Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
The word "How?" springs to mind at this point.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                                                                             

Green rocket flue.

No not fuel for green painted rockets.
  (+1)
(+1)
  [vote for,
against]

What I am suggesting is a rocket fuel with a very low carbon foot print.

The oxidizer to go with this fuel will be hydrogen peroxide. and the fuel would be, centrifuged, used cooking oil.

I assume that we have all seen the fire safety video warning against poring water onto a chip pan fire, or something similar. water thrown into a container of burning cooking oil. Now imagine it with hydrogen peroxide instead.

Before launch all of the fuel in the fuel tank is heated to about its spontaneous ignition temperature. The energy used to heat that cooking oil as no weight but will be released as thrust, when the fuel is burned in a rocket motor.

A Kg of very hot oil as a lot more energy to release then the same oil would when it is cold.

j paul, Feb 12 2014

Black Arrow http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Arrow
...the United Kingdom is the only country to have successfully developed and then abandoned a satellite launch capability. [Loris, Feb 12 2014]

Ignition! - book review http://www.fourmila...dices/book_852.html
Chlorine trifluoride...also hypergolic with such things as cloth, wood, and test engineers, not to mention asbestos, sand, and water—with which it reacts explosively. ... [Loris, Feb 12 2014]

A biofuel-powered rocket http://www.flometri...iofuel-rocket.shtml
It is what it says on the tin. [Alterother, Feb 12 2014]

[link]






       // rocket fuel with a very low carbon foot print.//   

       How about hydrogen? Zero carbon, unless you include the energy used to produce it, but that can be hydroelectric.   

       //A Kg of very hot oil as a lot more energy to release then the same oil would when it is cold.//   

       Nope. A Kg of hot oil has very, very slightly more energy to release than the same oil would when it is cold. Go check the numbers.
MaxwellBuchanan, Feb 12 2014
  

       Too slow. I did the numbers:   

       Specific heat capacity of vegetable oil: ~2kJ/kg/K   

       Therefore, additional energy per kg of hot (300°C) oil, compared to ambient ~500kJ/kg.   

       Energy of combustion of vegetable oil: ~40MJ/kg.   

       Therefore, additional energy available from hot oil as opposed to cold = 0.5/40, or about 1.2%.
MaxwellBuchanan, Feb 12 2014
  

       Very Baked. Hydrogen peroxide and hydrogen; H2/LOX; UDMH/nitrogen tetroxide. Various solid state pyrotechnic propellants.   

       [Suggested-for-deletion], Baked and Widely Known To Exist.
8th of 7, Feb 12 2014
  

       Even smokeless powder reverts to a handful of harmless elements and simple compounds when burned. It's mostly carbon to begin with.
Alterother, Feb 12 2014
  

       ... apart, that is, from the supersonic metallic projectile(s), MUHWHAHAHAHA !!!!   

       Ahem.
8th of 7, Feb 12 2014
  

       specific heat capacity vegetable oil 1.67 J g.-1. K.-1.
specific heat combustion animal/vegetable fat 37 MJ Kg-1.
smoke point vegetable oil (sunflower), semi-refined: 232°C
  

       Let us assume an increase in temperature of 200°C.   

       so let's see... 1.67 * 1000grams * 200degrees=334000 J = 0.334 MJ.
fraction=0.334/37=0.0098 ~=0.01. Or about 1%
  

       ...oh, max did it already. Different ball-park numbers, similar result.   

       1% is actually not bad as a marginal gain.
I'm reminded of Black Arrow, which used kerosene/HT peroxide and was awesome.
Loris, Feb 12 2014
  

       Horrible carnage and destruction, yes. Long-lasting harm to the environment (from rockets and bombs), no.   

       Environmental impact reports on the space shuttle flights are publicly available. Mostly they produced water vapor and a little free carbon. Gasoline, on the other hand, produces water vapor and the far more deadly CO, plus traces of sulfur di-something-ide and really-nasty-shit-ium. Somebody who enjoys math can do the figures for me, but burning one ounce of gasoline is far more toxic than burning one ounce of rocket fuel (any type currently in use), and the ratio of gasoline to rocket fuel used every day is ridiculously lopsided.
Alterother, Feb 12 2014
  

       Are you kidding? Many rocket fuels are just hilariously dangerous.
Loris, Feb 12 2014
  

       Quite dangerous in their unused state. There's a reason why old ICBMs are disposed of by strapping them down in a three-walled bunker and touching them off, and it's not because it's easy or safe. It's because the cleanest and most complete way to get rid of rocket fuel is burning it. Otherwise the rocket must be carefully dismantled and the fuel broken down into its crude components, which is dangerous, messy, sometimes impossible, and requires substantial infrastructure.   

       The one thing go-greeners always seem to disregard is the carbon footprint of the establishment and operation of the infrastructure that supports most green tech.
Alterother, Feb 12 2014
  

       Oh, and another thing: the reason oil is heated for fuel purposes (like in big ship engines) is not to release more energy but to change its liquid properties and ensure a more complete burn. You may be confusing increased power with increased efficiency.   

       I have an aftermarket device that heats the deisel in my M35 to 85-95 degrees F, and the roar produced as the engine fires on hot fuel definitely gives the impression of more power. Along with a bucket warmer wrapped around the oil pan and an electric blanket over the header, it comes in handy for waking the beast on a cold Winter's morn, but it doesn't noticably increase performance. I'm not too proud to admit that I got the idea from watching Ice Road Truckers.
Alterother, Feb 12 2014
  

       This is a good'ish idea in general: heating up fuel decreases the amount of energy required to break apart the molecules. But why stop at "boiling" ? heat that sucker up to supercritical; as much energy as the containing apparatus can stand. It's only a few percent (I imagine), but with rockets these things tend to snowball, more potent fuel = less fuel needed = less weight = less fuel needed. The extra pressure also means less work for the turbopumps to do.
FlyingToaster, Feb 12 2014
  

       Many of your species' primitive reaction engines use fuel pumped round the combustion chamber and venturi nozzles to both cool the structure and heat the fuel, so that also is Baked (or rather, boiled ...)
8th of 7, Feb 12 2014
  

       Don't worry 8/7, we'll still have the liquid oxygen to cool the engine.
Loris, Feb 12 2014
  

       I had not realized that the numbers would be so bad. But still a bio-fueled rocket
j paul, Feb 12 2014
  

       //I had not realized that the numbers would be so bad. //   

       [marked-for-tagline]
8th of 7, Feb 12 2014
  

       // But still a bio-fueled rocket //   

       ...is WKTE. See <link>.
Alterother, Feb 12 2014
  

       //I had not realized that the numbers would be so bad. //   

       If you don't have the relevant intuition, it's at least advisable to do some elementary maths.
MaxwellBuchanan, Feb 12 2014
  

       Has this ever been mentioned to the Federal Reserve ?   

       <aside>   

       Is it time to point out the glaring spelling mistake in the title yet, or is his humiliation to go on a while longer ?   

       </aside>
8th of 7, Feb 12 2014
  

       No, let it be. I presume he meant some sort of chimney to carry the smoke away.
MaxwellBuchanan, Feb 12 2014
  

       Fine, fine. The tar is hot, and we have two large sacks of feathers to hand. Just off now to oil the hinges on the ducking stool and re- varnish the pillory.
8th of 7, Feb 12 2014
  

       Well that titled kept intriguing me, but I just couldn't fit a rocket in my chimney.
xandram, Feb 12 2014
  

       That's because you're just not trying hard enough.   

       Put the biggest rocket that will just fit into the fireplace, then pile up sandbags. Light the fuse, et viola ! The chimney will be more than big enough for any projectile you care to launch.
8th of 7, Feb 12 2014
  

       There is some Bad Science in the main text. A "carbon footprint" is associated with the amount of carbon in a fuel, that eventually becomes carbon dioxide. The Saturn V rocket used kerosene as the fuel in its first-stage booster (and liquid hydrogen in the upper stages).   

       There is a basic sequence of hydrocarbon compounds called the "alkane series". The first members of the series, in order, are methane, ethane, propane, butane, pentane, hexane, heptane, and octane. One molecule of each contains, respectively, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 carbon atoms. They also contain, respectively, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, and 18 hydrogen atoms. There is a simple formula: H = (Cx2) + 2, that relates the number of hydrogen to carbon atoms, in the alkane series.   

       Now, the "greener" the fuel, the more hydrogen it must contain, RELATIVE to the amount of carbon it contains. Obviously methane is the "greenest", since hydrogens outnumber carbons 4-to-1 in that substance. The higher-number alkanes merely have just a bit more than twice as many hydrogens than carbons.   

       So, what about kerosene? Kerosene contains a mixture of Hydrocarbon liquids ranging from C12H26 to C15H32 --these are members of the alkane series, from 12 to 15 carbon atoms. Not very "green", compared to octane/gasoline!   

       Now, what about cooking oil? The molecules are generally not members of the alkane series, although many have a "backbone" structure that is basically an alkane. It is not unusual for that backbone to have 16 carbons in it --which means that cooking oils are generally not as "green" even as kerosene.
Vernon, Feb 12 2014
  

       //with a very low carbon foot print.   

       Simply align all the carbon atoms vertically and the footprint area will be tiny   

       If it was switched to lard, then I'd bun..then next time Sandra Bullock is stuck out there she can have a decent fry-up.
not_morrison_rm, Feb 12 2014
  

       There are far worse things than carbon dioxide to put into the atmosphere. Many exotic rocket fuel combinations, especially the hypogolic ones, end up producing such things as HCl (which soon ends up as hydrochloric acid), toxic and/or corrosive oxides of nitrogen, exotic metal oxides (mostly catalysts and catalyst biproducts), and halogen compounds. That said, the most ideal reaction gas is hydrogen, and so a lot of rocket fuels are designed to produce as much H2 in the exhaust stream as possible, sometimes just by being far too "rich".   

       There are some interesting alternatives. One of the ones being trialled right now is the reaction of Aluminium and water (or in this case, ice). This produces Aluminium oxide and hydroxides (which rapidly settle out of the exhaust stream) and hydrogen gas. It's really quite neat, although not really as storable as other solid fuels. Still it's easier than having a gigantic dewar vessel as your fuel tank.   

       I see [Loris] has recommended the book "Ignition" - I would heartily second that, if you can get a copy (it's out of print).
Custardguts, Feb 18 2014
  

       //hypogolic// - I don't think that's the word you meant, although I'm tempted to apply it to a potassium permanganate / glycerine mixture...   

       This whole discussion just led me to discover "triethylborane"; that's enough to send me to bed happy.
lurch, Feb 19 2014
  

       Goddamned prefixes. Yes, HypERgolic. I stand corrected.
Custardguts, Feb 19 2014
  

       //"triethylborane" //   

       <maniacal cackling>
8th of 7, Feb 19 2014
  

       But it was used to restart SR-71 engines, it must be safe....
Custardguts, Feb 20 2014
  

       If you like Triethylborane, you'll love ClF3 or FOOF.   

       From the wonderful book "Ignition!" I refer you to the authors comments re: Chlorine Trifluoride.   

       "It is, of course, extremely toxic, but that's the least of the problem. It is hypergolic with every known fuel, and so rapidly hypergolic that no ignition delay has ever been measured. It is also hypergolic with such things as cloth, wood, and test engineers, not to mention asbestos, sand, and water — with which it reacts explosively. It can be kept in some of the ordinary structural metals — steel, copper, aluminum, etc. — because of the formation of a thin film of insoluble metal fluoride which protects the bulk of the metal, just as the invisible coat of oxide on aluminum keeps it from burning up in the atmosphere. If, however, this coat is melted or scrubbed off, and has no chance to reform, the operator is confronted with the problem of coping with a metal-fluorine fire. For dealing with this situation, I have always recommended a good pair of running shoes."
Custardguts, Oct 26 2016
  

       Actually, looking back at the numbers that [MaxwellBuchanan] ran... it looks like he did the right math on the wrong numbers. Although the total heat capacity does rise slightly, the effect is overwhelmed by the fact that the density of hot oil will drop by more than 10%. (That is, the fuel tank that would hold X kg of oil at ambient temperature will hold less than .9X kg of hot oil.) Hard numbers seem difficult to come by - oddly enough, I have only been able to find tables up to 110°C, which would be quite inadequate for cooking a doughnut; and cooking a doughnut would seem a fairly agreeable excuse for collecting a little lab data.   

       Anyway, the tank expansion will offset that somewhat, but 10% volumetric thermal expansion is not commensurate with a structurally un-oopsified rocket.   

       (One may note that Mr. Musk's Magnificent Rocket Rodeo & Renovation Squad chills their hydrocarbons & oxidizers so they can squeeze more into the tube. So, no, I di'i'nt thunk it up first)
lurch, Oct 26 2016
  

       From the title, I assumed this was some kind of vast chimney to assist rocket launches.
MaxwellBuchanan, Oct 27 2016
  

       Fry me to the moon ...
spidermother, Feb 10 2017
  

       Thankfully, Team Duck includes both genders, so not only are there still ducks a-plenty, but there have been numerous tasty roast dinners in the interim.
8th of 7, Feb 10 2017
  

       [Ducks]
spidermother, Feb 12 2017
  
      
[annotate]
  


 

back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle