I agree with you Steve, thanks for all the very insightful feedback. I will
re-test the motor. However, this time I will try KNSB-RIO to eliminate
'disbonding' as a possible failure cause.
Richard
On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 10:25 AM Steve Peterson <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
In the video, in the closeup at the end where you show the results of the
pressure relief mechanism, I notice a thin crust of slag around the rear of
the divergent section of the nozzle. It's not definitive, but in my
experience if there's slag there, there's slag elsewhere in the nozzle.
That makes me lean heavily toward the nozzle constriction explanation,
especially if there could have been bits of inhibitor mixed in with the
slag. I say that even knowing that the slag could have been formed during
tail-off.
At this point, I'll quote my favorite saying from some structural
engineers who do "forensic engineering": "a single test is worth a thousand
opinions", meaning that if it were me, I'd do two or three more tests with
this configuration, although if I saw significant (as measured with a drill
bit shank) nozzle constriction in the next test, I'd probably try to solve
it before moving on. At any rate, I can't come up with any more ideas as to
what might have gone wrong....
On 8/23/23 7:59 AM, Richard Nakka wrote:
The correct nozzle diameter is 0.163" as shown in the drawing.
The inhibitor/casting tube was my standard 3 plies of posterboard (0.014")
impregnated with epoxy.
On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 8:04 AM Steve Peterson <
dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In your video you say the nozzle was 0.138", but in your text
description here, you said 0.163". Also, I'm curious what the inhibitor
material was...
On 8/22/23 4:14 PM, Richard Nakka wrote:
Ok, so it turns out I had already uploaded the static test video of
EBEM-1.0:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4X6D0iiE2o
Richard
