On Mon, 28 Oct 2002 23:20:28 -0500, Alex Fraser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Is there actual test data on this temperature performance relationship? Yes, in the 1960 Bepco-FMC paper. They measured the temperature of the peroxide, not that of the catalyst, but they saw a significant effect. Activity at 25 C was more than an order of magnitude above activity at 2 C. Activity at 38 C was better yet. >If you get 430 lbf. at 74 F would it be worth it to heat to 110 F. ? No, IMHO. Performance improvements due to increased activity would only partially compensate for the increase in complexity to heat the peroxide. Chasing catalytic activity strikes me as resembling chasing Isp - the best catalyst on the bench may not be the best catalyst in a vehicle. >What is the danger point for heating 85% H2O2? Depends on your definition of danger. For most definitions of danger, the answer is, "We don't know, and we don't want to find out." We use 50 C as an upper limit on working temperature, and that offers us plenty of margin. Over 80 C is asking for trouble. Over 100 C is begging for trouble. -R -- "...And the last thing I remember is asking, 'What could go wrong?'" _______________________________________________ ERPS-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listinfo/erps-list
