Talk-Polywell.org

This was posted all around the web today.
Interesting times ahead if the compound is indeed stable in solid form as the calculation have shown to be.

Trinitramid should be 20-30 percent effective in comparison with the best rocket fuel available today.
A rule of thumb is that for every ten per cent increase in efficiency of rocket fuel rocket's cargo can be doubled.

Nextbigfuture:
http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/12/swedis ... cover.html

Physorg:
http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-12-dis ... -fuel.html

Anyone synthesised pentazenium azide, yet?

For what I know it cannot be synthesised at all.

{post deleted}

{Post Deleted}

{post deleted}

Note that it is not necessarily an effective rocket fuel in itself, but as part of a system.

Nitrogen oxide fuel components have a problem: high molecular weight. One needs low molecular weight exhaust as one part of the strategy of increasing exhaust velocity. That typically means "hydrogen-rich", a notable deficiency in solid fuels.

I used to work with a guy who favored very high energy chemical liquid fuel systems, but he always used a tripropellant strategy to lower the average molecular weight, even with hyperenergetic fuel components. He tended to like boron hexahydride (I tried to tell him there was a better use for this fuel), occasionally eyed beryllium, liked 98% H2O2, and talked wistfully about using liquid O3 (ozone) or F3 (tri-flourine) as oxidizers. I never volunteered to help him test these. He did believe you could come up with mixes in the 1200 sec Isp range.

We just have to find the Colonials from Battlestar Galactica so they can show us what their magic tylium fuel is!

Maybe they will also be happy to debate religion with us. Imagine if we could get a bunch of polytheists in on this...

Gods help us!

I find it amazing that such a simple, and apparently fairly stable compound should have eluded chemists for so long...

Uh, it might serve as mono-propellant attitude thruster fuel, rather than the rather nasty hydrazine derivatives currently used...

a 6.8 increase in payload capacity being 30% more efficient? Hard to believe it.

Does that means if you could use this fuel at a Falcon 9 Heavy (32 tons payload to LEO), it would be aboe to take whooping 217 tons to LEO????


nah, too good to be true.

Definitely needs a reality check. Sounds more like a potential for a high explosive than a controllable propellant.

Although nitroglycerin has been successfully been used as a propellant (in a plasticized binder).

At the risk of exposing my ignorance, I suspect that this compound is not a rocket fuel but a rocket oxidizer. You need a fuel (like hydrogen or deisel) to burn. I would put in the same class as nitrous oxide, except apparently it is significantly more energy dense. It may decompose by itself, like nitrous oxide, but I suspect the energy release in this regard would be considerably less than say a hydrogen- oxygen fuel mixture. It may compare favorably to hydrazine though (?). If it is a solid it might work as the oxidizer component of a solid rocket booster, perhaps pushing the ISP from ~ 250 to ~ 300. It might have more military missile applications rather than space booster applications.

Dan Tibbets

You have to do a system-specific check of payload capacity. Say an orbital rocket with a given specific impulse is 90% propellant at takeoff. Of the dry weight, say 90% of that is the rocket structure, and the remaining 10% is useful payload. That is only 1% of takeoff mass being useful payload to LEO.

Now up the Isp just a little, without having to change the structural mass. All the gain is payload. Just a little improvement can greatly boost the useful payload.

happyjack27 wrote:"evidence through observation" rule of crtical thinking is only the first thing religion immediately throws out the window.

read up on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking

the laws and teachings of most religions are diametrically opposed to critical thinking. to say religion makes ones critical thinking skills simply "weak" is an understatement.

While I strongly disagree with you on one particular religion (the one that was responsible for the foundations of modern science), I think you posted in the wrong thread