Talk:Propellant

Untitled

At the moment, there are two paragraphs of information on aerosol sprays at each of Aerosol#Aerosol spray and at Propellant#Aerosol sprays. I propose to create an article at Aerosol spray (currently a redirect to Aerosol, which is mainly about atmospheric particulates) and merge those four paragraphs to it, with appropriate links from Propellant, Aerosol and elsewhere. Any objections? -- Securiger 09:14, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

This is an excellent article that is well written and thorough while being remarkably concise. The only line that puzzled me was the listing of red fuming nitric acid as a mono-propellant. I am only aware of RFNA having been used as an oxidizer in bi-propellant combinations. I was somewhat surprised at the very brief list of references as the content of the article seems to reflect a more extensive knowledge and appreciation of the subject than could be obtain from such a limited number of sources. I also appreciate that the article was not diluted with a lengthy list of "possible" rocket propellant combinations the large majority of which are never actually used. Magneticlifeform (talk) 18:04, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Distinction between fuel and propellant

Every rocket needs two distinct things: a supply of reaction mass and an energy source to accelerate that mass. Chemical rockets are only a special case in that reaction mass and energy storage are the same material. Some rockets separate these roles, e.g., in nuclear thermal, plasma or ion rockets a nuclear reactor or solar power is used to accelerate the reaction mass. In this case, the reaction mass is considered the propellant even though it may be inert and undergoes no chemical change in the rocket. 2602:304:B3CE:D590:0:0:0:1 (talk) 12:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Interesting point! If I understand right, you are saying that propellant means reaction mass and not fuel, but that they are all the same in the case of chemical rockets. If so, the articles should reflect that! Elias (talk) 14:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

No I don't that is what is you, Elias, are "reflecting". If were are talking about "fuel" then were are talking about the energy source being a combustion process which needs both an oxidant and a fuel. If the rocket just had kerosine as a fuel it would need to use the surrounding air as an oxidiser: so in that case the reaction mass is the mass of the kerosine fuel plus the mass of air that it needs for combustion. Many of these chemical propellants combine both the fuel and the oxidant, so energy source is the releasable energy stored in the propellant and the reaction mass is mass of the propellant. If we have an aerosol can or solar power there is no combustion process (solar power is energy captured from the sun, which is a combustion process, but the sun is external to the process). Pyrotec (talk) 21:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

The OP of this thread is absolutely correct. I've rewritten and expanded most of the article to differentiate propellant from fuel and made a bunch of other improvements. And I've brought it up to the 21st century (there are hundreds of non-chemical, e.g., electrically powered, space vehicles in use today). The article still could use more sources though. Sparkie82 (t•c) 15:42, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Article rewrite needed

This article's header currently reads: This article is about propellants used in vehicles like rockets. For propellants used in aerosol sprays, see Aerosol_spray § Aerosol_propellants. For ballistic propellants, see Gun.

This is insufficient for the following reasons:

1. There is already an article for Rocket propellant; I propose a merger and a transfer of most details to that article. This article (Propellant) should cover the functions of rocket propellant but not the specific substances/compounds.

2. Aerosol_spray#Aerosol_propellants is too narrow in scope: the propellants in gas dusters ("canned air"), airbrush cans, paintball/airsoft, and other applications are similar in function and often use the same compounds (formerly CFCs, now propane or a mixture of hydrocarbons, or ether). Cooking spray is an aerosol, while whipped cream is not, but they both need a food-safe propellant, such as nitrous oxide or CO2.

• Note: Should we discuss this topic under the name "compressed gas" or "propellant"? Compressed gas currently redirects to compressed fluid, which is mostly a science rather than technology article. I think that is appropriate: propellant should discuss the technological application of compressed gas/fluid for its propulsive/kinetic effect; storage applications such as CO2 for beverage carbonation and LNG for fuel transport are a different application.

3. Gun does not, in fact, discuss propellants used in guns. There are separate articles for black powder, smokeless powder, etc., but no centralized discussion on the topic. Propellant may or may not be the place for said centralized discussion, but surely a mention is warranted.

• (I have asked in the Gun talk page whether they would like such a centralized discussion in Gun#Propellant, Gunpowder, Propellant#Gun propellants, or in a new article such as Ballistic propellant, Propellant (ballistics), Gun propellant, or Propellant (guns).)

Note that Merriam Webster and dictionary.com both define propellant in the above three senses. The order of definitions in both is (1) projectiles/guns, (2) rockets, (3) aerosol and similar.

I am therefore taking the following actions:

• Writing the section Propellant#Compressed gas propellants
• Adding the stub section and Propellant#Ballistics propellants Propellant#Gun propellants to this article.
• Moving the current (long!) introduction section of this article into the Propellant#Rocket propellants section. Proposing a merge into Rocket propellant.
• Writing a first draft of a more general definition and introduction to the topic of propellants in general.

I would like help with:

• Choosing the best names for the sections. (Is "Compressed gas propellant" a good name? Should it be "ballistics propellants" or "ballistic propellants" or something else?)

• Note: the latter should cover propellants that are used inside [gun] barrels, including firework mortars, but shouldn't include solid rockets like fireworks themselves and rockets-as-weapons, even though the latter do end up ballistic for some or much of their flight. That's why I've used "gun" rather than "ballistics".

• Defining the scope of this article vs. each topic's main articles
• Expanding the two stub sections

• Some material can perhaps be taken from this former revision: [1]

• Shrinking Propellant#Rocket propellants: merging all specifics and details from the section into Rocket propellant, and then deleting them from this article
• Guidance on Wikipedia policies regarding the above

SSSheridan (talk) 10:53, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I've just realized that this article did cover propellants in general until 2.5 months ago with @Sparkie82:'s revisions beginning on September 13, 2021. Here's the latest version before those changes: [2]. I agree with that the coverage of the other types of propellant was poor. Apologies, @Sparkie82, for heavily revising this article without getting in touch; I hadn't seen your changes. However, I think that the various types of "propellant" have enough in common to warrant a general broad-principles discussion on this page, with each section linking to a "Main article." Do you agree that Rocket propellant is a good place for a full discussion of that topic, and that this article (Propellant) can cover all three types? SSSheridan (talk) 14:11, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

The word propellant has different meanings in different contexts, although they have a common concept. This article is currently about the reaction mass used to propel a vehicle forward, e.g., rockets, jets, etc. The explanation from the article differentiates between two such meanings, "Although the term "propellant" is often used in chemical rocket design to describe a combined fuel/propellant, propellants should not be confused with the fuel that is used by an engine to produce the energy that expels the propellant. Even though the byproducts of substances used as fuel are also often used as a reaction mass to create the thrust, such as with a chemical rocket engine, propellant and fuel are two distinct concepts."

We could add to that explanation that "propellant" is also used to describe the substance that expands to propel a projectile. That sense of the word is different from either, 1) reaction mass of a vehicle or 2) the combination of reaction mass plus fuel used in a chemical rocket. We should include the additions about projectile propellants. They make sense as an addition to this article. Those additions make this article into a Wikipedia:Broad-concept article which I believe it should be, given the broad application of the term "propellant" and it's multiple meanings, which encompass a single concept. As a broad topic, it would include vehicle propellants, projectile propellants, and aerosol propellants, which all have a common concept but are different meanings of the word.

The content in this article that discusses different types of thrust engines should remain because each of those is very brief and they serve to differentiate between the different types of propellant used in each application.

I'm going to revert the lead because the definition as it is written "substance which is used to propel: to accelerate some mass using the force of pressure difference between a confined space and the surrounding environment" is incorrect. I'll add more to the lead about the other senses and remove or modify the hatnote to broaden the scope of the article into broad-concept article . Sparkie82 (t•c) 18:29, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Missing Content

This article fails to include the class of rocket propellants termed "electrically-controlled solid propellants", which have salient characteristics different from other propellants and offering some significant operational advantages. Mkudra (talk) 02:31, 12 January 2023 (UTC)