In order to provide a proper "Subject Header" etc, etc....
this is a repost of a repost of a repost. Hope this one
works now, since it was in plain-text from the git-go.

First a definition: "Specific impulse" - A term often used in
rocketry or munitions, commonly abbreviated (Isp) which rates the
efficiency of a propulsion system by the "impulse" (i.e. the
change in momentum) per unit of propellant. The numerical
dimension of specific impulse is either impulse per unit mass, or
impulse per unit time; differing by a factor of g, the
gravitational acceleration at the surface of the Earth.

For example, the Specific impulse of HOOH monopropellant is about
160-175 (sec), but when burned as a bipropellant with gasoline or
kerosene, this figure goes up to about 225, which is slightly less
than hydrogen burned with oxygen - yet - the net heat energy of
the gasoline is 13 times greater per volume than the heat energy
of the peroxide. Huge anomaly.

The anomaly, if you need it to be spelled out, is that the heat
energy of the propellant is only moderately related to its
specific impulse. "Common sense" scientific teaching indicates
otherwise. There are only a couple of chemicals where this
particular anomaly (of heat energy not correlating to thrust)

A particular terrorist explosive, the name of which need not be
mentioned for present purposes, is quietly in the science news
lately for a number of security-related reasons. But for
alternative energy R&D, the big news of interest is related to a
surprising but little-known physical anomaly of the chemical,
which is even absent in many older college level textbooks. The
explosive is peroxide based, but very different from conventional
explosives in that it does not release heat during the explosion.

Did the full implications of that feature hit you yet?

If not, let me repeat: this chemical explosive does not release
heat during the explosion! At least not very much.

Irony-of ironies ! Would not it be some kind of poetic justice in
the present socio-political climate (i.e. MidWest vs. MidEast, so
to speak) if the fear-product of Islamic terrorism led directly to
a major alternative-energy advance - which significantly lowered
the demand for Middle-Eastern oil? Not as farfetched as one might
imagine. Read-on.

The phase-change conversion of solid or liquid to gas (as in the
steam engine) normally is a product of large energy input and
temperature rise, based on combustion; and normally this results
in around a 1500-1 to 2000-1 volume change; or correspondingly - a
pressure differential of up to 3000 psi max. This volume and
pressure swing can be easily converted into energy using an ICE or
turbine engine, as is done in power plants all over the world.

The process of energy conversion, like combustion, normally obeys
Boyle's Law (kind-of): Here is NASA's graphic version of this law:

But what if the "Law" is broken, and rather explosively?

In the spirit of 'swords to plowshares' - the implication of the
aforementioned phase-change, of the bomb-anomaly variety is, of
course, that when an engine is based on a similar chemical
reaction, yet perhaps not quite so dangerous as the one in
question, which explosion is employed to convert gas-pressure to
torque - then the Carnot limitations and other normal measures of
energy/heat content will not apply in the same way as with real
heat engines. In other words, our normal assumptions about the
relationship of heat energy to kinetic energy are flawed in this
limited instance of peroxide-based chemicals.

In fact, some observers might be led to opine that there is a
window of opportunity for so-called "free-energy" here. However,
it is less "free-energy" and more a situation of "time-shifting" -
which is concentrating ambient heat (over time in a manufacturing
process) into a subsequent large explosion in a comparative
instant - rather than anything mysterious or 'aetheric'. But
"free-energy" has a nice "ring to it", don't you think? And aether
is most likely involved somehow.

There is no real violation of sacrosanct thermodynamic laws, at
least that is doubtful, as the energy input is often merely
shifted in time to the manufacturing stage for the
alternative-fuel. For instance, and in a related vein, several
companies are trying to exploit compressed air as an alternative
energy solution. This is feasible, but not optimum, A compressed
air tank serves as a "battery", of sorts, but there is no phase
change involved, and compressing a gas seldom returns over 50% of
the energy expended. In the situation of compressed air, there is
an apparent "entropic expansion" as the air expands, reversing the
Carnot assumptions in the engine, but not overall. The
compressed-air engine often ices-up, and can show well over 100%
heat efficiency (infinite) - IF (big if) - one neglects the energy
used to compress the gas.

There is a lesser known variant of this phenomenon which DOES
utilize phase change, rather than compression, and does not suffer
the huge losses of compression but the thermodynamic energy
balance is more complicated. This phenomenon is scientifically
known as 'Entropic Explosion'. It is reminiscent of the rapid
reaction that produces gas in the safety air-bags of cars during
accidents, where one does not want to substitute a lesser
burn-injury for a major impact injury.

The Entropic Explosion (EE) phenomenon may serve to explain how
HOOH can be used as a monopropellant rocket fuel when its apparent
energy content is low - much lower than the specific impulse of
exhaust would indicate.

Compared to burning hydrogen in oxygen, the specific impulse of
HOOH monopropellant shows about a  five to one net advantage, when
graphed against heat energy content of the base fuel system.
Specific impulse converts directly into torque. There are
implications here for expanding HOOH through a turbine in a closed
cycle using a tiny amount of H2 (made onboard) as a "pilot" (to
ensure complete conversion) and using peroxide as the
oxidant/fuel. More on that later, but the idea is that the
advantages of the peroxide are so great that they will even
support a small onboard electrolysis unit used to create added
synergy with the "high-mobility" H2 being added to the mix.

But to bring readers here up to date on what is probably a new
concept to many (i.e. never before mentioned on this forum, as far
as I can tell) : An "Entropic Explosion" is defined simply as an
explosion in which the reactants undergo a large change in volume
without releasing a large amount of heat.

The EE is real, but not a highly favored event thermochemically -
as it involves a so-called "entropy burst," which is about as
which some might categorize as very difficult to reconcile with
the laws of thermodynamics, as they are now applied. Since the
torque - which can is captured from such an entropic explosion
event can be efficiently captured and converted into electricity
or heat, there is an unusual situation involved in computing the
thermodynamic balance, giving the superficial appearance of

OU? - No - but the total system may end-up being extraordinarily
efficient, compared with combustion. That is the exciting thing in
this time-frame of exorbitant fuel costs. You might say that I am
"blown away" by the potential advantages of the
near-entropic-explosion of peroxides. There could be a better way
on the immediate horizon - yet very few scientists are even aware
of the possibilities. I would even go so far as to say that there
is a distinct possibility that every single power station in
operation should be making and burning peroxide with whatever
carbon-based (methane, coal, oil, etc) fuel they are using,
instead of air ! There is that kind of theoretical potential
improvement available.

That's the end (or beginning) of today's (actually yesterday's)
pregnant-thought, and antonym-of-the-day.

Sorry to leave you dangling, if you were expecting more - but one
more mention of the x-word, without adding "big-bang" or some
other modifier, might constitute... err... carnivore-bait... <g>


For those who do not "get it" .. err... that last sentence:

Reply via email to