OK. It was the "presumably damped by intervening non-detonable propellants"
that I was missing. Sorry, Ben, didn't mean to be obtuse.
-R
On Sunday, September 11, 2016, Evan Daniel <evanbd@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
He's asserting that only a tiny portion of the fuel and oxidizer were
mixed thoroughly enough to detonate, and that those detonated in their
entirety. (And presumably that the shock wave was damped by
intervening non-detonable propellants.)
On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 11:06 PM, Randall Clague <rclague@xxxxxxxxx
<javascript:;>> wrote:
Are you asserting that a detonation began, encountered a detonation<javascript:;>> wrote:
suppressor, and was successfully suppressed?
-R
On Sunday, September 11, 2016, Ben Brockert <wikkit@xxxxxxxxx
<javascript:;>> wrote:
On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 9:44 PM, Randall Clague <rclague@xxxxxxxxx
ifWRT detonation, there is such a beast as a deflagration-to-detonation
transition, and people put a lot of work into preventing or postponing
that
transition. No one talks about reversing it. My understanding is that
you
have a detonable mixture, and a detonation begins, it continues until
the
mixture is consumed.
There's been a ton of work on the reverse, they're called detonation
supressors. For when you want fire with less boom.
A detonation in that fuel/lox mixture would indeed stop when it ran
out of detonable mixture. The bulk LOX and bulk kerosene are not
individually detonable.
Ben
