It's 2015 and you aren't even close to owning a Spaceship

Quote from: iWitness on May 30, 2015, 05:55:34 AM

Now the question remains, will it work in a vacuum?

No, there's no air for it to use. That's why rockets don't use propellors.

Good point.  Propellers are a lot more efficient than rockets, which is why rocket engines are only used for certain things within the atmosphere.

Actually, pound for pound, nothing is more or less efficient. It just appears to be. Obviously it has to be looked at in an overall point of view. I wonder how many will jump in and tell I'm wrong.

Actually, pound for pound, nothing is more or less efficient. It just appears to be. Obviously it has to be looked at in an overall point of view. I wonder how many will jump in and tell I'm wrong.

Well, it's kinda hard to say that you're wrong when you're that ambiguous.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 30, 2015, 07:14:37 AM

Actually, pound for pound, nothing is more or less efficient. It just appears to be. Obviously it has to be looked at in an overall point of view. I wonder how many will jump in and tell I'm wrong.

Well, it's kinda hard to say that you're wrong when you're that ambiguous.

You don't get more out than what you put in, basically.

"Efficiency" in movement is usually the "waste" energy being created. Thermal, sound, etc. The less waste energy, the more efficient you are.

"Efficiency" in movement is usually the "waste" energy being created. Thermal, sound, etc. The less waste energy, the more efficient you are.

It depends what you mean by efficient. I'm not talking about monetary efficient. I'm talking about Earthly efficient and by that; it's why I mean that pound for pound with anything, there's no gain or loss in efficiency, as everything is equal. You do not get more out of something than what you put into it. It's impossible when looked at overall.

Quote from: Misero on May 30, 2015, 08:03:09 AM

"Efficiency" in movement is usually the "waste" energy being created. Thermal, sound, etc. The less waste energy, the more efficient you are.

It depends what you mean by efficient. I'm not talking about monetary efficient. I'm talking about Earthly efficient and by that; it's why I mean that pound for pound with anything, there's no gain or loss in efficiency, as everything is equal. You do not get more out of something than what you put into it. It's impossible when looked at overall.

You sound as if you are confusing conservation of energy with efficiency.   

Quote from: Misero on May 30, 2015, 08:03:09 AM

"Efficiency" in movement is usually the "waste" energy being created. Thermal, sound, etc. The less waste energy, the more efficient you are.

It depends what you mean by efficient. I'm not talking about monetary efficient. I'm talking about Earthly efficient and by that; it's why I mean that pound for pound with anything, there's no gain or loss in efficiency, as everything is equal. You do not get more out of something than what you put into it. It's impossible when looked at overall.

Pound for pound diesel will contain more energy than gasoline. I agree with others, you are talking about something else.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 30, 2015, 08:27:19 AM

Quote from: Misero on May 30, 2015, 08:03:09 AM

"Efficiency" in movement is usually the "waste" energy being created. Thermal, sound, etc. The less waste energy, the more efficient you are.

It depends what you mean by efficient. I'm not talking about monetary efficient. I'm talking about Earthly efficient and by that; it's why I mean that pound for pound with anything, there's no gain or loss in efficiency, as everything is equal. You do not get more out of something than what you put into it. It's impossible when looked at overall.

You sound as if you are confusing conservation of energy with efficiency.

I'm not confusing anything. I've told you exactly what I mean.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 30, 2015, 08:27:19 AM

Quote from: Misero on May 30, 2015, 08:03:09 AM

"Efficiency" in movement is usually the "waste" energy being created. Thermal, sound, etc. The less waste energy, the more efficient you are.

It depends what you mean by efficient. I'm not talking about monetary efficient. I'm talking about Earthly efficient and by that; it's why I mean that pound for pound with anything, there's no gain or loss in efficiency, as everything is equal. You do not get more out of something than what you put into it. It's impossible when looked at overall.

Pound for pound diesel will contain more energy than gasoline. I agree with others, you are talking about something else.

I'm talking about only getting out of something what you put into it, pound for pound.
I'm not talking about petrol v diesel and what not.

I'm talking about you not being able to get more energy out of something than what you put into it. Pound for pound it's equal.

Quote from: sokarul on May 30, 2015, 09:56:27 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 30, 2015, 08:27:19 AM

Quote from: Misero on May 30, 2015, 08:03:09 AM

"Efficiency" in movement is usually the "waste" energy being created. Thermal, sound, etc. The less waste energy, the more efficient you are.

It depends what you mean by efficient. I'm not talking about monetary efficient. I'm talking about Earthly efficient and by that; it's why I mean that pound for pound with anything, there's no gain or loss in efficiency, as everything is equal. You do not get more out of something than what you put into it. It's impossible when looked at overall.

Pound for pound diesel will contain more energy than gasoline. I agree with others, you are talking about something else.

I'm talking about only getting out of something what you put into it, pound for pound.
I'm not talking about petrol v diesel and what not.

I'm talking about you not being able to get more energy out of something than what you put into it. Pound for pound it's equal.

Can you state an example?

I'm talking about you not being able to get more energy out of something than what you put into it. Pound for pound it's equal.

That's not efficiency. Efficiency is about how much of the right kind of energy you get out. Yes, you'll get the same amount of energy total out, but that's not really relevant: only some of it can be used for the relevant process, so only some of it counts towards efficiency.

I'm talking about you not being able to get more energy out of something than what you put into it. Pound for pound it's equal.

That isn't efficiency, that's the first law of thermodynamics.

In the case of propellers vs rockets, a propeller driven airplane is more efficient because it can go a lot farther than a rocket driven airplane on the same amount of fuel.  This is why you don't see rocket powered airliners.

To get back to my question, which you all ignored except for markjo, who posted a photo of a pimped-up sail-boat for some bizarre reason:

I have provided solid evidence that a rocket can thrust against an outside mass.

The atmosphere has mass.

Ergo a rocket can thrust against the atmosphere.

Now; please provide similar evidence for your & NASA's claim that a ROCKET (NOT a boat, markjo!) pushes, not on the atmosphere, but ONLY ON ITSELF.

I'm waiting...

I would like to see the proof that rockets will even ignite higher than 200,000 feet.

If space was truly a vacuum, as soon as the valves opened to feed the fuel and oxidizers to the combustion chamber, all the liquid would get sucked out into the 'vacuum' of space.

I would like to see the proof that rockets will even ignite higher than 200,000 feet.

watch any rocket flight then

iWitness: I'd say it depends on what type of rocket is used & how low the atmospheric pressure is at 200,000 feet.

Hypergolic liquid-fuelled rockets should be able to function, though whether they'd create useful thrust is open to question.

The same goes for most types of modern solid-fuel rockets.

Non-hypergolic liquid-fuelled rockets are another matter, but as they are mainly fantasy items I'd not bother too much with them.

There is a chance that Free Expansion would occur, or even that the fuel tanks would explode, if atmospheric pressure was low enough though.

Now: does anyone have solid, real-world evidence that NASA's rockets work as they claim, by 'pushing on themselves'?

You know, the phrase 'pushing on themselves' is so laughable when thought about logically that I'll use it a lot from now, until the absurdity of it sinks in...

By the same logic, I should be able to grab myself by my ear & simply lift myself up to space!

Sadly, I can't... so Zero evidence for the space-cultist's model so far eh?

Pythagoras: if you cannot work out that most 'space-rocket' launches are either completely sfx, or that the rocket trajectory reaches apogee at an altitude far too low for it to achieve orbit, then you are out of your depth here.

Go learn how these things work, then return.

Or just remove your space-horns & enter the door marked 'Freedom'...

Il make the decision on me being in or out of my depth thank you very much. Have you ever seen a rocket launch in person just out of curiosity?

Fine; you make that decision. Good for you.

But I'll make the decision on whether you've provided similar evidence for NASA's rocketry model that I have for mine.

& I've decided that you have NOT.

So off you go & find some; you won't get it at one of their rocket launches though, much as you may wish it so..

Have you ever watched a launch in person?

Papa Legba, what do you expect would happen if a light object and a heavy object were to push away from each other in a zero G vacuum like space?

You speak of TWO objects pushing on each other.

But a rocket is ONE object.

What, then, is the SECOND object against which the rocket pushes?

Oh dear! Painted yourself into a corner here, haven't you?

You speak of TWO objects pushing on each other.

But a rocket is ONE object.

What, then, is the SECOND object against which the rocket pushes?

Oh dear! Painted yourself into a corner here, haven't you?

The second object is the exhaust.

So: the exhaust somehow detaches itself, turns round to face back at the rocket, then pushes on it?

What are you trying to say here?

So: the exhaust somehow detaches itself, turns round to face back at the rocket, then pushes on it?

What are you trying to say here?

It's interesting (and embarrassing) that—like many flat earthers—you seem to have no idea at all as to the forces acting on a rocket.





The mistake that you all make is erroneously assuming that the rocket's exhaust has to "push" against something—such as air.  This is easily disproved by the fact that rockets work in the (near) vacuum of space.

Quote from: Papa Legba on April 25, 2015, 11:26:51 PM

I'll take that as a 'no' from Falseprophet too.

Two down; next?

Strange how so many people believe in all this space-malarkey & are willing to call everyone who doubts it 'crackpots', yet none of them have any first-hand experience of it whatsoever.

Just pure belief.

Comes across kinda like a Religion to me...

Why is evidence "pure belief"?  Do you feel the same about everything you have not witnessed first hand?

No ,but I dont go round premoting hear say ether . If I haven't personally experienced it ,then it remains hear say until verifiable by my reasoning not simply more hear say .

To get back to my question, which you all ignored except for markjo, who posted a photo of a pimped-up sail-boat for some bizarre reason:

I have provided solid evidence that a rocket can thrust against an outside mass.

The atmosphere has mass.

Ergo a rocket can thrust against the atmosphere.

Now; please provide similar evidence for your & NASA's claim that a ROCKET (NOT a boat, markjo!) pushes, not on the atmosphere, but ONLY ON ITSELF.

I'm waiting...

If was standing behind a rocket, which way would the back blast push me? Towards the rocket or away from the rocket?

Ausgeoff: Nice drawing.

Shame it proves nothing.

Also a shame that you are yet another entity who cannot distinguish between Words & Reality.

I demonstrated, through the back-blast of man-portable rockets, clear evidence that a rocket exhaust will thrust against a mass placed behind it.

The atmosphere has mass.

Ergo, rockets can push on the atmosphere.

There are many videos available of just such an occurrence, & every person with any military knowledge or experience reading this thread will know that what I say is true.

Now: please provide similar evidence of a rocket 'pushing on itself'.

Not drawings & pompous bluster; not boats with fans on the back; not false analogies...

CLEAR, DEMONSTRABLE EVIDENCE THAT ROCKETS PUSH ONLY ON THEMSELVES.

Quote from: Papa Legba on May 30, 2015, 04:20:15 PM

So: the exhaust somehow detaches itself, turns round to face back at the rocket, then pushes on it?

What are you trying to say here?

It's interesting (and embarrassing) that—like many flat earthers—you seem to have no idea at all as to the forces acting on a rocket.

Rocket thrust is caused by pressures acting
on both the combustion chamber and nozzle

The mistake that you all make is erroneously assuming that the rocket's exhaust has to "push" against something—such as air.  This is easily disproved by the fact that rockets work in the (near) vacuum of space.

No your making the assumption thats whats assumed. The rocket propels its self by displacing matter .  http://exploration.grc.nasa.gov/education/rocket/Images/newton3r.gif
Wrong
For every action , there is an equally & opposite reaction ,applied to the point of equlibreum.