Cold Power rockets coming back?

[blackshire]

Hello All,

A brief note before I get to the subject of this thread below: A few days ago Rick Piester at Hobbico (Estes) asked me to send him lists of my favorite old Centuri and Estes kits that I'd like to see Estes bring back, and I sent him a list of kits and motors. If anyone here would send me (either by YORF PM or at: blackshire@alaska.net ) lists of your favorite Centuri and Estes kits and motors that you'd like to see Estes bring back, I'll pass them along to Rick Piester.

Several YORF posters here have flown Vashon/Estes Cold Propellant model rockets (see: http://www.ninfinger.org/rockets/catalogs/estes73/73est44.html ) and Cold Power Convertible model rockets (which can use either a Cold Propellant rocket engine or standard Estes 18 mm black powder motors, see: http://www.ninfinger.org/rockets/catalogs/estes73/73est46.html ) using currently-available, legal aerosol propellants instead of the now-banned RP-100 (Freon-12) propellant that was originally used in these rockets. I have a question about this:

What propellant(s) do you use? If Estes still has the tooling for the Cold Propellant motors, they could re-issue these kits to use that/this propellant(s). (Even if they no longer have the Cold Propellant engine tooling, they could still re-issue the Cold Power Convertible kits as 18 mm black powder motor-powered kits.)

Many thanks in advance for anyone who can help.

[blackshire]

I forgot to include the Cold Propellant Estes Land Rockets (see: http://www.ninfinger.org/rockets/nostalgia/76est044.html ), which used the same small engines that powered their styrofoam Shrike and XS-1 Space Shuttle Cold Propellant planes.

[Bill]

Speaking of Land rockets, there was a segment on David Letterman the other night about summer toys. They set off a rocket-powered dragster in the studio. It actually looked cooler than I imagined. Does that mean Estes is making another push with Blurzz?


Bill

[Shreadvector]

Unless I am corrected (and please, feel free), the orignal propellant was Freon 12 which does indeed eat through the ozone layer. I have seen the science, the data, the actual chemistry paper (the original in the MIT library under the big dome), and the NASA research to validate and prove the theory.

Freon 12 is not coming back.

Alternatives have been posted online for years and all are "greenhouse gasses". Expect the minions of Al Gore to charge you a huge tax (Carbon tax) for intentionally dumping pounds and pounds of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere.

And now we turn this thread over to our resident off-his-meds poster who will post either a long or a short manifesto (I can hardly wait).

[Solomoriah]

Carbon dioxide gas extracted from the atmosphere should be a zero carbon footprint (you put back exactly what you take out). Discounting the energy cost of extraction and compression, of course.

Is there a reason we don't use CO2 for this? Does it have to be liquified to work?

[Robobud]

would love to see them bring back the #1284 space shuttle kit

[Shreadvector]

Carbon dioxide gas extracted from the atmosphere should be a zero carbon footprint (you put back exactly what you take out). Discounting the energy cost of extraction and compression, of course.

Is there a reason we don't use CO2 for this? Does it have to be liquified to work?

It has to be a liquid that is a liquid under pressure and turns to a gas at standard pressure. The rocket thrust is generated by the liquid turning to a gas and the gas is at increased pressure. As it changes state, it gets cold. It's a thermodynamics thing.

[jetlag]

CO2 makes up such a miniscule amount of the atmosphere, there is debate as to whether it can really even be classed as a greenhouse gas. Lots of HYPE does not make it so.
Kinda like all those cows polluting the atmosphere with WAY too much methane.
The volcano eruption recently spewed more CO2 into the air in one day than the earth's population exhales in a year, for goodness sakes!
In the 70's we were all heading to a new Ice Age. Touted by the same morons who say we are all going to roast from rising temps and drown from the melted icecaps today.
Remeber the idiots who protested that the Concord flights would burn up the ozone?
Geez!
It just will not happen.
Warming is a solar event. Period.

Allen

[blackshire]

I'd happily use airbrush propellant myself, which Leo Nutz apparently uses in his vintage Estes Cold Power rockets, including his home-brewed Cold Power Convertible Alpha (see: www.leo.nutz.de/Rockets.php?Rockets=Estes/Vashon%20Industries ). If someone showed up at a NARAM to fly in the old motor documentation program with a Valkyrie 2 and a can of the original RP-100 propellant, the ensuing events might be very interesting...

[Shreadvector]

CO2 makes up such a minuscule amount of the atmosphere, there is debate as to whether it can really even be classed as a greenhouse gas. Lots of HYPE does not make it so.
Kinda like all those cows polluting the atmosphere with WAY too much methane.
The volcano eruption recently spewed more CO2 into the air in one day than the earth's population exhales in a year, for goodness sakes!
In the 70's we were all heading to a new Ice Age. Touted by the same morons who say we are all going to roast from rising temps and drown from the melted icecaps today.
Remember the idiots who protested that the Concord flights would burn up the ozone?
Geez!
It just will not happen.
Warming is a solar event. Period.

Allen

Concorde flights WOULD HAVE destroyed the ozone layer over the populated portions of the Earth (based on real science and not hippie hype) in the presence of freon 12.
The reason is that the freon 12 breaks down in the UV light in the stratosphere and the reaction that breaks down the O3 (ozone) occurs very rapidly on the surface of ice crystals. The Concorde would fly at latitudes where people live and the resulting ice crystal contrails would have worked with all the freon 12 released in those days to rapidly reduce the ozone layer over the part of the Earth we inhabit the most. There were not many Concorde flights, as it was too expensive and the flights over land were mostly prohibited (at those altitudes and at supersonic speeds). Over Antarctica, there are ice crystal clouds and the ozone hole appeared there and NASA tests with the TR-1 (research U-2) proved that this was a scientific fact.

[blackshire]

Concorde flights WOULD HAVE destroyed the ozone layer over the populated portions of the Earth (based on real science and not hippie hype) in the presence of freon 12.
The reason is that the freon 12 breaks down in the UV light in the stratosphere and the reaction that breaks down the O3 (ozone) occurs very rapidly on the surface of ice crystals. The Concorde would fly at latitudes where people live and the resulting ice crystal contrails would have worked with all the freon 12 released in those days to rapidly reduce the ozone layer over the part of the Earth we inhabit the most. There were not many Concorde flights, as it was too expensive and the flights over land were mostly prohibited (at those altitudes and at supersonic speeds). Over Antarctica, there are ice crystal clouds and the ozone hole appeared there and NASA tests with the TR-1 (research U-2) proved that this was a scientific fact.Freon molecules must have an ability to distinguish between civilian and military supersonic aircraft, because the thousands of hours of military supersonic flights at Concorde altitudes (many of which were and are over land in North America, Europe, and Asia) didn't bring a solar armageddon down on us.

[Shreadvector]

Freon molecules must have an ability to distinguish between civilian and military supersonic aircraft, because the thousands of hours of military supersonic flights at Concorde altitudes (many of which were and are over land in North America, Europe, and Asia) didn't bring a solar armageddon down on us.

Are you honestly saying that the military flies stratospheric supercruise aircraft and has been doing so in numbers that anywhere approach those of commercial passenger transport jets?

[Solomoriah]

Indeed, it's the altitude and the volume of water vapor that makes the Concorde a bigger deal than military flights. That, and the frequency... if the Concorde still flew, and had a schedule even a fraction as busy as regular airliners, it could be a real problem.

[ghrocketman]

Fred-
The actual number of Concorde flights compared to the number of Supersonic Military aircraft flights WAS miniscule.
When the SR-71 was active this DEFINITELY was true.
With the F22 Raptor now it is true as well; they just dont fly over populated land at Mach 1+ speeds.

As far as the coldpower engines go, R134A available at any Auto Parts store (outside of COMMIEFORNIA at least) is a PERFECTLY FUNCTIONAL substitute for the no-longer available (unless you know the right folks with 20+lb refrigeration support tanks;BUUUUWWWHHHHAAAA !) R12 Freon.
Does it do anything to the environment ? Have no idea and don't give a rat's bazoo either.

[blackshire]

Are you honestly saying that the military flies stratospheric supercruise aircraft and has been doing so in numbers that anywhere approach those of commercial passenger transport jets?

The US B-58 Hustler, FB-111, and B-1B all flew/fly at those velocities and altitudes, as did/do their Soviet/Russian counterparts such as the "Blinder," "Backfire," and "Blackjack" bombers, although nowadays low-level high-subsonic penetrations are preferred in order to evade radar. Land-based and carrier-based interceptor and fighter aircraft also frequently fly at these altitudes.

[Shreadvector]

The US B-58 Hustler, FB-111, and B-1B all flew/fly at those velocities and altitudes, as did/do their Soviet/Russian counterparts such as the "Blinder," "Backfire," and "Blackjack" bombers, although nowadays low-level high-subsonic penetrations are preferred in order to evade radar. Land-based and carrier-based interceptor and fighter aircraft also frequently fly at these altitudes.

I'm not going to waste my time doing research, but I do not beleive that the aircraft you listed flew in the STRATOSPHERE at SUPERSONIC CRUISE for any periods of time that would approach the levels of a fleet of civilian passenger carrying supersonic transports (like the Concorde or the cancelled B-2707).

The B-1B is not a B-1A.

Supersonic cruise is not supersonic dash.

Mach 1.25 is not Mach 2.02 is not mach 2.7



etc.

[Leo]

I'd happily use airbrush propellant myself, which Leo Nutz apparently uses in his vintage Estes Cold Power rockets, including his home-brewed Cold Power Convertible Alpha (see: www.leo.nutz.de/Rockets.php?Rockets=Estes/Vashon%20Industries ). If someone showed up at a NARAM to fly in the old motor documentation program with a Valkyrie 2 and a can of the original RP-100 propellant, the ensuing events might be very interesting...
I've sent an email with my thoughts.

[jetlag]

I'm not going to waste my time doing research, but I do not beleive that the aircraft you listed flew in the STRATOSPHERE at SUPERSONIC CRUISE for any periods of time that would approach the levels of a fleet of civilian passenger carrying supersonic transports (like the Concorde or the cancelled B-2707).

The B-1B is not a B-1A.

Supersonic cruise is not supersonic dash.

Mach 1.25 is not Mach 2.02 is not mach 2.7




etc.

Fred,
Do you really think that because we are not using F-12 anymore that the ozone holes closed right up? I'd love to see your science that backs that up. Lightning creates tons more ozone every day than F-12 ever devoured. Somehow, I just do not believe (nor does science support) the notion that we (humans) can destroy the ozone layer even if we held down all the shrader valves on all the units in the world still using it. Incidentally, is it not just the U.S. that has outlawed F-12? I think it is still manufactured and used around the world, is it not?
There were not enough Concords flying enough routes to significantly damage the ozone layer. Does not matter whether they flew over the ocean or over populated areas anyway, except for the sonic booms which is why they were held to the North East Coast approaches.
Heck, burning gasohol releases more ozone damaging components than just combusting plain gasoline, Fred.
Was that you I saw in the crowd protesting the arrival of the Concord (British spelling) on American soil? :chuckle:
Somehow, I think the Sr-71 flights burned up 1000's more moles of ozone than all the F-12 we could ever produce.
Allen

http://debunkhouse.wordpress.com/2010/02/19/gaping-holes-in-the-ozone-hole/

http://info-pollution.com/tforce.htm

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread589734/pg1

[ghrocketman]

I take ANYTHING regarding the environment that comes from ANYONE located anywhere in the the state of Commiefornia with not a grain of salt but with a HUGE BLOCK of salt as the vast majority of it is left-wing alarmist nonsense.
+100 to what Allen said.

By the way, it's Freon R-12, not F-12; the F-12 was a cancelled Fighter version of the SR-71 ! :D

I'd love to show up to a NARAM in Commiefornia (whenever they get one) and fly a Coldpower Estes/Vashon rocket with an original can of RP-100 under the OOP motor program. The looks on faces of the enviro-WHACKOS would be priceless. Probably would deliberately run my generator on LEADED AV100LL just to add to the antagonization !

If the enviro-whackos would devote their time to doing something actually PRODUCTIVE it would be much more beneficial to society as a whole instead of spreading their fetid tripe nonsense theories that real scientists have to spend time debunking. Even once debunked like the entire DDT matter was, left-whangers still will not leave it alone instead of doing some productive activity.

[jetlag]

Thanks, GH. Ironic that I misstated f-12 for R-12. :rolleyes:

Back to point, I have to ask a question: Looks like from the data that CO2 is a better choice than Freon R-12. Is it in practice with this sort of application?
I agree with the earlier post that we are not adding CO2 to the environment that was not already there.
As nuclear physics is my vocation, I just do not believe CO2 is a greenhouse gas in the first place.


Vapor pressure at 10 degrees C (about 50 degrees F):

CO2 : about 34,000mm Hg
ChloroDifluroMethane: about 5000mm Hg
Dichlorodifluromethane: about 3100mmHg
Cyclopentane: about 180mmHg

[ghrocketman]

I don't think C02 will work though as the pressures required to liquefy at common temps are too high.

Agree with Allen and don'y buy into the C02 is a greenhouse gas crapola either.

Go ahead-ASK ME ABOUT MY CARBON FOOTPRINT !

[jetlag]

Testor's Airbrush propellant is:

Difluroethane (90-95%) and 2-methylbutane (5-10%).

Another commonly used (as has been stated) propellant is: 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane (R-134a).

I guess it will boil down (pardon the pun) to which is cheaper?

Allen

[luke strawwalker]

CO2 makes up such a miniscule amount of the atmosphere, there is debate as to whether it can really even be classed as a greenhouse gas. Lots of HYPE does not make it so.
Kinda like all those cows polluting the atmosphere with WAY too much methane.
The volcano eruption recently spewed more CO2 into the air in one day than the earth's population exhales in a year, for goodness sakes!
In the 70's we were all heading to a new Ice Age. Touted by the same morons who say we are all going to roast from rising temps and drown from the melted icecaps today.
Remeber the idiots who protested that the Concord flights would burn up the ozone?
Geez!
It just will not happen.
Warming is a solar event. Period.

Allen

AMEN and amen!!! OL JR :)

[blackshire]

I'm not going to waste my time doing research, but I do not beleive that the aircraft you listed flew in the STRATOSPHERE at SUPERSONIC CRUISE for any periods of time that would approach the levels of a fleet of civilian passenger carrying supersonic transports (like the Concorde or the cancelled B-2707).

The B-1B is not a B-1A.

Supersonic cruise is not supersonic dash.

Mach 1.25 is not Mach 2.02 is not mach 2.7



etc.I doubt if the velocity of the aircraft is relevant with regards to its exhaust chemical dispersion in the stratosphere (jet exhaust is jet exhaust), but rather the altitude at which it flies to disperse its exhaust (but the B-58 and SR-71 *did* fly supersonically in the stratosphere for hours per flight). Most if not all of the subsonic jet bombers all had/have ceilings well above those of most jet airliners (over 50,000 feet)--these include the American B-47 and B-52, the Soviet/Russian "Badger" and "Bear," and the British Valiant, Vulcan, and Victor.

[tbzep]

I doubt if the velocity of the aircraft is relevant with regards to its exhaust chemical dispersion in the stratosphere (jet exhaust is jet exhaust), but rather the altitude at which it flies to disperse its exhaust (but the B-58 and SR-71 *did* fly supersonically in the stratosphere for hours per flight). Most if not all of the subsonic jet bombers all had/have ceilings well above those of most jet airliners (over 50,000 feet)--these include the American B-47 and B-52, the Soviet/Russian "Badger" and "Bear," and the British Valiant, Vulcan, and Victor.

The U-2/TR-1 spends hours at those altitudes without refueling, much longer than any Concorde flight. It's eventual replacement, the Global Hawk, does as well.

[Shreadvector]

The U-2/TR-1 spends hours at those altitudes without refueling, much longer than any Concorde flight. It's eventual replacement, the Global Hawk, does as well.

And the total number of hours flown compares to a fleet of civilian passenger carrying SSTs as envisioned in the days of the Concorde and B-2707 development?

More importantly, the total amount of exhaust (nitrous oxides and water vapor at that altitude) for all of the super efficient sailplane-like U-2s compared to the total exhaust for a world full of SSTs is?????

[tbzep]

And the total number of hours flown compares to a fleet of civilian passenger carrying SSTs as envisioned in the days of the Concorde and B-2707 development?

More importantly, the total amount of exhaust (nitrous oxides and water vapor at that altitude) for all of the super efficient sailplane-like U-2s compared to the total exhaust for a world full of SSTs is?????

Super efficient may go correspond with the Global Hawk, but the U-2 started out with a J57, and later the J75 turbojets, neither were the cleanest ever built. They only got the nice clean fans around the time of the TR-1 and I don't know if the U-2 variants were retrofitted.

The U-2 flew daily long duration missions for decades over many targets. Not just one or two flights a day across the pond. The scope of recon flights was enormous until just a few years ago.

Now for the "fleet"...it consisted of a handful of Concorde aircraft as compared to more than 80 U-2's. It also flew from 1955 until present. IIRC, only 14 or 15 Concordes were split between the French and British and flew from the mid 70's until around 2000. I know the Concorde polluted like crazy, but what the U-2 lacks in bulk output, it has made up for by constant use over 55 years of service, twice as long as the Concorde.

[f=man]

The Earth has been warming since the last ICE AGE.................

[Joe Wooten]

Fred,
I think it is still manufactured and used around the world, is it not?


For a while in the 1980's and 1990's until most of the R-12 cars were off the road, There was a huge smuggling business bringing in R-12 across the border from Mexico. I was told that for a period of 5-6 years it was more lucrative than drug smuggling.

I believe that Mexico still manufactures R-12 .

What has not been said is that DuPont's patent on R-12 was also going to run out in the 1970's

[blackshire]

For a while in the 1980's and 1990's until most of the R-12 cars were off the road, There was a huge smuggling business bringing in R-12 across the border from Mexico. I was told that for a period of 5-6 years it was more lucrative than drug smuggling.

I believe that Mexico still manufactures R-12 .

What has not been said is that DuPont's patent on R-12 was also going to run out in the 1970'sSomewhere here on YORF (not in this thread), Luke Strawwalker (OL JR) gave a detailed history of the goings-on at DuPont at that time. The gist of it is that DuPont jumped on the CFC/ozone bandwagon just as their R-12 patent was about to expire in order to try to kill off any other potential R-12 producers, and at about that time their new HFC refrigerants were "waiting in the wings" to replace R-12. Very cynical of them, but undeniably profitable for them.

[Dave Hutch]

CO2 makes up such a miniscule amount of the atmosphere, there is debate as to whether it can really even be classed as a greenhouse gas. Lots of HYPE does not make it so.
Kinda like all those cows polluting the atmosphere with WAY too much methane.
The volcano eruption recently spewed more CO2 into the air in one day than the earth's population exhales in a year, for goodness sakes!
In the 70's we were all heading to a new Ice Age. Touted by the same morons who say we are all going to roast from rising temps and drown from the melted icecaps today.
Remeber the idiots who protested that the Concord flights would burn up the ozone?
Geez!
It just will not happen.
Warming is a solar event. Period.

Allen


You are incorrect. There is no debate over whether or not CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Global climate chage is not a "solar event", despite what climate change deniers are telling you.

I can't emphasize enough how wrong you are. You do not have a grasp on the science involved. Also, calling knowledgeable climate scientists (many of whom I know personally) "morons" does not bolster your case.

[Joe Wooten]

You are incorrect. There is no debate over whether or not CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Global climate chage is not a "solar event", despite what climate change deniers are telling you.

I can't emphasize enough how wrong you are. You do not have a grasp on the science involved. Also, calling knowledgeable climate scientists (many of whom I know personally) "morons" does not bolster your case.

Then your friends are frauds pretending to be scientists. Claiming that computer models that cannot reproduce past climate data can predict future data is scientific fraud at its worst. Also claiming the data in the last 40 years shows an increase in global temperature that is actually within the error of the measurements is fraud or at best idiocy. To pretend that past climate data like the Medieval and Roman warm periods did not exist is fraud. To demand that everyone (except the elites running the scam) give up all the trappings of modern life in order to head off the supposedly runaway greenhouse effect is fraud.

If I were to pull a stunt like that with my work in the nuclear power business, the NRC would have me up on criminal charges so fast my head would spin.

[ghrocketman]

+1 to what Joe just said; especially about using models that could not accurately predict the climate changes of the past and relying on them for the "doom & gloom" predictions of the future is PURE FOLLY. :rolleyes:
I for one am SICK and TIRED of left-coast enviro-whacko crapola doom&gloom JUNK SCIENCE; they were the same MORONS responsible for the garbage predictions of the coming ICE AGE near the late 60's through the mid 70's.
That bunk/guff/rubbish/trash/hogwash/baloney/sewage/nonsense/hack conjecture/excuse for more gubmint agencies WE DON'T FARGIN NEED did not happen either.
Those same lunkheads were responsible for the banning of one of the most important chemicals of the 20th century; DDT. The junk science behind all the doom&gloom claims about DDT have all been debunked, yet the EPA continues to ban that as well. :mad:
Those clowns need to hug a tree somewhere and leave the rest of PRODUCTIVE SOCIETY ALONE.
Most supposed environmental "scientists" are nothing more than left-whang shills.
If "morons" is not suitable then replace with IDIOTS/IMBECILES/TARDS.

Go ahead, just ask about my carbon footprint, MAKE MY DAY !!!

[Dave Hutch]

Then your friends are frauds pretending to be scientists. Claiming that computer models that cannot reproduce past climate data can predict future data is scientific fraud at its worst. Also claiming the data in the last 40 years shows an increase in global temperature that is actually within the error of the measurements is fraud or at best idiocy. To pretend that past climate data like the Medieval and Roman warm periods did not exist is fraud. To demand that everyone (except the elites running the scam) give up all the trappings of modern life in order to head off the supposedly runaway greenhouse effect is fraud.

If I were to pull a stunt like that with my work in the nuclear power business, the NRC would have me up on criminal charges so fast my head would spin.

No, actually they are not frauds, but thanks for the hyperbolic language. You realize that you are suggesting that hundreds of climate scientists from every country in the world are frauds and idiots. You have no evidence WHATSOEVER on your side, only outrageous claims that are in opposition to knowledgable, published peer-reviewed science. Your basis of argument seems to be based entirely on irrational hatred and name calling.

I'm done with this hijack of the cold powered rocket thread.

[ghrocketman]

Jack and HI-jakk are BAKK !

The problem with the peer-review of climate change JUNK SCIENCE is that the reviews are done by those that already drank the purple kool-aid and are indoctrinated into buying the BUNK already. Those peer-reviews are about as good as a heroin addict reviewing morphine.
"I like it, I like it !, Gimme MORE !"

[jetlag]

That's too bad Dave, as I had lots and lots of links for you to read.
Just 'cause folks disagree with you and the way you stated yourself, you don't need to run away.
Global Warming is a SOLAR EVENT. Ask an astrophysicist. Co2 makes up a paltry 0.03% of our atmosphere.
It does not act as a blanket. It has only a slight warming effect, at best.
Read further, Dave.

You choose to listen to the national media and the pseudo-science they try to corroborate.
The 'scientists' at the University of East Anglia have already admitted they 'cooked' the data, which they wanted to show us, but they 'lost' it in the move to a new building. Al Gore based his whole movie on their findings, which they admit now was so much junk.

What 'peer reviewed' journals are you referencing? Sadly, you are misguided like a lot of folks unwilling to see Earth's own history. Remember, these same 'climatologists' to whom you refer were probably the same ones who predicted we were entering a new ice age in the 70's. New York was going to have a glacier in their back yard. We were all gonna FREEZE.

Get real, man. Humans could not stop it if we wanted to. You can go buy a piece of junk like the chevy Volt and make yourself feel better. But when you're flattened by my Sequoya, at least you could drive 40 miles with no emissions, and you felt better about yourself.
Here are just a few little tidbits to get you going. I'm sure you can find more.
Still, it is hard to imagine that some climatologists, who can't even predict when it's going to rain accurately, can somehow manage to predict the destruction of the earth as we know it based on faulty data that points to the demise's being our fault.

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

http://www.physorg.com/news11710.html

Get a grip, Dave. Spout your warming stuff somewhere else, or, back up what you say.

Allen, also in the nuclear field :eek:

PS. All that said, I would LOVE to try Cold-Power rockets. I never had the $ when they were offered, and lets face it, the cold power offerings were awfully ho-hum looking, compared to an Orbital Transport, anyway!

[Dave Hutch]

That's too bad Dave, as I had lots and lots of links for you to read.
Just 'cause folks disagree with you and the way you stated yourself, you don't need to run away.

Not running away - I simply know from experience that it is pointless to argue with a true believer.


Global Warming is a SOLAR EVENT. Ask an astrophysicist. Co2 makes up a paltry 0.03% of our atmosphere.

No. CO2 is currently 390 ppm, and is rising yearly. See the Keeling Curve for an example of this measurement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide-en.svg


It does not act as a blanket. It has only a slight warming effect, at best.
Read further, Dave.


The fact that Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas and has a large warming effect has been known for quite a long time. This fact is not even in dispute by the deniers - it's simply a fact.


You choose to listen to the national media and the pseudo-science they try to corroborate.
The 'scientists' at the University of East Anglia have already admitted they 'cooked' the data, which they wanted to show us, but they 'lost' it in the move to a new building. Al Gore based his whole movie on their findings, which they admit now was so much junk.


No, I do not base my conclusions on media, nor have I seen Gore's movie. The scientists have admitted no such thing- the entire "climate-gate" bunk was a media driven bunch of hooey. I base my conclusions on science - notably the IPCC Intergovernmental panel on Climate Change http://www.ipcc.ch/

Climate science is complex. The conclusions of scientists WORLD WIDE, based on evidence from MULTIPLE SOUCES AND STUDIES shows that it is CONCLUSIVE that climate change is real, and that it is caused at least in part by human burning of fossil fuels. Vested interests want to make sure that they promote the "controversy". Take a look at who is in the denier camp; Funded by multi-national energy companies, hiring PR flaks whose former jobs were as apologists for the tobacco industry.

I've looked at your links - seen them before. You should be embarrased to post them.

[ghrocketman]

I'd much rather trust energy company advocates than hack junk-science touters.
At least the energy companies produce something wanted, not the BS/GUFF/BUNK that enviro-WHACKOS SPEW/PEUKE from every orifice.

[Joe Wooten]

Not running away - I simply know from experience that it is pointless to argue with a true believer.

No. CO2 is currently 390 ppm, and is rising yearly. See the Keeling Curve for an example of this measurement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide-en.svg



The fact that Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas and has a large warming effect has been known for quite a long time. This fact is not even in dispute by the deniers - it's simply a fact.



No, I do not base my conclusions on media, nor have I seen Gore's movie. The scientists have admitted no such thing- the entire "climate-gate" bunk was a media driven bunch of hooey. I base my conclusions on science - notably the IPCC Intergovernmental panel on Climate Change http://www.ipcc.ch/

Climate science is complex. The conclusions of scientists WORLD WIDE, based on evidence from MULTIPLE SOUCES AND STUDIES shows that it is CONCLUSIVE that climate change is real, and that it is caused at least in part by human burning of fossil fuels. Vested interests want to make sure that they promote the "controversy". Take a look at who is in the denier camp; Funded by multi-national energy companies, hiring PR flaks whose former jobs were as apologists for the tobacco industry.

I've looked at your links - seen them before. You should be embarrased to post them.

You call us "true believers" and then turn around and quote the IPCC???

[f=man]

Again...The earth has been warming since the last ice age................Lets talk about rockets!!!!

[jetlag]

You call us "true believers" and then turn around and quote the IPCC???

Really, Dave...I was giving you some links I thought you might understand. Fact: Ipcc adopted recommendations made by the East Anglia 'research' council.

Go buy a Prius, don't ever, ever light a grill, and quit pooting (cleaned up as this is a family forum); the earth will immediately start to cool. Oh, make sure you buy plenty of carbon credits for that commute to work...oh, wait a minute...you're in a prius (although they still need...wait for it...GASOLINE).

And your numbers for CO2 are almost correct. The percentage is expected to go up to 0.036% of the atmosphere, not 0.03.

Wow, I am warming up already!

I'm sorry Dave, but You, sir, are incorrect. I laugh at your brainwashedness (is that a new word?). You have been indoctrinated.
CO2 does not have a warming effect to the extent you and a few others state. The temp must go up FIRST, not as a result of. Really, though, we ought to take this to the free-for-all section of this forum and not bore folks with what they already know. Heck, there we can talk about what a sham alcohol for fuel is and what it really does to the atmosphere, the economy, and the grocery store!
I guess that volcano in Indonesia that burped more CO2 in a day than all living things on earth expire in a year really helped out the atmosphere a lot, huh?
Kinda makes human involvement in global warming small, doesn't it?
How about all that rocket exhaust from all the launches around the world, model and full-scale?
Please.
True believers believe the truth, as you so aptly stated.
That climate based bunk, as you call it, was of the media's own making. Who owns NBC, Dave? GE as in General Electric. Which company has invested the most money in Green research? GE, right again. See where I'm going here? All you need to do is FOLLOW THE MONEY. you will get your 'facts' then, I promise you.

A lot of hot air out there.. if we could only harness that energy and use it to shoot off some rockets...could we still call it 'cold power?' :D
Allen

PS. I've started a thread over in the free-for-all, where this belongs. My apologies to my rocket friends out there and you, too, Leo, for hijacking the thread.
Now back to your regularly scheduled program!!!

[Shreadvector]

Will the new thread be full of truthiness?
;)

[Jeff Walther]

I would love to see a re-release of the Valkyrie line with the 1 & 2 and staging and boosters.

A Valkyrie 2 was my first rocket ever. That's what got me an Estes catalog and introduced me to the world of rocketry.

I got the Valkyrie 2 because it was in the Lafeyette (sp?) Electronics catalog and I was into electronics before I discovered rockets.

Anyway, one or two websites say that one can use RP-134A in the old cold power rockets. I bought a few cans at Walmart (it's fairly cheap there) and a dispenser with a threaded outlet and a brass control valve at AutoZone. Then a brass adapter and some O'rings from Home Depot allowed me to mate the dispenser/valve from AutoZone with the original fill thingy that came with the rocket -- the thing.

I tried it with one of the Shrike foam gliders with the little cold power motor in the back. As far as I can tell it did not provide any noticeable thrust at all.

Now, it's possible that this old motor (same one as in the cars, I believe) starts venting at a lower pressure than it should. Or it's possible that RP-134A just is not a very good propellant. Or it's possible that these Shrike planes were just never good for much to begin with.

Anyone know which is true.

However, even absent the cold power boost, that foam glider is a great glider (once I trimmed it with a little modeling clay).

[Joe Wooten]

I know that a couple of years go Wes Olezewski, A.K.A. Dr. Zooch, did some experimenting with cold power engines and R134 and got some good results that he either documented her or on the other forum.

[Ltvscout]

Enough of the global warming discussion in this thread. It has nothing to do with the original post! Plus, it's in the Vendors forum. Clearly not where it belongs.

[Jeff Walther]

I know that a couple of years go Wes Olezewski, A.K.A. Dr. Zooch, did some experimenting with cold power engines and R134 and got some good results that he either documented her or on the other forum.

Yes, I've seen some articles on line stating that the R13 4 is a good substitute. So I'm inclined to believe it. One article has the author's kid doing a school science experiment to see which of three (?) propellants will provide the best performance and R134 came out pretty close to the original R12. The methodology seemed pretty good. I don't have the link handy, but some Google fu would probably bring it up quickly. I think I was searching on Valkyrie the first time I found it.

So, if the R134 is good, that leaves, either the rocket propelled part of the Shrike was never worth a darn, or this old cold power motor isn't working properly any more (not charging fully?).

I think I had a Shrike, or the other rocket plane, as a kid and I do kind of remember that the rocket really didn't boost it any better than just giving it a good throw. But that memory is so old and overwritten that I'm not certain it's a true memory.

Anyway, is Blackshire still reading?

My opinion is that I'd love to see fresh motors of the Valkyrie type built. The Cold Power Convertibles were not nearly as good in my opinion. The plastic nozzle is used as an anchor point when filling the the Convertible's motor and that plastic nozzle tended to break off in pretty short order, as I recall.

For that matter, being able to get replacement parts/gaskets for the Valkyrie motor vents and the plastic nozzle extensions with the pin holes properly drilled would be great. Oh, and the plastic fin attachment stuff, and the launch lug material...

[jetlag]

There were different cold power motors??? I thought (what I get for thinking..) they were all the same. How many were there?

Allen

[Jeff Walther]

There were different cold power motors??? I thought (what I get for thinking..) they were all the same. How many were there?

Allen

I don't know if this is complete...

I know of four.

There were the Valkyrie I and Valkyrie II. Essentially identical, except the II was considerably longer (more propellant capacity). These had an aluminum body, terminating in a nozzle which took a fitted nylon nozzle extender. The nylon nozzle extender had a pair of holes drilled to admit a pin perpendicular to the direction of propellant flow. When inserted, the pin would hold a shoulder on the nozzle plug, thus keeping the plug in the nozzle, so one could fill the thing with propellant. When the pin was withdrawn, the plug was expelled and the rocket launched.

I once requested a nylon nozzle extender replacement from Estes and they sent it to me but the holes weren't drilled in the thing, and they need to be pretty precisely located.

There was the cold power convertible motor. I don't remember a lot about this except it had a plastic nozzle extrusion at the bottom. The combination nozzle plug/propellant fill device fitten onto this plastic nozzle and gripped it. If the plastic nozzle ever breaks the motor is ruined.

Finally, there was the small motor used in the boost gliders and the drag race cars. It was very similar to the Valkyrie motors.

[blackshire]

In the Vashon catalogs, there was also a 1/2A Valkyrie motor (it was half-length--that is, half the length of the Valkyrie 1 motor) that was intended for parallel staging applications. (I always thought it would also have been a good motor to power a front-motor rocket glider that would have been similar in configuration to the Estes Falcon boost-glider.)

This 1/2A motor, along with the Valkyrie 1 & 2 motors, the Cold Power Convertible motor, and the small motor (called XR-100, if memory serves) that powered the XS-1 Space Shuttle and Shrike foam planes as well as the Estes Land Rockets makes a total of five different Cold Propellant and Cold Power Convertible motors.

I once had one of the Estes Land Rockets (the one with "Eagle" in its name [Screaming Eagle, perhaps?]), and it had quite impressive acceleration using the "stock" RP-100 (R-12 Freon) propellant. This was in Miami, so the warm temperatures no doubt enhanced the motor's performance. It made me want to try a Cold Propellant or Cold Power Convertible model rocket, but since my father controlled my model rocketry budget purse strings during those tender years, I never got to try one. Perhaps soon I'll be able to do so...

[Jeff Walther]

In the Vashon catalogs, there was also a 1/2A Valkyrie motor (it was half-length--that is, half the length of the Valkyrie 1 motor) that was intended for parallel staging applications. (I always thought it would also have been a good motor to power a front-motor rocket glider that would have been similar in configuration to the Estes Falcon boost-glider.)

This 1/2A motor, along with the Valkyrie 1 & 2 motors, the Cold Power Convertible motor, and the small motor (called XR-100, if memory serves) that powered the XS-1 Space Shuttle and Shrike foam planes as well as the Estes Land Rockets makes a total of five different Cold Propellant and Cold Power Convertible motors.

I once had one of the Estes Land Rockets (the one with "Eagle" in its name [Screaming Eagle, perhaps?]), and it had quite impressive acceleration using the "stock" RP-100 (R-12 Freon) propellant. This was in Miami, so the warm temperatures no doubt enhanced the motor's performance. It made me want to try a Cold Propellant or Cold Power Convertible model rocket, but since my father controlled my model rocketry budget purse strings during those tender years, I never got to try one. Perhaps soon I'll be able to do so...

Any feedback on how or when they'll use the information you provide? For that matter, are you providing an encapsulated recommendation or passing on a collection of reader comments?

I would love to see the Valkryie type motors again....

I think the pressure actuated parachute release/staging coupler is very elegant but it only works on tubing the diameter of the coupler. One might wish to insert a cold power motor into a larger diameter paper rocket, in a fashion similar to the Convertibles. Although I'm not sure there's enough spare thrust there to make that worthwhile...

It occurs to me that if one replaced the pressure actuated prongs in the coupler with a $5 pressure sensor such as the Freescale MPX2202 and hooked up the output to a microcontroller such as the $1.25 Atmel ATTiny one could actuate pretty much anything upon motor exhaustion. For example, trigger a black powder charge for ejection, if one has inserted the cold power motor into a larger diameter conventional rocket. Or ignite a black powder upper stage...

That's probably not stuff Estes wants to get into, but it's an interesting possibilty. If they would just sell a coupler that lends itself to user insertion of a pressure sensor, hobbyists could do the rest.

Hmmm. Are they considering reviving old stuff for which the tooling still exists, or are they considering new tooling as well? A larger diameter engine might be interesting, although I guess the nozzle would need to be bigger to support a higher thrust to lift the larger weight. Which would lead to a different nozzle plug, etc. Maybe not such a good idea.

[blackshire]

I haven't heard anything from Rick Piester one way or another regarding bringing back the Cold Propellant and/or Cold Power Convertible model rockets. It is possible that Estes no longer has the tooling to produce the motors.

However, at the very least they *would* be able to re-issue the Cold Power Convertible kits (Yankee-5, Shark, Teros, Scamp, Marauder, etc.) as regular 18 mm black powder motor powered rockets. (Estes did, in fact, sell the Teros and Scamp kits as "ordinary" rockets for several years.)

[Jeff Walther]

I haven't heard anything from Rick Piester one way or another regarding bringing back the Cold Propellant and/or Cold Power Convertible model rockets. It is possible that Estes no longer has the tooling to produce the motors.

However, at the very least they *would* be able to re-issue the Cold Power Convertible kits (Yankee-5, Shark, Teros, Scamp, Marauder, etc.) as regular 18 mm black powder motor powered rockets. (Estes did, in fact, sell the Teros and Scamp kits as "ordinary" rockets for several years.)

Ah, thanks for the info. I went back reread the first post and see that this is more a general, what kits would you like reissued, rather than a, we're considering bringing back cold power. Still, it doesn't hurt to ask.

I had one Convertible model way back when. I think it was a Marauder. After the nozzle broke off of the cold power engine, I converted and I guess I lost it on a black powder flight at some point, because I certainly don't have it any more. Toys 'R Us stocked them back then.

[blackshire]

-SNIP-It occurs to me that if one replaced the pressure actuated prongs in the coupler with a $5 pressure sensor such as the Freescale MPX2202 and hooked up the output to a microcontroller such as the $1.25 Atmel ATTiny one could actuate pretty much anything upon motor exhaustion. For example, trigger a black powder charge for ejection, if one has inserted the cold power motor into a larger diameter conventional rocket. Or ignite a black powder upper stage...The opposite arrangement (a black powder first stage and a longer-thrusting, lower-thrust Cold Propellant second stage or "sustainer") could yield a very high-performance bird. I don't know if Estes would want to get into such new product development (at least right now), though.That's probably not stuff Estes wants to get into, but it's an interesting possibilty. If they would just sell a coupler that lends itself to user insertion of a pressure sensor, hobbyists could do the rest.That would provide useful and versatile capabilities.Hmmm. Are they considering reviving old stuff for which the tooling still exists, or are they considering new tooling as well? A larger diameter engine might be interesting, although I guess the nozzle would need to be bigger to support a higher thrust to lift the larger weight. Which would lead to a different nozzle plug, etc. Maybe not such a good idea.Just "thinking out loud" here, in the NASA Wallops Island history book by James Shortal ("A New Dimension"), there is a short section on an educational steam-powered rocket (about 2-1/2' to 3' long) intended for school use that Admiral Robert C. Truax developed and tested at Wallops in the late 1950s. It included a launcher base that provided the boiling water for the rocket. It was a forerunner of the much larger steam rocket motor (not terribly unlike a great big Valkyrie motor) that powered Evel Knievel's Sky Cycle in which he attempted to jump the Snake River Canyon in 1974 (its recovery parachute opened somewhat prematurely, but the steam rocket motor worked just fine). An updated version of Admiral Truax's educational steam rocket would have interesting possibilities.

[cerving]

Yes, I've seen some articles on line stating that the R13 4 is a good substitute. So I'm inclined to believe it. One article has the author's kid doing a school science experiment to see which of three (?) propellants will provide the best performance and R134 came out pretty close to the original R12. The methodology seemed pretty good. I don't have the link handy, but some Google fu would probably bring it up quickly. I think I was searching on Valkyrie the first time I found it.

So, if the R134 is good, that leaves, either the rocket propelled part of the Shrike was never worth a darn, or this old cold power motor isn't working properly any more (not charging fully?).

I think I had a Shrike, or the other rocket plane, as a kid and I do kind of remember that the rocket really didn't boost it any better than just giving it a good throw. But that memory is so old and overwritten that I'm not certain it's a true memory.

Anyway, is Blackshire still reading?

My opinion is that I'd love to see fresh motors of the Valkyrie type built. The Cold Power Convertibles were not nearly as good in my opinion. The plastic nozzle is used as an anchor point when filling the the Convertible's motor and that plastic nozzle tended to break off in pretty short order, as I recall.

For that matter, being able to get replacement parts/gaskets for the Valkyrie motor vents and the plastic nozzle extensions with the pin holes properly drilled would be great. Oh, and the plastic fin attachment stuff, and the launch lug material...
Been following this thread for awhile waiting to see if anything is coming...

I had a couple of V-1's, they were extremely cool. I used to use my Estes launcher (12 volts) to launch them with the bimetallic wire, as well as my black powder rockets. Been looking at this as an experiment, with different fuels, and some kind of small PTFE plastic bottle as the engine (alas, my Vashon engines are long gone...)

R134a isn't gonna happen, you can't vent it into the atmosphere AT ALL. The only exemption is for very small quantities, typically for medical inhalers where they need a non-toxic and non-flammable propellant. It's the only one left. N2O might work, but it has a nasty habit of reacting violently with anything reasonably metallic/reactible, and it has a vapor pressure of about 60 bar (vs. 6 bar or so for R-12). That's why it works so well as an oxidizer for hybrids. Diflouroethane (R152, "canned air") would be a reasonable substitute, the regulations for its release are somewhat vague and it is is wide use as an aerosol propellant so the miniscule amounts that us hobbyists would be using wouldn't amount to a hill of beans. HC's (propane, butane) would also work, but I doubt that the CPSC would look kindly at it, nor would the NAR/Tripoli people. Forget about compressed gasses like CO2, N2, etc, they're just too difficult to work with and you'd need very high pressures (> 100 bar, most likely) to get decent performance since they have much lower densities.

There have been some people out there playing with canned air rockets made of out Sharpie pens, etc., Google/YouTube it. Looks like fun. Anybody tried this on a bigger scale?

[jharding58]

One of the biggest problems with cold-power in high humidity areas is nozzle icing. You have the same issue with CO2 powered aircraft engines. Also the difference between wet and dry charges. Although - it would be rather nice to have an Atlas that really frosted in the right palces...

P.S. Commercial airliners at 40K plus trundled transtlantic for the last 40 years - in the Summer the high latitude routes place them within inches of the Arctic circle. Even now Concorde at cruise has a smaller "carbon footprint" than any subsonic aircraft in the air with the same route. The Ozone argument was a political expediency to prevent a "not built here" aircraft from dominating a market segment. It was the issue that cooked the Comet. DH lost two Comets to stress fractures because in 1952 no one fully understood the expansion cycle issues of pressurised cabins. Boeing read the DH research rounded the windows and buried the Comet in a sea of press even though the 707 went into service six years after the roll out of the Comet. Still and all, 707s would routinely drop engines. Also interesting that the only Concorde lost was caused by a DC-10 part - conspiracy theory anyone? Bueller? Anyone?

[carbons4]

Thank GOD I dont live near a coast. Got enough flakes moving here as it is. I think they should kick it up a notch and make small fusion drive motors. A little deuterium .............

[A Fish Named Wallyum]

And now we turn this thread over to our resident off-his-meds poster who will post either a long or a short manifesto (I can hardly wait).
:rolleyes: :D

[Ez2cDave]

It has to be a liquid that is a liquid under pressure and turns to a gas at standard pressure. The rocket thrust is generated by the liquid turning to a gas and the gas is at increased pressure. As it changes state, it gets cold. It's a thermodynamics thing.

Nitrogen and Propane come to mind.

Dave F.

[blackshire]

Nitrogen and Propane come to mind.

Dave F.Liquid nitrogen has to be very cold (cryogenic cold) in order to be liquid, and propane is flammable. But, just as "inerted hydrogen" (a gaseous hydrogen/nitrogen mixture [95% N, 5% H, if memory serves]) is used for gas line leak-detecting purposes, propane might be mixed with one (or more) inert elemental or molecular gases, to make it effectively non-flammable while preserving its relatively high-temperature and low-pressure (as compared with nitrogen) transition from a gas to a liquid (which of course would be reversed when the Cold Propellant or Coldpower Convertible model rocket was launched).

[blackshire]

Yes, I've seen some articles on line stating that the R13 4 is a good substitute. So I'm inclined to believe it. One article has the author's kid doing a school science experiment to see which of three (?) propellants will provide the best performance and R134 came out pretty close to the original R12. The methodology seemed pretty good. I don't have the link handy, but some Google fu would probably bring it up quickly. I think I was searching on Valkyrie the first time I found it.

So, if the R134 is good, that leaves, either the rocket propelled part of the Shrike was never worth a darn, or this old cold power motor isn't working properly any more (not charging fully?).

I think I had a Shrike, or the other rocket plane, as a kid and I do kind of remember that the rocket really didn't boost it any better than just giving it a good throw. But that memory is so old and overwritten that I'm not certain it's a true memory.

Anyway, is Blackshire still reading?

My opinion is that I'd love to see fresh motors of the Valkyrie type built. The Cold Power Convertibles were not nearly as good in my opinion. The plastic nozzle is used as an anchor point when filling the the Convertible's motor and that plastic nozzle tended to break off in pretty short order, as I recall.

For that matter, being able to get replacement parts/gaskets for the Valkyrie motor vents and the plastic nozzle extensions with the pin holes properly drilled would be great. Oh, and the plastic fin attachment stuff, and the launch lug material...A factor that affected the Cold Propellant and Coldpower Convertible motors (it also affects black powder and composite [solid] propellant model rocket motors, but not to nearly the same extent) is the ambient temperature; the Cold propellant motors work better on warm days, and less energetically on cool or cold days. The Vashon Industries catalogs even recommended to--on cool days--hold the fueled rocket in one's hands in order to warm the fuel, so that its internal pressure (and thus the thrust) would be higher. Also:

I never had a Coldpower Convertible motor (its plastic nozzle/launcher lock-down *does* sound like a weak point, especially when the plastic is cold and more brittle), or even a Valkyrie 1 or 2 motor (their plastic nozzle skirts--I saw an Estes Valkyrie 2 Starter Set in a Titusville, Florida store in 1975--were made of a softer plastic, like Delrin, and they were easy to replace if necessary), just the aluminum motor (the XR 100) that powered the Estes Land Rockets (their rocket cars: http://www.ninfinger.org/rockets/nostalgia/76est044.html ) and also the Shrike and XS-1 Space Shuttle (see: http://www.ninfinger.org/rockets/catalogs/estes73/73est44.html ) rocket planes. (Incidentally, the Estes Sandpiper scale model [see: http://www.ninfinger.org/rockets/catalogs/estes74/74est44.html ] was originally a Vashon kit, as were the Valkyrie 1 & 2 and the Baron, Astro-Gnat, and X-13 parasite boost-glider kits; the Sergeant may also have originally been a Vashon kit.) But Vashon's tip worked; holding my Screamin' Eagle car's motor after fueling it on cooler days increased its thrust (and the car's acceleration) over what it did if I didn't warm it up first, and:

I'd love to see Estes--or another interested firm (Quest?)--produce updated V-1/2 (for first or upper stages, and strap-on boosters), V-1, and V-2 Cold Propellant motors, perhaps with a different pressure sensor to activate the recovery (or separation) system, although the original paper discs adjustable-delay system seemed to be perfectly practical. Plus:

The V-1/2 motor (or the smaller XR 100 motor) could be used to make an Estes Falcon-like *rocket glider* (RG), of the "propellant burn-off, weight-shifting" type (which has no moving parts or control surfaces). The fueled motor, on its forward pylon (with a nose cone, but no separation or parachute activation system, on the motor) would make the RG nose-heavy, and thus a ballistic vehicle. After its cold propellant was expended, the model's Center of Gravity would be shifted rearward (and its total mass would be reduced), making it glide.

[blackshire]

Originally Posted by Shreadvector
And now we turn this thread over to our resident off-his-meds poster who will post either a long or a short manifesto (I can hardly wait).Love you too, two-legs! *Plants big, wet, equine smooch*

[blackshire]

Been following this thread for awhile waiting to see if anything is coming...

I had a couple of V-1's, they were extremely cool. I used to use my Estes launcher (12 volts) to launch them with the bimetallic wire, as well as my black powder rockets. Been looking at this as an experiment, with different fuels, and some kind of small PTFE plastic bottle as the engine (alas, my Vashon engines are long gone...)

R134a isn't gonna happen, you can't vent it into the atmosphere AT ALL. The only exemption is for very small quantities, typically for medical inhalers where they need a non-toxic and non-flammable propellant. It's the only one left. N2O might work, but it has a nasty habit of reacting violently with anything reasonably metallic/reactible, and it has a vapor pressure of about 60 bar (vs. 6 bar or so for R-12). That's why it works so well as an oxidizer for hybrids. Diflouroethane (R152, "canned air") would be a reasonable substitute, the regulations for its release are somewhat vague and it is is wide use as an aerosol propellant so the miniscule amounts that us hobbyists would be using wouldn't amount to a hill of beans. HC's (propane, butane) would also work, but I doubt that the CPSC would look kindly at it, nor would the NAR/Tripoli people. Forget about compressed gasses like CO2, N2, etc, they're just too difficult to work with and you'd need very high pressures (> 100 bar, most likely) to get decent performance since they have much lower densities.

There have been some people out there playing with canned air rockets made of out Sharpie pens, etc., Google/YouTube it. Looks like fun. Anybody tried this on a bigger scale?Has anyone (maybe Leo Nutz in Germany--he has a collection of the Cold Propellant models, which he has shown here on YORF) tried R152 (difluoroethane: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1,1-Difluoroethane ) and/or the other "canned air" (gas duster: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_duster ) compounds in them? Their characteristics--including ozone depletion potentials of zero, or nearly so--sound promising for our purposes.

[Ez2cDave]

Liquid nitrogen has to be very cold (cryogenic cold) in order to be liquid, and propane is flammable.

Fire . . . GOOD !

One spark and it's "afterburner-time" !

LOL !

On a serious note, Nitrous Oxide might be a possibility, depending on pressure range required.

It does not "play well" with Organic compounds, however.

Dave F.

[Royatl]

there was a website in the 90's devoted to running Estes cold convertibles on Badger Propel. As I recall, it was finicky - you had to flip the can over once in awhile during loading, but it could be done.

[Ez2cDave]

there was a website in the 90's devoted to running Estes cold convertibles on Badger Propel. As I recall, it was finicky - you had to flip the can over once in awhile during loading, but it could be done.


I may be wrong, but I think that Badger Propel uses 134a Freon.

Dave F.

[blackshire]

Fire . . . GOOD !

One spark and it's "afterburner-time" !

LOL !

On a serious note, Nitrous Oxide might be a possibility, depending on pressure range required.

It does not "play well" with Organic compounds, however.

Dave F.At least everyone would know if a leak occurred before launch ("Why is everybody laughing?" :-) ).

[blackshire]

I may be wrong, but I think that Badger Propel uses 134a Freon.

Dave F.Hmmm...well, if it does, then the release of it--at least in those quantities--must be legal, or else they couldn't sell it, so we could use it in Cold Propellant rockets.

[Royatl]

I may be wrong, but I think that Badger Propel uses 134a Freon.

Dave F.

They wouldn’t have been able to sell it in the 90’s if it were.

{later} Sorry, 134a is the "good" version (except it too, is about to be banned in US and EU). Some Propel cans also had either butane or another flammable gas.

[blackshire]

They wouldn’t have been able to sell it in the 90’s if it were.That's not bad news, then; if the Badger airbrush paint propellant cans are still made and sold (they are: https://www.google.com/search?q=badger+airbrush+propellant&sxsrf=ALeKk02WUmWrg_GecO94ozyVRRVhCDZbnQ%3A1619616213271&source=hp&ei=1WGJYNLIDYnb-gSSgK2gDA&iflsig=AINFCbYAAAAAYIlv5bwFqX3AZJJuJfDV28LJrRuhdoSX&oq=Badger+airbrush+pro&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAEYADICCAAyAggAMgYIABAWEB4yBggAEBYQHjIGCAAQFhAeMgYIABAWEB4yBggAEBYQHjIGCAAQFhAeMgYIABAWEB4yBggAEBYQHjoECCMQJzoLCC4QsQMQxwEQowI6CAgAELEDEIMBOgUIABCxAzoLCC4QxwEQrwEQkQI6BQguEJECOggILhDHARCvAToFCAAQkQI6BQguELEDOgIILjoICC4QsQMQgwE6BQguEJMCUN4IWOVvYK6eAWgAcAB4AIABowGIAeYSkgEEMC4xOZgBAKABAaoBB2d3cy13aXo&sclient=gws-wiz ), and if the propellant isn't flammable, it should work in the rocket motors.

[Ez2cDave]

I found a few cool websites about Cold power rockets . . .

http://brotoro.com/vashon/flying.html

https://web.archive.org/web/20041206172603/http://home.att.net/~cruller1/Matthew.html

https://web.archive.org/web/20061021204936fw_/http://www.dph.com/vidroc/Vashon/vashon.html

Dave F.

[blackshire]

I found a few cool websites about Cold power rockets . . .

http://brotoro.com/vashon/flying.html

https://web.archive.org/web/20041206172603/http://home.att.net/~cruller1/Matthew.html

https://web.archive.org/web/20061021204936fw_/http://www.dph.com/vidroc/Vashon/vashon.html

Dave F.Thank You--those are a pleasant visit to the past, and are also informative about the Vashon and Estes kits' history (Estes' Sergeant scale kit was indeed originally a Vashon kit [and Raygun's Shapeways "Aerobotix" store https://www.shapeways.com/blog/archives/41618-shapeways-and-galileo-announce-merger-to-take-digital-manufacturing-to-the-nyse.html has a 3D printed Sandpiper nose cone with the forward canards])! Importantly, they also cover the performance characteristics and physical properties of the original RP-100 (R-12 Freon) propellant, and those of the alternatives that are available today.

[Ez2cDave]

Importantly, they also cover the performance characteristics and physical properties of the original RP-100 (R-12 Freon) propellant, and those of the alternatives that are available today.

I saved the articles ( PDF's below ), including the data chart from the Static Tests for different propellants.

That way, the data is "archived" here on YORF.

Dave F.

[blackshire]

Also, *here* http://www.leo.nutz.de/Rockets.php?Rockets=Estes/Vashon%20Industries is Leo Nutz's website, which features his Cold Propellant and Coldpower Convertible kits and built models (he flies the latter), and:

Ruminating on today's new manufacturing techniques, particularly 3D printing, the Cold Propellant and Coldpower Convertible motors could (if Estes no longer has their tooling, which I don't know; they might, or might not have it) be reproduced "as was" (even the aluminum V-1/2, V-1, V-2, and XR 100 Cold Propellant motors, using metal-forming 3D printers). I have never seen a Coldpower Convertible motor, but in the drawings in the old Estes catalogs (such as the 1974 one: http://www.ninfinger.org/rockets/catalogs/estes74/74est42.html ), it looks like the motor had an aluminum body, with a plastic nozzle/aft closure (and perhaps also a plastic forward closure)--is this correct? If so:

I know (from Jeff Walther's posting, Reply #52 in this thread) that the Coldpower Convertible motor's plastic nozzle could break off rather easily (the otherwise all-aluminum Vashon/Estes Valkyrie series Cold Propellant motors' nozzle skirts were made of a more flexible plastic, and were easily replaced if necessary [the XR 100 had no nozzle skirt, just its own short, integral aluminum nozzle]). But new-production Coldpower Convertible motors--which could be duplicates of the original ones, or a new design--could have much more durable, fiber-reinforced plastic nozzles and forward closures (the fiber reinforcement could be Kevlar [perhaps Kevlar "veil"], or comparable-fineness carbon fiber or glass fiber).

[Ez2cDave]

I saw a "spec" for one of the motors having a diameter of 1" and a length of 5.4" ( excluding the nozzle ? - NOT SURE ).

Dave F.

[blackshire]

I saw a "spec" for the motor having a diameter of 1" and a length of 5.4" ( excluding the nozzle ? - NOT SURE ).

Dave F.Strangely, your previous posting (about the motor static tests) came to me in my e-mail, but doesn't appear on YORF (to me, at least). The Valkyrie series motors were/are indeed 1" in diameter (their lengths--from the V-1/2 to the V-2 motor--vary, of course; the online scanned Vashon and Estes catalogs, including on the Ninfinger Productions website, contain their length figures).

[shockwaveriderz]

Also, *here* http://www.leo.nutz.de/Rockets.php?Rockets=Estes/Vashon%20Industries is Leo Nutz's website, which features his Cold Propellant and Coldpower Convertible kits and built models (he flies the latter), and:

Ruminating on today's new manufacturing techniques, particularly 3D printing, the Cold Propellant and Coldpower Convertible motors could (if Estes no longer has their tooling, which I don't know; they might, or might not have it) be reproduced "as was" (even the aluminum V-1/2, V-1, V-2, and XR 100 Cold Propellant motors, using metal-forming 3D printers). I have never seen a Coldpower Convertible motor, but in the drawings in the old Estes catalogs (such as the 1974 one: http://www.ninfinger.org/rockets/catalogs/estes74/74est42.html ), it looks like the motor had an aluminum body, with a plastic nozzle/aft closure (and perhaps also a plastic forward closure)--is this correct? If so:

I know (from Jeff Walther's posting, Reply #52 in this thread) that the Coldpower Convertible motor's plastic nozzle could break off rather easily (the otherwise all-aluminum Vashon/Estes Valkyrie series Cold Propellant motors' nozzle skirts were made of a more flexible plastic, and were easily replaced if necessary [the XR 100 had no nozzle skirt, just its own short, integral aluminum nozzle]). But new-production Coldpower Convertible motors--which could be duplicates of the original ones, or a new design--could have much more durable, fiber-reinforced plastic nozzles and forward closures (the fiber reinforcement could be Kevlar [perhaps Kevlar "veil"], or comparable-fineness carbon fiber or glass fiber).

I had a Vashon Industries Valkyrie 1 in the 69-70 timeframe before Estes purchased Vashon. The entire motor assembly was aluminum except for the plastic nozzle and some O-rings.... and the paper body tube and Styrofoam nose cone.

[blackshire]

I had a Vashon Industries Valkyrie 1 in the 69-70 timeframe before Estes purchased Vashon. The entire motor assembly was aluminum except for the plastic nozzle and some O-rings.... and the paper body tube and Styrofoam nose cone.*Nods* I have their #3 catalog (see: http://www.ninfinger.org/rockets/nostalgia/3vshcat.html - scans of another Vashon catalog and a couple of other Vashon publications are also there on the Ninfinger Productions website). Interestingly, the nose cone shown (and described) in the "parts" section--and shown in the photograph of the Valkyrie 2 Starter Set--was balsa, but I have read (and seen) elsewhere that a Styrofoam nose cone (with a more rounded tip; the Valkyrie 1 used it [although it may also have been made of balsa, perhaps in earlier, or later, production runs]) was also used.

[Ez2cDave]

I have never seen a Coldpower Convertible motor, but in the drawings in the old Estes catalogs (such as the 1974 one: http://www.ninfinger.org/rockets/catalogs/estes74/74est42.html ), it looks like the motor had an aluminum body, with a plastic nozzle/aft closure (and perhaps also a plastic forward closure)--is this correct? If so:

I found a few low-res pics of Coldpower Convertible motors.

Dave F.

[blackshire]

I found a few low-res pics of Coldpower Convertible motors.

Dave F.Ah--thank you! Yep, both of the motor closures (rear [with the nozzle] and forward) are plastic. I'm sure that there are stronger plastics today (which would make the nozzle more resistant to breakage, as Jeff Walther experienced with his rocket's Coldpower Convertible motor), and fiber reinforcement of the plastic closures (using Kevlar, carbon, or glass fiber) would make them very durable, and:

If Estes still has these motors' (and the Valkyrie series' and XR 100 motors') tooling, or even if they no longer do (today, metal and plastic 3D printing and other new production devices & methods could be used), new Cold Propellant and Coldpower Convertible motors could be produced. As well as being scale-realistic (for models of liquid propellant missiles, sounding rockets, and launch vehicles [MGM-52 Lance, WAC Corporal, and Aerobee scale kits would be a glory to behold in flight! <the latter two could use electrically-ignited, parallel-burn--and tandem-"stacked"--boosters, just like the full-scale ones>]), "pure" cold power rockets could be flown safely even on "Red Flag" days (when hot, dry conditions increase the risk of grass and forest fires). On such days, the manual ("pin-pull")--instead of the electrical, hot nichrome wire--launch system could be used.

[Bill]

My uncle had one of the early Vashon rockets.

I never got to see it fly but remember handling the empty motor and studying the pressure-leak parachute release clip.

Does anybody know the working pressure of the motor tank?

Air tanks are manufactured for model aircraft retractable landing gear systems; they are rated for up to around 150 psi. Maybe these can be adapted for new flight hardware though it may not have a high enough discharge rate.

Soft drink bottles have also been utilized as air reservoirs for retracts. I do not know whether common FDM 3D printed parts have the strength and lack of leaks to make fittings to use such a bottle, but parts SLA printed in resin may do.

NAR at one point had considered a water rocket safety code. If enough of us get organized, perhaps we can get an experimental coldpower program going?


Bill

[ghrocketman]

I see these "pressure motors" as being very passe' and a poor substitute for real rocket power that BURNS fuel.
They were obsolete when first introduced.

[shockwaveriderz]

My uncle had one of the early Vashon rockets.

I never got to see it fly but remember handling the empty motor and studying the pressure-leak parachute release clip.

Does anybody know the working pressure of the motor tank?

Air tanks are manufactured for model aircraft retractable landing gear systems; they are rated for up to around 150 psi. Maybe these can be adapted for new flight hardware though it may not have a high enough discharge rate.

Soft drink bottles have also been utilized as air reservoirs for retracts. I do not know whether common FDM 3D printed parts have the strength and lack of leaks to make fittings to use such a bottle, but parts SLA printed in resin may do.

NAR at one point had considered a water rocket safety code. If enough of us get organized, perhaps we can get an experimental cold power program going?


Bill

Bill the NAR did have a Cold Propellant Model Rocket code for several years while vashon and then Estes/Vashon motors were available.

What's funny is when the Vashon motors 1st came out, the NAR immediately banned them because of the metal motor material. So Vashon tested/demoed their motors before the FAA
and the FAA said, no problems here, and shortly thereafter the NAR did a complete 180 and embraced the cold propellant motors with Safety Code:

http://modelrocketbuilding.blogspot.com/2018/09/cold-propellant-model-rocket-safety-code.html

The one I had as a 13-14 yr old was pre-Estes....I had great difficulty getting the electrical ignition system to work. So I usually just pulled the pin while the model set on the launch pad. I would also pull the pin holding the motor in my hand......so to me it was just a play toy......

when pressurized it grabbed the parachute tube pretty tightly. the pressure expanded those spring clips outward and they grabbed pretty good.

Charles Green, one of the 2 founders died in 2009. Alan Forsythe, his partner is still kicking at 85+.

EDIT removed poor pdf and replaced with much better photos

https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/rocket-flying-model-kit-valkyrie/nasm_A19930631000

https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/rocket-flying-model-kit-freon-propelled-valkyrie/nasm_A19930655000

[Ez2cDave]

The motor for the "Land Rocket" cars was ALL aluminum, including the Nozzle. It also looks to be 3/4" +/- in diameter.

Dave F.

[Earl]

Interesting that this turned up on eBay this morning.

Link: https://www.ebay.com/itm/303978894407?hash=item46c68dd447:g:8qcAAOSwyJxgirtw

If you have some old birds one might could get them back in the air.

Earl

[Ez2cDave]

Interesting that this turned up on eBay this morning.

Link: https://www.ebay.com/itm/303978894407?hash=item46c68dd447:g:8qcAAOSwyJxgirtw

If you have some old birds one might could get them back in the air.

Earl

Grab it, before someone "rats it out" that it's R-12 Freon !

Dave F.

[Earl]

Grab it, before someone "rats it out" that it's R-12 Freon !

Dave F.

Oh, one can get R-22 freon in 5, 10, and 20 pound cans on eBay right now.

Earl

[ghrocketman]

But NOT R-12....
One more idiotic ban by the mamby-pambys.
This ban was not nearly as bad as EPA Administrator Ruckelhaus banning DDT in 1972 against the advice of the entire EPA scientific panel. DDT was banned by alarmist BUNK/BOGUS science.

[Ez2cDave]

But NOT R-12....
One more idiotic ban by the mamby-pambys.
This ban was not nearly as bad as EPA Administrator Ruckelhaus banning DDT in 1972 against the advice of the entire EPA scientific panel. DDT was banned by alarmist BUNK/BOGUS science.

Actually, eBay IS selling R-12 ( I was surprised ) !

https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_nkw=%22r-12%22+%22freon%22+-valve+-gauge+-gauges+-envirosafe+-enviro+-oil+-line+-r143a+-134a&_sacat=0&LH_TitleDesc=0&_blrs=recall_filtering&_sop=16

Dave F.

[ghrocketman]

All at RIPOFF prices too.
More EPA nonsense. When the little cans got banned, the price per pound tripled.
I'd rather ban the EPA.

[blackshire]

I see these "pressure motors" as being very passe' and a poor substitute for real rocket power that BURNS fuel.
They were obsolete when first introduced.NASA and other space agencies don't think so--cold-gas thrusters (usually using nitrogen, although JAXA has flown a combination xenon ion drive/xenon cold gas thruster system fed from the same tank, and the MESSENGER Mercury orbiter used its helium pressurant in its thrusters after the propellant was all burned) work just fine, especially in a vacuum. The spacecraft need not be small and lightweight, either; Skylab used nitrogen thrusters, and so do the reusable Falcon 1 first stages. ALSO:

In Alaska (and many other states), "Red Flag" days--when hot, dry conditions make flying regular model rockets an exercise in madness (and illegal, too, on such days)--are common. (Even G. Harry Stine's model rocket club once accidentally burnt an 11-acre grass field, when a glowing igniter fragment landed in the dry grass, and within seconds the wind whipped up a fire so large that they had to call the fire department!) Cold Propellant and Coldpower rockets not only *aren't* a fire hazard, but they can even, in a pinch, be used as fire extinguishers (if, say, someone nearby dropped a still-hot cigarette butt).

[blackshire]

The motor for the "Land Rocket" cars was ALL aluminum, including the Nozzle. It also looks to be 3/4" +/- in diameter.

Dave F.I remember it--and my also long-gone Estes Screamin' Eagle Land Rocket (car)--well. That XR 100 motor had a tiny hole in its forward closure, which spurted liquid RP-100 when the motor was full, preventing the motor from bursting. It also powered the Vashon/Estes Shrike and XS-1 Space Shuttle foam rocket planes (and it would also make a good "drop-in" replacement for the Jetex/Jet-X and Rapier motors, in jet plane, car, and boat models, including the new-production classic and new Jetex kits (see: https://www.vintagemodelcompany.com/jetex-powered-models.html and https://jetex.org/ ).

[Ez2cDave]

I see these "pressure motors" as being very passe' and a poor substitute for real rocket power that BURNS fuel.
They were obsolete when first introduced.

Really . . .

Imagine what "pressure motor" could be created using THIS ( with the proper nozzle design ) .

https://www.nuvair.com/nuvt-asme.html

That is 7000 PSI !

This one weighs less ( 6000 psi tank )

https://www.nuvair.com/nuvt-6000.html

Dave F.

[Ez2cDave]

That XR 100 motor had a tiny hole in its forward closure, which spurted liquid RP-100 when the motor was full, preventing the motor from bursting.

A couple more XR 100 pics.

Dave F.

[blackshire]

A couple more XR 100 pics.

Dave F.Thank you--looking at those, and remembering mine, I can't help thinking that the XR 100 would be the easiest of the Cold Propellant motors for a machine shop, and/or perhaps Shapeways (with their metal 3D printers) to duplicate, if Estes (hint, hint, any lurkers from Penrose, CO!) didn't make them. Also:

The XR 100 would also find a market among Jetex/Jet-X/Rapier jet model enthusiasts (of which there are surprisingly many: https://jetex.org/ ), as the XR 100 powered the Jetex-like Vashon/Estes Shrike and XS-1 Space Shuttle hand-launched rocket planes (see: http://www.ninfinger.org/rockets/catalogs/estes73/73est44.html ), as well as the Estes Land Rockets (see: http://www.ninfinger.org/rockets/catalogs/estes75/75est42.html [there were/are also Jetex car and boat models]).

[ghrocketman]

Manuvering THRUSTORS, Yes.
Actual main rocket propulsion source ??
That's a BIG KING SIZED CAN of HFN ( Hell-Frakkin'-NO). to THAT.

I stand by my original statement.
OBSOLETE even before Vashon brought them to market.
No FIRE=NO ROCKET.

[Ez2cDave]

Manuvering THRUSTORS, Yes.
Actual main rocket propulsion source ??
That's a BIG KING SIZED CAN of HFN ( Hell-Frakkin'-NO). to THAT.

I stand by my original statement.
OBSOLETE even before Vashon brought them to market.
No FIRE=NO ROCKET.

So, Ion propulsion is "not a rocket" ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_thruster

Dave F.

[blackshire]

Manuvering THRUSTORS, Yes.
Actual main rocket propulsion source ??
That's a BIG KING SIZED CAN of HFN ( Hell-Frakkin'-NO). to THAT.

I stand by my original statement.
OBSOLETE even before Vashon brought them to market.
No FIRE=NO ROCKET.Cold-gas thrusters (nitrogen, xenon, helium, etc.) work great in a vacuum, and even--for lightweight re-entry vehicles--in the atmosphere, until the aero-surfaces (if any) take hold. The Mercury capsules used hydrogen peroxide monopropellant thrusters, but most of them were low-thrust [1 pound] units, yet they worked effectively even after re-entry, and:

Rear Admiral Robert C. Truax made steam rockets (and not just for Evel Knievel) that worked on the same pressurized propellant pressure drop/phase change principle as the Vashon motors; only the propellant formulae (and motor sizes) were different. He developed an educational steam rocket (with a water heater/launcher base; a low-melting point alloy nozzle plug blew out at launch) that was about three feet long. (In Mexico, steam rocket car races are popular, with both local and foreign drivers and car crews taking part.) Any self-contained propulsion system that hurls matter--regardless of whether or not it's burning, or even hot--in one direction, to produce motion in the opposite direction (which enables it to produce motion in a vacuum), is a rocket. (Likewise, even an electric ducted fan [EDF] is a jet--a pressure jet, whose exhaust isn't heated by burning a fuel with the air [or heated by a nuclear reactor, or by hot filaments]--because a jet engine is any air-breathing propulsion system that produces thrust by accelerating and directing its exhaust out of a nozzle.)

[blackshire]

So, Ion propulsion is "not a rocket" ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_thruster

Dave F.Arthur C. Clarke expressed it well in two brief paragraphs in his non-fiction 1968 book "The Promise of Space" (on the last page of Chapter 3, 'Nothing to Push Against'):

"Almost all rockets that have been built so far have obtained their thrust from chemical reactions: burning substances have generated hot gases that escape from a nozzle. However, there are endless ways of producing the same effect: any power source may be used, from a nuclear reactor to an electric battery. And any material may be used to provide the jet: solids, liquids, gases, electrons, ions, subatomic particles. As long as they have mass and can be aimed in a definite direction, they will give thrust.

"Perhaps in the far future there may be spacecraft propelled by the swiftest 'jet' than can exist--beams of pure light of unimaginable intensity, created by generators brighter than a billion suns. But they will still be rockets, in the direct line of descent from the crude vehicles which, in our time, first broke through the barrier of the atmosphere." ALSO:

Space sails (solar sails https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_sail , laser-pushed lightsails https://www.space.com/laser-sail-centering-breakthrough-starshot.html , electric sails [E-sails: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_sail ], and magnetic sails [magsails: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_sail ]) also operate, as rockets do, according to Isaac Newton's Third Law of Motion ("For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction"), but they are not rockets because a rocket, by definition, is a completely self-contained propulsion system. The various types of space sails also operate by the action-reaction principle, but their "propellant" (solar [or one day, stellar] photons, photons from lasers, charged particle beams, charged solar wind [or one day, stellar wind] particles, and planetary, solar, and/or stellar magnetic fields) isn't contained within the sails, but comes from outside them.

[tbzep]

--cold-gas thrusters work just fine, especially in a vacuum.
Yes, but only in an upright. Flights are too short in a canister. They get really dusty in there unless you put a new bag on first. :D

[Ez2cDave]

Yes, but only in an upright. Flights are too short in a canister. They get really dusty in there unless you put a new bag on first. :D

I found some highly-classified images of the propulsion unit for the U.S.S. ELECTROLUX . . .

Dave F.

[PaulK]

Actually, eBay IS selling R-12 ( I was surprised ) !

https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_nkw=%22r-12%22+%22freon%22+-valve+-gauge+-gauges+-envirosafe+-enviro+-oil+-line+-r143a+-134a&_sacat=0&LH_TitleDesc=0&_blrs=recall_filtering&_sop=16

Dave F.Huh, maybe I should put up my cans of automotive R-12. I've been saving them to someday get an old Cold Power bird in the air, but don't know if I'll ever get around to it.

[Moark Bill]

I’d like to see Estes follow the Disney movie example . Bring a few out of the vault every year for limited time and reproduce all the old lineup of rockets. This last year I built the current bring backs,Patriot,red max ,Nike X ,multiroc , Saturn 1B. So just keep the oldies coming!

[jeffyjeep]

Huh, maybe I should put up my cans of automotive R-12. I've been saving them to someday get an old Cold Power bird in the air, but don't know if I'll ever get around to it.

Do cans of R-12 have a shelf life? Just wondering.

[ghrocketman]

As long as the cans stay sealed, there should be no finite "shelf life" for R-12

[blackshire]

Yes, but only in an upright. Flights are too short in a canister. They get really dusty in there unless you put a new bag on first. :DI only use a broom and dustpan...

[blackshire]

I found some highly-classified images of the propulsion unit for the U.S.S. ELECTROLUX . . .

Dave F.That was ours, too--we even had the braided hose re-done after 30+ years of service made it "ratty"; the rest of it was also made of all top-quality materials (steel, steel mesh, tough fabric indefinitely-reusable interior dust bags, phenolic, etc. They were made to last! Also, cats love it if you go "Boo!" into one end of the disconnected hose; they'll slap at the other free end with their paws (with the hose's metal end fittings, they can't damage it).

[blackshire]

As long as the cans stay sealed, there should be no finite "shelf life" for R-12I agree--as gas with such large molecules should leak very little, if at all, especially from cans whose plastic button-valves have never been pressed (the XR 100 motors used these). The other type of totally-sealed can, with a screwed-down metal valve that cuts into the top of the can while being screwed into place (I believe the Coldpower Convertible motors--and perhaps also the Valkyrie series motors--used/use [or can use] these), can never leak, unless the installed valve leaks or the can rusted through, but the latter would never happen with normal storage, and:

The only example of leakage from such cans that I know of involved/involves the Canadian-made LOGIX (and also made by the Tandy Corporation) Aeronautical Lab Kit. They came/come (some unused ones are still around) a small can of helium (the can looked/looks like one of those used for aerosol shaving cream), for the balloons used in the section on aerostatic flight. The lab's manual itself warns to not leave the can unused for long after its plastic button-valve is first pressed, because the helium will steadily leak out once that is done. (The very small size of the helium atom makes this possible, which is why hydrogen- and helium-filled weather balloons, pleasure Charliere balloons [gas balloons, as opposed to Montgolfiere balloons--hot-air balloons--hydrogen is often used in Charliere balloons in Europe because it's much cheaper than helium; all components are electrically connected to prevent static sparks], and airships take off soon after inflation is complete, and require extensive use of envelope and valve sealing compounds on the fabric ones.)