DubaiAmateurRocketry
National Hazard
Posts: 841
Registered: 10-5-2013
Location: LA, CA, USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: In research
|
|
misuse of OB% in some cases?
OB indicate how much oxygen can the compound release, or need extra to burn the whole compound. OB is calculated by amount of oxygen that the compound
need/release divided by the molecular weight of the compound.
It sounds efficient, but for organic compounds, its often misleading. Spme good example of my point(the purpose of the topic) is when you try to
compare compounds like these.......
Nitroglycerin (NG) VS Ammonium Nitrate (AN) .
Nitroglycerin have OB = +3.5%
Ammonium nitrate OB = +20.0%
Wow, so AN can provide more oxygen to burn other fuels than NG ? The answer is no, NG can burn more other fuel than AN. NG can release oxygen
with OB +24.7% if the carbon were turned into CO. however AN still release only +20% for minimum use of oxygen. Therefore, NG can burn more
fuel than AN do!
Another example is comparing Tetrazolium Nitrate (5ATZN) and 1,3,5-Trinitroperhydro-1,3,5-triazine (RDX)
Tetrazolium Nitrate (5ATZN) VS RDX
[CN4H4]+ [NO3]- and C3H6N6O6
OB: -11.9 and -21.6
Alright, then in a paper on 5ATZN, author says it is less oxygen negative than RDX. It is true to fully burn the compound, RDX need more oxygen,
however both compounds can not provide any extra oxygen. while 5ATZN have almost twice higher OB than RDX.
This problem is caused by the flexible use of oxygen by the carbon, so although organic compounds have a negative OB, sometimes it can provide more
oxygen for others than what the number shows ! Yes I know many have seen this problem and chemists made another symbol for 100% CO production OB,
however its much much less often used then the traditional calculation for OB
[Edited on 2-1-2014 by DubaiAmateurRocketry]
|
|
|
Praxichys
International Hazard
Posts: 1063
Registered: 31-7-2013
Location: Detroit, Michigan, USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Coprecipitated
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by DubaiAmateurRocketry  | Nitroglycerin have OB = +3.5%
Ammonium nitrate OB = +20%
Wow, so AN can provide more oxygen to burn other fuels than NG ? The answer is no, NG can burn more other fuel than AN. NG can
release oxygen with OB +24.7% if the carbon were turned into CO. however AN still release only +20% for minimum use of oxygen. Therefore, NG can burn
more fuel than AN do! |
But isn't the answer yes? Consider ANFO: By that logic, if AN is +20% but the carbon from the fuel oil goes to CO, then it is really +40%.
All you have done is calculated OB with respect to CO.
For CO, NG = 24.7%, AN = 40%
For CO2, NG = 3.5%, AN = 20%
|
|
|
DubaiAmateurRocketry
National Hazard
Posts: 841
Registered: 10-5-2013
Location: LA, CA, USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: In research
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Praxichys | | Quote: Originally posted by DubaiAmateurRocketry | Nitroglycerin have OB = +3.5%
Ammonium nitrate OB = +20%
Wow, so AN can provide more oxygen to burn other fuels than NG ? The answer is no, NG can burn more other fuel than AN. NG can
release oxygen with OB +24.7% if the carbon were turned into CO. however AN still release only +20% for minimum use of oxygen. Therefore, NG can burn
more fuel than AN do! |
But isn't the answer yes? Consider ANFO: By that logic, if AN is +20% but the carbon from the fuel oil goes to CO, then it is really +40%.
All you have done is calculated OB with respect to CO.
For CO, NG = 24.7%, AN = 40%
For CO2, NG = 3.5%, AN = 20% |
Umm you didnt understand my point.
Does ammonium nitrate contain carbon atoms ? No. Does NG ? Yes, so if all the carbon atoms in those compounds are only burned to CO, NG can release
more oxygen than ammonium nitrate. It does not depend on the fuel.
Lets do some stoichiometry
As I said, assume NG becomes totally CO. This will be the equation.
2 NG = C6H10N6O18 > 6CO + 5H2O + 3N2 + 7O(3.5O2)
AN = NH4 NO3 > N2 + 2H2O + O(0.5O2)
1AN have molecular weight of 80.04352
2NG have molecuar weight of 454.1742
Since so 2 NG compound can burn 7 atoms of carbon. 1 AN can burn 1 carbon. The mixture to burn all carbon to CO is...
Nitroglycerin = 100-[454.1742/(454.1742+84.07546)*100] = 15.62016% Fuel
Ammonium Nitrate = 100-80.04352/(80.04352+12.01078)*100] = 13.0474948 % Fuel.
So as you can see, NG can burn more fuel than AN.
[Edited on 2-1-2014 by DubaiAmateurRocketry]
|
|
|
Turner
Hazard to Others
Posts: 197
Registered: 2-12-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
CO2, H2O and N2 are considered ideal products of detonation. Would NG ever decompose to CO? Or even C for that matter in order to oxidize a metal like
aluminum?
|
|
|
DubaiAmateurRocketry
National Hazard
Posts: 841
Registered: 10-5-2013
Location: LA, CA, USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: In research
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Turner | | CO2, H2O and N2 are considered ideal products of detonation. Would NG ever decompose to CO? Or even C for that matter in order to oxidize a metal like
aluminum? |
CO is more ideal for detonation/propellant since it takes up much more volume than CO2. However for some explosives, CO2's heat can expand other gases
such as H2O, N2, then CO2 might be prefered if the total volume in the end is higher than the CO one.
Yes, if enough fuel, such as aluminum is added. The Aluminum will steel the oxygen from water, and the oxygenless water(hydrogen) will steel oxygen
from CO2, to form CO, and if enough is added, ultimately C is formed.
|
|
|
Zyklon-A
International Hazard
Posts: 1547
Registered: 26-11-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: Fluorine radical
|
|
Dang, that's an interesting series of reactions to happen in such a short amount of time.
|
|
|
Praxichys
International Hazard
Posts: 1063
Registered: 31-7-2013
Location: Detroit, Michigan, USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Coprecipitated
|
|
Ahh, I was flawed in my calculations having assumed 20% OB for AN was + O2 and not O.
|
|
|
Ral123
National Hazard
Posts: 735
Registered: 31-12-2011
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I believe the real issue would be the energy density(and gases generated) of the final composition we chose. A significant problem I suspect is when
the OB is negative, different products form at different pressures. My TNP tests gave black smoke, even trough TNP contains enough oxygen to fully
oxidize all of the carbon to CO. My Tetryl gives black smoke when burned in CO2 and white smoke when it detonates:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNamPNunsc0
|
|
|
Dornier 335A
Hazard to Others
Posts: 231
Registered: 10-5-2013
Location: Northern Europe
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Ral123 | I believe the real issue would be the energy density(and gases generated) of the final composition we chose. A significant problem I suspect is when
the OB is negative, different products form at different pressures. My TNP tests gave black smoke, even trough TNP contains enough oxygen to fully
oxidize all of the carbon to CO. My Tetryl gives black smoke when burned in CO2 and white smoke when it detonates:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNamPNunsc0 |
That's correct. High pressures and low temperatures favour CO2 and carbon, while CO is formed at lower pressures and higher temperatures.
TNP doesn't have enough oxygen to oxidize all carbon to CO though. At least not if all hydrogen is oxidized to water first.
C6H3N3O7 → 1.5 H2O + 5.5 CO + 0.5 C + 1.5 N2
Carbon monoxide is not a better product than carbon dioxide. The production of CO2 will liberate much more energy than the production of
CO. And if no water is present, carbon will be an important product and lower the gas volume.
|
|
|
Ral123
National Hazard
Posts: 735
Registered: 31-12-2011
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I suspected the loading density would have an effect on the output equilibrium and energy...
So in optimum conditions, one can expect similar energy gram per gram from RDX and CL-20.
Were you the one who said that in the high temperatures and low pressures of a rocket engine CO2 can't form and they are balance for CO?(Witch still
seems somewhat strange)
|
|
|
DubaiAmateurRocketry
National Hazard
Posts: 841
Registered: 10-5-2013
Location: LA, CA, USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: In research
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Ral123 | I suspected the loading density would have an effect on the output equilibrium and energy...
So in optimum conditions, one can expect similar energy gram per gram from RDX and CL-20.
Were you the one who said that in the high temperatures and low pressures of a rocket engine CO2 can't form and they are balance for CO?(Witch still
seems somewhat strange) |
Propellants prefer CO much more than CO2. burning CO to CO2 will give little increase in performace but the temperature is too high for mechanical
challange of the nozzle. Adding a cooling system or changing to a new design Adds weight to the rocket. that if the extra weight of
nozzle counts in, the efficiency will become lower. Which is why most rocket engine have the large long flame behind the engine. CO burns outside the
engine with air 2CO + O2 = 2CO2
|
|
|
Dornier 335A
Hazard to Others
Posts: 231
Registered: 10-5-2013
Location: Northern Europe
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Ral123 | I suspected the loading density would have an effect on the output equilibrium and energy...
So in optimum conditions, one can expect similar energy gram per gram from RDX and CL-20.
Were you the one who said that in the high temperatures and low pressures of a rocket engine CO2 can't form and they are balance for CO?(Witch still
seems somewhat strange) |
No, CL-20 is close to oxygen balanced so it has almost the same energy output at all loading densities (about 6.05 MJ/kg). RDX reaches 5.8 MJ/kg at
maximum density.
I have never said that CO2 can't form in rocket engines. A quick calculation reveals that even in a detonation of gaseous ozone and
dicyanoacetylene, where the temperature reaches 4800 K and the pressure is only 30 bar (I just chose a typical gas detonation pressure), as much as 8%
of the carbon is oxidized to CO2.
|
|
|
Ral123
National Hazard
Posts: 735
Registered: 31-12-2011
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
That CO balancing kinda explains why hydrazine is such a good fuel. Higher energy then CO balanced organic, output is nice small molecules and a
reasonable temperature. If I'm not mistaking, Russia has used LOX/N2H4 for some rockets. Guess it's too toxic for the west and they use RP1.
|
|
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
