As you know, solid rocket fuel is difficult to control...you light it and it burns till gone. Carrying Hydrogen and Oxygen is bulky and cumbersome. Is there a fuel that can be made cheaply that doubles the energy density of say Diesel but safe to operate? Just short of Nitroglycerin...
I'm 100% sure there is. Diesel is made in a refinery, which produces several different hydrocarbon fuel by separating the refined crude oil by density or boiling point (not sure), but I would think boiling point is also involved since the separation technique is usualy distillation. The point is you get several types of fuel with several different densities, Kerosene is one of the least dense, I'm not sure but I think there are others above Diesel.
Maybe the answer is some kind of fuel oil? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_refinery http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fuels
Something like 2,5-dimethylfuran, or DMF from sugar. But what I am looking for is atleast double the energy density of Diesel but stable. Chemicals like HMX (cyclotetramethylene-tetranitramine) would not work as it is more of an explosive, but may be can be mixed in a slurry to give energy. You may add some Oxidizer (like Ammonium Perchlorate?) to provide the oomph. Application: Use in rotary engines (Wankel?) or sometype of combustion engines for cars and trucks that is a substitute for Gas or Diesel and can be made from other minerals. If you have twice the energy density, you may need half the amount for a given Horsepower - provided ofcourse it's cost is comparable to Gas or Diesel.
Now THAT woul be just lovely in an IC engine! You'd get a few turn of the crankshaft before the whole thing welded it's self together.
Powdered Aluminum is used in solid rocket fuel. They use two different sizes (Sorry - can not tell you the size) plus Ammonium Perchlorate and 5 other ingredients. The problem with any solid fuel is when you light a match, it will burn till all is gone. But you can have hell of a thrust - if you are planning to go to moon not New York. Even a metal slurry is not a good idea...due to forming a solid block of metal of your engine. One could have a pellet based design whose exhaust could drive a turbine, but that is for stationary prime movers and difficult to control. Still can not use metal. Aluminum Oxide is abrasive like diamond that will eat up whatever is behind.
Yes, the major problem is wear, since aluminum oxide is very hard. http://www.mng.org.uk/gh/renewable_energy/metal_NS_article.htm
That's not all - it would cost more to use aluminum for propulsion because it's production requires a HUGE amount of energy. So going that route would result in a negative energy gain besides the other problems already mentioned. (And besides, how could you possibly lubricate a beast that burned that stuff?)
No, it's not a good idea. There are MUCH better uses for that scrap. Not nearly the same, of course, but that's sort of like burning silver for fuel. Amuninum is VERY energy intensive to produce and just burning it is a tremendous waste!
That is true, i.e. Aluminum, Titanium and Magnesium is very energy intensive to make. It is a waste to burn it - So is drinking soda! What a waste...Also, I think, the Phosphoric acid in soda leaches calcium out of the body... We do burn AL in rockets though...
That's correct - and for the same reasons we use LH and LOX: energy density. As to the phosphoric acid leaching calcium, I've never seen any thoughts/indications regarding that. Have you?
That's not the same thing you mentioned before. That's a result of bacteria on the teeth feeding on the sugar content of the drink. I've got a dentist friend and he sees tons of that in older teens (18-19 year-olds). Gingivitis, receding gums, enamel loss, cavities, etc.
Sugar vs. Acid The carbonic or phosphoric acid dissolves the calcium out of the enamel leaving a softened matrix for bacteria to enter the teeth and cause wholesale carious destruction. So drinking sugar free sodas is not the answer. The individuals we see range from a mild decalcification of teeth where there are white bands of softened enamel circling the teeth at the gum line to cases where numerous teeth are totally destroyed from decay. Many of these individuals are students who would study and continuously sip soda creating an acid bath for their teeth. Now let's not forget the fact that sugar itself is converted to acid by the bacteria on the teeth for an additional insult. If you couple all this with poor oral hygiene, you have an oral disaster in the making.
Phosphoric acid is found in phosphorus and carbonated beverages. It is thought that phosphoric acid causes calcium to be replaced in the bone by the phosphoric acid. Although there is still research needed on this topic, milk is usually recommended over carbonated drinks to help maintain healthy bones. (spine-health.com) According to a report published in the March / April edition of General Dentistry, phosphoric acid in soda causes tooth enamel erosion, even with minimal exposure. While some consumers may believe that sugar is the only culprit of soda's adverse effects on dental health, enamel erosion occurs whether the soda is sweetened with sugar or artificial sweeteners. (newstarget.com) The active ingredient is phosphoric acid. It's PH is 2.8. It will dissolve a nail in about 4 days. Phosphoric acid also leaches calcium from bones and is a major contributor to the rising increase in osteoporosis. http://www.healthydude.com/nastycolafacts.html Phosphoric acid, used in many soft drinks (primarily cola), has been linked to lower bone density in epidemiological studies. For example, a study[2] using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry rather than a questionnaire about breakage, provides reasonable evidence to support the theory that drinking cola results in lower bone density. This study was published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. A total of 1672 women and 1148 men were studied between 1996 and 2001. Dietary information was collected using a food frequency questionnaire that had specific questions about the number of servings of cola and other carbonated beverages and that also made a differentiation between regular, caffeine-free, and diet drinks. The paper cites significant statistical evidence to show that women who consume cola daily have lower bone density. Total phosphorus intake was not significantly higher in daily cola consumers than in nonconsumers; however, the calcium-to-phosphorus ratios were lower. The study also suggests that further research is needed to confirm the findings. (Wikipedia) Of course the national softdrinkers association did their own study and denied everything.
