On Sunday, December 07, 2003 6:20 PM, Pierce Nichols wrote: > That only eliminates a significant aspect of the process if you are > satisfied with 85% or so maximum concentration. In order to go higher, > you need to freeze it anyways, and that removes the contaminants along > with almost all of the rest of the water.
Unless one uses a fancy column crystallizer I can imagine separating the HP mother liquor out of frozen HP crystals (centrifugation!?#) to be a messy, time consuming and dangerous enterprize. Even in 1930-ies chemical literature HP enrichment by freezing was considered such and impracticable too. I never heard of any chemical plant using (even state-of-the-art) column crystallizers to enrich HP. They use vacuum distillation. Without exception. Why? Because it is less complicated. 98% HP is quite possible. Adding a suitable drying agent to the bottom still, even 100 % HP is, but can be a bit messy too. JD ----- Original Message ----- From: "Pierce Nichols" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "John Carmack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: : Re: [ERPS] unstabilized peroxide > On Sun, 2003-12-07 at 02:13, John Carmack wrote: > > > I would strongly urge anyone working on peroxide concentration to start > > with unstabilized semiconductor grade. The past several years have clearly > > shown that making your own rocket grade peroxide with consistancy in usable > > quantities is not as easy as many people have assumed it to be. Removing a > > significant aspect of the process is easily worth doubling the price of the > > feedstock. > p > _______________________________________________ > ERPS-list mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listinfo/erps-list > > _______________________________________________ ERPS-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listinfo/erps-list
