Purdue Uni - these were the guys that lit a BBQ in .01 of a second using 10 gallons of LOX (liquid oxygen) and a smoldering tab end. ( Ok they vapourised 80% of the chracoal but what was left was ready to be cooked on).
They also provided video of this spectacular effort (I won't supply a link, just search for BBQ and liqiud oxygen on google)
Good old George Goble..
Paris ? - even she wouldn't try anything quite so stupid (tho entertaining)
US Army playing catch-up with USAF, USN?
> the food and agriculture boffins come in. They're well accustomed to the problems of pumping jam, marmalade, pureed spuds, Dream Topping etc through advanced processing machinery by the thousands of tons;
at high speed with major turbulent flow problems - and then holding a lighted match to it?
Another problem with solid fuel,
is that it can't be monitored. Solid fuel rockets don't degrade as fast as fireworks do, but misfires can happen when an area of the fuel reacts with itself in storage and becomes dud. Unless the dud area is visible on the surface, there is no way to detect it (barring some sort of NMR scanner). And no, you can't take a core sample - the rocket then won't burn in the manner expected. With gel fuel, it will be possible to fuel up the rocket closer to anticipated use, stir up the fuel and take a sample in which any rogue reaction products will be detectable, and, if necessary, suck out the fuel, purge the plumbing, and refuel.
On another note, it should not surprise anyone that British comedians got to this first. There was a Goodies book featuring "5-star treacle essence" as aviation fuel, which the Goodies had to replace with their own invention, "Goody Goo", to beat a shortage. And I wouldn't be surprised if the Goons hadn't explored this at least once.
They could look into granulated(?) solid fuels, I'm thinking something like sand. It could be throttled up and down etc. It's probably less messy than gel. They could use pressurized gas and nozzle size/shape to change the flow and other characteristics (% O2 etc.) Basically an "advanced" gunpowder/smokeless powder rocket.
Err, surely they didn't think of napalm did they? (Yes, yes, for those of you in the peanut gallery I know that napalm is not a fuel, it is a slow-burn substance). What happens if the container leaks or ruptures and sprays gel fuel everywhere? Will it be easy to put out and not stick to everything?
Brute force and pig ignorance
I was under the impression that amateur rocketry had already solved this problem with PTFE/Nitrous Oxide: All the bang of a chemical booster with the control of a liquid fueled killer of the innocent.
Oh hang on there - its a 'need a specific use for something my freind has already invented' and I'm due for a big wack if I can pull it off contract.
You dont think the UK invented 'PFI for my best mate' do you?
The problem with hybrid motors like the one SpaceDev provided for Space Ship One is that while their ISP compares favourably with conventional solids (250s v 270s for the Shuttle SRB), they don't really scale well for thrust. If you want to increase the thrust of a solid, you just make it longer (most solids burn along their entire length from inside out), while with liquid (or gel) propellants you increase the flow rate by using bigger pumps.
A hybrid requires you to increase the flow of oxidizer (which requires larger pumps) *and* increase the area of fuel (make it longer) - not to mention the difficulty of ensuring proper combustion along the entire length of the rocket.
Would this be a bad time...
... to point out that Bayern-Chemie have already demonstrated Gelled Fuel Propulsion motors on the ground, and have a test flight planned for 2009?
Or that they also have a Throttleable Ducted Rocket already in production which has all of the same listed advantages, but with solid fuel?
Icon: test firing of a rocket motor ;-)
I for one salute the efforts of the rocket scientists to boost the popularity of my favourite breakfast comestible but I can't agree with their preference for shredless from a point of personal preference, marmalade just isn't right unless there are chunks of peel in it acting like speed bumps for your knife.
Mind you, lumps of peel exiting a rocket motor nozzle in excess of mach 20 could put a serious dent in your toast so I expect they are probably right, being rocket scientists and all.
Paris, she's no rocket scientist but I'd share my marmalade with her at breakfast any day.
age old problems
Toast, Marmalade, You HAVE to have butter.
Speed bumps on my toast? That is just weird.
But I guess there is always the "smooth" and the "chunky" crowd (for you peanut butter lovers)
Now there is an idea... Use a "High Energy" Food. 'You know like peanut butter.
And not a word on "JUST How Volatile Orange Oil Is".
Try lighting orange zest oil with a lighter while squeezing an orange peel to make it squirt...
Maybe marmalade is not such a bad idea, BUT SPEED BUMPS?
I'm usually a chunky guy, but in this case I'll take SMOOTH.
PS: If you make a marmalade sandwich, it will ALWAYS fall bread side down.