Making a new solid propellant formula 

But don't change the way you do your videos we like your .... mhmmm wild production style

Hey, I wasn't expecting to see you here 😂

HX-752 is dangerous bla bla, but tomatoes are disgusting anyway 😂

If you weren't showing us what not to do, Integza, we wouldn't even be able to appreciate Joe and his work at this point.

lol I’ve been watching you both for years and you both have interesting and very different ways of approaching science 😂

Agreed.

Absolutely, these are always top notch. I forget i'm not watching a big budget produced documentary.

He is musician and you can see his video music stands out from other channels music because he makes all of them and i think it is most underlooked aspect as people think he copy paste music of others .in reality it takes work forr 2 min music

Bepis is crazy

I'm up I'm up!

That's for waking me pookie

It went from talking to the wife about fun rockets into fun facts about HX 752 and reproductive systems.

“Bepis Space” 💀

You are welcome!

Move along. Nothing to see here.

FBI doesn't care, the ones who might care are the BATFE

It’s ok FBI agents view my LinkedIn every so often. To my fbi agent this is just for funzies

Just wondering why you need this knowledge. --Your FBI agent

@william5931 I don't. I just watch videos about random shit all day. I won't remember this video an hour from now. I'm a sad lonely soul.

By the way don't ever show it on RU-vid it's an instant takedown.

Joe should send a reliant robin to space. Using reliant robin

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-pJdrlWR-yFM.html

@@mr-huggy I KNEW IT - This is so validating lmao. I thought of mentioning it and just showing a photo but I figured I'd better play it safe and just reference the car instead of the Top Gear episode for that very reason

It's also the car that Mr Bean continuously has altercations with in his Mini!

absolutely, that was great.

Azidrines are bad juju, yes

-- every chemical engineer, ever.

Everything!

haha funny chemical go eldritch abomination

What could go wrong?

Or want to make potent weed edibles

😂😂😂 algebra isn’t even hard it’s the trig, calculus, and other shit that’ll fuck you up in engineering. Just remember with algebra most of the formulas are given already you just have to learn to plug in data.

I don't recognize said authority, As a garbage man I see hazardous organic chemistry everyday and know how to spell it.. What exactly do you research with spelling like this, We are doomed..

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 much fail

I agree with ball milling for the AN. personally I‘ve worked with gas mills and far finer grain size range.

AFAICT, there really doesn't seem to be a clear consensus on what "fuel" means in the context of solid rocket propellants, and many seemingly authoritative sources (e.g. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8587658/) as well as less authoritative ones (e.g. Wikipedia) seem to classify all reducing components of the propellant mixture (other than trace additives, perhaps) as "fuels", if they don't simply use the words "fuel" and "propellant" interchangeably. For bipropellant liquid fuel rockets, there's a well established distinction between "fuel" and "oxidizer", those being the two liquids stored separately and mixed and ignited in the combustion chamber. (And yes, aluminum _has_ been tried as a liquid fuel additive; see e.g. Clark, John D. (1972), _Ignition!_, p. 180.) In solid rockets, however, the propellant is all one more or less homogeneous solid mass, so that simple distinction does not apply. The various substances making up the propellant grain can certainly still be classified using chemical terms, e.g. as oxidizing, reducing or inert, although - as you note - this classification isn't perfect since a single substance such as AP can contain both oxidizing and reducing parts. However, "fuel" isn't really a term used in this chemical classification. The closest thing, perhaps, is "reducing agent", which metallic aluminum certainly is. Anyway, while gas generation is certainly an important (arguably _the_ most important) aspect of rocket propulsion, AFAIK there is no concise and established term for "a substance producing a gaseous exhaust when combusted as part of a rocket propellant." And even if there was, it would presumably have to include both oxidizing and reducing compounds, since both can and do contribute to the exhaust gases. Part of the complexity here is that the actual composition of the exhaust depends not only on the individual elements and compounds present in the propellant mix, but also on their ratios and on the temperature and pressure of the combustion process. While we can certainly say with fair confidence that e.g. aluminum pretty much always gets exhausted as solid particles (of aluminum oxide or, if combustion is incomplete, aluminum metal) while e.g. hydrogen and nitrogen pretty much always end up as gases (H2 / H2O / N2 / NOx) in all but the most fuel-rich (sorry, reducing) combustion conditions, other elements such as oxygen and carbon can go either way depending on what (if anything) they end up reacting with. And even when a combustion reaction produces gaseous products, that doesn't necessarily guarantee an increase in pressure: for example, the combustion of hydrogen with oxygen (2 H2 + O2 -> 2 H2O) has gaseous products (at typical rocket engine temperatures) but actually decreases pressure, since three gas molecules go in but only two come out. The heat generated by the reaction, of course, generally more than makes up for it, but that's still a big part of the reason why hydrolox rocket engines pretty much always run very fuel-rich: you get a much better specific impulse if most of your exhaust is uncombusted H2 rather than H2O. (The other reason, of course, is that _too much_ heat tends to be bad for the engines.)

Same for me and I only make Lego

There's a youtuber making a liquid rocket made out of a beer keg which I'm eagerly awaiting the completion of, it looks really cool