> Stirling Westrup wrote: What
> is the highest density chemical energy storage that is currently known?
This is a much more complicated question than it looks.
> answer different if we look at joules per mililiter instead of per gram?
Of course. If volume doesnt matter, hydrogen and flourine
pack a tremendous bang per gram. Solid rocket fuels are
way down on specific impulse per unit weight, but they
exceed liquid rocket impulse as a function of volume. Furthermore
the answer depends on how you want to actually *use* the energy.
For instance, a hand grenade has less chemical energy than
a twinky. If you are interested in converting energy via
internal combustion, good old octane is quite respectable.
As far as energy released, a rusting piece of iron does well.
If you are imagining chemical storage for nanoconstruction,
mitochondria have found a good energy transfer medium,
the breakdown of simple sugars.
Please sharpen the question Stirling.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:03:26 MDT