MiG-21 used plain water for AB?!!

[Silent Warrior]

Too volatile since it'll go boom when it comes into contact with oxygene.

 

*SMACK* Hydrogen is volatile, yes, but it doesn't go boom on contact with air. (You might want to see a chunk of potassium dropped in a bowl of water, though. :punk:) No way in *blip* that the Hindenburg would have gone into operation if that was the case. But when there's fire/sparks...

I remember experimenting with the stuff in eighth grade or so... Filled a test-tube with water, turned it upside-down in a tray of water, placed an H-tube muzzle by the rim of the tube and put some amount of gas in it, covered it with a thumb, waited for my partner to light a match, and *POP*! Whee! :geek:

(On an absolutely unrelated note, I once heard of some dimwit stealing some sodium, and put it in his pants. To make a long story short, he had to go home and change, and probably didn't do it again.)

 

As for the actual topic of this discussion, however, I think Nothing. :)

[Kula66]

The harrier did and still does use water injection for hovering when required:

 

Power plant: 1x Rolls-Royce F402-RR-408, 22,200/23,400 lbf thrust (without/with water injection)

 

Wow - so, that extra 1,200lbs of thrust is that necessary! Worth lugging all that water, water tank, pipes, pumps etc around while not needed.

[Dudikoff]

The Harriers use water for cooling, as far as I know. Without it, the Pegasus-engine would say byebye pretty fast in a hover =)

 

And even with this cooling, they can hover only for rather short periods of time (like some minutes or so, probably depending on the ambient conditions and weight of the aircraft).

[britgliderpilot]

Yeah, but then you need to make the engine heavier in order to distribute the excess heat. Water would give you extra thrust without increasing the temperature of the engine.

 

I think..

 

-SK

 

Yup, precisely.

 

Water as used in the Harrier is just a temporary cooling method, allowing you to burn more fuel - the extra fuel burn for the extra thrust WITHOUT the water cooling would burn up the turbine.

 

There are other ways to cool the HP turbine, but they're generally speaking heavy and expensive . . . . and even if you implement them, the water injection system still gives you a boost over your max thrust :)

[Fjordmonkey]

*SMACK* Hydrogen is volatile, yes, but it doesn't go boom on contact with air. (You might want to see a chunk of potassium dropped in a bowl of water, though. :punk:) No way in *blip* that the Hindenburg would have gone into operation if that was the case. But when there's fire/sparks...

I remember experimenting with the stuff in eighth grade or so... Filled a test-tube with water, turned it upside-down in a tray of water, placed an H-tube muzzle by the rim of the tube and put some amount of gas in it, covered it with a thumb, waited for my partner to light a match, and *POP*! Whee! :geek:

(On an absolutely unrelated note, I once heard of some dimwit stealing some sodium, and put it in his pants. To make a long story short, he had to go home and change, and probably didn't do it again.)

 

As for the actual topic of this discussion, however, I think Nothing. :)

 

I stand corrected :D

[ESAc_matador]

In the book, "when thunder rolls" about 105s in Vietnam, talks something about injecting some water JUST FOR TAKE OFF.

[Guest superanubistype]

Guys I dont know if H2O is used as a fuel/coolant in turbine engines but one thing is for sure, If the heat, pressure and energy generated by a turbine engine was enough to break down the molecular structure of H2O into H2 and O2, then you would have highly flammable H2, H2 will burn with low concentrations of O2, All three requirements for ignition are present, Heat, fuel & oxygen.

 

H2 is a very fast buring gas & needs a small (20%) quantity of O2 to ignite H2. Once the H2O molecular structure has been split into H2 and O2 you would have a 2:1 ratio, A 2:1 ratio of H2 & O2 is more than ample for igniting H2. I'd say that mechanic was telling you the truth.

 

When a liquid is transformed into a gas it can create up to seven hundred times its original volume, if H2O was placed into a high pressure/temperature enviroment (like a high pressure turbine engine) and H2O molecules seperate into O2 and H2 under pressure, The energy released from igniting H2 is going to be vastly increased, exactly the same way a car turbo works.

[Force_Feedback]

Yes, high school physics are at play, but only the ones concerning sublimation and the cooling effect that has in case of water. Turbines, even the most state-of the art monocrystal blade with computer 3d high tech industrial spionage technologies never get hotter than 1800 degrees Celcius, so there is no way in hell (need water?) that water would be split into its components. The only way to use H2O as fuel is to ignite a nuclear bomb, so unless the engine is tens of thousands degrees hot, this reasoning is unsound. It's jsut a way to cool the engine, no H2 creation

[Guest superanubistype]

Yes, high school physics are at play, but only the ones concerning sublimation and the cooling effect that has in case of water. Turbines, even the most state-of the art monocrystal blade with computer 3d high tech industrial spionage technologies never get hotter than 1800 degrees Celcius, so there is no way in hell (need water?) that water would be split into its components. The only way to use H2O as fuel is to ignite a nuclear bomb, so unless the engine is tens of thousands degrees hot, this reasoning is unsound. It's jsut a way to cool the engine, no H2 creation

 

Intresting, I'm not so intrested in temperature here, I'm more intrested in the shock effects on H2O created by the energy from the ignition and detonation of avation fuel. The high temperatures alone in A HP turbine engine on H2O will only create supersteam.

 

I dont uderstand what your trying to say when you said "The only way to use H2O as fuel is to ignite a nuclear bomb", Did you mean splitting the H2 atom?, Or did you mean that when a nuclear detonation occurs the shock from the blast forces the molecular breakdown of H2O in the air which then ignites?.

 

Either way you dont need nuclear detonation to force the molecular structure of H2O to break down into H2 & O2 it can be done by using a electricity, RF energy & shock. Anyone on this forum could easily breakdown H2O into H2 & O2 with basic household equipment.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HWlx--tQbA

 

I can be 100% sure but I think that the detonation from avation fuel would be sufficient to force H2O to breakdown because an evaporated air/fuel mixture detonation is only second to a nuclear detonation in shock values.

[nscode]

yes, we all know what electrolysis (a very slow process btw) is, but he meant using heat alone.

[Guest superanubistype]

yes, we all know what electrolysis (a very slow process btw) is, but he meant using heat alone.

 

It's not slow it's instant.

 

You'll just generate supersteam anyway by just using heat alone, What is needed to stand any chance of forcing the molecular breakdown of H2O is the shock induced by the ignition of evaporated avation fuel and as I posted before the shock values created by air/fuel detonation are close to a nuclear detonation.

 

[nscode]

yes, one more video that has nothing to do with what we are talking about here...

[Guest superanubistype]

yes, one more video that has nothing to do with what we are talking about here...

 

And you tell me to keep on topic lol, Less flaming more explaining ok.

 

The fuel/air explosion in that video is exactly what happens in a turbine/combustion engine when avation fuel is ignited which is very relevant as I'm trying to explain that shockwave under extreme pressure and confinment may be able to break down H2O's molecular structure into H2 & O2, I honestly dont know the answer to that question, but I do know that shock is able to breakdown H2O, So untill you know the answer to my question dont flame me ok.

 

I could sit there and flame you when you post messages about electrolysis being a slow process but I wont. That example was only given by me trying to explain to someone that there are many ways to breakdown H2O's molecular structure for use as a fuel and not just by nuclear detonation.

[GGTharos]

You need ridiculous amounts of energy to crack water. There's no point in trying to crack water in an afterburner since you'd get nothing from it. Dead weight on your plane!

[Maulkin]

Well you certainly cannot 'crack' water into their individual atoms of hydrogen and water by simply heating it up. All you do is transform water into water vapour and that is it. It is not enough to break the covalent bonds between the atoms or we would have been doing that long ago to create an incredibly cheap fuel source.

[Force_Feedback]

Ofcourse you can, if a thermonuclear charge gets above 65000 degrees Celcius, then you can. Now, engines are tough, but not that tough, and certainly not on old Mig-21s. I would classify such device as a fusion reactor or maybe warp core, but not a 3rd gen aircraft engine.

[Guest superanubistype]

Hey guys forget temperature, temperature alone is not enough to breakdown H2O you'll just create supersteam. We all agree the temprature of a turbine has no hope of breaking down the molecular structure of H2O.

 

You guys know your aircraft much better than I do, can any of you tell me if you know if a metal called Inkenel is used anywere near the detonation chamber inside a modern turbine engine?.

 

Forget the after burner, the shock that could POSSIBLY break H2O down would be as close to the centre point of fuel detonation possible.

 

Forcefeedback a fusion reaction does exactly that it fuses atoms together using plasma, warp core? as in Star Trek?, OK now your being sarcastic lol.

 

All explosives are rated by there burn rate, solids, liquids, gases and atomic. A fuel/air detonation which is a gas explosion, is one catergory under an atomic explosion because of it's very fast burn rate, but the shock induced by an air/fuel mix and an atomic blast are very similar in value, add the Air/fuel mix to a confined and extremely high pressured enviroment the detonation is going to create a huge amount of concentrated energy, I just cant answer how much energy is needed to breakdown H2O.

[GGTharos]

Jet engines are not fusion reactors, and they do not break down H2O.

[Force_Feedback]

A quantum singularity driven warp core with confinement fields for controlling the technobablenian reaction might give H2O decomposition, we just have to wait 500 years for it, and then the Mig-21SMT1337 will have it, with no additional fuel consumes, only water. Ofcourse then it would need some additional power source for the shield generators and the transphasic cloaking device. I suggest using charcoal driven reaction chambers to boil the H2O in order to drive a turbine to generate electicity for the generators. Ofcourse, the pilot workload will go up, as the reaction chamber needs constant replenishment.

That thing would rule during winter, keep the pilot happy with your average bbq fuel ;)

[Guest superanubistype]

Ok guys I take the sarcastic answers as "I dont know", When you can answer the question "does a fuel/air explosion contain enough shock energy to breakdown H2O", untill then no one here knows the to this topic.

 

Ok answer this.

 

How can a solid explosive contains enough energy to initiate an atomic detonation in a nuclear warhead but a higher catergory fuel/air gas explosion does not contain enough energy to pull apart the molecular structure of H2O. This must mean that it is easier to split the atom than it is to breakdown the molecular structre of H2O by shock.

 

A good clue is that Inkenel is always present when Hydrogen detonation takes place.

[Force_Feedback]

Listen, to break down pure water in its components you need temperatures of something like 60000 C at normal air pressure, now, with any kind of engine or material for that matter, it's just impossible. Conventional explosives can reach 5000 degrees C, but not 70000. This sarcasm is becasue of the improbability of such an engine design for the coming, well, hundreds of years. Since the question was answered many pages ago we go on and make bad jokes about the subject. No need to speculate on that.

 

To answer you: the explosives in a nuclear warhead are just a mean to compress the fissile material so that it can reach supercritical mass, at that point the nuclear reaction increases exponentially, hence massive neutron, radiation and subsequent heat release. The explosive itself does not initiate the boom, the highly enriched U-235 or Pu-239 (most common materials, Pu is more popular due to lower mass needed) is what makes people and cities go up in smoke, not the trotyl or whatever is used for the compression charge.

 

Your precious inkenel or whatever is just an allow of steel chromium and nickel, it sure as hell can't withstand more than 3000 C without melting, at 20x that temperature it would vaporize, along with the aircraft.

[Guest superanubistype]

Listen, to break down pure water in its components you need temperatures of something like 60000 C at normal air pressure, now, with any kind of engine or material for that matter, it's just impossible. Conventional explosives can reach 5000 degrees C, but not 70000. This sarcasm is becasue of the improbability of such an engine design for the coming, well, hundreds of years. Since the question was answered many pages ago we go on and make bad jokes about the subject. No need to speculate on that.

 

To answer you: the explosives in a nuclear warhead are just a mean to compress the fissile material so that it can reach supercritical mass, at that point the nuclear reaction increases exponentially, hence massive neutron, radiation and subsequent heat release. The explosive itself does not initiate the boom, the highly enriched U-235 or Pu-239 (most common materials, Pu is more popular due to lower mass needed) is what makes people and cities go up in smoke, not the trotyl or whatever is used for the compression charge.

 

Your precious inkenel or whatever is just an allow of steel chromium and nickel, it sure as hell can't withstand more than 3000 C without melting, at 20x that temperature it would vaporize, along with the aircraft.

 

Answer to comment 1, Forget temperatures, we have all agreed that the turbine engine does not produce enough temprature to breakdown H2O, try to think energy from detonation.

 

Answer to comment 2, Simply put, solid explosives create the required energy to initiate the power needed for the required nuclear reaction and detonation.

 

FYI the nukes your talking about are modern nukes and use explosive lenses to compress the core when detonation occurrs and are far more advanced.

 

The first nuclear bomb detonated used solid explosives to fire two half spheres of rich uranuim into each other in a chamber, these solid explosives alone created enough energy to compress the core to make it critical and initiate a nuclear reaction and detonation. Solid explosives did initiate the nuclear reaction on the first nuke ever tested.

[Guest superanubistype]

'My precious Inkenel' is one of the strongest heat resistant metals known to man and when it is insulated with beryilluim it can withstand temperatures several times the heat of the surface of the sun. It is used on applications that reach high tempratures including Hydrogen detonation.

[GGTharos]

Answer to comment 1, Forget temperatures, we have all agreed that the turbine engine does not produce enough temprature to breakdown H2O, try to think energy from detonation.

 

And what do you think the heat comes from? Could it be produced by oh - the detonation of the fuel?

Yeah, a detonation will crack H2O apart...if it's a nuke.

 

Answer to comment 2, Simply put, solid explosives create the required energy to initiate the power needed for the required nuclear reaction and detonation.

 

Uh, no ... the solid explosives drive the fissile material together such that it can reach supercritical mass. They take no part whatsoever in 'splitting the atom'. Without the explosives you'd still be splitting the atom, just in a slagpile like chernobyl rather than rapid fission.

 

FYI the nukes your talking about are modern nukes and use explosive lenses to compress the core when detonation occurrs and are far more advanced.

 

Bull. Same principle, better tuning.

 

The first nuclear bomb detonated used solid explosives to fire two half spheres of rich uranuim into each other in a chamber, these solid explosives alone created enough energy to compress the core to make it critical and initiate a nuclear reaction and detonation. Solid explosives did initiate the nuclear reaction on the first nuke ever tested.

 

And current weapons do it in a very similar manner.

 

 

I don't think you understand the difference between compressing a bunch of metal and cracking H2O. Cracking H2O requires a LOT more energy. At this point, all I can say is ... grab an advanced chemistry book and educate yourself.

[GGTharos]

'Your precious inkenel' wouldn't last a second on the surface of the sun. Just because an alloy is 'heat resistant' doesn't mean it doesn't have a melting/boiling/vaporization point like anything else. Do you know what that melting point is? And what about Berylium?

 

'My precious Inkenel' is one of the strongest heat resistant metals known to man and when it is insulated with beryilluim it can withstand temperatures several times the heat of the surface of the sun. It is used on applications that reach high tempratures including Hydrogen detonation.