Propellant using dissolved Lithium Perchlorate

Quote: Originally posted by Dany

Hello DubaiAmateurRocketry, Actually, i don't see many advantages (if any) from replacing NH4CLO4 with LiCLO4. perhaps, you will increase little the specific impulse relative to the ammonium perchlorate. Although, higher specific impulse are associated with high temperature, the latter is not desirable in rocketry. High temperature combustion may pose significant problem to rocket structure. high temperatures tend to weaken the rocket body during the active phase leading to structural failure. Two factors wich lead to increasing Isp is high combustion temperature and/or propellant generating low molecular mass gas. of course the latter is preferable than the former. Ejecting atomic hydrogen from nozzle will be optimal for achieving high Isp values. also, LiClO4 is more expensive than NH4ClO4. I don't know what is your prepolymer, but a energetic prepolymer will be desirable over traditional prepolymer for increasing Isp. In the video we see that combustion is not uniforme. At 0:07 second the combustion stops and the reestablished suggseting a bad mixing of polymer with oxidizer or not an optimal ratio of both oxidizer and you prepolymer. Dany.

Quote: Originally posted by DubaiAmateurRocketry

Quote: Originally posted by Dany   Hello DubaiAmateurRocketry, Actually, i don't see many advantages (if any) from replacing NH4CLO4 with LiCLO4. perhaps, you will increase little the specific impulse relative to the ammonium perchlorate. Although, higher specific impulse are associated with high temperature, the latter is not desirable in rocketry. High temperature combustion may pose significant problem to rocket structure. high temperatures tend to weaken the rocket body during the active phase leading to structural failure. Two factors wich lead to increasing Isp is high combustion temperature and/or propellant generating low molecular mass gas. of course the latter is preferable than the former. Ejecting atomic hydrogen from nozzle will be optimal for achieving high Isp values. also, LiClO4 is more expensive than NH4ClO4. I don't know what is your prepolymer, but a energetic prepolymer will be desirable over traditional prepolymer for increasing Isp. In the video we see that combustion is not uniforme. At 0:07 second the combustion stops and the reestablished suggseting a bad mixing of polymer with oxidizer or not an optimal ratio of both oxidizer and you prepolymer. Dany. The reestablish of the combustion was from the boiling epoxy lining on the nozzle and PVC for cooling. We do not replace ammonium perchlorate fully with Lithium perchlorate. In this, we replaced around 15% for a better fluidity during casting of the propellant. A 15% can increase the performance significantly. According to my calculation, NASA's APCP ratio produce 5% unburned carbon, this produce none unburned carbon. This also burns hotter, the polymer and the oxidziers alone can combust at around 2500 + degree celsius, almost at the boiling point of aluminum, allowing the aluminum to burn better with water during combustion. [Edited on 8-8-2013 by DubaiAmateurRocketry]

Quote: Originally posted by Dany

Quote: Originally posted by DubaiAmateurRocketry   Quote: Originally posted by Dany   Hello DubaiAmateurRocketry, Actually, i don't see many advantages (if any) from replacing NH4CLO4 with LiCLO4. perhaps, you will increase little the specific impulse relative to the ammonium perchlorate. Although, higher specific impulse are associated with high temperature, the latter is not desirable in rocketry. High temperature combustion may pose significant problem to rocket structure. high temperatures tend to weaken the rocket body during the active phase leading to structural failure. Two factors wich lead to increasing Isp is high combustion temperature and/or propellant generating low molecular mass gas. of course the latter is preferable than the former. Ejecting atomic hydrogen from nozzle will be optimal for achieving high Isp values. also, LiClO4 is more expensive than NH4ClO4. I don't know what is your prepolymer, but a energetic prepolymer will be desirable over traditional prepolymer for increasing Isp. In the video we see that combustion is not uniforme. At 0:07 second the combustion stops and the reestablished suggseting a bad mixing of polymer with oxidizer or not an optimal ratio of both oxidizer and you prepolymer. Dany. The reestablish of the combustion was from the boiling epoxy lining on the nozzle and PVC for cooling. We do not replace ammonium perchlorate fully with Lithium perchlorate. In this, we replaced around 15% for a better fluidity during casting of the propellant. A 15% can increase the performance significantly. According to my calculation, NASA's APCP ratio produce 5% unburned carbon, this produce none unburned carbon. This also burns hotter, the polymer and the oxidziers alone can combust at around 2500 + degree celsius, almost at the boiling point of aluminum, allowing the aluminum to burn better with water during combustion. [Edited on 8-8-2013 by DubaiAmateurRocketry] You say increase the Isp significantly. How much is this ''Significantly'' ? if you can post the method used for calculation of Isp, and comparison of Isp (in seconds) of you propellant with other solid propellant. When you say that your calculation proove that NASA APCP produce 5% unburnt Carbon you should provide references to experimental work, because the method of calculation need to be validated with experimental findings. Other than that, the method used may yield very approximate results and is only informative. I believe, that better solid propellant formulation should begin with a replacement of perchlorate salts due to their toxicity and generation of corrosive HCl. Organic C-H-N-O oxidizer with better oxygen balance than perchlorate salts are potential candidate for future propellant systems. Dany.

Quote: Originally posted by DubaiAmateurRocketry

Quote: Originally posted by Dany   Quote: Originally posted by DubaiAmateurRocketry   Quote: Originally posted by Dany   Hello DubaiAmateurRocketry, Actually, i don't see many advantages (if any) from replacing NH4CLO4 with LiCLO4. perhaps, you will increase little the specific impulse relative to the ammonium perchlorate. Although, higher specific impulse are associated with high temperature, the latter is not desirable in rocketry. High temperature combustion may pose significant problem to rocket structure. high temperatures tend to weaken the rocket body during the active phase leading to structural failure. Two factors wich lead to increasing Isp is high combustion temperature and/or propellant generating low molecular mass gas. of course the latter is preferable than the former. Ejecting atomic hydrogen from nozzle will be optimal for achieving high Isp values. also, LiClO4 is more expensive than NH4ClO4. I don't know what is your prepolymer, but a energetic prepolymer will be desirable over traditional prepolymer for increasing Isp. In the video we see that combustion is not uniforme. At 0:07 second the combustion stops and the reestablished suggseting a bad mixing of polymer with oxidizer or not an optimal ratio of both oxidizer and you prepolymer. Dany. The reestablish of the combustion was from the boiling epoxy lining on the nozzle and PVC for cooling. We do not replace ammonium perchlorate fully with Lithium perchlorate. In this, we replaced around 15% for a better fluidity during casting of the propellant. A 15% can increase the performance significantly. According to my calculation, NASA's APCP ratio produce 5% unburned carbon, this produce none unburned carbon. This also burns hotter, the polymer and the oxidziers alone can combust at around 2500 + degree celsius, almost at the boiling point of aluminum, allowing the aluminum to burn better with water during combustion. [Edited on 8-8-2013 by DubaiAmateurRocketry] You say increase the Isp significantly. How much is this ''Significantly'' ? if you can post the method used for calculation of Isp, and comparison of Isp (in seconds) of you propellant with other solid propellant. When you say that your calculation proove that NASA APCP produce 5% unburnt Carbon you should provide references to experimental work, because the method of calculation need to be validated with experimental findings. Other than that, the method used may yield very approximate results and is only informative. I believe, that better solid propellant formulation should begin with a replacement of perchlorate salts due to their toxicity and generation of corrosive HCl. Organic C-H-N-O oxidizer with better oxygen balance than perchlorate salts are potential candidate for future propellant systems. Dany. You can try calculating it your self. Taking the traditional 70% AP 14% HTPB 16% Aluminum HTPB is approximate (C4H6)10-35(OH)2 AP gives half of the oxygen it has, you can search for decomposition of AP on internet. and with that try balancing the formula, even if all Carbon become carbon monoxide, 5% carbon still wont get any oxygen. We will publish our calculations later.

Quote: Originally posted by Dany

Quote: Originally posted by DubaiAmateurRocketry   Quote: Originally posted by Dany   Quote: Originally posted by DubaiAmateurRocketry   Quote: Originally posted by Dany   Hello DubaiAmateurRocketry, Actually, i don't see many advantages (if any) from replacing NH4CLO4 with LiCLO4. perhaps, you will increase little the specific impulse relative to the ammonium perchlorate. Although, higher specific impulse are associated with high temperature, the latter is not desirable in rocketry. High temperature combustion may pose significant problem to rocket structure. high temperatures tend to weaken the rocket body during the active phase leading to structural failure. Two factors wich lead to increasing Isp is high combustion temperature and/or propellant generating low molecular mass gas. of course the latter is preferable than the former. Ejecting atomic hydrogen from nozzle will be optimal for achieving high Isp values. also, LiClO4 is more expensive than NH4ClO4. I don't know what is your prepolymer, but a energetic prepolymer will be desirable over traditional prepolymer for increasing Isp. In the video we see that combustion is not uniforme. At 0:07 second the combustion stops and the reestablished suggseting a bad mixing of polymer with oxidizer or not an optimal ratio of both oxidizer and you prepolymer. Dany. The reestablish of the combustion was from the boiling epoxy lining on the nozzle and PVC for cooling. We do not replace ammonium perchlorate fully with Lithium perchlorate. In this, we replaced around 15% for a better fluidity during casting of the propellant. A 15% can increase the performance significantly. According to my calculation, NASA's APCP ratio produce 5% unburned carbon, this produce none unburned carbon. This also burns hotter, the polymer and the oxidziers alone can combust at around 2500 + degree celsius, almost at the boiling point of aluminum, allowing the aluminum to burn better with water during combustion. [Edited on 8-8-2013 by DubaiAmateurRocketry] You say increase the Isp significantly. How much is this ''Significantly'' ? if you can post the method used for calculation of Isp, and comparison of Isp (in seconds) of you propellant with other solid propellant. When you say that your calculation proove that NASA APCP produce 5% unburnt Carbon you should provide references to experimental work, because the method of calculation need to be validated with experimental findings. Other than that, the method used may yield very approximate results and is only informative. I believe, that better solid propellant formulation should begin with a replacement of perchlorate salts due to their toxicity and generation of corrosive HCl. Organic C-H-N-O oxidizer with better oxygen balance than perchlorate salts are potential candidate for future propellant systems. Dany. You can try calculating it your self. Taking the traditional 70% AP 14% HTPB 16% Aluminum HTPB is approximate (C4H6)10-35(OH)2 AP gives half of the oxygen it has, you can search for decomposition of AP on internet. and with that try balancing the formula, even if all Carbon become carbon monoxide, 5% carbon still wont get any oxygen. We will publish our calculations later. Your are telling me to calculate the Isp of composite solid propellant by simply balancing the chemical equation (and with an approximate value of the HTPB)!!!??? In fact, burning a solid rocket propellant is very complicated by the pressure and high temperature encountered in missile combustion chambers. It is false to estimate the combustion products of SRM combustion (like balancing the equation of charcoal burning!). Complexe thermochemical code are needed to estimate: 1-the combustion products present and 2-their quantities (which is not simple to obtain). the true compostion of the combustion products is highly sensitive on both pressure and temperature in the combustion process. You may added another factor that complicate the estimation of the true Isp that is the ejection of solid Lithium oxide (or any of its derivatives) from rocket nozzle (2 dimensional flow). Dany.