BP to ignite AP engines

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

Status
Not open for further replies.

r1dermon

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
2,310
Reaction score
2
ok, well, i can't find any modern missle applications using H2O2 as an oxidiser. however, older missles definately used liquid oxygen, liquid hydrogen and hydrogen peroxide as fuels. any searching at a .mil site will get you that info. i tried brittanica but you need a membership. arg. but they had a 16,000wrd article on it. i've also seen experimental rocket motors using hydrogen peroxide, which, a rocket IS a missile.
here is a amateur H2O2 rocket motor. https://www.ad6uy.com/sac-l5/motor-test.html
this uses the same kerosene setup i was talking about. but basically any volatile liquid fuel will work nicely.
 

edwardw

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2004
Messages
2,126
Reaction score
0
Any volatile liquid fuel would work, but I'm guessing that for the best efficency you would want on that has a very high energy denisity. If you look up the Nasa spec on Igniters you'll find out a lot about BKNO3 - instead of just speculating. It shouldn't be too hard to find on the internet.

Edward
 

r1dermon

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
2,310
Reaction score
2
thats insane...i've never heard of the stuff before this. crazy what things lie in wait.
energy density, yes, check this out. if you take liquid oxygen(pretty difficult to obtain, considering its like...-300 degrees) and pour it on a cotton ball, that cotton ball is going to become a huge ball of flame...if you lit that cotton ball without the oxygen, it would barely hold a flame...thats a very low energy fuel. if you take 100% hydrogen and mix it with 33% air, you will get a huge flame ball, now imagine hydrogen, in LIQUID form, SO much more dense than in a gaseous state, and mixed that with oxygen and lit that...MAN, those shuttles have got some boost. i wonder what the actual lb readings for the shuttle are. i know the saturn V had 1.5 million lbs of thrust at takeoff. and that was solid fuel. man, liquids rule.
 

edwardw

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2004
Messages
2,126
Reaction score
0
Originally posted by r1dermon
. i know the saturn V had 1.5 million lbs of thrust at takeoff. and that was solid fuel. man, liquids rule.
First, you need to get some facts straight. The Saturn V had 1.5M lbs of thrust but was not solid as you said. It was liquid. LOX and RP-1. Pretty easily attainable information.


Edward
 

r1dermon

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
2,310
Reaction score
2
i know edward......im having fun with you...since you were so blunt in your earlier post. maybe you should just chill. im not here to argue with anyone. just chillax. whats the problem? why the animosity? i havent done anything to insult or defame you. so why are you getting so strong armed? just questions.
 

r1dermon

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
2,310
Reaction score
2
oh yeah, about BKNO3, i wasnt speculating, i was asking about it. because i had never heard of it before. when someone tells you about something, you naturally want to know the root of what it is. i had never ever heard of boron combined with potassium salt. i was speculating about the torch ignition. and why cant i speculate? its fun. its what imagination is all about....thats why you go to kidnergarden when you're a child.
 

edwardw

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2004
Messages
2,126
Reaction score
0
Some of your past posts have just raised a flag in my mind. Your posting about checking the legality of Improvised explosive devices, filling the core of a motor with BP to ignite a composite motor and supersonic rocket flights have made me read them with more scrutiny. Also, some of the 'facts' you post aren't entirely the facts. It's just a pattern of stuff that has made me read them over twice and think about them. That's all.

Edward
 

r1dermon

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
2,310
Reaction score
2
edward. i didnt say it was OK to fill the core of a composite motor to ignite it. i said i use it to fill the core of my homemade sugar rockets(with pressed powder grains, not cast) and it works fine.
i was checking the legality of IED's because i didnt know if they fell into the same category as potato guns, aka spud launchers, which are not illegal according to the ATF, as long as they shoot non flammable projectiles. tennis balls are not non flammable, however, potatos are.
the supersonic posts were influenced by shows that i've seen on the discovery channel, and i do stand by those posts.
 

bobkrech

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2009
Messages
8,353
Reaction score
37
Mark

As one of the "rocket scientists" you referred to, as far as I know, there hasn't been a US military rocket that used H2O2 as the oxidizer in it's primary propulsion system.

Hydrogen Peroxide is not considered a storable propellant by military standards. It constantly decomposes into water and oxygen in storage, and the decomposition rate depends on the container material and the tmeperature. It freezes at 30F and undergoes an explosive decomposition at its boiling point of 302 F. It has poor performance as an oxidizer for propulsion applications compared with LOX and other storable oxidizers such as nitrogen tetroxide, N2O4 or even nitrous oxide, N2O which is the hybrid oxidizer in HP motors and by Rutan in SSO.

For some reason, the British chose H2O2/Kerosine as the propulsion system for their only satelite launch vehicle, the Black Arrow. They launched 4 rockets, 2 of which flew successfully, and put the UK's only indigenous satellite into orbit. This is the only large rocket system I can find that used peroxide at the priomary oxidizer, and it's not a military rocket.

https://www.astronautix.com/lvs/blaarrow.htm

Hydrogen Peroxide was used in the V-2 missile to power up the propellant turbopumps. Since it decompses easily at low temperatures, it has found limited application in monopropellant thrusters for attitude control systems in the 50's and 60's on the X-14, the F-104R and the Mercury capsules. Again, because of its poor performance and storability issues, it has been universally replaced by hydrazine monopropellant thrusters.

Unfortunately there is a long-term memory issue in propulsion science and in many other areas. Once the older scientists retire and/or die off, much of the old knowledge is forgotten, and when the next generation doesn't do their homework, they think they have discovered a new magic bullet. This routinely occurs on a 20 year cycle. Peroxide was hot in the late 50's and early 60's, in the late 70's and early 80's when alternative fuels were big, and in the late 90's thru today because peroxide is considered environmentally friendly. The propulsion chemistry was done 40 years ago, and nothing has changed, so after a lot of spending, this generation will learn what the previous one's did. You don't get something for nothing.

A recent example of the was Black Horse, an USAF study program in the 90's. It didn't go anywhere, and at least one of the principals left to try to commercialize it into a private space venture. From what I remember of it, he has since started looking at other propellant systems.

https://www.astronautix.com/craft/blahorse.htm

I believe r1dermon is well-meaning but overly enthusiastic young man who gets caught up in a lot of hype and doesn't spend the time to do his homework. Much of what he has posted in this thread is technically incorrect. Eventually he'll learn to get his information from several independent sources before he make a statement, but that comes with age and maturity. I am far more concerned about the "experiments" he has conducted, or proposes to, because they are extremely dangerous to himself, and more importantly, to any innocent bystander that happens to be near by. Fortunately, most of the really bad chemicals he mentions are not available to non-professionals, so we are safe for now, but a word of caution.

Flashpower is a high explosive, unlike black powder which is a low explosive. Small quantities of black power deflagrate (burn) and can not detonate, where as a few tens of grams of flash powder can detonate. The difference between a deflagration and a detonation is the rapid pressure rise and subsequent blast generation that can occur when you initiate a high explosive.

Unconfined low explosive simply burns fast. You may get a bad burn, but you won't be blown up if you accidently light it off. Unconfined high explosives can and do detonate, and the results aren't pretty.

There's a lot of of safety information on flashpowder on the web because it's used in small quantities in theatrical productions. In most municipalities you need a permit to use it that application. You can't buy flashpowder because it's too unstable to transport, so it is typically made at the place where it will be used. The information is not hard to find, and it's downright irresponsible and stupid if you make the stuff without understanding the hazzards. If you mess around with more than a gram of flash powder and it goes off, or if you try to confine it, not only will you get burned, the emergency responders may not find all the pieces. Accidental ignition of an ounce or more can be fatal. It simply has no place in rocketry as a propellant or and an ignitor. Enough said on that subject.

Lastly, if r1dermon wants to get serious about the science of propulsion, reading and understanding a good reference book on rocket motors and propellants like Sutton's classic text book "Rocket Propulsion Elements", now in the 7th edition, is a must. It can be purchased for about $100 new, or picked up as an earlier edition for much less. If his town has a good library, or is affiliated with a regional lending library, there's a pretty good chance they can get it for him to read. In it he will find what has been done over the past 50 years, and where to find the original data. I've been using it for 30 years.

Robert Goddard, Werner Von Braun, and the other pioneers of rocket development, were highly trained individuals who had many years of formal academic education. Rutan's folks at Scaled Composites, and their hybrid motor manufacturers Space DEV and EAC aren't back yard builders, the're educated engineers and scientists. No professional rocket scientist simply "does experiments", he sits down ahead of time and studies the problem, works out a number of possible solutions, thinks what kind of problems they might enounter with each solution, and then only after a whole lot of planning does he conduct a series of experiments to confirm his ideas.

With a little technical and safety training, the average Joe can make a composite rocket motor following a proven recipe if he has the proper equipment and facilities, but it takes years of training and experience to develop the recipes. It's the years of education and training that distinguish the professional rocket scientist from the basement bomber who just can't wait.

Bob Krech
 

MarkABrown

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2001
Messages
1,077
Reaction score
1
Thanks a lot Bob. That's exactly what I was hoping someone would post.
 

KenParker

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2001
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
1
The originator of this thread has requested that it be locked/closed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top