You have to get up to about 70% peroxide for the exothermic reaction
of its decomposition to vaporize all of the water. For rockets usually
90% is used because it is compatible with silver catalyst beds.
Catalytic decomposition is the more common approach with hydrogen
peroxide, though it can be burned directly with a fuel.
You seem to have hit the high points of the difficulties of peroxide.
I will add that it also requires a higher level of cleanliness and
material compatibility than liquid oxygen does. In my experience a
peroxide project ends up doing a lot of acid processes on hardware
that aren't needed for LOX. On net I would not say that peroxide
biprop is significantly easier than LOX.
GOX is indeed quite difficult because of flow rate limitations. In
addition large massflows of gox have their own danger; high velocity
room temperature gox has ignition hazards that LOX doesn't.
On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 12:56 PM Charlie Jackson
<charliejackson8629@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hello everyone,
I am aware you all covered the use of hydrogen peroxide, specifically as an
oxidiser for some hydrocarbon fuels a few months back. And it appears to be
somewhat of a dangerous ordeal from managing the propellant, to getting
stable combustion and oxidation. However I don’t recall the mention of
decomposing the peroxide in a separate catalyst chamber, and using the oxygen
released to be mixed within the chamber. Would this work? I don’t really want
to mess with cryogenic propellant due to lack of experience, so would 50/60%
peroxide suffice?. It may be worth mentioning I am having some difficulty
finding lightweight and small oxygen regulators that will output enough to
sustain any respectable amount of combustion, so if this is an achievable
option what design considerations would be needed that differ from an oxygen
feed? I understand this may be more complex, however I do love a challenge.