Date
1 - 9 of 9
Because aviation gasoline just isn’t uite explosive enough
|
Tony Valle
|
|
|
|
This tech is progressing faster than I thought.
From: airbattle@groups.io <airbattle@groups.io> on behalf of Tony Valle <airbattle.games@...>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 1:32:22 PM To: Airbattle <airbattle@groups.io> Subject: [airbattle] Because aviation gasoline just isn’t uite explosive enough |
|
|
|
Thomas Russ
Of course it would be the Germans going with hydrogen fuel. While they're at it, they should throw in some solar cells on the wings as well. On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 1:06 PM Sean "Kahuna" Keohane <yurf_d@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
unkated
T-Stoff und C-Stoff! T-Stoff und C-Stoff!
|
|
|
|
markus baur
if you REALLY are looking for a bad fuel combination go for:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
liquid ozone and liquid acetylene wonderful Isp! and both will explode if somebody nearby coughs or looks funny at the tanks bonus points if you use only the O11 isotope for the ozone (this isotope is a good bit lighter, this will further increase Isp - which is surely valuable enough to pay the price of a radioactive exhaust stream) servus markus Am 03.09.2022 um 04:42 schrieb unkated: T-Stoff und C-Stoff! T-Stoff und C-Stoff! |
|
|
|
John Carr
The great guide to bad fuels is John Clark's _Ignition!_. You should be able to find a scan online. Clark worked on the development of liquid rocket fuels in the 1950s and 1960s. Some people spent their days trying to provoke small drops of candidate fuels. If a drop of it exploded violently you didn't scale up. The powers that be offered a computer program to suggest new compounds. The program fell in love with triple bonds that the chemists didn't try to synthesize. Rocket scientists like light molecules, so how about beryllium fuel or fluorine oxidizer? No OSHA or EPA in the 1960s to complain about toxic fumes. They experimented with chlorine trifluoride, which will set sand on fire.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
One of the best monopropellants, in theory, is a cryogenic mixture of liquid oxygen and methane. That line about not looking at it is literally true. The mixture exploded when a light was shined on it. On Sep 3, 2022, at 03:04 , markus baur via groups.io <baur@...> wrote: |
|
|
|
markus baur
Am 03.09.2022 um 12:00 schrieb John Carr:
The great guide to bad fuels is John Clark's _Ignition!_. You should be able to find a scan online.i have had a copy for about 10 years now 8) and that liquid ozone / liquid acetylene combo with the lighter, radioactive oxygen came from an competition in the old usenet about "how to outdo the bad fuel combos in ignition!" and there is of course this story here https://www.tor.com/2012/07/20/a-tall-tail/ 8) servus markus Clark worked on the development of liquid rocket fuels in the 1950s and 1960s. Some people spent their days trying to provoke small drops of candidate fuels. If a drop of it exploded violently you didn't scale up. The powers that be offered a computer program to suggest new compounds. The program fell in love with triple bonds that the chemists didn't try to synthesize. Rocket scientists like light molecules, so how about beryllium fuel or fluorine oxidizer? No OSHA or EPA in the 1960s to complain about toxic fumes. They experimented with chlorine trifluoride, which will set sand on fire. |
|
|
|
Not that anything with Chlorine Triflouride is anything resembling safe, but under some very arcane circumstances, you can make Diflourine Dioxide, or FOOF. Which...makes ClF3 look like something you'd let bored E3s toss around for fun by comparison. But wait, there's more! Back in the last decade, someone used the atom probe microscopy for new crystal tomography scans, and the resulting new understanding of chemical bond structurescomputerized models of hypothetical compounds. Octonitrocubane is a cubical lattice of nitrogen atoms. It has a hollow core. Every corner is an azide group. It's a synthesized compound that got lots of excited press early in the 2000s as The Conventional Explosive of The Future. Except, well, stabilizing it is tricky, what with 8 azide groups. It turns out that the corner-to-corner dimension of the inside of this hollow cube of azide groups is just long enough to hold a single molecule of FOOF, if the models of FOOF are correct (nobody wants to work with FOOF, and everyone is Very Certain that the guys at Tulane who synthesized it got it right in the 1950s and Nobody Wants To Replicate That Work, Thank You). As the paper author drily commented: "Synthesis of this compound is left as an exercise for the reader. Preventing this synthesis is left as an exercise for assorted university chemistry departments, and their legal counsel."
|
|
|
|
markus baur
sounds like a job for the Klapötke labs of Munich university
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
you know, the people who brought you: https://corante.com/things-i-wont-work-with/things-i-wont-work-with-azidoazide-azides-more-or-less/ or https://corante.com/things-i-wont-work-with/things-i-wont-work-with-azidotetrazolate-salts/ or https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/things-i-won-t-work-chalcogen-polyazides 8) (that b log is generally VERY entertaining for anyone who understands a little chemistry) servus markus Am 03.09.2022 um 15:46 schrieb Ken Burnside: Not that anything with Chlorine Triflouride is anything resembling safe, but under some very arcane circumstances, you can make Diflourine Dioxide, or FOOF. |
|
|