At 10:19 PM 10/28/2002 -0800, David Weinshenker wrote:
Pierce Nichols wrote:
> The actual working catalyst should be a ceramic
> composed of the best catalysts found in the search.
Pressed into pellets and fired at high temperature, no doubt... :)
Something like that :P.
-p
Pierce Nichols wrote:
> The actual working catalyst should be a ceramic
> composed of the best catalysts found in the search.
Pressed into pellets and fired at high temperature, no doubt... :)
-dave w
___
ERPS-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://
At 09:34 PM 10/28/2002 -0800, Sean R. Lynch wrote:
For example, according to Dan's tests platinum only works well at high
temperatures. I was hoping we could use something a little less
expensive, though. Stainless steel maybe? :) Iron oxide is a catalyst.
Stainless steel doesn't for
On Mon, 2002-10-28 at 16:49, Randall Clague wrote:
> Why? Armadillo is having performance problem which they suspect are
> due to cold. ERPS isn't.
Because silver melts above 85-90%, electrical heating significantly
increases the range of catalysts available to us, and because we're
eventually
There is a little bit of theoretical performance increase at higher
temperatures, *but*, the peroxide also gets less dense, which would
require slightly bigger tanks. Either effect is probably in the
noise of what we could measure. This assumes of course, that its
warm enough to fully catalyze.
Is there actual test data on this temperature performance relationship? If you
get 430 lbf. at 74 F would it be worth it to heat to 110 F. ? What is the
danger point for heating 85% H2O2?
Randall Clague wrote:
> On 28 Oct 2002 15:32:36 -0800, "Sean R. Lynch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >> >
> ...Would tungsten work or would that have to be too hot?
In addition to the oxidation problems already noted, tungsten has a bad
habit of being brittle at room temperature.
Henry Spencer
On 28 Oct 2002 15:32:36 -0800, "Sean R. Lynch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>> >Did you guys read the Armadillo update, in particular the part about
>> >suspected correlation between milky exhaust and initial temperature of
>> >peroxide.
>>
>> Yep. Initial peroxide temperature has a pronounced
IIRC, its not an adherent, tenacious oxide, like what forms on
stainless steels and other high temp alloys. This would allow the
entire volume of W to oxidize, yielding dust in the exhaust. Aside
from this, I don't know how good a catalyst W or its oxide is.
Dan
In a message dated 10/28/02 3:51
On Mon, 2002-10-28 at 15:43, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Tungsten easily oxidizes at high temps.
Is tungsten oxide a good catalyst or does it end up going away in your
exhaust?
--
Sean R. Lynch KG6CVV http://www.chaosring.org/~seanl/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed messa
Tungsten easily oxidizes at high temps.
Dan
In a message dated 10/28/02 3:33:18 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< Would tungsten work or would that have to be too hot?
>>
___
ERPS-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listi
On Mon, 2002-10-28 at 15:19, Randall Clague wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Oct 2002 15:12:23 -0500, Alex Fraser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >Did you guys read the Armadillo update, in particular the part about
> >suspected correlation between milky exhaust and initial temperature of
> >peroxide.
>
On Mon, 28 Oct 2002 15:12:23 -0500, Alex Fraser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Did you guys read the Armadillo update, in particular the part about
>suspected correlation between milky exhaust and initial temperature of
>peroxide.
Yep. Initial peroxide temperature has a pronounced effect on
cat
Please note that the only reason I'm sending anything about spam to the
list is because spam has affected the list directly. This message is not
meant to start a discussion about spam or anything related to spam.
Please do *NOT* post followups to the list unless they're directly
related to ERPS or
Sometimes a prod from a congressperson works wonders. Even
a call from one of their staffpeople can move things along.
Dan
In a message dated 10/28/02 12:28:29 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< At 06:56 AM 10/28/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>How is the FAA ignoring you?
>
>- Justin S. McFarland
We ha
Correction to item in "Testing":
It was Rick Eversole, not Dave Masten, who reported the
unavailability of static testing opportunities at UTC.
Chris Winter
Secretary, ERPS
___
ERPS-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.erps.org/mailman
At 06:56 AM 10/28/2002 -0500, you wrote:
How is the FAA ignoring you?
- Justin S. McFarland
We have been pursuing a low altitude waiver for over a year
now. Initially, I got a rejection over the phone, but no followup. After
they got some push from the Washington AST office, they at least g
Did you guys read the Armadillo update, in particular the part about
suspected correlation between milky exhaust and initial temperature of
peroxide. On the static test (KISS III) did you make a note of the
initial temperature? I'm not sure of the local conditions where you plan
to fly, but I t
Also, KISS III when fully loaded with 'fuel', 10 liters of peroxide, plus
the extra plumbing/pressurant tank weight, will weigh about 30 more
pounds at liftoff compared to KISS II. The gross liftoff weight (GLOW)
of KISS II was about 51 pounds, and KISS III will be about 80 pounds.
Thus, we want
Alex Fraser wrote:
> Good News
>
> Please outline the goals for the KISS III flight.
The KISS III vehicle (KISS three not one hundred and eleven), is a
follow-on to the successful KISS II campaign to fly a simple ballistic
path with an ERPS designed and built vehicle powered by an ERPS
desi
Good News
Please outline the goals for the KISS III flight.
David Masten wrote:
> We tested the KISS III constant pressure propulsion section today.The
> test was far from ideal, but we verified what we needed.
>
> The data acquisition unit just refused to work, a DATAQ that we bought
> just
How is the FAA ignoring you?
- Justin S. McFarland
___
ERPS-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listinfo/erps-list
22 matches
Mail list logo
