Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a25765691c702c38

Jump to content

Talk:T-Stoff

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 8 years ago by DPdH in topic Unsigned comment

Unsigned comment

[edit]

T-stoff is the name of a chemical weapon used in WWI by the Germans. The caustic mixture was used in the German Me163 and was 80% Hydrogen Peroxide and 20% distilled water, by weight. Phosphoric acid was one of the stabilizers used to produce this chemical. Whomever knows more, please fill in!

Propellant not weapon, and WW Two not One. DPdH (talk) 21:47, 8 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

T-Stoff C-Stoff ratio

[edit]

This source reports (for the Walter HWK 109-509 engine) a C-Stoff:T-Stoff stochiometric ratio of 0.36:1 (which is close to 1:3). In the article is reported a 3:1 ratio. Who is wrong? --Nubifer (talk) 21:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yep. It's hard to calculate an exact stoichiometric ratio, partly because the composition of C-Stoff varied due to shortages of hydrazine, falling to 15% at the end of the war (and shortage of hydrazine was the main reason the Me 163 didn't do a lot in the war, they didn't have the fuel to operate it), and partly not knowing whether to calculate to carbon monoxide or dioxide - and more, it is unusual to operate an engine at stoichiometric ratio anyway.

Actual ratios in use varied from 3.1 to 3.45, most often around 3.15 - that's 3.15 T-Stoff to one part C-Stoff, or oxidiser-to-fuel, the usual way these ratios are given by rockety guys. the original article is wildly wrong. I have corrected it. peter@tsto.co.uk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.3.121.230 (talk) 04:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)Reply