Re: More ET foam woes

In article <153ep15rucnibfpa6ul7jbtstm2d7k1jgl@xxxxxxx>, Len Lekx says...

>On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 00:20:46 GMT, henry@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Henry Spencer)
>wrote:

>>Peroxide is mother's milk next to nitrogen tetroxide. Peroxide is, in
>>fact, about as close as you can get to a harmless strong oxidizer.

> Then why, for curiositys' sake, are people so fearful of it? Every
>space and rocketry group I read has a thread about the
>inappropriateness of peroxide... but the only 'why' I get when I ask
>is "Because it's Nasty Stuff".

Two reasons.

A: Peroxide, being the safest strong oxidizer around and storable to
boot, was the *first* strong, storable oxidizer people started working
with. There is a whole class of mistakes that will kill you if you
are working with strong, storable oxidizers of any sort, and all of
those mistakes were discovered the hard way, with peroxide.

So, historically, peroxide is The Oxidizer That Killed All Those Poor
SOBs. All the other oxidizers, insofar as they were used by people
who had copies of the hard-earned How To Not Kill Yourself With Strong
Oxidizers instruction manual, have superficially better track records.

B: In part because of the above, and for some other valid reasons to boot,
peroxide is not the oxidizer most professional rocket scientests use.
Their instinctive reaction to, "peroxide is the best oxidizer", tends
to be an immediate "no it isn't, and why are you dissing my work!".
Where this has to be followed by a technical justification, safety is
usually the easiest one to come up with.


--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*schillin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx * for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *

.

Relevant Pages