Specific Impulse of cyclic ozone?

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 14:24:56 +0000, Henry Spencer wrote:

So our next-generation space shuttle will have liquid-fueled
flyback boosters burning H1 and O15 in modified SSME's, with
the shuttles' onboard OMS and RCS provided by smaller engines
using ClF5 and UDMH?...

--
Chuck Stewart
"Anime-style catgirls: Threat? Menace? Or just studying algebra?"

John Schilling wrote:
And class 4.2 is reserved
for pyprophoric materials, 4.3 I believe for materials reactive with
water, or possibly I got them backwards. In any event, per the guy
who taught the class that includes *all* pyrophoric or water-reactive
substances, regardless of physical state.

So, if cyclic ozone spontaneously gets it on with air or water, we
may have our winner. Anyone got a sample to test?

According to Ignition! (naturally), water catalyzes the decomposition
of ozone. Along with "chlorine, metal oxides, alkalis-- and,
apparently, certain substances which have not been identified".
Depending on how one defines "reactive", this could be the ticket.

Perhaps we need an alternative figure of merit for rocket propellants -
"the velocity with which the exhaust leaves the nozzle, or the velocity
with which the injector head departs the vicinity of the test stand,
averaged over five test attempts, whichever is greater."

-jake

Malcolm Street wrote:

would the cyclic physical format (isomer?), which I assume is an
equilateral
triangle, make it more stable than a normal linear ozone molecule?

It's not a dumb question. You really have to do electronic structure
calculations to answer these sorts of questions.

That said, the calculations have been done, and cyclic ozone is
predicted to
be less stable than normal ozone, if it is stable at all (it's only
marginally
bound).

I haven't been keeping up, but I personally feel it is borderline
irresponsible
to suggest rocket fuel as a possible justification for making this
stuff. It
doesn't really pass the giggle test.

But some people will say anything for funding. I think cyclic ozone is

interesting from a scientific standpoint, but scientists should be
honest
about why it is of interest. As a potential rocket fuel, it seems
unlikely
to ever be of use.

:

It doesn't really pass the giggle test.

Just checking, is the giggle test the one where if you giggle in the same
room as the sample and the sample expoldes, then it failed the test? Or is
it something else?

Earl Colby Pottinger


--
I make public email sent to me! Hydrogen Peroxide Rockets, OpenBeos,
SerialTransfer 3.0, RAMDISK, BoatBuilding, DIY TabletPC. What happened to
the time? http://webhome.idirect.com/~earlcp

Earl Colby Pottinger wrote in
:

:

It doesn't really pass the giggle test.

Just checking, is the giggle test the one where if you giggle in the
same room as the sample and the sample expoldes, then it failed the
test? Or is it something else?

I think it's whether your head explodes from the implications
of attempted useage in the real world. If you spew your coffee
all over the keyboard, it's borderline at best.

--Damon