On Tue, 4 Nov 2003, Henrik Schultz wrote:
> Method 1) One source (isn't it the ERPS site?) mentions something along the
> line of "Catalytically decompose the H2O2 and then inject kerosene in the
> hot gas stream, which essentially doubles the Isp." This is simple, in the
> sense that it alleviates the need for an igniter. However, conceptually it
> doesn't match any methods I've seen described in Sutton or Huzel/Huang
> (perhaps except for the gas/liquid jet injectors).
That's right, it doesn't. H/H and (to a slightly lesser extent) Sutton
are books by Rocketdyne guys about Rocketdyne's approach to rocket
engines. If Rocketdyne never did it, it's probably not in those books.
Rocketdyne has done a lot of things, but they've never done catalyzed-
peroxide engines much.
Bragg's "Rocket Engines" is well worth having for an alternate point of
view, although like so many other books in this field, it's long out of
print and a bit hard to find.
> Am I right in assuming that method 2) is self-sustaining, given a properly
> sized combustion chamber, i.e. will the H2O2 at 85% produce enough heat to
> both vaporize the water content as well as ignite the kerosene?
It's feasible, although there is plenty of room for trouble with ignition,
stability, and performance. (In particular, non-hypergolic liquid-liquid
combinations using immiscible liquids seem to be somewhat prone to
ignition problems, perhaps because the liquids *cannot* mix as liquids.
The more energetic the igniter, the better.)
Henry Spencer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
ERPS-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listinfo/erps-list
