Re: peroxide compatibility question

[email protected]
Newsgroups gmane.technology.erps
Message-ID <[email protected]>
We have discussed similar approaches for a biprop engine.   A copper inner
liner should be fine, assuming it's coated with a very adherent coating 
within
the cooling passages, such as Nickel.   Nickel *should* be nonreactive enough
to work at moderate temperatures, but we haven't tried this yet.   I don't 
know
if Tin would be adherent enough for this purpose.

Dan

In a message dated 3/28/04 1:35:23 PM, [email protected] writes:


> 
> Hi,
> 
> I wonder why the Black Knight creators used steel for
> the tubes, which made the chamber wall of their
> engines. The steel is certainly more sturdy, than
> copper, however, the copper is considered the material
> of choice for the chamber wall because
> thermoconductivity benefits outweight the disadvantage
> in construction strength. However, in this particular
> case - peroxide engines - there is an additional
> problem of compatibility. OTOH, the (in)compatibility
> problem can be handled with inner coating - not too
> thick, to maintain a good thermoconductance, and not
> too thin, to shield the peroxide from the copper
> walls. Have anybody pursued such a path?
> 
> Alex
>
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.