Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 28 guests
Re: Introducing the Hunter process. | |
---|---|
by laz » Mon Jul 07, 2014 1:49 pm | |
laz
Posts: 73
|
Why bother with titanium? just do some handwaveium and Battle Steel!
breast plates would be back in fashion. laz |
Top |
Re: Introducing the Hunter process. | |
---|---|
by Thrandir » Mon Jul 07, 2014 6:52 pm | |
Thrandir
Posts: 161
|
I would say some of the equipment is in place or nearly in place. The problem would be to have a pressure vessel to handle the required pressure of the Haber process. The temperature is not a problem, the other would be for them to realise you require Iron with Potassium Nitrate as the catalyst to speed the reaction along. Otherwise no Iron/KNO3 then it takes a while to produce anything worthwhile. Admittedly EoC has the advantage of a certain entity called OWL to point this out
I whole-heartedly agree BarryKirk plus some of DW's other responses were very insightful as well. |
Top |
Re: Introducing the Hunter process. | |
---|---|
by AirTech » Tue Jul 08, 2014 11:40 am | |
AirTech
Posts: 476
|
I whole-heartedly agree BarryKirk plus some of DW's other responses were very insightful as well.[/quote] Of course you could do what Haber suggested and use uranium catalyst as an alternative to iron to lower the pressure and temperature requirements (a cannon barrel makes a perfectly serviceable ammonia production reactor - I worked on one in the mid 80's that was still in service, rifle barrels work for ammonia piping in small reactors too). Ammonia gives you cheap nitric acid leading to ammonium nitrate and trinitrotoluene (TNT), mix them and you have Amatol - a perfectly serviceable bomb and shell filling. Guided solid fuel missiles are a small step beyond this and then you are back in space in a few years... |
Top |