|
|
Post by breesfan on Feb 21, 2016 18:31:49 GMT
Gummy bears work sorta and poop worked too.
Thought this episode was a bit slow going and got bored at times. It's cool to watch the rockets take off.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 22, 2016 1:01:02 GMT
I loved the close up of the alternative fuel rocket engines firing.
the exhaust plumes were also cool in a sick and twisted way. and I also see the poo rocket being potential game changer.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Feb 22, 2016 18:02:27 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 23, 2016 1:11:57 GMT
well, dang... and hynemite would have been such a good name for it. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Feb 23, 2016 9:52:06 GMT
"Your research is a pile of poo".....
Well, I never thought I would get to say that and it not be considered insulting?....
|
|
|
|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Feb 23, 2016 14:32:50 GMT
"Your research is a pile of poo"..... Well, I never thought I would get to say that and it not be considered insulting?.... Your rocket engine is a piece of dung... |
|
|
|
Post by WhutScreenName on Feb 23, 2016 15:29:51 GMT
In regards to the solid rocket fuel, I would have liked to have seen a base line test of just the "binder and oxidizer" with no carbohydrate to see if/how much lift that produced. While it was interesting to see the poo launch the rocket, I wondered how much, if any, of that burned off, or was it all the 'other' materials that held it together?
|
|
|
|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Feb 23, 2016 15:41:08 GMT
In regards to the solid rocket fuel, I would have liked to have seen a base line test of just the "binder and oxidizer" with no carbohydrate to see if/how much lift that produced. While it was interesting to see the poo launch the rocket, I wondered how much, if any, of that burned off, or was it all the 'other' materials that held it together? What would have happened with straight sugar instead of the gummy bear powder (which contains a plethora of chemicals)? Or, powdered unflavored gelatin? |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 23, 2016 16:23:45 GMT
In regards to the solid rocket fuel, I would have liked to have seen a base line test of just the "binder and oxidizer" with no carbohydrate to see if/how much lift that produced. While it was interesting to see the poo launch the rocket, I wondered how much, if any, of that burned off, or was it all the 'other' materials that held it together? What would have happened with straight sugar instead of the gummy bear powder (which contains a plethora of chemicals)? Or, powdered unflavored gelatin? we could test various compounds all day, i'm sure. you have to draw the line somewhere. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Feb 24, 2016 5:58:57 GMT
Yeah, and just where?...
I have a small suggestion, Creamer.
We saw what happens when you aerosol powdered creamer....
Would there be a way to control that for use as a propellant?...
And I suggest that this is the one that has gone to far in the discussion of what else they could have tried?...
|
|
|
|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Feb 24, 2016 13:40:35 GMT
Yeah, and just where?... I have a small suggestion, Creamer. We saw what happens when you aerosol powdered creamer.... Would there be a way to control that for use as a propellant?... And I suggest that this is the one that has gone to far in the discussion of what else they could have tried?... I suspect that, while the creamer did provide a very impressive fireball, I don't think it would be energetic enough to provide propulsion. You get that initial reaction, but it dissipates very quickly. Still, it would be worth testing. But, I could be wrong. Kitchen propulsion: 1) Sugar 2) Unflavored gelatin 3) Powdered creamer 4) I'm sure there are a lot more... |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 24, 2016 15:09:14 GMT
Yeah, and just where?... I have a small suggestion, Creamer. We saw what happens when you aerosol powdered creamer.... Would there be a way to control that for use as a propellant?... And I suggest that this is the one that has gone to far in the discussion of what else they could have tried?... I think people would lose interest in a "will it rocket" show after a season or two... |
|
|
|
Post by WhutScreenName on Feb 24, 2016 15:22:02 GMT
I don't think it would even take a full season for folks to get tired of that... Unless there were regular, catastrophic failures, I think it'd get boring after only a few episodes.
The whole point I was making though, wasn't "Can it rocket" but rather, what/if anything did the poo contribute to the launch of the rocket.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 24, 2016 15:31:32 GMT
I don't think it would even take a full season for folks to get tired of that... Unless there were regular, catastrophic failures, I think it'd get boring after only a few episodes. The whole point I was making though, wasn't "Can it rocket" but rather, what/if anything did the poo contribute to the launch of the rocket. yes. it would definitely be a niche show. but yes, it would be a data point to know if the binder contributes to the lift. |
|
|
|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Feb 24, 2016 15:38:43 GMT
I don't think it would even take a full season for folks to get tired of that... Unless there were regular, catastrophic failures, I think it'd get boring after only a few episodes. The whole point I was making though, wasn't "Can it rocket" but rather, what/if anything did the poo contribute to the launch of the rocket. yes. it would definitely be a niche show. but yes, it would be a data point to know if the binder contributes to the lift. Technically, shouldn't the binder be an inert chemical, which neither helps nor hinders the reaction of the propellant & catalyst? |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 24, 2016 15:41:19 GMT
yes. it would definitely be a niche show. but yes, it would be a data point to know if the binder contributes to the lift. Technically, shouldn't the binder be an inert chemical, which neither helps nor hinders the reaction of the propellant & catalyst? that would be my expectation. |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Feb 26, 2016 19:04:03 GMT
Powdered creamer is out right off the bat. The energetic fireball you see when people blow that stuff into the air and ignite it is not because the material itself is particularly flammable on its own. If you just pour a pile of it onto the ground and try to set it on fire, you'll find that it actually doesn't burn all that well. That's because - just like with wood - the outer layers have to burn away first to get oxygen to the next layer so it can burn and so on and so forth. In the case of this creamer, the outer layer sort of caramelizes and creates a hard shell, preventing oxygen from reaching the rest of the pile and the fire dies out quickly. Spray it into the air, however and you maximize the surface area of each particle for oxidation, meaning that each particle will burn more rapidly. It's what's known as a dust explosion and you can more or less achieve that with any fine powder. All you need is the right particle-to-oxidizer ratio and an ignition source that burns hot enough to ignite your chosen material. Get that relationship right and you can even do the same thing with fine metal shavings. As a rocket fuel, the creamer would be packed in tightly, leaving almost no space between particles. Limited space means limited surface area, means low oxidation, means slow burn, means no (or at least a very unspectacular) launch. Yay fisiks  |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 27, 2016 1:39:10 GMT
Powdered creamer is out right off the bat. The energetic fireball you see when people blow that stuff into the air and ignite it is not because the material itself is particularly flammable on its own. If you just pour a pile of it onto the ground and try to set it on fire, you'll find that it actually doesn't burn all that well. That's because - just like with wood - the outer layers have to burn away first to get oxygen to the next layer so it can burn and so on and so forth. In the case of this creamer, the outer layer sort of caramelizes and creates a hard shell, preventing oxygen from reaching the rest of the pile and the fire dies out quickly. Spray it into the air, however and you maximize the surface area of each particle for oxidation, meaning that each particle will burn more rapidly. It's what's known as a dust explosion and you can more or less achieve that with any fine powder. All you need is the right particle-to-oxidizer ratio and an ignition source that burns hot enough to ignite your chosen material. Get that relationship right and you can even do the same thing with fine metal shavings. As a rocket fuel, the creamer would be packed in tightly, leaving almost no space between particles. Limited space means limited surface area, means low oxidation, means slow burn, means no (or at least a very unspectacular) launch. Yay fisiks however, part of the production of the rocket motor involves mixing the fuel in optimal proportions with the oxidizer. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Feb 27, 2016 8:08:27 GMT
Powdered creamer is out right off the bat. The energetic fireball you see when people blow that stuff into the air and ignite it is not because the material itself is particularly flammable on its own. If you just pour a pile of it onto the ground and try to set it on fire, you'll find that it actually doesn't burn all that well. That's because - just like with wood - the outer layers have to burn away first to get oxygen to the next layer so it can burn and so on and so forth. In the case of this creamer, the outer layer sort of caramelizes and creates a hard shell, preventing oxygen from reaching the rest of the pile and the fire dies out quickly. Spray it into the air, however and you maximize the surface area of each particle for oxidation, meaning that each particle will burn more rapidly. It's what's known as a dust explosion and you can more or less achieve that with any fine powder. All you need is the right particle-to-oxidizer ratio and an ignition source that burns hot enough to ignite your chosen material. Get that relationship right and you can even do the same thing with fine metal shavings. As a rocket fuel, the creamer would be packed in tightly, leaving almost no space between particles. Limited space means limited surface area, means low oxidation, means slow burn, means no (or at least a very unspectacular) launch. Yay fisiks Combining one or more ideas.... Hows this for lateral thinking. Rocket definition doesnt say I cant, so here I go... Three different chambers, one containing LOX, one containing creamer, one for combustion, set the LOX to pick up "dust" on the way through and ignite in the combustion chamber..... I know I am slightly mad, but the line between mad and genius is somewhat plastic?... |
|
|
|
Rockets
Feb 27, 2016 10:28:23 GMT
via mobile
Post by OziRiS on Feb 27, 2016 10:28:23 GMT
Powdered creamer is out right off the bat. The energetic fireball you see when people blow that stuff into the air and ignite it is not because the material itself is particularly flammable on its own. If you just pour a pile of it onto the ground and try to set it on fire, you'll find that it actually doesn't burn all that well. That's because - just like with wood - the outer layers have to burn away first to get oxygen to the next layer so it can burn and so on and so forth. In the case of this creamer, the outer layer sort of caramelizes and creates a hard shell, preventing oxygen from reaching the rest of the pile and the fire dies out quickly. Spray it into the air, however and you maximize the surface area of each particle for oxidation, meaning that each particle will burn more rapidly. It's what's known as a dust explosion and you can more or less achieve that with any fine powder. All you need is the right particle-to-oxidizer ratio and an ignition source that burns hot enough to ignite your chosen material. Get that relationship right and you can even do the same thing with fine metal shavings. As a rocket fuel, the creamer would be packed in tightly, leaving almost no space between particles. Limited space means limited surface area, means low oxidation, means slow burn, means no (or at least a very unspectacular) launch. Yay fisiks however, part of the production of the rocket motor involves mixing the fuel in optimal proportions with the oxidizer. The creamer still doesn't burn better than so many other things, so while it may work, the question is how well? I'd wager it would actually fare worse than, say powdered sugar. |
|
