PangleMince Posted June 28, 2006 Posted June 28, 2006 Sucralose (splenda) is trichlorinated sugar. Logically it would make a reasonable rocket propellant or at least fuel. It is less hygroscopic than sucrose and theoretically at least, the three chlorine atoms would form metal (potassium likely) chlorides providing a boost of power. Also, as it has been said before, a major (aesthetic) problem with sugar rockets is a lack of visible flame. Because splenda has three Cl atoms tacked on to it, wouldn't that act as a chlorine donor, enhancing or making possible visible flame? I have calculated the ideal proportion to be 1 part (by weight) sucralose to approx. 2.3 parts KNO3. Due to impurities such as maltodextrin, I am likely quite off in this. Having tested this mixture, I will definately say that its shortcomings are:1. High ignition temp. It tends to melt, get brownish, and then ignite. Perhaps some sort of catalyst is in order?2. It doesn't have the right... ferocity. And it spatters too (I burnt my thumb a bit!) It could be that I'm not preparing it right. My grinder recently malfunctioned. If anyone can back me up on this or even experiment a bit with the proportions, please do so! I am out of oxydiser and am ordering some more from skylighter.
ActionTekJackson Posted June 28, 2006 Posted June 28, 2006 I've wondered about this myself, I will have to do some testing after the 4th. How fine was your sucralose? I know its pretty grainy and fluffy straight out of the bag. Milling the composition might help.
PangleMince Posted June 28, 2006 Author Posted June 28, 2006 Well you see, because of my grinder malfunction, I had to give it the mortar and pestle. And Splenda has the property of a lot of large particals (Caked together from the fine powder during the preparation I suspect) but also has a lot of Very fine dust... So when I was powdering it, it kicked up just the tiniest bit into the air and there was a hideous sweetish taste right in the back of my throat that wouldn't go away. Which is why splenda is better for burning than ingesting. But I digress. Overall, it was of decent powderiness still free flowing with ~8% slightly larger bits/caked pieces.
Boomer Posted June 28, 2006 Posted June 28, 2006 - Melting properties? - Tried 'eutectics' with other sugars for easier casting? And you do not have to aim at zero OB (CO2) for candy propellant. 40/60 is somewhat above CO balance only! Since you will loose less oxygen as K2O with enough Cl, plus have less hydrogen in a heavier molecule, I would try 1:1 instead of 1:2.3 or add a little metal powder. It doesn't have to be a flash-grade mesh.
PangleMince Posted June 28, 2006 Author Posted June 28, 2006 Casting? I haven't tried that yet. It seems as though it would be well suited. I have tried lower ratios (about 1:1.5) but these are fairly difficult to ignite. Also, its not pure sucralose in splenda- there are also large amounts of dextrose and maltodextrin. They are used as filler because sucralose is much sweeter than sucrose. Melting it would probably help with the ignition though. It does make more flame (sort of deep red with purple streaks). edited typo
Douchermann Posted June 28, 2006 Posted June 28, 2006 Try some Fe2O3 in the mixture as a burnrate catalyst. Also, you can try another oxidiser. Maybe KClO3. You're right, this could be an interesting mixture. Maybe go to a vitamin/health store and buy pure sucralose to test this out better.
lacrima97 Posted June 28, 2006 Posted June 28, 2006 I believe sucralose is around 600x sweeter than sugar. The actual packets of splenda contain a very small amount of sucralose. I think you would probably have an extremely hard time finding it pure, because it has to have fillers mixed in with it, or it would be impossible to measure out a single serving. IDK, you might be able to find some pure sucralose, but I'm doubting it, but if you dont, you will just have a maltodextrin rocket.
ADP9 Posted July 1, 2006 Posted July 1, 2006 That's what I was thinking lacrima, there is a tiny amount of sucralose in each pack. Perhaps alternate substances would be of interest: maltodextrin, xylitol, erythritol...
TurboSnail Posted December 3, 2008 Posted December 3, 2008 (edited) I have also been thinking of using chlorinated sugar as a fuel / chlorine donor in coloured flame production, but it seems almost impossible to find it in concentrated (Free from fillers witch normally make up over 99%) form for the right price and in normal amateur amounts... buying it in bulk just to do some simple tests dose not feel like a economical way to go... i already spend over 100% of my money on pyro related activity's... How about making small amounts at home gettho style? Bubbling chlorine gas trough a dilute solution of sugar? I have read the patents but that was some time ago and i don't remember the details... anyhow, as we are not going to eat the stuff it dose not need to be 100% pure meaning it might just be possible to synthesise reasonable amounts for tests without making a huge crater in the budget? >>>_@/" Edited December 3, 2008 by TurboSnail
Swede Posted December 3, 2008 Posted December 3, 2008 Erythritol might be a good fuel. The crystals are dense, heavy, and do not appear hygroscopic. It can be purchased quite pure, and the price is not horrible. No chlorine though.
TurboSnail Posted December 3, 2008 Posted December 3, 2008 Erythritol might be a good fuel. The crystals are dense, heavy, and do not appear hygroscopic. It can be purchased quite pure, and the price is not horrible. No chlorine though. Partial chlorination of Erythritol? maby nitrate 2 of the 5 OH groups and chlorinate the other 3 or somthing similar? That might be a interesting fuel?
Boomer Posted December 10, 2008 Posted December 10, 2008 Something similar was proposed for PE. I've put it in the "highest energy propellant" thread though. BTW there are FOUR hydroxyls in Erythritol!
Recommended Posts