Hello all!
I must apologise beforehand for my lack of knowledge of much of the chemical science underlying the usage of HTP.
I also apologise if this is not the correct forum to post this question.
I have a question/idea centred around the use of a normal HTP rocket engine, and a possible way to increase its thrust, by adding a second stage to the HTP reaction.
I have been unable to find any resource online to help me understand if this is feasible or not, or if it would work at all.
The second stage would use the steam and heat generated by the first reaction, and a suitable catalyst pack - like a Zinc mesh, to further split the water steam into Hydrogen and Oxygen gases (thermochemical water splitting), which would (if the resulting gas temperature is above the auto-ignition temperature ~536ºC) ignite and expand further, generating thrust.
The reaction of Zinc and steam is a simple one to simulate - there are simple high-school level experiments using Zinc shavings and water soaked cotton inside a test tube that, when heated, generate hydrogen - example video
In an normal HTP engine, at 85% or 90% concentration, it is pressure fed by into a reaction chamber and dissociates in contact with the silver catalyst, releasing hot water steam (in excess of 600°C) and Oxygen gas (what is not trapped by the catalyst, as silver oxide).
The hot steam would then react with Zinc, resulting in Zinc Oxide and Hydrogen gas - the Zinc–zinc oxide cycle that works above around 427°C.
The Hydrogen and Oxygen gases would then auto-ignite due to their temperature.
If this added catalytic step works, it could be used in a dual catalytical cycle HTP Monopropellant Hypergolic rocket engine - it would not be as efficient and powerful as many others, but it would be simple and cheap to build.
I understand that there probably are a lot of missteps and misunderstandings of the underlying chemistry in my idea - namely with the obvious fact that such a simple setup would already have been tested and documented if it were to work.
Am I clearly missing something obvious, or I can/should try and develop my idea further into a simple test setup?
Thank you all for your time!
I must apologise beforehand for my lack of knowledge of much of the chemical science underlying the usage of HTP.
I also apologise if this is not the correct forum to post this question.
I have a question/idea centred around the use of a normal HTP rocket engine, and a possible way to increase its thrust, by adding a second stage to the HTP reaction.
I have been unable to find any resource online to help me understand if this is feasible or not, or if it would work at all.
The second stage would use the steam and heat generated by the first reaction, and a suitable catalyst pack - like a Zinc mesh, to further split the water steam into Hydrogen and Oxygen gases (thermochemical water splitting), which would (if the resulting gas temperature is above the auto-ignition temperature ~536ºC) ignite and expand further, generating thrust.
The reaction of Zinc and steam is a simple one to simulate - there are simple high-school level experiments using Zinc shavings and water soaked cotton inside a test tube that, when heated, generate hydrogen - example video
In an normal HTP engine, at 85% or 90% concentration, it is pressure fed by into a reaction chamber and dissociates in contact with the silver catalyst, releasing hot water steam (in excess of 600°C) and Oxygen gas (what is not trapped by the catalyst, as silver oxide).
The hot steam would then react with Zinc, resulting in Zinc Oxide and Hydrogen gas - the Zinc–zinc oxide cycle that works above around 427°C.
The Hydrogen and Oxygen gases would then auto-ignite due to their temperature.
If this added catalytic step works, it could be used in a dual catalytical cycle HTP Monopropellant Hypergolic rocket engine - it would not be as efficient and powerful as many others, but it would be simple and cheap to build.
I understand that there probably are a lot of missteps and misunderstandings of the underlying chemistry in my idea - namely with the obvious fact that such a simple setup would already have been tested and documented if it were to work.
Am I clearly missing something obvious, or I can/should try and develop my idea further into a simple test setup?
Thank you all for your time!