Storing gas at high temperature for rocket propellant.

On Aug 29, 3:13*pm, Robert Clark wrote:
This page gives the equation for the velocity of the exhaust gas of a
rocket:

Rocket engine nozzle.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_...Analysis_of_ga...

Since the Isp (specific impulse) of a propellant in units of seconds
is found by just dividing this by 9.8 m/s^2, the Isp is maximized by
making the exhaust speed as high as possible.
In the formula this can be achieved by making the exhaust be high
temperature. Usually in rockets this is done by using a high energy
chemical reaction, such as by burning H2 with O2. However, in the
formula you see the exhaust speed is also dependent in an inverse
fashion on the molecular mass of the exhaust products. For burning H2,
you get H2O with a molecular mass of 18. Can we get the exhaust gas
simply by just H2 with a molecular mass of 2?
One way this could be done would be simply by storing the hydrogen at
high temperature. Since rocket launches last only about 8 minutes the
tanks would only have to be insulated to maintain the temperature
inside for that length of time. If we stored the hydrogen at 3000 K,
the exhaust velocity in vacuum would be 9344 m/s, significantly better
than the 4550 m/s maximum exhaust speed of H2/LOX engines.
*The problem would be storing the H2 at the high temperature and the
accompanying high pressure. Carbon-carbon composites are known to
return their high strength at high temperature. This book reference
gives the tensile strength as 700 MPa and states it *actually
*increases* as temperature increases to the highest measured
temperature given, 2000 K:

http://books.google.com/books?id=d52...lpg=PA516&dq=c...

* However, the melting point of carbon (actually it sublimates at 1
bar pressure) *is about 4000 K. Since the tensile strength is actually
increasing at 2000 K quite likely it continues to increase beyond this
and likely will remain high at least up to 3000 K. Carbon-carbon for
example is used for rocket nozzles for temperatures exceeding 3000 K:

Nondestructive Characterisation of Carbon/Carbon Brake Disks Using
Ultrasonics.
"C/C composite is consisted of a fiber based on carbon precursors
embedded in a carbon matrix and has such properties as low density,
high thermal conductivity and shock resistance, low thermal expansion
and high modulus. The C/C composite is applied for structures in high
temperature condition, such as a brake disk of aircraft, a nozzle of
rocket engine and etc., because C/C composite not only withstands high
temperature approaching 3000oC, but actually increases in strength."http://www.ndt.net/apcndt2001/papers/1109/1109.htm

TW/SNTP - TECHNICAL CONCEPTS AND DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES.
"The high exhaust temperature requires either a transpiration or
regeneratively cooled nozzle, or a radiation-cooled carbon-carbon
nozzle. The carbon-carbon nozzle was used as the baseline, given its
low mass and simple design. Carbon-carbon nozzles have been tested in
solid-rocket motors at temperatures up to 4000 K. But development of
coatings (TaC, ZrC and NbC are candidates) will be required to avoid
hydrogen erosion."http://www.fas.org/nuke/space/c08tw_3.htm

*Carbon-carbon composites though are porous so it is uncertain if they
can be used for hydrogen storage at high temperature. An advantage of
the carbon-carbon though is that it could be used as a single high
strength, high temperature tank rather than numerous microspheres or
microtubes.
* However, microspheres or microtubes might allow higher temperatures
and/or pressures. For example synthetic diamond of micron-scale size
can be made cheaply and may have higher tensile strength than natural
diamond:

Brief Communications
Nature 421, 599-600 (6 February 2003)
Materials: Ultrahard polycrystalline diamond from graphite.
"Polycrystalline diamonds are harder and tougher than single-crystal
diamonds and are therefore valuable for cutting and polishing other
hard materials, but naturally occurring polycrystalline diamond is
unusual and its production is slow. Here we describe the rapid
synthesis of pure sintered polycrystalline diamond by direct
conversion of graphite under static high pressure and temperature.
Surprisingly, this synthesized diamond is ultrahard and so could be
useful in the manufacture of scientific and industrial tools."http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v421/n6923/full/421599b.html

*Since these synthetic diamonds are harder than natural diamond, they
very likely also are of higher tensile strength. This page says though
there has been varying measured amounts for natural diamonds tensile
strength one experiment, and some theoretical work,
suggests it could be as high as 60 GPa:

Material properties of diamond.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materia...ies_of_diamond

*And this page says at pressures of 60 GPa, 600 kilobars, diamond can
remain solid up to 6,000 K:

Modeling the Phase Diagram of Carbon.
PRL 94, 145701 (2005) PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS 15 APRIL 2005http://www.amolf.nl/publications/pdf/4312.pdf

*At a temperature of 6,000 K, the H2 would have an exhaust velocity of
13,200 m/s. However, there would be the problem of keeping the diamond
at the high pressure required to remain solid. You could supply the
high pressure on the inside of the diamond microspheres by the H2 gas
but how to apply the high pressure to the outside?
*You would also have the problem of releasing the hydrogen when
needed. One possibility might be to expose the diamond to oxygen.
Carbon will burn in oxygen at temperatures of 600 C and above. The
carbon tanks holding the H2 at high temperature will have to be kept
in inert gas or in vacuum to prevent contact with oxygen until the H2
is to be released.
*Another possibility for the high temperature material for the
microspheres or microtubes to hold the H2 might be high temperature,
refractory, materials. One is tantalum hafnium carbide, which has a
melting point of about 4,500 K. These would also need to be made to
have high tensile strength. It is common that when materials are made
into 'whiskers' at the microscale they achieve GPa tensile strengths.
One method to make the whiskers is the vapor-liquid-solid method:

Growing Crystals with the VLS Process (Vapor - Liquid - Solid)http://www.hbci.com/~wenonah/new/crystals.htm

*It is necessary to hold the hydrogen at high pressure since it will
be a high temperature gas. For instance at room temperature, say 300
K, and at 1 bar, H2 has a density about 1/10th kg/m^3. So at 3,000 K
the pressure would be 10 bar. However, at a density of only .1 kg/m^3,
the volume would be prohibitive for tens of thousands to hundreds of
thousands of kilos of H2. So to get a reasonable volume for the H2 we
will need much higher pressure. By multiplying the density by a factor
of 1,000 to 100 kg/m^3, somewhat better than that of liquid hydrogen,
the pressure would also be multiplied by 1,000 to 10,000 bar, 1 GPa,
with the temperature kept at 3,000 K.

* * Bob Clark

The book reference:

http://books.google.com/books?id=d52...m=22&ct=result

also shows that carbon fiber initially dips in tensile strength at
high temperatures but then starts rising again as you approach 2000K
so they may as well retain their strength at 3000K. So it may work to
use them as microtubes since their tensile strength can be 10 times
greater than carbon-carbon composites: 7 GPa, 1,000,000 psi. However,
it still needs to be determined if they can retain this strength
radially as hollow tubes.
The highest known strength would be obtained by carbon nanotubes or
fullerenes. Experiments have shown they can have tensile strength as
high as 150 GPa. A problem with using them however is the hydrogen
molecule is so small that in experiments with nanotubes at high
pressures some of the hydrogen leaks out between the carbon atoms of
the nanotubes. Perhaps this can be solved with multiwalled nanotubes
or fullerene "onions" by having the layers be arranged so that a
carbon atom of one layer blocks the opening in another layer.

Bob Clark

Dear Robert Clark:

"Robert Clark" wrote in message
...
....
The highest known strength would be obtained by carbon
nanotubes or fullerenes. Experiments have shown they
can have tensile strength as high as 150 GPa. A problem
with using them however is the hydrogen molecule is so
small that in experiments with nanotubes at high
pressures some of the hydrogen leaks out between the
carbon atoms of the nanotubes. Perhaps this can be
solved with multiwalled nanotubes or fullerene "onions" by
having the layers be arranged so that a carbon atom of
one layer blocks the opening in another layer.

High temperature hydrogen will attack the carbon matrix, and you
will have a massive failure.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...?artid=1091643

David A. Smith

On Aug 30, 12:44 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"
wrote:
Dear Robert Clark:

"Robert Clark" wrote in message

...
...

The highest known strength would be obtained by carbon
nanotubes or fullerenes. Experiments have shown they
can have tensile strength as high as 150 GPa. A problem
with using them however is the hydrogen molecule is so
small that in experiments with nanotubes at high
pressures some of the hydrogen leaks out between the
carbon atoms of the nanotubes. Perhaps this can be
solved with multiwalled nanotubes or fullerene "onions" by
having the layers be arranged so that a carbon atom of
one layer blocks the opening in another layer.

High temperature hydrogen will attack the carbon matrix, and you
will have a massive failure.http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...?artid=1091643

David A. Smith

An interesting article. Specifically it is about H3:

Trihydrogen cation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trihydrogen_cation

This is apparently highly reactive. Anyone know the energy release
when reacted with oxygen?
H3 appears when hydrogen is ionized. Perhaps it won't be too
prevalent at the lower end of the temperatures I mentioned, say at
3000 K.
We might be able to coat the carbon tanks with highly refractory
materials such as tantalum hafnium carbide which has a melting point
of 4500 K.

Bob Clark

On Aug 30, 6:25 am, Robert Clark wrote:
On Aug 29, 3:13 pm, Robert Clark wrote:



This page gives the equation for the velocity of the exhaust gas of a
rocket:

Rocket engine nozzle.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_...Analysis_of_ga...

Since the Isp (specific impulse) of a propellant in units of seconds
is found by just dividing this by 9.8 m/s^2, the Isp is maximized by
making the exhaust speed as high as possible.
In the formula this can be achieved by making the exhaust be high
temperature. Usually in rockets this is done by using a high energy
chemical reaction, such as by burning H2 with O2. However, in the
formula you see the exhaust speed is also dependent in an inverse
fashion on the molecular mass of the exhaust products. For burning H2,
you get H2O with a molecular mass of 18. Can we get the exhaust gas
simply by just H2 with a molecular mass of 2?
One way this could be done would be simply by storing the hydrogen at
high temperature. Since rocket launches last only about 8 minutes the
tanks would only have to be insulated to maintain the temperature
inside for that length of time. If we stored the hydrogen at 3000 K,
the exhaust velocity in vacuum would be 9344 m/s, significantly better
than the 4550 m/s maximum exhaust speed of H2/LOX engines.
The problem would be storing the H2 at the high temperature and the
accompanying high pressure. Carbon-carbon composites are known to
return their high strength at high temperature. This book reference
gives the tensile strength as 700 MPa and states it actually
*increases* as temperature increases to the highest measured
temperature given, 2000 K:

http://books.google.com/books?id=d52...lpg=PA516&dq=c...

However, the melting point of carbon (actually it sublimates at 1
bar pressure) is about 4000 K. Since the tensile strength is actually
increasing at 2000 K quite likely it continues to increase beyond this
and likely will remain high at least up to 3000 K. Carbon-carbon for
example is used for rocket nozzles for temperatures exceeding 3000 K:

Nondestructive Characterisation of Carbon/Carbon Brake Disks Using
Ultrasonics.
"C/C composite is consisted of a fiber based on carbon precursors
embedded in a carbon matrix and has such properties as low density,
high thermal conductivity and shock resistance, low thermal expansion
and high modulus. The C/C composite is applied for structures in high
temperature condition, such as a brake disk of aircraft, a nozzle of
rocket engine and etc., because C/C composite not only withstands high
temperature approaching 3000oC, but actually increases in strength."http://www.ndt.net/apcndt2001/papers/1109/1109.htm

TW/SNTP - TECHNICAL CONCEPTS AND DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES.
"The high exhaust temperature requires either a transpiration or
regeneratively cooled nozzle, or a radiation-cooled carbon-carbon
nozzle. The carbon-carbon nozzle was used as the baseline, given its
low mass and simple design. Carbon-carbon nozzles have been tested in
solid-rocket motors at temperatures up to 4000 K. But development of
coatings (TaC, ZrC and NbC are candidates) will be required to avoid
hydrogen erosion."http://www.fas.org/nuke/space/c08tw_3.htm

Carbon-carbon composites though are porous so it is uncertain if they
can be used for hydrogen storage at high temperature. An advantage of
the carbon-carbon though is that it could be used as a single high
strength, high temperature tank rather than numerous microspheres or
microtubes.
However, microspheres or microtubes might allow higher temperatures
and/or pressures. For example synthetic diamond of micron-scale size
can be made cheaply and may have higher tensile strength than natural
diamond:

Brief Communications
Nature 421, 599-600 (6 February 2003)
Materials: Ultrahard polycrystalline diamond from graphite.
"Polycrystalline diamonds are harder and tougher than single-crystal
diamonds and are therefore valuable for cutting and polishing other
hard materials, but naturally occurring polycrystalline diamond is
unusual and its production is slow. Here we describe the rapid
synthesis of pure sintered polycrystalline diamond by direct
conversion of graphite under static high pressure and temperature.
Surprisingly, this synthesized diamond is ultrahard and so could be
useful in the manufacture of scientific and industrial tools."http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v421/n6923/full/421599b.html

Since these synthetic diamonds are harder than natural diamond, they
very likely also are of higher tensile strength. This page says though
there has been varying measured amounts for natural diamonds tensile
strength one experiment, and some theoretical work,
suggests it could be as high as 60 GPa:

Material properties of diamond.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materia...ies_of_diamond

And this page says at pressures of 60 GPa, 600 kilobars, diamond can
remain solid up to 6,000 K:

Modeling the Phase Diagram of Carbon.
PRL 94, 145701 (2005) PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS 15 APRIL 2005http://www.amolf.nl/publications/pdf/4312.pdf

At a temperature of 6,000 K, the H2 would have an exhaust velocity of
13,200 m/s. However, there would be the problem of keeping the diamond
at the high pressure required to remain solid. You could supply the
high pressure on the inside of the diamond microspheres by the H2 gas
but how to apply the high pressure to the outside?
You would also have the problem of releasing the hydrogen when
needed. One possibility might be to expose the diamond to oxygen.
Carbon will burn in oxygen at temperatures of 600 C and above. The
carbon tanks holding the H2 at high temperature will have to be kept
in inert gas or in vacuum to prevent contact with oxygen until the H2
is to be released.
Another possibility for the high temperature material for the
microspheres or microtubes to hold the H2 might be high temperature,
refractory, materials. One is tantalum hafnium carbide, which has a
melting point of about 4,500 K. These would also need to be made to
have high tensile strength. It is common that when materials are made
into 'whiskers' at the microscale they achieve GPa tensile strengths.
One method to make the whiskers is the vapor-liquid-solid method:

Growing Crystals with the VLS Process (Vapor - Liquid - Solid)http://www.hbci.com/~wenonah/new/crystals.htm

It is necessary to hold the hydrogen at high pressure since it will
be a high temperature gas. For instance at room temperature, say 300
K, and at 1 bar, H2 has a density about 1/10th kg/m^3. So at 3,000 K
the pressure would be 10 bar. However, at a density of only .1 kg/m^3,
the volume would be prohibitive for tens of thousands to hundreds of
thousands of kilos of H2. So to get a reasonable volume for the H2 we
will need much higher pressure. By multiplying the density by a factor
of 1,000 to 100 kg/m^3, somewhat better than that of liquid hydrogen,
the pressure would also be multiplied by 1,000 to 10,000 bar, 1 GPa,
with the temperature kept at 3,000 K.

Bob Clark

The book reference:

http://books.google.com/books?id=d52...lpg=PA516&dq=c...

also shows that carbon fiber initially dips in tensile strength at
high temperatures but then starts rising again as you approach 2000K
so they may as well retain their strength at 3000K. So it may work to
use them as microtubes since their tensile strength can be 10 times
greater than carbon-carbon composites: 7 GPa, 1,000,000 psi. However,
it still needs to be determined if they can retain this strength
radially as hollow tubes.
The highest known strength would be obtained by carbon nanotubes or
fullerenes. Experiments have shown they can have tensile strength as
high as 150 GPa. A problem with using them however is the hydrogen
molecule is so small that in experiments with nanotubes at high
pressures some of the hydrogen leaks out between the carbon atoms of
the nanotubes. Perhaps this can be solved with multiwalled nanotubes
or fullerene "onions" by having the layers be arranged so that a
carbon atom of one layer blocks the opening in another layer.

Bob Clark

There's no problem in using commercial basalt composites (plasma
metallic coated if need be) for safe containment of h2o2, much less
that of the c12h26 or whatever else gets the most thrust energy/kg out
of the h2o2.

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

On Aug 30, 10:52*am, BradGuth wrote:
On Aug 30, 6:25 am, Robert Clark wrote:



On Aug 29, 3:13 pm, Robert Clark wrote:

This page gives the equation for the velocity of the exhaust gas of a
rocket:

Rocket engine nozzle.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_...Analysis_of_ga...

Since the Isp (specific impulse) of a propellant in units of seconds
is found by just dividing this by 9.8 m/s^2, the Isp is maximized by
making the exhaust speed as high as possible.
In the formula this can be achieved by making the exhaust be high
temperature. Usually in rockets this is done by using a high energy
chemical reaction, such as by burning H2 with O2. However, in the
formula you see the exhaust speed is also dependent in an inverse
fashion on the molecular mass of the exhaust products. For burning H2,
you get H2O with a molecular mass of 18. Can we get the exhaust gas
simply by just H2 with a molecular mass of 2?
One way this could be done would be simply by storing the hydrogen at
high temperature. Since rocket launches last only about 8 minutes the
tanks would only have to be insulated to maintain the temperature
inside for that length of time. If we stored the hydrogen at 3000 K,
the exhaust velocity in vacuum would be 9344 m/s, significantly better
than the 4550 m/s maximum exhaust speed of H2/LOX engines.
*The problem would be storing the H2 at the high temperature and the
accompanying high pressure. Carbon-carbon composites are known to
return their high strength at high temperature. This book reference
gives the tensile strength as 700 MPa and states it *actually
*increases* as temperature increases to the highest measured
temperature given, 2000 K:

http://books.google.com/books?id=d52...lpg=PA516&dq=c...

* However, the melting point of carbon (actually it sublimates at 1
bar pressure) *is about 4000 K. Since the tensile strength is actually
increasing at 2000 K quite likely it continues to increase beyond this
and likely will remain high at least up to 3000 K. Carbon-carbon for
example is used for rocket nozzles for temperatures exceeding 3000 K:

Nondestructive Characterisation of Carbon/Carbon Brake Disks Using
Ultrasonics.
"C/C composite is consisted of a fiber based on carbon precursors
embedded in a carbon matrix and has such properties as low density,
high thermal conductivity and shock resistance, low thermal expansion
and high modulus. The C/C composite is applied for structures in high
temperature condition, such as a brake disk of aircraft, a nozzle of
rocket engine and etc., because C/C composite not only withstands high
temperature approaching 3000oC, but actually increases in strength."http://www.ndt.net/apcndt2001/papers/1109/1109.htm

TW/SNTP - TECHNICAL CONCEPTS AND DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES.
"The high exhaust temperature requires either a transpiration or
regeneratively cooled nozzle, or a radiation-cooled carbon-carbon
nozzle. The carbon-carbon nozzle was used as the baseline, given its
low mass and simple design. Carbon-carbon nozzles have been tested in
solid-rocket motors at temperatures up to 4000 K. But development of
coatings (TaC, ZrC and NbC are candidates) will be required to avoid
hydrogen erosion."http://www.fas.org/nuke/space/c08tw_3.htm

*Carbon-carbon composites though are porous so it is uncertain if they
can be used for hydrogen storage at high temperature. An advantage of
the carbon-carbon though is that it could be used as a single high
strength, high temperature tank rather than numerous microspheres or
microtubes.
* However, microspheres or microtubes might allow higher temperatures
and/or pressures. For example synthetic diamond of micron-scale size
can be made cheaply and may have higher tensile strength than natural
diamond:

Brief Communications
Nature 421, 599-600 (6 February 2003)
Materials: Ultrahard polycrystalline diamond from graphite.
"Polycrystalline diamonds are harder and tougher than single-crystal
diamonds and are therefore valuable for cutting and polishing other
hard materials, but naturally occurring polycrystalline diamond is
unusual and its production is slow. Here we describe the rapid
synthesis of pure sintered polycrystalline diamond by direct
conversion of graphite under static high pressure and temperature.
Surprisingly, this synthesized diamond is ultrahard and so could be
useful in the manufacture of scientific and industrial tools."http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v421/n6923/full/421599b.html

*Since these synthetic diamonds are harder than natural diamond, they
very likely also are of higher tensile strength. This page says though
there has been varying measured amounts for natural diamonds tensile
strength one experiment, and some theoretical work,
suggests it could be as high as 60 GPa:

Material properties of diamond.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materia...ies_of_diamond

*And this page says at pressures of 60 GPa, 600 kilobars, diamond can
remain solid up to 6,000 K:

Modeling the Phase Diagram of Carbon.
PRL 94, 145701 (2005) PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS 15 APRIL 2005http://www..amolf.nl/publications/pdf/4312.pdf

*At a temperature of 6,000 K, the H2 would have an exhaust velocity of
13,200 m/s. However, there would be the problem of keeping the diamond
at the high pressure required to remain solid. You could supply the
high pressure on the inside of the diamond microspheres by the H2 gas
but how to apply the high pressure to the outside?
*You would also have the problem of releasing the hydrogen when
needed. One possibility might be to expose the diamond to oxygen.
Carbon will burn in oxygen at temperatures of 600 C and above. The
carbon tanks holding the H2 at high temperature will have to be kept
in inert gas or in vacuum to prevent contact with oxygen until the H2
is to be released.
*Another possibility for the high temperature material for the
microspheres or microtubes to hold the H2 might be high temperature,
refractory, materials. One is tantalum hafnium carbide, which has a
melting point of about 4,500 K. These would also need to be made to
have high tensile strength. It is common that when materials are made
into 'whiskers' at the microscale they achieve GPa tensile strengths.
One method to make the whiskers is the vapor-liquid-solid method:

Growing Crystals with the VLS Process (Vapor - Liquid - Solid)http://www.hbci.com/~wenonah/new/crystals.htm

*It is necessary to hold the hydrogen at high pressure since it will
be a high temperature gas. For instance at room temperature, say 300
K, and at 1 bar, H2 has a density about 1/10th kg/m^3. So at 3,000 K
the pressure would be 10 bar. However, at a density of only .1 kg/m^3,
the volume would be prohibitive for tens of thousands to hundreds of
thousands of kilos of H2. So to get a reasonable volume for the H2 we
will need much higher pressure. By multiplying the density by a factor
of 1,000 to 100 kg/m^3, somewhat better than that of liquid hydrogen,
the pressure would also be multiplied by 1,000 to 10,000 bar, 1 GPa,
with the temperature kept at 3,000 K.

* * Bob Clark

* The book reference:

http://books.google.com/books?id=d52...lpg=PA516&dq=c...

*also shows that carbon fiber initially dips in tensile strength at
high temperatures but then starts rising again as you approach 2000K
so they may as well retain their strength at 3000K. So it may work to
use them as microtubes since their tensile strength can be 10 times
greater than carbon-carbon composites: 7 GPa, *1,000,000 psi. However,
it still needs to be determined if they can retain this strength
radially as hollow tubes.
*The highest known strength would be obtained by carbon nanotubes or
fullerenes. Experiments have shown they can have tensile strength as
high as 150 GPa. A problem with using them however is the hydrogen
molecule is so small that in experiments with nanotubes at high
pressures some of the hydrogen leaks out between the carbon atoms of
the nanotubes. Perhaps this can be solved with multiwalled nanotubes
or fullerene "onions" by having the layers be arranged so that a
carbon atom of one layer blocks the opening in another layer.

* * Bob Clark

There's no problem in using commercial basalt composites (plasma
metallic coated if need be) for safe containment of h2o2, much less
that of the c12h26 or whatever else gets the most thrust energy/kg out
of the h2o2.

* ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

Hydrogen peroxide as fuel is stupid. Enormously stupid.

Its' like mixing liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen together in one
tank stupid.

On Aug 30, 1:19 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Aug 30, 10:52 am, BradGuth wrote:



On Aug 30, 6:25 am, Robert Clark wrote:

On Aug 29, 3:13 pm, Robert Clark wrote:

This page gives the equation for the velocity of the exhaust gas of a
rocket:

Rocket engine nozzle.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_...Analysis_of_ga...

Since the Isp (specific impulse) of a propellant in units of seconds
is found by just dividing this by 9.8 m/s^2, the Isp is maximized by
making the exhaust speed as high as possible.
In the formula this can be achieved by making the exhaust be high
temperature. Usually in rockets this is done by using a high energy
chemical reaction, such as by burning H2 with O2. However, in the
formula you see the exhaust speed is also dependent in an inverse
fashion on the molecular mass of the exhaust products. For burning H2,
you get H2O with a molecular mass of 18. Can we get the exhaust gas
simply by just H2 with a molecular mass of 2?
One way this could be done would be simply by storing the hydrogen at
high temperature. Since rocket launches last only about 8 minutes the
tanks would only have to be insulated to maintain the temperature
inside for that length of time. If we stored the hydrogen at 3000 K,
the exhaust velocity in vacuum would be 9344 m/s, significantly better
than the 4550 m/s maximum exhaust speed of H2/LOX engines.
The problem would be storing the H2 at the high temperature and the
accompanying high pressure. Carbon-carbon composites are known to
return their high strength at high temperature. This book reference
gives the tensile strength as 700 MPa and states it actually
*increases* as temperature increases to the highest measured
temperature given, 2000 K:

http://books.google.com/books?id=d52...lpg=PA516&dq=c...

However, the melting point of carbon (actually it sublimates at 1
bar pressure) is about 4000 K. Since the tensile strength is actually
increasing at 2000 K quite likely it continues to increase beyond this
and likely will remain high at least up to 3000 K. Carbon-carbon for
example is used for rocket nozzles for temperatures exceeding 3000 K:

Nondestructive Characterisation of Carbon/Carbon Brake Disks Using
Ultrasonics.
"C/C composite is consisted of a fiber based on carbon precursors
embedded in a carbon matrix and has such properties as low density,
high thermal conductivity and shock resistance, low thermal expansion
and high modulus. The C/C composite is applied for structures in high
temperature condition, such as a brake disk of aircraft, a nozzle of
rocket engine and etc., because C/C composite not only withstands high
temperature approaching 3000oC, but actually increases in strength."http://www.ndt.net/apcndt2001/papers/1109/1109.htm

TW/SNTP - TECHNICAL CONCEPTS AND DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES.
"The high exhaust temperature requires either a transpiration or
regeneratively cooled nozzle, or a radiation-cooled carbon-carbon
nozzle. The carbon-carbon nozzle was used as the baseline, given its
low mass and simple design. Carbon-carbon nozzles have been tested in
solid-rocket motors at temperatures up to 4000 K. But development of
coatings (TaC, ZrC and NbC are candidates) will be required to avoid
hydrogen erosion."http://www.fas.org/nuke/space/c08tw_3.htm

Carbon-carbon composites though are porous so it is uncertain if they
can be used for hydrogen storage at high temperature. An advantage of
the carbon-carbon though is that it could be used as a single high
strength, high temperature tank rather than numerous microspheres or
microtubes.
However, microspheres or microtubes might allow higher temperatures
and/or pressures. For example synthetic diamond of micron-scale size
can be made cheaply and may have higher tensile strength than natural
diamond:

Brief Communications
Nature 421, 599-600 (6 February 2003)
Materials: Ultrahard polycrystalline diamond from graphite.
"Polycrystalline diamonds are harder and tougher than single-crystal
diamonds and are therefore valuable for cutting and polishing other
hard materials, but naturally occurring polycrystalline diamond is
unusual and its production is slow. Here we describe the rapid
synthesis of pure sintered polycrystalline diamond by direct
conversion of graphite under static high pressure and temperature.
Surprisingly, this synthesized diamond is ultrahard and so could be
useful in the manufacture of scientific and industrial tools."http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v421/n6923/full/421599b.html

Since these synthetic diamonds are harder than natural diamond, they
very likely also are of higher tensile strength. This page says though
there has been varying measured amounts for natural diamonds tensile
strength one experiment, and some theoretical work,
suggests it could be as high as 60 GPa:

Material properties of diamond.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materia...ies_of_diamond

And this page says at pressures of 60 GPa, 600 kilobars, diamond can
remain solid up to 6,000 K:

Modeling the Phase Diagram of Carbon.
PRL 94, 145701 (2005) PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS 15 APRIL 2005http://www.amolf.nl/publications/pdf/4312.pdf

At a temperature of 6,000 K, the H2 would have an exhaust velocity of
13,200 m/s. However, there would be the problem of keeping the diamond
at the high pressure required to remain solid. You could supply the
high pressure on the inside of the diamond microspheres by the H2 gas
but how to apply the high pressure to the outside?
You would also have the problem of releasing the hydrogen when
needed. One possibility might be to expose the diamond to oxygen.
Carbon will burn in oxygen at temperatures of 600 C and above. The
carbon tanks holding the H2 at high temperature will have to be kept
in inert gas or in vacuum to prevent contact with oxygen until the H2
is to be released.
Another possibility for the high temperature material for the
microspheres or microtubes to hold the H2 might be high temperature,
refractory, materials. One is tantalum hafnium carbide, which has a
melting point of about 4,500 K. These would also need to be made to
have high tensile strength. It is common that when materials are made
into 'whiskers' at the microscale they achieve GPa tensile strengths.
One method to make the whiskers is the vapor-liquid-solid method:

Growing Crystals with the VLS Process (Vapor - Liquid - Solid)http://www.hbci.com/~wenonah/new/crystals.htm

It is necessary to hold the hydrogen at high pressure since it will
be a high temperature gas. For instance at room temperature, say 300
K, and at 1 bar, H2 has a density about 1/10th kg/m^3. So at 3,000 K
the pressure would be 10 bar. However, at a density of only .1 kg/m^3,
the volume would be prohibitive for tens of thousands to hundreds of
thousands of kilos of H2. So to get a reasonable volume for the H2 we
will need much higher pressure. By multiplying the density by a factor
of 1,000 to 100 kg/m^3, somewhat better than that of liquid hydrogen,
the pressure would also be multiplied by 1,000 to 10,000 bar, 1 GPa,
with the temperature kept at 3,000 K.

Bob Clark

The book reference:

http://books.google.com/books?id=d52...lpg=PA516&dq=c...

also shows that carbon fiber initially dips in tensile strength at
high temperatures but then starts rising again as you approach 2000K
so they may as well retain their strength at 3000K. So it may work to
use them as microtubes since their tensile strength can be 10 times
greater than carbon-carbon composites: 7 GPa, 1,000,000 psi. However,
it still needs to be determined if they can retain this strength
radially as hollow tubes.
The highest known strength would be obtained by carbon nanotubes or
fullerenes. Experiments have shown they can have tensile strength as
high as 150 GPa. A problem with using them however is the hydrogen
molecule is so small that in experiments with nanotubes at high
pressures some of the hydrogen leaks out between the carbon atoms of
the nanotubes. Perhaps this can be solved with multiwalled nanotubes
or fullerene "onions" by having the layers be arranged so that a
carbon atom of one layer blocks the opening in another layer.

Bob Clark

There's no problem in using commercial basalt composites (plasma
metallic coated if need be) for safe containment of h2o2, much less
that of the c12h26 or whatever else gets the most thrust energy/kg out
of the h2o2.

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

Hydrogen peroxide as fuel is stupid. Enormously stupid.

Its' like mixing liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen together in one
tank stupid.

Your profound but typically foolish nayism is noted.

The combined fuel and bulk of h2o2 oxidizer as fly-by-rocket energy
density that isn't cryogenic or having to be pressurized is actually
offering a fairly good Isp, especially once taking the all inclusive
GLOW inert mass into account.

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

Brad,

We've gone over this before.

The only person who is naysaying around here is YOU!

You don't want to hear, or remember things that run counter to what
you want to be true - regardless of their truth or falsity. lol. Why
is that Brad? Because of the way those beliefs allow you to FEEL
about yourself. haha.. GIVE IT UP ASSHOLE! lol.

Check it out dude; - these are FACTS - not fiction - so, i realize you
have a little difficulty dealing with them;

As a monopropellant rocket at 98% concentration specific impulse is
160 seconds. (the SSME has a specific impulse of 455 seconds)

As a fuel it contains 2.7 MJ/kg (gasoline contains 46.9 MJ/kg)

As a cost-effective fuel it costs $40 per kg

http://www.h2o2-4u.com/price.html

gasoline costs $1.20 per kg

The high costs are the result of the difficulty of manufacturing the
stuff and its instability.

The high costs have to do with the method by which hydrogen peroxide
is manufactured. About 500,000 tons of hydrogen peroxide is produced
in the USA each year, primarily as "green" bleaching agents such as
perborates and percarbonates for the paper and textile industries.
Other significant uses include wastewater treatment and
hydrometallurgical processes (for example, the extraction of uranium
by oxidation).

The most widely used processing method is the AO (Autoxidation)
process. A reaction mixture is fed to the first reactor which contains
a carrier solvent and anthraquinones (usually 2-ethyl or 2-pentyl-
anthraquinone). A stream containing the hydrocarbon-based carrier
solvent is usually referred to as the "work solution". This first
reactor in the series of two is known as the hydrogenator as hydgrogen
is also fed to this reactor and a hydrogenation reaction occurs over a
Ni or Pd catalysts.

The products from the hydrogenator are filtered (to remove catalyst
particles) and cooled before being fed to the second reactor which is
referred to as the oxidizer. In the second reactor, air or oxygen
enriched air is introduced to the work solution to reverse the
previous reaction via oxidation.

The contaminated air from the oxidizer is fed to a carbon adsorption
unit and then to a vent condenser. The work solution, now containing
nearly 40% hydrogen peroxide by weight, is cooled once again before
being fed to a liquid-liquid extraction unit. Water is fed to the
extractor and acts as the extracting agent. The hydrogen peroxide is
miscible in water while the solvents are not. Then the H2O2-water
layer can be removed and sent to Vacuum Column I and the solvent is
sent to be purified before it is recycled.

Feed to Vacuum Column I is preheated with the column condensate
(mostly water) which is then either refluxed back to the column or
sent to the extractor. In some cases, there are multiple columns to
separate the H2O2-water mixture from the extractor depending on the
deserved purity of the product). While water is removed as an overhead
product, the hydrogen peroxide is further concentrated as the bottom
product. Finally, the hydrogen peroxide product is cooled before being
treated with an inhibitor (to prevent oxidation) and sent to storage.

So, there you have it.

Now, despite its high cost, and despite its low energy content,
hydrogen peroxide has seen use as a rocket propellant, and as fuel in
specialty applications, like torpedoes that have to work underwater
without air.

I have even suggested Brad that if you have a better way to make H2O2
- than the process described above - one that is cheaper and more
productive - then the first step is to implement that process and OWN
the BLEACH markets. After that, you can do whatever the hell you
want! lol.

You'd be a billionaire.

There are even applications that H2O2 would be ideally suited for that
could be developed. These applications are niche markets, but they're
still HUGE..

A 60% solution of the stuff, does not pose an explosion risk - but
would be dandy to drive a small steam source to power a MEMs scale
steam turbine to power laptops and portable equipment reliably. In
resonse to a request from you Brad I even worked out a technique to
use H2O2 as a solvent in an ink to produce self powered inkjet
printheads. haha - that is, you have portable inkjet printers that
are powered by the ink they use.

H2O2 with 2.7 MJ/kg despite its terrible energy density is about 5x as
energy dense as a lithium ion battery. So, you could have a dandy
little package for cell phones or laptops that would last 5x longer
than batteries, and be recharged with $1 refills purchase at your
local CVS.

This would make several billions - per year. - something to do after
you've dominated the bleach markets.

A larger version might also even drive a pollution free electric car -
like the Tesla - but you wouldn't be able to recharge it efficiently
and the mess you'd have if you had a wreck! You'd have to carry
hundreds of gallons of the stuff ...and you'd never really compete
with batteries - a refill would cost nearly a thousand dollars - but
there are those that would proudly pay it I'm sure - ifyou advertised
properly - and they did it with a solar panel attached to the
equipment.

So, Brad, despite your idea being dumb, i have worked out a way for
you to develop this economically - and for two years you've done
nothing, while at the same time, totally ignored reality.

Which proves what I said at the outset. You don't care about
reality. You only care about how running your mouth makes you feel -
and that's you in a nutshell.
..



..

The guy reads a sci-fi story where air is compressed to an inch of its
life - haha - and sees an episode of Mythbusters where Jamie tries to
propel a boat with compressed air - and this post is the result -
right? lol.

What's so hard about building cryogenic containers that mass only 4%
of total vehicle mass?

What's so hard about building airframes that are reusable and thermal
protection that is only 2% of the total vehicle mass?

What is so hard about building reliable, efficient aeriospike engines
that burn cryogenic propellants and have 80 to 1 thrust to weight?
and 470 sec isp?

Whats so hard about making stages as easy to stack as train cars are
to link up?

Whats so hard about making launch infrastructure that's so easy to
operate and so automated, you don't need a standing army to refuel,
nad re-assemble and load payload aboard a launch vehicle?

None of these things is as hard to achieve as what you propose -
assuming it can be done at all.

None of these things is as costly or risky as what you propose.

So, why don't we do these other things?

We don't do these other things because we're not serious about
space. Space and space travel is something the powers that be would
like the public to forget about - and put into the category of
fiction.

Your idea here helps solidify that feeling - and will lead ultimately
to the demise of NASA and the demise of space travel and space
development on this planet.

In 1959 the US Army declassifie the work it did on a 1.5 million lbf
thrust hydrogen oxygen engine the M1 - producing at that time 440 sec
Isp - in test firings - but with improvements using today's materials
and techniques - easily increases to 465 sec Isp (averaged throughout
the ascent curve , with lower Isp at launch, higher Isp on orbit)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-1_(rocket_engine)

A cluster of 7 M1s create a thrust structure that produces 10.5 milion
lbf at lift off.- lifting a reusable launch element that masses 8
million lbs. This consists of 1 million lbs of structure and 7
million lbs of propellant - hydrogen and oxygen.

Three of these launch elements are clustered together, and all are
fired at lift off. The central element is fed propellant from the two
outboard elements - so, the central element remains full during the
ascent.

This vehicle attain 3.9 km/sec ideal delta vee when the two outboard
elements are empty. The central element continues on to orbit -
carrying 1.1 million lbs of useful payload to orbit. A fully loaded S-
II stage.

The two outboard elements continue downrange, and re-enter. They
deploy foldaway wings, similar to those used aboard a cruise missle -
and each are snagged by a separate aircraft and towe back to the
launch center.

The central element releases the modified S-II stage at orbital
altitude, and descends back to Earth, coming to re-enter the
atmosphere, near the launch center, where it glides back on fold-away
wings.

The S-II can carry out four different missions;

Mission 1 - boost to GEO and release a solar power satellite there
and return to Earth in 1 day.

Mission 2 - boost to Lunar Free Return Trajectory - release a lunar
landing and return stage - and return to Earth in 8 days. This stage
is equipped with re-entry thermal protection. It uses rockets to land
on the moon, and take off - and carries its crew and payload on the
four day journey back to Earth, where it re-enters and glides to a
landing.

Mission 3 - boost to a Mars Return Trajectory - that's an orbit that
flies by Mars but returns the booster to Earth in 24 months exactly -
without any further rocket inputs - the booster returns to Earth in 24
months The booster releases a mars landing and return stage - as it
flies by. This stage is a modified version of the lunar landing and
return stage described above. Here, the vehicle aerobrakes at Mars,
entering orbit, or landing on Mars after skipping off the Mars
atmosphere. Once in the Mars system, the unuse rocket capacity is
used to boost the vehicle backto EArth. It arrives in 180 days - and
re-enters using the Earth's atmosphere now to execute a gliding
touchdown on Earth.

Mission 4 - boosts to a NEA return trajectory - that's an orbit that
flies by a NEA and returns the booster to Earth within 18 months.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-II
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-IVB

In all cases the stage carried by the S-II is an advanced form of the
S-IV stage - both the S-II and S-IV are modified with thermal
protection to allow them to aerobrake and land softly - they have a
zero height aerospike engine nozzle fed by J2 engine pumpsets - with a
heat sheild base - very similar to some designs proposed by Philip
Bono back in the day..

http://www.google.com/patents?id=CpV..._pages&cad=0_1

Here of course, instead of a single stage approach, we have a nested
stage approach, and use the higher performing elements in a less
agressive way - providing for higher safety, lower cost, and simpler
operations.

This vehicle I just described - with all elements reusable - using
nothing more sophisticated than 1960s chemical rocket technology,
would give us mastery of the inner solar system.

A fleet of 10 five element vehicle sending crews of 15 people
throughout the solar system on a weekly basis - building cities on the
moon and mars, cities on orbit - exploring the potential of mining
near earth asteroids..

Why haven't we done it?

Well, why didn't we build a better shuttle?

Take just one detail - a slightly longer External Tank that would have
resulted in External Tanks having the ability to achieve orbit.

That is, we would have accumulated 151 ETs orbiting in a big cluster
next to our space station.

The benefit of that is obvious - to anyone who lived through skylab

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylab

Again, as early 1959 in Project Horizon, vonBraun recommended to
Eisenhower that we could make use of spent propellant tanks as
habitats! Converting the hydrogen tank aboard the S-IV to a habitat
and launching it cost 1/20th that of the ISS thus far. The ET is
larger than the ISS. 151 ETs are larger still. A HUGE resource on
orbit upon which to build.

What was the reason given for not giving the Shuttle this capacity?

Political reasons - unspecified.

Why unspecified?

Because the public's enthusiasm for space travel - since the days of
Eisenhower - have been viewed as a threat to national security - in
several ways. For that reason, public enthusiasm is managed by the
powers that be in the interests of national security- and the long
term trend is to eventually discredit and discard space travel -
having it go the way of the dirigible - and enthusiasts to be little
distinguished among UFO cultists and Science fiction fandom.

..

"Williamknowsbest" wrote in message
...
The guy reads a sci-fi story where air is compressed to an inch of its
life - haha - and sees an episode of Mythbusters where Jamie tries to
propel a boat with compressed air - and this post is the result -
right? lol.

What's so hard about building cryogenic containers that mass only 4%
of total vehicle mass?

About 9 on Moh's hardness scale. Perhaps you mean "difficult".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohs_sc...neral_hardness

On Aug 31, 6:42 am, Williamknowsbest wrote:
Brad,

We've gone over this before.

The only person who is naysaying around here is YOU!

You don't want to hear, or remember things that run counter to what
you want to be true - regardless of their truth or falsity. lol. Why
is that Brad? Because of the way those beliefs allow you to FEEL
about yourself. haha.. GIVE IT UP ASSHOLE! lol.

Check it out dude; - these are FACTS - not fiction - so, i realize you
have a little difficulty dealing with them;

As a monopropellant rocket at 98% concentration specific impulse is
160 seconds. (the SSME has a specific impulse of 455 seconds)

As a fuel it contains 2.7 MJ/kg (gasoline contains 46.9 MJ/kg)

As a cost-effective fuel it costs $40 per kg

http://www.h2o2-4u.com/price.html

gasoline costs $1.20 per kg

The high costs are the result of the difficulty of manufacturing the
stuff and its instability.

The high costs have to do with the method by which hydrogen peroxide
is manufactured. About 500,000 tons of hydrogen peroxide is produced
in the USA each year, primarily as "green" bleaching agents such as
perborates and percarbonates for the paper and textile industries.
Other significant uses include wastewater treatment and
hydrometallurgical processes (for example, the extraction of uranium
by oxidation).

The most widely used processing method is the AO (Autoxidation)
process. A reaction mixture is fed to the first reactor which contains
a carrier solvent and anthraquinones (usually 2-ethyl or 2-pentyl-
anthraquinone). A stream containing the hydrocarbon-based carrier
solvent is usually referred to as the "work solution". This first
reactor in the series of two is known as the hydrogenator as hydgrogen
is also fed to this reactor and a hydrogenation reaction occurs over a
Ni or Pd catalysts.

The products from the hydrogenator are filtered (to remove catalyst
particles) and cooled before being fed to the second reactor which is
referred to as the oxidizer. In the second reactor, air or oxygen
enriched air is introduced to the work solution to reverse the
previous reaction via oxidation.

The contaminated air from the oxidizer is fed to a carbon adsorption
unit and then to a vent condenser. The work solution, now containing
nearly 40% hydrogen peroxide by weight, is cooled once again before
being fed to a liquid-liquid extraction unit. Water is fed to the
extractor and acts as the extracting agent. The hydrogen peroxide is
miscible in water while the solvents are not. Then the H2O2-water
layer can be removed and sent to Vacuum Column I and the solvent is
sent to be purified before it is recycled.

Feed to Vacuum Column I is preheated with the column condensate
(mostly water) which is then either refluxed back to the column or
sent to the extractor. In some cases, there are multiple columns to
separate the H2O2-water mixture from the extractor depending on the
deserved purity of the product). While water is removed as an overhead
product, the hydrogen peroxide is further concentrated as the bottom
product. Finally, the hydrogen peroxide product is cooled before being
treated with an inhibitor (to prevent oxidation) and sent to storage.

So, there you have it.

Now, despite its high cost, and despite its low energy content,
hydrogen peroxide has seen use as a rocket propellant, and as fuel in
specialty applications, like torpedoes that have to work underwater
without air.

I have even suggested Brad that if you have a better way to make H2O2
- than the process described above - one that is cheaper and more
productive - then the first step is to implement that process and OWN
the BLEACH markets. After that, you can do whatever the hell you
want! lol.

You'd be a billionaire.

There are even applications that H2O2 would be ideally suited for that
could be developed. These applications are niche markets, but they're
still HUGE..

A 60% solution of the stuff, does not pose an explosion risk - but
would be dandy to drive a small steam source to power a MEMs scale
steam turbine to power laptops and portable equipment reliably. In
resonse to a request from you Brad I even worked out a technique to
use H2O2 as a solvent in an ink to produce self powered inkjet
printheads. haha - that is, you have portable inkjet printers that
are powered by the ink they use.

H2O2 with 2.7 MJ/kg despite its terrible energy density is about 5x as
energy dense as a lithium ion battery. So, you could have a dandy
little package for cell phones or laptops that would last 5x longer
than batteries, and be recharged with $1 refills purchase at your
local CVS.

This would make several billions - per year. - something to do after
you've dominated the bleach markets.

A larger version might also even drive a pollution free electric car -
like the Tesla - but you wouldn't be able to recharge it efficiently
and the mess you'd have if you had a wreck! You'd have to carry
hundreds of gallons of the stuff ...and you'd never really compete
with batteries - a refill would cost nearly a thousand dollars - but
there are those that would proudly pay it I'm sure - ifyou advertised
properly - and they did it with a solar panel attached to the
equipment.

So, Brad, despite your idea being dumb, i have worked out a way for
you to develop this economically - and for two years you've done
nothing, while at the same time, totally ignored reality.

Which proves what I said at the outset. You don't care about
reality. You only care about how running your mouth makes you feel -
and that's you in a nutshell.
.

.

Your obvious exclusion of the well documented evidence is noted, as is
your continual need as to keeping the Zionist/Nazi formulations of
having made and utilizing h2o2 along with a little fossil or synfuel,
as much as possible out of the public eye.

Clearly you and others of your silly kind don't want the general
public or the mainstream free press realizing what a downright nifty
bang-up job your Zionist/Nazi relatives did for their Hitler, and
otherwise clearly for profit.

You know the true worth of h2o2 + synfuel or h2o2 + aluminum is
offering a much greater form of energy density worth than the 2.7 MJ/
kg. You also know of the inert mass savings when it comes down to
reusable fly-by-rocket stuff, or even on behalf of commercial aircraft
usage.

There's no doubt or arguments as to the many primary and secondary
terrestrial uses of h2o2 along with other substances. There's no
doubt that your public funded farms of solar panels could in addition
to their creating H2 make as much h2o2 as the global market could use
(most of which would not be utilized as rocket fuel).

Placing surplus/spare solar, wind, tidal, geothermal or thorium
derived energy into this liquid and thus easily stored formulation of
h2o2 would become a very good thing for our badly inflated and failing
economy that's $54 trillions in debt and counting. This is not my
excluding the makings of LH2 and LOx.

The world soon needs to develop 100 TW worth of affordably clean and
renewable (non-fossil) energy. Your methods of green energy could
easily represent 10% of that grand total, a portion of which could go
into the making of h2o2 and synfuels to go along for the ride (so to
speak).

Of h2o2 could even be safely home brewed for the family car, with only
a small amount of Mook synfuel required in order to get the most clean
ICE bang for the buck as well as per kg.

The lowest grades of coal or even shale could also be efficiently and
otherwise clean burned if such utility power plants were getting fed
h2o2 instead of their mass consuming our mostly N2 atmosphere.
~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth