Liquid Monopropellant Engine

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.

RoΔdrunner

Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2019
Messages
6
Reaction score
1
For a background, I've been constructing solid rocket motors for the past year or so. Although success has been marginal, I am reasonably confident that a simple, 50 psi (3.5bar) chamber pressure monoprop engine is within the realm of possibility. I've already crunched the numbers for everything (at 1am), sorted out the materials, Guesstimating a chamber diameter of about 5/8ths an inch (1.5cm), by 3 inches (7.62cm) in length tested the pyro igniter, and should be just about set to test out the fuel mixture.
Now the fuel mixture is the fun part, a reasonably unstable mixture if i'm honest, potassium nitrate dissolved into ethanol (or gasoline if i'm feeling frisky) to create a liquid monopropellant (should be just about as unstable as a solid), abiet being fuel-rich. This will be pressurized with compressed air, saying that its a monopropellant so it shouldn't change the blow-back problems (probably a loop in the propellant line, as the combustion gasses cannot propagate past 90 degrees) . The primary reason for the fuel rich of the mixture is cooling, as I do not have the ability for welding or brazing, its going to be mostly screw-on fittings, o rings, and solder (guessing a flame temp from 3000f-4000f, or 1600c-2200c-ish). I am aware that solder will not withstand the flame temperature, hence threaded fittings. Furthermore, copper will not handle the temperature of construction, so a cooling jacket running water through at a good click (so it doesnt boil) should keep the combustion chamber from melting. The brass injector plate, under thermal loads should have a higher thermal expansion rate than the copper cooling jacket/combustion chamber, so it should create a better seal on the copper. My only problem as of late is securing the bottom of the cooling jacket onto the nozzle exit, the solder (melts at like 300f) wouldn't be able to withstand the temperatures, melting away, and eventually causing a burn-through.
Pictures will be added once I get the opportunity
 
I'm afraid you've come to the wrong forum for discussions about propellant formulation and manufacture.
 
Yeah that seems to be the common theme with these types of projects, hence why I chose such a low chamber pressure. As for propellant formulation, I got that on the bag.
 
Yeah that seems to be the common theme with these types of projects, hence why I chose such a low chamber pressure. As for propellant formulation, I got that on the bag.
Of your two suggested liquid monopropellants, one will absolutely not work (retired chem prof after 42 years uni teaching), based on some simple general chemistry principles. And both would be considered explosives, legally speaking; one may be a high explosive, I don't know enough about that specific chemistry.

If you haven't read "Ignition!" by John Clark, you'd do well to do so. It may provide some insight as to why the professionals are extraordinarily cautious when it comes to monopropellants.

Regards -- TWM
The Obituary Test: If friends and colleagues read your obituary and say "That could happen to anyone", you've passed. "What an @ss!", you've failed.
 
I have read ignition multiple times, as for the caution, that's why I'm only mixing the ethanol and potassium right before the test, so it doesn't explode in my face or light off or something. Furthermore I'm not using large amounts, 10 second burns, max. As for the fact that it wouldn't work, I'm unsure why, it's both a oxy and a fuel mixed, it may have to be a slurry, but it's still liquid. The ethanol is a 98% solution, however along with the potassium I may water it down in an attempt to make it a tad more stable, or at the very least less energetic.
However I am also considering (probably) switching to a bipropellant
 
Last edited:
Before this thread gets shut down I'd like some answers to some questions:

How are you measuring success for this effort ?

What was marginal about your solid propellant attempts ?

After your experience with solids, why would you move up the complexity ladder to liquids ?
 
So, having admittedly marginal success at solid propellants, which are well documented and for which mentors are available, you feel that now you are ready to develop mono propellants and bi propellants? Please go back to solid propellants and get a mentor, read “Experimental Composite Propellants”, written by the guy above (prfesser) who just explained why you are making a mistake, and stick with it until you know more about what you don’t know.
https://aeroconsystems.com/cart/literature-software/experimental-composite-propellant/
 
Last edited:
Before this thread gets shut down I'd like some answers to some questions:

How are you measuring success for this effort ?

What was marginal about your solid propellant attempts ?

After your experience with solids, why would you move up the complexity ladder to liquids ?

If anything it will just get moved to research.

To the OP - are you NAR or TRA HP certified? If so contact cwbullet for access. No formula can be discussed here in open forum. Must be in research but most discussions are related to solid propellants.
 
I'll regrain from discussing mixtures[edit, probably the rest of the project too] in the future
My current experience with solid motors is a good, stable burn, up to the point that the top bulkhead burns through, due to the epoxy I was using melting. I'm calling success a stable burn, without engine destruction. I'm considering starting throatless, to keep construction simple. To be honest I was confused about the fact that there was no scratch built motor section, and I'm not certified.
 
Last edited:
I will repeat timbucktoo's question as it is very important, are you NAR or Tripoli high power certified? And in what country are you doing these tests?
 
OP is 16 so high power certification is out so the research forum is not possible.

One can't simply mix any fuel and any oxidizer together and get a propellant. Some oxidizers work in 1 state but not another, same with fuels. And if you mix the wrong oxidizer and fuel together you can form a substance that is much more dangerous than either by themselves. One of the mixtures you listed can be very dangerous and could land you into serious trouble both physically and legally. Liquid motors are an order of magnitude, if not more, more difficult than solid motors.

Reach out to a local university and talk with their physics/chemistry department. I bet they have either a research group or some kind of project involving rocket motors (sold, liquid, hybrid, etc.) and they'd love to have you ask questions of them, get info and maybe even attend some tests.
 
Solids, Hybrids, Biprop, Monoprop in descending order of number-of-fingers-kept .

If you didn't catch that from Ignition! stop everything .

Come fly with a club instead!
 
when I first saw the thread title my thoughts were of the only liquid 'mono-propellant' that we can discuss uses DHMO* under high pressure as a reaction mass.
Rex
*otherwise known as water :).
 
You can freeze a slurry of DHMO and nanoparticle aluminium and fly a rocket with it. Look up ALICE rocket fuel.
I tried that in college, although we only had microparticle aluminum and we couldn't get it to light (probably for the better; with hindsight untrained college students and nano aluminum is a recipe for disaster). Cryogenic solids is a ground handling issue that I would not wish on anybody.
 
Roadrunner,

Please do not take this the wrong way. I applaud your enthusiasm.

Please do not attempt your experiment. Please. The sheer number of things you revealed in the OP that you do not know about the subject presages disaster.

Honestly, it may take several more years of education in the various applicable fields to get to where you realize you don't know enough yet - that's after that education. Then you can really dive into the problems.

Gerald
 
Yeah, thinking more, although the math checks out it's an extremely bad idea, especially since I don't have the required tools, etc. Probably going to continue solids until I get enough experience to move over to hybrids
 
I think you have made a wise decision RR. A mature choice. Don't stop being curious though, and keep studying and thinking to bring your knowledge up. Hybrids can be fun, but respect them as I have seen a couple detonate over the years.

If you have not seen it, see of you can get your hands on the book "History of LIquid Propellant Rocket Engines" by Sutton.
 
I think you have made a wise decision RR. A mature choice. Don't stop being curious though, and keep studying and thinking to bring your knowledge up. Hybrids can be fun, but respect them as I have seen a couple detonate over the years.

If you have not seen it, see of you can get your hands on the book "History of LIquid Propellant Rocket Engines" by Sutton.
+1!
 
#1) I do not believe that threaded fittings will withstand the pressures you are discussing.
#2) If you attempt to proceed anyhow, can we call you "lefty" afterwards?
I can't remember the guy's name, the Survival Research Labs guy, who blew off most of his fingers building a rocket motor.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top