGL, so the BP charges could be tested in a similar environment to the one they will be used in ?

I'm thinking of a structure , built with a 2x4 frame, sheeted with plywood, and externally fiberglassed to achieve some level of "airtightness".

Dave F.



pirate-talk-clipart-1.gif
 
Oh and there’s been a rocket name change via the Engineering Dept.

I do like “ARRRRR” but the new name is now “UpChuckR”.

Not my idea but it has a nice ring to it lol.

Chuck C.

Chuck,

So, the "UpChuckR" is born . . . Can we affectionately refer to it as "The Hurler" ? LOL !

( BTW - The "Hurler" is a roller-coaster at Carowinds, in Charlotte, NC )

Dave F.


hurler-3.jpg

pirate-talk-clipart-1.gif
 
Would a small pyrotechnic cylinder (similar to a hydraulic cylinder) have an advantage if it allowed no gas to escape until the ram was all the way out? It’s just something I had a thought about I’m not certain if it would be practical.
This is quite practical, within limits. There was a device developed a few years back (name escapes me just now, but someone will know - zpard?) that used a small piston with a rod to push out the nose cone. It works fine in that the powder is confined. Chuck, you might want to ask Rick for a reference on that - it might be a viable alternative for you.

One thing I discovered in my testing is that the confinement volume has to be pretty small. I think the fact that the volume often is small is why some recovery techniques work that might otherwise fail in a larger volume.

And Chuck, on behalf of the Austin Area Rocket Group (AARG), we really like the new name of the rocket!

Jim
 
This is quite practical, within limits. There was a device developed a few years back (name escapes me just now, but someone will know - zpard?) that used a small piston with a rod to push out the nose cone. It works fine in that the powder is confined. Chuck, you might want to ask Rick for a reference on that - it might be a viable alternative for you.

One thing I discovered in my testing is that the confinement volume has to be pretty small. I think the fact that the volume often is small is why some recovery techniques work that might otherwise fail in a larger volume.

And Chuck, on behalf of the Austin Area Rocket Group (AARG), we really like the new name of the rocket!

Jim

Fortunately, the high-altitude deployment situation only affects the Drogue and not the Main chute.

Dave F.


hurler-4.jpg
 
Dave check out Jim Jarvis’ article:

https://www.rocketryfiles.com/files/Technicalarticles/Jim_Jarvis_Highaltitude_deployment_2013.pdf

He did some great vacuum testing.

Chuck C.

Chuck,

That was a very interesting read . . .

I have a hypothesis : "Since Black Powder does not burn as well at high altitudes, due to low air density lessening heat transfer among particles, larger grain Black Powder could be more efficient at high altitudes than smaller grain Black Powder".

My hypothesis is also partly based on the way Black Powder weapons function and the grain size they require . . . The larger the bore diameter and the greater the barrel volume, the larger the grain size of the Black Powder used.

Point to remember : According to Jarvis, his testing only went up to 30,000 ft AGL . . . "UpChuckR" will be going 40,000 ft AGL +/-.

Dave F.


hurler-4.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top