On Sat, 02 Nov 2002 04:45:15 +, Ian Woollard
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>But then I realised you could carry a COaxial Resealing Kit to manually
>seal this off . That would work. Or maybe a Big UNiversal Gasket could
>be used. Hmm. Perhaps I should patent this idea quickly before someone
>
Hmm. Have visions of this hand-operated valve getting stuck and
everyone gasping their last. That's bad.
But then I realised you could carry a COaxial Resealing Kit to manually
seal this off . That would work. Or maybe a Big UNiversal Gasket could be
used. Hmm. Perhaps I should
On Sat, 2 Nov 2002 10:13:44 +1100, "Jake Anderson"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I am just struck by the similarity between what is happening now and the
>mercury 7 sub-orbital flight
And that just chased away my cynical pessimism. Thank you, Jake.
The key part of your observation is exactly that
On Fri, 01 Nov 2002 17:05:00 -0600, John Carmack
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Our current thinking is to carry an air bottle, and intentionally let the
>cabin leak a bit to force some air circulation, dehumidification, and
>cooling. There will also be a hand-operated valve to force it to leak mo
- Original Message -
From: "John Carmack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2002 10:05 AM
Subject: Re: [ERPS] KISS III Propulsion System Test
>
> >
> >We ran a similar exercise here for Armadillo's life suppor
At 09:26 AM 11/1/2002 -0800, you wrote:
On Fri, 01 Nov 2002 08:16:06 -0800, Doug Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>I kinda get the impression that once the cat bed is warmed by a previous
>pulse, subsequent ones should not have significant uncatalyzed
>throughput, and PWM throttling keeps the bed
We ran a similar exercise here for Armadillo's life support system.
We concluded that they didn't need one. The flight is so short, and
the cabin so large, that CO2 levels won't rise to uncomfortable levels
during the flight even if they don't scrub the air. We also
determined that dumping the
On Fri, 01 Nov 2002 08:16:06 -0800, Doug Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>I kinda get the impression that once the cat bed is warmed by a previous
>pulse, subsequent ones should not have significant uncatalyzed
>throughput, and PWM throttling keeps the bed hot.
Good point. If we can assume th
On Fri, 01 Nov 2002 14:31:35 +, Ian Woollard
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Where do you imagine we'll fly POGO that's cold enough to matter?
>>
>Hmm. I haven't checked but I would expect launch licenses would be
>easier to get near Ottawa or Toronto ;-)
>
>You'd have difficulty getting an expo
On Fri, 1 Nov 2002 08:03:45 -0500, "Sean Patrick Daly"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I don't know about anyone else, but I'm under the impression that the higher
>you go, the colder you get. So I guess the real question is... What is going
>to happen to the H2O2 above say... 50,000+ feet? Will the e
Randall Clague wrote:
On Thu, 31 Oct 2002 23:53:58 -0800, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Tape heaters are inappropriate for Spike, since the propellant tank is part of
the aeroshell and it needs to be very clean aerodynamically
Hm, I'd been assuming the tanks were not integral. If they are, the
Randall Clague wrote:
On Thu, 31 Oct 2002 23:53:58 -0800, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Where do you imagine we'll fly POGO that's cold enough to matter?
Hmm. I haven't checked but I would expect launch licenses would be
easier to get near Ottawa or Toronto ;-)
You'd have difficulty getting
warm-up time
- Original Message -
From: "Randall Clague" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "ERPS" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 7:51 PM
Subject: Re: [ERPS] KISS III Propulsion System Test
> On Fri, 1 Nov 2002 18:45:05 +1100, "Ja
On 1 Nov, Randall Clague wrote:
> If you fly the heater - really just some resistive tape wrapped around
> the tank - then the only moving part you have to worry about for
> pre-liftoff heater disconnect is the power plug. I dislike moving
> things around just prior to liftoff, but I can live wit
us 100F for a while.
Anyone have any data on that?
Sean
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:erps-list-admin@;lists.erps.org]On Behalf Of Jake Anderson
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 2:45 AM
To: ERPS
Subject: Re: [ERPS] KISS III Propulsion System Test
why fly t
On Thu, 31 Oct 2002 23:53:58 -0800, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Tape heaters are inappropriate for Spike, since the propellant tank is part of
>the aeroshell and it needs to be very clean aerodynamically
Hm, I'd been assuming the tanks were not integral. If they are, then
tape heaters get margin
On Fri, 1 Nov 2002 18:45:05 +1100, "Jake Anderson"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>why fly the heater at all?
>if the tank is at the right temperature or thereabouts it shouldnt change
>that quickly put a sensor in your tank and the heaters in a jacket on the
>outside when its hot enough drop the jack
On Fri, 1 Nov 2002, Jake Anderson wrote:
> why fly the heater at all?
> if the tank is at the right temperature or thereabouts it shouldnt change
> that quickly put a sensor in your tank and the heaters in a jacket on the
> outside when its hot enough drop the jacket and hit the button
Now you nee
Tape heaters are inappropriate for Spike, since the propellant tank is part of
the aeroshell and it needs to be very clean aerodynamically in order to get
good data. Cole-Palmer sells 316 SS immersion heaters that might be
appropriate if we decide we need tank heat.
Honestly, I don't think we do
t; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Adrian Tymes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "ERPS" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 6:29 PM
Subject: Re: [ERPS] KISS III Propulsion System Test
> On Thu, 31 Oct 2002 20:17:48 -0800, Adrian Tymes <[EMAIL PROTECT
On Thu, 31 Oct 2002 20:17:48 -0800, Adrian Tymes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>This makes procedures simpler (fuel whenever, fly whenever after
>fuelling), but not the vehicle: it adds another component to what has to
>fly.
That's correct. It's a tradeoff I'm happy to make.
-R
--
"...And the las
On Thu, 31 Oct 2002 23:16:31 -0500, "Sean Patrick Daly"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>If in the end, all you are looking to achieve is heating the H2O2 tank up a
>bit, I'd go with an even simpler approach by using Nitrous Oxide tank
>heaters available at your local performance auto parts shop/catalo
On 30 Oct 2002 16:06:50 -0800 "Sean R. Lynch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Seriously, ERPS is interested in developing
> technology, and if we just
> want to test engines, silver is fine. Catalysts
> that work with >90%
> peroxide are necessary for operational projects
> that soon will need to
Randall Clague wrote:
On Thu, 31 Oct 2002 18:06:04 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A commercial venture that wants to operate year round will need to
heat the tanks to keep the peroxide from freezing.
Or at least fill the tanks from a larger reservoir, whose temperature is
actively mainta
around the tank.
Not too much draw on power and will run on 12/24 volts.
Sean
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:erps-list-admin@;lists.erps.org]On Behalf Of Randall Clague
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 10:41 PM
To: ERPS
Subject: Re: [ERPS] KISS III Propulsion System Te
On Thu, 31 Oct 2002 18:06:04 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> A commercial venture that wants to operate year round will need to
>> heat the tanks to keep the peroxide from freezing.
>
>Or at least fill the tanks from a larger reservoir, whose temperature is
>actively maintained, soon enoug
On 29 Oct 2002, at 2:35, Randall Clague wrote:
> On 28 Oct 2002 21:34:28 -0800, "Sean R. Lynch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >Because silver melts above 85-90%, electrical heating significantly
> >increases the range of catalysts available to us, and because we're
> >eventually going to need
And before anyone asks, we will *not* discuss any peroxide enrichment
techniques.
Dan
In a message dated 10/30/2 11:07:17 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< Our purification process currently yields 99% H2O2 by concentration with
<1 ppm total dissolved solids. This is from various concentrations
r
On Wed, 2002-10-30 at 21:27, Randall Clague wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Oct 2002 18:29:42 -0600, John Carmack
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >As I understand it, every single concentration process performs
> >incrementally, so you just stop concentrating when you are at the level you
> >want...
>
> T
On Wed, 30 Oct 2002 18:29:42 -0600, John Carmack
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>As I understand it, every single concentration process performs
>incrementally, so you just stop concentrating when you are at the level you
>want...
The fractional freezing is working fairly well - kudos to all involv
On 30 Oct 2002 16:09:55 -0800, "Sean R. Lynch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>I'd like to have a higher performance propellant available for Spike,
>and I'm sure it wouldn't hurt POGO either. If and when we're
>manufacturing peroxide, it'll be at higher concentrations than we can
>use, so we'll have
Sean R. Lynch wrote:
On Wed, 2002-10-30 at 16:29, John Carmack wrote:
As I understand it, every single concentration process performs
incrementally, so you just stop concentrating when you are at the level you
want...
Tell that to our freezer.
The freezer hasn't been producing 99+% peroxid
On Wed, 2002-10-30 at 16:29, John Carmack wrote:
> As I understand it, every single concentration process performs
> incrementally, so you just stop concentrating when you are at the level you
> want...
Tell that to our freezer.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message p
Seriously, ERPS is interested in developing technology, and if we just
want to test engines, silver is fine. Catalysts that work with >90%
peroxide are necessary for operational projects that soon will need to
be able to deal with low temperature launches.
Eh? All "operational projects" that
At 04:09 PM 10/30/2002 -0800, you wrote:
On Tue, 2002-10-29 at 21:33, Randall Clague wrote:
> I've read your e-mails. I think you're looking to solve a problem
> that is having no effect on our operations, and is therefore not
> relevant on the time scale at which we operate. ERPS has historical
On Tue, 2002-10-29 at 21:33, Randall Clague wrote:
> I've read your e-mails. I think you're looking to solve a problem
> that is having no effect on our operations, and is therefore not
> relevant on the time scale at which we operate. ERPS has historical
> experience chasing solutions to problem
On Wed, 2002-10-30 at 09:30, Andrew Case wrote:
> My sense is
> that the best approach is to preheat the catalyst by firing on a warm
> day :-) Simple is good.
"I'm sorry, Billy, but winter came early this year, so you're going to
have to wait until next year to fly to the moon."
Oh wait, Billy w
On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, Alex Fraser wrote:
> In the light of the thread " more thoughts on catalysts" and on rereading
> this post below it occurred to me that there are two iron oxides commonly called
> red and black. The formation of steel from iron alloy seems to assure that it
> produces red
mixing before engine firing became a pain in the ass, and I found it
> impossible to get a even reaction.
>
> Sean
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:erps-list-admin@;lists.erps.org]On Behalf Of Michael Free
> Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 6:
--Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:erps-list-admin@;lists.erps.org]On Behalf Of Michael Free
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 6:47 AM
To: Sean R. Lynch; ERPS; Pierce Nichols
Subject: Re: [ERPS] KISS III Propulsion System Test
If iron oxide is a good enough catalyst for an o
- Original Message -
From: "Pierce Nichols" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Sean R. Lynch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "ERPS" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 12:54 AM
Subject: Re: [ERPS] KISS III Propulsion System Test
> At 09:3
At 04:26 AM 10/30/2002 +, Ian Woollard wrote:
Doesn't iron (oxide) work at high temperature?
Preheating might give you a long lived and cheap catalyst. You don't want
it self warming though- I think it tends to hard start.
Probably depends on the initial oxidization state of the ir
At 08:36 PM 10/29/2002 -0800, you wrote:
At 08:11 PM 10/29/2002 -0800, Donald Qualls wrote:
Say, has anyone tested copper or bronze as a high temperature
catalyst? Melting point significantly higher than silver, 1083 C for
pure copper; bronzes can be had with either higher or lower melting
On 29 Oct 2002 18:08:23 -0800, "Sean R. Lynch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>> >Note that I was talking about electrically heating the *catalyst*, not
>> >the peroxide. When our reaction starts out milky and then goes clear,
>> >it's not the peroxide that's heating up, it's the catalyst.
>>
>> Is t
At 08:11 PM 10/29/2002 -0800, Donald Qualls wrote:
Say, has anyone tested copper or bronze as a high temperature
catalyst? Melting point significantly higher than silver, 1083 C for pure
copper; bronzes can be had with either higher or lower melting points. The
high corrosion resistance of t
Doesn't iron (oxide) work at high temperature?
Preheating might give you a long lived and cheap catalyst. You don't
want it self warming though- I think it tends to hard start.
Donald Qualls wrote:
Randall Clague wrote:
On 29 Oct 2002 13:55:07 -0800, "Sean R. Lynch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Randall Clague wrote:
On 29 Oct 2002 13:55:07 -0800, "Sean R. Lynch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
Unless I'm mistaken, Gizmocopter's battery packs would heat 1kg of
tungsten by >3600K.
For how long?
I don't know that it really matters, as long as it can stay hot until
you're up to full flo
At 06:06 PM 10/29/2002 -0800, Sean R. Lynch wrote:
You have merely restated your claim rather than saying on what basis you
make it. Generally when someone asks you to provide a basis for your
claim, you should provide some evidence to back it up.
Go read chapter 16 of Pauling's 'Gener
On Tue, 2002-10-29 at 16:12, Randall Clague wrote:
> On 29 Oct 2002 13:32:52 -0800, "Sean R. Lynch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >Note that I was talking about electrically heating the *catalyst*, not
> >the peroxide. When our reaction starts out milky and then goes clear,
> >it's not the pero
On Tue, 2002-10-29 at 16:51, Pierce Nichols wrote:
> At 01:25 PM 10/29/2002 -0800, Sean R. Lynch wrote:
> >On Tue, 2002-10-29 at 08:09, Pierce Nichols wrote:
> > > Any catalyst with substantial activity at elevated temperature
> > > will be noticeably incompatible at room temperature.
> >
At 01:25 PM 10/29/2002 -0800, Sean R. Lynch wrote:
On Tue, 2002-10-29 at 08:09, Pierce Nichols wrote:
> Any catalyst with substantial activity at elevated temperature
> will be noticeably incompatible at room temperature.
On what basis do you make this claim? Platinum is almost completel
On 29 Oct 2002 13:32:52 -0800, "Sean R. Lynch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Note that I was talking about electrically heating the *catalyst*, not
>the peroxide. When our reaction starts out milky and then goes clear,
>it's not the peroxide that's heating up, it's the catalyst.
Is that all you're
On 29 Oct 2002 13:55:07 -0800, "Sean R. Lynch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>You mean we haven't seen catalyst temperature problems since we started
>using *silver* which will be useless when we go to higher strength
>peroxide. This makes silver a "low temperature catalyst" in my mind. It
>works in
On Tue, 2002-10-29 at 02:35, Randall Clague wrote:
> I'm not enthused about electrically heated catalysts, because they are
> not as simple as ambient temperature catalysts, and we have not seen
> catalyst temperature problems since before we starting getting good
> data a couple years ago. There
"Sean R. Lynch" wrote:
> Note that I was talking about electrically heating the *catalyst*, not
> the peroxide. When our reaction starts out milky and then goes clear,
> it's not the peroxide that's heating up, it's the catalyst.
I've suggested that a "multi-stage" pack could be made: we observed
On Tue, 2002-10-29 at 02:35, Randall Clague wrote:
> A commercial venture that wants to operate year round will need to
> heat the tanks to keep the peroxide from freezing. Heating the
> peroxide as a performance enhancement strikes me as unwise. It may be
> necessary in the future - we don't kno
On Tue, 2002-10-29 at 08:09, Pierce Nichols wrote:
> Any catalyst with substantial activity at elevated temperature
> will be noticeably incompatible at room temperature.
On what basis do you make this claim? Platinum is almost completely
uncatalytic to peroxide at room temperature. I ca
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Pierce Nichols wrote:
> > Beryllium melts at 1278C, but it's not a transition
> >metal.
>
> It's also toxic as all get out. That is a bad property.
It's also brittle, and hence very difficult to work with.
> ...Also, the oxide layer
> on Al forms on contact with a
My reasoning for warming the H2O2 was to lesson the energy needed to
boil off the 15% water in it. With the danger of instability removed
(just pretend) if you heated the mix to 102C (or whatever the boiling
point of water is at your tank pressure) then it would flash to steam as
you squirt it
At 12:59 AM 10/29/2002 -0800, Sean R. Lynch wrote:
Silver melts at 961.93C. Aluminum melts at 660.37C, so it's clearly out.
Nickel melts at 1453C, so it's a definite candidate assuming it will
form an oxide and the oxide is catalytic at temperatures we can
reasonably heat it to electrically.
On Mon, 28 Oct 2002, Pierce Nichols wrote:
> The actual working catalyst should be a ceramic composed of the
> best catalysts found in the search.
Alternatively, you could try looking at the available commercial
ceramics and pick a few with high proportions of possibly interesting
oxides in them
On Mon, 28 Oct 2002 23:20:28 -0500, Alex Fraser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Is there actual test data on this temperature performance relationship?
Yes, in the 1960 Bepco-FMC paper. They measured the temperature of
the peroxide, not that of the catalyst, but they saw a significant
effect. Activ
On 29 Oct 2002 00:59:31 -0800, "Sean R. Lynch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Nichrome wire anyone? We could make a catpack out of used model rocket
>ignitors :)
If I was going to test an electrically heated catalyst, I would start
with nichrome. Keep It Simple.
I'm not enthused about electricall
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002 00:38:54 -0800, Pierce Nichols
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nickel is one of the few transition metals that does *not* have a
>bad relationship with peroxide. I consider the most interesting targets of
>investigation to be Pt, Pd, Rh, Re, Co, & Ir, mostly due to the c
On 28 Oct 2002 21:34:28 -0800, "Sean R. Lynch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Because silver melts above 85-90%, electrical heating significantly
>increases the range of catalysts available to us, and because we're
>eventually going to need to deal with the problem
A commercial venture that wants to
On Tue, 2002-10-29 at 00:59, Sean R. Lynch wrote:
> Is it aluminum oxide that we're making inside our tanks when we
> passivate them? Clearly both of these are pretty compatible with
> peroxide at reasonable temperatures, but heat them up and who knows?
>
Aluminum forms an oxide layer immediately
On Tue, 2002-10-29 at 00:23, Sean R. Lynch wrote:
> What if, in general, it's *only* the oxides of these metals that are
> catalytic and not the metals themselves at all? What if silver is only
> so good because its oxide is so tenacious? If this is the case, then the
> process would be clear: fin
At 12:23 AM 10/29/2002 -0800, Sean R. Lynch wrote:
On Mon, 2002-10-28 at 21:54, Pierce Nichols wrote:
> All of the catalysts for peroxide that I have heard
> tested or floated in any way are transition metals or their oxides.
> Anecdotal evidences (such as the requirement for 'burning in' a silver
On Mon, 2002-10-28 at 21:54, Pierce Nichols wrote:
> All of the catalysts for peroxide that I have heard
> tested or floated in any way are transition metals or their oxides.
> Anecdotal evidences (such as the requirement for 'burning in' a silver
> pack) indicates that it's the oxides that have
At 12:06 AM 10/29/2002 -0800, Sean R. Lynch wrote:
On Tue, 2002-10-29 at 00:05, Pierce Nichols wrote:
> See my original idea, and delete the idea of making a compound
> catalyst. Catalogue oxide/base metal pairs with attractive properties,
make
> samples, and test them.
Sounds good to
On Tue, 2002-10-29 at 00:05, Pierce Nichols wrote:
> See my original idea, and delete the idea of making a compound
> catalyst. Catalogue oxide/base metal pairs with attractive properties, make
> samples, and test them.
Sounds good to me, as long as you still mean to preheat them. Even
At 11:58 PM 10/28/2002 -0800, Sean R. Lynch wrote:
On Mon, 2002-10-28 at 22:12, Pierce Nichols wrote:
> 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.
>
On Mon, 2002-10-28 at 22:12, Pierce Nichols wrote:
> 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 temperat
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
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
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 for testing the KISS engine. I have the new data acquisition
hardware on hand, but it was not
91 matches
Mail list logo
