If LOx is good, wouldn't liquid ozone be better?
On Sun, Mar 14, 2021, 15:05 roxanna Mason <rocketmaster.ken@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
I wish certain folks would lose their cryo phobia, LOx is such a
superior oxidizer and the self pressurizing 'advantage' of nitrous is all
but lost with the very few cons.
If you have a misfire in a LOx system just let it evaporate away. Of
course all pressurized systems will have relief valves or burst discs or
both, which is my favorite passive doubly redundant design philosophy. A
40-50 gallon dewar of LOx can run anywhere between $75 and $300
depending on many factors.
A well maintained dewar will have only 1-2% loss per day so if you have a
week or two delay no problem.
My mom used to take me down to the welding supply store when I was in my
single digits age and get a liter of LOx or LN2 to 'play' with, price was
always $2. Get used to its properties and work your way up to closed
systems. When I was about 15 I asked an Aerojet engineer that was visiting
our group, "what is LOx like?" He said to me: "It's like water" He meant a
Newtonian fluid, the cold is largely inconsequential once understood. Some
seals/o-rings need changing and all non ferrous metals are com[patabler
with LOx. Insulation is usually non necessary with test stand components
only extended storage is insulation necessary nother like LH2 which
requires insulation under all circumstances.
My friend Glenn May died in a nitrous explosion along with two of his
co-workers. I guess you could argue I have nitrous phobia, maybe so but
it's based on fact not a misperceived fear of an industrial gas that is
produced, transported.and used by the thousands of tons per day world wide
w/o mishap.
Read and learn as much as it takes to understand the nature of any beast.
LOx Rocks,
Ken
On Sun, Mar 14, 2021 at 12:39 PM Henry Spencer <hspencer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Sun, 14 Mar 2021, Troy Prideaux wrote:
The one glaring point to laser focus on with a Chill-and-Fill hybrid
is to ensure your tank is *rated* to hold the required pressure. If
you’re making it yourself, allow at least a x3 safety factor with a
pressure relief device.
For reference, normal non-aerospace pressure vessels are required to have
a safety factor of 5x. That can be relaxed to 4x with some precautions
like X-ray inspection of welds, and sometimes to 3x in certain cases with
elaborate precautions. Safety factors are calculated on
fairly-worst-case
low strength against fairly-worst-case high loads, *not* on nominal
strength against nominal loads, and all known issues are figured into the
strength or the load (that is, you shouldn't use safety factor as margin
against issues you know about -- it is solely a hedge against surprises).
Now mind you, that's for pressure vessels that are meant to have the
uninvolved public literally standing beside them. You can be a bit less
generous for things that will always be filled remotely... but only if
you
make provisions to *empty* them remotely when (not "if") something goes
wrong. And properly speaking, "I'll just wait for the safety valve to
pop" is not a valid answer -- such valves are meant to be emergency
backups only, so you shouldn't be relying on them for reasonably
foreseeable situations.
Particularly if you're developing your own gear rather than flying
something off-the-shelf, situations like valve trouble or computer
crashes
or long launch delays are most definitely "reasonably foreseeable".
Never mind the uninvolved public -- it's *your* head and hands that might
have to get "up close and personal" with the hardware when things go
wrong, as they will. Thinking about this beforehand is a lot better than
having to improvise ways to defuse the bomb.
Henry