In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sun, 10 Aug 2008 09:10:51 -0700 (PDT): Hi, [snip] >... but .... from a quick read: Instead of an unknown >anti-gravity effect - why not the simpler suggestion >that the fuel was more energetic than the calculations >suggested it would be - putting Explorer into a higher >non-spherical orbital? [snip] Indeed. quote:- "The fuel and oxidizer used in the JPL-designed "solid" upper stages for the Jupiter-C was "... polysulfide-aluminum and ammonium perchlorate."
Note that ammonium perchlorate contains both Hydrogen (in the ammonia) and Oxygen in the perchlorate. Being rocket fuel, it's designed to get very hot, so perhaps the conditions were "just right" in this case for the formation of significant O++ which is a Mills catalyst, and a bit of Hydrino energy got thrown in, contributing an extra 37% to the energy (1.17^2 because the velocity increased by 17%, hence the kinetic energy increased by 37%). (In fact I've often wondered why Hydrino energy "doesn't" show up in rocketry results. ;) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
