SALT propellent solid rockets?

..

a Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article and a WIRED Science Blog post talk
of a guy (John Kanzius) who claims "he'd ignited salt water with the
radio-frequency generator he'd invented" at a temperature of 3,000 °F
(1650 °C)

well, IF that amazing discovery will results TRUE, a new generation of
simpler, safer and cheaper rockets could be built:

http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/007saltrocket.html

..

On Sep 12, 12:57 am, gaetanomarano wrote:
.

a Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article and a WIRED Science Blog post talk
of a guy (John Kanzius) who claims "he'd ignited salt water with the
radio-frequency generator he'd invented" at a temperature of 3,000 °F
(1650 °C)

well, IF that amazing discovery will results TRUE, a new generation of
simpler, safer and cheaper rockets could be built:

http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/007saltrocket.html



Its true, but less than useless.

Reading between the lines:
he has a powerful radio transmitter and manages to get it to split
water into oxygen and hydrogen ... he then burns those at a high temp
(but small volume, like a candle flame)

Who hoo ... lots of watts in, tiny flame out ... net energy creation
less than zero, but lots of electricity wasted.

On 12 Set, 17:38, Martin wrote:

lots of watts in, tiny flame out ... net energy creation
less than zero, but lots of electricity wasted.

yes, the balance of energy seems too negative to be a new energy
source

however, a rocket doesn't need to be "energy efficient"

it only needs to produce a strong chemical reaction to produce a
thrust

..

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 21:57:01 -0700, gaetanomarano
wrote:


a Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article and a WIRED Science Blog post talk
of a guy (John Kanzius) who claims "he'd ignited salt water with the
radio-frequency generator he'd invented" at a temperature of 3,000 °F
(1650 °C)

well, IF that amazing discovery will results TRUE, a new generation of
simpler, safer and cheaper rockets could be built:

http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/007saltrocket.html

Until you do the math and figure out how much electric power would
actually be required. We already have more techniques than we need
to turn electricity + inert fluid into rocket thrust; there doesn't
seem to be anything about this one that makes it in any way superior
to the rest. All of which, per the law of conservaton of energy,
would require utterly prohibitive ammounts of electric power to
launch themselves from Earth, but which can sometimes be useful
when you need a low, steady thrust for orbital maneuvering.


--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
* for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *

On 13 Set, 03:31, John Schilling wrote:

do the math and figure

both articles give poor info about the experiment, so, we must wait
further news to know more

PS - so far, the only good news is that this article wasn't published
on April 1st... :-)

..

gaetanomarano wrote:
On 12 Set, 17:38, Martin wrote:

lots of watts in, tiny flame out ... net energy creation
less than zero, but lots of electricity wasted.

yes, the balance of energy seems too negative to be a new energy
source

however, a rocket doesn't need to be "energy efficient"

it only needs to produce a strong chemical reaction to produce a
thrust

.


Essentially, this technology would allow cryogenic LH2 and LO2 tanks to
be replaced by water tanks, but at the cost of requiring storage for the
energy needed to split the water. On the whole, I'm extremely sceptical
that the result would be a reduction in mass.

Sylvia.

In article ,
Sylvia Else wrote:

Essentially, this technology would allow cryogenic LH2 and LO2 tanks to
be replaced by water tanks, but at the cost of requiring storage for the
energy needed to split the water.

Not if that energy were beamed in (e.g., as a radio-frequency laser).
But I'm still quite skeptical that that would make a practical rocket.

Best,
- Joe

--
"Polywell" fusion -- an approach to nuclear fusion that might actually work.
Learn more and discuss via: http://www.strout.net/info/science/polywell/

Joe Strout wrote:

In article ,
Sylvia Else wrote:

Essentially, this technology would allow cryogenic LH2 and LO2 tanks to
be replaced by water tanks, but at the cost of requiring storage for the
energy needed to split the water.

Not if that energy were beamed in (e.g., as a radio-frequency laser).
But I'm still quite skeptical that that would make a practical rocket.

Correct me if I'm wrong - but even with beamed power, the energy
density of the propellant is still going to be pretty low per unit of
mass (compared with cryogenics). Too low to lift even its own weight
I suspect. (Because essentially what you'll have is H2 and O2 gas at
near atmospheric pressure.)

If this works at all, it will be because the evolved gases are used to
heat the remaining water to produce steam.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

On 13 Set, 07:43, Sylvia Else wrote:

Essentially, this technology would allow cryogenic LH2 and LO2 tanks to
be replaced by water tanks, but at the cost of requiring storage for the
energy needed to split the water. On the whole, I'm extremely sceptical
that the result would be a reduction in mass.

however, a "salt rocket" (if feasible, of course) may have some
advantages, like the lack of cryogenic propellents and heavy
pressurized tanks, so, it would be 100% SAFE since every small amount
of propellent will be "produced" a fraction of second before burn it,
then, a "salt rocket" NEVER can explode like the Challenger's external
tank

..