Totally agree with the point Henry was making here and not to detract from the
point in any way, but it probably needs to be pointed out that there are 2
primary classes of solid propellant: that being heterogeneous (composite) and
homogenous with the 2 terms not necessarily being respective synonyms for
"non-explosive" and "explosive". Double-based propellants being a notable
example of the latter (homogenous) variety that has seen wide spread use in
tactical missiles and whatnot.
The only reason I mention it, is that it's worth emphasising that what I just
wrote does NOT diminish the level of caution and restraint one needs to adopt
when experimenting with intimate propellant mixtures.
Unless you really need to go there: don't.
Troy
On Fri, 10 Jul 2020, James Fackert wrote:
If you could find a euctectic mix of oxidizers that melted at around
100' C, and asphalt or euctectic sugar or peg with similar melt temp...
No solid loading issues, no significant amount of mixed propellant
outside the motor, no voids issues.
If they weren't miscible, there'd be a strong tendency for the liquid to
separate
into two layers. If they were miscible, even somewhat, or if you could do
something like an emulsion to get them intimately mixed temporarily
regardless... then the liquid would almost certainly be an explosive, and it
might stay that way when solidified.
A report on the results would be interesting reading, provided the work was
done by someone else at least 50 miles away from me. :-)
The whole *point* of composite propellants is that the fuel and oxidizer don't
mix *too* intimately.
Henry