Re: Sparging

Ben Brockert wrote:
> If buying a machine is the best route, why is ERPS rolling their own?

A. In deep enough that I'd hate to walk away at this point - I've 
got enough infrastructure in place (incl. working 3-phase power at 
the ranch, now!) and equipment under construction that I may as well 
see this phase through to where I've given my current plan a fair 
test! (even though it's taking a few years longer than I first 
assumed... but that's more due to logistical externalities than 
to insurmountable obstacles in the technical development itself, 
which I must be careful to keep in mind when responding to this 
sort of question: the hard part hasn't been building things so 
much as making the time available to do it.)

B. I think the route we're pursuing will potentially yield extra-pure
(>98%) H2O2 with low impurity levels, as in the last batches XL-space 
supplied before closing: and the "squeaky clean & wicked pure" stuff
has evident potential not only for catalytic work but also for potential
hypergolic combinations. (Everything I've encountered so far leads me
to the conclusion that if lower-concentration material is desired for
use with a particular catalyst, best results will be had with highly-purified
material (by way of a final freeze separation) diluted as needed, rather
than with H2O2 concentrated by evaporation directly up to the intended
strength (unless the evaporation starts with extremely low-solute material).

This is not out of the question: the process used by Bengtsson of
"Peroxide Propulsion Systems" in Sweden involves running the H2O2
in dilute aqueous solution through an ion-exchange "demineralizer"
as is used in preparing purified water: with solutes thus removed,
he then concentrates the solution by evaporation.