Good think space is not enclosed. Otherwise rockets wouldn't work.
The way to make this experiment similar to rockets would be to attach a box around the rocket engine. That would mean that the exhausts bounce off of the box and no work would be done.
I don't know which gas laws you are referring to.
A Gas does no Work in a Vacuum:
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node33.html
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/j150043a002
http://www.etomica.org/app/modules/sites/JouleThomson/Background2.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_expansion
No Work=no Force=no Motion:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/work.html
https://www.wou.edu/las/physci/GS361/EnergyBasics/EnergyBasics.htm
http://www.edinformatics.com/math_science/work_energy_power.htm
Etc, etc, etc; undeniable scientific FACT.
Ergo a GAS-powered rocket cannot possibly create MOTION in a Vacuum.
Off you go idiotic anti-science paid liar scumbags...
Exercise your Democratic Rights to Lie like your life depends on it!
Papa Legba, does a pressurized container force pair with the compressed gas contained within?
So pressure x area is no longer a force?Papa Legba, does a pressurized container force pair with the compressed gas contained within?
Irrelevant, shill.
A Gas does no Work in a Vacuum:
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node33.html
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/j150043a002
http://www.etomica.org/app/modules/sites/JouleThomson/Background2.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_expansion
No Work=no Force=no Motion:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/work.html
https://www.wou.edu/las/physci/GS361/EnergyBasics/EnergyBasics.htm
http://www.edinformatics.com/math_science/work_energy_power.htm
Etc, etc, etc; undeniable scientific FACT.
Ergo a GAS-powered rocket cannot possibly create MOTION in a Vacuum.
Off you go idiotic anti-science paid liar scumbags...
Exercise your Democratic Rights to Lie like your life depends on it!
Because it is repeatedly-verified scientific FACT that a Gas does no Work in a Vacuum.No one is claiming that it does. We're just saying that rockets don't work that way.
A Gas does no Work in a Vacuum:
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node33.html
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/j150043a002
http://www.etomica.org/app/modules/sites/JouleThomson/Background2.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_expansion
No Work=no Force=no Motion:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/work.html
https://www.wou.edu/las/physci/GS361/EnergyBasics/EnergyBasics.htm
http://www.edinformatics.com/math_science/work_energy_power.htm
Etc, etc, etc; undeniable scientific FACT.
Ergo a GAS-powered rocket cannot possibly create MOTION in a Vacuum.
Off you go idiotic anti-science paid liar scumbags...
Exercise your Democratic Rights to Lie like your life depends on it!
You are Lying again & clearly have not read the links.None of those links say anything about rockets in a vacuum.
A Gas does no Work in a Vacuum:
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node33.html
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/j150043a002
http://www.etomica.org/app/modules/sites/JouleThomson/Background2.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_expansion
No Work=no Force=no Motion:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/work.html
https://www.wou.edu/las/physci/GS361/EnergyBasics/EnergyBasics.htm
http://www.edinformatics.com/math_science/work_energy_power.htm
Etc, etc, etc; undeniable scientific FACT.
Ergo a GAS-powered rocket cannot possibly create MOTION in a Vacuum.
Off you go idiotic anti-science paid liar scumbags...
Exercise your Democratic Rights to Lie like your life depends on it!
A Gas does no Work in a Vacuum:
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node33.html
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/j150043a002
http://www.etomica.org/app/modules/sites/JouleThomson/Background2.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_expansion
No Work=no Force=no Motion:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/work.html
https://www.wou.edu/las/physci/GS361/EnergyBasics/EnergyBasics.htm
http://www.edinformatics.com/math_science/work_energy_power.htm
Etc, etc, etc; undeniable scientific FACT.
Ergo a GAS-powered rocket cannot possibly create MOTION in a Vacuum.
Off you go idiotic anti-science paid liar scumbags...
Exercise your Democratic Rights to Lie like your life depends on it!
A Gas does no Work in a Vacuum:
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node33.html
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/j150043a002
http://www.etomica.org/app/modules/sites/JouleThomson/Background2.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_expansion
No Work=no Force=no Motion:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/work.html
https://www.wou.edu/las/physci/GS361/EnergyBasics/EnergyBasics.htm
http://www.edinformatics.com/math_science/work_energy_power.htm
Etc, etc, etc; undeniable scientific FACT.
Ergo a GAS-powered rocket cannot possibly create MOTION in a Vacuum.
Off you go idiotic anti-science paid liar scumbags...
Exercise your Democratic Rights to Lie like your life depends on it!
^Has no science or facts to back up his time-wasting bullshit.None of those links mention rockets.
^Will never be banned.
^Because shill on shill-forum.
^lol.A Gas does no Work in a Vacuum:
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node33.html
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/j150043a002
http://www.etomica.org/app/modules/sites/JouleThomson/Background2.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_expansion
No Work=no Force=no Motion:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/work.html
https://www.wou.edu/las/physci/GS361/EnergyBasics/EnergyBasics.htm
http://www.edinformatics.com/math_science/work_energy_power.htm
Etc, etc, etc; undeniable scientific FACT.
Ergo a GAS-powered rocket cannot possibly create MOTION in a Vacuum.
Off you go idiotic anti-science paid liar scumbags...
Exercise your Democratic Rights to Lie like your life depends on it!
A Gas does no Work in a Vacuum:
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node33.html
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/j150043a002
http://www.etomica.org/app/modules/sites/JouleThomson/Background2.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_expansion
No Work=no Force=no Motion:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/work.html
https://www.wou.edu/las/physci/GS361/EnergyBasics/EnergyBasics.htm
http://www.edinformatics.com/math_science/work_energy_power.htm
Etc, etc, etc; undeniable scientific FACT.
Ergo a GAS-powered rocket cannot possibly create MOTION in a Vacuum.
Off you go idiotic anti-science paid liar scumbags...
Exercise your Democratic Rights to Lie like your life depends on it!
So Newton said and many agree that for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction. So what is happening to the energy when a rocket is ignited in a vacuum? Newton says something has got to happen.
25 posts in & not one shill can cite one bit of science to support their case...
25 posts in & not one shill can cite one bit of science to support their case...Since when is Newton's 3rd law a strawman? ???
Markjo has his strawman dollies, which I refuse to play with, & that's it.
25 posts in & not one shill can cite one bit of science to support their case...7000+ posts of crap, and you still don't know how a rocket works. LMAO.
Shills never provide citations for their Lying about the Gas Laws either...And you never provide citations that free expansion applies to rockets.
As for N3, everyone intelligent knows NASA Lies about that too...How does NASA lie about N3? ???
Exercise your Democratic Rights to Lie like your life depends on it!Vote early and vote often. -- Al Capone
TRIGGERED!!! REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!
How does NASA lie about N3?
How does NASA lie about N3?
Shills never read links either:
https://physicsparsimony.wordpress.com/2011/12/22/confusion-regarding-newtons-third-law-of-motion/
The fourth hit: NASA. Now we’re making progress! But the worksheets from NASA all include the misconception that both forces described by the Third Law are exerted on the same object! That’s right, the NASA site is dead wrong!
25 posts in & not one shill can cite one bit of science to support their case...7000+ posts of crap, and you still don't know how a rocket works. LMAO.
The guy is a better physicist & educator than you could ever imagine being you disgusting freak...Where in his expert opinion does he say that rockets can't work in a vacuum?
I have presented his expert opinion.
And his expert opinion is clearly worth listening to; yours is not.
Weird how all of those links talk about closed systems, enclosed spaces and insulated containers......And not one of them mentions the word "rocket".
Weird how all of those links talk about closed systems, enclosed spaces and insulated containers......
Where in his expert opinion does he say that rockets can't work in a vacuum?
Actually, he says that pretty much everyone everywhere is wrong about Newton's 3rd law. However, no where does he say that rockets can't work in a vacuum.Where in his expert opinion does he say that rockets can't work in a vacuum?
He says NASA are 'dead wrong' about Newton's 3rd Law.
And, as a 'dead wrong' interpretation of Newton's 3rd Law is how NASA explain rockets functioning in a vacuum I'd say you're in deep, deep, doo-doo, shill...Funny that he doesn't provide a link to the worksheet that he's referring to. I guess that we'll just have to take his word for it. After all, there's absolutely zero chance that NASA didn't just over simplify that worksheet to get their point across to non-physics majors, right?
A Gas does no Work in a Vacuum:
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node33.html
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/j150043a002
http://www.etomica.org/app/modules/sites/JouleThomson/Background2.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_expansion
No Work=no Force=no Power=no Motion:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/work.html
https://www.wou.edu/las/physci/GS361/EnergyBasics/EnergyBasics.htm
http://www.edinformatics.com/math_science/work_energy_power.htm
Etc, etc, etc; undeniable scientific FACT.
Ergo a GAS-powered rocket cannot possibly create MOTION in a Vacuum.
Off you go idiotic anti-science paid Liar scumbags...
Exercise your Democratic Rights to Lie like your life depends on it!
Free expansion
Free expansion is an irreversible process in which a gas expands into an insulated evacuated chamber. It is also called Joule expansion.
Real gases experience a temperature change during free expansion. For an ideal gas, the temperature doesn't change, and the conditions before and after adiabatic free expansion satisfy
25 posts in & not one shill can cite one bit of science to support their case...7000+ posts of crap, and you still don't know how a rocket works. LMAO.
You'd think that after 7000+ fishing expeditions some of you would recognize the bait >:(
Is this clown actually serious????
Panicking cos you know I'm about to reveal your big-eared lying rat-face to the world, 'Homie'?
Sadly, none of it proves a gas can produce power in a vacuum.
And, as the ambient pressure lessens it will leave even faster - due to free expansion, idiot shills.
But in a vacuum it will produce no force as it does so; the Laws of Physics say so.
BECAUSE IN VACUUM GAS HAS NO MASS ???
LOOOL
YOU JUST DISCOVERED PERPETUUM MOBILE.
Blowing gas with no mass into space sail will press sail but won't push back to compensate for it.
Lie a bit more about it eh?
It's your job:
lol.
You stuffed your fingers in your ears, closed your eyes, crying "no, no, no, no, the world must work the way I say".
As for NASA's 'rokkit thrust ekwashun'; well of course a gas exits a shpayze-rokkit quickly.How many times do we have to tell you that no one cares what happens to the exhaust after it leaves the rocket?
And, as the ambient pressure lessens to zero it will leave even faster - due to free expansion, idiot shills.
But in a vacuum it will produce no force as it does so; the Laws of Physics say so.
Oh & p.s. NASA Lie about Newton's 3rd Law too:If some random guy with a science blog says it, then it must be true.
https://physicsparsimony.wordpress.com/2011/12/22/confusion-regarding-newtons-third-law-of-motion/
A gas cannot do work in a vacuum:
^Zero citations; Zero science.You're right. Your science blog guy never cited the NASA worksheet that he claimed was "dead wrong".
NO U!!!
Looks like Papa Legba is stuck in a loop again.
Looks like Papa Legba is stuck in a loop again.No reaction?
Explaining grade 6 physics to a monkey is almost impossible.What's worse is that Papa Legba isn't even a flat earther. He's just an angry conspiracy theorist. Or, at least he plays one on this site.
Explaining grade 6 physics to a flat earther is totally impossible.
Explaining grade 6 physics to a monkey is almost impossible.
Explaining grade 6 physics to a flat earther is totally impossible.
Stop trying to convince people who want to believe something that their believes are retarded, thats just cruel!
I am afraid we can't blame the Flat Earther's for Papa Legba.Explaining grade 6 physics to a monkey is almost impossible.
Explaining grade 6 physics to a flat earther is totally impossible.
Stop trying to convince people who want to believe something that their believes are retarded, thats just cruel!
And the implication is that IQ(monkey)>IQ(FEer)
sounds about right. Certainly the evidence supports it.
I am afraid we can't blame the Flat Earther's for Papa Legba.Explaining grade 6 physics to a monkey is almost impossible.
Explaining grade 6 physics to a flat earther is totally impossible.
Stop trying to convince people who want to believe something that their believes are retarded, thats just cruel!
And the implication is that IQ(monkey)>IQ(FEer)
sounds about right. Certainly the evidence supports it.
He claims he is not Flat Earther. Besides he seems to be "on vacation". As far as I can see he's simply "off the planet"!
And we all know where he is having his vacation. It comes with soft music, happy-drugs and doors that lock on the outside."No comment" was the loud reply.
A Gas does no Work in a Vacuum:
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node33.html
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/j150043a002
http://www.etomica.org/app/modules/sites/JouleThomson/Background2.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_expansion
No Work=no Force=no Motion:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/work.html
https://www.wou.edu/las/physci/GS361/EnergyBasics/EnergyBasics.htm
http://www.edinformatics.com/math_science/work_energy_power.htm
Etc, etc, etc; undeniable scientific FACT.
Ergo a GAS-powered rocket cannot possibly create MOTION in a Vacuum.
Off you go idiotic anti-science paid liar scumbags...
Exercise your Democratic Rights to Lie like your life depends on it!
A Gas does no Work in a Vacuum:
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node33.html
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/j150043a002
http://www.etomica.org/app/modules/sites/JouleThomson/Background2.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_expansion
No Work=no Force=no Motion:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/work.html
https://www.wou.edu/las/physci/GS361/EnergyBasics/EnergyBasics.htm
http://www.edinformatics.com/math_science/work_energy_power.htm
Etc, etc, etc; undeniable scientific FACT.
Ergo a GAS-powered rocket cannot possibly create MOTION in a Vacuum.
Off you go idiotic anti-science paid liar scumbags...
Exercise your Democratic Rights to Lie like your life depends on it!
Find an office chair on wheels. One that rolls very easily. Sit in that chair without your feet touching the ground. Get at phone book or something similar. Throw the book. You will move backwards. The object has inertia and you push yourself off against the object. This is the same way rockets propel themselves. They push themselves against the gas that that is expelled with great force.
The gas is not using any medium as a 'grip', as you seem to think. The rocket is pushing itself against the gas, so to speak.
Rockets do work in a vacuum, perhaps even more efficiently than in atmosphere.
...
Prove me wrong.
These two clowns both know the gun explains rocket propulsion
However, as I have provided solid evidence elsewhere that this forum, & the internet as a whole, is run by military-industrial criminals, expect a riot of mad bullshit disinfo-spam, plus a forum slide, to attempt to hide the crimes I have so easily exposed using simple science & logic.
Seeing Papa be wrong is just so satisfying.
Seeing Papa be wrong is just so satisfying.
Seeing shills lying is just about all the satisfaction I ever get on this forum...
WORK that persona management software, bitch!
WORK IT!!!
I wish I was that good at software. All I can do is make some automatic formula solvers in C++.Seeing Papa be wrong is just so satisfying.
Seeing shills lying is just about all the satisfaction I ever get on this forum...
WORK that persona management software, bitch!
WORK IT!!!
No Work=no Force=no Power=no change in Motion:Fixed that for you.
But in a zero-pressure vacuum it will produce zero force as it does so; the Laws of Physics say so.Does a pressurized container force pair with the pressurized gas contained within?
NO U!!!
which does no work on the whole system, but it does do work on the actual rocket.
Did you really write that?No, I wrote that. Not harry potter.
You did, didn't you?No. I did.
LMFAO!!!I don't think that's possible, but go ahead if you want.
You really fucking did write it...Actually, I did.
So the rocket's not part of the system is it?It is a part of the rocket-gas system. That knowledge is not a part of the Papa-brain system however.
It's just MAGIC!!!!!Nope. It's math.
Nope. It's math.
There is no work done in the system, but there is work done on the rocket and negative work done on the gas (or the other way around, if you prefer)Nope. It's math.
Math that you just happened to forget to include.
Unlike myself; here it is again, shill:
A gas does no work in a vacuum:
Why do you still refuse to answer such a simple question.But in a zero-pressure vacuum it will produce zero force as it does so; the Laws of Physics say so.Does a pressurized container force pair with the pressurized gas contained within?
Hey, Bubba Legbone, does gas do any work in a vacuum?If you put a gas in a vacuum, then it isn't a vacuum anymore, now is it?
Hey, Bubba Legbone, does gas do any work in a vacuum?If you put a gas in a vacuum, then it isn't a vacuum anymore, now is it?
here's a video of nitrocellulose being unable to combust in a vacuum, even though it contains both fuel & oxidiser, thus hammering yet another nail in yhe coffin of your utter bullshit:
Besides who but a Voodoo priest would fuel his rocket with nitro-cellulose?here's a video of nitrocellulose being unable to combust in a vacuum, even though it contains both fuel & oxidiser, thus hammering yet another nail in yhe coffin of your utter bullshit:(http://)
So the nitrocellulose burns more slowly in a vacuum and rocket propulsion in a vacuum is shown to be common sense, when in any case combustion for rocket power is not occuring in a vacuum anyway but is instead happening at the highest pressures feasible for a light weight craft.
If you read the article that goes with the video, then you'll discover that the nitrocellulose charge was for the parachute recovery system.here's a video of nitrocellulose being unable to combust in a vacuum, even though it contains both fuel & oxidiser, thus hammering yet another nail in yhe coffin of your utter bullshit:
So the nitrocellulose burns more slowly in a vacuum and rocket propulsion in a vacuum is shown to be common sense, when in any case combustion for rocket power is not occuring in a vacuum anyway but is instead happening at the highest pressures feasible for a light weight craft.
If you read the article that goes with the video, then you'll discover that the nitrocellulose charge was for the parachute recovery system.here's a video of nitrocellulose being unable to combust in a vacuum, even though it contains both fuel & oxidiser, thus hammering yet another nail in yhe coffin of your utter bullshit:
So the nitrocellulose burns more slowly in a vacuum and rocket propulsion in a vacuum is shown to be common sense, when in any case combustion for rocket power is not occuring in a vacuum anyway but is instead happening at the highest pressures feasible for a light weight craft.
https://www.wired.com/2013/10/in-space-no-one-can-hear-your-nitrocellulose-explode/
That's all right, I just wanted to emphasize Papa Legba's intellectual dishonesty in providing that video of evidence. Even in the context of ammunition propellant it was shady because there are many recipes for modern ammunition propellant that may use nitrocellulose as one of several ingredients or may not use nitrocellulose at all.If you read the article that goes with the video, then you'll discover that the nitrocellulose charge was for the parachute recovery system.here's a video of nitrocellulose being unable to combust in a vacuum, even though it contains both fuel & oxidiser, thus hammering yet another nail in yhe coffin of your utter bullshit:
So the nitrocellulose burns more slowly in a vacuum and rocket propulsion in a vacuum is shown to be common sense, when in any case combustion for rocket power is not occuring in a vacuum anyway but is instead happening at the highest pressures feasible for a light weight craft.
https://www.wired.com/2013/10/in-space-no-one-can-hear-your-nitrocellulose-explode/
Yes and failure was predicted at 8km altitude because of the dispersion of the oxidant once combustion began. The point here is the flatties are arguing lack of oxygen in space or lack of air, or a vacuum makes it impossible to ignite rocket fuel. However what we see is it does burn but it burns poorly, or it goes out in the vacuum. However, none of that matters because rocket engine combustion is not happening in a vacuum and if there was actually a problem igniting a fuel that burns with a two part mix requiring specific ignition, like nitro cellulose, then it would be simple to engineer a solution to enable ignition when a vacuum was not present simply by causing a flow of gas to be present during ignition, where importantly rocket engine combustion is happening inside the rocket rather than out in space.
I am sure you realise that already but i just wanted to emphasise what I was getting at in case it was not totally clear. :)
If you read the article that goes with the video, then you'll discover that the nitrocellulose charge was for the parachute recovery system.here's a video of nitrocellulose being unable to combust in a vacuum, even though it contains both fuel & oxidiser, thus hammering yet another nail in yhe coffin of your utter bullshit:
So the nitrocellulose burns more slowly in a vacuum and rocket propulsion in a vacuum is shown to be common sense, when in any case combustion for rocket power is not occuring in a vacuum anyway but is instead happening at the highest pressures feasible for a light weight craft.
https://www.wired.com/2013/10/in-space-no-one-can-hear-your-nitrocellulose-explode/
Yes and failure was predicted at 8km altitude because of the dispersion of the oxidant once combustion began. The point here is the flatties are arguing lack of oxygen in space or lack of air, or a vacuum makes it impossible to ignite rocket fuel. However what we see is it does burn but it burns poorly, or it goes out in the vacuum. However, none of that matters because rocket engine combustion is not happening in a vacuum and if there was actually a problem igniting a fuel that burns with a two part mix requiring specific ignition, like nitro cellulose, then it would be simple to engineer a solution to enable ignition when a vacuum was not present simply by causing a flow of gas to be present during ignition, where importantly rocket engine combustion is happening inside the rocket rather than out in space.
I am sure you realise that already but i just wanted to emphasise what I was getting at in case it was not totally clear. :)
English interest languished after an explosion destroyed the Faversham factory in 1847. Austrian Baron Wilhelm Lenk von Wolfsberg built two guncotton plants producing artillery propellent, but it too was dangerous under field conditions, and guns that could fire thousands of rounds using gunpowder would reach the end of their service life after only a few hundred shots with the more powerful guncotton. Small arms could not withstand the pressures generated by guncotton at all.
Who's lying?
When a rocket introduces gas/exhaust/flames into a vacuum its no longer a vacuum now is it? then the rocket has its own exhaust to push against.Who's lying?
You.
Or you cannot read?
Why don't you send me an unwelcome PM on the subject, which I will promptly delete without looking at eh, psycho-stalker?
Or alternatively you could get someone literate to read the following out veeery sloooowly to you:
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/chemistry/thermodynamics-chemistry/internal-energy-sal/a/pressure-volume-work
In it you will find the equation used to determine the amount of Work done by a Gas...
The equation is: Work = external Pressure x increase in Volume.
As the external Pressure in a Vacuum is ZERO, then a Gas introduced into a Vacuum will do ZERO Work...
You CAN multiply by ZERO can't you?
Or is even that beyond you?
#proudtobeblindmadretarded&LGBTRE
When a rocket introduces gas/exhaust/flames into a vacuum its no longer a vacuum now is it?
then the rocket has its own exhaust to push against.
When I turn my shower on at home, the showerhead pushes back against the flow.
Apparently the gas expelled at a very high rate of speed doesn't do any work at all until it hits the atmosphere!
A rocket is not a showerhead & a Gas is not a Liquid.
(lol I checked out your shitty website 'onebigmarkjo' - what a farcical copycat failure you are!)
Ah bless, another conspiratard who doesn't get analogies.
Apparently the gas expelled at a very high rate of speed doesn't do any work at all until it hits the atmosphere!
Correct; the following citation explains clearly why this is the case:
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/chemistry/thermodynamics-chemistry/internal-energy-sal/a/pressure-volume-work
In it you will find the equation used to determine the amount of Work done by a Gas...
The equation is: Work = external Pressure x change in Volume.
As the external Pressure in a Vacuum is ZERO, then a Gas introduced into a Vacuum will do ZERO Work.
And without WORK there can be neither POWER nor FORCE, & thus no MOTION:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/work.html
Moreover, the experiment to prove this FACT was one of the mathematical & conceptual foundations of Thermodynamics:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=eYQHIjkaEroC&pg=PA39&lpg=PA39&dq=joule+free+expansion+conservation+of+energy&source=bl&ots=lNNu7CV1-P&sig=YMAwtaJTmLf7BF4Ts4jcWzVTY98&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjWv6XJh6rPAhXEOxoKHXskDjw4ChDoAQgfMAE#v=onepage&q=joule%20free%20expansion%20conservation%20of%20energy&f=false
Again, I will quote the relevant section: "Joule noticed that in this process (i.e. Free Expansion) the gas does not 'develop mechanical power' i.e. no mechanical work is performed either by or on the gas".
Pretty conclusive: a gas-POWERED rocket cannot possibly do WORK in a vacuum.
To claim that it does is to violate the very foundations of Laws of Thermodynamics: FACT.
And no matter how much you stamp your feet & try to turn the page on these scientific FACTS they simply will not go away...
Sucks to be you; oh yes it does!
Toodle-pip, LOSERS!
the gas does work on the rocket (which is solid, ergo not a vacuum), and the rocket (which is solid, ergo not a vacuum) does work on the gas
*Same-old debunked argument*
I'd like to toss a gem of wisdom your way
the gas does work on the rocket (which is solid, ergo not a vacuum), and the rocket (which is solid, ergo not a vacuum) does work on the gas
Untrue.
Learn to read (I've bolded the relevant bit special for slow-pokes):
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/chemistry/thermodynamics-chemistry/internal-energy-sal/a/pressure-volume-work
In it you will find the equation used to determine the amount of Work done by a Gas...
The equation is: Work = external Pressure x change in Volume.
As the external Pressure in a Vacuum is ZERO, then a Gas introduced into a Vacuum will do ZERO Work.
And without WORK there can be neither POWER nor FORCE, & thus no MOTION:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/work.html
Moreover, the experiment to prove this FACT was one of the mathematical & conceptual foundations of Thermodynamics:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=eYQHIjkaEroC&pg=PA39&lpg=PA39&dq=joule+free+expansion+conservation+of+energy&source=bl&ots=lNNu7CV1-P&sig=YMAwtaJTmLf7BF4Ts4jcWzVTY98&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjWv6XJh6rPAhXEOxoKHXskDjw4ChDoAQgfMAE#v=onepage&q=joule%20free%20expansion%20conservation%20of%20energy&f=false
Again, I will quote the relevant section: "Joule noticed that in this process (i.e. Free Expansion) the gas does not 'develop mechanical power' i.e. no mechanical work is performed either by or on the gas".
Pretty conclusive: a gas-POWERED rocket cannot possibly do WORK in a vacuum.
To claim that it does is to violate the very foundations of Laws of Thermodynamics: FACT.
And no matter how much you stamp your feet & try to turn the page on these scientific FACTS they simply will not go away...
Sucks to be you; oh yes it does!
Toodle-pip, LOSERS!
Conservation of Momentum. I can't be fucked to find a citation that it exists, look it up yourself.I'd like to toss a gem of wisdom your way
You would but you can't.
Because you cannot find one single genuine scientific citation that supports the concept of a gas doing Work in a vacuum.
Whereas I have so many on my side I've honestly lost count of them...
When you finally get that ONE Thermodynamics-defying citation then get back to me eh, Loser?
Conservation ofMomentumENERGY.
1st Law of Thermodynamics according to PapaConservation ofFixed that for you; 1st law of Thermodynamics, already covered, try again Loser.MomentumENERGY.
1st Law of Thermodynamics according to Papa
"Energy is always conserved, so moment can't be"
1st Law of Thermodynamics according to Papa
"Energy is always conserved, so moment can't be"
Please do not Lie; I never made any such statement.
You did, you crossed out Moment and replaced it with energy, implying conservation of energy is correct while momentum is not.1st Law of Thermodynamics according to PapaConservation ofFixed that for you; 1st law of Thermodynamics, already covered, try again Loser.MomentumENERGY.
"Energy is always conserved, so moment can't be"
Ok, that makes soooo much sense.
Also the rocket fuel contains chemical energy which is converted into kinetic, energy is conserved. Unless you are a deranged idiot.
But now that you say conservation of moment is true it contradicts your argument.
But now that you say conservation of moment is true it contradicts your argument.
Incorrect.
And it's MOMENTUM, retard...
FTFYBut now that you say conservation of moment is true it contradicts your argument.
Incorrect.
And it's MOMENTUM, retard...
Legba not all of your information has fallen on deaf ears. I know what you say of rockets in space is true. You have proven it in this thread over and over again. Thanks, keep up the good work.
Wow, Legba has convinced Hoppy
FTFYBut now that you say conservation of moment is true it contradicts your argument.
Incorrect.
And it's MOMENTUM, retard...
Wow, Legba has convinced Hoppy
Yeah; I've convinced hoppy that the Laws of Thermodynamics are Real...
Big fucking whoopee!
It was easy to do because hoppy is not an Insane blackmailed paedo who is paid NOT to understand Thermodynamics...
Unlike you.
I know what you look like, Geoff.
I know who you are.
We both know you fucked up bad by appearing on video...
It's obvious you were forced into it...
But you couldn't say 'No' could you?
Now why would that be, I wonder?
LOL!!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ore
Ever heard the saying 'If you can't do the Time then don't do the Crime'?
You know nothing, if you knew the truth your head would explode.
Lol, Geoff/Papa the schizophrenic is back with the shit posts.You know nothing, if you knew the truth your head would explode.
I know everything.
You are just another useless cultural-cringing blackmailed Colonial drone whose bosses hate him.
So knock off the bullshit eh, paedo?
You are PAID to not understand what I write...
And you are forced into not understanding it forever because you got caught by this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ore
You are in Hell, Geoff...
And you have dragged your family with you...
Cool beans, eh, Geoff?
Cool. Fucking. Beans...
Apparently the gas expelled at a very high rate of speed doesn't do any work at all until it hits the atmosphere!
why don't you calculate the thrust?
Try reading my post again.
Got it. You don't understand physics and you can't back up your shit claims.
(http://i331.photobucket.com/albums/l448/sokarul/air.jpg) (http://s331.photobucket.com/user/sokarul/media/air.jpg.html)
I know everything.
Why do you cry everytime I asked you to explain your own claims?Got it. You don't understand physics and you can't back up your shit claims.
Incorrect.
Here's your understanding of 'physics':
(http://i331.photobucket.com/albums/l448/sokarul/air.jpg) (http://s331.photobucket.com/user/sokarul/media/air.jpg.html)
What have you got against the Gas Laws anyway?
Did they run off with your mom or something?
What's with this Papa lackey character? Why is he so obsessed with this imaginary Geoff? He's obviously gay, with his repeated references to the LGBT organization he so proudly represents. And speaking of repeating, why does he post the same crap over and over?
Why do you cry everytime I asked you to explain your own claims?
Physics works just fine. You just understand it so you can't apply it.
By what you claim, air tools don't exist.
Does he really believe anyone is listening to him, or even cares?
Why do you cry everytime I asked you to explain your own claims?
Physics works just fine. You just understand it so you can't apply it.
By what you claim, air tools don't exist.
lol cried about my post instead of explaining why it's wrong.Why do you cry everytime I asked you to explain your own claims?
Physics works just fine. You just understand it so you can't apply it.
By what you claim, air tools don't exist.
LMFAO!!!
Wtf did THAT mean?
Are you drunk?
Anyhoo; I claim a gas-powered rocket will not function in a vacuum.
And I am correct.
Read again:
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/chemistry/thermodynamics-chemistry/internal-energy-sal/a/pressure-volume-work
In it you will find the equation used to determine the amount of Work done by a Gas...
The equation is: Work = external Pressure x change in Volume.
As the external Pressure in a Vacuum is ZERO, then a Gas introduced into a Vacuum will do ZERO Work.
And without WORK there can be neither POWER nor FORCE, & thus no MOTION:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/work.html
Moreover, the experiment to prove this FACT was one of the mathematical & conceptual foundations of Thermodynamics:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=eYQHIjkaEroC&pg=PA39&lpg=PA39&dq=joule+free+expansion+conservation+of+energy&source=bl&ots=lNNu7CV1-P&sig=YMAwtaJTmLf7BF4Ts4jcWzVTY98&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjWv6XJh6rPAhXEOxoKHXskDjw4ChDoAQgfMAE#v=onepage&q=joule%20free%20expansion%20conservation%20of%20energy&f=false
Again, I will quote the relevant section: "Joule noticed that in this process (i.e. Free Expansion) the gas does not 'develop mechanical power' i.e. no mechanical work is performed either by or on the gas".
Pretty conclusive: a gas-POWERED rocket cannot possibly do WORK in a vacuum.
To claim that it does is to violate the very foundations of Laws of Thermodynamics: FACT.
And no matter how much you stamp your feet & try to turn the page on these scientific FACTS they simply will not go away...
Sucks to be you; oh yes it does!
Toodle-pip, LOSERS!
Why do you cry everytime I asked you to explain your own claims?
Physics works just fine. You just understand it so you can't apply it.
By what you claim, air tools don't exist.
lol cried about my post instead of explaining why it's wrong.Why do you cry everytime I asked you to explain your own claims?
Physics works just fine. You just understand it so you can't apply it.
By what you claim, air tools don't exist.
LMFAO!!!
Wtf did THAT mean?
Are you drunk?
Anyhoo; I claim a gas-powered rocket will not function in a vacuum.
And I am correct.
Read again:
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/chemistry/thermodynamics-chemistry/internal-energy-sal/a/pressure-volume-work
In it you will find the equation used to determine the amount of Work done by a Gas...
The equation is: Work = external Pressure x change in Volume.
As the external Pressure in a Vacuum is ZERO, then a Gas introduced into a Vacuum will do ZERO Work.
And without WORK there can be neither POWER nor FORCE, & thus no MOTION:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/work.html
Moreover, the experiment to prove this FACT was one of the mathematical & conceptual foundations of Thermodynamics:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=eYQHIjkaEroC&pg=PA39&lpg=PA39&dq=joule+free+expansion+conservation+of+energy&source=bl&ots=lNNu7CV1-P&sig=YMAwtaJTmLf7BF4Ts4jcWzVTY98&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjWv6XJh6rPAhXEOxoKHXskDjw4ChDoAQgfMAE#v=onepage&q=joule%20free%20expansion%20conservation%20of%20energy&f=false
Again, I will quote the relevant section: "Joule noticed that in this process (i.e. Free Expansion) the gas does not 'develop mechanical power' i.e. no mechanical work is performed either by or on the gas".
Pretty conclusive: a gas-POWERED rocket cannot possibly do WORK in a vacuum.
To claim that it does is to violate the very foundations of Laws of Thermodynamics: FACT.
And no matter how much you stamp your feet & try to turn the page on these scientific FACTS they simply will not go away...
Sucks to be you; oh yes it does!
Toodle-pip, LOSERS!
Lol
Spams physics he doesn't understand.
Lol
Can't explain how a rocket pushed off the atmosphere.
Lol
Still doesn't know what a combustion chamber or nozzle is.
Lol
65 years old?
Lol
Go back at start from kindergarten. You look nothing.
Lol
'The fact that there is no change in the total energy when a gas expands into a vacuum shows there is no repulsive force between the molecules.': Peter Fireman, writing in the Journal of Physical Chemistry.Back there, you claimed "the above statement also smashes your . . . . . . . . false analogy." Sorry, but it didn't then, and it doesn't now.
Note that the above statement also smashes your 'clinking clanking billiard ball molecules bouncing round the nozzle' bullshit false analogy.
From: : Rockets cannot work in a Vacuum. « Reply #1692 on: March 14, 2016, 07:51:05 PM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65625.msg1766645#msg1766645)
aus_Geoff effect, perfectly illustrated.I know everything.
Dunning Kruger Effect, perfectly illustrated.
aus_Geoff effect, perfectly illustrated.I know everything.
Dunning Kruger Effect, perfectly illustrated.
Pretty conclusive: a gas-POWERED rocket cannot possibly do WORK in a vacuum.
To claim that it does is to violate the very foundations of Laws of Thermodynamics: FACT.
And no matter how much you stamp your feet & try to turn the page on these scientific FACTS they simply will not go away...
Nitrogen thrusters in a manned manoeuvre unit as they call them. How do they work in a vacuum of supposed space, because the recoil clap trap doesn't fit into this one. There's no INTERNAL combustion chamber to set off recoil bombs with this piece of absolute garbage, is there.Object 1 rocket.
So what is the reactive force that the expelled nitrogen comes up against?
<tl;dr gish-gallop garbage snipped due to containing not a single scientific citation in support & making no sense whatsoever>
<garbage also snipped>
I wasn't expecting you to give a straight answer. It's hard to do, isn't it?...especially when you people hang onto the recoil bullshit in a vacuum and yet you forget about the psst psst cannisters pushing against....against?.....what are they pushing against once the valve is opened, because I'm sure there's no recoil.Nitrogen thrusters in a manned manoeuvre unit as they call them. How do they work in a vacuum of supposed space, because the recoil clap trap doesn't fit into this one. There's no INTERNAL combustion chamber to set off recoil bombs with this piece of absolute garbage, is there.Object 1 rocket.
So what is the reactive force that the expelled nitrogen comes up against?
Object 2 nitrogen.
Go home you're drunk.
The fact that you & papabot can't understand a very simple concept of how a rocket works doesn't preclude it from being true, scepti. It seems you need to be told this about everything you find impossible to believe: incredulity isn't an argument, it's a fallacy.Not a bad little rant but you managed to skip over the crux of the matter.
Papalegbone sets up its silly strawman about gases doing work in a vacuum then simply knocks it down and declares victory. Only idiots (read: you, it & a few other retards lurking around) claim a rocket works by 'pushing off of the atmosphere'. Sokural asked the simple yet pertinent question of how two gas molecules hitting one another outside of the rocket/combustion chamber propels a rocket forward. The only response he gets is legbot copypasta bullshit & non-sequitars (funny how that sums up everyone of its posts).
So, would you like to do us a favour and explain how this mechanism works? You must believe in it if you think a rocket cannot work in a vacuum. Explain it absent your usual spiels about indoctrination/NASA/fantasies etc.
PS- You're both far too dense to realise it, but even that simple video proves you both wrong... but of course we get the usual meaningless, moronic objections.
Papalegbone sets up its silly strawman about gases doing work in a vacuum then simply knocks it down and declares victory.
Nitrogen thrusters in a manned manoeuvre unit as they call them. How do they work in a vacuum of supposed space, because the recoil clap trap doesn't fit into this one. There's no INTERNAL combustion chamber to set off recoil bombs with this piece of absolute garbage, is there.There is no necessity for combustion, that is just to provide a large supply of high pressure gas.
So what is the reactive force that the expelled nitrogen comes up against?
<tl;dr bullshit with zero scientific citations & a youtube that proves nothing>
<tl;dr bullshit with zero scientific citations & a youtube that proves nothing>
*Yawn!*
those designing, building and launching rockets couldn't care less care what you think.
So ONE shonky home-made youtube overturns ALL the Laws of Thermodynamics?
COM & COE apply to a "rocket system" in a vacuum!Quote from: ProppaGeoffIndeed they do...
I voted "NO NO NO WE DO NOT OH NO NO NO NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!"
Of course it's coming from the atmosphere.Nitrogen thrusters in a manned manoeuvre unit as they call them. How do they work in a vacuum of supposed space, because the recoil clap trap doesn't fit into this one. There's no INTERNAL combustion chamber to set off recoil bombs with this piece of absolute garbage, is there.There is no necessity for combustion, that is just to provide a large supply of high pressure gas.
So what is the reactive force that the expelled nitrogen comes up against?
In the case of these manoeuvering units there is high pressure nitrogen, nuff said.
The "expelled nitrogen comes up against" nothing. Simple Conservation of Momentum provides the thrust, exactly as it does from the rocket engine,
Gas has mass. Mass expelled at a velocity has momentum - end of story.
Your accepting that fact or not does not change the situation one iota!
Are you going to claim that the thrust from this cylinder comes from " ::) pushing on the atmosphere ::)"?
And no matter how much you stamp your feet & try to turn the page on these scientific FACTS they simply will not go away...
Nothing will happen because you couldn't put a bomb in a true vacuum.
Maybe understand the word vacuum first before the fantasy starts to get deeper.Nothing will happen because you couldn't put a bomb in a true vacuum.
Yeah, but your reality doesn't have vacuum, so the question is not for you, it's for those whose reality does include vacuum.
Maybe understand the word vacuum first before the fantasy starts to get deeper.Nothing will happen because you couldn't put a bomb in a true vacuum.
Yeah, but your reality doesn't have vacuum, so the question is not for you, it's for those whose reality does include vacuum.
vacuumNear enough for Herr Dr Sceppy?
1. a space entirely devoid of matter.
synonyms: empty space, emptiness, void, nothingness, vacuity, vacancy; More
Simplequestionstrawman.
Describe what happens when a bomb explodes in a vacuum.
it's for those whose reality does include vacuum.
Quotevacuum
1. The space between Geoff's ears.
synonyms: empty space, emptiness, void, nothingness, vacuity, vacancy; More
Fantastic. Basically it means it does not exist. Once you grasp that then space for us becomes a fantasy thought and space rockets follow suit.Maybe understand the word vacuum first before the fantasy starts to get deeper.Nothing will happen because you couldn't put a bomb in a true vacuum.
Yeah, but your reality doesn't have vacuum, so the question is not for you, it's for those whose reality does include vacuum.QuotevacuumNear enough for Herr Dr Sceppy?
1. a space entirely devoid of matter.
synonyms: empty space, emptiness, void, nothingness, vacuity, vacancy; More
Papa is insulting himself again. Poor schizophrenic.Quotevacuum
1. The space between Geoff's ears.
synonyms: empty space, emptiness, void, nothingness, vacuity, vacancy; More
NO U!!!
LOL!!!
Pychopathicshill is so drunk he can't even work the quote function...
Can you, Geoff?
A gas expanding freely into a vacuum whilst doing no Work violates neither COM nor COE.
The end result is the same; the gas does no Work & therefore provides no mechanical Power.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=eYQHIjkaEroC&pg=PA39&lpg=PA39&dq=joule+free+expansion+conservation+of+energy&source=bl&ots=lNNu7CV1-P&sig=YMAwtaJTmLf7BF4Ts4jcWzVTY98&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjWv6XJh6rPAhXEOxoKHXskDjw4ChDoAQgfMAE#v=onepage&q=joule%20free%20expansion%20conservation%20of%20energy&f=false
If you disagree then please provide ONE genuine citation in support of your contention...
Just ONE.
COM & COE apply to a "rocket system" in a vacuum!
Hi Geoff!
Indeed they do...
The gas does no work on the vacuum.
Still crying like a baby.<tl;dr bullshit with zero scientific citations & a youtube that proves nothing>
*Yawn!*
The gas does no work on the vacuum.
The gas does no work on the vacuum.
It does no work on anything, weirdo.
Look:
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node33.html
"During the expansion there is no work exchanged with the system because there is no motion of the boundaries".
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=eYQHIjkaEroC&pg=PA39&lpg=PA39&dq=joule+free+expansion+conservation+of+energy&source=bl&ots=lNNu7CV1-P&sig=YMAwtaJTmLf7BF4Ts4jcWzVTY98&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjWv6XJh6rPAhXEOxoKHXskDjw4ChDoAQgfMAE#v=onepage&q=joule%20free%20expansion%20conservation%20of%20energy&f=false
"Joule noticed that in this process (i.e. Free Expansion) the gas does not 'develop mechanical power' i.e. no mechanical work is performed either by or on the gas".
Thus, both the Momentum of the individual particles & the Energy of the gas as a whole are entirely Conserved.
So both COM & COE are observed.
Not hard to understand eh?
Well, unless you're paid not to I guess?
Toodle-pip, paid-to-be-a-retard Psycho-Shill; enjoy telling your family what you do for a living!
The gas does no work on the vacuum.
It does no work on anything, weirdo.
Look:
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node33.html
"During the expansion there is no work exchanged with the system because there is no motion of the boundaries".
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=eYQHIjkaEroC&pg=PA39&lpg=PA39&dq=joule+free+expansion+conservation+of+energy&source=bl&ots=lNNu7CV1-P&sig=YMAwtaJTmLf7BF4Ts4jcWzVTY98&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjWv6XJh6rPAhXEOxoKHXskDjw4ChDoAQgfMAE#v=onepage&q=joule%20free%20expansion%20conservation%20of%20energy&f=false
Jeebus, I'm nearly out of popcorn here. Let's call the rocket engine a boundary. It moves ergo work is done. Where's the other boundary? Oh, in Joule's experiment it's an insulated barrier enclosing a fixed volume!
Spot the difference between "free expansion of a gas into a volume" and "fuel and oxidant reacting inside combustion chamber and exiting via nozzle into an infinite vacuum. "
Need a clue? What do you keep on generating inside the combustion chamber while you still have fuel and oxidant? Would that be, er, gas?
So, on the one hand we have a fixed volume of gas expanding into a vacuum of fixed volume - no work done.
On the other hand, we have an increasing volume of gas expanding into a vacuum with no fixed volume.
Poppa-Fhysics states these 2 systems are analogous. ROFL!Quote"Joule noticed that in this process (i.e. Free Expansion) the gas does not 'develop mechanical power' i.e. no mechanical work is performed either by or on the gas".
Did Joule constantly pump more gas into the system? Oh dear, not looking good for Poppa-Fhysics!QuoteThus, both the Momentum of the individual particles & the Energy of the gas as a whole are entirely Conserved.
So both COM & COE are observed.
Kerrect! Gas goes backward, rocket goes forward, CoM and CoE are indeed observed, rockets do fly in space, we can all watch the footy on Sky tonight, and navigate using GPS, yadda yadda yadda.QuoteNot hard to understand eh?
^^ Still doesn't get it. ^^QuoteWell, unless you're paid not to I guess?
^^ Admission of shill-guilt ^^QuoteToodle-pip, paid-to-be-a-retard Psycho-Shill; enjoy telling your family what you do for a living!
^^ Dunning-Kruger, verging on mental breakdown ^^
How does a rocket push off the atmosphere?
Papalegbone sets up its silly strawman about gases doing work in a vacuum then simply knocks it down and declares victory.
The Laws of Thermodynamics are not a 'strawman'...
And gases do NOT do work in a vacuum; please stop deliberately misquoting me.
Moreover, I am sorry you can neither appreciate that a gas has mass, nor understand what 'pressure' is...
Here is the wiki on the subject:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure
(It may be noted that pressure is a Scalar quantity, not a Vector quantity; this FACT should be of interest to you).
Now that we have established that a gas has mass & what pressure is, we can apply the equation Work = external Pressure x change in Volume to the case of a rocket expelling a Gas into the external Pressure of the atmosphere...
You can plug the relevant numbers in yourselves, but it is clear that the external Pressure in-atmosphere will be non-zero, thus a non-zero amount of Work will be done.
However, in a Vacuum, the external Pressure WILL be zero, thus NO Work will be done...
And NO Work means there can be No Force, No Power, No Motion:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/work.html
It's simply a matter of multiplying by Zero...
Sadly you are all incapable of such a feat...
Sucks to be you.
Toodle-pip, Losers!
Shit I pulled out my arse containing not one single citation or Law of Physics & ignoring every single principle of Thermodynamics...
More tl;dr psychosis & pseudo-science...
Lol still has to run away crying from his own claims.
How does a rocket push off the atmosphere?
Already explained, Super-Sock...
Look:Papalegbone sets up its silly strawman about gases doing work in a vacuum then simply knocks it down and declares victory.
The Laws of Thermodynamics are not a 'strawman'...
And gases do NOT do work in a vacuum; please stop deliberately misquoting me.
Moreover, I am sorry you can neither appreciate that a gas has mass, nor understand what 'pressure' is...
Here is the wiki on the subject:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure
(It may be noted that pressure is a Scalar quantity, not a Vector quantity; this FACT should be of interest to you).
Now that we have established that a gas has mass & what pressure is, we can apply the equation Work = external Pressure x change in Volume to the case of a rocket expelling a Gas into the external Pressure of the atmosphere...
You can plug the relevant numbers in yourselves, but it is clear that the external Pressure in-atmosphere will be non-zero, thus a non-zero amount of Work will be done.
However, in a Vacuum, the external Pressure WILL be zero, thus NO Work will be done...
And NO Work means there can be No Force, No Power, No Motion:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/work.html
It's simply a matter of multiplying by Zero...
Sadly you are all incapable of such a feat...
Sucks to be you.
Toodle-pip, Losers!
Were you wearing your Cape when you wrote your self-destroying bullshit, Super-Sock?Shit I pulled out my arse containing not one single citation or Law of Physics & ignoring every single principle of Thermodynamics...
Hi Geoff!
Bet you need a good long drink after heaping up that mad old pile of tottering shite dontcha?
Here's how you come across to scientifically-literate people:More tl;dr psychosis & pseudo-science...
And here's how YOU appear to normal people:
Seriously; your collective lack of self-awareness is astounding.
Toodle-pip, Mental-cases!
Hi Geoff!
Bet you need a good long drink after heaping up that mad old pile of tottering shite dontcha?
Here's how you come across to scientifically-literate people:
Papa, Work = external Pressure x change in Volume
That is the formula for the work a gas does on the external gas.
It isn't the formula for the work done by a gas on a solid object.
But we'll get there eventually...
Via good old THERMODYNAMICS!
I'm haveing trouble with what mechanism you think is used for a rocket to push off the atmosphere.
Shit member can't back up his shit claim because he has shit for brains.
Rockets can't work in a vacuum: busted!!!!!
What next flat earth myth would you like busted?
This is from the link you gave.Papa, Work = external Pressure x change in Volume
That is the formula for the work a gas does on the external gas.
It isn't the formula for the work done by a gas on a solid object.
Yes it is.
Or is a piston not a 'solid object'?
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/chemistry/thermodynamics-chemistry/internal-energy-sal/a/pressure-volume-work
Shills are paid not to read links.
But I'm glad to see you have agreed that a gas WILL do work against an external gas...
That means we are in thorough agreement as to how a rocket works in-atmosphere...
It's the vacuum bit you're still struggling with...
But we'll get there eventually...
Via good old THERMODYNAMICS!
To calculate how much work a gas has done (or has done to it) against a constant external pressure, we use a variation on the previous equation:So a solid object is a constant external pressure. LOL EPIC FAIL!
So a solid object is a constant external pressure. LOL EPIC FAIL!
Lol still has to run away crying from his own claims.
Like you run away crying from the Laws of Physics?
Read the bolded part again:How does a rocket push off the atmosphere?
Already explained, Super-Sock...
Look:Papalegbone sets up its silly strawman about gases doing work in a vacuum then simply knocks it down and declares victory.
The Laws of Thermodynamics are not a 'strawman'...
And gases do NOT do work in a vacuum; please stop deliberately misquoting me.
Moreover, I am sorry you can neither appreciate that a gas has mass, nor understand what 'pressure' is...
Here is the wiki on the subject:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure
(It may be noted that pressure is a Scalar quantity, not a Vector quantity; this FACT should be of interest to you).
Now that we have established that a gas has mass & what pressure is, we can apply the equation Work = external Pressure x change in Volume to the case of a rocket expelling a Gas into the external Pressure of the atmosphere...
You can plug the relevant numbers in yourselves, but it is clear that the external Pressure in-atmosphere will be non-zero, thus a non-zero amount of Work will be done.
However, in a Vacuum, the external Pressure WILL be zero, thus NO Work will be done...
And NO Work means there can be No Force, No Power, No Motion:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/work.html
It's simply a matter of multiplying by Zero...
Sadly you are all incapable of such a feat...
Sucks to be you.
Toodle-pip, Losers!
Were you wearing your Cape when you wrote your self-destroying bullshit, Super-Sock?Shit I pulled out my arse containing not one single citation or Law of Physics & ignoring every single principle of Thermodynamics...
Hi Geoff!
Bet you need a good long drink after heaping up that mad old pile of tottering shite dontcha?
Here's how you come across to scientifically-literate people:More tl;dr psychosis & pseudo-science...
And here's how YOU appear to normal people:
Seriously; your collective lack of self-awareness is astounding.
Toodle-pip, Mental-cases!
Nah.
You're a fucking mental stalking psycho & can just STFU & GTFO.
I'd rather show how much of a LIAR 'sokarul' is:Lol still has to run away crying from his own claims.
Like you run away crying from the Laws of Physics?
Read the bolded part again:How does a rocket push off the atmosphere?
Already explained, Super-Sock...
Look:Papalegbone sets up its silly strawman about gases doing work in a vacuum then simply knocks it down and declares victory.
The Laws of Thermodynamics are not a 'strawman'...
And gases do NOT do work in a vacuum; please stop deliberately misquoting me.
Moreover, I am sorry you can neither appreciate that a gas has mass, nor understand what 'pressure' is...
Here is the wiki on the subject:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure
(It may be noted that pressure is a Scalar quantity, not a Vector quantity; this FACT should be of interest to you).
Now that we have established that a gas has mass & what pressure is, we can apply the equation Work = external Pressure x change in Volume to the case of a rocket expelling a Gas into the external Pressure of the atmosphere...
You can plug the relevant numbers in yourselves, but it is clear that the external Pressure in-atmosphere will be non-zero, thus a non-zero amount of Work will be done.
However, in a Vacuum, the external Pressure WILL be zero, thus NO Work will be done...
And NO Work means there can be No Force, No Power, No Motion:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/work.html
It's simply a matter of multiplying by Zero...
Sadly you are all incapable of such a feat...
Sucks to be you.
Toodle-pip, Losers!
Were you wearing your Cape when you wrote your self-destroying bullshit, Super-Sock?Shit I pulled out my arse containing not one single citation or Law of Physics & ignoring every single principle of Thermodynamics...
Hi Geoff!
Bet you need a good long drink after heaping up that mad old pile of tottering shite dontcha?
Here's how you come across to scientifically-literate people:More tl;dr psychosis & pseudo-science...
And here's how YOU appear to normal people:
Seriously; your collective lack of self-awareness is astounding.
Toodle-pip, Mental-cases!
See?
I answered him ages ago...
But his shill-programming rejected that answer & demanded a new one.
You are all so far beyond mental I just don't know how to address you any more...
The Laws of Thermodynamics just won't suffice.
Psychos gotta be psychos I guess?
So still no mechanism then?
Incorrect.
Though the longer you are allowed to get away with this inexcusable lying shit the more obvious it becomes that this is a shill-run forum btw...
And the more understandable it becomes that my grandpa would've shot you on sight.
Just fyi, cowardly filth!
Again:Nah.
You're a fucking mental stalking psycho & can just STFU & GTFO.
I'd rather show how much of a LIAR 'sokarul' is:Lol still has to run away crying from his own claims.
Like you run away crying from the Laws of Physics?
Read the bolded part again:How does a rocket push off the atmosphere?
Already explained, Super-Sock...
Look:Papalegbone sets up its silly strawman about gases doing work in a vacuum then simply knocks it down and declares victory.
The Laws of Thermodynamics are not a 'strawman'...
And gases do NOT do work in a vacuum; please stop deliberately misquoting me.
Moreover, I am sorry you can neither appreciate that a gas has mass, nor understand what 'pressure' is...
Here is the wiki on the subject:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure
(It may be noted that pressure is a Scalar quantity, not a Vector quantity; this FACT should be of interest to you).
Now that we have established that a gas has mass & what pressure is, we can apply the equation Work = external Pressure x change in Volume to the case of a rocket expelling a Gas into the external Pressure of the atmosphere...
You can plug the relevant numbers in yourselves, but it is clear that the external Pressure in-atmosphere will be non-zero, thus a non-zero amount of Work will be done.
However, in a Vacuum, the external Pressure WILL be zero, thus NO Work will be done...
And NO Work means there can be No Force, No Power, No Motion:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/work.html
It's simply a matter of multiplying by Zero...
Sadly you are all incapable of such a feat...
Sucks to be you.
Toodle-pip, Losers!
Were you wearing your Cape when you wrote your self-destroying bullshit, Super-Sock?Shit I pulled out my arse containing not one single citation or Law of Physics & ignoring every single principle of Thermodynamics...
Hi Geoff!
Bet you need a good long drink after heaping up that mad old pile of tottering shite dontcha?
Here's how you come across to scientifically-literate people:More tl;dr psychosis & pseudo-science...
And here's how YOU appear to normal people:
Seriously; your collective lack of self-awareness is astounding.
Toodle-pip, Mental-cases!
See?
I answered him ages ago...
But his shill-programming rejected that answer & demanded a new one.
You are all so far beyond mental I just don't know how to address you any more...
The Laws of Thermodynamics just won't suffice.
Psychos gotta be psychos I guess?
Back to the OP...
Please read:
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/chemistry/thermodynamics-chemistry/internal-energy-sal/a/pressure-volume-work
In it you will find the equation used to determine the amount of Work done by a Gas...
The equation is: Work = external Pressure x change in Volume.
As the external Pressure in a Vacuum is ZERO, then a Gas introduced into a Vacuum will do ZERO Work.
And without WORK there can be neither POWER nor FORCE, & thus no MOTION:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/work.html
Moreover, the experiment to prove this FACT was one of the mathematical & conceptual foundations of Thermodynamics:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=eYQHIjkaEroC&pg=PA39&lpg=PA39&dq=joule+free+expansion+conservation+of+energy&source=bl&ots=lNNu7CV1-P&sig=YMAwtaJTmLf7BF4Ts4jcWzVTY98&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjWv6XJh6rPAhXEOxoKHXskDjw4ChDoAQgfMAE#v=onepage&q=joule%20free%20expansion%20conservation%20of%20energy&f=false
Again, I will quote the relevant section: "Joule noticed that in this process (i.e. Free Expansion) the gas does not 'develop mechanical power' i.e. no mechanical work is performed either by or on the gas".
Pretty conclusive: a gas-POWERED rocket cannot possibly do WORK in a vacuum.
To claim that it does is to violate the very foundations of Laws of Thermodynamics: FACT.
And no matter how much you stamp your feet & try to turn the page on these scientific FACTS they simply will not go away...
Sucks to be you; oh yes it does!
Toodle-pip, LOSERS!
Back to the OP...
Expansion of an Ideal Gas into a Vacuum The expansion and compression of gases is one of the most important topics in thermodynamics, because of its relevance to combustion engines, refrigerators, heat pumps, hot air balloons, gas storage, fire extinguishers, and a host of other practical applications. It is also one of the problems that very nicely links the macroscopic reasoning of thermodynamics to the microscopic picture of the kinetic molecular theory.Just understand this: Your "Free expansion into a vacuum" that does no work is for a closed system and the way you picture the rocket is not a closed system.
Let’s consider an apparatus that consists of two bulbs connected by a stopcock. On one side, initially, there is an ideal gas and on the other side there is a vacuum. The apparatus is also in thermal equilibrium with its surroundings, meaning that the temperature is the same inside and out:(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Science/Pretty%20Good%20Physics%20Fig1_zpshgkvwgvv.png)What we want to know is, what happens when we open the stopcock? Part of the answer is obvious. Gas molecules will rush from the left side to the right, until the pressure, the number of moles of gas, and temperature are the same on both sides. We also know that the ideal gas law (PV = nRT) will apply before, during and after the expansion, and that the volume V will double during the process. But how do we know what the final values of P and T will be? The ideal gas
law will only give us one of these if we know the other.
To solve this problem, let’s first do a thought experiment, which is to insulate the system thermally from the outside world. Now when we open the stopcock it looks something like this:(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Science/Pretty%20Good%20Physics%20Fig2_zpsuhxemywb.png)We know that q = 0 for the expansion because the system is insulated. We also know that w = 0, because the gas is expanding into a vacuum (w = -PextΔV = 0 x ΔV = 0). This leads us to the conclusion that the change in internal energy ΔE = q + w = 0 + 0 = 0.
OK, so the energy of the gas does not change in the process. Does that help us understand what happens to P and T? Yes, but first we need to reflect on what we mean by ΔE = 0.
The internal energy (E) of the system is the sum of the of its potential energy (PE) and kinetic energy (KE). If E = PE + KE, then ΔE = ΔPE + ΔKE. For ΔE to be zero, the sum ΔPE + ΔKE must be zero too. In other words, the changes in KE and PE must be equal and opposite to each other.
But, for an ideal gas (and this is the key point), the potential energy is always zero. Potential energy is the energy of atoms interacting with other atoms, e.g., to make a chemical bond, or to attract or repel each other through non-covalent interactions. But in an ideal gas the molecules are non-interacting. This means ΔPE is always zero for an ideal gas. Note that this is not true
for a real gas. Real gases have attractions and repulsions between molecules that make ΔPE ≠ 0.
<< etc, etc you can read the rest >>
(http://www.pica.army.mil/ead/cultural/picatinnyhistoricdistricts/images/NARTS_LiquidRocketDiagram.jpg)
Fixed mass of gas on the left? Nope!
You seem to forget, or ignore, the fact that "Free Expansion into a Vacuum" is for a closed system.
The rocket itself is not a closed system. In "free expansion" the system must be isolated and insulated from its surroundings.You seem to forget, or ignore, the fact that "Free Expansion into a Vacuum" is for a closed system.I do not.
Because a rocket in a vacuum is a closed - if not isolated - system by definition.
In "free expansion" the system must be isolated and insulated from its surroundings.
So by your definition, Papa, everying in the universe is a closed system.
Mommy make the bad man stop.
And a rocket in a near-infinite vacuum is a Closed - if not quite completely Isolated - system, as it is incapable of exchanging energy & matter with its surroundings:
Where does the gas go if the rokkit cant escwange mwatta wif its surrunndingz.
Totally failed to address the mass x velocity problem.
Totally failed to address the mass x velocity problem.
Assuming you're right about the w=pV fomula (you aren't, it only applies when the container of the gas is unable to move), you still have the problem of conservation of momentum being violated.Totally failed to address the mass x velocity problem.
The only 'mass x velocity problem' is the mad strawman bullshit you invented.
This link contains all the math you need to find out how much force a rocket in a vacuum will create:
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/chemistry/thermodynamics-chemistry/internal-energy-sal/a/pressure-volume-work
All you need to be able to do is multiply by zero...
Yet you cannot even do that.
Tom Hanks got paid millions & won an Oscar for pretending to be a retard...
What do you get, Geoff's mini-me?
Assuming you're right about the w=pV fomula (you aren't, it only applies when the container of the gas is unable to move), you still have the problem of conservation of momentum being violated.
The gas does no work on the vacuum.
It does no work on anything, weirdo.
Look:
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node33.html
"During the expansion there is no work exchanged with the system because there is no motion of the boundaries".
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=eYQHIjkaEroC&pg=PA39&lpg=PA39&dq=joule+free+expansion+conservation+of+energy&source=bl&ots=lNNu7CV1-P&sig=YMAwtaJTmLf7BF4Ts4jcWzVTY98&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjWv6XJh6rPAhXEOxoKHXskDjw4ChDoAQgfMAE#v=onepage&q=joule%20free%20expansion%20conservation%20of%20energy&f=false
"Joule noticed that in this process (i.e. Free Expansion) the gas does not 'develop mechanical power' i.e. no mechanical work is performed either by or on the gas".
Thus, both the Momentum of the individual particles & the Energy of the gas as a whole are entirely Conserved.
So both COM & COE are observed.
Not hard to understand eh?
Well, unless you're paid not to I guess?
Toodle-pip, paid-to-be-a-retard Psycho-Shill; enjoy telling your family what you do for a living!
(http://www.pica.army.mil/ead/cultural/picatinnyhistoricdistricts/images/NARTS_LiquidRocketDiagram.jpg)
Fixed mass of gas on the left? Nope!
LOL!!!
Nice flow-rate equation disguised as a 'thrust' equation retard...
So the rocket's tanks do not contain a fixed mass of gas?
Cool story Geoff!
You have no idea what free expansion is do you?
And you REALLY need to understand that Pressure is a Scalar quantity, NOT a Vector quantity, so your mad idea of 'unbalanced forces in the combustion chamber creating thrust' goes right out the window...
Here; have a CITATION to support what I just said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure#Definition
See; wasn't hard to find that CITATION was it Geoff?
Just stop trying to act 'cool' & STFU eh?
You got nothing but bluff & bluster & everybody knows it.
Rather than just an enormous mass of angry pompous pseudo-scientific bullshit...
<enormous garbled citation-&-science-free time-wasting gish-gallop snipped>
(http://adonilisium.weebly.com/uploads/4/3/2/7/43271021/move.png)
<enormous garbled citation-&-science-free time-wasting gish-gallop snipped>https://www.khanacademy.org/science/chemistry/thermodynamics-chemistry/internal-energy-sal/a/pressure-volume-work
If momentum is conserved and the rocket doesn't move, then the total momentum of the gas that has left the rocket must be zero.
So for each particle moving in one direction there must be another moving in the other direction.
How does the gas moving in the <-- direction ever leave the rocket?
for a rocket powered space-vehicle, I'd look up the equations that could be applied to a continuous thermodynamic process.
So yes, a rocket does GIVE gas to a vacuum; but, as a vacuum is NOTHING, the rocket receives NOTHING in return.Why should anyone care what happens to the gasses after they leave the rocket engine?
This is why the gas will expand, freely, into the vacuum whilst doing no work on either the vacuum or the rocket.
Why should anyone care what happens to the gasses after they leave the rocket engine?
The hot, expanding gasses have already done all of the important work as they made their way through the rocket engine.
So you're saying the rocket starts with zero momentum, and the gas starts with zero momentum, and you end with a rocket with zero momentum and gas with momentum p, so 0+0=0+p.If momentum is conserved and the rocket doesn't move, then the total momentum of the gas that has left the rocket must be zero.
Incorrect.
So you're saying the rocket starts with zero momentum, and the gas starts with zero momentum
Why does W=pv not apply inside the rocket engine?Why should anyone care what happens to the gasses after they leave the rocket engine?
Because W=pv.
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/chemistry/thermodynamics-chemistry/internal-energy-sal/a/pressure-volume-work
Keep up old man!
But you already said that gasses do have mass.QuoteThe hot, expanding gasses have already done all of the important work as they made their way through the rocket engine.
Incorrect.
As pressure is a Scalar quantity then there will be no unbalanced force within the engine/combustion chamber & thus no motion produced.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure#Definition
Please stop wasting my time with citation-free pseudo-science.
So you're saying the rocket starts with zero momentum, and the gas starts with zero net momentum.So you're saying the rocket starts with zero momentum, and the gas starts with zero momentum
Incorrect.
https://www.chem.purdue.edu/gchelp/liquids/character.html
Then read this & understand why your & NASA's interpretation of Newton is 'dead wrong':
https://physicsparsimony.wordpress.com/2011/12/22/confusion-regarding-newtons-third-law-of-motion/
Or don't...
Nobody cares.
Why does W=pv not apply inside the rocket engine?
gasses in motion have momentum (which is a vector quantity that must be conserved).
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/momentum/Lesson-1/Momentum
So you're saying the rocket starts with zero momentum, and the gas starts with zero net momentum.
More crazed, science & citation free, ad populum ranting from an obvious sock-puppet
More crazed, science & citation free, ad populum ranting from an obvious sock-puppet
LOL!!!
GTFO you bunch of robots...
How, the net momentum of the gas in the rocket must be the same as the rocket, otherwise the center of mass of the gas in the rocket would be moving relative to the rocket before it is released?So you're saying the rocket starts with zero momentum, and the gas starts with zero net momentum.
Incorrect.
How, the net momentum of the gas in the rocket must be the same as the rocket, otherwise the center of mass of the gas in the rocket would be moving relative to the rocket before it is released?
PURE VIRGIN SHILL-RAGE!!! ANGER!!! SHIT JOKES!!! FAIL!!! BOO-HOO!!! BOO-HOO!!!
What, the (center of mass of a system)'s velocity is (sum of the parts momentums, aka net momentum)/(mass of system)How, the net momentum of the gas in the rocket must be the same as the rocket, otherwise the center of mass of the gas in the rocket would be moving relative to the rocket before it is released?
LMFAO!!!
the (center of mass of a system)'s velocity is (sum of the parts momentums, aka net momentum)/(mass of system)
Great argument 10/10the (center of mass of a system)'s velocity is (sum of the parts momentums, aka net momentum)/(mass of system)
LMFAO!!!
And the momentum of that gas will be conserved as it expands freely into a vacuum...
Because it does no Work as it expands.
As I already explained.
Of course this is far more easily understood in terms of COE than COM...
So please stop cherry-picking your physics & ignoring the entirety of Thermodynamics.
<< irrelevant video >>
Is PV work the only kind of work a system can do?
It's the only type of work that a system such as this (piston-cylinder) can achieve. There are many different forms of Work, such as electrical work (dW=Current*Voltage*dt), rotational work (dW=Torque*Angular Acceleration*dt), and many other situations. Basically, anything that has Power (noted as W_dot, which means P=dW/dt) contains the capacity to do work and must be able to do work over time by it's definition.
From: Khan Academy, Work from expansion (https://www.khanacademy.org/science/chemistry/thermodynamics-chemistry/internal-energy-sal/v/work-from-expansion), under Questions.
Pretty conclusive: a gas-POWERED rocket cannot possibly do WORK in a vacuum.
Now, don't rant and rave an cuss at us , we're only trying to help you learn a bit where your education has been sadly lacking.
<Horridly-formatted disinfo snipped>
A Gas does no Work in a Vacuum:
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node33.html
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/j150043a002
http://www.etomica.org/app/modules/sites/JouleThomson/Background2.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_expansion
No Work=no Force=no Motion:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/work.html
https://www.wou.edu/las/physci/GS361/EnergyBasics/EnergyBasics.htm
http://www.edinformatics.com/math_science/work_energy_power.htm
Etc, etc, etc; undeniable scientific FACT.
Ergo a GAS-powered rocket cannot possibly create MOTION in a Vacuum.
Off you go idiotic anti-science paid liar scumbags...
Exercise your Democratic Rights to Lie like your life depends on it!
<citation & science-free garbage snipped>
<Horridly-formatted disinfo snipped>
LOL!!!
So the only 'citation' you can find is from an anonymous poster on the comments section of a website I posted?
Cool story bro...
And you act so triumphant about it too!
It's not even from the pressure-volume work section either:
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/chemistry/thermodynamics-chemistry/internal-energy-sal/a/pressure-volume-work
Still, at least you tried eh, you poor shill bastard?
When you find a gas law that supports your sci-fi bullshit get back to me...
With a REAL citation next time eh?
Back to this:
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/chemistry/thermodynamics-chemistry/internal-energy-sal/a/pressure-volume-work
In it you will find the equation used to determine the amount of Work done by a Gas...
The equation is: Work = external Pressure x change in Volume.
As the external Pressure in a Vacuum is ZERO, then a Gas introduced into a Vacuum will do ZERO Work.
And without WORK there can be neither POWER nor FORCE, & thus no MOTION:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/work.html
Moreover, the experiment to prove this FACT was one of the mathematical & conceptual foundations of Thermodynamics:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=eYQHIjkaEroC&pg=PA39&lpg=PA39&dq=joule+free+expansion+conservation+of+energy&source=bl&ots=lNNu7CV1-P&sig=YMAwtaJTmLf7BF4Ts4jcWzVTY98&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjWv6XJh6rPAhXEOxoKHXskDjw4ChDoAQgfMAE#v=onepage&q=joule%20free%20expansion%20conservation%20of%20energy&f=false
Again, I will quote the relevant section: "Joule noticed that in this process (i.e. Free Expansion) the gas does not 'develop mechanical power' i.e. no mechanical work is performed either by or on the gas".
Pretty conclusive: a gas-POWERED rocket cannot possibly do WORK in a vacuum.
To claim that it does is to violate the very foundations of Laws of Thermodynamics: FACT.
And no matter how much you stamp your feet & try to turn the page on these scientific FACTS they simply will not go away...
Sucks to be you; oh yes it does!
Toodle-pip, LOSERS!
<citation & science-free garbage snipped again>
Please read:
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/chemistry/thermodynamics-chemistry/internal-energy-sal/a/pressure-volume-work
In it you will find the equation used to determine the amount of Work done by a Gas...
The equation is: Work = external Pressure x change in Volume.
As the external Pressure in a Vacuum is ZERO, then a Gas introduced into a Vacuum will do ZERO Work.
Again, I will quote the relevant section: "Joule noticed that in this process (i.e. Free Expansion) the gas does not 'develop mechanical power' i.e. no mechanical work is performed either by or on the gas".
Pretty conclusive: a gas-POWERED rocket cannot possibly do WORK in a vacuum.
<citation & science-free garbage snipped again>
Back to this:
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/chemistry/thermodynamics-chemistry/internal-energy-sal/a/pressure-volume-work
In it you will find the equation used to determine the amount of Work done by a Gas...
The equation is: Work = external Pressure x change in Volume.
As the external Pressure in a Vacuum is ZERO, then a Gas introduced into a Vacuum will do ZERO Work.
And without WORK there can be neither POWER nor FORCE, & thus no MOTION:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/work.html
Moreover, the experiment to prove this FACT was one of the mathematical & conceptual foundations of Thermodynamics:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=eYQHIjkaEroC&pg=PA39&lpg=PA39&dq=joule+free+expansion+conservation+of+energy&source=bl&ots=lNNu7CV1-P&sig=YMAwtaJTmLf7BF4Ts4jcWzVTY98&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjWv6XJh6rPAhXEOxoKHXskDjw4ChDoAQgfMAE#v=onepage&q=joule%20free%20expansion%20conservation%20of%20energy&f=false
Again, I will quote the relevant section: "Joule noticed that in this process (i.e. Free Expansion) the gas does not 'develop mechanical power' i.e. no mechanical work is performed either by or on the gas".
Pretty conclusive: a gas-POWERED rocket cannot possibly do WORK in a vacuum.
To claim that it does is to violate the very foundations of Laws of Thermodynamics: FACT.
And no matter how much you stamp your feet & try to turn the page on these scientific FACTS they simply will not go away...
Sucks to be you; oh yes it does!
Toodle-pip, LOSERS!
no science no citations as usual
No science no citations again
no science no citations as usual
Meh...No science no citations again
Meh...
Why do you lot keep mistaking just saying shit for science?
Back to this:
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/chemistry/thermodynamics-chemistry/internal-energy-sal/a/pressure-volume-work
In it you will find the equation used to determine the amount of Work done by a Gas...
The equation is: Work = external Pressure x change in Volume.
As the external Pressure in a Vacuum is ZERO, then a Gas introduced into a Vacuum will do ZERO Work.
And without WORK there can be neither POWER nor FORCE, & thus no MOTION:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/work.html
Moreover, the experiment to prove this FACT was one of the mathematical & conceptual foundations of Thermodynamics:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=eYQHIjkaEroC&pg=PA39&lpg=PA39&dq=joule+free+expansion+conservation+of+energy&source=bl&ots=lNNu7CV1-P&sig=YMAwtaJTmLf7BF4Ts4jcWzVTY98&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjWv6XJh6rPAhXEOxoKHXskDjw4ChDoAQgfMAE#v=onepage&q=joule%20free%20expansion%20conservation%20of%20energy&f=false
Again, I will quote the relevant section: "Joule noticed that in this process (i.e. Free Expansion) the gas does not 'develop mechanical power' i.e. no mechanical work is performed either by or on the gas".
Pretty conclusive: a gas-POWERED rocket cannot possibly do WORK in a vacuum.
To claim that it does is to violate the very foundations of Laws of Thermodynamics: FACT.
And no matter how much you stamp your feet & try to turn the page on these scientific FACTS they simply will not go away...
Sucks to be you; oh yes it does!
Toodle-pip, LOSERS!
no science no citations as usual
Meh...No science no citations again
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/chemistry/thermodynamics-chemistry/internal-energy-sal/a/pressure-volume-work
In it you will find the equation used to determine the amount of Work done by a Gas...
Pretty conclusive: a gas-POWERED rocket cannot possibly do WORK in a vacuum.
<< irrelevant video >>You should ask more questions before designing you piston engined space-craft.QuoteIs PV work the only kind of work a system can do?Read, learn and inwardly digest ;) piston-cylinder ;) !
It's the only type of work that a system such as this (piston-cylinder) can achieve. There are many different forms of Work, such as electrical work (dW=Current*Voltage*dt), rotational work (dW=Torque*Angular Acceleration*dt), and many other situations. Basically, anything that has Power (noted as W_dot, which means P=dW/dt) contains the capacity to do work and must be able to do work over time by it's definition.
From: Khan Academy, Work from expansion (https://www.khanacademy.org/science/chemistry/thermodynamics-chemistry/internal-energy-sal/v/work-from-expansion), under Questions.
[/size]
Pretty conclusive: a gas-POWERED rocket cannot possibly do WORK in a vacuum.
Not quite, Dr Herr Papa Legba, Professor of Piston-engined space-craft!
What you really should have claimed is that "a piston-engined gas-POWERED rocket cannot possibly do WORK in a vacuum."
And, since I guess that engine would have to drive a propellor (yair I know, ::) it could flap wings ::)), it really would be pretty useless in a vacuum.
But a rocket pushing tonnes of gas at extreme velocity out the back is quite another story.
Papa, we're waiting bated breathe for you to get to that section in your thermodynamics course, just so we can learn how rockets really work in a vacuum!
In the meantime you could learn a lot from Robert A. Braeunig, ROCKET PROPULSION. (http://www.braeunig.us/space/propuls.htm)
Now, don't rant and rave an cuss at us , we're only trying to help you learn a bit where your education has been sadly lacking.
Happy :) studying. :)
How exactly is rocket exhaust like gas contained in a piston?Why does W=pv not apply inside the rocket engine?
Cos the P refers to EXTERNAL pressure, dingus.Quote from: https://www.khanacademy.org/science/chemistry/thermodynamics-chemistry/internal-energy-sal/a/pressure-volume-workLet's consider gas contained in a piston.
What about the momentum of the gas as it passes through the rocket engine? Does that momentum get conserved?gasses in motion have momentum (which is a vector quantity that must be conserved).
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/momentum/Lesson-1/Momentum
And the momentum of that gas will be conserved as it expands freely into a vacuum...
Because it does no Work as it expands.Ummm... That isn't what conservation of momentum means.
One of the most powerful laws in physics is the law of momentum conservation. The law of momentum conservation can be stated as follows.
For a collision occurring between object 1 and object 2 in an isolated system, the total momentum of the two objects before the collision is equal to the total momentum of the two objects after the collision. That is, the momentum lost by object 1 is equal to the momentum gained by object 2.
Of course this is far more easily understood in terms of COE than COM...
So please stop cherry-picking your physics & ignoring the entirety of Thermodynamics.
In chemistry, we will often be interested in changes in energy that occur during a chemical reaction at constant pressure. For example, you may run a reaction in an open beaker on the benchtop. These systems are at constant pressure because the pressure in the system can equilibrate with the atmospheric pressure of the surroundings.
In this situation, the volume of the system can change during the reaction, so ΔV≠0 and work is also non-zero. Heat can also be transferred between the system (our reaction) and the surroundings, so both work and heat must be considered when thinking about the energy change for the reaction. The energy contribution from work becomes more significant when the reaction makes or consumes gases, especially if the number of moles of gas changes substantially between the product and the reactants.
F=M×A dew the math.
F=M×A dew the math.
LOL!!!
Do the math on every single particle in a gas-cloud?
Nobody does that; they use this instead:
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node11.html
This may help you understand what open, closed & isolated systems are too, as you seem to have missed my repeated explanations:
https://www.bluffton.edu/homepages/facstaff/bergerd/NSC_111/thermo2.html
You are such a retard!
Also you are markjo's little dick-rider...
And you are proving the title of this thread correct every time you post...
Well done, littlebigdick-rider!
<time-wasting science & citation-free garbage snipped>
<time-wasting science & citation-free garbage snipped>
Didn't even read it.
That shit's gonna happen to you every single time, Geoff.
(http://adonilisium.weebly.com/uploads/4/3/2/7/43271021/move.png)
Btw it means net momentum when it says momentum of the gas.
<time-wasting science & citation-free garbage snipped>
Didn't even read it.
That shit's gonna happen to you every single time, Geoff.
<time-wasting science & citation-free garbage snipped>
STFU Geoff.
<snip again>
<snip again>
(http://adonilisium.weebly.com/uploads/4/3/2/7/43271021/move.png)
Btw it means net momentum when it says momentum of the gas.
LMFAO!!!
PLEASE let there be actual physicists reading this shit...
Please - just ONE!
Please read:
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/chemistry/thermodynamics-chemistry/internal-energy-sal/a/pressure-volume-work
In it you will find the equation used to determine the amount of Work done by a Gas...
The equation is: Work = external Pressure x change in Volume.
As the external Pressure in a Vacuum is ZERO, then a Gas introduced into a Vacuum will do ZERO Work.
And without WORK there can be neither POWER nor FORCE, & thus no MOTION:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/work.html
Moreover, the experiment to prove this FACT was one of the mathematical & conceptual foundations of Thermodynamics:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=eYQHIjkaEroC&pg=PA39&lpg=PA39&dq=joule+free+expansion+conservation+of+energy&source=bl&ots=lNNu7CV1-P&sig=YMAwtaJTmLf7BF4Ts4jcWzVTY98&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjWv6XJh6rPAhXEOxoKHXskDjw4ChDoAQgfMAE#v=onepage&q=joule%20free%20expansion%20conservation%20of%20energy&f=false
Again, I will quote the relevant section: "Joule noticed that in this process (i.e. Free Expansion) the gas does not 'develop mechanical power' i.e. no mechanical work is performed either by or on the gas".
Pretty conclusive: a gas-POWERED rocket cannot possibly do WORK in a vacuum.
To claim that it does is to violate the very foundations of Laws of Thermodynamics: FACT.
And no matter how much you stamp your feet & try to turn the page on these scientific FACTS they simply will not go away...
Sucks to be you; oh yes it does!
Toodle-pip, LOSERS!
<snip again>
<snip again>
*Yawn!*
https://np.reddit.com/r/shills/comments/4kdq7n/astroturfing_information_megathread_revision_8/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Earnest_Voice
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/File:Persona-Management-Contract.pdf
PLEASE let there be actual physicists reading this shit...
Yes, lots of interesting stuff on reddit.com, like<snip again>
*Yawn!*
https://np.reddit.com/r/shills/comments/4kdq7n/astroturfing_information_megathread_revision_8/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Earnest_Voice
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/File:Persona-Management-Contract.pdf
<mad garbage snipped>
Well, Papa has conclusively proven that the process of free expansion does no work. Pretty sure that has been accepted for a long time, however it is a step in the right direction.
Now, papa, would you like to talk about rocket propulsion?
A liquid fuel rocket could work in a vacuum, you have implied as much, this is because of mass and acceleration, which causes force.
Now, imagine gas has mass,
nevermind.
Please quote where i threatened to "beat you up"
I never claimed to be a "devil worshiper"
Also quote where I "robbed a drug dealer"
What's that you say, you are being dishonest?
Well, Papa has conclusively proven that the process of free expansion does no work. Pretty sure that has been accepted for a long time, however it is a step in the right direction.
Now, papa, would you like to talk about rocket propulsion?
A liquid fuel rocket could work in a vacuum, you have implied as much, this is because of mass and acceleration, which causes force.
Now, imagine gas has mass,
nevermind.
Dude you use the report feature moar than anyone, it's absolutely no secret.
I don't need anyones sympathy.
A liquid fuel rocket could work in a vacuum, you have implied as much
(http://adonilisium.weebly.com/uploads/4/3/2/7/43271021/move.png)
Btw it means net momentum when it says momentum of the gas.
LMFAO!!!
PLEASE let there be actual physicists reading this shit...
Please - just ONE!
NO U!!!
You have yet to say why it's wrong.NO U!!!
Meh...
You're real proud of that drawing aintcha, botty-boy?
Shame the only thing it proves is that you're a retard.
You have yet to say why it's wrong.
The image shows some of the directions the gas particles can move to leave the containers, then is says that since the container started off stationary, the net momentum of gas began stationary, so there must be some particles moveing in <--- direction, these particles must collide with the container.You have yet to say why it's wrong.
Well it doesn't actually mean anything, which is problematic.
But still, yes I have & you are lying yet again.
This may help you understand:
https://www.chem.purdue.edu/gchelp/liquids/character.html
I've posted it enough times.
None of you seem capable of comprehending it though...
Paid not to I guess?
And as far as I understand, it isn't the EXPANSION of gas that does the WORK, but the net impuls of the expelled gas that creates POWER for the rocket to move.
A liquid fuel rocket could work in a vacuum, you have implied as much
I have done no such thing, liar.
You poor bastards have no idea how mad you sound do you?
Back to the science...
Please read:
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/chemistry/thermodynamics-chemistry/internal-energy-sal/a/pressure-volume-work
In it you will find the equation used to determine the amount of Work done by a Gas...
The equation is: Work = external Pressure x change in Volume.
As the external Pressure in a Vacuum is ZERO, then a Gas introduced into a Vacuum will do ZERO Work.
And without WORK there can be neither POWER nor FORCE, & thus no MOTION:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/work.html
Moreover, the experiment to prove this FACT was one of the mathematical & conceptual foundations of Thermodynamics:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=eYQHIjkaEroC&pg=PA39&lpg=PA39&dq=joule+free+expansion+conservation+of+energy&source=bl&ots=lNNu7CV1-P&sig=YMAwtaJTmLf7BF4Ts4jcWzVTY98&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjWv6XJh6rPAhXEOxoKHXskDjw4ChDoAQgfMAE#v=onepage&q=joule%20free%20expansion%20conservation%20of%20energy&f=false
Again, I will quote the relevant section: "Joule noticed that in this process (i.e. Free Expansion) the gas does not 'develop mechanical power' i.e. no mechanical work is performed either by or on the gas".
Pretty conclusive: a gas-POWERED rocket cannot possibly do WORK in a vacuum.
To claim that it does is to violate the very foundations of Laws of Thermodynamics: FACT.
And no matter how much you stamp your feet & try to turn the page on these scientific FACTS they simply will not go away...
Sucks to be you; oh yes it does!
Toodle-pip, LOSERS!
The image shows some of the directions the gas particles can move to leave the containers, then is says that since the container started off stationary, the net momentum of gas began stationary, so there must be some particles moveing in <--- direction, these particles must collide with the container.You have yet to say why it's wrong.
Well it doesn't actually mean anything, which is problematic.
But still, yes I have & you are lying yet again.
This may help you understand:
https://www.chem.purdue.edu/gchelp/liquids/character.html
I've posted it enough times.
None of you seem capable of comprehending it though...
Paid not to I guess?
<total misunderstanding of how a gas behaves>
<mad lies snipped>
You have yet to say why it's wrong.
Well it doesn't actually mean anything, which is problematic.
But still, yes I have & you are lying yet again.
This may help you understand:
https://www.chem.purdue.edu/gchelp/liquids/character.html
I've posted it enough times.
None of you seem capable of comprehending it though...
Paid not to I guess?
So we are back to gasses don't have mass again are we<total misunderstanding of how a gas behaves>
Try looking for the word 'momentum' in this link & have a think about why your silly drawing is meaningless:
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node33.html
Thought experiment 2
I think the person that thinks gas has no momentum is mad.
STFU.
Please read:
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/chemistry/thermodynamics-chemistry/internal-energy-sal/a/pressure-volume-work
In it you will find the equation used to determine the amount of Work done by a Gas...
The equation is: Work = external Pressure x change in Volume.
As the external Pressure in a Vacuum is ZERO, then a Gas introduced into a Vacuum will do ZERO Work.
And without WORK there can be neither POWER nor FORCE, & thus no MOTION:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/work.html
Moreover, the experiment to prove this FACT was one of the mathematical & conceptual foundations of Thermodynamics:
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node33.html
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=eYQHIjkaEroC&pg=PA39&lpg=PA39&dq=joule+free+expansion+conservation+of+energy&source=bl&ots=lNNu7CV1-P&sig=YMAwtaJTmLf7BF4Ts4jcWzVTY98&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjWv6XJh6rPAhXEOxoKHXskDjw4ChDoAQgfMAE#v=onepage&q=joule%20free%20expansion%20conservation%20of%20energy&f=false
Again, I will quote the relevant section: "Joule noticed that in this process (i.e. Free Expansion) the gas does not 'develop mechanical power' i.e. no mechanical work is performed either by or on the gas".
Pretty conclusive: a gas-POWERED rocket cannot possibly do WORK in a vacuum.
To claim that it does is to violate the very foundations of the Laws of Thermodynamics: FACT.
And no matter how much you stamp your feet & try to turn the page on these scientific FACTS they simply will not go away...
Sucks to be you; oh yes it does!
Toodle-pip, LOSERS!
So you admit that gas particles have momentum, therefore there momentum must be conserved, so can you work out where the missing arrow that goes <--- is meant to be to make momentum conserved in the image?I think the person that thinks gas has no momentum is mad.
Never said that retard.
Seriously; why ARE you so mental?
There's clearly something wrong with you.
<pseudo-science snipped>
you asked for fucking physics...I gave you fucking physics.
<pseudo-science snipped>
Find the word 'momentum' in this link, retard:
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node33.htmlyou asked for fucking physics...I gave you fucking physics.
You did not.
Why are you so mental?
No. when a mass accelerates there is a force present. And from that force we get an equal and opposite force.
Why are you all so mental?
It's not in the link, so what that proves nothing about CoMSo you admit that gas particles have momentum, therefore there momentum must be conserved, so can you work out where the missing arrow that goes <--- is meant to be to make momentum conserved in the image?I think the person that thinks gas has no momentum is mad.
Never said that retard.
Find the word 'momentum' in this link, retard:
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node33.html
It's not in the link, so what that proves nothing about CoM
So you were unable to show any of these three points to be wrong, so you admit they are true.It's not in the link, so what that proves nothing about CoM
It proves you don't use COM to calculate the Work done by a gas don't it?
Which is the subject btw...
Gas flows naturally from areas of higher to lower pressure using its own energy (is this simple enough for you?):
http://www.answers.com/Q/Does_gas_flow_from_low_pressure_to_high_pressure?#slide=1
And when it flows into an area of zero pressure its energy is conserved & no Work is done...
This is the result called free expansion:
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node33.html
Conservation. Of. Energy.
Learning can be fun!
https://www.chem.purdue.edu/gchelp/liquids/character.htmlWait, Papa posted a link to a website that says gasses are made of particles, and he said that the website is correct.
I've posted it enough times.
If someone ever says "free expansion does no work" all they mean is that it does no work on the vacuum, which is pretty obvious in retrospect. This is because 19th century experimenters and 21st century high schools find it easiest to talk about gas properties in terms of pistons pushing on containers of gas. If the piston is replaced by nothingness, well clearly no work will be extracted from the system.
The combustion chamber is put under immense heat and pressure.
Wow. Force=Pressure*Area right. The Force is a vector and the Area is a (psudo)vector. And since there is a hole in the rocket, the sum of all of the area vectors don't equal zero, but you won't understand this as vector calculus is a bit above your head.The combustion chamber is put under immense heat and pressure.
It has not even been shown that combustion is possible in a vacuum for a start.
And pressure is a scalar quantity, so there will be no unbalanced force within the chamber anyway:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure#Definition
An unbalanced force can only be created when the internal pressure created by the rocket engine meets an external pressure.No, that's wrong. The internal pressure can only do work against the external pressure when the external pressure isn't zero. BUT THE GAS IS NOT TRYING TO DO WORK ON THE VACUUM, IT'S DOING WORK ON THE ROCKET!
In a vacuum there is no external pressure so no unbalanced force is created.
If someone ever says "free expansion does no work" all they mean is that it does no work on the vacuum, which is pretty obvious in retrospect. This is because 19th century experimenters and 21st century high schools find it easiest to talk about gas properties in terms of pistons pushing on containers of gas. If the piston is replaced by nothingness, well clearly no work will be extracted from the system.
The gas molecules will simply leave the rocket, with both energy & momentum conserved, & whiz off into the vast nothingness of space.To leave the rocket they must have momentum relative to the rocket, therefore something else must gain momentum in the opposite direction.
Wow. Force=Pressure*Area
The combustion chamber is put under immense heat and pressure.
It has not even been shown that combustion is possible in a vacuum for a start.
And pressure is a scalar quantity, so there will be no unbalanced force within the chamber anyway
An unbalanced force can only be created when the internal pressure created by the rocket engine meets an external pressure.
In a vacuum there is no external pressure so no unbalanced force is created.
The gas molecules will simply leave the rocket, with both energy & momentum conserved, & whiz off into the vast nothingness of space.
This is all perfectly understandable if you simply get your head round free expansion btw.
Or understand that you cannot push on nothing.
The gas molecules will simply leave the rocket, with both energy & momentum conserved, & whiz off into the vast nothingness of space.How did the gas molecules leave the rocket without interacting with the rocket?
It's not in the link, so what that proves nothing about CoM
It proves you don't use COM to calculate the Work done by a gas don't it?
Which is the subject btw...
Gas flows naturally from areas of higher to lower pressure using its own energy (is this simple enough for you?):
http://www.answers.com/Q/Does_gas_flow_from_low_pressure_to_high_pressure?#slide=1
And when it flows into an area of zero pressure its energy is conserved & no Work is done...
This is the result called free expansion:
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node33.html
Conservation. Of. Energy.
Learning can be fun!
Because the gas particles just know the rocket is there, even though Papa at some point posted that ideal gas molecules don't experience any forces. I know it makes no sense, you just have to go with it lol.The gas molecules will simply leave the rocket, with both energy & momentum conserved, & whiz off into the vast nothingness of space.How did the gas molecules leave the rocket without interacting with the rocket?
Do a spring loaded medicine ball shooting engine propel itself in vacuum and zero G ?
<mad citation-free anti-science garbage snipped>
ditto.
ditto.
F = mVe + peAe
Do a spring loaded medicine ball shooting engine propel itself in vacuum and zero G ?
Irrelevant as we are talking about gases not solids:
The gas molecules will simply leave the rocket, with both energy & momentum conserved, & whiz off into the vast nothingness of space.How did the gas molecules leave the rocket without interacting with the rocket?
How did the gas molecules leave the rocket without interacting with the rocket?
So you're saying that gasses contained within the rocket do not interact with the rocket in any way, shape or form?
Then please describe the interactions that the gas would have with the rocket as it leaves the rocket.So you're saying that gasses contained within the rocket do not interact with the rocket in any way, shape or form?
No I am not.
I am saying that, in a vacuum, the gas would leave the rocket without doing any work on it.Except that you are misrepresenting free expansion.
And I am providing citations for every single thing I say...
The sign of work
As a matter of convention, negative work occurs when a system does work on the surroundings.
When the gas does work the volume of a gas increases (ΔV>0) and the work done is negative.
When work is done on the gas, the volume of the gas decreases (ΔV<0) and work is positive.
<mad citation-free garbage snipped>
Why do I need citations when it is all basic mechanics.<mad citation-free garbage snipped>
Please stop botting my thread.
The net (external) force on a system of particles equals the mass of the system times the acceleration of the system's centre of massSo if the net external force is zero, which it is in a closed system, the velocity doesn't change.
<obvious lies snipped>
<total bullshit snipped>
All of your references to free expansion apply to expansion in a closed isolated system. The rocket itself is not a closed isolated system. Can't you ever understand this simple point?How did the gas molecules leave the rocket without interacting with the rocket?http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node33.html
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/j150043a002
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=eYQHIjkaEroC&pg=PA39&lpg=PA39&dq=joule+free+expansion+conservation+of+energy&source=bl&ots=lNNu7CV1-P&sig=YMAwtaJTmLf7BF4Ts4jcWzVTY98&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjWv6XJh6rPAhXEOxoKHXskDjw4ChDoAQgfMAE#v=onepage&q=joule%20free%20expansion%20conservation%20of%20energy&f=false
Wtf have you dyslexic cranks got against the laws of Thermodynamics ffs?We have nothing against the laws of thermodynamics at all. They just have to be applied correctly.
The fact that velocity of the centre of mass of a closed system can't change is bullshit now, you really believe only in thermodynamics, everything else is wrong even Newtonian mechanics. LOL<obvious lies snipped>
Meh...<total bullshit snipped>
Meh...
Less bullshit; more science please.
You have pissed him off now, to say that his holy and most glorious thermodynamics agrees with the faulty theories of the shill sciences is blasphemy.All of your references to free expansion apply to expansion in a closed isolated system. The rocket itself is not a closed isolated system. Can't you ever understand this simple point?How did the gas molecules leave the rocket without interacting with the rocket?http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node33.html
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/j150043a002
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=eYQHIjkaEroC&pg=PA39&lpg=PA39&dq=joule+free+expansion+conservation+of+energy&source=bl&ots=lNNu7CV1-P&sig=YMAwtaJTmLf7BF4Ts4jcWzVTY98&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjWv6XJh6rPAhXEOxoKHXskDjw4ChDoAQgfMAE#v=onepage&q=joule%20free%20expansion%20conservation%20of%20energy&f=falseQuote from: Papa LegbaWtf have you dyslexic cranks got against the laws of Thermodynamics ffs?We have nothing against the laws of thermodynamics at all. They just have to be applied correctly.
Look, when your interpretation of free expansion seems in conflict with the voluminous references to rocket thrust in all pressures from 0 (a vacuum) up, then it seems certain that your interpretation of free expansion is incorrect.
Now, Robert A. Braeunig understands this a lot better than you
Robert A. Braeunig, ROCKET PROPULSION. (http://www.braeunig.us/space/propuls.htm)
And if you want the thermodynamics of rocket propulsion, here's a bit
Robert A. Braeunig, ROCKET THERMODYNAMICS (http://www.braeunig.us/space/thermo.htm)
Or
THERMODYNAMIC CYCLES OF ROCKET ENGINES, V.M. Polyaev and V.A. Burkaltsev (https://www.eolss.net/Sample-Chapters/C08/E3-11-01-07.pdf).
Just face it, you are wrong.
<propaganda bullshit snipped>
<strawman bullshit snipped>
OH NO, I FORGOT THAT ROCKETS WORK BY RELEASING GAS INTO A SECOND SEALED CONTAINER, OH NOOOOO!!<propaganda bullshit snipped>
Meh...<strawman bullshit snipped>
Meh...
Stop pretending you are proving anything except that shills claim rockets work in a vacuum...
This one citation alone wrecks your bullshit:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=eYQHIjkaEroC&pg=PA39&lpg=PA39&dq=joule+free+expansion+conservation+of+energy&source=bl&ots=lNNu7CV1-P&sig=YMAwtaJTmLf7BF4Ts4jcWzVTY98&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjWv6XJh6rPAhXEOxoKHXskDjw4ChDoAQgfMAE#v=onepage&q=joule%20free%20expansion%20conservation%20of%20energy&f=false
Just fucking READ it, eh?
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=eYQHIjkaEroC&pg=PA39&lpg=PA39&dq=joule+free+expansion+conservation+of+energy&source=bl&ots=lNNu7CV1-P&sig=YMAwtaJTmLf7BF4Ts4jcWzVTY98&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjWv6XJh6rPAhXEOxoKHXskDjw4ChDoAQgfMAE#v=onepage&q=joule%20free%20expansion%20conservation%20of%20energy&f=false
Just fucking READ it, eh?
OH NO, I FORGOT THAT ROCKETS IN SPACE WORK BY RELEASING GAS INTO ASECOND SEALED CONTAINER,VACUUM OH NOOOOO!!
remember PV=nRT.
This one citation alone wrecks your bullshit:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=eYQHIjkaEroC&pg=PA39&lpg=PA39&dq=joule+free+expansion+conservation+of+energy&source=bl&ots=lNNu7CV1-P&sig=YMAwtaJTmLf7BF4Ts4jcWzVTY98&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjWv6XJh6rPAhXEOxoKHXskDjw4ChDoAQgfMAE#v=onepage&q=joule%20free%20expansion%20conservation%20of%20energy&f=false
Just fucking READ it, eh?
The free expansion into a vacuum applies only to a closed isolated system.
So you're saying that your own source was an obvious lie? ???<obvious lies snipped>
Meh...
The free expansion into a vacuum applies only to a closed isolated system.
Already addressed:
https://www.bluffton.edu/homepages/facstaff/bergerd/NSC_111/thermo2.html
A rocket in a vacuum is by definition a closed/isolated system.
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Science/Figure%201%20-%20Thermodynamics%20of%20Rocket%20Engines_zpsozzpislq.png) Figure 1 - The ideal thermodynamic cycle presented on "p-V" coordinates | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Science/Figure%202%20-%20Thermodynamics%20of%20Rocket%20Engines_zpsupdznyvv.png) Figure 2 - The cycle of the engine under condition pe > pam |
Tell us how somehow it makes a gas do work in a vacuum & thus defy thermodynamics eh, holocaust-denying shill Geoff?
You all seem to have gone mental & are just posting random pseudo-science & claiming I said things I did not...Yes, we've read it!
Here's what I did in fact say.
Please read:
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/chemistry/thermodynamics-chemistry/internal-energy-sal/a/pressure-volume-work
In it you will find the equation used to determine the amount of Work done by a Gas...
The equation is: Work = external Pressure x change in Volume.
As the external Pressure in a Vacuum is ZERO, then a Gas introduced into a Vacuum will do ZERO Work.
Is PV work the only kind of work a system can do?
It's the only type of work that a system such as this (piston-cylinder) can achieve. There are many different forms of Work, such as electrical work (dW=Current*Voltage*dt), rotational work (dW=Torque*Angular Acceleration*dt), and many other situations. Basically, anything that has Power (noted as W_dot, which means P=dW/dt) contains the capacity to do work and must be able to do work over time by it's definition.
From: Khan Academy, Work from expansion (https://www.khanacademy.org/science/chemistry/thermodynamics-chemistry/internal-energy-sal/v/work-from-expansion), under Questions.
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Science/Figure%201%20-%20Thermodynamics%20of%20Rocket%20Engines_zpsozzpislq.png) Figure 1 - The ideal thermodynamic cycle presented on "p-V" coordinates | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Science/Figure%202%20-%20Thermodynamics%20of%20Rocket%20Engines_zpsupdznyvv.png) Figure 2 - The cycle of the engine under condition pe > pam |
<lies & garbage snipped>
But an action in isolation is only ONE force (f1) & thus equates to Newton's 2nd law only (f=ma).
For Newton's 3rd Law to be fulfilled a second, external object is required to create f1=-f2.
<mad citation-free pseudo-science garbage snipped>
”You can't give up just because it's hopeless! You gotta hope even more! And cover your ears and go BLEH BLEH BLEH BLEH BLEH BLEH BLEH BLEH!<mad citation-free pseudo-science garbage snipped>
The person you are trying to shill is currently unavailable. Please try again later.
<insane science-free ranting snipped>
<insane science-free ranting snipped>He has gone into one of his mental repeat the same post again and again breakdowns.
The person you are trying to shill is currently unavailable. Please try again later.
But an action in isolation is only ONE force (f1) & thus equates to Newton's 2nd law only (f=ma).That works too. The mass of the burnt fuel when passed through the nozzle is accelerated creating a huge force, which drives the rocket.
For Newton's 3rd Law to be fulfilled a second, external object is required to create f1=-f2.Sure, that's fine. The burnt fuel is external as soon as it leaves the bell of the rocket nozzle. The place to perform this analysis is this dividing plane.
Here's someone brainier than you explaining why you & NASA are 'dead wrong'; Go troll him instead of me eh, Geoff?Nothing to do with me, go ask Geoff!
https://physicsparsimony.wordpress.com/2011/12/22/confusion-regarding-newtons-third-law-of-motion/
Third Law of MotionHere the implication is that the rocket needs "something to push off", that is what he is criticising.
The rocket's action is to push down on the ground with the force of its powerful engines, and the reaction is that the ground pushes the rocket upwards with an equal force.
From Third Law of Motion (http://teachertech.rice.edu/Participants/louviere/Newton/law3.html)
But an action in isolation is only ONE force (f1) & thus equates to Newton's 2nd law only (f=ma).That works too. The mass of the burnt fuel when passed through the nozzle is accelerated creating a huge force, which drives the rocket.Quote from: Papa LegbaFor Newton's 3rd Law to be fulfilled a second, external object is required to create f1=-f2.Sure, that's fine. The burnt fuel is external as soon as it leaves the bell of the rocket nozzle. The place to perform this analysis is this dividing plane.
Would this work in a vacuum, in your opinion?
But an action in isolation is only ONE force (f1) & thus equates to Newton's 2nd law only (f=ma).That works too. The mass of the burnt fuel when passed through the nozzle is accelerated creating a huge force, which drives the rocket.Quote from: Papa LegbaFor Newton's 3rd Law to be fulfilled a second, external object is required to create f1=-f2.Sure, that's fine. The burnt fuel is external as soon as it leaves the bell of the rocket nozzle. The place to perform this analysis is this dividing plane.
LOL!!!
So, at the exit of the nozzle (co-incidentally EXACTLY where it would meet atmospheric mass btw), the exhaust somehow divides itself in two & either turns round, or stops completely, in order to push against itself?
LMFAO!!!
Why are you so mental?
<derailing bullshit that's already been dimissed snipped>
Mark Hammond is complaining about this sort of teaching of Newton's 3rd Law.QuoteThird Law of MotionHere the implication is that the rocket needs "something to push off", that is what he is criticising.
The rocket's action is to push down on the ground with the force of its powerful engines, and the reaction is that the ground pushes the rocket upwards with an equal force.
From Third Law of Motion (http://teachertech.rice.edu/Participants/louviere/Newton/law3.html)
<derailing bullshit that's already been dimissed snipped>
Mark Hammond is complaining about this sort of teaching of Newton's 3rd Law.QuoteThird Law of MotionHere the implication is that the rocket needs "something to push off", that is what he is criticising.
The rocket's action is to push down on the ground with the force of its powerful engines, and the reaction is that the ground pushes the rocket upwards with an equal force.
From Third Law of Motion (http://teachertech.rice.edu/Participants/louviere/Newton/law3.html)
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65625.msg1760220#msg1760220
Re: Rockets cannot work in a Vacuum.
« Reply #900 on: February 19, 2016, 09:50:28 PM »
Quote from: markjo on February 19, 2016, 09:15:51 PM
Blah, lie, blah, troll, shill, blah, NO U!!! etc...
Show me where I said a rocket is a closed system.
Do it in your next post or GTFO, Liar.
A rocket in a vacuum is by definition a closed/isolated system.
Would this work in a vacuum, in your opinion?
So your full bottle would instantly explode in the hard vacuum of space.
Plastic Bottle Design
Most two liter bottles are made of polyethylene terephthalate plastic, or PET, and designed to hold carbonated beverages. The thickness of the plastic and the shape of the bottle both contribute to its resistance to bursting. Quality control measures include pressure testing, as well as checking for leaks and cosmetic flaws. Most two liter bottles begin to fail at pressures around 1,034 kilopascals, or 150 pounds per square inch. The pressure at which the bottle will burst is more than it would normally encounter during packaging or normal use.
<mad lies & derailing snipped>
QuoteAnd pressure is a scalar quantity, so there will be no unbalanced force within the chamber anyway
If you're right (clue: you're not), then that would also apply for a rocket engine in an atmosphere. Congratulations Einstein, you just proved rockets don't work in an atmosphere! (Just in case you're confused, you didn't prove that. I was employing sarcasm: it makes the Schadenfreude even more palatable).
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64713.0 (http://www.vevo.com/watch/rick-astley/never-gonna-give-you-up/GB1108700010)
QuoteAnd pressure is a scalar quantity, so there will be no unbalanced force within the chamber anyway
If you're right (clue: you're not), then that would also apply for a rocket engine in an atmosphere. Congratulations Einstein, you just proved rockets don't work in an atmosphere! (Just in case you're confused, you didn't prove that. I was employing sarcasm: it makes the Schadenfreude even more palatable).
^^ Poppa claiming that rockets don't work in an atmosphere ^^
(Whistles in a 'Saviours-from-The-Walking-Dead' manner)
Here's another Lie from Geoff:
Which must make you feel real good about yourself eh, Geoff?
Just say so eh, Geoff?
remember PV=nRT.Why don't you explain what it means Geoff?
There is NO depth to which you are unprepared to sink, is there Geoff?
Tell us how somehow it makes a gas do work in a vacuum & thus defy thermodynamics eh, holocaust-denying shill Geoff?
<snip again>You seem to be mistaking Words for Reality, Geoff.
<citation & science-free garbage snipped>
<enormous garbled citation-&-science-free time-wasting gish-gallop snipped>STFU Geoff.
So by your definition, Papa, everying in the universe is a closed system.Please actually read the CITATIONS I provide, Geoff's creepy mini-me...
Back to this...Put your stupid copy'n'paste away! You know and we know that rockets do not need air-pressure to work.
QuoteAnd pressure is a scalar quantity, so there will be no unbalanced force within the chamber anyway
If you're right (clue: you're not), then that would also apply for a rocket engine in an atmosphere. Congratulations Einstein, you just proved rockets don't work in an atmosphere! (Just in case you're confused, you didn't prove that. I was employing sarcasm: it makes the Schadenfreude even more palatable).
^^ Poppa claiming that rockets don't work in an atmosphere ^^
(Whistles in a 'Saviours-from-The-Walking-Dead' manner)
I never wrote that.
Just click on my name & see where it takes you.
Nice try though.
More proof the title of this thread is correct.
P.s. why are you all so mental?
And pressure is a scalar quantity, so there will be no unbalanced force within the chamber anyway
QuoteAnd pressure is a scalar quantity, so there will be no unbalanced force within the chamber anyway
If you're right (clue: you're not), then that would also apply for a rocket engine in an atmosphere. Congratulations Einstein, you just proved rockets don't work in an atmosphere! (Just in case you're confused, you didn't prove that. I was employing sarcasm: it makes the Schadenfreude even more palatable).
^^ Poppa claiming that rockets don't work in an atmosphere ^^
(Whistles in a 'Saviours-from-The-Walking-Dead' manner)
I never wrote that.
Just click on my name & see where it takes you.
Nice try though.
More proof the title of this thread is correct.
P.s. why are you all so mental?
Do you subscribe to Sceptictank's exhaust stacking or do you have a different mechanism for exhaust pushing off air?
<demented disinfo-rant snipped>
<demented disinfo-rant snipped>
Why are you so mental?
More psychobabble
You also seem to believe pressure gradient forces do not exist:Whoa there Nellie!! Are you trying to say that pressure gradients are balanced forces? ???
http://tornado.sfsu.edu/Geosciences/classes/m430/Equation_Motion/Forces.pdf
They do.
Are you trying to say that pressure gradients are balanced forces?
Why is it so hard to answer simple questions?
Are you trying to say that pressure gradients are balanced forces?
Carry on...
You are dumb and you post dumb things. Perhaps dementia is kicking in at your old age.
Or you just can back up your shot claims.
Exhaust stacking lol
Are you trying to say that pressure gradients are balanced forces?
Carry on...
Object B is the exhaust.
Are you trying to say that pressure gradients are balanced forces?
Carry on...
Hoping people won't spot my attempts at deflection away from the questions I can't answer!
Please explain to us heretics how 2 scalar quantities (external pressure and internal pressure) combine to create a vector quantity?
Well Rayzor smashed you, but one more debunk.Liquefied Petroleum Gas is a liquid, that's why it weighs more.
Q: why do full bottles of lpg weigh more than empty bottles.
A: gas has mass.
Q: if F=MxA what would be the outcome of propelling a mass one way?
A: ?
(The answer is force.)
Please explain to us heretics how 2 scalar quantities (external pressure and internal pressure) combine to create a vector quantity?
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/chemistry/thermodynamics-chemistry/internal-energy-sal/a/pressure-volume-work
Slow learner aintcha Geoff?
CONCLUSION:
Legba 1
Shills 0
CONCLUSION:
Legba 1
Shills 0
Interpretation: I haven't got a clue what happened here, have no idea how 2 scalar quantities combine to produce a vector, but I'd better lend some moral support to my 'troof-buddy' cos I don't like to see him get roasted.
Loyalty is a great personality trait: so well done, you! I award you a "Faithful Puppy Certificate Tier 1". You may use it as your avatar.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/b9/16/a1/b916a121fbbd358c3c679c9d8de4ee42.jpg)
Do you not understand the question?Are you trying to say that pressure gradients are balanced forces?
Carry on...
Do you not understand the question?Are you trying to say that pressure gradients are balanced forces?
Carry on...
He understands that what he wrote disproves your whole point. LolDo you not understand the question?Are you trying to say that pressure gradients are balanced forces?
Carry on...
Do you not understand what you wrote?
Stop wasting my time.
A rocket expelling high pressure gas into a vacuum sounds like a pressure gradient to me.Do you not understand the question?Are you trying to say that pressure gradients are balanced forces?
Carry on...
Do you not understand what you wrote?
Stop wasting my time.
Markjo you obviously don't know how pressure gradients work. Stop making yourself look like a dummy and admit that you're wrong, or you'll just give proof to the validity of the results of the pole in this thread.I'm lost, "the pole in this thread"? As far as I know there are no "poles" anywhere on this thread, dummy. The nearest I can find is the poll at the start, and that is worded in the usual biased way that it's almost as bad as asking "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" Answer yes or no.
<science-free bullshit snipped>
^What you get when a 65 year old son of a cowardly family line pretends to know science.
Total silence from markjo in the face of even the slightest opposition...Or, the inconvenient fact that markjo has a job and can't always be at Papa Legba's beck and call.
Markjo you obviously don't know how pressure gradients work.Then please enlighten me. Please explain how gasses flowing through a DeLaval nozzle do not create one or more pressure gradients.
Or, the inconvenient fact that markjo has a job and can't always be at Papa Legba's beck and call.
Then please enlighten me.
Papa Legba admits to being Arealhumanbeing.Then please enlighten me.
Already did.
Irrelevant, I wasn't talking to you! Take a reading course some time.<science-free bullshit snipped>
Is PV work the only kind of work a system can do?
It's the only type of work that a system such as this (piston-cylinder) can achieve. There are many different forms of Work, such as electrical work (dW=Current*Voltage*dt), rotational work (dW=Torque*Angular Acceleration*dt), and many other situations. Basically, anything that has Power (noted as W_dot, which means P=dW/dt) contains the capacity to do work and must be able to do work over time by it's definition.
From: Khan Academy, Work from expansion (https://www.khanacademy.org/science/chemistry/thermodynamics-chemistry/internal-energy-sal/v/work-from-expansion), under Questions.
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Science/Figure%201%20-%20Thermodynamics%20of%20Rocket%20Engines_zpsozzpislq.png) Figure 1 - The ideal thermodynamic cycle presented on "p-V" coordinates | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Science/Figure%202%20-%20Thermodynamics%20of%20Rocket%20Engines_zpsupdznyvv.png) Figure 2 - The cycle of the engine under condition pe > pam |
Markjo you obviously don't know how pressure gradients work. Stop making yourself look like a dummy and admit that you're wrong, or you'll just give proof to the validity of the results of the pole in this thread.
Markjo you obviously don't know how pressure gradients work. Stop making yourself look like a dummy and admit that you're wrong, or you'll just give proof to the validity of the results of the pole in this thread.
In Papa's mind no one can tell these users are his alts. Pretty sad actually, no wonder why he hates us.
Free expansion is an irreversible process in which a gas expands into an insulated evacuated chamber. It is also called Joule expansion.
During free expansion, no work is done by the gas. The gas goes through states that are not in thermodynamic equilibrium before reaching its final state, which implies that one cannot define thermodynamic parameters as values of the gas as a whole. For example, the pressure changes locally from point to point, and the volume occupied by the gas (which is formed of particles) is not a well defined quantity.
A free expansion is typically achieved by opening a stopcock that allows the gas to expand into a vacuum. Although it would be difficult to achieve in reality, it is instructive to imagine a free expansion caused by moving a piston faster than virtually any atom. No work is done because there is no pressure on the piston. No heat energy leaves or enters the piston. Nevertheless, there is an entropy change.
<tl;dr gish-gallop garbage that has all been dealt with & dismissed already>
<tl;dr gish-gallop garbage that has all been dealt with & dismissed already>
So you're back to just pretending eh?
It's where you all end up eventually.
Plus you now sound eerily like 'Mainframes', who has been strangely absent recently.
An automated bot?;) I don't think Papa would do any better at the Turing test than Eliza ;).
turing test for papa :-* :-*
I'm not a flat earther.Learn to read past kindergarten level. The only thing I said about you in that post was
And the topic of the thread is shills lying about the gas laws so they can claim rockets work in a vacuum.
Which you all continue to do.
So STFU Geoff.
Please explain to us heretics how 2 scalar quantities (external pressure and internal pressure) combine to create a vector quantity?
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/chemistry/thermodynamics-chemistry/internal-energy-sal/a/pressure-volume-work
Slow learner aintcha Geoff?
Oh dear, this didn't start well for you, isn't going well, and it ain't gonna end well!
Your link goes to the page on Thermodynamics and Work, using the equation work=−PΔV.
But Poppy, pressure, volume and work or all scalar! Which is sad for Poppa-Fhysics!!TM, but does add some extra heat into the roasted nuts.
So, for the gazillionth time (I know, I'm exaggerating), please do explain, how 2 scalar quantities combine to produce a vector quantity, specifically how external pressure (scalar) and internal pressure (scalar) combine to produce an "unbalanced force" (shall we call that, errr, thrust - a vector quantity)?
Now, I know you won't (can't), and you know you won't (can't), and everyone else reading this thread knows you won't (can't), but holding your feet to the fire just adds to the fun Poppy!
Total silence from Poppy in the face of even the slightest opposition = An action typical of cowards & bullies btw.
<Mad tl;dr science & citation-free disinfo-rant snipped>
<shit joke snipped>
<Mad tl;dr science & citation-free disinfo-rant snipped>
No idea wtf you are blatheringing about; it has nothing to do with a single thing I said.
You seem to believe that the laws of thermodynamics are a thing called 'Poppa-Fhyics' though, so it's pretty clear you are mental.
The First Law of Poppa-Fhysics!!TM: An unbalanced force can only be created when the internal pressure created by the rocket engine meets an external pressure.
Pp, I read your post and it actually sounds like you put some thought into it, but IDK for sure. In another thread on the same topic a youtube was posted. It showed a toy car being pushed by a balloon, the car moved as it should. When a vacuum cleaner wand was placed at the balloon nozzle, the car didn't move.
That youtube actually proved Legbas point. When you take away the external pressure. No force is created by the nozzle.
Pp, I read your post and it actually sounds like you put some thought into it, but IDK for sure. In another thread on the same topic a youtube was posted. It showed a toy car being pushed by a balloon, the car moved as it should. When a vacuum cleaner wand was placed at the balloon nozzle, the car didn't move.
That youtube actually proved Legbas point. When you take away the external pressure. No force is created by the nozzle.
Firstly, a vacuum cleaner does not "produce a vacuum". It reduces air pressure inside the device, which causes higher pressure air outside the device to flow in. All he's doing is creating a flow of air into the nozzle from the surrounding atmosphere.
Firstly, a vacuum cleaner does not "produce a vacuum". It reduces air pressure inside the device, which causes higher pressure air outside the device to flow in. All he's doing is creating a flow of air into the nozzle from the surrounding atmosphere.
Yes; & thus the air flowing from the balloon does less work, as external pressure is reduced...
Work = external Pressure x change in Volume, remember?
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/chemistry/thermodynamics-chemistry/internal-energy-sal/a/pressure-volume-work
LOL!!!
Watching shills shoot emselves in the foot never gets old...
<mad bullshit snipped>
<mad bullshit snipped>
Why are you so mental?
^science & citation-free garbage snipped>
When you've got some actual science to contribute get back to me.Tell us Papa Legba, what "actual science" would it take to convince you that you are wrong and that rockets really can work in a vacuum?
^science & citation-free garbage snipped>
Why are you so mental?
Why are you both so mental?
Back to the Gas Laws you all lie about...
<mad disinfo-shit snipped>
<mad disinfo-shit snipped>Please stop using my quotes against me! Can't you see I'm crying on the inside here?
<some mad fucker talking to himself>
Lol piss piss piss
Why are you both so mental?Who are you calling mental? You're the one who thinks that a rocket resembles a Joule-Thompson Free Expansion apparatus.
NO U!!!
NO U!!!<< more unrelated garbage >>
Why are you so mental?NO U!!!
STFU & grow some balls ffs.
When you've got some actual science to contribute get back to me.
NO U!!!<< more unrelated garbage >>
As you well know free expansion into a vacuum only applies to an isolated (and by implication, insulated) system as in(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Expansion%20into%20box_zpssowt8swc.png)In these diagrams, the rocket is the left chamber and the rest of the universe is the right chamber.
So, when the exhaust leaves the rocket no work is done by the system on anything outside the system, but all that means is that no work is done by the whole universe on anything outside the universe - big deal!
None of this stops the movement of energy from one part of this isolated system (the rocket) to the rest of the system (the rest of the universe).
Papa you are the one lying about and twisting the gas laws, you know fully well why free expansion does not apply and only happens in specific controlled conditions.
Unless our shapayze ship is using pistons without spark plugs expecting it to do work?
Which in that case I agree, your shpayze ship will never work in, or out, of a vacuum.
I was thinking of using a rocket engine or something.
F=ma
N3
CoM
Thermodynamics that isn't taken grossly out of context.QuoteFree expansion is an irreversible process in which a gas expands into an insulated evacuated chamber. It is also called Joule expansion.
During free expansion, no work is done by the gas. The gas goes through states that are not in thermodynamic equilibrium before reaching its final state, which implies that one cannot define thermodynamic parameters as values of the gas as a whole. For example, the pressure changes locally from point to point, and the volume occupied by the gas (which is formed of particles) is not a well defined quantity.
A free expansion is typically achieved by opening a stopcock that allows the gas to expand into a vacuum. Although it would be difficult to achieve in reality, it is instructive to imagine a free expansion caused by moving a piston faster than virtually any atom. No work is done because there is no pressure on the piston. No heat energy leaves or enters the piston. Nevertheless, there is an entropy change.
Notice it doesn't mention gas (which has mass) being propelled at 3000 m/s doing no work.
Because, well, that would violate physics.
You have no argument.
Toodle pip, master of puppets.
The free expansion into a vacuum applies only to a closed isolated system.
Already addressed:
https://www.bluffton.edu/homepages/facstaff/bergerd/NSC_111/thermo2.html
A rocket in a vacuum is by definition a closed/isolated system.
Sure, "a rocket in a vacuum" is a "closed/isolated system" and with free expansion does not change total energy or momentum, but energy and momentum can be exchanged between various parts of it.
And we keep talking about the "vacuum of space", but it is nowhere quite a vacuum, and at the very end of the bell of a rocket's nozzle there is certainly no vacuum.
So, I get back to how do you answer all those with far more knowledge on thermodynamics than you or I showing how rockets certainly do provide thrust in a low pressure or vacuum environment.
I quoted these before, and before and . . . .
Now, Robert A. Braeunig understands this a lot better than you
Robert A. Braeunig, ROCKET PROPULSION. (http://www.braeunig.us/space/propuls.htm)
And if you want the thermodynamics of rocket propulsion, here's a bit
Robert A. Braeunig, ROCKET THERMODYNAMICS (http://www.braeunig.us/space/thermo.htm)
Or
THERMODYNAMIC CYCLES OF ROCKET ENGINES, V.M. Polyaev and V.A. Burkaltsev (https://www.eolss.net/Sample-Chapters/C08/E3-11-01-07.pdf).
This one even gives the P~V diagrams for rocket engines under various pressure conditions, as
Figure 1 - The ideal thermodynamic cycle presented on "p-V" coordinates
Figure 2 - The cycle of the engine under condition pe > pam
Besides, there is a tremendous amount of evidence that rocket engines work under extremely low-pressure conditions for 100 km altitude and up.
Since you claim that they need "atmospheric pressure" to work, please give us your thrust~ambient pressure expression showing thrust increasing with ambient pressure.If you can't do that it's really just a simple case of "put up" or 'shut up"!
Of course, you think that you are the great Herr Dr Papa Legba, Professeur of Rokkit Sience.
Tell us how somehow it makes a gas do work in a vacuum & thus defy thermodynamics eh, holocaust-denying shill Geoff?
Sigh.... talking to brain dead trolls is mentally exhausting.
PV=nRT so initial PV is pressure of the gas cylinder times the volume say 1000 kPa * 1 liter after expansion if the temperature hasn't changed PV is still the same, so what must you multiply P2 by in order equal the 1,000 kPaL so if V2 is finite then P2 cannot be zero. Your free expansion argument collapses.
Go and learn some real Physics, or revert to mindless insults. I don't really care.
So you were unable to show any of these three points to be wrong, so you admit they are true.It's not in the link, so what that proves nothing about CoM
It proves you don't use COM to calculate the Work done by a gas don't it?
Which is the subject btw...
Gas flows naturally from areas of higher to lower pressure using its own energy (is this simple enough for you?):
http://www.answers.com/Q/Does_gas_flow_from_low_pressure_to_high_pressure?#slide=1
And when it flows into an area of zero pressure its energy is conserved & no Work is done...
This is the result called free expansion:
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node33.html
Conservation. Of. Energy.
Learning can be fun!
1. That gas particles have momentum
2. That momentum must be conserved in a gas.
3. That to leave the rocket in -> direction, then the gas particles must have momentum in -> direction.https://www.chem.purdue.edu/gchelp/liquids/character.htmlWait, Papa posted a link to a website that says gasses are made of particles, and he said that the website is correct.
I've posted it enough times.
So you admit gas is made of particles.
(http://adonilisium.weebly.com/uploads/4/3/2/7/43271021/rocket_orig.gif)
Also here is some better drawings from http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/91789/rocket-thrust-gas-free-expansion-of-gas
(http://i.stack.imgur.com/HdcTg.gif)
(http://i.stack.imgur.com/fgP09.gif)
Also you should read thisQuoteIf someone ever says "free expansion does no work" all they mean is that it does no work on the vacuum, which is pretty obvious in retrospect. This is because 19th century experimenters and 21st century high schools find it easiest to talk about gas properties in terms of pistons pushing on containers of gas. If the piston is replaced by nothingness, well clearly no work will be extracted from the system.
The way to make this experiment similar to rockets would be to attach a box around the rocket engine. That would mean that the exhausts bounce off of the box and no work would be done.
However, there is nothing blocking the exhausts, so there is work done.
If there were a box around the engine, it would be enclosed.
Papa has trouble with understanding the difference between a closed and open system.
Here are some clues for you Papa from the links you provided:
The enclosure is insulated so there is no heat exchange.
Imagine a gas confined within an insulated container as shown in the figure below.
Free expansion is an irreversible process in which a gas expands into an insulated evacuated chamber.
Do you really not see something glaring obvious and how it does not apply to rockets in a vacuum? Free expansion only happens within a insulated closed system. Which means there is no heat being conducted to outside the chamber or anything else interacting with the gas except the container.
A rocket is an open system. Which means things are free to move about and interact with what ever they come into contact with.
So Newton said and many agree that for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction. So what is happening to the energy when a rocket is ignited in a vacuum? Newton says something has got to happen.
25 posts in & not one shill can cite one bit of science to support their case...
Damnit, Papa.
http://web.mit.edu/16.00/www/aec/rocket.html
"The rocket pushes on the gas, and the gas in turn pushes on the rocket. With rockets, the action is the expelling of gas out of the engine. The reaction is the movement of the rocket in the opposite direction."
Remember like that man on a skateboard analogy you enjoy so much.
A Gas does no Work in a Vacuum:
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node33.html
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/j150043a002
http://www.etomica.org/app/modules/sites/JouleThomson/Background2.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_expansion
No Work=no Force=no Power=no Motion:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/work.html
https://www.wou.edu/las/physci/GS361/EnergyBasics/EnergyBasics.htm
http://www.edinformatics.com/math_science/work_energy_power.htm
Etc, etc, etc; undeniable scientific FACT.
Ergo a GAS-powered rocket cannot possibly create MOTION in a Vacuum.
Off you go idiotic anti-science paid Liar scumbags...
Exercise your Democratic Rights to Lie like your life depends on it!
Yes, it is "Weird how you pretend you don't understand them."
But, you have free expansion all wrong.
Firstly, Joule-Thomson expansion only "does no work" in the case of "ideal gases", rocket exhaust gases are not ideal gases. This effect is comparatively minor here, thought can be utilised elsewhere.Quote from: WikipediaFree expansion
Free expansion is an irreversible process in which a gas expands into an insulated evacuated chamber. It is also called Joule expansion.
Real gases experience a temperature change during free expansion. For an ideal gas, the temperature doesn't change, and the conditions before and after adiabatic free expansion satisfy
The expansion of an ideal gas does no work on the gas or on the surroundings, ie its temperature remains unchanged. In other words, it does no work like pushing on a piston in an IC engine.
For a rocket in a vacuum, it is obvious that it does no work on its surroundings, you cannot do work on a vacuum, but the rocket is propelled simply by pushing the gas and the remains of the rocket apart - Conservation of Momentum.
You can analyse the rocket system using CoM, though Newton's 2nd Law is usually the simplest to use force = rate of change of momentum.
There are numerous references to this (as you know very well):
Braeunig, ROCKET PROPULSION (http://www.braeunig.us/space/propuls.htm)
NASA, Rocket Summary (https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/rktthsum.html)(https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/Images/rktthsum.gif)
Don't worry, you are not the only one confused by "free-expansion". Maybe you could read of others who question it:
Rocket Thrust Gas Free Expansion of Gas (http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/91789/rocket-thrust-gas-free-expansion-of-gas)
Physics - Thermodynamics: Free Expansion (http://) Careful, here be dragons - equations!
Thunderbolts Forum, Rockets in Space (https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=110185&sid=2aa04da5051fa7db659dcc6af1c59bd4) A lot of to-ing and fro-ing here!And I do think that these people know a lot more about Newton's laws, the gas laws and thermodynamics than you ever will.Yes, I know you don't believe any of it, but we do have very good reasons for believing that rockets really do work in a vacuum and we are not lying.
Pp, I read your post and it actually sounds like you put some thought into it, but IDK for sure. In another thread on the same topic a youtube was posted. It showed a toy car being pushed by a balloon, the car moved as it should. When a vacuum cleaner wand was placed at the balloon nozzle, the car didn't move.
That youtube actually proved Legbas point. When you take away the external pressure. No force is created by the nozzle.
I don't need you to explain anything. Did you watch the video? You can see there is no headwind created by the vacuum. As if there was a fan blowing in front of the car. The vacuum is just creating a low pressure area at the nozzle of the balloon. When the balloon empties into an area of equal pressure there is an area of high pressure at the balloon nozzle, thus pushing the car. When the balloon empties into area of low pressure, there is no build up of high pressure and the car is still. Thus, this demonstrates the principle that legba has been trying to enlighten you about.Pp, I read your post and it actually sounds like you put some thought into it, but IDK for sure. In another thread on the same topic a youtube was posted. It showed a toy car being pushed by a balloon, the car moved as it should. When a vacuum cleaner wand was placed at the balloon nozzle, the car didn't move.
That youtube actually proved Legbas point. When you take away the external pressure. No force is created by the nozzle.
Hoppy I respect you and please don't see this as "shilling" but if you put a toy car down and a vacuum cleaner behind it, the car would move backwards. (Towards the vacuum cleaner) Because of the air flow.
If there was no vacuum cleaner and a nozzle the car would move forward (away from the nozzle) because of the air flow.
If you put the vacuum behind the car with the nozzle the two forces could cancel each other out, does this make sense?
This re affirms newtons laws it doesn't prove them wrong.
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction, mass and acceleration one way equals force the other way, equal force in opposite directions equals no movement, I would be happy to explain more if you are curious.
Also rockets working in a vacuum in no way prove the shape of the earth so we can rest easy there.
I don't need you to explain anything. Did you watch the video? You can see there is no headwind created by the vacuum. As if there was a fan blowing in front of the car. The vacuum is just creating a low pressure area at the nozzle of the balloon. When the balloon empties into an area of equal pressure there is an area of high pressure at the balloon nozzle, thus pushing the car. When the balloon empties into area of low pressure, there is no build up of high pressure and the car is still. Thus, this demonstrates the principle that legba has been trying to enlighten you about.
I don't need you to explain anything. Did you watch the video? You can see there is no headwind created by the vacuum. As if there was a fan blowing in front of the car. The vacuum is just creating a low pressure area at the nozzle of the balloon. When the balloon empties into an area of equal pressure there is an area of high pressure at the balloon nozzle, thus pushing the car. When the balloon empties into area of low pressure, there is no build up of high pressure and the car is still. Thus, this demonstrates the principle that legba has been trying to enlighten you about.Pp, I read your post and it actually sounds like you put some thought into it, but IDK for sure. In another thread on the same topic a youtube was posted. It showed a toy car being pushed by a balloon, the car moved as it should. When a vacuum cleaner wand was placed at the balloon nozzle, the car didn't move.
That youtube actually proved Legbas point. When you take away the external pressure. No force is created by the nozzle.
Hoppy I respect you and please don't see this as "shilling" but if you put a toy car down and a vacuum cleaner behind it, the car would move backwards. (Towards the vacuum cleaner) Because of the air flow.
If there was no vacuum cleaner and a nozzle the car would move forward (away from the nozzle) because of the air flow.
If you put the vacuum behind the car with the nozzle the two forces could cancel each other out, does this make sense?
This re affirms newtons laws it doesn't prove them wrong.
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction, mass and acceleration one way equals force the other way, equal force in opposite directions equals no movement, I would be happy to explain more if you are curious.
Also rockets working in a vacuum in no way prove the shape of the earth so we can rest easy there.
The whole rockets in space is killed stone dead because the globalists and shills adhered rigidly to the fuel combustion inside of the rocket.
What they have no answer for is the use of small thrusters that use compressed gases instead of combustion, which kills off the internal chambers and recoil...unless of course they have an answer for it that actually makes sense, of which I have never seen.
What they have no answer for is the use of small thrusters that use compressed gases instead of combustion, which kills off the internal chambers and recoil...unless of course they have an answer for it that actually makes sense, of which I have never seen.Don't be ridiculous. The combustion process has nothing to do with providing the thrust. All it does is provide a huge supply of gas under high pressure.
The whole rockets in space is killed stone dead because the globalists and shills adhered rigidly to the fuel combustion inside of the rocket.As long as gas has mass and accelerates, then Newton's laws apply. Of course you don't seem to agree with Newton, but that you're problem, not ours.
What they have no answer for is the use of small thrusters that use compressed gases instead of combustion, which kills off the internal chambers and recoil...unless of course they have an answer for it that actually makes sense, of which I have never seen.
The principle is that when the balloon is pushing air out, the air pressure is greater than 1atmosphere. Thus, the car is pushed forward. When there is a vacuum at the nozzle, the pressure does not increase, and the car sits still.
Legba has been saying the the same thing about rockets. When there is a vacuum at the rocket nozzle, it is not going to move. The fuel and gasses will be absorbed into the nothingness of space and nothing will happen to the rocket. The car and the nerd are a crude example, but demonstrate it none the less.
Many shills and ignorant folk claim that just burning rocket fuel shooting from the back moves a rocket. Like when the car moves, shills will say just the air shooting from the balloon moves it. But as the nerd has shown us , air is still shooting out and the car does not move when the exhaust encounters a vacuum. THINK ABOUT IT!
The principle is that when the balloon is pushing air out, the air pressure is greater than 1atmosphere. Thus, the car is pushed forward. When there is a vacuum at the nozzle, the pressure does not increase, and the car sits still.
Legba has been saying the the same thing about rockets. When there is a vacuum at the rocket nozzle, it is not going to move. The fuel and gasses will be absorbed into the nothingness of space and nothing will happen to the rocket. The car and the nerd are a crude example, but demonstrate it none the less.
Many shills and ignorant folk claim that just burning rocket fuel shooting from the back moves a rocket. Like when the car moves, shills will say just the air shooting from the balloon moves it. But as the nerd has shown us , air is still shooting out and the car does not move when the exhaust encounters a vacuum. THINK ABOUT IT!
Yes, think about it. Then prove to yourself with your faucet it rockets don't push off air.
Yes, think about it. Then prove to yourself with your faucet it rockets don't push off air.
(http://)
Hmmm...
(http://)
This is how I understand the vacuum cleaner experiment, similar to how a plane can still fly with a strong headwind.
(https://s30.postimg.org/46ahzttap/20161211_124454.jpg)
For the sake of simplicity I left out variables like the mass of the car, friction in the wheel bearings and surface etc.
If the vacuum cleaner was removed and the pressure was all at an equal 0 psi the acceleration of mass would still create force, no matter what atmospheric pressure it was in.
(https://s30.postimg.org/46ahzttap/20161211_124454.jpg)
A Gas does no Work in a Vacuum:
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node33.html
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/j150043a002
http://www.etomica.org/app/modules/sites/JouleThomson/Background2.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_expansion
No Work=no Force=no Motion:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/work.html
https://www.wou.edu/las/physci/GS361/EnergyBasics/EnergyBasics.htm
http://www.edinformatics.com/math_science/work_energy_power.htm
Etc, etc, etc; undeniable scientific FACT.
Ergo a GAS-powered rocket cannot possibly create MOTION in a Vacuum.
Off you go idiotic anti-science paid liar scumbags...
Exercise your Democratic Rights to Lie like your life depends on it!
(https://s30.postimg.org/46ahzttap/20161211_124454.jpg)
That man is Einstein. ;D
Why would you post a video that has been destroyed already? The air coming out of the balloon applies a force to the paper. The paper is attached to the balloon so in turn the paper applies a force in the balloon.
Honestly, anyone with half a brain can see this.
Why would you post a video that has been destroyed already? The air coming out of the balloon applies a force to the paper. The paper is attached to the balloon so in turn the paper applies a force in the balloon.
Honestly, anyone with half a brain can see this.
Very true, but unfortunately we are dealing with those who have less than half a brain.
Nice to watch Markjo hone his trolling skills, I also see disputeone is learning how to wind up the Papa, good work team! a Christmas bonus could be just around the corner.
Vacuum cleaner vs balloon car. Is anyone at all surprised with the results? ???I'm not surprised that you don't see the principle involved.
I'm not surprised that you didn't take into account the implications of the sizes the nozzles involved as well as the different rates of air flow.Vacuum cleaner vs balloon car. Is anyone at all surprised with the results? ???I'm not surprised that you don't see the principle involved.
I do enjoy winding up Papa.
@ Pill that was my drawing, read moar.
It's spelt diagram. You are probably french so that's kewl.
I never claimed the diagram to be totally accurate and correct, was just trying to show hoppy that if the vacuum was pulling with the same force as the car is pushing it would remain stationary, etc.
I stated I left out friction etc to simplify the picture in my original post.
Unbalanced forces anyone? The comparably large vacuum of outer space moving upwards of googolplex feet per minute of air (or whatever NASA said space was rated at) will affect a lot more than just the piddling nozzle of the rawhkit.
Unbalanced forces anyone? The comparably large vacuum of outer space moving upwards of googolplex feet per minute of air (or whatever NASA said space was rated at) will affect a lot more than just the piddling nozzle of the rawhkit.How does a vacuum move upwards? ???
Unbalanced forces anyone? The comparably large vacuum of outer space moving upwards of googolplex feet per minute of air (or whatever NASA said space was rated at) will affect a lot more than just the piddling nozzle of the rawhkit.What on earth are you gabbling on about? Why is any "googolplex feet per minute of air" moving upwards? And, what does "NASA said space was rated at" even mean?
Earth Loses 50,000 Tonnes of Mass Every Year
According to some calculations, the Earth is losing 50,000 tonnes of mass every single year, even though an extra 40,000 tonnes of space dust converge onto the Earth’s gravity well, it’s still losing weight.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Earth’s core loses energy, since much of it is consumed in a planet’s lifespan, but that only accounts for a loss for about 16 tonnes per year. The biggest mass loss comes from escaped hydrogen and helium, which escape with 95,000 tonnes of mass and 1,600 tonnes respectively. These elements are too light to stay permanently in the gravity well, so they tend to escape into space.
The net loss is about 0.000000000000001% every year, so it doesn’t account for much when compared to the total mass of the Earth, which is 5,972,000,000,000,000,000,000 tonnes. It will take trillions of years for all of the hydrogen to be depleted. Helium represents 0.00052% of the atmosphere and it’s a scarcer element.
From: SciTechDaily, Earth Loses 50,000 Tonnes of Mass Every Year (http://scitechdaily.com/earth-loses-50000-tonnes-of-mass-every-year/)
Nice to watch Markjo hone his trolling skills, I also see disputeone is learning how to wind up the Papa, good work team! a Christmas bonus could be just around the corner.
If only we had a gas-law to explain what is happening here?
Oh, that's right; we do!
Work = external Pressure x change in Volume.
^Shill admits rockets won't work in a vacuum.
^Is about to turn page on its total fail though so will pretend it never happened.
^Still lol.
^lol at shill admitting to shilling as well as rockets not working in vacuum.^^Automated gay bot response ^^
The equation is: Work = external Pressure x change in Volume.
As the external Pressure in a Vacuum is ZERO, then a Gas introduced into a Vacuum will do ZERO Work.
And without WORK there can be neither POWER nor FORCE, & thus no MOTION:
Pretty conclusive: a gas-POWERED rocket cannot possibly do WORK in a vacuum.
To claim that it does is to violate the very foundations of the Laws of Thermodynamics: FACT.
Well you wouldn't, would you?No, you're right. I don't understand why you think rockets don't work in a vacuum.
It's not in your programming.
Again, I will quote the relevant section: "Joule noticed that in this process (i.e. Free Expansion) the gas does not 'develop mechanical power' i.e. no mechanical work is performed either by or on the gas".When did Joule ever use a gas powered rocket in his experiment? ???
Pretty conclusive: a gas-POWERED rocket cannot possibly do WORK in a vacuum.
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/chemistry/thermodynamics-chemistry/internal-energy-sal/a/pressure-volume-worCorrection, you should say "In it you will find an equation used to determine the amount of Work done by a Gas in cylinder/piston application."
In it you will find the equation used to determine the amount of Work done by a Gas...
Another way to think about it: if you are strong enough to lift 100 lbs, but only lift 20 lbs, is the work based on what you COULD move or ACTUALLY move? It's similar for a gas. Just because its internal pressure is 100 atm, if it only has to push against 20 atm, then that defines the amount of work. Would it take any work to push against a vacuum (Pext = 0)? No. Just like it wouldn't take any work to lift 0 lbs (or 20 lbs if there was no gravity). It's all about the resistance.
Well, can't argue with that.
Well, can't argue with that.
Of course you can't.
That's why you just shitposted instead, for this purpose:
https://np.reddit.com/r/shills/comments/4kdq7n/astroturfing_information_megathread_revision_8/
Go, Team Retard!
Well, can't argue with that.
Of course you can't.
That's why you just shitposted instead, for this purpose:
https://np.reddit.com/r/shills/comments/4kdq7n/astroturfing_information_megathread_revision_8/
Go, Team Retard!
Buttranger, you're sick in the head. You are using sci-fi fantasy to prove that space travel is possible. It has been repeatedly proven impossible, in the very thread.Well, can't argue with that.
Of course you can't.
That's why you just shitposted instead, for this purpose:
https://np.reddit.com/r/shills/comments/4kdq7n/astroturfing_information_megathread_revision_8/
Go, Team Retard!
Here you go again, posts filled with venom, bile and abuse. You really must be a very unhappy and angry person. Do you find venting your unhappiness on this forum helps?
Do you think posting links to the work of other angry deranged social misfits help your argument in any way? Or do you think it makes you instead look like another pathetic social misfit?
The whole question is forgotten, a question in my opinion that is pointless asking, of course rockets and other gas powered thrusting systems work in the vacuum of space. The Rosetta space mission that recently landed a probe on Comet Churyumov–Gerasimenko on 6 August 2014 I think proves that.
Here is a brief breakdown of the propulsion system on Rosetta that was used in the various complex manoeuvres it had to go through..
Main propulsion comprises 24 paired bipropellant 10 N thrusters,[50] with four pairs of thrusters being used for delta-v burns. The spacecraft carried 1,719.1 kg (3,790 lb) of propellant at launch: 659.6 kg (1,454 lb) of monomethylhydrazine fuel and 1,059.5 kg (2,336 lb) of dinitrogen tetroxide oxidiser, contained in two 1,108-litre (244 imp gal; 293 US gal) grade 5 titanium alloy tanks and providing delta-v of at least 2,300 metres per second (7,500 ft/s) over the course of the mission. Propellant pressurisation is provided by two 68-litre (15 imp gal; 18 US gal) high-pressure helium tanks.
So there we have it.......or if you are a flat earther whose minds are so out of touch with reality that they will find succour in the embracing belief of global conspiracy......which in an instant renders any such truth to being null and void.....this then leaves the ground free to rant about scientific concepts they know little about....... just as you do and as a bonus it gives you the justification hurl your bile and venom at those who take an opposing view.
Buttranger, you're sick in the head. You are using sci-fi fantasy to prove that space travel is possible. It has been repeatedly proven impossible, in the very thread.
Having something of a way with words that I think defines his academic credentials 'hoppy' starts of his rebut of my comment by calling me a buttranger, and that I am also sick in the head! Ironic it may be but for the first time in his life Hoppy may actually be right....I am sick in the head at the moment with a virus! total nasal connection.
He then goes on to say that space travel has been proved impossible in this very thread! Well how can he explain all the space flights that have happened?
Same old same old.....Hoppy start off with some feeble red neck abuse then chuck in a pile of crap and you're good to go. I just wonder how you get through your day disbelieving in every thing.
Happy has never once preticipated in a proper debate. He is just not smart enough to preticipate.
You're back to lying & posting out-of-context quotes lifted from random comments rather than the article itself.Are you suggesting that your quotes from that article are in context? ???
NO U!!! AND ALZHEIMERS!!! AND NO ME!!! SORRY I MEANT NO U!!! AGAIN!!!
Welcome to 2007 and the dawn of smart phones.Happy has never once preticipated in a proper debate. He is just not smart enough to preticipate.
LMFAO!!!
If you can read this & still think there's gas-powered rockets bamming about in the infinite vacuum of space then you are beyond hope:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=eYQHIjkaEroC&pg=PA39&lpg=PA39&dq=joule+free+expansion+conservation+of+energy&source=bl&ots=lNNu7CV1-P&sig=YMAwtaJTmLf7BF4Ts4jcWzVTY98&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjWv6XJh6rPAhXEOxoKHXskDjw4ChDoAQgfMAE#v=onepage&q=joule%20free%20expansion%20conservation%20of%20energy&f=false
Or a bot?
Or a shill?
Same thing in the long run...
Get proper jobs & knock off the bullshit ffs.
Welcome to 2007 and the dawn of smart phones.
It's a shame you refuse to participate in an intelligent conversation
So you can't explain how a rocket resembles a Joule-Thompson free expansion apparatus.NO U!!! AND ALZHEIMERS!!! AND NO ME!!! SORRY I MEANT NO U!!! AGAIN!!!
Thank you for your preticipation.
Bonuses all round for Team Retard.
P.s. get a proper job.
Do be carfull though.
So you can't explain how a rocket resembles a Joule-Thompson free expansion apparatus.
No, you haven't. Not once.So you can't explain how a rocket resembles a Joule-Thompson free expansion apparatus.
Already have, repeatedly.
Because it is repeatedly-verified scientific FACT that a Gas does no Work in a Vacuum.No one is claiming that it does. We're just saying that rockets don't work that way.
Rockets work because of the force pairing between the hot, expanding combustion gasses and the rocket engine. What happens to the gasses after they leave the rocket engine is completely irrelevant.
A rocket expelling high pressure gas into a vacuum sounds like a pressure gradient to me.
Lol Markjo said at the beginning of this thread that "no one is arguing that rockets do not work in a vacuum" and here is arguing that rockets work in a vacuum. "What happens to the gas is irrelevant" hahahahahahaIn other words, you have no more idea of how a rocket works in a vacuum the poor ignorant Papa. Just a pity for you, Papa and a few others that they do.
There were errors in my post, I never claimed otherwise.Yeah dumbass. Talking about me not being smart. You're a fucking retard.
But I don't think you should say anything about admitting faults, especially in this thread.
Aaand...
You're back to lying & posting out-of-context quotes lifted from random comments rather than the article itself.
Happy has never once preticipated in a proper debate. He is just not smart enough to preticipate.
LMFAO!!!
If you can read this & still think there's gas-powered rockets bamming about in the infinite vacuum of space then you are beyond hope:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=eYQHIjkaEroC&pg=PA39&lpg=PA39&dq=joule+free+expansion+conservation+of+energy&source=bl&ots=lNNu7CV1-P&sig=YMAwtaJTmLf7BF4Ts4jcWzVTY98&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjWv6XJh6rPAhXEOxoKHXskDjw4ChDoAQgfMAE#v=onepage&q=joule%20free%20expansion%20conservation%20of%20energy&f=false
Or a bot?
Or a shill?
Same thing in the long run...
Get proper jobs & knock off the bullshit ffs.
If you can read this & still think there's gas-powered rockets bamming about in the infinite vacuum of space then you are beyond hope:Nup, it's only piston engined gas powered rockets that don't work, reaction engine powered rockets work fine.
There's the possibility of giving him a stroke when he reads it all on day 31. ;)It would be uncharitable to say "One can only hope." - or would it?
Tough guy with little brain.There were errors in my post, I never claimed otherwise.Yeah dumbass. Talking about me not being smart. You're a fucking retard.
But I don't think you should say anything about admitting faults, especially in this thread.
There is physically no way for a rocket to push off the atmosphere in any meaningful way.Shill confirmed.
Yes, rockets work. No rockets do not work in space.
I believe the polls speak for themselves. Rockets which operate through expanding gassess cannot operate in a vacuum such as space.Actually, rockets work through accelerating a reaction mass (Newton's 2nd and 3rd laws). Burning fuel and oxidizer to create hot, expanding gasses is just a handy source of reaction mass that is readily accelerated.
Yes, rockets work. No rockets do not work in space.Because....
Because expanding gasses cannot move anything in a vacuum.What about the forces involved when the expanding gasses move through a DeLaval nozzle? Do they not count for anything?
Because expanding gasses cannot move anything in a vacuum.Because...
Because expanding gasses cannot move anything in a vacuum.Wrong..............reality shows you are wrong........inside your head you might be right depending on which day it is ....but in the real world on any day of the weak or even week I think not.
Because expanding gasses cannot move anything in a vacuum.Wrong..............reality shows you are wrong........inside your head you might be right depending on which day it is ....but in the real world on any day of the weak or even week I think not.
Because expanding gasses cannot move anything in a vacuum.Because...
Because expanding gasses cannot move anything in a vacuum.Because...
Because expanding gasses cannot move anything in a vacuum.Really!
Yes, rockets work. No rockets do not work in space.This.
You bumped this thread with that shitpost and you think you accomplished something? That's cute.Yes, rockets work. No rockets do not work in space.This.
Such amazing evidence! Though at least it was delivered without Puppy Legbone's invective.Yes, rockets work. No rockets do not work in space.This.
Because expanding gasses cannot move anything in a vacuum.Gases cannot even exist in T~3K, P~0 conditions. The instant the nozzle of an imaginary impossible space rocket opens, the molecules turn into solids and superfluids and dissipate into the vast nothingness of space.
Nevermind your lack of science knowledge, How does one molecule of exhaust hitting a molecule of air propel a rocket in atmosphere?Because expanding gasses cannot move anything in a vacuum.Gases cannot even exist in T~3K, P~0 conditions. The instant the nozzle of an imaginary impossible space rocket opens, the molecules turn into solids and superfluids and dissipate into the vast nothingness of space.
Well you wouldn't, would you?
It's not in your programming.
Cool post times btw. For the numerology lovers.Well you wouldn't, would you?
It's not in your programming.
The main problem with the clowns indeed.
*Yawn!*It must hurt when beliefs get shattered.
Attempted censorship & hypocrisy noted...
Why are you so mental?
It must hurt when beliefs get shattered.
In a vacuum there is no external pressure so no unbalanced force is created.
The gas molecules will simply leave the rocket, with both energy & momentum conserved, & whiz off into the vast nothingness of space.
This is all perfectly understandable if you simply get your head round free expansion btw.
http://www.etomica.org/app/modules/sites/JouleThomson/Background2.html
Or understand that you cannot push on nothing.
In a vacuum there is no external pressure so no unbalanced force is created.
The gas molecules will simply leave the rocket, with both energy & momentum conserved, & whiz off into the vast nothingness of space.
This is all perfectly understandable if you simply get your head round free expansion btw.
http://www.etomica.org/app/modules/sites/JouleThomson/Background2.html
Or understand that you cannot push on nothing.
True.
25 posts in & not one shill can cite one bit of science to support their case...
Damnit, Papa.
http://web.mit.edu/16.00/www/aec/rocket.html
"The rocket pushes on the gas, and the gas in turn pushes on the rocket. With rockets, the action is the expelling of gas out of the engine. The reaction is the movement of the rocket in the opposite direction."
Remember like that man on a skateboard analogy you enjoy so much.
Just out of curiosity, do you suppose that there are any interactions between the gasses and the rocket engine before those gasses "dissipate into the vast nothingness of space"?Because expanding gasses cannot move anything in a vacuum.Gases cannot even exist in T~3K, P~0 conditions. The instant the nozzle of an imaginary impossible space rocket opens, the molecules turn into solids and superfluids and dissipate into the vast nothingness of space.
Just out of curiosity, do you suppose that there are any interactions between the gasses and the rocket engine before those gasses "dissipate into the vast nothingness of space"?Because expanding gasses cannot move anything in a vacuum.Gases cannot even exist in T~3K, P~0 conditions. The instant the nozzle of an imaginary impossible space rocket opens, the molecules turn into solids and superfluids and dissipate into the vast nothingness of space.
Actually, I'm referring to the relatively small nothingness inside the rocket engine itself. As the gasses/superfluids/solids pass through the rocket engine, is there any physical interaction occurring? You know, things like mass being accelerated.Just out of curiosity, do you suppose that there are any interactions between the gasses and the rocket engine before those gasses "dissipate into the vast nothingness of space"?Because expanding gasses cannot move anything in a vacuum.Gases cannot even exist in T~3K, P~0 conditions. The instant the nozzle of an imaginary impossible space rocket opens, the molecules turn into solids and superfluids and dissipate into the vast nothingness of space.
It's a hypothetical question as the whole thing cannot be in space, but assuming a rocket is in space, the gas in the combustion chamber is there, the combustion chamber is not desintegrating because of the impossible material properties on either side of the chamber and the chemical reaction for combustion works:
the instant the nozzle is opened, the gas turns solid or superfluid. There is no transient effect as there is no medium (like in the atmosphere, that's why we observe contrails).
So in theory; yes, before the nozzle opens something could happen in the combustion chamber and gas could exist if the chamber were insulated from the stone cold of space. The instant it is exposed to the vast nothingness of space, it isn't gas anymore.
It might be understandable for a Voodoo Priest like Papa Legba to fail to understand that "Joule Thomson Free Expansion" only applies in a closed system, like this (from the little Voodoo Priest's own reference!In a vacuum there is no external pressure so no unbalanced force is created.
The gas molecules will simply leave the rocket, with both energy & momentum conserved, & whiz off into the vast nothingness of space.
This is all perfectly understandable if you simply get your head round free expansion btw.
http://www.etomica.org/app/modules/sites/JouleThomson/Background2.html
Or understand that you cannot push on nothing.
True.Surprise, surprise Gaia Rotunda (AKA Puppy Legbone[1]) claims that Puppy Legbone's (AKA Gaia Rotunda[1]) Fizix is true.
<crazed science & citation-free disinfo-poop snipped>
In "free expansion" the system must be isolated and insulated from its surroundings.
Both the rocket AND the vacuum of space comprise the system.
And they are, by definition, closed if not isolated.
Here is a CITATION that proves I am correct:
https://www.bluffton.edu/homepages/facstaff/bergerd/NSC_111/thermo2.html
Thus you agree that free expansion will occur, no work will be done & thus no force produced.
Again, a CITATION that this is the case:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/work.html
Just stop spamming my thread with pseudo-scientific non-sequiturs Geoff...
And provide CITATIONS that I am wrong.
Because all you are doing at the moment is Lying about the Gas Laws & trying to brainwash neutral readers...
Speaking of brainwashing, does this bring back any memories, Geoff?
http://www.mamamia.com.au/children-stolen-at-birth/
Who said gas can not exist in space? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_cloud)
Edit: By the way, nothing in space happens instantaneous and (almost) all processes can be described by the fluid equations; no matter whether the surrounding medium is a vacuum or not.
Whenever one of these frequent RE-tards come here and post, "The rocket pushes on itself in order to move in a vacuum.", I keep picturing them shoving their head up their ass and wondering if they will ever achieve claimed escape velocity.
Because according to the same, exact lot of them, that same rocket (with no need for its exhaust column whatsoever) is also capable of exerting infinite thrust.
that same rocket (with no need for its exhaust column whatsoever) is also capable of exerting infinite thrust.
If gravity (based on acceleration) is the force that keeps us on the ground, it doesn't make sense a mere velocity would be needed to overcome that force.
If gravity (based on acceleration) is the force that keeps us on the ground, it doesn't make sense a mere velocity would be needed to overcome that force.
You do realise that destroys the entire concept of 'orbits' too?
Which you seem very fond of indeed...Shill? Win? Fuck off?
Please fuck off back to your disgusting entrapment-forum & leave me the fuck alone, eh?
Cos you are an amateur dabbler at voodoo...
Whereas I am the living embodiment of its greatest Loa.
So you cannot win.
Unless you attempt to banish me again?
But how do you think pissing off voodoo Loa will impact your private life?
Oldest saying in the book: 'Do not invoke what you cannot put down'...
Dumb fucking shills.
that same rocket (with no need for its exhaust column whatsoever) is also capable of exerting infinite thrust.
I have already dealt with this matter at length on this forum.
What the military-industrial liars do is conflate velocity with acceleration.
A machine can only accelerate up to its maximum velocity; thereafter it can accelerate no more.
And the maximum velocity of a rocket is set by the maximum velocity of its exhaust...
Which is assuming 100% efficiency, a thing we never see in reality.
Newtons 3rd is F1=-F2; note the EQUALS sign.
There is NO scientific basis for the concept of 'space travel'; NONE...
It is military-industrial propaganda bullshit from start to finish.If gravity (based on acceleration) is the force that keeps us on the ground, it doesn't make sense a mere velocity would be needed to overcome that force.
You do realise that destroys the entire concept of 'orbits' too?
Which you seem very fond of indeed...
Please fuck off back to your disgusting entrapment-forum & leave me the fuck alone, eh?
Cos you are an amateur dabbler at voodoo...
Whereas I am the living embodiment of its greatest Loa.
So you cannot win.
Unless you attempt to banish me again?
But how do you think pissing off voodoo Loa will impact your private life?
Oldest saying in the book: 'Do not invoke what you cannot put down'...
Dumb fucking shills.
The more compliacated formula found here:
https://spaceflightsystems.grc.nasa.gov/education/rocket/rockth.html
shows that exhaust velocity mattters, but not the velocity of the rocket.
So as you can see, the thrust from a rocket engine is not depended on the velocity of the rocket.
The more compliacated formula found here:
What is the velocity of the exhaust relative to?that same rocket (with no need for its exhaust column whatsoever) is also capable of exerting infinite thrust.
I have already dealt with this matter at length on this forum.
What the military-industrial liars do is conflate velocity with acceleration.
A machine can only accelerate up to its maximum velocity; thereafter it can accelerate no more.
And the maximum velocity of a rocket is set by the maximum velocity of its exhaust...
And that contradicts them being gases?Who said gas can not exist in space? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_cloud)
Edit: By the way, nothing in space happens instantaneous and (almost) all processes can be described by the fluid equations; no matter whether the surrounding medium is a vacuum or not.
False.
Those clouds are cohesive structures of matter, gigantic, otherwise we wouldn't be able to observe them.
False.citation needed.
There is no transient effect in absence of a medium (near-vacuum), so the transfer from gaseous to solid or super-fluid state is instantaneous.
This is a claim that an object moving at 10 mph experiencing any further exhaust velocity measured at 10 mph will somehow experience a further increase in velocity.What is the velocity of the exhaust relative to?that same rocket (with no need for its exhaust column whatsoever) is also capable of exerting infinite thrust.
I have already dealt with this matter at length on this forum.
What the military-industrial liars do is conflate velocity with acceleration.
A machine can only accelerate up to its maximum velocity; thereafter it can accelerate no more.
And the maximum velocity of a rocket is set by the maximum velocity of its exhaust...
Already explained to you. No formula uses the velocity of the rocket to calculate thrust.
Exhaust velocity of 10 mph relative to what?This is a claim that an object moving at 10 mph experiencing any further exhaust velocity measured at 10 mph will somehow experience a further increase in velocity.What is the velocity of the exhaust relative to?that same rocket (with no need for its exhaust column whatsoever) is also capable of exerting infinite thrust.
I have already dealt with this matter at length on this forum.
What the military-industrial liars do is conflate velocity with acceleration.
A machine can only accelerate up to its maximum velocity; thereafter it can accelerate no more.
And the maximum velocity of a rocket is set by the maximum velocity of its exhaust...
Nope. Not gonna happen. except in sci-fi.
Can you read?Exhaust velocity of 10 mph relative to what?This is a claim that an object moving at 10 mph experiencing any further exhaust velocity measured at 10 mph will somehow experience a further increase in velocity.What is the velocity of the exhaust relative to?that same rocket (with no need for its exhaust column whatsoever) is also capable of exerting infinite thrust.
I have already dealt with this matter at length on this forum.
What the military-industrial liars do is conflate velocity with acceleration.
A machine can only accelerate up to its maximum velocity; thereafter it can accelerate no more.
And the maximum velocity of a rocket is set by the maximum velocity of its exhaust...
Nope. Not gonna happen. except in sci-fi.
You really need to learn how rockets work.
You do understand that velocity is measured relative something, don't you?Can you read?Exhaust velocity of 10 mph relative to what?This is a claim that an object moving at 10 mph experiencing any further exhaust velocity measured at 10 mph will somehow experience a further increase in velocity.What is the velocity of the exhaust relative to?that same rocket (with no need for its exhaust column whatsoever) is also capable of exerting infinite thrust.
I have already dealt with this matter at length on this forum.
What the military-industrial liars do is conflate velocity with acceleration.
A machine can only accelerate up to its maximum velocity; thereafter it can accelerate no more.
And the maximum velocity of a rocket is set by the maximum velocity of its exhaust...
Nope. Not gonna happen. except in sci-fi.
An object traveling at 10 mph.
No exhaust velocity.
Will be slowing down.
You rocket scientists are claiming:
Object experiences additional exhaust velocity (i.e., thrust) equivalent to that of making the object reach its 10 mph speed to begin with is now somehow magically capable of making the object travel faster than 10 mph.
This is pure, unadulterated bull cookies.
It is matter. And the cohesion between the particles suggests it is not "nothingness of space", a "pseudo-atmosphere"/particles held together by gravity.And that contradicts them being gases?Who said gas can not exist in space? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_cloud)
Edit: By the way, nothing in space happens instantaneous and (almost) all processes can be described by the fluid equations; no matter whether the surrounding medium is a vacuum or not.
False.
Those clouds are cohesive structures of matter, gigantic, otherwise we wouldn't be able to observe them.
It is matter. And the cohesion between the particles suggests it is not "nothingness of space", a "pseudo-atmosphere"/particles held together by gravity.And that contradicts them being gases?Who said gas can not exist in space? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_cloud)
Edit: By the way, nothing in space happens instantaneous and (almost) all processes can be described by the fluid equations; no matter whether the surrounding medium is a vacuum or not.
False.
Those clouds are cohesive structures of matter, gigantic, otherwise we wouldn't be able to observe them.
Did you measure the velocity of the rocket?You really need to learn how rockets work.
I know how rockets work.
I have built rockets and fired rockets.
You really need to just drop it.
You and your ilk are getting pwned on this topic.
You really need to learn how rockets work.
I know how rockets work.
I have built rockets and fired rockets.
You really need to just drop it.
You and your ilk are getting pwned on this topic.
Just because you've built and launched model rockets, that doesn't necessarily mean that you understand the actual physics involved.You really need to learn how rockets work.
I know how rockets work.
I have built rockets and fired rockets.
Just because you've built and launched model rockets, that doesn't necessarily mean that you understand the actual physics involved.You really need to learn how rockets work.
I know how rockets work.
I have built rockets and fired rockets.
Which reminds me of my first rocket named Anders 1. It was 1959. Rockets were popular. My rocket was a thin walled steel tube about 1 m tall with a closed top and open bottom, nozzle shaped. Weight was 0.1 kg.
I filled it with 1 kg of solid rocket fuel that burnt really fast becoming a hot gas when ignited.
That's why rockets work everywhere - incl. in vacuum.
Not a vacuum in the ignition chamber or the engine bell, is it?
Compare the way that loose gunpowder burns with how it burns in a rifle cartridge and then tell us that you honestly think that loose powder should burn the same way as a solid rocket motor.Which reminds me of my first rocket named Anders 1. It was 1959. Rockets were popular. My rocket was a thin walled steel tube about 1 m tall with a closed top and open bottom, nozzle shaped. Weight was 0.1 kg.
I filled it with 1 kg of solid rocket fuel that burnt really fast becoming a hot gas when ignited.
That's why rockets work everywhere - incl. in vacuum.
LOL!!!
Sadly for you, solid rocket fuel does not burn in a vacuum; look:
Compare the way that loose gunpowder burns with how it burns in a rifle cartridge and then tell us that you honestly think that loose powder should burn the same way as a solid rocket motor.
Apparently thermite does.Compare the way that loose gunpowder burns with how it burns in a rifle cartridge and then tell us that you honestly think that loose powder should burn the same way as a solid rocket motor.
Neither gunpowder NOR solid rocket fuel burn in a vacuum you blind bastard.
Nothing does.
One down: ::)
Apparently thermite does.
Your video doesn't try to burn anything in a form that provides any back pressure, like a solid rocket motor does.
Yes, it keeps melting after the laser is turned off.Apparently thermite does.
No it doesn't; it just kinda melts...
First of all, it's your video because you provided it as evidence.QuoteYour video doesn't try to burn anything in a form that provides any back pressure, like a solid rocket motor does.
It's not my video & it clearly shows solid rocket fuel does not ignite at all in a vacuum, 'back-pressure' or no...
Self oxidizing fuels will burn in a vacuum.
<tl;dr science & evidence free garbage prefaced by a sokarul bot shitpost>
I'm about to get banned from this shithole again by your sock-puppet mod so just fuck off and die you lying twat.Maybe you wouldn't get banned so often if could just learn to calm down a little.
Nothing burns in a vacuum ergo no space travel...Right, because someone on YouTube said so. ::)
You didn't prove anything downy ball.Self oxidizing fuels will burn in a vacuum.
Just proved they won't you fucking retard.
Fuck off.
Not a vacuum in the ignition chamber or the engine bell, is it?
Yes it is.
Maybe you wouldn't get banned so often if could just learn to calm down a little.
Just like that I shut you right the fuck up.
Even when it's full of burning gas
NO U!!!
...Of course. I can run my car underwater, just not in space.Just like that I shut you right the fuck up.
Water is SOMETING, whilst a vacuum is NOTHING; the exact opposite...
You fucking retard.
<snip>
<snip>
It's pretty much Game Over at this point, shills...
Great, you discovered how chemical reactions work. Now which video contains a combustion chamber similar to a rocket?<snip>
STFU fatty.<snip>
STFU sock-puppet.
Let's look at yet more shit NOT burning in a vacuum:
It's pretty much Game Over at this point, shills...
Really, it is.
But you're not paid to understand that are you?
So: Carry On Lying!
Oh, & Geoffrey's little mini-me gimp; do NOT, under ANY circumstances, send ME a PM if YOU want to talk...
DO NOT WANT.
Got that, fatty?
How is it anyone else's fault that you can't follow a few simple rules of common decency? ???Maybe you wouldn't get banned so often if could just learn to calm down a little.
I wouldn't get banned if you & your 30,000 Luddite thought-cop sock-puppets didn't run this forum.
You fucking retard.
No you didn't. You provided a few videos showing that some loose things don't burn in a vacuum chamber. I provided a video showing that solid rocket motors can burn in a vacuum.Even when it's full of burning gas
I just showed you that nothing burns in a vacuum.
<snip>
<snip>
I know who you are.
Why are you even here?<snip>
Stop wasting my time you utter fucking retard.
NO U!!!
Don't stoop to his level it's what he wants.
Good think space is not enclosed. Otherwise rockets wouldn't work.
:o
I read the whole thread and what the fuck. Had to register. How can someone think this is imposible with such blind rigor?Haven't you been keeping up? Pebbles, balls, rocks and gas can't push against a vacuum.
When you propel mass in one direction, you yourself will move in the opposit direction. Be it pebbles, balls, rocks or gas, it's still mass.
I read the whole thread and what the fuck. Had to register. How can someone think this is imposible with such blind rigor?It's Papa Legba's pet topic (other than "toodle pip"), but somehow Papa seems to take long (enforced) vacations aways from us!
When you propel mass in one direction, you yourself will move in the opposit direction. Be it pebbles, balls, rocks or gas, it's still mass.
Bubba Legbone is dead.
Good think space is not enclosed. Otherwise rockets wouldn't work.
:o
Good think space is not enclosed. Otherwise rockets wouldn't work.
:o
"Good think"???? You can't blame a torpedo, it is 4 letters away? ;)
Apparently some things can burn in a vacuum
Enough of your garbage; please watch the following video, then create a Free Body Diagram of an object surrounded by absolutely NOTHING:I'm sorry, did you miss where the free body diagrams in space that were provided in the video?
<Snip>
Don't need to because it was already done in the video. Twice.<Snip>
So you can't do it?
No biggy; knew you couldn't...That's alright, I didn't expect a free body diagram from you either.
Apparently some things can burn in a vacuum
Fantastic!
So now we know shpayze-rokkits use 'red star balls' as fuel...
Kinda figures eh?
Of course, the possibility that the vacuum in the jar wasn't hard enough to start with, & the vacuum pump wasn't capable of sustaining vacuum conditions once combustion began, completely escapes your disinfo-mind, doesn't it onebigmarkjo?
Even though that is what the video clearly shows...
Why?
Because you are paid to avoid such possibilities...
Enough of your garbage; please watch the following video, then create a Free Body Diagram of an object surrounded by absolutely NOTHING:
Yeah; pick the force-pairings outa THAT, onebigmarkjo...
Oh, nearly forgot: STFU Geoff.
Don't need to because it was already done in the video. Twice.
Don't need to because it was already done in the video. Twice.
No it wasn't.
Don't need to because it was already done in the video. Twice.
No it wasn't.
Quite the Liar aintcha, Rohypno-toad?
Which is why you got dox'd & now have a buncha strangers peeping through your windows on google streetview.
Anybody else care to take a shot at creating a Free Body Diagram of one, single, object surrounded by absolutely Nothing?
Remember not to include any Internal Forces or Forces Exerted by the body; cos like the nice man says: that's the one mistake students tend to make!
Probably cos they been reading NASA mind-rape propaganda, eh?
1:30 & 2:15.
Papa are you going to hurry up and get banned soon?
<snip>
It gives the viewer all the info they need to prove that a rocket will not work in a vacuum, then leaves it up to them to work it out for themselves...
It is an intelligence test;
however, it is a test you are desperate for the viewer to fail.
And you are desperate for them to fail because you are paid to do so.
I'll be banned whenever YOU ban me, onebigmarkjo...
It is common knowledge that you & your sock-puppet army alone run this site.
It is also common knowledge where you live, due to your being dox'd on another site...
And you live only 10 miles away from myself.
So, when YOU ban me again, I may come ask YOU why in person...
Would you enjoy that, onebigmarkjo?
I get paid for my job. I do this for fun.
So, when YOU ban me again, I may come ask YOU why in person...
What needs to happen or be done to make that a reality?
Well, for THAT to become a reality, the first requirement would be for YOU to become a reality...
Which you are not.
Thus, your dream date will sadly not be happening.
The curious cat must sometimes fall in the milk.
I get paid for my job. I do this for fun.
Yes, I'm sure you find your job of trolling honest people on the internet to be LOTS of fun; I imagine it's a fine revenge for all the bullying & abuse you underwent at the orphanage.
Anyhoo; enough of your lulzy ranting - back to N3...
Note that, in a free body diagram, you do not include any forces exerted by the body...
This means that in a free body diagram of a rocket surrounded by NOTHING (i.e. a vacuum) you cannot include this, as it is clearly described as a force exerted by the rocket:
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/thrsteq.html
Care to work out the rest for us, onebigmarkjo?
You might also explain why NASA describes thrust as 'a mechanical force which is generated by the reaction of accelerating a mass of gas...', when said acceleration is clearly an action, thus representing the f1 part of f1=-f2, NOT the f2 part i.e. the reaction...
Does NASA claim N3 is in fact f1=-f1?
That would be very silly of them, wouldn't it!
So; please use your imaginary Bsc (Hons) & PhD to explain all the above, onebigmarkjo...
LOL!!!
As if!
What an utter failure you are, spending your saturday morning chatting total shit on the interwebz to people who know for a fact you are a fraud...
Oh, & as for 'trespass'; no-one mentioned that did they?
But nice try with the tough-guy schtick; no-one's buying that either, but if it makes you feel good go for it.
<snip>
Oh, that's so cute. You still think that a rocket and the exhaust gasses that it produces are the same object. (http://www.dawgshed.com/images/smilies/crying.gif)1:30 & 2:15.
Lies.
At no point does the video show a free body diagram of one single object surrounded by nothing & thus with nothing to create a force pairing (formalised as f1=-f2)...
You still think that a rocket and the exhaust gasses that it produces are the same object.
That was the general thrust equation.You still think that a rocket and the exhaust gasses that it produces are the same object.
I do.
And NASA agrees with me; look:
https://spaceflightsystems.grc.nasa.gov/education/rocket/thrsteq.html
You want the rocket thrust equation.
(https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/Images/rockth.gif)
Mass and mass flow rate aren't quite the same thing and can't be used interchangeably. The formula is showing the force exerted by the mass flowing through the rocket engine.You want the rocket thrust equation.
(https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/Images/rockth.gif)
Same thing, as it is simply a derivative of F=ma (i.e. Newton's 2nd Law only) & clearly shows thrust as a force exerted by the body.
The formula is showing the force exerted by the mass flowing through the rocket engine.
*sigh*The formula is showing the force exerted by the mass flowing through the rocket engine.
Exactly; thus it is A FORCE EXERTED BY THE BODY & CANNOT BE INCLUDED IN A FREE BODY DIAGRAM.
Newton's 2nd Law (F=ma) is NOT Newton's 3rd Law (f1=-f2) onebigmarkjo; wtf is wrong with you?When did I say it was? ???
The formula is showing the force exerted by the mass flowing through the rocket engine.
Exactly; thus it is A FORCE EXERTED BY THE BODY & CANNOT BE INCLUDED IN A FREE BODY DIAGRAM.
Newton's 2nd Law (F=ma) is NOT Newton's 3rd Law (f1=-f2) onebigmarkjo; wtf is wrong with you?
Whatever; you're clearly just dragging things out so you can turn the page on your massive Fail & try & begin afresh...
You do this all the time onebigmarkjo; blind persistence & sock-puppet abuse is your sole method of 'winning' any debate...
Do the sock-puppets make up for all the 'friends' you wish you had whilst in the orphanage onebigmarkjo?
Cos you clearly got a LOT of issues from your time in foster care aintcha?
Take em out on me then; I promise I won't fight back or hurt you...
Really go to town on Legba; windmill me - I can take it!
& when you're all tuckered out I'll cradle your big mad head in my manly arms & let you cry like a baby til you feel aallllllll betterer!
Just jump on one of these & fulfil your fantasies eh, onebigorphanedpsycho?
http://wymetro.com/site/templates/pages/BusTimetable.PB.aspx?route=521&code=
The formula is showing the force exerted by the mass flowing through the rocket engine.
Exactly; thus it is A FORCE EXERTED BY THE BODY & CANNOT BE INCLUDED IN A FREE BODY DIAGRAM.
Newton's 2nd Law (F=ma) is NOT Newton's 3rd Law (f1=-f2) onebigmarkjo; wtf is wrong with you?
Whatever; you're clearly just dragging things out so you can turn the page on your massive Fail & try & begin afresh...
You do this all the time onebigmarkjo; blind persistence & sock-puppet abuse is your sole method of 'winning' any debate...
Do the sock-puppets make up for all the 'friends' you wish you had whilst in the orphanage onebigmarkjo?
Cos you clearly got a LOT of issues from your time in foster care aintcha?
Take em out on me then; I promise I won't fight back or hurt you...
Really go to town on Legba; windmill me - I can take it!
& when you're all tuckered out I'll cradle your big mad head in my manly arms & let you cry like a baby til you feel aallllllll betterer!
Just jump on one of these & fulfil your fantasies eh, onebigorphanedpsycho?
http://wymetro.com/site/templates/pages/BusTimetable.PB.aspx?route=521&code=
*sigh*The formula is showing the force exerted by the mass flowing through the rocket engine.
Exactly; thus it is A FORCE EXERTED BY THE BODY & CANNOT BE INCLUDED IN A FREE BODY DIAGRAM.
(http://linus.highpoint.edu/~atitus/mandi-3/graphics/1230003-solution-1.jpg)Newton's 2nd Law (F=ma) is NOT Newton's 3rd Law (f1=-f2) onebigmarkjo; wtf is wrong with you?When did I say it was? ???
*sigh*The formula is showing the force exerted by the mass flowing through the rocket engine.
Exactly; thus it is A FORCE EXERTED BY THE BODY & CANNOT BE INCLUDED IN A FREE BODY DIAGRAM.
(http://linus.highpoint.edu/~atitus/mandi-3/graphics/1230003-solution-1.jpg)Newton's 2nd Law (F=ma) is NOT Newton's 3rd Law (f1=-f2) onebigmarkjo; wtf is wrong with you?When did I say it was? ???
*sigh*The formula is showing the force exerted by the mass flowing through the rocket engine.
Exactly; thus it is A FORCE EXERTED BY THE BODY & CANNOT BE INCLUDED IN A FREE BODY DIAGRAM.
(http://linus.highpoint.edu/~atitus/mandi-3/graphics/1230003-solution-1.jpg)Newton's 2nd Law (F=ma) is NOT Newton's 3rd Law (f1=-f2) onebigmarkjo; wtf is wrong with you?When did I say it was? ???
You are Lying again & clearly have not read the links.In reference to your first link. The reason it doesn't do any work if because it's a closed system. No energy leaves the boundaries of the system therefor no work.
Please stop.
Cast votes now, shills!A Gas does no Work in a Vacuum:
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node33.html
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/j150043a002
http://www.etomica.org/app/modules/sites/JouleThomson/Background2.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_expansion
No Work=no Force=no Motion:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/work.html
https://www.wou.edu/las/physci/GS361/EnergyBasics/EnergyBasics.htm
http://www.edinformatics.com/math_science/work_energy_power.htm
Etc, etc, etc; undeniable scientific FACT.
Ergo a GAS-powered rocket cannot possibly create MOTION in a Vacuum.
Off you go idiotic anti-science paid liar scumbags...
Exercise your Democratic Rights to Lie like your life depends on it!
Your link clearly shows the force pairing responsible for producing the motion of a rocket as occuring at the exit of the nozzle, where it meets atmospheric pressure...Interesting that you go right to personal attacks in our first exchange but I guess that's how you roll. BTW, it's just MicroBeta but I suspect you don't care about that.
So thanks for that!
The rest of your post was sadly written in gibberish, a language I am not fluent in.
But lol at you passing over markjos total Fail without any comment...
This is always the case here, as markjo is the sockpuppet master who can never be criticised by any RE-er, ever.
Thanks for proving that too!
Piling the Fail up fast aintcha, onebigmicrobeta?
*sigh*The formula is showing the force exerted by the mass flowing through the rocket engine.
Exactly; thus it is A FORCE EXERTED BY THE BODY & CANNOT BE INCLUDED IN A FREE BODY DIAGRAM.
(http://linus.highpoint.edu/~atitus/mandi-3/graphics/1230003-solution-1.jpg)Newton's 2nd Law (F=ma) is NOT Newton's 3rd Law (f1=-f2) onebigmarkjo; wtf is wrong with you?When did I say it was? ???
*sigh*The formula is showing the force exerted by the mass flowing through the rocket engine.
Exactly; thus it is A FORCE EXERTED BY THE BODY & CANNOT BE INCLUDED IN A FREE BODY DIAGRAM.
(http://linus.highpoint.edu/~atitus/mandi-3/graphics/1230003-solution-1.jpg)Newton's 2nd Law (F=ma) is NOT Newton's 3rd Law (f1=-f2) onebigmarkjo; wtf is wrong with you?When did I say it was? ???
*sigh*The formula is showing the force exerted by the mass flowing through the rocket engine.
Exactly; thus it is A FORCE EXERTED BY THE BODY & CANNOT BE INCLUDED IN A FREE BODY DIAGRAM.
(http://linus.highpoint.edu/~atitus/mandi-3/graphics/1230003-solution-1.jpg)Newton's 2nd Law (F=ma) is NOT Newton's 3rd Law (f1=-f2) onebigmarkjo; wtf is wrong with you?When did I say it was? ???
Sounds right. I see you are having trouble, I will help you.
"All aircraft-propulsion devices push against the air itself.(drag, all engines) If the air is used as the propelling medium,(jet engine) it must experience a change in momentum--i.e., it has to be accelerated toward the rear of the aircraft and discharged rearward(not external air but air that has entered the engine) with enough velocity that the reaction produces an appreciable thrust in the opposite direction.(thrust generated from exhaust coming out of the engine)"
Nowhere does it claim jet engines push off atmospheric air."All aircraft-propulsion devices push against the air itself.
My do you have to miss quote? That refers to drag.
Yeah, Legba is one of the very few I have on ignore. He literally never adds anything to a discussion and eventually calls everyone a pedophile.
He's just a paranoid troll.
It's so cute that you think that you add anything relevant to the discussion.Yeah, Legba is one of the very few I have on ignore. He literally never adds anything to a discussion and eventually calls everyone a pedophile.
He's just a paranoid troll.
So I find a quote, from Encyclopedia Britannica, stating very firmly that all aircraft propulsion devices push against the air itself - exactly as I have claimed - and you say it adds nothing to the discussion then call me a paranoid troll?
Rocket, any of a type of jet-propulsion device carrying either solid or liquid propellants that provide both the fuel and oxidizer required for combustion. The term is commonly applied to any of various vehicles, including firework skyrockets, guided missiles, and launch vehicles used in spaceflight, driven by any propulsive device that is independent of the atmosphere.
*sigh*The formula is showing the force exerted by the mass flowing through the rocket engine.
Exactly; thus it is A FORCE EXERTED BY THE BODY & CANNOT BE INCLUDED IN A FREE BODY DIAGRAM.
(http://linus.highpoint.edu/~atitus/mandi-3/graphics/1230003-solution-1.jpg)Newton's 2nd Law (F=ma) is NOT Newton's 3rd Law (f1=-f2) onebigmarkjo; wtf is wrong with you?When did I say it was? ???
Hurrah - gutless lying creep markjo is back & he's turned the page on his fail to try & pretend it didn't happen!
Because gutless lying creep!
I did quote Britannica, lying creep; just an older edition...
Have the laws of physics somehow altered since the 1970's, lying creep?
Plus, the man says ALL propulsion units push on air...
ALL, lying creep markjo...
That includes rockets, lying creep.
So that's your latest creepy lies dismissed, lying creep...
Back to your old ones then!
Here you go, creepazoid - answer this:*sigh*The formula is showing the force exerted by the mass flowing through the rocket engine.
Exactly; thus it is A FORCE EXERTED BY THE BODY & CANNOT BE INCLUDED IN A FREE BODY DIAGRAM.
(http://linus.highpoint.edu/~atitus/mandi-3/graphics/1230003-solution-1.jpg)Newton's 2nd Law (F=ma) is NOT Newton's 3rd Law (f1=-f2) onebigmarkjo; wtf is wrong with you?When did I say it was? ???
LMFAO!!!
I ask super-tard markjo to make a free body diagram of an object surrounded by NOTHING and he includes Air, Gravity, and even the fucking Earth for some mad reason...
Those are all THINGS, super-tard markjo.
You also included Thrust, which is a force exerted by the body and therefore should NOT be included in a free body diagram...
What a loser you are!
Oh, & the fact that you & onebigmonkey both used the phrase 'aaw cute' within a couple of posts of each other also shows you are the same person...
Any more Fail you wish to inflict upon your pathetic senile self?
Or are we done here?
(Lol look out here come the sockpuppets to save the day!)
I did quote Britannica, lying creep; just an older edition...What's wrong with quoting the current edition of Britannica?
Plus, the man says ALL propulsion units push on air...Not quite.
All aircraft-propulsion devices push against the air itself. If the air is used as the propelling medium, it must experience a change in momentum--i.e., it has to be accelerated toward the rear of the aircraft and discharged rearward with enough velocity that the reaction produces an appreciable thrust in the opposite direction.
ALL, lying creep markjo...Rocket engines are not generally considered to be "aircraft-propulsion devices".
That includes rockets, lying creep.
Yeah, Legba is one of the very few I have on ignore. He literally never adds anything to a discussion and eventually calls everyone a pedophile.
He's just a paranoid troll.
So I find a quote, from Encyclopedia Britannica, stating very firmly that all aircraft propulsion devices push against the air itself - exactly as I have claimed - and you say it adds nothing to the discussion then call me a paranoid troll?
LMFAO!!!
Fuck off, paedo.
You've lost and you know it.
Many years ago I explained at my website http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#VAC why rockets work in vacuum.
Reason is simple - the rocket fills the empty vacuum with exhaust gases (pollution) so it is not vacuum any longer, while the rocket flies away in the vacuum in the opposite direction.
Many years ago I explained at my website http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#VAC why rockets work in vacuum.
Reason is simple - the rocket fills the empty vacuum with exhaust gases (pollution) so it is not vacuum any longer, while the rocket flies away in the vacuum in the opposite direction.
But it seems he doesn't really understand why rockets work in vacuum.
Many years ago I explained at my website http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#VAC why rockets work in vacuum.
Reason is simple - the rocket fills the empty vacuum with exhaust gases (pollution) so it is not vacuum any longer, while the rocket flies away in the vacuum in the opposite direction.
But it seems he doesn't really understand why rockets work in vacuum.
Cause Newton, before principia every action didn't need to have an equal and opposite reaction. Plus we could all fly because no gravitation. ;)
Damn you Newton.
Many years ago I explained at my website http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#VAC why rockets work in vacuum.
Reason is simple - the rocket fills the empty vacuum with exhaust gases (pollution) so it is not vacuum any longer, while the rocket flies away in the vacuum in the opposite direction.
For a moment I thought Heiwa was actually going to say something right. But it seems he doesn't really understand why rockets work in vacuum.
You call yourself an engineer? You can't even discuss the basic laws of motion.Many years ago I explained at my website http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#VAC why rockets work in vacuum.
Reason is simple - the rocket fills the empty vacuum with exhaust gases (pollution) so it is not vacuum any longer, while the rocket flies away in the vacuum in the opposite direction.
For a moment I thought Heiwa was actually going to say something right. But it seems he doesn't really understand why rockets work in vacuum.
So enlighten me. Is vacuum full of exhaust gas vacuum? Of course not! It is a polluted part of space, which os not vaccum. When the photons flying around in vacuum space encounter this cloud of pollution in space, they light it up like a Christmas tree ... and it looks beautiful.
You call yourself an engineer? You can't even discuss the basic laws of motion.Many years ago I explained at my website http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#VAC why rockets work in vacuum.
Reason is simple - the rocket fills the empty vacuum with exhaust gases (pollution) so it is not vacuum any longer, while the rocket flies away in the vacuum in the opposite direction.
For a moment I thought Heiwa was actually going to say something right. But it seems he doesn't really understand why rockets work in vacuum.
So enlighten me. Is vacuum full of exhaust gas vacuum? Of course not! It is a polluted part of space, which os not vaccum. When the photons flying around in vacuum space encounter this cloud of pollution in space, they light it up like a Christmas tree ... and it looks beautiful.
No credibility!
Many years ago I explained at my website http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#VAC why rockets work in vacuum.So you're saying that the act of accelerating the mass of the propellant out the back of the rocket has nothing to do with it?
Reason is simple - the rocket fills the empty vacuum behind it with exhaust gases (pollution) so it is not vacuum any longer, while the rocket flies away in the vacuum (no exhaust) in the opposite direction.
Are you really saying that our rockets filled the entire universe with pollution and there is no longer a vacuum in space...is that what you're saying?You call yourself an engineer? You can't even discuss the basic laws of motion.Many years ago I explained at my website http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#VAC why rockets work in vacuum.
Reason is simple - the rocket fills the empty vacuum with exhaust gases (pollution) so it is not vacuum any longer, while the rocket flies away in the vacuum in the opposite direction.
For a moment I thought Heiwa was actually going to say something right. But it seems he doesn't really understand why rockets work in vacuum.
So enlighten me. Is vacuum full of exhaust gas vacuum? Of course not! It is a polluted part of space, which os not vaccum. When the photons flying around in vacuum space encounter this cloud of pollution in space, they light it up like a Christmas tree ... and it looks beautiful.
No credibility!
Hm, it is very easy to make vacuum on Earth, e.g. in a glass bottle. Just pump out all the air of the bottle and you have a bottle of vacuum.
Now, if you have put a little gun powder in the bottle of vacuum and ignite it remotely, you will notice that the gasses of ignited gun powder fills the bottle of vacuum with smoke.
No more vacuum! The bottle is full of pollution.
Many years ago I explained at my website http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#VAC why rockets work in vacuum.So you're saying that the act of accelerating the mass of the propellant out the back of the rocket has nothing to do with it?
Reason is simple - the rocket fills the empty vacuum behind it with exhaust gases (pollution) so it is not vacuum any longer, while the rocket flies away in the vacuum (no exhaust) in the opposite direction.
Seriously, you should talk to your engineering school about getting a refund.
Are you really saying that our rockets filled the entire universe with pollution and there is no longer a vacuum in space...is that what you're saying?You call yourself an engineer? You can't even discuss the basic laws of motion.Many years ago I explained at my website http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#VAC why rockets work in vacuum.
Reason is simple - the rocket fills the empty vacuum with exhaust gases (pollution) so it is not vacuum any longer, while the rocket flies away in the vacuum in the opposite direction.
For a moment I thought Heiwa was actually going to say something right. But it seems he doesn't really understand why rockets work in vacuum.
So enlighten me. Is vacuum full of exhaust gas vacuum? Of course not! It is a polluted part of space, which os not vaccum. When the photons flying around in vacuum space encounter this cloud of pollution in space, they light it up like a Christmas tree ... and it looks beautiful.
No credibility!
Hm, it is very easy to make vacuum on Earth, e.g. in a glass bottle. Just pump out all the air of the bottle and you have a bottle of vacuum.
Now, if you have put a little gun powder in the bottle of vacuum and ignite it remotely, you will notice that the gasses of ignited gun powder fills the bottle of vacuum with smoke.
No more vacuum! The bottle is full of pollution.
SMH!
Mike
What the fuck are you talking about?Are you really saying that our rockets filled the entire universe with pollution and there is no longer a vacuum in space...is that what you're saying?You call yourself an engineer? You can't even discuss the basic laws of motion.Many years ago I explained at my website http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#VAC why rockets work in vacuum.
Reason is simple - the rocket fills the empty vacuum with exhaust gases (pollution) so it is not vacuum any longer, while the rocket flies away in the vacuum in the opposite direction.
For a moment I thought Heiwa was actually going to say something right. But it seems he doesn't really understand why rockets work in vacuum.
So enlighten me. Is vacuum full of exhaust gas vacuum? Of course not! It is a polluted part of space, which os not vaccum. When the photons flying around in vacuum space encounter this cloud of pollution in space, they light it up like a Christmas tree ... and it looks beautiful.
No credibility!
Hm, it is very easy to make vacuum on Earth, e.g. in a glass bottle. Just pump out all the air of the bottle and you have a bottle of vacuum.
Now, if you have put a little gun powder in the bottle of vacuum and ignite it remotely, you will notice that the gasses of ignited gun powder fills the bottle of vacuum with smoke.
No more vacuum! The bottle is full of pollution.
SMH!
Mike
No. Vacuum universe space is immense and it is only the small area behind your rocket that is polluted. Universe is also full of asteroids, moons, planets, suns, stars, quasars and black holes to avoid, when your rocket is flying around there. However, the risk to collide with a black hole is zero ... for reasons only known to intelligent people.
Followed by another stupid answer, no doubt.Many years ago I explained at my website http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#VAC why rockets work in vacuum.So you're saying that the act of accelerating the mass of the propellant out the back of the rocket has nothing to do with it?
Reason is simple - the rocket fills the empty vacuum behind it with exhaust gases (pollution) so it is not vacuum any longer, while the rocket flies away in the vacuum (no exhaust) in the opposite direction.
Seriously, you should talk to your engineering school about getting a refund.
Another stupid question from my favourit FEF twerp!
No, you have to read what I say: The rocket (in order to change speed in vacuum space) fills the empty vacuum behind it with exhaust gases (pollution), so it is not vacuum any longer, while the rocket flies away in the vacuum (no exhaust) in the opposite direction.Yup, stupid answer confirmed.
So the space (behind) is not vaccum any longer, which enables the rocket to function in the vacuum (in front).
To fill the vacuum space with exhaust gases you have to apply a force to the exhaust gases leaving the rocket and it is the reaction force of that force applied on the exhaust that drives the rocket the other way in vauum space leaving a cloud of exhaust - pollution - behind.
I know plenty twerps disagree but it is not my fault.I'm guessing that there are a bunch of twerps working at Arianespace that would disagree with you too.
Are you really saying that our rockets filled the entire universe with pollution and there is no longer a vacuum in space...is that what you're saying?You call yourself an engineer? You can't even discuss the basic laws of motion.Many years ago I explained at my website http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#VAC why rockets work in vacuum.
Reason is simple - the rocket fills the empty vacuum with exhaust gases (pollution) so it is not vacuum any longer, while the rocket flies away in the vacuum in the opposite direction.
For a moment I thought Heiwa was actually going to say something right. But it seems he doesn't really understand why rockets work in vacuum.
So enlighten me. Is vacuum full of exhaust gas vacuum? Of course not! It is a polluted part of space, which os not vaccum. When the photons flying around in vacuum space encounter this cloud of pollution in space, they light it up like a Christmas tree ... and it looks beautiful.
No credibility!
Hm, it is very easy to make vacuum on Earth, e.g. in a glass bottle. Just pump out all the air of the bottle and you have a bottle of vacuum.
Now, if you have put a little gun powder in the bottle of vacuum and ignite it remotely, you will notice that the gasses of ignited gun powder fills the bottle of vacuum with smoke.
No more vacuum! The bottle is full of pollution.
SMH!
Mike
No. Vacuum universe space is immense and it is only the small area behind your rocket that is polluted. Universe is also full of asteroids, moons, planets, suns, stars, quasars and black holes to avoid, when your rocket is flying around there. However, the risk to collide with a black hole is zero ... for reasons only known to intelligent people.
1. What the fuck are you talking about?
2. You're an engineer for God's sake. You should know that mass leaving a closed system does work independent of the external boundary conditions.
3. Didn't they have statics and dynamics classes when you went to college?
Mike
Number 2 is the stupidest thing I’ve seen you type yet. I just can’t believe you’re an engineer...are you messing with us. You can’t really think that...although, it would explain a lot.
1. What the fuck are you talking about?
2. You're an engineer for God's sake. You should know that mass leaving a closed system does work independent of the external boundary conditions.
3. Didn't they have statics and dynamics classes when you went to college?
Mike
Thanks for asking.
1. Rockets work in vacuum!
2. Exhaust from a rocket fills and pollutes a little any vacuum it is in, so the rocket can work.
3. I skipped college and went straight to university.
Number 2 is the stupidest thing I’ve seen you type yet. I just can’t believe you’re an engineer...are you messing with us. You can’t really think that...although, it would explain a lot.
1. What the fuck are you talking about?
2. You're an engineer for God's sake. You should know that mass leaving a closed system does work independent of the external boundary conditions.
3. Didn't they have statics and dynamics classes when you went to college?
Mike
Thanks for asking.
1. Rockets work in vacuum!
2. Exhaust from a rocket fills and pollutes a little any vacuum it is in, so the rocket can work.
3. I skipped college and went straight to university.
Mike
ALL, lying creep markjo...Rocket engines are not generally considered to be "aircraft-propulsion devices".
That includes rockets, lying creep.
ALL, lying creep markjo...Rocket engines are not generally considered to be "aircraft-propulsion devices".
That includes rockets, lying creep.
O rly?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket-powered_aircraft
Markjo crashes & burns yet again...
Lol.
ALL, lying creep markjo...Rocket engines are not generally considered to be "aircraft-propulsion devices".
That includes rockets, lying creep.
O rly?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket-powered_aircraft
Markjo crashes & burns yet again...
Lol.
::) You came back lamer.
That was proof of that? Lol. You're too obvious.
Lol. Rocket engines are not jet engines. Lol.
Number 2 is the stupidest thing I’ve seen you type yet. I just can’t believe you’re an engineer...are you messing with us. You can’t really think that...although, it would explain a lot.
1. What the fuck are you talking about?
2. You're an engineer for God's sake. You should know that mass leaving a closed system does work independent of the external boundary conditions.
3. Didn't they have statics and dynamics classes when you went to college?
Mike
Thanks for asking.
1. Rockets work in vacuum!
2. Exhaust from a rocket fills and pollutes a little any vacuum it is in, so the rocket can work.
3. I skipped college and went straight to university.
Mike
Hm, Mike. Is there no exhaust from a rocket?
All rockets use liquid or solid fuel that, when burnt, becomes exhaust that is ejected to make the propulsion force of the rocket. It works anywhere.
Apollo 11 used 1000's of tons of fuel to send two persons to piss on the Moon. There was plenty of exhaust. Of course it was all fake, but anyway. A great show.
Anyway, send my regards to your wife, if any.
I did. She thinks you're an idiot.Number 2 is the stupidest thing I’ve seen you type yet. I just can’t believe you’re an engineer...are you messing with us. You can’t really think that...although, it would explain a lot.
1. What the fuck are you talking about?
2. You're an engineer for God's sake. You should know that mass leaving a closed system does work independent of the external boundary conditions.
3. Didn't they have statics and dynamics classes when you went to college?
Mike
Thanks for asking.
1. Rockets work in vacuum!
2. Exhaust from a rocket fills and pollutes a little any vacuum it is in, so the rocket can work.
3. I skipped college and went straight to university.
Mike
Hm, Mike. Is there no exhaust from a rocket?
All rockets use liquid or solid fuel that, when burnt, becomes exhaust that is ejected to make the propulsion force of the rocket. It works anywhere.
Apollo 11 used 1000's of tons of fuel to send two persons to piss on the Moon. There was plenty of exhaust. Of course it was all fake, but anyway. A great show.
Anyway, send my regards to your wife, if any.
Did you send my regards to your wife?
ITT: PapaLegba doesn't understand the meaning of the word "generally". ::)ALL, lying creep markjo...Rocket engines are not generally considered to be "aircraft-propulsion devices".
That includes rockets, lying creep.
O rly?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket-powered_aircraft
Markjo crashes & burns yet again...
Lol.
Yes, they work on the same principle, but they do so differently.Lol. Rocket engines are not jet engines. Lol.
O rly?
But according to Wikipedia they both work on the same principle...
Q: What’s the difference between a jet engine and a rocket engine?
A: Jet engines and rockets work on the same principle. They produce thrust through an internal pressure difference and, as explained by Newton’s Third Law of Motion, eject exhaust gases in an equal and opposite direction. The main difference between them is that jets get the oxygen to burn fuel from the air and rockets carry their own oxygen, which allows them to operate in space. This also leads to a second major difference. Jet engines have two openings (an intake and an exhaust nozzle). Rocket engines only have one opening (an exhaust nozzle).
Once again you can't comprehend the article. It says the opposite of your claim.That was proof of that? Lol. You're too obvious.
I'm the only person in this thread who has provided proof of anything.
All you've done is attempt to shitpost that proof away...
As evidence I offer your last two shitposts.
Any more Fail you'd care to spam up?
Anyhoo, here is proof that jet engineers know damn well that aircraft propulsion units all push on air (that shills don't want you to read lol!):
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/articles/interviews/how-jet-engine-works
ITT: PapaLegba doesn't understand the meaning of the word "generally". ::)ALL, lying creep markjo...Rocket engines are not generally considered to be "aircraft-propulsion devices".
That includes rockets, lying creep.
O rly?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket-powered_aircraft
Markjo crashes & burns yet again...
Lol.
None of those say jets push on air.
I lie about everything and will never get banned because this forum is run by retarded shills.
Where did I lie?
None of those say jets push on air.
Yes they do...
Clearly and unambiguously.
Why are you so mental?
Did you read your own links?
You mis-represented every single one of those links. Guess what? That makes you the liar.
A Gas does no Work in a Vacuum:
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node33.html
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/j150043a002
http://www.etomica.org/app/modules/sites/JouleThomson/Background2.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_expansion
No Work=no Force=no Motion:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/work.html
https://www.wou.edu/las/physci/GS361/EnergyBasics/EnergyBasics.htm
http://www.edinformatics.com/math_science/work_energy_power.htm
Etc, etc, etc; undeniable scientific FACT.
Ergo a GAS-powered rocket cannot possibly create MOTION in a Vacuum.
Off you go idiotic anti-science paid liar scumbags...
Exercise your Democratic Rights to Lie like your life depends on it!
You mis-represented every single one of those links. Guess what? That makes you the liar.
A Gas does no Work in a Vacuum:
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node33.html
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/j150043a002
http://www.etomica.org/app/modules/sites/JouleThomson/Background2.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_expansion
No Work=no Force=no Motion:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/work.html
https://www.wou.edu/las/physci/GS361/EnergyBasics/EnergyBasics.htm
http://www.edinformatics.com/math_science/work_energy_power.htm
Etc, etc, etc; undeniable scientific FACT.
Ergo a GAS-powered rocket cannot possibly create MOTION in a Vacuum.
Off you go idiotic anti-science paid liar scumbags...
Exercise your Democratic Rights to Lie like your life depends on it!
Have a nice evening.
Mike
You mis-represented every single one of those links. Guess what? That makes you the liar.
A Gas does no Work in a Vacuum:
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node33.html
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/j150043a002
http://www.etomica.org/app/modules/sites/JouleThomson/Background2.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_expansion
No Work=no Force=no Motion:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/work.html
https://www.wou.edu/las/physci/GS361/EnergyBasics/EnergyBasics.htm
http://www.edinformatics.com/math_science/work_energy_power.htm
Etc, etc, etc; undeniable scientific FACT.
Ergo a GAS-powered rocket cannot possibly create MOTION in a Vacuum.
Off you go idiotic anti-science paid liar scumbags...
Exercise your Democratic Rights to Lie like your life depends on it!
Have a nice evening.
Mike
Heiwa is my limit. PL is just too bizarre for me. I don't even engage with him.
Many years ago I explained at my website http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#VAC why rockets work in vacuum.
Reason is simple - the rocket fills the empty vacuum behind it with exhaust gases (pollution) so it is not vacuum any longer, while the rocket flies away in the vacuum (no exhaust) in the opposite direction.
You mis-represented every single one of those links. Guess what? That makes you the liar.
A Gas does no Work in a Vacuum:
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node33.html
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/j150043a002
http://www.etomica.org/app/modules/sites/JouleThomson/Background2.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_expansion
No Work=no Force=no Motion:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/work.html
https://www.wou.edu/las/physci/GS361/EnergyBasics/EnergyBasics.htm
http://www.edinformatics.com/math_science/work_energy_power.htm
Etc, etc, etc; undeniable scientific FACT.
Ergo a GAS-powered rocket cannot possibly create MOTION in a Vacuum.
Off you go idiotic anti-science paid liar scumbags...
Exercise your Democratic Rights to Lie like your life depends on it!
Have a nice evening.
Mike
Heiwa is my limit. PL is just too bizarre for me. I don't even engage with him.
I copy my post #755:QuoteMany years ago I explained at my website why rockets work in vacuum.
Reason is simple - the rocket fills the empty vacuum behind it with exhaust gases (pollution) so it is not vacuum any longer, while the rocket flies away in the vacuum (no exhaust) in the opposite direction.
I assume you agree with me?
You mis-represented every single one of those links. Guess what? That makes you the liar.
A Gas does no Work in a Vacuum:
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node33.html
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/j150043a002
http://www.etomica.org/app/modules/sites/JouleThomson/Background2.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_expansion
No Work=no Force=no Motion:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/work.html
https://www.wou.edu/las/physci/GS361/EnergyBasics/EnergyBasics.htm
http://www.edinformatics.com/math_science/work_energy_power.htm
Etc, etc, etc; undeniable scientific FACT.
Ergo a GAS-powered rocket cannot possibly create MOTION in a Vacuum.
Off you go idiotic anti-science paid liar scumbags...
Exercise your Democratic Rights to Lie like your life depends on it!
Have a nice evening.
Mike
Ok, just stop paying attention to Legba. It was explained to him why he was wrong in detail quite some time ago but he still goes on about the same thing, because he's a troll and that's what he does. I don't know what you think you're accomplishing by addressing him.
Lol Legba got definitely not markjo working for him now!Why do you keep copy pasting his posts?
Total shill-fail and terminal autism...
Back to the Gas Laws you all lie about...
Please read:
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/chemistry/thermodynamics-chemistry/internal-energy-sal/a/pressure-volume-work
In it you will find the equation used to determine the amount of Work done by a Gas...
The equation is: Work = external Pressure x change in Volume.
As the external Pressure in a Vacuum is ZERO, then a Gas introduced into a Vacuum will do ZERO Work.
And without WORK there can be neither POWER nor FORCE, & thus no MOTION:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/work.html
Moreover, the experiment to prove this FACT was one of the mathematical & conceptual foundations of Thermodynamics:
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node33.html
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=eYQHIjkaEroC&pg=PA39&lpg=PA39&dq=joule+free+expansion+conservation+of+energy&source=bl&ots=lNNu7CV1-P&sig=YMAwtaJTmLf7BF4Ts4jcWzVTY98&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjWv6XJh6rPAhXEOxoKHXskDjw4ChDoAQgfMAE#v=onepage&q=joule%20free%20expansion%20conservation%20of%20energy&f=false
Again, I will quote the relevant section: "Joule noticed that in this process (i.e. Free Expansion) the gas does not 'develop mechanical power' i.e. no mechanical work is performed either by or on the gas".
Pretty conclusive: a gas-POWERED rocket cannot possibly do WORK in a vacuum.
To claim that it does is to violate the very foundations of the Laws of Thermodynamics: FACT.
And no matter how much you stamp your feet & try to turn the page on these scientific FACTS they simply will not go away...
Sucks to be you; oh yes it does!
Toodle-pip, LOSERS!
As the external Pressure in a Vacuum is ZERO, then a Gas introduced into a Vacuum will do ZERO Work.How much work does the gas do before it gets introduced to the vacuum?
You just say I am wrong but cannot state why.
You just say I am wrong but cannot state why.
Because you are an idiot.
As the external Pressure in a Vacuum is ZERO, then a Gas introduced into a Vacuum will do ZERO Work.How much work does the gas do before it gets introduced to the vacuum?
How much work is required to accelerate the gas through the rocket engine?
As the external Pressure in a Vacuum is ZERO, then a Gas introduced into a Vacuum will do ZERO Work.How much work does the gas do before it gets introduced to the vacuum?
How much work is required to accelerate the gas through the rocket engine?
The rocket fuel is say solid or liquid. When it burns in the rocket engine combustion chamber, it becomes a hot gas at great volume, that is ejected at high speed v (m/s) through a nozzle at the bottom of the combustion chamber into the external vacuum that pushes and accelerates the rocket in the opposite direction. 1 kg rocket fuel/gas produces v˛/2 Joule energy work. The exhaust gas pollutes the vacuum that is no more vacuum. No work is really required to eject the gas into the vacuum. The hot gas has no other way to escape. That's why rocket fireworks work in vacuum and pollutes it.
As the external Pressure in a Vacuum is ZERO, then a Gas introduced into a Vacuum will do ZERO Work.How much work does the gas do before it gets introduced to the vacuum?
How much work is required to accelerate the gas through the rocket engine?
The rocket fuel is say solid or liquid. When it burns in the rocket engine combustion chamber, it becomes a hot gas at great volume, that is ejected at high speed v (m/s) through a nozzle at the bottom of the combustion chamber into the external vacuum that pushes and accelerates the rocket in the opposite direction. 1 kg rocket fuel/gas produces v˛/2 Joule energy work. The exhaust gas pollutes the vacuum that is no more vacuum. No work is really required to eject the gas into the vacuum. The hot gas has no other way to escape. That's why rocket fireworks work in vacuum and pollutes it.
So a vacuum can push and accelerate things, can it?
Cool story, bro!
This thread gets more mental every post...
You flat Earthers really are something else!
The fun won't start for two weeks when Papa comes back.
None of you have refuted a single one of my impeccably scientifically accurate statements on this subject...For when you return from your :P vacation :P.
Ok, just stop paying attention to Legba. It was explained to him why he was wrong in detail quite some time ago but he still goes on about the same thing, because he's a troll and that's what he does. I don't know what you think you're accomplishing by addressing him.https://theethicalskeptic.com/2012/05/01/what-is-social-skepticism/
So smart, science is unnecessary!
You dumb assholes. Legba was the only person to post proof. You should try to learn something instead of poking your fingers in your ears, and yelling shill, troll, shill. Wtf, legba has a very good pount about this.
Is youtube banned at your mommas house?You dumb assholes. Legba was the only person to post proof. You should try to learn something instead of poking your fingers in your ears, and yelling shill, troll, shill. Wtf, legba has a very good pount about this.
YouTube banned where you live?
Is youtube banned at your mommas house?You dumb assholes. Legba was the only person to post proof. You should try to learn something instead of poking your fingers in your ears, and yelling shill, troll, shill. Wtf, legba has a very good pount about this.
YouTube banned where you live?
Ok, just stop paying attention to Legba. It was explained to him why he was wrong in detail quite some time ago but he still goes on about the same thing, because he's a troll and that's what he does. I don't know what you think you're accomplishing by addressing him.https://theethicalskeptic.com/2012/05/01/what-is-social-skepticism/
So smart, science is unnecessary!
Oho.
He has a point here tho.
Who cares about the real truth as long as the majority believes it and we get a pat on the back for parroting the so called "truth?"
You dumb assholes. Legba was the only person to post proof. You should try to learn something instead of poking your fingers in your ears, and yelling shill, troll, shill. Wtf, legba has a very good pount about this.
Oho.
He has a point here tho.
Who cares about the real truth as long as the majority believes it and we get a pat on the back for parroting the so called "truth?"
::)
Oho.
He has a point here tho.
Who cares about the real truth as long as the majority believes it and we get a pat on the back for parroting the so called "truth?"
::)
Oho.
Your pat on the back will arrive shortly.
Social Skepticism is the philosophical basis of pseudoscience, which employs false a priori deduction combined with stacked provisional abductive reasoning, both employed as a masquerade of science method in order to enforce a belief set as being scientific, when in reality it is not. Social Skepticism is also a sponsored activist movement which functions as an integral part of the socially engineered mechanisms attempting to dominate human thought, health, welfare and education. This domination serving as means to an end, towards subjection of all mankind’s value to mandated totalitarian institutions. Institutions which avert legal exposure by abusing skepticism to serve their goals. Ends formulated by a social elite; however, which stand threatened by innate elements of mankind’s being and background.
An ideologue driven enforcement therefore of asocial epistemology crafted to obfuscate mankind’s understanding of such innate elements. Its members practice a form of vigilante bullying, employed in lieu of science to dismiss disliked subjects, persons and evidence before they can ever see the light of scientific day. Seeking to establish as irrefutable truth a core philosophy of material monism, dictating that only specific authorized life physical and energy domains exist. A comprehensive program of enforcement sought accordingly, through rather than the risk of ethical scientific methodology, instead a practice of preemptive methodical cynicism and provisional knowledge which underpins an embargo policy regarding, cultivates ignorance and institutionalizes intimidation surrounding any subject which could ostensibly serve as a pathway to falsify their power enabling illusory religion of Nihilism.
Is youtube banned at your mommas house?You dumb assholes. Legba was the only person to post proof. You should try to learn something instead of poking your fingers in your ears, and yelling shill, troll, shill. Wtf, legba has a very good pount about this.
YouTube banned where you live?
Oho, just something I said on this thread tbh.
This was the point of the link posted that I got. Not specifically at you but pretty accurate in a few cases.QuoteSocial Skepticism is the philosophical basis of pseudoscience, which employs false a priori deduction combined with stacked provisional abductive reasoning, both employed as a masquerade of science method in order to enforce a belief set as being scientific, when in reality it is not. Social Skepticism is also a sponsored activist movement which functions as an integral part of the socially engineered mechanisms attempting to dominate human thought, health, welfare and education. This domination serving as means to an end, towards subjection of all mankind’s value to mandated totalitarian institutions. Institutions which avert legal exposure by abusing skepticism to serve their goals. Ends formulated by a social elite; however, which stand threatened by innate elements of mankind’s being and background.
An ideologue driven enforcement therefore of asocial epistemology crafted to obfuscate mankind’s understanding of such innate elements. Its members practice a form of vigilante bullying, employed in lieu of science to dismiss disliked subjects, persons and evidence before they can ever see the light of scientific day. Seeking to establish as irrefutable truth a core philosophy of material monism, dictating that only specific authorized life physical and energy domains exist. A comprehensive program of enforcement sought accordingly, through rather than the risk of ethical scientific methodology, instead a practice of preemptive methodical cynicism and provisional knowledge which underpins an embargo policy regarding, cultivates ignorance and institutionalizes intimidation surrounding any subject which could ostensibly serve as a pathway to falsify their power enabling illusory religion of Nihilism.
Yeah but the paragraph I quoted is poignant. It's exaggerated but has a strong point about social skepticism. I believe.
Try to take information just as information.
90 percent of 90 percent is almost 80 percent.
90 percent of 90 percent is almost 80 percent.
?
90 percent of 90 percent is almost 80 percent.
?
lol, you know nothing about percents.
Usually you don't say "almost" when you are higher. Almost 80 percent because it's 81 percent.
Because he's jroa.Usually you don't say "almost" when you are higher. Almost 80 percent because it's 81 percent.
Yes, but I was more puzzled as to why he felt the need to say that.
90 percent of 90 percent is almost 80 percent.
?
lol, you know nothing about percents.
??
Yes, I did. Are you blind? ???
Yes, I did. Are you blind? ???
I'm not in the mood for your nonsense.
Enough of this insolencce, it must stop now.Yes, I did. Are you blind? ???
I'm not in the mood for your nonsense.
Yes, I did. Are you blind? ???
I'm not in the mood for your nonsense.
Whose nonsense are you in the mood for?
Yes, I did. Are you blind? ???
I'm not in the mood for your nonsense.
Whose nonsense are you in the mood for?
Heiwa's.
Yes, I did. Are you blind? ???
I'm not in the mood for your nonsense.
Whose nonsense are you in the mood for?
Heiwa's.
Just study my findings at http://heiwaco.com and tell me what you think.
Just study my findings at http://heiwaco.com (http://heiwaco.com) and tell me what you think.
Who would have guessed someone other than papa would shit up this thread?
Yes, I did. Are you blind? ???
I'm not in the mood for your nonsense.
Whose nonsense are you in the mood for?
Heiwa's.
Just study my findings at http://heiwaco.com and tell me what you think.
I think it's nonsense. I also think you can't answer what (7+sqrt50)^(1/3)+(7-sqrt50)^(1/3) equals to, and that you obviously lied about your IQ.
90 percent of 90 percent is almost 80 percent.
?
lol, you know nothing about percents.
I was already here. Read the thread again.Who would have guessed someone other than papa would shit up this thread?
No one would have ever have guessed that you would have showed up. ::)
Is it 14/3 or 4.6666?
Edit.
No wait im wrong. It's the mean isn't it. I'll try again at home. It's pretty simple desu I'm just bad at maths.
Can I use a calculator?
Your talents are wasted on this issue Papa.
As a thought experiment lets say what you say is true. Who has this lie hurt? Who has this lie killed? Who really gains from this lie?
Now, obviously the truth is always its own reward and always worth it. However why focus on this one issue? I don't see the motivation for people to lie on this issue?
I've read through your material before and I'll look over it again but I just can't get past the issue that gas has mass and is accelerated causing a force.
Boy, you guys really hate the laws of Thermodynamics dontcha?
And you still can't tell the difference between just saying shit and science can you?
Been on the Pseudoskeptic Snake Oil, have you?
https://theethicalskeptic.com/2015/11/20/the-best-snake-oil-is-one-you-dont-know-is-being-sold/
Back to the Gas Laws you all lie about...
Please read:
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/chemistry/thermodynamics-chemistry/internal-energy-sal/a/pressure-volume-work
In it you will find the equation used to determine the amount of Work done by a Gas...
The equation is: Work = external Pressure x change in Volume.
As the external Pressure in a Vacuum is ZERO, then a Gas introduced into a Vacuum will do ZERO Work.
And without WORK there can be neither POWER nor FORCE, & thus no MOTION:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/work.html
Moreover, the experiment to prove this FACT was one of the mathematical & conceptual foundations of Thermodynamics:
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node33.html
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=eYQHIjkaEroC&pg=PA39&lpg=PA39&dq=joule+free+expansion+conservation+of+energy&source=bl&ots=lNNu7CV1-P&sig=YMAwtaJTmLf7BF4Ts4jcWzVTY98&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjWv6XJh6rPAhXEOxoKHXskDjw4ChDoAQgfMAE#v=onepage&q=joule%20free%20expansion%20conservation%20of%20energy&f=false
Again, I will quote the relevant section: "Joule noticed that in this process (i.e. Free Expansion) the gas does not 'develop mechanical power' i.e. no mechanical work is performed either by or on the gas".
Pretty conclusive: a gas-POWERED rocket cannot possibly do WORK in a vacuum.
To claim that it does is to violate the very foundations of the Laws of Thermodynamics: FACT.
And no matter how much you stamp your feet & try to turn the page on these scientific FACTS they simply will not go away...
Sucks to be you; oh yes it does!
Toodle-pip, LOSERS!
And I can't get over the fact you cannot distinguish between N2 and N3...And I can't get over the fact you cannot distinguish between a rocket engine and a Joule-Thompson free expansion apparatus.
And I can't get over the fact you cannot distinguish between N2 and N3...And I can't get over the fact you cannot distinguish between a rocket engine and a Joule-Thompson free expansion apparatus.
And I suppose that you have an infallible understanding of all physics?And I can't get over the fact you cannot distinguish between N2 and N3...And I can't get over the fact you cannot distinguish between a rocket engine and a Joule-Thompson free expansion apparatus.
Says the REtard who cannot draw a free body diagram and admits to making stupid mistakes regarding Newton's laws...
Your knowledge of physics has repeatedly been proven to be zero, Paul...Who's Paul? ???
You have spent two whole years trying to claim N3 is f1=-f1 and that N2 (f=ma) is interchangeable with N3...Whatever. ::)
Your talents are wasted on this issue Papa.D1 Legba is correct on this. Do you remember the Youtube of the nerd who disproved moving in space? It showed the force applied to a rocket for movement is dependent on the atmosphere.
As a thought experiment lets say what you say is true. Who has this lie hurt? Who has this lie killed? Who really gains from this lie?
Now, obviously the truth is always its own reward and always worth it. However why focus on this one issue? I don't see the motivation for people to lie on this issue?
I've read through your material before and I'll look over it again but I just can't get past the issue that gas has mass and is accelerated causing a force.
Now, go back to lying and shit stirring about American politics with your BFF rayzor, you preposterous agent provocateur; your contributions here are worthless.
Your talents are wasted on this issue Papa.D1 Legba is correct on this. Do you remember the Youtube of the nerd who disproved moving in space? It showed the force applied to a rocket for movement is dependent on the atmosphere.
As a thought experiment lets say what you say is true. Who has this lie hurt? Who has this lie killed? Who really gains from this lie?
Now, obviously the truth is always its own reward and always worth it. However why focus on this one issue? I don't see the motivation for people to lie on this issue?
I've read through your material before and I'll look over it again but I just can't get past the issue that gas has mass and is accelerated causing a force.
So yes, you don't understand physics.
You have me confused with someone else.
You have me confused with someone else.
May god help us all, Poppa is back.
How was the vacation?
<crazed science & citation-free disinfo-poop snipped>
Oh look; you already tried this shit weeks ago & I kicked you to the kerb, then you ran away:In "free expansion" the system must be isolated and insulated from its surroundings.
Both the rocket AND the vacuum of space comprise the system.
And they are, by definition, closed if not isolated.
Here is a CITATION that proves I am correct:
https://www.bluffton.edu/homepages/facstaff/bergerd/NSC_111/thermo2.html
Thus you agree that free expansion will occur, no work will be done & thus no force produced.
Again, a CITATION that this is the case:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/work.html
Just stop spamming my thread with pseudo-scientific non-sequiturs Geoff...
And provide CITATIONS that I am wrong.
Because all you are doing at the moment is Lying about the Gas Laws & trying to brainwash neutral readers...
Speaking of brainwashing, does this bring back any memories, Geoff?
http://www.mamamia.com.au/children-stolen-at-birth/
So why are you pushing the same discredited bullshit yet again?
LOL!!!
Because you are a shill & it is your job to lie for a living...
You know; like calling the laws of thermodynamics & Newton's laws of motion 'puppy fizix'?
How do you think that'll make you look to intelligent readers?
Anyhoo; when you have genuine science & citations to back up your disinfo get back to me...
Until then, Toodle-pip, Loser!
Got any new tricks, markjo?Nope, nothing new. Just the same tired old questions about the forces exerted by the hot, expanding combustion gasses acting on the rocket engine that you never seem to want to acknowledge.
Got any new tricks, markjo?Nope, nothing new. Just the same tired old questions about the forces exerted by the hot, expanding combustion gasses acting on the rocket engine that you never seem to want to acknowledge.
Got any new tricks, markjo?Nope, nothing new. Just the same tired old questions about the forces exerted by the hot, expanding combustion gasses acting on the rocket engine that you never seem to want to acknowledge.
Can't have combustion in a vacuum old man.
The vacuum of space is allegedly infinite.But the combustion chamber of a rocket engine is very finite.
The vacuum of space is allegedly infinite.But the combustion chamber of a rocket engine is very finite.
BTW, infinite space doesn't sound like a closed system to me.
Then again, neither does a rocket engine.
Isolated from what?The vacuum of space is allegedly infinite.But the combustion chamber of a rocket engine is very finite.
BTW, infinite space doesn't sound like a closed system to me.
Then again, neither does a rocket engine.
The universe is by definition an isolated system, markjo...
Are you really trying to argue against the laws of Thermodynamics markjo?Not at all.
And a vacuum is not an object, markjo.I don't think I ever said that it was.
So why are you comparing the two?Huh? ???
Now: back to the Gas Laws you all lie about...I'm not concerned with the work that may or may not be done when the exhaust gasses are intoduced into the vacuum of space.
Please read:
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/chemistry/thermodynamics-chemistry/internal-energy-sal/a/pressure-volume-work
In it you will find the equation used to determine the amount of Work done by a Gas...
The equation is: Work = external Pressure x change in Volume.
As the external Pressure in a Vacuum is ZERO, then a Gas introduced into a Vacuum will do ZERO Work.
Again, I will quote the relevant section: "Joule noticed that in this process (i.e. Free Expansion) the gas does not 'develop mechanical power' i.e. no mechanical work is performed either by or on the gas".And no matter how much you stamp your feet and copy/paste the same irrelevant citations doesn't change the fact that an open ended rocket engine is not the same as a sealed Joule-Thompson free expansion apparatus.
Pretty conclusive: a gas-POWERED rocket cannot possibly do WORK in a vacuum.
To claim that it does is to violate the very foundations of the Laws of Thermodynamics: FACT.
And no matter how much you stamp your feet & try to turn the page on these scientific FACTS they simply will not go away...
Your gish-gallop garbage would be far more impressive if it contained some actual science and citations to back it up...Me?
Yet it strangely never does.
That is because you are these people:
https://theethicalskeptic.com/2012/05/01/what-is-social-skepticism/
So smart, science is unnecessary!
Your gish-gallop garbage would be far more impressive if it contained some actual science and citations to back it up...Me?
Yet it strangely never does.
That is because you are these people:
https://theethicalskeptic.com/2012/05/01/what-is-social-skepticism/
So smart, science is unnecessary!
You're the one who has yet to show how this
(https://www.ch.ntu.edu.tw/~jtchen/course/genchem/2002/Entropy%20&%20Free%20Energy.files/image002.jpg)
is comparable with this
(http://faculty.ung.edu/jjones/astr1010home/liquidroc01.JPG)
Are you really trying to argue against the laws of Thermodynamics markjo?
How do you think that'll make you look to sane people?
And a vacuum is not an object, markjo.
In fact it is the very opposite of an object.
So why are you comparing the two?
You still can't tell the difference between just saying mad illogical shit and science can you?
Been on the Pseudoskeptic Snake Oil, have you?
https://theethicalskeptic.com/2015/11/20/the-best-snake-oil-is-one-you-dont-know-is-being-sold/
Sad stuff, markjo...
Sad, sad stuff.
Now: back to the Gas Laws you all lie about...
Please read:
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/chemistry/thermodynamics-chemistry/internal-energy-sal/a/pressure-volume-work
In it you will find the equation used to determine the amount of Work done by a Gas...
The equation is: Work = external Pressure x change in Volume.
As the external Pressure in a Vacuum is ZERO, then a Gas introduced into a Vacuum will do ZERO Work.
And without WORK there can be neither POWER nor FORCE, & thus no MOTION:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/work.html
Moreover, the experiment to prove this FACT was one of the mathematical & conceptual foundations of Thermodynamics:
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node33.html
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=eYQHIjkaEroC&pg=PA39&lpg=PA39&dq=joule+free+expansion+conservation+of+energy&source=bl&ots=lNNu7CV1-P&sig=YMAwtaJTmLf7BF4Ts4jcWzVTY98&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjWv6XJh6rPAhXEOxoKHXskDjw4ChDoAQgfMAE#v=onepage&q=joule%20free%20expansion%20conservation%20of%20energy&f=false
Again, I will quote the relevant section: "Joule noticed that in this process (i.e. Free Expansion) the gas does not 'develop mechanical power' i.e. no mechanical work is performed either by or on the gas".
Pretty conclusive: a gas-POWERED rocket cannot possibly do WORK in a vacuum.
To claim that it does is to violate the very foundations of the Laws of Thermodynamics: FACT.
And no matter how much you stamp your feet & try to turn the page on these scientific FACTS they simply will not go away...
Sucks to be you; oh yes it does!
Toodle-pip, LOSERS!
Papa, what makes you think that Joule-Thompson free expansion is the be all end all of thermodynamics?
Except that it isn't. The forces relating to the combustion gasses passing through the rocket engine are the most relevant part, which you refuse to acknowledge.Papa, what makes you think that Joule-Thompson free expansion is the be all end all of thermodynamics?
I don't.
It's just the part that's most relevant to this thread.
Except that it isn't. The forces relating to the combustion gasses passing through the rocket engine are the most relevant part, which you refuse to acknowledge.Papa, what makes you think that Joule-Thompson free expansion is the be all end all of thermodynamics?
I don't.
It's just the part that's most relevant to this thread.
What happens to the gasses after they leave the rocket engine is completely irrelevant to the operation of a rocket in space.
Are you really trying to argue against the laws of Thermodynamics markjo?
How do you think that'll make you look to sane people?
And a vacuum is not an object, markjo.
In fact it is the very opposite of an object.
So why are you comparing the two?
You still can't tell the difference between just saying mad illogical shit and science can you?
Been on the Pseudoskeptic Snake Oil, have you?
https://theethicalskeptic.com/2015/11/20/the-best-snake-oil-is-one-you-dont-know-is-being-sold/
Sad stuff, markjo...
Sad, sad stuff.
Now: back to the Gas Laws you all lie about...
Please read:
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/chemistry/thermodynamics-chemistry/internal-energy-sal/a/pressure-volume-work
In it you will find the equation used to determine the amount of Work done by a Gas...
The equation is: Work = external Pressure x change in Volume.
As the external Pressure in a Vacuum is ZERO, then a Gas introduced into a Vacuum will do ZERO Work.
And without WORK there can be neither POWER nor FORCE, & thus no MOTION:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/work.html
Moreover, the experiment to prove this FACT was one of the mathematical & conceptual foundations of Thermodynamics:
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node33.html
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=eYQHIjkaEroC&pg=PA39&lpg=PA39&dq=joule+free+expansion+conservation+of+energy&source=bl&ots=lNNu7CV1-P&sig=YMAwtaJTmLf7BF4Ts4jcWzVTY98&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjWv6XJh6rPAhXEOxoKHXskDjw4ChDoAQgfMAE#v=onepage&q=joule%20free%20expansion%20conservation%20of%20energy&f=false
Again, I will quote the relevant section: "Joule noticed that in this process (i.e. Free Expansion) the gas does not 'develop mechanical power' i.e. no mechanical work is performed either by or on the gas".
Pretty conclusive: a gas-POWERED rocket cannot possibly do WORK in a vacuum.
To claim that it does is to violate the very foundations of the Laws of Thermodynamics: FACT.
And no matter how much you stamp your feet & try to turn the page on these scientific FACTS they simply will not go away...
Sucks to be you; oh yes it does!
Toodle-pip, LOSERS!
What a gas does or does not do as it enters a vacuum is not relevant to what that gas does as it passes through the rocket engine.Except that it isn't. The forces relating to the combustion gasses passing through the rocket engine are the most relevant part, which you refuse to acknowledge.Papa, what makes you think that Joule-Thompson free expansion is the be all end all of thermodynamics?
I don't.
It's just the part that's most relevant to this thread.
What happens to the gasses after they leave the rocket engine is completely irrelevant to the operation of a rocket in space.
A gas creates no force as it enters a vacuum, markjo...
Which you refuse to acknowledge.
What a gas does or does not do as it enters a vacuum is not relevant to what that gas does as it passes through the rocket engine.Except that it isn't. The forces relating to the combustion gasses passing through the rocket engine are the most relevant part, which you refuse to acknowledge.Papa, what makes you think that Joule-Thompson free expansion is the be all end all of thermodynamics?
I don't.
It's just the part that's most relevant to this thread.
What happens to the gasses after they leave the rocket engine is completely irrelevant to the operation of a rocket in space.
A gas creates no force as it enters a vacuum, markjo...
Which you refuse to acknowledge.
Remember when you failed miserably to create a correct free body diagram of an object surrounded by nothing?Remember when you wouldn't acknowledge that exhaust gasses have mass or that a force is required to accelerate those gasses through a rocket engine?
Remember when you failed miserably to create a correct free body diagram of an object surrounded by nothing?Remember when you wouldn't acknowledge that exhaust gasses have mass
Oh, then you admit that exhaust gasses have mass and therefore require a force in order to accelerate those gasses through a rocket engine?Remember when you failed miserably to create a correct free body diagram of an object surrounded by nothing?Remember when you wouldn't acknowledge that exhaust gasses have mass
That never happened except in your deranged imagination.
You are ignoring this insane shitposter. Show me the insane shitpost.
And the circle is complete. You can't admit that you've been beat, so you just stomp off in a bluster.You are ignoring this insane shitposter. Show me the insane shitpost.
Never gonna happen.
Anyhoo, you are now free to make up any old shit and pretend it really happened, like the psycho you are...
You just won't waste any more of my time with it.
Just now many times is this "rocket in a vacuum" gonna raise its head?They only push against each other inside when the system is closed.
Anyway, this is why they do...
(https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/system/images/images/000/000/405/embed/A-typical-rocket-engine20151021-1336-1mzzaw.jpg?1447040605)
A rocket obviously needs to push against something. It's pushing against the gases inside it. As these gases are pushed out in one direction, there's a reaction force that pushes the rocket in the opposite direction. This reaction force is called thrust. I would've thought all this would be pretty obvious to even high-school science students. Maybe not to FEs?
Just now many times is this "rocket in a vacuum" gonna raise its head?By your reasoning you should be able to push yourself off of a chair by pushing your legs with your hands. It's darn pretty stupid don't you think.
Anyway, this is why they do...
(https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/system/images/images/000/000/405/embed/A-typical-rocket-engine20151021-1336-1mzzaw.jpg?1447040605)
A rocket obviously needs to push against something. It's pushing against the gases inside it. As these gases are pushed out in one direction, there's a reaction force that pushes the rocket in the opposite direction. This reaction force is called thrust. I would've thought all this would be pretty obvious to even high-school science students. Maybe not to FEs?
Just now many times is this "rocket in a vacuum" gonna raise its head?
Anyway, this is why they do...
(https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/system/images/images/000/000/405/embed/A-typical-rocket-engine20151021-1336-1mzzaw.jpg?1447040605)
A rocket obviously needs to push against something. It's pushing against the gases inside it. As these gases are pushed out in one direction, there's a reaction force that pushes the rocket in the opposite direction. This reaction force is called thrust. I would've thought all this would be pretty obvious to even high-school science students. Maybe not to FEs?
This is a real subject of discussion? It doesn't take a vacuum to figure out Newtons 3rd Law. Rockets are irrelevant. How do people think rockets work outside of a vacuum?Rockets push against the atmoplane, of course. How do you think that they work?
All the rockets are outside my vacuum.You have a rocket powered vacuum? Wow!
(http://www.myvacuumparts.com.au/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/2582x/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/x/p/xp-rocket.jpg)All the rockets are outside my vacuum.You have a rocket powered vacuum? Wow!
This is a real subject of discussion? It doesn't take a vacuum to figure out Newtons 3rd Law. Rockets are irrelevant. How do people think rockets work outside of a vacuum?Rockets push against the atmoplane, of course. How do you think that they work?
BTW, do you realize how silly "outside of a vacuum" sounds?
No one puts baby in a vacuum.
Actually, they do. Wines that are not properly maintained and cared for will most certainly go bad.
Btw, rockets do work in a vacuum. Just in case anyone wants to know. It is a fact. Not anything that can be changed by public opinion or debate. Now you have the answer to the OP’s question. Sheesh!Obvious shill is obvious. Didn't you even care to read the threads title?
Btw, rockets do work in a vacuum. Just in case anyone wants to know. It is a fact. Not anything that can be changed by public opinion or debate. Now you have the answer to the OP’s question. Sheesh!
A Gas does no Work in a Vacuum:
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node33.html
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/j150043a002
http://www.etomica.org/app/modules/sites/JouleThomson/Background2.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_expansion
No Work=no Force=no Motion:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/work.html
https://www.wou.edu/las/physci/GS361/EnergyBasics/EnergyBasics.htm
http://www.edinformatics.com/math_science/work_energy_power.htm
Etc, etc, etc; undeniable scientific FACT.
Ergo a GAS-powered rocket cannot possibly create MOTION in a Vacuum.
Off you go idiotic anti-science paid liar scumbags...
Exercise your Democratic Rights to Lie like your life depends on it!
Woooo Hoo !
He generally brings it on himself.Woooo Hoo !
Don't celebrate, I doubt cowgirl can control herself on banning him. Plus this time she says it will be a permanent ban
Nope. They prove that you don't understand physics.Btw, rockets do work in a vacuum. Just in case anyone wants to know. It is a fact. Not anything that can be changed by public opinion or debate. Now you have the answer to the OP’s question. Sheesh!
Here is my OP; note it contains no questions whatsoever. Rather, it contains a mass of scientific citations proving that a rocket cannot work in a vacuum:
Now, let us look at more garbage shpayze rokkit sienz - the lulzy fake Oberth effect:Then it's a good thing that it's the moving exhaust gasses that supply the power. By the way, exhaust gasses do have mass, don't they?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_engine#Oberth_effect
This is rather illogically stated as Force equals Power multiplied by Speed.
Sadly, this means - inarguably - that when the speed of a rocket is Zero, it will produce Zero power...
Which means it could never take off.
No air required.
lol
Too easy.
lol
Back to this:However it does seem very hard for you to grasp the difference between a rocket engine and a reaction mass.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_engine#Oberth_effect
The article even admits it's bullshit, by saying "a stationary engine does no useful work", contrary to all observable evidence.
Because if a stationary engine did no work, then a rocket would never take off, would it?
Not hard for humans to grasp; impossible for bots though.
Reaction engines are more energy efficient when they emit their reaction mass when the vehicle is travelling at high speed.
Working mass, also referred to as reaction mass, is a mass against which a system operates in order to produce acceleration. In the case of a rocket, for example, the reaction mass is the fuel shot backwards to provide propulsion
I call it working mass - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_mass - and when it is ejected anywhere including vacuum space, the rocket engine works ... as long as there is more working mass to eject, of course.Back to this:However it does seem very hard for you to grasp the difference between a rocket engine and a reaction mass.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_engine#Oberth_effect
The article even admits it's bullshit, by saying "a stationary engine does no useful work", contrary to all observable evidence.
Because if a stationary engine did no work, then a rocket would never take off, would it?
Not hard for humans to grasp; impossible for bots though.Quote from: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_engine#Oberth_effectReaction engines are more energy efficient when they emit their reaction mass when the vehicle is travelling at high speed.Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_massWorking mass, also referred to as reaction mass, is a mass against which a system operates in order to produce acceleration. In the case of a rocket, for example, the reaction mass is the fuel shot backwards to provide propulsion
And yet it has been done many many times. I will pay you a million euros to prove otherwise.I call it working mass - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_mass - and when it is ejected anywhere including vacuum space, the rocket engine works ... as long as there is more working mass to eject, of course.Back to this:However it does seem very hard for you to grasp the difference between a rocket engine and a reaction mass.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_engine#Oberth_effect
The article even admits it's bullshit, by saying "a stationary engine does no useful work", contrary to all observable evidence.
Because if a stationary engine did no work, then a rocket would never take off, would it?
Not hard for humans to grasp; impossible for bots though.Quote from: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_engine#Oberth_effectReaction engines are more energy efficient when they emit their reaction mass when the vehicle is travelling at high speed.Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_massWorking mass, also referred to as reaction mass, is a mass against which a system operates in order to produce acceleration. In the case of a rocket, for example, the reaction mass is the fuel shot backwards to provide propulsion
When the rocket engine runs out of working mass (i.e. fuel), there is no propulsive force any longer applied. If gravity is still applied to the rocket, it may drop back on Earth again and crash, unless it has been directed into orbit, where gravity is balanced by centrifugal force ... so it will orbit for ever. Rocket science is very simple - it is always a one way trip. No safe return anywhere.
It's called a working fluid by real engineers and non shillbots:That's because working fluids don't apply to rocket engines. Working mass does. An engineer would understand the difference.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_fluid
And in the case of a rocket in a vacuum the working fluid cannot possibly create motion.
Here is why for the millionth time.That's true only in a closed system. A rocket engine is not a closed system. The fact that it has a really big opening at one end should be your first clue.
Please read:
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/chemistry/thermodynamics-chemistry/internal-energy-sal/a/pressure-volume-work
In it you will find the equation used to determine the amount of Work done by a Gas...
The equation is: Work = external Pressure x change in Volume.
Thanks!It's called a working fluid by real engineers and non shillbots:That's because working fluids don't apply to rocket engines. Working mass does. An engineer would understand the difference.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_fluid
And in the case of a rocket in a vacuum the working fluid cannot possibly create motion.Here is why for the millionth time.That's true only in a closed system. A rocket engine is not a closed system. The fact that it has a really big opening at one end should be your first clue.
Please read:
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/chemistry/thermodynamics-chemistry/internal-energy-sal/a/pressure-volume-work
In it you will find the equation used to determine the amount of Work done by a Gas...
The equation is: Work = external Pressure x change in Volume.
Back to this:However it does seem very hard for you to grasp the difference between a rocket engine and a reaction mass.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_engine#Oberth_effect
The article even admits it's bullshit, by saying "a stationary engine does no useful work", contrary to all observable evidence.
Because if a stationary engine did no work, then a rocket would never take off, would it?
Not hard for humans to grasp; impossible for bots though.Quote from: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_engine#Oberth_effectReaction engines are more energy efficient when they emit their reaction mass when the vehicle is travelling at high speed.Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_massWorking mass, also referred to as reaction mass, is a mass against which a system operates in order to produce acceleration. In the case of a rocket, for example, the reaction mass is the fuel shot backwards to provide propulsion
LMFAO!!!
You don't even know what a working fluid is, let alone what open, closed and isolated systems are!
This shit is hilarious...
Here you go, Three Stooges, read this:
https://www.bluffton.edu/homepages/facstaff/bergerd/NSC_111/thermo2.html
A rocket in a vacuum is, by definition, a closed (if not completely isolated) system.
Damn! You all failed hard today, didn't change?
Toodle-pip LOSERS!
LMFAO!!!
You don't even know what a working fluid is, let alone what open, closed and isolated systems are!
This shit is hilarious...
Here you go, Three Stooges, read this:
https://www.bluffton.edu/homepages/facstaff/bergerd/NSC_111/thermo2.html
A rocket in a vacuum is, by definition, a closed (if not completely isolated) system.
An Open System (also called a Control Volume, CV) allows both mass and energy to cross its boundary. In an open system, energy crosses the system boundary not only through heat transfer and work, but also through the internal, kinetic, and potential energy of the mass crossing the system boundary. There is also work done in moving the mass across the system boundaries.
(https://www.wiley.com/college/moran/CL_0471465704_S/user/tutorials/tutorial4/page2/rocket.gif)
A rocket demonstrates the energy trade-offs that can occur in an open system. As the rocket ascends, internal pressure pushes the hot combustion gases out the exhaust nozzle at a high velocity and the rocket gains kinetic and potential energy. At the same time, the internal energy stored in the control volume decreases as the fuel is used up.
Lol why is the shillbot markjo showing pictures of bottles and a rocket NOT in a vacuum?What does the presence of a vacuum have to do with whether a system is open, closed or isolated? ???
Because it is a timewasting AI algorithm.If you think that interacting with me is a waste of time, then what does that say about you?
A vacuum is NOTHING.So you're saying that matter can not move into a vacuum? ???
Matter and energy cannot be exchanged with NOTHING, as NOTHING will be gained in return.
Thus, a rocket in a vacuum is by definition a closed/isolated system.I'm really beginning to question the level of your literacy because I don't see any definition of a closed or isolated system that can be applied to a rocket engine.
Simple stuff, which everyone in IRL I have explained it to understands...Sure, everyone except for anyone who has ever taken a physics course. ::)
blah, blah, blah.
sockbot
Time for a Bubba Legbone v Hiawa cage fight.
sockbot
Ha ha ha!
sockbot
Ha ha ha!
Yeah, and markjo & alleged engineer Heiwa don't even know what a working fluid is:
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/SPRING/propulsion/notes/node27.html
This forum is a science and technology-free zone.
sockbot
Ha ha ha!
Yeah, and markjo & alleged engineer Heiwa don't even know what a working fluid is:
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/SPRING/propulsion/notes/node27.html
This forum is a science and technology-free zone.
But I am an engineer - http://heiwaco.com/cv.htm - and my objects - ships on Earth - float on the fluid they work on. It works fine.
Space ships in vacuum space are just fiction. They do not exist.
And you don't seem to know what the working fluid in a rocket is not the same working fluid in a gas turbine engine:sockbot
Ha ha ha!
Yeah, and markjo & alleged engineer Heiwa don't even know what a working fluid is:
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/SPRING/propulsion/notes/node27.html
This forum is a science and technology-free zone.
In a rocket engine, fuel and a source of oxygen, called an oxidizer, are mixed and exploded in a combustion chamber. The combustion produces hot exhaust which is passed through a nozzle to accelerate the flow and produce thrust. For a rocket, the accelerated gas, or working fluid, is the hot exhaust produced during combustion. This is a different working fluid than you find in a turbine engine or a propeller-powered aircraft. Turbine engines and propellers use air from the atmosphere as the working fluid, but rockets use the combustion exhaust gases. In outer space there is no atmosphere so turbines and propellers can not work there. This explains why a rocket works in space but a turbine engine or a propeller does not work.
sockbot
Ha ha ha!
Yeah, and markjo & alleged engineer Heiwa don't even know what a working fluid is:
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/SPRING/propulsion/notes/node27.html
This forum is a science and technology-free zone.
But I am an engineer - http://heiwaco.com/cv.htm - and my objects - ships on Earth - float on the fluid they work on. It works fine.
Space ships in vacuum space are just fiction. They do not exist.
Damn!
They REALLY didn't program the slightest knowledge of what a working fluid actually is, or how it applies to hot gas jet propulsion, into you, did they?
Here's a couple of pointers:
http://www.taftan.com/thermodynamics/WFLUID.HTM
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/SPRING/propulsion/notes/node27.html
Of course, a working fluid needs something for it to actually do work ON for it to, you know, do WORK...
And, as a vacuum is NOTHING, any working fluid introduced therein can, by definition, do no WORK.
Simple, eh?
Quick physics definition of vacuum for your programmers to incorporate into your mad AI persona:
https://www.britannica.com/science/vacuum-physics
Jesus, AI algorithm markjo, we already know you and Heiwa's programming doesn't include any accurate knowledge of what a working fluid actually does in any thermodynamic system whatsoever...Then please explain just how you believe that a rocket uses its working fluid.
Already have about a million times, AI shillgorithm markjo:That's how work is done in a piston engine.
Please read:
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/chemistry/thermodynamics-chemistry/internal-energy-sal/a/pressure-volume-work
In it you will find the equation used to determine the amount of Work done by a Gas...
The equation is: Work = external Pressure x change in Volume.
Already have about a million times, AI shillgorithm markjo:That's how work is done in a piston engine.
Please read:
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/chemistry/thermodynamics-chemistry/internal-energy-sal/a/pressure-volume-work
In it you will find the equation used to determine the amount of Work done by a Gas...
The equation is: Work = external Pressure x change in Volume.
Already have about a million times, AI shillgorithm markjo:That's how work is done in a piston engine.
Please read:
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/chemistry/thermodynamics-chemistry/internal-energy-sal/a/pressure-volume-work
In it you will find the equation used to determine the amount of Work done by a Gas...
The equation is: Work = external Pressure x change in Volume.
Already have about a million times, AI shillgorithm markjo:That's how work is done in a piston engine.
Please read:
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/chemistry/thermodynamics-chemistry/internal-energy-sal/a/pressure-volume-work
In it you will find the equation used to determine the amount of Work done by a Gas...
The equation is: Work = external Pressure x change in Volume.
Please find a citation from a reputable source that a working fluid in any thermodynamic system can do work without encountering pressure external to itself of some form, whether it be atmospheric resistance in the case of a rocket, or a solid object in the case of turbine blades.
And don't return until you have.
Good luck, time wasting shillgorithm!
Already have about a million times, AI shillgorithm markjo:That's how work is done in a piston engine.
Please read:
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/chemistry/thermodynamics-chemistry/internal-energy-sal/a/pressure-volume-work
In it you will find the equation used to determine the amount of Work done by a Gas...
The equation is: Work = external Pressure x change in Volume.
Please find a citation from a reputable source that a working fluid in any thermodynamic system can do work without encountering pressure external to itself of some form, whether it be atmospheric resistance in the case of a rocket, or a solid object in the case of turbine blades.
And don't return until you have.
Good luck, time wasting shillgorithm!
You ignore all his sources because they destroyed you.
So which one?
Which one of these bottles do you think resembles a rocket engine most closely?
(https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-8440906d8f32e65fd8360d41b9f02943-c)
Incorrect premise. The working fluid of a rocket (its exhaust) acts against the resistance of the rocket engine itself, not the atmosphere.Already have about a million times, AI shillgorithm markjo:That's how work is done in a piston engine.
Please read:
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/chemistry/thermodynamics-chemistry/internal-energy-sal/a/pressure-volume-work
In it you will find the equation used to determine the amount of Work done by a Gas...
The equation is: Work = external Pressure x change in Volume.
Please find a citation from a reputable source that a working fluid in any thermodynamic system can do work without encountering pressure external to itself of some form, whether it be atmospheric resistance in the case of a rocket, or a solid object in the case of turbine blades.
Did you follow his link?Already have about a million times, AI shillgorithm markjo:That's how work is done in a piston engine.
Please read:
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/chemistry/thermodynamics-chemistry/internal-energy-sal/a/pressure-volume-work
In it you will find the equation used to determine the amount of Work done by a Gas...
The equation is: Work = external Pressure x change in Volume.
Wait what? This is my wheelhouse and that makes no sense.
Would you like to revise?
Pressure-volume work: Work done by a gas
Gases can do work through expansion or compression against a constant external pressure. Work done by gases is also sometimes called pressure-volume or PV work for reasons that will hopefully become more clear in this section!
Let's consider gas contained in a piston
A rocket is simply an open system where mass is ejected as exhaust, e.g. into vacuum space or the atmosphere or into water.Incorrect premise. The working fluid of a rocket (its exhaust) acts against the resistance of the rocket engine itself, not the atmosphere.Already have about a million times, AI shillgorithm markjo:That's how work is done in a piston engine.
Please read:
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/chemistry/thermodynamics-chemistry/internal-energy-sal/a/pressure-volume-work
In it you will find the equation used to determine the amount of Work done by a Gas...
The equation is: Work = external Pressure x change in Volume.
Please find a citation from a reputable source that a working fluid in any thermodynamic system can do work without encountering pressure external to itself of some form, whether it be atmospheric resistance in the case of a rocket, or a solid object in the case of turbine blades.
A rocket is simply an open system where mass is ejected as exhaust, e.g. into vacuum space or the atmosphere or into water.See, rockets are so simple that even Anders can understand them. So what's your excuse, Papa Legba?
Incorrect premise. The working fluid of a rocket (its exhaust) acts against the resistance of the rocket engine itself, not the atmosphere.Already have about a million times, AI shillgorithm markjo:That's how work is done in a piston engine.
Please read:
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/chemistry/thermodynamics-chemistry/internal-energy-sal/a/pressure-volume-work
In it you will find the equation used to determine the amount of Work done by a Gas...
The equation is: Work = external Pressure x change in Volume.
Please find a citation from a reputable source that a working fluid in any thermodynamic system can do work without encountering pressure external to itself of some form, whether it be atmospheric resistance in the case of a rocket, or a solid object in the case of turbine blades.
So you can't find any citation from any source that supports your insane bullshit?Oh, I already did provide a citation to support my claim. You just dismissed it because it was from NASA.
So you can't find any citation from any source that supports your insane bullshit?Oh, I already did provide a citation to support my claim. You just dismissed it because it was from NASA.
What I can't find is a citation from a credible source saying that rocket engines are closed or isolated systems. Can you provide one?
Are you saying that if it didn't happen on this page, then it didn't happen at all?So you can't find any citation from any source that supports your insane bullshit?Oh, I already did provide a citation to support my claim. You just dismissed it because it was from NASA.
What I can't find is a citation from a credible source saying that rocket engines are closed or isolated systems. Can you provide one?
Bullshit.
Stop lying.
Quote from: https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/BGH/rocket.htmlIn a rocket engine, fuel and a source of oxygen, called an oxidizer, are mixed and exploded in a combustion chamber. The combustion produces hot exhaust which is passed through a nozzle to accelerate the flow and produce thrust. For a rocket, the accelerated gas, or working fluid, is the hot exhaust produced during combustion. This is a different working fluid than you find in a turbine engine or a propeller-powered aircraft. Turbine engines and propellers use air from the atmosphere as the working fluid, but rockets use the combustion exhaust gases. In outer space there is no atmosphere so turbines and propellers can not work there. This explains why a rocket works in space but a turbine engine or a propeller does not work.
Legba you are awesome, don't ever change. I proudly fly my voodoo warrior flag... I don't care what onebigmarkjo or the ginger sockbot says...
So which one?
Which one of these bottles do you think resembles a rocket engine most closely?
(https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-8440906d8f32e65fd8360d41b9f02943-c)
The AI shillgorithm has not provided what I asked for.Maybe because so much of what you ask for is nonsense.
Already have about a million times, AI shillgorithm markjo:That's how work is done in a piston engine.
Please read:
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/chemistry/thermodynamics-chemistry/internal-energy-sal/a/pressure-volume-work
In it you will find the equation used to determine the amount of Work done by a Gas...
The equation is: Work = external Pressure x change in Volume.
Please find a citation from a reputable source that a working fluid in any thermodynamic system can do work without encountering pressure external to itself of some form, whether it be atmospheric resistance in the case of a rocket, or a solid object in the case of turbine blades.
And don't return until you have.
Good luck, time wasting shillgorithm!
Don't be dumb like me.
Here is what I asked for and you did not provide yet pretended you did:Would you care to tell me exactly what you consider to be a "reputable source"? After all, I don't want to waste your precious time by providing citations from disreputable sources.Already have about a million times, AI shillgorithm markjo:That's how work is done in a piston engine.
Please read:
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/chemistry/thermodynamics-chemistry/internal-energy-sal/a/pressure-volume-work
In it you will find the equation used to determine the amount of Work done by a Gas...
The equation is: Work = external Pressure x change in Volume.
Please find a citation from a reputable source that a working fluid in any thermodynamic system can do work without encountering pressure external to itself of some form, whether it be atmospheric resistance in the case of a rocket, or a solid object in the case of turbine blades.
And don't return until you have.
Good luck, time wasting shillgorithm!
One that agrees with him and calls everyone else pedophiles?Here is what I asked for and you did not provide yet pretended you did:Would you care to tell me exactly what you consider to be a "reputable source"? After all, I don't want to waste your precious time by providing citations from disreputable sources.Already have about a million times, AI shillgorithm markjo:That's how work is done in a piston engine.
Please read:
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/chemistry/thermodynamics-chemistry/internal-energy-sal/a/pressure-volume-work
In it you will find the equation used to determine the amount of Work done by a Gas...
The equation is: Work = external Pressure x change in Volume.
Please find a citation from a reputable source that a working fluid in any thermodynamic system can do work without encountering pressure external to itself of some form, whether it be atmospheric resistance in the case of a rocket, or a solid object in the case of turbine blades.
And don't return until you have.
Good luck, time wasting shillgorithm!
Here is what I asked for and you did not provide yet pretended you did:Would you care to tell me exactly what you consider to be a "reputable source"? After all, I don't want to waste your precious time by providing citations from disreputable sources.Already have about a million times, AI shillgorithm markjo:That's how work is done in a piston engine.
Please read:
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/chemistry/thermodynamics-chemistry/internal-energy-sal/a/pressure-volume-work
In it you will find the equation used to determine the amount of Work done by a Gas...
The equation is: Work = external Pressure x change in Volume.
Please find a citation from a reputable source that a working fluid in any thermodynamic system can do work without encountering pressure external to itself of some form, whether it be atmospheric resistance in the case of a rocket, or a solid object in the case of turbine blades.
And don't return until you have.
Good luck, time wasting shillgorithm!
So you don't believe that any source that agrees with me is reputable?Here is what I asked for and you did not provide yet pretended you did:Would you care to tell me exactly what you consider to be a "reputable source"? After all, I don't want to waste your precious time by providing citations from disreputable sources.Already have about a million times, AI shillgorithm markjo:That's how work is done in a piston engine.
Please read:
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/chemistry/thermodynamics-chemistry/internal-energy-sal/a/pressure-volume-work
In it you will find the equation used to determine the amount of Work done by a Gas...
The equation is: Work = external Pressure x change in Volume.
Please find a citation from a reputable source that a working fluid in any thermodynamic system can do work without encountering pressure external to itself of some form, whether it be atmospheric resistance in the case of a rocket, or a solid object in the case of turbine blades.
And don't return until you have.
Good luck, time wasting shillgorithm!
Even your disreputable NASA source didn't state what I asked for.
So you got no chance from anywhere else, do you?
No, I quite clearly stated that even the one disreputable source that you found disagreed with your sorry AI ass.
What was that about wasting peoples time again?
Please find a citation from a reputable source that a working fluid in any thermodynamic system can do work without encountering pressure external to itself of some form, whether it be atmospheric resistance in the case of a rocket, or a solid object in the case of turbine blades.
Please find a citation from a reputable source that a working fluid in any thermodynamic system can do work without encountering pressure external to itself of some form, whether it be atmospheric resistance in the case of a rocket, or a solid object in the case of turbine blades.BTW, turbine blades generally work by interacting with fluids (air or water most typically), not solids.
Hmmm... Looks like a laugh track malfunction in Papa Legbot's AI.Please find a citation from a reputable source that a working fluid in any thermodynamic system can do work without encountering pressure external to itself of some form, whether it be atmospheric resistance in the case of a rocket, or a solid object in the case of turbine blades.BTW, turbine blades generally work by interacting with fluids (air or water most typically), not solids.
LMFAO!!!
Of course I can't find any credible source that says that rockets work by pushing against the atmospheric pressure because no credible source would claim that's how rockets work.
Yes, Britannica is credible enough. But that article says nothing about rockets.Of course I can't find any credible source that says that rockets work by pushing against the atmospheric pressure because no credible source would claim that's how rockets work.
Encyclopedia Britannica credible enough for you, markbot?
http://www.fem.unicamp.br/~em313/paginas/textos/jet.htm
Of course, I already gave you this source pages ago...
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67626.780LOL!! You're one to talk about being mad or repetitive.
Obvious mad repetitive AI algorithm is obvious.
Please find a citation from a reputable source that a working fluid in any thermodynamic system can do work without encountering pressure external to itself of some form, whether it be atmospheric resistance in the case of a rocket, or a solid object in the case of turbine blades.BTW, turbine blades generally work by interacting with fluids (air or water most typically), not solids.
How about this for repetitive madness...Yes, we have pretty much discussed the same points that you keep getting wrong over and over again.
There is no known mechanism for a rocket to push off the atmosphere.Birds do it by flapping their wings.
Are bird's wings attached to their body?There is no known mechanism for a rocket to push off the atmosphere.Birds do it by flapping their wings.
Like your claim that rocket engines are closed, or even isolated, systems.
A gas creates no force as it enters a vacuum, markjo...
Which you refuse to acknowledge.
What about the work done by the burning gasses within the rocket engine's combustion chamber and expansion nozzle? Doesn't the pressure within the combustion chamber increasing greatly as the propellant burns and expands manyfold while releasing tremendous amounts of chemical energy in the form of heat count for anything?Like your claim that rocket engines are closed, or even isolated, systems.
Open in an atmosphere, closed outside one.
Simply use the equation Work = external Pressure x increase in Volume.
As you reduce external Pressure to zero, the system becomes increasingly isolated, until, at totally zero pressure, it is completely isolated.
What about the work done by the burning gasses within the rocket engine's combustion chamber and expansion nozzle?
If you mix propellant and an oxidizer and then put a spark to it, then why shouldn't it burn in a vacuum?What about the work done by the burning gasses within the rocket engine's combustion chamber and expansion nozzle?
Nothing can burn in a vacuum.
Especially an infinite, near perfect vacuum.Are you saying that rocket engines have an infinite volume?
And yes, the combustion chamber would be open to said vacuum, as it has a very large hole in the end.The chamber itself has a finite volume which can be filled with propellant and oxidizer.
Might wanna check the expansion rates of gasses and liquids exposed to hard vacuum then compare them to the expansion rates of exothermic reactions contained within an atmospheric envelope, markbot...Sure looks like he achieved it.
The former exceeds the latter which is why combustion in hard vacuum cannot be achieved, as molecular interaction is impossible when the molecules are moving apart so fast.
No work without pressure, markbot - there's a gas Law that says so.
You're programmed to ignore it though, which is why your AI algorithm bullshit never ends.
Yawn!
No work without pressure, markbot - there's a gas Law that says so.Then why don't you show me how your precious gas law tells us how much work is done by a rocket engine at sea level? I'd love to see you plug in some numbers (especially any change in volume) and give me a meaningful result. Time to put up or shut up.
There is no known mechanism for a rocket to push off the atmosphere.This is a pretty stupid statement and I'm not surprised you said.
How is he wrong?There is no known mechanism for a rocket to push off the atmosphere.This is a pretty stupid statement and I'm not surprised you said.
No work without pressure, markbot - there's a gas Law that says so.Then why don't you show me how your precious gas law tells us how much work is done by a rocket engine at sea level? I'd love to see you plug in some numbers (especially any change in volume) and give me a meaningful result. Time to put up or shut up.
In the context of this thread, the only number I need to plug into Work = external Pressure x increase in Volume is the number Zero, for when a rocket is in vacuum, where external Pressure will be Zero.But I'm asking what happens when the external pressure is 14.5 psi (sea level). Can you do that math?
You can do the math, markbot - you CAN multiply by Zero, can't you?
In the context of this thread, the only number I need to plug into Work = external Pressure x increase in Volume is the number Zero, for when a rocket is in vacuum, where external Pressure will be Zero.But I'm asking what happens when the external pressure is 14.5 psi (sea level).
You can do the math, markbot - you CAN multiply by Zero, can't you?
You're claiming that rockets don't work in a vacuum because the pressure volume gas law says so. If you can't show that the pressure volume law gas allows rockets to work in an atmosphere, then why should I believe that the pressure volume gas law is relevant to rockets at all?In the context of this thread, the only number I need to plug into Work = external Pressure x increase in Volume is the number Zero, for when a rocket is in vacuum, where external Pressure will be Zero.But I'm asking what happens when the external pressure is 14.5 psi (sea level).
You can do the math, markbot - you CAN multiply by Zero, can't you?
And I've already told you it's irrelevant, cloth ears...
The title of the thread is 'shills claim rockets work in a vacuum', not 'shills claim rockets work in an atmosphere'.
Unless you are now claiming they don't?
You're claiming that rockets don't work in a vacuum because the pressure volume gas law says so. If you can't show that the pressure volume law gas allows rockets to work in an atmosphere, then why should I believe that the pressure volume gas law is relevant to rockets at all?In the context of this thread, the only number I need to plug into Work = external Pressure x increase in Volume is the number Zero, for when a rocket is in vacuum, where external Pressure will be Zero.But I'm asking what happens when the external pressure is 14.5 psi (sea level).
You can do the math, markbot - you CAN multiply by Zero, can't you?
And I've already told you it's irrelevant, cloth ears...
The title of the thread is 'shills claim rockets work in a vacuum', not 'shills claim rockets work in an atmosphere'.
Unless you are now claiming they don't?
What does that article have to do with rocket engines?You're claiming that rockets don't work in a vacuum because the pressure volume gas law says so. If you can't show that the pressure volume law gas allows rockets to work in an atmosphere, then why should I believe that the pressure volume gas law is relevant to rockets at all?In the context of this thread, the only number I need to plug into Work = external Pressure x increase in Volume is the number Zero, for when a rocket is in vacuum, where external Pressure will be Zero.But I'm asking what happens when the external pressure is 14.5 psi (sea level).
You can do the math, markbot - you CAN multiply by Zero, can't you?
And I've already told you it's irrelevant, cloth ears...
The title of the thread is 'shills claim rockets work in a vacuum', not 'shills claim rockets work in an atmosphere'.
Unless you are now claiming they don't?
I'm also saying Newton's laws of motion don't allow rockets to work in a vacuum, Gollum:Quote from: http://www.fem.unicamp.br/~em313/paginas/textos/jet.htmJet Engine
Any of a class of internal-combustion engines that propel aircraft by means of the rearward discharge of a jet of fluid,usually hot exhaust gases generated by burning fuel with air drawn in from the atmosphere.
You gonna reject them now, as well as Thermodynamics?No, I'm just going to reject your interpretation of Newton's laws and Thermodynamics.
Not my fault you can't multiply by Zero or count to Two.And it's not my fault that you multiply by 14.5 (atmospheric pressure at sea level) or recognize action/reaction pairs inside a rocket engine.
I'll take it as settled that the pressure volume gas law isn't relevant to rocket engines regardless of the external pressure.
Multiplying by zero is only a problem if you can show that the pressure volume gas law is relevant in the first place. You haven't done that yet.I'll take it as settled that the pressure volume gas law isn't relevant to rocket engines regardless of the external pressure.
Yeah, you do that, Gollum...
Think anyone will care what a chatbot that can't multiply by Zero, count to two, or even draw an accurate free body diagram of an object surrounded by nothing thinks?
Multiplying by zero is only a problem if you can show that the pressure volume gas law is relevant in the first place. You haven't done that yet.I'll take it as settled that the pressure volume gas law isn't relevant to rocket engines regardless of the external pressure.
Yeah, you do that, Gollum...
Think anyone will care what a chatbot that can't multiply by Zero, count to two, or even draw an accurate free body diagram of an object surrounded by nothing thinks?
As for counting to two: rocket engine and exhaust are 2 different objects that interact with each other.
Free body diagrams? Who really cares?
Okay, find another gas law that calculates the amount of work done by by a gas and we'll use that instead, eh?Since you seem to be allowing NASA as a source, how's this?
Oh, wait - you can't cos there isn't one!
And the exhaust of a rocket is a force exerted by the body - so no it is not a different object.First of all, that's the general thrust equation which deals more with air breathing jet engines than rocket engines.
Even NASA admit this ffs:
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/thrsteq.html
As for not caring about free body diagrams, that's about as big an admission of defeat possible as free body diagrams are used to show force pairings, and motion is impossible via Newton's third law without force pairings being created.If you pay close attention to the last 30 seconds of that video, the narrator clearly points out that identifying action/reaction pairs and constructing free body diagrams are two different things. FBDs can be used to help identify action/reaction pairs, but are by no means the only way of depicting them.
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-4/Identifying-Action-and-Reaction-Force-Pairs
And free body diagrams do not include forces exerted by the body. Look:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?t=281s&v=91QYouih4bQ
Your total scientific ignorance and intellectual dishonesty is, as ever, laid bare for all to see, Gollum...You just can't make a post without resorting to personal attacks, can you?
It'd be sad, if you were a real human being rather than an automated lying machine...
Yeah, the rocket thrust equation still shows thrust as a force exerted by the body, so it still cannot be included in a free body diagram.
Lie number one.
And you lied about what the guy in the video said...
Listen from 2:30:
Lie number two.
Oh, and you didn't come up with another gas law that calculates the work done by a gas either...
Tried to sneak that past us, didn't you?
So you're a proven liar and deceiver..
Fact.
Is telling the truth a personal attack?
I'm sure your mad fascist AI algorithm self wishes it were!
Anyhoo - back on the ignore pile for your sickening self...
Enough time wasted for this session.
And now for something completely different!
A practical experiment you can do in the privacy of your own home.
You will need:
1. A heavy weight like a bowling ball, a brick, a shot-put or your brother who always ticks you off
2. A skateboard or equivalvent device that you can sit on with low friction wheels.
3. A smooth relatively level surface like a gymnasium floor or a hardwood floor in a room of your home
( it should be level enough so the the skateboard will not roll by itself)
4. A friend who can catch heavy stuff
Method:
1. Sit on the skateboard so that nothing is touching the ground, facing in one of the directions that skateboard is pointing
2. Pick up the bowling ball
3. Throw the bowling ball at the friend
(be sure to tell them you are going throw a bowling ball at them)
-Please tell us what happened to you and the skateboard when you threw the weight
-Videos are nice to see so please feel free to share them
-Have your friend describe the large amount of air they felt as the bowling ball came towards them
My Hypothesis: Rockets might be throwing very small bowling balls ...really really fast.
;D
And now for something completely different!
A practical experiment you can do in the privacy of your own home.
You will need:
1. A heavy weight like a bowling ball, a brick, a shot-put or your brother who always ticks you off
2. A skateboard or equivalvent device that you can sit on with low friction wheels.
3. A smooth relatively level surface like a gymnasium floor or a hardwood floor in a room of your home
( it should be level enough so the the skateboard will not roll by itself)
4. A friend who can catch heavy stuff
Method:
1. Sit on the skateboard so that nothing is touching the ground, facing in one of the directions that skateboard is pointing
2. Pick up the bowling ball
3. Throw the bowling ball at the friend
(be sure to tell them you are going throw a bowling ball at them)
-Please tell us what happened to you and the skateboard when you threw the weight
-Videos are nice to see so please feel free to share them
-Have your friend describe the large amount of air they felt as the bowling ball came towards them
My Hypothesis: Rockets might be throwing very small bowling balls ...really really fast.
;D
Amazing!
No one has ever suggested the above nonsense before...
Oh, wait:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64577.0
According to Papa Legba's voodoo physics, Newton's 3rd law does not apply to a rocket engine and its exhaust. Or much of anything else that you would think would be pretty obvious.And now for something completely different!
A practical experiment you can do in the privacy of your own home.
You will need:
1. A heavy weight like a bowling ball, a brick, a shot-put or your brother who always ticks you off
2. A skateboard or equivalvent device that you can sit on with low friction wheels.
3. A smooth relatively level surface like a gymnasium floor or a hardwood floor in a room of your home
( it should be level enough so the the skateboard will not roll by itself)
4. A friend who can catch heavy stuff
Method:
1. Sit on the skateboard so that nothing is touching the ground, facing in one of the directions that skateboard is pointing
2. Pick up the bowling ball
3. Throw the bowling ball at the friend
(be sure to tell them you are going throw a bowling ball at them)
-Please tell us what happened to you and the skateboard when you threw the weight
-Videos are nice to see so please feel free to share them
-Have your friend describe the large amount of air they felt as the bowling ball came towards them
My Hypothesis: Rockets might be throwing very small bowling balls ...really really fast.
;D
Amazing!
No one has ever suggested the above nonsense before...
Oh, wait:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64577.0
The proof that it doesn't work is...?
According to Papa Legba's voodoo physics, Newton's 3rd law does not apply to a rocket engine and its exhaust. Or much of anything else that you would think would be pretty obvious.And now for something completely different!
A practical experiment you can do in the privacy of your own home.
You will need:
1. A heavy weight like a bowling ball, a brick, a shot-put or your brother who always ticks you off
2. A skateboard or equivalvent device that you can sit on with low friction wheels.
3. A smooth relatively level surface like a gymnasium floor or a hardwood floor in a room of your home
( it should be level enough so the the skateboard will not roll by itself)
4. A friend who can catch heavy stuff
Method:
1. Sit on the skateboard so that nothing is touching the ground, facing in one of the directions that skateboard is pointing
2. Pick up the bowling ball
3. Throw the bowling ball at the friend
(be sure to tell them you are going throw a bowling ball at them)
-Please tell us what happened to you and the skateboard when you threw the weight
-Videos are nice to see so please feel free to share them
-Have your friend describe the large amount of air they felt as the bowling ball came towards them
My Hypothesis: Rockets might be throwing very small bowling balls ...really really fast.
;D
Amazing!
No one has ever suggested the above nonsense before...
Oh, wait:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64577.0
The proof that it doesn't work is...?
Oh? Then Newton's laws do apply to a rocket engine and it's exhaust? Cool.The proof that it doesn't work is...?According to Papa Legba's voodoo physics, Newton's 3rd law does not apply to a rocket engine and its exhaust. Or much of anything else that you would think would be pretty obvious.
Markbot lying again...
Oh? Then Newton's laws do apply to a rocket engine and it's exhaust? Cool.The proof that it doesn't work is...?According to Papa Legba's voodoo physics, Newton's 3rd law does not apply to a rocket engine and its exhaust. Or much of anything else that you would think would be pretty obvious.
Markbot lying again...
But if combustion gasses have mass, and the rocket engine is pushing the gasses out the back, then the gasses must be pushing the rocket engine forwards. No atmosphere required.Oh? Then Newton's laws do apply to a rocket engine and it's exhaust? Cool.The proof that it doesn't work is...?According to Papa Legba's voodoo physics, Newton's 3rd law does not apply to a rocket engine and its exhaust. Or much of anything else that you would think would be pretty obvious.
Markbot lying again...
Yes, which is why they will not work in a vacuum, as I have explained repeatedly and you are well aware.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_analogy#False_analogy
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_analogy#False_analogyYou know you don't really believe that.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_analogy#False_analogyYou know you don't really believe that.
I know you're trying to tell me what I do or don't believe.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainwashing
I've asked that question a few times. One answer was just one word, aether. The other was you are pushing ball against air pressure and that's what pushes you back.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_analogy#False_analogyYou know you don't really believe that.
I know you're trying to tell me what I do or don't believe.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainwashing
My apology. It was very presumptuous of me to assume I knew what you believe.
What I am really looking for is an alternative explanation to the skateboard/heavy-weight scenario that I cannot discern on my own. If I can't get one here, then I will hang on to the conventional explanation until a better one surfaces.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_analogy#False_analogyYou know you don't really believe that.
I know you're trying to tell me what I do or don't believe.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainwashing
My apology. It was very presumptuous of me to assume I knew what you believe.
What I am really looking for is an alternative explanation to the skateboard/heavy-weight scenario that I cannot discern on my own. If I can't get one here, then I will hang on to the conventional explanation until a better one surfaces.
You keep talking about a free body diagram but have never posted one that proves it doesn't work. Further you post many links in support of you claims and yet many of those links are about how a rocket will work in a vacuum...they usually contradict your claims about them. You are definitely a hoot to follow.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_analogy#False_analogyYou know you don't really believe that.
I know you're trying to tell me what I do or don't believe.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainwashing
My apology. It was very presumptuous of me to assume I knew what you believe.
What I am really looking for is an alternative explanation to the skateboard/heavy-weight scenario that I cannot discern on my own. If I can't get one here, then I will hang on to the conventional explanation until a better one surfaces.
It's not presumptuous of me to assume you haven't read this page, let alone this thread.
Or you'd have learnt that Newton's third law explicitly forbids rocket motion in a vacuum.
Clue - FREE BODY DIAGRAM.
You keep talking about a free body diagram but have never posted one that proves it doesn't work. Further you post many links in support of you claims and yet many of those links are about how a rocket will work in a vacuum...they usually contradict your claims about them. You are definitely a hoot to follow.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_analogy#False_analogyYou know you don't really believe that.
I know you're trying to tell me what I do or don't believe.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainwashing
My apology. It was very presumptuous of me to assume I knew what you believe.
What I am really looking for is an alternative explanation to the skateboard/heavy-weight scenario that I cannot discern on my own. If I can't get one here, then I will hang on to the conventional explanation until a better one surfaces.
It's not presumptuous of me to assume you haven't read this page, let alone this thread.
Or you'd have learnt that Newton's third law explicitly forbids rocket motion in a vacuum.
Clue - FREE BODY DIAGRAM.
Mike
Do you have a reading comprehension problem?You keep talking about a free body diagram but have never posted one that proves it doesn't work. Further you post many links in support of you claims and yet many of those links are about how a rocket will work in a vacuum...they usually contradict your claims about them. You are definitely a hoot to follow.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_analogy#False_analogyYou know you don't really believe that.
I know you're trying to tell me what I do or don't believe.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainwashing
My apology. It was very presumptuous of me to assume I knew what you believe.
What I am really looking for is an alternative explanation to the skateboard/heavy-weight scenario that I cannot discern on my own. If I can't get one here, then I will hang on to the conventional explanation until a better one surfaces.
It's not presumptuous of me to assume you haven't read this page, let alone this thread.
Or you'd have learnt that Newton's third law explicitly forbids rocket motion in a vacuum.
Clue - FREE BODY DIAGRAM.
Mike
So you claim to be a mechanical engineer yet you can't draw a free body diagram of an object surrounded by NOTHING for yourself?
Sounds legit!
Do you have a reading comprehension problem?You keep talking about a free body diagram but have never posted one that proves it doesn't work. Further you post many links in support of you claims and yet many of those links are about how a rocket will work in a vacuum...they usually contradict your claims about them. You are definitely a hoot to follow.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_analogy#False_analogyYou know you don't really believe that.
I know you're trying to tell me what I do or don't believe.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainwashing
My apology. It was very presumptuous of me to assume I knew what you believe.
What I am really looking for is an alternative explanation to the skateboard/heavy-weight scenario that I cannot discern on my own. If I can't get one here, then I will hang on to the conventional explanation until a better one surfaces.
It's not presumptuous of me to assume you haven't read this page, let alone this thread.
Or you'd have learnt that Newton's third law explicitly forbids rocket motion in a vacuum.
Clue - FREE BODY DIAGRAM.
Mike
So you claim to be a mechanical engineer yet you can't draw a free body diagram of an object surrounded by NOTHING for yourself?
Sounds legit!
I never said I couldn't do it. I said you've never posted one that proves rockets won't work in space.
Mike
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_analogy#False_analogyYou know you don't really believe that.
I know you're trying to tell me what I do or don't believe.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainwashing
My apology. It was very presumptuous of me to assume I knew what you believe.
What I am really looking for is an alternative explanation to the skateboard/heavy-weight scenario that I cannot discern on my own. If I can't get one here, then I will hang on to the conventional explanation until a better one surfaces.
It's not presumptuous of me to assume you haven't read this page, let alone this thread.
Or you'd have learnt that Newton's third law explicitly forbids rocket motion in a vacuum.
Clue - FREE BODY DIAGRAM.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_analogy#False_analogyYou know you don't really believe that.
I know you're trying to tell me what I do or don't believe.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainwashing
My apology. It was very presumptuous of me to assume I knew what you believe.
What I am really looking for is an alternative explanation to the skateboard/heavy-weight scenario that I cannot discern on my own. If I can't get one here, then I will hang on to the conventional explanation until a better one surfaces.
It's not presumptuous of me to assume you haven't read this page, let alone this thread.
Or you'd have learnt that Newton's third law explicitly forbids rocket motion in a vacuum.
Clue - FREE BODY DIAGRAM.
Well you lost me there.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_analogy#False_analogyYou know you don't really believe that.
I know you're trying to tell me what I do or don't believe.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainwashing
My apology. It was very presumptuous of me to assume I knew what you believe.
What I am really looking for is an alternative explanation to the skateboard/heavy-weight scenario that I cannot discern on my own. If I can't get one here, then I will hang on to the conventional explanation until a better one surfaces.
It's not presumptuous of me to assume you haven't read this page, let alone this thread.
Or you'd have learnt that Newton's third law explicitly forbids rocket motion in a vacuum.
Clue - FREE BODY DIAGRAM.
Well you lost me there.
Unsurprising.
I lose all the other mad shill bots there too, so you're nothing different.
Whatever...A very succinct post Legba, keep up the good work. Anybody truly looking for the truth about shpayz rokkits will find it here.
Back to the Gas Laws you all lie about...
Please read:
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/chemistry/thermodynamics-chemistry/internal-energy-sal/a/pressure-volume-work
In it you will find the equation used to determine the amount of Work done by a Gas...
The equation is: Work = external Pressure x change in Volume.
As the external Pressure in a Vacuum is ZERO, then a Gas introduced into a Vacuum will do ZERO Work.
And without WORK there can be neither POWER nor FORCE, & thus no MOTION:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/work.html
Moreover, the experiment to prove this FACT was one of the mathematical & conceptual foundations of Thermodynamics:
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node33.html
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=eYQHIjkaEroC&pg=PA39&lpg=PA39&dq=joule+free+expansion+conservation+of+energy&source=bl&ots=lNNu7CV1-P&sig=YMAwtaJTmLf7BF4Ts4jcWzVTY98&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjWv6XJh6rPAhXEOxoKHXskDjw4ChDoAQgfMAE#v=onepage&q=joule%20free%20expansion%20conservation%20of%20energy&f=false
Again, I will quote the relevant section: "Joule noticed that in this process (i.e. Free Expansion) the gas does not 'develop mechanical power' i.e. no mechanical work is performed either by or on the gas".
Pretty conclusive: a gas-POWERED rocket cannot possibly do WORK in a vacuum.
To claim that it does is to violate the very foundations of the Laws of Thermodynamics: FACT.
And no matter how much you stamp your feet & try to turn the page on these scientific FACTS they simply will not go away...
Sucks to be you; oh yes it does!
Toodle-pip, LOSERS!
Whatever...So you want us to believe that an enclosed system doing work against an external pressure is proof rockets don’t work in a vacuum. Work done by a change in pressure and volume doesn’t apply to a rocket where the work done is due to mass and energy leaving the system and is independent of external pressure. IOW, it just plain doesn’t apply to rockets.
Back to the Gas Laws you all lie about...
Please read:
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/chemistry/thermodynamics-chemistry/internal-energy-sal/a/pressure-volume-work
In it you will find the equation used to determine the amount of Work done by a Gas...
The equation is: Work = external Pressure x change in Volume.
As the external Pressure in a Vacuum is ZERO, then a Gas introduced into a Vacuum will do ZERO Work.
And without WORK there can be neither POWER nor FORCE, & thus no MOTION:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/work.html
Moreover, the experiment to prove this FACT was one of the mathematical & conceptual foundations of Thermodynamics:
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node33.html
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=eYQHIjkaEroC&pg=PA39&lpg=PA39&dq=joule+free+expansion+conservation+of+energy&source=bl&ots=lNNu7CV1-P&sig=YMAwtaJTmLf7BF4Ts4jcWzVTY98&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjWv6XJh6rPAhXEOxoKHXskDjw4ChDoAQgfMAE#v=onepage&q=joule%20free%20expansion%20conservation%20of%20energy&f=false
Again, I will quote the relevant section: "Joule noticed that in this process (i.e. Free Expansion) the gas does not 'develop mechanical power' i.e. no mechanical work is performed either by or on the gas".
Pretty conclusive: a gas-POWERED rocket cannot possibly do WORK in a vacuum.
To claim that it does is to violate the very foundations of the Laws of Thermodynamics: FACT.
And no matter how much you stamp your feet & try to turn the page on these scientific FACTS they simply will not go away...
Sucks to be you; oh yes it does!
Toodle-pip, LOSERS!
How's that free body diagram coming along, microbotter?I'm not doing a free body diagram so don't expect one any time soon.
You know, the one nobody here seems able to make, even though all it would show is a square with a dot in the middle and nothing else?
Still, your mad post seemed to be implying that Newton's second and third laws are interchangeable, and that rockets are immune to the laws of Thermodynamics, so no surprise you can't do it...
How's that free body diagram coming along, microbotter?I'm not doing a free body diagram so don't expect one any time soon.
You know, the one nobody here seems able to make, even though all it would show is a square with a dot in the middle and nothing else?
Still, your mad post seemed to be implying that Newton's second and third laws are interchangeable, and that rockets are immune to the laws of Thermodynamics, so no surprise you can't do it...
Interesting how you deleted and ignored the rest of my post. Ya got no response so ignore it and attack the poster...typical.How's that free body diagram coming along, microbotter?I'm not doing a free body diagram so don't expect one any time soon.
You know, the one nobody here seems able to make, even though all it would show is a square with a dot in the middle and nothing else?
Still, your mad post seemed to be implying that Newton's second and third laws are interchangeable, and that rockets are immune to the laws of Thermodynamics, so no surprise you can't do it...
Yeah cos it'd prove a rocket can't work in a vacuum...
Next!
Interesting how you deleted and ignored the rest of my post.How's that free body diagram coming along, microbotter?I'm not doing a free body diagram so don't expect one any time soon.
You know, the one nobody here seems able to make, even though all it would show is a square with a dot in the middle and nothing else?
Still, your mad post seemed to be implying that Newton's second and third laws are interchangeable, and that rockets are immune to the laws of Thermodynamics, so no surprise you can't do it...
Yeah cos it'd prove a rocket can't work in a vacuum...
Next!
Interesting how you deleted and ignored the rest of my post.How's that free body diagram coming along, microbotter?I'm not doing a free body diagram so don't expect one any time soon.
You know, the one nobody here seems able to make, even though all it would show is a square with a dot in the middle and nothing else?
Still, your mad post seemed to be implying that Newton's second and third laws are interchangeable, and that rockets are immune to the laws of Thermodynamics, so no surprise you can't do it...
Yeah cos it'd prove a rocket can't work in a vacuum...
Next!
Just did it again.
Because you claim to be a mechanical engineer yet you cannot draw the simplest Free body diagram possible, claim rockets are immune to Thermodynamics and think Newton's laws are all interchangeable.
You're just a time waster.
Next!
I told you several times I wasn’t doing an FBD yet you keep coming back to that. Nothing but a piss poor attempt to avoid the discussion at hand. Ignoring the fact that I never said I was doing and you attempts to shame me are just pathetic.Interesting how you deleted and ignored the rest of my post.How's that free body diagram coming along, microbotter?I'm not doing a free body diagram so don't expect one any time soon.
You know, the one nobody here seems able to make, even though all it would show is a square with a dot in the middle and nothing else?
Still, your mad post seemed to be implying that Newton's second and third laws are interchangeable, and that rockets are immune to the laws of Thermodynamics, so no surprise you can't do it...
Yeah cos it'd prove a rocket can't work in a vacuum...
Next!
Just did it again.
Because you claim to be a mechanical engineer yet you cannot draw the simplest Free body diagram possible, claim rockets are immune to Thermodynamics and think Newton's laws are all interchangeable.
You're just a time waster.
Next!
Interesting how you deleted and ignored the rest of my post.How's that free body diagram coming along, microbotter?I'm not doing a free body diagram so don't expect one any time soon.
You know, the one nobody here seems able to make, even though all it would show is a square with a dot in the middle and nothing else?
Still, your mad post seemed to be implying that Newton's second and third laws are interchangeable, and that rockets are immune to the laws of Thermodynamics, so no surprise you can't do it...
Yeah cos it'd prove a rocket can't work in a vacuum...
Next!
Just did it again.
Because you claim to be a mechanical engineer yet you cannot draw the simplest Free body diagram possible, claim rockets are immune to Thermodynamics and think Newton's laws are all interchangeable.
You're just a time waster.
Next!
I'm happy to discuss this without resorting to memes but I understand you don't like me.
in the meantime here's some OC.
(https://s14.postimg.org/4conmte9d/spayze.png)
The second force vector must come from a mass external to the rocket.
The second force vector must come from a mass external to the rocket.
Yes a force vector of the gas and the rocket, the acceleration of mass in the form of gas causes a force and due to every action having an equal and opposite reaction the gas and the rocket are propelled away from each other. Two force vectors.
When the rocket accelerates the mass of its fuel, there are also two equal and opposite forces, one on the gas and one on the rocket,
I'm not a M.E but I know someone who might draw one up if you ask him nicely.
The exhaust of a rocket is a force exerted by the rocket itself.Why is the exhaust moving in the opposite direction of the rocket if the exhaust moves with the rocket?
This is easily confirmed by simple observation, whereby it can be seen that the exhaust moves with the rocket at all times:
Oh and btw, all that the oldfags on 4chan are talking about these days is how the place has been ruined irreparably by bots and shills...
The exhaust of a rocket is a force exerted by the rocket itself.Why is the exhaust moving in the opposite direction of the rocket if the exhaust moves with the rocket?
This is easily confirmed by simple observation, whereby it can be seen that the exhaust moves with the rocket at all times:
And when the exhaust pushes off a rocket engine?The exhaust of a rocket is a force exerted by the rocket itself.Why is the exhaust moving in the opposite direction of the rocket if the exhaust moves with the rocket?
This is easily confirmed by simple observation, whereby it can be seen that the exhaust moves with the rocket at all times:
The same reason your arm moves in the opposite direction to your body when you push off a wall and your legs move in the opposite direction to your body when you run, etc, etc, etc, etc...
And when the exhaust pushes off a rocket engine?The exhaust of a rocket is a force exerted by the rocket itself.Why is the exhaust moving in the opposite direction of the rocket if the exhaust moves with the rocket?
This is easily confirmed by simple observation, whereby it can be seen that the exhaust moves with the rocket at all times:
The same reason your arm moves in the opposite direction to your body when you push off a wall and your legs move in the opposite direction to your body when you run, etc, etc, etc, etc...
The exhaust of a rocket is a force exerted by the rocket itself.
This is easily confirmed by simple observation, whereby it can be seen that the exhaust moves with the rocket at all times:
Thus, it cannot be included in any analysis of how rocket motion is created using a free body diagram:
This is why you refuse to supply said free body diagram - because it would prove me correct.
*sigh*
How's this for a free body diagram?
https://www.kentshillphysics.net/physics-with-rockets/rockets-and-forces/
(https://www.kentshillphysics.net/s/cc_images/cache_663863404.png?t=1364920462)
Space is not a perfect vacuum, so there is an infinitesimal amount of drag.*sigh*
How's this for a free body diagram?
https://www.kentshillphysics.net/physics-with-rockets/rockets-and-forces/
(https://www.kentshillphysics.net/s/cc_images/cache_663863404.png?t=1364920462)
Drag?
In a vacuum?
Also, thrust is a force exerted by the body, so should not be included...No. Thrust is a force exerted by the expanding combustion gasses.
And gravity has no place either, as I asked for a rocket surrounded by nothing.Of course gravity is included. Are you saying that a rocket in space is not subject to earth's gravity?
Best of all though is the source: kentSHILLphysics...Obligatory ad hominem noted.
You just can't help yourself, can you?It seems that you can't either.
Space is not a perfect vacuum, so there is an infinitesimal amount of drag.*sigh*
How's this for a free body diagram?
https://www.kentshillphysics.net/physics-with-rockets/rockets-and-forces/
(https://www.kentshillphysics.net/s/cc_images/cache_663863404.png?t=1364920462)
Drag?
In a vacuum?Also, thrust is a force exerted by the body, so should not be included...No. Thrust is a force exerted by the expanding combustion gasses.And gravity has no place either, as I asked for a rocket surrounded by nothing.Of course gravity is included. Are you saying that a rocket in space is not subject to earth's gravity?Best of all though is the source: kentSHILLphysics...Obligatory ad hominem noted.You just can't help yourself, can you?It seems that you can't either.
You didn't even realise the free body diagram you supplied was allegedly from a rocket flying in Earth's atmosphere, did you?And to prove your point you provide a page from NASA about airplanes?
And it was still wrong.
Thrust is most definitely a force exerted by the rocket, markbot, even NASA admit that:
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/thrust1.html
Are you now going to claim that the rocket and its engine are two separate objects?No. I'm going to claim that a rocket engine and its propellant are two separate objects.
You didn't even realise the free body diagram you supplied was allegedly from a rocket flying in Earth's atmosphere, did you?And to prove your point you provide a page from NASA about airplanes?
And it was still wrong.
Thrust is most definitely a force exerted by the rocket, markbot, even NASA admit that:
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/thrust1.html
And to prove your point you provide a page from NASA about airplanes?
Yes because it also stated the same of rocket engines.
Thanks for proving once again that you don't read any links, even your own, and just lie about everything.
The thrust equation describes how the acceleration of the gas produces a force.
Which means the debate is over and you have lost, doesn't it?I suppose that depends on how trustworthy you consider your links to be.
I read this in the link that your provided (did you?):Quote from: https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/thrust1.htmlThe thrust equation describes how the acceleration of the gas produces a force.
And that accelerated gas exerts an equal and opposite force on the engine.I read this in the link that your provided (did you?):Quote from: https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/thrust1.htmlThe thrust equation describes how the acceleration of the gas produces a force.
I not only read it but I understood it (unlike you).
Because it is the engine that accelerates the gas, and therefore it is the engine that is exerting the force.
Because it is the engine that accelerates the gas, and therefore it is the engine that is exerting the force.And that accelerated gas exerts an equal and opposite force on the engine.
BTW, since when is NASA a reputable source?
No, I haven't changed my mind about NASA, but apparently you have.BTW, since when is NASA a reputable source?
Dunno, you're the one thinks everything they've ever said, ever, is absolutely true, forever and ever, Amen...
Changed your mind, markbot?
No, I haven't changed my mind about NASA, but apparently you have.BTW, since when is NASA a reputable source?
Dunno, you're the one thinks everything they've ever said, ever, is absolutely true, forever and ever, Amen...
Changed your mind, markbot?
I'll take your angry rant as an admission that you lost and rockets work just fine in a vacuum.No, I haven't changed my mind about NASA, but apparently you have.BTW, since when is NASA a reputable source?
Dunno, you're the one thinks everything they've ever said, ever, is absolutely true, forever and ever, Amen...
Changed your mind, markbot?
More shitposting, saying NO U and circular argumentation...
Good job proving this place is run by an AI shillgorithm!
Because it is the engine that accelerates the gas, and therefore it is the engine that is exerting the force.And that accelerated gas exerts an equal and opposite force on the engine.
Lol I outsmarted the markbot and the sockbot and got top post on the page...
Which is all they really care about when it comes down to it.
Now they're very butthurt indeed and shitposting like mad I bet, but I got em on ignore so can't read their bullshit...
kek
I'll take your angry rant as an admission that you lost and rockets work just fine in a vacuum.
I'll take your angry rant as an admission that you lost and rockets work just fine in a vacuum.
And I'll take your lying shitpost, NO U, and circular argumentation as an admission that you are an AI shillgorithm.
First post on this page explains all the science, markbot...
Because it is the engine that accelerates the gas, and therefore it is the engine that is exerting the force.And that accelerated gas exerts an equal and opposite force on the engine.
Back to the Gas Laws you all lie about...
Please read:
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/chemistry/thermodynamics-chemistry/internal-energy-sal/a/pressure-volume-work
In it you will find the equation used to determine the amount of Work done by a Gas...
The equation is: Work = external Pressure x change in Volume.
As the external Pressure in a Vacuum is ZERO, then a Gas introduced into a Vacuum will do ZERO Work.
And without WORK there can be neither POWER nor FORCE, & thus no MOTION:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/work.html
Moreover, the experiment to prove this FACT was one of the mathematical & conceptual foundations of Thermodynamics:
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node33.html
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=eYQHIjkaEroC&pg=PA39&lpg=PA39&dq=joule+free+expansion+conservation+of+energy&source=bl&ots=lNNu7CV1-P&sig=YMAwtaJTmLf7BF4Ts4jcWzVTY98&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjWv6XJh6rPAhXEOxoKHXskDjw4ChDoAQgfMAE#v=onepage&q=joule%20free%20expansion%20conservation%20of%20energy&f=false
Again, I will quote the relevant section: "Joule noticed that in this process (i.e. Free Expansion) the gas does not 'develop mechanical power' i.e. no mechanical work is performed either by or on the gas".
Pretty conclusive: a gas-POWERED rocket cannot possibly do WORK in a vacuum.
To claim that it does is to violate the very foundations of the Laws of Thermodynamics: FACT.
And no matter how much you stamp your feet & try to turn the page on these scientific FACTS they simply will not go away...
Sucks to be you; oh yes it does!
Toodle-pip, LOSERS!
And that accelerated gas exerts an equal and opposite force on the engine.
Real science backed up by relevant citations:LOL!! It's so cute that you still think that the pressure volume law is relevant to rocket engines.Back to the Gas Laws you all lie about...
Please read:
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/chemistry/thermodynamics-chemistry/internal-energy-sal/a/pressure-volume-work
Falcon heavy was around 1.4 million kg at launch. Air's density is 1.223 kg/m3.
How do you suppose a rocket that heavy pushed off air?
Real science backed up by relevant citations:LOL!! It's so cute that you still think that the pressure volume law is relevant to rocket engines.Back to the Gas Laws you all lie about...
Please read:
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/chemistry/thermodynamics-chemistry/internal-energy-sal/a/pressure-volume-work
Maybe you should look at the gas laws that are relevant to rockets:
https://prezi.com/i8p1non4zbby/gas-laws-rockets/
Real science backed up by relevant citations:LOL!! It's so cute that you still think that the pressure volume law is relevant to rocket engines.Back to the Gas Laws you all lie about...
Please read:
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/chemistry/thermodynamics-chemistry/internal-energy-sal/a/pressure-volume-work
Maybe you should look at the gas laws that are relevant to rockets:
https://prezi.com/i8p1non4zbby/gas-laws-rockets/
Maybe you should read your links, botty boy...
First page: "exhaust is thrust onto the ground and the rocket reacts by lifting off the ground and flying away".
So your source agrees with me that a rocket works by pushing off a mass external to itself.
However, once the ground is left behind, what other external mass could the rocket be pushing off, markbot?
There is only one possibility: the external mass of the atmosphere through which it moves.
Remove that external amospheric mass, as in a vacuum, and it will have nothing to push off.
Ergo it will be unable to move.
QED.
As ever, you lose.
Because you are this:
https://medium.com/artificial-intelligence-policy-laws-and-ethics/artificial-intelligence-chatbots-will-overwhelm-human-speech-online-the-rise-of-madcoms-e007818f31a1
kekkle
However, once the ground is left behind, what other external mass could the rocket be pushing off, markbot?Would you care to show me the equation used to determine how much atmospheric mass a rocket pushes off of?
There is only one possibility: the external mass of the atmosphere through which it moves.
However, once the ground is left behind, what other external mass could the rocket be pushing off, markbot?Would you care to show me the equation used to determine how much atmospheric mass a rocket pushes off of?
There is only one possibility: the external mass of the atmosphere through which it moves.
You're right. A rocket pushing off the atmosphere doesn't make sense. That's what we've been trying to tell you all along.However, once the ground is left behind, what other external mass could the rocket be pushing off, markbot?Would you care to show me the equation used to determine how much atmospheric mass a rocket pushes off of?
There is only one possibility: the external mass of the atmosphere through which it moves.
That doesn't really make sense...
You're right. A rocket pushing off the atmosphere doesn't make sense. That's what we've been trying to tell you all along.However, once the ground is left behind, what other external mass could the rocket be pushing off, markbot?Would you care to show me the equation used to determine how much atmospheric mass a rocket pushes off of?
There is only one possibility: the external mass of the atmosphere through which it moves.
That doesn't really make sense...
Obligatory ad hominem? Check.You're right. A rocket pushing off the atmosphere doesn't make sense. That's what we've been trying to tell you all along.However, once the ground is left behind, what other external mass could the rocket be pushing off, markbot?Would you care to show me the equation used to determine how much atmospheric mass a rocket pushes off of?
There is only one possibility: the external mass of the atmosphere through which it moves.
That doesn't really make sense...
Lying? Check.
Shitposting? Check.
Saying NO U? Check.
Circular argumentation? Check.
Typical markbot AI shillgorithm post.
Obligatory ad hominem? Check.
However, once the ground is left behind, what other external mass could the rocket be pushing off, markbot?Would you care to show me the equation used to determine how much atmospheric mass a rocket pushes off of?
There is only one possibility: the external mass of the atmosphere through which it moves.
That doesn't really make sense, as the correct answer is 'a non zero amount', but here is the relevant equation anyway:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion#Newton's_third_law
High school stuff, but beyond your limited processing capacity it seems...
Btw, you and the sockbot doing your pathetic good cop/bad cop routine makes it absolutely undeniable that you are AI bots...
Just FYI.
Then why do you keep responding? What kind of idiot argues with a bot?Obligatory ad hominem? Check.
Lie, shitpost, NO U and circular argumentation again.
I cannot attack the man, markbot, as you are not a man.
You are an AI algorithm.
Exhaust pushes against atmosphere. Atmosphere pushes against exhaust. What pushes against rocket?However, once the ground is left behind, what other external mass could the rocket be pushing off, markbot?Would you care to show me the equation used to determine how much atmospheric mass a rocket pushes off of?
There is only one possibility: the external mass of the atmosphere through which it moves.
That doesn't really make sense, as the correct answer is 'a non zero amount', but here is the relevant equation anyway:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion#Newton's_third_law
High school stuff, but beyond your limited processing capacity it seems...
Btw, you and the sockbot doing your pathetic good cop/bad cop routine makes it absolutely undeniable that you are AI bots...
Just FYI.
Time to call in your sockbot again?
Or whoever, you have thousands...
Because it is the engine that accelerates the gas, and therefore it is the engine that is exerting the force.And that accelerated gas exerts an equal and opposite force on the engine.
Then why do you keep responding? What kind of idiot argues with a bot?Obligatory ad hominem? Check.
Lie, shitpost, NO U and circular argumentation again.
I cannot attack the man, markbot, as you are not a man.
You are an AI algorithm.
And Papa Legba admits that he's an idiot for arguing with a bot.Then why do you keep responding? What kind of idiot argues with a bot?Obligatory ad hominem? Check.
Lie, shitpost, NO U and circular argumentation again.
I cannot attack the man, markbot, as you are not a man.
You are an AI algorithm.
The Markjo AI algorithm finally admits that it is a bot.
That doesn't really make sense, but here is the relevant equation anyway:Why does the Voodoo always stop reading before it gets to the interesting bits.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion#Newton's_third_law
Under the Second Law it says "see below", Se let's see below:
In an inertial reference frame, the vector sum of the forces F on an object is equal to the mass m of that object multiplied by the acceleration a of the object: F = ma.
(It is assumed here that the mass m is constant – see below.)When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body.
Variable-mass systems
Variable-mass systems, like a rocket burning fuel and ejecting spent gases, are not closed and cannot be directly treated by making mass a function of time in the second law; that is, the following formula is wrong:
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/5e22d3897a72ee02ca8571d248af322dbc3ef8cf)
The falsehood of this formula can be seen by noting that it does not respect Galilean invariance: a variable-mass object with F = 0 in one frame will be seen to have F ≠ 0 in another frame. The correct equation of motion for a body whose mass m varies with time by either ejecting or accreting mass is obtained by applying the second law to the entire, constant-mass system consisting of the body and its ejected/accreted mass; the result is
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/dd04fc6ba6465afcb00907ce0a998595955c39df)
where u is the velocity of the escaping or incoming mass relative to the body. From this equation one can derive the equation of motion for a varying mass system, for example, the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation. Under some conventions, the quantity u dm/dt on the left-hand side, which represents the advection of momentum, is defined as a force (the force exerted on the body by the changing mass, such as rocket exhaust) and is included in the quantity F. Then, by substituting the definition of acceleration, the equation becomes F = ma.
From: Wikipedia, Newton's laws of motion (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion#Newton's_third_law)
That doesn't really make sense, but here is the relevant equation anyway:Why does the Voodoo always stop reading before it gets to the interesting bits.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion#Newton's_third_law
Fuel contributes a significant amount to the initial mass of the rocket. Burning the fuel creates thrust and reduces the mass of the rocket. Conversation of momentum should then be considered.
All for Newtonian Physics can be summed up with F=ma
Fuel contributes a significant amount to the initial mass of the rocket. Burning the fuel creates thrust and reduces the mass of the rocket. Conversation of momentum should then be considered.
All for Newtonian Physics can be summed up with F=ma
Yet another shillbot joins the forum only to instantly spam my thread with nonsense.
Fuel contributes a significant amount to the initial mass of the rocket. Burning the fuel creates thrust and reduces the mass of the rocket. Conversation of momentum should then be considered.
All for Newtonian Physics can be summed up with F=ma
Yet another shillbot joins the forum only to instantly spam my thread with nonsense.
And you attack the person making the argument rather than the argument itself.
Fuel contributes a significant amount to the initial mass of the rocket. Burning the fuel creates thrust and reduces the mass of the rocket. Conversation of momentum should then be considered.
All for Newtonian Physics can be summed up with F=ma
Yet another shillbot joins the forum only to instantly spam my thread with nonsense.
And you attack the person making the argument rather than the argument itself.
Fuel contributes a significant amount to the initial mass of the rocket. Burning the fuel creates thrust and reduces the mass of the rocket. Conversation of momentum should then be considered.
All for Newtonian Physics can be summed up with F=ma
Yet another shillbot joins the forum only to instantly spam my thread with nonsense.
And you attack the person making the argument rather than the argument itself.
And you attack the attack. What does that say about you?
Fuel contributes a significant amount to the initial mass of the rocket. Burning the fuel creates thrust and reduces the mass of the rocket. Conversation of momentum should then be considered.
All for Newtonian Physics can be summed up with F=ma
Yet another shillbot joins the forum only to instantly spam my thread with nonsense.
And you attack the person making the argument rather than the argument itself.
And you attack the attack. What does that say about you?
I contributed an observation that I have yet to see in this thread - that the total mass decreases during flight as fuel is burnt.
He implied I wasn't actually human and that what I had typed was nonsense.
That is quite different.
Fuel contributes a significant amount to the initial mass of the rocket. Burning the fuel creates thrust and reduces the mass of the rocket. Conversation of momentum should then be considered.
All for Newtonian Physics can be summed up with F=ma
Yet another shillbot joins the forum only to instantly spam my thread with nonsense.
And you attack the person making the argument rather than the argument itself.
And you attack the attack. What does that say about you?
I contributed an observation that I have yet to see in this thread - that the total mass decreases during flight as fuel is burnt.
He implied I wasn't actually human and that what I had typed was nonsense.
That is quite different.
To be fair you said some mad shit about Newton's laws too...
Fuel contributes a significant amount to the initial mass of the rocket. Burning the fuel creates thrust and reduces the mass of the rocket. Conversation of momentum should then be considered.
All for Newtonian Physics can be summed up with F=ma
Yet another shillbot joins the forum only to instantly spam my thread with nonsense.
And you attack the person making the argument rather than the argument itself.
And you attack the attack. What does that say about you?
I contributed an observation that I have yet to see in this thread - that the total mass decreases during flight as fuel is burnt.
He implied I wasn't actually human and that what I had typed was nonsense.
That is quite different.
To be fair you said some mad shit about Newton's laws too...
The entire comment was about NP. The m in "F=ma" represents mass.
I assume you will now provide the refutation.
Fuel contributes a significant amount to the initial mass of the rocket. Burning the fuel creates thrust and reduces the mass of the rocket. Conversation of momentum should then be considered.
All for Newtonian Physics can be summed up with F=ma
Yet another shillbot joins the forum only to instantly spam my thread with nonsense.
And you attack the person making the argument rather than the argument itself.
And you attack the attack. What does that say about you?
I contributed an observation that I have yet to see in this thread - that the total mass decreases during flight as fuel is burnt.
He implied I wasn't actually human and that what I had typed was nonsense.
That is quite different.
To be fair you said some mad shit about Newton's laws too...
The entire comment was about NP. The m in "F=ma" represents mass.
I assume you will now provide the refutation.
Already did...
It's nonsense, written by a bot.
Now, to prevent further time wasting, I shall put your bot self on ignore.
Fuel contributes a significant amount to the initial mass of the rocket. Burning the fuel creates thrust and reduces the mass of the rocket. Conversation of momentum should then be considered.
All for Newtonian Physics can be summed up with F=ma
Fuel contributes a significant amount to the initial mass of the rocket. Burning the fuel creates thrust and reduces the mass of the rocket. Conversation of momentum should then be considered.
All for Newtonian Physics can be summed up with F=ma
Clearly an alt/bot or both.
Rockets work in a vacuum
see
if you want to understand the basic phyiscs of why they work in a vacuum, there a lots of good high school and primary school resources for you to up educate yourself on
If nothing else, it does prove that propellant can ignite in a vacuum.Rockets work in a vacuum
see
if you want to understand the basic phyiscs of why they work in a vacuum, there a lots of good high school and primary school resources for you to up educate yourself on
Replicating an infinite hard vacuum in a skinny plexiglass tube?
Sounds legit!
If nothing else, it does prove that propellant can ignite in a vacuum.Rockets work in a vacuum
see
if you want to understand the basic phyiscs of why they work in a vacuum, there a lots of good high school and primary school resources for you to up educate yourself on
Replicating an infinite hard vacuum in a skinny plexiglass tube?
Sounds legit!
Since you seem to know everything about everything, please grace us with your knowledge and tell us poor, ignorant fools just how hard the vacuum must be before propellant won't ignite.If nothing else, it does prove that propellant can ignite in a vacuum.Rockets work in a vacuum
see
if you want to understand the basic phyiscs of why they work in a vacuum, there a lots of good high school and primary school resources for you to up educate yourself on
Replicating an infinite hard vacuum in a skinny plexiglass tube?
Sounds legit!
Incorrect.
If you think that stupid contraption came anywhere near full vacuum you are...
Oh, hang on, it's just the markbot lying and shitposting as usual.
Replicating an infinite hard vacuum in a skinny plexiglass tube?
Sounds legit!
And no free body diagram of an object surrounded by nothing, as usual...
Another sockbot goes on ignore.
I think I literally lost all of my brain cells reading this thread. Holy shit how can one be so ignorant to not know, after just 5 seconds of research, that free expansion applies only to a closed system, AND ideal gases? Even Heiwa had to call Papa out on his bullshit. WTF.Well, having shares in a company sending rockets and satellites into Earth orbits, I know rockets work doing just that - sending satellites into orbits. Everything else is fake.
And there's the ignorance we all have come to knowI think I literally lost all of my brain cells reading this thread. Holy shit how can one be so ignorant to not know, after just 5 seconds of research, that free expansion applies only to a closed system, AND ideal gases? Even Heiwa had to call Papa out on his bullshit. WTF.Well, having shares in a company sending rockets and satellites into Earth orbits, I know rockets work doing just that - sending satellites into orbits. Everything else is fake.
I think I literally lost all of my brain cells reading this thread. Holy shit how can one be so ignorant to not know, after just 5 seconds of research, that free expansion applies only to a closed system, AND ideal gases? Even Heiwa had to call Papa out on his bullshit. WTF.Well, having shares in a company sending rockets and satellites into Earth orbits, I know rockets work doing just that - sending satellites into orbits. Everything else is fake.
Thanks for asking. You have not understood what I say. Yes, you can put man-made satellites into different orbits of Earth using rockets but that's all. They can later not start orbiting the Sun or fly away to the Moon and land there because they lack the fuel and navigation equipment to do it, simply saying. So I describe plenty NASA missions at my popular website where NASA fakes it. NASA doesn't like it, of course, that I describe it as a criminal organization stealing money from tax payers.I think I literally lost all of my brain cells reading this thread. Holy shit how can one be so ignorant to not know, after just 5 seconds of research, that free expansion applies only to a closed system, AND ideal gases? Even Heiwa had to call Papa out on his bullshit. WTF.Well, having shares in a company sending rockets and satellites into Earth orbits, I know rockets work doing just that - sending satellites into orbits. Everything else is fake.
Heiwa, I still don't understand your method of thinking, or logic, or whatever. Please don't link to your site. I've seen you claim before than no object can change their orbit, head into a heliocentric orbit, etc. Why? What's so impossible about this?
They can later not start orbiting the Sun or fly away to the Moon and land there because they lack the fuel and navigation equipment to do it, simply saying.This is incorrect.
Let me get this straight. You have shares in a company that puts satellites into orbit. You know rockets can insert them into orbit. You know these satellites can move between orbital heights and orbital slots.I think I literally lost all of my brain cells reading this thread. Holy shit how can one be so ignorant to not know, after just 5 seconds of research, that free expansion applies only to a closed system, AND ideal gases? Even Heiwa had to call Papa out on his bullshit. WTF.Well, having shares in a company sending rockets and satellites into Earth orbits, I know rockets work doing just that - sending satellites into orbits. Everything else is fake.
Not quite. He agrees that getting to orbit is possible, but reentry isn't. He seems to think that life support and extra fuel are insurmountable problems too.Let me get this straight. You have shares in a company that puts satellites into orbit. You know rockets can insert them into orbit. You know these satellites can move between orbital heights and orbital slots.I think I literally lost all of my brain cells reading this thread. Holy shit how can one be so ignorant to not know, after just 5 seconds of research, that free expansion applies only to a closed system, AND ideal gases? Even Heiwa had to call Papa out on his bullshit. WTF.Well, having shares in a company sending rockets and satellites into Earth orbits, I know rockets work doing just that - sending satellites into orbits. Everything else is fake.
You believe it works well enough to invest your money in them. What a fuckin’ hypocrite.
So, you know that they do everything you say manned spacecraft can’t do. Either they work or they don’t work. It makes no difference whether it’s manned or unmanned.
Mike
Let me get this straight. You have shares in a company that puts satellites into orbit. You know rockets can insert them into orbit. You know these satellites can move between orbital heights and orbital slots.I think I literally lost all of my brain cells reading this thread. Holy shit how can one be so ignorant to not know, after just 5 seconds of research, that free expansion applies only to a closed system, AND ideal gases? Even Heiwa had to call Papa out on his bullshit. WTF.Well, having shares in a company sending rockets and satellites into Earth orbits, I know rockets work doing just that - sending satellites into orbits. Everything else is fake.
You believe it works well enough to invest your money in them. What a fuckin’ hypocrite.
So, you know that they do everything you say manned spacecraft can’t do. Either they work or they don’t work. It makes no difference whether it’s manned or unmanned.
Mike
More failure and baseless claims. Until you prove you have the money, your challenges are fake. Until you post evidence to your bullshit claims here you are failure.Let me get this straight. You have shares in a company that puts satellites into orbit. You know rockets can insert them into orbit. You know these satellites can move between orbital heights and orbital slots.I think I literally lost all of my brain cells reading this thread. Holy shit how can one be so ignorant to not know, after just 5 seconds of research, that free expansion applies only to a closed system, AND ideal gases? Even Heiwa had to call Papa out on his bullshit. WTF.Well, having shares in a company sending rockets and satellites into Earth orbits, I know rockets work doing just that - sending satellites into orbits. Everything else is fake.
You believe it works well enough to invest your money in them. What a fuckin’ hypocrite.
So, you know that they do everything you say manned spacecraft can’t do. Either they work or they don’t work. It makes no difference whether it’s manned or unmanned.
Mike
Hello Mikrobrain,
Yes it is correct that I am shareholder of Airbus NV that is part owner of Arianespace SA that sends satellites into orbits around the Earth since many years using very simple rockets. That is all they can do. They cannot send humans into space and they cannot ensure that their rockets or satellites later re-enter and land on Earth for the simple reason it is physically impossible.
Reason why I am a shareholder is that I make more money being it than to crawl around inside old, rusty seagoing ships looking for cracks and other defects. It enables me to have a popular website about official lies and hoaxes by various governments about:
atomic bombs 1945,
human beings in space 1969,
ships floating on deck houses 1994,
skyscrapers becoming dust due to Arabs 2001 and
hot fission on Earth down the road from me 2035.
I pay you and anyone €1M showing I am wrong.
Good luck!
But the money is invested all over the place. Visit my office for coffee and I will tell you more. http://heiwaco.comMore failure and baseless claims. Until you prove you have the money, your challenges are fake. Until you post evidence to your bullshit claims here you are failure.Let me get this straight. You have shares in a company that puts satellites into orbit. You know rockets can insert them into orbit. You know these satellites can move between orbital heights and orbital slots.I think I literally lost all of my brain cells reading this thread. Holy shit how can one be so ignorant to not know, after just 5 seconds of research, that free expansion applies only to a closed system, AND ideal gases? Even Heiwa had to call Papa out on his bullshit. WTF.Well, having shares in a company sending rockets and satellites into Earth orbits, I know rockets work doing just that - sending satellites into orbits. Everything else is fake.
You believe it works well enough to invest your money in them. What a fuckin’ hypocrite.
So, you know that they do everything you say manned spacecraft can’t do. Either they work or they don’t work. It makes no difference whether it’s manned or unmanned.
Mike
Hello Mikrobrain,
Yes it is correct that I am shareholder of Airbus NV that is part owner of Arianespace SA that sends satellites into orbits around the Earth since many years using very simple rockets. That is all they can do. They cannot send humans into space and they cannot ensure that their rockets or satellites later re-enter and land on Earth for the simple reason it is physically impossible.
Reason why I am a shareholder is that I make more money being it than to crawl around inside old, rusty seagoing ships looking for cracks and other defects. It enables me to have a popular website about official lies and hoaxes by various governments about:
atomic bombs 1945,
human beings in space 1969,
ships floating on deck houses 1994,
skyscrapers becoming dust due to Arabs 2001 and
hot fission on Earth down the road from me 2035.
I pay you and anyone €1M showing I am wrong.
Good luck!
It's really that simple.
Then it is not a legitimate challenge. It's really that simple. Your challenge is fake and you are a liar and a fraud. And, as always a failure.But the money is invested all over the place. Visit my office for coffee and I will tell you more. http://heiwaco.comMore failure and baseless claims. Until you prove you have the money, your challenges are fake. Until you post evidence to your bullshit claims here you are failure.Let me get this straight. You have shares in a company that puts satellites into orbit. You know rockets can insert them into orbit. You know these satellites can move between orbital heights and orbital slots.I think I literally lost all of my brain cells reading this thread. Holy shit how can one be so ignorant to not know, after just 5 seconds of research, that free expansion applies only to a closed system, AND ideal gases? Even Heiwa had to call Papa out on his bullshit. WTF.Well, having shares in a company sending rockets and satellites into Earth orbits, I know rockets work doing just that - sending satellites into orbits. Everything else is fake.
You believe it works well enough to invest your money in them. What a fuckin’ hypocrite.
So, you know that they do everything you say manned spacecraft can’t do. Either they work or they don’t work. It makes no difference whether it’s manned or unmanned.
Mike
Hello Mikrobrain,
Yes it is correct that I am shareholder of Airbus NV that is part owner of Arianespace SA that sends satellites into orbits around the Earth since many years using very simple rockets. That is all they can do. They cannot send humans into space and they cannot ensure that their rockets or satellites later re-enter and land on Earth for the simple reason it is physically impossible.
Reason why I am a shareholder is that I make more money being it than to crawl around inside old, rusty seagoing ships looking for cracks and other defects. It enables me to have a popular website about official lies and hoaxes by various governments about:
atomic bombs 1945,
human beings in space 1969,
ships floating on deck houses 1994,
skyscrapers becoming dust due to Arabs 2001 and
hot fission on Earth down the road from me 2035.
I pay you and anyone €1M showing I am wrong.
Good luck!
It's really that simple.
At least the coffee is real at my place. I just had a cup.Then it is not a legitimate challenge. It's really that simple. Your challenge is fake and you are a liar and a fraud. And, as always a failure.But the money is invested all over the place. Visit my office for coffee and I will tell you more. http://heiwaco.comMore failure and baseless claims. Until you prove you have the money, your challenges are fake. Until you post evidence to your bullshit claims here you are failure.Let me get this straight. You have shares in a company that puts satellites into orbit. You know rockets can insert them into orbit. You know these satellites can move between orbital heights and orbital slots.I think I literally lost all of my brain cells reading this thread. Holy shit how can one be so ignorant to not know, after just 5 seconds of research, that free expansion applies only to a closed system, AND ideal gases? Even Heiwa had to call Papa out on his bullshit. WTF.Well, having shares in a company sending rockets and satellites into Earth orbits, I know rockets work doing just that - sending satellites into orbits. Everything else is fake.
You believe it works well enough to invest your money in them. What a fuckin’ hypocrite.
So, you know that they do everything you say manned spacecraft can’t do. Either they work or they don’t work. It makes no difference whether it’s manned or unmanned.
Mike
Hello Mikrobrain,
Yes it is correct that I am shareholder of Airbus NV that is part owner of Arianespace SA that sends satellites into orbits around the Earth since many years using very simple rockets. That is all they can do. They cannot send humans into space and they cannot ensure that their rockets or satellites later re-enter and land on Earth for the simple reason it is physically impossible.
Reason why I am a shareholder is that I make more money being it than to crawl around inside old, rusty seagoing ships looking for cracks and other defects. It enables me to have a popular website about official lies and hoaxes by various governments about:
atomic bombs 1945,
human beings in space 1969,
ships floating on deck houses 1994,
skyscrapers becoming dust due to Arabs 2001 and
hot fission on Earth down the road from me 2035.
I pay you and anyone €1M showing I am wrong.
Good luck!
It's really that simple.
Glad to see you admit your challenge is fake. But ok, I believe your coffee is real.At least the coffee is real at my place. I just had a cup.Then it is not a legitimate challenge. It's really that simple. Your challenge is fake and you are a liar and a fraud. And, as always a failure.But the money is invested all over the place. Visit my office for coffee and I will tell you more. http://heiwaco.comMore failure and baseless claims. Until you prove you have the money, your challenges are fake. Until you post evidence to your bullshit claims here you are failure.Let me get this straight. You have shares in a company that puts satellites into orbit. You know rockets can insert them into orbit. You know these satellites can move between orbital heights and orbital slots.I think I literally lost all of my brain cells reading this thread. Holy shit how can one be so ignorant to not know, after just 5 seconds of research, that free expansion applies only to a closed system, AND ideal gases? Even Heiwa had to call Papa out on his bullshit. WTF.Well, having shares in a company sending rockets and satellites into Earth orbits, I know rockets work doing just that - sending satellites into orbits. Everything else is fake.
You believe it works well enough to invest your money in them. What a fuckin’ hypocrite.
So, you know that they do everything you say manned spacecraft can’t do. Either they work or they don’t work. It makes no difference whether it’s manned or unmanned.
Mike
Hello Mikrobrain,
Yes it is correct that I am shareholder of Airbus NV that is part owner of Arianespace SA that sends satellites into orbits around the Earth since many years using very simple rockets. That is all they can do. They cannot send humans into space and they cannot ensure that their rockets or satellites later re-enter and land on Earth for the simple reason it is physically impossible.
Reason why I am a shareholder is that I make more money being it than to crawl around inside old, rusty seagoing ships looking for cracks and other defects. It enables me to have a popular website about official lies and hoaxes by various governments about:
atomic bombs 1945,
human beings in space 1969,
ships floating on deck houses 1994,
skyscrapers becoming dust due to Arabs 2001 and
hot fission on Earth down the road from me 2035.
I pay you and anyone €1M showing I am wrong.
Good luck!
It's really that simple.
Glad to see you admit your challenge is fake. But ok, I believe your coffee is real.But it sure isn't millionaire coffee!
Well no, that's just crazy talk.Glad to see you admit your challenge is fake. But ok, I believe your coffee is real.But it sure isn't millionaire coffee!
Let me get this straight. You have shares in a company that puts satellites into orbit. You know rockets can insert them into orbit. You know these satellites can move between orbital heights and orbital slots.I think I literally lost all of my brain cells reading this thread. Holy shit how can one be so ignorant to not know, after just 5 seconds of research, that free expansion applies only to a closed system, AND ideal gases? Even Heiwa had to call Papa out on his bullshit. WTF.Well, having shares in a company sending rockets and satellites into Earth orbits, I know rockets work doing just that - sending satellites into orbits. Everything else is fake.
You believe it works well enough to invest your money in them. What a fuckin’ hypocrite.
So, you know that they do everything you say manned spacecraft can’t do. Either they work or they don’t work. It makes no difference whether it’s manned or unmanned.
Mike
Hello Mikrobrain,
Yes it is correct that I am shareholder of Airbus NV that is part owner of Arianespace SA that sends satellites into orbits around the Earth since many years using very simple rockets. That is all they can do. They cannot send humans into space and they cannot ensure that their rockets or satellites later re-enter and land on Earth for the simple reason it is physically impossible.
Reason why I am a shareholder is that I make more money being it than to crawl around inside old, rusty seagoing ships looking for cracks and other defects. It enables me to have a popular website about official lies and hoaxes by various governments about:
atomic bombs 1945,
human beings in space 1969,
ships floating on deck houses 1994,
skyscrapers becoming dust due to Arabs 2001 and
hot fission on Earth down the road from me 2035.
I pay you and anyone €1M showing I am wrong.
Good luck!
Let me get this straight. You have shares in a company that puts satellites into orbit. You know rockets can insert them into orbit. You know these satellites can move between orbital heights and orbital slots.I think I literally lost all of my brain cells reading this thread. Holy shit how can one be so ignorant to not know, after just 5 seconds of research, that free expansion applies only to a closed system, AND ideal gases? Even Heiwa had to call Papa out on his bullshit. WTF.Well, having shares in a company sending rockets and satellites into Earth orbits, I know rockets work doing just that - sending satellites into orbits. Everything else is fake.
You believe it works well enough to invest your money in them. What a fuckin’ hypocrite.
So, you know that they do everything you say manned spacecraft can’t do. Either they work or they don’t work. It makes no difference whether it’s manned or unmanned.
Mike
Hello Mikrobrain,
Yes it is correct that I am shareholder of Airbus NV that is part owner of Arianespace SA that sends satellites into orbits around the Earth since many years using very simple rockets. That is all they can do. They cannot send humans into space and they cannot ensure that their rockets or satellites later re-enter and land on Earth for the simple reason it is physically impossible.
Reason why I am a shareholder is that I make more money being it than to crawl around inside old, rusty seagoing ships looking for cracks and other defects. It enables me to have a popular website about official lies and hoaxes by various governments about:
atomic bombs 1945,
human beings in space 1969,
ships floating on deck houses 1994,
skyscrapers becoming dust due to Arabs 2001 and
hot fission on Earth down the road from me 2035.
I pay you and anyone €1M showing I am wrong.
Good luck!
What exactly is your challenge?
What exactly is your challenge?
Hahahahaha!What exactly is your challenge?
Reality.
All details are at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm (http://billysugger.blogspot.com.au/2011/07/orbital-mechanics-for-dummies-orbital.html) .Really, go read it yourself and fix all the errors! http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm (http://billysugger.blogspot.com.au/2011/07/orbital-mechanics-for-dummies-orbital.html).
All details are at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm (http://billysugger.blogspot.com.au/2011/07/orbital-mechanics-for-dummies-orbital.html) .Really, go read it yourself and fix all the errors! http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm (http://billysugger.blogspot.com.au/2011/07/orbital-mechanics-for-dummies-orbital.html).
So you say for no other reason than you cannot understand it. And I suppose you claim that the Russians were faking it in 1961 with:All details are at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm (http://billysugger.blogspot.com.au/2011/07/orbital-mechanics-for-dummies-orbital.html) .Really, go read it yourself and fix all the errors! http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm (http://billysugger.blogspot.com.au/2011/07/orbital-mechanics-for-dummies-orbital.html).
Hm, my Challenges are not about modifying the altitude of an Earth orbiting space ship but something completely different.
The Company I am a shareholder of - Arianespace SA - is happy to put your satellite or spaceship into any Earth orbit any time.
But what will you do there in orbit? There is no way to stop and land when in orbit.
As it turned out, a single valve within the braking engine failed to shut completely at the beginning of the engine burn, letting some fuel leak out and avoid the combustion chamber. As a result, the engine "ran out of gas" and shut down around a second earlier than scheduled. The aborted maneuver slowed the spacecraft by 132 meters per second instead of the programmed 136 meters per second.Luckily the Russian re-entry method is somewhat tolerant of slight deviations like this.
I describe the April 1961 first human and Russian re-entry in history at http://heiwaco.com/moontravelw1.htm#18 since many years. It never took place! It was 100% communist propaganda.So you say for no other reason than you cannot understand it. And I suppose you claim that the Russians were faking it in 1961 with:All details are at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm (http://billysugger.blogspot.com.au/2011/07/orbital-mechanics-for-dummies-orbital.html) .Really, go read it yourself and fix all the errors! http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm (http://billysugger.blogspot.com.au/2011/07/orbital-mechanics-for-dummies-orbital.html).
Hm, my Challenges are not about modifying the altitude of an Earth orbiting space ship but something completely different.
The Company I am a shareholder of - Arianespace SA - is happy to put your satellite or spaceship into any Earth orbit any time.
But what will you do there in orbit? There is no way to stop and land when in orbit.(http://www.russianspaceweb.com/images/spacecraft/manned/vostok/vostok1/flight/launch_wide_1.jpg)Read about it in: Vostok lifts off! (http://www.russianspaceweb.com/vostok1_launch.html)
Vostok lifts off on April 12, 1961.
My main reason for presenting this is that the Russians use a much different and simpler re-entry method than the Americans.
The American used an aerodynamic approach which required quite tight control of that angles of attack, etc.
The Russians, however, used (and still do) a near spherical module for re-entry, requiring much less tight control. This is just as well because a stuck valve on Yugi Gagarin's braking engine caused it to run out of fuel early.QuoteAs it turned out, a single valve within the braking engine failed to shut completely at the beginning of the engine burn, letting some fuel leak out and avoid the combustion chamber. As a result, the engine "ran out of gas" and shut down around a second earlier than scheduled. The aborted maneuver slowed the spacecraft by 132 meters per second instead of the programmed 136 meters per second.Luckily the Russian re-entry method is somewhat tolerant of slight deviations like this.
But from the little I have read on your site, you seem to think that the all the kinetic energy of the re-entry module must be absorbed by the module itself.
This is completely untrue, as most of that energy must be carried away by the air of the slip-stream and that is where much of the design effort of the Space Shuttle went.
The earlier missions (and the Russian ones) used ablative heat shields, but to be re-useable the thermal tiles of the Space Shuttle had very little heat capacity but had extremely low thermal conductivity. Thus almost all the heat had to be carried away in the very high-temperature air.
Of course, the aerodynamic design of the Shuttle and to a lesser extent the Apollo re-entry modules, required very precise continual control of pitch, yaw and roll even due the re-entry phase.
I suppose you have read all the NASA papers on that and noted the slight changes made to the shuttle's shape during the design and testing phases.
I describe the April 1961 first human and Russian re-entry in history at http://heiwaco.com/moontravelw1.htm#18 since many years. It never took place! It was 100% communist propaganda.Of course, if the omniscient Heiwa can't explain it, it must be a fake! ;D ;D
Of course Juri Gagarin couldn't stop his first human space orbit trip by firing a rocket and he couldn't land by ejecting yourself from the capsule.Did you notice that all that was needed to initiate re-entry was an initial burn reducing the orbital velocity by only 132 m/s (it should have been 136 m/s)?
Juri was just an actor. Quite good looking. Like me!No, you're the actor and Yuri Gagarin was the good looking guy!
Only twerps believe the 1961 communist human space travel propaganda today 2018.Thanks, much appreciated, being called a twerp by you has become quite an honour.
You really have to open the link I provide:I describe the April 1961 first human and Russian re-entry in history at http://heiwaco.com/moontravelw1.htm#18 since many years. It never took place! It was 100% communist propaganda.Of course, if the omniscient Heiwa can't explain it, it must be a fake! ;D ;DQuote from: HeiwaOf course Juri Gagarin couldn't stop his first human space orbit trip by firing a rocket and he couldn't land by ejecting yourself from the capsule.Did you notice that all that was needed to initiate re-entry was an initial burn reducing the orbital velocity by only 132 m/s (it should have been 136 m/s)?
That does seem very similar to start the re-entry of the Space Shuttle - funny that those Russians and the Americans get the same answer. Maybe they read it from the same book!
He didn't even try "ejecting himself from the capsule"! Why would he?Quote from: HeiwaJuri was just an actor. Quite good looking. Like me!No, you're the actor and Yuri Gagarin was the good looking guy!(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/5f65284f43d1e4df0f11659895ebf7ccf5fec4ee/0_179_4062_2437/master/4062.jpg?w=620&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=fb797ec5a1e45660da2a51ae5ba35026)Quote from: HeiwaOnly twerps believe the 1961 communist human space travel propaganda today 2018.Thanks, much appreciated, being called a twerp by you has become quite an honour.
You can't understand the ignition of a fission bomb, so it's a fake.
You can't understand the ignition of a fusion bomb, so it's a fake.
You can't understand the apparent zero g in orbit, so it's a fake.
You can't understand atmospheric re-entry from orbit, so it's a fake.
You can't understand entry into a heliocentric orbit, so it's a fake.
;) ;) Gee, this is getting boring! Do you understand anything? ;) ;)
Go and count your Airbus shares, maybe you can do that!
Only 10 minutes later at about 4 000 km from home above Egypt the accommodation globe separated from the rocket module and both units hit, like meteors, the atmosphere at 130 000 m altitude at about 8 500 m/s total speed (7.35 LT) and now only air friction (!) would stop the trip = re-entry.Air friction at 130 000 m altitude!
Air friction alone however - according to soviet communist propaganda - managed to slow down Gagarin’s little steel, cannon ball shaped globe (mass about 2 000 kg) in about 1 000 seconds according Soviet info, i.e. braking was at little less than 1 g, before hitting ground.Are you a communist believer?
Are you a communist believer?No! I just believe in giving credit where credit is due.
My 1300 Airbus shares are doing well. I bought them at 20 and today they are almost 100! 500% increase!Good for you!
My 1300 Airbus shares are doing well. I bought them at 20 and today they are almost 100! 500% increase!You do realize that Airbus is working with ESA and is therefore actively engaged in a criminal conspiracy to defraud, don't you?
Of course. Airbus NV builds some spacecraft for ESA to carry humans into space. But it lacks sanitary facilities and is a joke. It is a commercial project. ESA and Dr J Woerner are organizing the criminal conspiracy. I describe it at my website. Why do you ask?My 1300 Airbus shares are doing well. I bought them at 20 and today they are almost 100! 500% increase!You do realize that Airbus is working with ESA and is therefore actively engaged in a criminal conspiracy to defraud, don't you?
It seems that you don't have any problem making money from a criminal conspiracy. That says a lot about your character.Of course. Airbus NV builds some spacecraft for ESA to carry humans into space. But it lacks sanitary facilities and is a joke. It is a commercial project. ESA and Dr J Woerner are organizing the criminal conspiracy. I describe it at my website. Why do you ask?My 1300 Airbus shares are doing well. I bought them at 20 and today they are almost 100! 500% increase!You do realize that Airbus is working with ESA and is therefore actively engaged in a criminal conspiracy to defraud, don't you?
I describe the ESA criminal conspiracy at my website and media is informed. What else can I do?It seems that you don't have any problem making money from a criminal conspiracy. That says a lot about your character.Of course. Airbus NV builds some spacecraft for ESA to carry humans into space. But it lacks sanitary facilities and is a joke. It is a commercial project. ESA and Dr J Woerner are organizing the criminal conspiracy. I describe it at my website. Why do you ask?My 1300 Airbus shares are doing well. I bought them at 20 and today they are almost 100! 500% increase!You do realize that Airbus is working with ESA and is therefore actively engaged in a criminal conspiracy to defraud, don't you?
I describe the ESA criminal conspiracy at my website and media is informed. What else can I do?It seems that you don't have any problem making money from a criminal conspiracy. That says a lot about your character.Of course. Airbus NV builds some spacecraft for ESA to carry humans into space. But it lacks sanitary facilities and is a joke. It is a commercial project. ESA and Dr J Woerner are organizing the criminal conspiracy. I describe it at my website. Why do you ask?My 1300 Airbus shares are doing well. I bought them at 20 and today they are almost 100! 500% increase!You do realize that Airbus is working with ESA and is therefore actively engaged in a criminal conspiracy to defraud, don't you?
I describe the ESA criminal conspiracy at my website and media is informed. What else can I do?It seems that you don't have any problem making money from a criminal conspiracy. That says a lot about your character.Of course. Airbus NV builds some spacecraft for ESA to carry humans into space. But it lacks sanitary facilities and is a joke. It is a commercial project. ESA and Dr J Woerner are organizing the criminal conspiracy. I describe it at my website. Why do you ask?My 1300 Airbus shares are doing well. I bought them at 20 and today they are almost 100! 500% increase!You do realize that Airbus is working with ESA and is therefore actively engaged in a criminal conspiracy to defraud, don't you?
Stop funding them and making money off criminal activity at once!
I describe the ESA criminal conspiracy at my website and media is informed. What else can I do?It seems that you don't have any problem making money from a criminal conspiracy. That says a lot about your character.Of course. Airbus NV builds some spacecraft for ESA to carry humans into space. But it lacks sanitary facilities and is a joke. It is a commercial project. ESA and Dr J Woerner are organizing the criminal conspiracy. I describe it at my website. Why do you ask?My 1300 Airbus shares are doing well. I bought them at 20 and today they are almost 100! 500% increase!You do realize that Airbus is working with ESA and is therefore actively engaged in a criminal conspiracy to defraud, don't you?
Stop funding them and making money off criminal activity at once!
ESA gets the money from European tax payers like me. I describe the ESA illegal activities and ... nothing happens. See
ESA is the European Space Agency run by criminal space experts/scientists/etc. Actually they are just actors playing some game. Probably to keep NASA & Co happy. It is a big show. I just describe it at my website. Don't blame me for it. I have seen it before when a ferry sank 1994 killing ~1000 persons. Three governments decided (1) to cover-up the truth about the incident, (2) invent a complete false story about it, (3) falsify testimonies and scientific reports, etc, etc. When I published my findings about their criminal activities, they were not happy but luckily I was far away from them. But it seems people in the know and who wanted to blow the whistle were simply eliminated - physically. Tough, don't you agree? I describe it at my website. You really should study what I write and not post your nonsense.I describe the ESA criminal conspiracy at my website and media is informed. What else can I do?It seems that you don't have any problem making money from a criminal conspiracy. That says a lot about your character.Of course. Airbus NV builds some spacecraft for ESA to carry humans into space. But it lacks sanitary facilities and is a joke. It is a commercial project. ESA and Dr J Woerner are organizing the criminal conspiracy. I describe it at my website. Why do you ask?My 1300 Airbus shares are doing well. I bought them at 20 and today they are almost 100! 500% increase!You do realize that Airbus is working with ESA and is therefore actively engaged in a criminal conspiracy to defraud, don't you?
Stop funding them and making money off criminal activity at once!
ESA gets the money from European tax payers like me. I describe the ESA illegal activities and ... nothing happens. See
ESA also uses money from it's investors. (ie. you)
ESA is the European Space Agency run by criminal space experts/scientists/etc. Actually they are just actors playing some game. Probably to keep NASA & Co happy. It is a big show. I just describe it at my website. Don't blame me for it. I have seen it before when a ferry sank 1994 killing ~1000 persons. Three governments decided (1) to cover-up the truth about the incident, (2) invent a complete false story about it, (3) falsify testimonies and scientific reports, etc, etc. When I published my findings about their criminal activities, they were not happy but luckily I was far away from them. But it seems people in the know and who wanted to blow the whistle were simply eliminated - physically. Tough, don't you agree? I describe it at my website. You really should study what I write and not post your nonsense.I describe the ESA criminal conspiracy at my website and media is informed. What else can I do?It seems that you don't have any problem making money from a criminal conspiracy. That says a lot about your character.Of course. Airbus NV builds some spacecraft for ESA to carry humans into space. But it lacks sanitary facilities and is a joke. It is a commercial project. ESA and Dr J Woerner are organizing the criminal conspiracy. I describe it at my website. Why do you ask?My 1300 Airbus shares are doing well. I bought them at 20 and today they are almost 100! 500% increase!You do realize that Airbus is working with ESA and is therefore actively engaged in a criminal conspiracy to defraud, don't you?
Stop funding them and making money off criminal activity at once!
ESA gets the money from European tax payers like me. I describe the ESA illegal activities and ... nothing happens. See
ESA also uses money from it's investors. (ie. you)
I describe it at my website at http://heiwaco.com/moontravelw2.htm#O . Airbus NV builds the Orion service module spacecraft at request of ESA but it is NASA that will send it with four, fake humans aboard to the Moon 2021. However, the fake heat shield - http://heiwaco.com/moontravel2.htm#410 - will be built in USA to enable the asstronuts to reenter and land on Earth.ESA is the European Space Agency run by criminal space experts/scientists/etc. Actually they are just actors playing some game. Probably to keep NASA & Co happy. It is a big show. I just describe it at my website. Don't blame me for it. I have seen it before when a ferry sank 1994 killing ~1000 persons. Three governments decided (1) to cover-up the truth about the incident, (2) invent a complete false story about it, (3) falsify testimonies and scientific reports, etc, etc. When I published my findings about their criminal activities, they were not happy but luckily I was far away from them. But it seems people in the know and who wanted to blow the whistle were simply eliminated - physically. Tough, don't you agree? I describe it at my website. You really should study what I write and not post your nonsense.I describe the ESA criminal conspiracy at my website and media is informed. What else can I do?It seems that you don't have any problem making money from a criminal conspiracy. That says a lot about your character.Of course. Airbus NV builds some spacecraft for ESA to carry humans into space. But it lacks sanitary facilities and is a joke. It is a commercial project. ESA and Dr J Woerner are organizing the criminal conspiracy. I describe it at my website. Why do you ask?My 1300 Airbus shares are doing well. I bought them at 20 and today they are almost 100! 500% increase!You do realize that Airbus is working with ESA and is therefore actively engaged in a criminal conspiracy to defraud, don't you?
Stop funding them and making money off criminal activity at once!
ESA gets the money from European tax payers like me. I describe the ESA illegal activities and ... nothing happens. See
ESA also uses money from it's investors. (ie. you)
You do realize that Airbus is working with ESA and is therefore actively engaged in a criminal conspiracy to defraud, don't you?
So do you deny that Airbus is working with ESA and is therefore actively engaged in a criminal conspiracy to defraud? I think it's quite clear!I describe it at my website at . Airbus NV builds the Orion service module spacecraft at request of ESA but it is NASA that will send it with four, fake humans aboard to the Moon 2021. However, the fake heat shield - http://heiwaco.com/moontravel2.htm#410 - will be built in USA to enable the asstronuts to reenter and land on Earth.ESA is the European Space Agency run by criminal space experts/scientists/etc. Actually they are just actors playing some game. Probably to keep NASA & Co happy. It is a big show. I just describe it at my website. Don't blame me for it. I have seen it before when a ferry sank 1994 killing ~1000 persons. Three governments decided (1) to cover-up the truth about the incident, (2) invent a complete false story about it, (3) falsify testimonies and scientific reports, etc, etc. When I published my findings about their criminal activities, they were not happy but luckily I was far away from them. But it seems people in the know and who wanted to blow the whistle were simply eliminated - physically. Tough, don't you agree? I describe it at my website. You really should study what I write and not post your nonsense.I describe the ESA criminal conspiracy at my website and media is informed. What else can I do?It seems that you don't have any problem making money from a criminal conspiracy. That says a lot about your character.Of course. Airbus NV builds some spacecraft for ESA to carry humans into space. But it lacks sanitary facilities and is a joke. It is a commercial project. ESA and Dr J Woerner are organizing the criminal conspiracy. I describe it at my website. Why do you ask?My 1300 Airbus shares are doing well. I bought them at 20 and today they are almost 100! 500% increase!You do realize that Airbus is working with ESA and is therefore actively engaged in a criminal conspiracy to defraud, don't you?
Stop funding them and making money off criminal activity at once!
ESA gets the money from European tax payers like me. I describe the ESA illegal activities and ... nothing happens. See
ESA also uses money from it's investors. (ie. you)
You do realize that Airbus is working with ESA and is therefore actively engaged in a criminal conspiracy to defraud, don't you?
ESA and NASA cooperate since 1950's to fool the world with their space missions. 1000's of people were then, around 1960, convinced that space was the business of the future and wanted to join in, but most soon realized it was a hoax best run by NASA and ESA and their false scientists.
?? You really have to read what I write at the links provided. NASA built its Orion spacecraft some years ago that allegedly orbited Earth without crew and then landed in the Pacific Ocean. Later NASA asked ESA to finance two more Orion spacecrafts and ESA asked Airbus NV to build them. The latest version of Orion shall carry four astronuts around the Moon 2021! Airbus NV is right now building two Orion service modules for ESA but it is NASA that will send them to the Moon.So do you deny that Airbus is working with ESA and is therefore actively engaged in a criminal conspiracy to defraud? I think it's quite clear!I describe it at my website at . Airbus NV builds the Orion service module spacecraft at request of ESA but it is NASA that will send it with four, fake humans aboard to the Moon 2021. However, the fake heat shield - http://heiwaco.com/moontravel2.htm#410 - will be built in USA to enable the asstronuts to reenter and land on Earth.ESA is the European Space Agency run by criminal space experts/scientists/etc. Actually they are just actors playing some game. Probably to keep NASA & Co happy. It is a big show. I just describe it at my website. Don't blame me for it. I have seen it before when a ferry sank 1994 killing ~1000 persons. Three governments decided (1) to cover-up the truth about the incident, (2) invent a complete false story about it, (3) falsify testimonies and scientific reports, etc, etc. When I published my findings about their criminal activities, they were not happy but luckily I was far away from them. But it seems people in the know and who wanted to blow the whistle were simply eliminated - physically. Tough, don't you agree? I describe it at my website. You really should study what I write and not post your nonsense.I describe the ESA criminal conspiracy at my website and media is informed. What else can I do?It seems that you don't have any problem making money from a criminal conspiracy. That says a lot about your character.Of course. Airbus NV builds some spacecraft for ESA to carry humans into space. But it lacks sanitary facilities and is a joke. It is a commercial project. ESA and Dr J Woerner are organizing the criminal conspiracy. I describe it at my website. Why do you ask?My 1300 Airbus shares are doing well. I bought them at 20 and today they are almost 100! 500% increase!You do realize that Airbus is working with ESA and is therefore actively engaged in a criminal conspiracy to defraud, don't you?
Stop funding them and making money off criminal activity at once!
ESA gets the money from European tax payers like me. I describe the ESA illegal activities and ... nothing happens. See
ESA also uses money from it's investors. (ie. you)
You do realize that Airbus is working with ESA and is therefore actively engaged in a criminal conspiracy to defraud, don't you?
ESA and NASA cooperate since 1950's to fool the world with their space missions. 1000's of people were then, around 1960, convinced that space was the business of the future and wanted to join in, but most soon realized it was a hoax best run by NASA and ESA and their false scientists.
Anders, why is it so hard for you to provide a direct answer to a simple question?
Anders, why is it so hard for you to provide a direct answer to a simple question?
What simple question are you thinking about?
You do realize that Airbus is working with ESA and is therefore actively engaged in a criminal conspiracy to defraud, don't you?
Anders, why is it so hard for you to provide a direct answer to a simple question?
What simple question are you thinking about?
Well, this one, among countless others:You do realize that Airbus is working with ESA and is therefore actively engaged in a criminal conspiracy to defraud, don't you?
Are you saying that a company (Airbus) that works with a known criminal organization (ESA) is not breaking the law by helping them with obviously fraudulent projects?Anders, why is it so hard for you to provide a direct answer to a simple question?
What simple question are you thinking about?
Well, this one, among countless others:You do realize that Airbus is working with ESA and is therefore actively engaged in a criminal conspiracy to defraud, don't you?
I think I replied at reply #1189 above.
Yes, I am an investor of Airbus NV and fully aware of Airbus NV building Orion spacecrafts for ESA. It is not secret and no conspiracy.
ESA on the other hand is a criminal organization, like NASA, inventing all sorts of false manned and unmanned space missions that I describe at my website. ESA cannot explain how their space trips are done and many of their employees are simple actors. It is a great show ... of little value.
No, what I am writing is that Airbus since 2017 builds two Orion four persons spacecrafts for ESA. NASA will later - 2021 send these manned spacecrafts around the Moon - no landing - and then return and land them on Earth. It takes a week. The Orion lacks sanitary facilities, etc. It is a pseudoscientific joke. Airbus just does what ESA wants as long as Airbus is paid.Are you saying that a company (Airbus) that works with a known criminal organization (ESA) is not breaking the law by helping them with obviously fraudulent projects?Anders, why is it so hard for you to provide a direct answer to a simple question?
What simple question are you thinking about?
Well, this one, among countless others:You do realize that Airbus is working with ESA and is therefore actively engaged in a criminal conspiracy to defraud, don't you?
I think I replied at reply #1189 above.
Yes, I am an investor of Airbus NV and fully aware of Airbus NV building Orion spacecrafts for ESA. It is not secret and no conspiracy.
ESA on the other hand is a criminal organization, like NASA, inventing all sorts of false manned and unmanned space missions that I describe at my website. ESA cannot explain how their space trips are done and many of their employees are simple actors. It is a great show ... of little value.
So not only are you a proven liar and fraud now you are admitting you invest in criminal enterprises?No, what I am writing is that Airbus since 2017 builds two Orion four persons spacecrafts for ESA. NASA will later - 2021 send these manned spacecrafts around the Moon - no landing - and then return and land them on Earth. It takes a week. The Orion lacks sanitary facilities, etc. It is a pseudoscientific joke. Airbus just does what ESA wants as long as Airbus is paid.Are you saying that a company (Airbus) that works with a known criminal organization (ESA) is not breaking the law by helping them with obviously fraudulent projects?Anders, why is it so hard for you to provide a direct answer to a simple question?
What simple question are you thinking about?
Well, this one, among countless others:You do realize that Airbus is working with ESA and is therefore actively engaged in a criminal conspiracy to defraud, don't you?
I think I replied at reply #1189 above.
Yes, I am an investor of Airbus NV and fully aware of Airbus NV building Orion spacecrafts for ESA. It is not secret and no conspiracy.
ESA on the other hand is a criminal organization, like NASA, inventing all sorts of false manned and unmanned space missions that I describe at my website. ESA cannot explain how their space trips are done and many of their employees are simple actors. It is a great show ... of little value.
This trip is not possible and both NASA and ESA have falsified many other space missions so this is just the latest hoax in a long list of space frauds. I describe some at my website.
What do think about Carol Norberg? http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm#CN I think she works for an organization faking space missions. What do you think?
So you're saying that Airbus is helping ESA and NASA to defraud taxpayers, right? Helping someone to commit a crime is a crime. What part of that do you not understand?No, what I am writing is that Airbus since 2017 builds two Orion four persons spacecrafts for ESA. NASA will later - 2021 send these manned spacecrafts around the Moon - no landing - and then return and land them on Earth. It takes a week. The Orion lacks sanitary facilities, etc. It is a pseudoscientific joke. Airbus just does what ESA wants as long as Airbus is paid.Are you saying that a company (Airbus) that works with a known criminal organization (ESA) is not breaking the law by helping them with obviously fraudulent projects?Anders, why is it so hard for you to provide a direct answer to a simple question?
What simple question are you thinking about?
Well, this one, among countless others:You do realize that Airbus is working with ESA and is therefore actively engaged in a criminal conspiracy to defraud, don't you?
I think I replied at reply #1189 above.
Yes, I am an investor of Airbus NV and fully aware of Airbus NV building Orion spacecrafts for ESA. It is not secret and no conspiracy.
ESA on the other hand is a criminal organization, like NASA, inventing all sorts of false manned and unmanned space missions that I describe at my website. ESA cannot explain how their space trips are done and many of their employees are simple actors. It is a great show ... of little value.
This trip is not possible and both NASA and ESA have falsified many other space missions so this is just the latest hoax in a long list of space frauds. I describe some at my website.
What do think about Carol Norberg? http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm#CN I think she works for an organization faking space missions. What do you think?I think that she knows a lot more about how space travel works than you do.
So you're saying that Airbus is helping ESA and NASA to defraud taxpayers, right? Helping someone to commit a crime is a crime. What part of that do you not understand?No, what I am writing is that Airbus since 2017 builds two Orion four persons spacecrafts for ESA. NASA will later - 2021 send these manned spacecrafts around the Moon - no landing - and then return and land them on Earth. It takes a week. The Orion lacks sanitary facilities, etc. It is a pseudoscientific joke. Airbus just does what ESA wants as long as Airbus is paid.Are you saying that a company (Airbus) that works with a known criminal organization (ESA) is not breaking the law by helping them with obviously fraudulent projects?Anders, why is it so hard for you to provide a direct answer to a simple question?
What simple question are you thinking about?
Well, this one, among countless others:You do realize that Airbus is working with ESA and is therefore actively engaged in a criminal conspiracy to defraud, don't you?
I think I replied at reply #1189 above.
Yes, I am an investor of Airbus NV and fully aware of Airbus NV building Orion spacecrafts for ESA. It is not secret and no conspiracy.
ESA on the other hand is a criminal organization, like NASA, inventing all sorts of false manned and unmanned space missions that I describe at my website. ESA cannot explain how their space trips are done and many of their employees are simple actors. It is a great show ... of little value.
This trip is not possible and both NASA and ESA have falsified many other space missions so this is just the latest hoax in a long list of space frauds. I describe some at my website.
What do think about Carol Norberg? http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm#CN I think she works for an organization faking space missions. What do you think?I think that she knows a lot more about how space travel works than you do.
No. I think that ESA carries out space missions just like they say that they do.What do think about Carol Norberg? http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm#CN I think she works for an organization faking space missions. What do you think?I think that she knows a lot more about how space travel works than you do.
But did you study the link I provided? Don't you agree she works for an organization that fakes space missions ... since many years?
Anyway, fact remains I have asked her and her students to explain how a manned spacecraft reenters and lands on Earth after a trip in space and she has not managed it.Maybe she and her students are too smart to waste their time with a twerp like you.
This, Atmospheric entry (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_entry), is only the Wikipedia entry on "Atmospheric entry", but unless you can claim to understand even that and are able to prove it wrong,What do think about Carol Norberg? http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm#CN I think she works for an organization faking space missions. What do you think?I think that she knows a lot more about how space travel works than you do.
But did you study the link I provided? Don't you agree she works for an organization that fakes space missions ... since many years?
Anyway, fact remains I have asked her and her students to explain how a manned spacecraft reenters and lands on Earth after a trip in space and she has not managed it.
This, Atmospheric entry (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_entry), is only the Wikipedia entry on "Atmospheric entry", but unless you can claim to understand even that and are able to prove it wrong,What do think about Carol Norberg? http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm#CN I think she works for an organization faking space missions. What do you think?I think that she knows a lot more about how space travel works than you do.
But did you study the link I provided? Don't you agree she works for an organization that fakes space missions ... since many years?
Anyway, fact remains I have asked her and her students to explain how a manned spacecraft reenters and lands on Earth after a trip in space and she has not managed it.
you have no right to condemn others for claiming human space travel and atmospheric re-entry is quite feasible.
All I've seen from you is your total inability to understand something as complex as this followed by your ridicule.
It seems that you have such an over-bloated opinion of your own ability that you think that if you can't understand something, it must be a fake!
Not so! Al it means is that you are not half as smart as you think you are and that you are the fake!
I doubt that any one person would claim to really understand all the issues involved and all designs rely on the collaboration of many people.
Hence I take no notice of you claims that you can debunk anything! Your failure to understand something means nothing at all.
Same with an atmospheric entry. There is no air in the atmosphere at 120 km altitude to slow you down arriving from space. Nothing will stop you. Easy to prove. Look at all meteors dropping down from space. They burn up and become dust. Etc, etc.I wouldn't waste any more time on you site,
A ROUGH GUIDEThe lifetimes are very approximate and depend on solar flux etc. Below 200 km altitude, the lifetime falls dramatically.
The following table provides a very rough guide to the lifetime of an object in a circular or near circular orbit at various altitudes.
Satellite
Altitude Lifetime
200 km 1 day
300 km 1 month
400 km 1 year
500 km 10 years
700 km 100 years
If you think the heat shield wasn't invented until 1969 then it only proves your shoddy research. More lies and failure from Heiwa.This, Atmospheric entry (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_entry), is only the Wikipedia entry on "Atmospheric entry", but unless you can claim to understand even that and are able to prove it wrong,What do think about Carol Norberg? http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm#CN I think she works for an organization faking space missions. What do you think?I think that she knows a lot more about how space travel works than you do.
But did you study the link I provided? Don't you agree she works for an organization that fakes space missions ... since many years?
Anyway, fact remains I have asked her and her students to explain how a manned spacecraft reenters and lands on Earth after a trip in space and she has not managed it.
you have no right to condemn others for claiming human space travel and atmospheric re-entry is quite feasible.
All I've seen from you is your total inability to understand something as complex as this followed by your ridicule.
It seems that you have such an over-bloated opinion of your own ability that you think that if you can't understand something, it must be a fake!
Not so! Al it means is that you are not half as smart as you think you are and that you are the fake!
I doubt that any one person would claim to really understand all the issues involved and all designs rely on the collaboration of many people.
Hence I take no notice of you claims that you can debunk anything! Your failure to understand something means nothing at all.
Well, I prove it wrong at my website. Gagarin re-entered one way 1961, Glenn another way 1962, NASA and USSR had different ways until Dr. Buzz invented the heat shield 1969, etc, etc. We were all impressed then. But all ways to reenter are impossible and faked up.
It seems the falsifications started already early 1960's and just continue today. It is a big show. I think you suffer from cognitive dissonance. But you are not alone.
It is similar to the Estonia bow visor falsifications 1994 onward. Three governments said bow visor falls off in heavy weather without anyone noticing. I said it was wrong. They said prove it. I invited them on my ferries in heavy weather to see what happens when you speed up. When the bow visor hits a wave there is first a big bang 150 dB like being hit by a cannon ball and then vibrations shaking the whole ship, etc. Bow visors are built accordingly. There is no way a bow visor falls off in heavy weather.
Same with an atmospheric entry. There is no air in the atmosphere at 120 km altitude to slow you down arriving from space. Nothing will stop you. Easy to prove. Look at all meteors dropping down from space. They burn up and become dust. Etc, etc.
So what's to stop incoming spacecraft "bouncing" in the the region above 150 km to bleed their velocity down to near orbital velocities.
Don't be totally daft! If there are only a few "atoms flying around up there" heating can be slow enough do dissipate much of it before returning to periapsis.
So what's to stop incoming spacecraft "bouncing" in the region above 150 km to bleed their velocity down to near orbital velocities.
I explain it at my website. There are of course various atoms flying around up there and when the spacecraft arrives at say 11 000 or 21 000 m/s speed at 120 000 m altitude it collides with these atoms and ... heats up ... is destroyed very fast.
Don't be totally daft! If there are only a few "atoms flying around up there" heating can be slow enough do dissipate much of it before returning to periapsis.
So what's to stop incoming spacecraft "bouncing" in the region above 150 km to bleed their velocity down to near orbital velocities.
I explain it at my website. There are of course various atoms flying around up there and when the spacecraft arrives at say 11 000 or 21 000 m/s speed at 120 000 m altitude it collides with these atoms and ... heats up ... is destroyed very fast.
It starts colliding with "various atoms flying around up there" a lot higher than 120,000 m altitude. Even at only orbital velocity at 180 km a spacecraft hardly gets one orbit and heats slowly enough to dissipate much of it.
Even Wikipedia knows " ;) all about it ;)", see Aerocapture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerocapture)
Read a little elementary stuff on Aerobraking and Aerocapture. (http://ftp://ccar.colorado.edu/pub/forbes/ASEN5335/DragReentry/28.AerobrakingAerocapture/28.%20Aerobraking%20&%20Aerocapture.pdf)
In many cases a burn is, of course, necessary to get the velocity and trajectory suitable for aerobraking.
Or you could try: Aerocapture Guidance Algorithm Development and Testing, Jim Masciarelli. (http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.121.3842&rep=rep1&type=pdf)
Thanks for your links. But you should study http://heiwaco.com/moontravel2.htm , where I describe in points 3.3, 3.5, 4.1, 5.10 and 5.10 why the re-entries from the International Fake/Space Station are faked since 2001.Much against my better judgement I had another look at your site and was amazed, yes amazed that someone who pretends such deep knowledge knows so little.
Because it is moving at about 17,000 mph (28,000 km/h or 7 800 m/s), the Shuttle hits air molecules and builds up heat from friction (approximately 3000 degrees F, or 1650 degrees C). But is it possible?Why would you question it? Of course it's possible! Then
The kinetic energy of the 78 000 kg Shuttle is when starting re-entry 78 000*7 8002/2 = 2 372 760 000 000 Joule.So what? Actually you figure is too low, as the maximum landing weigh is 100 000 kg - but I'll deal with this later.
Can two OMS engines really brake a 69 tons Shuttle from 7 800 m/s to 200 m/s speed using 9 tons of fuel?The simple answer is, of course not! The "two OMS engines" were not intended to brake the Shuttle "from 7 800 m/s to 200 m/s speed using 9 tons of fuel"! Where did you drag that stupid idea up from?
The orbiter is covered with ceramic insulating materials designed to protect it from this heat. The materials include:This is one of your the biggest blunders! From here I am talking mainly of the "high-temperature black surface insulation tiles".
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
" High-temperature black surface insulation tiles on the upper forward fuselage and around the windows (but how are the windows protected?)
<< simple, the windows are not in the plasma temperature slip-stream >>
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
These materials are designed to absorb large quantities of heat without increasing their temperature very much. In other words, they have a high heat capacity.
The kinetic energy of the 78 000 kg Shuttle is when starting re-entry 78 000*7 8002/2 = 2 372 760 000 000 Joule.I guess you were trying to impress readers with the size of this number and you were too small anyway!
It is a nice story. All fantasy, of course! NASA cannot provide any evidence that high altitude (100 000 - 120 000 m) air braking is possible at all. The air is simply much too thin for any air braking. Anything trying to land as the Shuttle will just go faster and faster while getting hotter and hotter until it breaks apart and burns up.You argue against yourself quite effectively here!
Thanks for your post. All nonsense of course but interesting!Thanks for your links. But you should study http://heiwaco.com/moontravel2.htm , where I describe in points 3.3, 3.5, 4.1, 5.10 and 5.10 why the re-entries from the International Fake/Space Station are faked since 2001.Much against my better judgement I had another look at your site and was amazed, yes amazed that someone who pretends such deep knowledge knows so little.
I'm not going to waste my time answering much of it. I'll just look at this bit.QuoteBecause it is moving at about 17,000 mph (28,000 km/h or 7 800 m/s), the Shuttle hits air molecules and builds up heat from friction (approximately 3000 degrees F, or 1650 degrees C). But is it possible?Why would you question it? Of course it's possible! ThenQuoteThe kinetic energy of the 78 000 kg Shuttle is when starting re-entry 78 000*7 8002/2 = 2 372 760 000 000 Joule.So what? Actually you figure is too low, as the maximum landing weigh is 100 000 kg - but I'll deal with this later.
Then you ask:QuoteCan two OMS engines really brake a 69 tons Shuttle from 7 800 m/s to 200 m/s speed using 9 tons of fuel?The simple answer is, of course not! The "two OMS engines" were not intended to brake the Shuttle "from 7 800 m/s to 200 m/s speed using 9 tons of fuel"! Where did you drag that stupid idea up from?
To start the de-orbit manoeuvre the two OMS engines only need to reduce the velocity enough to bring the perigee into the upper atmosphere. For example, a -90 m/s delta-V burn from a circular orbit at 400 km will put the spacecraft into an orbit with a 90 km perigee, using 2 or 3 tonnes of fuel (If my source is correct).
Then you get onto the heat shielding.QuoteThe orbiter is covered with ceramic insulating materials designed to protect it from this heat. The materials include:This is one of your the biggest blunders! From here I am talking mainly of the "high-temperature black surface insulation tiles".
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
" High-temperature black surface insulation tiles on the upper forward fuselage and around the windows (but how are the windows protected?)
<< simple, the windows are not in the plasma temperature slip-stream >>
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
These materials are designed to absorb large quantities of heat without increasing their temperature very much. In other words, they have a high heat capacity.
Far from "these materials" being "designed to absorb large quantities of heat without increasing their temperature very much" it is almost the opposite.
Those tiles are very light and have quite a low heat capacity.
Their most important properties are their ability to withstand extreme temperature and their extremely low thermal conductivity.
Those tiles are not intended to absorb the heat from the hypersonic slip-stream but insulate the shuttle from that high temperature.
Because the Space Shuttle was re-usable it's heat shield was completely different from the ablative heat shields used on most re-entry vehicles.
This, of course, was indirectly part of the shuttle's undoing.
The tiles were extremely brittle and had to be bonded in place. There were some initial problems with this, but these were "overcome" by filling the back.
This increased the overall mass, so extreme measures had to be taken to reduce the shuttle mass.
Most ablative shields are intended vaporise and the vapour keeps the extreme temperature air away from the main body.
Now, quite early in the piece, you simply statedQuoteThe kinetic energy of the 78 000 kg Shuttle is when starting re-entry 78 000*7 8002/2 = 2 372 760 000 000 Joule.I guess you were trying to impress readers with the size of this number and you were too small anyway!
But most of that massive amount of kinetic energy is not absorbed by the shuttle but is carried away by the plasma slip-stream.
You do not present any cogent arguments against the re-entry description, but rave on with:QuoteIt is a nice story. All fantasy, of course! NASA cannot provide any evidence that high altitude (100 000 - 120 000 m) air braking is possible at all. The air is simply much too thin for any air braking. Anything trying to land as the Shuttle will just go faster and faster while getting hotter and hotter until it breaks apart and burns up.You argue against yourself quite effectively here!
First you say "The air is simply much too thin for any air braking" the claim "while getting hotter and hotter", but "while getting hotter and hotter" implies that kinetic energy is being converted into heat, which will slow the shuttle down.
And you silly claim,"NASA cannot provide any evidence that high altitude (100 000 - 120 000 m) air braking is possible at all. The air is simply much too thin for any air braking."with nothing to back it up is totally false and many of the references that I quoted give evidence of the effectiveness of aerobraking.
From even as high as 180 km a spacecraft will hardly last one orbit.
You obviously haven't the slightest understanding of orbital mechanics or the various types heat shields.
Your big trouble is that you have such an over-blown opinion of your own intelligence and knowledge, that you can never learn anything new!
All you de-bunking ever seems to involve is you making many quite incorrect statements, then attempting ridicule.
Well, that won't work any more here!
Most ablative shields are intended vaporise and the vapour keeps the extreme temperature air away from the main body.
Did you seriously just ask someone to prove something? How many times have been asked to prove your bullshit? Of course you always fail.Thanks for your post. All nonsense of course but interesting!Thanks for your links. But you should study http://heiwaco.com/moontravel2.htm , where I describe in points 3.3, 3.5, 4.1, 5.10 and 5.10 why the re-entries from the International Fake/Space Station are faked since 2001.Much against my better judgement I had another look at your site and was amazed, yes amazed that someone who pretends such deep knowledge knows so little.
I'm not going to waste my time answering much of it. I'll just look at this bit.QuoteBecause it is moving at about 17,000 mph (28,000 km/h or 7 800 m/s), the Shuttle hits air molecules and builds up heat from friction (approximately 3000 degrees F, or 1650 degrees C). But is it possible?Why would you question it? Of course it's possible! ThenQuoteThe kinetic energy of the 78 000 kg Shuttle is when starting re-entry 78 000*7 8002/2 = 2 372 760 000 000 Joule.So what? Actually you figure is too low, as the maximum landing weigh is 100 000 kg - but I'll deal with this later.
Then you ask:QuoteCan two OMS engines really brake a 69 tons Shuttle from 7 800 m/s to 200 m/s speed using 9 tons of fuel?The simple answer is, of course not! The "two OMS engines" were not intended to brake the Shuttle "from 7 800 m/s to 200 m/s speed using 9 tons of fuel"! Where did you drag that stupid idea up from?
To start the de-orbit manoeuvre the two OMS engines only need to reduce the velocity enough to bring the perigee into the upper atmosphere. For example, a -90 m/s delta-V burn from a circular orbit at 400 km will put the spacecraft into an orbit with a 90 km perigee, using 2 or 3 tonnes of fuel (If my source is correct).
Then you get onto the heat shielding.QuoteThe orbiter is covered with ceramic insulating materials designed to protect it from this heat. The materials include:This is one of your the biggest blunders! From here I am talking mainly of the "high-temperature black surface insulation tiles".
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
" High-temperature black surface insulation tiles on the upper forward fuselage and around the windows (but how are the windows protected?)
<< simple, the windows are not in the plasma temperature slip-stream >>
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
These materials are designed to absorb large quantities of heat without increasing their temperature very much. In other words, they have a high heat capacity.
Far from "these materials" being "designed to absorb large quantities of heat without increasing their temperature very much" it is almost the opposite.
Those tiles are very light and have quite a low heat capacity.
Their most important properties are their ability to withstand extreme temperature and their extremely low thermal conductivity.
Those tiles are not intended to absorb the heat from the hypersonic slip-stream but insulate the shuttle from that high temperature.
Because the Space Shuttle was re-usable it's heat shield was completely different from the ablative heat shields used on most re-entry vehicles.
This, of course, was indirectly part of the shuttle's undoing.
The tiles were extremely brittle and had to be bonded in place. There were some initial problems with this, but these were "overcome" by filling the back.
This increased the overall mass, so extreme measures had to be taken to reduce the shuttle mass.
Most ablative shields are intended vaporise and the vapour keeps the extreme temperature air away from the main body.
Now, quite early in the piece, you simply statedQuoteThe kinetic energy of the 78 000 kg Shuttle is when starting re-entry 78 000*7 8002/2 = 2 372 760 000 000 Joule.I guess you were trying to impress readers with the size of this number and you were too small anyway!
But most of that massive amount of kinetic energy is not absorbed by the shuttle but is carried away by the plasma slip-stream.
You do not present any cogent arguments against the re-entry description, but rave on with:QuoteIt is a nice story. All fantasy, of course! NASA cannot provide any evidence that high altitude (100 000 - 120 000 m) air braking is possible at all. The air is simply much too thin for any air braking. Anything trying to land as the Shuttle will just go faster and faster while getting hotter and hotter until it breaks apart and burns up.You argue against yourself quite effectively here!
First you say "The air is simply much too thin for any air braking" the claim "while getting hotter and hotter", but "while getting hotter and hotter" implies that kinetic energy is being converted into heat, which will slow the shuttle down.
And you silly claim,"NASA cannot provide any evidence that high altitude (100 000 - 120 000 m) air braking is possible at all. The air is simply much too thin for any air braking."with nothing to back it up is totally false and many of the references that I quoted give evidence of the effectiveness of aerobraking.
From even as high as 180 km a spacecraft will hardly last one orbit.
You obviously haven't the slightest understanding of orbital mechanics or the various types heat shields.
Your big trouble is that you have such an over-blown opinion of your own intelligence and knowledge, that you can never learn anything new!
All you de-bunking ever seems to involve is you making many quite incorrect statements, then attempting ridicule.
Well, that won't work any more here!
I likeQuoteMost ablative shields are intended vaporise and the vapour keeps the extreme temperature air away from the main body.
So you think that dr. Buzz's heat shield vaporize and gives off vapor that acts as insulation and protection of the spacecraft while braking/re-entering etc. Please prove it!
I likeThanks, it also happens to be true!QuoteMost ablative shields are intended vaporise and the vapour keeps the extreme temperature air away from the main body.
So you think that dr. Buzz's heat shield vaporize and gives off vapor that acts as insulation and protection of the spacecraft while braking/re-entering etc. Please prove it!Since I can find no reference to any "Buzz's heat shield" maybe you should give a reference, other than on your site, to Buzz Aldrin's heat shield.
I likeThanks, it also happens to be true!QuoteMost ablative shields are intended vaporise and the vapour keeps the extreme temperature air away from the main body.Quote from: HeiwaSo you think that dr. Buzz's heat shield vaporize and gives off vapor that acts as insulation and protection of the spacecraft while braking/re-entering etc. Please prove it!Since I can find no reference to any "Buzz's heat shield" maybe you should give a reference, other than on your site, to Buzz Aldrin's heat shield.
But once something has burnt and given off vapour, charred pieces are obviously going to flake off.
But, I don't have to prove anything! You have certainly proven nothing on your site.
I likeQuoteOk, a Jumbo jet may have mass 300 tons and 250 m/s start speed coming in for landing which may take 20 minutes.Quote
A Jumbo jet goes from cruise to landing in about 20 minutes mainly for passenger comfort and fuel economy. It can do it it in substantially shorter time than that if required. Maybe if you consider the flight path of the Shuttle from 40,000 and below you might have cause for some kind of comparison!
Why should we trust the word of a self-proclaimed expert on safety at sea in the field of aerospace over actual, qualified experts in the field of aerospace?Don't be totally daft! If there are only a few "atoms flying around up there" heating can be slow enough do dissipate much of it before returning to periapsis.
So what's to stop incoming spacecraft "bouncing" in the region above 150 km to bleed their velocity down to near orbital velocities.
I explain it at my website. There are of course various atoms flying around up there and when the spacecraft arrives at say 11 000 or 21 000 m/s speed at 120 000 m altitude it collides with these atoms and ... heats up ... is destroyed very fast.
It starts colliding with "various atoms flying around up there" a lot higher than 120,000 m altitude. Even at only orbital velocity at 180 km a spacecraft hardly gets one orbit and heats slowly enough to dissipate much of it.
Even Wikipedia knows " ;) all about it ;)", see Aerocapture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerocapture)
Read a little elementary stuff on Aerobraking and Aerocapture. (http://ftp://ccar.colorado.edu/pub/forbes/ASEN5335/DragReentry/28.AerobrakingAerocapture/28.%20Aerobraking%20&%20Aerocapture.pdf)
In many cases a burn is, of course, necessary to get the velocity and trajectory suitable for aerobraking.
Or you could try: Aerocapture Guidance Algorithm Development and Testing, Jim Masciarelli. (http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.121.3842&rep=rep1&type=pdf)
Thanks for your links. But you should study http://heiwaco.com/moontravel2.htm , where I describe in points 3.3, 3.5, 4.1, 5.10 and 5.10 why the re-entries from the International Fake/Space Station are faked since 2001.
Still a lie and still shows your shoddy research.
It seems Dr. Buzz invented the heat shield mid 1960's. Before that Gagarin and Glenn had to rely on rocket brakes.
You thinking something is impossible is not proof it is impossible. You not knowing how something works is not proof it doesn't work. Your site contains no proof, it is just a monument to your ignorance.I likeThanks, it also happens to be true!QuoteMost ablative shields are intended vaporise and the vapour keeps the extreme temperature air away from the main body.Quote from: HeiwaSo you think that dr. Buzz's heat shield vaporize and gives off vapor that acts as insulation and protection of the spacecraft while braking/re-entering etc. Please prove it!Since I can find no reference to any "Buzz's heat shield" maybe you should give a reference, other than on your site, to Buzz Aldrin's heat shield.
But once something has burnt and given off vapour, charred pieces are obviously going to flake off.
But, I don't have to prove anything! You have certainly proven nothing on your site.
Everyone asks me to prove a lot of things and, when I do it at my site, they just moan and groan and scream and shout.
It seems Dr. Buzz invented the heat shield mid 1960's. Before that Gagarin and Glenn had to rely on rocket brakes.
Personally I think it is not possible to brake at all dropping down from space.
You suggest that the Shuttle was 100 tons at 8 000 m/s speed starting braking in short time. Ok, a Jumbo jet may have mass 300 tons and 250 m/s start speed coming in for landing which may take 20 minutes. It seems the Shuttle has >340 times more kinetic energy to dispose off in much shorter time. I always wonder how it was done.
Everyone asks me to prove a lot of things and, when I do it at my site, they just moan and groan and scream and shout.No, it's a case of when you claim to prove a lot of things, but just wave your hands and ridicule things that "they just moan and groan and scream and shout."
It seems Dr. Buzz invented the heat shield mid 1960's. Before that Gagarin and Glenn had to rely on rocket brakes.I can find no evidence the Dr. Buzz Aldrin "invented the heat shield mid 1960's" and I asked you for references, which you have failed to provide.
Vostok:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The manned spacecraft work led them into new fields of research in re-entry, thermal protection, and hypersonic aerodynamics. The initial study material was reviewed by mathematicians at the Academy of Science. It was found that a maximum of 10 G's would result in a ballistic re-entry from earth obit. From September 1957 to January 1958 section 9 examined heating conditions, surface temperatures, heat shield materials, and obtainable maximum payloads for a wide range of aerodynamic forms with hypersonic lift to drag ratios ranging from zero to a few points. Parametric trajectory calculations were made using successive approximations on the BESM-1 electromechanical computer.
A lot more in: University of Oregon, Space Lectures #8, Vostok (http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/space/lectures/lec08.html)
Personally I think it is not possible to brake at all dropping down from space.I don't put the slightest weight on what you think personally! I would rather look at evidence, research, measurements, theory and results.
You suggest that the Shuttle was 100 tons at 8 000 m/s speed starting braking in short time.No, I stated "that the maximum specified landing weight of the Shuttle was 100 tons".
Ok, a Jumbo jet may have mass 300 tons and 250 m/s start speed coming in for landing which may take 20 minutes. It seems the Shuttle has >340 times more kinetic energy to dispose off in much shorter time. I always wonder how it was done.No argument there, the Space Shuttle does have a tremendously more KE than a landing 747-400.
| (https://d2n4wb9orp1vta.cloudfront.net/cms/OrionHeatshieldRemoval_web.jpg;width=560) Lockheed Martin unveils Orion composite heat shield - before use. From: Lockheed Martin unveils Orion composite heat shield (https://www.compositesworld.com/news/lockheed-martin-unveils-orion-composite-heat-shield) | (https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/orion_heat_shield_0.jpg) The Orion heat shield that flew on Exploration Flight Test 1, December 2014, arrives at Marshall Space Flight Center for machining and post-flight evaluation. From: NASA Applies Insights for Manufacturing of Orion Spacecraft Heat Shield (https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-applies-insights-for-manufacturing-of-orion-spacecraft-heat-shield) |
If you ask Google "Why is that human beings cannot go into space?", you will get 11,700,000 results in 0.49 seconds but not find this website giving the answer. Reason seems to be that Google has been ordered to confuse matters promoting NASA and its nonsense.I do that search and get the "About 5,560,000 results (0.70 seconds)" with the first being:
Human travel in space is not possible - 10 March, 2018 - Heiwa Co (http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravel.htm)You claimed that the "Reason seems to be that Google has been ordered to confuse matters promoting NASA and its nonsense." but obviously that is totally incorrect and a total fabrication.
heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravel.htm (http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravel.htm)
And it or a capsule cannot return, re-enter, and land on Earth later. It is going too fast. Gravity forces are too strong. No means to brake, re-enter and land! No spacecraft of any kind can carry enough fuel for any trip anywhere in space and return safely to Earth. And no human being can be locked up for many years inside a ...
Everyone asks me to prove a lot of things and, when I do it at my site, they just moan and groan and scream and shout.No, it's a case of when you claim to prove a lot of things, but just wave your hands and ridicule things that "they just moan and groan and scream and shout."
Like I'm about to do.Quote from: HeiwaIt seems Dr. Buzz invented the heat shield mid 1960's. Before that Gagarin and Glenn had to rely on rocket brakes.I can find no evidence the Dr. Buzz Aldrin "invented the heat shield mid 1960's" and I asked you for references, which you have failed to provide.
But, claiming that "Gagarin and Glenn had to rely on rocket brakes" is a total fabrication, as are most things that I have seen on your site!
You might read this or the numerous other publications describing re-entry research at the time:QuoteVostok:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The manned spacecraft work led them into new fields of research in re-entry, thermal protection, and hypersonic aerodynamics. The initial study material was reviewed by mathematicians at the Academy of Science. It was found that a maximum of 10 G's would result in a ballistic re-entry from earth obit. From September 1957 to January 1958 section 9 examined heating conditions, surface temperatures, heat shield materials, and obtainable maximum payloads for a wide range of aerodynamic forms with hypersonic lift to drag ratios ranging from zero to a few points. Parametric trajectory calculations were made using successive approximations on the BESM-1 electromechanical computer.
A lot more in: University of Oregon, Space Lectures #8, Vostok (http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/space/lectures/lec08.html)Quote from: HeiwaPersonally I think it is not possible to brake at all dropping down from space.I don't put the slightest weight on what you think personally! I would rather look at evidence, research, measurements, theory and results.Quote from: HeiwaYou suggest that the Shuttle was 100 tons at 8 000 m/s speed starting braking in short time.No, I stated "that the maximum specified landing weight of the Shuttle was 100 tons".
Its mass might be a little higher at the start of re-entry due to OMS/RCS fuel, which would be burnt before the maximum heat of re-entry.
I also stated that from a circular orbit of 400 km and about 7800 m/s speed the shuttle started braking with a de-orbit burn resulting in and orbital speed reduction of about 90 m/s.
The delta-V depends on that initial altitude and fuel used depends on the delta-V and mass to de-orbit.
All that burn does is put the Space Shuttle into an elliptic orbit with a prospective perigee of about 90 km. Significant aerobraking starts before then.Quote from: HeiwaOk, a Jumbo jet may have mass 300 tons and 250 m/s start speed coming in for landing which may take 20 minutes. It seems the Shuttle has >340 times more kinetic energy to dispose off in much shorter time. I always wonder how it was done.No argument there, the Space Shuttle does have a tremendously more KE than a landing 747-400.
In fact, from my calculations (which may be incorrect), a maximum landing mass shuttle has about 1380 times the KE of a maximum landing mass 747-400.
But it is quite incorrect to say that "to dispose of in much shorter time". From touch-down, however, a 747-400 has to get rid its KE in a few tens of seconds, but the shuttle has a great deal more time.
None of this detracts from the difficulty or complexity of spacecraft re-entry.
The technique used on the Shuttle has the advantage in of being re-useable, but has proven to be simply too costly and with the tiles being so weak and brittle too fragile.
Hence ablative heatshields have, I believe, been used on all other vehicles.The Orion heat shield is, I believe, intended for re-use a few times by machining and re-covering.
(https://d2n4wb9orp1vta.cloudfront.net/cms/OrionHeatshieldRemoval_web.jpg;width=560)
Lockheed Martin unveils Orion composite heat shield - before use.
From: Lockheed Martin unveils Orion composite heat shield (https://www.compositesworld.com/news/lockheed-martin-unveils-orion-composite-heat-shield)(https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/orion_heat_shield_0.jpg)
The Orion heat shield that flew on Exploration Flight Test 1, December 2014,
arrives at Marshall Space Flight Center for machining and post-flight evaluation.
From: NASA Applies Insights for Manufacturing of Orion Spacecraft Heat Shield (https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-applies-insights-for-manufacturing-of-orion-spacecraft-heat-shield)
Personally I think that you haven't the slightest notion of most things to do with orbital mechanics or the very complex topics of the behaviour of gases at extreme velocities and temperatures.
By the way, why do you tell outright lies so often? You claim:QuoteIf you ask Google "Why is that human beings cannot go into space?", you will get 11,700,000 results in 0.49 seconds but not find this website giving the answer. Reason seems to be that Google has been ordered to confuse matters promoting NASA and its nonsense.I do that search and get the "About 5,560,000 results (0.70 seconds)" with the first being:QuoteHuman travel in space is not possible - 10 March, 2018 - Heiwa Co (http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravel.htm)You claimed that the "Reason seems to be that Google has been ordered to confuse matters promoting NASA and its nonsense." but obviously that is totally incorrect and a total fabrication.
heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravel.htm (http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravel.htm)
And it or a capsule cannot return, re-enter, and land on Earth later. It is going too fast. Gravity forces are too strong. No means to brake, re-enter and land! No spacecraft of any kind can carry enough fuel for any trip anywhere in space and return safely to Earth. And no human being can be locked up for many years inside a ...
Though it fits perfectly with you being "the worst creator of conspiracy theories".
And seems quite consistent with your being "an unscientific, unintelligent and unreasonable querulant that spreads rumours and untruths (lies) as the worst creator of conspiracy theories".
Mr Anders Björkman, I wouldn't believe a word you said, especially if my life depended on it!
Re Gagarin and Glenn - see my web site - both landed without any heat shields 1961/2. They used rockets to slow down.Why do you say such stupid things? Seriously. Why?
Well, Gagarin said 1961 that he fired a rocket to slow down over Angola and that he then dropped off the rocket into the Mediterranean Sea, while he continued re-entering without a heat shield to land in the USSR a little later. Actually he ejected himself from the spacecraft and landed by parachute. The spacecraft landed undamaged near by. The spacecraft can be seen in a museum in Russia if it is not exhibited at other places all over the world.Re Gagarin and Glenn - see my web site - both landed without any heat shields 1961/2. They used rockets to slow down.Why do you say such stupid things? Seriously. Why?
Thanks for the photos of the Orion heat shield. Any evidence that it works at 11 000 m/s speed?Yes, Gagarin, Glenn, Apollo and the Space Shuttle all used "rockets to slow down" to "do-orbit", then they all used heat Shields to slow for the descent.
Re Gagarin and Glenn - see my web site - both landed without any heat shields 1961/2. They used rockets to slow down.
Things are happening very quickly and already I must prepare for my return to earth. As I pass over Africa, the retro rockets begin to fire.
For 79 seconds, they slow me down, allowing gravity to drag me down once more into the clutches of the atmosphere.
Now the retro pack is jettisoned, twisting Vostok around as it goes and I begin to think of the people on earth
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I am distracted from my thoughts by the twisting of the spacecraft. This should have stopped as soon as the retro pack was released, but something is obviously wrong. The cables that join the pack to the re-entry module are still attached and the two parts begin to spin around each other like children on a playground carousel.
There is a crackling sound as the heat builds up and I am pushed harder against my straps as the spinning increases. Will the heat shield cope with this unexpected turn of events? Will the cable break free? No one can tell me, as the hot atmosphere stops any radio signals from reaching me.
Read the rest in: YURI GAGARIN – BACK TO EARTH (https://blog.sciencemuseum.org.uk/yuri-gagarin-back-to-earth/)
| (https://airandspace.si.edu/sites/default/files/styles/slideshow_lg/public/images/editoral-stories/thumbnails/NASM2016-1808.jpg?itok=-lrO_dXU) The heat shield of the Mercury Friendship 7 capsule shows the scars of reentry back into Earth’s atmosphere. While the heat shield successfully protected the capsule from burning up during reentry, this was not an assured conclusion. Prior to reentry, NASA Mercury Control became concerned that the heat shield had come loose. |
Dr. Buzz Aldrin of Apollo 11 then came up with the idea of a heat shield, which was used 1969.I asked you to provide references to support your claim that
“For Apollo, a brazed PH 14-8 stainless steel honeycomb sheet was attached to the structural shell, and a fiberglass-phenolic honeycomb with 400,000 individual cells was bonded to it…” (Launius & Jenkins, 2011)And of course used the "skip manoeuvre" before re-entry to bleed off some speed.
No, Apollo 11 with Buzz Aldrin at the helm didn't fire any rocket at all to start a faked-up re-entry at >11 000 m/s speed. He knew exactly where to start at 120 000 m altitude and 15 minutes later or so and a rough ride with a melting heat shield Apollo 11 dropped down in front of POTUS tricky Dick Nixon - hole in one.Thanks for the photos of the Orion heat shield. Any evidence that it works at 11 000 m/s speed?Yes, Gagarin, Glenn, Apollo and the Space Shuttle all used "rockets to slow down" to "do-orbit", then they all used heat Shields to slow for the descent.
Re Gagarin and Glenn - see my web site - both landed without any heat shields 1961/2. They used rockets to slow down.Quote from: Yuri GagarinThings are happening very quickly and already I must prepare for my return to earth. As I pass over Africa, the retro rockets begin to fire.
For 79 seconds, they slow me down, allowing gravity to drag me down once more into the clutches of the atmosphere.
Now the retro pack is jettisoned, twisting Vostok around as it goes and I begin to think of the people on earth
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I am distracted from my thoughts by the twisting of the spacecraft. This should have stopped as soon as the retro pack was released, but something is obviously wrong. The cables that join the pack to the re-entry module are still attached and the two parts begin to spin around each other like children on a playground carousel.
There is a crackling sound as the heat builds up and I am pushed harder against my straps as the spinning increases. Will the heat shield cope with this unexpected turn of events? Will the cable break free? No one can tell me, as the hot atmosphere stops any radio signals from reaching me.
Read the rest in: YURI GAGARIN – BACK TO EARTH (https://blog.sciencemuseum.org.uk/yuri-gagarin-back-to-earth/)
(https://airandspace.si.edu/sites/default/files/styles/slideshow_lg/public/images/editoral-stories/thumbnails/NASM2016-1808.jpg?itok=-lrO_dXU)
The heat shield of the Mercury Friendship 7 capsule shows the scars
of reentry back into Earth’s atmosphere. While the heat shield
successfully protected the capsule from burning up during reentry,
this was not an assured conclusion. Prior to reentry, NASA Mercury
Control became concerned that the heat shield had come loose.Quote from: HeiwaDr. Buzz Aldrin of Apollo 11 then came up with the idea of a heat shield, which was used 1969.I asked you to provide references to support your claim that"Dr. Buzz Aldrin of Apollo 11 then came up with the idea of a heat shield, which was used 1969."Why do you continually refuse to provide this information? The only reason I can imagine is that you fabricated it!
The Apollo's returning from the moon used a different and thicker heat shield, as in:Quote“For Apollo, a brazed PH 14-8 stainless steel honeycomb sheet was attached to the structural shell, and a fiberglass-phenolic honeycomb with 400,000 individual cells was bonded to it…” (Launius & Jenkins, 2011)And of course used the "skip manoeuvre" before re-entry to bleed off some speed.
But I can't find any reference to Dr. Buzz Aldrin, other than his photographing the heat-shield debris in the plasma slip-stream.
I refuse to get the information from your site, all I have found there are your errors and ridicule.
No, Apollo 11 with Buzz Aldrin at the helm didn't fire any rocket at all to start the re-entry at >11 000 m/s speed. He knew exactly where to start at 120 000 m altitude and 15 minutes later or so and a rough ride with a melting heat shield Apollo 11 dropped down in front of POTUS tricky Dick Nixon - hole in one.Only the totally gullible believe one word that comes out of your mouth!
Only twerps believe such nonsense.
Dr. Buzz Aldrin of Apollo 11 then came up with the idea of a heat shield, which was used 1969.I asked you to provide references to support your claim that
Do you really think I waste time on your stupid requests. I have studied everything about Dr. Buzz and his Moon trip hoax - see http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm . He is just an actor ... and an alcoholic today. Typical Hollywood.No, Apollo 11 with Buzz Aldrin at the helm didn't fire any rocket at all to start the re-entry at >11 000 m/s speed. He knew exactly where to start at 120 000 m altitude and 15 minutes later or so and a rough ride with a melting heat shield Apollo 11 dropped down in front of POTUS tricky Dick Nixon - hole in one.Only the totally gullible believe one word that comes out of your mouth!
Only twerps believe such nonsense.
Yes, all we ever hear from you is totally unsupported ridicule.
I repeat! You claimed thatQuote from: HeiwaDr. Buzz Aldrin of Apollo 11 then came up with the idea of a heat shield, which was used 1969.I asked you to provide references to support your claim that"Dr. Buzz Aldrin of Apollo 11 then came up with the idea of a heat shield, which was used 1969."Why do you continually refuse to provide this information? The only reason I can imagine is that you fabricated it!Any further refusal to provide evidence for your claim will taken as a public admission that you are a deceiver and fabricated the claim!
Yes, I know that have plenty of time to satisy my simple request. Your replying to this proves that!Do you really think I waste time on your stupid requests. I have studied everything about Dr. Buzz and his Moon trip hoax - see http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm . He is just an actor ... and an alcoholic today. Typical Hollywood.Any further refusal to provide evidence for your claim will taken as a public admission that you are a deceiver and fabricated the claim!
More LIES and shoddy research from Heiwa.
Thanks for the photos of the Orion heat shield. Any evidence that it works at 11 000 m/s speed?
Re Gagarin and Glenn - see my web site - both landed without any heat shields 1961/2. They used rockets to slow down. Dr. Buzz Aldrin of Apollo 11 then came up with the idea of a heat shield, which was used 1969. The three asstronuts mentioned are famous for being unscientific, unreasonable and unintelligent, etc, etc. ... in my opinion (as described at my website).
translation: Of course I lied because I'm a pathological liar and a narcissist but I'll never admit it.Do you really think I waste time on your stupid requests. I have studied everything about Dr. Buzz and his Moon trip hoax - see http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm . He is just an actor ... and an alcoholic today. Typical Hollywood.No, Apollo 11 with Buzz Aldrin at the helm didn't fire any rocket at all to start the re-entry at >11 000 m/s speed. He knew exactly where to start at 120 000 m altitude and 15 minutes later or so and a rough ride with a melting heat shield Apollo 11 dropped down in front of POTUS tricky Dick Nixon - hole in one.Only the totally gullible believe one word that comes out of your mouth!
Only twerps believe such nonsense.
Yes, all we ever hear from you is totally unsupported ridicule.
I repeat! You claimed thatQuote from: HeiwaDr. Buzz Aldrin of Apollo 11 then came up with the idea of a heat shield, which was used 1969.I asked you to provide references to support your claim that"Dr. Buzz Aldrin of Apollo 11 then came up with the idea of a heat shield, which was used 1969."Why do you continually refuse to provide this information? The only reason I can imagine is that you fabricated it!Any further refusal to provide evidence for your claim will taken as a public admission that you are a deceiver and fabricated the claim!
No, Apollo 11 with Buzz Aldrin at the helm...Why do you say such stupid things? Buzz Aldrin was the lunar module pilot and had nothing to do with reentry. Michael Collins was the command module pilot and would have been in control during reentry.
A twerp like you thinks so. Nobody was in space. It was a Hollywood show.No, Apollo 11 with Buzz Aldrin at the helm...Why do you say such stupid things? Buzz Aldrin was the lunar module pilot and had nothing to do with reentry. Michael Collins was the command module pilot and would have been in control during reentry.
You keep saying that as if you know what you're talking about. How can you prove that nobody was in space when you can't even get the "official cover story" right.A twerp like you thinks so. Nobody was in space. It was a Hollywood show.No, Apollo 11 with Buzz Aldrin at the helm...Why do you say such stupid things? Buzz Aldrin was the lunar module pilot and had nothing to do with reentry. Michael Collins was the command module pilot and would have been in control during reentry.
John Glenn 1962 orbited three times and then, over the Pacific he fired his rocket to slow down passing USA from California to Pennsylvania before dropping into the Atlantic Ocean below a parachute. Glenn was re-entering backwards!! Imagine that!This is my favorite in the long list of things about which you're catastrophically ignorant. Most orbits travel from west to east, including John Glenn's 1962 trip. Why would you expect reentry to go east to west? California to Pennsylvania then splashdown in the Atlantic is exactly what would be expected from someone who knows anything at all about the subject.
You really have to read what I write. The Glenn 1962 fantasy orbital trip was eastwards all the time. But when he re-entered he flipped 180° and he faced east - http://heiwaco.com/moontravelw1.htm#19 . He was flying backwards.John Glenn 1962 orbited three times and then, over the Pacific he fired his rocket to slow down passing USA from California to Pennsylvania before dropping into the Atlantic Ocean below a parachute. Glenn was re-entering backwards!! Imagine that!This is my favorite in the long list of things about which you're catastrophically ignorant. Most orbits travel from west to east, including John Glenn's 1962 trip. Why would you expect reentry to go east to west? California to Pennsylvania then splashdown in the Atlantic is exactly what would be expected from someone who knows anything at all about the subject.
The fact that you think he reentered "backwards" is laughable.
You really have to read what I write.
It helps if your post shall make any sense.You really have to read what I write.
We really don't.
Not really. I mean you wrote that pile of shit and your posts never make sense.It helps if your post shall make any sense.You really have to read what I write.
We really don't.
It helps if your post shall make any sense.You really have to read what I write.
We really don't.
You really have to read what I write. The Glenn 1962 fantasy orbital trip was eastwards all the time. But when he re-entered he flipped 180° and he faced east - http://heiwaco.com/moontravelw1.htm#19 . He was flying backwards.Why is flying backwards a problem? The blunt end was aerodynamically designed to handle reentry better than the pointy end.
Glenn was an airplane pilot and such pilots face forward when flying forward. Glenn was using a control stick to ensure that his capsule was pointing/flying/reentering in the right direction. Of course it was all fantasy and anyway it wasn't a problem. I have always wondered what the stick really controlled. Shooting down flying saucers or curious Russians?You really have to read what I write. The Glenn 1962 fantasy orbital trip was eastwards all the time. But when he re-entered he flipped 180° and he faced east - http://heiwaco.com/moontravelw1.htm#19 . He was flying backwards.Why is flying backwards a problem? The blunt end was aerodynamically designed to handle reentry better than the pointy end.
Maybe you should read what you write...You really have to read what I write. The Glenn 1962 fantasy orbital trip was eastwards all the time. But when he re-entered he flipped 180° and he faced east - http://heiwaco.com/moontravelw1.htm#19 . He was flying backwards.John Glenn 1962 orbited three times and then, over the Pacific he fired his rocket to slow down passing USA from California to Pennsylvania before dropping into the Atlantic Ocean below a parachute. Glenn was re-entering backwards!! Imagine that!This is my favorite in the long list of things about which you're catastrophically ignorant. Most orbits travel from west to east, including John Glenn's 1962 trip. Why would you expect reentry to go east to west? California to Pennsylvania then splashdown in the Atlantic is exactly what would be expected from someone who knows anything at all about the subject.
The fact that you think he reentered "backwards" is laughable.
The Glenn 1962 fantasy orbital trip was eastwards all the time. But when he re-entered he flipped 180° and he faced eastThat sentence makes zero sense. If you actually understand the entire trip was eastward, including reentry, and your objection is that the capsule was entering heat shield first then that's maybe even dumber than what I thought you were saying.
So the problem is really that you don't understand it and your narcissism won't allow you to believe you don't know everything so it must be fake.Glenn was an airplane pilot and such pilots face forward when flying forward. Glenn was using a control stick to ensure that his capsule was pointing/flying/reentering in the right direction. Of course it was all fantasy and anyway it wasn't a problem. I have always wondered what the stick really controlled. Shooting down flying saucers or curious Russians?You really have to read what I write. The Glenn 1962 fantasy orbital trip was eastwards all the time. But when he re-entered he flipped 180° and he faced east - http://heiwaco.com/moontravelw1.htm#19 . He was flying backwards.Why is flying backwards a problem? The blunt end was aerodynamically designed to handle reentry better than the pointy end.
When dr. Buzz landed with Apollo 11 seven years later all was automatic and computer controlled. The asstronuts could be be asleep while landing. No control stick. Why do you always ask stupid questions?
Maybe you should read what you write...You really have to read what I write. The Glenn 1962 fantasy orbital trip was eastwards all the time. But when he re-entered he flipped 180° and he faced east - http://heiwaco.com/moontravelw1.htm#19 . He was flying backwards.John Glenn 1962 orbited three times and then, over the Pacific he fired his rocket to slow down passing USA from California to Pennsylvania before dropping into the Atlantic Ocean below a parachute. Glenn was re-entering backwards!! Imagine that!This is my favorite in the long list of things about which you're catastrophically ignorant. Most orbits travel from west to east, including John Glenn's 1962 trip. Why would you expect reentry to go east to west? California to Pennsylvania then splashdown in the Atlantic is exactly what would be expected from someone who knows anything at all about the subject.
The fact that you think he reentered "backwards" is laughable.The Glenn 1962 fantasy orbital trip was eastwards all the time. But when he re-entered he flipped 180° and he faced eastThat sentence makes zero sense. If you actually understand the entire trip was eastward, including reentry, and your objection is that the capsule was entering heat shield first then that's maybe even dumber than what I thought you were saying.
Glenn's history as a pilot and what direction he flew aircraft has no bearing whatsoever on the engineering of the space capsule he orbited in during his 1962 trip.
No, I have no problem with Glenn. He was just an actor in a lousy Hollywood show. Later the show props improved a little but no human beings were ever in space and the actors hired didn't get much better.So the problem is really that you don't understand it and your narcissism won't allow you to believe you don't know everything so it must be fake.Glenn was an airplane pilot and such pilots face forward when flying forward. Glenn was using a control stick to ensure that his capsule was pointing/flying/reentering in the right direction. Of course it was all fantasy and anyway it wasn't a problem. I have always wondered what the stick really controlled. Shooting down flying saucers or curious Russians?You really have to read what I write. The Glenn 1962 fantasy orbital trip was eastwards all the time. But when he re-entered he flipped 180° and he faced east - http://heiwaco.com/moontravelw1.htm#19 . He was flying backwards.Why is flying backwards a problem? The blunt end was aerodynamically designed to handle reentry better than the pointy end.
When dr. Buzz landed with Apollo 11 seven years later all was automatic and computer controlled. The asstronuts could be be asleep while landing. No control stick. Why do you always ask stupid questions?
Are you saying that he wasn't smart enough to learn how to fly backwards? Maybe that's just you.Glenn was an airplane pilot and such pilots face forward when flying forward.You really have to read what I write. The Glenn 1962 fantasy orbital trip was eastwards all the time. But when he re-entered he flipped 180° and he faced east - http://heiwaco.com/moontravelw1.htm#19 . He was flying backwards.Why is flying backwards a problem? The blunt end was aerodynamically designed to handle reentry better than the pointy end.
Glenn was using a control stick to ensure that his capsule was pointing/flying/reentering in the right direction. Of course it was all fantasy and anyway it wasn't a problem.Saying that it was a fantasy doesn't make it so. What evidence do you have that it was fantasy. Remember that incredulity is not evidence of anything but your own ignorance.
I have always wondered what the stick really controlled. Shooting down flying saucers or curious Russians?And you wonder why people at NASA and ESA won't answer your questions. ::)
When dr. Buzz landed with Apollo 11 seven years later all was automatic and computer controlled. The asstronuts could be be asleep while landing. No control stick.Yes, the Apollo command module did have control sticks. Even though reentry was largely automated, the pilot could take manual control for reentry.
Why do you always ask stupid questions?Because I so enjoy your stupid answers.
No, I just say Glenn was a bad actor and never flew in space. He might have been good pilot bombing Korean children when I was small.Are you saying that he wasn't smart enough to learn how to fly backwards? Maybe that's just you.Glenn was an airplane pilot and such pilots face forward when flying forward.You really have to read what I write. The Glenn 1962 fantasy orbital trip was eastwards all the time. But when he re-entered he flipped 180° and he faced east - http://heiwaco.com/moontravelw1.htm#19 . He was flying backwards.Why is flying backwards a problem? The blunt end was aerodynamically designed to handle reentry better than the pointy end.Glenn was using a control stick to ensure that his capsule was pointing/flying/reentering in the right direction. Of course it was all fantasy and anyway it wasn't a problem.Saying that it was a fantasy doesn't make it so. What evidence do you have that it was fantasy. Remember that incredulity is not evidence of anything but your own ignorance.I have always wondered what the stick really controlled. Shooting down flying saucers or curious Russians?And you wonder why people at NASA and ESA won't answer your questions. ::)When dr. Buzz landed with Apollo 11 seven years later all was automatic and computer controlled. The asstronuts could be be asleep while landing. No control stick.Yes, the Apollo command module did have control sticks. Even though reentry was largely automated, the pilot could take manual control for reentry.Why do you always ask stupid questions?Because I so enjoy your stupid answers.
translation: here's more stuff I don't understand because of my shoddy research.Maybe you should read what you write...You really have to read what I write. The Glenn 1962 fantasy orbital trip was eastwards all the time. But when he re-entered he flipped 180° and he faced east - http://heiwaco.com/moontravelw1.htm#19 . He was flying backwards.John Glenn 1962 orbited three times and then, over the Pacific he fired his rocket to slow down passing USA from California to Pennsylvania before dropping into the Atlantic Ocean below a parachute. Glenn was re-entering backwards!! Imagine that!This is my favorite in the long list of things about which you're catastrophically ignorant. Most orbits travel from west to east, including John Glenn's 1962 trip. Why would you expect reentry to go east to west? California to Pennsylvania then splashdown in the Atlantic is exactly what would be expected from someone who knows anything at all about the subject.
The fact that you think he reentered "backwards" is laughable.The Glenn 1962 fantasy orbital trip was eastwards all the time. But when he re-entered he flipped 180° and he faced eastThat sentence makes zero sense. If you actually understand the entire trip was eastward, including reentry, and your objection is that the capsule was entering heat shield first then that's maybe even dumber than what I thought you were saying.
Glenn's history as a pilot and what direction he flew aircraft has no bearing whatsoever on the engineering of the space capsule he orbited in during his 1962 trip.
Glenn was traveling backwards with a control stick between his legs. His capsule had a rocket engine facing forward for braking and maybe Glenn used the control stick to fire this engine. Glenn had also 25 buttons to push to land backwards but I don't know what they were for. He had a little window to look through and he used an upgraded Minolta Hi-Matic taking photos of the Earth below. The capsule was not full of pressurized air so there was need for an airtight space suit/helmet with gloves. How he could take photos with those gloves is a mystery.
What a stupid story. Only twerps believe it.
translation: Of course I don't understand it and I didn't bother to do any real research because I'm a narcissist and think I already know everything.No, I have no problem with Glenn. He was just an actor in a lousy Hollywood show. Later the show props improved a little but no human beings were ever in space and the actors hired didn't get much better.So the problem is really that you don't understand it and your narcissism won't allow you to believe you don't know everything so it must be fake.Glenn was an airplane pilot and such pilots face forward when flying forward. Glenn was using a control stick to ensure that his capsule was pointing/flying/reentering in the right direction. Of course it was all fantasy and anyway it wasn't a problem. I have always wondered what the stick really controlled. Shooting down flying saucers or curious Russians?You really have to read what I write. The Glenn 1962 fantasy orbital trip was eastwards all the time. But when he re-entered he flipped 180° and he faced east - http://heiwaco.com/moontravelw1.htm#19 . He was flying backwards.Why is flying backwards a problem? The blunt end was aerodynamically designed to handle reentry better than the pointy end.
When dr. Buzz landed with Apollo 11 seven years later all was automatic and computer controlled. The asstronuts could be be asleep while landing. No control stick. Why do you always ask stupid questions?
Amazing how in an age when information is so available you manage to get nothing right. The only stick between his legs was the one he was born with. The control stick off to his side was used to control the attitude of the capsule and had nothing to do with firing the engine.Maybe you should read what you write...You really have to read what I write. The Glenn 1962 fantasy orbital trip was eastwards all the time. But when he re-entered he flipped 180° and he faced east - http://heiwaco.com/moontravelw1.htm#19 . He was flying backwards.John Glenn 1962 orbited three times and then, over the Pacific he fired his rocket to slow down passing USA from California to Pennsylvania before dropping into the Atlantic Ocean below a parachute. Glenn was re-entering backwards!! Imagine that!This is my favorite in the long list of things about which you're catastrophically ignorant. Most orbits travel from west to east, including John Glenn's 1962 trip. Why would you expect reentry to go east to west? California to Pennsylvania then splashdown in the Atlantic is exactly what would be expected from someone who knows anything at all about the subject.
The fact that you think he reentered "backwards" is laughable.The Glenn 1962 fantasy orbital trip was eastwards all the time. But when he re-entered he flipped 180° and he faced eastThat sentence makes zero sense. If you actually understand the entire trip was eastward, including reentry, and your objection is that the capsule was entering heat shield first then that's maybe even dumber than what I thought you were saying.
Glenn's history as a pilot and what direction he flew aircraft has no bearing whatsoever on the engineering of the space capsule he orbited in during his 1962 trip.
Glenn was traveling backwards with a control stick between his legs. His capsule had a rocket engine facing forward for braking and maybe Glenn used the control stick to fire this engine. Glenn had also 25 buttons to push to land backwards but I don't know what they were for. He had a little window to look through and he used an upgraded Minolta Hi-Matic taking photos of the Earth below. The capsule was not full of pressurized air so there was need for an airtight space suit/helmet with gloves. How he could take photos with those gloves is a mystery.
What a stupid story. Only twerps believe it.
Hm, I prefer to improve my website that all human space travel is a hoax starting 1961. I know plenty intelligent people that got involved with space travel back then. Some are still around. They are a big sect of blind believers. They will never admit that human space travel is just one BIG stupid hoax. They hate me for it. I just laugh at them and tell them to win €1M at my space travel Challenge - http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm .Amazing how in an age when information is so available you manage to get nothing right. The only stick between his legs was the one he was born with. The control stick off to his side was used to control the attitude of the capsule and had nothing to do with firing the engine.Maybe you should read what you write...You really have to read what I write. The Glenn 1962 fantasy orbital trip was eastwards all the time. But when he re-entered he flipped 180° and he faced east - http://heiwaco.com/moontravelw1.htm#19 . He was flying backwards.John Glenn 1962 orbited three times and then, over the Pacific he fired his rocket to slow down passing USA from California to Pennsylvania before dropping into the Atlantic Ocean below a parachute. Glenn was re-entering backwards!! Imagine that!This is my favorite in the long list of things about which you're catastrophically ignorant. Most orbits travel from west to east, including John Glenn's 1962 trip. Why would you expect reentry to go east to west? California to Pennsylvania then splashdown in the Atlantic is exactly what would be expected from someone who knows anything at all about the subject.
The fact that you think he reentered "backwards" is laughable.The Glenn 1962 fantasy orbital trip was eastwards all the time. But when he re-entered he flipped 180° and he faced eastThat sentence makes zero sense. If you actually understand the entire trip was eastward, including reentry, and your objection is that the capsule was entering heat shield first then that's maybe even dumber than what I thought you were saying.
Glenn's history as a pilot and what direction he flew aircraft has no bearing whatsoever on the engineering of the space capsule he orbited in during his 1962 trip.
Glenn was traveling backwards with a control stick between his legs. His capsule had a rocket engine facing forward for braking and maybe Glenn used the control stick to fire this engine. Glenn had also 25 buttons to push to land backwards but I don't know what they were for. He had a little window to look through and he used an upgraded Minolta Hi-Matic taking photos of the Earth below. The capsule was not full of pressurized air so there was need for an airtight space suit/helmet with gloves. How he could take photos with those gloves is a mystery.
What a stupid story. Only twerps believe it.
The capsule had an escape tower for launch with a rocket on the forward part of the capsule and a retrorocket pack attached to the heat shield. It was pushed into orbit by an Atlas rocket, also from behind the heat shield. Three rocket engines and not one of them "faced forward". The escape tower was jettisoned after launch, the Atlas rocket was jettisoned after giving the capsule orbital velocity. The retropack was the only rocket engine on the capsule once he was in orbit and it was attached to the back, over the heat shield.
There were 120 controls, not 25, although only 55 were switches, if that was what you meant by buttons, but 55 still isn't 25. At least you acknowledge you don't know what they were for.
The Mercury capsules were pressurized to 5.5 psi of pure oxygen. The pressure suits on a separate oxygen supply were there as a backup in case of a loss of pressure in the cabin or a fire, which would be extinguished by venting cabin oxygen. Most of the time, the pilots actually flew with their helmets open and suits consequently not pressurized.
I didn't look up any of the camera information, but if the operation is a mystery to you it's only because you didn't do any research either. It is likely he was able to operate the camera with gloves because of practice and training, or with modifications made to the camera to make it easier with gloves. It is also possible he simply removed his gloves to take pictures, as his suit wasn't pressurized anyway and the cabin was perfectly safe without his suit.
The history of Mercury, and the rest of the space program, is well documented. It's not a "story", stupid or otherwise. Only ignorant jackasses question it, and only then on the ridiculous basis of "I don't understand it so it must be false." I'm happy to educate you, but I can't learn for you. At some point you have to open your own mind and actually process the information.
And of course, not even a hint of an apology for the many inaccuracies you trotted out as fact. Why would anyone bother with your website when you demonstrate a complete disregard for whether or not the "information" you provide is true. I had to correct an entire paragraph of things you alleged to be facts and all you do is pump your dumb website. Amazing.Hm, I prefer to improve my website that all human space travel is a hoax starting 1961. I know plenty intelligent people that got involved with space travel back then. Some are still around. They are a big sect of blind believers. They will never admit that human space travel is just one BIG stupid hoax. They hate me for it. I just laugh at them and tell them to win €1M at my space travel Challenge - http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm .Amazing how in an age when information is so available you manage to get nothing right. The only stick between his legs was the one he was born with. The control stick off to his side was used to control the attitude of the capsule and had nothing to do with firing the engine.Maybe you should read what you write...You really have to read what I write. The Glenn 1962 fantasy orbital trip was eastwards all the time. But when he re-entered he flipped 180° and he faced east - http://heiwaco.com/moontravelw1.htm#19 . He was flying backwards.John Glenn 1962 orbited three times and then, over the Pacific he fired his rocket to slow down passing USA from California to Pennsylvania before dropping into the Atlantic Ocean below a parachute. Glenn was re-entering backwards!! Imagine that!This is my favorite in the long list of things about which you're catastrophically ignorant. Most orbits travel from west to east, including John Glenn's 1962 trip. Why would you expect reentry to go east to west? California to Pennsylvania then splashdown in the Atlantic is exactly what would be expected from someone who knows anything at all about the subject.
The fact that you think he reentered "backwards" is laughable.The Glenn 1962 fantasy orbital trip was eastwards all the time. But when he re-entered he flipped 180° and he faced eastThat sentence makes zero sense. If you actually understand the entire trip was eastward, including reentry, and your objection is that the capsule was entering heat shield first then that's maybe even dumber than what I thought you were saying.
Glenn's history as a pilot and what direction he flew aircraft has no bearing whatsoever on the engineering of the space capsule he orbited in during his 1962 trip.
Glenn was traveling backwards with a control stick between his legs. His capsule had a rocket engine facing forward for braking and maybe Glenn used the control stick to fire this engine. Glenn had also 25 buttons to push to land backwards but I don't know what they were for. He had a little window to look through and he used an upgraded Minolta Hi-Matic taking photos of the Earth below. The capsule was not full of pressurized air so there was need for an airtight space suit/helmet with gloves. How he could take photos with those gloves is a mystery.
What a stupid story. Only twerps believe it.
The capsule had an escape tower for launch with a rocket on the forward part of the capsule and a retrorocket pack attached to the heat shield. It was pushed into orbit by an Atlas rocket, also from behind the heat shield. Three rocket engines and not one of them "faced forward". The escape tower was jettisoned after launch, the Atlas rocket was jettisoned after giving the capsule orbital velocity. The retropack was the only rocket engine on the capsule once he was in orbit and it was attached to the back, over the heat shield.
There were 120 controls, not 25, although only 55 were switches, if that was what you meant by buttons, but 55 still isn't 25. At least you acknowledge you don't know what they were for.
The Mercury capsules were pressurized to 5.5 psi of pure oxygen. The pressure suits on a separate oxygen supply were there as a backup in case of a loss of pressure in the cabin or a fire, which would be extinguished by venting cabin oxygen. Most of the time, the pilots actually flew with their helmets open and suits consequently not pressurized.
I didn't look up any of the camera information, but if the operation is a mystery to you it's only because you didn't do any research either. It is likely he was able to operate the camera with gloves because of practice and training, or with modifications made to the camera to make it easier with gloves. It is also possible he simply removed his gloves to take pictures, as his suit wasn't pressurized anyway and the cabin was perfectly safe without his suit.
The history of Mercury, and the rest of the space program, is well documented. It's not a "story", stupid or otherwise. Only ignorant jackasses question it, and only then on the ridiculous basis of "I don't understand it so it must be false." I'm happy to educate you, but I can't learn for you. At some point you have to open your own mind and actually process the information.
Actually they have wasted their lives with 55+ years nonsense and falsified all sorts of things while doing it. What a miserable lot.
I know plenty intelligent people that got involved with space travel back then. Some are still around. They are a big sect of blind believers.How can intelligent people who were actively involved in space travel be considered "blind believers"? It's like saying that you're a blind believer in sea travel.
They will never admit that human space travel is just one BIG stupid hoax. They hate me for it. I just laugh at them and tell them to win €1M at my space travel Challenge - http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm .Can you blame them for hating you when you call their life's work a stupid hoax?
Actually they have wasted their lives with 55+ years nonsense and falsified all sorts of things while doing it. What a miserable lot.
And of course, not even a hint of an apology for the many inaccuracies you trotted out as fact. Why would anyone bother with your website when you demonstrate a complete disregard for whether or not the "information" you provide is true. I had to correct an entire paragraph of things you alleged to be facts and all you do is pump your dumb website. Amazing.Hm, I prefer to improve my website that all human space travel is a hoax starting 1961. I know plenty intelligent people that got involved with space travel back then. Some are still around. They are a big sect of blind believers. They will never admit that human space travel is just one BIG stupid hoax. They hate me for it. I just laugh at them and tell them to win €1M at my space travel Challenge - http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm .Amazing how in an age when information is so available you manage to get nothing right. The only stick between his legs was the one he was born with. The control stick off to his side was used to control the attitude of the capsule and had nothing to do with firing the engine.Maybe you should read what you write...You really have to read what I write. The Glenn 1962 fantasy orbital trip was eastwards all the time. But when he re-entered he flipped 180° and he faced east - http://heiwaco.com/moontravelw1.htm#19 . He was flying backwards.John Glenn 1962 orbited three times and then, over the Pacific he fired his rocket to slow down passing USA from California to Pennsylvania before dropping into the Atlantic Ocean below a parachute. Glenn was re-entering backwards!! Imagine that!This is my favorite in the long list of things about which you're catastrophically ignorant. Most orbits travel from west to east, including John Glenn's 1962 trip. Why would you expect reentry to go east to west? California to Pennsylvania then splashdown in the Atlantic is exactly what would be expected from someone who knows anything at all about the subject.
The fact that you think he reentered "backwards" is laughable.The Glenn 1962 fantasy orbital trip was eastwards all the time. But when he re-entered he flipped 180° and he faced eastThat sentence makes zero sense. If you actually understand the entire trip was eastward, including reentry, and your objection is that the capsule was entering heat shield first then that's maybe even dumber than what I thought you were saying.
Glenn's history as a pilot and what direction he flew aircraft has no bearing whatsoever on the engineering of the space capsule he orbited in during his 1962 trip.
Glenn was traveling backwards with a control stick between his legs. His capsule had a rocket engine facing forward for braking and maybe Glenn used the control stick to fire this engine. Glenn had also 25 buttons to push to land backwards but I don't know what they were for. He had a little window to look through and he used an upgraded Minolta Hi-Matic taking photos of the Earth below. The capsule was not full of pressurized air so there was need for an airtight space suit/helmet with gloves. How he could take photos with those gloves is a mystery.
What a stupid story. Only twerps believe it.
The capsule had an escape tower for launch with a rocket on the forward part of the capsule and a retrorocket pack attached to the heat shield. It was pushed into orbit by an Atlas rocket, also from behind the heat shield. Three rocket engines and not one of them "faced forward". The escape tower was jettisoned after launch, the Atlas rocket was jettisoned after giving the capsule orbital velocity. The retropack was the only rocket engine on the capsule once he was in orbit and it was attached to the back, over the heat shield.
There were 120 controls, not 25, although only 55 were switches, if that was what you meant by buttons, but 55 still isn't 25. At least you acknowledge you don't know what they were for.
The Mercury capsules were pressurized to 5.5 psi of pure oxygen. The pressure suits on a separate oxygen supply were there as a backup in case of a loss of pressure in the cabin or a fire, which would be extinguished by venting cabin oxygen. Most of the time, the pilots actually flew with their helmets open and suits consequently not pressurized.
I didn't look up any of the camera information, but if the operation is a mystery to you it's only because you didn't do any research either. It is likely he was able to operate the camera with gloves because of practice and training, or with modifications made to the camera to make it easier with gloves. It is also possible he simply removed his gloves to take pictures, as his suit wasn't pressurized anyway and the cabin was perfectly safe without his suit.
The history of Mercury, and the rest of the space program, is well documented. It's not a "story", stupid or otherwise. Only ignorant jackasses question it, and only then on the ridiculous basis of "I don't understand it so it must be false." I'm happy to educate you, but I can't learn for you. At some point you have to open your own mind and actually process the information.
Actually they have wasted their lives with 55+ years nonsense and falsified all sorts of things while doing it. What a miserable lot.
I just feel sorry for them. Being part of the Swedish space conspiracy - they are are plenty - starting in the 1950/60's they were obliged to participate in the hate campaign against me 1996 on wards when I publicly explained that M/S Estonia didn't sink 1994 due to a lost bow visor. Sweden is a small place. Everyone with influence knows each other. I knew it already 1965 and prepared my escape. And there we are today. What really upsets me is all these people being murdered in the process. I list them at my website.I know plenty intelligent people that got involved with space travel back then. Some are still around. They are a big sect of blind believers.How can intelligent people who were actively involved in space travel be considered "blind believers"? It's like saying that you're a blind believer in sea travel.They will never admit that human space travel is just one BIG stupid hoax. They hate me for it. I just laugh at them and tell them to win €1M at my space travel Challenge - http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm .Can you blame them for hating you when you call their life's work a stupid hoax?
Actually they have wasted their lives with 55+ years nonsense and falsified all sorts of things while doing it. What a miserable lot.