KonkreteRocketry
Hazard to Others
Posts: 165
Registered: 12-11-2012
Location: Dubai
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Oxidizer - KClO4
Okay so I have been using Potassium Nitrate, KNO3 in all my past launched or test or whatever. I recently started an interest in KClO4 after I have
watched this video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5t-d3ddksSc,
I see lot of smoke and looks like it is not a bad oxidizer, it is 20 percent more dense than KNO3, and have higher oxygen content, so does it mean it
would be more efficient ? It just make me more curious about it when i can't find almost nothing about this chemical :p Have any one of u guys tried
it ? tell me some stuff :p like burn rate with sugar? thx
|
|
|
phlogiston
International Hazard
Posts: 1375
Registered: 26-4-2008
Location: Neon Thorium Erbium Lanthanum Neodymium Sulphur
Member Is Offline
Mood: pyrophoric
|
|
If you cannot find anything you haven't searched very hard.
For rocketry, ammonium perchlorate NH4ClO4 is the prefered perchlorate oxidiser. More impulse and less smoke (often considered advantageous), because
all of its decomposition products are gaseous.
The very first succesful composite propellant used KClO4 as the oxidiser. Lookup GALCIT propellant, which was a mixture of pitch and KClO4.
-----
"If a rocket goes up, who cares where it comes down, that's not my concern said Wernher von Braun" - Tom Lehrer |
|
|
KonkreteRocketry
Hazard to Others
Posts: 165
Registered: 12-11-2012
Location: Dubai
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by phlogiston  | If you cannot find anything you haven't searched very hard.
For rocketry, ammonium perchlorate NH4ClO4 is the prefered perchlorate oxidiser. More impulse and less smoke (often considered advantageous), because
all of its decomposition products are gaseous.
The very first succesful composite propellant used KClO4 as the oxidiser. Lookup GALCIT propellant, which was a mixture of pitch and KClO4.
|
Yes thank you. I know APCP is the best but well, I like trying out new fuels 
|
|
|
RodentSaurus
Harmless
Posts: 2
Registered: 21-11-2012
Location: Floorida
Member Is Offline
Mood: Brisant
|
|
KClO4 has a couple of pros and cons. One of the cons is that its "n" exponent in De Vielle's equation (Burn rate = a * Pc^n, where "a" and "n" are
parameters unique to each oxidizer, and "Pc" is chamber pressure) is somewhat higher than AP. For this reason, as your chamber pressures increase, AP
will keep a far more linear burn rate than KP. Case in point, both oxidizers using PBAN as fuel, assuming Kn tuned to yield equal chamber pressures
and burn rate for both oxidizers; AP will have the greater initial burn rate by a smidge (higher "A" value in said equation), but by the time chamber
pressure reaches only 50% more than the starting value, KP's burn rate increase would be 180% greater than AP's; beyond this point, you can imagine
what happens next. Unless you can be absolutely certain that your chamber pressure will either remain constant, or drop off due to throat ablation,
KP can have some nasty surprises in store for you as an oxidizer.
Not to completely crucify KP, as it DOES seem to have (so written because it has been my experience, not proven as an absolute fact) one major
advantage over AP; a much greater inherent resistance to low-pressure burn rate oscillations known as "chuffing". AP seems to hate running at Kn
numbers much under 125, unless significant amounts of metals, metal oxides, or dicyclopentadienyl iron (a.k.a. "ferrocene") are present in the fuel
mix (the ferrocene works like magic; both stabilizing burn rate, and drastically accelerating it, depending on concentration, but, being that there
are rumours running around that the stuff can do practically anything, including curing cancer, I'm not surprised). KP, on the other hand, doesn't
seem to give a hoot about your Kn value; low Kn? NO problem; low thrust. High Kn? Still no problem; either high thrust, or a CATO. Believe it or
not, with the right binder and fuel modifiers, this makes KP a reasonable candidate for a high-output end-burner, with Kn starting at about 40, to as
high as 100, for larger diameter motors.
Hope this helps.
SKWEEEEEK
|
|
|
Intergalactic_Captain
Hazard to Others
Posts: 227
Registered: 4-9-2004
Location: somewhere where i don\'t know where i am
Member Is Offline
Mood: frabjous
|
|
http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=9308#p...
...Been a while since anyone here has looked into this, and to be honest my efforts never went beyond the stage of shitloads of research... Flip
through it, handful of formulas and ideas to work with...
The field is still ripe for experimentation - The best results are to be had from a metal fuel and some sort of binder, the simplest in terms of
reliability something like a galcit or thiokol fuel/binder system... The most likely result of either of these in initial experimentation is going to
either smoke profusely or CATO in a spectacularly dangerous fashion... Not saying don't do it, but you are NOT going to be able to adapt KNO3
formulas to KClO4 and expect anything other than an explosive device - What you're looking at is much more involved - Hats off if you can do it, I
realized it was over my head and moved on to other things...
If you see me running, try to keep up.
|
|
|
Mildronate
Hazard to Others
Posts: 428
Registered: 12-9-2009
Member Is Offline
Mood: Ruido sintetico
|
|
This thread must be to beginings.
|
|
|
KonkreteRocketry
Hazard to Others
Posts: 165
Registered: 12-11-2012
Location: Dubai
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by RodentSaurus | KClO4 has a couple of pros and cons. One of the cons is that its "n" exponent in De Vielle's equation (Burn rate = a * Pc^n, where "a" and "n" are
parameters unique to each oxidizer, and "Pc" is chamber pressure) is somewhat higher than AP. For this reason, as your chamber pressures increase, AP
will keep a far more linear burn rate than KP. Case in point, both oxidizers using PBAN as fuel, assuming Kn tuned to yield equal chamber pressures
and burn rate for both oxidizers; AP will have the greater initial burn rate by a smidge (higher "A" value in said equation), but by the time chamber
pressure reaches only 50% more than the starting value, KP's burn rate increase would be 180% greater than AP's; beyond this point, you can imagine
what happens next. Unless you can be absolutely certain that your chamber pressure will either remain constant, or drop off due to throat ablation,
KP can have some nasty surprises in store for you as an oxidizer.
Not to completely crucify KP, as it DOES seem to have (so written because it has been my experience, not proven as an absolute fact) one major
advantage over AP; a much greater inherent resistance to low-pressure burn rate oscillations known as "chuffing". AP seems to hate running at Kn
numbers much under 125, unless significant amounts of metals, metal oxides, or dicyclopentadienyl iron (a.k.a. "ferrocene") are present in the fuel
mix (the ferrocene works like magic; both stabilizing burn rate, and drastically accelerating it, depending on concentration, but, being that there
are rumours running around that the stuff can do practically anything, including curing cancer, I'm not surprised). KP, on the other hand, doesn't
seem to give a hoot about your Kn value; low Kn? NO problem; low thrust. High Kn? Still no problem; either high thrust, or a CATO. Believe it or
not, with the right binder and fuel modifiers, this makes KP a reasonable candidate for a high-output end-burner, with Kn starting at about 40, to as
high as 100, for larger diameter motors.
Hope this helps.
SKWEEEEEK
|
Wow thanks, i also found lithium nitrate might do a better job than AP or KP? I am about to experiment LiNO3 with sugar, epoxy, etc. any suggestions ?
|
|
|
hyfalcon
International Hazard
Posts: 1003
Registered: 29-3-2012
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Don't breath the smoke when you light it.
|
|
|
tetrahedron
Hazard to Others
Posts: 210
Registered: 28-9-2012
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
good luck drying it (and keeping it dry)..
|
|
|
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
