DubaiAmateurRocketry
National Hazard
Posts: 841
Registered: 10-5-2013
Location: LA, CA, USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: In research
|
|
Propellant using dissolved Lithium Perchlorate
World's first engine containing Eutectic composite propellant containing dissolved Lithium Perchlorate in prepolymers.
Ours propellant has many advantages over traditional composite propellants. It is denser, more efficient, burns at higher temperature, more safe,
slower burn rate, higher specific impulse, easier to construct, superior mechanical properties and so on.
Static test video : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPvb-_GrlKE
|
|
|
Dany
Hazard to Others
Posts: 482
Registered: 3-8-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Hello DubaiAmateurRocketry,
Actually, i don't see many advantages (if any) from replacing NH4CLO4 with LiCLO4. perhaps, you will increase little the specific impulse relative to
the ammonium perchlorate. Although, higher specific impulse are associated with high temperature, the latter is not desirable in rocketry. High
temperature combustion may pose significant problem to rocket structure. high temperatures tend to weaken the rocket body during the active phase
leading to structural failure. Two factors wich lead to increasing Isp is high combustion temperature and/or propellant generating low molecular mass
gas. of course the latter is preferable than the former. Ejecting atomic hydrogen from nozzle will be optimal for achieving high Isp values. also,
LiClO4 is more expensive than NH4ClO4. I don't know what is your prepolymer, but a energetic prepolymer will be desirable over traditional prepolymer
for increasing Isp. In the video we see that combustion is not uniforme. At 0:07 second the combustion stops and the reestablished suggseting a bad
mixing of polymer with oxidizer or not an optimal ratio of both oxidizer and you prepolymer.
Dany.
|
|
|
DubaiAmateurRocketry
National Hazard
Posts: 841
Registered: 10-5-2013
Location: LA, CA, USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: In research
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by Dany  | Hello DubaiAmateurRocketry,
Actually, i don't see many advantages (if any) from replacing NH4CLO4 with LiCLO4. perhaps, you will increase little the specific impulse relative to
the ammonium perchlorate. Although, higher specific impulse are associated with high temperature, the latter is not desirable in rocketry. High
temperature combustion may pose significant problem to rocket structure. high temperatures tend to weaken the rocket body during the active phase
leading to structural failure. Two factors wich lead to increasing Isp is high combustion temperature and/or propellant generating low molecular mass
gas. of course the latter is preferable than the former. Ejecting atomic hydrogen from nozzle will be optimal for achieving high Isp values. also,
LiClO4 is more expensive than NH4ClO4. I don't know what is your prepolymer, but a energetic prepolymer will be desirable over traditional prepolymer
for increasing Isp. In the video we see that combustion is not uniforme. At 0:07 second the combustion stops and the reestablished suggseting a bad
mixing of polymer with oxidizer or not an optimal ratio of both oxidizer and you prepolymer.
Dany. |
The reestablish of the combustion was from the boiling epoxy lining on the nozzle and PVC for cooling.
We do not replace ammonium perchlorate fully with Lithium perchlorate. In this, we replaced around 15% for a better fluidity during casting of the
propellant.
A 15% can increase the performance significantly.
According to my calculation, NASA's APCP ratio produce 5% unburned carbon, this produce none unburned carbon.
This also burns hotter, the polymer and the oxidziers alone can combust at around 2500 + degree celsius, almost at the boiling point of aluminum,
allowing the aluminum to burn better with water during combustion.
[Edited on 8-8-2013 by DubaiAmateurRocketry]
|
|
|
Dany
Hazard to Others
Posts: 482
Registered: 3-8-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by DubaiAmateurRocketry | | Quote: Originally posted by Dany | Hello DubaiAmateurRocketry,
Actually, i don't see many advantages (if any) from replacing NH4CLO4 with LiCLO4. perhaps, you will increase little the specific impulse relative to
the ammonium perchlorate. Although, higher specific impulse are associated with high temperature, the latter is not desirable in rocketry. High
temperature combustion may pose significant problem to rocket structure. high temperatures tend to weaken the rocket body during the active phase
leading to structural failure. Two factors wich lead to increasing Isp is high combustion temperature and/or propellant generating low molecular mass
gas. of course the latter is preferable than the former. Ejecting atomic hydrogen from nozzle will be optimal for achieving high Isp values. also,
LiClO4 is more expensive than NH4ClO4. I don't know what is your prepolymer, but a energetic prepolymer will be desirable over traditional prepolymer
for increasing Isp. In the video we see that combustion is not uniforme. At 0:07 second the combustion stops and the reestablished suggseting a bad
mixing of polymer with oxidizer or not an optimal ratio of both oxidizer and you prepolymer.
Dany. |
The reestablish of the combustion was from the boiling epoxy lining on the nozzle and PVC for cooling.
We do not replace ammonium perchlorate fully with Lithium perchlorate. In this, we replaced around 15% for a better fluidity during casting of the
propellant.
A 15% can increase the performance significantly.
According to my calculation, NASA's APCP ratio produce 5% unburned carbon, this produce none unburned carbon.
This also burns hotter, the polymer and the oxidziers alone can combust at around 2500 + degree celsius, almost at the boiling point of aluminum,
allowing the aluminum to burn better with water during combustion.
[Edited on 8-8-2013 by DubaiAmateurRocketry] |
You say increase the Isp significantly. How much is this ''Significantly'' ? if you can post the method used for calculation of Isp, and comparison of
Isp (in seconds) of you propellant with other solid propellant. When you say that your calculation proove that NASA APCP produce 5% unburnt Carbon you
should provide references to experimental work, because the method of calculation need to be validated with experimental findings. Other than that,
the method used may yield very approximate results and is only informative. I believe, that better solid propellant formulation should begin with a
replacement of perchlorate salts due to their toxicity and generation of corrosive HCl. Organic C-H-N-O oxidizer with better oxygen balance than
perchlorate salts are potential candidate for future propellant systems.
Dany.
|
|
|
DubaiAmateurRocketry
National Hazard
Posts: 841
Registered: 10-5-2013
Location: LA, CA, USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: In research
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Dany | | Quote: Originally posted by DubaiAmateurRocketry | | Quote: Originally posted by Dany | Hello DubaiAmateurRocketry,
Actually, i don't see many advantages (if any) from replacing NH4CLO4 with LiCLO4. perhaps, you will increase little the specific impulse relative to
the ammonium perchlorate. Although, higher specific impulse are associated with high temperature, the latter is not desirable in rocketry. High
temperature combustion may pose significant problem to rocket structure. high temperatures tend to weaken the rocket body during the active phase
leading to structural failure. Two factors wich lead to increasing Isp is high combustion temperature and/or propellant generating low molecular mass
gas. of course the latter is preferable than the former. Ejecting atomic hydrogen from nozzle will be optimal for achieving high Isp values. also,
LiClO4 is more expensive than NH4ClO4. I don't know what is your prepolymer, but a energetic prepolymer will be desirable over traditional prepolymer
for increasing Isp. In the video we see that combustion is not uniforme. At 0:07 second the combustion stops and the reestablished suggseting a bad
mixing of polymer with oxidizer or not an optimal ratio of both oxidizer and you prepolymer.
Dany. |
The reestablish of the combustion was from the boiling epoxy lining on the nozzle and PVC for cooling.
We do not replace ammonium perchlorate fully with Lithium perchlorate. In this, we replaced around 15% for a better fluidity during casting of the
propellant.
A 15% can increase the performance significantly.
According to my calculation, NASA's APCP ratio produce 5% unburned carbon, this produce none unburned carbon.
This also burns hotter, the polymer and the oxidziers alone can combust at around 2500 + degree celsius, almost at the boiling point of aluminum,
allowing the aluminum to burn better with water during combustion.
[Edited on 8-8-2013 by DubaiAmateurRocketry] |
You say increase the Isp significantly. How much is this ''Significantly'' ? if you can post the method used for calculation of Isp, and comparison of
Isp (in seconds) of you propellant with other solid propellant. When you say that your calculation proove that NASA APCP produce 5% unburnt Carbon you
should provide references to experimental work, because the method of calculation need to be validated with experimental findings. Other than that,
the method used may yield very approximate results and is only informative. I believe, that better solid propellant formulation should begin with a
replacement of perchlorate salts due to their toxicity and generation of corrosive HCl. Organic C-H-N-O oxidizer with better oxygen balance than
perchlorate salts are potential candidate for future propellant systems.
Dany. |
You can try calculating it your self.
Taking the traditional
70% AP
14% HTPB
16% Aluminum
HTPB is approximate (C4H6)10-35(OH)2
AP gives half of the oxygen it has, you can search for decomposition of AP on internet.
and with that try balancing the formula, even if all Carbon become carbon monoxide, 5% carbon still wont get any oxygen.
We will publish our calculations later.
|
|
|
Dany
Hazard to Others
Posts: 482
Registered: 3-8-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by DubaiAmateurRocketry | | Quote: Originally posted by Dany | | Quote: Originally posted by DubaiAmateurRocketry | | Quote: Originally posted by Dany | Hello DubaiAmateurRocketry,
Actually, i don't see many advantages (if any) from replacing NH4CLO4 with LiCLO4. perhaps, you will increase little the specific impulse relative to
the ammonium perchlorate. Although, higher specific impulse are associated with high temperature, the latter is not desirable in rocketry. High
temperature combustion may pose significant problem to rocket structure. high temperatures tend to weaken the rocket body during the active phase
leading to structural failure. Two factors wich lead to increasing Isp is high combustion temperature and/or propellant generating low molecular mass
gas. of course the latter is preferable than the former. Ejecting atomic hydrogen from nozzle will be optimal for achieving high Isp values. also,
LiClO4 is more expensive than NH4ClO4. I don't know what is your prepolymer, but a energetic prepolymer will be desirable over traditional prepolymer
for increasing Isp. In the video we see that combustion is not uniforme. At 0:07 second the combustion stops and the reestablished suggseting a bad
mixing of polymer with oxidizer or not an optimal ratio of both oxidizer and you prepolymer.
Dany. |
The reestablish of the combustion was from the boiling epoxy lining on the nozzle and PVC for cooling.
We do not replace ammonium perchlorate fully with Lithium perchlorate. In this, we replaced around 15% for a better fluidity during casting of the
propellant.
A 15% can increase the performance significantly.
According to my calculation, NASA's APCP ratio produce 5% unburned carbon, this produce none unburned carbon.
This also burns hotter, the polymer and the oxidziers alone can combust at around 2500 + degree celsius, almost at the boiling point of aluminum,
allowing the aluminum to burn better with water during combustion.
[Edited on 8-8-2013 by DubaiAmateurRocketry] |
You say increase the Isp significantly. How much is this ''Significantly'' ? if you can post the method used for calculation of Isp, and comparison of
Isp (in seconds) of you propellant with other solid propellant. When you say that your calculation proove that NASA APCP produce 5% unburnt Carbon you
should provide references to experimental work, because the method of calculation need to be validated with experimental findings. Other than that,
the method used may yield very approximate results and is only informative. I believe, that better solid propellant formulation should begin with a
replacement of perchlorate salts due to their toxicity and generation of corrosive HCl. Organic C-H-N-O oxidizer with better oxygen balance than
perchlorate salts are potential candidate for future propellant systems.
Dany. |
You can try calculating it your self.
Taking the traditional
70% AP
14% HTPB
16% Aluminum
HTPB is approximate (C4H6)10-35(OH)2
AP gives half of the oxygen it has, you can search for decomposition of AP on internet.
and with that try balancing the formula, even if all Carbon become carbon monoxide, 5% carbon still wont get any oxygen.
We will publish our calculations later. |
Your are telling me to calculate the Isp of composite solid propellant by simply balancing the chemical equation (and with an approximate value of the
HTPB)!!!??? In fact, burning a solid rocket propellant is very complicated by the pressure and high temperature encountered in missile combustion
chambers. It is false to estimate the combustion products of SRM combustion (like balancing the equation of charcoal burning!). Complexe
thermochemical code are needed to estimate: 1-the combustion products present and 2-their quantities (which is not simple to obtain). the true
compostion of the combustion products is highly sensitive on both pressure and temperature in the combustion process. You may added another factor
that complicate the estimation of the true Isp that is the ejection of solid Lithium oxide (or any of its derivatives) from rocket nozzle (2
dimensional flow).
Dany.
|
|
|
DubaiAmateurRocketry
National Hazard
Posts: 841
Registered: 10-5-2013
Location: LA, CA, USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: In research
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Dany | | Quote: Originally posted by DubaiAmateurRocketry | | Quote: Originally posted by Dany | | Quote: Originally posted by DubaiAmateurRocketry | | Quote: Originally posted by Dany | Hello DubaiAmateurRocketry,
Actually, i don't see many advantages (if any) from replacing NH4CLO4 with LiCLO4. perhaps, you will increase little the specific impulse relative to
the ammonium perchlorate. Although, higher specific impulse are associated with high temperature, the latter is not desirable in rocketry. High
temperature combustion may pose significant problem to rocket structure. high temperatures tend to weaken the rocket body during the active phase
leading to structural failure. Two factors wich lead to increasing Isp is high combustion temperature and/or propellant generating low molecular mass
gas. of course the latter is preferable than the former. Ejecting atomic hydrogen from nozzle will be optimal for achieving high Isp values. also,
LiClO4 is more expensive than NH4ClO4. I don't know what is your prepolymer, but a energetic prepolymer will be desirable over traditional prepolymer
for increasing Isp. In the video we see that combustion is not uniforme. At 0:07 second the combustion stops and the reestablished suggseting a bad
mixing of polymer with oxidizer or not an optimal ratio of both oxidizer and you prepolymer.
Dany. |
The reestablish of the combustion was from the boiling epoxy lining on the nozzle and PVC for cooling.
We do not replace ammonium perchlorate fully with Lithium perchlorate. In this, we replaced around 15% for a better fluidity during casting of the
propellant.
A 15% can increase the performance significantly.
According to my calculation, NASA's APCP ratio produce 5% unburned carbon, this produce none unburned carbon.
This also burns hotter, the polymer and the oxidziers alone can combust at around 2500 + degree celsius, almost at the boiling point of aluminum,
allowing the aluminum to burn better with water during combustion.
[Edited on 8-8-2013 by DubaiAmateurRocketry] |
You say increase the Isp significantly. How much is this ''Significantly'' ? if you can post the method used for calculation of Isp, and comparison of
Isp (in seconds) of you propellant with other solid propellant. When you say that your calculation proove that NASA APCP produce 5% unburnt Carbon you
should provide references to experimental work, because the method of calculation need to be validated with experimental findings. Other than that,
the method used may yield very approximate results and is only informative. I believe, that better solid propellant formulation should begin with a
replacement of perchlorate salts due to their toxicity and generation of corrosive HCl. Organic C-H-N-O oxidizer with better oxygen balance than
perchlorate salts are potential candidate for future propellant systems.
Dany. |
You can try calculating it your self.
Taking the traditional
70% AP
14% HTPB
16% Aluminum
HTPB is approximate (C4H6)10-35(OH)2
AP gives half of the oxygen it has, you can search for decomposition of AP on internet.
and with that try balancing the formula, even if all Carbon become carbon monoxide, 5% carbon still wont get any oxygen.
We will publish our calculations later. |
Your are telling me to calculate the Isp of composite solid propellant by simply balancing the chemical equation (and with an approximate value of the
HTPB)!!!??? In fact, burning a solid rocket propellant is very complicated by the pressure and high temperature encountered in missile combustion
chambers. It is false to estimate the combustion products of SRM combustion (like balancing the equation of charcoal burning!). Complexe
thermochemical code are needed to estimate: 1-the combustion products present and 2-their quantities (which is not simple to obtain). the true
compostion of the combustion products is highly sensitive on both pressure and temperature in the combustion process. You may added another factor
that complicate the estimation of the true Isp that is the ejection of solid Lithium oxide (or any of its derivatives) from rocket nozzle (2
dimensional flow).
Dany. |
Those are also on the web.
The decomposition of ammonium perchlorate at high pressure is also on the web, for combustion, it is okay to assume.
Chlorine would burn with Hydrogen, none with carbon.
Oxygen would burn with hydrogen before carbon.
carbon monoxide will form as much as possible before carbon dioxide.
Aluminum will react with water in gas state.
aluminum will react with HCl in gas state, but under the presence of water the reaction prefers water. AlCl3 is produced, but traces.
Lithium chloride is produced over 99% of Lithium perchlorate by weight from decomposition.
Under this, you can calculate by hand, and calculate the temperature, or you can try PROPEP or GUIPEP combustion softwares.
One of best advantage for eutectic composites comes in the lattice energy between Li+ and ClO4-
Because LP is dissolved, and still REMAINS DISSOLVED after the solvent is cured to a solid polymer, the energy for LP to decompose becomes lower, and
the decomposition becomes even MORE exothermic.
The exact data for combustion is therefore hard to calculate, and the softwares willl be wrong. therefore we will try to get an insight of those kind
of propellant from our next static tests and so on.
Lithium Chloride in theory, or we guesstimate, can become a gas. but we also think that although becoming a gas, LiCl, fails to expand nicely at the
nozzle and a % of LiCl can become a liquid when it is at the nozzle expansion part and fails to give more power. But a 15% LP gives only a 40% of the
15% which is around 7% extra solid.
Since LP gives MORE than TWICE the oxygen ammonium perchlorate does, we can increase the amount of binder used, so it will not be too much of a
problem if additives of LP is added.
We will try to publish the results as fast as we can.
[Edited on 8-8-2013 by DubaiAmateurRocketry]
|
|
|
franklyn
International Hazard
Posts: 3026
Registered: 30-5-2006
Location: Da Big Apple
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=25319
@ DubaiAmateurRocketry
If you sttart a new thread every time you add a new comment
no one is going to be able to follow the development.
.
|
|
|
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
