Talk:High-test peroxide

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Military history: Aviation / Technology

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	Military science, technology, and theory task force

Safely killed?

Quote: "when thousands of civilians were safely killed" I can appreciate the black humour, but many will be offended, and it is not very suitable for an encyclopedia. Should be changed, right? --GunnsteinLye 18:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Organic Matter

H2O2 also reacts violently to organic matter. Any tissue will cause it to violently decompose, like when you put the 3% stuff on your cuts as a kid, except about 30 times worse. I reccomend adding this in, but if it is not in a week, I will -Hairchrm 01:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't react instantly though. If you're quickly sprayed with water, no harm necessarily results; although you'll be snow-white for a day or two.WolfKeeper 06:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Hydrogen Peroxide

Apart from the couple of lines about the Russian torpedos, this article is completely duplicated in the "Use as propellant" section in Hydrogen peroxide. Does this article need to stand on its own? Silverchemist 12:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - We have an article on RP-1. Maybe we should split the Hydrogen Peroxide article and enlarge this one instead. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 08:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - I don't see how that article somehow warrants the existence of this one that only discusses a specific strength of the substance. Absolutely this does not deserve to exist. --84.250.188.136 (talk) 16:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - as per GW Simulations. Hydrogen peroxide is an article on the chemistry, High test peroxide on one engineering application. The subjects are significantly different. If anything, we should do some cut & paste editing to move the right content to the right places. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Pretty much the entirety of this article also exists in the hydrogen peroxide article, this article simply doesn't have any additional info that warrants its existence as a standalone article. Further while I do feel that the RP-1 article is similar to Kerosene, it is also different enough that it much better warrants its existence as an article. I do not feel that the subjects in this article are different enough to not have it all in the main peroxide article.82.176.205.54 (talk) 11:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Safely Used

has been used safely and successfully in many applications beginning with German usage during World War II and continues to the present day. During World War II, high test peroxide was used as an oxidizer in some German bipropellant rocket designs, e.g., Messerschmitt Me 163, comprising 80 % of the standardized mixture T-Stoff.

Perhaps this should be reworded as the the Me 163 aircraft was notoriously dangerous to fly. The German and British submarines that used it as an underwater propellant were also dangerous and unreliable.Catsmeat (talk) 10:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notorious, but not well supported by factual refs (I suggest Ian Hogg, for starters). It appears to be one of those technologies with such obvious potential risk that great care was taken and the actual injury rate was relatively low. There were surprises: particulary the unexpected effects of the leather tanning process (chrome-tanned leather acts as a catalyst, whereas vegetable-tanned leather smoulders slowly), but on the whole the engines don't deserve the horror-story reputation they gained post-war, which it should be said came from US writers, not Germans.

As an aircraft with high performance and high landing speed, it had as good a safety record as anything else comparable. Certainly better than the late-war ersatz aircraft, certainly better than the peacetime Dh108.

As an interceptor, it had an effective and survivable combat record. Attacking a well-armed bomber formation was hazardous, and the 163's speed gave an edge that improved survivability well in excess of any additional flight risks. Fortunately for the Allies, their service was delayed by delays in building the rocket motors, otherwise the US day bombers could have been seriously affected by them.

The submarines used a different combustion cycle, and this does indeed appear to have been inherently extremely hazardous. That said though, modern AIP subs have a pretty good record. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I played with some 35% H2O2 was trying to vacuum distill it for amateur racketeering; got some on my skin, did not notice for about 5 minutes a burning sensation slowly builds up and can become quite painful, by the time you feel the burning it its too late and no amount of water will stop the white splotches from forming. Next time I'll use long gloves and a full face mask not just safety glasses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.103.182.177 (talk) 05:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of percentage

What kind of percentage (mass percentage or mole percentage) is used the description of the highly concentrated solution? The present version of the article does not specify!--5.2.200.163 (talk) 16:04, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's in there under "Properties". The concentration varies, but HTP is any peroxide over the "proof" level. This is the concentration (by mass) of about 66-67% whereupon the peroxide has sufficient excess energy to fully vapourise itself, on reaction. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:37, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marginally related, but this study defines HTP as 90% or greater. I'll post more as I find them. Kees08 (Talk) 21:36, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This page defines it as 90% also. Kees08 (Talk) 23:37, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why use foreign name?

"High-Test Peroxide" is a Britishism, why are we using foreign usages when the real topic already has a perfectly good page for it? 2601:647:6480:B640:3CDC:82C:FC41:6530 (talk) 05:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]