Steam Rockets

Brad Guth wrote:
tomcat,
Hydrazine/N2H4 at 1.004 g/cm3 is somewhat spendy, extremely touchy
stuff, and it certainly isn't much better off than plain old h2o, nor
any more so than any of those other hydrazine rocket fuel formulas as
also intended for reaction thrusting that are even somewhat worse off.

Might as well save upon volumes of fuel storage space, by way of
utilizing 98% h2o2 at 1.43 g/cm3, as rather easily and safely contained
within tough composite basalt tanks, and of hitting that fully
mono-combustion substance with whatever "masers, lasers, or electricity"
on behalf of accomplishing h2/o2--ion boosted velocity on behalf of
accomplishing extremely good reaction thrust.

Even beer via **** and solar energy can subsequently become converted on
the fly into 98% h2o2.

h2o2--superheated vapor--h2/o2--1e-18 bar of vacuum atoms can't be
all that bad of ISP.
-
Brad Guth





Since 'exhaust expansion' is the key to a rocket engine finding a fuel
that can expand 1600 times it's liquid volume is bound to be rewarding.
Well, water or 'hydrogen peroxide' does just that.

While I make no pretense of being a Chemist I believe that the
advantage of hydrogen peroxide over plain tap water is that of
volatility. Zap hydrogen peroxide and you get a bang every time for
little energy expenditure. Zap tap water and it takes a lot of
science, superheated steam, and electricity.

If this is true -- please correct me if I am wrong -- then hydrogen
peroxide may be the fuel of choice. But why hasn't it been used
before? High concentrations of hydrogen peroxide ( 97% and 98%) have
been around for a long time.


tomcat

: "tomcat"
: While I make no pretense of being a Chemist I believe that the
: advantage of hydrogen peroxide over plain tap water is that of
: volatility. Zap hydrogen peroxide and you get a bang every time for
: little energy expenditure. Zap tap water and it takes a lot of
: science, superheated steam, and electricity.

The difficulty is, you keep waving your hands at the crucial point,
which is, "where does the energy come from?" Where do you get the energy
to turn the water into steam? Recycling it from the engine and muttering
soemthing about "lasers" or "electricity" for the remainder, isn't enough
to actually describe anything worth pursuing. If you got the energy from
a chemical reaction, the chemical you are using will pretty certainly
outmass the water. If you are using a nuclear reaction, you have a
whole *lot* of issues to resolve.

Yes, water or amonia is a nice, convenient storage format for reaction mass.
It is not, however, a fuel in any way, shape, or form.

So. Where does the energy come from, how much energy, generated how,
injected into the water/steam/reaction-mass how, and how much does the
generator plus its fuel mass? Without that, you gots nuttn.

In short, the water or steam isn't the interesting part.
That's the "well duuuuuuh" part. It's the energy production
that's the interesting part.


Wayne Throop http://sheol.org/throopw

"Wayne Throop" wrote in message


Yes, water or amonia is a nice, convenient storage format for reaction mass.
It is not, however, a fuel in any way, shape, or form.

So. Where does the energy come from, how much energy, generated how,
injected into the water/steam/reaction-mass how, and how much does the
generator plus its fuel mass? Without that, you gots nuttn.

In short, the water or steam isn't the interesting part.
That's the "well duuuuuuh" part. It's the energy production
that's the interesting part.

The sam hell it isn't the interesting part.

Why are you into being so topic naysay, instead of contributing
constructively?

Such as, given the initial option, replace that original cash of water
with h2o2.

If talking about reaction thrusting, h2o2 should do just perfectly fine
and dandy until it's all used up.

Within a composite storage tank, h2o2 has a nearly unlimited shelf life.

How might h2o2 react with a good dosage of space/cosmic/solar radiation?

Solar energy plus half a village idiot brain can convert urine into top
quality h2o2 of 98% or better, thus the spacecraft could essentially be
powered by way of beer.
-

Ask our local village idiot "tomcat" to tell us lots more about those
nifty water--steam rockets, or rather as highly capable reaction
thrusters based upon the 1e-18 bar vacuum of space and of the solar
superheated steam--atoms worth of whatever plain old h2o can
accomplish.

As I'd said before, as pertaining to the likely reaction thrust demands
of roughly a kg/tonne of station-keeping per month for managing the LL-1
'GUTH-Station' that's residing itself within the interactive LL-1 zone,
whereas I'm thinking this task can be easily accommodated via beer. An
initial 50t station that's demanding 50 kg of beer per month isn't
hardly asking too much. In fact, if it ere my DNA that was being
continually moon gamma and hard-X-ray TBI to death, that 50 kg/month
might not represent nearly a sufficient supply of said beer.

Therefore, instead of plain old spendy rocket fuel derived reaction
thrust, it could just as easily become urine powered, as limited only by
the inventory and/or continuing supplies of ice cold beer. Of course
within the nullification zone is where as little as a good blast of
flatulence is actually another perfectly viable backup plan of action,
and for that sort of reaction thrust you simply need 'guy food' that'll
consist of mostly beans and coffee.

Common seawater accommodates roughly 84 chemical elements, and our urine
has all of those plus a few others. Besides mostly h2o, then a few of
those various salts, ammonia and a touch of yellow dye No.5, our urine
contains loads of other nifty stuff, including trace elements of Al, B,
Ca, Cu, Fe, K, Li, Mg, Na, P and Zn, all of which should be rather
easily vapor distill and/or be extracted via freeze dried and then fully
reusable as ion thrust, along with the easily extracted pure h2o made
available as for next becoming rather easily superheated
steam--H2/O2--atom reaction thrusting.

Instead of wussy h2o, might as well save upon volumes of reaction fuel
storage space by way of utilizing 98% h2o2 at 1.43 g/cm3, as rather
easily and safely contained within tough basalt composite tanks, and of
hitting that fully mono-combustion substance with whatever "masers,
lasers, and/or a few MV of electricity" on behalf of accomplishing
h2/o2--ion boosted velocity on behalf of accomplishing extremely good
reaction thrust.
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

So. Where does the energy come from, how much energy, generated how,
injected into the water/steam/reaction-mass how, and how much does the
generator plus its fuel mass? Without that, you gots nuttn.

If you don't over use it, the heat energy for "terrestrial" orbits is there
for the taking from the sun.

At the extreme, one side of the water bottle is painted black and the other
side painted white (or "silvered."). You turn the black side to the sun
to get ready for a firing. Between firings you turn the white side to the
sun and literally keep the fuel on ice!

--
Danny Dot
www.mobbinggonemad.org


"tomcat" wrote in message
oups.com...


Since 'exhaust expansion' is the key to a rocket engine finding a fuel
that can expand 1600 times it's liquid volume is bound to be rewarding.
Well, water or 'hydrogen peroxide' does just that.

While I make no pretense of being a Chemist I believe that the
advantage of hydrogen peroxide over plain tap water is that of
volatility. Zap hydrogen peroxide and you get a bang every time for
little energy expenditure. Zap tap water and it takes a lot of
science, superheated steam, and electricity.

If this is true -- please correct me if I am wrong -- then hydrogen
peroxide may be the fuel of choice. But why hasn't it been used
before? High concentrations of hydrogen peroxide ( 97% and 98%) have
been around for a long time.



Hydrogen peroxide is used as a rocket fuel. It is a "mono" propellent, it
does not need an oxidizer. It is used on the entry system of the Soyuz.
Water can not be used because water does not give off energy in a reaction.
A water rocket would need a heat source -- a nuclear reactor. A hydogen
peroxide engine does not need a heat source. I believe it uses a catalyst
in the reaction.

Danny Dot


tomcat

: "Brad Guth"
: Why are you into being so topic naysay, instead of contributing
: constructively?

I didn't say "nay". I said "where does the energy come from?".

: Such as, given the initial option, replace that original cash of water
: with h2o2.

Yes. And such rockets were used in the past. Still are for many things.
They don't perform as well as lox/kerosine or lox/hydrogen rockets.
There isn't enough energy.

: Solar energy

For a rocket. Um. Well. Good luck with that.


Wayne Throop http://sheol.org/throopw

"Wayne Throop" wrote in message


: Such as, given the initial option, replace that original cash of water
: with h2o2.

Yes. And such rockets were used in the past. Still are for many things.
They don't perform as well as lox/kerosine or lox/hydrogen rockets.
There isn't enough energy.
What the sam hell are you talking about? Which planet are you from?

: Solar energy

For a rocket. Um. Well. Good luck with that.

That's certainly all MOS status quo, of your all-or-nothing in the box
and naysayism on steroids, isn't it.

Why exactly are you folks so narrow mindset and otherwise chuck full of
your out of context crapolla?

What an absolute space-toilet for a brain you've got. No wonder we
haven't walked on the moon.

Why are you and those of your kind so deathly afraid of the truth?

Unlike your brown nosed infomercial self, I'm not limited as to an all
or nothing method of getting the given task accomplished.

Unlike yourself, my brain as well as my rocket-science can multitask.
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"tomcat" wrote in message
oups.com

: Since 'exhaust expansion' is the key to a rocket engine finding a fuel
: that can expand 1600 times it's liquid volume is bound to be
rewarding.
: Well, water or 'hydrogen peroxide' does just that.

: While I make no pretense of being a Chemist I believe that the
: advantage of hydrogen peroxide over plain tap water is that of
: volatility. Zap hydrogen peroxide and you get a bang every time for
: little energy expenditure. Zap tap water and it takes a lot of
: science, superheated steam, and electricity.
:
: If this is true -- please correct me if I am wrong -- then hydrogen
: peroxide may be the fuel of choice. But why hasn't it been used
: before? High concentrations of hydrogen peroxide ( 97% and 98%) have
: been around for a long time.

tomcat,
It's because h2o2 (h2o with one extra o2 added) isn't a Jewish
controlled rocket fuel, and it's not exactly as end-user safe to manage
as h2o.

It can be safely and rather efficiently stored as slush h2o2 (safer yet
as 100%/solid h2o2), though obviously once superheated and under high
pressure, h2o2 is offering one of the best tickets to ride.

As I'd said before, that it's damn near ideal for reaction thrusting,
especially since it can be indirectly derived via beer, as solar energy
processed in 98% h2o2 while on the fly.

Using it along with the likes of c3h4o is otherwise best for obtaining
the maximum of liftoff performance, that'll obtain the most thrust per
inert rocket tonnage, and of those mostly composite stages should easily
be 100% reusable.
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

: "Brad Guth"
: What the sam hell are you talking about?

The experience that's been had with use of H2O2,
and the resulting knowledge about the energy therein.

: Which planet are you from?

Earth. And you?

::: Solar energy

:: For a rocket. Um. Well. Good luck with that.

: That's certainly all MOS status quo, of your all-or-nothing in the box
: and naysayism on steroids, isn't it.

What, you don't want folks to wish you luck?
Plus, where do you get "status quo", "all-or-nothing", or "naysaying",
if I simply ask where the energy comes from, and fail to see how to
get a enough out of solar energy? I mean... there's only so much of it
per square meter at this distance from the sun. That's not all-or-nothing,
that's watts-per-square-meter.

: Unlike yourself, my brain as well as my rocket-science can multitask.

Maybe concentrate a bit more on the task of figuring out where the
energy comes from, and a bit less on things like noting that water makes
a good reaction mass, and that H2O2 is a workable monofuel, which
everybody has known since nearly forever. I mean... H2O2 is used for
all kinds of nifty applications today; it's *part* of that horrid status
quo you are complaining about.

What *isn't* a part of the status quo, is a way to convert water to
steam fast enough with any known method to get good rocket performance,
or enough energy density in H2O2 to make it work in more systems than
it's already being used in. You want to bust the status quo right open,
that's where you need to go, not just observe that water makes steam,
and H2O2 is unstable, which everybody already knew.

You have to look where other people have not already looked. And people
have already looked at water (water injection systems in WWII aircraft
for one example) and H2O2 (rocket belts for one example).

Or put it this way. It's not naysaying. It's try-looking-over-there-
cause-this-part-has-been-looked-at-a-zillion-times-already-saying.
If your goal is to try to get people interested, saying "water" won't
interest them; they already know about water. Saying "here's how to
make a metric crockload of ultra-high-temperature steam per second"
would interest them, since nobody currently knows how to do that.


Wayne Throop http://sheol.org/throopw

: "Brad Guth"
: As I'd said before, that it's damn near ideal for reaction thrusting,

Maybe that's why it's still being used in some applications
for reaction thrusters.

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

While its application as a monopropellant for large engines has
waned, small thrusters for attitude control that run on hydrogen
peroxide are still in use on some satellites, and provide benefits
on the spacecraft, making it easier to throttle and safer loading
and handling of fuel before launch (as compared to hydrazine
monopropellant). However, hydrazine is a more popular
monopropellent in spacecraft because of its higher specific impulse
and lower rate of decomposition.


Wayne Throop http://sheol.org/throopw