| |
G0TEZ > CARS 06.07.08 19:05l 42 Lines 1689 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : F90014G0TEZ
Read: GUEST
Subj: Re: KB2VXA> Thermal expansion
Path: DB0FHN<DB0FOR<DB0SIF<DB0GV<DB0LJ<DB0RES<DK0WUE<GB7FCR
Sent: 080706/1132Z @:GB7FCR.#16.GBR.EU #:8892 [Blackpool] FBB-7.03a $:F90014G0T
From: G0TEZ@GB7FCR.#16.GBR.EU
To : CARS@WW
Huh?
I can see this going into thermodynamics in general. My personal guess re:
using a fine mist injected directly into a piston engine is that the mist
> steam at high pressure, giving a bigger bang.
As for liquid fuelled rockets, I think that the only reason the lox and
hydrogen are carried as liquids is that it is the best way to carry them.
Compressing them would be a problem if only for the sheer weight of the
container but you must also consider self ignition (Boyle's law).
As for specific impulse, lox and H2 probably have the highest, though the
Germans used LOX and kerosene. The British spece programme did too, though
they concentrated on High Test Peroxide (HTP) H2O2 which we sometimes just
catalysed, other times we added to kerosene. Not being a compressed gas,
HTP could be stored in a much lighter, thinner rocket than the US and USSR
vehicles. We were a poor country so we had to make do with the simplest,
cheapest options, probably because we were still paying the Yanks for
'helping' us win WWII, $6.8Bn takes a long time to pay off, 'til 2006 to
be precise.
To bwe fair, we did take our space technology from the Germans. like the
Russians and the Yanks did.
It is nice to see discussion on a topic which has interested me for so
long. Apart from my experiment with the NSU Quickly, I have never played
around since. I certainly didn't know about the use of a watermist in jet
engines but it makes sense, or the Spitfire either, come to that.
I wonder why it never came into use ? It certainly worked.
73 - Ian, G0TEZ @ GB7FCR
Message timed: 12:19 on 2008-Jul-06
Message sent using WinPack-Telnet V6.80
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
