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

Quote from: markjo on September 06, 2015, 06:47:38 PM

Quote from: jroa on September 06, 2015, 06:12:48 PM

Actually, pressure is a static measurement, while flow rate is a dynamic measurement.  I am sorry to use big words, but I thought you needed a little education today.

So you're saying that pressure doesn't increase when you try to squeeze a lot of fluid through a small opening?   

No, I said pressure is a static measurement.  Flowing fluid can can experience pressure, but it is the resistance to flow that causes the pressure, not the other way around, markjo.  Don't worry, physics is really not as hard to understand as you make it out to be.

Oh, then would you care to explain it to Papa Legba?

Quote from: jroa on September 06, 2015, 06:52:09 PM

Quote from: markjo on September 06, 2015, 06:47:38 PM

Quote from: jroa on September 06, 2015, 06:12:48 PM

Actually, pressure is a static measurement, while flow rate is a dynamic measurement.  I am sorry to use big words, but I thought you needed a little education today.

So you're saying that pressure doesn't increase when you try to squeeze a lot of fluid through a small opening?   

No, I said pressure is a static measurement.  Flowing fluid can can experience pressure, but it is the resistance to flow that causes the pressure, not the other way around, markjo.  Don't worry, physics is really not as hard to understand as you make it out to be.

Oh, then would you care to explain it to Papa Legba?

Not really.  I think he is doing a fine job by himself against the dog pack. 

Quote from: markjo on September 06, 2015, 07:32:43 PM

Quote from: jroa on September 06, 2015, 06:52:09 PM

Quote from: markjo on September 06, 2015, 06:47:38 PM

Quote from: jroa on September 06, 2015, 06:12:48 PM

Actually, pressure is a static measurement, while flow rate is a dynamic measurement.  I am sorry to use big words, but I thought you needed a little education today.

So you're saying that pressure doesn't increase when you try to squeeze a lot of fluid through a small opening?   

No, I said pressure is a static measurement.  Flowing fluid can can experience pressure, but it is the resistance to flow that causes the pressure, not the other way around, markjo.  Don't worry, physics is really not as hard to understand as you make it out to be.

Oh, then would you care to explain it to Papa Legba?

Not really.  I think he is doing a fine job by himself against the dog pack.

I guess we should all just start dancing.

Quote from: markjo on September 06, 2015, 07:32:43 PM

Quote from: jroa on September 06, 2015, 06:52:09 PM

Quote from: markjo on September 06, 2015, 06:47:38 PM

Quote from: jroa on September 06, 2015, 06:12:48 PM

Actually, pressure is a static measurement, while flow rate is a dynamic measurement.  I am sorry to use big words, but I thought you needed a little education today.

So you're saying that pressure doesn't increase when you try to squeeze a lot of fluid through a small opening?   

No, I said pressure is a static measurement.  Flowing fluid can can experience pressure, but it is the resistance to flow that causes the pressure, not the other way around, markjo.  Don't worry, physics is really not as hard to understand as you make it out to be.

Oh, then would you care to explain it to Papa Legba?

Not really.  I think he is doing a fine job by himself against the dog pack.

Oh, so it's okay for you to be needlessly pedantic with RE'ers but not NASA hoaxers?  And here I thought that you were an equal opportunity pain in the ass.

jroa - not quite sure why you think flow rate isn't a result of pressure. The flow rate in a vessel or out of a vessel is dependant upon a few factors including pressure.

Fill a plastic bottle full of water and the stab a hole at the middle and the bottom. The flow out the bottom will be greater due to higher pressure.

All pumps create a difference in pressure between two points so liquids will flow from the relative high pressure to the relative low pressure (either increase the starting pressure or decrease the end pressure). That is how all pumps operate. All movements except for falling requires a force, and force exerts pressure on the object.

Oh, so it's okay for you to be needlessly pedantic with RE'ers but not NASA hoaxers?

How am I a 'hoaxer', markjo?

It is NASA who are the 'hoaxers'; for example, by claiming that 2,300 gallons of liquid can be forced through a 1-metre wide colander by a 5ft x 4ft pump designed in the early 1960s in one single second of time.

Now THAT'S major-league Hoaxing!

jroa - not quite sure why you think flow rate isn't a result of pressure. The flow rate in a vessel or out of a vessel is the downed ant upon a few factors including pressure.

Gill a plastic bottle full of water and the stab a hole at the middle and the bottom. The flow out the bottom will be greater due to higher pressure.

Mainframes, we are discussing a powered hydraulic system here, with regards to a rocket.  Think about having a pump that has its outlet connected directly to its inlet for a moment.  When you turn the pump on, there will be very little differential pressure between the inlet and outlet and the gauge pressure would be close to 0; however, you would have the maximum amount of flow that the pump can put out.  If you add a valve between the inlet and outlet and slowly close it, you would see the gauge pressure on the outlet side slowly rise and the gauge pressure on the inlet side slowly decrease.  This is because you are restricting the flow of fluid, which is causing pressure to increase. 

To recap, in a powered hydraulic system, such as the fuel system on a liquid fuel rocket, pressure is caused by restricting the flow of fluid, not the other way around.

All pumps create a difference in pressure between two points so liquids will flow from the relative high pressure to the relative low pressure (either increase the starting pressure or decrease the end pressure). That is how all pumps operate. All movements except for falling requires a force, and force exerts pressure on the object.

Technically, you are correct.  However, the differential pressure in a powered hydraulic system can be so small that it is hardly measurable, yet you can still have a very high flow rate.  Read my example above. 

Quote from: Mainframes on September 06, 2015, 11:34:55 PM

jroa - not quite sure why you think flow rate isn't a result of pressure. The flow rate in a vessel or out of a vessel is the downed ant upon a few factors including pressure.

Gill a plastic bottle full of water and the stab a hole at the middle and the bottom. The flow out the bottom will be greater due to higher pressure.

Mainframes, we are discussing a powered hydraulic system here, with regards to a rocket.  Think about having a pump that has its outlet connected directly to its inlet for a moment.  When you turn the pump on, there will be very little differential pressure between the inlet and outlet and the gauge pressure would be close to 0; however, you would have the maximum amount of flow that the pump can put out.  If you add a valve between the inlet and outlet and slowly close it, you would see the gauge pressure on the outlet side slowly rise and the gauge pressure on the inlet side slowly decrease.  This is because you are restricting the flow of fluid, which is causing pressure to increase. 

To recap, in a powered hydraulic system, such as the fuel system on a liquid fuel rocket, pressure is caused by restricting the flow of fluid, not the other way around.

Quote from: Master_Evar on September 06, 2015, 11:40:23 PM

All pumps create a difference in pressure between two points so liquids will flow from the relative high pressure to the relative low pressure (either increase the starting pressure or decrease the end pressure). That is how all pumps operate. All movements except for falling requires a force, and force exerts pressure on the object.

Technically, you are correct.  However, the differential pressure in a powered hydraulic system can be so small that it is hardly measurable, yet you can still have a very high flow rate.  Read my example above.

There are those children stories by Swedish writer Astrid Lindgren about a girl named Pippi Langstrumpf (Pippi Longstocking in the english version) - it became a TV series and it had a very catchy little song over the titles where one of the line goes "Ich mach' mir die Welt - wie sie mir gefällt", roughly translated it means "I myself create the world - however i like it". Strangely, that's the line that comes to my mind right now.

I am not sure where you got your knowledge of hydraulic systems from, but I would ask for my money back, because they really screwed you on that course.

And just as a general comment ... "hardly measurable" is not a scientific unit. If something is measurable, than it's better be included into your conclusions, no matter how "hardly" you think it is. And if you want to exclude something from your theory, you better give a more qualified reason than that (not that it matters much in your explanation, because that one was wrong on so many levels - maybe you better read up on pressure, flow-rate and cross-section again, because arguing that pushing down on a plastic bottle isn't increasing the flow of liquid from it seems, well, revolutionary).

Anyhoo, while you lot all argue about how pumps work, I went out to find a real pump that has a similar flow-rate to the fake Saturn F1 pumps & was even vaguely portable.

I couldn't find any with a 138,000 GPM flow-rate; the best I could find was the Layne/Verti-Line 1160 Series at a mere 100,000 GPM.

The details are available on www.aurorapumps.com & suffice to say it's a LOT bigger & a LOT heavier than the puny, 5ft x 4ft, 2000lbs F1 pump...

Check out the photos; LULZ!!!

Anyhoo, while you lot all argue about how pumps work, I went out to find a real pump that has a similar flow-rate to the fake Saturn F1 pumps & was even vaguely portable.

I couldn't find any with a 138,000 GPM flow-rate; the best I could find was the Layne/Verti-Line 1160 Series at a mere 100,000 GPM.

The details are available on www.aurorapumps.com & suffice to say it's a LOT bigger & a LOT heavier than the puny, 5ft x 4ft, 2000lbs F1 pump...

Check out the photos; LULZ!!!

Wow, 3000 posts and still going strong,   here's a video for Papa,  get a cold beer and settle back and learn something about rocket motor pump design.

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">! No longer available

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Quote from: jroa on September 07, 2015, 03:07:15 AM

Quote from: Mainframes on September 06, 2015, 11:34:55 PM

jroa - not quite sure why you think flow rate isn't a result of pressure. The flow rate in a vessel or out of a vessel is the downed ant upon a few factors including pressure.

Gill a plastic bottle full of water and the stab a hole at the middle and the bottom. The flow out the bottom will be greater due to higher pressure.

Mainframes, we are discussing a powered hydraulic system here, with regards to a rocket.  Think about having a pump that has its outlet connected directly to its inlet for a moment.  When you turn the pump on, there will be very little differential pressure between the inlet and outlet and the gauge pressure would be close to 0; however, you would have the maximum amount of flow that the pump can put out.  If you add a valve between the inlet and outlet and slowly close it, you would see the gauge pressure on the outlet side slowly rise and the gauge pressure on the inlet side slowly decrease.  This is because you are restricting the flow of fluid, which is causing pressure to increase. 

To recap, in a powered hydraulic system, such as the fuel system on a liquid fuel rocket, pressure is caused by restricting the flow of fluid, not the other way around.

Quote from: Master_Evar on September 06, 2015, 11:40:23 PM

All pumps create a difference in pressure between two points so liquids will flow from the relative high pressure to the relative low pressure (either increase the starting pressure or decrease the end pressure). That is how all pumps operate. All movements except for falling requires a force, and force exerts pressure on the object.

Technically, you are correct.  However, the differential pressure in a powered hydraulic system can be so small that it is hardly measurable, yet you can still have a very high flow rate.  Read my example above.

There are those children stories by Swedish writer Astrid Lindgren about a girl named Pippi Langstrumpf (Pippi Longstocking in the english version) - it became a TV series and it had a very catchy little song over the titles where one of the line goes "Ich mach' mir die Welt - wie sie mir gefällt", roughly translated it means "I myself create the world - however i like it". Strangely, that's the line that comes to my mind right now.

I am not sure where you got your knowledge of hydraulic systems from, but I would ask for my money back, because they really screwed you on that course.

And just as a general comment ... "hardly measurable" is not a scientific unit. If something is measurable, than it's better be included into your conclusions, no matter how "hardly" you think it is. And if you want to exclude something from your theory, you better give a more qualified reason than that (not that it matters much in your explanation, because that one was wrong on so many levels - maybe you better read up on pressure, flow-rate and cross-section again, because arguing that pushing down on a plastic bottle isn't increasing the flow of liquid from it seems, well, revolutionary).

Just to let you know, I taught Industrial Hydraulics classes (the course was called Fluid Power) for 10 years as a part time instructor (2001-2011).  I was also, at one time, certified as an IHT (Industrial Hydraulics Technician) through the International Fluid Power Society, although I have not renewed my certification in a while.  This is in addition to having almost 19 years of industrial maintenance experience and college courses in the subject.

That being said, what part of my post are you disagreeing with, specifically?  Do you disagree that a pump with its inlet and outlet connected together has the maximum flow rate, but very little pressure, and that pressure rises as resistance is added to the circuit?  I can assure you that I performed this experiment several times per year for 10 years as a demonstration for the students.  I can't remember for sure if it was in the introduction chapter or one of the chapters specifically on pumps in the text book that we taught from, but the text book specifically said, "Pumps do not create pressure, they create flow.  The system creates pressure by restricting the flow."  And, then the instructor would demonstrate this by connecting the inlet of a pump through an open valve to the outlet of the pump and while it is running, slowly close the valve while the students observed the pressure go from essentially 0 to whatever the pressure relief was set.  They would also observe the flow rate and see that even at close to 0 psi, the flow rate would be close to what the pump was rated.  I can dig up several editions of the text book from boxes if you want a proper citation  if you need me to do so. 

Now, if you know more about hydraulics than I do, then calculate the pressure at the nozzle given the cross sectional area and flow rate that I listed earlier.  I know I can do it quite easily, but, let us see what you can do without google to tell you how to do it. 

Edited to correct typos

I think you two are arguing at cross purposes,   the combustion chamber pressure in a rocket engine comes from the combustion process,  not the pumps.   

I think you two are arguing at cross purposes,   the combustion chamber pressure in a rocket engine comes from the combustion process,  not the pumps.   

You may be right.  I may have jumped the gun with my last post.  I am not a rocket scientist, and I would have a hard time calculating the counter force of the combustion without Google's help.  I could only calculate the hydraulic pressure at the nozzle.  However, my points still stand, and I will be happy to argue them with anyone if they think I am wrong. 

Jroa, might I ask how you can calculate anything about the F1 engine flow-rate without first knowing the exact specifications of the Injector Plate that is clearly impeding that Flow?

The Injector Plate is not just one layer of colander-like holes btw; it is two, separated by at least a 1 inch gap.

Surely the pressure involved in its impedance of a 138,000 GPM flow rate through a 1-metre diameter outlet would create very considerable engineering problems indeed regarding its mounting, etc, as well as putting excessive strain on the pump & associated mountings, piping etc, itself?

Also, I would like someone to address the points I made regarding modern pumps capable of 100,000 GPM flow rates, 40% less than the F1 pump, as outlined below:

The best I could find was the Layne/Verti-Line 1160 Series at a mere 100,000 GPM.

The details are available on www.aurorapumps.com & suffice to say it's a LOT bigger & a LOT heavier than the puny, 5ft x 4ft, 2000lbs F1 pump...

Check out the photos; LULZ!!!

Also, I would like someone to address the points I made regarding modern pumps capable of 100,000 GPM flow rates, 40% less than the F1 pump, as outlined below:

Since that pump isn't driven by a gas turbine engine or designed to deliver cryogenic liquids, then it really isn't comparable, is it? 

Rocket engine fuel pumps are designed for very specific purposes and aren't generally available off the shelf.

Since that pump isn't driven by a gas turbine engine or designed to deliver cryogenic liquids, then it really isn't comparable, is it? 

It isn't about gas turbines though, is it markjo: it is about internal volume.

& the F1 pump has nothing like the internal volume of the 1160 series, even though it is allegedly 40% more powerful.

Nor are the F1's inlet & outlet anything like the same size, so the internal stresses would be enormous; & we have already established that the F1 pump was only 5ft x 4ft with an aluminium casing...

Also, the manual of the 1160 is available on the same site; note the massiveness of the mounting necessary; a solid, reinforced concrete base, to which it is very firmly attached by many large anchoring bolts.

Yet the F1 pump seems to merely dangle off the side of the engine nozzle; hardly what I'd call secure or solid...

& all this is before we get to the problem of forcing a 138,000 GPM flow rate through a double-sided 1-metre wide colander, & all the colossal stresses & strains that would produce on the entire structure.

Really, markjo; we are in la-la land here, engineering-wise; this thing, the F1 engine, simply cannot exist as described.

It is a sci-fi fantasy, fit only for the wildest dreams of madmen, idiots & felons, & nothing you can say will dissuade me from that absolute certainty.

But, of course, you will keep on trying...

So; carry on Lying.

Please calculate the colossal stresses and strains and we will compare to the strength of Aluminium Alloy.

Quote from: markjo on September 07, 2015, 09:34:37 AM

Since that pump isn't driven by a gas turbine engine or designed to deliver cryogenic liquids, then it really isn't comparable, is it? 

It isn't about gas turbines though, is it markjo: it is about internal volume.

& the F1 pump has nothing like the internal volume of the 1160 series, even though it is allegedly 40% more powerful.

Does the 1160 series operate at pressures in excess of 1500 psi?

Please calculate the colossal stresses and strains and we will compare to the strength of Aluminium Alloy.

No; you do it.

Using your fraudulent maths 'skills' that jroa busted like a pinata, perhaps?

You are the one who claims this all 'well understood, well-established scientific fact'.

Shouldn't be hard then, should it?

Does the 1160 series operate at pressures in excess of 1500 psi?

Does the 1160 pump cryogenically frozen fuels?

No, it does not.

& as we all know what effect cryogenic fluids such as liquid nitrogen have on materials, then I'd expect the Saturn F1 pump to be even more robustly constructed than the 1160...

But it's not, it, markjo?

It's a tiny, ridiculous little p.o.s, anchored to nothing in particular, that allegedly pushes a flow rate in excess of 138,000 GPM through a f**king 1-metre wide COLANDER...

LOL!!!

We're here again, criminals; you're all nagging away, trying to convince me of the existence of a preposterous machine that every single experience of my long life tells me is utterly physically impossible...

Well you can all go take a flying f**k at a doughnut, cos I will never buy what you are selling.

Ever.

Now carry on Lying.

Does the 1160 pump cryogenically frozen fuels?

No, it does not.

& as we all know what effect cryogenic fluids such as liquid nitrogen have on materials, then I'd expect the Saturn F1 pump to be even more robustly constructed than the 1160...

But it's not, it, markjo?

It's a tiny, ridiculous little p.o.s, anchored to nothing in particular, that allegedly pushes a flow rate in excess of 138,000 GPM through a f**king 1-metre wide COLANDER...

You still haven't told us where you got your engineering degree.  After all, you must e one hell of an engineer to be able to tell what a pump can or can't do just by looking at it.

Quote from: Mainframes on September 07, 2015, 10:59:50 AM

Please calculate the colossal stresses and strains and we will compare to the strength of Aluminium Alloy.

No; you do it.

Using your fraudulent maths 'skills' that jroa busted like a pinata, perhaps?

You are the one who claims this all 'well understood, well-established scientific fact'.

Shouldn't be hard then, should it?

Nah, I'm happy that the pumps work and have video and historical evidence on my side. You're the one saying they don't work, so it's upto you to prove it.

LOL!!!

So, mainframes; you can't do it?

Even though you claim it's 'well-understood, well-established scientific fact'?

Coward.

& markjo; I don't need to show you anything or calculate anything beyond the absolute basics.

Which are: you cannot force 2300 gallons of liquid through a 1-metre wide spaghetti strainer in one single second of time.

It can't be done.

End. Of. Story.

The entire space program is as fake as tits on a bull; & I'll expose how they hoaxed up the start of it soon enough.

It is a tale full of lulz & audacious fraud; neutrals will love it...

You won't, though; but you should all be in jail anyway, so who cares?

& markjo; I don't need to show you anything or calculate anything beyond the absolute basics.

Which are: you cannot force 2300 gallons of liquid through a 1-metre wide spaghetti strainer in one single second of time.

It can't be done.

Then please show your calculations proving that it can't be done.

'calculations'?

LOL!!!

Like the ones your bum-chum mainframes either refuses to provide, or when he does they are utterly fraudulent?

GTFO, you arrogant shyster!

See this thing in the picture below that looks like a colander?

Well it's under 1 metre wide.

Now; take 42, yes, FORTY-TWO, big, 55-gallon drums of kerosene & stand them all on end above it.

Then imagine trying to squeeze all that volume of liquid through the silly little colander in ONE SINGLE SECOND OF TIME.

Calculations?

LMFAO!!!

The fuel pump on the Saturn F1 is 5ftX 4ft & it's not made of unobtainium & it isn't powered by kryptonite; it's a tiny p.o.s. that could never, ever, provide the pressure needed to squeeze all that 2300 gallons of fuel through a f**king COLANDER in ONE SECOND ffs!!!

Are you MENTAL?!?!



Now stop wasting sane people's time & F**k off back to the psych ward, tinfoil-hatters.

'calculations'?

Yes, calculations.  You know, the things that separate evidence from opinion.

Would you ask for 'calculations' that Santa's Sleigh's not feasible too?

No.

I've provided more evidence on this thread than all you cultists put together, & everyone knows it.

You just ignore the big parts you don't like, pick at the irrelevant bits round the edges, then ask for 'calculations' to round off your lying shit-fest.

So F**k Off, criminal.

I've provided more evidence on this thread than all you cultists put together, & everyone knows it.

No, you've provided your opinion, conjecture, ridicule, insults and abuse.  None of those count as evidence.

Jroa, might I ask how you can calculate anything about the F1 engine flow-rate without first knowing the exact specifications of the Injector Plate that is clearly impeding that Flow?

The Injector Plate is not just one layer of colander-like holes btw; it is two, separated by at least a 1 inch gap.

Surely the pressure involved in its impedance of a 138,000 GPM flow rate through a 1-metre diameter outlet would create very considerable engineering problems indeed regarding its mounting, etc, as well as putting excessive strain on the pump & associated mountings, piping etc, itself?

Also, I would like someone to address the points I made regarding modern pumps capable of 100,000 GPM flow rates, 40% less than the F1 pump, as outlined below:

Quote from: Papa Legba on September 07, 2015, 06:30:55 AM

The best I could find was the Layne/Verti-Line 1160 Series at a mere 100,000 GPM.

The details are available on www.aurorapumps.com & suffice to say it's a LOT bigger & a LOT heavier than the puny, 5ft x 4ft, 2000lbs F1 pump...

Check out the photos; LULZ!!!

I would need to know the exact size of the holes and how many of them there are. 

I would need to know the exact size of the holes and how many of them there are.

That information can be found here: http://heroicrelics.org/info/f-1/f-1-injector.html