Because there's nothing for the exhaust to push against. Duh.
Ah, he lacks an understanding of basic physics. Force balance equations are your friend. A force balance equation would actually show you that a rocket works better in a vacuum.TexasH, are you commenting on the FEer comment just before yours?
Expansion of gas, Free, in a Vacuum.
The end.
Turn off your brains & go back to sleep.
Here is a thread for satanic sci-fi cultists to post photos/videos of people on skateboards that they think somehow prove that rockets will function in a vacuum.
Newton, Joules & Thomson will be spinning in their graves at such nonsense, but I guess these cultists are too satanically brainwashed to comprehend how basic scientific principles work...
Whatever; knock yourselves out, psychos!
COM only applies to Closed Systems.Where in any scientific journals/articles/theories/theorems/laws is this specified, exactly?
LOL!!!Then it's a good thing that the main action/reaction between the expanding gasses and the rocket happens within the combustion chamber of the rocket engine and not in the vacuum of space.
No, numbskull; it's conservation of momentum that's only applicable to a closed system.
Free Expansion will occur whenever any pressurised gas is introduced into any vacuum.
Really; you need to go howl your madness at Newton, Joules & Thomson, not me.On the contrary, those are the laws that, when properly applied, make space flight possible.
For its their laws you are arguing against.
free expansion assumes an ideal gas with no mass.
Momentum, conservation of.
The end.
Turn off the lights and lock the thread.
free expansion assumes an ideal gas with no mass.
LULZ!!!
You're making this up as you go along & it is hilarious!
Note to neutrals: free expansion is also known as Joules expansion or the Joules-Thomson effect. It states quite categorically that a gas can do no work in a vacuum.
No.Because there's nothing for the exhaust to push against. Duh.Ah, he lacks an understanding of basic physics. Force balance equations are your friend. A force balance equation would actually show you that a rocket works better in a vacuum.TexasH, are you commenting on the FEer comment just before yours?
free expansion assumes an ideal gas with no mass.
LULZ!!!
You're making this up as you go along & it is hilarious!
Note to neutrals: free expansion is also known as Joules expansion or the Joules-Thomson effect. It states quite categorically that a gas can do no work in a vacuum.
Lol
Newton's third law is applied before the exhaust enters space. Not that it matters as the exhaust isn't pushing if atmosphere to propel a rocket.
Lol
Lol
Well...
Ever seen FAIL videos where people get slammed in the face by the gun after firing a shot? That's caused by conservation of momentum.
The force that the explosion used on the bullet has an equal and opposite reaction force back towards the gun.
That's why the gum slams back.
The same CoM applies in vacuum where if you fire a bullet, you would physically be pushed back because you are not attached to anything, so the movement will actually be more significant in space.
Imagine the gas rocket as a huge gun firing trillions of gas particles into space, although each pushes the spaceship the opposite direction a tiny amount, together they make it move.
(And yes I know guns don't work in space cuz there's no oxygen and explosion and stuff, but I'm just using it as an example.)
EDIT:
Actually guns can work in space cuz they come with their own oxydiser, as it turns out ;)
http://www.livescience.com/18588-shoot-gun-space.html (http://www.livescience.com/18588-shoot-gun-space.html)
No. Why would I think that? I actually know what I'm talking about.free expansion assumes an ideal gas with no mass.
LULZ!!!
You're making this up as you go along & it is hilarious!
Note to neutrals: free expansion is also known as Joules expansion or the Joules-Thomson effect. It states quite categorically that a gas can do no work in a vacuum.
Lol
Newton's third law is applied before the exhaust enters space. Not that it matters as the exhaust isn't pushing if atmosphere to propel a rocket.
Lol
Lol
sokarul, Do you think a rocket would work just fine if the exhaust nozzles were pointed out the side of the rocket and not pointed down?
Uh, yes it would still work. The physical location of the nozzle has no bearing on the physics of the rocket engine. It may fly sideways (attitude control, anyone?) but it is still a rocket.No. Why would I think that? I actually know what I'm talking about.free expansion assumes an ideal gas with no mass.
LULZ!!!
You're making this up as you go along & it is hilarious!
Note to neutrals: free expansion is also known as Joules expansion or the Joules-Thomson effect. It states quite categorically that a gas can do no work in a vacuum.
Lol
Newton's third law is applied before the exhaust enters space. Not that it matters as the exhaust isn't pushing if atmosphere to propel a rocket.
Lol
Lol
sokarul, Do you think a rocket would work just fine if the exhaust nozzles were pointed out the side of the rocket and not pointed down?
A rocket will not "work just fine" with the nozzle pointing 90 degrees the wrong way unless you think "work just fine" means spinning in a circle until it crashes.Uh, yes it would still work. The physical location of the nozzle has no bearing on the physics of the rocket engine. It may fly sideways (attitude control, anyone?) but it is still a rocket.No. Why would I think that? I actually know what I'm talking about.free expansion assumes an ideal gas with no mass.
LULZ!!!
You're making this up as you go along & it is hilarious!
Note to neutrals: free expansion is also known as Joules expansion or the Joules-Thomson effect. It states quite categorically that a gas can do no work in a vacuum.
Lol
Newton's third law is applied before the exhaust enters space. Not that it matters as the exhaust isn't pushing if atmosphere to propel a rocket.
Lol
Lol
sokarul, Do you think a rocket would work just fine if the exhaust nozzles were pointed out the side of the rocket and not pointed down?
Note to neutrals: free expansion is also known as Joules expansion or the Joules-Thomson effect. It states quite categorically that a gas can do no work in a vacuum.Then it's a good thing that no one is claiming that it does. We are claiming that the work is being done in the combustion chamber of the rocket engine, not in the vacuum of space.
A rocket will not "work just fine" with the nozzle pointing 90 degrees the wrong way unless you think "work just fine" means spinning in a circle until it crashes.The purpose of an attitude control thruster is to provide a moment about the center of mass of a rocket body. Oh, and they work just fine.
He isn't talking about those. Pay attention. He was asking if I think nozzles don't do anything related to movement, like the tail pipe of a car.A rocket will not "work just fine" with the nozzle pointing 90 degrees the wrong way unless you think "work just fine" means spinning in a circle until it crashes.The purpose of an attitude control thruster is to provide a moment about the center of mass of a rocket body. Oh, and they work just fine.
Again, the physical location of the engine does not negate the physics of said engine.
Note to neutrals: free expansion is also known as Joules expansion or the Joules-Thomson effect. It states quite categorically that a gas can do no work in a vacuum.Then it's a good thing that no one is claiming that it does. We are claiming that the work is being done in the combustion chamber of the rocket engine, not in the vacuum of space.
He isn't talking about those. Pay attention. He was asking if I think nozzles don't do anything related to movement, like the tail pipe of a car.
sokarul, Do you think a rocket would work just fine if the exhaust nozzles were pointed out the side of the rocket and not pointed down?No. Why would I think that? I actually know what I'm talking about.
A rocket will not "work just fine" with the nozzle pointing 90 degrees the wrong way unless you think "work just fine" means spinning in a circle until it crashes.
He isn't talking about those. Pay attention. He was asking if I think nozzles don't do anything related to movement, like the tail pipe of a car.
Hmm, 'cause that is not what you just said:sokarul, Do you think a rocket would work just fine if the exhaust nozzles were pointed out the side of the rocket and not pointed down?No. Why would I think that? I actually know what I'm talking about.
Oh, and this:A rocket will not "work just fine" with the nozzle pointing 90 degrees the wrong way unless you think "work just fine" means spinning in a circle until it crashes.
The equal and opposite reaction is created when the exhaust leaves the nozzle. This has already been explained many times in the other thread. I also said to watch October Sky to see an explanation of nozzles.Note to neutrals: free expansion is also known as Joules expansion or the Joules-Thomson effect. It states quite categorically that a gas can do no work in a vacuum.Then it's a good thing that no one is claiming that it does. We are claiming that the work is being done in the combustion chamber of the rocket engine, not in the vacuum of space.
You guys are confusing me. If the work, meaning what causes it to fly in a vacuum, is being done in the combustion chamber of the rocket engine and the expelling gasses out the nozzle is not doing any of the work, then it shouldn't matter where the exhaust nozzles are pointed. Simple little control surfaces should do the trick of steering it just fine. What I'm suggesting should also work just fine in the atmosphere as well. If not, Please explain.
The whole process is made far more understandable when you look at what is actually happening and causing the net force that drives the rocket forwards.That's not how it works.
Fuel and oxidiser are pumped into the combustion chamber and ignited creating exhaust particles that are accelerated to high velocity and creates a very large pressure. The action of the exhaust particles impacting the chamber are what gives momentum to the rocket. This momentum is upwards because there is a hole at the bottom (the nozzle). This means that the forces are not equal. There is a greater force upwards than downwards because the exhaust particles can pass out the bottom without imparting force.
Net force upwards accelerates the rocket. This is why a vacuum is not a problem. It is the simple action of exhaust particles impacting the combustion chamber exerting net force upwards.
Momentum, conservation of.
The end.
Turn off the lights and lock the thread.
LULZ!!!
You're actually trying to re-write the laws of physics now..?
You've only made four posts & every single one of them is gibberish; good work, schteeben; 100% Fail!
The equal and opposite reaction is created when the exhaust leaves the nozzle. This has already been explained many times in the other thread. I also said to watch October Sky to see an explanation of nozzles.Note to neutrals: free expansion is also known as Joules expansion or the Joules-Thomson effect. It states quite categorically that a gas can do no work in a vacuum.Then it's a good thing that no one is claiming that it does. We are claiming that the work is being done in the combustion chamber of the rocket engine, not in the vacuum of space.
You guys are confusing me. If the work, meaning what causes it to fly in a vacuum, is being done in the combustion chamber of the rocket engine and the expelling gasses out the nozzle is not doing any of the work, then it shouldn't matter where the exhaust nozzles are pointed. Simple little control surfaces should do the trick of steering it just fine. What I'm suggesting should also work just fine in the atmosphere as well. If not, Please explain.
LULZ!!!
You're actually trying to re-write the laws of physics now..?
You've only made four posts & every single one of them is gibberish; good work, schteeben; 100% Fail!
Would someone please show me the equations that show a rocket needs something to "push against", because here is why you don't need an atmosphere for it to work.
Let us begin with Newton's second law of motion:
d (M u) / dt = F net
where M is the mass of the rocket, u is the velocity of the rocket, F net is the net external force on the rocket and the symbol d / dt denotes that this is a differential equation in time t. The only external force which we will consider is the thrust from the propulsion system.
The thrust equation is given by:
F = mdot * Veq
where mdot is the mass flow rate, and Veq is the equivalent exit velocity of the nozzle which is defined to be:
Veq = V exit + (p exit - p0) * Aexit / mdot
where V exit is the exit velocity, p exit is the exit pressure, p0 is the free stream pressure, and A exit is the exit area of the nozzle. Veq is also related to the specific impulse Isp:
Veq = Isp * g0
where g0 is the gravitational constant. m dot is mass flow rate and is equal to the change in the mass of the propellants mp on board the rocket:
mdot = d mp / dt
Substituting the expression for the thrust into the motion equation gives:
d (M u) / dt = V eq * d mp / dt
d (M u) = Veq d mp
Expanding the left side of the equation:
M du + u dM = Veq d mp
Assume we are moving with the rocket, then the value of u is zero:
M du = Veq d mp
Now, if we consider the instantaneous mass of the rocket M, the mass is composed of two main parts, the empty mass me and the propellant mass mp. The empty mass does not change with time, but the mass of propellants on board the rocket does change with time:
M(t) = me + mp (t)
Initially, the full mass of the rocket mf contains the empty mass and all of the propellant at lift off. At the end of the burn, the mass of the rocket contains only the empty mass:
M initial = mf = me + mp
M final = me
The change on the mass of the rocket is equal to the change in mass of the propellant, which is negative, since propellant mass is constantly being ejected out of the nozzle:
dM = - d mp
If we substitute this relation into the motion equation:
M du = - Veq dM
du = - Veq dM / M
We can now integrate this equation:
delta u = - Veq ln (M)
where delta represents the change in velocity, and ln is the symbol for the natural logarithmic function. The limits of integration are from the initial mass of the rocket to the final mass of the rocket. Substituting for these values we obtain:
delta u = Veq ln (mf / me)
This equation is called the ideal rocket equation. There are several additional forms of this equation which we list here: Using the definition of the propellant mass ratio MR
MR = mf / me
delta u = Veq * ln (MR)
or in terms of the specific impulse of the engine:
delta u = Isp * g0 * ln (MR)
If we have a desired delta u for a maneuver, we can invert this equation to determine the amount of propellant required:
MR = exp (delta u / (Isp * g0) )
where exp is the exponential function.
If you include the effects of gravity, the rocket equation becomes:
delta u = Veq ln (MR) - g0 * tb
where tb is the time for the burn.
And this is how rockets work.
Expansion of gas, Free, in a Vacuum.Free expansion applies to a closed system.
The end.
Turn off your brains & go back to sleep.
Wow, that was a great rebuttal! Very informative and directly addresses the point. Nice dodge. I see you haven't changed a bit.He isn't talking about those. Pay attention. He was asking if I think nozzles don't do anything related to movement, like the tail pipe of a car.
Hmm, 'cause that is not what you just said:sokarul, Do you think a rocket would work just fine if the exhaust nozzles were pointed out the side of the rocket and not pointed down?No. Why would I think that? I actually know what I'm talking about.
Oh, and this:A rocket will not "work just fine" with the nozzle pointing 90 degrees the wrong way unless you think "work just fine" means spinning in a circle until it crashes.
Are you stupid?
I have no idea what you were trying to get at. Maybe post something more than 3 quotes and an incomplete sentence. Then I will make a rebuttal.Wow, that was a great rebuttal! Very informative and directly addresses the point. Nice dodge. I see you haven't changed a bit.He isn't talking about those. Pay attention. He was asking if I think nozzles don't do anything related to movement, like the tail pipe of a car.
Hmm, 'cause that is not what you just said:sokarul, Do you think a rocket would work just fine if the exhaust nozzles were pointed out the side of the rocket and not pointed down?No. Why would I think that? I actually know what I'm talking about.
Oh, and this:A rocket will not "work just fine" with the nozzle pointing 90 degrees the wrong way unless you think "work just fine" means spinning in a circle until it crashes.
Are you stupid?
Expansion of gas, Free, in a Vacuum.Free expansion applies to a closed system.
The end.
Turn off your brains & go back to sleep.
Then I will make a rebuttal.But you did make a rebuttal. And it was just as expected.
LULZ!!!Free expansion applies to a closed system, always has. But even if you still won't accept that, consider this.
Lookee this Robinsoneb...
You've called in an Exorcist now... Legba is honoured!
But where is the fact that your gas powered rocket is operating in a VACUUM factored into all this Exorcist's mathe-magic & algebra-cadabral incantations, robinsoneb?
Nowhere.
Which leads us inexorably back to good old Free Expansion of gas in a VACUUM...
Thus, once opened to the zero-pressure vacuum of space, the internal pressure of your silly space-rockets will simply Equalise with that zero external pressure, as efficiently as possible, doing so Freely & with NO WORK BEING PRODUCED.
Because you cannot push on Nothing.
You can't argue with Newton, Joules & Thomson; that's a very dark & dangerous path to choose...
Guys, Guys, enough of this bickering. Let me show you how rockets work.If that were true then the greatest thrust would occur while on the ground and decrease as they rise and the air gets thinner. They have been measured to have increased thrust as the air gets thinner.
(http://i.imgur.com/OisC4Pd.jpg)
So you see, rockets do need the ground and even the atmosphere to push against or they won't go anywhere, especially in space.
Guys, Guys, enough of this bickering. Let me show you how rockets work.
(http://i.imgur.com/OisC4Pd.jpg)
So you see, rockets do need the ground and even the atmosphere to push against or they won't go anywhere, especially in space.
Aaaand now we're back to the utterly insane notion that both the forces described by Newton's 3rd can be created on the same object & still result in motion being produced...
LULZ!!!
By that logic I can lift myself up to space by pulling on my own bootstraps... Loony-Toons style!
Oh, & Free/Joules Expansion is NOT exclusively limited to a closed system; that's a big fat LIE right there, so knock it off, okay?
Frenzied Trolls are Frenzied!
Why did you omit the part of my post where I asked you to restate your statement?Then I will make a rebuttal.But you did make a rebuttal. And it was just as expected.
Have you never fired a gun? Do you think recoil is caused by the bullet pushing against the atmosphere?
Have you never fired a gun? Do you think recoil is caused by the bullet pushing against the atmosphere?
Is a rocket in space like a gun now?
I thought it was like a woman on a skateboard?
It looks like a very small can of pressurised gas in a very large zero-pressure environment to me, & thus should be obedient to gas-pressure laws...
You know; like Free Expansion & stuff?
W=pv maybe?
But hey, I'm not totally obsessed with space-travel to the point of ignoring all the laws of physics in order to make it somehow possible, so maybe you're right?
LOL!!!
No, you're NOT!
Guys, Guys, enough of this bickering. Let me show you how rockets work.
(http://i.imgur.com/OisC4Pd.jpg)
So you see, rockets do need the ground and even the atmosphere to push against or they won't go anywhere, especially in space.
Your explaination is garbage. The exhaust exits the rocket and hits the ground. The exhaust pushes against the ground an the ground pushed against the exhaust. The exhaust had already left the rocket at this point so how does that then push the rocket......?
The reality. Reactants ignite in the combustion chamber and impact the reaction chamber walls. the exhaust pushes against the walls pushing the rocket and the walls push against the exhaust forcing it out the nozzle. The is a hole at the bottom meaning no force is imparted down. Therefore net force is up.
Is that a yes or no?
Aaaand now we're back to the utterly insane notion that both the forces described by Newton's 3rd can be created on the same object & still result in motion being produced...Since mass is being expelled, yes.
LULZ!!!And thank you for proving you don't understand. You wouldn't be expelling any mass then, would you?
By that logic I can lift myself up to space by pulling on my own bootstraps... Loony-Toons style!
Oh, & Free/Joules Expansion is NOT exclusively limited to a closed system; that's a big fat LIE right there, so knock it off, okay?Not a lie. It is ALWAYS described in a closed system.
No. A force was imparted onto the exhaust to force it out of the nozzle, so the exhaust imparted a force equal and opposite on the rocket.Guys, Guys, enough of this bickering. Let me show you how rockets work.
(http://i.imgur.com/OisC4Pd.jpg)
So you see, rockets do need the ground and even the atmosphere to push against or they won't go anywhere, especially in space.
Your explaination is garbage. The exhaust exits the rocket and hits the ground. The exhaust pushes against the ground an the ground pushed against the exhaust. The exhaust had already left the rocket at this point so how does that then push the rocket......?
The reality. Reactants ignite in the combustion chamber and impact the reaction chamber walls. the exhaust pushes against the walls pushing the rocket and the walls push against the exhaust forcing it out the nozzle. The is a hole at the bottom meaning no force is imparted down. Therefore net force is up.
Is that a yes or no?
That was a LOL!!!
At your stupid questions.
Cos you asked two btw, both of which were irrelevant.
In summation: Learn to read.
Then buy a book on gas laws.
Then realise space travel is fake.
Then get a life.
Oh, & Yendor; you make a good point; but I've been here already with these bozos, so don't expect a logical answer... Ever.
Oh, & Free/Joules Expansion is NOT exclusively limited to a closed system; that's a big fat LIE right there, so knock it off, okay?Not a lie. It is ALWAYS described in a closed system.
Which is why rockets don't push on nothing. They push on their exhaust and their exhaust pushes back. Newton's third law.Oh, & Free/Joules Expansion is NOT exclusively limited to a closed system; that's a big fat LIE right there, so knock it off, okay?Not a lie. It is ALWAYS described in a closed system.
Yes a Lie.
Stop it.
Place small can of pressurised gas (rocket) into Infinite vacuum (space); then open can & the gas will EXPAND FREELY into zero pressure of vacuum, meeting zero resistance, doing zero work: FACT.
Because you cannot Push on Nothing.
Deny the above & you deny Newton, Joules & Thomson, not me.
Remember that.
Same goes for you, TexasH.
Who has a shrill, needy, nagging tone & tendency to insist I answer stupid & irrelevant 'yes or no' questions that is strangely reminiscent of bijane btw...
LULZ!!!
Oh, you've tried it? No? What changes the direction and velocity of the gas molecules that were moving away from the opening when you open it? A vacuum can't do it. A vacuum is nothing and can do no work. To change the velocity it takes work.Oh, & Free/Joules Expansion is NOT exclusively limited to a closed system; that's a big fat LIE right there, so knock it off, okay?Not a lie. It is ALWAYS described in a closed system.
Yes a Lie.
Stop it.
Place small can of pressurised gas (rocket) into Infinite vacuum (space); then open can & the gas will EXPAND FREELY into zero pressure of vacuum, meeting zero resistance, doing zero work: FACT.
Because you cannot Push on Nothing.Good thing that isn't what happens then.
Deny the above & you deny Newton, Joules & Thomson, not me.Newton would agree with conservation of momentum. Joule and thomson ALWAYS described free expansion in a closed system.
They push on their exhaust and their exhaust pushes back.
I'm not lying. If you could prove free expansion was described in an open system you would have by now. Free expansion is also described as an adiabatic process. An adiabatic process is one that occurs without transfer of heat or matter between a system and its surroundings. A rocket is most certainly NOT an adiabatic process.They push on their exhaust and their exhaust pushes back.
LULZ!!!
I love it when you satanic sci-fi cultists get backed into a corner & end up saying things like this...
You simply cannot come up with a coherent model for rocket thrust, can you?
That's because you ignore Joules & Thomson & try to create a mechanical model for what is clearly a matter of pressure gradients...
In other words, you can only 'prove' that a rocket works in a vacuum by ignoring the fact that it is in a vacuum.
Cognitive dissonance much?
Oh, & frenat; stop lying; it's getting disgusting now.
They push on their exhaust and their exhaust pushes back.
LULZ!!!
I love it when you satanic sci-fi cultists get backed into a corner & end up saying things like this...
You simply cannot come up with a coherent model for rocket thrust, can you?
That's because you ignore Joules & Thomson & try to create a mechanical model for what is clearly a matter of pressure gradients...
In other words, you can only 'prove' that a rocket works in a vacuum by ignoring the fact that it is in a vacuum.
Cognitive dissonance much?
Oh, & frenat; stop lying; it's getting disgusting now.
Back to the trusty old man on skateboard!How is that supposed to prove your point? He pushes off the ball so of course he won't move if you remove the ball.
Remove the ball from the experiment & what would happen when the man pushes his arms out?
Nothing!
There: fixed it for you.
Oh, & Free/Joules Expansion is NOT exclusively limited to a closed system; that's a big fat LIE right there, so knock it off, okay?Not a lie. It is ALWAYS described in a closed system.
Yes a Lie.
Stop it.
Place small can of pressurised gas (rocket) into Infinite vacuum (space); then open can & the gas will EXPAND FREELY into zero pressure of vacuum, meeting zero resistance, doing zero work: FACT.
Because you cannot Push on Nothing.
Deny the above & you deny Newton, Joules & Thomson, not me.
Remember that.
Same goes for you, TexasH.
Who has a shrill, needy, nagging tone & tendency to insist I answer stupid & irrelevant 'yes or no' questions that is strangely reminiscent of bijane btw...
LULZ!!!
He pushes off the ball so of course he won't move if you remove the ball.
Back to the trusty old man on skateboard!
Remove the ball from the experiment & what would happen when the man pushes his arms out?
Nothing!
There: fixed it for you.
Thirdly, let's look at the rocket and the fuel system. Let's label the rocket as Object A and the fuel as Object B.
Thirdly, let's look at the rocket and the fuel system. Let's label the rocket as Object A and the fuel as Object B.
Aaaaand FAIL!
This is not the same system as in your previous examples; in the cannon example you had object A & object B with the propellant (i.e. gunpowder) between them. In your man on skateboard you had object A & object B with the propellant (i.e. the man's arm) between them.
But in your rocket example you ONLY have object A & the propellant (i.e. the fuel).
No object B, see?
Thus, you have removed the necessary recoil object required to produce motion.
But we know a rocket DOES produce motion, don't we?
Ergo, some other mass MUST be taking the place of object B.
& the ONLY possibility for that other mass is the Atmosphere.
Ergo, NO atmosphere, NO motion; rockets CANNOT function in a vacuum.
Q.E.D.
The FUEL is 'the necessary recoil object required to produce motion'.
If you could prove free expansion was described in an open system you would have by now. Free expansion is also described as an adiabatic process. An adiabatic process is one that occurs without transfer of heat or matter between a system and its surroundings. A rocket is most certainly NOT an adiabatic process.
If you could prove free expansion was described in an open system you would have by now. Free expansion is also described as an adiabatic process. An adiabatic process is one that occurs without transfer of heat or matter between a system and its surroundings. A rocket is most certainly NOT an adiabatic process.
*Sigh!*
For a demonstration of adiabatic free expansion of a gas, the gas is contained in an insulated container and then allowed to expand into a vacuum. Because there is no external pressure for the gas to expand against, the work done by or on the system is Zero.
What is a rocket in space if not an insulated container full of gas?
What is space if not a vacuum?
Why are you so reluctant to acknowledge the truth of the gas laws of Joules & Thomson?
Last chance...
TexasH: irrelevant; off-topic; goodbye!
Frenat: stop twisting words to suit your own delusions.Adiabatic free expansion is proven. A rocket is NOT adiabatic. I have twisted nothing.
I just described how adiabatic free expansion is experimentally proven; argue with the proof, not the meaning of individual phrases.
A rocket in space is a very small container of pressurised gas in a very large Zero-pressure environment.
When opened to that Zero-pressure environment, the gas will expand, freely, doing no work, until it encounters resistance.
It is simple stuff, no matter how hard you try to obscure that Fact.
TexasH: Hi bijane! Still as needy, irrelevant & off-topic as ever I see.
Mass is independent of air pressure. Why would we set it to zero?He pushes off the ball so of course he won't move if you remove the ball.
Exactly! Now you're getting there...
Learning to think at last.
Of course, a more accurate way of factoring the vacuum into your model would be to reduce the mass of the ball to Zero, thus reproducing the Zero pressure found therein.
But that may be a little confusing for you, so let's stick with just removing it altogether for now...
Baby steps, eh?
Still, you've got the basic idea: you can't push off Nothing.
TexasH: irrelevant; off-topic; goodbye!
A rocket in space is a very small container of pressurised gas in a very large Zero-pressure environment.How does this (free expansion):
When opened to that Zero-pressure environment, the gas will expand, freely, doing no work, until it encounters resistance.
Do you think that as the pressure drops, there is a magical cutoff where thrust drops to zero?
I have twisted nothing.
Do you think that as the pressure drops, there is a magical cutoff where thrust drops to zero?
Bingo!
The penny finally drops...
Well done, not-bijane-even-though-you-sound-exactly-like-her!
Mass is independent of air pressure. Why would we set it to zero?He pushes off the ball so of course he won't move if you remove the ball.
Exactly! Now you're getting there...
Learning to think at last.
Of course, a more accurate way of factoring the vacuum into your model would be to reduce the mass of the ball to Zero, thus reproducing the Zero pressure found therein.
But that may be a little confusing for you, so let's stick with just removing it altogether for now...
Baby steps, eh?
Still, you've got the basic idea: you can't push off Nothing.
TexasH: irrelevant; off-topic; goodbye!
I have no idea what you two are on about now...
Get some fresh air.
Force = mass x velocity...
LMFAO!!!
You are such a bone-head, not-bijane...
Firstly: learn to read.
Then, read the equation at the bottom of this laughable NASA cartoon:
(https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/Images/rockth.gif)
F=mv.
O rly?
LULZ!!!
Can someone please inform Newton that NASA have changed his 2nd law?
it says: F = m dot * Ve + (pe - p0) * Ae Here, the "m dot" term is important. It means mass expelled per unit time and multiplying it with velocity you get exactly the same units as force. So, there is no mistake with NASA's explanation here,
You are such a bone-head, not-bijane...
Firstly: learn to read.
Then, read the equation at the bottom of this laughable NASA cartoon:
(https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/Images/rockth.gif)
F=mv.
O rly?
LULZ!!!
Can someone please inform Newton that NASA have changed his 2nd law?
The equation they are using is:
Force = mass flow rate x velocity
The units would be N = kg/s x m/s
Compare this to:
Force = mass x acceleration
With units: N = kg x m/s2.
The equation they are using is:
Force = mass flow rate x velocity
The units would be N = kg/s x m/s
Compare this to:
Force = mass x acceleration
With units: N = kg x m/s2.
So, basically, they've altered one of the longest-established laws of physics in order to meet their deceptive agenda of being able to send rockets into space.
Already knew that, but thanks for the confirmation.
The equation they are using is:
Force = mass flow rate x velocity
The units would be N = kg/s x m/s
Compare this to:
Force = mass x acceleration
With units: N = kg x m/s2.
So, basically, they've altered one of the longest-established laws of physics in order to meet their deceptive agenda of being able to send rockets into space.
Already knew that, but thanks for the confirmation.
A couple of things... First, have you never taken a physics class? Did your teacher/professor never derive an equation from another equation? Second, the concept of thrust predates NASA by quite a bit.
I've been way for awhile, is it settled now, rockets don't work in space?
They carry an oxidiser to ensure thrust into the atmosphere is enough to propel the rocket.I've been way for awhile, is it settled now, rockets don't work in space?
Jet engines don't work in space as they require oxygen in the environment around them. Rocket engines carry an oxidizer with them and do not require oxygen in the environment, so they will work fine in space.
Go and watch an act seeing men or women pouring alcohol into the mouths and then spitting it out. They don't do it by having a combustion chamber inside their mouths, do they?....No they don't.lol, what?
They carry an oxidiser to ensure thrust into the atmosphere is enough to propel the rocket.
If the rocket just had fuel without pressure than it would be like the water bottle rocket without the added air pumped into it. The water would simply be pushed out by the in rushing atmosphere leaving it useless.
Go and watch an act seeing men or women pouring alcohol into the mouths and then spitting it out. They don't do it by having a combustion chamber inside their mouths, do they?....No they don't.
Yes and I'm well aware the acts don't take off but the principle of what they do to eject the lit fuel over a distance, is down to the air they have stored to push the fuel out, which is only LIT away from the lips...or to marry it up to a rocket...it would be the nozzle.
No combustion chamber inside rockets that carry liquid fuel.
Now a solid fuel rocket is a different matter. The only issue is, they are mainly confined to fire work rockets and small rocket's. No good for large rockets such as the fictional solid rocket boosters of the shuttle. lol.
The only combustion chambers that would work are those on cars and stuff like that. Basically combustion chambers are internal explosions that allow mechanical vehicles ,move along the surface of Earth, HORIZONTALLY due to aiding pistons to turn drive shafts and wheels.
No need for that when you're going ballistic Maverick (reference to Goose in top gun)... because the rocket fuel and oxidiser is enough to thrust against the ATMOSPHERE to SPRINGBOARD the rocket into the air. It's an AIR verses FUEL and oxidizer pressure fight.
Hmm. I don't think you're as dense as you're making out, so I'll accept that you know nothing and leave it at that. Don't reply to this because I'm 100% finished with dealing with you.They carry an oxidiser to ensure thrust into the atmosphere is enough to propel the rocket.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Jet engines work fine in the atmosphere.QuoteIf the rocket just had fuel without pressure than it would be like the water bottle rocket without the added air pumped into it. The water would simply be pushed out by the in rushing atmosphere leaving it useless.
You realize the fuel is being ignited right? The oxidizer isn't to provide pressure, it is required to create combustion. Are you familiar with how fire works?QuoteGo and watch an act seeing men or women pouring alcohol into the mouths and then spitting it out. They don't do it by having a combustion chamber inside their mouths, do they?....No they don't.
Yes and I'm well aware the acts don't take off but the principle of what they do to eject the lit fuel over a distance, is down to the air they have stored to push the fuel out, which is only LIT away from the lips...or to marry it up to a rocket...it would be the nozzle.
What? Rocket fuel is ignited inside the rocket, not outside.Quote
No combustion chamber inside rockets that carry liquid fuel.
Yes, there is. Go read up on an internal combustion engine.QuoteNow a solid fuel rocket is a different matter. The only issue is, they are mainly confined to fire work rockets and small rocket's. No good for large rockets such as the fictional solid rocket boosters of the shuttle. lol.
Are you saying the rocket boosters on the shuttle are actually using liquid fuel? I'm not sure how you can say they are fictional. Arguing whether they are capable of reaching and working in space is one thing, but many have actually seen them launch.QuoteThe only combustion chambers that would work are those on cars and stuff like that. Basically combustion chambers are internal explosions that allow mechanical vehicles ,move along the surface of Earth, HORIZONTALLY due to aiding pistons to turn drive shafts and wheels.
Jet engines seem to work pretty well.QuoteNo need for that when you're going ballistic Maverick (reference to Goose in top gun)... because the rocket fuel and oxidiser is enough to thrust against the ATMOSPHERE to SPRINGBOARD the rocket into the air. It's an AIR verses FUEL and oxidizer pressure fight.
Again, the oxidizer isn't there to provide pressure. It is required for combustion.
Hmm. I don't think you're as dense as you're making out, so I'll accept that you know nothing and leave it at that. Don't reply to this because I'm 100% finished with dealing with you.
What a clown. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Go and watch an act seeing men or women pouring alcohol into the mouths and then spitting it out. They don't do it by having a combustion chamber inside their mouths, do they?....No they don't.They don't get pushed backwards when the flame pushes against the atmosphere either, do they? No, they don't.
I've been way for awhile, is it settled now, rockets don't work in space?
I want everyone to read this. This is a page from a 1941 issue of Popular Science explaining new fangled jet propulsion. We all know jets and rockets work virtually the same way. This article was written explaining the correct way they worked, not the way NASA says. It says very plainly that a "monstrous jet of energy pushing against the atmosphere." It can't get any plainer than that. NASA has simply rewrote history to explain how rockets can work if there is no atmosphere to push against in space.Read the very next sentence and report back.
(http://i.imgur.com/p3JANVi.jpg)
I want everyone to read this. This is a page from a 1941 issue of Popular Science explaining new fangled jet propulsion. We all know jets and rockets work virtually the same way. This article was written explaining the correct way they worked, not the way NASA says. It says very plainly that a "monstrous jet of energy pushing against the atmosphere." It can't get any plainer than that. NASA has simply rewrote history to explain how rockets can work if there is no atmosphere to push against in space.
(http://i.imgur.com/p3JANVi.jpg)
I hope that makes sense.
I want everyone to read this. This is a page from a 1941 issue of Popular Science explaining new fangled jet propulsion. We all know jets and rockets work virtually the same way. This article was written explaining the correct way they worked, not the way NASA says. It says very plainly that a "monstrous jet of energy pushing against the atmosphere." It can't get any plainer than that. NASA has simply rewrote history to explain how rockets can work if there is no atmosphere to push against in space.Read the very next sentence and report back.
(http://i.imgur.com/p3JANVi.jpg)
No they don't; but imagine if they had a cannister of compressed air inside their guts to aid in shooting that ignited liquid fuel from their mouths. They would be pushed back then.Go and watch an act seeing men or women pouring alcohol into the mouths and then spitting it out. They don't do it by having a combustion chamber inside their mouths, do they?....No they don't.They don't get pushed backwards when the flame pushes against the atmosphere either, do they? No, they don't.
I hope that makes sense.
You hope wrong; no 'reward' for you.
No they don't; but imagine if they had a cannister of compressed air inside their guts to aid in shooting that ignited liquid fuel from their mouths. They would be pushed back then.
Their own lungs won't create enough thrust with the fuel mix to create anything other than a fancy flame.
You see folks. This is where the dupe is with rocketry. They pretend that the fuel and oxygen mix inside the rocket is what propels it with no need for any resistant atmospheric barrier to be waiting for the ejected mass of burning fuel to act as a springboard.
Care to explain what doesn't make sense to you? I'm not seeking a reward.
No they don't; but imagine if they had a cannister of compressed air inside their guts to aid in shooting that ignited liquid fuel from their mouths. They would be pushed back then.That's all a rocket is. Just a flame thrower.
Their own lungs won't create enough thrust with the fuel mix to create anything other than a fancy flame.
You see folks. This is where the dupe is with rocketry. They pretend that the fuel and oxygen mix inside the rocket is what propels it with no need for any resistant atmospheric barrier to be waiting for the ejected mass of burning fuel to act as a springboard.
That's how a flamethrower works.
I want everyone to read this. This is a page from a 1941 issue of Popular Science explaining new fangled jet propulsion. We all know jets and rockets work virtually the same way. This article was written explaining the correct way they worked, not the way NASA says. It says very plainly that a "monstrous jet of energy pushing against the atmosphere." It can't get any plainer than that. NASA has simply rewrote history to explain how rockets can work if there is no atmosphere to push against in space.
(http://i.imgur.com/p3JANVi.jpg)
Sorry, Yendor; I didn't see this.
Good find & case closed you'd think...
If you were dealing with intellectually honest people, that is.
Unlike sock-arul, who is desperately trying to twist the meaning of how the article is worded as I write...
You have to remember - we are dealing with addicts here; both to 'space travel' & to... well - let's just say 'other things'.
& an addict will do ANYTHING to get their next fix.
Oh, speaking of which, after its last tl;dr spam-fest:I hope that makes sense.
You hope wrong; no 'reward' for you.
Care to explain what doesn't make sense to you? I'm not seeking a reward.
All of it.
& yes you are.
Yes, people using flamethrower's are constantly falling backwards when they pull the trigger.That's all a rocket is. Just a flame thrower.No they don't; but imagine if they had a cannister of compressed air inside their guts to aid in shooting that ignited liquid fuel from their mouths. They would be pushed back then.That's how a flamethrower works.
Their own lungs won't create enough thrust with the fuel mix to create anything other than a fancy flame.
You see folks. This is where the dupe is with rocketry. They pretend that the fuel and oxygen mix inside the rocket is what propels it with no need for any resistant atmospheric barrier to be waiting for the ejected mass of burning fuel to act as a springboard.
Your inability to comprehend the English language isn't my problem.
Your inability to comprehend the English language isn't my problem.
But your inability to factor a vacuum into your moronic analogies IS your problem.
A BIG one, as it happens...
Now; carry on Lying.
Free expansion of gases. You've been told before.Your inability to comprehend the English language isn't my problem.
But your inability to factor a vacuum into your moronic analogies IS your problem.
A BIG one, as it happens...
Now; carry on Lying.
Explain why an explosion cannot occur in a vacuum.
closed system and adiabatic, of which a rocket is neither.Free expansion of gases. You've been told before.Your inability to comprehend the English language isn't my problem.
But your inability to factor a vacuum into your moronic analogies IS your problem.
A BIG one, as it happens...
Now; carry on Lying.
Explain why an explosion cannot occur in a vacuum.
Free expansion of gases. You've been told before.Your inability to comprehend the English language isn't my problem.
But your inability to factor a vacuum into your moronic analogies IS your problem.
A BIG one, as it happens...
Now; carry on Lying.
Explain why an explosion cannot occur in a vacuum.
Free expansion can only work in the fantasy of space. The reality is easy expansion because there's always a resistance to expansion, unless - as I say - fictional space vacuum is used.closed system and adiabatic, of which a rocket is neither.Free expansion of gases. You've been told before.Your inability to comprehend the English language isn't my problem.
But your inability to factor a vacuum into your moronic analogies IS your problem.
A BIG one, as it happens...
Now; carry on Lying.
Explain why an explosion cannot occur in a vacuum.
No, you are guessing. It uses the word thrust. Thrust comes from the engine, not the atmosphere.I want everyone to read this. This is a page from a 1941 issue of Popular Science explaining new fangled jet propulsion. We all know jets and rockets work virtually the same way. This article was written explaining the correct way they worked, not the way NASA says. It says very plainly that a "monstrous jet of energy pushing against the atmosphere." It can't get any plainer than that. NASA has simply rewrote history to explain how rockets can work if there is no atmosphere to push against in space.Read the very next sentence and report back.
(http://i.imgur.com/p3JANVi.jpg)
Okay, "This backward push-( Meaning pushing against the atmosphere)-produced the equivalent in forward thrust."-( Meaning the rocket went forward)
Just like this shows.
(http://i.imgur.com/ektKOaE.jpg)
Let me try and make you ponder. I doubt it but I'll try. In fact I'm 100% sure you won't ponder it but I'll do it for those who will.Free expansion of gases. You've been told before.Your inability to comprehend the English language isn't my problem.
But your inability to factor a vacuum into your moronic analogies IS your problem.
A BIG one, as it happens...
Now; carry on Lying.
Explain why an explosion cannot occur in a vacuum.
There are no gases prior to detonation.
No.Let me try and make you ponder. I doubt it but I'll try. In fact I'm 100% sure you won't ponder it but I'll do it for those who will.Free expansion of gases. You've been told before.Your inability to comprehend the English language isn't my problem.
But your inability to factor a vacuum into your moronic analogies IS your problem.
A BIG one, as it happens...
Now; carry on Lying.
Explain why an explosion cannot occur in a vacuum.
There are no gases prior to detonation.
No gases prior to detonation you say. Obvious really in the fictional space vacuum which we have to use so you grasp it all.
Ok so we have a grenade in a vacuum and we pull out the pin. The fuse sets off and the grenade fills with expanded gases that become too strong for the casing. Ok up to now?
So anyway the next scenario is the breach of the casing. This is where you really need to pay attention because we are working in milliseconds here, in this so called vacuum that paves the way for FREE EXPANSION....or as I like to say, "EASY EXPANSION."
Now as soon as something like a grenade breaches, it will breach at the weakest point. So basically the very millisecond that is fractures - all your gases are gone. They are gone because they?....FREELY EXPANDED into that vacuum.
This leaves your grenade intact.
So what happens when the grenade is detonated at sea level atmospheric pressure?
This is why they work, because the expanding gases inside after the pin is pulled, can not....CAN NOT FREELY EXPAND because they are surrounded by a compressed atmosphere that stops those gases from simply dispersing in milliseconds, because when it breaches, the atmosphere rushes inside as it detonates which causes the grenade to implode and explode, sending shrapnel all over the place.
YES? NO ?
Let's look at two of the preferred analogies for rocket propulsion, then at a rocket itself, & compare them.How do satellites get into orbit?
1: A cannon firing a cannon-ball. Here you have object A, the cannon, object B, the cannon-ball, with the propellant, P (i.e. gunpowder) between them.
THREE objects.
2: The man on skateboard throwing a ball. Again you have object A, man on skateboard, object B, the ball, with the propellant, P (i.e. the man's arm) between them.
Again; THREE objects.
Now let's look at a rocket: here, you have only object A, the rocket, & the propellant, P (i.e. the fuel).
Only TWO objects.
Object B is missing in the rocket example.
And object B is the necessary recoil mass required to produce motion.
But we know a rocket DOES produce motion in an atmosphere, don't we?
So, some other mass MUST be taking the place of object B.
& the ONLY possibility for that other mass is the mass of the Atmosphere.
Thus, we get object A, the rocket, object B, the atmosphere, with the propellant, P (i.e. the fuel) sitting between them.
THREE objects.
The requirements for Newton 2 & 3 are fulfilled & motion can be produced.
So, NO atmosphere equals NO motion; therefore rockets CANNOT function in a vacuum.
Q.E.D.
Let me try and make you ponder. I doubt it but I'll try. In fact I'm 100% sure you won't ponder it but I'll do it for those who will.Explain why an explosion cannot occur in a vacuum.Free expansion of gases. You've been told before.
There are no gases prior to detonation.
No gases prior to detonation you say. Obvious really in the fictional space vacuum which we have to use so you grasp it all.
Ok so we have a grenade in a vacuum and we pull out the pin. The fuse sets off and the grenade fills with expanded gases that become too strong for the casing. Ok up to now?
So anyway the next scenario is the breach of the casing. This is where you really need to pay attention because we are working in milliseconds here, in this so called vacuum that paves the way for FREE EXPANSION....or as I like to say, "EASY EXPANSION."
Now as soon as something like a grenade breaches, it will breach at the weakest point. So basically the very millisecond that is fractures - all your gases are gone. They are gone because they?....FREELY EXPANDED into that vacuum.
This leaves your grenade intact.
So what happens when the grenade is detonated at sea level atmospheric pressure?
This is why they work, because the expanding gases inside after the pin is pulled, can not....CAN NOT FREELY EXPAND because they are surrounded by a compressed atmosphere that stops those gases from simply dispersing in milliseconds, because when it breaches, the atmosphere rushes inside as it detonates which causes the grenade to implode and explode, sending shrapnel all over the place.
YES? NO ?
I think you are misunderstanding what I was asking. Detonation occurs at the point you pulled the pin and the fuse sets off. If gases are forming and pressure is increasing, then detonation has already occurred. I was asking if that part of the process is possible in a vacuum.No it's not possible but since we are dealing with fantasy vacuums and space, I'm simply using a potential zero psi against a grenade.
Why not?I think you are misunderstanding what I was asking. Detonation occurs at the point you pulled the pin and the fuse sets off. If gases are forming and pressure is increasing, then detonation has already occurred. I was asking if that part of the process is possible in a vacuum.No it's not possible but since we are dealing with fantasy vacuums and space, I'm simply using a potential zero psi against a grenade.
What are you trying to actually say?Why not?I think you are misunderstanding what I was asking. Detonation occurs at the point you pulled the pin and the fuse sets off. If gases are forming and pressure is increasing, then detonation has already occurred. I was asking if that part of the process is possible in a vacuum.No it's not possible but since we are dealing with fantasy vacuums and space, I'm simply using a potential zero psi against a grenade.
Free expansion of gases. You've been told before.
I can't believe you idiots have been arguing the same point with the same idiots for 7 pages now.Seven pages is nothing. I'm sure that this thread can go for 20-30 pages or more of arguing the same point.
What are you trying to actually say?Why not?I think you are misunderstanding what I was asking. Detonation occurs at the point you pulled the pin and the fuse sets off. If gases are forming and pressure is increasing, then detonation has already occurred. I was asking if that part of the process is possible in a vacuum.No it's not possible but since we are dealing with fantasy vacuums and space, I'm simply using a potential zero psi against a grenade.
I HAVE explained it before. An adiabatic system is one that does not exchange heat or matter with its surroundings. A rocket exchanges both.Free expansion can only work in the fantasy of space. The reality is easy expansion because there's always a resistance to expansion, unless - as I say - fictional space vacuum is used.closed system and adiabatic, of which a rocket is neither.Free expansion of gases. You've been told before.Your inability to comprehend the English language isn't my problem.
But your inability to factor a vacuum into your moronic analogies IS your problem.
A BIG one, as it happens...
Now; carry on Lying.
Explain why an explosion cannot occur in a vacuum.
You don't even know what you're saying by using adiabatic. You found it on google and decided to appears to solve something. What are you talking about?
Explain it instead of saying it. Don't just use the google explanation. Tell me about a closed system while you're at it, just so we know where we stand.
So your vacuum, which is nothing, changes the velocity of the gasses? How does it do that exactly? How does nothing exert a force on the gasses and change their direction and velocity?Let me try and make you ponder. I doubt it but I'll try. In fact I'm 100% sure you won't ponder it but I'll do it for those who will.Free expansion of gases. You've been told before.Your inability to comprehend the English language isn't my problem.
But your inability to factor a vacuum into your moronic analogies IS your problem.
A BIG one, as it happens...
Now; carry on Lying.
Explain why an explosion cannot occur in a vacuum.
There are no gases prior to detonation.
No gases prior to detonation you say. Obvious really in the fictional space vacuum which we have to use so you grasp it all.
Ok so we have a grenade in a vacuum and we pull out the pin. The fuse sets off and the grenade fills with expanded gases that become too strong for the casing. Ok up to now?
So anyway the next scenario is the breach of the casing. This is where you really need to pay attention because we are working in milliseconds here, in this so called vacuum that paves the way for FREE EXPANSION....or as I like to say, "EASY EXPANSION."
Now as soon as something like a grenade breaches, it will breach at the weakest point. So basically the very millisecond that is fractures - all your gases are gone. They are gone because they?....FREELY EXPANDED into that vacuum.
This leaves your grenade intact.
Let's look at two of the preferred analogies for rocket propulsion, then at a rocket itself, & compare them.So the fuel has zero mass in your world?
1: A cannon firing a cannon-ball. Here you have object A, the cannon, object B, the cannon-ball, with the propellant, P (i.e. gunpowder) between them.
THREE objects.
2: The man on skateboard throwing a ball. Again you have object A, man on skateboard, object B, the ball, with the propellant, P (i.e. the man's arm) between them.
Again; THREE objects.
Now let's look at a rocket: here, you have only object A, the rocket, & the propellant, P (i.e. the fuel).
Only TWO objects.
Object B is missing in the rocket example.
And object B is the necessary recoil mass required to produce motion.
But we know a rocket DOES produce motion in an atmosphere, don't we?
So, some other mass MUST be taking the place of object B.
& the ONLY possibility for that other mass is the mass of the Atmosphere.
Thus, we get object A, the rocket, object B, the atmosphere, with the propellant, P (i.e. the fuel) sitting between them.
THREE objects.
The requirements for Newton 2 & 3 are fulfilled & motion can be produced.
So, NO atmosphere equals NO motion; therefore rockets CANNOT function in a vacuum.
Q.E.D.
No-one addressed this logically, so here it is again:
Let's look at two of the preferred analogies for rocket propulsion, then at a rocket itself, & compare them.
1: A cannon firing a cannon-ball. Here you have object A, the cannon, object B, the cannon-ball, with the propellant, P (i.e. the expanding gunpowder) between them.
THREE objects.
2: The man on skateboard throwing a ball. Again you have object A, man on skateboard, object B, the ball, with the propellant, P (i.e. the expansion of the man's arm) between them.
Again; THREE objects.
Now let's look at a rocket: here, you have only object A, the rocket, & the propellant, P (i.e. the expanding fuel).
Only TWO objects.
Object B is missing in the rocket example.
And object B is the necessary recoil mass required to produce motion.
But we know a rocket DOES produce motion in an atmosphere, don't we?
So, some other mass MUST be taking the place of object B.
& the ONLY possibility for that other mass is the mass of the Atmosphere.
Thus, we get object A, the rocket, object B, the atmosphere, with the propellant, P (i.e. the expanding fuel) sitting between them.
THREE objects.
The requirements for Newton 2 & 3 are fulfilled & motion can be produced.
So, NO atmosphere equals NO motion; therefore rockets CANNOT function in a vacuum.
Q.E.D.
Wrong, TexasH; this is why I told you we are not 'conversing'; the expanding exhaust of the rocket is clearly the propellant, P; so where is the object B necessary for motion to be produced?
If you create an explosion in a cannon, the cannon will move without the cannon ball.
Wrong, TexasH; this is why I told you we are not 'conversing'; the expanding exhaust of the rocket is clearly the propellant, P; so where is the object B necessary for motion to be produced?A man's arm is a separate object from the man himself? Umm... If you say so.
No-one has addressed this logically, so here it is again:
Let's look at two of the preferred analogies for rocket propulsion, then at a rocket itself, & compare them.
1: A cannon firing a cannon-ball. Here you have object A, the cannon, object B, the cannon-ball, with the propellant, P (i.e. the expanding gunpowder) between them.
THREE objects.
2: The man on skateboard throwing a ball. Again you have object A, man on skateboard, object B, the ball, with the propellant, P (i.e. the expansion of the man's arm) between them.
Again; THREE objects.
Now let's look at a rocket: here, you have only object A, the rocket, & the propellant, P (i.e. the expanding fuel).First of all, the propellant isn't just expanding, it's burning. You know, an energetic chemical reaction that produces a lot of energy. That alone proves that free expansion doesn't apply.
Only TWO objects.
Object B is missing in the rocket example.No, it isn't. It's the exhaust gasses that are the product of combustion (object B).
And object B is the necessary recoil mass required to produce motion.Which is exactly what the exhaust gasses are, a mass being accelerated out the back of the rocket engine.
But we know a rocket DOES produce motion in an atmosphere, don't we?Yes, for the exact same reason that rockets produce motion outside the atmosphere.
So, some other mass MUST be taking the place of object B.Yes. The exhaust gasses.
& the ONLY possibility for that other mass is the mass of the Atmosphere.No, it isn't.
Thus, we get object A, the rocket, object B, the atmosphere, with the propellant, P (i.e. the expanding fuel) sitting between them.Actually, Newton's 3rd law only requires 2 objects: action and reaction.
THREE objects.
The requirements for Newton 2 & 3 are fulfilled & motion can be produced.
So, NO atmosphere equals NO motion; therefore rockets CANNOT function in a vacuum.If you say so. ::)
Q.E.D.
If you create an explosion in a cannon, the cannon will move without the cannon ball.
So the cannonball is unnecessary in your analogy?
Then why include it in the first place?
& what about the medicine ball in your man on skateboard analogy?
Then surely that is also unnecessary?
Are they not analogies for the same system?
First of all, the propellant isn't just expanding, it's burning. You know, an energetic chemical reaction that produces a lot of energy. That alone proves that free expansion doesn't apply.
LOL WUT?
Secondly, if the man on a skateboard's arm can be considered a separate object, then it stands to reason that the burning propellant of a rocket can be considered a separate object from the exhaust gasses that the reaction produces. Therefore, we have THREE objects, not two.
O RLY? MORE LULZ!!!Object B is missing in the rocket example.No, it isn't. It's the exhaust gasses that are the product of combustion (object B).
JUST LYING NOW...And object B is the necessary recoil mass required to produce motion.Which is exactly what the exhaust gasses are, a mass being accelerated out the back of the rocket engine.
YEP; JUST MAKING SHIT UP...So, some other mass MUST be taking the place of object B.Yes. The exhaust gasses.
HERE WE GO, ' A ROCKET PUSHES ON ITSELF'... LULZ!!!& the ONLY possibility for that other mass is the mass of the Atmosphere.No, it isn't.
THEN POSIT ANOTHER; OH WAIT YOU CAN'T COS THERE ISN'T ONE!
If you create an explosion in a cannon, the cannon will move without the cannon ball.
So the cannonball is unnecessary in your analogy?
Then why include it in the first place?
Is this a serious question?
You are absolutely correct. It can't occur is space. That's what I've been telling you all along.What are you trying to actually say?Why not?I think you are misunderstanding what I was asking. Detonation occurs at the point you pulled the pin and the fuse sets off. If gases are forming and pressure is increasing, then detonation has already occurred. I was asking if that part of the process is possible in a vacuum.No it's not possible but since we are dealing with fantasy vacuums and space, I'm simply using a potential zero psi against a grenade.
This chemical reaction:
Fuel + oxidizer + ignition source -> gases + heat
Can it occur in space?
It's all a closed system no matter what you do or where you are, so what's your point?I HAVE explained it before. An adiabatic system is one that does not exchange heat or matter with its surroundings. A rocket exchanges both.Free expansion can only work in the fantasy of space. The reality is easy expansion because there's always a resistance to expansion, unless - as I say - fictional space vacuum is used.closed system and adiabatic, of which a rocket is neither.Free expansion of gases. You've been told before.Your inability to comprehend the English language isn't my problem.
But your inability to factor a vacuum into your moronic analogies IS your problem.
A BIG one, as it happens...
Now; carry on Lying.
Explain why an explosion cannot occur in a vacuum.
You don't even know what you're saying by using adiabatic. You found it on google and decided to appears to solve something. What are you talking about?
Explain it instead of saying it. Don't just use the google explanation. Tell me about a closed system while you're at it, just so we know where we stand.
Free expansion is ALWAYS described in a closed system, a small container of gas expanding into a larger container with a vacuum.
You are absolutely correct. It can't occur is space. That's what I've been telling you all along.What are you trying to actually say?Why not?I think you are misunderstanding what I was asking. Detonation occurs at the point you pulled the pin and the fuse sets off. If gases are forming and pressure is increasing, then detonation has already occurred. I was asking if that part of the process is possible in a vacuum.No it's not possible but since we are dealing with fantasy vacuums and space, I'm simply using a potential zero psi against a grenade.
This chemical reaction:
Fuel + oxidizer + ignition source -> gases + heat
Can it occur in space?
Learn what fire is and why fire works and you might understand why there's no ignition in a so called space vacuum.You are absolutely correct. It can't occur is space. That's what I've been telling you all along.What are you trying to actually say?Why not?I think you are misunderstanding what I was asking. Detonation occurs at the point you pulled the pin and the fuse sets off. If gases are forming and pressure is increasing, then detonation has already occurred. I was asking if that part of the process is possible in a vacuum.No it's not possible but since we are dealing with fantasy vacuums and space, I'm simply using a potential zero psi against a grenade.
This chemical reaction:
Fuel + oxidizer + ignition source -> gases + heat
Can it occur in space?
Why not?
Here we go with the gibberish & non-sequiturs...I'm sorry, but what part didn't you understand?First of all, the propellant isn't just expanding, it's burning. You know, an energetic chemical reaction that produces a lot of energy. That alone proves that free expansion doesn't apply.
LOL WUT?
Yes, really. Unless you can tell me just where and why I'm wrong.Secondly, if the man on a skateboard's arm can be considered a separate object, then it stands to reason that the burning propellant of a rocket can be considered a separate object from the exhaust gasses that the reaction produces. Therefore, we have THREE objects, not two.
O RLY? MORE LULZ!!!
Here we go with the gibberish & non-sequiturs...No, I'm not. You just refuse to recognize the truth.Object B is missing in the rocket example.No, it isn't. It's the exhaust gasses that are the product of combustion (object B).
JUST LYING NOW...
Here we go with the gibberish & non-sequiturs...What did I make up?And object B is the necessary recoil mass required to produce motion.Which is exactly what the exhaust gasses are, a mass being accelerated out the back of the rocket engine.
YEP; JUST MAKING SHIT UP...
Here we go with the gibberish & non-sequiturs...No, the exhaust gasses push on the rocket and the rocket pushes back against the exhaust gasses. You know, action/reaction.So, some other mass MUST be taking the place of object B.Yes. The exhaust gasses.
HERE WE GO, ' A ROCKET PUSHES ON ITSELF'... LULZ!!!
I already told you, the other mass is the exhaust gas.& the ONLY possibility for that other mass is the mass of the Atmosphere.No, it isn't.
THEN POSIT ANOTHER; OH WAIT YOU CAN'T COS THERE ISN'T ONE!
To sum up: yet another championship-winning shitpost from Mr. Blah&fail...Which you have done nothing at all to refute.
Learn what fire is and why fire works and you might understand why there's no ignition in a so called space vacuum.You are absolutely correct. It can't occur is space. That's what I've been telling you all along.What are you trying to actually say?Why not?I think you are misunderstanding what I was asking. Detonation occurs at the point you pulled the pin and the fuse sets off. If gases are forming and pressure is increasing, then detonation has already occurred. I was asking if that part of the process is possible in a vacuum.No it's not possible but since we are dealing with fantasy vacuums and space, I'm simply using a potential zero psi against a grenade.
This chemical reaction:
Fuel + oxidizer + ignition source -> gases + heat
Can it occur in space?
Why not?
Learn what fire is and why fire works and you might understand why there's no ignition in a so called space vacuum.I don't know if I would call a chamber filled with vaporized hydrogen and oxygen a vacuum. Of course let's not forget the various hypergolic rocket engines that don't require a separate ignition source.
So you think a rocket in the vacuum of space is the same as free expansion being described expanding into a larger closed container? Really?It's all a closed system no matter what you do or where you are, so what's your point?I HAVE explained it before. An adiabatic system is one that does not exchange heat or matter with its surroundings. A rocket exchanges both.Free expansion can only work in the fantasy of space. The reality is easy expansion because there's always a resistance to expansion, unless - as I say - fictional space vacuum is used.closed system and adiabatic, of which a rocket is neither.Free expansion of gases. You've been told before.Your inability to comprehend the English language isn't my problem.
But your inability to factor a vacuum into your moronic analogies IS your problem.
A BIG one, as it happens...
Now; carry on Lying.
Explain why an explosion cannot occur in a vacuum.
You don't even know what you're saying by using adiabatic. You found it on google and decided to appears to solve something. What are you talking about?
Explain it instead of saying it. Don't just use the google explanation. Tell me about a closed system while you're at it, just so we know where we stand.
Free expansion is ALWAYS described in a closed system, a small container of gas expanding into a larger container with a vacuum.
I want everyone to read this. This is a page from a 1941 issue of Popular Science explaining new fangled jet propulsion. We all know jets and rockets work virtually the same way. This article was written explaining the correct way they worked, not the way NASA says. It says very plainly that a "monstrous jet of energy pushing against the atmosphere." It can't get any plainer than that. NASA has simply rewrote history to explain how rockets can work if there is no atmosphere to push against in space.
(http://i.imgur.com/p3JANVi.jpg)
Sorry, Yendor; I didn't see this.
Good find & case closed you'd think...
If you were dealing with intellectually honest people, that is.
Unlike sock-arul, who is desperately trying to twist the meaning of how the article is worded as I write...
You have to remember - we are dealing with addicts here; both to 'space travel' & to... well - let's just say 'other things'.
& an addict will do ANYTHING to get their next fix.
Oh, speaking of which, after its last tl;dr spam-fest:I hope that makes sense.
You hope wrong; no 'reward' for you.
It is closed, they can't wiggle out of this. NASA has done a great job of removing this kind of evidence from prying eyes. But if you search hard enough you can usually find tidbits of proof they left behind. Those scientist were real scientist back then, they knew how shit worked. If they knew the BS that is taught in school today they would be turning over in their graves. It's a damn shame we let them get away with it.
You see, this is why I said you are twisting words so much as to be a Liar, frenat.No. Even with a surrounding of nothing the rocket is still losing heat and matter. The exchange is one way. So STILL not adiabatic.
A rocket in an atmosphere is not adiabatic, obviously.
But when it is in a vacuum then it will be adiabatic, again obviously.
Because you cannot 'exchange' heat & matter with NOTHING.
Yes?
It's all a matter of pressure gradients, which of course your mechanical contact-based models of rocketry can not take into account.
But whatever; for now you can take this LOL!!! with you.
No. Even with a surrounding of nothing the rocket is still losing heat and matter. The exchange is one way. So STILL not adiabatic.
And I have twisted nothing.
For all you space cultists who believe the crap nasa et el churn out, consider this:No one is saying that exhaust gasses don't interact with the atmosphere. We're just saying that it isn't the interaction that pushes a rocket forwards. That would be the exhaust gasses interacting with the rocket engine itself. Same goes for jet engines.
1. You are travelling in a car at 100mph as a passenger.
2. You stick your face out of the window.
3. What happens?
3a. Nothing.
3b. My face feels a force, which increases with the speed of the car.
4. You are a particle of gas leaving the exhaust of a rocket at ~6000mph.
5. What happens?
5a. Nothing.
5b. The force I feel is massive beyond all belief and creates a wall of force between the atmosphere and the gas trying to exit the nozzle, thereby propelling the rocket in the opposite direction.
I'll start:
3b, 5b.
Just try, space cultists. We will try to aid the recovery of your brain damage if you'll let us.
]No one is saying that exhaust gasses don't interact with the atmosphere. We're just saying that it isn't the interaction that pushes a rocket forwards. That would be the exhaust gasses interacting with the rocket engine itself. Same goes for jet engines.
NOT a contradiction. It is still an exchange. That you can't see that is hilarious.No. Even with a surrounding of nothing the rocket is still losing heat and matter. The exchange is one way. So STILL not adiabatic.
And I have twisted nothing.
You contradict yourself.
You describe an adiabatic process (badly, btw)translation: I can't understand it so I assume others can't either.
& then say it is NOT an adiabatic process...I didn't say that. Why do you lie?
You twist EVERYTHING.I have twisted nothing.
I can only assume this is deliberate.Paranoid much?
I pity you.I laugh at you. Thanks for the humor!
You said the rocket is LOSING matter, whilst adiabatic processes talk of EXCHANGING matter.That you think a rocket, or any object, can lose mass and not have its momentum affected is hilarious.
So, of course a rocket in a vacuum will LOSE matter; it will just lose it for FREE, doing NO WORK, because there is NOTHING in a vacuum for it to be EXCHANGED for.
This is not hard to understand, yet you are trying to make it so.
Why?
Here's another definition
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/adiabatic?s=t (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/adiabatic?s=t)
Occurring without gain or loss of heat.
No, it isn't hard to understand. YOU are still denying that a rocket is not adiabatic. YOU are denying that the rocket loses heat and mass. YOU are denying that free expansion only applies to closed systems. And now apparently YOU can't understand what the word OR means.Here's another definition
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/adiabatic?s=t (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/adiabatic?s=t)
Occurring without gain or loss of heat.
Again; a vacuum is NOTHING; how can you exchange heat when there is NOTHING to exchange it with?
Thus, a rocket in a vacuum clearly IS adiabatic; it can EXCHANGE (not LOSE) neither HEAT nor MATTER with its surroundings.
Because it is surrounded by NOTHING.
This is not hard to understand.
You cannot get something from nothing; a child knows this.
Yet you do not...
For all you space cultists who believe the crap nasa et el churn out, consider this:No one is saying that exhaust gasses don't interact with the atmosphere. We're just saying that it isn't the interaction that pushes a rocket forwards. That would be the exhaust gasses interacting with the rocket engine itself. Same goes for jet engines.
1. You are travelling in a car at 100mph as a passenger.
2. You stick your face out of the window.
3. What happens?
3a. Nothing.
3b. My face feels a force, which increases with the speed of the car.
4. You are a particle of gas leaving the exhaust of a rocket at ~6000mph.
5. What happens?
5a. Nothing.
5b. The force I feel is massive beyond all belief and creates a wall of force between the atmosphere and the gas trying to exit the nozzle, thereby propelling the rocket in the opposite direction.
I'll start:
3b, 5b.
Just try, space cultists. We will try to aid the recovery of your brain damage if you'll let us.
Never mind all this spitballing and guesswork. I remember seeing a debate a while ago on whether a plane on a conveyor belt could take off. In fact, it could, but people were at each others' throats for countless pages each convinced they were right. Theorizing ain't gonna get you anywhere.Of course a plane can take off on a conveyor belt, why wouldn't it and what are you trying to prove with this?
Someone needs to bite the bullet and test it. Airtight seal, gun, tube, vacuum pump. Is there recoil?
Never mind all this spitballing and guesswork. I remember seeing a debate a while ago on whether a plane on a conveyor belt could take off. In fact, it could, but people were at each others' throats for countless pages each convinced they were right. Theorizing ain't gonna get you anywhere.Of course a plane can take off on a conveyor belt, why wouldn't it and what are you trying to prove with this?
Someone needs to bite the bullet and test it. Airtight seal, gun, tube, vacuum pump. Is there recoil?
How many times do I have to tell you that rockets and jets don't push against themselves? They produce exhaust gasses that push against the engine. Why is that so hard for you to understand?]No one is saying that exhaust gasses don't interact with the atmosphere. We're just saying that it isn't the interaction that pushes a rocket forwards. That would be the exhaust gasses interacting with the rocket engine itself. Same goes for jet engines.
So now jet engines 'push on themselves' (lol!) too?!?
Where's 'greatest ever' forum hero 'Engy' when you need him?My guess is that he thinks that you're not worth the effort. I'm beginning to agree.
So, a demonstrable force (atmosphere pushing on a face whilst in a fast moving car) is irrelevant, but this unverifiable/invisible/unexperienced anywhere else "force" inside the engine (somehow) is?Expanding gasses in a combustion chamber are not experienced anywhere else? ???
Theorising is only pointless when it goes against lying people who prefer to have their theories thought of as fact.Never mind all this spitballing and guesswork. I remember seeing a debate a while ago on whether a plane on a conveyor belt could take off. In fact, it could, but people were at each others' throats for countless pages each convinced they were right. Theorizing ain't gonna get you anywhere.Of course a plane can take off on a conveyor belt, why wouldn't it and what are you trying to prove with this?
Someone needs to bite the bullet and test it. Airtight seal, gun, tube, vacuum pump. Is there recoil?
Never mind the plane example. It was just an example of how theoretical debates can be futile. Some don't think the plane would accelerate if a conveyor belt went back at the same speed it was meant to go forwards. Theorizing is pretty pointless.
Theorising is only pointless when it goes against lying people who prefer to have their theories thought of as fact.Never mind all this spitballing and guesswork. I remember seeing a debate a while ago on whether a plane on a conveyor belt could take off. In fact, it could, but people were at each others' throats for countless pages each convinced they were right. Theorizing ain't gonna get you anywhere.Of course a plane can take off on a conveyor belt, why wouldn't it and what are you trying to prove with this?
Someone needs to bite the bullet and test it. Airtight seal, gun, tube, vacuum pump. Is there recoil?
Never mind the plane example. It was just an example of how theoretical debates can be futile. Some don't think the plane would accelerate if a conveyor belt went back at the same speed it was meant to go forwards. Theorizing is pretty pointless.
Your science handlers play with a stacked deck.
You people need to stop parroting the lies and start using your own naive brains instead of filling them full of garbage.
I can't believe you idiots have been arguing the same point with the same idiots for 9 pages now.Updated.
Yeah you make valid points on the whole. I mean, you're right in that nothing we say will prove or convince the people who have no desire to see anything different from their indoctrinated path of life...BUT, it's more about those who feel the need to at least get to view a potential truth of a lie, regardless of being able to do anything about it.Theorising is only pointless when it goes against lying people who prefer to have their theories thought of as fact.Never mind all this spitballing and guesswork. I remember seeing a debate a while ago on whether a plane on a conveyor belt could take off. In fact, it could, but people were at each others' throats for countless pages each convinced they were right. Theorizing ain't gonna get you anywhere.Of course a plane can take off on a conveyor belt, why wouldn't it and what are you trying to prove with this?
Someone needs to bite the bullet and test it. Airtight seal, gun, tube, vacuum pump. Is there recoil?
Never mind the plane example. It was just an example of how theoretical debates can be futile. Some don't think the plane would accelerate if a conveyor belt went back at the same speed it was meant to go forwards. Theorizing is pretty pointless.
Your science handlers play with a stacked deck.
You people need to stop parroting the lies and start using your own naive brains instead of filling them full of garbage.
Make a claim. Then, make a justification. Most of the time, someone else can make up a contradiction.
I am new here, but I accept that the world is flat, and I have lurked long enough to admire you, Sceptimatic. Your open mindedness, and your intelligence, make you one of the best posters on this forum.
It is as you say, however. Theorizing is pointless, as you say, when faced with those who closed-mindedly accept only what they think to be true. This is why I suggested we stop. To them, we are that kind of person: to us, they are clearly that ignorant. Cold, hard observed fact is different. Gonna be hard to convince anyone the way it's going now, we'll just be repeating ourselves til kingdom come.
Besides, we all know that sustained space flight is not possible on the FE.Who said anything about sustained space flight? ???
I did.Besides, we all know that sustained space flight is not possible on the FE.Who said anything about sustained space flight? ???
YOU are still denying that a rocket is not adiabatic.
You see, this is why I said you are twisting words so much as to be a Liar, frenat.
A rocket in an atmosphere is not adiabatic, obviously.
But when it is in a vacuum then it will be adiabatic, again obviously.
Because you cannot 'exchange' heat & matter with NOTHING.
Yes?
It's all a matter of pressure gradients, which of course your mechanical contact-based models of rocketry can not take into account.
But whatever; for now you can take this LOL!!! with you.
We may not be able to physically prove much stuff that kills off the globe model
We may not be able to physically prove much stuff that kills off the globe model
Around this point seems to be where we disagree. The globe model's been killed off countless times, they just keep coming up with special exemptions to facts and laws. Newton doesn't hold in vacuum, for example, or light doesn't need a medium.
There's no way to kill off any model when people can keep making excuses, but hopefully we can keep presenting examples until they see how tenuous and patched up the RE notion is, that just one piece of tape pulled will bring it all toppling down.
I don't know, maybe I'm an optimist.
Newton does hold in a vacuum and light has never required a medium.
I read your post. I have argued nothing about a rocket in atmosphere as there is nothing to prove. I should have said "YOU are still denying that a rocket in a vacuum is not adiabatic." to be more precise. So sue me for thinking you wouldn't try to twist words.YOU are still denying that a rocket is not adiabatic.
No; I am clearly saying that a rocket in a vacuum is adiabatic, whilst a rocket in an atmosphere is not.
You are trying to make a black & white issue out of what is clearly a matter of relative pressures.
Enough of this though; until you at least learn to read there is no further point in responding to your senseless rambling.
To neutrals; a concise summation of the term 'adiabatic' in the context of this 'debate' is 'You can't get Something out of Nothing'.
And, as our illiterate friend frenat keeps saying, a vacuum is Nothing.
I don't know what you are. I can't quite work you out yet. Good cop bad cop routine?...not too sure. I'll wait until you open up and I'll see your true colours.We may not be able to physically prove much stuff that kills off the globe model
Around this point seems to be where we disagree. The globe model's been killed off countless times, they just keep coming up with special exemptions to facts and laws. Newton doesn't hold in vacuum, for example, or light doesn't need a medium.
There's no way to kill off any model when people can keep making excuses, but hopefully we can keep presenting examples until they see how tenuous and patched up the RE notion is, that just one piece of tape pulled will bring it all toppling down.
I don't know, maybe I'm an optimist.
Wow, that was a great rebuttal! Very informative and directly addresses the point. Nice dodge. I see you haven't changed a bit.He isn't talking about those. Pay attention. He was asking if I think nozzles don't do anything related to movement, like the tail pipe of a car.
Hmm, 'cause that is not what you just said:sokarul, Do you think a rocket would work just fine if the exhaust nozzles were pointed out the side of the rocket and not pointed down?No. Why would I think that? I actually know what I'm talking about.
Oh, and this:A rocket will not "work just fine" with the nozzle pointing 90 degrees the wrong way unless you think "work just fine" means spinning in a circle until it crashes.
Are you stupid?
I should have said "YOU are still denying that a rocket in a vacuum is not adiabatic." to be more precise.
You should, but you didn't. I can only criticise what you DID write.
So sue me for thinking you wouldn't try to twist words.
I'd rather sue you for lying. Which is what you are doing.
The rocket loses heats and mass.
We know that; but adiabatic expansion refers to an EXCHANGE of heat & mass.
So as the rocket loses heat & mass it gains nothing in return & no work is done.
Whether in an atmosphere or not, it is NOT adiabatic.
Half right, half wrong, ALL troll...
Hilarious that you are arguing a rocket doesn't lose heat or mass just by being in a vacuum.
Hilarious that you are Lying...
Not.
Thanks for the humor!
Thanks for the Trolling; Goodbye!
I have not lied.I should have said "YOU are still denying that a rocket in a vacuum is not adiabatic." to be more precise.
So sue me for thinking you wouldn't try to twist words.
I'd rather sue you for lying. Which is what you are doing.
the word exchange is used because things CAN go in both directions, not that they have to. Have you EVER taken a physics class? An exchange CAN be one way whether you like it or not. The other definition about it happening without a gain or loss of heat is also more common. Interesting that you ignore that one.The rocket loses heats and mass.
We know that; but adiabatic expansion refers to an EXCHANGE of heat & mass.
& you cannot EXCHANGE heat & mass with NOTHING.
ALL right. Troll? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.Whether in an atmosphere or not, it is NOT adiabatic.
Half right, half wrong, ALL troll...
still haven't lied. YOU are claiming that a rocket in vacuum is not adiabatic (I'd love to hear where you think the magical transition takes place). That means that YOU have to be claiming it is not losing heat and mass.Hilarious that you are arguing a rocket doesn't lose heat or mass just by being in a vacuum.
Hilarious that you are Lying...
Not.
Thanks for the humor!Thanks for the humor!
Thanks for the Trolling; Goodbye!
In a vacuum, can it not gain heat from the Sun?
Because light is also a particle.Newton does hold in a vacuum and light has never required a medium.
Run that by me again. Light does not require a medium, but light is a wave. You are not talking about waves, you are talking about the existing special exemption for light. How is that not a case of an exception?
We know that; but adiabatic expansion refers to an EXCHANGE of heat & mass.No. It refers to the TRANSFER of heat and mass. Remember that heat and mass tend to move from higher concentrations to lower until equilibrium is achieved.
An adiabatic process is one that occurs without transfer of heat or matter between a system and its surroundings; energy is transferred only as work.
Don't expect too much from sokarul. He is a little retarded.I remember him quite well. And so far, he has not disappointed.
No. It refers to the TRANSFER of heat and mass.
Let's look at two of the preferred analogies for rocket propulsion, then at a rocket itself, & compare them.
1: A cannon firing a cannon-ball. Here you have object A, the cannon, object B, the cannon-ball, with the propellant, P (i.e. gunpowder) between them.
THREE objects.
2: The man on skateboard throwing a ball. Again you have object A, man on skateboard, object B, the ball, with the propellant, P (i.e. the man's arm) between them.
Again; THREE objects.
Now let's look at a rocket: here, you have only object A, the rocket, & the propellant, P (i.e. the fuel).
Only TWO objects.
Object B is missing in the rocket example.
And object B is the necessary recoil mass required to produce motion.
But we know a rocket DOES produce motion in an atmosphere, don't we?
So, some other mass MUST be taking the place of object B.
& the ONLY possibility for that other mass is the mass of the Atmosphere.
Thus, we get object A, the rocket, object B, the atmosphere, with the propellant, P (i.e. the fuel) sitting between them.
THREE objects.
The requirements for Newton 2 & 3 are fulfilled & motion can be produced.
So, NO atmosphere equals NO motion; therefore rockets CANNOT function in a vacuum.
Q.E.D.
A better question would be : what is this lost mass doing?Found it.
Answer: it is expanding (i.e. combusting), just like the propellant, P, in my above examples.
We see that P in the above examples expands between 2 masses in order to create recoil, so in the case of a rocket we have mass 1, the rocket; P, the expanding propellant, and... What, exactly?
Where is mass 2?
Find mass 2 & understand the Truth...
No, they aren't. Transfer (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/transfer) is a one way action while exchange (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exchange) is a two way, reciprocal action. A rocket engine is moving heat and mass into the vacuum of space and receiving nothing in return.No. It refers to the TRANSFER of heat and mass.
LOL!!!
TRANSFER and EXCHANGE are interchangeable terms, slow-poke!
A better question would be : what is this lost mass doing?
Answer: it is expanding (i.e. combusting), just like the propellant, P, in my above examples.
We see that P in the above examples expands between 2 masses in order to create recoil, so in the case of a rocket we have mass 1, the rocket; P, the expanding propellant, and... What, exactly?
Where is mass 2?
Find mass 2 & understand the Truth...
Markjo: anyone can google 'adiabatic exchange' & 'adiabatic transfer' to understand the terms are interchangeable.Then why is it when I Google 'adiabatic exchange' or 'adiabatic transfer', the top hits refer to it as 'adiabatic process' and the top hit says:
An adiabatic process is one that occurs without transfer of heat or matter between a system and its surroundings; energy is transferred only as work
But, as I correctly predicted, quibbling over definitions is your last hope of 'victory', so it is what you are doing.Believe it or not, sometimes it is important to use the proper words in the proper context in order to have a proper discussion. Then again, you have proven time and again that you are not interested in a proper discussion.
.Markjo: anyone can google 'adiabatic exchange' & 'adiabatic transfer' to understand the terms are interchangeable.Then why is it when I Google 'adiabatic exchange' or 'adiabatic transfer', the top hits refer to it as 'adiabatic process'
Again I ask: what is this lost mass doing?
Answer: it is expanding (i.e. combusting), just like the propellant, P, in my above examples.
We see that P in the example of a cannon expands between 2 masses (the cannon & the cannonball) in order to create recoil, so in the case of a rocket we have mass 1, the rocket; P, the expanding propellant, and...
What, exactly?
Where is mass 2?
Find mass 2 & understand the Truth...
Markjo: anyone can google 'adiabatic exchange' & 'adiabatic transfer' to understand the terms are interchangeable.
But, as I correctly predicted, quibbling over definitions is your last hope of 'victory', so it is what you are doing.
.Markjo: anyone can google 'adiabatic exchange' & 'adiabatic transfer' to understand the terms are interchangeable.Then why is it when I Google 'adiabatic exchange' or 'adiabatic transfer', the top hits refer to it as 'adiabatic process'
Because they're both the same thing.
Duh!
& a gas-powered rocket open to a vacuum is an adiabatic process & will therefore do no work.
Any more petty quibbling you'd like to shit up the thread with?
I suppose that you're right. We shouldn't quibble over 'transfer' vs 'exchange' when a rocket engine in a vacuum doesn't fit the definition of adiabatic either way. Unless you care to explain how chucking hot exhaust gasses into a vacuum is adiabatic..Markjo: anyone can google 'adiabatic exchange' & 'adiabatic transfer' to understand the terms are interchangeable.Then why is it when I Google 'adiabatic exchange' or 'adiabatic transfer', the top hits refer to it as 'adiabatic process'
Because they're both the same thing.
Duh!
& a gas-powered rocket open to a vacuum is an adiabatic process & will therefore do no work.
Any more petty quibbling you'd like to shit up the thread with?
LOL!!!Ah, so when you use a word, it mans what you want it to mean, not necessarily what the rest of the English speaking world agrees that it means. Thanks for the clarification.
I am reminded of what Humpty Dumpty said in 'Alice Through the Looking Glass'; 'When I use a word, it means exactly what I choose it to mean - no More, no Less'.
But enough of that; none of you seem capable of identifying Mass 2, let alone comprehending its necessity in order for your ridiculous 'man on skateboard' analogy to hold true when applied to a rocket...We identified Mass 2 as the rocket's exhaust gasses ages ago. That is unless you have some other definition of 'mass' that we aren't aware of.
I want everyone to read this. This is a page from a 1941 issue of Popular Science explaining new fangled jet propulsion. We all know jets and rockets work virtually the same way. This article was written explaining the correct way they worked, not the way NASA says. It says very plainly that a "monstrous jet of energy pushing against the atmosphere." It can't get any plainer than that. NASA has simply rewrote history to explain how rockets can work if there is no atmosphere to push against in space.
(http://i.imgur.com/p3JANVi.jpg)
So now I'M the one quibbling over definitions?No, you're the one who's arbitrarily making up your own definitions. Such as transfer = exchange.
LULZ!!!Indeed.
I want everyone to read this. This is a page from a 1941 issue of Popular Science explaining new fangled jet propulsion. We all know jets and rockets work virtually the same way. This article was written explaining the correct way they worked, not the way NASA says. It says very plainly that a "monstrous jet of energy pushing against the atmosphere." It can't get any plainer than that. NASA has simply rewrote history to explain how rockets can work if there is no atmosphere to push against in space.
(http://i.imgur.com/p3JANVi.jpg)
Plus:All rockets and jet engines have exhaust that pushes against the atmosphere.
But that doesn't matter cos they REALLY work by 'pushing on themselves', eh?
LOL!!!
So now I'M the one quibbling over definitions?
LULZ!!!
WELCOME TO OPPOSITE WORLD, STARRING MARKJO & HIS 'ROUND EARTHER' HUMPTY DUMPTYS!
.Markjo: anyone can google 'adiabatic exchange' & 'adiabatic transfer' to understand the terms are interchangeable.Then why is it when I Google 'adiabatic exchange' or 'adiabatic transfer', the top hits refer to it as 'adiabatic process'
Because they're both the same thing.
Duh!
& a gas-powered rocket open to a vacuum is an adiabatic process & will therefore do no work.
Any more petty quibbling you'd like to shit up the thread with?
How can you not understand that this 500kg of exhaust (formerly 500kg of fuel), which is created every second, is your 'mystery' mass 2?
How can you not understand that this 500kg of exhaust (formerly 500kg of fuel), which is created every second, is your 'mystery' mass 2?
Because it isn't.
Stop brainwashing.
Cannon=mass 1; then we have P, the expanding propellant; then cannonball=mass 2.
Rocket=mass 1; then we have P, the expanding propellant; then...?
Where is mass 2?
The article Yendor found tells you exactly what the missing mass 2 is, but you'd prefer to ignore that.
Just like you ignore the inconvenient vacuum in your posts.
Stop wasting our time.
How can you not understand that this 500kg of exhaust (formerly 500kg of fuel), which is created every second, is your 'mystery' mass 2?
Because it isn't.
Stop brainwashing.
Cannon=mass 1; then we have P, the expanding propellant; then cannonball=mass 2.
Rocket=mass 1; then we have P, the expanding propellant; then...?
Where is mass 2?
The article Yendor found tells you exactly what the missing mass 2 is, but you'd prefer to ignore that.
Just like you ignore the inconvenient vacuum in your posts.
Stop wasting our time.
What exhaust exactly? Is it the cloud of smoke that we see trailing a rocket? If so, this is not what we are talking about for propulsion. It's that big thrusting fire that comes out of the back before it turns into exhaust.How can you not understand that this 500kg of exhaust (formerly 500kg of fuel), which is created every second, is your 'mystery' mass 2?
Because it isn't.
Stop brainwashing.
Cannon=mass 1; then we have P, the expanding propellant; then cannonball=mass 2.
Rocket=mass 1; then we have P, the expanding propellant; then...?
Where is mass 2?
The article Yendor found tells you exactly what the missing mass 2 is, but you'd prefer to ignore that.
Just like you ignore the inconvenient vacuum in your posts.
Stop wasting our time.
Mass B is the exhaust.
Simple. Next.
What exhaust exactly? Is it the cloud of smoke that we see trailing a rocket? If so, this is not what we are talking about for propulsion. It's that big thrusting fire that comes out of the back before it turns into exhaust.How can you not understand that this 500kg of exhaust (formerly 500kg of fuel), which is created every second, is your 'mystery' mass 2?
Because it isn't.
Stop brainwashing.
Cannon=mass 1; then we have P, the expanding propellant; then cannonball=mass 2.
Rocket=mass 1; then we have P, the expanding propellant; then...?
Where is mass 2?
The article Yendor found tells you exactly what the missing mass 2 is, but you'd prefer to ignore that.
Just like you ignore the inconvenient vacuum in your posts.
Stop wasting our time.
Mass B is the exhaust.
Simple. Next.
You see, exhaust is exactly what it says. It's exhausted fuel. Burning fuel is not exhausted....it is "exhausting."
Ok let me try and enlighten you.What exhaust exactly? Is it the cloud of smoke that we see trailing a rocket? If so, this is not what we are talking about for propulsion. It's that big thrusting fire that comes out of the back before it turns into exhaust.How can you not understand that this 500kg of exhaust (formerly 500kg of fuel), which is created every second, is your 'mystery' mass 2?
Because it isn't.
Stop brainwashing.
Cannon=mass 1; then we have P, the expanding propellant; then cannonball=mass 2.
Rocket=mass 1; then we have P, the expanding propellant; then...?
Where is mass 2?
The article Yendor found tells you exactly what the missing mass 2 is, but you'd prefer to ignore that.
Just like you ignore the inconvenient vacuum in your posts.
Stop wasting our time.
Mass B is the exhaust.
Simple. Next.
You see, exhaust is exactly what it says. It's exhausted fuel. Burning fuel is not exhausted....it is "exhausting."
Exhaust is any mass that is ejected from the rocket nozzle. Whether or not it has completely combusted is besides the point, it is still mass being ejected from the rocket nozzle and therefore providing thrust through conservation of momentum.
Ok let me try and enlighten you.What exhaust exactly? Is it the cloud of smoke that we see trailing a rocket? If so, this is not what we are talking about for propulsion. It's that big thrusting fire that comes out of the back before it turns into exhaust.How can you not understand that this 500kg of exhaust (formerly 500kg of fuel), which is created every second, is your 'mystery' mass 2?
Because it isn't.
Stop brainwashing.
Cannon=mass 1; then we have P, the expanding propellant; then cannonball=mass 2.
Rocket=mass 1; then we have P, the expanding propellant; then...?
Where is mass 2?
The article Yendor found tells you exactly what the missing mass 2 is, but you'd prefer to ignore that.
Just like you ignore the inconvenient vacuum in your posts.
Stop wasting our time.
Mass B is the exhaust.
Simple. Next.
You see, exhaust is exactly what it says. It's exhausted fuel. Burning fuel is not exhausted....it is "exhausting."
Exhaust is any mass that is ejected from the rocket nozzle. Whether or not it has completely combusted is besides the point, it is still mass being ejected from the rocket nozzle and therefore providing thrust through conservation of momentum.
Now I want you to think about this carefully.
In a car, fuel and air is mixed in a combustion chamber that pushes a piston to do work turning a crank shaft, etc all the way to the wheels to move them. With each piston push, the fuel is spent as a force and it ejected as a gas. It is exhausted and passes through a pipe that throws that exhausted gas away from the car.
So what we have here is...basically your rocket. When I say this, I mean that your rocket is supposedly working on exactly the same principle, as in fuel and air mix into a COMBUSTION CHAMBER and IGNITED to burn and be ejected.
The problem that your rocket has is that it's internal combustion chamber has no work to do. It does not mechanically turn a propeller or some kind of flapping wings or whatever, as a car would use wheels.
So what's really happening?
Then what happens to that 500 kg of fuel after it's burnt? Does it simply vanish never to be heard from again? Remember that matter can neither be created nor destroyed, so it must be accounted for in the system.How can you not understand that this 500kg of exhaust (formerly 500kg of fuel), which is created every second, is your 'mystery' mass 2?
Because it isn't.
I'll give you one more chance to make it sound credible.Ok let me try and enlighten you.What exhaust exactly? Is it the cloud of smoke that we see trailing a rocket? If so, this is not what we are talking about for propulsion. It's that big thrusting fire that comes out of the back before it turns into exhaust.How can you not understand that this 500kg of exhaust (formerly 500kg of fuel), which is created every second, is your 'mystery' mass 2?
Because it isn't.
Stop brainwashing.
Cannon=mass 1; then we have P, the expanding propellant; then cannonball=mass 2.
Rocket=mass 1; then we have P, the expanding propellant; then...?
Where is mass 2?
The article Yendor found tells you exactly what the missing mass 2 is, but you'd prefer to ignore that.
Just like you ignore the inconvenient vacuum in your posts.
Stop wasting our time.
Mass B is the exhaust.
Simple. Next.
You see, exhaust is exactly what it says. It's exhausted fuel. Burning fuel is not exhausted....it is "exhausting."
Exhaust is any mass that is ejected from the rocket nozzle. Whether or not it has completely combusted is besides the point, it is still mass being ejected from the rocket nozzle and therefore providing thrust through conservation of momentum.
Now I want you to think about this carefully.
In a car, fuel and air is mixed in a combustion chamber that pushes a piston to do work turning a crank shaft, etc all the way to the wheels to move them. With each piston push, the fuel is spent as a force and it ejected as a gas. It is exhausted and passes through a pipe that throws that exhausted gas away from the car.
So what we have here is...basically your rocket. When I say this, I mean that your rocket is supposedly working on exactly the same principle, as in fuel and air mix into a COMBUSTION CHAMBER and IGNITED to burn and be ejected.
The problem that your rocket has is that it's internal combustion chamber has no work to do. It does not mechanically turn a propeller or some kind of flapping wings or whatever, as a car would use wheels.
So what's really happening?
The rocket burns more fuel more inefficiently, so the gasses that are spewed out of the rocket's "exhaust pipe" (aka nozzle) are more (greater total mass) and they go out with more speed (greater motion). The higher the mass being spewed out and the higher motion it has, the higher the propelling force. A car needs a piston-system to get enough force out of the burnt propellant, since the small amount spewed out from car exhaust pipes are not enough to drive the car alone. The amount spewed out from rockets are enough to lift a rocket though.
I'll give you one more chance to make it sound credible.Ok let me try and enlighten you.What exhaust exactly? Is it the cloud of smoke that we see trailing a rocket? If so, this is not what we are talking about for propulsion. It's that big thrusting fire that comes out of the back before it turns into exhaust.How can you not understand that this 500kg of exhaust (formerly 500kg of fuel), which is created every second, is your 'mystery' mass 2?
Because it isn't.
Stop brainwashing.
Cannon=mass 1; then we have P, the expanding propellant; then cannonball=mass 2.
Rocket=mass 1; then we have P, the expanding propellant; then...?
Where is mass 2?
The article Yendor found tells you exactly what the missing mass 2 is, but you'd prefer to ignore that.
Just like you ignore the inconvenient vacuum in your posts.
Stop wasting our time.
Mass B is the exhaust.
Simple. Next.
You see, exhaust is exactly what it says. It's exhausted fuel. Burning fuel is not exhausted....it is "exhausting."
Exhaust is any mass that is ejected from the rocket nozzle. Whether or not it has completely combusted is besides the point, it is still mass being ejected from the rocket nozzle and therefore providing thrust through conservation of momentum.
Now I want you to think about this carefully.
In a car, fuel and air is mixed in a combustion chamber that pushes a piston to do work turning a crank shaft, etc all the way to the wheels to move them. With each piston push, the fuel is spent as a force and it ejected as a gas. It is exhausted and passes through a pipe that throws that exhausted gas away from the car.
So what we have here is...basically your rocket. When I say this, I mean that your rocket is supposedly working on exactly the same principle, as in fuel and air mix into a COMBUSTION CHAMBER and IGNITED to burn and be ejected.
The problem that your rocket has is that it's internal combustion chamber has no work to do. It does not mechanically turn a propeller or some kind of flapping wings or whatever, as a car would use wheels.
So what's really happening?
The rocket burns more fuel more inefficiently, so the gasses that are spewed out of the rocket's "exhaust pipe" (aka nozzle) are more (greater total mass) and they go out with more speed (greater motion). The higher the mass being spewed out and the higher motion it has, the higher the propelling force. A car needs a piston-system to get enough force out of the burnt propellant, since the small amount spewed out from car exhaust pipes are not enough to drive the car alone. The amount spewed out from rockets are enough to lift a rocket though.
The rocket burns more fuel more inefficiently, so the gasses that are spewed out of the rocket's "exhaust pipe" (aka nozzle) are more (greater total mass) and they go out with more speed (greater motion). The higher the mass being spewed out and the higher motion it has, the higher the propelling force. A car needs a piston-system to get enough force out of the burnt propellant, since the small amount spewed out from car exhaust pipes are not enough to drive the car alone. The amount spewed out from rockets are enough to lift a rocket though.Dunno what you mean by "sound credible". If you don't think it's credible point out the flaws.
Start paying attention and one day you will learn something instead of hanging onto the coat tails of bullshit "space" rocket, so called scientists.I'll give you one more chance to make it sound credible.Ok let me try and enlighten you.What exhaust exactly? Is it the cloud of smoke that we see trailing a rocket? If so, this is not what we are talking about for propulsion. It's that big thrusting fire that comes out of the back before it turns into exhaust.How can you not understand that this 500kg of exhaust (formerly 500kg of fuel), which is created every second, is your 'mystery' mass 2?
Because it isn't.
Stop brainwashing.
Cannon=mass 1; then we have P, the expanding propellant; then cannonball=mass 2.
Rocket=mass 1; then we have P, the expanding propellant; then...?
Where is mass 2?
The article Yendor found tells you exactly what the missing mass 2 is, but you'd prefer to ignore that.
Just like you ignore the inconvenient vacuum in your posts.
Stop wasting our time.
Mass B is the exhaust.
Simple. Next.
You see, exhaust is exactly what it says. It's exhausted fuel. Burning fuel is not exhausted....it is "exhausting."
Exhaust is any mass that is ejected from the rocket nozzle. Whether or not it has completely combusted is besides the point, it is still mass being ejected from the rocket nozzle and therefore providing thrust through conservation of momentum.
Now I want you to think about this carefully.
In a car, fuel and air is mixed in a combustion chamber that pushes a piston to do work turning a crank shaft, etc all the way to the wheels to move them. With each piston push, the fuel is spent as a force and it ejected as a gas. It is exhausted and passes through a pipe that throws that exhausted gas away from the car.
So what we have here is...basically your rocket. When I say this, I mean that your rocket is supposedly working on exactly the same principle, as in fuel and air mix into a COMBUSTION CHAMBER and IGNITED to burn and be ejected.
The problem that your rocket has is that it's internal combustion chamber has no work to do. It does not mechanically turn a propeller or some kind of flapping wings or whatever, as a car would use wheels.
So what's really happening?
The rocket burns more fuel more inefficiently, so the gasses that are spewed out of the rocket's "exhaust pipe" (aka nozzle) are more (greater total mass) and they go out with more speed (greater motion). The higher the mass being spewed out and the higher motion it has, the higher the propelling force. A car needs a piston-system to get enough force out of the burnt propellant, since the small amount spewed out from car exhaust pipes are not enough to drive the car alone. The amount spewed out from rockets are enough to lift a rocket though.
It works like a carbonic cartridge.
Also:QuoteThe rocket burns more fuel more inefficiently, so the gasses that are spewed out of the rocket's "exhaust pipe" (aka nozzle) are more (greater total mass) and they go out with more speed (greater motion). The higher the mass being spewed out and the higher motion it has, the higher the propelling force. A car needs a piston-system to get enough force out of the burnt propellant, since the small amount spewed out from car exhaust pipes are not enough to drive the car alone. The amount spewed out from rockets are enough to lift a rocket though.Dunno what you mean by "sound credible". If you don't think it's credible point out the flaws.
Ok let me try and enlighten you.What exhaust exactly? Is it the cloud of smoke that we see trailing a rocket? If so, this is not what we are talking about for propulsion. It's that big thrusting fire that comes out of the back before it turns into exhaust.How can you not understand that this 500kg of exhaust (formerly 500kg of fuel), which is created every second, is your 'mystery' mass 2?
Because it isn't.
Stop brainwashing.
Cannon=mass 1; then we have P, the expanding propellant; then cannonball=mass 2.
Rocket=mass 1; then we have P, the expanding propellant; then...?
Where is mass 2?
The article Yendor found tells you exactly what the missing mass 2 is, but you'd prefer to ignore that.
Just like you ignore the inconvenient vacuum in your posts.
Stop wasting our time.
Mass B is the exhaust.
Simple. Next.
You see, exhaust is exactly what it says. It's exhausted fuel. Burning fuel is not exhausted....it is "exhausting."
Exhaust is any mass that is ejected from the rocket nozzle. Whether or not it has completely combusted is besides the point, it is still mass being ejected from the rocket nozzle and therefore providing thrust through conservation of momentum.
Now I want you to think about this carefully.
In a car, fuel and air is mixed in a combustion chamber that pushes a piston to do work turning a crank shaft, etc all the way to the wheels to move them. With each piston push, the fuel is spent as a force and it ejected as a gas. It is exhausted and passes through a pipe that throws that exhausted gas away from the car.
So what we have here is...basically your rocket. When I say this, I mean that your rocket is supposedly working on exactly the same principle, as in fuel and air mix into a COMBUSTION CHAMBER and IGNITED to burn and be ejected.
The problem that your rocket has is that it's internal combustion chamber has no work to do. It does not mechanically turn a propeller or some kind of flapping wings or whatever, as a car would use wheels.
So what's really happening?
It's really very simple if you use your common sense.
It means that a rocket does not use an internal combustion chamber. It's a fallacy. It's a con. It's a massive clever dupe.
What it does use is a chamber to MIX the UNBURNED FUEL and then it is ignited as it leaves the nozzle. It is ignited when it leaves the nozzle because this is where the work needs to be done to springboard that rocket vertically into the air against the EXTERNAL ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE that is creating a barrier to that ejected burning fuel.
The ejected burning fuel is super expanded matter against a dense external barrier and it creates a massive push against that dense atmosphere due to the expansion I just mentioned. This forces that atmosphere aside like a big rubber elastic sheet which springs back (squeezes) against that energy expansion of burning fuel. This creates the lift of the rocket. It's merely a fight of fuel against atmosphere.
There's nothing going on inside that rocket to make it fly in terms of burning fuel. Nothing at all.
Now understand this because the sooner you do, the sooner you will wake up to the bullshit that has been planted into your head and if you are adult, you should know better.
Ok let me try and enlighten you.What exhaust exactly? Is it the cloud of smoke that we see trailing a rocket? If so, this is not what we are talking about for propulsion. It's that big thrusting fire that comes out of the back before it turns into exhaust.How can you not understand that this 500kg of exhaust (formerly 500kg of fuel), which is created every second, is your 'mystery' mass 2?
Because it isn't.
Stop brainwashing.
Cannon=mass 1; then we have P, the expanding propellant; then cannonball=mass 2.
Rocket=mass 1; then we have P, the expanding propellant; then...?
Where is mass 2?
The article Yendor found tells you exactly what the missing mass 2 is, but you'd prefer to ignore that.
Just like you ignore the inconvenient vacuum in your posts.
Stop wasting our time.
Mass B is the exhaust.
Simple. Next.
You see, exhaust is exactly what it says. It's exhausted fuel. Burning fuel is not exhausted....it is "exhausting."
Exhaust is any mass that is ejected from the rocket nozzle. Whether or not it has completely combusted is besides the point, it is still mass being ejected from the rocket nozzle and therefore providing thrust through conservation of momentum.
Now I want you to think about this carefully.
In a car, fuel and air is mixed in a combustion chamber that pushes a piston to do work turning a crank shaft, etc all the way to the wheels to move them. With each piston push, the fuel is spent as a force and it ejected as a gas. It is exhausted and passes through a pipe that throws that exhausted gas away from the car.
So what we have here is...basically your rocket. When I say this, I mean that your rocket is supposedly working on exactly the same principle, as in fuel and air mix into a COMBUSTION CHAMBER and IGNITED to burn and be ejected.
The problem that your rocket has is that it's internal combustion chamber has no work to do. It does not mechanically turn a propeller or some kind of flapping wings or whatever, as a car would use wheels.
So what's really happening?
It's really very simple if you use your common sense.
It means that a rocket does not use an internal combustion chamber. It's a fallacy. It's a con. It's a massive clever dupe.
What it does use is a chamber to MIX the UNBURNED FUEL and then it is ignited as it leaves the nozzle. It is ignited when it leaves the nozzle because this is where the work needs to be done to springboard that rocket vertically into the air against the EXTERNAL ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE that is creating a barrier to that ejected burning fuel.
The ejected burning fuel is super expanded matter against a dense external barrier and it creates a massive push against that dense atmosphere due to the expansion I just mentioned. This forces that atmosphere aside like a big rubber elastic sheet which springs back (squeezes) against that energy expansion of burning fuel. This creates the lift of the rocket. It's merely a fight of fuel against atmosphere.
There's nothing going on inside that rocket to make it fly in terms of burning fuel. Nothing at all.
Now understand this because the sooner you do, the sooner you will wake up to the bullshit that has been planted into your head and if you are adult, you should know better.
'What it does use is a chamber to MIX the UNBURNED FUEL and then it is ignited as it leaves the nozzle. It is ignited when it leaves the nozzle because this is where the work needs to be done to springboard that rocket vertically into the air against the EXTERNAL ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE that is creating a barrier to that ejected burning fuel.'
WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!! The above statement (and post as a whole) is absolute crap.
A rocket propels itself according to the conservation of momentum laws.
In the example I have used previously in this thread, if 500kg of fuel is 'lost' out of the rocket system at hypersonic speed, then this huge amount of momentum must be accounted for - and guess what? This is what propels the rocket in the opposite direction. This is very simple, and is exactly the same reason a man who throws a medicine ball whilst sitting on a skateboard, will be pushed in the opposite direction to which he has thrown the ball.
And just to alleviate you of your profound ignorance about the mechanics of a rocket engine, the fuel IS most certainly burnt within the combustion chamber of the rocket engine, and THEN it's forcibly ejected under huge pressure out of the engine nozzles.
It's just pure fantasy for you to even think that the fuel isn't ignited until it's left the engine nozzles - but then pure fantasy is all that you flat earth nutters ever talk about anyway, lol.
Ok let me try and enlighten you.What exhaust exactly? Is it the cloud of smoke that we see trailing a rocket? If so, this is not what we are talking about for propulsion. It's that big thrusting fire that comes out of the back before it turns into exhaust.How can you not understand that this 500kg of exhaust (formerly 500kg of fuel), which is created every second, is your 'mystery' mass 2?
Because it isn't.
Stop brainwashing.
Cannon=mass 1; then we have P, the expanding propellant; then cannonball=mass 2.
Rocket=mass 1; then we have P, the expanding propellant; then...?
Where is mass 2?
The article Yendor found tells you exactly what the missing mass 2 is, but you'd prefer to ignore that.
Just like you ignore the inconvenient vacuum in your posts.
Stop wasting our time.
Mass B is the exhaust.
Simple. Next.
You see, exhaust is exactly what it says. It's exhausted fuel. Burning fuel is not exhausted....it is "exhausting."
Exhaust is any mass that is ejected from the rocket nozzle. Whether or not it has completely combusted is besides the point, it is still mass being ejected from the rocket nozzle and therefore providing thrust through conservation of momentum.
Now I want you to think about this carefully.
In a car, fuel and air is mixed in a combustion chamber that pushes a piston to do work turning a crank shaft, etc all the way to the wheels to move them. With each piston push, the fuel is spent as a force and it ejected as a gas. It is exhausted and passes through a pipe that throws that exhausted gas away from the car.
So what we have here is...basically your rocket. When I say this, I mean that your rocket is supposedly working on exactly the same principle, as in fuel and air mix into a COMBUSTION CHAMBER and IGNITED to burn and be ejected.
The problem that your rocket has is that it's internal combustion chamber has no work to do. It does not mechanically turn a propeller or some kind of flapping wings or whatever, as a car would use wheels.
So what's really happening?
It's really very simple if you use your common sense.
It means that a rocket does not use an internal combustion chamber. It's a fallacy. It's a con. It's a massive clever dupe.
What it does use is a chamber to MIX the UNBURNED FUEL and then it is ignited as it leaves the nozzle. It is ignited when it leaves the nozzle because this is where the work needs to be done to springboard that rocket vertically into the air against the EXTERNAL ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE that is creating a barrier to that ejected burning fuel.
The ejected burning fuel is super expanded matter against a dense external barrier and it creates a massive push against that dense atmosphere due to the expansion I just mentioned. This forces that atmosphere aside like a big rubber elastic sheet which springs back (squeezes) against that energy expansion of burning fuel. This creates the lift of the rocket. It's merely a fight of fuel against atmosphere.
There's nothing going on inside that rocket to make it fly in terms of burning fuel. Nothing at all.
Now understand this because the sooner you do, the sooner you will wake up to the bullshit that has been planted into your head and if you are adult, you should know better.
'What it does use is a chamber to MIX the UNBURNED FUEL and then it is ignited as it leaves the nozzle. It is ignited when it leaves the nozzle because this is where the work needs to be done to springboard that rocket vertically into the air against the EXTERNAL ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE that is creating a barrier to that ejected burning fuel.'
WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!! The above statement (and post as a whole) is absolute crap.
A rocket propels itself according to the conservation of momentum laws.
In the example I have used previously in this thread, if 500kg of fuel is 'lost' out of the rocket system at hypersonic speed, then this huge amount of momentum must be accounted for - and guess what? This is what propels the rocket in the opposite direction. This is very simple, and is exactly the same reason a man who throws a medicine ball whilst sitting on a skateboard, will be pushed in the opposite direction to which he has thrown the ball.
And just to alleviate you of your profound ignorance about the mechanics of a rocket engine, the fuel IS most certainly burnt within the combustion chamber of the rocket engine, and THEN it's forcibly ejected under huge pressure out of the engine nozzles.
It's just pure fantasy for you to even think that the fuel isn't ignited until it's left the engine nozzles - but then pure fantasy is all that you flat earth nutters ever talk about anyway, lol.
*sigh*
My above post didnt convince you how wrong you are? Lets try something else. Perhaps you havent heard of the Four Forces of Flight. They are:
THRUST, DRAG, LIFT and WEIGHT. Im only going to talk about thrust and drag.
THUST
1.Thrust opposes drag. The engine creates thrust and moves the plane forward. (Gravity provides the thrust for a glider.) The engines push air back with the same force that the air moves the plane forward; this thrust force-pair is always equal and opposite according to Newton's 3rd Law. When thrust is greater than drag, the plane accelerates according to Newton's 2nd Law.When the plane flies level at constant velocity, thrust equals drag. When the plane flies level at constant velocity, all opposite forces of flight are equal: drag = thrust and weight = lift. How the 4 forces of flight interact
DRAG (Take your time and read this very carefully)
2. Drag opposes thrust. Drag can not be part of a closed system. It has to be external. Imagine sticking your hand out the window of a moving car and flying your hand. The force that pushes your hand back is called "drag". As your hand pushes on the wind, the wind also pushes against your hand. Isaac Newton would say that the force of your hand pushing on the air is always equal to the force of the air pushing on your hand; this is his third law. When the plane flies level at constant velocity, weight = lift! When the engines of a plane quit, drag slows the plane down according to Newton's 2nd Law.
FLAMES SHOOTING OUT THE BACK OF A JET PLANE OR A ROCKET IS NOT DRAG!!!!!!!!
It is quite simple really. No plane will fly without drag, it needs some resistance to push against. Surely you've stuck your arm out of a moving car's window before.
Rockets are propelled due to the conservation of momentum laws, which means, due to large amounts of mass being ejected out of the 'rocket system'
Why are you asking me to put things into maths that I have explained absolutely clearly in English?To see if your explanation actually works, that's why.
I want everyone to read this. It is from a Powerpoint presentation from the European Union group that is designed to get children interested in flying. The website is www.flyhigher.eu (http://www.flyhigher.eu). Now read it carefully, this is what the europeans are teaching their children how jet engine's exhaust push on the air to make jets fly. This is just common sense. I too learned this in elementary school, before NASA changed physics.
"Hot exhaust gasses from the aircraft's jet engines push on the air which in turn produces opposite reaction on the engines." This is what The FEers have been saying all along. You Globe people have been lied to, so many times and the sad part is you believe it.
(http://i.imgur.com/8xBxYQG.jpg)
I'll try again.
The notion that a rocket can propel itself by spewing out hot exhaust gasses and using this exhaust to push against is totally illogical to me.
Ref. https://curricula2.mit.edu/pivot/book/ph1005.html?acode=0x0200
The reason I dont believe it is because I own a vacuum cleaner. I think Free Expansion experiments simply demonstrates how rapidly gas will enter a vacuum and cause no work to be done. The gas molecules rushing out the rocket nozzle are in contact with each other, bouncing off each other, causing millions of collisions per second, etc If you release gas into the vacuum of space, the first molecule that pops out will shoot off into the distance at a constant speed, so will the one behind that, never catching up with the first one. The third, fourth, etc all fly off into the distance trying to fill the vacuum by finding their empty corner. So no matter how much exhaust you release in the vacuum of space none of it will ever satisfy Newtons third law and the rocket will simply fall back to Earth sorry.
I'll try again.
The notion that a rocket can propel itself by spewing out hot exhaust gasses and using this exhaust to push against is totally illogical to me.
Ref. https://curricula2.mit.edu/pivot/book/ph1005.html?acode=0x0200
The reason I dont believe it is because I own a vacuum cleaner. I think Free Expansion experiments simply demonstrates how rapidly gas will enter a vacuum and cause no work to be done. The gas molecules rushing out the rocket nozzle are in contact with each other, bouncing off each other, causing millions of collisions per second, etc If you release gas into the vacuum of space, the first molecule that pops out will shoot off into the distance at a constant speed, so will the one behind that, never catching up with the first one. The third, fourth, etc all fly off into the distance trying to fill the vacuum by finding their empty corner. So no matter how much exhaust you release in the vacuum of space none of it will ever satisfy Newtons third law and the rocket will simply fall back to Earth sorry.
This is spot on.
Gas molecules will all be flying around in random directions, in a pressurised container, exerting force equally on all sides of that container. If you were to then remove one side, then the gas molecules already moving towards that side would fly into the vacuum and exert no force.
All this below is wrong, you need to brush up on rocket propulsion.
All the other molecules would still travel in the same directions and impact the other walls of the container exerting force. You now have a container where one side is experiencing force and the opposite side isn't, resulting in a net force in one direction causing acceleration.
After the molecules hit the walls and other molecules bounce in they will gradually leave via the empty side into the vacuum.
If you then keep filling the container with new molecules the net force on one side will continue and you get prolonged acceleration. This is how a rocket works. Very simple.
So what force causes those molecules that were moving towards the opposite walls of the container to change direction once the container is open to vacuum? Are you saying that a vacuum is going to make those molecules change direction?I'll try again.
The notion that a rocket can propel itself by spewing out hot exhaust gasses and using this exhaust to push against is totally illogical to me.
Ref. https://curricula2.mit.edu/pivot/book/ph1005.html?acode=0x0200
The reason I dont believe it is because I own a vacuum cleaner. I think Free Expansion experiments simply demonstrates how rapidly gas will enter a vacuum and cause no work to be done. The gas molecules rushing out the rocket nozzle are in contact with each other, bouncing off each other, causing millions of collisions per second, etc If you release gas into the vacuum of space, the first molecule that pops out will shoot off into the distance at a constant speed, so will the one behind that, never catching up with the first one. The third, fourth, etc all fly off into the distance trying to fill the vacuum by finding their empty corner. So no matter how much exhaust you release in the vacuum of space none of it will ever satisfy Newtons third law and the rocket will simply fall back to Earth sorry.
This is spot on.
Gas molecules will all be flying around in random directions, in a pressurised container, exerting force equally on all sides of that container. If you were to then remove one side, then the gas molecules already moving towards that side would fly into the vacuum and exert no force.
All this below is wrong, you need to brush up on rocket propulsion.
All the other molecules would still travel in the same directions and impact the other walls of the container exerting force. You now have a container where one side is experiencing force and the opposite side isn't, resulting in a net force in one direction causing acceleration.
After the molecules hit the walls and other molecules bounce in they will gradually leave via the empty side into the vacuum.
If you then keep filling the container with new molecules the net force on one side will continue and you get prolonged acceleration. This is how a rocket works. Very simple.
I'll try again.I'm sorry if Newton's third law (action/reaction) doesn't make sense to you, but at this point, I'm not sure how we can make it any more clear.
The notion that a rocket can propel itself by spewing out hot exhaust gasses and using this exhaust to push against is totally illogical to me.
The reason I dont believe it is because I own a vacuum cleaner. I think Free Expansion experiments simply demonstrates how rapidly gas will enter a vacuum and cause no work to be done.What does a vacuum cleaner have to do with free expansion? ???
The gas molecules rushing out the rocket nozzle are in contact with each other, bouncing off each other, causing millions of collisions per second, etc If you release gas into the vacuum of space, the first molecule that pops out will shoot off into the distance at a constant speed, so will the one behind that, never catching up with the first one. The third, fourth, etc all fly off into the distance trying to fill the vacuum by finding their empty corner. So no matter how much exhaust you release in the vacuum of space none of it will ever satisfy Newtons third law and the rocket will simply fall back to Earth sorry.Do you understand the difference between freely releasing a gas and forcibly ejecting a gas? Do you agree that a significant portion of the fuel oxidizer mix is burned inside the combustion chamber causing a dramatic build up of chamber pressure? Or do you think that those burning gasses can freely escape the combustion chamber faster than the burning fuel/oxidizer mix can build up the pressure?
So what force causes those molecules that were moving towards the opposite walls of the container to change direction once the container is open to vacuum? Are you saying that a vacuum is going to make those molecules change direction?I'll try again.
The notion that a rocket can propel itself by spewing out hot exhaust gasses and using this exhaust to push against is totally illogical to me.
Ref. https://curricula2.mit.edu/pivot/book/ph1005.html?acode=0x0200
The reason I dont believe it is because I own a vacuum cleaner. I think Free Expansion experiments simply demonstrates how rapidly gas will enter a vacuum and cause no work to be done. The gas molecules rushing out the rocket nozzle are in contact with each other, bouncing off each other, causing millions of collisions per second, etc If you release gas into the vacuum of space, the first molecule that pops out will shoot off into the distance at a constant speed, so will the one behind that, never catching up with the first one. The third, fourth, etc all fly off into the distance trying to fill the vacuum by finding their empty corner. So no matter how much exhaust you release in the vacuum of space none of it will ever satisfy Newtons third law and the rocket will simply fall back to Earth sorry.
This is spot on.
Gas molecules will all be flying around in random directions, in a pressurised container, exerting force equally on all sides of that container. If you were to then remove one side, then the gas molecules already moving towards that side would fly into the vacuum and exert no force.
All this below is wrong, you need to brush up on rocket propulsion.
All the other molecules would still travel in the same directions and impact the other walls of the container exerting force. You now have a container where one side is experiencing force and the opposite side isn't, resulting in a net force in one direction causing acceleration.
After the molecules hit the walls and other molecules bounce in they will gradually leave via the empty side into the vacuum.
If you then keep filling the container with new molecules the net force on one side will continue and you get prolonged acceleration. This is how a rocket works. Very simple.
So what force causes those molecules that were moving towards the opposite walls of the container to change direction once the container is open to vacuum? Are you saying that a vacuum is going to make those molecules change direction?I'll try again.
The notion that a rocket can propel itself by spewing out hot exhaust gasses and using this exhaust to push against is totally illogical to me.
Ref. https://curricula2.mit.edu/pivot/book/ph1005.html?acode=0x0200
The reason I dont believe it is because I own a vacuum cleaner. I think Free Expansion experiments simply demonstrates how rapidly gas will enter a vacuum and cause no work to be done. The gas molecules rushing out the rocket nozzle are in contact with each other, bouncing off each other, causing millions of collisions per second, etc If you release gas into the vacuum of space, the first molecule that pops out will shoot off into the distance at a constant speed, so will the one behind that, never catching up with the first one. The third, fourth, etc all fly off into the distance trying to fill the vacuum by finding their empty corner. So no matter how much exhaust you release in the vacuum of space none of it will ever satisfy Newtons third law and the rocket will simply fall back to Earth sorry.
This is spot on.
Gas molecules will all be flying around in random directions, in a pressurised container, exerting force equally on all sides of that container. If you were to then remove one side, then the gas molecules already moving towards that side would fly into the vacuum and exert no force.
All this below is wrong, you need to brush up on rocket propulsion.
All the other molecules would still travel in the same directions and impact the other walls of the container exerting force. You now have a container where one side is experiencing force and the opposite side isn't, resulting in a net force in one direction causing acceleration.
After the molecules hit the walls and other molecules bounce in they will gradually leave via the empty side into the vacuum.
If you then keep filling the container with new molecules the net force on one side will continue and you get prolonged acceleration. This is how a rocket works. Very simple.
When the molecules hit the walls of the container they exert force in the container. As per newtons 3rd the walls then exert equal and opposite force on the molecules which results in them bouncing off in the opposite direction and eventually through chance they will exit the container.
Simple application of newtons 3rd. The vacuum does absolutely nothing.
If you believe rockets have to push off the atmosphere, then give us the equation that takes that into account and makes accurate predictions.
The notion that a rocket can propel itself by spewing out hot exhaust gasses and using this exhaust to push against is totally illogical to me.I'm sorry if Newton's third law (action/reaction) doesn't make sense to you, but at this point, I'm not sure how we can make it any more clear.
The notion that a rocket can propel itself by spewing out hot exhaust gasses and using this exhaust to push against is totally illogical to me.I'm sorry if Newton's third law (action/reaction) doesn't make sense to you, but at this point, I'm not sure how we can make it any more clear.
LOL!!!
Pompous Humpty Dumpty Markjo thinks WE'RE the idiots for not believing his retarded perversion of Newton 3 that claims an object can somehow push on itself until it gets to 'space' then push on nothing once it gets there.
LMFAO!!!
Frenat; you are a Troll.
Goodbye!
We are all told by NASA that space is a vacuum.
http://quest.nasa.gov/space/teachers/suited/3outer.html (http://quest.nasa.gov/space/teachers/suited/3outer.html)
Physics along with most sources defines vacuum as such.
Vacuum Physics
Vacuum, Space in which there is no matter or in which the pressure is so low that any particles in the space do not affect any processes being carried on there. It is a condition well below normal atmospheric pressure and is measured in units of pressure (the pascal). A vacuum can be created by removing air from a space using a vacuum pump or by reducing the pressure using a fast flow of fluid, as in Bernoullis principle.
I underlined the part that is most important. Basically it says that exhaust particles in space have no effect on the work they are being asked to do. In other words they do nothing to cause a rocket to move.
I can agree with Mainframe when he said, "Gas molecules will all be flying around in random directions, in a pressurised container, exerting force equally on all sides of that container. If you were to then remove one side, then the gas molecules already moving towards that side would fly into the vacuum and exert no force."
This is how physics definitions what the end results will be when you are trying to get any particle to do work in a vacuum.
This cycle will continue during the whole time the engine is running, exerting no force. The engine will run until it runs out of fuel or if it is stopped. If the engine is stopped and then restarted at a later time. The same cycle as before will begin all over again.
Gas molecules will all be flying around in random directions, in a pressurised container, exerting force equally on all sides of that container. If you were to then remove one side, then the gas molecules already moving towards that side would fly into the vacuum and exert no force.
Very simple isn't it?We've already agreed that the molecules moving towards the side removed would exert no force. The question was what about all the others moving in different directions?
The other molecules produce no thrust and have no effect at all in moving a rocket forward. This NASA illustration explains it rather well.
(http://[url=http://i.imgur.com/KRVIXpk.gif]http://i.imgur.com/KRVIXpk.gif[/url])
In aerospace engineering, the principal of action and reaction is very important. Newton's third law explains the generation of thrust by a rocket engine. In a rocket engine, hot exhaust gas is produced through the combustion of a fuel with an oxidizer. The hot exhaust gas flows through the rocket nozzle and is accelerated to the rear of the rocket. In re-action, a thrusting force is produced on the engine mount. The thrust accelerates the rocket as described by Newton's second law of motion.
As we learned earlier from Mainframe and I believe you agree, "Gas molecules will all be flying around in random directions, in a pressurised container, exerting force equally on all sides of that container. If you were to then remove one side, then the gas molecules already moving towards that side would fly into the vacuum and exert no force."
Ref: https://exploration.grc.nasa.gov/education/rocket/newton3r.html (https://exploration.grc.nasa.gov/education/rocket/newton3r.html)
The gas molecules in the combustion chamber and nozzle push on the rocket and the rocket pushes on the gas molecules with an equal and opposite force.
that still does not touch on the molecules that are moving AWAY from the side opened to vacuum when it is opened.
Quote from Frenat:thank you. Apparently some others here don't agree though.
that still does not touch on the molecules that are moving AWAY from the side opened to vacuum when it is opened.
The molecules that are not rushing towards the side to the vacuum is used to apply forward force or the ACTION to the rocket. The REACTION is the exhaust particles rushing into a vacuum
Blah, troll, blah, blah, troll, troll, blah, fail, lie, blah, lie, fail, troll, etc...
You seem to have an interesting definition of troll. From what I can gather it consists of "someone who asks questions you don't answer but instead you respond with accusations of liar and troll".Blah, troll, blah, blah, troll, troll, blah, fail, lie, blah, lie, fail, troll, etc...
Frenat: when I pointed out you were wrong earlier in this thread, you admonished me for responding to what you DID say, rather than what you claimed you MEANT to say.
You are a Troll, pure & simple, & as such worthy only of mockery & derision.
The FACT that gas does no Work in a vacuum is not a fanciful idea that I invented; it is established, experimentally-verified science.
So don't argue with me; argue with Joules & Thomson, as well as Newton, from whose laws of motion their work derives.
Because they all state that you cannot Push on Nothing.
closed system and adiabatic, of which a rocket is neither.
See how all your cultist's explanations clash with & negate each other:closed system and adiabatic, of which a rocket is neither.
O rly?
Because some of you are trying to say that conservation of momentum is how a rocket works.
But COM only applies to closed systems..
Silly trolls are silly!
You cannot Push on Nothing, cultists; live with it.
Blah, troll, blah, blah, troll, troll, blah, fail, lie, blah, lie, fail, troll, etc...
Frenat: when I pointed out you were wrong earlier in this thread, you admonished me for responding to what you DID say, rather than what you claimed you MEANT to say.
You are a Troll, pure & simple, & as such worthy only of mockery & derision.
The FACT that gas does no Work in a vacuum is not a fanciful idea that I invented; it is established, experimentally-verified science.
So don't argue with me; argue with Joules & Thomson, as well as Newton, from whose laws of motion their work derives.
Because they all state that you cannot Push on Nothing.
In this discussion of how rockets work in a vacuum, have you considered what causes a gun to recoil?
So why not read the thread, then return to address The Mystery of the Missing Mass Two, eh?Are you saying that the exhaust does not have any mass?
(clue: it is not the exhaust).
But with a rocket you ONLY have object A, the mass of the rocket, & the expanding propellant, P, the fuel.What happens to the mass of the fuel after it's burned (expanded)?
No object B, see?
What happens to the mass of the fuel after it's burned (expanded)?
Then you agree that 50 kg of fuel being burned is 50 kg of mass being ejected out the back of the rocket?What happens to the mass of the fuel after it's burned (expanded)?
It pushes against the Mystery Mass Two That Cannot Be Named by you Satanic space-cultists, even though there is only one possibility for what it could be...
Yes, retard; 50kg of expanding mass, all expanding against THE MASS THAT CANNOT BE NAMED!!!What's pushing that 50 kg of mass out the back of the rocket?
Yes, retard; 50kg of expanding mass, all expanding against THE MASS THAT CANNOT BE NAMED!!!What's pushing that 50 kg of mass out the back of the rocket?
Very good. Now, do you suppose that those burnt and expanding gasses in the combustion chamber are pushing on anything besides the gasses that are being pushed out of the back of the rocket?Yes, retard; 50kg of expanding mass, all expanding against THE MASS THAT CANNOT BE NAMED!!!What's pushing that 50 kg of mass out the back of the rocket?
The next 50kg that was just burnt (and is expanding) in the combustion chamber?
Now, do you suppose that those burnt and expanding gasses in the combustion chamber are pushing on anything besides the gasses that are being pushed out of the back of the rocket?
With a gun you have object A, the mass of the gun; the expanding propellant, P, the gunpowder, sited between them; and object B, the mass of the bullet.I think that I may see the source of your confusion. The gunpowder is not just expanding, it's burning. The process of burning the gunpowder produces energy and combustion gasses, doesn't it? Those gasses have mass, don't they?
But with a rocket you ONLY have object A, the mass of the rocket, & the expanding propellant, P, the fuel.No. We have burning fuel which, like burning gunpowder, produces energy (P) and combustion gasses (B). The energy is what pushes the gasses one way (action) and the rocket the other way (reaction).
No object B, see?Yes, there is an object B is the gasses produced by burning the fuel A. Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?
Thus, you have removed the necessary recoil mass required to produce motion.No, we haven't. You're just too blind to see it.
But we know a rocket DOES produce motion, don't we?Of course we do. You just don't understand how is all.
Ergo, some other mass MUST be taking the place of object B.Yes, the combustion gasses that are the result of burning fuel.
& the ONLY possibility for that other mass is the Atmosphere.False dichotomy. Your refusal to see other possibilities doesn't mean that they don't exist.
Ergo, NO atmosphere, NO motion; rockets CANNOT function in a vacuum.Incorrect conclusion from a faulty premise.
Q.E.D.Yes, you have quite easily demonstrated that you don't have any idea of what you're talking about.
No matter how hard you try to spin it, cultists, every child knows that You cannot Push on Nothing.Then it's a good thing that we never claimed that you could.
No maths required.For once, I agree.
Anyone who says the exhaust (which clearly represents P, the expanding propellant) is object B must put on a dunce's cap & sit in the corner until they've done their homework correctly.Anyone who doesn't understand that the energy from burning fuel is what causes exhaust gasses to expand shouldn't lecture people about how rockets do or don't work.
I think that I may see the source of your confusion.
Why would neutrals despise me? I'm not the one who is calling every member of the mainstream physics community a liar and a criminal.I think that I may see the source of your confusion.
You think wrong, shitposting Thought-Policeman; nothing you say ever clarifies matters.
It is not your purpose here to speak Clear Truths; every neutral knows that & despises you for it.
Nothing can create a Reaction against its own Action, nor can anything Push on Nothing.When did I say that it could? I'm saying that the energy released by the burning fuel is causing the combustion gasses to push against the rocket (action) and the rocket to push back (reaction). How can I possibly make that any more clear?
It actually can be considered both open or closed, depending on how you look at it.
I'm saying that the energy released by the burning fuel is causing the combustion gasses to push against the rocket (action) and the rocket to push back (reaction). How can I possibly make that any more clear?
closed system and adiabatic, of which a rocket is neither.
It actually can be considered both open or closed, depending on how you look at it.
Oh, look!Troll defined here as: not conforming to any of the known definitions but rather "someone who disagrees with me so I'll throw some insults around to make myself feel better"closed system and adiabatic, of which a rocket is neither.
Compare this to:It actually can be considered both open or closed, depending on how you look at it.
Is obvious Troll obvious enough yet?
Or do you cultists wish to shit on your own doorsteps even further by defending such a compulsive Liar?Liar defined here as: someone I can't point to actually lying at any time but again I'll throw some insults around to feel better about myself.
Whatever; let's stick to the point!You have one? That'll be a first.
Rockets push on themselves...Us? You're the one who thinks that a rocket is the same thing as it's exhaust. Talk about twisting words to mean what you want. ::)
Rockets push on nothing ...
Words mean what Humpty Dumpty wants them to mean...
You guys are too much.
Yeah; like I thought - no answers, just desperate group-think shitposts...No matter how many times you try it, you're still wrong. The propellant is not just expanding, it's burning. Do you understand the concept of burning? You pump fuel and oxidizer (part of object A) into a combustion chamber (another part of object A) and add enough heat to start a self-sustaining chemical reaction that releases a great deal of energy (P) which pushes the resultant exhaust gasses (object B) one way (action) and the rocket (object A) the other way.
Let's try again:
With a gun you have object A, the mass of the gun; the expanding propellant, P, the gunpowder, sited between them; and object B, the mass of the bullet.
But with a rocket you ONLY have object A, the mass of the rocket, & the expanding propellant, P, the fuel.
Blah. Blah. Denial. Blah.
shitposts...Of which you are the master.
Anyone who says the exhaust (which clearly represents P, the expanding propellant) is object B must put on a dunce's cap & sit in the corner until they've done their homework correctly.LMAO, you still don't understand how a rocket works.
Yeah; like I thought - no answers, just desperate group-think shitposts...
Let's try again:
With a gun you have object A, the mass of the gun; the expanding propellant, P, the gunpowder, sited between them; and object B, the mass of the bullet.
But with a rocket you ONLY have object A, the mass of the rocket, & the expanding propellant, P, the fuel.
No object B, see?
Thus, you have removed the necessary recoil mass required to produce motion.
But we know a rocket DOES produce motion, don't we?
Ergo, some other mass MUST be taking the place of object B.
& the ONLY possibility for that other mass is the Atmosphere.
Ergo, NO atmosphere, NO motion; rockets CANNOT function in a vacuum.
Q.E.D.
No matter how hard you try to spin it, cultists, every child knows that You cannot Push on Nothing.
No maths required.
Anyone who says the exhaust (which clearly represents P, the expanding propellant) is object B must put on a dunce's cap & sit in the corner until they've done their homework correctly.
"No one wants to provide an equation?"
You are joking! For that you need mathematics. That was used by Galileo, Johannes Kepler, Newton, etc to come up with gravity and the heliocentric system. Can't trust equations!
Master_Evar you quoted me:
<"No one wants to provide an equation?"
You are joking! For that you need mathematics. That was used by Galileo, Johannes Kepler, Newton, etc to come up with gravity and the heliocentric system. Can't trust equations!>
Yes. I made that statement, but I was trying be satirical and say what I thought might be a response from certain flat earthers. My jokes usually fall flat! Probably as a result of trying to crack jokes to Engineering students for 35 years or so. What would I know about equations and Newton's Laws?
You pump fuel and oxidizer (part of object A) into a combustion chamber (another part of object A) and add enough heat to start a self-sustaining chemical reaction that releases a great deal of energy (P) which pushes the resultant exhaust gasses (object B) one way (action) and the rocket (object A) the other way.
But with a rocket you ONLY have object A, the mass of the rocket, & the expanding propellant, P, the fuel.Let's try this step by step, starting with a few simple yes/no questions, if you think you can handle them.
No object B, see?
The Dunce puts the Cap on & sits in the corner.I am happy sit in the Corner doing my homework with the help of my GPS using its access to 48 satellites (24 GPS and 24 GLONASS).
The Dunce sits in the Corner & does its Homework.
Ok, Humpty Dumpty Dunce markjo?
The Dunce puts the Cap on & sits in the corner.Okay, so you're unable or unwilling to answer some very simple questions. Please let me know when you're ready to have and adult conversation.
The Dunce sits in the Corner & does its Homework.
Ok, Humpty Dumpty Dunce markjo?
markjo, You have to realize that if your rocket made it to space by pushing on the exhaust, as soon as it gets there the vacuum of space is going to suck every exhaust molecule away from the rocket leaving nothing to push against anymore. You can't see that happening?No, because that isn't how rocket engines work. Free expansion only works as fast as the gas molecules can travel on their own. The gasses in a rocket's combustion chamber can exit through the throat of the engine several times faster than the speed of sound (as seen in the shock diamonds in the shuttle main engine). The exhaust gasses aren't getting sucked out, they're being forced out, so free expansion does not apply. Or at least not until the gasses clear the engine bell, at which point they no longer interact with the rocket and are therefore irrelevant.
Please let me know when you're ready to have and adult conversation.
Please let me know when you're ready to have and adult conversation.The Dunce will sit in the corner & do its Homework.
The Dunce will be ignored until it learns that an object cannot create a Reaction off its own Action.
The Dunce will be ignored until it learns that YOU CANNOT PUSH ON NOTHING.
Okay, ever-so-adult Humpty Dumpty markjo?
What is the difference between a bullet ejected from a gun and gas ejected from a rocket
Yendor, do you even know what free expansion means? Because if you do you'll understand why it is irrelevant to the topic of the thread.
A vacuum does not suck. But high pressure gases push. The molecules in the high pressure exhaust gas pushes other molecules in it. The molecules at the nozzle get's pushed away from the ship in a vacuum, because there is nothing to push it back. The molecules that pushed those molecules had to be pushed themselves, which was done by other molecules further inside the combustion chamber. And those molecules was pushed by other molecules even further in. And the furthest in the molecules is pushed by the wall of the combustion chamber, which happens to be part of the rocket. And because of Newton's third, the molecules pushes back on the walls of the combustion chamber with an equal force. No atmosphere is needed.
Yendor, do you even know what free expansion means? Because if you do you'll understand why it is irrelevant to the topic of the thread.
A vacuum does not suck. But high pressure gases push. The molecules in the high pressure exhaust gas pushes other molecules in it. The molecules at the nozzle get's pushed away from the ship in a vacuum, because there is nothing to push it back. The molecules that pushed those molecules had to be pushed themselves, which was done by other molecules further inside the combustion chamber. And those molecules was pushed by other molecules even further in. And the furthest in the molecules is pushed by the wall of the combustion chamber, which happens to be part of the rocket. And because of Newton's third, the molecules pushes back on the walls of the combustion chamber with an equal force. No atmosphere is needed.
In the 1800's physicist James Prescott Joule releases high pressure gas into a vacuum. He discovers that the temperature of the gas does not change when it enters the vacuum. The gas releases no energy, does no work. This effect is called Free Expansion.
It should also be noted that gas cannot exist in a vacuum. Cannot exist. That's confirmed by Boyle's Law: PV=K. Pressure x Volume = Constant. If Pressure is zero then the formula is invalid. Because the formula is a law that must apply to all gasses, gasses cannot exist where pressure = 0. There is no gas in space. A rocket cannot expel gas into space. It can release unrelated molecules which fly off, disappearing forever exerting no force on the rocket as they do.
There could be gas inside the combustion chamber of a rocket, expanded, high-energy gas, however, when you open a valve of that chamber to a vacuum, Free Expansion takes over and the chamber is evacuated without doing any work. The high-energy gas molecules disperse into space (via Free Expansion), keeping all of their energy and losing all of their properties of being a gas (via Boyle's Law).
There are only two known forces available the vacuum of space: gravity and radiation.
When we move about on/near the earth we rely on friction and pressure. All the fantasies of space travel I have seen or heard also explicitly or implicitly use pressure and friction to move the rocket, forces unavailable in space. They also use gas, which I have show simply doesn't exist in the vacuum according to the laws of physics.
Formulas, we have many. Laws, there are few and none of them support rockets operating in space.
The exhaust gases are the recoil mass. 500kg per second worth.
And the free expansion requires a closed system, something that a rocket engine is NOT.
In the 1800's physicist James Prescott Joule releases high pressure gas into a vacuum. He discovers that the temperature of the gas does not change when it enters the vacuum. The gas releases no energy, does no work. This effect is called Free Expansion.
It should also be noted that gas cannot exist in a vacuum. Cannot exist. That's confirmed by Boyle's Law: PV=K. Pressure x Volume = Constant. If Pressure is zero then the formula is invalid. Because the formula is a law that must apply to all gasses, gasses cannot exist where pressure = 0. There is no gas in space. A rocket cannot expel gas into space. It can release unrelated molecules which fly off, disappearing forever exerting no force on the rocket as they do.
There could be gas inside the combustion chamber of a rocket, expanded, high-energy gas, however, when you open a valve of that chamber to a vacuum, Free Expansion takes over and the chamber is evacuated without doing any work. The high-energy gas molecules disperse into space (via Free Expansion), keeping all of their energy and losing all of their properties of being a gas (via Boyle's Law).
There are only two known forces available the vacuum of space: gravity and radiation.
When we move about on/near the earth we rely on friction and pressure. All the fantasies of space travel I have seen or heard also explicitly or implicitly use pressure and friction to move the rocket, forces unavailable in space. They also use gas, which I have show simply doesn't exist in the vacuum according to the laws of physics.
Formulas, we have many. Laws, there are few and none of them support rockets operating in space.
In the 1800's physicist James Prescott Joule releases high pressure gas into a vacuum. He discovers that the temperature of the gas does not change when it enters the vacuum. The gas releases no energy, does no work. This effect is called Free Expansion.*sigh*
It should also be noted that gas cannot exist in a vacuum. Cannot exist. That's confirmed by Boyle's Law: PV=K. Pressure x Volume = Constant. If Pressure is zero then the formula is invalid. Because the formula is a law that must apply to all gasses, gasses cannot exist where pressure = 0. There is no gas in space. A rocket cannot expel gas into space. It can release unrelated molecules which fly off, disappearing forever exerting no force on the rocket as they do.
There could be gas inside the combustion chamber of a rocket, expanded, high-energy gas, however, when you open a valve of that chamber to a vacuum, Free Expansion takes over and the chamber is evacuated without doing any work. The high-energy gas molecules disperse into space (via Free Expansion), keeping all of their energy and losing all of their properties of being a gas (via Boyle's Law).
Yendor, do you even know what free expansion means? Because if you do you'll understand why it is irrelevant to the topic of the thread.
A vacuum does not suck. But high pressure gases push. The molecules in the high pressure exhaust gas pushes other molecules in it. The molecules at the nozzle get's pushed away from the ship in a vacuum, because there is nothing to push it back. The molecules that pushed those molecules had to be pushed themselves, which was done by other molecules further inside the combustion chamber. And those molecules was pushed by other molecules even further in. And the furthest in the molecules is pushed by the wall of the combustion chamber, which happens to be part of the rocket. And because of Newton's third, the molecules pushes back on the walls of the combustion chamber with an equal force. No atmosphere is needed.
In the 1800's physicist James Prescott Joule releases high pressure gas into a vacuum. He discovers that the temperature of the gas does not change when it enters the vacuum. The gas releases no energy, does no work. This effect is called Free Expansion.
It should also be noted that gas cannot exist in a vacuum. Cannot exist. That's confirmed by Boyle's Law: PV=K. Pressure x Volume = Constant. If Pressure is zero then the formula is invalid. Because the formula is a law that must apply to all gasses, gasses cannot exist where pressure = 0. There is no gas in space. A rocket cannot expel gas into space. It can release unrelated molecules which fly off, disappearing forever exerting no force on the rocket as they do.
There could be gas inside the combustion chamber of a rocket, expanded, high-energy gas, however, when you open a valve of that chamber to a vacuum, Free Expansion takes over and the chamber is evacuated without doing any work. The high-energy gas molecules disperse into space (via Free Expansion), keeping all of their energy and losing all of their properties of being a gas (via Boyle's Law).
There are only two known forces available the vacuum of space: gravity and radiation.
When we move about on/near the earth we rely on friction and pressure. All the fantasies of space travel I have seen or heard also explicitly or implicitly use pressure and friction to move the rocket, forces unavailable in space. They also use gas, which I have show simply doesn't exist in the vacuum according to the laws of physics.
Formulas, we have many. Laws, there are few and none of them support rockets operating in space.
Red text: Wrong, he discovers the opposite (that temperature DID drop). However, according to mathematics, if an IDEAL gas existed, it would not change temperature.
Free Expansion
In a free expansion, gas is allowed to expand into a vacuum. This happens quickly, so there is no heat transferred. No work is done, because the gas does not displace anything. According to the First Law, this means that:
ΔEint = 0
There is no change in internal energy, so the temperature stays the same.
On a PV diagram all you can do is plot the end-points. The process follows a path on the diagram that is not well-defined. Because the temperature is constant, the connection between the initial and final states is:
PiVi = PfVf
Blue text: *Facepalm* Read through that a few times and you might spot just what is so wrong with that part.
Boyle's law (sometimes referred to as the BoyleMariotte law, or Mariotte's law[1]) is an experimental gas law which describes how the pressure of a gas tends to decrease as the volume of a gas increases. A modern statement of Boyle's law is
The absolute pressure exerted by a given mass of an ideal gas is inversely proportional to the volume it occupies if the temperature and amount of gas remain unchanged within a closed system.[2][3]
Mathematically, Boyle's law can be stated as
P \propto \frac{1}{V}
or
PV = k
where P is the pressure of the gas, V is the volume of the gas, and k is a constant.
Brown text: Only with an ideal gas, which does not exist in reality. And the free expansion requires a closed system, something that a rocket engine is NOT.
An ideal gas is a gas that conforms, in physical behaviour, to a particular, idealized relation between pressure, volume, and temperature called the ideal gas law. This law is a generalization containing both Boyle's law and Charles's law as special cases and states that for a specified quantity of gas, the product of the volume, V, and pressure, P, is proportional to the absolute temperature T; i.e., in equation form, PV = kT, in which k is a constant. Such a relation for a substance is called its equation of state and is sufficient to describe its gross behaviour.
The vacuum of deep space is lower than any pressure that can be created artificially on this planet and as space is infinitely larger than the Earth natural. So, I'd say that when a rocket is in space, it would be equivalent to the free expansion experiment.
Maroon text (darker brown): Refer to Blue text. Also, no, radiation and gravity is not the only forces which can act in a vacuum. E.g. if two objects hit each other in a vacuum they exert pressure (a force) on each other. They don't pass through each other.
I'm talking about the vacuum of space. That is hypothetical. We know of no objects in outer space.
If you have many formulas, please give us the one that shows that rocket thrust is dependent on atmosphere.
The exhaust gases are the recoil mass. 500kg per second worth.
The Dunce will put its cap on & sit in the corner.
The Dunce will sit in the corner & do its homework.
Markjo; rabinoz; mainframes; getting busy in Dunce's corner, isn't it?And the free expansion requires a closed system, something that a rocket engine is NOT.
What an utter buffoon you are.
For a start, free expansion does not require a closed system; that is a big fat LIE right there.
One which you haven't even thought through the logical consequences of, idiot; because if, as you also claim, a rocket works by conservation of momentum then it MUST be a closed system - that is axiomatic.
So, once again, all your lies negate & contradict one another; you are seriously embarrassing yourselves here, cultists.
Yendor has done his homework; why can't you?
Read the below again, carefully, & learn the truth.
In the 1800's physicist James Prescott Joule releases high pressure gas into a vacuum. He discovers that the temperature of the gas does not change when it enters the vacuum. The gas releases no energy, does no work. This effect is called Free Expansion.
It should also be noted that gas cannot exist in a vacuum. Cannot exist. That's confirmed by Boyle's Law: PV=K. Pressure x Volume = Constant. If Pressure is zero then the formula is invalid. Because the formula is a law that must apply to all gasses, gasses cannot exist where pressure = 0. There is no gas in space. A rocket cannot expel gas into space. It can release unrelated molecules which fly off, disappearing forever exerting no force on the rocket as they do.
There could be gas inside the combustion chamber of a rocket, expanded, high-energy gas, however, when you open a valve of that chamber to a vacuum, Free Expansion takes over and the chamber is evacuated without doing any work. The high-energy gas molecules disperse into space (via Free Expansion), keeping all of their energy and losing all of their properties of being a gas (via Boyle's Law).
There are only two known forces available the vacuum of space: gravity and radiation.
When we move about on/near the earth we rely on friction and pressure. All the fantasies of space travel I have seen or heard also explicitly or implicitly use pressure and friction to move the rocket, forces unavailable in space. They also use gas, which I have show simply doesn't exist in the vacuum according to the laws of physics.
Formulas, we have many. Laws, there are few and none of them support rockets operating in space.
Might I also add that the formula W=pv may be of some use?
Again, where p=0, W=0.
In the 1800's physicist James Prescott Joule releases high pressure gas into a vacuum. He discovers that the temperature of the gas does not change when it enters the vacuum. The gas releases no energy, does no work. This effect is called Free Expansion.*sigh*
It should also be noted that gas cannot exist in a vacuum. Cannot exist. That's confirmed by Boyle's Law: PV=K. Pressure x Volume = Constant. If Pressure is zero then the formula is invalid. Because the formula is a law that must apply to all gasses, gasses cannot exist where pressure = 0. There is no gas in space. A rocket cannot expel gas into space. It can release unrelated molecules which fly off, disappearing forever exerting no force on the rocket as they do.
There could be gas inside the combustion chamber of a rocket, expanded, high-energy gas, however, when you open a valve of that chamber to a vacuum, Free Expansion takes over and the chamber is evacuated without doing any work. The high-energy gas molecules disperse into space (via Free Expansion), keeping all of their energy and losing all of their properties of being a gas (via Boyle's Law).
Let's try this one more time.
Free expansion is when a fixed amount of gas is released into the vacuum side of a closed system. A rocket burns propellant (a process which adds heat to the system) in order to create hot, expanding gasses that increase in pressure within the combustion chamber.
Free expansion applies when the gas molecules are allowed to freely expand (hence the name).
No vacuum on earth can be created greater than the vacuum of space. So yes, I'd say it would be a closed system. Meaning the experiment would have actually worked better in outer space then on earth.
This expansion of gasses cannot happen faster than the speed of sound because the molecules cannot move faster than its shock wave. The hot, expanding gasses created when a rocket engine burns propellant can move several times the speed of sound as they exit the engine (as evidenced by shock diamonds (http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/propulsion/q0224.shtml) in the exhaust).
There is on sound in space. Therefore there would be no shock wave.
Taking these facts into consideration, please explain again how free expansion applies to a rocket engine.
If you simply think for a moment you should definitely visualize what would happen when the exhaust enters a near perfect vacuum of space. Forget what you learned in school, just give it a little brain activity. A light should go off anytime now.
This expansion of gasses cannot happen faster than the speed of sound
Whether or not there is sound in space is not relevant. The fact that gas molecules can not freely expand faster than a certain speed is the relevant part.This expansion of gasses cannot happen faster than the speed of sound because the molecules cannot move faster than its shock wave. The hot, expanding gasses created when a rocket engine burns propellant can move several times the speed of sound as they exit the engine (as evidenced by shock diamonds (http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/propulsion/q0224.shtml) in the exhaust).
There is on sound in space. Therefore there would be no shock wave.
In a vacuum, the combustion chamber pressure in a rocket engine is effectively zero. Do you or do you not agree that if you can burn enough propellant fast enough, then the combustion chamber pressure can increase to several thousand psi?Taking these facts into consideration, please explain again how free expansion applies to a rocket engine.
If you simply think for a moment you should definitely visualize what would happen when the exhaust enters a near perfect vacuum of space. Forget what you learned in school, just give it a little brain activity. A light should go off anytime now.
No, faster than the speed of sound in a highly pressurized combustion chamber.This expansion of gasses cannot happen faster than the speed of sound
The speed of sound?
In a VACUUM?!?
In the 1800's physicist James Prescott Joule releases high pressure gas into a vacuum. He discovers that the temperature of the gas does not change when it enters the vacuum. The gas releases no energy, does no work. This effect is called Free Expansion.
It should also be noted that gas cannot exist in a vacuum. Cannot exist. That's confirmed by Boyle's Law: PV=K. Pressure x Volume = Constant. If Pressure is zero then the formula is invalid. Because the formula is a law that must apply to all gasses, gasses cannot exist where pressure = 0. There is no gas in space. A rocket cannot expel gas into space. It can release unrelated molecules which fly off, disappearing forever exerting no force on the rocket as they do.
There could be gas inside the combustion chamber of a rocket, expanded, high-energy gas, however, when you open a valve of that chamber to a vacuum, Free Expansion takes over and the chamber is evacuated without doing any work. The high-energy gas molecules disperse into space (via Free Expansion), keeping all of their energy and losing all of their properties of being a gas (via Boyle's Law).
There are only two known forces available the vacuum of space: gravity and radiation.
When we move about on/near the earth we rely on friction and pressure. All the fantasies of space travel I have seen or heard also explicitly or implicitly use pressure and friction to move the rocket, forces unavailable in space. They also use gas, which I have show simply doesn't exist in the vacuum according to the laws of physics.
Formulas, we have many. Laws, there are few and none of them support rockets operating in space.
Wtf is wrong with you markjo?Where did I say that? ???
You just talked about the speed of sound in a vacuum...
Wtf is wrong with you markjo?
You just talked about the speed of sound in a vacuum; do you think you have any right to be heard after that?
Just STFU, stay in your faeces-encrusted corner & do your homework, tinfoil-capped Humpty Dumpty Dunce.
For sensible children, read this again:
In the 1800's physicist James Prescott Joule releases high pressure gas into a vacuum. He discovers that the temperature of the gas does not change when it enters the vacuum. The gas releases no energy, does no work. This effect is called Free Expansion.
It should also be noted that gas cannot exist in a vacuum. Cannot exist. That's confirmed by Boyle's Law: PV=K. Pressure x Volume = Constant. If Pressure is zero then the formula is invalid. Because the formula is a law that must apply to all gasses, gasses cannot exist where pressure = 0. There is no gas in space. A rocket cannot expel gas into space. It can release unrelated molecules which fly off, disappearing forever exerting no force on the rocket as they do.
There could be gas inside the combustion chamber of a rocket, expanded, high-energy gas, however, when you open a valve of that chamber to a vacuum, Free Expansion takes over and the chamber is evacuated without doing any work. The high-energy gas molecules disperse into space (via Free Expansion), keeping all of their energy and losing all of their properties of being a gas (via Boyle's Law).
There are only two known forces available the vacuum of space: gravity and radiation.
When we move about on/near the earth we rely on friction and pressure. All the fantasies of space travel I have seen or heard also explicitly or implicitly use pressure and friction to move the rocket, forces unavailable in space. They also use gas, which I have show simply doesn't exist in the vacuum according to the laws of physics.
Formulas, we have many. Laws, there are few and none of them support rockets operating in space.
Might I also add that the formula W=pv may be of some use?
Again, where p=0, W=0.
The Dunce will put its hat on & get back into its corner.Would it not be more helpful if the "teacher" were to answer a few simple questions?
A gas will have the same pressure as its surroundings...
& what pressure is a vacuum?
Yawn!
Obvious twat is obvious...
Would it not be more helpful if the "teacher" were to answer a few simple questions?
Object A is the bullet.
Object B is the combustion products of the ignited gunpowder.
Oh? Where?Would it not be more helpful if the "teacher" were to answer a few simple questions?
Already answered, compulsive-liar markjo.
Nothing can create a Reaction against its own Action.That isn't what I asked.
In the 1800's physicist James Prescott Joule releases high pressure gas into a vacuum. He discovers that the temperature of the gas does not change when it enters the vacuum. The gas releases no energy, does no work. This effect is called Free Expansion.
It should also be noted that gas cannot exist in a vacuum. Cannot exist. That's confirmed by Boyle's Law: PV=K. Pressure x Volume = Constant. If Pressure is zero then the formula is invalid. Because the formula is a law that must apply to all gasses, gasses cannot exist where pressure = 0. There is no gas in space. A rocket cannot expel gas into space. It can release unrelated molecules which fly off, disappearing forever exerting no force on the rocket as they do.
There could be gas inside the combustion chamber of a rocket, expanded, high-energy gas, however, when you open a valve of that chamber to a vacuum, Free Expansion takes over and the chamber is evacuated without doing any work. The high-energy gas molecules disperse into space (via Free Expansion), keeping all of their energy and losing all of their properties of being a gas (via Boyle's Law).
There are only two known forces available the vacuum of space: gravity and radiation.
When we move about on/near the earth we rely on friction and pressure. All the fantasies of space travel I have seen or heard also explicitly or implicitly use pressure and friction to move the rocket, forces unavailable in space. They also use gas, which I have show simply doesn't exist in the vacuum according to the laws of physics.
Formulas, we have many. Laws, there are few and none of them support rockets operating in space.
IN AN IDEAL FICTITIOUS GASQuoteRed text: Wrong, he discovers the opposite (that temperature DID drop). However, according to mathematics, if an IDEAL gas existed, it would not change temperature.Free Expansion
In a free expansion, gas is allowed to expand into a vacuum. This happens quickly, so there is no heat transferred. No work is done, because the gas does not displace anything. According to the First Law, this means that:
ΔEint = 0
There is no change in internal energy, so the temperature stays the same.
On a PV diagram all you can do is plot the end-points. The process follows a path on the diagram that is not well-defined. Because the temperature is constant, the connection between the initial and final states is:
PiVi = PfVf
You still have not noticed the fallacy in your statement?QuoteBlue text: *Facepalm* Read through that a few times and you might spot just what is so wrong with that part.
Boyle's law (sometimes referred to as the BoyleMariotte law, or Mariotte's law[1]) is an experimental gas law which describes how the pressure of a gas tends to decrease as the volume of a gas increases. A modern statement of Boyle's law is
The absolute pressure exerted by a given mass of an ideal gas is inversely proportional to the volume it occupies if the temperature and amount of gas remain unchanged within a closed system.[2][3]
Mathematically, Boyle's law can be stated as
P \propto \frac{1}{V}
or
PV = k
where P is the pressure of the gas, V is the volume of the gas, and k is a constant.
No, because rocket gases are still not "ideal".QuoteBrown text: Only with an ideal gas, which does not exist in reality. And the free expansion requires a closed system, something that a rocket engine is NOT.
An ideal gas is a gas that conforms, in physical behaviour, to a particular, idealized relation between pressure, volume, and temperature called the ideal gas law. This law is a generalization containing both Boyle's law and Charles's law as special cases and states that for a specified quantity of gas, the product of the volume, V, and pressure, P, is proportional to the absolute temperature T; i.e., in equation form, PV = kT, in which k is a constant. Such a relation for a substance is called its equation of state and is sufficient to describe its gross behaviour.
The vacuum of deep space is lower than any pressure that can be created artificially on this planet and as space is infinitely larger than the Earth natural. So, I'd say that when a rocket is in space, it would be equivalent to the free expansion experiment.
Electromagnetic forces can also propagate through the vacuum of space. And do you suggest then that two objects, if they existed in a vacuum, would pass through each other?QuoteMaroon text (darker brown): Refer to Blue text. Also, no, radiation and gravity is not the only forces which can act in a vacuum. E.g. if two objects hit each other in a vacuum they exert pressure (a force) on each other. They don't pass through each other.
I'm talking about the vacuum of space. That is hypothetical. We know of no objects in outer space.
If you have many formulas, please give us the one that shows that rocket thrust is dependent on atmosphere.
Object A is the bullet.LOL!!!
Object B is the combustion products of the ignited gunpowder.
THE DUNCE WILL PUT ITS CAP ON.
THE DUNCE WILL SIT IN THE CORNER.
THE DUNCE WILL DO ITS HOMEWORK.
Again, for non-retards:
With a gun you have object A, the mass of the gun; the expanding propellant, P, the gunpowder, sited between them; and object B, the mass of the bullet.
But with a rocket you ONLY have object A, the mass of the rocket, & the expanding propellant, P, the fuel.
No object B, see?
Thus, you have removed the necessary recoil mass required to produce motion.
But we know a rocket DOES produce motion, don't we?
Ergo, some other mass MUST be taking the place of object B.
& the ONLY possibility for that other mass is the Atmosphere.
Ergo, NO atmosphere, NO motion; rockets CANNOT function in a vacuum.
Q.E.D.
No matter how hard you try to spin it, cultists, every child knows that You cannot Push on Nothing.
No maths required.
Getting kinda disgusting now...
This thread is a lost cause.
Papa Legba, you have the burden of proof. You consistently (or perhaps deliberately) feign ignorance of something from someone who has proven you wrong, and your only rebuttal is to use the same point you made 15 pages ago.
Need I remind you, incase you feel like twisting my words too, that you have the burden of proof.
Science has proven the existence of space travel. You've GOT to be some kind of serious troll to assume that the 500 page textbook you got in school had nothing but lies in it.
When two parties are in a discussion and one affirms a claim that the other disputes, the one who affirms has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim -i.e., X is good/true/beautiful, etc. An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true. This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the proposition, but is not valid reasoning.
This thread is a lost cause.
Papa Legba, you have the burden of proof. You consistently (or perhaps deliberately) feign ignorance of something from someone who has proven you wrong, and your only rebuttal is to use the same point you made 15 pages ago.
Need I remind you, incase you feel like twisting my words too, that you have the burden of proof.
Science has proven the existence of space travel. You've GOT to be some kind of serious troll to assume that the 500 page textbook you got in school had nothing but lies in it.
piemanfiddy, what a ridiculous thing to claim.QuoteWhen two parties are in a discussion and one affirms a claim that the other disputes, the one who affirms has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim -i.e., X is good/true/beautiful, etc. An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true. This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the proposition, but is not valid reasoning.
Furthermore, you are using argument from incredulity, ad hominem, argument from ignorance and shifting the burden of proof fallacies.
Nerp-derp-derp says the butt-hurt disinfo thing...
Meanwhile, in REALITY, this:
With a gun you have object A, the mass of the gun; the expanding propellant, P, the gunpowder, sited between them; and object B, the mass of the bullet.
But with a rocket you ONLY have object A, the mass of the rocket, & the expanding propellant, P, the fuel.
No object B, see?
Thus, you have removed the necessary recoil mass required to produce motion.
But we know a rocket DOES produce motion, don't we?
Ergo, some other mass MUST be taking the place of object B.
& the ONLY possibility for that other mass is the Atmosphere.
Ergo, NO atmosphere, NO motion; rockets CANNOT function in a vacuum.
Q.E.D.
No matter how hard you try to spin it, cultists, every child knows that You cannot Push on Nothing.
No maths required.
Stay in your corner ffs, Losers...
This expansion of gasses cannot happen faster than the speed of sound
This expansion of gasses cannot happen faster than the speed of sound
I want everyone to read the above very carefully.
Markjo is referring to the speed of sound in a vacuum.
Who is the 'sad, pathetic joke' here?
Considering that there are no gasses in a vacuum, I think we all know the answer to your question is.
This expansion of gasses cannot happen faster than the speed of sound
No, I am referring to the speed of sound in a highly pressurized combustion chamber.This expansion of gasses cannot happen faster than the speed of sound
I want everyone to read the above very carefully.
Markjo is referring to the speed of sound in a vacuum.
Who is the 'sad, pathetic joke' here?You are, obviously.
Also:Of course we have addressed it multiple times. You just keep ignoring it. Here it is one more time for you to ignore.
With a gun you have object A, the mass of the gun; the expanding propellant, P, the gunpowder, sited between them; and object B, the mass of the bullet.
But with a rocket you ONLY have object A, the mass of the rocket, & the expanding propellant, P, the fuel.
No object B, see?
Thus, you have removed the necessary recoil mass required to produce motion.
But we know a rocket DOES produce motion, don't we?
Ergo, some other mass MUST be taking the place of object B.
& the ONLY possibility for that other mass is the Atmosphere.
Ergo, NO atmosphere, NO motion; rockets CANNOT function in a vacuum.
Q.E.D.
No matter how hard you try to spin it, cultists, every child knows that You cannot Push on Nothing.
No maths required.
None of you have correctly addressed this yet; your dunce-caps await.
No, I am referring to the speed of sound in a highly pressurized combustion chamber.
Considering that there are no gasses in a vacuum, I think we all know the answer to your question is.
Wtf?
Pushing on the exhaust gases, which have mass........
LOL!!!
Psycho.
Neutrals; read the thread from the start to see how insane TexasH is.
Refute this, then , Humpty Dumpty Tinfoil-cap wearer:Incorrect. The rocket imparts a force on the exhaust and in return the exhaust imparts a force on the rocket. The key to a rocket is the nozzle. It speeds up the exhaust gases to help the exhaust impart a bigger force.
With a gun you have object A, the mass of the gun; the expanding propellant, P, the gunpowder, sited between them; and object B, the mass of the bullet.
But with a rocket you ONLY have object A, the mass of the rocket, & the expanding propellant, P, the fuel.
No object B, see?
Thus, you have removed the necessary recoil mass required to produce motion.Nope.
But we know a rocket DOES produce motion, don't we?
Ergo, some other mass MUST be taking the place of object B.
& the ONLY possibility for that other mass is the Atmosphere.
Ergo, NO atmosphere, NO motion; rockets CANNOT function in a vacuum.Nope.
No matter how hard you try to spin it, cultists, every child knows that You cannot Push on Nothing.Yawn indeed. That was super easy to destroy.
No maths required.[/b]
*Yawn!*
So if A and B are the gun and bullet, explain how they are transferring momentum to each other when neither start with momentum, but both end with momentum.
Could you use your labeling system to label A, B, and P for a bat hitting a baseball?
Pushing on the exhaust gases, which have mass........
LOL!!!
Wtf is wrong with you?
Nothing can create a Reaction against its own Action...
GET THAT DUNCE CAP ON & SIT IN THAT CORNER - IT'S HOMEWORK TIME!!!
Of course not. But there can be pressure in a rocket's combustion chamber when lots of fuel and oxidizer are being burned vigorously.No, I am referring to the speed of sound in a highly pressurized combustion chamber.
There can be NO pressure in a vacuum, psycho.
Neutrals should read this thread from the start to find out how dishonest you are.Neutrals will see that you refuse to answer simple questions and keep ignoring the mass of the exhaust gasses.
No, I am referring to the speed of sound in a highly pressurized combustion chamber.There can be NO pressure in a vacuum, psycho.
Wtf is WRONG with you?
Whatever; ignore the chuntering Humpty Dumpty disinfo-thing & concentrate on this:
With a gun you have object A, the mass of the gun; the expanding propellant, P, the gunpowder, sited between them; and object B, the mass of the bullet.
But with a rocket you ONLY have object A, the mass of the rocket, & the expanding propellant, P, the fuel.
No object B, see?
Thus, you have removed the necessary recoil mass required to produce motion.
But we know a rocket DOES produce motion, don't we?
Ergo, some other mass MUST be taking the place of object B.
& the ONLY possibility for that other mass is the Atmosphere.
Ergo, NO atmosphere, NO motion; rockets CANNOT function in a vacuum.
Q.E.D.
No matter how hard you try to spin it, cultists, every child knows that You cannot Push on Nothing.
No maths required.
None of you have correctly addressed this yet; your dunce-caps await.
"outer space" is not a vacuum.
The rest of you; stop saying a rocket can create both the forces described by Newton 3 upon itself & produce motion.Actually, a rocket only needs to create one force to produce motion. That force is generated by the rapid burning of fuel and oxidizer and it pushes the exhaust gasses (which have mass) in one direction (action) and the rocket in the opposite direction (reaction).
Massive Fail & Tinfoil Dunce-caps all round.
This gibberish sums it up:"outer space" is not a vacuum.The rest of you; stop saying a rocket can create both the forces described by Newton 3 upon itself & produce motion.
This is insane.
Now; read again & DO YOUR HOMEWORK PROPERLY!
With a gun you have object A, the mass of the gun; the expanding propellant, P, the gunpowder, sited between them; and object B, the mass of the bullet.
But with a rocket you ONLY have object A, the mass of the rocket, & the expanding propellant, P, the fuel.
No object B, see?
Thus, you have removed the necessary recoil mass required to produce motion.
But we know a rocket DOES produce motion, don't we?
Ergo, some other mass MUST be taking the place of object B.
& the ONLY possibility for that other mass is the Atmosphere.
Ergo, NO atmosphere, NO motion; rockets CANNOT function in a vacuum.
Q.E.D.
No matter how hard you try to spin it, cultists, every child knows that You cannot Push on Nothing.
No maths required.
Here is a thread for satanic sci-fi cultists to post photos/videos of people on skateboards that they think somehow prove that rockets will function in a vacuum.Lost cause from square one! Right, back on that ole skateboard pushing on all Papa's hot air!
Newton, Joules & Thomson will be spinning in their graves at such nonsense, but I guess these cultists are too satanically brainwashed to comprehend how basic scientific principles work...
Whatever; knock yourselves out, psychos!
LOL!!!Sorry, someone else beat me to it. :(
Look at markjo, lurking on post 18 again, waiting to turn the page cos that's the only way he knows to 'win' a 'debate'!
28,000 posts of Nothing; just time-wasting, derailing, diverting, denying & all-round FAIL.
Go on then, psycho; turn the page...
I haven't even read your post; I bet it's something I already answered anyway.I'll take that bet. Here it is again, so that you don't have to go back a page:
The rest of you; stop saying a rocket can create both the forces described by Newton 3 upon itself & produce motion.Actually, a rocket only needs to create one force to produce motion. That force is generated by the rapid burning of fuel and oxidizer and it pushes the exhaust gasses (which have mass) in one direction (action) and the rocket in the opposite direction (reaction).
Let's use the title of this thread as an example. Stand on a skateboard, lift one leg (careful not to lose your balance) and then kick the skateboard backwards as hard as you can with your other leg (again, careful not to lose your balance). What happens? As the skateboard went backwards, did you move forwards at all?
Pathetic.Yes, you are getting to be pretty pathetic.
"outer space" is not a vacuum.
You're trying far too hard and doing yourself no favours by spouting that absolute utter, utter, utter bullshit.No, I am referring to the speed of sound in a highly pressurized combustion chamber.There can be NO pressure in a vacuum, psycho.
Wtf is WRONG with you?
Whatever; ignore the chuntering Humpty Dumpty disinfo-thing & concentrate on this:
With a gun you have object A, the mass of the gun; the expanding propellant, P, the gunpowder, sited between them; and object B, the mass of the bullet.
But with a rocket you ONLY have object A, the mass of the rocket, & the expanding propellant, P, the fuel.
No object B, see?
Thus, you have removed the necessary recoil mass required to produce motion.
But we know a rocket DOES produce motion, don't we?
Ergo, some other mass MUST be taking the place of object B.
& the ONLY possibility for that other mass is the Atmosphere.
Ergo, NO atmosphere, NO motion; rockets CANNOT function in a vacuum.
Q.E.D.
No matter how hard you try to spin it, cultists, every child knows that You cannot Push on Nothing.
No maths required.
None of you have correctly addressed this yet; your dunce-caps await.
Firstly, if you want to pedantic, "outer space" is not a vacuum. The pressure:
at sea level the air pressure is about 760 Torr,
at an altitude of 200 km, about 0.0075 Torr and
in "outer space" it is in the range 1X10-6 to 3X10-17 Torr.
As far as the operation of a rocket is concerned these last two figures are so near a vacuum it makes no difference.
For maximum efficiency, the ideal rocket nozzle tries to match the pressure at exit to the outside pressure.
In a vacuum this would need an "infinite area" - can't be done.
Of course, right at the exit of a rocket we cannot have a vacuum. There is a huge mass flow at this point - maybe 500kg/sec for a large rocket motor. After exiting the nozzle the exhaust diffuses in the space around. If you want to go into rocket nozzle design try: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_engine_nozzle#Vacuum_use (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_engine_nozzle#Vacuum_use) , quite a bit outside my expertise.
Clearly right at the exit of the nozzle we do not have a vacuum and the rocket "pushes" against that large mass of burnt fuel.
If anyone wants to be really fussy like our beloved Papa, I would have to agree rockets do not operate "in a vacuum", they themselves destroy the "vacuum" in the space behind them.
But if anyone tries to argue that rockets will not work in "space" they are talking rubbish. How else did the satellite get into orbit to take this weather photo. The time here in Eastern Australia (EAST) is about 9:15 pm (11:15 UTC). If this link works this weather photo was taken at 11:00 UTC.
http://www.jma.go.jp/en/gms/imgs_c/6/visible/1/201510201100-00.png (http://www.jma.go.jp/en/gms/imgs_c/6/visible/1/201510201100-00.png)
So someone faked a photo on demand in less than 15 minutes. Get real!
If space was a vacuum or extreme low pressure shouldn't all the high pressure atmosphere spread to the low pressure areas in space. You say gravity holds the air(gas) there, yet the same force holds the moon (solid as far as I know) far away from earth???
And anyways whats with all the hate posts, isn't this site about learning and a furthering understanding, or do people flock here for ego reasons, to feels right by supposedly proving another wrong. Opinions are choices of thought not actually part of your being, so even if a point you agree with is right it never can make you right. you were never right or wrong.
What??? you must think your pretty clever. Anyone who's intelligent will decipher what your really saying. Why now would I explain myself when you have just admitted you are only here to argue, I say blue is the best color and you then say yellow is. You don't go on to say HERES WHY, no you go on to say I'll tell you whats wrong with blue. In essence you drive a wedge between me and my point, thus, making me wrong. Then by default you are right. This is how arguing is won, this is NOT how someone learns new ideas.I don't argue about opinions. It's pointless. But I do argue about facts and reality.
What I meant about opinions really is just people get attached to them, they feel insulted when someone insults there opinion. This is why it is so hard to convince someone against their current way of thinking than to teach them a whole new idea.
I love to argue to, so go ahead, but don't think i'm fooled by your charade.
You say gravity holds the air(gas) there, yet the same force holds the moon (solid as far as I know) far away from earth???is really weird.
We're not here to debate gravity, illiterate derailer master_b8r.
We're here to understand why the recoil of a cannon is not a correct analogy for rocket propulsion.
It is a simple matter, yet you cannot seem to grasp it.
Thus, we will continue on until you have all done your homework properly.
With a gun you have object A, the mass of the gun; the expanding propellant, P, the gunpowder, sited between them; and object B, the mass of the bullet.
But with a rocket you ONLY have object A, the mass of the rocket, & the expanding propellant, P, the fuel.
No object B, see?
Thus, you have removed the necessary recoil mass required to produce motion.
But we know a rocket DOES produce motion, don't we?
Ergo, some other mass MUST be taking the place of object B.
& the ONLY possibility for that other mass is the Atmosphere.
Ergo, NO atmosphere, NO motion; rockets CANNOT function in a vacuum.
Q.E.D.
No matter how hard you try to spin it, cultists, every child knows that You cannot Push on Nothing.
No maths required; only common sense.
Arguing with me is one thing, space-cultists; but to argue against all the works of Newton, Joules & Thomson is the apex of insanity.
Now; carry on Lying.
If space was a vacuum or extreme low pressure shouldn't all the high pressure atmosphere spread to the low pressure areas in space. You say gravity holds the air(gas) there, yet the same force holds the moon (solid as far as I know) far away from earth???
We're not here to debate gravity, illiterate derailer master_b8r.What about the combustion gasses produced created by burning propellant P within the combustion chamber? Do they not have mass in your world?
We're here to understand why the recoil of a cannon is not a correct analogy for rocket propulsion.
It is a simple matter, yet you cannot seem to grasp it.
Thus, we will continue on until you have all done your homework properly.
With a gun you have object A, the mass of the gun; the expanding propellant, P, the gunpowder, sited between them; and object B, the mass of the bullet.
But with a rocket you ONLY have object A, the mass of the rocket, & the expanding propellant, P, the fuel.
No object B, see?
Thus, you have removed the necessary recoil mass required to produce motion.No, you just refuse to acknowledge it when it's pointed out to you over and over again. There's a big difference.
Now; carry on Lying.Carry on willfully ignoring the truth.
What about the combustion gasses produced created by burning propellant P within the combustion chamber? Do they not have mass in your world?
Object B is the mass of the combustion gasses as they are being pushed out of the rocket engine. Don't confuse the mass of the exhaust with the force that the expansion of those gasses provide as they push on the walls of the combustion chamber.What about the combustion gasses produced created by burning propellant P within the combustion chamber? Do they not have mass in your world?
LOL!!!
Of course they do; why are you so stupid?
But they are EXPANDING, between TWO masses; Cannon (object A) & Cannonball (object B).
It is this EXPANSION between two masses that creates recoil motion.
But with a rocket you ONLY have the Rocket (object A) & the expanding gasses; where is the equivalent of the Cannonball?
WHERE IS OBJECT B?
Object B is the mass of the combustion gasses as they are being pushed out of the rocket engine.
Papa - do the exhaust gases have mass?
Are they pushed out of the rocket?
Do you agree with Newtons 3rd?
its not that exhaust gases have no mass (because they do). but when you use that scenario on earth the exhaust gases themselves have particles to push against(atmosphere). high pressure will always seek out low pressure, so when the exhaust particles mix with the atmosphere they quickly become the same consistency/density. The expanding propellant can push against the atmosphere and the exhaust particles(exhaust particles aren't needed to push against only the atmosphere) which are really one and the same really by this point. In a vacuum(low pressure area) the exhaust gases would rush out and have no atmospheric pressure to push against and would rapidly seek out the immensely empty space (high pressure gas expands to the low pressure space). Then as the expanding propellant leaves the chamber it has nothing to push against. So the rocket would just shoot a shiny flare out the back end but it wouldn't experience movement.
The ignorant one is you. You can't seem to grasp that the science set out for space rockets is bogus but the naivety of wannabe scientists does not allow them to think any differently. If they do, they lose their jobs or worse.its not that exhaust gases have no mass (because they do). but when you use that scenario on earth the exhaust gases themselves have particles to push against(atmosphere). high pressure will always seek out low pressure, so when the exhaust particles mix with the atmosphere they quickly become the same consistency/density. The expanding propellant can push against the atmosphere and the exhaust particles(exhaust particles aren't needed to push against only the atmosphere) which are really one and the same really by this point. In a vacuum(low pressure area) the exhaust gases would rush out and have no atmospheric pressure to push against and would rapidly seek out the immensely empty space (high pressure gas expands to the low pressure space). Then as the expanding propellant leaves the chamber it has nothing to push against. So the rocket would just shoot a shiny flare out the back end but it wouldn't experience movement.
The above is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.
It's clear that you have no idea what so ever as to how a rocket is propelled.
A rocket moves according to the laws of momentum, which you don't seem to be familiar with.
Just as a cannon recoils when the large mass of the cannonball is ejected out of the barrel, so too does a rocket experience recoil when the large mass of the burnt fuel is ejected out of the engine nozzles at hypersonic speed.
I have provided a link to a web page that explains how a rocket is propelled according to Newton's 3rd law. I suggest you read it to further alleviate yourself of your embarrassing ignorance on this subject.
http://www.explainthatstuff.com/spacerockets.html (http://www.explainthatstuff.com/spacerockets.html)
The ignorant one is you. You can't seem to grasp that the science set out for space rockets is bogus but the naivety of wannabe scientists does not allow them to think any differently. If they do, they lose their jobs or worse.its not that exhaust gases have no mass (because they do). but when you use that scenario on earth the exhaust gases themselves have particles to push against(atmosphere). high pressure will always seek out low pressure, so when the exhaust particles mix with the atmosphere they quickly become the same consistency/density. The expanding propellant can push against the atmosphere and the exhaust particles(exhaust particles aren't needed to push against only the atmosphere) which are really one and the same really by this point. In a vacuum(low pressure area) the exhaust gases would rush out and have no atmospheric pressure to push against and would rapidly seek out the immensely empty space (high pressure gas expands to the low pressure space). Then as the expanding propellant leaves the chamber it has nothing to push against. So the rocket would just shoot a shiny flare out the back end but it wouldn't experience movement.
The above is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.
It's clear that you have no idea what so ever as to how a rocket is propelled.
A rocket moves according to the laws of momentum, which you don't seem to be familiar with.
Just as a cannon recoils when the large mass of the cannonball is ejected out of the barrel, so too does a rocket experience recoil when the large mass of the burnt fuel is ejected out of the engine nozzles at hypersonic speed.
I have provided a link to a web page that explains how a rocket is propelled according to Newton's 3rd law. I suggest you read it to further alleviate yourself of your embarrassing ignorance on this subject.
http://www.explainthatstuff.com/spacerockets.html (http://www.explainthatstuff.com/spacerockets.html)
action and reaction
The force (action) generated by gases firing outward from a rocket's engines produces an equal force (reaction) that pushes the rocket forward through space.
this is obviously wrong to me
For example, when I push my hands against the wall I have the something to push off of. so my arms pushing in(action) causes my body to move out(equal and opposite reaction). Try this same scenario standing away from the wall, push your hands out and the body doesn't move(arguably it moves minute amounts because of air molecules). How much less is there to push against in space? Answer: there is nothing to push on in space so it is impossible to have a opposite and equal reaction to the action of the propellant leaving the exhaust tube. The rocket would not be able to generate thrust.
action and reaction
The force (action) generated by gases firing outward from a rocket's engines produces an equal force (reaction) that pushes the rocket forward through space.
this is obviously wrong to me
For example, when I push my hands against the wall I have the something to push off of. so my arms pushing in(action) causes my body to move out(equal and opposite reaction). Try this same scenario standing away from the wall, push your hands out and the body doesn't move(arguably it moves minute amounts because of air molecules). How much less is there to push against in space? Answer: there is nothing to push on in space so it is impossible to have a opposite and equal reaction to the action of the propellant leaving the exhaust tube. The rocket would not be able to generate thrust.
The exhaust produced by combustion of fuel in the rocket produces extremely high pressure gas
The exhaust produced by combustion of fuel in the rocket produces extremely high pressure gas
LOL!!!
Not in a vacuum it doesn't.
Back to school for you!
Homework time again...
Yes it does.
Yes it does.
No it doesn't.
& every single Law & Principle of physics stands against you, Humpty Dump-tard.
Homework time again!
And we keep explaining why you're wrong.Object B is the mass of the combustion gasses as they are being pushed out of the rocket engine.
LOL!!!
I've just explained that it isn't.
The expanding combustion gasses are clearly P, the propellant.No, the expanding combustion gasses are the result of burning the propellant.
You do realise that there is nothing special about a vacuum other then it being an absence of matter.
& markjo; LOL!!!Are you seriously asking me how I know that you posted something about 10 hours ago? ???
Your rushed shitpost (how DO you know when I am writing my posts, btw, ex-mod markjo?)
...is just another garbled way of saying that a rocket somehow 'pushes on itself' (lol!).No, I'm saying that the rocket (mass 1) contains propellant (mass 2) that it burns in order to use as a reaction mass.
If that were so, I should be able to lift myself to space by pulling on my boot-laces.Do you not understand the difference between pushing and pulling? ???
Yet I cannot.Well, duh. I never said that you could.
Ergo: Fail, LOL!!! & STFU.Yes, false analogies like that fail pretty much every time.
Plus this, as you've ticked me off, Humpty Dump-tard...Cry me a river.
It's Homework time again!For someone who created a thread called "People on skateboards", you seem awfully hung up on the gun shooting a bullet analogy. There are lots of valid analogies for explaining how rockets work that don't involve separate expanding propellant and bullets. You know, like people on skateboards.
With a gun you have object A, the mass of the gun; the expanding propellant, P, the gunpowder, sited between them; and object B, the mass of the bullet.
But with a rocket you ONLY have object A, the mass of the rocket, & the expanding propellant, P, the fuel.Why can't the mass of the propellant be the recoil mass?
No object B, see?Thus, you have removed the necessary recoil mass required to produce motion.
Yes it does.
No it doesn't.
& every single Law & Principle of physics stands against you, Humpty Dump-tard.
Homework time again!
No. Every single law of physics agrees with me.
You do realise that there is nothing special about a vacuum other then it being an absence of matter.
Imagine a box full of gas and the box is in a vacuum. Now make a hole in the box that is only just one molecule wide. Would all the molecules escape at the same time?
You don't understand free expansion either then.If free expantion worked the way he claims, air tools wouldn't work.
Free expansion only applies when the expands into a chamber. It does not apply in an open system such as a rocket engine as mass is leaving the system.
If you actually understood free expansion you would know that the no work done statement is Serbs from the fact that no NET work is done. In an enclosed chamber, gas pressure is exerted on all sides and gives the result of zero as all actions cancel out.
This is not the case in rocket engines as mass is leaving the system and therefore the force balance is not zero. There is work done on the rocket.
Failed again Papa.
Free expansion only applies when the gas expands into a chamber. It does not apply in an open system such as a rocket engine as mass is leaving the system.
If free expantion worked the way he claims, air tools wouldn't work.
Zooming in on a rocket exhaust you would see a exhaust molecule about to hit an atmospheric molecule. How does that impart a force on the rocket?
(http://i331.photobucket.com/albums/l448/sokarul/air.jpg) (http://s331.photobucket.com/user/sokarul/media/air.jpg.html)
I know I destroyed you. That's why you have to hide from all the hard posts.
Like this. You still can answer how to molecules hitting each other can propel a rocket.QuoteZooming in on a rocket exhaust you would see a exhaust molecule about to hit an atmospheric molecule. How does that impart a force on the rocket?
(http://i331.photobucket.com/albums/l448/sokarul/air.jpg) (http://s331.photobucket.com/user/sokarul/media/air.jpg.html)
What the two masses in this video?
! No longer available (http://#)
Free expansion requires an adiabatic system. A rocket is not.
Free expansion requires an adiabatic system. A rocket is not.
Again, the troll-thing frenat (whose name means 'braking' in Catalan btw; a clear display of his intent on this thread) feeds us half-truths.
In atmosphere, a rocket is non-adiabatic; in a vacuum it is adiabatic. I say this arrogantly like I understand it but it is clear I don't have any clue. Hopefully you won't notice.
It is all a matter of Pressure Gradients, i.e. as the external pressure decreases, the amount of work done by the gas leaving the rocket decreases until it reaches Zero. Of course that only applies to ideal gasses which don't actually exist, but I'll never admit that.
Or as near as makes no difference.
Because you cannot exchange heat & matter with NOTHING.
Same as YOU CANNOT PUSH ON NOTHING.
All roads lead to the same conclusion, space-cultists; Newton, Joules & Thomson are all very clear on this matter. But since I don't understand them, I'll assume they say you're wrong.
Now; carry on Lying.
Free expansion requires an adiabatic system. A rocket is not.
Again, the troll-thing frenat (whose name means 'braking' in Catalan btw; a clear display of his intent on this thread) feeds us half-truths.
In atmosphere, a rocket is non-adiabatic; in a vacuum it is adiabatic.
It is all a matter of Pressure Gradients, i.e. as the external pressure decreases, the amount of work done by the gas leaving the rocket decreases until it reaches Zero.
Or as near as makes no difference.
Because you cannot exchange heat & matter with NOTHING.
Same as YOU CANNOT PUSH ON NOTHING.
All roads lead to the same conclusion, space-cultists; Newton, Joules & Thomson are all very clear on this matter.
Now; carry on Lying.
LOL!!!A shit answer from a shit person. It's ok, I know you know you were destroyed.
So now a rocket is like a fire-hose?
I though it was like a cannon; no, a man on a skateboard; no, a, a...
Well, anything except a tank of pressurised gas in an enormous vacuum, where simple laws of physics prove definitively that it can DO NO WORK.
As for your silly drawing, that you are still so embarrassingly proud of; GTFO.
It shows nothing remotely resembling Reality, so my ignoring it does NOT mean you 'win'; it means you are so deluded that you are unworthy of response...
I.e: you LOSE.
Homework time again, psychopaths...
With a gun you have object A, the mass of the gun; the expanding propellant, P, the gunpowder, sited between them; and object B, the mass of the bullet.
But with a rocket you ONLY have object A, the mass of the rocket, & the expanding propellant, P, the fuel.
No object B, see?
Thus, you have removed the necessary recoil mass required to produce motion.
But we know a rocket DOES produce motion, don't we?
Ergo, some other mass MUST be taking the place of object B.
& the ONLY possibility for that other mass is the Atmosphere.
Ergo, NO atmosphere, NO motion; rockets CANNOT function in a vacuum.
Q.E.D.
No matter how hard you try to spin it, cultists, every child knows that You cannot Push on Nothing.
No maths required; only common sense.
Arguing with me is one thing, space-cultists; but to argue against all the works of Newton, Joules & Thomson is the apex of insanity.
Free Expansion of gas in a Vacuum is scientific FACT.
Now; carry on Lying.
LOL!!!
What a psycho.
Anyone can see that your last post was 12 minutes before mine; look at the time:
Obviously time zones are yet another thing that you haven't got a clue about.
Take into account the time I spent revising my own & it's obvious you posted just before me...I was responding to a post you had made the day before.
Look, markjo; I have plenty of very net-savvy mates who follow this thread.Obviously you aren't one of them.
& they all see how painfully obvious your sock-puppeting & manipulation of this forum is.Then your friends are idiots too.
So don't play the innocent, cos the only people who will sympathise with you are your own socks & your weirdo 'round earther' (lol!) cronies like Mainframes & whoever the rayzor character's pretending to be today.If you think that I have any active alts, then you should be embarrassed.
Seriously; it's just embarrassing how transparent your troll-games are...
Boring copy-pasta.Blah, blah, blah.
Arguing with me is one thing, space-cultists; but to argue against all the works of Newton, Joules & Thomson is the apex of insanity.I'd like to think that Newton, et. al., are begging you to stop butchering their works.
Now; carry on Lying.Carry on being an idiot.
Free expansion requires an adiabatic system. A rocket is not.
Again, the troll-thing frenat (whose name means 'braking' in Catalan btw; a clear display of his intent on this thread) feeds us half-truths.
In atmosphere, a rocket is non-adiabatic; in a vacuum it is adiabatic.
It is all a matter of Pressure Gradients, i.e. as the external pressure decreases, the amount of work done by the gas leaving the rocket decreases until it reaches Zero.
Or as near as makes no difference.
Because you cannot exchange heat & matter with NOTHING.
Same as YOU CANNOT PUSH ON NOTHING.
All roads lead to the same conclusion, space-cultists; Newton, Joules & Thomson are all very clear on this matter.
Now; carry on Lying.
Make your picture smaller, plus you have no clue how rockets work and you've just proved it by writing what you did next to the picture of your fantasy rocket.
If you weren't so far up your own arse and actually took notice, you would see the bullshit you and your mates subscribe to.
Shrink your picture and I'll oblige you on how they work.
So, I have shown that there are NO atmospheric molecules beneath a rocket,
Here you go, cultists; yet more evidence that the concept of engines that work by the expulsion of hot gasses functioning by pushing on the atmosphere is NOT my own invention...
(http://i.imgur.com/8xBxYQG.jpg)
Seems everybody knows it's true...
Even schoolkids.
Because it's absolutely obvious to all but the most committed space-tards & Trekkies that YOU CANNOT PUSH ON NOTHING.
Edit: you seriously embarrassed yourself with your last post, mainframes. Like I said, there's a lot of net-savvy people watching & it's obvious to them what your game is...
Because if you were correct in your arguments, you wouldn't have to resort to such tricks, would you?
Anyhow; back to your lying now...
Make your picture smaller, plus you have no clue how rockets work and you've just proved it by writing what you did next to the picture of your fantasy rocket.
If you weren't so far up your own arse and actually took notice, you would see the bullshit you and your mates subscribe to.
Shrink your picture and I'll oblige you on how they work.
And we keep explaining why you're wrong.
according to Papa Legba, when a molecule from a rocket's exhaust hits an atmospheric molecule, the exhaust molecule bounces back and creates a propelling force on the base of the rocket.
Because either way it still all boils down to the same, utterly irrefutable, fact that YOU CANNOT PUSH ON NOTHING.
Now; carry on Lying.
That's ok because the rocket pushes on its exhaust. So no problem.
Excellent post showing the stupidity of papa and sceptictank's reasoning.Free expansion requires an adiabatic system. A rocket is not.
Again, the troll-thing frenat (whose name means 'braking' in Catalan btw; a clear display of his intent on this thread) feeds us half-truths.
In atmosphere, a rocket is non-adiabatic; in a vacuum it is adiabatic.
It is all a matter of Pressure Gradients, i.e. as the external pressure decreases, the amount of work done by the gas leaving the rocket decreases until it reaches Zero.
Or as near as makes no difference.
Because you cannot exchange heat & matter with NOTHING.
Same as YOU CANNOT PUSH ON NOTHING.
All roads lead to the same conclusion, space-cultists; Newton, Joules & Thomson are all very clear on this matter.
Now; carry on Lying.
Apparently, according to Papa Legba, when a molecule from a rocket's exhaust hits an atmospheric molecule, the exhaust molecule bounces back and creates a propelling force on the base of the rocket.
I find it a little puzzling however, that an atmospheric molecule has the ability to 'bounce' an exhaust molecule travelling at hypersonic velocity, in the opposite direction at a sufficient velocity to impart enough force on the base of the rocket, thereby propelling it?
And regardless of the interaction between the exhaust and atmospheric molecules, there must only be a very small percentage of impacts between these molecules that are perpendicular enough to factor into the equation of those molecules that might be bounced backwards, and not glanced off to the side, and therefore useless as far as imparting any force is concerned.
But the biggest problem of all, concerns the 'supply' of atmospheric molecules. Just after engine ignition, the initial blast of hypersonic exhaust molecules 'interacts' with the atmospheric molecules and momentarily exerts a backward force. However, immediately after this (micro-seconds), the initial volume of atmospheric molecules has been replaced with the ejected exhaust molecules, and this constant stream of ejected exhaust molecules prevents further atmospheric molecules from replacing those that had been previously 'interacted' with.
In other words, just after ignition there are no more atmospheric molecules adjacent to the engine nozzle for the exhaust molecules to 'interact' with. Therefore, there are no longer any propelling forces being applied to the base of the rocket by exhaust molecules, which had previously and only momentarily been 'bounced' back by the atmospheric molecules immediately after engine ignition.
(http://s27.postimg.org/rgpy0k1hf/PAPAS_DIAGRAM.png)
(http://s11.postimg.org/54sx5974z/Apollo_15_launch_medium_distance.jpg)
Before we carry on, let us examine the following statements:It seems that we have a difference of opinion as to what constitutes "common sense".And we keep explaining why you're wrong.
This is Untrue, & is yet another example of the M-people's continued attempts to brainwash us all.
None of them have explained anything, nor even addressed my point logically, except to blindly insist that P, the propellant, in my dissection of their ridiculous cannon recoil analogy is actually - against all common sense - object B, the cannon ball.
They seem to believe that if enough of them keep shouting that this Lie is The Truth, it will somehow magically become so...I agree. Shouting that expanding propellant can't ever be a reaction mass is a lie that should die.
But it will not; Never, Ever.
Newton's third law states: for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. This does not require any other object.
Markjo: Unfortunately for you & your inevitably tortuous mangling of both Newton & common sense, the Mass of a rocket's exhaust column is in the form of a GAS.Correct, but irrelevant. The expanding exhaust gasses are doing work in a highly pressurized combustion chamber, not a vacuum.
& GAS DOES NO WORK IN A VACUUM.
FACT.
You are all absolutely determined to ignore the nature & properties of a vacuum...And you are bound and determined to ignore the fact that the inside of a rocket engine's combustion chamber is not a vacuum.
... & the proven Laws governing behaviour of gasses therein, & keep this forlorn 'debate' in the realm of Solid Mechanics, rather than that of Fluid Mechanics,Gas Laws & Pressure Gradients where it truly belongs.
But it doesn't matter, as all roads ultimately lead to the same simple truth that YOU CANNOT PUSH ON NOTHING.Exhaust gasses aren't nothing.
And you are bound and determined to ignore the fact that the inside of a rocket engine's combustion chamber is not a vacuum.
Newton's third law states: for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. This does not require any other object.
LOL!!!
Are you insane?
Back to school for you.
Markjo: Unfortunately for you & your inevitably tortuous mangling of both Newton & common sense, the Mass of a rocket's exhaust column is in the form of a GAS.
& GAS DOES NO WORK IN A VACUUM.
FACT.
You are all absolutely determined to ignore the nature & properties of a vacuum, & the proven Laws governing behaviour of gasses therein, & keep this forlorn 'debate' in the realm of Solid Mechanics, rather than that of Fluid Mechanics,Gas Laws & Pressure Gradients where it truly belongs.
But it doesn't matter, as all roads ultimately lead to the same simple truth that YOU CANNOT PUSH ON NOTHING.
Now: carry on lying.
Oh? Which properties might those be?And you are bound and determined to ignore the fact that the inside of a rocket engine's combustion chamber is not a vacuum.
Yet again, you misunderstand the properties & nature of both a combustion chamber & a vacuum.
Anyway; is the combustion chamber of a rocket open to the near-infinite vacuum of space?Yes. So?
Therefore, no gas can even be meaningfully said to exist within it, let alone combust.First of all, the fuel (and oxidizer) is still in a liquid state when being pumped from the pressurized tanks.
Any gas introduced therein from the pressurised fuel tank will simply expand freely into the enormous, zero-pressure vacuum, following the path of least resistance & doing no work whatsoever.
This will continue for as long as the fuel tank is open to the vacuum, until both exterior & interior pressures are equalised at zero.Actually, the fuel tank is not open to the vacuum. I'm not sure where you got that impression, but it just isn't so. I think that you might also be under the impression that the fuel and oxidizer are in a gaseous state while in their tanks. Again, this is just not so. There are turbo pumps, valves and some fairly convoluted plumbing between the propellant tanks and the rocket engine.
It is a beautifully simple concept, yet you just can't seem to grasp it...Simple does not always mean correct.
How sad for you.Yes, having to explain such basic concepts to you over and over again is getting pretty sad.
I don't even have the heart to say 'carry on lying'...That's because you know that I'm not lying.
if there is an error, what is it?
Newton's third law states: for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. This does not require any other object.
Shouting that expanding propellant can't ever be a reaction mass is a lie that should die.
free expansion is not an instantaneous process.
Actually, the fuel tank is not open to the vacuum.
Simple does not always mean correct.
That's because you know that I'm not lying.
Don't waste your time, mate; anyone who can seriously claim that they have shown there is no atmosphere beneath a rocket isn't worth the bother...
There's been a lot of seriously stupid stuff coming from the 'round earthers' (lol!) on this thread, but that one takes the cake, the biscuit, the limeade, the whole bloody picnic.
What a dickhead!
Anyhow; this is post 19, so I guess one of them will now just turn the page & carry on shamelessly, as if the complete & abject humiliation they've all subjected themselves to never happened at all...
God Almighty - being a 'round earther' (lol!) sure does suck!
It appears you took great exception to my statement that 'there is no atmosphere beneath a rocket'?
Papa do you really think an air impact wrench wouldn't work if it was placed in a vacuum?
Stop jumping to outladisly stupid conclusions. I asked a simple question, answer it.Papa do you really think an air impact wrench wouldn't work if it was placed in a vacuum?
So now a rocket in a vacuum is like an air wrench?
LOL!!!
It was like a hosepipe yesterday - & a cannon before that, & a man on a skateboard before that, & an ice skater before that, &...If only you were educated.
Well, ANYTHING except what it really is: a small tank of pressurised gas in a very large vacuum.
Same old same old with you 'round earthers' (lol!) isn't it?
False Analogies For The Win!
Joy! Markjo just posted again; look what he left me:Thanks for agreeing that free expansion does take time. Logically it follow that it should be possible to pump gas in from one end faster than it can freely expand from the other end.free expansion is not an instantaneous process.
Free expansion is as close to instantaneous as is physically possible.
You really should learn about it...Which part should I learn? The part that says that it only applies to an ideal gas (no mass) or the part where it only applies to a closed system?
I already told you, but you seem to have ignored it, so here it is again:Actually, the fuel tank is not open to the vacuum.
Then how does the fuel get from it to the combustion chamber?
There are turbo pumps, valves and some fairly convoluted plumbing between the propellant tanks and the rocket engine.
The combustion chamber IS open to the vacuum, yes?One end of the combustion chamber is connected to the plumbing that feeds the combustion chamber with propellant and the other end has a relatively small opening called the throat where the high pressure exhaust gasses are accelerated through to the expansion nozzle and finally into the void of space.
I asked a simple question, answer it.
If only you were educated.
Thanks for agreeing that free expansion does take time. Logically it follow that it should be possible to pump gas in from one end faster than it can freely expand from the other end.
Which part should I learn?
One end of the combustion chamber is connected to the plumbing that feeds the combustion chamber with propellant and the other end has a relatively small opening called the throat where the high pressure exhaust gasses are accelerated through to the expansion nozzle and finally into the void of space.
lolI asked a simple question, answer it.
No.If only you were educated.
LOL!!!
Why not?Thanks for agreeing that free expansion does take time. Logically it follow that it should be possible to pump gas in from one end faster than it can freely expand from the other end.
No it doesn't.
What have I twisted?Which part should I learn?
The part that you don't try to twist to your own ends like a crooked lawyer, preferably.
Should I use smaller words?One end of the combustion chamber is connected to the plumbing that feeds the combustion chamber with propellant and the other end has a relatively small opening called the throat where the high pressure exhaust gasses are accelerated through to the expansion nozzle and finally into the void of space.
So you ARE flip-flopping?
Or are you?
I have no idea what you're trying to say now...
You all claim that the recoil of a gun is a valid analogy for how a rocket works in a vacuum.*sigh* Just as I thought that we were getting somewhere.
Here is why it is not:
*tired old copy-pasta*
What, you mean this free expansion argument?Just out of curiosity, does the size of the opening exposed to space have anything to do with the rate of free expansion? That is, will a small opening evacuate a given amount of gas just as quickly as a large opening?
The combustion chamber of a rocket is open to the near-infinite vacuum of space.
Therefore, no gas can even be meaningfully said to exist within it, let alone combust.
The gases in the combustion chamber cannot 'freely expand' as the exit from the chamber is very constricted and prevents the gases from leaving easily.
It appears you took great exception to my statement that 'there is no atmosphere beneath a rocket'?
Who wouldn't?
It's very, very, very, VERY stupid indeed.
As for the rest of your idiotic post: LOL!!!
I've already answered it; pretending I haven't won't change that fact.
So either go back, find my answer & respond to it, or take your puerile cartoons & STFU & GTFO.
Now:Papa do you really think an air impact wrench wouldn't work if it was placed in a vacuum?
So now a rocket in a vacuum is like an air wrench?
LOL!!!
It was like a hosepipe yesterday - & a cannon before that, & a man on a skateboard before that, & an ice skater before that, &...
Well, ANYTHING except what it really is: a small tank of pressurised gas in a very large vacuum.
Same old same old with you 'round earthers' (lol!) isn't it?
False Analogies For The Win!
the only atmospheric particles near the rocket are those surrounding it at the top and around the side of the structure.
The gases in the combustion chamber cannot 'freely expand' as the exit from the chamber is very constricted and prevents the gases from leaving easily.
Absolute nonsense. You're just making this up.
The combustion chamber is either OPEN to the vacuum or CLOSED to the vacuum; there is NO half-way.
If it is OPEN, then free expansion will occur to any gas introduced therein.
This is scientific fact, as well as basic logic.
& your bad faith is further evident by your continued misdirection that the absence of matter is the only notable property of a vacuum, when it is the absence of pressure that most concerns us here.
Because the functioning of a rocket is dependent on pressure gradients.
What did I tell you, neutrals?
The 'round earthers' (lol!) are determined to keep this 'debate' (lol!) in the incorrect realm of Solid Mechanics rather than the correct realm of Fluid Mechanics & Gas Laws.
Those who have the stomach to read markjo's bilge will also note that he edited one of my posts completely out of context to make it seem I was asking a genuine, rather than rhetorical question; he, too, is here only to act in bad faith & misguide us.
Fact is, these idiots have no coherent model of how a rocket works themselves; they simply tell us that it somehow 'pushes on itself' (lol!) until it gets to space, then pushes on absolutely nothing thereafter, in defiance of all laws of physics.
They completely ignore the fact that my logical analysis of their gun-recoil analogy conclusively shows that a rocket needs another mass between its expanding propellant & itself in order to achieve motion, & simply shout 'YOU'RE WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!' like spoilt children.
They have Nothing, yet the bluffing blow-hards act like they have Everything.
They are LOL!!!
Now; what username does sock-arul troll youtube videos under?
I think I know; but it'd be nice if he told us himself, wouldn't it, readers?
I'll ask again. In a chamber with a restricted exit, can and do all gas particles leave immediately? And why?
That's the question of the day: how fast is "as fast as it is physically possible"? Think of a funnel. A big opening at one end where stuff goes in and a small hole at the other end where stuff "freely expands" out "as fast as it is physically possible".I'll ask again. In a chamber with a restricted exit, can and do all gas particles leave immediately? And why?
That depends on the size of the exit.
But whatever its size, they will leave as fast as it is physically possible for them to do so, by the path of least resistance, doing no work on the way, until interior & exterior pressures are equalised.
That's the question of the day: how fast is "as fast as it is physically possible"? Think of a funnel. A big opening at one end where stuff goes in and a small hole at the other end where stuff "freely expands" out "as fast as it is physically possible".
Are you aware a vacuum isn't a force?If a 'door' were opened into papa legba's head, and someone was standing too close, the air being pulled in would certainly seem like a 'force'.
That's the question of the day: how fast is "as fast as it is physically possible"? Think of a funnel. A big opening at one end where stuff goes in and a small hole at the other end where stuff "freely expands" out "as fast as it is physically possible".
LOL!!!
Having difficulty are we?
Well, you carry on "thinking" of "funnels" & "stuff" & "big holes" & "small holes", Humpty Dump-tard.
The adults will be considering Gas Laws, Joules Expansion, Fluid Mechanics, Pressure Gradients, Continuum Assumption, etc...
You know; the "stuff" (i.e. "science") that's actually relevant to the matter at hand?
You "round earthers" (lol!) stick to playing with billiard-balls; it's about your level.
Oh; & "the question of the day" is in fact: what usernames do you employ when trolling youtube?
Feel free to Lie like ten men about it; no-one expects different by now.
I would say you suck like a vacuum, markjo; but unlike a vacuum you both suck AND blow.
Now take this LOL!!! & GTFO.
By all means, please provide the relevant equations and values that prove beyond all doubt that free expansion always works faster than a rocket can burn propellant.That's the question of the day: how fast is "as fast as it is physically possible"? Think of a funnel. A big opening at one end where stuff goes in and a small hole at the other end where stuff "freely expands" out "as fast as it is physically possible".
LOL!!!
Having difficulty are we?
Well, you carry on "thinking" of "funnels" & "stuff" & "big holes" & "small holes", Humpty Dump-tard.
The adults will be considering Gas Laws, Joules Expansion, Fluid Mechanics, Pressure Gradients, Continuum Assumption, etc...
You know; the "stuff" (i.e. "science") that's actually relevant to the matter at hand?
You "round earthers" (lol!) stick to playing with billiard-balls; it's about your level.Umm... Aren't you a "round earther" too?
Oh; & "the question of the day" is in fact: what usernames do you employ when trolling youtube?I don't post to YouTube.
the only atmospheric particles near the rocket are those surrounding it at the top and around the side of the structure.
LOL!!!
You keep saying it; I'll keep laughing at you.
Neutral readers can look up 'jet flow fluid dynamics' on google images to see exactly how a rocket's exhaust column (I note you use the weasel word 'plume') interacts with the medium into which it is injected.
They can also research Continuum Mechanics to learn why you & sock-arul's concept of individual billiard-ball molecules bouncing hither & thither is so inaccurate a model.
They can also note that you are - yet again - trying to keep this forlorn hope of a 'debate' within the Incorrect confines of solid, contact-based mechanics, rather than the Correct realm of Fluid Mechanics, Gas Laws & Pressure Gradients...
& that you have - also yet again - provided no logical refutation of either my statement on Free Expansion or my analysis of the gun recoil analogy.
Back to school: please note in the below example that, as the expanding propellant, P, is sited inbetween the two recoil masses, they are at no point in contact with one another...
It may help you think more clearly on this matter.
Though somehow I doubt it...
With a gun you have object A, the mass of the gun; the expanding propellant, P, the gunpowder, sited between them; and object B, the mass of the bullet.
But with a rocket you ONLY have object A, the mass of the rocket, & the expanding propellant, P, the fuel.
No object B, see?
Thus, you have removed the necessary recoil mass required to produce motion.
But we know a rocket DOES produce motion, don't we?
Ergo, some other mass MUST be taking the place of object B.
& the ONLY possibility for that other mass is the Atmosphere.
Ergo, NO atmosphere, NO motion; rockets CANNOT function in a vacuum.
Q.E.D.
No matter how hard you try to spin it, cultists, every child knows that You cannot Push on Nothing.
No maths required; only common sense.
Random?...there's nothing random and molecules just don't bounce about at random.That's the question of the day: how fast is "as fast as it is physically possible"? Think of a funnel. A big opening at one end where stuff goes in and a small hole at the other end where stuff "freely expands" out "as fast as it is physically possible".
LOL!!!
Having difficulty are we?
Well, you carry on "thinking" of "funnels" & "stuff" & "big holes" & "small holes", Humpty Dump-tard.
The adults will be considering Gas Laws, Joules Expansion, Fluid Mechanics, Pressure Gradients, Continuum Assumption, etc...
You know; the "stuff" (i.e. "science") that's actually relevant to the matter at hand?
You "round earthers" (lol!) stick to playing with billiard-balls; it's about your level.
Oh; & "the question of the day" is in fact: what usernames do you employ when trolling youtube?
Feel free to Lie like ten men about it; no-one expects different by now.
I would say you suck like a vacuum, markjo; but unlike a vacuum you both suck AND blow.
Now take this LOL!!! & GTFO.
Gas molecules do not follow the path of least resistance. They bounce around at random, hitting chamber walls and other gas molecules. A gas molecule only exits the chamber by chance. F the exit to the chamber is greatly reduced in size it makes it much less likely that the molecule will exit the chamber.
Apply this chance (probability%) to a lot of molecules and you start to model how it would take for a gas to leave a chamber. This value will be dependant upon the number of molecules, their velocity, chamber size and exit size.
Here we go. Sceptimatic and his magic expanding and touching atoms.
Random?...there's nothing random and molecules just don't bounce about at random.That's the question of the day: how fast is "as fast as it is physically possible"? Think of a funnel. A big opening at one end where stuff goes in and a small hole at the other end where stuff "freely expands" out "as fast as it is physically possible".
LOL!!!
Having difficulty are we?
Well, you carry on "thinking" of "funnels" & "stuff" & "big holes" & "small holes", Humpty Dump-tard.
The adults will be considering Gas Laws, Joules Expansion, Fluid Mechanics, Pressure Gradients, Continuum Assumption, etc...
You know; the "stuff" (i.e. "science") that's actually relevant to the matter at hand?
You "round earthers" (lol!) stick to playing with billiard-balls; it's about your level.
Oh; & "the question of the day" is in fact: what usernames do you employ when trolling youtube?
Feel free to Lie like ten men about it; no-one expects different by now.
I would say you suck like a vacuum, markjo; but unlike a vacuum you both suck AND blow.
Now take this LOL!!! & GTFO.
Gas molecules do not follow the path of least resistance. They bounce around at random, hitting chamber walls and other gas molecules. A gas molecule only exits the chamber by chance. F the exit to the chamber is greatly reduced in size it makes it much less likely that the molecule will exit the chamber.
Apply this chance (probability%) to a lot of molecules and you start to model how it would take for a gas to leave a chamber. This value will be dependant upon the number of molecules, their velocity, chamber size and exit size.
No wonder you are confused.
All matter and molecules are attached but seeing as we are dealing with rocket fuel, I will say that all rocket fuel, whether ignited or not is all attached molecules. They are either contracted or expanded depending on whether they are allowed to by releasing them from their container.
Would you care to explain how continuum mechanics apples to free expansion?Here we go. Sceptimatic and his magic expanding and touching atoms.
He said Molecules, not Atoms...
Which concept is in fact practically supported by Continuum Mechanics.
Here we go. Sceptimatic and his magic expanding and touching atoms.
He said Molecules, not Atoms...
Which concept is in fact practically supported by Continuum Mechanics.
You know; the thing you don't want us to talk about, along with pressure-gradient forces, gas laws, fluid dynamics, etc...
Cos you think how a rocket works is all to do with clinking clanking billiard-ball molecules, don't you?
It's you who comes over as the idiot here, not sceptimatic.
Now; carry on Lying.
PL: I was horrified to discover I've had a PM from chwtone (or whatever he/she/it is called) with a handy graphic about how there is no place for the atmosphere to exert a force on anything since the exhaust gases have pushed the atmosphere out of the way. Or something. If you haven't had the PM, would you like me to share it?How does a force get transferred from the atoms to the rocket?
Ok, good.
Here is a screen grab of the PM for reference. Notice the underlining of NO in the first line and the four black lines pointing at the plume. I wonder if there MAY be SOME atmospheric molecules below the black lines, and whether that matters?
(http://i.imgur.com/W4yD7bY.png)
if there is an error, what is it?
The error was you saying this:
"
leaving you with an open door for a cheap shot, yes that it was an error.
but you have nothing to say about this?
There is no better proof, of a theory, then the practical application of it.
1) you have the Saturn five rocket that sent man to the moon.
2) you have satellites such as the GPS system.
3) you have the ISS.
4) you have the Mars probes.
5) you have the probe that is passing the planet Pluto.
All of which require the use of rockets in a vacuum.
An answer for each what do you will.
Or will you just dig a big hole to jump in.
This chtwrone person seems to be a bit too bothered about the matter. Sending dissenters nonsensical private messages, for example. It's the first message I've had from someone I'd prefer not to send me a message.
Very odd and annoying.
Perhaps you ought to go back to basics and learn how gases work and what causes pressure.
So...how is a force transmitted from the two molecules hitting each other?
This chtwrone person seems to be a bit too bothered about the matter. Sending dissenters nonsensical private messages, for example. It's the first message I've had from someone I'd prefer not to send me a message.
Very odd and annoying.
Would you care to explain how continuum mechanics apples to free expansion?
Perhaps you ought to go back to basics and learn how gases work and what causes pressure.
LOL!!!
Perhaps you ought to stop pretending to know more than you do.
You didn't even know the Newtonian definition of the term 'Force' a few weeks ago, so stop fantasising, Walter Mitty.So...how is a force transmitted from the two molecules hitting each other?
See again, readers?
'Round earthers' (lol!) simply will not give up trying to herd this 'debate' (lol!) down the incorrect route of Solid Mechanics.
Clinky clanky billiard ball molecules, rather than pressure-gradient forces...
*Yawn!*This chtwrone person seems to be a bit too bothered about the matter. Sending dissenters nonsensical private messages, for example. It's the first message I've had from someone I'd prefer not to send me a message.
Very odd and annoying.
Yes; I too got that stupid PM.
It is the 2nd unwelcome PM I've had off him/her/it; the 1st was especially abusive & I asked it not to PM me again...
As for its photo of the Saturn V; well of course that is FAKE.
& getting people to waste their time poring over FAKE DATA is a favourite trick of con-men, as well as the Intelligence community.
Which is why my only response to the chtwrone entity is ridicule; the same goes for this 'mousewalker' thing.
Anyone else?
Oh; of course - Mr. shitpost Humpty Dump-tard himself:Would you care to explain how continuum mechanics apples to free expansion?
LOL!!!
Would you care to STOP always trying to put the onus on me for explanations, when it is YOURS & NASA's implausible model of rocket propulsion that needs explaining...
Which I note that NONE of you have yet adequately managed.
Perhaps you could start here?
In which case: carry on Lying.
surely the purpose of these threads is to 'educate' each other, and to exchange ideas?
surely the purpose of these threads is to 'educate' each other, and to exchange ideas?
LOL!!!
Oh, that's the best one yet...
LMFAO!!!
Trolls say the funniest things...
Anyhow; stop putting the onus on me; it's yours & NASA's claims we're 'debating' (lol!) here...
So get explaining; I imagine it'll involve a lot of VERY LARGE PHOTOS OF FAKE ROCKET LAUNCHES & drawings of molecules banging about like a game of marbles...
All of which will serve to make you look more & more clueless the further you go.
So; carry on lying!
surely the purpose of these threads is to 'educate' each other, and to exchange ideas?
LOL!!!
Oh, that's the best one yet...
LMFAO!!!
Trolls say the funniest things...
Anyhow; stop putting the onus on me; it's yours & NASA's claims we're 'debating' (lol!) here...
So get explaining; I imagine it'll involve a lot of VERY LARGE PHOTOS OF FAKE ROCKET LAUNCHES & drawings of molecules banging about like a game of marbles...
All of which will serve to make you look more & more clueless the further you go.
So; carry on lying!
It is your contention that a rocket is supported by the 'rigidity' of the exhaust column, and this column is supported and repelled by the atmosphere, and the exhaust pushes off the atmosphere and propels the rocket upward?
Just as you all refuse to acknowledge basic physical laws such as Free Expansion of Gas in a Vacuum...
(Remember the vacuum? It's kinda relevant here!)
you don't know how gases behave and what happens to a gas when exposed to a vacuum. So I'll ask you yet again. If a container full of gas is exposed to vacuum and one side is opened, what effect does this have on each molecule of gas?
The combustion chamber of a rocket is open to the near-infinite vacuum of space.Just out of curiosity, does that include hypergolic propellants that ignite on contact when sprayed into a combustion chamber?
Therefore, no gas can even be meaningfully said to exist within it, let alone combust.
Any gas introduced therein when the pressurised fuel tank is opened will simply expand freely into the enormous, zero-pressure vacuum, following the path of least resistance & doing no work whatsoever.
Just out of curiosity, does that include hypergolic propellants that ignite on contact when sprayed into a combustion chamber?
You 'hate to break it it me' that you can quote wikipedia out of context?
Why?
Nobody cares.
I take it you missed the post where I mentioned I have a masters in Chemical Engineering......
I take it you missed the post where I mentioned I have a masters in Chemical Engineering......
You have a masters in Chemical Engineering yet you didn't know the Newtonian definition of a Force until I pointed it out.
LOL!!!.
That's right; pretend it didn't happen, Walter Mitty...
Like you pretend you have a masters in Chem. Eng.
*Yawn!*
Just spam out your rattling billiard balls analogy & be done with it, psycho.
Incorrect.
Already did.Incorrect.
Prove it then; oh, that's right - you can't!
Does the fuel have mass? Yes, therefore the rocket isn't pushing on nothing.
All you can do is shitpost & troll; just like you do on youtube in fact.
Cos only retards & trolls would argue that you can push against nothing.
Once again, from the top:Incorrect. A vacuum is not a force. The exhaust gases escape from their elastic collisions with each other. This takes time. Furthermore they are actually pushed out with quite the force for the constant addition of more molecules.
The combustion chamber of a rocket is open to the near-infinite vacuum of space.
Therefore, no gas can even be meaningfully said to exist within it, let alone combust.
Any gas introduced therein when the pressurised fuel tank is opened will simply expand freely into the enormous, zero-pressure vacuum, following the path of least resistance & doing no work whatsoever.Incorrect. I already shows that an air impact wrench will work in a vacuum. Air molecules do not knwo when they are next to a vacuum.
This will continue for so long as the fuel tank is open to the vacuum, until both exterior & interior pressures are equalised at zero.But then again, one side has a flow of more molecules and can't equalize to zero.
It is a beautifully simple concept, fully supported by all the laws of physics, yet you 'round earthers (lol!) just can't seem to grasp it...You are so lost it's unbelievable.
Sucks to be you; sucks like a vacuum in fact.Vacuums don't suck. YOU NEED TO LEARN THIS.
& this:Did you know guns fireing blanks still recoil, just not as much. It's like there is less mass.
You all claim that the recoil of a gun is a valid analogy for how a rocket works in a vacuum.
Here is why it is not:Fuel has mass. Still.
With a gun you have object A, the mass of the gun; the expanding propellant, P, the gunpowder, sited between them; and object B, the mass of the bullet.
But with a rocket you ONLY have object A, the mass of the rocket, & the expanding propellant, P, the fuel.
No object B, see?
Thus, you have removed the necessary recoil mass required to produce motion.
But we know a rocket DOES produce motion, don't we?
Ergo, some other mass MUST be taking the place of object B.Uneducated conclusion.
& the ONLY possibility for that other mass is the Atmosphere.
Ergo, NO atmosphere, NO motion; rockets CANNOT function in a vacuum.
Q.E.D.You lose. Maybe next time bring an argument that isn't shit.
No matter how hard you try to spin it, cultists, every child knows that You cannot Push on Nothing.
No maths required; only common sense.[/b]
Then there's the fact that you are all trying desperately to confine this 'debate' to the wrong branch of physics, i.e. Solid Mechanics rather than Fluid Mechanics...
Kinda dishonest of you, dontcha think?
Pressure-Gradient Forces, Gas Laws, Fluid Mechanics, Continuum Assumption & Joules Expansion are the areas I suggest neutral readers research.
Better luck with your trolling & derailing next time, loser...
Do you suppose that it makes any difference as to just how open to the vacuum of space the chamber is? That is, if you're burning 100 kg of propellant per second in a 25 cm diameter combustion chamber, will the exhaust gasses freely expand just as quickly out of a 2.5 cm diameter opening as they will out of a 25 cm diameter opening?Just out of curiosity, does that include hypergolic propellants that ignite on contact when sprayed into a combustion chamber?
LOL!!!
What does it matter?
If the combustion chamber is open to the vacuum (which I'm still not sure you agreed upon or not, as you are such a shitposting snake... Luckily we all know damn well it IS open to the vacuum anyway), then any gas produced will simply expand, freely, following the path of least resistance & doing no work.
As for markjo; nobody cares: gas can do no work in a vacuum.I'm not trying to get gas to do work in a vacuum. I'm trying to fill a combustion chamber with gas faster than free expansion can empty it by varying the size of the opening to space. Do you believe that it's possible to do that or will the vacuum of space always win, even if the opening is microscopic?
Playing with numbers won't change this FACT.
I'm not trying to get gas to do work in a vacuum.
Ha ha ha lol!
You don't even understand the composition of matter and how gases behave. Muppet.
i have a degree and you clearly don't. I can feel the jealousy oozing from your every pore. Sorry little boy, go back to masturbating in your parents basement.
free expansion assumes an ideal gas with no mass.
LULZ!!!
You're making this up as you go along & it is hilarious!
Note to neutrals: free expansion is also known as Joules expansion or the Joules-Thomson effect. It states quite categorically that a gas can do no work in a vacuum.
Free expansion is an irreversible process in which a gas expands into an insulated evacuated chamber. It is also called Joule expansion.
I'm trying to explain, but I need you to let me know if it's possible pump gas into a combustion chamber faster then free expansion can drain it if I make the opening small enough. It really isn't that hard of a question, is it?I'm not trying to get gas to do work in a vacuum.
Well then shut up, sit down, have a good long think about it all, then come up with some answers as to WHY all this 'spayzze-ecksplurayshun' tom-foolery has been foisted on us.
Anyhoo; I'd say this thread has run its course, wouldn't you?No, because you refuse to answer simple questions that could move the discussion forward.
None of you have come up with any solid science or logic to support your position.Solid science requires math and you're afraid of math.
Shall we just stop here & say I won?No, because that would be a lie and you don't abide liars.
Even if the combustion gasses are merely freely expanding, the Venturi effect says that those gasses will accelerate when passing through that narrow opening.
Ha ha ha lol!
You don't even understand the composition of matter and how gases behave. Muppet.
i have a degree and you clearly don't. I can feel the jealousy oozing from your every pore. Sorry little boy, go back to masturbating in your parents basement.
QuoteFree expansion is an irreversible process in which a gas expands into an insulated evacuated chamber. It is also called Joule expansion.
It is not that gas cannot do work in a vacuum. It is that gas does no work when expanding into an evacuated chamber because all of the effect net to zero.
I mean; look at this garbage:QuoteFree expansion is an irreversible process in which a gas expands into an insulated evacuated chamber. It is also called Joule expansion.
It is not that gas cannot do work in a vacuum. It is that gas does no work when expanding into an evacuated chamber because all of the effect net to zero.
What, exactly, is in that 'evacuated chamber' that the gas does no work whilst expanding into?
Could it be a vacuum?
Why yes; yes it IS a vacuum.
Thus, mainframes completely contradicts himself in one sentence!
& what 'because all of the net effect to zero' means is anybody's guess...
He does this all the time, yet expects us to believe he has a masters in science...
LOL!!!
Cool story bro...
Who said anything about pressure? The vacuum is sucking the gasses out of the combustion chamber, correct? If the opening is smaller than the chamber, then the gasses will accelerate through the opening because it's smaller than the combustion chamber. That is unless you're calling Venturi a liar too.Even if the combustion gasses are merely freely expanding, the Venturi effect says that those gasses will accelerate when passing through that narrow opening.
No it doesn't.
For that to happen there'd have to be pressure within the venturi chamber; but there isn't, because it's open to a vacuum, remember?
Stop trying to wriggle out of your crass blunders.
Of course experiments to prove Free Expansion use an enclosed chamber; how else can they create a vacuum in laboratory conditions?
But exactly the same principles would apply when a tank of pressurised gas is opened to the practically-infinite vacuum of space.
Principles which it must be noted you just admitted are correct, i.e. that the gas would freely expand, doing no work.
So no, I am not 'missing the point'; you are, as usual.
Now; please provide proof that you have a masters in science; because it is becoming increasingly hard to believe that this is the case.
That is unless you're calling Venturi a liar too.
Free expansion is an adiabatic process, it cannot transfer mass or energy outside the system. If the system is open to space then it transfers both.
Free expansion is not an instantaneous process.That is unless you're calling Venturi a liar too.
I'm not calling Venturi a Liar, retard; I'm calling you a Liar.
Again.
Because the Venturi effect relies on pressure build-up behind the narrowing of the nozzle in order to accelerate the gasses & there can be no pressure if that nozzle is open to a practically-infinite vacuum.
REMEMBER THE VACUUM, HUMPTY DUMPTY?
I'm not trying to get gas to do work in a vacuum.
Well then shut up, sit down, have a good long think about it all, then come up with some answers as to WHY all this 'spayzze-ecksplurayshun' tom-foolery has been foisted on us.
I know why; it's not hard to see...
And it's nothing to do with the Earth being Flat (lol!).
But don't worry; I'll keep quiet about it...
It's no big deal to me.
Anyhoo; I'd say this thread has run its course, wouldn't you?
None of you have come up with any solid science or logic to support your position.
Shall we just stop here & say I won?
Well, all of us except rampant monomaniac & sociopath sock-arul, that is; we all know what he's like!
Really; you wouldn't believe the filth he comes out with on youtube comments...
Free expansion is not an instantaneous process.
Let me say that again in bold and all caps so that you don't miss it.
FREE EXPANSION IS NOT AN INSTANTANEOUS PROCESS.
IT TAKES TIME FOR THE GASSES TO LEAVE THE COMBUSTION CHAMBER.
It may not be a very long time, but during that time, there is pressure within the chamber.
As long as gas can be introduced into the chamber as fast or faster than it can freely expand, then there will be pressure in that chamber and Venturi and Newton's third will apply.
Ranting, denying and ignoring won't change that fact.
If you can't work out how to find my name on that list then it's no wonder you can't understand basic physics.
I CANNOT COUNT TO THREE & AM VERY BUTTHURT & MAD INDEED & THERE IS NO BIGGER FONT SIZE FOR ME TO EXPRESS MY BUTTHURT & MADNESS IN THAN THIS!!!
Free expansion is not an instantaneous process.
Let me say that again in bold and all caps so that you don't miss it.
FREE EXPANSION IS NOT AN INSTANTANEOUS PROCESS.
IT TAKES TIME FOR THE GASSES TO LEAVE THE COMBUSTION CHAMBER.
It may not be a very long time, but during that time, there is pressure within the chamber.
As long as gas can be introduced into the chamber as fast or faster than it can freely expand, then there will be pressure in that chamber and Venturi and Newton's third will apply.
Ranting, denying and ignoring won't change that fact.
There can be no pressure in a vacuum.
None.
All the laws of physics say so.
You know; the ones you keep IGNORING IN ALL CAPS & BOLD (lol!).
As for who's doing the ranting & denying; read what you just wrote, Humpty Dumpty...
Oookay, mister... *walks back slowly, throwing spare change as distraction*If you can't work out how to find my name on that list then it's no wonder you can't understand basic physics.
Seance?
Ouija board?
Seems it's 'basic magic' I'd need more than 'basic physics'...
But seeing as how your theory of how rockets work in 'spayzze' is based on magic that's no surprise...
What was that about ranting & denying & ignoring again?
Generally speaking, though: another massive 'round earther' (lol!) fistful of fail.
On the LOL!!! scale, meriting at least a LMFAO!!!, if not a ROFLCOPTER!!!
Now; carry on Lying.
IN A ROCKET SYSTEM, OBJECT B IS THE FUEL.
IN A ROCKET SYSTEM, OBJECT B IS THE FUEL.
I'M SORRY COULD YOU REPEAT THAT I DIDN'T QUITE GET IT?
IN A ROCKET SYSTEM, OBJECT B IS THE FUEL.
Free expansion is not an instantaneous process.
Let me say that again in bold and all caps so that you don't miss it.
FREE EXPANSION IS NOT AN INSTANTANEOUS PROCESS.
IT TAKES TIME FOR THE GASSES TO LEAVE THE COMBUSTION CHAMBER.
It may not be a very long time, but during that time, there is pressure within the chamber.
As long as gas can be introduced into the chamber as fast or faster than it can freely expand, then there will be pressure in that chamber and Venturi and Newton's third will apply.
Ranting, denying and ignoring won't change that fact.
If you can't work out how to find my name on that list then it's no wonder you can't understand basic physics.
Anyhow; now that chtworne's shitpost rampage is over, here is my reply to the dynamic markjo/mainframes duo that he was trying to distract from (trolls are so funny!).I didn't say that there could be.Free expansion is not an instantaneous process.
Let me say that again in bold and all caps so that you don't miss it.
FREE EXPANSION IS NOT AN INSTANTANEOUS PROCESS.
IT TAKES TIME FOR THE GASSES TO LEAVE THE COMBUSTION CHAMBER.
It may not be a very long time, but during that time, there is pressure within the chamber.
As long as gas can be introduced into the chamber as fast or faster than it can freely expand, then there will be pressure in that chamber and Venturi and Newton's third will apply.
Ranting, denying and ignoring won't change that fact.
There can be no pressure in a vacuum.
I'm saying that the pressure in the chamber does not drop to zero the instant it's opened to a vacuum.
The chamber is ALWAYS open; & in the near-infinite vacuum of 'space' that means there can BE no pressure in the chamber, ever...So you're saying that if I have a 10 cm diameter chamber with a 5 cm diameter inlet and a 1 cm diameter outlet, then there is no possible way to pump in gas through the 5 cm inlet than faster than it will escape through the 1 cm outlet?
I'm saying that the pressure in the chamber does not drop to zero the instant it's opened to a vacuum.
What are you babbling about now?
The chamber is ALWAYS open; & in the near-infinite vacuum of 'space' that means there can BE no pressure in the chamber, ever...
Are you drunk too?
So you're saying that if I have a 10 cm diameter chamber with a 5 cm diameter inlet and a 1 cm diameter outlet, then there is no possible way to pump in gas through the 5 cm inlet than faster than it will escape through the 1 cm outlet?
How do you know that 'space' is a 'near-infinite vacuum'? I thought it was impossible for rockets to get into space?
So you're saying that if I have a 10 cm diameter chamber with a 5 cm diameter inlet and a 1 cm diameter outlet, then there is no possible way to pump in gas through the 5 cm inlet than faster than it will escape through the 1 cm outlet?
LOL!!!
Could you please name the exact 'spayzze-rokkit' you're referring to with such miniscule dimensions for its thrust chamber, plus the fuel-pump & fuel tank specifications, markjo?
& in the unlikely event you do name it, then please find the lab analysis of its vacuum functioning, including film of it being tested in a vacuum chamber, if you would?
Because until you do, someone might suspect you're just juggling numbers & playing with hypotheticals in an attempt to squirm your way round the laws of physics.
Which would be SO unlike you!
& how about THIS for lulz:How do you know that 'space' is a 'near-infinite vacuum'? I thought it was impossible for rockets to get into space?
Wtf is wrong with you?
Tell you what, tin-foil hatter; why don't you send me an abusive PM on the subject, full of ENORMOUS PHOTOS OF FAKE ROCKETS & ALL IN THE BIGGEST FONT SIZE YOU CAN FIND.
I'll ignore that, too; but it'll at least waste your time the way you're wasting mine.
Summary: mild-to-fair LOL!!! with chances of GTFO.
LOL!!!
The 'force' doesn't have to 'fight' its way anywhere, psycho.
The combusting fuel is clearly expanding between two masses; that of the rocket & the ground.
So it will push them apart.
You do realise the arrows you drew perfectly illustrate a Newtonian force-pairing that confirms what I say, don't you?
Probably not...
Please do try not to use photos of fake rockets though; it's unhelpful.
Oh I see, the exhaust is creating a force between the ground and the rocket, which in turn propels the rocket up/forward. But what happens when the rocket is well clear of the ground - what is the exhaust pushing on now? It must be the atmosphere that the exhaust is pushing on now - right?
Oh I see, the exhaust is creating a force between the ground and the rocket, which in turn propels the rocket up/forward. But what happens when the rocket is well clear of the ground - what is the exhaust pushing on now? It must be the atmosphere that the exhaust is pushing on now - right?
Well done, you finally got it, clever boy...
Though usually it's only larger rockets that require a solid mass behind them to gain initial acceleration.
The V2's a good example.
And bear in mind that, though sufficient for basic educational purposes, the photo you posted IS fake, so detailed discussion of it would be detrimental.
Anyhoo; are we finished here?
Nah; of course we're not!
So; carry on Lying.
Oh I see, the exhaust is creating a force between the ground and the rocket, which in turn propels the rocket up/forward. But what happens when the rocket is well clear of the ground - what is the exhaust pushing on now? It must be the atmosphere that the exhaust is pushing on now - right?
Nope; you get to make NO demands on me, psycho-spammer.
You said this, which means my job is done & you have learnt the Truth; time you gave it up now...Oh I see, the exhaust is creating a force between the ground and the rocket, which in turn propels the rocket up/forward. But what happens when the rocket is well clear of the ground - what is the exhaust pushing on now? It must be the atmosphere that the exhaust is pushing on now - right?
Bye-bye, Loser!
Oh I see, the exhaust is creating a force between the ground and the rocket, which in turn propels the rocket up/forward. But what happens when the rocket is well clear of the ground - what is the exhaust pushing on now? It must be the atmosphere that the exhaust is pushing on now - right?
I never said that those dimensions were for a rocket engine. You said: "The chamber is ALWAYS open; & in the near-infinite vacuum of 'space' that means there can BE no pressure in the chamber, ever...".So you're saying that if I have a 10 cm diameter chamber with a 5 cm diameter inlet and a 1 cm diameter outlet, then there is no possible way to pump in gas through the 5 cm inlet than faster than it will escape through the 1 cm outlet?
LOL!!!
Could you please name the exact 'spayzze-rokkit' you're referring to with such miniscule dimensions for its thrust chamber, plus the fuel-pump & fuel tank specifications, markjo?
& in the unlikely event you do name it, then please find the lab analysis of its vacuum functioning, including film of it being tested in a vacuum chamber, if you would?
Because until you do, someone might suspect you're just juggling numbers & playing with hypotheticals in an attempt to squirm your way round the laws of physics.What's wrong with hypotheticals?
Pressure-Gradient Forces, Gas Laws, Fluid Mechanics, Continuum Assumption & Joules Expansion are the areas I suggest neutral readers research.You forgot mass flow and conservation of momentum.
I think that's all...
It's a fairly simple question.
Why are you afraid to answer it?
What's the worst that could happen?
Could you please name the exact 'spayzze-rokkit' you're referring to with such miniscule dimensions for its thrust chamber, plus the fuel-pump & fuel tank specifications, markjo?
& in the unlikely event you do name it, then please find the lab analysis of its vacuum functioning, including film of it being tested in a vacuum chamber, if you would?
I'm sorry but I thought that you were smart enough to realize that those questions became irrelevant once I stated that the numbers were arbitrary and not from any particular rocket engine. I suppose that's what I get for giving you too much credit.It's a fairly simple question.
Why are you afraid to answer it?
What's the worst that could happen?
LOL!!!
These were fairly simple questions, too, Humpty Dumpty:Could you please name the exact 'spayzze-rokkit' you're referring to with such miniscule dimensions for its thrust chamber, plus the fuel-pump & fuel tank specifications, markjo?
& in the unlikely event you do name it, then please find the lab analysis of its vacuum functioning, including film of it being tested in a vacuum chamber, if you would?
Why were you afraid to answer THEM?
It's not like anyone doesn't already know you're a shitposting Liar...Yes, I'm sure that you know all about being a shitposting liar from personal experience.
This 'debate' (lol!) will be confined to existing 'spayzze-rokkit' designs & proven Physical Laws.Do you mean proven physical laws like free expansion that only applies to an ideal gas (no mass) in a closed environment? Or like the Venturi effect that says that fluids are accelerated when passing through a constricted passage?
NOT to hypothetical sci-fi bullshit & 'thought experiments'.Since do you get to dictate what can or can't be discussed?
the numbers were arbitrary and not from any particular rocket engine.
How is that relevant? You said that no chamber could ever hold any pressure while exposed to a vacuum. What's the difference if it's an existing rocket engine or a hypothetical chamber with arbitrary dimensions?the numbers were arbitrary and not from any particular rocket engine.
Exactly my point.
What's the difference if it's an existing rocket engine or a hypothetical chamber with arbitrary dimensions?
Yes, I did. Do you or do you not assert that gas pressure can not be achieved in a chamber under any condition when one end is exposed to a vacuum? If so, then what's wrong with my chamber with arbitrary dimensions if it's destined to fail in any case?What's the difference if it's an existing rocket engine or a hypothetical chamber with arbitrary dimensions?
Did you really just write that?
I'm not trying to get gas to do work in a vacuum.
It should be obvious to you, that when this fuel mass is forcibly ejected out of the rocket system at hypersonic velocity, then obviously a HUGE momentum force has just been created, and this X amount of momentum must be imparted back onto Object A - the rocket, and surprise, surprise, it is propelled with an equal amount of momentum in the opposite direction to that of Object B, the fuel.
You see, this Newtonian momentum stuff isn't that hard to understand at all.
It should be obvious to YOU that you are trying to forcibly & illogically derive Newton's 3rd from an example of only Newton's 2nd.
Yes, the rocket creates a Force; this is Newton's 2nd: Force = Mass x Acceleration.
But unless that Force then Pushes or Presses against another object, or mass, Extrinsic to the rocket system, Newton's 3rd will not be fulfilled & no motion will be produced.
QuoteFree expansion is an irreversible process in which a gas expands into an insulated evacuated chamber. It is also called Joule expansion.
It is not that gas cannot do work in a vacuum. It is that gas does no work when expanding into an evacuated chamber[ because all of the effect net to zero.
Remember writing this?I'm not. I'm trying to fill a chamber with gas so that the gas can do work in a pressurized chamber. The fact that one end is open to a vacuum just means that I need to pump gas into the chamber very quickly.I'm not trying to get gas to do work in a vacuum.
If the above is true, then why are you now trying to do the opposite, using what you admit to be arbritrary & hypothetical rules?
But unless that Force then Pushes or Presses against another object, or mass, Extrinsic to the rocket system, Newton's 3rd will not be fulfilled & no motion will be produced.A rocket's fuel is extrinsic to a rocket in the same way that a bullet extrinsic to a gun.
A rocket's fuel is extrinsic to a rocket in the same way that a bullet extrinsic to a gun.
You all claim that the recoil of a gun is a valid analogy for how a rocket works in a vacuum.
Here is why it is not:
With a gun you have object A, the mass of the gun; the expanding propellant, P, the gunpowder, sited between them; and object B, the mass of the bullet.
But with a rocket you ONLY have object A, the mass of the rocket, & the expanding propellant, P, the fuel.
No object B, see?
Thus, you have removed the necessary recoil mass required to produce motion.
But we know a rocket DOES produce motion, don't we?
Ergo, some other mass MUST be taking the place of object B.
& the ONLY possibility for that other mass is the Atmosphere.
Ergo, NO atmosphere, NO motion; rockets CANNOT function in a vacuum.
Q.E.D.
No matter how hard you try to spin it, cultists, every child knows that You cannot Push on Nothing.
No maths required; only common sense.
It should be obvious to you, that when this fuel mass is forcibly ejected out of the rocket system at hypersonic velocity, then obviously a HUGE momentum force has just been created, and this X amount of momentum must be imparted back onto Object A - the rocket, and surprise, surprise, it is propelled with an equal amount of momentum in the opposite direction to that of Object B, the fuel.
You see, this Newtonian momentum stuff isn't that hard to understand at all.
Irrelevant.A rocket's fuel is extrinsic to a rocket in the same way that a bullet extrinsic to a gun.
LOL!!!
Worst hurried shitpost evar!
Ever seen a rocket spitting out solid lumps of metal?
Incorrect.
Irrelevant.
It should be obvious to you, that when this fuel mass is forcibly ejected out of the rocket system at hypersonic velocity, then obviously a HUGE momentum force has just been created, and this X amount of momentum must be imparted back onto Object A - the rocket, and surprise, surprise, it is propelled with an equal amount of momentum in the opposite direction to that of Object B, the fuel.
You see, this Newtonian momentum stuff isn't that hard to understand at all.
Remember saying this, Liar?QuoteFree expansion is an irreversible process in which a gas expands into an insulated evacuated chamber. It is also called Joule expansion.
It is not that gas cannot do work in a vacuum. It is that gas does no work when expanding into an evacuated chamber[ because all of the effect net to zero.
But what's the definition of 'evacuate' in General Physics?
'To create a vacuum'.
You have repeatedly shown yourself to have no comprehension whatsoever of even the simplest terms involved in this 'debate' (lol!).
You have Lied about your qualifications in science.
You have Zero credibility & are reduced to simply parroting catchphrases in a forlorn attempt at brainwashing any still-undecided neutrals.
Truly, it Sucks to be you right now...
Now: carry on Lying!
If you throw part of that mass
How do you throw something if not by pushing against it?
You Cannot.
Which leads us to your triumphant bullshit conclusion:
No need to "push" against anything ...
O Rly?
LMFAO!!!
It should be obvious to you, that when this fuel mass is forcibly ejected out of the rocket system at hypersonic velocity, then obviously a HUGE momentum force has just been created, and this X amount of momentum must be imparted back onto Object A - the rocket, and surprise, surprise, it is propelled with an equal amount of momentum in the opposite direction to that of Object B, the fuel.
LOL!!!
It should be obvious to YOU that you are trying to forcibly & illogically derive Newton's 3rd from an example of only Newton's 2nd.
Yes, the rocket creates a Force; this is Newton's 2nd: Force = Mass x Acceleration.
But unless that Force then Pushes or Presses against another object, or mass, Extrinsic to the rocket system, Newton's 3rd will not be fulfilled & no motion will be produced.
And, again, it should be obvious to YOU that in the case of a rocket the only possibility for that other, extrinsic mass is that of the atmosphere through which it travels.
Ergo; when atmospheric mass is removed from the equation, as it must be in a vacuum, the rocket cannot produce motion.
Simple stuff.
So; when you write this:You see, this Newtonian momentum stuff isn't that hard to understand at all.
You are, as ever, making a complete ass of yourself.
Gas does no work when it expands into an evacuated chamber ie a chamber that contains a vacuum.
It seemed to be all that your post deserved.Irrelevant.
LOL!!!
So that's what I've reduced you all to?
One-word replies, containing no arguments or logic whatsoever?As if you ever believe or accept any explanations. ::)
Ever seen a rocket spitting out solid lumps of metal?Rockets work by ejecting mass at high speed. What difference does it make if that mass is solid, liquid, gas or plasma?
Rockets work by ejecting mass at high speed.
What difference does it make if that mass is solid, liquid, gas or plasma?
It should be obvious to you, that when this fuel mass is forcibly ejected out of the rocket system at hypersonic velocity, then obviously a HUGE momentum force has just been created, and this X amount of momentum must be imparted back onto Object A - the rocket, and surprise, surprise, it is propelled with an equal amount of momentum in the opposite direction to that of Object B, the fuel.
LOL!!!
It should be obvious to YOU that you are trying to forcibly & illogically derive Newton's 3rd from an example of only Newton's 2nd.
Yes, the rocket creates a Force; this is Newton's 2nd: Force = Mass x Acceleration.
But unless that Force then Pushes or Presses against another object, or mass, Extrinsic to the rocket system, Newton's 3rd will not be fulfilled & no motion will be produced.
And, again, it should be obvious to YOU that in the case of a rocket the only possibility for that other, extrinsic mass is that of the atmosphere through which it travels.
Ergo; when atmospheric mass is removed from the equation, as it must be in a vacuum, the rocket cannot produce motion.
Simple stuff.
So; when you write this:You see, this Newtonian momentum stuff isn't that hard to understand at all.
You are, as ever, making a complete ass of yourself.
Wow, that was mature. ::)Rockets work by ejecting mass at high speed.
& you work by ejecting bullshit at high speed...
Are you on teh munn yet?
Any women there?
*yawn*What difference does it make if that mass is solid, liquid, gas or plasma?
The same difference it would make if your bullshit was any of these things.
But for us to discuss this reasonably you'd have to have intellectual integrity, rather than being a psychopathic shitposting control-freak sock-puppeting compulsive Liar...If you want to have a reasonable discussion, then I'm in. If not, then you cordially invited to fuck off.
If you want to have a reasonable discussion, then I'm in.
Do you even know what a reasonable discussion looks like?If you want to have a reasonable discussion, then I'm in.
LOL!!!
Evidence suggests otherwise, Humpty Dumpty.
Cos if you were, you'd agree with all I write below.Believe it or not, it's possible to have a reasonable discussion with someone that you don't agree with.
Cos it is all based on pure Reason.The problem is that you are not applying those established laws of physics correctly.
As well as every established Law of Physics.
So no; 'reasonable discussion' is NOT something you have ever proven capable of.Is calling people lying shitposters your idea of a reasonable discussion?
The combustion chamber of a rocket is open to the near-infinite vacuum of space.Agreed.
Therefore, no gas can even be meaningfully said to exist within it, let alone combust.Incorrect. Depending on the dimensions of the chamber, it is possible to pump a gas into the chamber faster than it can escape into the vacuum of space.
Any gas introduced therein when the pressurised fuel tank is opened will simply expand freely into the enormous, zero-pressure vacuum, following the path of least resistance & doing no work whatsoever.In a liquid propellant rocket, the fuel and oxidizer injected into the combustion chamber in a liquid form (the hint is in the name). Does free expansion apply to liquids?
This will continue for as long as the fuel tank is open to the vacuum, until both exterior & interior pressures are equalised at zero.Except that the pressure will not equalize as long as you keep adding gas to the chamber faster than it can escape on its own.
It is a beautifully simple concept, fully supported by the laws of physics...Agreed. I don't understand why you keep getting it wrong.
... yet you 'round earthers (lol!) just can't seem to grasp it...[/b]Aren't you a round earther?
Sucks to be you; sucks like a vacuum in fact.Actually, a vacuum doesn't suck the gasses out of a chamber. Like just about everything else in physics, the gasses naturally move from an area of high pressure to an area of low pressure until equilibrium is achieved.
& this:It's one of countless valid analogies. Don't get hung up on it, especially in a thread that you entitled "People on skateboards".
You all claim that the recoil of a gun is a valid analogy for how a rocket works in a vacuum.
Here is why it is not:
*boring copypasta that we've been over too many times already*
Then there's the fact that you are all trying desperately to confine this 'debate' to the wrong branch of physics, i.e. Solid Mechanics rather than Fluid Mechanics...Speaking of fluid dynamics, have you ever heard of mass flow?
Kinda dishonest of you, dontcha think?Not as dishonest as your deliberate misrepresentation of Newton's third.
Pressure-Gradient Forces, Gas Laws, Fluid Mechanics, Continuum Assumption & Joules Expansion are the areas I suggest neutral readers research.What about conservation of momentum?
Words are NOT Reality, Humpty Dumpty markjo; do please try to remember that before your next Brainwashing attempt...What have you provided other than words?
Is calling people lying shitposters your idea of a reasonable discussion?
Would you care to point out the "shit and lies" in that post?Is calling people lying shitposters your idea of a reasonable discussion?
When the person in question is a Lying Shitposter then of course it is 'reasonable' to call them one.
As an example, I present your last post: it is full of Shit & Lies.
And it is most definitely not 'reasonable' of you to resent my arriving at such a perfectly 'reasonable' conclusion.I don't resent your conclusion, I just disagree with it.
Would you care to point out the "shit and lies" in that post?
Imagine the person as the rocket and the rocket fuel as the medicine ball. Works perfectly. Physics 101.
! No longer available (http://#)
sokarul, I watched your video of the guy on the skateboard and I tried my best to relate that to a rocket. Didn't you say you were a scientist or something like that? My question to you is don't you realize that when the guy threw the ball outwards he was throwing against the air in the room. The air in the room was acting like a wall and he was PUSHING against it with the ball and he was able to roll backwards because the skateboard had wheels on it.
Judging by the video, I'd say the ball is at least 10 to 12 inches in diameter. Let's say 10 inches in diameter, that will give us a surface area of just the face of the ball around 78 square inches. Let's just say the atmospheric pressure is just 14 psi assuming the guy is at sea level. If we multiply 78 x 14 = 1092. That is a 1000 pound wall of air the guy is pushing the ball against. Would someone please correct me if I'm wrong. But if I'm correct, wouldn't you think that would be enough force acting in the opposite direction to propel the guy on the skateboard backwards?
It should be obvious to you, that when this fuel mass is forcibly ejected out of the rocket system at hypersonic velocity, then obviously a HUGE momentum force has just been created, and this X amount of momentum must be imparted back onto Object A - the rocket, and surprise, surprise, it is propelled with an equal amount of momentum in the opposite direction to that of Object B, the fuel.
LOL!!!
It should be obvious to YOU that you are trying to forcibly & illogically derive Newton's 3rd from an example of only Newton's 2nd.
Yes, the rocket creates a Force; this is Newton's 2nd: Force = Mass x Acceleration.
But unless that Force then Pushes or Presses against another object, or mass, Extrinsic to the rocket system, Newton's 3rd will not be fulfilled & no motion will be produced.
And, again, it should be obvious to YOU that in the case of a rocket the only possibility for that other, extrinsic mass is that of the atmosphere through which it travels.
Ergo; when atmospheric mass is removed from the equation, as it must be in a vacuum, the rocket cannot produce motion.
Simple stuff.
So; when you write this:You see, this Newtonian momentum stuff isn't that hard to understand at all.
You are, as ever, making a complete ass of yourself.
Next you'll be saying that a medicine ball is still attached to a man who has just thrown it?
Man-up and explain to us all, just how a rocket's exhaust is still attached to a rocket, as you say?
Man-up and explain to us all, just how a rocket's exhaust is still attached to a rocket, as you say?
Do you know the difference between the words combustING & combustED?
Can you tell SMOKE from FIRE?
If 'Yes', go away & have a little think abou...
Oh, you know the drill.
*Yawn!*
Toodle-pip, special little chtwrone!
O Rly?Plenty of information online about rockets, please link to any you disagree with.
Then how does the rocket produce thrust in your little fantasy-world?
It should be obvious to you, that when this fuel mass is forcibly ejected out of the rocket system at hypersonic velocity, then obviously a HUGE momentum force has just been created, and this X amount of momentum must be imparted back onto Object A - the rocket, and surprise, surprise, it is propelled with an equal amount of momentum in the opposite direction to that of Object B, the fuel.
LOL!!!
It should be obvious to YOU that you are trying to forcibly & illogically derive Newton's 3rd from an example of only Newton's 2nd.
Yes, the rocket creates a Force; this is Newton's 2nd: Force = Mass x Acceleration.
But unless that Force then Pushes or Presses against another object, or mass, Extrinsic to the rocket system, Newton's 3rd will not be fulfilled & no motion will be produced.
And, again, it should be obvious to YOU that in the case of a rocket the only possibility for that other, extrinsic mass is that of the atmosphere through which it travels.
Ergo; when atmospheric mass is removed from the equation, as it must be in a vacuum, the rocket cannot produce motion.
Simple stuff.
So; when you write this:You see, this Newtonian momentum stuff isn't that hard to understand at all.
You are, as ever, making a complete ass of yourself.
So you're saying that the force created by the fuel acts on the fuel, yes?Do you understand how pressure works?
Aaaand we're back to a rocket 'pushing on itself' (lol!).
Do you understand how pressure works?
I am a lying blowhard googling & wiki-ing as fast as I can to gatekeep a subject i know nothing about & will lie lie lie & say anything I need to keep the subject I know nothing about gatekept...
QuoteFree expansion is an irreversible process in which a gas expands into an insulated evacuated chamber. It is also called Joule expansion.
It is not that gas cannot do work in a vacuum. It is that gas does no work when expanding into an evacuated chamber because all of the effect net to zero.
So you're saying that the force created by the fuel acts on the fuel, yes?Yes. Anytime a force is created, that force acts upon the mass that is crating that force and a reaction mass. In the case of a rocket, the force is created by burning the fuel. This means that the force generated by the burning fuel acts on mass of the fuel that was just burned and reacts with the rocket.
Aaaand we're back to a rocket 'pushing on itself' (lol!).
So you're saying that the force created by the fuel acts on the fuel, yes?
Aaaand we're back to a rocket 'pushing on itself' (lol!).
In the case of a rocket, the force is created by burning the fuel. This means that the force generated by the burning fuel acts on mass of the fuel that was just burned and reacts with the rocket.
In the case of a rocket, the force is created by burning the fuel. This means that the force generated by the burning fuel acts on mass of the fuel that was just burned and reacts with the rocket.
LOL!!!
So the Force acts upon its own Force?!?
That'd be the same Force that's heading AWAY from the rocket at EXACTLY the same velocity as the Force that's somehow trying to push against it?!?!
GTFO, psycho!
Wtf is WRONG with you?
You are trying to create a Frankenstein version of Newton's 3rd from an example of ONLY Newton's 2nd; PLEASE just learn the difference & be done with this Insanity...
Cos it's getting REALLY creepy now!
& chtwrone: WRONG THREAD AGAIN, RETARD!
I made one special for your special needs; go use it, eh?
[/quote]It should be obvious to you, that when this fuel mass is forcibly ejected out of the rocket system at hypersonic velocity, then obviously a HUGE momentum force has just been created, and this X amount of momentum must be imparted back onto Object A - the rocket, and surprise, surprise, it is propelled with an equal amount of momentum in the opposite direction to that of Object B, the fuel.
LOL!!!
It should be obvious to YOU that you are trying to forcibly & illogically derive Newton's 3rd from an example of only Newton's 2nd.
Yes, the rocket creates a Force; this is Newton's 2nd: Force = Mass x Acceleration.
But unless that Force then Pushes or Presses against another object, or mass, Extrinsic to the rocket system, Newton's 3rd will not be fulfilled & no motion will be produced.
And, again, it should be obvious to YOU that in the case of a rocket the only possibility for that other, extrinsic mass is that of the atmosphere through which it travels.
Ergo; when atmospheric mass is removed from the equation, as it must be in a vacuum, the rocket cannot produce motion.
Simple stuff.
So; when you write this:You see, this Newtonian momentum stuff isn't that hard to understand at all.
You are, as ever, making a complete ass of yourself.
As explained to you, a vacuum is not a force. The only way for the exhaust to leave the combustion chamber is from it's own pressure. This take a finite amount of time. In practice the exhaust gas leaves the rocket faster than if it wasn't reacting. Higher exhaust speed means more thrust.Do you understand how pressure works?
Don't YOU understand that there can be no pressure in a vacuum?
REMEMBER THE VACUUM, HELEN KELLER?
*Sigh!*
Looks like it's School-time again!
The combustion chamber of a rocket is open to the near-infinite vacuum of space.
Therefore, no gas can even be meaningfully said to exist within it, let alone combust.
Any gas introduced therein when the pressurised fuel tank is opened will simply expand freely into the enormous, zero-pressure vacuum, following the path of least resistance & doing no work whatsoever.As explained this is incorrect. The gas will still just bounce of each other and whatever else is around. The gas is not self aware and able to know when it's next to a vacuum.
This will continue for as long as the fuel tank is open to the vacuum, until both exterior & interior pressures are equalised at zero.Why did you change it to the fuel tank? You used to claim it was the combustion chamber that would go to zero, now it's the fuel tank?
It is a beautifully simple concept, fully supported by All the laws of physics, yet you 'round earthers' (lol!) just can't seem to grasp it...You do not understand physics.
Plus this:B is the exhaust.
You all claim that the recoil of a gun is a valid analogy for how a rocket works in a vacuum.
Here is why it is not:
With a gun you have object A, the mass of the gun; the expanding propellant, P, the gunpowder, sited between them; and object B, the mass of the bullet.
But with a rocket you ONLY have object A, the mass of the rocket, & the expanding propellant, P, the fuel.
No object B, see?
Thus, you have removed the necessary recoil mass required to produce motion.Noe.
But we know a rocket DOES produce motion, don't we?
Ergo, some other mass MUST be taking the place of object B.
& the ONLY possibility for that other mass is the Atmosphere.
Ergo, NO atmosphere, NO motion; rockets CANNOT function in a vacuum.
Q.E.D.
No matter how hard you try to spin it, cultists, every child knows that You cannot Push on Nothing.
No maths required; only common sense.[/b]
Then there's the fact that you are all trying desperately to confine this 'debate' to the wrong branch of physics, i.e. Solid Mechanics rather than Fluid Mechanics...Incorrect. You do not understand momentum.
Kinda dishonest of you, dontcha think?We all know you are just trolling. No one is really that stupid to think rockets don't work in a vacuum. I mean really really no one is so fucking stupid as to think rockets don't work in a vacuum. It would be nobel prize winning research to show that rockets don't work in a vacuum.
Pressure-Gradient Forces, Gas Laws, Fluid Mechanics, Continuum Assumption & Joules Expansion are the areas I suggest neutral readers research.Why do expanding gases cool?
*Yawn!*I think with getting your argument crushed so many times it gave you brain damage.
Read & Learn, Raown Derfers...Yes remember a vacuum is not a forced and air isn't self aware.
But most importantly of all; REMEMBER THE VACUUM!
The force of the expanding gasses inside the combustion chamber act in all directions. However, since the only opening is at the rear, the action forces the mass of the combustion gasses out through the opening and the reaction results in pushing the rocket forwards. I'm not really sure why this is so hard for you to comprehend or accept.In the case of a rocket, the force is created by burning the fuel. This means that the force generated by the burning fuel acts on mass of the fuel that was just burned and reacts with the rocket.
LOL!!!
So the Force acts upon its own Force?!?
That'd be the same Force that's heading AWAY from the rocket at EXACTLY the same velocity as the Force that's somehow trying to push against it?!?!
The force of the expanding gasses inside the combustion chamber act in all directions. However, since the only opening is at the rear, the action forces the mass of the combustion gasses out through the opening and the reaction results in pushing the rocket forwards. I'm not really sure why this is so hard for you to comprehend or accept.
...As for sock-arul's pathetic attempt:Are you claiming raising temperature has no affect on a gas?
'In practice the exhaust gas leaves the rocket faster than if it wasn't reacting.' - O rly?
'Noe.' - LOL!!!
'Yes remember vacuum is not a forced & air isn't self aware' - Speaking in Tongues now?No. You can't comprehend that a vacuum isn't a force?
'You do not understand momentum.' - well I understand it enough to know that it can only be created via some form of Pressure, or Push; which you somehow don't.Pressure is a force over an area. It is not momentum. Try again.
Whatever - more Fail from the Sock...The only fail is how everyone can pick apart your whole post and you can only attempt to respond to a few points.
Are you saying that you can have an application of Newton's 2nd without having Newton's 3rd staring you in the face?The force of the expanding gasses inside the combustion chamber act in all directions. However, since the only opening is at the rear, the action forces the mass of the combustion gasses out through the opening and the reaction results in pushing the rocket forwards. I'm not really sure why this is so hard for you to comprehend or accept.
Because you've somehow done it again; cobbled together a Frankenstein version of Newton 3 out of what is only an example of Newton 2, i.e. the rocket system creating a force.
Until you learn that there can be no internal pressure without external pressure then you'll be stuck here forever.Huh? What are you talking about? Are you referring to the internal pressure of the combustion gasses being balanced by the external pressure of the combustion chamber?
And, of course, there can be no pressure at all if the rocket is in a vacuum...Q: What's the difference between a vacuum and seal level?
REMEMBER THE VACUUM?
Noe.
Are you saying that you can have an application of Newton's 2nd without having Newton's 3rd staring you in the face?
Are you saying that the force created by burning propellant does not create an action that, in turn, creates an equal and opposite reaction?
If force=mass x acceleration, then how can you not have action/reaction?
If the burning of propellant within a combustion chamber creates a force, is that force not acting on both the mass of the resultant combustion gasses and the mass of the combustion chamber?
What is so special about a vacuum that makes it mightier than any man made attempt to burn fuel within a relatively small chamber with an even smaller opening exposed to that vacuum?
LOL!!!You know that's actually "nope"? You see how the P is missing? Kinda like your brain is missing.
Physics lessons from a retard who can't spell the word 'No'.Noe.
GTFO.
LOL!!!You know that's actually "nope"?
Physics lessons from a retard who can't spell the word 'No'.Noe.
GTFO.
As explained to you, a vacuum is not a force. The only way for the exhaust to leave the combustion chamber is from it's own pressure. This take a finite amount of time. In practice the exhaust gas leaves the rocket faster than if it wasn't reacting. Higher exhaust speed means more thrust.Do you understand how pressure works?
Don't YOU understand that there can be no pressure in a vacuum?
REMEMBER THE VACUUM, HELEN KELLER?
*Sigh!*
Looks like it's School-time again!
The combustion chamber of a rocket is open to the near-infinite vacuum of space.
Therefore, no gas can even be meaningfully said to exist within it, let alone combust.QuoteAny gas introduced therein when the pressurised fuel tank is opened will simply expand freely into the enormous, zero-pressure vacuum, following the path of least resistance & doing no work whatsoever.As explained this is incorrect. The gas will still just bounce of each other and whatever else is around. The gas is not self aware and able to know when it's next to a vacuum.
QuoteThis will continue for as long as the fuel tank is open to the vacuum, until both exterior & interior pressures are equalised at zero.Why did you change it to the fuel tank? You used to claim it was the combustion chamber that would go to zero, now it's the fuel tank?QuoteIt is a beautifully simple concept, fully supported by All the laws of physics, yet you 'round earthers' (lol!) just can't seem to grasp it...You do not understand physics.QuotePlus this:B is the exhaust.
You all claim that the recoil of a gun is a valid analogy for how a rocket works in a vacuum.
Here is why it is not:
With a gun you have object A, the mass of the gun; the expanding propellant, P, the gunpowder, sited between them; and object B, the mass of the bullet.
But with a rocket you ONLY have object A, the mass of the rocket, & the expanding propellant, P, the fuel.
No object B, see?
This is seen when a gun firing blanks will still have some recoil.QuoteThus, you have removed the necessary recoil mass required to produce motion.Noe.
But we know a rocket DOES produce motion, don't we?
Ergo, some other mass MUST be taking the place of object B.
& the ONLY possibility for that other mass is the Atmosphere.
Ergo, NO atmosphere, NO motion; rockets CANNOT function in a vacuum.
Q.E.D.
No matter how hard you try to spin it, cultists, every child knows that You cannot Push on Nothing.
No maths required; only common sense.[/b]QuoteThen there's the fact that you are all trying desperately to confine this 'debate' to the wrong branch of physics, i.e. Solid Mechanics rather than Fluid Mechanics...Incorrect. You do not understand momentum.QuoteKinda dishonest of you, dontcha think?We all know you are just trolling. No one is really that stupid to think rockets don't work in a vacuum. I mean really really no one is so fucking stupid as to think rockets don't work in a vacuum. It would be nobel prize winning research to show that rockets don't work in a vacuum.QuotePressure-Gradient Forces, Gas Laws, Fluid Mechanics, Continuum Assumption & Joules Expansion are the areas I suggest neutral readers research.Why do expanding gases cool?Quote*Yawn!*I think with getting your argument crushed so many times it gave you brain damage.QuoteRead & Learn, Raown Derfers...Yes remember a vacuum is not a forced and air isn't self aware.
But most importantly of all; REMEMBER THE VACUUM!
As for this, I'm just leaving it to stand alone as testimony to markjo's utter ignorance:Does that mean that you are incapable of actually refuting any of it?
And you sound a bit vague, Papa Legba. Have you no actual rebuttal?Are you saying that you can have an application of Newton's 2nd without having Newton's 3rd staring you in the face?
Are you saying that the force created by burning propellant does not create an action that, in turn, creates an equal and opposite reaction?
If force=mass x acceleration, then how can you not have action/reaction?
If the burning of propellant within a combustion chamber creates a force, is that force not acting on both the mass of the resultant combustion gasses and the mass of the combustion chamber?
What is so special about a vacuum that makes it mightier than any man made attempt to burn fuel within a relatively small chamber with an even smaller opening exposed to that vacuum?
You sound a bit confused, markjo; are you drunk, or has the terminal Alzheimer's finally kicked in?
Assuming you are capable of comprehending it, perhaps a book on high school physics would help?
I already answered you.
See?It should be obvious to you, that when this fuel mass is forcibly ejected out of the rocket system at hypersonic velocity, then obviously a HUGE momentum force has just been created, and this X amount of momentum must be imparted back onto Object A - the rocket, and surprise, surprise, it is propelled with an equal amount of momentum in the opposite direction to that of Object B, the fuel.
LOL!!!
It should be obvious to YOU that you are trying to forcibly & illogically derive Newton's 3rd from an example of only Newton's 2nd.
Yes, the rocket creates a Force; this is Newton's 2nd: Force = Mass x Acceleration.
But unless that Force then Pushes or Presses against another object, or mass, Extrinsic to the rocket system, Newton's 3rd will not be fulfilled & no motion will be produced.
And, again, it should be obvious to YOU that in the case of a rocket the only possibility for that other, extrinsic mass is that of the atmosphere through which it travels.
Ergo; when atmospheric mass is removed from the equation, as it must be in a vacuum, the rocket cannot produce motion.
Simple stuff.
So; when you write this:You see, this Newtonian momentum stuff isn't that hard to understand at all.
You are, as ever, making a complete ass of yourself.
Momentum, conservation of.
The end.
Turn off the lights and lock the thread.
Momentum, conservation of.
The end.
Turn off the lights and lock the thread.
Funny that; because I know of no 'engineer' who does not understand that if no motion can be produced, then all talk of momentum is irrelevant.
Nor do I know of any 'engineer' who is unaware that back-pressure is impossible to sustain in an infinite vacuum.
But then again, all the 'engineers' I know are people who make Engines.
Mathematical smatterers like computer programmers do not count.
Here is your idea of 'engineering': 11000110100111011010110110100110100001001101010...
No need for Newton, Joules, Thomson, nor anything but fantasy bullshit in your line of work...
But hey; if REAL engineering & physics offends you, just 'lock the thread & turn off the lights', eh?
Cos that wouldn't be either censorship or trolling or just plain ignorance, would it... 'Engy Baby'?
But then again, all the 'engineers' I know are people who make Engines.Do any of those engineers make rocket engines?
Lol
Lol
Lol
Lol
Can you fix your post?
Every car mechanic who's worked on a turbo understands you need to create back-pressure for it to work; but no, 'Engy Baby' isn't even as clever as them...
I literally cannot stoplaughingLYING.
U don't believe an engineer u builds engines? Thought u like themLucy, you are merely playing parrot for your new buddies that you believe you've made on a forum.
Can u explain therefore why u think u need backpressure in a turbo?
U don't believe an engineer u builds engines? Thought u like them
Can u explain therefore why u think u need backpressure in a turbo?
Your article says 'you want the least back-pressure possible'.Really? That's not the way that I read this:
In other words, you need SOME back-pressure or it will not work at all.
Downstream of the turbine (aka the turboback exhaust), you want the least backpressure possible. No ifs, ands, or buts. Stick a Hoover on the tailpipe if you can.
The article i read says u need velocity before the turbo and the least amount of backpressure after.
Yeah, dumb-fuck: the least amount of back-pressure.
If it meant ZERO back-pressure it'd have said exactly that, but no, it said the LEAST amount that allows the Turbo to function most efficiently.
You Dumb French Fuck.
And that amount is Not ZERO; which it would be in a vacuum btw, you utterly, utterly dumb French fuck
The article clearly says that the turbo it's most efficient when it operates at the least amount of backpressure possible, it doesn't need a minimum pressure to operate, the lower the better. If u find a practical way to have vacuum at the exit of the turbo I suggest u to patent that idea
Momentum, conservation of.
The end.
Turn off the lights and lock the thread.
Funny that; because I know of no 'engineer' who does not understand that if no motion can be produced, then all talk of momentum is irrelevant.
Papa Legba keeps going on and on about free expansion when he should be looking at mass flow.
Funny that; because I know of no 'engineer' who does not understand that if no motion can be produced, then all talk of momentum is irrelevant.
Mass of gasses at high velocity? Seems like momentum doesn't it?
Mass flow will make no difference in your space of virtual vacuum. It still cannot do any work because that mass flow will be free to expand into your virtual space.Papa Legba keeps going on and on about free expansion when he should be looking at mass flow.
Funny that; because I know of no 'engineer' who does not understand that if no motion can be produced, then all talk of momentum is irrelevant.
Mass of gasses at high velocity? Seems like momentum doesn't it?
Mass flow will make no difference in your space of virtual vacuum.Why don't you have a think on that for a bit.
I have and I stand by what I said.Mass flow will make no difference in your space of virtual vacuum.Why don't you have a think on that for a bit.
it cannot hit any resistance as it exits the rocket nozzle.This is your fundamental errors. U don't resistance to act on. Propulsion system simply changes the momentum of a mass of fluid and the ship "receives" the same change of momentum.
They need to push against mass to accelerate. No errors on my part, just lies on the part you adhere to and parrot.it cannot hit any resistance as it exits the rocket nozzle.This is your fundamental errors. U don't resistance to act on. Propulsion system simply changes the momentum of a mass of fluid and the ship "receives" the same change of momentum.
And this is not only true for rockets but for all propulsion system involving a fluid. Jet engines, propeller engine, boat engine and water jets all work on this principle. They just need a mass to accelerate
They need to push against mass to accelerate. No errors on my part, just lies on the part you adhere to and parrot.it cannot hit any resistance as it exits the rocket nozzle.This is your fundamental errors. U don't resistance to act on. Propulsion system simply changes the momentum of a mass of fluid and the ship "receives" the same change of momentum.
And this is not only true for rockets but for all propulsion system involving a fluid. Jet engines, propeller engine, boat engine and water jets all work on this principle. They just need a mass to accelerate
The mass of the fluid is pushing against the mass of the rocket. Where's the problem?They need to push against mass to accelerate. No errors on my part, just lies on the part you adhere to and parrot.it cannot hit any resistance as it exits the rocket nozzle.This is your fundamental errors. U don't resistance to act on. Propulsion system simply changes the momentum of a mass of fluid and the ship "receives" the same change of momentum.
And this is not only true for rockets but for all propulsion system involving a fluid. Jet engines, propeller engine, boat engine and water jets all work on this principle. They just need a mass to accelerate
The more you think of gas as particles just randomly exiting containers and such, the less chance you will ever understand the reality of what's really happening inside those containers of compressed gas that are released upon opening of one part of that container.They need to push against mass to accelerate. No errors on my part, just lies on the part you adhere to and parrot.it cannot hit any resistance as it exits the rocket nozzle.This is your fundamental errors. U don't resistance to act on. Propulsion system simply changes the momentum of a mass of fluid and the ship "receives" the same change of momentum.
And this is not only true for rockets but for all propulsion system involving a fluid. Jet engines, propeller engine, boat engine and water jets all work on this principle. They just need a mass to accelerate
consider a volume with two openings of different section. a flow in stationary condition is passing through the volume. to have mass conservation inside the volume, which u need since the flow is stationary, u need to have equal mass flow gettin in and out the volume. mass flow is given as density*section area*velocity. if the exiting section area is smaller than the one in which the flows enters to have equal mass flow u need a greater velocity at the exit.
so the fluid accelerates trough the volume, so it's changing it's momentum.
where do u see the intervention of external mass to the flow?
Btw actually thing are more complicated, especially in supersonic regime, but the basic principle is this one
The problem is object A and B. Object A is the rocket and the exhaust. On earth object B is the atmosphere. In space there is no object B.The mass of the fluid is pushing against the mass of the rocket. Where's the problem?They need to push against mass to accelerate. No errors on my part, just lies on the part you adhere to and parrot.it cannot hit any resistance as it exits the rocket nozzle.This is your fundamental errors. U don't resistance to act on. Propulsion system simply changes the momentum of a mass of fluid and the ship "receives" the same change of momentum.
And this is not only true for rockets but for all propulsion system involving a fluid. Jet engines, propeller engine, boat engine and water jets all work on this principle. They just need a mass to accelerate
Incorrect. The rocket is object A and the exhaust is object B.The mass of the fluid is pushing against the mass of the rocket. Where's the problem?The problem is object A and B. Object A is the rocket and the exhaust.
I think this is where you all are making your mistake in this discussion. You are wrong.Incorrect. The rocket is object A and the exhaust is object B.The mass of the fluid is pushing against the mass of the rocket. Where's the problem?The problem is object A and B. Object A is the rocket and the exhaust.
i'm not talking of random particles. i'm talking about a constant flow passing through a defined volume, conditions u have in jet's and rocket's nozzlesThe more you think of gas as particles just randomly exiting containers and such, the less chance you will ever understand the reality of what's really happening inside those containers of compressed gas that are released upon opening of one part of that container.They need to push against mass to accelerate. No errors on my part, just lies on the part you adhere to and parrot.it cannot hit any resistance as it exits the rocket nozzle.This is your fundamental errors. U don't resistance to act on. Propulsion system simply changes the momentum of a mass of fluid and the ship "receives" the same change of momentum.
And this is not only true for rockets but for all propulsion system involving a fluid. Jet engines, propeller engine, boat engine and water jets all work on this principle. They just need a mass to accelerate
consider a volume with two openings of different section. a flow in stationary condition is passing through the volume. to have mass conservation inside the volume, which u need since the flow is stationary, u need to have equal mass flow gettin in and out the volume. mass flow is given as density*section area*velocity. if the exiting section area is smaller than the one in which the flows enters to have equal mass flow u need a greater velocity at the exit.
so the fluid accelerates trough the volume, so it's changing it's momentum.
where do u see the intervention of external mass to the flow?
Btw actually thing are more complicated, especially in supersonic regime, but the basic principle is this one
The problem is, it's only pushing against the mass of the container holding it inside the rocket; for instance: in a sealed unit the gas is compressed and pushing equally on all walls of the container.The mass of the fluid is pushing against the mass of the rocket. Where's the problem?They need to push against mass to accelerate. No errors on my part, just lies on the part you adhere to and parrot.it cannot hit any resistance as it exits the rocket nozzle.This is your fundamental errors. U don't resistance to act on. Propulsion system simply changes the momentum of a mass of fluid and the ship "receives" the same change of momentum.
And this is not only true for rockets but for all propulsion system involving a fluid. Jet engines, propeller engine, boat engine and water jets all work on this principle. They just need a mass to accelerate
Well one of you bozo's mentioned particles exiting a chamber randomly. It might have been mainframes or some other like that.i'm not talking of random particles. i'm talking about a constant flow passing through a defined volume, conditions u have in jet's and rocket's nozzlesThe more you think of gas as particles just randomly exiting containers and such, the less chance you will ever understand the reality of what's really happening inside those containers of compressed gas that are released upon opening of one part of that container.They need to push against mass to accelerate. No errors on my part, just lies on the part you adhere to and parrot.it cannot hit any resistance as it exits the rocket nozzle.This is your fundamental errors. U don't resistance to act on. Propulsion system simply changes the momentum of a mass of fluid and the ship "receives" the same change of momentum.
And this is not only true for rockets but for all propulsion system involving a fluid. Jet engines, propeller engine, boat engine and water jets all work on this principle. They just need a mass to accelerate
consider a volume with two openings of different section. a flow in stationary condition is passing through the volume. to have mass conservation inside the volume, which u need since the flow is stationary, u need to have equal mass flow gettin in and out the volume. mass flow is given as density*section area*velocity. if the exiting section area is smaller than the one in which the flows enters to have equal mass flow u need a greater velocity at the exit.
so the fluid accelerates trough the volume, so it's changing it's momentum.
where do u see the intervention of external mass to the flow?
Btw actually thing are more complicated, especially in supersonic regime, but the basic principle is this one
what if the astronaut pushes with his feet against the close end of the box while his head is pointend toward the opened part of the container?Seriously have a think about what you're saying.
The more you think of gas as particles just randomly exiting containers and such, the less chance you will ever understand the reality of what's really happening inside those containers of compressed gas that are released upon opening of one part of that container.They need to push against mass to accelerate. No errors on my part, just lies on the part you adhere to and parrot.it cannot hit any resistance as it exits the rocket nozzle.This is your fundamental errors. U don't resistance to act on. Propulsion system simply changes the momentum of a mass of fluid and the ship "receives" the same change of momentum.
And this is not only true for rockets but for all propulsion system involving a fluid. Jet engines, propeller engine, boat engine and water jets all work on this principle. They just need a mass to accelerate
consider a volume with two openings of different section. a flow in stationary condition is passing through the volume. to have mass conservation inside the volume, which u need since the flow is stationary, u need to have equal mass flow gettin in and out the volume. mass flow is given as density*section area*velocity. if the exiting section area is smaller than the one in which the flows enters to have equal mass flow u need a greater velocity at the exit.
so the fluid accelerates trough the volume, so it's changing it's momentum.
where do u see the intervention of external mass to the flow?
Btw actually thing are more complicated, especially in supersonic regime, but the basic principle is this one
Let's get to the core of this Sceptimatic. Do you think that a gas is composed of particles boing around in all directions?No I don't. Not loosely like you think.
Trying to put Gulliver inside a Gulliver sized cardboard box is only going to create the exact same circumstances.
A Saturn F-1 rocket engine burns 2,578 kg of fuel + oxidiser PER SECOND. That is emitted from the engine nozzle at about 2,600 m/s.
Do a few sums and you will find that the momentum of ONE SECONDS exhaust is around 6.83 MNs. Since force is rate of change of momentum, that is equivalent to a force of 6.83 MN or about 696,000 kg. This is about right for the F-1 engine, and does NOT depend on the atmosphere one little bit (only conservation of momentum - pretty basic!) In fact if you do a more exact analysis the total static thrust is HIGHER for a LOWER ambient pressure!
OK, you say the rocket cannot push on NOTHING, I guess you are right, BUT it is pushing on a MASSIVE amount (2,578 kg/sec) of burnt fuel coming out the back REAL FAST (2,600 m/s). Right at the exit of the rocket there is no longer a vacuum - the gas cannot escape at infinite speed! It is leaving at around 2,600 m/s (randomised by thermal velocities). So you the rocket temporarily destroys the vacuum immediately behind the rocket nozzle - after that - as a certain rocket scientist said "WHO CARES?" - mind you a lot of people in London and Antwerp cared a lot!
A Saturn F-1 is of course not designed for optimum performance in a vacuum, but that is not the slightest reason for it NOT working.
Of course for all the pedants among you know that even outer space is NOT a vacuum. There is probably nowhere with less than 1 hydrogen atom/m^3 and above 50 mile or so altitude the pressure is low enough to not have any further effect on thrust.
i would say completly different results.what if the astronaut pushes with his feet against the close end of the box while his head is pointend toward the opened part of the container?Seriously have a think about what you're saying.
Feet pushing or head pushing; the same result stands. No advancement in work done, except simply cancelling each other out.
If you want to use this mass in space stuff then you carry on. All it does is deprives you of your rational thought on this stuff.i would say completly different results.what if the astronaut pushes with his feet against the close end of the box while his head is pointend toward the opened part of the container?Seriously have a think about what you're saying.
Feet pushing or head pushing; the same result stands. No advancement in work done, except simply cancelling each other out.
feet moving toward the close end all another story...
the container has a mass so an inertia and so has the astronauts.
these means that stretching his legs, the center of mass of the container and the one of the astronaut are moving, so they're accelerating. this acceleration is given by an external force(F=m*a) and for the container this force is the reaction with the feet while for the astronaut is the reaction with the container.
astronaut and the container will separate going in opposite direction.
since u're are soo attached to "it's only one body" here is a version that explains even under those hypotesis.
considering container as one single body composed of 2 elements.
conservation of momentum states that since the body is still it's momentum should remain zero without external force applied.
motion of the body is defined through the motion of it's center of mass
momentum =0 so no motion so center of mass always in the same position.
practical example, container and astronaut have the same mass. if u take them apart moving the astronaut and the container in the same manner but in opposite direction is esay to see that the center of mass of the body(which is composed by the mass of the container and the astronaut) is always in the same position. so even if the astronaut and the container are now apart the total momentum of your body is still equal zero.
Using mass in space is using gravity and yet in your space there is none or micro gravity as the bullshit states.
And to use that force requires leverage in order to accomplish it. Where do you get that from in your space?
Using mass in space is using gravity and yet in your space there is none or micro gravity as the bullshit states.
nope, using mass in space means using the inertia of a body with mass. which in practical is its tendency to resist a change in its velocity.
if u wanna move a cup in complete vacuum u still need a force cause of it's inertia.
Get your terms right.And to use that force requires leverage in order to accomplish it. Where do you get that from in your space?
Using mass in space is using gravity and yet in your space there is none or micro gravity as the bullshit states.
nope, using mass in space means using the inertia of a body with mass. which in practical is its tendency to resist a change in its velocity.
if u wanna move a cup in complete vacuum u still need a force cause of it's inertia.
Let's get to the core of this Sceptimatic. Do you think that a gas is composed of particles boing around in all directions?Yes, when you say "Let's get to the core of this Sceptimatic.", you really hit the nail on the head! You got this response "Gas particles are compressed and move about under compression and expansion due to agitation/friction. They are all connected. There are no unattached particles."
Let's get to the core of this Sceptimatic. Do you think that a gas is composed of particles boing around in all directions?No I don't. Not loosely like you think.
Gas particles are compressed and move about under compression and expansion due to agitation/friction. They are all connected. There are no unattached particles.
Let's get to the core of this Sceptimatic. Do you think that a gas is composed of particles boing around in all directions?No I don't. Not loosely like you think.
Gas particles are compressed and move about under compression and expansion due to agitation/friction. They are all connected. There are no unattached particles.
Hopefully this time my explanation gets through...Explain about this electric piston and base? what do you mean by base?
Imagine we had an electric piston in space, with infinite energy from solar power. Now, do you agree that if we extend the piston, the base and the piston rod will both move in opposite directions?
Scientifically proven as in what?Let's get to the core of this Sceptimatic. Do you think that a gas is composed of particles boing around in all directions?No I don't. Not loosely like you think.
Gas particles are compressed and move about under compression and expansion due to agitation/friction. They are all connected. There are no unattached particles.
So you don't accept the scientifically proven composition of matter and how it behaves. No wonder you don't think rockets work.
Density by compression of molecules.Let's get to the core of this Sceptimatic. Do you think that a gas is composed of particles boing around in all directions?No I don't. Not loosely like you think.
Gas particles are compressed and move about under compression and expansion due to agitation/friction. They are all connected. There are no unattached particles.
So then, what is the difference between a gas and a liquid?
It is simple. We have a box or something housing the piston rod, this housing is what I call the base. The piston rod is, well, the rod being pushed out of the housing. It is electrically driven, as it will make my explanation easier later on. Is it clear enough?Hopefully this time my explanation gets through...Explain about this electric piston and base? what do you mean by base?
Imagine we had an electric piston in space, with infinite energy from solar power. Now, do you agree that if we extend the piston, the base and the piston rod will both move in opposite directions?
Density by compression of molecules.Let's get to the core of this Sceptimatic. Do you think that a gas is composed of particles boing around in all directions?No I don't. Not loosely like you think.
Gas particles are compressed and move about under compression and expansion due to agitation/friction. They are all connected. There are no unattached particles.
So then, what is the difference between a gas and a liquid?
So according to u liquid and gas are not differentiated by the strength of the bond between molecules but only by their density?That depends on what you mean by strength of bond between molecules and how it happens. I have my own thoughts on this.
This does also apply to liquid solid difference?
Is the piston attached to the box?...explain it all because you're not making sense.It is simple. We have a box or something housing the piston rod, this housing is what I call the base. The piston rod is, well, the rod being pushed out of the housing. It is electrically driven, as it will make my explanation easier later on. Is it clear enough?Hopefully this time my explanation gets through...Explain about this electric piston and base? what do you mean by base?
Imagine we had an electric piston in space, with infinite energy from solar power. Now, do you agree that if we extend the piston, the base and the piston rod will both move in opposite directions?
How long is a piece of string? It depends on density by compression of those molecules/matter as to how small (compressed) or large (expanded) they become.Density by compression of molecules.Let's get to the core of this Sceptimatic. Do you think that a gas is composed of particles boing around in all directions?No I don't. Not loosely like you think.
Gas particles are compressed and move about under compression and expansion due to agitation/friction. They are all connected. There are no unattached particles.
So then, what is the difference between a gas and a liquid?
Do molecules have a minimum size?
*sigh* I don't know why it's this hard to understand:Is the piston attached to the box?...explain it all because you're not making sense.It is simple. We have a box or something housing the piston rod, this housing is what I call the base. The piston rod is, well, the rod being pushed out of the housing. It is electrically driven, as it will make my explanation easier later on. Is it clear enough?Hopefully this time my explanation gets through...Explain about this electric piston and base? what do you mean by base?
Imagine we had an electric piston in space, with infinite energy from solar power. Now, do you agree that if we extend the piston, the base and the piston rod will both move in opposite directions?
I'll help you out.
There is a box. Now tell me about your electrically driven piston inside this box and how the piston works in that box.
How long is a piece of string? It depends on density by compression of those molecules/matter as to how small (compressed) or large (expanded) they become.Density by compression of molecules.Let's get to the core of this Sceptimatic. Do you think that a gas is composed of particles boing around in all directions?No I don't. Not loosely like you think.
Gas particles are compressed and move about under compression and expansion due to agitation/friction. They are all connected. There are no unattached particles.
So then, what is the difference between a gas and a liquid?
Do molecules have a minimum size?
We have nothing that can prove how small they get because we simply cannot see them as singular.
Is it safe to assume that you believe that liquids are more dense than gasses and that solids are more dense than liquids?Density by compression of molecules.Let's get to the core of this Sceptimatic. Do you think that a gas is composed of particles boing around in all directions?No I don't. Not loosely like you think.
Gas particles are compressed and move about under compression and expansion due to agitation/friction. They are all connected. There are no unattached particles.
So then, what is the difference between a gas and a liquid?
You can have everything you can observe. It's just knowing how it works and your mindset is on there being free space between molecules. It's impossible.How long is a piece of string? It depends on density by compression of those molecules/matter as to how small (compressed) or large (expanded) they become.Density by compression of molecules.Let's get to the core of this Sceptimatic. Do you think that a gas is composed of particles boing around in all directions?No I don't. Not loosely like you think.
Gas particles are compressed and move about under compression and expansion due to agitation/friction. They are all connected. There are no unattached particles.
So then, what is the difference between a gas and a liquid?
Do molecules have a minimum size?
We have nothing that can prove how small they get because we simply cannot see them as singular.
Your model falls over in so many ways. If there are no gaps between molecules then you cannot have dissolution, diffusion, adsorption, permeability, Brownian motion, convection, crystals, Gold Leaf experiment, Alpha and Beta radiation and many others....
Your model falls over in so many ways.
You can have everything you can observe. It's just knowing how it works and your mindset is on there being free space between molecules. It's impossible.How long is a piece of string? It depends on density by compression of those molecules/matter as to how small (compressed) or large (expanded) they become.Density by compression of molecules.Let's get to the core of this Sceptimatic. Do you think that a gas is composed of particles boing around in all directions?No I don't. Not loosely like you think.
Gas particles are compressed and move about under compression and expansion due to agitation/friction. They are all connected. There are no unattached particles.
So then, what is the difference between a gas and a liquid?
Do molecules have a minimum size?
We have nothing that can prove how small they get because we simply cannot see them as singular.
Your model falls over in so many ways. If there are no gaps between molecules then you cannot have dissolution, diffusion, adsorption, permeability, Brownian motion, convection, crystals, Gold Leaf experiment, Alpha and Beta radiation and many others....
Your model falls over in so many ways.
Why is it impossible?Because nature abhors a vacuum and that is exactly what free space between your matter would be - and we know that it is impossible no matter how much you want it to be true.
Why do ships float on water?...answer, because they are filled with air. Same goes for solids of any kind floating on a liquid.Is it safe to assume that you believe that liquids are more dense than gasses and that solids are more dense than liquids?Density by compression of molecules.Let's get to the core of this Sceptimatic. Do you think that a gas is composed of particles boing around in all directions?No I don't. Not loosely like you think.
Gas particles are compressed and move about under compression and expansion due to agitation/friction. They are all connected. There are no unattached particles.
So then, what is the difference between a gas and a liquid?
If so, then why do some solids float in some liquids (i.e., ice floating in water)?
Ships float because they displace their weight in water. If they can't they sink.Why do ships float on water?...answer, because they are filled with air. Same goes for solids of any kind floating on a liquid.Is it safe to assume that you believe that liquids are more dense than gasses and that solids are more dense than liquids?Density by compression of molecules.Let's get to the core of this Sceptimatic. Do you think that a gas is composed of particles boing around in all directions?No I don't. Not loosely like you think.
Gas particles are compressed and move about under compression and expansion due to agitation/friction. They are all connected. There are no unattached particles.
So then, what is the difference between a gas and a liquid?
If so, then why do some solids float in some liquids (i.e., ice floating in water)?
That depends on what kind of shop it is. Sweet shops float better than antique shops.Shops float because they displace their weight in water. If they can't they sink.Why do ships float on water?...answer, because they are filled with air. Same goes for solids of any kind floating on a liquid.Is it safe to assume that you believe that liquids are more dense than gasses and that solids are more dense than liquids?Density by compression of molecules.Let's get to the core of this Sceptimatic. Do you think that a gas is composed of particles boing around in all directions?No I don't. Not loosely like you think.
Gas particles are compressed and move about under compression and expansion due to agitation/friction. They are all connected. There are no unattached particles.
So then, what is the difference between a gas and a liquid?
If so, then why do some solids float in some liquids (i.e., ice floating in water)?
Why you running away from my questions? Going to go cry to your mommy again like last time?No, I'm not running away. I'm must laughing at you being the total dummy, pretending you're a chemist. ;D
" mommy mommy the educated chemist used chemistry to disprive all my retarded claims and now I have nothing"
I already know you have no answers.
*sigh* I don't know why it's this hard to understand:Is the piston attached to the box?...explain it all because you're not making sense.It is simple. We have a box or something housing the piston rod, this housing is what I call the base. The piston rod is, well, the rod being pushed out of the housing. It is electrically driven, as it will make my explanation easier later on. Is it clear enough?Hopefully this time my explanation gets through...Explain about this electric piston and base? what do you mean by base?
Imagine we had an electric piston in space, with infinite energy from solar power. Now, do you agree that if we extend the piston, the base and the piston rod will both move in opposite directions?
I'll help you out.
There is a box. Now tell me about your electrically driven piston inside this box and how the piston works in that box.
http://pasteboard.co/2Cyeg83S.png (http://pasteboard.co/2Cyeg83S.png)
(The picture doesn't want to work using (img)http://pasteboard.co/2Cyeg83S.png(/img)(I replaced the ] with ) here.)
You're not explaining what's supposed to be happening and how it proves space rocket movement.*sigh* I don't know why it's this hard to understand:Is the piston attached to the box?...explain it all because you're not making sense.It is simple. We have a box or something housing the piston rod, this housing is what I call the base. The piston rod is, well, the rod being pushed out of the housing. It is electrically driven, as it will make my explanation easier later on. Is it clear enough?Hopefully this time my explanation gets through...Explain about this electric piston and base? what do you mean by base?
Imagine we had an electric piston in space, with infinite energy from solar power. Now, do you agree that if we extend the piston, the base and the piston rod will both move in opposite directions?
I'll help you out.
There is a box. Now tell me about your electrically driven piston inside this box and how the piston works in that box.
http://pasteboard.co/2Cyeg83S.png (http://pasteboard.co/2Cyeg83S.png)
(The picture doesn't want to work using (img)http://pasteboard.co/2Cyeg83S.png(/img)(I replaced the ] with ) here.)
Running away, sceptimatic?
DestroyedWhy you running away from my questions? Going to go cry to your mommy again like last time?No, I'm not running away. I'm must laughing at you being the total dummy, pretending you're a chemist. ;D
" mommy mommy the educated chemist used chemistry to disprive all my retarded claims and now I have nothing"
I already know you have no answers.
What does disprive mean?
Why is it impossible?Because nature abhors a vacuum and that is exactly what free space between your matter would be - and we know that it is impossible no matter how much you want it to be true.
But ice does not have any air in it. Ice floats in water because ice is less dense than water.Is it safe to assume that you believe that liquids are more dense than gasses and that solids are more dense than liquids?Why do ships float on water?...answer, because they are filled with air. Same goes for solids of any kind floating on a liquid.
If so, then why do some solids float in some liquids (i.e., ice floating in water)?
I think Sceptimatic has finally won. Who can argue with a theory like that and keep a straight face - lucky my Webcam is locked out!Back on Dec 3 I admitted Sceptimatic finally had won the argument, and nobody listened.
I suppose he has numerous peer reviewed papers (I would suggest Miles Mathis as a possible referee - seems just up his "π = 4" alley) describing how all the observed gas properties are derived from this model. Probably worthy of a Nobel Prize! (edited)
I think Sceptimatic has finally won. Who can argue with a theory like that and keep a straight face - lucky my Webcam is locked out!Back on Dec 3 I admitted Sceptimatic finally had won the argument, and nobody listened.
I suppose he has numerous peer reviewed papers (I would suggest Miles Mathis as a possible referee - seems just up his "π = 4" alley) describing how all the observed gas properties are derived from this model. Probably worthy of a Nobel Prize! (edited)
Arguing with a slimy eel is one thing, but one that speaks an entirely different language is quite impossible. At my age I might be able to pick up a little French (like "Comment une molιcule peut κtre gros comme une maison?"), but advanced Gobbledegook is really beyond me. Count me out!
Back in the OP Papa Legba posted "Newton, Joules & Thomson will be spinning in their graves at such nonsense, but I guess these cultists are too satanically brainwashed to comprehend how basic scientific principles work...
Whatever; knock yourselves out, psychos!"
Well, after Sceptimatic's demolishing of the Kinetic Theory of Gases, there will be enough spinning in graves to cause an earthquake, pity these poor folk, such a lot of wasted effort:
Bernoulli, Gay-Lussac, Clausius, Maxwell, Loschmidt, Boltzmann, Lord Kelvin, Lorentz and Gibbs. Maybe Poincare would have had a little sympathy with Sceptimatic.
Just why didn't we have someone of Sceptimatic's brilliance teamed with Papa Legba's stubbornness come into the world in time to save these folk from such foolishness? And, of course, all the rocket engineers for thinking their rockets might work.
Just as well the rockets themselves are so ignorant of Sceptimatic's theories that they just carry on working.
Quite, just as idiotic as the OP from Papa Legba and the "hypotheses" that Sceptimatic sprouts!Just why didn't we have someone of Sceptimatic's brilliance teamed with Papa Legba's stubbornness come into the world in time to save these folk from such foolishness? And, of course, all the rocket engineers for thinking their rockets might work.What an idiotic post. Is it supposed to be clever?
Just as well the rockets themselves are so ignorant of Sceptimatic's theories that they just carry on working.
Quite, just as idiotic as the OP from Papa Legba and the "hypotheses" that Sceptimatic sprouts!Just why didn't we have someone of Sceptimatic's brilliance teamed with Papa Legba's stubbornness come into the world in time to save these folk from such foolishness? And, of course, all the rocket engineers for thinking their rockets might work.What an idiotic post. Is it supposed to be clever?
Just as well the rockets themselves are so ignorant of Sceptimatic's theories that they just carry on working.
Really, how are we to take Papa Legba's OP that states:
"Here is a thread for satanic sci-fi cultists to post photos/videos of people on skateboards that they think somehow prove that rockets will function in a vacuum. .... Whatever; knock yourselves out, psychos!"
Stating outright that any who disagrees is a "satanic sci-fi cultist" and a "psycho".
Yes I call it idiotic to expect a rational argument after that!
To win an argument with an idiot is impossible.
Momentum, conservation of.
The end.
Turn off the lights and lock the thread.
Funny that; because I know of no 'engineer' who does not understand that if no motion can be produced, then all talk of momentum is irrelevant.I know of no engineer who thinks that rockets can't work in a vacuum
Nor do I know of any 'engineer' who is unaware that back-pressure is impossible to sustain in an infinite vacuum.How many 'engineers' do you actually know?
But then again, all the 'engineers' I know are people who make Engines.Do any of those 'engineers' make rocket engines or jet engines?
Mathematical smatterers like computer programmers do not count.??? Are you saying that engineers don't use maths or computers? Do you even know what engineering is?
I know of no engineer who thinks that rockets can't work in a vacuum
I'd like to meet some of these "genuine engineers" that you're talking to.I know of no engineer who thinks that rockets can't work in a vacuum
Funny that, cos every single genuine engineer I've talked to on the subject has said 'Yeah; good point' before just getting on with their lives...
Because - unlikely as it may seem to you psychopathic shpayze-tards - NOBODY CARES ABOUT THE SHAPE OF THE EARTH OR WHAT HAPPENS IN SPACE.Aerospace engineers care.
Aerospace engineers care.
Like these? https://jobs.boeing.comAerospace engineers care.
INCORRECT.
Funny that; because I know of no 'engineer' who does not understand that if no motion can be produced, then all talk of momentum is irrelevant.
Nor do I know of any 'engineer' who is unaware that back-pressure is impossible to sustain in an infinite vacuum.
Funny that; because I know of no 'engineer' who does not understand that if no motion can be produced, then all talk of momentum is irrelevant.No motion is produced? Hmm, that's a new one.
Nor do I know of any 'engineer' who is unaware that back-pressure is impossible to sustain in an infinite vacuum.I'm sure you don't know many 'engineers'.
But then again, all the 'engineers' I know are people who make Engines.Well, most of the engineers that I know, don't make engines. Some design them, but not many make them.
Mathematical smatterers like computer programmers do not count.No, my idea of engineering is graduating magna cum laude with a Bachelor of Science degree in mechanical engineering. Then getting a job as a rocket scientist. Well, technically, as a missile scientist.
Here is your idea of 'engineering': 11000110100111011010110110100110100001001101010...
But hey; if REAL engineering & physics offends you, just 'lock the thread & turn off the lights', eh?Yep. If I had had my mod powers restored at the time I would have locked the thread. But, alas, we are 36 pages deep into this now.
Cos that wouldn't be either censorship or trolling or just plain ignorance, would it... 'Engy Baby'?No, no and no.
Hey, 'Engy'; WHERE ARE YOU?I solved the problem on the first page. I figured you idiots would like to argue again for another 200 pages.
Yeah; still waiting for that 'cool calm logical moderation', Mr. 'Engineer'My moderation is far from cool or calm. I prefer to be dictatorial and arrogant.
*sigh*...You're not explaining what's supposed to be happening and how it proves space rocket movement.*sigh* I don't know why it's this hard to understand:Is the piston attached to the box?...explain it all because you're not making sense.It is simple. We have a box or something housing the piston rod, this housing is what I call the base. The piston rod is, well, the rod being pushed out of the housing. It is electrically driven, as it will make my explanation easier later on. Is it clear enough?Hopefully this time my explanation gets through...Explain about this electric piston and base? what do you mean by base?
Imagine we had an electric piston in space, with infinite energy from solar power. Now, do you agree that if we extend the piston, the base and the piston rod will both move in opposite directions?
I'll help you out.
There is a box. Now tell me about your electrically driven piston inside this box and how the piston works in that box.
http://pasteboard.co/2Cyeg83S.png (http://pasteboard.co/2Cyeg83S.png)
(The picture doesn't want to work using (img)http://pasteboard.co/2Cyeg83S.png(/img)(I replaced the ] with ) here.)
Running away, sceptimatic?
Make some sense because you're losing me.*sigh*...You're not explaining what's supposed to be happening and how it proves space rocket movement.*sigh* I don't know why it's this hard to understand:Is the piston attached to the box?...explain it all because you're not making sense.It is simple. We have a box or something housing the piston rod, this housing is what I call the base. The piston rod is, well, the rod being pushed out of the housing. It is electrically driven, as it will make my explanation easier later on. Is it clear enough?Hopefully this time my explanation gets through...Explain about this electric piston and base? what do you mean by base?
Imagine we had an electric piston in space, with infinite energy from solar power. Now, do you agree that if we extend the piston, the base and the piston rod will both move in opposite directions?
I'll help you out.
There is a box. Now tell me about your electrically driven piston inside this box and how the piston works in that box.
http://pasteboard.co/2Cyeg83S.png (http://pasteboard.co/2Cyeg83S.png)
(The picture doesn't want to work using (img)http://pasteboard.co/2Cyeg83S.png(/img)(I replaced the ] with ) here.)
Running away, sceptimatic?
I have not gotten there yet, idiot. Now, are able to imagine that we have a piston like the one I on the picture that is in space?
Okay, another question I have to ask first: are you able to use your imagination? If not, then I can't possibly explain this to you.Make some sense because you're losing me.*sigh*...You're not explaining what's supposed to be happening and how it proves space rocket movement.*sigh* I don't know why it's this hard to understand:Is the piston attached to the box?...explain it all because you're not making sense.It is simple. We have a box or something housing the piston rod, this housing is what I call the base. The piston rod is, well, the rod being pushed out of the housing. It is electrically driven, as it will make my explanation easier later on. Is it clear enough?Hopefully this time my explanation gets through...Explain about this electric piston and base? what do you mean by base?
Imagine we had an electric piston in space, with infinite energy from solar power. Now, do you agree that if we extend the piston, the base and the piston rod will both move in opposite directions?
I'll help you out.
There is a box. Now tell me about your electrically driven piston inside this box and how the piston works in that box.
http://pasteboard.co/2Cyeg83S.png (http://pasteboard.co/2Cyeg83S.png)
(The picture doesn't want to work using (img)http://pasteboard.co/2Cyeg83S.png(/img)(I replaced the ] with ) here.)
Running away, sceptimatic?
I have not gotten there yet, idiot. Now, are able to imagine that we have a piston like the one I on the picture that is in space?
Just get on with it,, or don't. Either way is fine by me.Okay, another question I have to ask first: are you able to use your imagination? If not, then I can't possibly explain this to you.Make some sense because you're losing me.*sigh*...You're not explaining what's supposed to be happening and how it proves space rocket movement.*sigh* I don't know why it's this hard to understand:Is the piston attached to the box?...explain it all because you're not making sense.It is simple. We have a box or something housing the piston rod, this housing is what I call the base. The piston rod is, well, the rod being pushed out of the housing. It is electrically driven, as it will make my explanation easier later on. Is it clear enough?Hopefully this time my explanation gets through...Explain about this electric piston and base? what do you mean by base?
Imagine we had an electric piston in space, with infinite energy from solar power. Now, do you agree that if we extend the piston, the base and the piston rod will both move in opposite directions?
I'll help you out.
There is a box. Now tell me about your electrically driven piston inside this box and how the piston works in that box.
http://pasteboard.co/2Cyeg83S.png (http://pasteboard.co/2Cyeg83S.png)
(The picture doesn't want to work using (img)http://pasteboard.co/2Cyeg83S.png(/img)(I replaced the ] with ) here.)
Running away, sceptimatic?
I have not gotten there yet, idiot. Now, are able to imagine that we have a piston like the one I on the picture that is in space?
Just get on with it,, or don't. Either way is fine by me.Imagine that there is a piston in space that function like I told you earlier. Now, if we extend this piston, both the piston base and the piston rod will move apart from each other, right?
Well...
Ever seen FAIL videos where people get slammed in the face by the gun after firing a shot? That's caused by conservation of momentum.
The force that the explosion used on the bullet has an equal and opposite reaction force back towards the gun.
That's why the gum slams back.
The same CoM applies in vacuum where if you fire a bullet, you would physically be pushed back because you are not attached to anything, so the movement will actually be more significant in space.
Imagine the gas rocket as a huge gun firing trillions of gas particles into space, although each pushes the spaceship the opposite direction a tiny amount, together they make it move.
(And yes I know guns don't work in space cuz there's no oxygen and explosion and stuff, but I'm just using it as an example.)
EDIT:
Actually guns can work in space cuz they come with their own oxydiser, as it turns out ;)
http://www.livescience.com/18588-shoot-gun-space.html (http://www.livescience.com/18588-shoot-gun-space.html)
[/quote
There is no recoil until the bullet leaves the barrel, thus proving papa post.
I don't know what you mean by piston base.Just get on with it,, or don't. Either way is fine by me.Imagine that there is a piston in space that function like I told you earlier. Now, if we extend this piston, both the piston base and the piston rod will move apart from each other, right?
I don't know what you mean by piston base.Just get on with it,, or don't. Either way is fine by me.Imagine that there is a piston in space that function like I told you earlier. Now, if we extend this piston, both the piston base and the piston rod will move apart from each other, right?
Fully describe what you're saying so it becomes clear.
Ok, so the electric motors push the piston and the housing apart from each other.I don't know what you mean by piston base.Just get on with it,, or don't. Either way is fine by me.Imagine that there is a piston in space that function like I told you earlier. Now, if we extend this piston, both the piston base and the piston rod will move apart from each other, right?
Fully describe what you're saying so it becomes clear.
I posted a fucking picture. Look at it.
http://pasteboard.co/2Cyeg83S.png (http://pasteboard.co/2Cyeg83S.png)
Well...FAIL!
Ever seen FAIL videos where people get slammed in the face by the gun after firing a shot? That's caused by conservation of momentum.
The force that the explosion used on the bullet has an equal and opposite reaction force back towards the gun.
That's why the gum slams back.
The same CoM applies in vacuum where if you fire a bullet, you would physically be pushed back because you are not attached to anything, so the movement will actually be more significant in space.
Imagine the gas rocket as a huge gun firing trillions of gas particles into space, although each pushes the spaceship the opposite direction a tiny amount, together they make it move.
(And yes I know guns don't work in space cuz there's no oxygen and explosion and stuff, but I'm just using it as an example.)
EDIT:
Actually guns can work in space cuz they come with their own oxydiser, as it turns out ;)
http://www.livescience.com/18588-shoot-gun-space.html (http://www.livescience.com/18588-shoot-gun-space.html)
[/quote
There is no recoil until the bullet leaves the barrel, thus proving papa post.
Well, NO! The recoil starts as soon as the bullet starts accelerating! Leaving the barrel has no particular significance. What that does to poor Papa is really not my problem.
Now, imagine that on this housing we had an automated piece of machinery that, after the piston has extended, could weld an extra piece to the piston so it could extend further. This would also push the housing further, although as it is more massive it won't be pushed as much. Doesn't sound impossible, right? Then, imagine that we also had a piece of machinery that could melt down material from a reserve and mold it into new pieces, that could be welded onto the piston. So we can extend the piston really far now, but the housing is pretty heavy when it is fully loaded so it won't get pushed far. But, as it get's emptied and the piston gets more massive, it will start being pushed more, right?Ok, so the electric motors push the piston and the housing apart from each other.I don't know what you mean by piston base.Just get on with it,, or don't. Either way is fine by me.Imagine that there is a piston in space that function like I told you earlier. Now, if we extend this piston, both the piston base and the piston rod will move apart from each other, right?
Fully describe what you're saying so it becomes clear.
I posted a fucking picture. Look at it.
http://pasteboard.co/2Cyeg83S.png (http://pasteboard.co/2Cyeg83S.png)
Ok fair enough, now what?
I honestly have no clue what you're getting at. I've already explained what would happen so welding bits on to whatever isn't going to change anything.Now, imagine that on this housing we had an automated piece of machinery that, after the piston has extended, could weld an extra piece to the piston so it could extend further. This would also push the housing further, although as it is more massive it won't be pushed as much. Doesn't sound impossible, right? Then, imagine that we also had a piece of machinery that could melt down material from a reserve and mold it into new pieces, that could be welded onto the piston. So we can extend the piston really far now, but the housing is pretty heavy when it is fully loaded so it won't get pushed far. But, as it get's emptied and the piston gets more massive, it will start being pushed more, right?Ok, so the electric motors push the piston and the housing apart from each other.I don't know what you mean by piston base.Just get on with it,, or don't. Either way is fine by me.Imagine that there is a piston in space that function like I told you earlier. Now, if we extend this piston, both the piston base and the piston rod will move apart from each other, right?
Fully describe what you're saying so it becomes clear.
I posted a fucking picture. Look at it.
http://pasteboard.co/2Cyeg83S.png (http://pasteboard.co/2Cyeg83S.png)
Ok fair enough, now what?
I am not done yet, so please stop evading. Do you agree with what I have written so far, and can you imagine it?I honestly have no clue what you're getting at. I've already explained what would happen so welding bits on to whatever isn't going to change anything.Now, imagine that on this housing we had an automated piece of machinery that, after the piston has extended, could weld an extra piece to the piston so it could extend further. This would also push the housing further, although as it is more massive it won't be pushed as much. Doesn't sound impossible, right? Then, imagine that we also had a piece of machinery that could melt down material from a reserve and mold it into new pieces, that could be welded onto the piston. So we can extend the piston really far now, but the housing is pretty heavy when it is fully loaded so it won't get pushed far. But, as it get's emptied and the piston gets more massive, it will start being pushed more, right?Ok, so the electric motors push the piston and the housing apart from each other.I don't know what you mean by piston base.Just get on with it,, or don't. Either way is fine by me.Imagine that there is a piston in space that function like I told you earlier. Now, if we extend this piston, both the piston base and the piston rod will move apart from each other, right?
Fully describe what you're saying so it becomes clear.
I posted a fucking picture. Look at it.
http://pasteboard.co/2Cyeg83S.png (http://pasteboard.co/2Cyeg83S.png)
Ok fair enough, now what?
No I can't. It makes no real sense.I am not done yet, so please stop evading. Do you agree with what I have written so far, and can you imagine it?I honestly have no clue what you're getting at. I've already explained what would happen so welding bits on to whatever isn't going to change anything.Now, imagine that on this housing we had an automated piece of machinery that, after the piston has extended, could weld an extra piece to the piston so it could extend further. This would also push the housing further, although as it is more massive it won't be pushed as much. Doesn't sound impossible, right? Then, imagine that we also had a piece of machinery that could melt down material from a reserve and mold it into new pieces, that could be welded onto the piston. So we can extend the piston really far now, but the housing is pretty heavy when it is fully loaded so it won't get pushed far. But, as it get's emptied and the piston gets more massive, it will start being pushed more, right?Ok, so the electric motors push the piston and the housing apart from each other.I don't know what you mean by piston base.Just get on with it,, or don't. Either way is fine by me.Imagine that there is a piston in space that function like I told you earlier. Now, if we extend this piston, both the piston base and the piston rod will move apart from each other, right?
Fully describe what you're saying so it becomes clear.
I posted a fucking picture. Look at it.
http://pasteboard.co/2Cyeg83S.png (http://pasteboard.co/2Cyeg83S.png)
Ok fair enough, now what?
Yup, it's exactly like the spaghetti thing you brought up. Obviously you could imagine that spaghetti thing, so you definitely can imagine it. We have a machinery like the one I am describing. Now, does it work as I have told you? If not, explain why.No I can't. It makes no real sense.I am not done yet, so please stop evading. Do you agree with what I have written so far, and can you imagine it?I honestly have no clue what you're getting at. I've already explained what would happen so welding bits on to whatever isn't going to change anything.Now, imagine that on this housing we had an automated piece of machinery that, after the piston has extended, could weld an extra piece to the piston so it could extend further. This would also push the housing further, although as it is more massive it won't be pushed as much. Doesn't sound impossible, right? Then, imagine that we also had a piece of machinery that could melt down material from a reserve and mold it into new pieces, that could be welded onto the piston. So we can extend the piston really far now, but the housing is pretty heavy when it is fully loaded so it won't get pushed far. But, as it get's emptied and the piston gets more massive, it will start being pushed more, right?Ok, so the electric motors push the piston and the housing apart from each other.I don't know what you mean by piston base.Just get on with it,, or don't. Either way is fine by me.Imagine that there is a piston in space that function like I told you earlier. Now, if we extend this piston, both the piston base and the piston rod will move apart from each other, right?
Fully describe what you're saying so it becomes clear.
I posted a fucking picture. Look at it.
http://pasteboard.co/2Cyeg83S.png (http://pasteboard.co/2Cyeg83S.png)
Ok fair enough, now what?
It's like me telling to imagine that I've pushed some spaghetti through a tube and then added another strand to the back of it, then another, etc. It makes no rational sense to do what you're saying.
You need to go for another analogy.
Regardless of what you've said, you are not moving anywhere except against each object.Yup, it's exactly like the spaghetti thing you brought up. Obviously you could imagine that spaghetti thing, so you definitely can imagine it. We have a machinery like the one I am describing. Now, does it work as I have told you? If not, explain why.No I can't. It makes no real sense.I am not done yet, so please stop evading. Do you agree with what I have written so far, and can you imagine it?I honestly have no clue what you're getting at. I've already explained what would happen so welding bits on to whatever isn't going to change anything.Now, imagine that on this housing we had an automated piece of machinery that, after the piston has extended, could weld an extra piece to the piston so it could extend further. This would also push the housing further, although as it is more massive it won't be pushed as much. Doesn't sound impossible, right? Then, imagine that we also had a piece of machinery that could melt down material from a reserve and mold it into new pieces, that could be welded onto the piston. So we can extend the piston really far now, but the housing is pretty heavy when it is fully loaded so it won't get pushed far. But, as it get's emptied and the piston gets more massive, it will start being pushed more, right?Ok, so the electric motors push the piston and the housing apart from each other.I don't know what you mean by piston base.Just get on with it,, or don't. Either way is fine by me.Imagine that there is a piston in space that function like I told you earlier. Now, if we extend this piston, both the piston base and the piston rod will move apart from each other, right?
Fully describe what you're saying so it becomes clear.
I posted a fucking picture. Look at it.
http://pasteboard.co/2Cyeg83S.png (http://pasteboard.co/2Cyeg83S.png)
Ok fair enough, now what?
It's like me telling to imagine that I've pushed some spaghetti through a tube and then added another strand to the back of it, then another, etc. It makes no rational sense to do what you're saying.
You need to go for another analogy.
So you push against him and he pushes against you. What you see are both of your arms outstretching and that's your lot.Are you suggesting that if you and a sumo kicked away from each other as hard as you possibly could the both of you would instantly stop moving away from each other as you lost physical contact?
You end up fingertip to fingertip with no more movement because the only leverage you both has was counteracting both your bodies.
You can't push hard or soft in your space. You have no leverage to do so. You go nowhere.QuoteSo you push against him and he pushes against you. What you see are both of your arms outstretching and that's your lot.Are you suggesting that if you and a sumo kicked away from each other as hard as you possibly could the both of you would instantly stop moving away from each other as you lost physical contact?
You end up fingertip to fingertip with no more movement because the only leverage you both has was counteracting both your bodies.
So if I shot a bullet in space, would the bullet go from 600m/s to 0m/s the instant it left the barrel?
This is neither intuitive or correct according to all of physics.
There is no arguing against that. Not because I believe you to be correct, it is just be pointless to argue against a (presumably) adult who does not believe in physics.Well, you stick to what you believe and I'll do likewise. No hard feelings, so you also have a great day.
Hope you have a great day :)
it's mass that is acted on it by atmospheric pressure.
Mass is ACTED on by atmospheric pressure.it's mass that is acted on it by atmospheric pressure.
Mass is given by atmospheric pressure?
What do u mean by "pressure acts on mass"?Your body is being squeezed. All objects are. They are being squeezed by atmospheric pressure upon the mass.
What do u mean by "pressure acts on mass"?Your body is being squeezed. All objects are. They are being squeezed by atmospheric pressure upon the mass.
Basically it's denpressure but we won't argue that point, we will stick to nothing working in the space that people are told about.
*Bunch of shit not in anyway related to my analogy*
Let's leave it at that. No further comments needed between us.What do u mean by "pressure acts on mass"?Your body is being squeezed. All objects are. They are being squeezed by atmospheric pressure upon the mass.
Basically it's denpressure but we won't argue that point, we will stick to nothing working in the space that people are told about.
First of all by definition pressure acts upon a surface.
Second if denpressure is the same thing thebigone was talking about it is nonsense.
Third people are not told that nothing works in space, cause many things work in space. Example rocket, and all the equipment on board satellites and iss
Fourth, did u attend highschool? U seem lacking the basic concept of physics and chemistry
If you're going to go the same way as earlier then let's close this and leave it. It's not worth my effort.*Bunch of shit not in anyway related to my analogy*
Can you please stop struggling so much? I can't explain to you if you look away and put fingers in your ears. Do you actually want an explanation, or are you too close minded?
Either way guys, guns in space, atmospheric pressure... Inertia will solve this problem. If you fart in space, accelerate you will. Stop being such a bunch of Mormons.Any chance of explaining how your inertia works?
If you're going to go the same way as earlier then let's close this and leave it. It's not worth my effort.*Bunch of shit not in anyway related to my analogy*
Can you please stop struggling so much? I can't explain to you if you look away and put fingers in your ears. Do you actually want an explanation, or are you too close minded?
Either way guys, guns in space, atmospheric pressure... Inertia will solve this problem. If you fart in space, accelerate you will. Stop being such a bunch of Mormons.Any chance of explaining how your inertia works?
Resistance to energy and movement isn't it?
Tell me about it.
Which way? Anyways, can you just agree with this:If you're going to go the same way as earlier then let's close this and leave it. It's not worth my effort.*Bunch of shit not in anyway related to my analogy*
Can you please stop struggling so much? I can't explain to you if you look away and put fingers in your ears. Do you actually want an explanation, or are you too close minded?
It is crucial to my analogy, and I swear that when I am DONE with the analogy it will make sense. I just want to make sure I do not loose you on the way. If I write the whole analogy at once you might say that it is BS but not specify where, which is why I do this. So, can you please stop struggling and just follow with the discussion in a proper manner?Now, imagine that on this housing we had an automated piece of machinery that, after the piston has extended, could weld an extra piece to the piston so it could extend further. This would also push the housing further, although as it is more massive it won't be pushed as much. Doesn't sound impossible, right? Then, imagine that we also had a piece of machinery that could melt down material from a reserve and mold it into new pieces, that could be welded onto the piston. So we can extend the piston really far now, but the housing is pretty heavy when it is fully loaded so it won't get pushed far. But, as it get's emptied and the piston gets more massive, it will start being pushed more, right?Ok, so the electric motors push the piston and the housing apart from each other.I don't know what you mean by piston base.Just get on with it,, or don't. Either way is fine by me.Imagine that there is a piston in space that function like I told you earlier. Now, if we extend this piston, both the piston base and the piston rod will move apart from each other, right?
Fully describe what you're saying so it becomes clear.
I posted a fucking picture. Look at it.
http://pasteboard.co/2Cyeg83S.png (http://pasteboard.co/2Cyeg83S.png)
Ok fair enough, now what?
I'm not interested what a physicist accepts. I've explained it correctly in what supposedly inertia is, only my words are rejected because they don't fit the criteria.Either way guys, guns in space, atmospheric pressure... Inertia will solve this problem. If you fart in space, accelerate you will. Stop being such a bunch of Mormons.Any chance of explaining how your inertia works?
Resistance to energy and movement isn't it?
Tell me about it.
Nope, an object at rest will stay at rest untill a force is applied. You might call it a resistance to acceleration but a physicist would never accept that.
Hey sceptmatic lets do an experiment, find an egg and make sure it's not boiled. Spinn it on the table, when the egg is spinning stop it with your hand, and release it, tell me what you see.What's this got to do with space?
Hey sceptmatic lets do an experiment, find an egg and make sure it's not boiled. Spinn it on the table, when the egg is spinning stop it with your hand, and release it, tell me what you see.What's this got to do with space?
Of course it'll start spinning against. What's this got to do with space?Hey sceptmatic lets do an experiment, find an egg and make sure it's not boiled. Spinn it on the table, when the egg is spinning stop it with your hand, and release it, tell me what you see.What's this got to do with space?
Everything! :) Did you do it? I predict, if Inertia is real of course, that the egg will start spinning again when you release your hand!
Is got to do with inertia..even though maybe the egg would be too viscous to show the effect. With a ball full of water it should works fineI agree and it still stands. What has this to do with space?
@sceptimatic, you are not running away now, right? I am not even finished with my explanation yet.Start explaining properly and I'll gladly go with it.
Is got to do with inertia..even though maybe the egg would be too viscous to show the effect. With a ball full of water it should works fineI agree and it still stands. What has this to do with space?
Hey sceptmatic lets do an experiment, find an egg and make sure it's not boiled. Spinn it on the table, when the egg is spinning stop it with your hand, and release it, tell me what you see.What's this got to do with space?
Everything! :) Did you do it? I predict, if Inertia is real of course, that the egg will start spinning again when you release your hand!
I am explaining properly. Now, we have a piston like I described, and we can increase the length of the piston rod as it extends. As it extends, the main part/housing will go one way, and the piston rod will go the opposite way, right?@sceptimatic, you are not running away now, right? I am not even finished with my explanation yet.Start explaining properly and I'll gladly go with it.
It would appear that way but in reality only the piston would go one way whilst the housing and motors stayed still.I am explaining properly. Now, we have a piston like I described, and we can increase the length of the piston rod as it extends. As it extends, the main part/housing will go one way, and the piston rod will go the opposite way, right?@sceptimatic, you are not running away now, right? I am not even finished with my explanation yet.Start explaining properly and I'll gladly go with it.
Is got to do with inertia..even though maybe the egg would be too viscous to show the effect. With a ball full of water it should works fineI agree and it still stands. What has this to do with space?
Let's use a bowl half full of water on a turntable, turning fairly fast.Is got to do with inertia..even though maybe the egg would be too viscous to show the effect. With a ball full of water it should works fineI agree and it still stands. What has this to do with space?
To show u that u don't need what u call leverage to exert a force, inertia still permits to have a force without a leverage.
How will the egg start spinning again if a force is not exerted between the egg and the liquid inside it?
Now you have to explain yourself. The piston rod is pushed by the motors, and the motors in turn get's pushed by the piston rod. So they should, and will, go different ways. Can you please provide information why the piston rod is different from the housing in such a way that it will not get pushed?It would appear that way but in reality only the piston would go one way whilst the housing and motors stayed still.I am explaining properly. Now, we have a piston like I described, and we can increase the length of the piston rod as it extends. As it extends, the main part/housing will go one way, and the piston rod will go the opposite way, right?@sceptimatic, you are not running away now, right? I am not even finished with my explanation yet.Start explaining properly and I'll gladly go with it.
Maybe the egg experiment was too hard to understand?We'll leave it at that with you. A total waste of time carrying on anything with you. Go and pat your internet mates arses and bull each other up. :P
We can go even simpler because, physics!
Find a chair with wheels, place the chair on a floor with low friction and place your ass on the seat. Grab something heavy and throw it away from you, tell me what happens ;D
Maybe the egg experiment was too hard to understand?We'll leave it at that with you. A total waste of time carrying on anything with you. Go and pat your internet mates arses and bull each other up. :P
We can go even simpler because, physics!
Find a chair with wheels, place the chair on a floor with low friction and place your ass on the seat. Grab something heavy and throw it away from you, tell me what happens ;D
The motors have to be attached to the housing in order to push the piston rod, right?Now you have to explain yourself. The piston rod is pushed by the motors, and the motors in turn get's pushed by the piston rod. So they should, and will, go different ways. Can you please provide information why the piston rod is different from the housing in such a way that it will not get pushed?It would appear that way but in reality only the piston would go one way whilst the housing and motors stayed still.I am explaining properly. Now, we have a piston like I described, and we can increase the length of the piston rod as it extends. As it extends, the main part/housing will go one way, and the piston rod will go the opposite way, right?@sceptimatic, you are not running away now, right? I am not even finished with my explanation yet.Start explaining properly and I'll gladly go with it.
Hopefully reality will smack you in the face. I doubt it but there's always hope that naive people like you, sometimes, can see the light.Maybe the egg experiment was too hard to understand?We'll leave it at that with you. A total waste of time carrying on anything with you. Go and pat your internet mates arses and bull each other up. :P
We can go even simpler because, physics!
Find a chair with wheels, place the chair on a floor with low friction and place your ass on the seat. Grab something heavy and throw it away from you, tell me what happens ;D
you can run all you want but one day, physics will come and smack you in the nuts!
MAYBE conveyors are bolted onto something which is bolted onto the ground? Nah, that'd be truly MADNESS wouldn't it? ;)The motors have to be attached to the housing in order to push the piston rod, right?Now you have to explain yourself. The piston rod is pushed by the motors, and the motors in turn get's pushed by the piston rod. So they should, and will, go different ways. Can you please provide information why the piston rod is different from the housing in such a way that it will not get pushed?It would appear that way but in reality only the piston would go one way whilst the housing and motors stayed still.I am explaining properly. Now, we have a piston like I described, and we can increase the length of the piston rod as it extends. As it extends, the main part/housing will go one way, and the piston rod will go the opposite way, right?@sceptimatic, you are not running away now, right? I am not even finished with my explanation yet.Start explaining properly and I'll gladly go with it.
Just like a conveyor belt. the motor turns the wheels that the rubber belt sits on and those wheels push that belt along.
The wheels turn one way and push the belt the other way but you only see the belt moving in one direction, not the motor housing and frame moving the other.
If you were to hang these in the air and look at them, then it would appears that both were going in opposite directions.
Like a moving car against a stationary car. It's hard to tell which one is moving when looked at side by side.
You could guess that both were moving in opposite directions if you weren't inside one with the handbrake on.
See what I'm saying?
This is where we need to stop. Good luck with whatever you want to do and decide. I''ll stick with my thoughts.MAYBE conveyors are bolted onto something which is bolted onto the ground? Nah, that'd be truly MADNESS wouldn't it? ;)The motors have to be attached to the housing in order to push the piston rod, right?Now you have to explain yourself. The piston rod is pushed by the motors, and the motors in turn get's pushed by the piston rod. So they should, and will, go different ways. Can you please provide information why the piston rod is different from the housing in such a way that it will not get pushed?It would appear that way but in reality only the piston would go one way whilst the housing and motors stayed still.I am explaining properly. Now, we have a piston like I described, and we can increase the length of the piston rod as it extends. As it extends, the main part/housing will go one way, and the piston rod will go the opposite way, right?@sceptimatic, you are not running away now, right? I am not even finished with my explanation yet.Start explaining properly and I'll gladly go with it.
Just like a conveyor belt. the motor turns the wheels that the rubber belt sits on and those wheels push that belt along.
The wheels turn one way and push the belt the other way but you only see the belt moving in one direction, not the motor housing and frame moving the other.
If you were to hang these in the air and look at them, then it would appears that both were going in opposite directions.
Like a moving car against a stationary car. It's hard to tell which one is moving when looked at side by side.
You could guess that both were moving in opposite directions if you weren't inside one with the handbrake on.
See what I'm saying?
Also, that car analogy doesn't make sense. If moving car is is going against a stationary car, then either both cars will start moving in the same direction or both will stand still. Either both move, or neither move. That is not how it works in my analogy anyways.
Ahh, so you failed to disprove my not yet finished analogy and now you are running away. How typical. So, I guess you don't want to learn how rockets actually work then:This is where we need to stop. Good luck with whatever you want to do and decide. I''ll stick with my thoughts.MAYBE conveyors are bolted onto something which is bolted onto the ground? Nah, that'd be truly MADNESS wouldn't it? ;)The motors have to be attached to the housing in order to push the piston rod, right?Now you have to explain yourself. The piston rod is pushed by the motors, and the motors in turn get's pushed by the piston rod. So they should, and will, go different ways. Can you please provide information why the piston rod is different from the housing in such a way that it will not get pushed?It would appear that way but in reality only the piston would go one way whilst the housing and motors stayed still.I am explaining properly. Now, we have a piston like I described, and we can increase the length of the piston rod as it extends. As it extends, the main part/housing will go one way, and the piston rod will go the opposite way, right?@sceptimatic, you are not running away now, right? I am not even finished with my explanation yet.Start explaining properly and I'll gladly go with it.
Just like a conveyor belt. the motor turns the wheels that the rubber belt sits on and those wheels push that belt along.
The wheels turn one way and push the belt the other way but you only see the belt moving in one direction, not the motor housing and frame moving the other.
If you were to hang these in the air and look at them, then it would appears that both were going in opposite directions.
Like a moving car against a stationary car. It's hard to tell which one is moving when looked at side by side.
You could guess that both were moving in opposite directions if you weren't inside one with the handbrake on.
See what I'm saying?
Also, that car analogy doesn't make sense. If moving car is is going against a stationary car, then either both cars will start moving in the same direction or both will stand still. Either both move, or neither move. That is not how it works in my analogy anyways.
No need to carry this on, seriously.
Hopefully reality will smack you in the face. I doubt it but there's always hope that naive people like you, sometimes, can see the light.Maybe the egg experiment was too hard to understand?We'll leave it at that with you. A total waste of time carrying on anything with you. Go and pat your internet mates arses and bull each other up. :P
We can go even simpler because, physics!
Find a chair with wheels, place the chair on a floor with low friction and place your ass on the seat. Grab something heavy and throw it away from you, tell me what happens ;D
you can run all you want but one day, physics will come and smack you in the nuts!
You people need to be alone in a room where you can't look for back up and feel comfort among your like minded peers. I believe most of you would start to understand logical reality if this happened.
I solved the problem on the first page.
Let's use a bowl half full of water on a turntable, turning fairly fast.Is got to do with inertia..even though maybe the egg would be too viscous to show the effect. With a ball full of water it should works fineI agree and it still stands. What has this to do with space?
To show u that u don't need what u call leverage to exert a force, inertia still permits to have a force without a leverage.
How will the egg start spinning again if a force is not exerted between the egg and the liquid inside it?
Because the bowl is a solid and the water is a liquid, the bowl will spin faster than the water. Basically the bowl will create a friction between it and the water.
Once you stop that turntable, you still have a catch up of spinning water which would start to wobble the bowl as the bowls side acts as a brake to stop it.
In the egg you have two things happening but I think it will get lost on you by me describing it, because you have no intention of wanting to grasp it.
You're too focused on the nah nah nee nah nah attitude like most of you people are.
Correct the turntable will spin. I just assumed you would grasp that when I mention the wobbling bowl.Let's use a bowl half full of water on a turntable, turning fairly fast.Is got to do with inertia..even though maybe the egg would be too viscous to show the effect. With a ball full of water it should works fineI agree and it still stands. What has this to do with space?
To show u that u don't need what u call leverage to exert a force, inertia still permits to have a force without a leverage.
How will the egg start spinning again if a force is not exerted between the egg and the liquid inside it?
Because the bowl is a solid and the water is a liquid, the bowl will spin faster than the water. Basically the bowl will create a friction between it and the water.
Once you stop that turntable, you still have a catch up of spinning water which would start to wobble the bowl as the bowls side acts as a brake to stop it.
In the egg you have two things happening but I think it will get lost on you by me describing it, because you have no intention of wanting to grasp it.
You're too focused on the nah nah nee nah nah attitude like most of you people are.
If u stop and the release the turntable it will start spinning again. That's because the water which is still spinning makes the bowl to spin and then the bowl makes the turn table to spin cause they are attached.
But to make the bowl spin u need a force... Only thing able to create that force is the spinning water... I see inertia and friction, no leverage but yet a force. How come?
Correct the turntable will spin. I just assumed you would grasp that when I mention the wobbling bowl.Let's use a bowl half full of water on a turntable, turning fairly fast.Is got to do with inertia..even though maybe the egg would be too viscous to show the effect. With a ball full of water it should works fineI agree and it still stands. What has this to do with space?
To show u that u don't need what u call leverage to exert a force, inertia still permits to have a force without a leverage.
How will the egg start spinning again if a force is not exerted between the egg and the liquid inside it?
Because the bowl is a solid and the water is a liquid, the bowl will spin faster than the water. Basically the bowl will create a friction between it and the water.
Once you stop that turntable, you still have a catch up of spinning water which would start to wobble the bowl as the bowls side acts as a brake to stop it.
In the egg you have two things happening but I think it will get lost on you by me describing it, because you have no intention of wanting to grasp it.
You're too focused on the nah nah nee nah nah attitude like most of you people are.
If u stop and the release the turntable it will start spinning again. That's because the water which is still spinning makes the bowl to spin and then the bowl makes the turn table to spin cause they are attached.
But to make the bowl spin u need a force... Only thing able to create that force is the spinning water... I see inertia and friction, no leverage but yet a force. How come?
You should also grasp centrifugal force in the right context of how it works. Clue: it has a lot to do with atmospheric pressures , low v high.
Correct the turntable will spin. I just assumed you would grasp that when I mention the wobbling bowl.Let's use a bowl half full of water on a turntable, turning fairly fast.Is got to do with inertia..even though maybe the egg would be too viscous to show the effect. With a ball full of water it should works fineI agree and it still stands. What has this to do with space?
To show u that u don't need what u call leverage to exert a force, inertia still permits to have a force without a leverage.
How will the egg start spinning again if a force is not exerted between the egg and the liquid inside it?
Because the bowl is a solid and the water is a liquid, the bowl will spin faster than the water. Basically the bowl will create a friction between it and the water.
Once you stop that turntable, you still have a catch up of spinning water which would start to wobble the bowl as the bowls side acts as a brake to stop it.
In the egg you have two things happening but I think it will get lost on you by me describing it, because you have no intention of wanting to grasp it.
You're too focused on the nah nah nee nah nah attitude like most of you people are.
If u stop and the release the turntable it will start spinning again. That's because the water which is still spinning makes the bowl to spin and then the bowl makes the turn table to spin cause they are attached.
But to make the bowl spin u need a force... Only thing able to create that force is the spinning water... I see inertia and friction, no leverage but yet a force. How come?
You should also grasp centrifugal force in the right context of how it works. Clue: it has a lot to do with atmospheric pressures , low v high.
It has everything to do with it. The issue is the fact that you and many other's are duped into thinking there's some magic happening with a force that cannot be explained.Correct the turntable will spin. I just assumed you would grasp that when I mention the wobbling bowl.Let's use a bowl half full of water on a turntable, turning fairly fast.Is got to do with inertia..even though maybe the egg would be too viscous to show the effect. With a ball full of water it should works fineI agree and it still stands. What has this to do with space?
To show u that u don't need what u call leverage to exert a force, inertia still permits to have a force without a leverage.
How will the egg start spinning again if a force is not exerted between the egg and the liquid inside it?
Because the bowl is a solid and the water is a liquid, the bowl will spin faster than the water. Basically the bowl will create a friction between it and the water.
Once you stop that turntable, you still have a catch up of spinning water which would start to wobble the bowl as the bowls side acts as a brake to stop it.
In the egg you have two things happening but I think it will get lost on you by me describing it, because you have no intention of wanting to grasp it.
You're too focused on the nah nah nee nah nah attitude like most of you people are.
If u stop and the release the turntable it will start spinning again. That's because the water which is still spinning makes the bowl to spin and then the bowl makes the turn table to spin cause they are attached.
But to make the bowl spin u need a force... Only thing able to create that force is the spinning water... I see inertia and friction, no leverage but yet a force. How come?
You should also grasp centrifugal force in the right context of how it works. Clue: it has a lot to do with atmospheric pressures , low v high.
Atmospheric pressure? Yet again? Please stop putting it everywhere. It has nothing to do with the bowl and spinning water... That's just viscosity and inertia
No. Resistance to movement is called friction.Either way guys, guns in space, atmospheric pressure... Inertia will solve this problem. If you fart in space, accelerate you will. Stop being such a bunch of Mormons.Any chance of explaining how your inertia works?
Resistance to energy and movement isn't it?
Tell me about it.
So inertia is something at rest and that's that. Not really worth mentioning is it, unless it's actually acted upon, which means it resists the force to move by friction against its mass.No. Resistance to movement is called friction.Either way guys, guns in space, atmospheric pressure... Inertia will solve this problem. If you fart in space, accelerate you will. Stop being such a bunch of Mormons.Any chance of explaining how your inertia works?
Resistance to energy and movement isn't it?
Tell me about it.
Inertia is described by Newton's first law (an object at rest or in motion tends to stay at rest or in motion unless acted upon by another force).
So inertia is something at rest and that's that.That's part of it. It's more like something keeps doing whatever it's doing unless another force tells it to do something different.
Not really worth mentioning is it, unless it's actually acted upon, which means it resists the force to move by friction against its mass.No. Friction is a force, inertia is a property. The force of friction must be overcome before an object's inertia can be affected.
Oh goodie. The 300 mph wind that propelled baseballs and golf balls....and anything else in motion is back. I missed it.You can't knock reality. We all know what reality is and space nor magical forces have any bearing on how it pans out.
an object at rest or in motion tends to stay at rest or in motion unless acted upon by another force
Oh goodie. The 300 mph wind that propelled baseballs and golf balls....and anything else in motion is back. I missed it.You can't knock reality. We all know what reality is and space nor magical forces have any bearing on how it pans out.
It actually shocks me that so many people on here refuse to grasp it because their ego's are too big and delicate to dare to take the time to understand it.
I'm not the least bit interested whether you trust me or not. It's entirely up to you what you take from what is being said. All I ask people to do is to search their own minds and use logic and common sense to decide for themselves what is true or false or potentially viable against something that may not be realistic when actually given some thought to.Oh goodie. The 300 mph wind that propelled baseballs and golf balls....and anything else in motion is back. I missed it.You can't knock reality. We all know what reality is and space nor magical forces have any bearing on how it pans out.
It actually shocks me that so many people on here refuse to grasp it because their ego's are too big and delicate to dare to take the time to understand it.
provide me some scientific papers that shows what u claim and i'll be happy to read and understand them.
otherwise u're just a random guy on the internet claim that all my studies and my everyday experiences are wrong, why should i trust u and distrust myself and some pretty knowledgable people
I'm not the least bit interested whether you trust me or not. It's entirely up to you what you take from what is being said. All I ask people to do is to search their own minds and use logic and common sense to decide for themselves what is true or false or potentially viable against something that may not be realistic when actually given some thought to.Oh goodie. The 300 mph wind that propelled baseballs and golf balls....and anything else in motion is back. I missed it.You can't knock reality. We all know what reality is and space nor magical forces have any bearing on how it pans out.
It actually shocks me that so many people on here refuse to grasp it because their ego's are too big and delicate to dare to take the time to understand it.
provide me some scientific papers that shows what u claim and i'll be happy to read and understand them.
otherwise u're just a random guy on the internet claim that all my studies and my everyday experiences are wrong, why should i trust u and distrust myself and some pretty knowledgable people
You carry on as you are and you don't need to type one more word to me, ever. Just talk among your internet like-minded friends and spend your days mocking people like me if it makes you feel intelligent or superior.
I don't think you're a dummy or anything. I just believe you are ultra naive, unless what you're doing is deliberate and that's why your hours on here are being wasted.
If you want to add something productive to the discussion, then please do. If you just want to shitpost abusive gibberish, then feel free to fuck off.an object at rest or in motion tends to stay at rest or in motion unless acted upon by another force
LULZ!!!
Markjo 'difeets' himself yet again...
Total jack-assery from the raown derf slapstick posse!
As long as the physics make sense and are not used to dupe us like much of it is - especially the space garbage.I'm not the least bit interested whether you trust me or not. It's entirely up to you what you take from what is being said. All I ask people to do is to search their own minds and use logic and common sense to decide for themselves what is true or false or potentially viable against something that may not be realistic when actually given some thought to.Oh goodie. The 300 mph wind that propelled baseballs and golf balls....and anything else in motion is back. I missed it.You can't knock reality. We all know what reality is and space nor magical forces have any bearing on how it pans out.
It actually shocks me that so many people on here refuse to grasp it because their ego's are too big and delicate to dare to take the time to understand it.
provide me some scientific papers that shows what u claim and i'll be happy to read and understand them.
otherwise u're just a random guy on the internet claim that all my studies and my everyday experiences are wrong, why should i trust u and distrust myself and some pretty knowledgable people
You carry on as you are and you don't need to type one more word to me, ever. Just talk among your internet like-minded friends and spend your days mocking people like me if it makes you feel intelligent or superior.
I don't think you're a dummy or anything. I just believe you are ultra naive, unless what you're doing is deliberate and that's why your hours on here are being wasted.
u don't have to use common sense, u need to use physics
Shut the fuck up already. No one likes you. You have nothing. End of story.Oh goodie. The 300 mph wind that propelled baseballs and golf balls....and anything else in motion is back. I missed it.You can't knock reality. We all know what reality is and space nor magical forces have any bearing on how it pans out.
It actually shocks me that so many people on here refuse to grasp it because their ego's are too big and delicate to dare to take the time to understand it.
;D You're not rattled are you?Shut the fuck up already. No one likes you. You have nothing. End of story.Oh goodie. The 300 mph wind that propelled baseballs and golf balls....and anything else in motion is back. I missed it.You can't knock reality. We all know what reality is and space nor magical forces have any bearing on how it pans out.
It actually shocks me that so many people on here refuse to grasp it because their ego's are too big and delicate to dare to take the time to understand it.
physics make sense, especially the basic physics we're talking about.No they don't. Not the one's you're made to believe. Space does not exist so any physics that pertain to this space, is a con job, simple as that.
if u don't have the education to grasp it is only your problem, physics still make sense and still works perfectly
so show me a book with the real physics' law.physics make sense, especially the basic physics we're talking about.No they don't. Not the one's you're made to believe. Space does not exist so any physics that pertain to this space, is a con job, simple as that.
if u don't have the education to grasp it is only your problem, physics still make sense and still works perfectly
Who's works in a pharmacy? Is that another one of your claims? Millionair assistant?;D You're not rattled are you?Shut the fuck up already. No one likes you. You have nothing. End of story.Oh goodie. The 300 mph wind that propelled baseballs and golf balls....and anything else in motion is back. I missed it.You can't knock reality. We all know what reality is and space nor magical forces have any bearing on how it pans out.
It actually shocks me that so many people on here refuse to grasp it because their ego's are too big and delicate to dare to take the time to understand it.
This is what happens when assistants working in a pharmacy shop believe that putting pills into bottles gives them the right to be expert on all sciences. ;D
If you want to add something productive to the discussion, then please do. If you just want to shitpost abusive gibberish, then feel free to fuck off.
As tehEnjynnre is clearly sokarul v2.0Not funny. That insult alone should earn you a permaban. Sokarul is a gigantic idiot.
That insult alone should earn you a permaban. Sokarul is a gigantic idiot.
At least he isn't claiming that you're one of my "sock puppets".As tehEnjynnre is clearly sokarul v2.0Not funny. That insult alone should earn you a permaban. Sokarul is a gigantic idiot.
BTW Engy, how many 'engineers' do you know that put the word engineer in quotes when referring to themselves?Zero.
Won't change the Fact that you & socky-boy are the only two members who primp & prance around boasting of being 'unndifeetd' though.Sokarul is wrong nearly all the time. I, however, am not.
Should be really easy for you to find when I was last wrong. I'll wait.Won't change the Fact that you & socky-boy are the only two members who primp & prance around boasting of being 'unndifeetd' though.Sokarul is wrong nearly all the time. I, however, am not.
If that isn't the rant of someone who knows he lost, I don't know what is!If you want to add something productive to the discussion, then please do. If you just want to shitpost abusive gibberish, then feel free to fuck off.Bonus LULZ!!!
Look at pathetic robot reportfag loser markjo; it doesn't even know how it just 'diffeetd' its dumb self through Newton's 1st...
Everyone else does though, & is laughing at it.
It is so lost in pompous sock-puppeting reportfag delusion that it can no longer discern between the numbers One & Two.
Let alone understand the definition of the term 'force'.
Poor broken disinfo-thing!
Get me reported with your 28,000 sock-puppets, copy-cat reportfagging psychopath...
REPORT, CENSOR, REPORT & REPEAT!
It's the only way you ever 'win' anything, you repulsive slimeball...
LMFAO - at YOU!!!
The combustion chamber of a rocket is open to the near-infinite vacuum of space.
Therefore, no gas can even be meaningfully said to exist within it, let alone combust.
Any gas introduced therein when the pressurised fuel tank is opened will simply expand freely into the enormous, zero-pressure vacuum, following the path of least resistance & doing no work whatsoever.
This will continue for as long as the fuel tank is open to the vacuum, until both exterior & interior pressures are equalised at zero.
It is a beautifully simple concept, fully supported by all the laws of physics, yet you 'round earthers (lol!) just can't seem to grasp it...
Sucks to be you; sucks like a vacuum in fact.
You all claim that the recoil of a gun is a valid analogy for how a rocket works in a vacuum.
Here is why it is not:
With a gun you have object A, the mass of the gun; the expanding propellant, P, the gunpowder, sited between them; and object B, the mass of the bullet.
But with a rocket you ONLY have object A, the mass of the rocket, & the expanding propellant, P, the fuel.
No object B, see?
Thus, you have removed the necessary recoil mass required to produce motion.
But we know a rocket DOES produce motion, don't we?
Ergo, some other mass MUST be taking the place of object B.
& the ONLY possibility for that other mass is the Atmosphere.
Ergo, NO atmosphere, NO motion; rockets CANNOT function in a vacuum.
Then there's the fact that you are all trying desperately to confine this 'debate' to the wrong branch of physics, i.e. Solid Mechanics rather than Fluid Mechanics...
I know 'rabinoz' is 'rab downunder'...So, you know that, so what?
Then there's the fact that you are all trying desperately to confine this 'debate' to the wrong branch of physics, i.e. Solid Mechanics rather than Fluid Mechanics...Not nearly as deceitful as you deliberate misrepresentation of Free Expansion and Newton's laws.
Which is very deceitful, is it not?
Pressure-Gradient Forces, Gas Laws, Fluid Mechanics, Continuum Assumption & Joules Expansion are the areas I suggest neutral readers research.
Mass flow, also known as mass transfer and bulk flow, is the movement of material matter. In physics, mass flow occurs in open systems and is often measured as occurring when moving across a certain boundary characterized by its cross-sectional area and a flow rate. In engineering and biology it may also be a flow of fluids in a tube or vessel of a certain diameter.
When a gas is exposed to a vacuum it nothing changes other than the fact that there is no pressure or interchange of mass from the vacuum.
The gas is the combustion chamber cannot exit as quickly as more gas is injected, therefore pressure increases.
Fuel, oxidiser and combustion products are all mass B
Fluid Mechanics is simply the study of how many solid particles behave globally.
V2 rockets could reach over 300 km when fired straight up
IN the combustion chamber and nozzle we do not have a vacuum.
Not nearly as deceitful as you deliberate misrepresentation of Free Expansion and Newton's laws.
I recommend that Papa Legba brush up on Mass Flow.
Since gasses have mass and they are flowing through the combustion chamber, then Mass Flow seems like a perfectly reasonable topic to discuss. Not to mention fact that mass flow applies to open systems (like rockets in space) while free expansion applies to closed systems.I recommend that Papa Legba brush up on Mass Flow.
LOL!!!
the thrust keeps INCREASING as the ambient pressure falls.
are you suggesting that gasses don't have mass and don't flow through the combustion chamber?
First of all, that is not what free expansion says. Free expansion says that the total work done is zero once equilibrium has been achieved. Work can be, and is done while the gas is flowing from high pressure to low pressure.are you suggesting that gasses don't have mass and don't flow through the combustion chamber?
No, laughing-stock slow-poke creep; I'm suggesting that the mass of the gas will do no work on the rocket itself if it leaves the combustion chamber WHEN THE ROCKET IS IN A VACUUM.
Not hard to understand...Yet you can't seem to grasp it.
Free expansion says that the total work done is zero once equilibrium has been achieved.
the gas has momentum which must be conserved with the rocket system that it's leaving.
Free expansion says that the total work done is zero once equilibrium has been achieved.
Been here before, slow-poke...
You REALLY need to think about what you just wrote.
Also this:the gas has momentum which must be conserved with the rocket system that it's leaving.
But the gas is doing Zero work, as there is Zero resistance to it's motion.
So of course the momentum of the gas is conserved; because it's transferring Zero work between itself & the rocket...
It is simply Expanding, Freely, into the Zero-pressure vacuum of 'space'!
How many Zeros do we need to add up here before you will finally comprehend that YOU CANNOT GET SOMETHING OUT OF NOTHING?
*Yawn!*
Are you saying that there is no difference between "total work done" and "work being done at any given instant"?Free expansion says that the total work done is zero once equilibrium has been achieved.
Been here before, slow-poke...
You REALLY need to think about what you just wrote.
Incorrect. The fact that a mass is moving from the storage tank to the combustion chamber under pressure means that work is being done.the gas has momentum which must be conserved with the rocket system that it's leaving.
But the gas is doing Zero work, as there is Zero resistance to it's motion.
So of course the momentum of the gas is conserved; because it's transferring Zero work between itself & the rocket..Work and momentum are not the same thing.
It is simply Expanding, Freely, into the Zero-pressure vacuum of 'space'!Actually, it's expanding into the combustion chamber first, then it expands into space. Or are you saying that gas does not expand to fill all available space (like an evacuated chamber in between the fuel supply and outer space)?
How many Zeros do we need to add up here before you will finally comprehend that YOU CANNOT GET SOMETHING OUT OF NOTHING?I'm not saying that you can. It's just that you keep looking where the work isn't being done and keep missing where the work is being done.
Work is fire times distance
What about portion of the gas that is travelling away from the opening to vacuum. Work must be done on the gas to change its direction.
Work is fire times distance
Why would you use the pressure of a vacuum to get the work done by the gas? The gas has a pressure.
What about portion of the gas that is travelling away from the opening to vacuum. Work must be done on the gas to change its direction.
Isn't using energy considered work?What about portion of the gas that is travelling away from the opening to vacuum. Work must be done on the gas to change its direction.
No; the gas simply uses the energy it had already stored through being pressurised to expand, freely, into the Zero-pressure vacuum.
Isn't using energy considered work
Since when is resistance a part of the definition of work? ???Isn't using energy considered work
Not when none of that energy is lost in the form of work, because it is not encountering resistance.
When a force acts upon an object to cause a displacement of the object, it is said that work was done upon the object.
I said 'using', not 'losing'.Energy is never lost, even when used. As with momentum, energy is always conserved.
Energy is never lost, even when used. As with momentum, energy is always conserved.
Energy is never lost, even when used. As with momentum, energy is always conserved.
LOL!!!
You just do not care how much of a fool you make of yourself, do you?
A genuine psychopath...
*Yawn!*
The gas simply uses the energy it had already stored, through being pressurised, to expand, freely, into the Zero-pressure vacuum.
But as it meets Zero resistance on the way, it loses Zero energy & does Zero work.
And, of course, any momentum it already had would therefore be conserved.
You lot really do need to stop molesting the laws of physics & just admit that a gas will do Zero work in a vacuum.
Work = Pressure x Increase in Volume; when Pressure = Zero, then Work = Zero.
Nothing can come from Nothing; Zero = Zero...
If you disagree, please demonstrate otherwise...
Thank you please!
LULZ!!!
Another psychopath joins the shill-storm!
Please read what I wrote:*Yawn!*
The gas simply uses the energy it had already stored, through being pressurised, to expand, freely, into the Zero-pressure vacuum.
But as it meets Zero resistance on the way, it loses Zero energy & does Zero work.
And, of course, any momentum it already had would therefore be conserved.
You lot really do need to stop molesting the laws of physics & just admit that a gas will do Zero work in a vacuum.
Work = Pressure x Increase in Volume; when Pressure = Zero, then Work = Zero.
Nothing can come from Nothing; Zero = Zero...
If you disagree, please demonstrate otherwise...
Thank you please!
Why are you all agreeing with me, yet trying to make out you are not?
Is it because you are psychopaths?
I think it is!
LOL!!!
Something can come from nothing.This is the reason why the mainstream science world can get away with filling people with bullshit.
0 = -1 + 1
When you understand vector mechanics then this will make sense to you.
What about miss quoting?
Edit: Oh good you fixed it.
Where does friction come into either if the work equations?
Why is it funny to use an equation incorrectly?
What pressurized the gas in your explanation?
LOL!!! LOL!!! LOL!!! LOL!!!I am so glad that you are getting such a laugh at this, but do you know what an "equation" is? In case you had not heard it lets you calculate things when you know the variables involved. You might them useful at times - just ask "The Engineer", he knows all about them and has only ever made ONE mistake!
Plus Wtf?
LOL!!! Plus LOL!!! LOL!!! LOL!!!
In conclusion: LOL-a-pa-LOSERS!!!
So now you're saying that Newton's 3rd is bullshit? What do you think that equal and opposite means?Something can come from nothing.This is the reason why the mainstream science world can get away with filling people with bullshit.
0 = -1 + 1
When you understand vector mechanics then this will make sense to you.
So FORGET about a vacuum
But as it meets Zero resistance on the way, it loses Zero energy & does Zero work.
So the European Union & Popular mechanics were both Lying?do u think that articles used to teach physics to schoolchildren are 100% correct or are semplified to let even children understand?
Or well-respected physicists plainly stating that NASA's 'thrust equation' using F=m*v is 'erroneous' & cannot be applied in the manner intended.like for example? btw m*v is not a force, mass flow*v is a force. mass and mass flow are two different things
QuoteSo the European Union & Popular mechanics were both Lying?do u think that articles used to teach physics to schoolchildren are 100% correct or are semplified to let even children understand?
Papa ... its interesting that if 2 people read the same text, they understand 2 different things...
Ok... your reaction clearly reflect that you dont wanna to discuss, you dont present a view / attitude, you dont argue. You just try to use this forum as platform for ventilation of your emotions, and to vilify other people.Papa ... its interesting that if 2 people read the same text, they understand 2 different things...
No it isn't.
As for the rest of your nonsense: tl;dr.
Now get back in your doghouse, 'tomfi'.
How does the mass of the gas accelerate from zero to whatever the speed of free expansion if there is no force applied to the gas?But as it meets Zero resistance on the way, it loses Zero energy & does Zero work.
*Yawn!*
There is a force. It's a compression force.How does the mass of the gas accelerate from zero to whatever the speed of free expansion if there is no force applied to the gas?But as it meets Zero resistance on the way, it loses Zero energy & does Zero work.
*Yawn!*
Work is defined as force * distance. That means that if there is a force applied to a gas that accelerates it, then work has been done. Congratulations scepti, you just defeated Papa Legba.There is a force. It's a compression force.How does the mass of the gas accelerate from zero to whatever the speed of free expansion if there is no force applied to the gas?But as it meets Zero resistance on the way, it loses Zero energy & does Zero work.
*Yawn!*
How does the mass of the gas accelerate from zero to whatever the speed of free expansion if there is no force applied to the gas?
Work is defined as force * distance.
Irrelevant. Gas has mass and therefore W=F*d applies.How does the mass of the gas accelerate from zero to whatever the speed of free expansion if there is no force applied to the gas?
Already answered. Not my fault you're too dumb to understand.Work is defined as force * distance.
Not for a gas it isn't; that'd be W=pv you're looking for.
Irrelevant. Gas has mass and therefore W=F*d applies.
What about miss quoting?
Edit: Oh good you fixed it.
Where does friction come into either if the work equations?
Why is it funny to use an equation incorrectly?
What pressurized the gas in your explanation?
Have you disproved mass spectrometry yet?What am I supposed to disprove?
Do you know what potential energy is?...of course you do. It when something has had energy applied to it and hasn't had that energy returned as of yet, so the potential energy is there to be used.Work is defined as force * distance. That means that if there is a force applied to a gas that accelerates it, then work has been done. Congratulations scepti, you just defeated Papa Legba.There is a force. It's a compression force.How does the mass of the gas accelerate from zero to whatever the speed of free expansion if there is no force applied to the gas?But as it meets Zero resistance on the way, it loses Zero energy & does Zero work.
*Yawn!*
Mass spectrometryHave you disproved mass spectrometry yet?What am I supposed to disprove?
What am I supposed to disprove about this mass spectrometry?Mass spectrometryHave you disproved mass spectrometry yet?What am I supposed to disprove?
How it works.What am I supposed to disprove about this mass spectrometry?Mass spectrometryHave you disproved mass spectrometry yet?What am I supposed to disprove?
How does it work and have you any proof that it works as it's supposed to?How it works.What am I supposed to disprove about this mass spectrometry?Mass spectrometryHave you disproved mass spectrometry yet?What am I supposed to disprove?
Irrelevant. Gas has mass and therefore W=F*d applies.
Not irrelevant, Humpty Dumpty; the formula for work done by a gas is W=pv.
Plus I see you did avoid my question, proving me correct yet again...
But let's go with your nonsense-flow for a moment; are you claiming that the gas DOES do work as it expands into the vacuum?
Do you know what potential energy is?...of course you do. It when something has had energy applied to it and hasn't had that energy returned as of yet, so the potential energy is there to be used.Yes, and when that potential energy is used, it's called kinetic energy.
You're thinking thermodynamics when you should be thinking Newtonian mechanics.Irrelevant. Gas has mass and therefore W=F*d applies.
Not irrelevant, Humpty Dumpty; the formula for work done by a gas is W=pv.
Plus I see you did avoid my question, proving me correct yet again...To which question are you referring? I ignore a lot of your irrelevant questions.
But let's go with your nonsense-flow for a moment; are you claiming that the gas DOES do work as it expands into the vacuum?No, that is not what I'm claiming. I'm claiming that accelerating a mass requires a force to be applied to that mass and therefore work has been done on that mass. Whether that mass is solid, liquid, gas or plasma does not matter in the slightest.
You're thinking thermodynamics when you should be thinking Newtonian mechanics.
Whether that mass is solid, liquid, gas or plasma does not matter in the slightest.
We have thoroughly disproven urine.Mass spectrometryHave you disproved mass spectrometry yet?What am I supposed to disprove?
How does it work and have you any proof that it works as it's supposed to?They all work mostly on the same principle. A ion enters an electric or magnetic field and is deflected depending on it's mass. A detector at the end picks it up. If atoms were everywhere expanded, this would not work. You could not see individual atoms.
Do you think the EU are lying to their schoolchildren with this?
(http://i.imgur.com/8xBxYQG.jpg)
And were Popular Mechanics lying to their readers with this?That article doesn't claim what you think it claims. It does not say the exhaust pushes off the atmosphere, it says pushing against the atmosphere.
(http://i.imgur.com/p3JANVi.jpg)
Pressure-volume work applies for work done in a closed system, such as gas in a piston. It is not relevant to an open system like a rocket in space.You're thinking thermodynamics when you should be thinking Newtonian mechanics.
No; I'm thinking what the formula is for work done by a gas.
It is W=pv.
Yes. Have you?Whether that mass is solid, liquid, gas or plasma does not matter in the slightest.
LULZ!!!
Have you consulted the Laws of Physics on this matter?
So; let's get this straight: you acknowledge the gas itself can do no work in a vacuum, but claim the gas is having work done upon it?Yes. Even scepti understands that the pressure in the chamber (which is a force) pushes the gas out into the void. Why can't you?
Oh; & this was the question you know damn well you avoided:I don't live in Europe, so it really doesn't concern me as to what they're teaching their schoolchildren. Maybe the EU doesn't think that they're sophisticated enough to handle Newton's 3rd law. You obviously aren't.
Do you think the EU are lying to their schoolchildren with this?
http://i.imgur.com/8xBxYQG.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/8xBxYQG.jpg)
And were Popular Mechanics lying to their readers with this?Popular Mechanics isn't a scientific journal, so I wouldn't count them among the most authoritative reference sources. Maybe you should try a physics text book instead.
http://i.imgur.com/p3JANVi.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/p3JANVi.jpg)
Care to offer a straight answer for once?LOL!!
That article doesn't claim what you think it claims. It does not say the exhaust pushes off the atmosphere, it says pushing against the atmosphere.
Even scepti understands that the pressure in the chamber (which is a force) pushes the gas out into the void.
Popular Mechanics isn't a scientific journal
Even scepti understands that the pressure in the chamber (which is a force) pushes the gas out into the void.
O rly?
Care to point out where he said that?
How does the mass of the gas accelerate from zero to whatever the speed of free expansion if there is no force applied to the gas?There is a force. It's a compression force.
Have you ever read Popular Mechanics? PM is dumbed down for common people with no special scientific background.Popular Mechanics isn't a scientific journal
LULZ!!!
So what is is then, Mr. 'I see fifty-two rockets'?
Even scepti understands that the pressure in the chamber (which is a force) pushes the gas out into the void.
O rly?
Care to point out where he said that?
Right here, where he answered a question that you quite conveniently (and hypocritically) ignored:How does the mass of the gas accelerate from zero to whatever the speed of free expansion if there is no force applied to the gas?There is a force. It's a compression force.
Again; tell me where scepti talks about pressure IN THE CHAMBER?
SHOW ME WHERE HE USED THOSE WORDS!
Your rocket gas tank is such a thing. It was filled by using a lot of energy and that energy is FORCED into that tank.If he isn't talking about pressure, then what is he talking about? Or do you not think that a tank is a chamber?
That tank whilst sealed, holds potential energy or that force waiting to be unleashed.
And stop pretending I avoided a question I'd already answered, you psycho...If you've answered it already, then it shouldn't be a problem for you to dig up the appropriate quote.
Plus, I see you're backtracking on whether Popular Mechanics is a science journal or not.No, I'm not. I said that Popular Mechanics is not a science journal and I stand by that statement.
He may not have used those words
Did I use those exact words? I said chamber, not combustion chamber. Are you saying that a tank is not a chamber?He may not have used those words
Then why did you attribute them to him?
You know damn well that the TANK in which the gas is stored under pressure is NOT the same thing as the COMBUSTION CHAMBER, which is unpressurised & open to the vacuum when in 'space'?
Are you saying that a tank is not a chamber?
The real crux of the matter is that Scepti understands that a force must be applied to a gas in order to accelerate it. Why can't you?Are you saying that a tank is not a chamber?
I'm saying that you Lied about what sceptimatic wrote, dyslexia-boy.
The combustion chamber of a rocket is open to the near-infinite vacuum of space.
Therefore, no gas can even be meaningfully said to exist within it, let alone combust.
Why can't you?
Object B is the fuel.
LolWhy can't you?
Why can't you learn to read my posts, cry-baby?
I ain't your errand-boy.
You're the crank who's arguing for the creation of pressure within an infinite vacuum.
You're the crank who's arguing that it's possible to push on nothing.
You're the crank who can't distinguish between One object & Two objects.
Do your own homework, crank.Object B is the fuel.
LOL!!!
He is.
Ever figure out how friction plays a part in work?
Pressure-Gradient Forces, Gas Laws, Fluid Mechanics, Continuum Assumption & Joules Expansion are the areas I suggest neutral readers research.
Am i correct in saying that vacuum can take out all the gas from an open chamber instantly?The vacuum doesn't take anything out.
No matter the dimension of the hole
QuotePressure-Gradient Forces, Gas Laws, Fluid Mechanics, Continuum Assumption & Joules Expansion are the areas I suggest neutral readers research.
Might I suggest you start reading these yourself as you still don't understand them....
I mean; look at this garbage:QuoteFree expansion is an irreversible process in which a gas expands into an insulated evacuated chamber. It is also called Joule expansion.
It is not that gas cannot do work in a vacuum. It is that gas does no work when expanding into an evacuated chamber because all of the effect net to zero.
What, exactly, is in that 'evacuated chamber' that the gas does no work whilst expanding into?
Could it be a vacuum?
Why yes; yes it IS a vacuum.
Thus, mainframes completely contradicts himself in one sentence!
& what 'because all of the net effect to zero' means is anybody's guess...
He does this all the time, yet expects us to believe he has a masters in science...
LOL!!!
Cool story bro...
for something to burn it has to meet a resistance.what?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!
The very simple way is to figure out why a candle goes out when placed in a jar. For the very same reason it would in a rocket if it was subject to extremely low pressure.
papa and scepti... how much do u think u know about fluid and thermo dynamics?
Also, could you please correct your atrocious grammar & spelling? It is distracting & makes you look thoroughly uneducated.
I will not ask again; you will be ignored if you persist in this evasive shabbiness.
Are you people deliberately not grasping what Papa Legba is saying?I grasp what Papa Legba is saying. The problem is that what he's saying is wrong.
I do read your posts, but sometimes it's difficult to filter through all of your abusive and irrelevant shitspamming and LULZing.Why can't you?
Why can't you learn to read my posts, cry-baby?
I ain't your errand-boy.So you don't feel the need to support your outlandish claims with evidence? Got it.
You're the crank who's arguing for the creation of pressure within an infinite vacuum.Nope. Just within a finite combustion chamber.
You're the crank who's arguing that it's possible to push on nothing.Nope. No matter how many times you say it, that isn't what I'm claiming.
You're the crank who can't distinguish between One object & Two objects.Of course I can. You're the one who can't seem to tell the difference between one system and the various objects that make up that system.
Do your own homework, crank.I have. Every time I look up free expansion and pressure-volume work, I find that they relate to closed systems such as gas in a piston.
Yeah, seriously.Quotefor something to burn it has to meet a resistance.what?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!
seriously?
The very simple way is to figure out why a candle goes out when placed in a jar. For the very same reason it would in a rocket if it was subject to extremely low pressure.Consume all oxygen doesn't really explain what's really happened.Quotecandle goes out because it consume all the oxygen.
papa and scepti... how much do u think u know about fluid and thermo dynamics?How much do you know and what would you like to tell us?
You're the crank who's arguing for the creation of pressure within an infinite vacuum.Nope. Just within a finite combustion chamber.
Another mighty shitpost from markjo.Correct. Notice that I'm not saying that the combustion chamber is going to hold on to the gas for any length of time, just long enough for the fuel to burn and accelerate the resulting gasses.
Here's all we need to look at:You're the crank who's arguing for the creation of pressure within an infinite vacuum.Nope. Just within a finite combustion chamber.
A 'finite combustion chamber' that's open to an Infinite Vacuum?
Let's hear it, what happens to the candle in the jar?You give me your examples of what happens and how it's happening, than I'll be more than happy to tell you what's happening as far as I'm concerned.
ps i asked what do u think u know? i just wanna your opinion, something like "i feel really comfortable with thermodynamics" or "i know the basics"
Let's hear it, what happens to the candle in the jar?You give me your examples of what happens and how it's happening, than I'll be more than happy to tell you what's happening as far as I'm concerned.
ps i asked what do u think u know? i just wanna your opinion, something like "i feel really comfortable with thermodynamics" or "i know the basics"
So tell me about your thermodynamics and give me some analogy as to how you think they work, plus tell me why the candle goes out under the jar. Try not to just say that oxygen gets used up. I want to know what's happening, so explain it all, then I'll tell you my thoughts.
Let's go over the facts again:Correct.
The combustion chamber of a rocket is open to the near-infinite vacuum of space.
Therefore, no gas can even be meaningfully said to exist within it, let alone combust.Incorrect.
Any gas introduced therein when the pressurised fuel tank leading to the combustion chamber is opened will simply expand freely into the enormous, zero-pressure vacuum, following the path of least resistance & doing no work whatsoever.Whatever happened to the property of gasses expanding to fill the space available as it's moving through the combustion chamber? How does the mass of the gas accelerate from zero in the tank to the speed of free expansion? Do you understand that there is a difference between work being done by the gas and work being done on the gas? Did you know that gas is a fluid that has viscosity and therefore it provides a certain amount of resistance to its own movement?
This will continue for as long as the fuel tank & chamber are open to the vacuum, until both exterior & interior pressures are equalised at zero.Sure.
It is a beautifully simple concept, fully supported by All the laws of physics, yet you 'round earthers' (lol!) just can't seem to grasp it...Except that you keep ignoring inconvenient laws of physics like mass flow and all 3 of Newton's laws of motion.
Plus this:That's because it is.
You all claim that the recoil of a gun is a valid analogy for how a rocket works in a vacuum.
Here is why it is not:Oh no, here we go again. ::)
With a gun you have object A, the mass of the gun; the expanding propellant, P, the gunpowder, sited between them; and object B, the mass of the bullet.Are you saying that the propellant isn't an object? ???
But with a rocket you ONLY have object A, the mass of the rocket, & the expanding propellant, P, the fuel.
No object B, see?
Thus, you have removed the necessary recoil mass required to produce motion.No, you fail to recognize it. I'll give you a hint, it's the combustion gasses produced by burning the propellant.
But we know a rocket DOES produce motion, don't we?Yes, we do.
Ergo, some other mass MUST be taking the place of object B.Yes, the combustion gasses produced by burning the propellant.
& the ONLY possibility for that other mass is the Atmosphere.False dichotomy. You fail to consider the possibility that the rocket can supply its own reaction mass in the form of propellant.
Ergo, NO atmosphere, NO motion; rockets CANNOT function in a vacuum.Nope. Incorrect conclusion from a faulty premise.
Q.E.D.
No matter how hard you try to spin it, cultists, every child knows that You cannot Push on Nothing.No one is saying that you can.
No maths required; only common sense.What's wrong, are you afraid of math? You'd be surprised at how much physics disagrees with common sense once you do the math.
Then there's the fact that you are all trying desperately to confine this 'debate' to the wrong branch of physics, i.e. Solid Mechanics rather than Fluid Mechanics...Fluid Mechanics includes Mass Flow, which you keep saying doesn't apply. Make up your mind, will you?
Kinda dishonest of you, dontcha think?Not nearly as dishonest as your deliberate misrepresentation of our arguments and physics in general.
Pressure-Gradient Forces, Gas Laws, Fluid Mechanics, Continuum Assumption & Joules Expansion are the areas I suggest neutral readers research.I suggest that you take your own advice and study up on Mass Flow as it applies to Fluid Dynamics.
Read & Learn!
F = | static thrust (in N) |
q = | mass flow (in kg/s) |
Ve = | exhaust velocity (in m/s) |
Pe = | exhaust pressure (in Pa/m^2) |
Pa = | Ambient Pressure (in Pa/m^2) |
Ae = | Exhaust area (in m^2) |
Pity there was not someone that does not have some sort of OCD when it comes to OBJECT B.
No matter how hard you try to spin it, cultists, every child knows that You cannot Push on Nothing.No one is saying that you can.
I suggest that you take your own advice and study up on Mass Flow as it applies to Fluid Dynamics.
Carry On Lying!
Exhaust gases are object B. They have mass.
Ha ha ha lol!
You don't even understand the composition of matter and how gases behave. Muppet.
i have a degree and you clearly don't. I can feel the jealousy oozing from your every pore. Sorry little boy, go back to masturbating in your parents basement.
If the Recoil Principle alone were the explanation for how rockets function, then the reaction mass needed for a rocket to travel any distance would approach Infinite...
Are we done here?NO, you say a rocket cannot work in a vacuum, but
Good; then Carry On Lying!
F = | static thrust (in N) |
q = | mass flow (in kg/s) |
Ve = | exhaust velocity (in m/s) |
At what ambient pressure does a rocket fail to work?[/b]
You say "Well, I guess that'd depend on the nozzle design, wouldn't it" Well, no it does NOT!At what ambient pressure does a rocket fail to work?[/b]
LULZ!!!
Obvious lurker/stalker is obvious...
Well, I guess that'd depend on the nozzle design, wouldn't it, .?
But unless NASA can design a nozzle that is Infinitely wide, or provide an Infinite amount of 'reaction mass' (lol!), then their shpayze-rokkits won't be working too well.
*Yawn!*
I thought you FEers went on and on about the false indoctrination schoolkids get!
Where does popular mechanics say a rocket pushed off the atmosphere?
No, I'm not saying that. Just like you aren't saying rocket engine are attached to commercial aircraft. Don't jump to stupid conclusions.Where does popular mechanics say a rocket pushed off the atmosphere?
So are you agreeing that jet engines DO push off the atmosphere, but still saying rocket engines DON'T?
You raown derf trolls really do need to make your minds up about exactly what does what & how...
Wouldn't want anyone to think you're just making shit up as you go, would you?
Lol yes you are & everyone knows it anyway!
Once again: Carry On Lying!
As for convergent/divergent nozzles; fortunately for us, genuine engineers have to use them, for turbines etc, so the facts of their operation cannot be twisted & obscured by NASA pseudo-science.Please cite a credible source that says Del Laval nozzles can't work if back-pressure is zero.
And one of the facts of their operation is that they require back-pressure in order to work, a thing that cannot be achieved in an infinite vacuum.
If the mass of the rocket is object A and the mass of the fuel is object B, then the rocket isn't pushing on itself (object A), is it?No matter how hard you try to spin it, cultists, every child knows that You cannot Push on Nothing.No one is saying that you can.
LOL!!!
Actually you all are; hence your insane claims that the rocket's own fuel mass is somehow Object B, and a rocket somehow 'pushes on itself' (lol!).
Yes, that's sorta true. That's why 2/3 of the total mass of the Saturn V was the mass of the fuel and oxidizer for the first stage which only got about 67 km high before burnout.I suggest that you take your own advice and study up on Mass Flow as it applies to Fluid Dynamics.
If the Recoil Principle alone were the explanation for how rockets function, then the reaction mass needed for a rocket to travel any distance would approach Infinite...
Which doesn't seem very practical, does it?That depends, If you want to go to the corner market, then no, it isn't very practical. But if you want to go to space, then there really aren't any more practical alternatives,
Are we done here?I don't know. Do you finally admit that a rocket can carry its own reaction mass?
Good; then Carry On Lying!Keep on shitspamming. ::)
Fantastic stuff!
You should write a sci-fi novel based on this bullshit...
Oh, wait, you already did - it was called 'teh munn lanndinks'.
Toodle-pip, Losers!
We do.He destroyed you. Why can you never make a proper rebuttal?
And we are Correct.
Fantastic stuff!If you can't refute it, then dismiss it.
You should write a sci-fi novel based on this bullshit...
Oh, wait, you already did - it was called 'teh munn lanndinks'.
Toodle-pip, Losers!
This would make a very boring book, though.
Sokarul, have you ever been to a farm?Yes
And you little kids say I shitpost.He is.
Yes, I read your posts, they just say a rocket cannot function in a vacuum, and give no sound reasons - look up "choked flow"!I thought you FEers went on and on about the false indoctrination schoolkids get!Instant Fail from the man voted 'most blocked youtube troll 2015', our very own 'rabinoz', aka 'rab downunder'.
Because I'm not a flat earther. Nor am I a raown derfer.
I have stated this repeatedly, so why should I answer your troll-spam questions when you clearly have not even read my posts?
It does not matter what shape the earth is; a rocket still cannot function in a vacuum.
Now; Carry On Wasting your Weekends by Lying on the Internet!
Cos that doesn't look at all suspicious...
Lol yes it does! Toodle-pip, Losers...
| Altitude | Pressure | |
0 ft | 1013.25 mbar | |
85,000 ft | 25.05 mbar | SR-71A service ceiling |
123,523 ft | 4.68 mbar | MiG E-266M record jet plane |
314,000 ft | 0.00117 mbar | X-15 record winged rocket plane |
So at which altitude does the rocket stop working
look up "choked flow"!
If you flow more in than out, what do you get?
Maybe he gave good advice.
This stuff is written by journalists!
Then there's the fact that you are all trying desperately to confine this 'debate' to the wrong branch of physics, i.e. Solid Mechanics rather than Fluid Mechanics...Then why do you keep bringing up free expansion which is part of thermodynamics?
Incorrect.Maybe instead of just saying 'he is' You can actually have an actual debate. That right there says that you can't find an answer, so you say 'he is'
He is.
Maybe instead of just saying 'he is' You can actually have an actual debate.
Still haven't learned that a vacuum isn't a force.
If you flow more in than out, what do you get?
I am most disappointed, as we have already established that 'choked flow', or convergent/divergent, nozzles, require back-pressure in order to function.
The combustion chamber of a rocket is open to the near-infinite vacuum of space.
Therefore, no gas can even be meaningfully said to exist within it, let alone combust.
Any gas introduced therein when the pressurised fuel tank leading to the combustion chamber is opened will simply expand freely into the enormous, zero-pressure vacuum, following the path of least resistance & doing no work whatsoever.
This will continue for as long as the fuel tank & chamber are open to the vacuum, until both exterior & interior pressures are equalised at zero.
It is a beautifully simple concept, fully supported by All the laws of physics, yet you 'round earthers' (lol!) just can't seem to grasp it...
But with a rocket you ONLY have object A, the mass of the rocket, & the expanding propellant, P, the fuel.
No object B, see?
Thus, you have removed the necessary recoil mass required to produce motion.
But we know a rocket DOES produce motion, don't we?
Ergo, some other mass MUST be taking the place of object B.
& the ONLY possibility for that other mass is the Atmosphere.
Ergo, NO atmosphere, NO motion; rockets CANNOT function in a vacuum.
Pressure-Gradient Forces, Gas Laws, Fluid Mechanics, Continuum Assumption & Joules Expansion are the areas I suggest neutral readers research.indeed, here u go..... should be a nice sunday's reading
Read & Learn!
Not at all, just waiting patiently for a simple answer (pressure or altitude will do)!So at which altitude does the rocket stop workingYou are acknowledging that they DO stop working when atmospheric pressure is low enough...
But when you say this:Now just how did you work out that "'choked flow', or convergent/divergent, nozzles, require back-pressure in order to function."?look up "choked flow"!I am most disappointed, as we have already established that 'choked flow', or convergent/divergent, nozzles, require back-pressure in order to function.
indeed, here u go..... should be a nice sunday's reading
Any work I have studied on that indicates that they certainly do not need any back pressure to work perfectly!
I take it that you finally admit that you have no idea how to calculate it! Sorry, but I can't help you, because there is simply no such limitation!Any work I have studied on that indicates that they certainly do not need any back pressure to work perfectly!Jesus Christ you're just making shit up now, aren't you?
GTFO.
I take it that you finally admit that you have no idea how to calculate it!Any work I have studied on that indicates that they certainly do not need any back pressure to work perfectly!Jesus Christ you're just making shit up now, aren't you?
GTFO.
This stuff is written by journalists!
Sokarul is wrong nearly all the time. I, however, am not.
Should be really easy for you to find when I was last wrong. I'll wait.Won't change the Fact that you & socky-boy are the only two members who primp & prance around boasting of being 'unndifeetd' though.Sokarul is wrong nearly all the time. I, however, am not.
Sokarul, have you ever been to a farm?Yes
No.Sokarul, have you ever been to a farm?Yes
Did you gaze lustfully at the sheep?
Do you have a thing educated to say or are you just going to be stupid?
Maybe not, but you can calculate the performance of a De Laval nozzle.I take it that you finally admit that you have no idea how to calculate it!Any work I have studied on that indicates that they certainly do not need any back pressure to work perfectly!Jesus Christ you're just making shit up now, aren't you?
GTFO.
You can't calculate bullshit.
Which is exactly what your claim that convergent/divergent nozzles 'work perfectly' without back pressure is.Incorrect.
Vacuum conditions
In the case of upstream air pressure at atmospheric pressure and vacuum conditions downstream of an orifice, both the air velocity and the mass flow rate becomes choked or limited when sonic velocity is reached through the orifice.
About what?Do you have a thing educated to say or are you just going to be stupid?
You're getting very defensive about this.
Where does popular mechanics claim the engine pushes off the atmosphere?
Maybe not, but you can calculate the performance of a De Laval nozzle.LOL!!!
http://www.engapplets.vt.edu/fluids/CDnozzle/cdinfo.html (http://www.engapplets.vt.edu/fluids/CDnozzle/cdinfo.html)
Maybe you should point out where my source says that zero ambient pressure poses a problem.Maybe not, but you can calculate the performance of a De Laval nozzle.LOL!!!
http://www.engapplets.vt.edu/fluids/CDnozzle/cdinfo.html (http://www.engapplets.vt.edu/fluids/CDnozzle/cdinfo.html)
Maybe you should read the sources you quote more closely, Humpty Dumpty.
Besides, you invented a whole new branch of physics called 'Newtonian Multitasking' a few pages ago, to explain how one object can actually be two in order for your 'shpayze-rokkits' to function.Very simple. Jump up into the air.
Sokarul was helping you; I believe your triumphant conclusion was that a man jumping up & down was decisive proof of your radical Thesis...
Care to enlighten us further on this 'Newtonian Multitasking'?
Very simple. Jump up into the air.
The floor is object A
You are object B
Where is the propellant?
That's all the help you are getting!
So papa, what's the Point of a convergent/divergent nozzle and how it works?Have you ever used a hosepipe to water your garden and couldn't reach certain parts, so you pinch the hose pipe to create a much higher pressure in a narrower band?
They refuse to accept a vacuum is nothing because by accepting it they have to accept that their space rockets are the fantasy they believed to be fact.
About what?Do you have a thing educated to say or are you just going to be stupid?
You're getting very defensive about this.
Ps I've never claimed it has been written by a journalist and i have no idea from whom they've been writtenOK, I was going to keep away from this, but I can't have Luckyfred blamed for my "indisgression"! I blamed journalists for claiming that jet engines "push on the air" when they are really "reaction" devices!
OK, I was going to keep away from this, but I can't have Luckyfred blamed for my "indisgression"!
If you cannot understand what I said, that's not my fault. And NO I did not even need a spell checker to spell "indisgression"! But, I was the one who labelled the writers of those articles as journalists, not Luckyfred, so I tried to explain to you why I did that. Sorry if my words were too long!OK, I was going to keep away from this, but I can't have Luckyfred blamed for my "indisgression"!Before we indulge your pseudo-scientific blather any further, please define the word 'indisgression'.
We are already painfully aware of luckyfred's fluency in Gibberish; has he perhaps been giving you lessons?
Or is it a word that you learned from your relentless & unwelcome youtube trolling sessions?
Thank you please!
If you cannot understand what I said, that's not my fault.
So if I cannot understand a word that you just made up it's MY fault?
I, on the other hand, can believe that you didn't answer the question,Very simple. Jump up into the air.
The floor is object A
You are object B
Where is the propellant?
I can't believe you wrote this.
But okay; so, the 'rocket-man' in your insane analogy has launched himself from the ground.??? Are you a psycho or just an idiot?
How does he now keep going upwards, to 'shpayze'?
PS So you regard pointing out people's woeful understanding of the Globe Earth trolling. You know, the rubbish put out about planes heading into space on a globe and aircraft attitude indicators "proving" a flat earth - all simply demonstrating an abysmal understanding of how planes fly and what aircraft instruments actually do.
If you don't like it, tough cheese as they say in the classics!
can papa or sceptimatic explain how does convergent/divergent nozzle work, please?No they cant!
And markjo; are you saying that rockets contain no propellant?No. I'm saying that rockets contain their own reaction mass (propellant).
Or is the simple principle of the release of energy through Contraction & Expansion simply beyond you?Not at all. I'm saying that the energy (propellant) can come from the reaction mass (person jumping).
Or is the simple principle of the release of energy through Contraction & Expansion simply beyond you?Not at all.
The mass of the man is supplying the force needed to push against the mass of the ground in the same way that the mass of the expanding propellant is supplying the force needed to push against the mass of the rocket.Or is the simple principle of the release of energy through Contraction & Expansion simply beyond you?Not at all.
Really?
When the man jumps, do his legs contract then expand?
*Yawn!**sigh* Yes.
When the man jumps, do his legs contract then expand?
So, a man jumps by utilising the energy provided through the contraction & expansion of his legs against the ground.Yes. However, are you suggesting that a man and his legs are 2 different objects?
Yes?
So, a man jumps by utilising the energy provided through the contraction & expansion of his legs against the ground.Yes.
Yes?
Of course not, because you've removed object A. As you well know, action/reaction pairings require 2 objects.So, a man jumps by utilising the energy provided through the contraction & expansion of his legs against the ground.Yes.
Yes?
So, if we removed the ground and replaced it with Nothing, would the man still be able to jump?
Astounding!
You can't even read the very links that you provided.
You just ask me to explain them to you...
Of course not, because you've removed object A. As you well know, action/reaction pairings require 2 objects.
Yes, in exactly the same way that the expanding (burning) propellant is ONE object using stored energy to create a force by expanding against a SECOND object, i.e. the combustion chamber.Of course not, because you've removed object A. As you well know, action/reaction pairings require 2 objects.
Good.
So, the man, his legs, leg-bones & muscles are all ONE object, using stored energy to create a Force by expanding against a SECOND object, i.e. the ground.
Yes?
Lol
This is going to be good. He will explain it to you and then you will claim object B is the air.
Lol
Uneducatedness
Yes
No, let's not. We are discussing rockets in space, not rockets on launch pads.Yes
Good.
Now let us look at a rocket on its launch pad, with its fuel stored inside.
No, let's not.
you conveniently ignored the part of my post that proves that the propellant can be object B.
Besides, you invented a whole new branch of physics called 'Newtonian Multitasking' a few pages ago, to explain how one object can actually be two in order for your 'shpayze-rokkits' to function.
Sokarul was helping you; I believe your triumphant conclusion was that a man jumping up & down was decisive proof of your radical Thesis...
Care to enlighten us further on this 'Newtonian Multitasking'?
Give us all a few more belly-laughs, eh?
Oh, so you aren't interested in explanations as to why things happen? Good to know. ::)you conveniently ignored the part of my post that proves that the propellant can be object B.
Actually, I ignored everything you said that was not a simple 'Yes' or 'No'.
Yes
Oh; so you wanna start again, Cowardly Marine?I didn't run away. I simply wanted to avoid a tedious and unnecessary discussion about rockets on launch pads when the topic is rockets in space.
Okay; here's the point where you ran away from straightforward yes/no logic & began prevaricating:
No.Yes
Good.
Now let us look at a rocket on its launch pad, with its fuel stored inside.
Is it fair to say that this, too, is ONE object, in the same way that a man, his leg-bones, muscles, stored energy etc, are ONE object?
Answer Yes or No, thank you please!
Now let us look at a rocket on its launch pad, with its fuel stored inside.No.
Is it fair to say that this, too, is ONE object, in the same way that a man, his leg-bones, muscles, stored energy etc, are ONE object?
Answer Yes or No, thank you please!
Anyhoo; 'Newtonian Multitasking': who's writing the wiki-page on this epochal advance in Scientific Understanding?
Now let us look at a rocket on its launch pad, with its fuel stored inside.No.
Is it fair to say that this, too, is ONE object, in the same way that a man, his leg-bones, muscles, stored energy etc, are ONE object?
Answer Yes or No, thank you please!
I rest my case.Thank you, I accept your surrender.
Anyhoo; 'Newtonian Multitasking': who's writing the wiki-page on this epochal advance in Scientific Understanding?You already admitted that one object can use stored energy to push off another object, so I don't understand your confusion on the subject.
You already admitted that one object can use stored energy to push off another object, so I don't understand your confusion on the subject.
So, a man jumps by utilising the energy provided through the contraction & expansion of his legs against the ground.Yes.
Yes?
??? How is your statement about a man using the stored energy in his legs to push off the floor any different from my statement about one object using stored energy to push off of another object?You already admitted that one object can use stored energy to push off another object, so I don't understand your confusion on the subject.
No, that was you.
Look:So, a man jumps by utilising the energy provided through the contraction & expansion of his legs against the ground.
Jump up into the air.
The floor is object A
You are object B
Where is the propellant?
So, a man jumps by utilising the energy provided through the contraction & expansion of his legs against the ground.Yes.
Yes?
Now let us look at a rocket on its launch pad, with its fuel stored inside.No.
Is it fair to say that this, too, is ONE object, in the same way that a man, his leg-bones, muscles, stored energy etc, are ONE object?
Answer Yes or No, thank you please!
How is your statement about a man using the stored energy in his legs to push off the floor any different from my statement about one object using stored energy to push off of another object?
I don't see any logical line of reasoning here at all.The mass of rocket is object A, the mass of the propellant is object B and the action of burning the propellant is the energy source,
So, please define exactly what Objects A and B represent, in terms of rocketry, in your original statement above.
Does that help?
Now let us look at a rocket on its launch pad, with its fuel stored inside.No.
Is it fair to say that this, too, is ONE object, in the same way that a man, his leg-bones, muscles, stored energy etc, are ONE object?
Answer Yes or No, thank you please!
Seriously, after all this time people in this century have trouble understanding the simple concept of action and reaction? All the trolling I have read here is "I don't get how a rocket's fuel can be object B, therefore it's a lie".
??? Who said anything about the ground? I said the floor, but I didn't say the floor of what.Does that help?Anyhoo; so, if the man is the fuel & the ground is the rocket, how come the ground doesn't move when the man jumps?
Of course, if you just accepted what I suggested below as being correct, we could begin to make sense of your spazzed-out analogy:I don't accept it as being correct because it isn't correct. In the context of action/reaction pairings the rocket and its propellant are two different objects.
I said the floor, but I didn't say the floor of what.
In the context of action/reaction pairings the rocket and its propellant are two different objects.
Now let us look at a rocket on its launch pad, with its fuel stored inside.No.
Is it fair to say that this, too, is ONE object, in the same way that a man, his leg-bones, muscles, stored energy etc, are ONE object?
Answer Yes or No, thank you please!
The mass of the man is supplying the force needed to push against the mass of the ground in the same way that the mass of the expanding propellant is supplying the force needed to push against the mass of the rocket.
??? Who said anything about the ground?
Because it doesn't really matter.I said the floor, but I didn't say the floor of what.
Why not?
Why should it matter?In the context of action/reaction pairings the rocket and its propellant are two different objects.
So how come the propellant is INSIDE the rocket, whereas your man/fuel thing is OUTSIDE the floor?
??? Who said anything about the ground? I said the floor, but I didn't say the floor of what
The mass of the man is supplying the force needed to push against the mass of the ground in the same way that the mass of the expanding propellant is supplying the force needed to push against the mass of the rocket.
Stop avoiding the point, markjo.Okay, so I said ground. Again, why should it matter?
You just said this, implying I was mistaken:??? Who said anything about the ground? I said the floor, but I didn't say the floor of what
But only yesterday you said this, proving I was not:The mass of the man is supplying the force needed to push against the mass of the ground in the same way that the mass of the expanding propellant is supplying the force needed to push against the mass of the rocket.
'A man jumping up & down is like a rocket...'In the sense that the man is supplying the energy and the reaction mass, yes.
'Newtonian Multitasking'...Ask one of your 'engineer' buddies to explain component vectors.
'The ground is not the floor unless it is & it does & does not move & it doesn't matter anyway just because I say so, & it doesn't matter if a thing is One object or Two objects, again just because I say so...'Calm down Papa Legba, you're getting hysterical.
Okay, so I said ground. Again, why should it matter?
Have a pint and ponder whether the the beer and the glass are one object or two.
Why should it matter?In the context of action/reaction pairings the rocket and its propellant are two different objects.
So how come the propellant is INSIDE the rocket, whereas your man/fuel thing is OUTSIDE the floor?
Calm down Papa Legba, you're getting hysterical.
Exactly. Is a glass of beer one object or two?Have a pint and ponder whether the the beer and the glass are one object or two.
Oh, so now a rocket is like a glass of beer?
Again: Wtf is wrong with you?
We are trying to establish whether a rocket & its fuel count as One object in Newtonian terms.
Then why do you feel the need to be so abusive? It's hard to have a rational discussion when you have to filter through all of the bile that you spew.Calm down Papa Legba, you're getting hysterical.
LOL!!!
Wishful thinking, old man; Words are Not Reality.
Papa did you acknowledge my post?You mention that you've shown Papa how rockets work in your last post. Tell me: what is your expansion gas expanding into?
Papa did you acknowledge my post?You mention that you've shown Papa how rockets work in your last post. Tell me: what is your expansion gas expanding into?
Explain where it causes this action/reaction force in your world, because all you're explaining to me is exactly what you've been told about how rockets work by expanded gases being thrown against the atmosphere and the atmosphere being compressed by the expanded gas until it springs back against it.Papa did you acknowledge my post?You mention that you've shown Papa how rockets work in your last post. Tell me: what is your expansion gas expanding into?
what do you mean by expanding into? As in converting, turning into something? You've seen this reaction everytime you pour soda into a glass, you see the gas making efervescence, if that's the english word, and goes to the top. Everytime you shake a gassified soda can, bottle, gas that was expanding inside, tries to escape from any exit in pressure. This causes an action/reaction force. If the force is strong enough to lift the container's weight, it will make it move. That is first and third newton's laws.
Explain where it causes this action/reaction force in your world, because all you're explaining to me is exactly what you've been told about how rockets work by expanded gases being thrown against the atmosphere and the atmosphere being compressed by the expanded gas until it springs back against it.Papa did you acknowledge my post?You mention that you've shown Papa how rockets work in your last post. Tell me: what is your expansion gas expanding into?
what do you mean by expanding into? As in converting, turning into something? You've seen this reaction everytime you pour soda into a glass, you see the gas making efervescence, if that's the english word, and goes to the top. Everytime you shake a gassified soda can, bottle, gas that was expanding inside, tries to escape from any exit in pressure. This causes an action/reaction force. If the force is strong enough to lift the container's weight, it will make it move. That is first and third newton's laws.
A lot like a person (imagine this) doing a super huge fart onto a trampoline and pushing himself up by forcing that fart against that trampoline fabric which warps because it's stretched to resistance and creates a barrier springboard for that enormous fart.
If that fart continued and that trampoline resistance followed, you would have your rocket propulsion.
There are no resistant trampolines in your space to react to action, meaning space rockets are now reclassified as non-space rockets,
Very simple. Jump up into the air.
The floor is object A
You are object B
Where is the propellant?
Is a glass of beer one object or two?
Markjo's explanation of 'Newtonian Multitasking' started with this:Is this what passes for polite conversation in your line of work?Very simple. Jump up into the air.
The floor is object A
You are object B
Where is the propellant?
Then after 4 pages of gibberish, evasion, blatant Lies, sock-puppetry (hiya, goebbels!) & forum manipulation, finally ended up in this logical car-crash of a non-sequitur:Is a glass of beer one object or two?
Yeah - Science!
LOL!!!
Is this what passes for polite conversation in your line of work?
If you just want to shitpost abusive gibberish, then feel free to fuck off.
You were right, it was really easy. I had to go back one post to find the last time you were wrong (from the time you made the request; I'm sure there are many more examples, now):Should be really easy for you to find when I was last wrong. I'll wait.Won't change the Fact that you & socky-boy are the only two members who primp & prance around boasting of being 'unndifeetd' though.Sokarul is wrong nearly all the time. I, however, am not.
Who's works in a pharmacy? Is that another one of your claims? Millionair assistant?Who's is a contraction of 'who is' and sometimes 'who has', which makes no sense in the context of your statement.
I'll take that as your defeat. Funny how one example of a soda bottle can destroy your entire thread.
For the most part, I've been quite civil with you. I'm just wondering why you feel the need to be such a jerk all the time.Is this what passes for polite conversation in your line of work?
Is this what passes for polite conversation in yours?
I'm just wondering why you feel the need to be such a jerk all the time.
If you just want to shitpost abusive gibberish, then feel free to fuck off.
Is a glass of beer one object or two?
I'll take that as your defeat. Funny how one example of a soda bottle can destroy your entire thread.
Funny that; because I know of no 'engineer' who does not understand that if no motion can be produced, then all talk of momentum is irrelevant.No motion is produced? Hmm, that's a new one.QuoteNor do I know of any 'engineer' who is unaware that back-pressure is impossible to sustain in an infinite vacuum.I'm sure you don't know many 'engineers'.QuoteBut then again, all the 'engineers' I know are people who make Engines.Well, most of the engineers that I know, don't make engines. Some design them, but not many make them.QuoteMathematical smatterers like computer programmers do not count.No, my idea of engineering is graduating magna cum laude with a Bachelor of Science degree in mechanical engineering. Then getting a job as a rocket scientist. Well, technically, as a missile scientist.
Here is your idea of 'engineering': 11000110100111011010110110100110100001001101010...QuoteBut hey; if REAL engineering & physics offends you, just 'lock the thread & turn off the lights', eh?Yep. If I had had my mod powers restored at the time I would have locked the thread. But, alas, we are 36 pages deep into this now.QuoteCos that wouldn't be either censorship or trolling or just plain ignorance, would it... 'Engy Baby'?No, no and no.QuoteHey, 'Engy'; WHERE ARE YOU?I solved the problem on the first page. I figured you idiots would like to argue again for another 200 pages.QuoteYeah; still waiting for that 'cool calm logical moderation', Mr. 'Engineer'My moderation is far from cool or calm. I prefer to be dictatorial and arrogant.
I solved the problem on the first page.
Expansion of gas, Free, in a Vacuum.
The end.
Turn off your brains & go back to sleep.
Nice, you could only find a typo. Guess I had higher expectations from someone who thinks they proved General Relativity. Better luck next time.You were right, it was really easy. I had to go back one post to find the last time you were wrong (from the time you made the request; I'm sure there are many more examples, now):Should be really easy for you to find when I was last wrong. I'll wait.Won't change the Fact that you & socky-boy are the only two members who primp & prance around boasting of being 'unndifeetd' though.Sokarul is wrong nearly all the time. I, however, am not.Who's works in a pharmacy? Is that another one of your claims? Millionair assistant?Who's is a contraction of 'who is' and sometimes 'who has', which makes no sense in the context of your statement.
'Millionaire' is the correct way to spell the word you were attempting to use.
Nice, you could only find a typo. Better luck next time.
Nice, you could only find a typo. Better luck next time.
Yuo difeetd adn distroyyd himm!!1!11!!111
Nice, you could only find a typo. Guess I had higher expectations from someone who thinks they proved General Relativity.Well, you asked for me to find the last time you were wrong. So I looked one post back and found it. You were right about one thing though: finding the last time you were wrong was easy.
Is that worse than any of your typical posts?I'm just wondering why you feel the need to be such a jerk all the time.
What, a jerk like this?If you just want to shitpost abusive gibberish, then feel free to fuck off.
Or a jerk who thinks this proves 'space travel'?That wasn't to prove space travel. It was to prove that one object can be contained within another object, a concept that you can't quite seem to grasp.Is a glass of beer one object or two?
Or a jerk who employs such laughably obvious sock-puppets as this?Why would I need a sock puppet? ???I'll take that as your defeat. Funny how one example of a soda bottle can destroy your entire thread.
Sorry; what was that about being 'civil' again?If you think that I've lied about how rockets work in a vacuum, then you're free to link to a credible source that contradicts me. However we both know that will never happen because you know that I'm right, so all you can do is insult me.
Cos it looks to me - & every other neutral out there - like you've used every single dirty trick in the book to try & force your lies upon us...
It was to prove that one object can be contained within another object, a concept that you can't quite seem to grasp.
Now let us look at a rocket on its launch pad, with its fuel stored inside.No.
Is it fair to say that this, too, is ONE object, in the same way that a man, his leg-bones, muscles, stored energy etc, are ONE object?
Answer Yes or No, thank you please!
Correct. In the context of action/reaction pairings, the rocket is one object and the propellant is another object, just like a glass is one object and the beer within it is another object.It was to prove that one object can be contained within another object, a concept that you can't quite seem to grasp.
LOL!!!
Funny that, cos this is what you said earlier on the exact same subject:Now let us look at a rocket on its launch pad, with its fuel stored inside.No.
Is it fair to say that this, too, is ONE object, in the same way that a man, his leg-bones, muscles, stored energy etc, are ONE object?
Answer Yes or No, thank you please!
So you agreed the man IS one object, but said the rocket is NOT...
Seems a thing can only be viewed as a single system when markjo says so; hypocrite much?Whether something is viewed as a single system or separate components of that system depends on the context of the analysis. You do understand the concept of context, don't you?
Of course, a rocket with its fuel inside IS one object, in the exact same way as a man is, and they both use stored energy inside them to create a Force against a second, external, Object in order to move.You seem to be hung up on the word "external". Why can't an external object come from within another object?
In the case of the rocket, this external Object is the atmosphere through which it moves.If the rocket is pushing on the atmosphere, then how does the atmosphere push back with an equal and opposite reaction?
In the context of action/reaction pairings, the rocket is one object and the propellant is another object
In the context of action/reaction pairings, the rocket is one object and the propellant is another object
Wrong again.
Please read the section on gun recoil in the following post:
The combustion chamber of a rocket is open to the near-infinite vacuum of space.
Therefore, no gas can even be meaningfully said to exist within it, let alone combust.
Any gas introduced therein when the pressurised fuel tank leading to the combustion chamber is opened will simply expand freely into the enormous, zero-pressure vacuum, following the path of least resistance & doing no work whatsoever.
This will continue for as long as the fuel tank & chamber are open to the vacuum, until both exterior & interior pressures are equalised at zero.
It is a beautifully simple concept, fully supported by All the laws of physics, yet you 'round earthers' (lol!) just can't seem to grasp it...
Plus this:
You all claim that the recoil of a gun is a valid analogy for how a rocket works in a vacuum.
Here is why it is not:
With a gun you have object A, the mass of the gun; the expanding propellant, P, the gunpowder, sited between them; and object B, the mass of the bullet.
But with a rocket you ONLY have object A, the mass of the rocket, & the expanding propellant, P, the fuel.
No object B, see?
Thus, you have removed the necessary recoil mass required to produce motion.
But we know a rocket DOES produce motion, don't we?
Ergo, some other mass MUST be taking the place of object B.
& the ONLY possibility for that other mass is the Atmosphere.
Ergo, NO atmosphere, NO motion; rockets CANNOT function in a vacuum.
Q.E.D.
No matter how hard you try to spin it, cultists, every child knows that You cannot Push on Nothing.
No maths required; only common sense.
Then there's the fact that you are all trying desperately to confine this 'debate' to the wrong branch of physics, i.e. Solid Mechanics rather than Fluid Mechanics...
Kinda dishonest of you, dontcha think?
Pressure-Gradient Forces, Gas Laws, Fluid Mechanics, Continuum Assumption & Joules Expansion are the areas I suggest neutral readers research.
Oh; & Thermodynamics too - thanks for that, markjo!
The combustion chamber of a rocket is open to the blah, blah, blah...How many times and how many different ways do I have to show how wrong you are with that tired old piece of copy-pasta before you finally give it a rest?
?Nice, you could only find a typo. Guess I had higher expectations from someone who thinks they proved General Relativity.Well, you asked for me to find the last time you were wrong. So I looked one post back and found it. You were right about one thing though: finding the last time you were wrong was easy.
Too bad for you, you really suck at, well, everything.
And this "time until the equilibrium is reached" would be very short due to the enormous difference of/gradient in pressure from imaginary fuel tanks in space to the 10^-16 bar vast nothingness of space near vacuum that forms the unescapable environment. Like opening an airplane door at cruise altitude but then some orders of magnitude stronger and faster
Where's your Nobel Prize for proving General Relativity?What?
Like I said, here in the real world you couldn't find where I was wrong.But I just posted where you were wrong last (relative to the request). Which is what you asked for. And I easily found.
The combustion chamber of a rocket is open to the near-infinite vacuum of space.You clearly have no understanding of the operation of a choked de Laval nozzle.
Therefore, no gas can even be meaningfully said to exist within it, let alone combust.
Any gas introduced therein when the pressurised fuel tank leading to the combustion chamber is opened will simply expand freely into the enormous, zero-pressure vacuum, following the path of least resistance & doing no work whatsoever.
This will continue for as long as the fuel tank & chamber are open to the vacuum, until both exterior & interior pressures are equalised at zero.
It is a beautifully simple concept, fully supported by All the laws of physics, yet you 'round earthers' (lol!) just can't seem to grasp it...
You clearly have no understanding of the operation of a choked de Laval nozzle.
Object A is the Rocket + unburnt fuel, Object F is the burning fuel, and Object B is the thousands of pounds of fuel being ejected out the back.
Of course it has a hole in it - could be quite a big one!You clearly have no understanding of the operation of a choked de Laval nozzle.
Has your convergent/divergent nozzle got a hole in it?
Yes.
Then the gas will simply expand, freely, through that hole, doing no work on the way.
Now back to youtube with you, there must be some flat earth/rocket-fraud videos you haven't trolled yet.
Wrong!!!!Pretty solid physical description of a vacuum. ::)
Pressure gradient is the same between 1 bar-vacuum and 2 bar-1bar.
Vacuum doesn't have special property, is just the absence of material
Voyager "flew around" for what, 30 years?? How much "fuel" did that monster have on board? :DVery little. Probably only a tiny amount of pressurized propellant for course corrections.
The voyager is a fictional probe to make us believe in a universe.Wrong!!!!Pretty solid physical description of a vacuum. ::)
Pressure gradient is the same between 1 bar-vacuum and 2 bar-1bar.
Vacuum doesn't have special property, is just the absence of material
T & P are almost zero. "Nothing special about it, you can just traverse with some propellant"
Voyager "flew around" for what, 30 years?? How much "fuel" did that monster have on board? :D
How does this voyager manage to simply float in this vacuum when gravity is pulling at it, as we are told?QuoteVoyager "flew around" for what, 30 years?? How much "fuel" did that monster have on board? :DVery little. Probably only a tiny amount of pressurized propellant for course corrections.
Once you are moving in space you will need another force to stop you.
In a vacuum it is hard to find anything to stop you.
"Course corrections"? You just design a path on a computer, send the thingy up and then you correct the course of it, against what and how exactly? :DQuoteVoyager "flew around" for what, 30 years?? How much "fuel" did that monster have on board? :DVery little. Probably only a tiny amount of pressurized propellant for course corrections.
Once you are moving in space you will need another force to stop you.
In a vacuum it is hard to find anything to stop you.
So far the chemical reaction of fuel and oxidizer is resulted to be the most practical source of energy for propulsionWhy do they need to be ignited in this near vacuum?
So far the chemical reaction of fuel and oxidizer is resulted to be the most practical source of energy for propulsionWhy do they need to be ignited in this near vacuum?
Ok then why do they need to chemically react to create combustion to propel them in this space vacuum?So far the chemical reaction of fuel and oxidizer is resulted to be the most practical source of energy for propulsionWhy do they need to be ignited in this near vacuum?
The chemical reaction between fuel and oxidizer is called combustion
But u can produce thrust and once u've reached your final orbit...How does this work, before the thingy is in "orbit", where is it before? Out of orbit?
Of course u can move from one orbit to another.
U use the thrust to put your object into an orbit intersecting the initial and final orbit
You might just as well ask why you burn the gasoline in a car's engine. Because that's how you release the energy stored in the propellant and you need energy to accelerate the combustion gasses that push against the rocket engine.Ok then why do they need to chemically react to create combustion to propel them in this space vacuum?So far the chemical reaction of fuel and oxidizer is resulted to be the most practical source of energy for propulsionWhy do they need to be ignited in this near vacuum?
The chemical reaction between fuel and oxidizer is called combustion
Unless you want to play dodge.
Object A is the Rocket + unburnt fuel, Object F is the burning fuel, and Object B is the thousands of pounds of fuel being ejected out the back.
...you need energy to accelerate the combustion gasses that push against the rocket engine.
Orbits are trajectory that can be designed
, all u need is enough energy to put your object in the intersecting orbit and then in the final one.
When talking about satellites the orbit in which it wil travel is designed according to satellite's mission.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hohmann_transfer_orbit
This is just one example of maneuvers that can be executed to change orbit.
Since physics rely on math and u seem a great expert of physics, can u provide a set of equation showing u need antigravitation or infinite energy to get into orbit around the earth?
Hohmann was influenced in part by the German science fiction author Kurd Lasswitz and his 1897 book Two Planets.
Consider a geostationary transfer orbit, beginning at r1 = 6,678 km (altitude 300 km) and ending in a geostationary orbit with r2 = 42,164 km (altitude 35,786 km).
In the smaller circular orbit the speed is 7.73 km/s; in the larger one, 3.07 km/s. In the elliptical orbit in between the speed varies from 10.15 km/s at the perigee to 1.61 km/s at the apogee.
The Δv for the two burns are thus 10.15 − 7.73 = 2.42 and 3.07 − 1.61 = 1.46 km/s, together 3.88 km/s.
It is interesting to note that this is greater than the Δv required for an escape orbit: 10.93 − 7.73 = 3.20 km/s. Applying a Δv at the LEO of only 0.78 km/s more (3.20−2.42) would give the rocket the escape speed, which is less than the Δv of 1.46 km/s required to circularize the geosynchronous orbit. This illustrates that at large speeds the same Δv provides more specific orbital energy, and energy increase is maximized if one spends the Δv as quickly as possible, rather than spending some, being decelerated by gravity, and then spending some more to overcome the deceleration (of course, the objective of a Hohmann transfer orbit is different).
Forgetfull at your old age? Remember evidence vs proof? You think you proved a science argument thereby proving general relativity. When do you think your Nobel Orize will show up?Where's your Nobel Prize for proving General Relativity?What?
Like I said, here in the real world you couldn't find where I was wrong.But I just posted where you were wrong last (relative to the request). Which is what you asked for. And I easily found.
Here you go: one geek, one skateboard...Man is the rocket.
!
What represents what?
Thank you please!
(http://#)
The ball is the fuel/oxidizer exhaust.
the expanding (burning) propellant is ONE object using stored energy to create a force by expanding against a SECOND object, i.e. the combustion chamber.
Why does it have to expand to be equal? Does the guy need put on a netal shell and nose cone to be equal to the rocket?The ball is the fuel/oxidizer exhaust.
But markjo claimed the fuel is EXPANDING.
Look:the expanding (burning) propellant is ONE object using stored energy to create a force by expanding against a SECOND object, i.e. the combustion chamber.
If the ball is the fuel in your example, why is it NOT expanding?
I'm not referring to gas in space. I'm referring to gas in the combustion chamber which can build to several thousand psi....you need energy to accelerate the combustion gasses that push against the rocket engine.
There is no gas in space. It's a near vacuum of <10^-16 bar and 3 K (-270 C) temperature.
I'm not referring to gas in space. I'm referring to gas in the combustion chamber which can build to several thousand psi....you need energy to accelerate the combustion gasses that push against the rocket engine.
There is no gas in space. It's a near vacuum of <10^-16 bar and 3 K (-270 C) temperature.
Defying gravity and nature, jumping orbits! Amazing.Any material to support your statement???? Like a set of equations that describes orbit as a function of only gravity?
I'm not referring to gas in space. I'm referring to gas in the combustion chamber which can build to several thousand psi....you need energy to accelerate the combustion gasses that push against the rocket engine.
There is no gas in space. It's a near vacuum of <10^-16 bar and 3 K (-270 C) temperature.
Right. Then the -under those pressures liquid- gases mix, exit the nozzle and instantaneously turn into solid solitary molecules floating away in space.
The molecules do not perform any work by "pushing against each other" to move any rocket.
Rockets are useless in space as they work on the basis of combustion of gases. They are made for and under atmospheric conditions.
Who care what happens after the gas leaves the nozzle? All the work that we care about is done inside the combustion chamber.I'm not referring to gas in space. I'm referring to gas in the combustion chamber which can build to several thousand psi....you need energy to accelerate the combustion gasses that push against the rocket engine.
There is no gas in space. It's a near vacuum of <10^-16 bar and 3 K (-270 C) temperature.
Right. Then the -under those pressures liquid- gases mix, exit the nozzle and instantaneously turn into solid solitary molecules floating away in space.
The molecules do not perform any work by "pushing against each other" to move any rocket.Correct. The molecules perform work by pushing against the walls of the combustion chamber.
Rockets are useless in space as they work on the basis of combustion of gases. They are made for and under atmospheric conditions.Do you have any personal experience designing rocket engines, or are you just assuming?
Why does it have to expand to be equal? Does the guy need put on a netal shell and nose cone to be equal to the rocket?
The ball is the fuel/oxidizer exhaust.
the expanding (burning) propellant is ONE object using stored energy to create a force by expanding against a SECOND object, i.e. the combustion chamber.
The work is being done in the nozzle which is not in vacuum conditions
Solitary molecules cannot be defined as solid or liquid since the solid or liquid state is due to different bonds between molecules.
Not every rocket is based on combustion between fuel and oxidizerThe ones "going to space" are based on graphic cards and mouseclicks, indeed.
Try reading again.Why does it have to expand to be equal? Does the guy need put on a netal shell and nose cone to be equal to the rocket?
LOL!!!
He is.
Read again and answer the question:The ball is the fuel/oxidizer exhaust.
But markjo claimed the fuel is EXPANDING.
Look:the expanding (burning) propellant is ONE object using stored energy to create a force by expanding against a SECOND object, i.e. the combustion chamber.
If the ball is the fuel in your example, why is it NOT expanding?
Why does it have to expand to be equal? Does the guy need put on a netal shell and nose cone to be equal to the rocket?The ball is the fuel/oxidizer exhaust.
But markjo claimed the fuel is EXPANDING.
Look:the expanding (burning) propellant is ONE object using stored energy to create a force by expanding against a SECOND object, i.e. the combustion chamber.
If the ball is the fuel in your example, why is it NOT expanding?
All the work that we care about is done inside the combustion chamber.
The ball is the fuel/oxidizer exhaust.
The work is being done in the nozzle which is not in vacuum conditions
Oh, the work is already done!? So putting an exhaust on that skateboard, where you blow air from and bind a balloon around it, the skateboard still moves? The work is done in the closed compartment, here the balloon, you say...QuoteSolitary molecules cannot be defined as solid or liquid since the solid or liquid state is due to different bonds between molecules.
This is actually true. But if they are in pairs solidifying immediately due to the near-zero temperatures and pressures, the mechanism is the same.QuoteNot every rocket is based on combustion between fuel and oxidizerThe ones "going to space" are based on graphic cards and mouseclicks, indeed.
No. Why does it need to expand?
The ball is the fuel/oxidizer exhaust.
the expanding (burning) propellant is ONE object using stored energy to create a force by expanding against a SECOND object, i.e. the combustion chamber.
Forgetfull at your old age? Remember evidence vs proof? You think you proved a science argument thereby proving general relativity. When do you think your Nobel Orize will show up?First, it's "Nobel Prize". Second, I never claimed to have proven General Relativity. That would be silly. Please provide the quote where I said this.
My request of based of your claim I'm always wrong. It turns out you don't think my content is wrong, rather my typing is wrong, based on your continued refusal to find a post of mine with incorrect statements in it.Well, your content made no sense, since you suck at everything. Haven't you claimed to be a chemist all over these forums? And you are this bad at writing? All the chemists I work with perform experiments and write technical papers on their results. If any of them wrote as bad as you constantly do, they would have been fired long ago. Are you a discount chemist? You work at a lower pay rate since you suck at everything?
Man is the rocket.
The ball is the fuel/oxidizer exhaust.
His arms are like the reaction to apply a force to a mass to get acceleration.
Because there's nothing for the exhaust to push against. Duh.You realize that once the rocket escapes the Earth's gravitational pull it does not require more fuel to move it.
In your case u don't have mass leaving the skateboard so thrust cannot be produce, all the enrgy will end up in inflating the baloon.
...pressure energy....I may have missed a physics class or two, but "pressure energy" is a physical term I am unfamiliar with.
we are talking near-zero temperatures in space.
Good question:we are talking near-zero temperatures in space.
Are we?
What about the alleged properties of the thermosphere, plus the insulating nature of a vacuum?
Even though the temperature is so high, one would not feel warm in the thermosphere, because it is so near vacuum that there is not enough contact with the few atoms of gas to transfer much heat.
...the energy lost by thermal radiation would exceed the energy acquired from the atmospheric gas by direct contact.
The International Space Station orbits within the middle of the thermosphere, between 330 and 435 kilometres (205 and 270 mi) (decaying by 2 km/month and raised by periodic reboosts), whereas the Gravity Field and Steady-State Ocean Circulation Explorer satellite at 260 kilometres (160 mi) utilized winglets [??] and an innovative ion engine to maintain a stable :D orientation and orbit.
...pressure energy....I may have missed a physics class or two, but "pressure energy" is a physical term I am unfamiliar with.
Let the thermal part rest, we are talking near-zero temperatures in space. No rocket can ever survive that.
during apollo mission they used a very simple heating control....the made the spacecraft spin so that the sun would irradiate all the craft homogeneouslySure, in the 60s people were able to keep a perfect thermal balance 300,000 km away. While everybody was dancing with flowers in their hairs, NASA was doing something pretty extraordinary. Pretty disappointing we don't have this technology implemented anywhere... in 2015...
which technology? the one that control the temperature by spinnig?during apollo mission they used a very simple heating control....the made the spacecraft spin so that the sun would irradiate all the craft homogeneouslySure, in the 60s people were able to keep a perfect thermal balance 300,000 km away. While everybody was dancing with flowers in their hairs, NASA was doing something pretty extraordinary. Pretty disappointing we don't have this technology implemented anywhere... in 2015...
How did the astronauts feel when they "stepped" on the Moon in the shade?
The -270 was ok, because the suits were made for -150, no problem, that extra -120 is a piece of space cake... :D
which technology? the one that control the temperature by spinnig?
btw the only shade i can think of is the one provided by the lem and u're forgetting that there is the refraction of the moon soil.
actually i find it very fascinating... what man can do when is given basically illimitated funding and nothing else to worry apart reaching his goal.
Yes, it is. However, that doesn't mean that expansion of the gas is unconstrained within the combustion chamber. The expansion of the gas is constrained by the geometry of the chamber and the viscosity of the gas itself.All the work that we care about is done inside the combustion chamber.
The combustion chamber is open to the vacuum.
which technology? the one that control the temperature by spinnig?
What was the time of the spin? How long did it take for the rocket to make 1 spin and have 360 degrees of 50% radiation and 50% shade? Any numbers on that?
And how did Michael Collins keep his seat warm those 3 days his buddies Ed and Neil were playing in the sand pit below? He was allegedly making orbits around the Moon. That means at least 50% of the time he must have been on the dark, stone cold side of the Moon. No spinning solution there, my friend, how did he keep himself from being scattered onto the helmets of his mates?Quotebtw the only shade i can think of is the one provided by the lem and u're forgetting that there is the refraction of the moon soil.
You don't even know the "landing" of the Eagle by heart? For a shill you're really amateur.Quoteactually i find it very fascinating... what man can do when is given basically illimitated funding and nothing else to worry apart reaching his goal.
Sure. Illimitated funding, indeed.
Learn what a smart phone is and report back.Forgetfull at your old age? Remember evidence vs proof? You think you proved a science argument thereby proving general relativity. When do you think your Nobel Orize will show up?First, it's "Nobel Prize".
Second, I never claimed to have proven General Relativity. That would be silly. Please provide the quote where I said this.I literally explained it to you in the quote. You think you proved a science argument thereby proving general relativity. The proof vs evidence debate we had. You can't prove an argument by using General Relativity because you would have to prove General Relativity and you can't prove theories.
Strange, you figured it out just fine.QuoteMy request of based of your claim I'm always wrong. It turns out you don't think my content is wrong, rather my typing is wrong, based on your continued refusal to find a post of mine with incorrect statements in it.Well, your content made no sense, since you suck at everything.
Haven't you claimed to be a chemist all over these forums? And you are this bad at writing? All the chemists I work with perform experiments and write technical papers on their results.Yes. Not all chemists write papers. Just like not all engineers design bridges. But no, chemists you work with would not write papers on their results. That would be part of them, but there's a few more parts of the scientific method they would include.
If any of them wrote as bad as you constantly do, they would have been fired long ago. Are you a discount chemist? You work at a lower pay rate since you suck at everything?How many of them write their papers on iPhones? It's funny though, you changes from saying Im always wrong to saying I suck at everything. Probably because you couldn't find any mistakes that weren't typos.
Learn what a smart phone is and report back.Too bad for you a smart phone is not smart enough to overcome your idiocy.
I literally explained it to you in the quote. You think you proved a science argument thereby proving general relativity. The proof vs evidence debate we had. You can't prove an argument by using General Relativity because you would have to prove General Relativity and you can't prove theories.'Literally explained' what? I asked for you to provide the quote.
Strange, you figured it out just fine.I have 3 kids; I'm used to deciphering gibberish.
But no, chemists you work with would not write papers on their resultsReally? Then why do I have a stack of reports written by chemists on the results of experiments I have asked for? Maybe only real chemists write reports.
How many of them write their papers on iPhones?I would assume none. Are you trying to blame your smart phone for your inability to properly convey a message? That's lame.
It's funny though, you changes from saying Im always wrong to saying I suck at everything.I gave you too much credit apparently.
Let us again consider the 'combustion chamber' of a rocket:When can you get the simple fact that the combustion chamber (and nozzle) are NOT exposed to the extremely low outside pressure, so long as we have choked flow in the throat of the nozzle.
The combustion chamber of a rocket is open to the near-infinite vacuum of space.
Therefore, no gas can even be meaningfully said to exist within it, let alone combust.
lolLearn what a smart phone is and report back.Too bad for you a smart phone is not smart enough to overcome your idiocy.
After I had already explained it to you. Like I said, you think you can prove scientific arguments.QuoteI literally explained it to you in the quote. You think you proved a science argument thereby proving general relativity. The proof vs evidence debate we had. You can't prove an argument by using General Relativity because you would have to prove General Relativity and you can't prove theories.'Literally explained' what? I asked for you to provide the quote.
I care so much.QuoteStrange, you figured it out just fine.I have 3 kids; I'm used to deciphering gibberish.
Results would be worthless without more information. Like I said, reports contain more parts of the scientific method. Stop editing out parts of quotes. It's dishonest.QuoteBut no, chemists you work with would not write papers on their resultsReally? Then why do I have a stack of reports written by chemists on the results of experiments I have asked for? Maybe only real chemists write reports.
No, I'm blaming he typos on it.QuoteHow many of them write their papers on iPhones?I would assume none. Are you trying to blame you smart phone for your inability to properly convey a message? That's lame.
No, you just claim I'm always wrong and then post typos.QuoteIt's funny though, you changes from saying Im always wrong to saying I suck at everything.I gave you too much credit apparently.
So, I'm still waiting for that quote...Pay attention. You think you can prove an argument using general relativity. This would imply general relativity has been proven. Understand yet?
papa legba comments that the gases in the combustion could never be ignited, well:
(1) In the ascending rocket they are already ignited, so no problem unless the "fire goes out".
(2) On the ground, or under low pressure conditions ignition can be produced by starting with a hypergolic fuel and changing over to the primary fuel after ignition, as on the F-1 engine.
The law of conservation of momentum could have told you all this right from the start - of course it was used to derive the equations.
Even if a convergent/divergent nozzle could prevent the vacuum entering the combustion chamber...LOL!! How does nothing (a vacuum) enter something (a combustion)?
... (which, when we look at the laughable design of NASA's 'shpayze-rokkit' engines such as the F2, is doubtful) it will not prevent free expansion occurring after the throat.First of all, there is no F2 rocket engine. You're either thinking F-1, which was not designed to operate in a vacuum, or (more likely) J-2, which was designed to operate in a vacuum.
So no work will be done by the gas at any point in the system.So how does the gas accelerate from zero to speed of free expansion if no work is done?
Because a vacuum is Nothing, and you can't get Something out of Nothing.But apparently you can get nothing to go into something.
LOL!! How does nothing (a vacuum) enter something (a combustion)?
So how does the gas accelerate from zero to speed of free expansion if no work is done?
But apparently you can get nothing to go into something.
Object A is the Rocket + unburnt fuel, Object F is the burning fuel, and Object B is the thousands of pounds of fuel being ejected out the back.
LOL!! How does nothing (a vacuum) enter something (a combustion)?
So how does the gas accelerate from zero to speed of free expansion if no work is done?
But apparently you can get nothing to go into something.
Object A is the Rocket + unburnt fuel, Object F is the burning fuel, and Object B is the thousands of pounds of fuel being ejected out the back.
No. Why does it need to expand?
Because you said this:The ball is the fuel/oxidizer exhaust.
Whilst markjo said this:the expanding (burning) propellant is ONE object using stored energy to create a force by expanding against a SECOND object, i.e. the combustion chamber.
So, if the ball is NOT expanding, then your whole analogy FAILS.
Pressure potential Energy in bernoulli's equation is the term relative to static pressure... Static means no movement. How are u supposed to convert something that is static into kinetical Energy, which implies speed, without accelerating a mass of fluid?
Through converting its pressure potential energy into molecular kinetic energy; thus, no 'force' is applied to the gas & no work is done, as the gas is expanding freely into a vacuum without meeting resistance.
Object A is the Rocket + unburnt fuel, Object F is the burning fuel, and Object B is the thousands of pounds of fuel being ejected out the back.Note that he is trying to tell us that Objects F & B are the exact same thing.
Here's a hint for you, rab: One, Two, Three.
Remember that!
Not One, Two, Two...
But One, Two, Three.
To create potential energy to be of use kinetically, you first have to expend the energy to do so, for it to actually be potential energy in the first place.Pressure potential Energy in bernoulli's equation is the term relative to static pressure... Static means no movement. How are u supposed to convert something that is static into kinetical Energy, which implies speed, without accelerating a mass of fluid?
Through converting its pressure potential energy into molecular kinetic energy; thus, no 'force' is applied to the gas & no work is done, as the gas is expanding freely into a vacuum without meeting resistance.
But in general How do u suppose to convert Energy without forces and wok be exchanged?
U can convert easily gravitational potential energy into kinetical energy but that occurs thanks to the force of gravity
so shouldn't be that difficult to provide equations that show the thrust decreases as the atmospheric pressure decreases....You don't need nonsensical equations to know that atmospheric pressure is required in order to make things work.
u keep talking about physics' pricinple but i'm still waiting for mathematical back up to your claims.
Also please tell me just why the burning fuel in the combustion chamber cannot be classed as a "separated object" from the exhaust gasses ejected from the nozzle.
Some answers from YOU now please, I have given you plenty.
language of physics is math.
so if u accelerate gas a force should act on them, shouldn't it? if a force is acting on the gasses and they are only interacting with the nozzle an equal and opposite force should act on the nozzle, shouldn't it?
The purpose of a convergent/divergent nozzle is to accelerate the gases, NOT to make them do work in a vacuum.
The fact is, anyone who paid attention during high-school physics should be capable of understanding that a rocket cannot function in a vacuum.
so if u accelerate gas a force should act on them, shouldn't it?
But, you would need equations to work just high your, non-vacuum rocket could fly. It cannot be denied that rockets have climbed to extremely high altitudes.so shouldn't be that difficult to provide equations that show the thrust decreases as the atmospheric pressure decreases....You don't need nonsensical equations to know that atmospheric pressure is required in order to make things work.
u keep talking about physics' pricinple but i'm still waiting for mathematical back up to your claims.
You don't need equations to observe that old Mrs Goggins is shouting for help through her window even though people tell you she's singing.
But, you would need equations to work just high your, non-vacuum rocket could fly.
So how does the gas accelerate from zero to speed of free expansion if no work is done?
Rockets do operate quite successfully to quite high altitudes. But Papa legba with all his great expertise cannot tell anyone just how high they can go! .Also please tell me just why the burning fuel in the combustion chamber cannot be classed as a "separated object" from the exhaust gasses ejected from the nozzle.
I can't believe you just wrote that...
ARE you Kris De Valle?
The purpose of a convergent/divergent nozzle is to accelerate the gases, NOT to make them do work in a vacuum.
NOTHING can make them do that, because it is Impossible.Some answers from YOU now please, I have given you plenty.
You have given me nothing but nonsense & flim-flam, so stop acting like the Thought-Gestapo & learn to count to Three...
One, Two, Three. Okay?
The fact is, anyone who paid attention during high-school physics should be capable of understanding that a rocket cannot function in a vacuum.
The main reason people cannot is because of paid trolls & idiots like you shouting them down & shitting the issue up...
So, with that in mind; Carry On Lying!language of physics is math.
Language of luckyfred/tomfi is Gibberish.
Now get back in your kennel, space-poodle, before we have to call Cesar Milan to sort you out...
All you can do is insult anyone that dares disagrees with your ideas.
Object A is the Rocket + unburnt fuel, Object F is the burning fuel, and Object B is the thousands of pounds of fuel being ejected out the back.
Through converting its pressure potential energy into molecular kinetic energy; thus, no 'force' is applied to the gas & no work is done, as the gas is expanding freely into a vacuum without meeting resistance.
How about actually reading what he's said. Surely you're capable of understanding what he's said.Through converting its pressure potential energy into molecular kinetic energy; thus, no 'force' is applied to the gas & no work is done, as the gas is expanding freely into a vacuum without meeting resistance.
so are you able to accelerate a mass without applying a force? have your welder buddies taught you this or have u leanrt this in highschool?
All you can do is insult anyone that dares disagrees with your ideas.
Actually, I was mocking you because you cannot count to three.
Look:Object A is the Rocket + unburnt fuel, Object F is the burning fuel, and Object B is the thousands of pounds of fuel being ejected out the back.Still incapable of any answers!
See what you did?
One, Two, Two...
LOL!!!
How about actually reading what he's said. Surely you're capable of understanding what he's said.Through converting its pressure potential energy into molecular kinetic energy; thus, no 'force' is applied to the gas & no work is done, as the gas is expanding freely into a vacuum without meeting resistance.
so are you able to accelerate a mass without applying a force? have your welder buddies taught you this or have u leanrt this in highschool?
i'd like to know how is possibile
LOL!! How does nothing (a vacuum) enter something (a combustion)?
So how does the gas accelerate from zero to speed of free expansion if no work is done?
But apparently you can get nothing to go into something.
Object A is the Rocket + unburnt fuel, Object F is the burning fuel, and Object B is the thousands of pounds of fuel being ejected out the back.
No. Why does it need to expand?
Because you said this:The ball is the fuel/oxidizer exhaust.
Whilst markjo said this:the expanding (burning) propellant is ONE object using stored energy to create a force by expanding against a SECOND object, i.e. the combustion chamber.
So, if the ball is NOT expanding, then your whole analogy FAILS.
Already answered, circus-poodle; the fact that you left the word 'pressure' out of my description shows you know that, too.ok... if u're trasforming pressure potential energy into kinetical energy u are applying bernoulli's equation, aren't u?
What a Troll-hound!
Equations are the ONLY thing you can TRULY trust in the world.
LOL!! How does nothing (a vacuum) enter something (a combustion)?
So how does the gas accelerate from zero to speed of free expansion if no work is done?
But apparently you can get nothing to go into something.
Object A is the Rocket + unburnt fuel, Object F is the burning fuel, and Object B is the thousands of pounds of fuel being ejected out the back.
No. Why does it need to expand?
Because you said this:The ball is the fuel/oxidizer exhaust.
Whilst markjo said this:the expanding (burning) propellant is ONE object using stored energy to create a force by expanding against a SECOND object, i.e. the combustion chamber.
So, if the ball is NOT expanding, then your whole analogy FAILS.
And the Gibberish continues...
Why does the ball need to expand?
You should discuss this in a scientific forum.Why does the ball need to expand?
Because you said the Ball represented the Fuel.
And the Fuel is Expanding.
So, if the Ball is NOT Expanding then your analogy FAILS.
Dumbass.
Why?, so more of you can round up and start going into a frenzy?You should discuss this in a scientific forum.Why does the ball need to expand?
Because you said the Ball represented the Fuel.
And the Fuel is Expanding.
So, if the Ball is NOT Expanding then your analogy FAILS.
Dumbass.
You should discuss this in a scientific forum.
Man is the rocket.
The ball is the fuel/oxidizer exhaust.
His arms are like the reaction to apply a force to a mass to get acceleration.
Why does the ball need to expand?
If you notice, I asked you to provide the quote where I claim to have proven General Relativity. I'm waiting.Quote'Literally explained' what? I asked for you to provide the quote.After I had already explained it to you. Like I said, you think you can prove scientific arguments.
How sweet! That you care makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.QuoteI care so much.QuoteStrange, you figured it out just fine.I have 3 kids; I'm used to deciphering gibberish.
So you do agree that chemists would write reports on experiments performed. After you said that the chemists I work with would not write papers on their results. Wow. This is discount chemist sokarul at his finest.QuoteResults would be worthless without more information. Like I said, reports contain more parts of the scientific method. Stop editing out parts of quotes. It's dishonest.QuoteBut no, chemists you work with would not write papers on their resultsReally? Then why do I have a stack of reports written by chemists on the results of experiments I have asked for? Maybe only real chemists write reports.
So you must also blame forks for making people fat? I'm pretty sure your iPhone is overheating trying to correct for your gibberish.QuoteNo, I'm blaming he typos on it.QuoteHow many of them write their papers on iPhones?I would assume none. Are you trying to blame you smart phone for your inability to properly convey a message? That's lame.
Typos don't count as being wrong? In my line of work, typos in a document could lead to disastrous results during a missile launch/mission or, at the very least, the complete rejection of the document. But I guess being a discount chemist means you don't get tasked to do important things...QuoteNo, you just claim I'm always wrong and then post typos.QuoteIt's funny though, you changes from saying Im always wrong to saying I suck at everything.I gave you too much credit apparently.
So, I noticed you didn't post the quote where I claimed to have proven General Relativity. Why is that? Could this be the latest example of you being wrong?QuoteSo, I'm still waiting for that quote...Pay attention. You think you can prove an argument using general relativity. This would imply general relativity has been proven. Understand yet?
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64594.msg1726202#msg1726202 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64594.msg1726202#msg1726202)
In my line of work, typos in a document could lead to disastrous results during a missile launch/mission
In my line of work, typos in a document could lead to disastrous results during a missile launch/mission
LOL!!!
Just when I think this forum can't sink any further into farce, along comes 'engy baby' to up the slapstick bullshit stakes...
Who's your 'rokkit teknishun', engy baby?
'Hollywood Stunt Master' & O.G 'Rocketman' Ky Michaelson?
Tell him to keep an eye out for them Disaster-Typos...
LMFAO!!!
Once you introduce fuel and oxidizer into a finite combustion chamber, then there is no longer a vacuum in the combustion chamber, is there?LOL!! How does nothing (a vacuum) enter something (a combustion)?
LOL!!! How do you get a gas to combust in a vacuum?
Converting potential energy to kinetic energy is pretty much the definition of work.So how does the gas accelerate from zero to speed of free expansion if no work is done?
Through converting its pressure potential energy into molecular kinetic energy; thus, no 'force' is applied to the gas & no work is done, as the gas is expanding freely into a vacuum without meeting resistance.
It's about as meaningful as "Even if a convergent/divergent nozzle could prevent the vacuum entering the combustion chamber..."But apparently you can get nothing to go into something.
This doesn't mean anything; typical markjo.
As for your silly J2 engine; by all means let us examine its 'combustion chamber', nozzle, etc...Wow, what a thorough and exhaustive examination. ::)
It is a joke.
Okay, slow-poke?Still can't answer a simple question!
Who's your 'rokkit teknishun', engy baby?Uh...me.
Still troubling this Engineer is helping to kill other human beings, that's for sure...Well, as I've stated in the past, I am a war profiteer. I have, however, moved from cannons to rockets and missiles.
Who's your 'rokkit teknishun', engy baby?Uh...me.
Well, technically, I'm a missile engineer (hence the name).
So you're a missle engineer and a pilot?Yes. It is possible to be both.
Quite a career move; from killing people to killing people.Still troubling this Engineer is helping to kill other human beings, that's for sure...Well, as I've stated in the past, I am a war profiteer. I have, however, moved from cannons to rockets and missiles.
Quite a career move; from killing people to killing people.Do all missiles kill people?
No, some might target other missiles or drones. So actually you're saving a lot of lives; you're a hero!Quite a career move; from killing people to killing people.Do all missiles kill people?
So you're a missle engineer and a pilot?Yes. It is possible to be both.
If you notice, I asked you to provide the quote where I claim to have proven General Relativity. I'm waiting.Quote'Literally explained' what? I asked for you to provide the quote.After I had already explained it to you. Like I said, you think you can prove scientific arguments.
Pay attention. You think you can prove an argument using general relativity. This would imply general relativity has been proven. Understand yet?
So you do agree that chemists would write reports on experiments performed. After you said that the chemists I work with would not write papers on their results. Wow. This is discount chemist sokarul at his finest.
But no, chemists you work with would not write papers on their results. That would be part of them, but there's a few more parts of the scientific method they would include.
So you must also blame forks for making people fat? I'm pretty sure your iPhone is overheating trying to correct for your gibberish.You like to jump to random conclusions.
Typos don't count as being wrong? In my line of work, typos in a document could lead to disastrous results during a missile launch/mission or, at the very least, the complete rejection of the document. But I guess being a discount chemist means you don't get tasked to do important things...More jumping to conclusions.
So, I noticed you didn't post the quote where I claimed to have proven General Relativity. Why is that? Could this be the latest example of you being wrong?
Pay attention. You think you can prove an argument using general relativity. This would imply general relativity has been proven. Understand yet?
No, some might target other missiles or drones. So actually you're saving a lot of lives; you're a hero!You are welcome.
So what type of pilot are you?My class rating is Airplane, Single Engine, Land.
So what type of pilot are you?My class rating is Airplane, Single Engine, Land.
So either you're a bush pilot or a fighter pilot.Both of those would be awesome, but no. Flying is but a hobby for me. A very, very expensive hobby.
Well, technically, I'm a missile engineer (hence the name).
Flying is but a hobby for me. A very, very expensive hobby.
Well, technically, I'm a missile engineer (hence the name).Yeah; right.
The Fact is, people in your line of work have to sign all sorts of confidentiality agreements and are very careful what they say & to whom they say it, even to their closest friends & family.
So the idea that you'd not only brag openly about it to the entire world on the internet, but would do so as the moderator of a flat earth Conspiracy Forum, is total & utter BULLSHIT.
And when you throw bonus bullshit like this into the mix:Flying is but a hobby for me. A very, very expensive hobby.You come over like a wannabe Austin Powers, International man of Mystery.
But wearing Clown-shoes & a red nose...
Sorry, 'engy baby', you are Busted.
Object A is the Rocket + unburnt fuel, Object F is the burning fuel, and Object B is the thousands of pounds of fuel being ejected out the back.
Here's a hint for you, rab: One, Two, Three.Oh, right: ein, zwei, drei oops maybe un, deux, trois - something doesn't sound right, maybe I'll get it soon,
Too hard, maybe ask Engy!
The Fact is, people in your line of work have to sign all sorts of confidentiality agreements and are very careful what they say & to whom they say it, even to their closest friends & family.Right. And I am very careful about what I say and to whom I say it.
So the idea that you'd not only brag openly about it to the entire world on the internet, but would do so as the moderator of a flat earth Conspiracy Forum, is total & utter BULLSHIT.My company has strict limits as to what you can post on social sites/forums about your job, and I follow those explicitly.
How does having a pilot's license make me a wannabe Austin Powers, exactly?Flying is but a hobby for me. A very, very expensive hobby.You come over like a wannabe Austin Powers, International man of Mystery.
Sorry, 'engy baby', you are Busted.Sorry, but that was pretty lame.
If you are what you say you are you wouldn't be here at all, let alone be a moderator.The fact that I am here as a moderator, proves your statement incorrect.
Rockets do operate quite successfully to quite high altitudes.
Like rab downunder here:So the famous rocket engineer, Prof Papa Legba says, but even this expert can't tell us just how high TheEngineer's missiles can go! Don't you think that is something he might need to know! What a loser!Rockets do operate quite successfully to quite high altitudes.And that's exactly what I've been saying; glad you finally saw the light!
But they do not operate in a vacuum.
even this expert can't tell us just how high TheEngineer's missiles can go!
we all know a rocket does work up to a very high altitude - and still you don't know just when it STOPS WORKING!
It is absolutely useless only knowing what will not work, when you do not know what will work
...Still no answer. Just saying it will not work in a vacuum is NOT an answer. What did teacher always say? "Read the question, before you try to answer!".
Just saying it will not work in a vacuum is NOT an answer.
It is absolutely useless only knowing what will not work
Let us again consider the 'combustion chamber' of a rocket:Well, one end of it is.
The combustion chamber of a rocket is open to the near-infinite vacuum of space.
Therefore, no gas can even be meaningfully said to exist within it, let alone combust.Not ever? Not even for an instant?
Any gas introduced therein when the pressurised fuel tank leading to the combustion chamber is opened will simply expand freely into the enormous, zero-pressure vacuum, following the path of least resistance & doing no work whatsoever.Are you saying that any gas introduced into the combustion chamber does not exist within the combustion chamber? What happens, does the gas teleport from the inlet to the nozzle?
This will continue for as long as the fuel tank & chamber are open to the vacuum, until both exterior & interior pressures are equalised at zero.So you admit that as long as the interior pressure and exterior pressures are not equal, then the pressure inside the combustion chamber is not equal to zero?
It is a beautifully simple concept, fully supported by All the laws of physics, yet you 'round earthers' (lol!) just can't seem to grasp it...Aren't you a round earther?
Plus this:Why do you keep bringing up the gun analogy in a thread that you started called "People on skateboards"? Can't you stay on topic in your own thread?
You all claim that the recoil of a gun is a valid analogy for how a rocket works in a vacuum.
Aren't you a round earther?
I am truly sorry that you are unable to process such simple information...I'm truly sorry that you are unable to see how that simple information proves how wrong you are.
Have I not already mentioned that Legba sees all voodoo?Have I not mentioned that you're full of bovine excrement?
Are you still here, pretending to be a missile engineer?I am still here. However I am not pretending to be anything.
Sorry, engy baby; that ship has sailed.It would have been funnier if you had said 'that rocket has launched'. But alas, your wit is sorely lacking.
Everyone with the slightest experience of such matters knows that you are not.Says the guy with no experience in such matters.
So I noticed that you still have not provided a quote. Why would that be...?
Pay attention. You think you can prove an argument using general relativity. This would imply general relativity has been proven. Understand yet?
I'm sorry, I didn't see the quote you are supposed to provide. Why would that be?What I see is you cowering out like a bitch.
What I see is the latest instance of you being wrong. Interesting that you can't provide a quote of mine in which I stated I have proven General Relativity. Especially since I know you've been feverishly searching for just one instance in which I have said anything even remotely resembling what you accused me of.I showed how you implied general relativity was 100 percent correct. You will not acknowledge this as you don't have a rebuttal for it, and instead just keep asking for a quote.
sokarul the discount chemist strikes again.
...I had higher expectations from someone who thinks they proved General Relativity.
Pay attention. You think you can prove an argument using general relativity. This would imply general relativity has been proven. Understand yet?
I am not pretending to be anything.
You are pretending to be a missile engineer.
Incorrect.
But we all acknowledge that a rocket does work at "high altitude" in the atmosphere, but you deny they work in "space".Just saying it will not work in a vacuum is NOT an answer.Look what you wrote earlier:It is absolutely useless only knowing what will not work
Gotta disagree with you anyhow; 'knowing what will not work' is pretty useful if you actually want to accomplish something.
You are pretending to be a missile engineer.Incorrect.
Knowing your dividing line (which I deny) would be a very important piece of knowledge.
All you can do is say 'I am a missile engineer, honest I am!', without providing a single shred of proof that you are.What you don't understand is that I am not trying to convince you. I couldn't care less if you believe that I am actually what I say I am.
I don't need you to explain it. Just provide the quote and prove me wrong.I already provided evidence. You haven't refuted it yet.
I couldn't care less if you believe that I am actually what I say I am.
You have provided no evidence whatsoever. I'm still waiting for even a single quote to back up your outlandish claim.I don't need you to explain it. Just provide the quote and prove me wrong.I already provided evidence. You haven't refuted it yet.
Incorrect.You have provided no evidence whatsoever. I'm still waiting for even a single quote to back up your outlandish claim.I don't need you to explain it. Just provide the quote and prove me wrong.I already provided evidence. You haven't refuted it yet.
So, yet again, I state that the simple Fact that you are here, on an INTERNET CONSPIRACY FORUM, openly bragging about what you do, where you live etc, & saying things like 'GPS does not require satellites' can ONLY mean that you are NOT a real missile engineer.Or, it could mean that you have no idea who Engy's employer is or what that employer does or does not allow him to say online.
Congrats Prof Papa PhD (Rocket Design) we have found something you are 100% right about.I am not pretending to be anything.Incorrect.
You are pretending to be a missile engineer.
I linked to the thread where you claimed to have proven an argument using general relativity.A link to a thread is not a quote. Please provide the quote to back up your claim.
Which means they are not allowed to say a thing about what they do to anyone, even after they have finished working on the project.What I do for a living is not classified or even confidential information. My company even allows for this information to be posted to sites like LinkedIn. But, of course, I can tell everyone I meet on the street where I work and what I do.
The penalties for breaking the Act range from Prison & Fines down to, at the very least, total loss of professional livelihood & being blacklisted for the rest of their lives.
Of course you can't tell anyone. You can't even tell the people that you work for what you do because all missile technology is super duper, tippy top, hush hush secret. Don't you know that Papa Legba knows your business better than you do?Which means they are not allowed to say a thing about what they do to anyone, even after they have finished working on the project.What I do for a living is not classified or even confidential information. My company even allows for this information to be posted to sites like LinkedIn. But, of course, I can tell everyone I meet on the street where I work and what I do.
The penalties for breaking the Act range from Prison & Fines down to, at the very least, total loss of professional livelihood & being blacklisted for the rest of their lives.
I'm sure you are misunderstanding the Official Secrets Act. It applies to things that are secret which is NOT the entire occupation.
Has he said anything classified? Doubt it.
It would be similar in America. As long as he isn't divulging classified information then nobody cares.
Congrats Prof Papa PhD (Rocket Design) we have found something you are 100% right about.
You don't claim to be anything and who would we be to doubt your word?
Of course you can't tell anyone. You can't even tell the people that you work for what you do because all missile technology is super duper, tippy top, hush hush secret. Don't you know that Papa Legba knows your business better than you do?
Now; Carry On Lying!Well, I'm learning something!
Well, I'm learning something!
LULZ!!!I can't say for the others but I'm "sticking up for him" because you have no idea what you are talking about. He has not divulged classified information. The stuff he says are opinions and personal information is not nor ever has been a problem. YOU are wrong.
Look at all the 'round earthers' sticking up for you, engy baby...I'm sure you are misunderstanding the Official Secrets Act. It applies to things that are secret which is NOT the entire occupation.
Has he said anything classified? Doubt it.
It would be similar in America. As long as he isn't divulging classified information then nobody cares.Congrats Prof Papa PhD (Rocket Design) we have found something you are 100% right about.
You don't claim to be anything and who would we be to doubt your word?Of course you can't tell anyone. You can't even tell the people that you work for what you do because all missile technology is super duper, tippy top, hush hush secret. Don't you know that Papa Legba knows your business better than you do?
Now why would they be doing that, I wonder?
And, of course, they are all as completely full of shit as engy baby himself.
Because there is still no way that a missile engineer working on advanced/classified military projects would be openly bragging about it on an Internet Conspiracy Forum, saying things like 'GPS does not require satellites', 'sustained space-travel is impossible', giving away details such as where he lives, how many kids he has etc...
This kind of thing only happens in Fiction.
But, as you all clearly inhabit a sci-fi fantasy world, I guess it's a case of 'birds of a feather flock together'.
Now; Carry On Lying!
I can't say for the others but I'm "sticking up for him" because you have no idea what you are talking about. He has not divulged classified information. The stuff he says are opinions and personal information is not nor ever has been a problem. YOU are wrong.
Perhaps you could prove his employers know or care what he posts on the internet as long as he isn't divulging classified information and/or saying bad things about his employer? Without that you've got nothing. But we all know you won't even try to prove that, don't we? Ever find where you say I claimed to be a non-native english speaker?I can't say for the others but I'm "sticking up for him" because you have no idea what you are talking about. He has not divulged classified information. The stuff he says are opinions and personal information is not nor ever has been a problem. YOU are wrong.
LULZ!!!
'GPS does not require satellites'?
'Sustained space flight is impossible'?
Any real missile engineer working for the military who expressed the above opinions publicly on an internet conspiracy forum would be dead meat.
Maybe you should look into the fates of the Marconi employees in the same line of work to see what happens to blabbermouth weapons developers?
Because whatever the truth of how & why they died, the end result was to put the absolute Fear of God into everyone else in the industry.
But yeah, engy baby's soopah-speshul & can just say anything he likes on internet conspiracy forums with no come-backs whatsoever...
LMFAO!!!
Oh, & if the State decides it's in their interest to kill you without trial, the Official Secrets Act allows them to do it.
Which is why people who sign it keep VERY quiet about what they do...
So just get the FUCK back in your Austin Powers fantasy world & stop with the bullshit, okay?
Wtf is wrong with you?IF it's true. Key word there is if. Even IF true, he would have to have learned it from his employer, they would have to prove that and it would have to be classified and they would have to prove that. Looks more like opinion and STILL makes the assumption that anybody is watching or cares which you have yet to prove and which I knew you wouldn't even try. All you've got is handwaving and bluster.
I don't have to prove a damn thing about him or his employers.
Because if 'GPS does not require satellites' & 'sustained spaceflight is impossible' are NOT examples of revealing Classified Information then I don't know what is!
If it's true, then his employers, as well as the Military, would have his guts for garters for revealing this info, especially on an internet conspiracy forum ffs; he'd be FINISHED.
Like I said already: the simple fact that he is here, blabbing away like a schoolgirl, is conclusive proof that he is totally full of shit.
End of story...
Now; Carry On Lying!
Wtf is wrong with you?You're right, you don't know. If you knew anything at all about how GPS works, you would know that there is no technical reason that the same functionality could not be achieved with ground based or aerial transmitters. And if lurked moar, you would know that Engy is careful to always qualify the statement about sustained space flight being impossible in the context of a flat earth. Notice that he never says that GPS does not use satellites or that sustained space flight is impossible on a round earth.
I don't have to prove a damn thing about him or his employers.
Because if 'GPS does not require satellites' & 'sustained spaceflight is impossible' are NOT examples of revealing Classified Information then I don't know what is!
LULZ!!!Did they divulge classified information? Since you can't be bothered to post a link we may never know. Has any classified info been posted here? No.
You really need to look into what happened to all those Marconi engineers...
Bye-bye, blabber-mouths & security risks; you DEAD!
Hey - engy baby must've heard about them; they were all in the same line of work as him.
So why don't we wait for HIS opinion on it, eh?
You know; rather than listening to all the biggest shills on this site sticking up for him whilst he hides?
LOL!!!
What a fucking farce you all are!
You really need to look into what happened to all those Marconi engineers...Gotta get those engineers before the word gets out about the torpedoes!
Hey - engy baby must've heard about them; they were all in the same line of work as him.Nope. Had to look it up.
You know; rather than listening to all the biggest shills on this site sticking up for him whilst he hides?It's called 'sleeping'. Something I do every day. Sometimes twice a day on weekends.
LOL!!!I agree!
Posting again because apparently you didn't read the first time
Wrong. I want people to see your previous posts. I want them to see that you accused me of claiming to be a non-native English speaker and then couldn't back up your lie. I want them to see your handwaving and bluster.Posting again because apparently you didn't read the first time
Nah; you're posting again in a desperate attempt to flush all my previous posts down the memory-hole.
Because that's your job.
Engy baby is a total bullshitter.If only you could prove he is bragging about anything classified and/or that anybody is watching or cares then you might have a point. But you know you don't.
No-one in the line of work he claims to be in would posture & brag on it like he does on an Internet Conspiracy Forum.
Because if they did, they would be dead meat.
Google 'Marconi engineers mysterious deaths' to find out what happens to weapons developers who fuck up in the Real World.I've found an unproven theory that they were silenced for unknown reasons. If they had been divulging classified information it would have been far more effective to try them for treason in public so that people would actually know about it. What you have now is something few have heard about and none have shown a reason for. Might as well be a myth. Why am I not surprised that you seem to think it proves something? ::)
Not nice, eh?
And, I assure you, what happened back then taught everyone in the industry a BIG lesson, namely - 'The 1st rule of weapons development club is: YOU DON'T TALK ABOUT WEAPONS DEVELOPMENT CLUB!'Please point out where he has posted classified weapons development information. I'm betting you won't.
And, I assure you, what happened back then taught everyone in the industry a BIG lesson, namely - 'The 1st rule of weapons development club is: YOU DON'T TALK ABOUT WEAPONS DEVELOPMENT CLUB!'Sorry to disappoint you, but this kind of stuff only happens in the movies.
Google 'Marconi engineers mysterious deaths' to find out what happens to weapons developers who fuck up in the Real World.What evidence do you have that any of those Marconi engineers were openly bragging about classified material? Who knows, maybe they did keep their mouths shut like they were supposed to, but were taken out as a precaution because they knew too much.
Evidence doesn't have to be a quote. I provided evidence. You have not refuted it.I linked to the thread where you claimed to have proven an argument using general relativity.A link to a thread is not a quote. Please provide the quote to back up your claim.
I linked to the thread where you claimed to have proven an argument using general relativity.A link to a thread is not a quote. Please provide the quote to back up your claim.
I linked to the thread where you claimed to have proven an argument using general relativity.A link to a thread is not a quote. Please provide the quote to back up your claim.
Evidence doesn't have to be a quote. I provided evidence. You have not refuted it.
Should be really easy for you to find when I was last wrong. I'll wait.Won't change the Fact that you & socky-boy are the only two members who primp & prance around boasting of being 'unndifeetd' though.Sokarul is wrong nearly all the time. I, however, am not.
Guess I had higher expectations from someone who thinks they proved General Relativity.
Sorry to disappoint you, but this kind of stuff only happens in the movies.
So you can't find a single post in which I claimed to have proven General Relativity?lolShould be really easy for you to find when I was last wrong. I'll wait.Won't change the Fact that you & socky-boy are the only two members who primp & prance around boasting of being 'unndifeetd' though.Sokarul is wrong nearly all the time. I, however, am not.
Here you go:Guess I had higher expectations from someone who thinks they proved General Relativity.
So what I say is 'Incorrect', but engy baby's preposterous claims to be a missile engineer are 'Correct'?Operation of rockets is well documented. Please provide details of links you believe to be incorrect.
Thanks for letting us know which side of the Disinfo divide you fall, Forrest Gump!
Now; Carry On Lying!
Next time don't use "proof".So prove me wrong: show us all where I claimed to have proven General Relativity.
Now; got any evidence at all that you are what you claim to be?Lots.
Cos I provided plenty that you ain't...You have provided nothing but conjecture.
I already provided evidence.Next time don't use "proof".So prove me wrong: show us all where I claimed to have proven General Relativity.
I must have missed the quote. Please provide that quote again.I already provided evidence.Next time don't use "proof".So prove me wrong: show us all where I claimed to have proven General Relativity.
Why does evidence have to be a quote?I must have missed the quote. Please provide that quote again.I already provided evidence.Next time don't use "proof".So prove me wrong: show us all where I claimed to have proven General Relativity.
Why does evidence have to be a quote?I must have missed the quote. Please provide that quote again.I already provided evidence.Next time don't use "proof".So prove me wrong: show us all where I claimed to have proven General Relativity.
I already provided evidence.Why does evidence have to be a quote?I must have missed the quote. Please provide that quote again.I already provided evidence.Next time don't use "proof".So prove me wrong: show us all where I claimed to have proven General Relativity.
If he said what you claim he said, it should be very easy to post the quote. Why do you refuse to provide the quote?
I already provided evidence.Why does evidence have to be a quote?I must have missed the quote. Please provide that quote again.I already provided evidence.Next time don't use "proof".So prove me wrong: show us all where I claimed to have proven General Relativity.
If he said what you claim he said, it should be very easy to post the quote. Why do you refuse to provide the quote?
Quotes are not the only type of evidence.
My evidence has not been refuted.Quotes are not the only type of evidence.
They are the best type of evidence when you are claiming that someone said something in an internet forum.
Apparently, in discount chemist land, personal feelings/interpretations are evidence.This is not my evidence.
Do you need help making that quote, sokarul? I will be happy to assist you.No. What you could if you wanted is explain the difference between proof and evidence.
Do you need help making that quote, sokarul? I will be happy to assist you.No. What you could if you wanted is explain the difference between proof and evidence.
Why?Do you need help making that quote, sokarul? I will be happy to assist you.No. What you could if you wanted is explain the difference between proof and evidence.
How about I explain to you how to make a quote, and later, I can explain words to you?
Why?Do you need help making that quote, sokarul? I will be happy to assist you.No. What you could if you wanted is explain the difference between proof and evidence.
How about I explain to you how to make a quote, and later, I can explain words to you?
Jumping to conclusions I see. Typical.Why?Do you need help making that quote, sokarul? I will be happy to assist you.No. What you could if you wanted is explain the difference between proof and evidence.
How about I explain to you how to make a quote, and later, I can explain words to you?
You are confused about many things. We need to try to address your deficiencies one at a time.
I have already provided evidence.
I still don't understand how you are having so much trouble providing a quote that would agree with your claim.
Sorry, but your "evidence" is not very compelling.I have already provided evidence.
If you can't provide a quote, just say so. Admit that you made a mistake. We all make mistakes.I didn't make a mistake. You actually agree he should not have used "proved'.
If you can't provide a quote, just say so. Admit that you made a mistake. We all make mistakes.I didn't make a mistake. You actually agree he should not have used "proved'.
I have already provided evidence.
Really Papa I think you need lots of professional help. In your case I don't know whether to recommend a Psychiatrist or a Psychologist would be best. Probably simply being sectioned right off might be best!Well, I'm learning something!
And the Lies just keep flowing...
How's it going in Doctor Evil's volcano lair btw?
Have you & engy baby worked out what altitude a rocket can actually attain yet?
Or are you both too busy 'enjynerring' an Earthquake-machine, or some other such fantasy super-villain super weapon?
Really; you are all beyond parody.
So you can't find a single post in which I claimed to have proven General Relativity?Should be really easy for you to find when I was last wrong. I'll wait.Won't change the Fact that you & socky-boy are the only two members who primp & prance around boasting of being 'unndifeetd' though.Sokarul is wrong nearly all the time. I, however, am not.
Here you go:Guess I had higher expectations from someone who thinks they proved General Relativity.
How cute, now thereFixed your mistake.isare three little kids.
If my evidence is "not very compelling" why hasn't it been refuted?Because you haven't provided much of anything to refute.
Read the thread again.How cute, now there is three little kids.Because you haven't provided much of anything to refute.
If my evidence is "not very compelling" why hasn't it been refuted?
What should I be looking for, other than the point where you unnecessarily derailed it?Read the thread again.How cute, now there is three little kids.Because you haven't provided much of anything to refute.
If my evidence is "not very compelling" why hasn't it been refuted?
I don't know about you guys, but I'm still waiting for even a single quote.I don't know about you Engy, but I'm waiting for this thread to get back on topic.
I don't know about you Engy, but I'm waiting for this thread to get back on topic.You mean you enjoy arguing with an obvious troll who is obviously trolling?
Well, you obviously enjoy arguing with sokarul, so...I don't know about you Engy, but I'm waiting for this thread to get back on topic.You mean you enjoy arguing with an obvious troll who is obviously trolling?
I don't know about you guys, but I'm still waiting for even a single quote.
I have already provided evidence.
Here is a thread for satanic sci-fi cultists to post photos/videos of people on skateboards that they think somehow prove that rockets will function in a vacuum.
Newton, Joules & Thomson will be spinning in their graves at such nonsense, but I guess these cultists are too satanically brainwashed to comprehend how basic scientific principles work...
Whatever; knock yourselves out, psychos!
Well, you obviously enjoy arguing with sokarul, so...They are both idiots...
So I guess we each have our favorite idiot to argue with.Well, you obviously enjoy arguing with sokarul, so...They are both idiots...
Just acknowledge you made a mistake and this can end.Well, you obviously enjoy arguing with sokarul, so...They are both idiots...
Either provide the quote that he's asking for or admit that he didn't say it and this can end.Just acknowledge you made a mistake and this can end.Well, you obviously enjoy arguing with sokarul, so...They are both idiots...
Either provide the quote that he's asking for or admit that he didn't say it and this can end.Just acknowledge you made a mistake and this can end.Well, you obviously enjoy arguing with sokarul, so...They are both idiots...
I have already provided evidence.
How about you give the post number so that way we can refer to it?I have already provided evidence.
Get the message - it does NOT push on NOTHING it pushes on ejected fuel.
Get the message - it does NOT push on NOTHING it pushes on ejected fuel.
LULZ!!!
What you describe is Impossible.
What you describe is Impossible.You still have not answered MY QUESTION! I have answered yours, even if you don't like the answers.
Why?Get the message - it does NOT push on NOTHING it pushes on ejected fuel.What you describe is Impossible.
You still have not answered MY QUESTION!
A clear example of Newton's laws of motion in action.
Does mass in a vacuum stop having mass just because it's in a vacuum?A clear example of Newton's laws of motion in action.
More like a clear example of you ignoring the Vacuum.
Kinda left that out, didntcha?
Naughty markjo!
Quick - hide that Combustion Chamber!Why, does it confuse you too much?
Nope.
Look:
The combustion chamber of a rocket is open to the near-infinite vacuum of space.
Therefore, no gas can even be meaningfully said to exist within it, let alone combust.
Any gas introduced therein when the pressurised fuel tank leading to the combustion chamber is opened will simply expand freely into the enormous, zero-pressure vacuum, following the path of least resistance & doing no work whatsoever.
This will continue for as long as the fuel tank & chamber are open to the vacuum, until both exterior & interior pressures are equalised at zero.
It is a beautifully simple concept, fully supported by All the laws of physics, yet you 'round earthers' (lol!) just can't seem to grasp it...
Plus this:
You all claim that the recoil of a gun is a valid analogy for how a rocket works in a vacuum.
Here is why it is not:
With a gun you have object A, the mass of the gun; the expanding propellant, P, the gunpowder, sited between them; and object B, the mass of the bullet.
But with a rocket you ONLY have object A, the mass of the rocket, & the expanding propellant, P, the fuel.
No object B, see?
Thus, you have removed the necessary recoil mass required to produce motion.
But we know a rocket DOES produce motion, don't we?
Ergo, some other mass MUST be taking the place of object B.
& the ONLY possibility for that other mass is the Atmosphere.
Ergo, NO atmosphere, NO motion; rockets CANNOT function in a vacuum.
Q.E.D.
No matter how hard you try to spin it, cultists, every child knows that You cannot Push on Nothing.
No maths required; only common sense.
Then there's the fact that you are all trying desperately to confine this 'debate' to the wrong branch of physics, i.e. Solid Mechanics rather than Fluid Mechanics...
Kinda dishonest of you, dontcha think?
Pressure-Gradient Forces, Gas Laws, Fluid Mechanics, Continuum Assumption & Joules Expansion are the areas I suggest neutral readers research.
Oh; & Thermodynamics too - thanks for that, markjo!
Flow, my tears, the thought-policeman said...
Nope.Actually, a relatively small part of the combustion chamber (the throat) is open to the vacuum of space.
Look:
The combustion chamber of a rocket is open to the near-infinite vacuum of space.
Therefore, no gas can even be meaningfully said to exist within it, let alone combust.Why not? Just for the sake of argument, let's say that we have a pipe instead of a combustion chamber. If one end is connected the gas supply and the other end is open to a vacuum, then gas does exist in the pipe while the gas is moving from the supply to the vacuum for as long as the supply still has gas in it.
Any gas introduced therein when the pressurised fuel tank leading to the combustion chamber is opened will simply expand freely into the enormous, zero-pressure vacuum, following the path of least resistance & doing no work whatsoever.Yes, the first place that the gas expands into is the combustion chamber. Yes, the gas will continue through the throat and into space, but it must expand into the chamber first, because that's what gasses do. And again, as long as gas is being introduced from the supply, there will be gas expanding into the combustion chamber.
This will continue for as long as the fuel tank & chamber are open to the vacuum, until both exterior & interior pressures are equalised at zero.Again, as long as the interior pressure and exterior pressures are not equalized, there is gas in the combustion chamber.
It is a beautifully simple concept, fully supported by All the laws of physics, yet you 'round earthers' (lol!) just can't seem to grasp it...Oh, I grasp it quite well. It seems that you're the one who is confused in an obnoxiously arrogant sort of way.
Plus this:Let's try to deal with one of your misconceptions at a time.
Actually, a relatively small part of the combustion chamber (the throat) is open to the vacuum of space.
But the gas must actually expand into the actual combustion chamber before it can actually pass through the actual throat so that it can actually expand into space.Actually, a relatively small part of the combustion chamber (the throat) is open to the vacuum of space.
Actually, that's all that's actually needed actually, for the actual vacuum to actually act upon the actual gas that's actually introduced to the actual combustion chamber actually and actually make it actually freely expand actually into the actual vacuum of actual space...
Actually, a relatively small part of the combustion chamber (the throat) is open to the vacuum of space.
Actually, that's all that's actually needed actually, for the actual vacuum to actually act upon the actual gas that's actually introduced to the actual combustion chamber actually and actually make it actually freely expand actually into the actual vacuum of actual space...
Actually.
Good to see you channelling your twelve year old self, psycho-seance invoker markjo...
But everything you say is a Lie no matter what age you project as being.
So: Nul Points.
Toodle-pip, Mystic Markjo!
But the gas must actually expand into the actual combustion chamber before it can actually pass through the actual throat so that it can actually expand into space.
Ha ha ha lol!
You don't even understand the composition of matter and how gases behave. Muppet.
i have a degree and you clearly don't. I can feel the jealousy oozing from your every pore. Sorry little boy, go back to masturbating in your parents basement.
I seem to be good enough that you can't come up with an actual rebuttal.But the gas must actually expand into the actual combustion chamber before it can actually pass through the actual throat so that it can actually expand into space.
LULZ!!!
Not very good at this, are you?
Markjo, he has been correctly telling you guys. The vacuum is in the nozzle of the rocket, therefore the gasses can do no work there, free expansion.But the gas must actually expand into the actual combustion chamber before it can actually pass through the actual throat so that it can actually expand into space.Actually, a relatively small part of the combustion chamber (the throat) is open to the vacuum of space.
Actually, that's all that's actually needed actually, for the actual vacuum to actually act upon the actual gas that's actually introduced to the actual combustion chamber actually and actually make it actually freely expand actually into the actual vacuum of actual space...
Shush, good hoppy!Oh, then you admit that I'm right and you're full of shit?
Don't let the cat out of the bag...
It's way too much fun playing with these guys!
How about you give the post number so that way we can refer to it?I don't know what number it was, so here it is again with more added.
So....is that a yes or no?
Can you flow more into a chamber than out of it?
BAM!!!What about liquids? Can liquids exist in a vacuum? Can two hypergolic liquids be sprayed together in a vacuum and spontaneously combust producing combustion gasses?
The combustion chamber of a rocket is open to the near-infinite vacuum of space.
Therefore, no gas can even be meaningfully said to exist within it, let alone combust.
Yes. That picture was made to show how stupid the idea is for a rocket to push off the air.
http://s331.photobucket.com/user/sokarul/media/air.jpg.html (http://s331.photobucket.com/user/sokarul/media/air.jpg.html)
He claims HIS rocket does not work in a vacuum, that's a bit funny (poor design I would say), because mine does.
Nope, I just get the rocket experts at JPL, theirs work at orbital altitudes, unlike yours.He claims HIS rocket does not work in a vacuum, that's a bit funny (poor design I would say), because mine does.LULZ!!!
Now everyone's a rokkit enjynerr!
The farce just grows & grows...
BTW Get a new record, that one is worn out!I only need to go to 100 kmSo teh munn's only 100km away?
You're drunk again, aren't you?
The combustion chamber of a rocket is open to the near-infinite vacuum of space.
Therefore, no gas can even be meaningfully said to exist within it, let alone combust.
What about liquids? Can liquids exist in a vacuum? Can two hypergolic liquids be sprayed together in a vacuum and spontaneously combust producing combustion gasses?
So...that's a no, then, to the quote? We are just supposed to take your word for it instead of reading my own words? Sounds legit. ::)How about you give the post number so that way we can refer to it?I don't know what number it was, so here it is again with more added.
How about you give the post number so that way we can refer to it?I don't know what number it was, so here it is again with more added.
TheEngineer claimed to have proved an argument using General Relativity. I pointed out how it's strange he always want to be right but used "proved" instead of saying he provided evidence.(Jroa agreed with me) You can't use a theory to claim proof when a theory is falsifiable. General Relativity is no exception. But anyways, TheEngineer then went and posted the dictionary definition of proof like it actually meant something, and claimed he was still correct. So to be correct he must have secret knowledge that General Relativity is correct from his own experiments. This is of course because he still thinks he can use the word "proof".
Now I admit I have used "proof" instead of "evidence" on here and there a few threads right now with proof in the title. It's just like I originally said, it's strange for some who who prides himself on always being correct to use a wrong word like that.
It's actually right here. There has just been a bunch of on topic posts no thanks to the worthless mods.I don't see a quote of mine anywhere in there.How about you give the post number so that way we can refer to it?I don't know what number it was, so here it is again with more added.
TheEngineer claimed to have proved an argument using General Relativity. I pointed out how it's strange he always want to be right but used "proved" instead of saying he provided evidence.(Jroa agreed with me) You can't use a theory to claim proof when a theory is falsifiable. General Relativity is no exception. But anyways, TheEngineer then went and posted the dictionary definition of proof like it actually meant something, and claimed he was still correct. So to be correct he must have secret knowledge that General Relativity is correct from his own experiments. This is of course because he still thinks he can use the word "proof".
Now I admit I have used "proof" instead of "evidence" on here and there a few threads right now with proof in the title. It's just like I originally said, it's strange for some who who prides himself on always being correct to use a wrong word like that.
Seriously guys, can't you take this petty BS to another thread?I'm sorry, is there a productive argument here that we are derailing?
I know it's hard for you since "engineers are not scientist" so you will just have to go along with it when I say not all types of evidence are quotes.It's actually right here. There has just been a bunch of on topic posts no thanks to the worthless mods.I don't see a quote of mine anywhere in there.How about you give the post number so that way we can refer to it?I don't know what number it was, so here it is again with more added.
TheEngineer claimed to have proved an argument using General Relativity. I pointed out how it's strange he always want to be right but used "proved" instead of saying he provided evidence.(Jroa agreed with me) You can't use a theory to claim proof when a theory is falsifiable. General Relativity is no exception. But anyways, TheEngineer then went and posted the dictionary definition of proof like it actually meant something, and claimed he was still correct. So to be correct he must have secret knowledge that General Relativity is correct from his own experiments. This is of course because he still thinks he can use the word "proof".
Now I admit I have used "proof" instead of "evidence" on here and there a few threads right now with proof in the title. It's just like I originally said, it's strange for some who who prides himself on always being correct to use a wrong word like that.
Yes. I have a new argument for Papa Legba to ignore.Seriously guys, can't you take this petty BS to another thread?I'm sorry, is there a productive argument here that we are derailing?
It's not my fault 4 year degree engineers think they are gods and better than all the other 4 year degrees out there. We can't all ride 10 feet tall horses.Hey, watch who you are denigrating. TheEngineer is not the only one around here with 4 year Engineering Degree! Mind you I did not say "4 year degree Engineer" as I was never a "Professional Engineer", so I guess TheEngineer is one up there. My degree was Electrical, so I guess that does not help a lot until people saying silly things about electrical topics - there hasn't been much of that here.
It's not my fault 4 year degree engineers think they are gods and better than all the other 4 year degrees out there. We can't all ride 10 feet tall horses./cry
I know it's hard for you since "engineers are not scientist" so you will just have to go along with it when I say not all types of evidence are quotes.Except in this case, you are making the claim that I claimed to have proven General Relativity. So in this case, quote(s) of me making such a claim are the only accepted forms of evidence. Your conjecture is not evidence.
So, once again you have no rebuttal for the evidence presented. Not surprising.It's not my fault 4 year degree engineers think they are gods and better than all the other 4 year degrees out there. We can't all ride 10 feet tall horses./cryI know it's hard for you since "engineers are not scientist" so you will just have to go along with it when I say not all types of evidence are quotes.Except in this case, you are making the claim that I claimed to have proven General Relativity. So in this case, quote(s) of me making such a claim are the only accepted forms of evidence. Your conjecture is not evidence.
Your conjecture is not evidence.
When you want to wake up from your fantasy world I'll be around waiting.
I have a new argument for Papa Legba to ignore.
My degree was Electrical
In you don't know there is more than one Electrical Engineer in the world! Then again such knowledge would be beyond you, just like how have no idea how high SpaceX's rocket might before it runs out of air to push on. LOLMy degree was ElectricalFunny, that, cos so was Rayzor's...
& we all know whose sock-puppet Rayzor was.
You are all completely useless, aintcha?
Toodle-pip, Losers!
As SpaceX's 'rokkits' do not exist outside a computer, the question of how high they go is somewhat moot.I suppose everyone, Papa included of course, is going to watch these SpaceX's 'rokkits' fail when they reach the newly recognised Papa Legba Rokkit Limit Altitude. I guess you are keeping it a close secret so that the results won't be biassed. Mind you Papa you could earn yourself a fortune telling Space Exploration Technologies Corporation your now famous calculations. They would be forever in you debt for saving them all this time and money.
Especially supposedly that "Amateur Rocket Into Space Proves Flat Earth" - well maybe not.
You mean the rocket launched by Ky Michaelson, Hollywood stuntman & special effects expert?
The guy who set up the company 'Hollywood Stunt Masters' in 1969, same year as teh munn landing?
The guy whose website, www.the-rocketman.com (http://www.the-rocketman.com) contains no technical data whatsoever on his amazing feats?
Yeah; think I'm quite happy in calling bullshit on that...
And the satellites it launched, how did they get into space?Especially supposedly that "Amateur Rocket Into Space Proves Flat Earth" - well maybe not.
I already dealt with the fake GoFast rocket launch days ago; look:You mean the rocket launched by Ky Michaelson, Hollywood stuntman & special effects expert?
The guy who set up the company 'Hollywood Stunt Masters' in 1969, same year as teh munn landing?
The guy whose website, www.the-rocketman.com (http://www.the-rocketman.com) contains no technical data whatsoever on his amazing feats?
Yeah; think I'm quite happy in calling bullshit on that...
Seems you're too drunk to remember...
As for your employers SpaceX; total bullshit too.
Now crawl back into your bottle & give us all a rest from your alcoholic ravings.
Especially supposedly that "Amateur Rocket Into Space Proves Flat Earth" - well maybe not.I already dealt with the fake GoFast rocket launch days ago; look:You mean the rocket launched by Ky Michaelson, Hollywood stuntman & special effects expert?
The guy who set up the company 'Hollywood Stunt Masters' in 1969, same year as teh munn landing?
The guy whose website, www.the-rocketman.com (http://www.the-rocketman.com) contains no technical data whatsoever on his amazing feats?
Yeah; think I'm quite happy in calling bullshit on that...
Seems you're too drunk to remember...
As for your employers SpaceX; total bullshit too.
Now crawl back into your bottle & give us all a rest from your alcoholic ravings.
But of course you will rightly choose to ignore anything that's inconvenient to your irrational rationale.I have a new argument for Papa Legba to ignore.
LOL!!!
You see what you did there?
Not 'logic'; not 'facts'; not 'science'; no, you have only 'arguments'.
So yes, I will ignore it if I choose, & rightly so.
The combustion chamber of a rocket is open to the near-infinite vacuum of space.
Therefore, no gas can even be meaningfully said to exist within it, let alone combust.What about liquids? Can liquids exist in a vacuum? Can two hypergolic liquids be sprayed together in a vacuum and spontaneously combust producing combustion gasses?
But of course you will rightly choose to ignore anything that's inconvenient to your irrational rationale.
How's this?But of course you will rightly choose to ignore anything that's inconvenient to your irrational rationale.
That didn't mean anything, markjo.
Care to try again, this time avoiding Orwellian Double-speak?
I know it's hard for you...
But give it a go, eh?
The combustion chamber of a rocket is open to the near-infinite vacuum of space.
Therefore, no gas can even be meaningfully said to exist within it, let alone combust.
What about liquids? Can liquids exist in a vacuum? Can two hypergolic liquids be sprayed together in a vacuum and spontaneously combust producing combustion gasses?
When you want to wake up from your fantasy world I'll be around waiting.I don't know what it is you are waiting for, but I'm still waiting for a quote.
Can two hypergolic liquids be sprayed together in a vacuum and spontaneously combust producing combustion gasses?
Just out of curiosity, does that include hypergolic propellants that ignite on contact when sprayed into a combustion chamber?
LOL!!!
What does it matter?
If the combustion chamber is open to the vacuum (which I'm still not sure you agreed upon or not, as you are such a shitposting snake... Luckily we all know damn well it IS open to the vacuum anyway), then any gas produced will simply expand, freely, following the path of least resistance & doing no work.
No matter how you twist & turn, all the laws of physics tell us that a gas-powered rocket simply cannot function in a vacuum.
Because YOU CANNOT PUSH ON NOTHING.
*Yawn!*
Sorry, but that isn't a valid response. A simple yes or no will suffice.Can two hypergolic liquids be sprayed together in a vacuum and spontaneously combust producing combustion gasses?
Oh, look; I already answered this months ago!Just out of curiosity, does that include hypergolic propellants that ignite on contact when sprayed into a combustion chamber?
LOL!!!
What does it matter?
Sorry, but that isn't a valid answer.
I have a new argument for Papa Legba
Sorry, but that isn't a valid answer.
Well nothing is to you, as you've already admitted you're only here to argue.
verb (used without object), argued, arguing.Yes, I'm here to argue, which is more than I can say for you.
1. to present reasons for or against a thing:
He argued in favor of capital punishment.
2. to contend in oral disagreement; dispute:
The senator argued with the president about the new tax bill.
Now, would you care to give a proper answer to the question of hypergolic liquids combining in a vacuum and producing exhaust gasses?
No, you avoided answering the question.Now, would you care to give a proper answer to the question of hypergolic liquids combining in a vacuum and producing exhaust gasses?
I already did, months ago.
Yes or no is a proper answer to such a question.
Well, you didn't object to my answer months ago, so what has changed since?You avoided answering the question then and you're avoiding answering it now, so I guess nothing has changed.
The laws of physics, somehow?Nope. Laws of physics are still the same and they still say that rockets can work in a vacuum just fine.
Is Free Expansion not a real thing any more?Of course free expansion is real, it just isn't relevant.
And just listen to yourself here:Yes or no is a proper answer to such a question.
LOL!!!
The chutzpah!
Phase diagrams are pretty easy to read; gas cannot exist in space. At near-zero Pressures and Temperatures everything turns solid or superfluid (lightest gases like H and He).How do gasses act in the high pressure and high temperature environment of a rocket's combustion chamber?
All "proof" rockets "work" is made with computers and staged film (pre-computers).
Do not take NASA "science" for real science.
How do gasses act in the high pressure and high temperature environment of a rocket's combustion chamber?
How do gasses act in the high pressure and high temperature environment of a rocket's combustion chamber?
You just keep forgetting about that vacuum, don't you markjo?
We keep reminding you, but your mind is clearly incapable of retaining the information...
Yet another common symptom of Alzheimers.
I mean; look at this garbage:QuoteFree expansion is an irreversible process in which a gas expands into an insulated evacuated chamber. It is also called Joule expansion.
It is not that gas cannot do work in a vacuum. It is that gas does no work when expanding into an evacuated chamber because all of the effect net to zero.
What, exactly, is in that 'evacuated chamber' that the gas does no work whilst expanding into?
Could it be a vacuum?
Why yes; yes it IS a vacuum.
Thus, mainframes completely contradicts himself in one sentence!
& what 'because all of the net effect to zero' means is anybody's guess...
He does this all the time, yet expects us to believe he has a masters in science...
LOL!!!
Cool story bro...
No, I didn't forget about the vacuum. You're the one who keeps forgetting that gas has mass and therefore any acceleration of that gas results in a force .How do gasses act in the high pressure and high temperature environment of a rocket's combustion chamber?
You just keep forgetting about that vacuum, don't you markjo?
No, I didn't forget about the vacuum.
gas has mass and therefore any acceleration of that gas results in a force .
No, I didn't forget about the vacuum.
gas has mass and therefore any acceleration of that gas results in a force .
Here is a post from a few months back where mainframes showed he did not even know what the general physics definition of the term 'evacuated' is:I mean; look at this garbage:QuoteFree expansion is an irreversible process in which a gas expands into an insulated evacuated chamber. It is also called Joule expansion.
It is not that gas cannot do work in a vacuum. It is that gas does no work when expanding into an evacuated chamber because all of the effect net to zero.
What, exactly, is in that 'evacuated chamber' that the gas does no work whilst expanding into?
Could it be a vacuum?
Why yes; yes it IS a vacuum.
Thus, mainframes completely contradicts himself in one sentence!
& what 'because all of the net effect to zero' means is anybody's guess...
He does this all the time, yet expects us to believe he has a masters in science...
LOL!!!
Cool story bro...
His latest post shows that he has learnt nothing since.
Also note that, for all their talk of the combustion chambers of shpayze-rokkit enjynns such as the J2, the clown derfers seem rather reluctant to actually show us any of these miraculous devices...
This is because, if they did, it would be obvious that they were entirely open to the infinite vacuum of space, & could not possibly work as claimed.
*Yawn!*
Now, simply extrapolate your gas-with-force into a Resistance-less vacuum environment, apply Newton's 3rd Law & Bingo!How many times do I have to tell you that the expanding gasses are acting against the walls of the combustion chamber, not the vacuum of space?
How many times do I have to tell you that the expanding gasses are acting against the walls of the combustion chamber, not the vacuum of space?
Of course I know what the term evacuated means. That's why I used it. The emphasis was on the fact that a chamber is involved. Free expansion requires a closed system otherwise it simply does not hold.
Me? You're the one who can't understand the concept of mass flow.How many times do I have to tell you that the expanding gasses are acting against the walls of the combustion chamber, not the vacuum of space?
Pathetic.
You are incapable of rational thought.
Please stop replying to me.Please stop trolling.
No, I didn't forget about the vacuum.
gas has mass and therefore any acceleration of that gas results in a force .
No, I didn't forget about the vacuum.
Yes, you did.
You have to, or your fraud-rokkits can't function in your fraud-shpayze.
What's next?
Oh, this:gas has mass and therefore any acceleration of that gas results in a force .
Fantastic - The Force!
Just like Star Wars eh?
So, anyhoo; you seem to have learned Newton's 2nd Law: F=ma...
Good! That's progress.
Now, simply extrapolate your gas-with-force into a Resistance-less vacuum environment, apply Newton's 3rd Law & Bingo!
Rockets do not work in Space.
Thangyew & Goodnight!
A resistance less environment means that the gas is not impeded BUT it still must be accelerated. Therefore a force acts on the gas. Newtons third states equal and opposite reaction occurs. Therefore the gas exerts a force on the rocket.
A resistance less environment means that the gas is not impeded BUT it still must be accelerated. Therefore a force acts on the gas. Newtons third states equal and opposite reaction occurs. Therefore the gas exerts a force on the rocket.
LOL!!!
Sesame Street Shpayze-fizziks!
A resistance less environment means that the gas is not impeded BUT it still must be accelerated. Therefore a force acts on the gas. Newtons third states equal and opposite reaction occurs. Therefore the gas exerts a force on the rocket.
LOL!!!
Sesame Street Shpayze-fizziks!
LOL!!!.
That's right; pretend it didn't happen, Walter Mitty...
Like you pretend you have a masters in Chem. Eng.
*Yawn!*
Just spam out your rattling billiard balls analogy & be done with it, psycho.
Ha ha ha lol!
You don't even understand the composition of matter and how gases behave. Muppet.
i have a degree and you clearly don't. I can feel the jealousy oozing from your every pore. Sorry little boy, go back to masturbating in your parents basement.
Now, simply extrapolate your gas-with-force into a Resistance-less vacuum environment, apply Newton's 3rd Law & Bingo!If there is no resistance within the combustion chamber, then there is nothing to stop the gas from expanding and exerting a force against the combustion chamber.
Plus, This:It's amazing that you can go to the effort of digging up months old irrelevant posts but you can't be arsed to answer a simple question like whether or not hypergolic liquids can mix in a vacuum and spontaneously combust to produce gasses in a vacuum.LOL!!!.
That's right; pretend it didn't happen, Walter Mitty...
Like you pretend you have a masters in Chem. Eng.
*Yawn!*
Just spam out your rattling billiard balls analogy & be done with it, psycho.
Ha ha ha lol!
You don't even understand the composition of matter and how gases behave. Muppet.
i have a degree and you clearly don't. I can feel the jealousy oozing from your every pore. Sorry little boy, go back to masturbating in your parents basement.
It sure is nice not responding to your crap.When you want to wake up from your fantasy world I'll be around waiting.I don't know what it is you are waiting for, but I'm still waiting for a quote.
Define proof. The typical definition (evidence exclusively for something) is untenable in any realistic, scientific context.
you can't be arsed to answer a simple question like whether or not hypergolic liquids can mix in a vacuum and spontaneously combust to produce gasses in a vacuum
Can two hypergolic liquids be sprayed together in a vacuum and spontaneously combust producing combustion gasses?
Oh, look; I already answered this months ago!Just out of curiosity, does that include hypergolic propellants that ignite on contact when sprayed into a combustion chamber?
LOL!!!
What does it matter?
If the combustion chamber is open to the vacuum (which I'm still not sure you agreed upon or not, as you are such a shitposting snake... Luckily we all know damn well it IS open to the vacuum anyway), then any gas produced will simply expand, freely, following the path of least resistance & doing no work.
No matter how you twist & turn, all the laws of physics tell us that a gas-powered rocket simply cannot function in a vacuum.
Because YOU CANNOT PUSH ON NOTHING.
*Yawn!*
Do you recall me urging you to get tested for Alzheimers, markjo?
Well, no, of course you don't...
Because your Alzheimers made you forget I did so.
It is a terrible disease.
Thank you please Mister The Liar!
Ii is reported that he has developed a way to propagate influences back up a supersonic gas flow.
The J2 would be nice; it went to teh munn, you know!
how did the braking/deceleration process from ~40,000 km/h to "parachute deployment speeds" work? :D
Can you flow more into a chamber than out of the chamber?
Tell you what, why don't you SHOW us exactly what these magical shpayze-rokkit Combustion Chambers you are all so obsessed with look like, then we can all have a good guess?What's wrong, is your Google broken?
Ok so the answer is yes, you can flow more into a chamber than out of it. This ends your claims that a rocket can't work in space.
What's wrong, is your Google broken?
I didn't say that it was.What's wrong, is your Google broken?
No, but seems yours is; that's not the J2.
Are you suggesting that the J2 combustion chamber is somehow functionally different from the example that I provided?
Santa says:
The combustion chamber of a rocket is open to the near-infinite vacuum of space.
Therefore, no gas can even be meaningfully said to exist within it, let alone combust.
Any gas introduced therein when the pressurised fuel tank leading to the combustion chamber is opened will simply expand freely into the enormous, zero-pressure vacuum, following the path of least resistance & doing no work whatsoever.
This will continue for as long as the fuel tank & chamber are open to the vacuum, until both exterior & interior pressures are equalised at zero.
It is a beautifully simple concept, fully supported by All the laws of physics, yet you 'round earthers' (lol!) just can't seem to grasp it...
Plus this:
You all claim that the recoil of a gun is a valid analogy for how a rocket works in a vacuum.
Here is why it is not:
With a gun you have object A, the mass of the gun; the expanding propellant, P, the gunpowder, sited between them; and object B, the mass of the bullet.
But with a rocket you ONLY have object A, the mass of the rocket, & the expanding propellant, P, the fuel.
No object B, see?
Thus, you have removed the necessary recoil mass required to produce motion.
But we know a rocket DOES produce motion, don't we?
Ergo, some other mass MUST be taking the place of object B.
& the ONLY possibility for that other mass is the Atmosphere.
Ergo, NO atmosphere, NO motion; rockets CANNOT function in a vacuum.
Q.E.D.
No matter how hard you try to spin it, cultists, every child knows that You cannot Push on Nothing.
No maths required; only common sense.
Then there's the fact that you are all trying desperately to confine this 'debate' to the wrong branch of physics, i.e. Solid Mechanics rather than Fluid Mechanics...
Kinda dishonest of you, dontcha think?
Pressure-Gradient Forces, Gas Laws, Fluid Mechanics, Continuum Assumption & Joules Expansion are the areas I suggest neutral readers research.
Oh; & Thermodynamics too - thanks for that, markjo!
Flow, my tears, the thought-policeman said...
Conservation of momentum is how rocket work.You people refuse to accept an atmospheric barrier to the expanded burning fuel don;t you? and prefer to just believe the fuel can burn inside the rocket and somehow push it up with no aid from anything below it.
When the fuel reacts, the exhaust heats up and expands, so it is pushed out the exhaust hole.
This exhaust that leaves has momentum, so the rocket must gain momentum in the opposite direction. Where else could the momentum opposing the exhaust gas be.
You people refuse to accept an atmospheric barrier to the expanded burning fuel don;t you?What does that even mean? ???
and prefer to just believe the fuel can burn inside the rocket and somehow push it up with no aid from anything below it.Yes, because that's what Newton's laws of motion and conservation of momentum clearly support.
Absolute crazy. I honestly don't think you people can ever be helped.That's how many of us feel about you too.
Here is a thread for satanic sci-fi cultists to post photos/videos of people on skateboards that they think somehow prove that rockets will function in a vacuum.Who can argue with someone so psychotic? Nuff, said!
Newton, Joules & Thomson will be spinning in their graves at such nonsense, but I guess these cultists are too satanically brainwashed to comprehend how basic scientific principles work...
Whatever; knock yourselves out, psychos!
I'll be more than happy to study a set of equation showing how thrust changes with altitude but u still haven't provided oneThe problem with you people is that you believe equations are the answer to any issue and you cannot use basic logic to see the basic truth.
I've read all of what Papa Legba said and it makes perfect sense. It makes perfect sense because he knows what the reality is and does not fall for fantasy scientific shenanigans.Do you know what conservation of momentum is, that's reality, that's how rocket work, nothing to do with pushing off something.
You people have the ability to copy what you read as long as it's official. You refuse to read anything that goes against it because it scares you.
Let's see if you're willing to use your brain.I've read all of what Papa Legba said and it makes perfect sense. It makes perfect sense because he knows what the reality is and does not fall for fantasy scientific shenanigans.Do you know what conservation of momentum is, that's reality, that's how rocket work, nothing to do with pushing off something.
You people have the ability to copy what you read as long as it's official. You refuse to read anything that goes against it because it scares you.
Ill explain it,
You have someone floating in a vacuum, they are holding a metal ball. If they throw the ball infront of them, that ball will of gained momentum, where does the momentum to counter the ball's go? To the man who then gains momentum in the opposite direction. Otherwise momentum would not a conserved.
Wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong. Im not scraching my head Im hiting it again a wall in frustation at your stupidity. Leverage is not needed, you dont understand physics. In space you muscles will still work, so you can hold a ball and move it forward, as you are moving it forward you can let go of it.As I said earlier. People need to engage their brains. You clearly refused to engage it and went on a rant without knowing what you are talking about, except to parrot what you read officially and unconditionally adhere to.
Why would muscles not work in space. Does someone falling with a parachute move there arms slower than someone on the ground.
Leverage with the ground isn't needed to throw a ball, it does stop the backwards momentum from throwing the ball moving you backwards.You can jump up and throw a ball in the air because you are using atmospheric pressure as your leverage, only you won't get as much leverage as opposed to your entire body being pushed to the deck by it's own mass acting against the atmosphere and the actual solid ground.
How come I can jump up and throw a ball in the air.
And why wouldn't muscles work in space.
"In order for him to do this he MUST have some leverage to allow him to achieve this" no he doesn't, he just needs working muscles.The whole reason you have leverage at all is due to the solid ground and atmospheric pressure you are pushing against. Wake up or be forever comatose, I'm not arsed which.
"He now has to throw that ball and he does so by using his LEGS and FEET as a leverage to allow him to propel this ball. He can throw it a great distance doing this."
No, his legs and feet stop him from being knocked back by the momentum, instead passing it onto the ground.
You have no evidence for your leverage statement, but conservation of momentum is a proven fact. If you are right about leverage then I wouldn't be able to throw something while jumping.
So in your world people can't throw balls (or they would be worse throws) if they jump. Ever watch an outfielder in baseball throw all the way back to home plate?Let's see if you're willing to use your brain.I've read all of what Papa Legba said and it makes perfect sense. It makes perfect sense because he knows what the reality is and does not fall for fantasy scientific shenanigans.Do you know what conservation of momentum is, that's reality, that's how rocket work, nothing to do with pushing off something.
You people have the ability to copy what you read as long as it's official. You refuse to read anything that goes against it because it scares you.
Ill explain it,
You have someone floating in a vacuum, they are holding a metal ball. If they throw the ball infront of them, that ball will of gained momentum, where does the momentum to counter the ball's go? To the man who then gains momentum in the opposite direction. Otherwise momentum would not a conserved.
We will use your floating man and ball.
Now I'm going to put something to you and I do not want magical answers from you unless you can logically explain them to make sense.
Ok, so the man and ball are in space and floating. He throws the ball in front of him. In order for him to do this he MUST have some leverage to allow him to achieve this.
I believe this part is where you will be scratching your head because your belief is that he will not need any leverage and he can simply throw that ball.
Let me see if I can make this easier for you - well, if not for you - at least to those who are willing to understand it.
A man on the ground throwing a ball has the mass of that ball adding to the mass of himself against the ground. The reason for this is because he picked up that extra mass from the ground which is now repelling more atmospheric pressure.
He now has to throw that ball and he does so by using his LEGS and FEET as a leverage to allow him to propel this ball. He can throw it a great distance doing this.
Now let's change it a little and place this man on a skateboard with the same ball. He goes to throw it and what happens?
He throws the ball but the leverage he once had against the ground is now lessened due to the wheels on the skateboard not creating enough solid leverage on the ground.
You find that his throw is nowhere near as good to launch this ball through a barrier of air resistance and you see him roll back a little.
Now imagine this person floating 1 foot off the floor and holding the same ball. He has no leverage at all. He can bring his arm back to launch that ball but in order for him to do that he needs some leverage to propel it and he has absolutely none.
So what happens in reality?
It should be obvious to those that do not fall for the mass in space bullshit.
He simply cannot launch the ball. He is stuck to that ball.
All people have to do is switch on their common sense brains to see how simple reality is against the absolute bullshit fantasy of space and it's floating crap.
According to you then it would matter what orientation that board is when you throw it because it would have different air resistance. Test it. You'll find you are wrong. Orientation does not matter. you could take the same mass concentrated in a far smaller area (far less air resistance) and get the same force. Air resistance does NOT come into play.Leverage with the ground isn't needed to throw a ball, it does stop the backwards momentum from throwing the ball moving you backwards.You can jump up and throw a ball in the air because you are using atmospheric pressure as your leverage, only you won't get as much leverage as opposed to your entire body being pushed to the deck by it's own mass acting against the atmosphere and the actual solid ground.
How come I can jump up and throw a ball in the air.
And why wouldn't muscles work in space.
And muscles clearly couldn't work in your space but that's not what we're arguing about, so let's pretend they can in your fantasy near vacuum.
I want you to seriously think about what I say here. I very much doubt you will. In fact I'm 100% sure you will just go total cloud cuckoo but I'll hang onto the hope that real people with real brains can see the reality.
Ok, get a large board; say: a 4x4 foot ply-board. Stand on a skate-board and throw that ply-board away from you and see how far you're repelled backwards. You'll find that it's quite a bit if your skate-board is on a hard smooth surface with good wheels.
So what happened?
It depends on who you ask. You can ask a severely indoctrinated naive person who will tell you that the mass of the board is what propelled you but a little help from air resistance due to the surface area of that board.
Try the same thing in water and tell me what repels you?
Let's take the board into fantasy space, held onto by magical floating man on his skate-board.
As we can see, the skate-board is useless because there's no floor.
The man standing on that skate-board can exert no pressure upon the board nor can the board exert any back. Basically his feet are touching the board as the board is touching his feet.
He holds the 4x4 board and realises that he feels no force against his muscles because that board is also floating just like he is.
His arms are bent as if he is about to launch the board away from him, so how does he do this.
If you think he can just push his arms out and release the board you have to understand action/reaction in equal terms and understand that in a weightless floating environment like we are told space is, you have to use your common sense and grasp that both the person and the board create no extra resistance because there is no environment that caters for resistant force.
At this stage you get some of the so called clever shits that will say "ahh but they still have mass in space." It's tedious but let's counteract that by giving the man and the board exact mass.
Ok before I move on I want any person to throw as many objects as they feel necessary from the ground and also from a skate-board or some wheeled contraption. Even do it jumping in the air and also hanging from a rope.
All I need for you to understand is the fact that no matter how you do it, you have to have leverage to create a force and that force will be equally counteracted by a reactionary force, because of the atmosphere you live in and all things in an atmosphere have mass/density.
The reason they have mass/density is due to the make up of whatever matter/object pushing against a pressure of it's own displacement of that atmosphere.
In fantasy space you have nothing to lever against. No walls to push off and no floor to stand on. You are literally in suspended animation in a way.
Now because you do not have anything to lever off of, you can only apply enough force to actually stretch out your arms against that board.
What are you not doing?
You are not exerting anything onto the board any more than the board is exerting back onto you.
You are left with outstretched arms touching that board and that's it. None of you go anywhere from this point.
You end up with your fingertips touching the board and your toes touching the skate-board.
It's pretty simply for any logical person to work out but too many would rather tread the path of bullshit told by people who are too afraid to lose their jobs, as well as those who are actually paid to promote the utter shit of space.
If it's because of solid ground then why can I throw something when I jump. Also saying that people need to wake up doesn't make you right.Did you miss the bit where I said solid ground and ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE or did you just decide to discard it so you could carry on playing dumbo?
I can see you're a total waste of time. Just carry on being a numpty, I'm done with people like you.According to you then it would matter what orientation that board is when you throw it because it would have different air resistance. Test it. You'll find you are wrong. Orientation does not matter. you could take the same mass concentrated in a far smaller area (far less air resistance) and get the same force. Air resistance does NOT come into play.Leverage with the ground isn't needed to throw a ball, it does stop the backwards momentum from throwing the ball moving you backwards.You can jump up and throw a ball in the air because you are using atmospheric pressure as your leverage, only you won't get as much leverage as opposed to your entire body being pushed to the deck by it's own mass acting against the atmosphere and the actual solid ground.
How come I can jump up and throw a ball in the air.
And why wouldn't muscles work in space.
And muscles clearly couldn't work in your space but that's not what we're arguing about, so let's pretend they can in your fantasy near vacuum.
I want you to seriously think about what I say here. I very much doubt you will. In fact I'm 100% sure you will just go total cloud cuckoo but I'll hang onto the hope that real people with real brains can see the reality.
Ok, get a large board; say: a 4x4 foot ply-board. Stand on a skate-board and throw that ply-board away from you and see how far you're repelled backwards. You'll find that it's quite a bit if your skate-board is on a hard smooth surface with good wheels.
So what happened?
It depends on who you ask. You can ask a severely indoctrinated naive person who will tell you that the mass of the board is what propelled you but a little help from air resistance due to the surface area of that board.
Try the same thing in water and tell me what repels you?
Let's take the board into fantasy space, held onto by magical floating man on his skate-board.
As we can see, the skate-board is useless because there's no floor.
The man standing on that skate-board can exert no pressure upon the board nor can the board exert any back. Basically his feet are touching the board as the board is touching his feet.
He holds the 4x4 board and realises that he feels no force against his muscles because that board is also floating just like he is.
His arms are bent as if he is about to launch the board away from him, so how does he do this.
If you think he can just push his arms out and release the board you have to understand action/reaction in equal terms and understand that in a weightless floating environment like we are told space is, you have to use your common sense and grasp that both the person and the board create no extra resistance because there is no environment that caters for resistant force.
At this stage you get some of the so called clever shits that will say "ahh but they still have mass in space." It's tedious but let's counteract that by giving the man and the board exact mass.
Ok before I move on I want any person to throw as many objects as they feel necessary from the ground and also from a skate-board or some wheeled contraption. Even do it jumping in the air and also hanging from a rope.
All I need for you to understand is the fact that no matter how you do it, you have to have leverage to create a force and that force will be equally counteracted by a reactionary force, because of the atmosphere you live in and all things in an atmosphere have mass/density.
The reason they have mass/density is due to the make up of whatever matter/object pushing against a pressure of it's own displacement of that atmosphere.
In fantasy space you have nothing to lever against. No walls to push off and no floor to stand on. You are literally in suspended animation in a way.
Now because you do not have anything to lever off of, you can only apply enough force to actually stretch out your arms against that board.
What are you not doing?
You are not exerting anything onto the board any more than the board is exerting back onto you.
You are left with outstretched arms touching that board and that's it. None of you go anywhere from this point.
You end up with your fingertips touching the board and your toes touching the skate-board.
It's pretty simply for any logical person to work out but too many would rather tread the path of bullshit told by people who are too afraid to lose their jobs, as well as those who are actually paid to promote the utter shit of space.
translation: I'm not going to test it because it will prove me wrong. here, I'll throw out some insults to distract you.I can see you're a total waste of time. Just carry on being a numpty, I'm done with people like you.According to you then it would matter what orientation that board is when you throw it because it would have different air resistance. Test it. You'll find you are wrong. Orientation does not matter. you could take the same mass concentrated in a far smaller area (far less air resistance) and get the same force. Air resistance does NOT come into play.Leverage with the ground isn't needed to throw a ball, it does stop the backwards momentum from throwing the ball moving you backwards.You can jump up and throw a ball in the air because you are using atmospheric pressure as your leverage, only you won't get as much leverage as opposed to your entire body being pushed to the deck by it's own mass acting against the atmosphere and the actual solid ground.
How come I can jump up and throw a ball in the air.
And why wouldn't muscles work in space.
And muscles clearly couldn't work in your space but that's not what we're arguing about, so let's pretend they can in your fantasy near vacuum.
I want you to seriously think about what I say here. I very much doubt you will. In fact I'm 100% sure you will just go total cloud cuckoo but I'll hang onto the hope that real people with real brains can see the reality.
Ok, get a large board; say: a 4x4 foot ply-board. Stand on a skate-board and throw that ply-board away from you and see how far you're repelled backwards. You'll find that it's quite a bit if your skate-board is on a hard smooth surface with good wheels.
So what happened?
It depends on who you ask. You can ask a severely indoctrinated naive person who will tell you that the mass of the board is what propelled you but a little help from air resistance due to the surface area of that board.
Try the same thing in water and tell me what repels you?
Let's take the board into fantasy space, held onto by magical floating man on his skate-board.
As we can see, the skate-board is useless because there's no floor.
The man standing on that skate-board can exert no pressure upon the board nor can the board exert any back. Basically his feet are touching the board as the board is touching his feet.
He holds the 4x4 board and realises that he feels no force against his muscles because that board is also floating just like he is.
His arms are bent as if he is about to launch the board away from him, so how does he do this.
If you think he can just push his arms out and release the board you have to understand action/reaction in equal terms and understand that in a weightless floating environment like we are told space is, you have to use your common sense and grasp that both the person and the board create no extra resistance because there is no environment that caters for resistant force.
At this stage you get some of the so called clever shits that will say "ahh but they still have mass in space." It's tedious but let's counteract that by giving the man and the board exact mass.
Ok before I move on I want any person to throw as many objects as they feel necessary from the ground and also from a skate-board or some wheeled contraption. Even do it jumping in the air and also hanging from a rope.
All I need for you to understand is the fact that no matter how you do it, you have to have leverage to create a force and that force will be equally counteracted by a reactionary force, because of the atmosphere you live in and all things in an atmosphere have mass/density.
The reason they have mass/density is due to the make up of whatever matter/object pushing against a pressure of it's own displacement of that atmosphere.
In fantasy space you have nothing to lever against. No walls to push off and no floor to stand on. You are literally in suspended animation in a way.
Now because you do not have anything to lever off of, you can only apply enough force to actually stretch out your arms against that board.
What are you not doing?
You are not exerting anything onto the board any more than the board is exerting back onto you.
You are left with outstretched arms touching that board and that's it. None of you go anywhere from this point.
You end up with your fingertips touching the board and your toes touching the skate-board.
It's pretty simply for any logical person to work out but too many would rather tread the path of bullshit told by people who are too afraid to lose their jobs, as well as those who are actually paid to promote the utter shit of space.
Did you ever consider the possibility that equations can be used in the real world to test your basic logic and see if you've found the basic truth about rockets?I'll be more than happy to study a set of equation showing how thrust changes with altitude but u still haven't provided oneThe problem with you people is that you believe equations are the answer to any issue and you cannot use basic logic to see the basic truth.
Space isn't your real world, markjo; it's a fantasy that was sold to people like you and me and a fantasy that is/was expected to be adhered to as reality and not to be questioned as the clear fantasy it really is when looked at logically - amid all of the silly equations to go with it that mean absolutely eff all.Did you ever consider the possibility that equations can be used in the real world to test your basic logic and see if you've found the basic truth about rockets?I'll be more than happy to study a set of equation showing how thrust changes with altitude but u still haven't provided oneThe problem with you people is that you believe equations are the answer to any issue and you cannot use basic logic to see the basic truth.
Go back to sleep, Frenat. You and all your sock puppet/eers are not in my line of thought. I use you people to show the sensible people how naive and backwards you people are.Prove I have ANY sock puppets. I'll bet you can't and won't even try. Heck, prove any of your assertions in this post.
The very same people as you that throw out insults and ridicule to anyone not following your train of thought and yet go crying like little bitches to the moderators and admin when you get a few home truth's aimed back.
For all you genuine people out there, tear up your space books and all related crap that promotes it because it's fantasy - unless you want to keep those books and simply use them as a reference to that fantasy for future arguments, then fair enough.
I literally feel sorry for the people who are so gullible to this stuff, even after seeing enough explanations that should force them to question and yet here they are like puppies in learning stage just following their masters. Sad as hell and also funny with some.
I am amazed by the stupidity of this thread, motion cannot happen in a vacuum!!! Yes it can and I see no reason why. I know you reason is "I don't understand how rockets work so I will assume they work by pushing against the air" they don't, conservation of momentum, that's how they work. But why would the laws of physics matter here? No, lets make are own ones up.
An object cannot move if we don't want it to, great one!!
Space is no more a fantasy than denpressure or your ice dome.Space isn't your real world, markjo; it's a fantasy that was sold to people like you and me and a fantasy that is/was expected to be adhered to as reality and not to be questioned as the clear fantasy it really is when looked at logically - amid all of the silly equations to go with it that mean absolutely eff all.Did you ever consider the possibility that equations can be used in the real world to test your basic logic and see if you've found the basic truth about rockets?I'll be more than happy to study a set of equation showing how thrust changes with altitude but u still haven't provided oneThe problem with you people is that you believe equations are the answer to any issue and you cannot use basic logic to see the basic truth.
You are not exerting anything onto the board any more than the board is exerting back onto you.So when you push the board away from you it has velocity, untill it sudenly loses it before it stops touching your fingers, what force makes it lose the velocity. An object in motion remains in motion unless acted on by a force.
You are left with outstretched arms touching that board and that's it. None of you go anywhere from this point.
You end up with your fingertips touching the board and your toes touching the skate-board.
I know I am very late replying to this bit, but you ask "how did the braking/deceleration process from ~40,000 km/h"?The J2 would be nice; it went to teh munn, you know!
And how it came back; how did the braking/deceleration process from ~40,000 km/h to "parachute deployment speeds" work? :D
You agreed you can flow more into a chamber than out of it.
if you don't have equations that accurately describe your idea, then you don't have squat.
I know I am very late replying to this bit, but you ask "how did the braking/deceleration process from ~40,000 km/h"?
Well, it didn't! The velocity at separation was about 6012 km/hr at an altitude of 76 km. The velocity is nothing like orbital velocity. I don't yet know yet maximum velocity of stage 1 during recovery, it may have been higher.
The hyper-sonic drag grid fins are a means of reducing the terminal velocity. Maybe it's not so impossible!
(https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/K-12/airplane/Images/rktthsum.gif)if you don't have equations that accurately describe your idea, then you don't have squat.
Please provide the equations that prove whether you are Lying or not.
If you cannot, then it is logical to assume that words are more powerful tools than equations for describing Reality.
I think you misunderstood what Papa was getting at.(https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/K-12/airplane/Images/rktthsum.gif)if you don't have equations that accurately describe your idea, then you don't have squat.
Please provide the equations that prove whether you are Lying or not.
If you cannot, then it is logical to assume that words are more powerful tools than equations for describing Reality.
Have you noticed that if you actually research this bullshit you find the best physicists in the world telling you it isn't true?Links please.
If not, then research a bit harder.
Because no educated person believes this nonsense.
Have u noticed the little dot over the M? That means is the time derivative of mass.Time derivative of mass?? :D That doesn't exist.
Mass flow times velocity is a force
Have u noticed the little dot over the M? That means is the time derivative of mass.Time derivative of mass?? :D That doesn't exist.
Mass flow times velocity is a force
Force (F) is mass (m) times the derivative of time that has velocity; acceleration (a = dv/dt).
Freaky clowns.
Your claim "Force (F) is mass (m) times the derivative of time that has velocity; acceleration (a = dv/dt)." is only partly correct, try:Have u noticed the little dot over the M? That means is the time derivative of mass.Time derivative of mass?? :D That doesn't exist.
Mass flow times velocity is a force
Force (F) is mass (m) times the derivative of time that has velocity; acceleration (a = dv/dt).
Freaky clowns.
it pushes on ejected fuel.
Seems notorious youtube troll rab downunder is trying to play the intellectual.Oh, and I thought that Newton's second law implied that force = rate of change of momentum. This ejected burnt fuel leads to a rate of change of mass, hence the rate of change of momentum. Even Konstantin Tsiolkovsky (in 1896) and Robert Goddard (1914) knew this. I am afraid poor Papa is over a century out of date! Go study up your Rocket Engineering 101 again. Oh, sorry you slept through that class - no wonder you're so ignorant! This leads to the rocket thrust equation shown here from an impeccable source, now off with you and play with your little toy skyrockets for the New Year. | (https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/K-12/airplane/Images/rockth.gif) |
This ejected burnt fuel leads to a rate of change of mass, hence the rate of change of momentum.
"Oh look mummy! Papa Legba is the only one in step!"
Of course he did.It seems that you misunderstand the concept of mass flow.
That is his Nature.
Sadly, he also seems to have misunderstood what Newton was getting at too...
F=m*v?
*Yawn!*Stop wasting time and space with repeating this utter rubbish. Funny that nobody else seems to agree with you!
Of course he did.I missed this little bit, nowhere did anyone (except you) say "F=m*v".
That is his Nature.
Sadly, he also seems to have misunderstood what Newton was getting at too...
F=m*v?
Seems notorious youtube troll rab downunder is trying to play the intellectual.As said here, it is physicly impossible for anything to create an action. This is prove that our ability to act must come from God, and skateboards are evil and satanic for using this for something that it wasn't intended for.
But let's look at how he thinks a rocket works again:it pushes on ejected fuel.
Oh dear!
He somehow believes that an object can create a Reaction from its own Action...
Silly clown derfer!
Funny that nobody else seems to agree with you!
I need to warn people about Papa Legba
he is upsetting voodoo spirits.
It seems that you misunderstand the concept of mass flow.
Then help me to understand. Please explain mass flow and why Newton's second law and conservation of momentum shouldn't apply.It seems that you misunderstand the concept of mass flow.
You 'misunderstand' everything.
That is your nature.
Toodle-pip, Losers!
Then help me to understand.
A CHALLENGER APPEARS!!!Even if this did happen, the rocket would still move.
Homework time again, shpayze-tard sock-puppets...
The combustion chamber of a rocket is open to the near-infinite vacuum of space.
Therefore, no gas can even be meaningfully said to exist within it, let alone combust.
Any gas introduced therein when the pressurised fuel tank leading to the combustion chamber is opened will simply expand freely into the enormous, zero-pressure vacuum, following the path of least resistance & doing no work whatsoever.
This will continue for as long as the fuel tank & chamber are open to the vacuum, until both exterior & interior pressures are equalised at zero.
Plus this:The gas leaving the rocket has mass, it's object B.
You all claim that the recoil of a gun is a valid analogy for how a rocket works in a vacuum.
Here is why it is not:
With a gun you have object A, the mass of the gun; the expanding propellant, P, the gunpowder, sited between them; and object B, the mass of the bullet.
But with a rocket you ONLY have object A, the mass of the rocket, & the expanding propellant, P, the fuel.
No object B, see?
it's object B.
I am sokarul.
BAM!!!Wow, "justwhy", you have just triggered the AI's (usually known as Papa Legba to humans) memory dump again! There needs to be some research on what sets it off as I am worried about its Neural Nets!
Nobody cares.
Why quote "It's object B", I don't see the link.You really need to be more careful simply uttering "It's object B" in the range of this AI's aural sensors triggers these outbursts of utter garbage. I have tried to decypher it, but with a name like yours "justwhy", you might just ask the right question and be able to reprogram it to be a useful member of the cyber community again.
BAM!!!Incorrect. This "beautifully simple concept" of yours is not supported by any of Newton's 3 laws of motion, the conservation of momentum or mass flow.
The combustion chamber of a rocket is open to the near-infinite vacuum of space.
Therefore, no gas can even be meaningfully said to exist within it, let alone combust.
Any gas introduced therein when the pressurised fuel tank leading to the combustion chamber is opened will simply expand freely into the enormous, zero-pressure vacuum, following the path of least resistance & doing no work whatsoever.
This will continue for as long as the fuel tank & chamber are open to the vacuum, until both exterior & interior pressures are equalised at zero.
It is a beautifully simple concept, fully supported by All the laws of physics, yet you 'round earthers' (lol!) just can't seem to grasp it...
This "beautifully simple concept" of yours is not supported by any of Newton's 3 laws of motion, the conservation of momentum or mass flow.
Because a change in the momentum of the gas requires work to be performed on the gas, and according to you, that doesn't happen.This "beautifully simple concept" of yours is not supported by any of Newton's 3 laws of motion, the conservation of momentum or mass flow.
Yes it is.
How is the momentum of the gas not conserved?
I'm not trying to get gas to do work in a vacuum.
No; you don't understand free expansion.
*Yawn!*
Toodle-pip, LoALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD!!!
So how does the gas accelerate from zero to speed of free expansion if no work is done?
Through converting its pressure potential energy into molecular kinetic energy; thus, no 'force' is applied to the gas & no work is done, as the gas is expanding freely into a vacuum without meeting resistance.
Oh, look:Converting potential energy into kinetic energy sounds an awful lot like the definition of work.So how does the gas accelerate from zero to speed of free expansion if no work is done?
Through converting its pressure potential energy into molecular kinetic energy; thus, no 'force' is applied to the gas & no work is done, as the gas is expanding freely into a vacuum without meeting resistance.
Converting potential energy into kinetic energy sounds an awful lot like the definition of work.
I'm not trying to get gas to do work in a vacuum.
No your wrong, I understand physics perfectly and free expansion follows all those rules, Round derfer.Basically you won't post an answer.
No; you don't understand free expansion.
*Yawn!*
Toodle-pip, LoALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD!!!
One form of energy being turned into another is the definition of work done
And if a gas expands, it has momentum, and momentum must always be conserved, that's a law of physics. For momentum to be conserved the container must gain momentum in the opposite direction.
Go on then. Please explain under what conditions free expansion is satisfied and why.....
Oh? How do you define work? Here's how the physics world defines work:Converting potential energy into kinetic energy sounds an awful lot like the definition of work.
Nah.
It doesn't.
In physics, a force is said to do work if, when acting on a body, there is a displacement of the point of application in the direction of the force. For example, when a ball is held above the ground and then dropped, the work done on the ball as it falls is equal to the weight of the ball (a force) multiplied by the distance to the ground (a displacement).
But you already said this:Me clutching at straws? You're the one posting quotes out of context.I'm not trying to get gas to do work in a vacuum.
So you know you're clutching at straws.
Nothing about this violates conservation of momentum, or any of Newton's Laws:Nope. If there is a pressure gradient between the high pressure of the fuel tank and the zero pressure of the vacuum, then there is most certainly a meaningful amount of gas in the combustion chamber that is between the two for as long as that pressure gradient exists.
The combustion chamber of a rocket is open to the near-infinite vacuum of space.
Therefore, no gas can even be meaningfully said to exist within it, let alone combust.
Any gas introduced therein when the pressurised fuel tank leading to the combustion chamber is opened will simply expand freely into the enormous, zero-pressure vacuum, following the path of least resistance & doing no work whatsoever.
This will continue for as long as the fuel tank & chamber are open to the vacuum, until both exterior & interior pressures are equalised at zero.
It is a beautifully simple concept, fully supported by All the laws of physics, yet you 'round earthers' (lol!) just can't seem to grasp it...
You claimed it did, but you Lied.
And, as usual, you are reduced to petty quibbling about definitions like a crooked lawyer.I can't help it if you insist on using the wrong definitions.
One form of energy being turned into another is the definition of work done
Not really; Negative work is also a thing, you know?And if a gas expands, it has momentum, and momentum must always be conserved, that's a law of physics. For momentum to be conserved the container must gain momentum in the opposite direction.
Not if it's expanding into a resistance-free vacuum (oh, & btw nice work sneaking a 'container' in there).
Because if the gas meets no resistance it cannot fulfil the requirements of Newton 3 & therefore no Force Pairing will be created between it & your magically-appearing 'container'.
No; any & all Momentum the gas has will be Conserved as it EXPANDS, FREELY into the vacuum, doing no Work on the way.
Simple, basic stuff.Go on then. Please explain under what conditions free expansion is satisfied and why.....
Just did, Walter Mitty.
Not that you're capable of understanding it.
Nah; best rely on the old hyALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD!!!
lol!
Through converting its pressure potential energy into molecular kinetic energy; thus, no 'force' is applied to the gas & no work is done, as the gas is expanding freely into a vacuum without meeting resistance.
Converting potential energy into kinetic energy sounds an awful lot like the definition of work.
The combustion chamber of a rocket is open to the near-infinite vacuum of space.
Therefore, no gas can even be meaningfully said to exist within it, let alone combust.
'change of kinetic energy of an object is equal to the net work done on the object'
In the choked condition the outside pressure (even if it is a vacuum) has no effect on the mass flow.
'change of kinetic energy of an object is equal to the net work done on the object''On'; not 'By'.
Through converting its pressure potential energy into molecular kinetic energy; thus, no 'force' is applied to the gas & no work is done, as the gas is expanding freely into a vacuum without meeting resistance.
In the choked condition the outside pressure (even if it is a vacuum) has no effect on the mass flow.Not true.
shower-head looking thingumyjig on the top?Don't speak gibberish, u'll have to rephrase that
No, you can't get away that easily! I know you regard yourself as the sole authority on de Laval nozzles, but you must give some justification, other than just your say so!In the choked condition the outside pressure (even if it is a vacuum) has no effect on the mass flow.Not true.
No, you can't get away that easily! I know you regard yourself as the sole authority on de Laval nozzles, but you must give some justification, other than just your say so!In the choked condition the outside pressure (even if it is a vacuum) has no effect on the mass flow.Not true.
All references I have found to the choked de Laval nozzle state categorically that:
In the choked condition the outside pressure (even if it is a vacuum) has no effect on the mass flow.So, basically, put up or shut up.
No, you can't get away that easily! I know you regard yourself as the sole authority on de Laval nozzles, but you must give some justification, other than just your say so!In the choked condition the outside pressure (even if it is a vacuum) has no effect on the mass flow.Not true.
All references I have found to the choked de Laval nozzle state categorically that:
In the choked condition the outside pressure (even if it is a vacuum) has no effect on the mass flow.So, basically, put up or shut up.
I like your avatar. I now know that it's Rab in oz rather than rabinoz.
LOL!!!Good for you. Too bad that you're still wrong.
Hey, alzheimers-guy markjo!
I. Just. Wrote. This. Please. Read. It. Before. Posting. More. Bullshit.
Yes, it is. Perhaps your should read up on it.One form of energy being turned into another is the definition of work done
Not really; Negative work is also a thing, you know?
No, you can't get away that easily! I know you regard yourself as the sole authority on de Laval nozzles, but you must give some justification, other than just your say so!In the choked condition the outside pressure (even if it is a vacuum) has no effect on the mass flow.Not true.
All references I have found to the choked de Laval nozzle state categorically that:
In the choked condition the outside pressure (even if it is a vacuum) has no effect on the mass flow.So, basically, put up or shut up.
I like your avatar. I now know that it's Rab in oz rather than rabinoz.
We already knew that you were a suck-up. This is not Cregslist. Please, stop peddling you a$$ here.
No, you can't get away that easily! I know you regard yourself as the sole authority on de Laval nozzles, but you must give some justification, other than just your say so!In the choked condition the outside pressure (even if it is a vacuum) has no effect on the mass flow.Not true.
All references I have found to the choked de Laval nozzle state categorically that:
In the choked condition the outside pressure (even if it is a vacuum) has no effect on the mass flow.So, basically, put up or shut up.
I like your avatar. I now know that it's Rab in oz rather than rabinoz.
We already knew that you were a suck-up. This is not Cregslist. Please, stop peddling you a$$ here.
Who is "we"? And it appears that I can't compliment anyone on this forum without someone like you criticizing me.
No, you can't get away that easily! I know you regard yourself as the sole authority on de Laval nozzles, but you must give some justification, other than just your say so!In the choked condition the outside pressure (even if it is a vacuum) has no effect on the mass flow.Not true.
All references I have found to the choked de Laval nozzle state categorically that:
In the choked condition the outside pressure (even if it is a vacuum) has no effect on the mass flow.So, basically, put up or shut up.
I like your avatar. I now know that it's Rab in oz rather than rabinoz.
We already knew that you were a suck-up. This is not Cregslist. Please, stop peddling you a$$ here.
Who is "we"? And it appears that I can't compliment anyone on this forum without someone like you criticizing me.
Ok, Buffalo Bill. This is not the place for you to find victims.
Hey, leave me out of this! As far as I know I'm no-one's victim and have no idea who "Luke 22:35-38" might be - other than the shape earth he lives on.No, you can't get away that easily! I know you regard yourself as the sole authority on de Laval nozzles, but you must give some justification, other than just your say so!In the choked condition the outside pressure (even if it is a vacuum) has no effect on the mass flow.Not true.
All references I have found to the choked de Laval nozzle state categorically that:
In the choked condition the outside pressure (even if it is a vacuum) has no effect on the mass flow.So, basically, put up or shut up.
I like your avatar. I now know that it's Rab in oz rather than rabinoz.
We already knew that you were a suck-up. This is not Cregslist. Please, stop peddling you a$$ here.
Who is "we"? And it appears that I can't compliment anyone on this forum without someone like you criticizing me.
Ok, Buffalo Bill. This is not the place for you to find victims.
Hey, leave me out of this! As far as I know I'm no-one's victim and have no idea who "Luke 22:35-38" might be - other than the shape earth he lives on.No, you can't get away that easily! I know you regard yourself as the sole authority on de Laval nozzles, but you must give some justification, other than just your say so!In the choked condition the outside pressure (even if it is a vacuum) has no effect on the mass flow.Not true.
All references I have found to the choked de Laval nozzle state categorically that:
In the choked condition the outside pressure (even if it is a vacuum) has no effect on the mass flow.So, basically, put up or shut up.
I like your avatar. I now know that it's Rab in oz rather than rabinoz.
We already knew that you were a suck-up. This is not Cregslist. Please, stop peddling you a$$ here.
Who is "we"? And it appears that I can't compliment anyone on this forum without someone like you criticizing me.
Ok, Buffalo Bill. This is not the place for you to find victims.
Also, we have no Buffalo Bill down here, Ned Kelly got rid of him quick smart! 'Course you've got to watch out for Crocodile Dundee and "This is a knife!" too.
Don't forget about that Steve guy "the crocodile hunter". I'm not sure what Jroa is talking about. Buffalo Bill to me was a guy who did Wild West shows along with Anny Oakely if I spelled that right.
Hey, leave me out of this! As far as I know I'm no-one's victim and have no idea who "Luke 22:35-38" might be - other than the shape earth he lives on.No, you can't get away that easily! I know you regard yourself as the sole authority on de Laval nozzles, but you must give some justification, other than just your say so!In the choked condition the outside pressure (even if it is a vacuum) has no effect on the mass flow.Not true.
All references I have found to the choked de Laval nozzle state categorically that:
In the choked condition the outside pressure (even if it is a vacuum) has no effect on the mass flow.So, basically, put up or shut up.
I like your avatar. I now know that it's Rab in oz rather than rabinoz.
We already knew that you were a suck-up. This is not Cregslist. Please, stop peddling you a$$ here.
Who is "we"? And it appears that I can't compliment anyone on this forum without someone like you criticizing me.
Ok, Buffalo Bill. This is not the place for you to find victims.
Also, we have no Buffalo Bill down here, Ned Kelly got rid of him quick smart! 'Course you've got to watch out for Crocodile Dundee and "This is a knife!" too.
Don't forget about that Steve guy "the crocodile hunter". I'm not sure what Jroa is talking about. Buffalo Bill to me was a guy who did Wild West shows along with Anny Oakely if I spelled that right.
Don't forget about that Steve guy "the crocodile hunter". I'm not sure what Jroa is talking about. Buffalo Bill to me was a guy who did Wild West shows along with Anny Oakely if I spelled that right.
Umm, I hate to ruin the joke but, it's Jroa's unique brand of humor, he's thinking of having Papa Legba for dinner.... he should go well with a nice bottle of chianti and some fava beans.
My question of the day, is, when will Papa come to the sad realization that he has been trolled mercilessly for our entertainment? Nope, probably never.
Hey, leave me out of this! As far as I know I'm no-one's victim and have no idea who "Luke 22:35-38" might be - other than the shape earth he lives on.No, you can't get away that easily! I know you regard yourself as the sole authority on de Laval nozzles, but you must give some justification, other than just your say so!In the choked condition the outside pressure (even if it is a vacuum) has no effect on the mass flow.Not true.
All references I have found to the choked de Laval nozzle state categorically that:
In the choked condition the outside pressure (even if it is a vacuum) has no effect on the mass flow.So, basically, put up or shut up.
I like your avatar. I now know that it's Rab in oz rather than rabinoz.
We already knew that you were a suck-up. This is not Cregslist. Please, stop peddling you a$$ here.
Who is "we"? And it appears that I can't compliment anyone on this forum without someone like you criticizing me.
Ok, Buffalo Bill. This is not the place for you to find victims.
Also, we have no Buffalo Bill down here, Ned Kelly got rid of him quick smart! 'Course you've got to watch out for Crocodile Dundee and "This is a knife!" too.
It also appears to have a shower head attached to the top; what could that be I wonder?Who knows, you're the expert, maybe someone wants a hot shower in space? But you have not yet explained what it means for a de Laval nozzle to be choked. It is obvious to everyone by now that you haven't the slightest idea.
Answers please, Shpayze-Clowns!
Why should it be vacuum proof?
Who knows, you're the expert, maybbe someone wants a hot shower in space?
So you're all working together, right? You must have all pmmed each other to mercilessly troll Papa, right?Don't forget about that Steve guy "the crocodile hunter". I'm not sure what Jroa is talking about. Buffalo Bill to me was a guy who did Wild West shows along with Anny Oakely if I spelled that right.
Umm, I hate to ruin the joke but, it's Jroa's unique brand of humor, he's thinking of having Papa Legba for dinner.... he should go well with a nice bottle of chianti and some fava beans.
My question of the day, is, when will Papa come to the sad realization that he has been trolled mercilessly for our entertainment? Nope, probably never.
if some work is done on it, a force is applied to it, which is quite in contrast to what u are saying...Through converting its pressure potential energy into molecular kinetic energy; thus, no 'force' is applied to the gas & no work is done, as the gas is expanding freely into a vacuum without meeting resistance.
u haven't answered a simple yes or know question.
'the change of kinetic energy of an object is equal to the net work done on the object'
Through converting its pressure potential energy into molecular kinetic energy; thus, no 'force' is applied to the gas & no work is done, as the gas is expanding freely into a vacuum without meeting resistance.
Through converting its pressure potential energy into molecular kinetic energy; thus, no 'force' is applied to the gas & no work is done, as the gas is expanding freely into a vacuum without meeting resistance.
are we getting aggressive again?
are we getting aggressive again?You've just been told that NO WORK has been done in the vacuum of so called space.
lol!!!
so if potential energy is converted into kinetic energy, according to work-energy principle, some work is done on the object.
how is possible that some work is done on the object if no force is applied to it?Through converting its pressure potential energy into molecular kinetic energy; thus, no 'force' is applied to the gas & no work is done, as the gas is expanding freely into a vacuum without meeting resistance.
some work must have been done on the gas molecule, since it has gained kinetic energy.On Earth gas is stored by work being done to store it. It then possesses potential energy and then kinetic energy once released by being opened up to the ATMOSPHERE. either naturally or by burning, with burning producing more expansion against the atmosphere to create more work done against it.
or u saying that the work-energy principle is not true?
if a force is applied to the gas molecule, thanks to newton's 3rd an equal and opposite force must apply on the object acting on the gas molecule, mustn't it?Yes if it has something to resist that force from back to front. In space you have no resistant force from one end due to it being a vacuum, as we are told, so you lose that resistance and therefore you lose all your energy to that vacuum as free expansion with no reactionary work achieved.
some work must have been done on the gas molecule, since it has gained kinetic energy.On Earth gas is stored by work being done to store it. It then possesses potential energy and then kinetic energy once released by being opened up to the ATMOSPHERE. either naturally or by burning, with burning producing more expansion against the atmosphere to create more work done against it.
or u saying that the work-energy principle is not true?
However, if we channel that to the vacuum of space as we are told. the gas is opened up to a NON-EXISTENCE of any atmospheric RESISTANCE meaning that gas will FREELY EXPAND into the vacuum with NO WORK being done, because whether it's opened up to the vacuum as gas or by supposed burning, it cannot expand into anything, because there's nothing at all to expand against to create any resistant REACTIONARY force.
You can argue all you want about it being choked inside that chamber and gripping walls to send the rocket in the opposite direction but you're wrong. You're 100% wrong. It's akin to saying that running on a roll of plastic is going to propel you forwards as the plastic spreads out behind you. You find that all your plastic has gone and you are still stood on the empty cardboard roll.
Just remember one massive thing. There is only equal force applied inside a closed chamber, all around it.
Once you open it up to an environment that offers ZERO resistance, then you get ZERO reaction to action, meaning no work done, because your energy has FREELY expanded.
Try and grasp it for your own sake not for anyone else's.
if a force is applied to the gas molecule, thanks to newton's 3rd an equal and opposite force must apply on the object acting on the gas molecule, mustn't it?
if a force is applied to the gas molecule, thanks to newton's 3rd an equal and opposite force must apply on the object acting on the gas molecule, mustn't it?Yes if it has something to resist that force from back to front. In space you have no resistant force from one end due to it being a vacuum, as we are told, so you lose that resistance and therefore you lose all your energy to that vacuum as free expansion with no reactionary work achieved.
if a force is applied to the gas molecule, thanks to newton's 3rd an equal and opposite force must apply on the object acting on the gas molecule, mustn't it?
Disgusting.
Sorry, Collabo-poodle, but you're clearly only here to shit the place up.
You simply cannot be house-trained, so get back in your kennel for good now.
Just disgusting...
Formally stated, Newton's third law is: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. The statement means that in every interaction, there is a pair of forces acting on the two interacting objects. The size of the forces on the first object equals the size of the force on the second object.if a force is applied to the gas molecule, thanks to newton's 3rd an equal and opposite force must apply on the object acting on the gas molecule, mustn't it?Yes if it has something to resist that force from back to front. In space you have no resistant force from one end due to it being a vacuum, as we are told, so you lose that resistance and therefore you lose all your energy to that vacuum as free expansion with no reactionary work achieved.
can u quote the part of the 3rd newton's law in which is stated that it's needed something to RESIST that force?
While Collabo-poodle shits the place up with his dog-dirt physics, let's enjoy sokarul's lulzy artwork that also tries to treat a gas as individual billiard-balls:
Wolf creek was the worst of the worst Bs. lol, is that your standard?
Wolf creek was the worst of the worst Bs. lol, is that your standard?
Are you referring to my taste in films here?
I don't really watch much these days, but I kinda go for 70s and 80s sci-fi movies.
Ok, so let's say rockets don't work.
You simply cannot prove space travel is faked 'because NASA'
So what propulsion system is the ISS using?
Wolf Creek was creepy
Ok, so let's say rockets don't work.
Good start.You simply cannot prove space travel is faked 'because NASA'
Getting dumber.So what propulsion system is the ISS using?
Total Fail.Wolf Creek was creepy
Not as creepy as you, Geoff.
But yeah; carry on your blatantly pre-planned derailing if you like...
It just proves that I am correct & you don't want people to read what I write.
Sucks to be you, don't it Geoff?
You see, I'm setting you up for a fail.You already failed. Twice.
You agreed you can flow more into a chamber than out of it.
This only happened in your imagination.
For the good of society, please remember that the voices in your head are not Real.
I'm saying it's a pathetic reductio ad absurdum strawman that will not affect whether a rocket functions in a vacuum or not.Since upwards of 80% of a rocket's mass is usually propellant that is being ejected out the back, I'd say that mass flow matters too.
Just like your De Laval nozzle strawman.
Free Expansion & Newton's 3rd Law are all that matters here.
You see, I'm setting you up for a fail.You already failed. Twice.
Because, this:
The combustion chamber of a rocket is open to the near-infinite vacuum of space.
Therefore, no gas can even be meaningfully said to exist within it, let alone combust.
Any gas introduced therein when the pressurised fuel tank leading to the combustion chamber is opened will simply expand freely into the enormous, zero-pressure vacuum, following the path of least resistance & doing no work whatsoever.
This will continue for as long as the fuel tank & chamber are open to the vacuum, until both exterior & interior pressures are equalised at zero.
It is a beautifully simple concept, fully supported by All the laws of physics, yet you 'round earthers' (lol!) just can't seem to grasp it...
Plus this:
You all claim that the recoil of a gun is a valid analogy for how a rocket works in a vacuum.
Here is why it is not:
With a gun you have object A, the mass of the gun; the expanding propellant, P, the gunpowder, sited between them; and object B, the mass of the bullet.
But with a rocket you ONLY have object A, the mass of the rocket, & the expanding propellant, P, the fuel.
No object B, see?
Thus, you have removed the necessary recoil mass required to produce motion.
But we know a rocket DOES produce motion, don't we?
Ergo, some other mass MUST be taking the place of object B.
& the ONLY possibility for that other mass is the Atmosphere.
Ergo, NO atmosphere, NO motion; rockets CANNOT function in a vacuum.
Q.E.D.
No matter how hard you try to spin it, cultists, every child knows that You cannot Push on Nothing.
No maths required; only common sense.
Then there's the fact that you are all trying desperately to confine this 'debate' to the wrong branch of physics, i.e. Solid Mechanics rather than Fluid Mechanics...
Kinda dishonest of you, dontcha think?
Pressure-Gradient Forces, Gas Laws, Fluid Mechanics, Continuum Assumption & Joules Expansion are the areas I suggest neutral readers research.
Here's a combustion chamber to laugh at too:
(http://www.space-propulsion.com/launcher-propulsion/rocket-engines/images/vulcain-thrust-chamber-assembly.jpg#moved)
Ooh - vacuum-proof!
But then how do air compressors fill up while one uses them?
Since upwards of 80% of a rocket's mass is usually propellant that is being ejected out the back, I'd say that mass flow matters too.
You misunderstand newtons 3rd law it seems....
But then how do air compressors fill up while one uses them?
If you actually thought about what you spam, you'd realise exactly why a rocket can't work in a vacuum.Since upwards of 80% of a rocket's mass is usually propellant that is being ejected out the back, I'd say that mass flow matters too.
Yeah well, as far as functioning in a vacuum goes, I would Not.
So put your strawman back in its box, & get out thALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD!!!You misunderstand newtons 3rd law it seems....
I do not.
[/quote/]
How many here think your argument is credible?
Why not take this to a vote.
Why not take this to a vote.
Of course mass flow matters....in an atmosphere. It has no effect in a so called space vacuum because that same mass flow would be mass flow doing no work due to the fact that mass flow is expanded directly into NOTHING or a vacuum. FREE EXPANSION.Thanks for proving that you have no clue about mass flow.
You wouldn't be filling air compressors up and using them in a vacuum, so what's your point?My point is it's easy to flow more in than out, if you want.
Why not take this to a vote.
That's your fourth Fail in as many posts - you're on a Hot Streak!
Meanwhile, this:
The combustion chamber of a rocket is open to the near-infinite vacuum of space.
Therefore, no gas can even be meaningfully said to exist within it, let alone combust.
Any gas introduced therein when the pressurised fuel tank leading to the combustion chamber is opened will simply expand freely into the enormous, zero-pressure vacuum, following the path of least resistance & doing no work whatsoever.
This will continue for as long as the fuel tank & chamber are open to the vacuum, until both exterior & interior pressures are equalised at zero.
It is a beautifully simple concept, fully supported by All the laws of physics, yet you 'round earthers' (lol!) just can't seem to grasp it...
Plus this:
You all claim that the recoil of a gun is a valid analogy for how a rocket works in a vacuum.
Here is why it is not:
With a gun you have object A, the mass of the gun; the expanding propellant, P, the gunpowder, sited between them; and object B, the mass of the bullet.
But with a rocket you ONLY have object A, the mass of the rocket, & the expanding propellant, P, the fuel.
No object B, see?
Thus, you have removed the necessary recoil mass required to produce motion.
But we know a rocket DOES produce motion, don't we?
Ergo, some other mass MUST be taking the place of object B.
& the ONLY possibility for that other mass is the Atmosphere.
Ergo, NO atmosphere, NO motion; rockets CANNOT function in a vacuum.
Q.E.D.
No matter how hard you try to spin it, cultists, every child knows that You cannot Push on Nothing.
No maths required; only common sense.
Then there's the fact that you are all trying desperately to confine this 'debate' to the wrong branch of physics, i.e. Solid Mechanics rather than Fluid Mechanics...
Kinda dishonest of you, dontcha think?
Pressure-Gradient Forces, Gas Laws, Fluid Mechanics, Continuum Assumption & Joules Expansion are the areas I suggest neutral readers research.
Here's a combustion chamber to laugh at too:
(http://www.space-propulsion.com/launcher-propulsion/rocket-engines/images/vulcain-thrust-chamber-assembly.jpg#moved)
Ooh - vacuum-proof!
I'm not trying to get gas to do work in a vacuum. I'm trying to fill a combustion chamber with gas faster than free expansion can empty it by varying the size of the opening to space. Do you believe that it's possible to do that or will the vacuum of space always win, even if the opening is microscopic?
You fail at life.
My point is it's easy to flow more in than out, if you want.
Oh, look what I found:I'm not trying to get gas to do work in a vacuum. I'm trying to fill a combustion chamber with gas faster than free expansion can empty it by varying the size of the opening to space. Do you believe that it's possible to do that or will the vacuum of space always win, even if the opening is microscopic?
Bit of a back-slider, aintcha, mALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD!!!You fail at life.
LOL!!!
Do you have BAAAAW-tism?My point is it's easy to flow more in than out, if you want.
My point is that you have no point.
Toodle-pip, shapyze-tard Losers!
I don't think you realise what you're saying to be fair.Of course mass flow matters....in an atmosphere. It has no effect in a so called space vacuum because that same mass flow would be mass flow doing no work due to the fact that mass flow is expanded directly into NOTHING or a vacuum. FREE EXPANSION.Thanks for proving that you have no clue about mass flow.
Free expansion applies to closed systems.
Mass flow applies to open systems.
Which do you think applies to a rocket engine exposed to the near infinite vacuum of space?
Or do you not understand the difference between open systems and closed systems either?
What he has in mind is the actual definition of free expansion:I don't think you realise what you're saying to be fair.Of course mass flow matters....in an atmosphere. It has no effect in a so called space vacuum because that same mass flow would be mass flow doing no work due to the fact that mass flow is expanded directly into NOTHING or a vacuum. FREE EXPANSION.Thanks for proving that you have no clue about mass flow.
Free expansion applies to closed systems.
Mass flow applies to open systems.
Which do you think applies to a rocket engine exposed to the near infinite vacuum of space?
Or do you not understand the difference between open systems and closed systems either?
Free expansion is never going to happen in a closed system, so I can't see how anyone can think it can. Unless you have something different in mind.
Free expansion is an irreversible process in which a gas expands into an insulated evacuated chamber.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_expansion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_expansion)
Unless the gas is marginal and allowed to expand in a real big evacuation chamber, then it can be close to free expansion.What he has in mind is the actual definition of free expansion:I don't think you realise what you're saying to be fair.Of course mass flow matters....in an atmosphere. It has no effect in a so called space vacuum because that same mass flow would be mass flow doing no work due to the fact that mass flow is expanded directly into NOTHING or a vacuum. FREE EXPANSION.Thanks for proving that you have no clue about mass flow.
Free expansion applies to closed systems.
Mass flow applies to open systems.
Which do you think applies to a rocket engine exposed to the near infinite vacuum of space?
Or do you not understand the difference between open systems and closed systems either?
Free expansion is never going to happen in a closed system, so I can't see how anyone can think it can. Unless you have something different in mind.QuoteFree expansion is an irreversible process in which a gas expands into an insulated evacuated chamber.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_expansion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_expansion)
While we wait for Collabo-poodle to fully empty his bowels of self-contradictory bullshit-physics, let's look at a person on a skateboard trying to prove that shpayze-rokkits are real:
! No longer available (http://#)
Ah - good times!
You fail at life, because you are clearly trolling everybody, and have nothing better to do.
I know that you are a round earther, and I know you definitely believe in rockets.
Me and my boyfriend are having a good laugh at your posts, so don't be too disheartened darling.
You fail at life, because you are clearly trolling everybody, and have nothing better to do.
I know that you are a round earther, and I know you definitely believe in rockets.
Me and my boyfriend are having a good laugh at your posts, so don't be too disheartened darling.
Cool story bro.
Ok, let's get the thread back on track.
Can you produce a sound piece of work with your findings.
I'm at uni on Thursday and I can put this to my professor.
you are clearly trolling everybody, and have nothing better to do.
when will Papa come to the sad realization that he has been trolled mercilessly for our entertainment?
Ok, let's get the thread back on track.
Can you produce a sound piece of work with your findings.
I'm at uni on Thursday and I can put this to my professor.
Cool story bro.
*Yawn!*
Oh, yeah; you said this:you are clearly trolling everybody, and have nothing better to do.
But rayzor/geoff/rabinoz etc said this:when will Papa come to the sad realization that he has been trolled mercilessly for our entertainment?
Get your silly bullshit stories straight ffs, Clown Derfer Troll-Posse!
Toodle-pip, definitively-proven Lying Clowns!
Unless the gas is marginal and allowed to expand in a real big evacuation chamber, then it can be close to free expansion.You're right. The real issue it that gas has mass and mass is subject to certain rules, regardless of whether or not it's in a vacuum. Free expansion does not magically preclude mass from requiring a force to accelerate that mass.
In truth there will never be absolute free expansion, just like there isn't an absolute vacuum to our perception.
However, that's not really the issue.
The issue is in dealing with space as we are told. This is what you would determine as closest to free expansion.
The force to accelerate the mass of the fuel/gas in your space environment remains the same. It's down to free expansion.Unless the gas is marginal and allowed to expand in a real big evacuation chamber, then it can be close to free expansion.You're right. The real issue it that gas has mass and mass is subject to certain rules, regardless of whether or not it's in a vacuum. Free expansion does not magically preclude mass from requiring a force to accelerate that mass.
In truth there will never be absolute free expansion, just like there isn't an absolute vacuum to our perception.
However, that's not really the issue.
The issue is in dealing with space as we are told. This is what you would determine as closest to free expansion.
The force to accelerate the mass of the fuel/gas in your space environment remains the same.Okay, now we're getting somewhere. Now, how fast is the gas travelling while it's "freely expanding" and how much force would be required to accelerate 10 kg of gas to that speed?
The force to accelerate the mass of the fuel/gas in your space environment remains the same.Okay, now we're getting somewhere. Now, how fast is the gas travelling while it's "freely expanding" and how much force would be required to accelerate 10 kg of gas to that speed?
There's no need for any calculations. You simply lose your mass of fuel almost instantly due to free expansion.The force to accelerate the mass of the fuel/gas in your space environment remains the same.Okay, now we're getting somewhere. Now, how fast is the gas travelling while it's "freely expanding" and how much force would be required to accelerate 10 kg of gas to that speed?
Incorrect. Legba is correct in his analysis. Space rockets are a good sci-fi theme, but not fit for reality.*Yawn!*Stop wasting time and space with repeating this utter rubbish. Funny that nobody else seems to agree with you!
Please write out 1000 times that a rocket works in a vacuum because force=dp/dt, where p = mv.
So you're saying that 10 kg pressurized gas can go from rest to however fast with no force required?There's no need for any calculations. You simply lose your mass of fuel almost instantly due to free expansion.The force to accelerate the mass of the fuel/gas in your space environment remains the same.Okay, now we're getting somewhere. Now, how fast is the gas travelling while it's "freely expanding" and how much force would be required to accelerate 10 kg of gas to that speed?
We aren't getting anywhere because your mindset it totally different to what I'm telling you about.That's because what you're telling me doesn't make sense.
Let's put this clear. Your mindset is of the belief that fuel can expand by combustion or even just molecules expansion and yet this expansion in an open chamber inside your rocket against a vacuum, will somehow act in all ways equally, meaning fuel expands one way into the vacuum and also expands the other and pushes onto the walls of the rocket chamber as if it was Samson pushing two pillars apart by using one as a lever against the other and vice versa to achieve some movement. Is this right or am I missing something in your thinking.There are lots of ways to describe how a rocket works, depending on how detailed you want to get. In it's simplest form, a rocket is using force to push some mass (propellant/exhaust gasses/whatever) one way resulting in an equal and opposite force that pushes the rocket the other way.
I'll need to know before I move on. Use a similar analogy to put me right on your thinking if you believe I'm not on your wavelength.
So, Papa Legba knows more than Newton, with his "force=dp/dt, where p = mv" and thousands of others far more knowledgeable than you or I! That's a laugh.Incorrect. Legba is correct in his analysis. Space rockets are a good sci-fi theme, but not fit for reality.*Yawn!*Stop wasting time and space with repeating this utter rubbish. Funny that nobody else seems to agree with you!
Please write out 1000 times that a rocket works in a vacuum because force=dp/dt, where p = mv.
Mind you now your wonderful Papa denies that any rockets can work, even WW2 V-2s and SCUD used Middle East.
I would say he's got a bit out of control!
Ha ha ha lol!
You don't even understand the composition of matter and how gases behave. Muppet.
i have a degree and you clearly don't. I can feel the jealousy oozing from your every pore. Sorry little boy, go back to masturbating in your parents basement.
You know saying that a V2 only travels at 900 mph at under 12 miles altitude is in my book saying that they don't work! Any designer of rockets would call that a complete failure!Mind you now your wonderful Papa denies that any rockets can work, even WW2 V-2s and SCUD used Middle East.Liar.
I say that the performance of the Scud & V2 are grossly over-exaggerated, not that they don't work at all.
Individual particles in a liquid and gas can be modelled as a solid because that is what they are. Solid particles. Collections of solid particles in a fluid state are then collectively modelled using fluid dynamics. Fluid dynamics still is based upon the simple truth that individual particles are solid.
How on earth would a V2 fly at 900 mph and 12 mile altitude?
And you will of course tell us poor ignorant brainwashed folk.How on earth would a V2 fly at 900 mph and 12 mile altitude?And how do you know what the true range of the V2 was, or its engine burn-time, or even from where it was launched?
Oh, that's right - the same fraudulent propaganda outlets that tell you it went at 3,580 mph & could reach 128 miles altitude!
My information is correct: the V2 had a max speed of 900 mph & max altitude of 12 miles...
All other conclusions must be drawn from there.
And you will of course tell us poor ignorant brainwashed folk.
Sure, but inside the rocket (especially one just entering "space") the fuel is not (yet) at a low temperature or pressure. The burnt fuel is at still at a high temperature and at the exit of the nozzle not yet at vacuum pressure. The exhaust gas is travelling at a finite velocity and cannot escape from the nozzle instantly.Individual particles in a liquid and gas can be modelled as a solid because that is what they are. Solid particles. Collections of solid particles in a fluid state are then collectively modelled using fluid dynamics. Fluid dynamics still is based upon the simple truth that individual particles are solid.
Right, so the point why gases do not exist in a near-zero T, near-zero P environment is that there is no cohesion between the particles. However you call them (solid or not). They simply wander off ('free expansion' if you want to use that wording) into the vast nothingness of space; kilometers apart without having any movement (near-zero T) or cohesion, so not forming a "gas".
Hence rocket-based technology does not (do) work under space conditions.
(http://ltl.tkk.fi/research/theory/TypicalPD.gif)
Sure, but inside the rocket (especially one just entering "space") the fuel is not (yet) at a low temperature or pressure.
The burnt fuel is at still at a high temperature
and at the exit of the nozzle not yet at vacuum pressure.
The exhaust gas
is travelling at a finite velocity
and cannot escape from the nozzle instantly.
By the time the exhaust gas has left the nozzle it has done its work.
From then on, as Wernher von Braun supposedly said "who cares ......... That's not my department?" Apologies to Tom Lehrer.
Presumably the rockets do work as expected at low altitude, at what point do we reach "space conditions"?
QuotePresumably the rockets do work as expected at low altitude, at what point do we reach "space conditions"?That is "defined" by the Karman "line" and impossble to know exactly as we have never been there. I take 100 km as a nice round number. After all roundness is what I love. :-*Do you mind if I answer simply RUBBISH.For a start the rocket does not got from "atmospheric" conditions to "vacuum" conditions instantly! And, even then there is no magic quality about a vacuum to instantly suck out all heat and gas. In fact in a vacuum there is no conduction, and no convection - the only heat transfer is by radiation and that is a two way process. Near earth (and a few hundred km up is still near) about half any object is exposed to earth at about 300 K, the other half might be exposed to space at maybe 4 K, or exposed to the Sun at say 6000 K.
Even exposed to space the thermal radiation is nothing like instantaneous, but controlled by the StefanBoltzmann law for a black body, and reduced somewhat by the emissivity of the surfaces involved, for the aluminium surface of a rocket this might be from 0.05 (shiny) to 0.2 (oxidised).
But enough of this trying to be logical, your physics seems on a par with that of our "dear friend" Papa Legba. You probably went to the same school! I wouldn't recommend that school for anyone contemplating a career in science!
there is no magic quality about a vacuum to instantly suck out all heat and gas.
Here is an issue of popular Science from 1941 which describes a jet engine as 'pushing on the atmosphere'.
Is it not strange that, in the May 1945 edition, they did a complete about-face & described both jets & rockets as being 'reaction engines', a completely implausible concept?
I told you: this fraud was well underway before WW2 even ended; interesting, no?
Stop being completely stupid, of course they are and always have been "reaction engines"
Here is an issue of popular Science from 1941 which describes a jet engine as 'pushing on the atmosphere'.Pushing on the atmosphere is not the same thing as pushing off of it.
Is it not strange that, in the May 1945 edition, they did a complete about-face & described both jets & rockets as being 'reaction engines', a completely implausible concept?
I told you: this fraud was well underway before WW2 even ended; interesting, no?
It's exactly the same.Here is an issue of popular Science from 1941 which describes a jet engine as 'pushing on the atmosphere'.Pushing on the atmosphere is not the same thing as pushing off of it.
Is it not strange that, in the May 1945 edition, they did a complete about-face & described both jets & rockets as being 'reaction engines', a completely implausible concept?
I told you: this fraud was well underway before WW2 even ended; interesting, no?
If gas has mass, then gas requires a force to accelerate it. If a force is applied to a gas, then the gas reacts with an equal and opposite force.Stop being completely stupid, of course they are and always have been "reaction engines"
There can be no such thing as a gas-based 'reaction engine, for the simple reason that one cannot 'throw' a gas.
Again, you try to apply the principles of Solid mechanics to what is correctly a matter of Fluid mechanics.If it's a matter of fluid mechanics, then why do you keep ignoring mass flow?
If gas has mass, then gas requires a force to accelerate it.
It's exactly the same.Here is an issue of popular Science from 1941 which describes a jet engine as 'pushing on the atmosphere'.Pushing on the atmosphere is not the same thing as pushing off of it.
Is it not strange that, in the May 1945 edition, they did a complete about-face & described both jets & rockets as being 'reaction engines', a completely implausible concept?
I told you: this fraud was well underway before WW2 even ended; interesting, no?
The force to accelerate gas is in the gas itself being compressed. Jack in the box.
If gas has mass, then gas requires a force to accelerate it. If a force is applied to a gas, then the gas reacts with an equal and opposite force.
EQUAL and OPPOSITE REACTION to ACTION.It's exactly the same.Here is an issue of popular Science from 1941 which describes a jet engine as 'pushing on the atmosphere'.Pushing on the atmosphere is not the same thing as pushing off of it.
Is it not strange that, in the May 1945 edition, they did a complete about-face & described both jets & rockets as being 'reaction engines', a completely implausible concept?
I told you: this fraud was well underway before WW2 even ended; interesting, no?
Not really. One thing is pushing something within the atmosphere and another is using it to push off it.
EQUAL and OPPOSITE REACTION to ACTION.It's exactly the same.Here is an issue of popular Science from 1941 which describes a jet engine as 'pushing on the atmosphere'.Pushing on the atmosphere is not the same thing as pushing off of it.
Is it not strange that, in the May 1945 edition, they did a complete about-face & described both jets & rockets as being 'reaction engines', a completely implausible concept?
I told you: this fraud was well underway before WW2 even ended; interesting, no?
Not really. One thing is pushing something within the atmosphere and another is using it to push off it.
Same thing, as I said.
Not really. One thing is pushing something within the atmosphere and another is using it to push off it.
Same thing as we said before, then. Thanks to this principle, rockets can reach into space.
Starting from the ignition procedure, please!1. Open the hypergolic fuel valve.
The combustion chamber in question belongs to a non-hypergolic engine.
I thought you were a 'rokkit enjynerr'?
Thanks for proving you are not.
Shower-head on top; big hole in bottom; when in 'space', filled with a vacuum.Hypergolic engine:
Starting from the ignition procedure, please!1. Open the hypergolic fuel valve.
2. Open the hypergolic oxidizer valve.
3. Well...there is no 3. There are only 2 steps to the ignition procedure of a hypergolic rocket engine.
The combustion chamber in question belongs to a non-hypergolic engine.
I thought you were a 'rokkit enjynerr'?
Thanks for proving you are not.Shower-head on top; big hole in bottom; when in 'space', filled with a vacuum.Hypergolic engine:
Shower-head on top; big hole in bottom; when in 'space', filled with a vacuum.Starting from the ignition procedure, please!1. Open the hypergolic fuel valve.
2. Open the hypergolic oxidizer valve.
3. Well...there is no 3. There are only 2 steps to the ignition procedure of a hypergolic rocket engine.
Step 1 + step 2 = fire.
Do you think gas has no mass.If gas has mass, then gas requires a force to accelerate it.
Oh dear...
Again, you are talking about 'accelerating' a gas with 'forces'.
Do you mind if I answer simply RUBBISH.
For a start the rocket does not got from "atmospheric" conditions to "vacuum" conditions instantly!
And, even then there is no magic quality about a vacuum to instantly suck out all heat and gas.
In fact in a vacuum there is no conduction, and no convection - the only heat transfer is by radiation
and that is a two way process.
Near earth (and a few hundred km up is still near) about half any object is exposed to earth at about 300 K, the other half might be exposed to space at maybe 4 K, or exposed to the Sun at say 6000 K.
Even exposed to space the thermal radiation is nothing like instantaneous, but controlled by the StefanBoltzmann law for a black body, and reduced somewhat by the emissivity of the surfaces involved, for the aluminium surface of a rocket this might be from 0.05 (shiny) to 0.2 (oxidised).
But enough of this trying to be logical, your physics seems on a par with that of our "dear friend" Papa Legba. You probably went to the same school! I wouldn't recommend that school for anyone contemplating a career in science!
*Yawn!*Do fans not exist? Funny thing about fans, when they accelerate air, they get accelerated in the opposite direction, so the gas must have a force applied to it for the fan to have one to, or do planes also not work?
Another pretender with a science-y sounding name appears...
How predictable.
And, yet again, it is trying to apply the principles of solid mechanics to a gas...
How predictable.
Tell you what, 'Empirical'; put your gas in a box.
Then, take that box of gas & throw it...
Because that is the only way you can apply a 'force' to a 'mass' of gas & 'accelerate' it.
Remind you of something?
That's right; your fraudulent 'man on skateboard' analogy!
Whatever; you bore me now...
I'm sure you'll fit in nicely here.
Toodle-pip, noob!
it's a consequence of momentum being conserved.
Do fans not exist? Funny thing about fans, when they accelerate air, they get accelerated in the opposite direction, so the gas must have a force applied to it for the fan to have one to, or do planes also not work?
Planes also have an upwards force acting on them from accelerating air downwars, again prove that air can be accelerated.
So you believe that gases has no mass, so what happens to the mass of water when it evaporates.
F=ma applys to all matter, it's a consequence of momentum being conserved.
Did Sir Isaac have one of those funny spacy dinky toys to get up there?
lolDid Sir Isaac have one of those funny spacy dinky toys to get up there?
No; he rode up on his horse.
To be fair, I have no problem confining this 'debate' to Newtonian mechanics...
Because, if we use the lesser-known but correct definition of his 3rd law 'every action has an equal & opposite reaction, depending on resistance', then we see that when resistance=0, as in a vacuum, then reaction=0.
However, for accuracy's sake, the truth is we should use fluid mechanics & thermodynamics; these are, in my opinion, a natural extension of Newton's work, and the experimentally-proven, scientific fact that gas expands freely in a vacuum without doing any work should put an end to all talk of gas-powered space-rockets.
But it won't.
So; off you go, shpayze-tards - although every single Law of physics stands in your way - Carry On Lying!
lolDid Sir Isaac have one of those funny spacy dinky toys to get up there?
No; he rode up on his horse.
To be fair, I have no problem confining this 'debate' to Newtonian mechanics...
Because, if we use the lesser-known but correct definition of his 3rd law 'every action has an equal & opposite reaction, depending on resistance', then we see that when resistance=0, as in a vacuum, then reaction=0.
However, for accuracy's sake, the truth is we should use fluid mechanics & thermodynamics; these are, in my opinion, a natural extension of Newton's work, and the experimentally-proven, scientific fact that gas expands freely in a vacuum without doing any work should put an end to all talk of gas-powered space-rockets.
But it won't.
So; off you go, shpayze-tards - although every single Law of physics stands in your way - Carry On Lying!
As it is in the name, resistance is a hinder to motion. It does not allow for motion.
The pressure equilibrium is near-instantaneous though. Opening the nozzle to the near-infinite nothingness will near-instantly re-equilibrate the pressure conditions;
Indeed I praise Papa Legba for his sound understanding and patient elaboration of his explanations.patient?
And when that pressure is released, the potential energy converts to kinetic energy without force being applied.so kinetic energy of the gas increases which means that according to the work-energy principle work must have been done yet no force is applied?
And, "Empirical", when and by whom has "F=m*a" been empirically tested under space conditions? Did Sir Isaac have one of those funny spacy dinky toys to get up there? :oplease gaia, tell us, in F=m*a where do u see the intervention of atmosphere, or gravity?? why should not apply in space?
Because, if we use the lesser-known but correct definition of his 3rd law 'every action has an equal & opposite reaction, depending on resistance', then we see that when resistance=0, as in a vacuum, then reaction=0.What?!?! do u mean lesser known cause is made up by papa?
lol
As it is in the name, resistance is a hinder to motion. It does not allow for motion.
conservation of momentum is applied to everything
conservation of momentum is applied to everything
Except gasses, hypnopoodle.
Because, if we use the lesser-known but correct definition of his 3rd law 'every action has an equal & opposite reaction, depending on resistance', then we see that when resistance=0, as in a vacuum, then reaction=0.What?!?! do u mean lesser known cause is made up by papa?
LOL!!!
here's the latin original
Lex III:
Actioni contrariam semper et ζqualem esse reactionem: sive corporum duorum
actiones in se mutuo semper esse
ζquales et in partes contrarias dirigi.
http://www.sciencebits.com/files/pictures/course/mechanics/Newton/NewtonsLaws.jpg (http://www.sciencebits.com/files/pictures/course/mechanics/Newton/NewtonsLaws.jpg)
please, can u point out the part referred to resistance?
For every ACTION there is an EQUAL and opposite REACTION.lolDid Sir Isaac have one of those funny spacy dinky toys to get up there?
No; he rode up on his horse.
To be fair, I have no problem confining this 'debate' to Newtonian mechanics...
Because, if we use the lesser-known but correct definition of his 3rd law 'every action has an equal & opposite reaction, depending on resistance', then we see that when resistance=0, as in a vacuum, then reaction=0.
However, for accuracy's sake, the truth is we should use fluid mechanics & thermodynamics; these are, in my opinion, a natural extension of Newton's work, and the experimentally-proven, scientific fact that gas expands freely in a vacuum without doing any work should put an end to all talk of gas-powered space-rockets.
But it won't.
So; off you go, shpayze-tards - although every single Law of physics stands in your way - Carry On Lying!
As it is in the name, resistance is a hinder to motion. It does not allow for motion.
Gravity is said not to be a force. Orbit does not beat gravity, but if you would like to beat gravity, simply jump.lol
As it is in the name, resistance is a hinder to motion. It does not allow for motion.
Indeed "lol". The clumsy claims of the clowns is that there is "no resistance in space, so things move very easily, actually easier than in atmosphere".
It goes beyond the core topic of this thread, but I guess the shabby shmucks didn't count on gravity; the only force in space. You just "spend some dV, make a retrograde burn and you can easily beat gravitational forces that keep complete planets and moons in orbit". :D :D :D
PS this was really a funny one, thank u, i needed a laugh
Please show me where Newton said that F=MA applies only to solids.If gas has mass, then gas requires a force to accelerate it.
Oh dear...
Again, you are talking about 'accelerating' a gas with 'forces'.
Please stop using the principles of Solid mechanics to describe how a gas behaves.
What do you suppose would happen to Jack's head if it was just sitting on top of the spring rather than being attached to it?If gas has mass, then gas requires a force to accelerate it. If a force is applied to a gas, then the gas reacts with an equal and opposite force.The force to accelerate gas is in the gas itself being compressed. Jack in the box.
Jack comes out of the box and the box stays put whilst Jack's head is in space.
To be fair, I have no problem confining this 'debate' to Newtonian mechanics...Would you care to cite a reputable source that mentions Newton's 3rd needing resistance?
Because, if we use the lesser-known but correct definition of his 3rd law 'every action has an equal & opposite reaction, depending on resistance', then we see that when resistance=0, as in a vacuum, then reaction=0.
However, for accuracy's sake, the truth is we should use fluid mechanics & thermodynamics; these are, in my opinion, a natural extension of Newton's work, and the experimentally-proven, scientific fact that gas expands freely in a vacuum without doing any work should put an end to all talk of gas-powered space-rockets.Please, let's talk fluid dynamics. In particular, let's discuss mass flow and how ambient pressure affects fluids flowing through a De Laval nozzle.
For every ACTION there is an EQUAL and opposite REACTION.No, you are. Objects not under a force can and do, move.
What this means in real life terms is; it requires resistance to any action. This doesn't hinder motion, it is required for motion because you do not get motion unless you have ACTION then REACTION to that ACTION.
Confused?
For you to move forward, you must push away atmospheric resistance. To do this, you stack it behind you and it pushes right back onto you. EQUAL and OPPOSITE REACTION to ACTION.Once again, you are. If what you said was true, air resistance wouldn't exist as it would cancel itself out. What really happens is you push on the air and the air pushes on you. This is why it is harder to move into the wind.
Confused?
To swim in a pool you gather the water by scooping your arms and hands into it and then you push it behind you. You create a lower pressure in front of you by doing this and created a higher pressure behind you by pushing water into the water behind which creates a slightly raised level, which immediately pushes back onto you to fill that lower pressure, which propels you along.lol not even close, although you did try to claim this in the past. You can swim without moving your arms. What really happens is you push on the water and the water pushes back.
Exactly the same as atmosphere does in ALL cases.This is a good example of why we know rockets don't push off air. In space the rocket pushes off it exhaust and the exhaust pushes back. Just look a the skateboard medicine ball video in this thread. See how the guy pushes the ball? In return the ball pushes him and he rolls back some. No air needed.
Let's take away the water and the atmosphere. Now try and swim. Try and scoop the nothingness and push it behind you to create a push back force.
Can't do it?.....EXACTLY; so why in the hell would you expect rockets to do it?Because rockets don't push off air. Just like cars don't push off air to move.
Please show me where Newton said that F=MA applies only to solids.
Because an action can only create a truly equal & opposite reaction if met by infinite resistance.what?
Which is why the corollary 'depending on resistance' is appended.please link this famous and totally made up corollary
Zooming in on a rocket exhaust you would see a exhaust molecule about to hit an atmospheric molecule. How does that impart a force on the rocket?
(http://i331.photobucket.com/albums/l448/sokarul/air.jpg) (http://s331.photobucket.com/user/sokarul/media/air.jpg.html)
Gravity is said not to be a force. Orbit does not beat gravity, but if you would like to beat gravity, simply jump.
The force you applied is gone when you enter the air. But you were able to create a force strong enough to defeat gravity.Gravity is said not to be a force. Orbit does not beat gravity, but if you would like to beat gravity, simply jump.
It gets crazier by the minute here... :D
Oh yes, "jumping is beating gravity"? And when I've reached the highest point of my jump, I just keep floating in the air? Or does gravity beats me?
Orbit indeed does not "beat gravity". Orbit is simply the result of gravitational fields. And there's nothing else; either orbit or no orbit, so crashing. There are no tricks, twists, turns, thrusters or throttles in space. You simply enslave to gravitational forces.Gravity is still not a force. And no, you can do quite alot in space. You should stop hating science.
The force you applied is gone when you enter the air.
But you were able to create a force strong enough to defeat gravity.
Gravity is still not a force.
And no, you can do quite alot in space. You should stop hating science.
Gasses aren't objects? ???Please show me where Newton said that F=MA applies only to solids.
Please show me where Newton wrote one single word in his Laws about gasses.
Please show me where Newton said that F=MA applies only to solids.
Please show me where Newton wrote one single word in his Laws about gasses.
Because an action can only create a truly equal & opposite reaction if met by infinite resistance.
conservation of momentum is applied to everything
And I laugh even harder at a disinfo-poodle that says things like this:are we back to edit quotes?conservation of momentum is applied to everything
Because it's conservation of energy that's applied to gasses, not conservation of momentum.
And, of course, as predicted, you avoid the scientifically-verified FACT that Free Expansion states a Gas can do no Work in a Vacuum.
Toodle-pip, Collabo-Loser!
No; the force I applied is beating atmospheric pressure. Gravity cannot be beaten.are u suggestin that the force that keeps us to the ground is atmospheric pressure?
Because it's conservation of energy that's applied to gasses, not conservation of momentum.
btw gas molecule have a mass? yes, so i can apply conservation of momentum.
and yeah, free expansion... needs to happen into an insulated chamber, really don't see your point in applying it to a rocket nozzle.
Nope, conservation of momentum when talking about rockets
You keep misunderstanding free expansion
Go back to being a safety nazi on your shitty building sites.
The interpretation Of N3 I gave is correct; how can an action create a reaction against Zero resistance?That depends. Are you referring to 'resistance' as in friction (a force opposing movement) or 'resistance' as in inertia (resistance to change in momentum)?
LOL!!!Yes we do, Newtons laws apply to anything with mass, not just solids. The third law has nothing to do with resistance, it comes from the fact that momentum is conserved.
None of you clowns know how to apply Newton's laws correctly anyway, so the question is moot.
And conservation of momentum applies to everything
And conservation of momentum applies to everything
Except gasses.
The laws of physics.
You should check em out, markjo; might learn something.
It is conservation of ENERGY that applies to gasses, NOT conservation of momentum.
*Yawn!*
Five of you onto one of me now; strange how it always increases, don't it?
Even though what I am saying is simple high-school physics...
Bullies never prosper, Clowns.
Zooming in on a rocket exhaust you would see a exhaust molecule about to hit an atmospheric molecule. How does that impart a force on the rocket?
(http://i331.photobucket.com/albums/l448/sokarul/air.jpg) (http://s331.photobucket.com/user/sokarul/media/air.jpg.html)
Toodle-pip, schizoid losers!
Pressure-Gradient Forces, Gas Laws, Fluid Mechanics, Continuum Assumption & Joules Expansion are the areas I suggest neutral readers research.
What 'momentum'?Gasses have mass and gasses have velocity, therefore gasses have momentum.
What 'momentum'?Gasses have mass and gasses have velocity, therefore gasses have momentum.
U really aren't helping the neutral readers...
What 'momentum'?When a plane accelerates in the air, it gains forwards momentum, since momentum is conserved for solid objects, something must gain backwards momentum, what object is this.
The derivation of the Ideal Gas Law includes mass x velocity:What 'momentum'?Gasses have mass and gasses have velocity, therefore gasses have momentum.
Great.
So go find a gas law formula that has mass x velocity in it.
If the gas accelerates, it does work, thats science.
Work done= acceleration*mass*distance.
And a question for you, When a plane accelerates in the air, it gains forwards momentum, since momentum is conserved for solid objects, something must gain backwards momentum, what object is this.
It would be zero, but p=v*m, if the gas is expanding v isn't zero, and m isn't zero, so p isn't zero.It's the backwards momentum that gains the forward momentum in a plane.
Still you haven't answered, when a plane accelerates in the air, it gains forwards momentum, since momentum is conserved for solid objects, something must gain backwards momentum, what object is this.
So what object gains the backwards momentum?What exactly do you mean by gaining backwards momentum?
p=v*m
Stop. Posting. Bullshit. On. My. Thread.
Go. Away. Until. You. Understand. Free. Expansion.
Forwards is the direction the plane is moving, backwards is the opposite direction.Ok here's your chance to understand it all.
Since the plane is accelerating forwards, it's forwards momentum is increasing, so since momentum is conserved, something is gaining a backwards momentum.
Do you accept that air can gain momentum.Why don''t you define exactly what you mean when you say this. Give an example of what you're saying.
This has been shown to be wrong.Forwards is the direction the plane is moving, backwards is the opposite direction.Ok here's your chance to understand it all.
Since the plane is accelerating forwards, it's forwards momentum is increasing, so since momentum is conserved, something is gaining a backwards momentum.
Every object whether it's a plane or boat or walking person or car or missile or rocket has to first use the energy it has to push backwards to gain forward momentum.
So this is how it all works.
A plane ignited fuel and air mixture which expands out of the back of the engine in case of a jet. As it does this it PUSHES the more dense atmosphere behind, out of the way but in doing so, that dense air comes right back around to squeeze back onto the expanding burning fuel and forces the plane forwards.
A ship is exactly the same on water with water just being a more dense version of atmosphere.
the ships engine burns fuel to create energy which is transferred to a propeller which spins.
The propeller is shaped too PUSH water away from the ship and in doing so it forces that water against the already dense water that was behind it in the first place. This creates a pressure build up or a resistance and it raises the water which basically slams back down to squeeze and push that ship along.
Same with a swimmer.
The swimmer uses his/her hands and arms as the energy to scoop into the water and push it backwards into the water behind which builds up due to a barrier being created and the same thing happens. It raises the water a little and that water is forced back down by atmospheric pressure to push and squeeze the swimmer forward.
A person walking uses the ground to push against but then has to kick out atmospheric pressure with each step before it touches the ground and then that person can use that leg to push down onto the ground and use that as a lever to lift up his other leg to push into the atmosphere with his body to compress the air in front and force it around him to squeeze and push back against the denser atmosphere behind.
If this is a tad confusing then I'm going to go the easiest way possible to allow you too understand why everything happens this way and how easy it is to see it happening.
Look at a mole. It scoops the soil in front and pushes it around itself. (swimmer). It can now move into the void it created because the soil is looser (lower pressure).
The reason it can move forward into that is because it''s pushing that soil into denser soil behind it, giving it leverage to continue moving forward.
A rocket going vertical pushes burning fuel out of the back which compresses the atmosphere under and around it. The atmosphere naturally squeezes back due to this compression and pushes the rocket up as long as the rocket keeps pushing burning fuel into that compression squeeze.
Now....the key.
Put that same rocket in a near vacuum and you can push as much fuel out of it as you want to but it has nothing at all to compress into as there is n o atmosphere to squeeze back.
The end result is the rocket loses all of it's fuel because that fuel is allowed to freely expand into nothingness....no resistance to it, so no squeeze back or push back.
End result is the rocket goes nowhere.
Put a ship in a dry dock and spin the propeller as fast as you want to. the ship is staying put regardless of that massive set of engines chugging away inside of it.
If you take full on notice of what I've just said then you should be under no illusions whatsoever that rockets in space are fantasy.
If you still believe they can work by kicking themselves up their own arses, then just go with that and just go about your life accepting anything and everything the mainstream indoctrination wagon takes you to.
Momentum, the physical quantity that is always conserved, it equals mass*velocity, can a gas have momentum.Give an example of what you are trying to say so there's no mix up. If you can't or won't , then fair enough. But if not, don't come back with that same post.
No it hasn't. What I'm saying is spot on. It's 100% correct.This has been shown to be wrong.Forwards is the direction the plane is moving, backwards is the opposite direction.Ok here's your chance to understand it all.
Since the plane is accelerating forwards, it's forwards momentum is increasing, so since momentum is conserved, something is gaining a backwards momentum.
Every object whether it's a plane or boat or walking person or car or missile or rocket has to first use the energy it has to push backwards to gain forward momentum.
So this is how it all works.
A plane ignited fuel and air mixture which expands out of the back of the engine in case of a jet. As it does this it PUSHES the more dense atmosphere behind, out of the way but in doing so, that dense air comes right back around to squeeze back onto the expanding burning fuel and forces the plane forwards.
A ship is exactly the same on water with water just being a more dense version of atmosphere.
the ships engine burns fuel to create energy which is transferred to a propeller which spins.
The propeller is shaped too PUSH water away from the ship and in doing so it forces that water against the already dense water that was behind it in the first place. This creates a pressure build up or a resistance and it raises the water which basically slams back down to squeeze and push that ship along.
Same with a swimmer.
The swimmer uses his/her hands and arms as the energy to scoop into the water and push it backwards into the water behind which builds up due to a barrier being created and the same thing happens. It raises the water a little and that water is forced back down by atmospheric pressure to push and squeeze the swimmer forward.
A person walking uses the ground to push against but then has to kick out atmospheric pressure with each step before it touches the ground and then that person can use that leg to push down onto the ground and use that as a lever to lift up his other leg to push into the atmosphere with his body to compress the air in front and force it around him to squeeze and push back against the denser atmosphere behind.
If this is a tad confusing then I'm going to go the easiest way possible to allow you too understand why everything happens this way and how easy it is to see it happening.
Look at a mole. It scoops the soil in front and pushes it around itself. (swimmer). It can now move into the void it created because the soil is looser (lower pressure).
The reason it can move forward into that is because it''s pushing that soil into denser soil behind it, giving it leverage to continue moving forward.
A rocket going vertical pushes burning fuel out of the back which compresses the atmosphere under and around it. The atmosphere naturally squeezes back due to this compression and pushes the rocket up as long as the rocket keeps pushing burning fuel into that compression squeeze.
Now....the key.
Put that same rocket in a near vacuum and you can push as much fuel out of it as you want to but it has nothing at all to compress into as there is n o atmosphere to squeeze back.
The end result is the rocket loses all of it's fuel because that fuel is allowed to freely expand into nothingness....no resistance to it, so no squeeze back or push back.
End result is the rocket goes nowhere.
Put a ship in a dry dock and spin the propeller as fast as you want to. the ship is staying put regardless of that massive set of engines chugging away inside of it.
If you take full on notice of what I've just said then you should be under no illusions whatsoever that rockets in space are fantasy.
If you still believe they can work by kicking themselves up their own arses, then just go with that and just go about your life accepting anything and everything the mainstream indoctrination wagon takes you to.
Are you saying the air gains momentum? I thought you said that couldn't happen?
How does air pressure move a 2,000 ton rocket?No it hasn't. What I'm saying is spot on. It's 100% correct.This has been shown to be wrong.Forwards is the direction the plane is moving, backwards is the opposite direction.Ok here's your chance to understand it all.
Since the plane is accelerating forwards, it's forwards momentum is increasing, so since momentum is conserved, something is gaining a backwards momentum.
Every object whether it's a plane or boat or walking person or car or missile or rocket has to first use the energy it has to push backwards to gain forward momentum.
So this is how it all works.
A plane ignited fuel and air mixture which expands out of the back of the engine in case of a jet. As it does this it PUSHES the more dense atmosphere behind, out of the way but in doing so, that dense air comes right back around to squeeze back onto the expanding burning fuel and forces the plane forwards.
A ship is exactly the same on water with water just being a more dense version of atmosphere.
the ships engine burns fuel to create energy which is transferred to a propeller which spins.
The propeller is shaped too PUSH water away from the ship and in doing so it forces that water against the already dense water that was behind it in the first place. This creates a pressure build up or a resistance and it raises the water which basically slams back down to squeeze and push that ship along.
Same with a swimmer.
The swimmer uses his/her hands and arms as the energy to scoop into the water and push it backwards into the water behind which builds up due to a barrier being created and the same thing happens. It raises the water a little and that water is forced back down by atmospheric pressure to push and squeeze the swimmer forward.
A person walking uses the ground to push against but then has to kick out atmospheric pressure with each step before it touches the ground and then that person can use that leg to push down onto the ground and use that as a lever to lift up his other leg to push into the atmosphere with his body to compress the air in front and force it around him to squeeze and push back against the denser atmosphere behind.
If this is a tad confusing then I'm going to go the easiest way possible to allow you too understand why everything happens this way and how easy it is to see it happening.
Look at a mole. It scoops the soil in front and pushes it around itself. (swimmer). It can now move into the void it created because the soil is looser (lower pressure).
The reason it can move forward into that is because it''s pushing that soil into denser soil behind it, giving it leverage to continue moving forward.
A rocket going vertical pushes burning fuel out of the back which compresses the atmosphere under and around it. The atmosphere naturally squeezes back due to this compression and pushes the rocket up as long as the rocket keeps pushing burning fuel into that compression squeeze.
Now....the key.
Put that same rocket in a near vacuum and you can push as much fuel out of it as you want to but it has nothing at all to compress into as there is n o atmosphere to squeeze back.
The end result is the rocket loses all of it's fuel because that fuel is allowed to freely expand into nothingness....no resistance to it, so no squeeze back or push back.
End result is the rocket goes nowhere.
Put a ship in a dry dock and spin the propeller as fast as you want to. the ship is staying put regardless of that massive set of engines chugging away inside of it.
If you take full on notice of what I've just said then you should be under no illusions whatsoever that rockets in space are fantasy.
If you still believe they can work by kicking themselves up their own arses, then just go with that and just go about your life accepting anything and everything the mainstream indoctrination wagon takes you to.
Your belief is in rockets kicking themselves up their own arses and for that you are totally beyond help and even do not merit replies. I'm being generous in this case.
I never said rockets push on air. I said planes push on air, and for them to be able to push on air, the air must be gaining momentum. Since air can gain momentum, the gas leaving a rocket must have momentum, so the rocket must again forwards momentum.Are you saying the air gains momentum? I thought you said that couldn't happen?
And I thought you said rockets don't push on the air.
Can't have it both ways.
Either way I win...
Toodle-pip, two-times loser!
How does air pressure move a 2,000 ton rocket?By energy pushed into it. It's no different to your aircraft carrier floating on water and being propelled along it.
Rockets work and planes work in atmosphere. Both do not work in a vacuum. That's the key to it all.I never said rockets push on air. I said planes push on air, and for them to be able to push on air, the air must be gaining momentum. Since air can gain momentum, the gas leaving a rocket must have momentum, so the rocket must again forwards momentum.Are you saying the air gains momentum? I thought you said that couldn't happen?
And I thought you said rockets don't push on the air.
Can't have it both ways.
Either way I win...
Toodle-pip, two-times loser!
So you can admin rockets work, or you can say that planes don't work, either way, you lose.
A plane ignites fuel and air mixture which expands out of the back of the engine in case of a jet. As it does this it PUSHES the more dense atmosphere behind, out of the way but in doing so, that dense air comes right back around to squeeze back onto the expanding burning fuel and forces the plane forwards.wrong.
Planes work by sucking in gas then blowing it out in the opposite direction.
LOL!!!I posted a link because the derivation of the ideal gas law is not simple. The m*v term is one of the intermediate steps.
As usual, cowardly markjo just posts a link!
Formula are simple things, sock-puppeteer general.
Go find one in the gas laws that contains the terms mass x velocity (m*v) & type it out for us all to look at.What's wrong, are you afraid to click on a link?
Planes work by sucking in gas then blowing it out in the opposite direction. Rockets work by carrying the gas with them, and releasing it in only one direction (that's why it doesn't need gas around it). Different things, but both need gas to obey the law of conservation of momentum.No, planes don't work by sucking in gas and blowing it out in the other direction. Planes simply push gas out of the back which creates a lower pressure at the front which is constantly filled by in-rushing atmospheric pressure. No sucking going on. It's all pushing.
AlsoIf you have a container of air and pierced that container in a vacuum, then you lose all of your air to that vacuum because it's allowed to FREELY EXPAND into it due to no resistance offered.
1. If you have a container of air in a vacuum and you make a hole in it, the air will go out the hole.
2. Since to move out of the hole the air gains velocity, so it gains momentum.It simply expands into the lesser resistance, molecule by molecule.
3. Since the air gains momentum, an object must gain momentum in the opposite direction.The only way you can gain anything from air is by unbalancing pressure. Wind is a classic case.
What object other than the container could gain that momentum.
Planes work by sucking in gas then blowing it out in the opposite direction. Rockets work by carrying the gas with them, and releasing it in only one direction (that's why it doesn't need gas around it). Different things, but both need gas to obey the law of conservation of momentum.No, planes don't work by sucking in gas and blowing it out in the other direction. Planes simply push gas out of the back which creates a lower pressure at the front which is constantly filled by in-rushing atmospheric pressure. No sucking going on. It's all pushing.
Rockets carry gas with them to aid in throwing (pushing) out the thrust required to hit the atmosphere and create a massive compression of it which creates an equal massive pressure squeeze and push, back.
If the rocket didn't carry the pressurised gas then burning fuel would simply fall into atmosphere and blow the rocket to bits.
That's why bottle rockets work with compressed air and water and do not work by simply tipping up a water bottle and letting it just flow with no compressed air, because the force is unable to overcome the density of the fuel and rocket frame.
Think carefully about it.AlsoIf you have a container of air and pierced that container in a vacuum, then you lose all of your air to that vacuum because it's allowed to FREELY EXPAND into it due to no resistance offered.
1. If you have a container of air in a vacuum and you make a hole in it, the air will go out the hole.
If you did this in atmosphere, you would hear a huge hissing sound. Why? it's because the compressed air is hitting resistance of atmosphere outside and is being squeezed with friction, creating the sound and a reactionary force.2. Since to move out of the hole the air gains velocity, so it gains momentum.It simply expands into the lesser resistance, molecule by molecule.
Think of it like this.
Imagine sitting on 5 footballs. Each of those 5 footballs are compressed due to your dense frame being pushed down onto them. You decide to get up. Which football moves first?
Obviously it's the top one followed by the one underneath....Why?
Because you allowed the top one to fully expand and because it did, the one under can now expand and so on and so on.
If you did this in a vacuum you would end up with a neat line of expanded footballs (assuming the fantasy scenario analogy) and no work being done, except expansion FREELY.3. Since the air gains momentum, an object must gain momentum in the opposite direction.The only way you can gain anything from air is by unbalancing pressure. Wind is a classic case.
What object other than the container could gain that momentum.
How often do you see a wind blowing you backwards and you resist it?
You are creating a dense force against that wind.
Imagine that wind was being pushed down onto you from above by a fan and you hold a board up and push back against that fan? you push it up as it pushes you down.
This is basically a helicopter or a rocket. the only different is in the burning of the fuel to create two different thrusts.
Helicopter is internal burn and mechanical ( rotor blades) thrust against atmosphere and the rocket is an external thrust by fuel burn against atmosphere.
Put either of these in a vacuum and your action/reaction force becomes zero. No work done.
The thing is it's wasted on a lot of these people because their goal is to simply parrot the official line for no other reason as following mass opinion...and probably some being paid a small fee.
Yeah I know. I'm talking about the ordinary people who do come on. It's like it's wasted on them because they seem to follow the masses.The thing is it's wasted on a lot of these people because their goal is to simply parrot the official line for no other reason as following mass opinion...and probably some being paid a small fee.
How can you call your own well-explained post "wasted"? ???
Remember; you're not posting this to convince the trolls, shills and clowns. You're posting this to inform readers who are interested in the subject to explain basic physics and thus show that those clownesque NASA c.s. lies are impossible.
That's your audience, the trolling tramps are nothing more than nasty noise.
And if those amazing amateurs really get paid (I highly doubt anyone would do that) for their miserable misinformation, you don't have to care about them anyway... ;)
Scepti since your all about (misleading) examples what about throwing in some math... How do u calculate the thrust produced by a jet engine?I'm not interested in playing about calculating thrusts and what not. It's not required to grasp logic.
Yeah I know. I'm talking about the ordinary people who do come on. It's like it's wasted on them because they seem to follow the masses.The thing is it's wasted on a lot of these people because their goal is to simply parrot the official line for no other reason as following mass opinion...and probably some being paid a small fee.
How can you call your own well-explained post "wasted"? ???
Remember; you're not posting this to convince the trolls, shills and clowns. You're posting this to inform readers who are interested in the subject to explain basic physics and thus show that those clownesque NASA c.s. lies are impossible.
That's your audience, the trolling tramps are nothing more than nasty noise.
And if those amazing amateurs really get paid (I highly doubt anyone would do that) for their miserable misinformation, you don't have to care about them anyway... ;)
Then there's the paid shills.
There's too few of us trying to get through and even when we think we might, people like theengineer will come along and close a thread or go looking for people to harass on behalf of the trolls.
It's like pissing against the wind on here at times.
I'll always post against the propaganda crew and the blind followers and do it with a smile. I always like to hope that one or two people - or more, will see the light even if it's only in a small starter way. It means they managed to overcome peer pressure enough to think for themselves and have a good chance of garnering a lot of truthful info as they go along.Yeah I know. I'm talking about the ordinary people who do come on. It's like it's wasted on them because they seem to follow the masses.The thing is it's wasted on a lot of these people because their goal is to simply parrot the official line for no other reason as following mass opinion...and probably some being paid a small fee.
How can you call your own well-explained post "wasted"? ???
Remember; you're not posting this to convince the trolls, shills and clowns. You're posting this to inform readers who are interested in the subject to explain basic physics and thus show that those clownesque NASA c.s. lies are impossible.
That's your audience, the trolling tramps are nothing more than nasty noise.
And if those amazing amateurs really get paid (I highly doubt anyone would do that) for their miserable misinformation, you don't have to care about them anyway... ;)
Then there's the paid shills.
There's too few of us trying to get through and even when we think we might, people like theengineer will come along and close a thread or go looking for people to harass on behalf of the trolls.
It's like pissing against the wind on here at times.
You have way more experience than me here with almost 14444 posts but that's not my experience thus far.
I am having fun. The tricky trolls are too amateur to cause any "wind". Their hilariously hopeless attempts are just a joke.
Keep posting the way you do. If you don't do it for others, then for me, but more importantly for any interested reader who might actually (un)learn something useful.
I posted a link because the derivation of the ideal gas law is not simple.
Scepti since your all about (misleading) examples what about throwing in some math... How do u calculate the thrust produced by a jet engine?I'm not interested in playing about calculating thrusts and what not. It's not required to grasp logic.
I don't need to know the formula for a bucket of water turned to ice to understand why it's just fell and split someone's head open.
Planes work by sucking in gas then blowing it out in the opposite direction. Rockets work by carrying the gas with them, and releasing it in only one direction (that's why it doesn't need gas around it). Different things, but both need gas to obey the law of conservation of momentum.No, planes don't work by sucking in gas and blowing it out in the other direction. Planes simply push gas out of the back which creates a lower pressure at the front which is constantly filled by in-rushing atmospheric pressure. No sucking going on. It's all pushing.
Rockets carry gas with them to aid in throwing (pushing) out the thrust required to hit the atmosphere and create a massive compression of it which creates an equal massive pressure squeeze and push, back.
If the rocket didn't carry the pressurised gas then burning fuel would simply fall into atmosphere and blow the rocket to bits.
That's why bottle rockets work with compressed air and water and do not work by simply tipping up a water bottle and letting it just flow with no compressed air, because the force is unable to overcome the density of the fuel and rocket frame.
Think carefully about it.AlsoIf you have a container of air and pierced that container in a vacuum, then you lose all of your air to that vacuum because it's allowed to FREELY EXPAND into it due to no resistance offered.
1. If you have a container of air in a vacuum and you make a hole in it, the air will go out the hole.
If you did this in atmosphere, you would hear a huge hissing sound. Why? it's because the compressed air is hitting resistance of atmosphere outside and is being squeezed with friction, creating the sound and a reactionary force.2. Since to move out of the hole the air gains velocity, so it gains momentum.It simply expands into the lesser resistance, molecule by molecule.
Think of it like this.
Imagine sitting on 5 footballs. Each of those 5 footballs are compressed due to your dense frame being pushed down onto them. You decide to get up. Which football moves first?
Obviously it's the top one followed by the one underneath....Why?
Because you allowed the top one to fully expand and because it did, the one under can now expand and so on and so on.
If you did this in a vacuum you would end up with a neat line of expanded footballs (assuming the fantasy scenario analogy) and no work being done, except expansion FREELY.3. Since the air gains momentum, an object must gain momentum in the opposite direction.The only way you can gain anything from air is by unbalancing pressure. Wind is a classic case.
What object other than the container could gain that momentum.
How often do you see a wind blowing you backwards and you resist it?
You are creating a dense force against that wind.
Imagine that wind was being pushed down onto you from above by a fan and you hold a board up and push back against that fan? you push it up as it pushes you down.
This is basically a helicopter or a rocket. the only different is in the burning of the fuel to create two different thrusts.
Helicopter is internal burn and mechanical ( rotor blades) thrust against atmosphere and the rocket is an external thrust by fuel burn against atmosphere.
Put either of these in a vacuum and your action/reaction force becomes zero. No work done.
I'm 100% clear on how action/reaction works. It can only work if an atmosphere is present. Nothing works without it, not even ships or submarines.Scepti since your all about (misleading) examples what about throwing in some math... How do u calculate the thrust produced by a jet engine?I'm not interested in playing about calculating thrusts and what not. It's not required to grasp logic.
I don't need to know the formula for a bucket of water turned to ice to understand why it's just fell and split someone's head open.
it's needed to prove your reasoning is correct, u have to try it and establish if it can fit reality. many things are not so intuitive as u might think. so logic, especially when it's not supported by knowledge, might bring u to the wrong conclusions.
and yes, i mean that you're totally wrong about propulsion
i've already tried many times but why not give it another go....
scepti, do u wanna understand how jet propulsion works?
http://ae.sharif.edu/~prop/Hill%20Peterson%201992%20Mechanics%20and%20thermodynamics%20of%20propulsion.pdf (http://ae.sharif.edu/~prop/Hill%20Peterson%201992%20Mechanics%20and%20thermodynamics%20of%20propulsion.pdf)
if yes i suggest u to read this, feel free to ask if something is not clear
Do you think that the equation for the ideal gas law just popped into someone's head without any context?I posted a link because the derivation of the ideal gas law is not simple.
A derivation of the ideal gas law?
You can't find a plain old gas law, just a derivation?
Also, are these the same ideal gases that you all earlier claimed were the reason Free Expansion is invalid?No, just the opposite. I claimed that free expansion only apples to ideal gasses. It's real gasses that don't work so well with free expansion.
As usual, though, you'll want to have it both ways, like the crook you are.And as usual, you twist other people's arguments into something that they never said.
I'm 100% clear on how action/reaction works. It can only work if an atmosphere is present.false, by definition newton's third law requires two bodies interacting, nothing more
Nothing works without it, not even ships or submarines.fyi ships and submarines are not designed to work in vacuum
There is no energy that can work unless there is an atmospheric action and an equal and opposite reaction to that immediate action.so magnetic field, electric field and gravity only works wih atmosphere?
It's the perfect marriage of life and energetic movement.
The next time you ride a bicycle, have a think as to why you can actually ride it and why people who say that air resistance hampers your movement, are wrong - unless you ride against the wind which is only a pressure differential anyway.no, it's air resistance and it happens everytime you have a body moving thorugh air. actually everytime a body is moving thorugh a fluid resistance is created
Now picture your car doing this speed and imagine trying to throw out a scarf or even a dummy person, but holding onto one end. What happens and why?
You can agree that the scarf of dummy would cling to the side of your car. This is because the air you are crashing into and compressing, you are sending around the car and creating a gripping pressure down the sides because it's compressing the air that you are constantly passing, which is pushing back onto the sides of your car and in doing so,, it's pinning the scarf/dummy to it as long as you hold one end.
It creates stability. It's why a motorbike gets more stable the faster you go and why you tend to wobble like hell the slower you go.no, the stability of a motorbike depends mainly on the gyroscopic effect of the wheels. the principle is that rotational inertia tends to keep the rotation axis of the gyro fix. the faster it spin, the higher the inertia, the higher the stability.
STABILITY AT SPEED.starting to think u have no clue what is thrust to weight ratio.
Rockets use full thrust to weight ratio. They don't throttle up to speed like the bullshit artists tell you. They either take off and hit the heights in short order or they sit and explode.
papa completly destroyed your brainI'll leave you to it. I can't even be bothered to go thought that pile of cack you just wrote.QuoteI'm 100% clear on how action/reaction works. It can only work if an atmosphere is present.false, by definition newton's third law requires two bodies interacting, nothing moreQuoteNothing works without it, not even ships or submarines.fyi ships and submarines are not designed to work in vacuumQuoteThere is no energy that can work unless there is an atmospheric action and an equal and opposite reaction to that immediate action.so magnetic field, electric field and gravity only works wih atmosphere?
It's the perfect marriage of life and energetic movement.QuoteThe next time you ride a bicycle, have a think as to why you can actually ride it and why people who say that air resistance hampers your movement, are wrong - unless you ride against the wind which is only a pressure differential anyway.no, it's air resistance and it happens everytime you have a body moving thorugh air. actually everytime a body is moving thorugh a fluid resistance is createdQuoteNow picture your car doing this speed and imagine trying to throw out a scarf or even a dummy person, but holding onto one end. What happens and why?
You can agree that the scarf of dummy would cling to the side of your car. This is because the air you are crashing into and compressing, you are sending around the car and creating a gripping pressure down the sides because it's compressing the air that you are constantly passing, which is pushing back onto the sides of your car and in doing so,, it's pinning the scarf/dummy to it as long as you hold one end.
no, it's due to the drag of the scarf in combination with boundary layer around the car. boundary layer is created every time u have movement of a body thorugh a viscous fluidQuoteIt creates stability. It's why a motorbike gets more stable the faster you go and why you tend to wobble like hell the slower you go.no, the stability of a motorbike depends mainly on the gyroscopic effect of the wheels. the principle is that rotational inertia tends to keep the rotation axis of the gyro fix. the faster it spin, the higher the inertia, the higher the stability.
gyros are used frequently to increase stability. rifled barrel are more precise cause the give a spin to the bullet which becomes a gyro and remains more stableQuoteSTABILITY AT SPEED.starting to think u have no clue what is thrust to weight ratio.
Rockets use full thrust to weight ratio. They don't throttle up to speed like the bullshit artists tell you. They either take off and hit the heights in short order or they sit and explode.
they accelerate slowly cause they're incredibly heavy and u know, more weight=more inertia.
u're learning from papa i see, ignoring everything u cannot respond to.papa completly destroyed your brainI'll leave you to it. I can't even be bothered to go thought that pile of cack you just wrote.QuoteI'm 100% clear on how action/reaction works. It can only work if an atmosphere is present.false, by definition newton's third law requires two bodies interacting, nothing moreQuoteNothing works without it, not even ships or submarines.fyi ships and submarines are not designed to work in vacuumQuoteThere is no energy that can work unless there is an atmospheric action and an equal and opposite reaction to that immediate action.so magnetic field, electric field and gravity only works wih atmosphere?
It's the perfect marriage of life and energetic movement.QuoteThe next time you ride a bicycle, have a think as to why you can actually ride it and why people who say that air resistance hampers your movement, are wrong - unless you ride against the wind which is only a pressure differential anyway.no, it's air resistance and it happens everytime you have a body moving thorugh air. actually everytime a body is moving thorugh a fluid resistance is createdQuoteNow picture your car doing this speed and imagine trying to throw out a scarf or even a dummy person, but holding onto one end. What happens and why?
You can agree that the scarf of dummy would cling to the side of your car. This is because the air you are crashing into and compressing, you are sending around the car and creating a gripping pressure down the sides because it's compressing the air that you are constantly passing, which is pushing back onto the sides of your car and in doing so,, it's pinning the scarf/dummy to it as long as you hold one end.
no, it's due to the drag of the scarf in combination with boundary layer around the car. boundary layer is created every time u have movement of a body thorugh a viscous fluidQuoteIt creates stability. It's why a motorbike gets more stable the faster you go and why you tend to wobble like hell the slower you go.no, the stability of a motorbike depends mainly on the gyroscopic effect of the wheels. the principle is that rotational inertia tends to keep the rotation axis of the gyro fix. the faster it spin, the higher the inertia, the higher the stability.
gyros are used frequently to increase stability. rifled barrel are more precise cause the give a spin to the bullet which becomes a gyro and remains more stableQuoteSTABILITY AT SPEED.starting to think u have no clue what is thrust to weight ratio.
Rockets use full thrust to weight ratio. They don't throttle up to speed like the bullshit artists tell you. They either take off and hit the heights in short order or they sit and explode.
they accelerate slowly cause they're incredibly heavy and u know, more weight=more inertia.
u're learning from papa i see, ignoring everything u cannot respond to.Make this your last post to me. I can't be arsed to play your games. See you in another name, maybe. ;D
but don't worry, u've beaten papa, i've never seen soo much ignorance packed in one single post
So easy to destroy your stupid claims everyone does it, and then you have to run away from them.u're learning from papa i see, ignoring everything u cannot respond to.Make this your last post to me. I can't be arsed to play your games. See you in another name, maybe. ;D
but don't worry, u've beaten papa, i've never seen soo much ignorance packed in one single post
Boats float by displacement. That has nothing to do with rockets.How does air pressure move a 2,000 ton rocket?By energy pushed into it. It's no different to your aircraft carrier floating on water and being propelled along it.
The only difference to the eye is one is horizontal and one is vertical. The propulsion on the ship can be changed to a jet if so desired, if you think a propeller confuses you.No, a jet works by ejecting mass at high speed.
Your rocket has to externally burn it's fuel whilst the ship can internally burn it's fuel to operate a propeller.Rockets burn fuel internally in the combustion chamber.
This stuff generally goes way over your head because you come back in a frenzy and refuse to understand it.All one needs to do is watch the skateboard medicine ball video to see how you are wrong.
Have a try this time and I'll help you out if you can get rid of that arrogant nature you show, you piddly little bastard. :P
Here - proof that schoolchildren know more than you:That was dumbed down for little kids, like you.
'Reaction engines' - LMFAO!!!
virgin-rage! virgin-rage! virgin-rage! virgin-rage!
I can tell simple concepts are your your head.The force you applied is gone when you enter the air.
This is not even the start of a physical explanation. :D :D
Did you jump? Also we are talking about gravity, atmospheric pressure has nothing to do with this conversation.QuoteBut you were able to create a force strong enough to defeat gravity.
No; the force I applied is beating atmospheric pressure. Gravity cannot be beaten.
It's obvious you've never dived in your life.Your body displaces it's weight in water. If you cannot displace your weight in water, then you sink.
For diving you need lead weights to get down. If not, you will simply move to the surface as the air and water in your body is lighter than the water around you. Diving is not beating gravity either; it is beating the pressure.
When your body weight is higher than the pressure of the water, for instance when you die, the air is pushed out and replaced by water, you simply sink to the bottom. So still not beating gravity.QuoteGravity is still not a force.
If you have sufficient lateral velocity when you "fall back to earth" you actually miss it. Thus, orbit.
You can't. You simply are attracted to the highest gravitational force around. In the "vicinity" of Earth that is the Earth-Moon gravitational system. No escape from that; you simply fall back to Earth and burn up in the atmosphere, like any other object. Meteors do it every day.
You should stop raping science by introducing NASA lies and fantasies. Science is a very beautiful subject to study, unfortunately clowns like you are trying to destroy it. Without success, for sharp readers. Only the stupid sheeple will fall for your Scheisse.Notice how you have not backed up anything you claim with science?
All you people looking in. A word of advice if you want to grasp stuff. Don't fall into the sokarul/luckyfred trap. Seriously they do not have a clue.Once again he was so destroyed he couldn't even make a proper rebuttal.
Free Expansion of Gas in a Vacuum destroys 'space-rocketry'.Incorrect.
End. Of. Story.
Time for your medicine, shpayze-tards:
The combustion chamber of a rocket is open to the near-infinite vacuum of space.
Therefore, no gas can even be meaningfully said to exist within it, let alone combust.
Any gas introduced therein when the pressurised fuel tank leading to the combustion chamber is opened will simply expand freely into the enormous, zero-pressure vacuum, following the path of least resistance & doing no work whatsoever.
This will continue for as long as the fuel tank & chamber are open to the vacuum, until both exterior & interior pressures are equalised at zero.
It is a beautifully simple concept, fully supported by All the laws of physics, yet you 'round earthers' (lol!) just can't seem to grasp it...
Plus this:
You all claim that the recoil of a gun is a valid analogy for how a rocket works in a vacuum.
Here is why it is not:
With a gun you have object A, the mass of the gun; the expanding propellant, P, the gunpowder, sited between them; and object B, the mass of the bullet.
But with a rocket you ONLY have object A, the mass of the rocket, & the expanding propellant, P, the fuel.
No object B, see?
Thus, you have removed the necessary recoil mass required to produce motion.
But we know a rocket DOES produce motion, don't we?
Ergo, some other mass MUST be taking the place of object B.
& the ONLY possibility for that other mass is the Atmosphere.
Ergo, NO atmosphere, NO motion; rockets CANNOT function in a vacuum.
Q.E.D.
No matter how hard you try to spin it, cultists, every child knows that You cannot Push on Nothing.
No maths required; only common sense.
Then there's the fact that you are all trying desperately to confine this 'debate' to the wrong branch of physics, i.e. Solid Mechanics rather than Fluid Mechanics...
Kinda dishonest of you, dontcha think?
Pressure-Gradient Forces, Gas Laws, Fluid Mechanics, Continuum Assumption & Joules Expansion are the areas I suggest neutral readers research.
Here's a combustion chamber to laugh at too:
(http://www.space-propulsion.com/launcher-propulsion/rocket-engines/images/vulcain-thrust-chamber-assembly.jpg#moved)
Ooh - vacuum-proof!
LULZ!!!Ooh - vacuum-proof!Incorrect.
All you people looking in. A word of advice if you want to grasp stuff. Don't fall into the sokarul/luckyfred trap. Seriously they do not have a clue.says the one which thinks u need atmosphere resistance in order to apply newton third law....
Free Expansion of Gas in a Vacuum destroys 'space-rocketry'.no, free expansion is performed when gas expands from an insulated chamber into another insulated chamber in which there was vacuum. quite different conditions from a rocket nozzle
The combustion chamber of a rocket is open to the near-infinite vacuum of space.u just ignoring the fact that once sonic condition is reached in the throat of the nozzle the mass flow exiting the nozzle is the same whether u have atmospheric pressure outside or vacuum, but afterall u're making up your own corollary to newton's third, this is only a minor evidence of your ignorance
Therefore, no gas can even be meaningfully said to exist within it, let alone combust.
It is a beautifully simple concept, fully supported by All the laws of physics, yet you 'round earthers' (lol!) just can't seem to grasp it...cindy, your simply ignoring a lot of physics' law in order to troll
[/b]
You all claim that the recoil of a gun is a valid analogy for how a rocket works in a vacuum.actually propellant exiting the barrel has mass and velocity, hence momentum. so for conservation of momentum u have recoil even when firing blanks....just a lot less
Here is why it is not:
With a gun you have object A, the mass of the gun; the expanding propellant, P, the gunpowder, sited between them; and object B, the mass of the bullet.
But with a rocket you ONLY have object A, the mass of the rocket, & the expanding propellant, P, the fuel.
No object B, see?
Thus, you have removed the necessary recoil mass required to produce motion.
Ergo, some other mass MUST be taking the place of object B.starting from BS u can only end up saying even greater BS
& the ONLY possibility for that other mass is the Atmosphere.
Ergo, NO atmosphere, NO motion; rockets CANNOT function in a vacuum.
Q.E.D.
No matter how hard you try to spin it, cultists, every child knows that You cannot Push on Nothing.
No maths required; only common sense.[/b]
Then there's the fact that you are all trying desperately to confine this 'debate' to the wrong branch of physics, i.e. Solid Mechanics rather than Fluid Mechanics...
Kinda dishonest of you, dontcha think?
Pressure-Gradient Forces, Gas Laws, Fluid Mechanics, Continuum Assumption & Joules Expansion are the areas I suggest neutral readers research.
LULZ!!!Ooh - vacuum-proof!Incorrect.
Your virgin-rage was so intense you didn't even think before your last shitposted 'Incorrect', did you?
Look what you wrote!
ROFLMFAO - at YOU!!!
Plus; schoolchildren still know more about jet thrust than you:
(http://i.imgur.com/8xBxYQG.jpg)
'Reaction engines' - LULZ!!!
Why not we settle this once and for all. Lets take a small rocket like a firecracker and put it in a vacuum chamber. Then we can see if rockets work in a vacuum.Make sure your chamber is is large enough and has been allowed to evacuate by use of a strong pump and making sure that pump is still allowing evacuation as you set the rocket in supposed motion.
Why not we settle this once and for all. Lets take a small rocket like a firecracker and put it in a vacuum chamber. Then we can see if rockets work in a vacuum.Make sure your chamber is is large enough and has been allowed to evacuate by use of a strong pump and making sure that pump is still allowing evacuation as you set the rocket in supposed motion.
If you can manage that you'll get a shock and change your mind on a lot of this garbage space science.
Why not we settle this once and for all. Lets take a small rocket like a firecracker and put it in a vacuum chamber. Then we can see if rockets work in a vacuum.Make sure your chamber is is large enough and has been allowed to evacuate by use of a strong pump and making sure that pump is still allowing evacuation as you set the rocket in supposed motion.
If you can manage that you'll get a shock and change your mind on a lot of this garbage space science.
Like this?
! No longer available (http://#)
Like this?A perfect shape to create a near vacuum. Hahahahahaha. This is what happens when you have people like Savage and Hyneman and co on the case. Pure bullshit.
! No longer available (http://#)
free expansion is performed when gas expands from an insulated chamber into another insulated chamber in which there was vacuum.
My rectangular air lock had no trouble going down to -20inHg.Maybe you need to learn what a vacuum is.
! No longer available (http://#)
Maybe you need to learn 14.7 psi isn't that much.My rectangular air lock had no trouble going down to -20inHg.Maybe you need to learn what a vacuum is.
! No longer available (http://#)
Maybe you need to learn 14.7 psi isn't that much.
Ever play paintball?Maybe you need to learn 14.7 psi isn't that much.
Incorrect.
Maybe you need to learn how strong less than that is.Maybe you need to learn 14.7 psi isn't that much.My rectangular air lock had no trouble going down to -20inHg.Maybe you need to learn what a vacuum is.
! No longer available (http://#)
And you finally learned what surface area is.Maybe you need to learn how strong less than that is.Maybe you need to learn 14.7 psi isn't that much.My rectangular air lock had no trouble going down to -20inHg.Maybe you need to learn what a vacuum is.
! No longer available (http://#)
! No longer available (http://#)
Is this the best you can come up with?And you finally learned what surface area is.Maybe you need to learn how strong less than that is.Maybe you need to learn 14.7 psi isn't that much.My rectangular air lock had no trouble going down to -20inHg.Maybe you need to learn what a vacuum is.
! No longer available (http://#)
! No longer available (http://#)
Maybe you need to learn 14.7 psi isn't that much.
Maybe you need to learn 14.7 psi isn't that much.
Scientific thinkers use bar or Pa:
14.7 psi = 1.013527 bar (http://www.centauro-owners.com/articles/psibar.html)
14.7 psi = 101352.748935 Pa (http://www.endmemo.com/sconvert/papsi.php)
Space @ 100 km altitude = 0.032 Pa (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_space#Environment)
Your atmospheric pressure environment has a pressure of 3,167,273 times that of space @ 100 km.
Clown.
No matter how many times you post that, it will never say what you think it says.
If he could, he'd dig up the bodies of Joule, Thomson & Newton, give them a good stompng then burn them...
Sokarul's seething virgin-rage will never be satisfied until he has obliterated all Science, everywhere.
He's at War with it, you know?
If he could, he'd dig up the bodies of Joule, Thomson & Newton, give them a good stompng then burn them...
He's a one-man army of Anti-Science!
Whatever...
Like anyone believes anything you say any more.
How's the CERN fondue party going btw?
Did chef follow your recipe & put plenty of 'sauv blanc' & 'good cheese' in?
Are those pesky drunken particle physicists still blocking your view of the Alps?
LOL!!!
Toodle-pip, Walter Mitty v2.0!
Rayzor's spazzing out cos we busted him bullshitting about working at CERN.
It is lol.
He lives in a chalet high on a mountain...
Like Heidi.
I know the trolling hasn't been much fun for you today
Starting from the ignition procedure, please!1. Open the hypergolic fuel valve.
2. Open the hypergolic oxidizer valve.
3. Well...there is no 3. There are only 2 steps to the ignition procedure of a hypergolic rocket engine.
Momentum, conservation of.
The end.
Turn off the lights and lock the thread.
Gas in a Vacuum, Free Expansion of.
The REAL end...
Of NASA's Lies.
Turn On your minds and Unlock the Truth.
Already have. Pay attention.No matter how many times you post that, it will never say what you think it says.
Please feel free to expand on this. ;D
See? I solved this months ago.Momentum, conservation of.
The end.
Turn off the lights and lock the thread.
Gas in a Vacuum, Free Expansion of.
The REAL end...
Of NASA's Lies.
Turn On your minds and Unlock the Truth.
I could have told you weeks ago that Papa Legba really does believe in some conservation laws!Momentum, conservation of.Gas in a Vacuum, Free Expansion of.
The end.
Turn off the lights and lock the thread.
The REAL end...
Of NASA's Lies.
Turn On your minds and Unlock the Truth.
Yes, locking the thread might be a good idea!
Now; explain why Free Expansion somehow does not apply to the gas produced by a rocket in the infinite hard vacuum of space.
Free expansion is an irreversible process in which a gas expands into an insulated evacuated chamber.
I mean; look at this garbage:QuoteFree expansion is an irreversible process in which a gas expands into an insulated evacuated chamber. It is also called Joule expansion.
It is not that gas cannot do work in a vacuum. It is that gas does no work when expanding into an evacuated chamber because all of the effect net to zero.
What, exactly, is in that 'evacuated chamber' that the gas does no work whilst expanding into?
Could it be a vacuum?
Why yes; yes it IS a vacuum.
Thus, mainframes completely contradicts himself in one sentence!
& what 'because all of the net effect to zero' means is anybody's guess...
He does this all the time, yet expects us to believe he has a masters in science...
LOL!!!
Cool story bro...
insulated chamber and infinite vacuum are they the same thing?
u seem a bit confused papa... maybe english is not your first languange either
free expansion is performed when gas expands from an insulated chamber into another insulated chamber in which there was vacuum.
Which are pretty much the conditions of a rocket in 'space', except the insulated, evacuated chamber is much larger.
Thus, you agree that a rocket can not work in a vacuum.
Thanks, hypnopoodle!
Why do I get the feeling that Gay_Rotunda (or whatever) and Poppa Lugsy are con-joined twins - seems a bit funny, but . . . . . . . . . . . . . .If he could, he'd dig up the bodies of Joule, Thomson & Newton, give them a good stompng then burn them...
:D :D
With a retrograde burn, I reckon.
*Yawn!*Insulated chamber means no heat exchange... Gas in space does not exchange heat? I guess u will claim that radiation heat transfer does not apply to gas, kinda of what u did with conservation of momentum
Note the disinfo-poodle's mirroring of my own phrases; they're all doing this all the time now.
It'll be some weird kind of psychological trick they've been told by their Controllers to do.
Sad, Controlled little things...
Anyhoo, this:free expansion is performed when gas expands from an insulated chamber into another insulated chamber in which there was vacuum.
Which are pretty much the conditions of a rocket in 'space', except the insulated, evacuated chamber is much larger.
Thus, you agree that a rocket can not work in a vacuum.
Thanks, hypnopoodle!
You can only get out of the above by lying, Collabo...
So; Carry On Lying!
Now; explain why Free Expansion somehow does not apply to the gas produced by a rocket in the infinite hard vacuum of space.Only if you explain why Mass Flow somehow does not apply to the gas flowing through the rocket engine.
Insulated chamber means no heat exchange... Gas in space does not exchange heat? I guess u will claim that radiation heat transfer does not apply to gas, kinda of what u did with conservation of momentum
Only if you explain why Mass Flow somehow does not apply to the gas flowing through the rocket engine.
Mind as long if only pair keep would keep away Joule, Thomson & Newton might be safe!
Saying that it's irrelevant is pretty much the same thing as saying that it doesn't apply and "because it is" doesn't explain why you feel that way.Only if you explain why Mass Flow somehow does not apply to the gas flowing through the rocket engine.
I never said it didn't.
I said it was irrelevant to the functioning of a rocket in a vacuum.
Because it is.
Saying that it's irrelevant is pretty much the same thing as saying that it doesn't apply
"because it is" doesn't explain why you feel that way.
Mass flow means that the total mass of rocket is decreasing, so we have dm/dt ≠ 0 (It's actually negative!). With me so far?Only if you explain why Mass Flow somehow does not apply to the gas flowing through the rocket engine.I never said it didn't.
I said it was irrelevant to the functioning of a rocket in a vacuum.
Waiting for the predictable explosive memory dump
And what 'momentum' anyway?mass*velocity, it's an important part of physics, you probably haven't heard of it.
In the case of a rocket stationary in a vacuum, it has no momentum.Yes a stationary object has no momentum.
So; we open the fuel valve; what happens?When a gas expands freely is is no momentum gained or lost by the gas, this is correct, but the gas doesn't expand freely, does it. The gas will expand in all directions, but in most of it is blocked by the walls of the chamber.
Nothing.
Because of Free Expansion.
Or: take a bottle of water, hold it upside-down & allow the water to drain out.Is the pressure of the water causing it to leave the bottle, no it's gravity, so the equal opposite force pair is with the planet, but since the planet has so much mass it can absorb momentum without moving more than 5.972Χ10^-24m per Nm.
Its mass is also decreasing, but is it gaining 'momentum' in the opposite direction?
Will it shoot into space?
mass*velocity, it's an important part of physics
Or in your flat earth model
mass*velocity, it's an important part of physics
Except when it comes to the gas laws.
Goodbye, Troll.
I mean; look at this garbage:QuoteFree expansion is an irreversible process in which a gas expands into an insulated evacuated chamber. It is also called Joule expansion.
It is not that gas cannot do work in a vacuum. It is that gas does no work when expanding into an evacuated chamber because all of the effect net to zero.
What, exactly, is in that 'evacuated chamber' that the gas does no work whilst expanding into?
Could it be a vacuum?
Why yes; yes it IS a vacuum.
Thus, mainframes completely contradicts himself in one sentence!
& what 'because all of the effect net to zero' means is anybody's guess...
He does this all the time, yet expects us to believe he has a masters in science...
LOL!!!
Cool story bro...
Now; would any of you care to hazard a guess as to precisely WHY the chambers involved in Joule's Free Expansion experiment were insulated?
It still applies on the individual partical level, but if you need a "gas law", Momentum=pressure*area*time, since the container only has one hole the net pressure isn't zero.mass*velocity, it's an important part of physics
Except when it comes to the gas laws.
Goodbye, Troll.
Wrong.Saying that it's irrelevant is pretty much the same thing as saying that it doesn't apply
Incorrect.
"because it is" doesn't explain why you feel that way.
I have already explained why I know (not 'feel', markjo) it doesn't.
Because of Free Expansion of Gases in a Vacuum, and because Newton's 3rd Law states that without an extrinsic mass for the gas in the rocket to create a reaction against, no motion can be produced (a vacuum has no mass or pressure btw, markjo; just fyi).
It is not hard to grasp; 'YOU CANNOT PUSH ON NOTHING' sums it up.What makes you think that anyone is trying to "PUSH ON NOTHING"?
Simple, eh?Yes, it is. So why are you still so wrong?
Now; would any of you care to hazard a guess as to precisely WHY the chambers involved in Joule's Free Expansion experiment were insulatedProbably to avoid heat transferring to or from the system being tested (hence the term "isolated system")
It still applies on the individual partical level
since the container only has one hole the net pressure isn't zero.
Wrong.
Now; would any of you care to hazard a guess as to precisely WHY the chambers involved in Joule's Free Expansion experiment were insulatedProbably to avoid heat transferring to or from the system being tested
Starting from the ignition procedure, please!1. Open the hypergolic fuel valve.
2. Open the hypergolic oxidizer valve.
3. Well...there is no 3. There are only 2 steps to the ignition procedure of a hypergolic rocket engine.
particals
particals
conservation of momentum
Because, in thermodynamics, heat transfer means work. If heat transfers into or out of the system, then work has been done and free expansion can not be said to have occurred.Now; would any of you care to hazard a guess as to precisely WHY the chambers involved in Joule's Free Expansion experiment were insulatedProbably to avoid heat transferring to or from the system being tested
'Probably' so.
And why would Joule have wanted that,
Free expansion occurs after the gasses leave the nozzle. Mass flow occurs from the propellant tanks to the end of the nozzle.
particals
LOL!!!conservation of momentum
We. Talk. Gasses.
Conservation. Of. Energy.
Not.
Conservation. Of. Momentum.
You. Take. Bullshit. Elsewhere.
Also. Take. Teh. Lol-cow. Enjynerr.
Goodbye!
Ha ha ha lol!
You don't even understand the composition of matter and how gases behave. Muppet.
i have a degree and you clearly don't. I can feel the jealousy oozing from your every pore. Sorry little boy, go back to masturbating in your parents basement.
Now; would any of you care to hazard a guess as to precisely WHY the chambers involved in Joule's Free Expansion experiment were insulatedProbably to avoid heat transferring to or from the system being tested
'Probably' so.
And why would Joule have wanted that,
Because, in thermodynamics, heat transfer means work. If heat transfers into or out of the system, then work has been done and free expansion can not be said to have occurred.
Go. Away. Learn. Gas. Laws. Retard.Yes. Please. Do.
Yes. Please. Do.
Plus a link/youtube of shit you don't really understand yourself, of course?You wanted a gas law that deals with mass and I provided you with an example of how the Ideal Gas law can be used to determine mass. Perhaps you are the one who does not understand.
If you say gas can't have momentum (for some magic reason you haven't given), then a plane violates conservation of momentum, because when a plane accelerates it would be gaining forward momentum while nothing gains a backwards momentum.particals
LOL!!!conservation of momentum
We. Talk. Gasses.
Conservation. Of. Energy.
Not.
Conservation. Of. Momentum.
You. Take. Bullshit. Elsewhere.
Also. Take. Teh. Lol-cow. Enjynerr.
Goodbye!
You wanted a gas law that deals with mass and I provided you with an example of how the Ideal Gas law can be used to determine mass.
Papa - have a read around the subject of gas laws. Please note the connection to kinetic theory.
If you say gas can't have momentum (for some magic reason you haven't given), then a plane violates conservation of momentum, because when a plane accelerates it would be gaining forward momentum while nothing gains a backwards momentum.
Yawn.
If you are actually good at physics you will be able to tell me what object gains backwards momentum when a plane accelerates.
The rocket imparts a force onto the exhaust and in return the exhaust imparts a force onto the rocket.
No magic exhaust stacking or pressure gradients needed.
You are unable to answer this because the answer is air, and you think air cannot have momentum.
If I am ignorant, then enlighten me
what solid object gains backwards momentum to count a planes forward moment when it accelerates.
what solid object gains backwards momentum to count a planes forward moment when it accelerates.
what solid object gains backwards momentum to count a planes forward moment when it accelerates.
what solid object gains backwards momentum to count a planes forward moment when it accelerates.
*sigh* Is this any better?You wanted a gas law that deals with mass and I provided you with an example of how the Ideal Gas law can be used to determine mass.
In other words, you did not provide a gas law containing the term 'mass'.
*sigh* Is this any better?Nope.
I can apply solid mechanics to a plane, and a plane gains momentum, so the air must gain momentum in the opposite direction for momentum to a conserved, unless you can give a solid object that counters a planes momentum.
And if gases can have momentum, rockets work.
I provided you with the ideal gas law. Do you have a problem with it?*sigh* Is this any better?Nope.
Gas Law please, Mr. Hypnotoad!
Basically the problem is solved, if a gas doesn't follow conservation of momentum you can violate conservation of momentum, which is impossible.It's a shame that you're not prepared to actually understand it all. For good reason I know but you are human aren't you?
This means that when a gas leaves a container in a vacuum, it causes the container to move in the opposite direction.
If only solids have momentum then,
Planes violate conservation of momentum.
Spray a jet of water into a sub zero room, the water has no momentum, but when it freezes the ice has momentum that has come from nowhere.
So since fluids having no momentum causes a contradiction, fluids must be able to have momentum. Therefore rockets work and PL is a retard.
Papa Legba, violating conservation of momentum.
If you can answer the plane problem then I will admit that I am wrong.The planes energy gains the momentum against atmospheric pressure which COMPRESSES.
When a plane accelerates it gains momentum, so something must gain momentum in the opposite direction. If conservation of momentum only applies to solid objects it still applies to planes, but what solid object could be gaining momentum in the opposite direction.
I don't want an explanation of how planes work, I just want to know what object gains momentum in the opposite direction to the plane.
So are you saying the air gains momentum.Air on Earth gains momentum. It's called wind.
In space the ship has the gas with it, when the gas is released into space the particles accelerate towards the vacuum, so the gas gains momentum, meaning the ship must gain momentum.
In space the ship has the gas with it, when the gas is released into space the particles accelerate towards the vacuum, so the gas gains momentum, meaning the ship must gain momentum.
Says the person that believes conservation of momentum can be violated.In space the ship has the gas with it, when the gas is released into space the particles accelerate towards the vacuum, so the gas gains momentum, meaning the ship must gain momentum.
So mistaken it's not even wrong.
Has your brain broken?
You accept gas has momentum, thank god, Papa Legba still thinks it doesn't.Do yourself a favour and actually absorb and really think about what's getting said. I'm going to pretend your space exists for the sake of clarity to your questions. The reality would be extreme low pressure but we won't argue that.
If I am wrong, which step of my reasoning is wrong.
1. If you have a container of air in space and a hole is made, the air will move out of the hole.Correct.
2. The change in pressure between the air and vacuum will cause the air to accelerate as it leaves, because force=pressure*area=mass*accelerationNow this is where you need to grasp it because I think you're allowing yourself to get sandwiched between sea level atmosphere and a container and space and a container.
3. Since the gas is accelerating, it gains momentum.It gains momentum to where?
Says the person that believes conservation of momentum can be violated.
Free expansion does not mean the gas magically accelerates requiring no force or transfer of momentum. Stop clinging onto this fantasy.
The vacuum simply presents no resistance to the gas ie once it moves into the vacuum there is no force slowing it down BUT in order to exit the rocket a net amount of force is required to move the gas in that direction as per F=ma. Newtons third gives us equal and opposite force so therefore force must act on the rocket opposite to the force acting on the gas.
My rectangular air lock had no trouble going down to -20inHg.
take a box of gas, when a wall is removed, the gas exerts the same pressure on all the walls, except for the missing wall, so the forces would be unbalanced.
take a box of gas, when a wall is removed, the gas exerts the same pressure on all the walls, except for the missing wall, so the forces would be unbalanced.
Yeah, I know that they are trapped in a cycle of stupid, but a part of me keeps thinking that this time I might be able to get through to them, and I have already spent a lot of time trying to help them, so I might as well try a bit long. But I need to accept that some people can't be helped.We are playing tic - tac - toe aren't we?
https://xkcd.com/258/
And to Papa Legba and Scepti, I believe everyone has a rational part to them, even if it's buried inside a lot of biases. So to that sane part of you if it exists, you don't have to live this way, you can change if you try, please, we both love you.
https://xkcd.com/258/
Why would the gas that is EXPANDING, FREELY, out of the rocket, ENCOUNTERING NO RESISTANCE as it does so, somehow impart a 'force' BACK upon it as it leaves?The "resistance" is on the pressurized side, so that's where the work is done, not on the vacuum side.
Nope. Only in a SEALED container is there equal resistance.Why would the gas that is EXPANDING, FREELY, out of the rocket, ENCOUNTERING NO RESISTANCE as it does so, somehow impart a 'force' BACK upon it as it leaves?The "resistance" is on the pressurized side, so that's where the work is done, not on the vacuum side.
So I was getting fuel for my car the other day but forgot to turn my car off. Biggest mistake ever. I wasn't paying attention. 300 gallons of gas later I realized my mistake. Since apparently you can't flow more into a chamber than out of it, I was unable to fill my tank since my fuel pump was running. Everyone take note, turn your car off before trying to fill it up.Vespa's aren't cars but anyway, regardless of that, what's your issue here?
A sealed container with equal resistance is in a state of equilibrium. There is no work done in a state of equilibrium. It's only when the resistance is not equal that can work be done.Nope. Only in a SEALED container is there equal resistance.Why would the gas that is EXPANDING, FREELY, out of the rocket, ENCOUNTERING NO RESISTANCE as it does so, somehow impart a 'force' BACK upon it as it leaves?The "resistance" is on the pressurized side, so that's where the work is done, not on the vacuum side.
A sealed container with equal resistance is in a state of equilibrium. There is no work done in a state of equilibrium. It's only when the resistance is not equal that can work be done.Nope. Only in a SEALED container is there equal resistance.Why would the gas that is EXPANDING, FREELY, out of the rocket, ENCOUNTERING NO RESISTANCE as it does so, somehow impart a 'force' BACK upon it as it leaves?The "resistance" is on the pressurized side, so that's where the work is done, not on the vacuum side.
I was of course just making fun of you and papa littlekid.
Why does there need to be resistance outside the box when the work is being done inside the box?A sealed container with equal resistance is in a state of equilibrium. There is no work done in a state of equilibrium. It's only when the resistance is not equal that can work be done.Nope. Only in a SEALED container is there equal resistance.Why would the gas that is EXPANDING, FREELY, out of the rocket, ENCOUNTERING NO RESISTANCE as it does so, somehow impart a 'force' BACK upon it as it leaves?The "resistance" is on the pressurized side, so that's where the work is done, not on the vacuum side.
Yeah; the resistance OUTSIDE the box.
Learnt the difference between Static & Dynamic pressure yet?Static pressure is the pressure exerted by a stationary fluid and is often referred to simply as pressure. Dynamic pressure is essentially the kinetic energy contained in a (generally incompressible) fluid.
A sealed container with equal resistance is in a state of equilibrium. There is no work done in a state of equilibrium. It's only when the resistance is not equal that can work be done.
A sealed container with equal resistance is in a state of equilibrium. There is no work done in a state of equilibrium. It's only when the resistance is not equal that can work be done.
I think that's a record, you've explained the same thing 173 times now, and he keeps throwing out the bait... oh, wait, hang on, don't tell me.. it's YOU trolling HIM. Damn that's sneaky.
ROTFLMAO !!!
I didn't do it for them. I did it to show you how stupid you are.I was of course just making fun of you and papa littlekid.
Yeah I'm sure everyone laughed.
At you.
I didn't do it for them. I did it to show you how stupid you are.I was of course just making fun of you and papa littlekid.
Yeah I'm sure everyone laughed.
At you.
Why does there need to be resistance outside the box when the work is being done inside the box?
you've explained the same thing 173 times now
I didn't do it for them. I did it to show you how stupid you are.I was of course just making fun of you and papa littlekid.
Yeah I'm sure everyone laughed.
At you.
You made yourself look even more foolish than normal in order to try to make it seem that others are more stupid than you? Are you f**king serious?
It's a combustion chamber from a NON-HYPERGOLIC ENGINE, tehEnjynerr.Yes, I know. However, your argument is of the design family of the combustion chamber, not of the particular engine in the picture. A de Laval combustion chamber refers to the design of the nozzle and most modern rocket engines use this type.
It's a combustion chamber from a NON-HYPERGOLIC ENGINE, tehEnjynerr.Yes, I know. However, your argument is of the design family of the combustion chamber, not of the particular engine in the picture. A de Laval combustion chamber refers to the design of the nozzle and most modern rocket engines use this type.
As for the combustion chamber in your photo, it is the first stage to the Ariane 5 launch system. The second stage is [GASP!] a hypergolic engine in the de Laval design family. So...tell me again why my ignition procedure is not correct?
Of course it is. That's where all the resistance is, so it's the only place where the work can be done.Why does there need to be resistance outside the box when the work is being done inside the box?
It isn't.
Been hitting the Google have you?
Already made my mind up how seriously to take you: Not. At. All.
Toodle-pip, tehEnjynerr!
So...tell me again why my ignition procedure is not correct?
Of course it is.
So...tell me again why my ignition procedure is not correct?
So for rockets to be unable to work, conservation of momentum is violated
Toodle-pip, Daddy Longlegs!
Of course, this is because you are the same person.
Words are not Reality, Geoff.
Nice forum signature btw; where'd you get it again?
Follow the link forthe rest of the articlea bunch of bullshit.
http://www.shit-we-made-up.com/rocket-bollocks.html (http://www.shit-we-made-up.com/rocket-bollocks.html)
If gas didn't count as an object, planes wouldn't work.You mean the gas in the atmosphere?
If gas didn't count as an object, planes wouldn't work.
There's gas in the rocket.And, in space, there's no gas outside the rocket.
The gas is object B. If gas didn't count as an object, planes wouldn't work.Oh, & did you mean planes like this, lolcow?
Follow the link for the rest of the article
Stuff Appeal Bag doesn't have a hope of understanding (http://www.real-world-physics-problems.com/rocket-physics.html)
Are you channelling markjo now, to ask me to repeat myself all the time?Then why do you keep
The combustion chamber of a rocket is open to the near-infinite vacuum of space.
Therefore, no gas can even be meaningfully said to exist within it, let alone combust.
Any gas introduced therein when the pressurised fuel tank leading to the combustion chamber is opened will simply expand freely into the enormous, zero-pressure vacuum, following the path of least resistance & doing no work whatsoever.
This will continue for as long as the fuel tank & chamber are open to the vacuum, until both exterior & interior pressures are equalised at zero.
It is a beautifully simple concept, fully supported by All the laws of physics, yet you 'round earthers' (lol!) just can't seem to grasp it...
Plus this:
You all claim that the recoil of a gun is a valid analogy for how a rocket works in a vacuum.
Here is why it is not:
With a gun you have object A, the mass of the gun; the expanding propellant, P, the gunpowder, sited between them; and object B, the mass of the bullet.
But with a rocket you ONLY have object A, the mass of the rocket, & the expanding propellant, P, the fuel.
No object B, see?
Thus, you have removed the necessary recoil mass required to produce motion.
But we know a rocket DOES produce motion, don't we?
Ergo, some other mass MUST be taking the place of object B.
& the ONLY possibility for that other mass is the Atmosphere.
Ergo, NO atmosphere, NO motion; rockets CANNOT function in a vacuum.
Q.E.D.
No matter how hard you try to spin it, cultists, every child knows that You cannot Push on Nothing.
No maths required; only common sense.
Then there's the fact that you are all trying desperately to confine this 'debate' to the wrong branch of physics, i.e. Solid Mechanics rather than Fluid Mechanics...
Kinda dishonest of you, dontcha think?
Pressure-Gradient Forces, Gas Laws, Fluid Mechanics, Continuum Assumption & Joules Expansion are the areas I suggest neutral readers research.
Here's a combustion chamber to laugh at too:
(http://www.space-propulsion.com/launcher-propulsion/rocket-engines/images/vulcain-thrust-chamber-assembly.jpg#moved)
Ooh - vacuum-proof!
Then why do you keepshitspammingrepeating this all the time?The combustion chamber of a rocket is open to the near-infinite vacuum of space.
Therefore, no gas can even be meaningfully said to exist within it, let alone combust.
Any gas introduced therein when the pressurised fuel tank leading to the combustion chamber is opened will simply expand freely into the enormous, zero-pressure vacuum, following the path of least resistance & doing no work whatsoever.
This will continue for as long as the fuel tank & chamber are open to the vacuum, until both exterior & interior pressures are equalised at zero.
It is a beautifully simple concept, fully supported by All the laws of physics, yet you 'round earthers' (lol!) just can't seem to grasp it...
Plus this:
You all claim that the recoil of a gun is a valid analogy for how a rocket works in a vacuum.
Here is why it is not:
With a gun you have object A, the mass of the gun; the expanding propellant, P, the gunpowder, sited between them; and object B, the mass of the bullet.
But with a rocket you ONLY have object A, the mass of the rocket, & the expanding propellant, P, the fuel.
No object B, see?
Thus, you have removed the necessary recoil mass required to produce motion.
But we know a rocket DOES produce motion, don't we?
Ergo, some other mass MUST be taking the place of object B.
& the ONLY possibility for that other mass is the Atmosphere.
Ergo, NO atmosphere, NO motion; rockets CANNOT function in a vacuum.
Q.E.D.
No matter how hard you try to spin it, cultists, every child knows that You cannot Push on Nothing.
No maths required; only common sense.
Then there's the fact that you are all trying desperately to confine this 'debate' to the wrong branch of physics, i.e. Solid Mechanics rather than Fluid Mechanics...
Kinda dishonest of you, dontcha think?
Pressure-Gradient Forces, Gas Laws, Fluid Mechanics, Continuum Assumption & Joules Expansion are the areas I suggest neutral readers research.
Here's a combustion chamber to laugh at too:
(http://www.space-propulsion.com/launcher-propulsion/rocket-engines/images/vulcain-thrust-chamber-assembly.jpg#moved)
Ooh - vacuum-proof!
Except you have not stated the reason it is incorrect, once. Therefore, you would not be repeating yourself. You would simply be providing a counter argument to mine.So...tell me again why my ignition procedure is not correct?
No.
Are you channelling markjo now, to ask me to repeat myself all the time?
Because it's True.If it was true, then you wouldn't have so many people telling you that it isn't.
That's a typical indoctrinated answer.Because it's True.If it was true, then you wouldn't have so many people telling you that it isn't.
I'm sorry but you haven't got any proof that Newton mechanics is wrong.You don't have any proof that they're right, either.
Literally all of machanical enginering uses Newtonian mechanics. Do cars not work, the enginers making cars used newtonian machanics to design them.Tell me about it in simple terms without copy and pasting.
About what?About Newtonian mechanics and how it all works, that proves something to you.
Plenty of references available, no reason why they need to be written here. Tell us of any you disagree with.About what?About Newtonian mechanics and how it all works, that proves something to you.
Internet and libraries, schools and colleges, plus universities are full of all this stuff. I'm arguing against it, so tell me something. Why in the hell would I go and reference the very places that I believe stock misinformation ?Plenty of references available, no reason why they need to be written here. Tell us of any you disagree with.About what?About Newtonian mechanics and how it all works, that proves something to you.
Expain all of Newtonian machanics in one post? Too much to write about, but I think the only two assumptions are, that an object's velocity will constant when being acted on by no force, and that momentum is always conserved. I have never seen something go against either of the assumptions.Ok let's have some logical truth from you.
Another proof that newtonian machanics works: planes, cars, building, all designed using newtonian machanics, it is highly unlikely that all enginers are lying.
You could talk to people at your local college or university. Better than here.Internet and libraries, schools and colleges, plus universities are full of all this stuff. I'm arguing against it, so tell me something. Why in the hell would I go and reference the very places that I believe stock misinformation ?Plenty of references available, no reason why they need to be written here. Tell us of any you disagree with.About what?About Newtonian mechanics and how it all works, that proves something to you.
Wait, are you arguing again something that you have know nothing about. Have you never learn newtonian machanics.Internet and libraries, schools and colleges, plus universities are full of all this stuff. I'm arguing against it, so tell me something. Why in the hell would I go and reference the very places that I believe stock misinformation ?Plenty of references available, no reason why they need to be written here. Tell us of any you disagree with.About what?About Newtonian mechanics and how it all works, that proves something to you.
Except you have not stated the reason it is incorrect, once. Therefore, you would not be repeating yourself. You would simply be providing a counter argument to mine.
Because it's True.If it was true, then you wouldn't have so many people telling you that it isn't.
Expain all of Newtonian machanics in one post?
He discovered that Force=mass*acceleration. So if Force is zero, acceleration is zero. No acceleration, no change in movement.Why did anyone have to discover that force being zero meant no acceleration. Why in the hell is that even anything but logical?
Don't know what test he did to prove F=ma, but if F=ma was wrong, you would expect a lot of skyscrapers to fall over because the calcuations to design them used F=ma.
Who could I talk to at a college or university who wouldn't parrot from books and stuff?You could talk to people at your local college or university. Better than here.Internet and libraries, schools and colleges, plus universities are full of all this stuff. I'm arguing against it, so tell me something. Why in the hell would I go and reference the very places that I believe stock misinformation ?Plenty of references available, no reason why they need to be written here. Tell us of any you disagree with.About what?About Newtonian mechanics and how it all works, that proves something to you.
I understand the relevant one's that apply on Earth. The problem starts when you add space into the mix. It goes crazy from that point on.Wait, are you arguing again something that you have know nothing about. Have you never learn newtonian machanics.Internet and libraries, schools and colleges, plus universities are full of all this stuff. I'm arguing against it, so tell me something. Why in the hell would I go and reference the very places that I believe stock misinformation ?Plenty of references available, no reason why they need to be written here. Tell us of any you disagree with.About what?About Newtonian mechanics and how it all works, that proves something to you.
Free fucking expansion again. The expansion isn't free, the expansion happens inside of the rocket chamber, so it will expand into the walls, so pressure will be exerted on the walls. Pressure*area/mass=acceleration.Except you have not stated the reason it is incorrect, once. Therefore, you would not be repeating yourself. You would simply be providing a counter argument to mine.
I am a retard & a waste of space.
I have no idea how physics works.
Everyone hates my, why, why I'm I so alone.Because it's True.If it was true, then you wouldn't have so many people telling you that it isn't.
LOL!!!
There can be no better proof of my madness than this statement- Deploy the hyALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD!!!Expain all of Newtonian machanics in one post?Free Expansion is the only bull shit I need to repeat to delude myself that all 'space-exploration' is fake.
This is a Fact that you cannot change.
A lot easier than discussing here. Try it.Who could I talk to at a college or university who wouldn't parrot from books and stuff?You could talk to people at your local college or university. Better than here.Internet and libraries, schools and colleges, plus universities are full of all this stuff. I'm arguing against it, so tell me something. Why in the hell would I go and reference the very places that I believe stock misinformation ?Plenty of references available, no reason why they need to be written here. Tell us of any you disagree with.About what?About Newtonian mechanics and how it all works, that proves something to you.
I understand the relevant one's that apply on Earth. The problem starts when you add space into the mix. It goes crazy from that point on.Wait, are you arguing again something that you have know nothing about. Have you never learn newtonian machanics.Internet and libraries, schools and colleges, plus universities are full of all this stuff. I'm arguing against it, so tell me something. Why in the hell would I go and reference the very places that I believe stock misinformation ?Plenty of references available, no reason why they need to be written here. Tell us of any you disagree with.About what?About Newtonian mechanics and how it all works, that proves something to you.
Convince me in extreme simple analogies about Newtons stuff in space. I'm all ears? sight....reading.
Internet and libraries, schools and colleges, plus universities are full of all this stuff. I'm arguing against it, so tell me something. Why in the hell would I go and reference the very places that I believe stock misinformation ?Plenty of references available, no reason why they need to be written here. Tell us of any you disagree with.About what?About Newtonian mechanics and how it all works, that proves something to you.
Free fucking expansion again. The expansion isn't free, the expansion happens inside of the rocket chamber, so it will expand into the walls, so pressure will be exerted on the walls.
W=over is work done by a closed system on its surroundings. Rockets engines aren't a closed system.
Apparently I do. Hence the reason I explained to you the ignition procedure of a hypergolic engine. Which you have not provided a rebuttal for.Except you have not stated the reason it is incorrect, once. Therefore, you would not be repeating yourself. You would simply be providing a counter argument to mine.
You are a fraud & a goon.
You have no idea how a rocket works.
Free Expansion is all anyone needs to understand to know for certain that all 'space-exploration' is fake.Yet you still don't understand that free expansion applies to closed systems. Rocket engines are open systems, so mass flow applies.
Remove friction and you remove drag. By doing this you remove an objects ability to do any work.I understand the relevant one's that apply on Earth. The problem starts when you add space into the mix. It goes crazy from that point on.Wait, are you arguing again something that you have know nothing about. Have you never learn newtonian machanics.Internet and libraries, schools and colleges, plus universities are full of all this stuff. I'm arguing against it, so tell me something. Why in the hell would I go and reference the very places that I believe stock misinformation ?Plenty of references available, no reason why they need to be written here. Tell us of any you disagree with.About what?About Newtonian mechanics and how it all works, that proves something to you.
Convince me in extreme simple analogies about Newtons stuff in space. I'm all ears? sight....reading.
Things in space are actually far simpler to understand as you remove lots of muddying factors such as friction, drag etc
Apparently I do.
free expansion applies to closed systems.
No you don't. Do you know what work is. Workdone=force*distance.Remove friction and you remove drag. By doing this you remove an objects ability to do any work.I understand the relevant one's that apply on Earth. The problem starts when you add space into the mix. It goes crazy from that point on.Wait, are you arguing again something that you have know nothing about. Have you never learn newtonian machanics.Internet and libraries, schools and colleges, plus universities are full of all this stuff. I'm arguing against it, so tell me something. Why in the hell would I go and reference the very places that I believe stock misinformation ?Plenty of references available, no reason why they need to be written here. Tell us of any you disagree with.About what?About Newtonian mechanics and how it all works, that proves something to you.
Convince me in extreme simple analogies about Newtons stuff in space. I'm all ears? sight....reading.
Things in space are actually far simpler to understand as you remove lots of muddying factors such as friction, drag etc
To do work you must have atmospheric resistance to any action.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0By3xuzrccYkqUXlfcmllYzh6UDA/view
Just out of curiosity, what makes you think that you understand free expansion better than everyone else? Also, why do you keep ignoring mass flow?free expansion applies to closed systems.
Incorrect.
You do not understand basic science.
Just out of curiosity, what makes you think that you understand free expansion better than everyone else?
Also, why do you keep ignoring mass flow?
Whats wrong with it, pressure will be exerted by an expanding gas on to any solid object it reaches.https://drive.google.com/file/d/0By3xuzrccYkqUXlfcmllYzh6UDA/view
This is the work of a madman.
For God's sake don't reproduce.
Just out of curiosity, what makes you think that you understand free expansion better than everyone else?
I don't understand it better than everyone else.
I just don't pretend I don't understand it.
Like you do.
For God's sake don't reproduce.Also, why do you keep ignoring mass flow?
Because the mass-flow of a gas is irrelevant to the functioning of a rocket in a vacuum.
Because of Free Expansion.
For God's sake don't reproduce.
The world doesn't need any more Hypnotoads...
Whats wrong with it
Fact: space does not exist
The Fact Sphere is NOT defective. Its facts are wholly accurate, and VERY interesting
Except I didn't make a mistake. And you have yet to rebut my statement.Apparently I do.
Incorrect.
It took you a week to google the info to rectify your original mistake.
You are a laughable time-wasting Fraud.
For God's sake don't reproduce.
It was kind of amusing when he changed topic every so often but now he is fixated on free expansion, which he clearly doesn't understand. Getting a bit tedious now.It's only getting tedious because you refuse to understand what he's been telling you.
Finally, something that we can all agree on.Just out of curiosity, what makes you think that you understand free expansion better than everyone else?
I don't understand it better than everyone else.
I just don't pretend I don't understand it.Agreed. I believe that your not understanding of free expansion is genuine.
A fluid with mass is flowing through a De Laval nozzle. How can mass flow not be relevant?Also, why do you keep ignoring mass flow?
Because the mass-flow of a gas is irrelevant to the functioning of a rocket in a vacuum.
Because of Free Expansion.No, that's not it. Free expansion doesn't become relevant until the gasses leave the nozzle.
It was kind of amusing when he changed topic every so often but now he is fixated on free expansion, which he clearly doesn't understand. Getting a bit tedious now.
Tell me how combustion works?It was kind of amusing when he changed topic every so often but now he is fixated on free expansion, which he clearly doesn't understand. Getting a bit tedious now.
What doesn't Appeal Bag get? The combustion and resulting exhaust gases are orders of magnitude faster than the "free expansion" he keeps banging on about.
Why ask here, why not go and look it up? Is this just so you can have an argument?Tell me how combustion works?It was kind of amusing when he changed topic every so often but now he is fixated on free expansion, which he clearly doesn't understand. Getting a bit tedious now.
What doesn't Appeal Bag get? The combustion and resulting exhaust gases are orders of magnitude faster than the "free expansion" he keeps banging on about.
I don't mean strike a match or set a spark. I want you to explain very simply how combustion is achieved.
Start with how it's achieved in Earth atmosphere and then you can tell me how it's achieved in your space.
Once you do this, I'll then tell you why you're wrong.
It was kind of amusing when he changed topic every so often but now he is fixated on free expansion, which he clearly doesn't understand. Getting a bit tedious now.It's only getting tedious because you refuse to understand what he's been telling you. Take your time to learn and you will feel enlightened.
If you look at vacuum chamber experiments, you will see that trapped air molecules want out, so they expand due to the external pressure dropping around them.And again "expanded molecules".
so it leaves LESS but more expanded moleculesAnd again "expanded outer sponge balls", like SpongeBob I suppose.
so it leaves LESS but more expanded molecules
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
your sponge balls can expand into the less expanded outer sponge balls
How come you can kill a magnet by heating and hitting it hard?
Heating expands gases and a good whack can basically de-gas the metal.
Of course it's so I can have an argument. that's what you people are here for, so I oblige a certain amount of you.Why ask here, why not go and look it up? Is this just so you can have an argument?Tell me how combustion works?It was kind of amusing when he changed topic every so often but now he is fixated on free expansion, which he clearly doesn't understand. Getting a bit tedious now.
What doesn't Appeal Bag get? The combustion and resulting exhaust gases are orders of magnitude faster than the "free expansion" he keeps banging on about.
I don't mean strike a match or set a spark. I want you to explain very simply how combustion is achieved.
Start with how it's achieved in Earth atmosphere and then you can tell me how it's achieved in your space.
Once you do this, I'll then tell you why you're wrong.
Tell me how combustion works?
It was kind of amusing when he changed topic every so often but now he is fixated on free expansion, which he clearly doesn't understand. Getting a bit tedious now.
I mean; look at this garbage:QuoteFree expansion is an irreversible process in which a gas expands into an insulated evacuated chamber. It is also called Joule expansion.
It is not that gas cannot do work in a vacuum. It is that gas does no work when expanding into an evacuated chamber because all of the effect net to zero.
What, exactly, is in that 'evacuated chamber' that the gas does no work whilst expanding into?
Could it be a vacuum?
Why yes; yes it IS a vacuum.
Thus, mainframes completely contradicts himself in one sentence!
& what 'because all of the effect net to zero' means is anybody's guess...
He does this all the time, yet expects us to believe he has a masters in science...
LOL!!!
Cool story bro...
Now tell me why it happens. Why does anything combust. Why does fire become fire in any form.Tell me how combustion works?
It's just an exothermic chemical reaction. Two or more chemicals reacting rapidly to produce reaction products O2 + C -> CO2
There are many combinations of chemicals that react spontaneously when mixed. Try adding glycerine to potassium permanganate.
Now tell me why it happens. Why does anything combust. Why does fire become fire in any form.Tell me how combustion works?
It's just an exothermic chemical reaction. Two or more chemicals reacting rapidly to produce reaction products O2 + C -> CO2
There are many combinations of chemicals that react spontaneously when mixed. Try adding glycerine to potassium permanganate.
I'll start you off. It's called friction. Now why does anything combust due to friction?
I'll start you off. It's called friction. Now why does anything combust due to friction?Metal on metal friction can get hot enough to cause the metals to melt, yet won't combust. Why do you suppose that is?
Ok you stick with that. Figuring out the simplest thing like why a candle goes out when subject to low pressure could have given you a massive clue as to why your fantasy rockets do not and never will work in what you believe to be that vacuum of space.Now tell me why it happens. Why does anything combust. Why does fire become fire in any form.Tell me how combustion works?
It's just an exothermic chemical reaction. Two or more chemicals reacting rapidly to produce reaction products O2 + C -> CO2
There are many combinations of chemicals that react spontaneously when mixed. Try adding glycerine to potassium permanganate.
I'll start you off. It's called friction. Now why does anything combust due to friction?
Nope, friction has nothing to do with it, it's just breaking and establishing covalent bonds. (sharing valence electrons) Whether it's exothermic or endothermic can be calculated from the bond energies, Kcal/mole.
It does combust. Just because you don't see a massive fire does not mean it's not a fire. Light your cigarette off it and tell me if it's not combusting.I'll start you off. It's called friction. Now why does anything combust due to friction?Metal on metal friction can get hot enough to cause the metals to melt, yet won't combust. Why do you suppose that is?
It does combust. Just because you don't see a massive fire does not mean it's not a fire. Light your cigarette off it and tell me if it's not combusting.I'll start you off. It's called friction. Now why does anything combust due to friction?Metal on metal friction can get hot enough to cause the metals to melt, yet won't combust. Why do you suppose that is?
We are talking about metal on metal friction burning. Not bronze melting.It does combust. Just because you don't see a massive fire does not mean it's not a fire. Light your cigarette off it and tell me if it's not combusting.I'll start you off. It's called friction. Now why does anything combust due to friction?Metal on metal friction can get hot enough to cause the metals to melt, yet won't combust. Why do you suppose that is?
Just because it's hot enough to light a cigarette, doesn't mean it's burning. Go to a foundry and watch them pour some bronze or cast iron, it's jut molten metal, nothing much more.
Melting and burning are different things.
Finally, something that we can all agree on.
I just don't pretend I don't understand it.Agreed. I believe that your not understanding of free expansion is genuine.
A fluid with mass is flowing through a De Laval nozzle. How can mass flow not be relevant?
Free expansion doesn't become relevant until the gasses leave the nozzle.
We are talking about metal on metal friction burning. Not bronze melting.
No wonder you haven't got a clue.
First of all, I don't smoke. Secondly, I'm not aware of any metal cigarettes.It does combust. Just because you don't see a massive fire does not mean it's not a fire. Light your cigarette off it and tell me if it's not combusting.I'll start you off. It's called friction. Now why does anything combust due to friction?Metal on metal friction can get hot enough to cause the metals to melt, yet won't combust. Why do you suppose that is?
Ok you stick with that. Figuring out the simplest thing like why a candle goes out when subject to low pressure could have given you a massive clue as to why your fantasy rockets do not and never will work in what you believe to be that vacuum of space.Now tell me why it happens. Why does anything combust. Why does fire become fire in any form.Tell me how combustion works?
It's just an exothermic chemical reaction. Two or more chemicals reacting rapidly to produce reaction products O2 + C -> CO2
There are many combinations of chemicals that react spontaneously when mixed. Try adding glycerine to potassium permanganate.
I'll start you off. It's called friction. Now why does anything combust due to friction?
Nope, friction has nothing to do with it, it's just breaking and establishing covalent bonds. (sharing valence electrons) Whether it's exothermic or endothermic can be calculated from the bond energies, Kcal/mole.
If you deprive a fire of fuel it will go out. One of the fuels is oxygen in the air.Minor nit to pick. Fire has 3 components: fuel, oxidizer and heat. This is sometimes referred to as the fire triangle because if you remove any one component, the fire will go out.
Free Expansion kills your silly shpayze-rokkits stone-dead.
If you deprive a fire of fuel it will go out. One of the fuels is oxygen in the air.Minor nit to pick. Fire has 3 components: fuel, oxidizer and heat. This is sometimes referred to as the fire triangle because if you remove any one component, the fire will go out.
Sorry if this was over your head Scepti.
Start with how it's achieved in Earth atmosphere
1. Open the hypergolic fuel valve.
2. Open the hypergolic oxidizer valve.
3. Well...there is no 3. There are only 2 steps to the ignition procedure of a hypergolic rocket engine.
tell me how it's achieved in your space.
1. Open the hypergolic fuel valve.You are welcome.
2. Open the hypergolic oxidizer valve.
3. Well...there is no 3. There are only 2 steps to the ignition procedure of a hypergolic rocket engine.
Because if it is in a vacuum then there will be no resistance to that mass.Oh no! These naughty people are doubting Daddy Longlegs again.
Therefore the requirements of Newton 3 will not be fulfilled & no motion will be produced.Free expansion doesn't become relevant until the gasses leave the nozzle.Free Expansion will be relevant the moment the gasses enter the vacuum.
This is simple physics.
There is no magic cut-off point at the end of your silly 'nozzle'.
But you will always be wrong.
Toodle-pip, Hypnotoad!
Please cite a reference showing that resistance is a requirement of Newton's 3rd law.A fluid with mass is flowing through a De Laval nozzle. How can mass flow not be relevant?
Because if it is in a vacuum then there will be no resistance to that mass.
Therefore the requirements of Newton 3 will not be fulfilled & no motion will be produced.
What about the mass flow of the gasses?Free expansion doesn't become relevant until the gasses leave the nozzle.
Free Expansion will be relevant the moment the gasses enter the vacuum.
Gas does no work in a vacuum. Period.Then it's a good thing that an operating combustion chamber is not a vacuum.
Think about how friction works to understand what I'm saying.Ok you stick with that. Figuring out the simplest thing like why a candle goes out when subject to low pressure could have given you a massive clue as to why your fantasy rockets do not and never will work in what you believe to be that vacuum of space.Now tell me why it happens. Why does anything combust. Why does fire become fire in any form.Tell me how combustion works?
It's just an exothermic chemical reaction. Two or more chemicals reacting rapidly to produce reaction products O2 + C -> CO2
There are many combinations of chemicals that react spontaneously when mixed. Try adding glycerine to potassium permanganate.
I'll start you off. It's called friction. Now why does anything combust due to friction?
Nope, friction has nothing to do with it, it's just breaking and establishing covalent bonds. (sharing valence electrons) Whether it's exothermic or endothermic can be calculated from the bond energies, Kcal/mole.
If you deprive a fire of fuel it will go out. One of the fuels is oxygen in the air. Remove the oxygen and the fire goes out. Some fires make their own oxygen, they are harder to extinguish. Like a magnesium fire, it breaks down water into hydrogen and oxygen, which is why you never put water on a magnesium fire.
It's not over my head, it's just that you have no clue what you're saying in terms of what I'm relaying about how fire is achieved and why a severe low pressure kills it.If you deprive a fire of fuel it will go out. One of the fuels is oxygen in the air.Minor nit to pick. Fire has 3 components: fuel, oxidizer and heat. This is sometimes referred to as the fire triangle because if you remove any one component, the fire will go out.
Sorry if this was over your head Scepti.
See if you can answer the question I asked.
I haven't been given any answer to my question.See if you can answer the question I asked.
I've a better idea, see if you can understand the answer you've already been given.
Free Expansion kills your silly shpayze-rokkits stone-dead.
No it doesn't, free expansion is NOT instantaneous, there is enough time to ignite the gases inside the combustion chamber. The fuel mixture is vented into the combustion chamber at a faster rate than it has to leave the chamber via free expansion.
You are welcome.
Surely everyone knows by now that he rewrites both Newton and Einstein
Please cite a reference showing that resistance is a requirement of Newton's 3rd law.
Combustion is a chemical reaction.Ok I suppose I have to make this a bit more simplistic for you.
Let's have an example.
Burning wood is a chemical reaction, carbon + oxygen ==> carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide if deficient in oxygen.
Is that clear enough?
Combustion is a chemical reaction.Ok I suppose I have to make this a bit more simplistic for you.
Let's have an example.
Burning wood is a chemical reaction, carbon + oxygen ==> carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide if deficient in oxygen.
Is that clear enough?
Remember when I mentioned stripping down components into their basic parts to see how simple they are?
Tell me in the most simplest terms using a child like analogy what a chemical reaction is and why it happens.
The combustion chamber of a rocket is open to the near-infinite vacuum of space. Therefore, no gas can even be meaningfully said to exist within it, let alone combust.
A bucket with a big hole in the bottom can be filled by pouring in water faster than the water coming out of the hole in the bottom.
Ok let me put this into your empty head.The combustion chamber of a rocket is open to the near-infinite vacuum of space. Therefore, no gas can even be meaningfully said to exist within it, let alone combust.
Bzzzt, wrong.
Let me put it in terms even someone of your low capacities can understand. A bucket with a big hole in the bottom can be filled by pouring in water faster than the water coming out of the hole in the bottom. Nod your head I can hear the hollow rattle from here.
The same concept applies to the fuel injected into the combustion chamber of a rocket motor.
End of argument, you loose.
Oh, and 60 odd years of space flight kinda piss all over your drivel.
You've answered the question as to why no work can be done then undone it all right at the end by saying it can.Who triggered the AIs memory dump again? I think the magic word is "vacuum".Am I taking too much of a risk of triggering another explosive memory dump? Why not, I'm cruel and it's fun to watch!
Repeat after me:
- a vacuum has no magic properties.
- a vacuum is only a region of extermely low pressure and cannot suck.
- a vacuum cannot accelerate gas molecules, they simply travel at a velocity imparted to them combined with their random thermal velocity.
- hence any concentration of gas molecules can only diffuse away with this velocity, modified by any collisions that occur
- hence at the exhaust of a rocket there can be a large mass flow (say 5,000 kg/s) leaving at at very high velocity, (say 2,000 m/s).
- therfore a rocket in a vacuum can generate a high thrust (here eg 5,000x2,000 N, or roughly 1,000,000 kg.
Even if that were the case (which it isn't, as we are talking about gas in a vacuum here, not water under gravity & air-pressure) do you not realise that your shonky anti-scientific analogy implies the rocket would be dragged BACKWARDS more than pushed forwards?
Your problem is in being a parrot. You and many like you cannot think for themselves. You are wrong, no matter how many times you say you're right.
Even if that were the case (which it isn't, as we are talking about gas in a vacuum here, not water under gravity & air-pressure) do you not realise that your shonky anti-scientific analogy implies the rocket would be dragged BACKWARDS more than pushed forwards?
Listen up Appeal Bag, you're wrong and you still loose.
Your problem is in being a parrot. You and many like you cannot think for themselves. You are wrong, no matter how many times you say you're right.
Even if that were the case (which it isn't, as we are talking about gas in a vacuum here, not water under gravity & air-pressure) do you not realise that your shonky anti-scientific analogy implies the rocket would be dragged BACKWARDS more than pushed forwards?
Listen up Appeal Bag, you're wrong and you still loose.
The reason that low pressure kills fire is because low pressure generally means low oxygen and/or low fuel. You can't have fire with out oxygen and fuel in sufficient quantities to support the reaction. That's why metals like steel won't burn no matter how hot they get,It's not over my head, it's just that you have no clue what you're saying in terms of what I'm relaying about how fire is achieved and why a severe low pressure kills it.If you deprive a fire of fuel it will go out. One of the fuels is oxygen in the air.Minor nit to pick. Fire has 3 components: fuel, oxidizer and heat. This is sometimes referred to as the fire triangle because if you remove any one component, the fire will go out.
Sorry if this was over your head Scepti.
This removing one component is meaningless.
See if you can answer the question I asked.
Doesn't the pressure difference mean the gas will accelerate, force=pressure*area, the force would cause the gas particles to accelerate, also the gas must be gaining momentum if the ship does.
- a vacuum cannot accelerate gas molecules, they simply travel at a velocity imparted to them combined with their random thermal velocity.
The powers that be are the one's that change the laws of nature. They do it so the average Joe doesn't know whether they're batting or bowling, they they tend to just accept the mass opinion generated through indoctrination.Your problem is in being a parrot. You and many like you cannot think for themselves. You are wrong, no matter how many times you say you're right.
Even if that were the case (which it isn't, as we are talking about gas in a vacuum here, not water under gravity & air-pressure) do you not realise that your shonky anti-scientific analogy implies the rocket would be dragged BACKWARDS more than pushed forwards?
Listen up Appeal Bag, you're wrong and you still loose.
Nope, he's right and you know it. You can have your conspiracies and everything else, but you can't change the laws of nature.
Friction is the ONLY way to start a fire.The reason that low pressure kills fire is because low pressure generally means low oxygen and/or low fuel. You can't have fire with out oxygen and fuel in sufficient quantities to support the reaction. That's why metals like steel won't burn no matter how hot they get,It's not over my head, it's just that you have no clue what you're saying in terms of what I'm relaying about how fire is achieved and why a severe low pressure kills it.If you deprive a fire of fuel it will go out. One of the fuels is oxygen in the air.Minor nit to pick. Fire has 3 components: fuel, oxidizer and heat. This is sometimes referred to as the fire triangle because if you remove any one component, the fire will go out.
Sorry if this was over your head Scepti.
This removing one component is meaningless.
See if you can answer the question I asked.
Friction is just one way of supplying heat to start a fire.
Wrong, cesium doesn't need to be heated to react.Ok tell me briefly about cesium and how it works and on what that you know of. Also tell me about these other chemicals that do not require friction.
Lots of chemical reactions can happen without the chemicals being heated.
Fire is just a chemical reaction that releases a lot of heat.
The powers that be are the one's that change the laws of nature. They do it so the average Joe doesn't know whether they're batting or bowling, they they tend to just accept the mass opinion generated through indoctrination.
Let me explain why you can't make fire in an extreme low pressure environment. It's because the matter is so expanded it cannot create enough friction to sustain any burn as a thrust, because to have a thrust you have to have a mixture of matter that is compressed that is married with other compressed matter to gain the required friction release. You see this as a thrusting flame but it is friction glowing under extreme pressure.Thrust does not need to be in the form of a flame. Thrust is simply the reaction to mass being accelerated.
(http://)Come back to me when you can tell me in your own words what i asked for earlier.
Want an explosion, just add water.
When you drop Caesium in water it will explode, because it is highly reactive.(http://)Come back to me when you can tell me in your own words what i asked for earlier.
Want an explosion, just add water.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0By3xuzrccYkqUXlfcmllYzh6UDA/view
Image showing the forces from the pressure of the gas expanding.
Clearly not balanced.
blah, bah, non-sequitur, pointless gibberish...
- therfore a rocket in a vacuum can generate a high thrust (here eg 5,000x2,000 N, or roughly 1,000,000 kg.
Even if that were the case (which it isn't, as we are talking about gas in a vacuum here, not water under gravity & air-pressure) do you not realise that your shonky anti-scientific analogy implies the rocket would be dragged BACKWARDS more than pushed forwards?
Listen up Appeal Bag, you're wrong and you still loose.
A rocket works in a vacuum because of newtons third law. "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction". You are still getting thrust because exhaust is still being thrown out of the rear of the rocket. Thus re-action is for the rocket to move opposite to the exhaust. Lets also not forget that NASA rockets are designed for it. Highly tuned nozzles are used to give maximum efficiency. Infact as stated they actually function better in a vacuum for the simple reason there is minimal resistance on the exhaust gas.Rockets carry their own COMPRESSED oxygen so they can burn the fuel to create thrust against the ATMOSPHERE.
You cannot compare to an engine or propellor because thats sole job is to move water or air. A rocket is throwing exhaust gas out constantly and thus lift. Infact you are even confiming yourself that it will work. Propellor moves water produces thrust. Water is being thrown out the back, boat moves forward.
Rockets are taken up with their own air as it were so yes they are still able to burn.
Didnt think flat earthers were so stupid, guess i was wrong.
Rockets carry their ownFixed, because there is a difference between compressed gas and gas that has condensed .COMPRESSEDLIQUID oxygen so they can burn the fuel to create thrust against the ATMOSPHERE.
Why can't you people understand this.
No difference at all for thrust, just storage.Rockets carry their ownFixed, because there is a difference between compressed gas and gas that has condensed .COMPRESSEDLIQUID oxygen so they can burn the fuel to create thrust against the ATMOSPHERE.
Why can't you people understand this.
The reaction in the opposite direction is of equal force. Therefore it creates acceleration.The equal and opposite reaction is created when the exhaust leaves the nozzle. This has already been explained many times in the other thread. I also said to watch October Sky to see an explanation of nozzles.Note to neutrals: free expansion is also known as Joules expansion or the Joules-Thomson effect. It states quite categorically that a gas can do no work in a vacuum.Then it's a good thing that no one is claiming that it does. We are claiming that the work is being done in the combustion chamber of the rocket engine, not in the vacuum of space.
You guys are confusing me. If the work, meaning what causes it to fly in a vacuum, is being done in the combustion chamber of the rocket engine and the expelling gasses out the nozzle is not doing any of the work, then it shouldn't matter where the exhaust nozzles are pointed. Simple little control surfaces should do the trick of steering it just fine. What I'm suggesting should also work just fine in the atmosphere as well. If not, Please explain.
I'm sorry I'm a little slow here, please be patient. I understand Newton's third law of motion, but that doesn't mean that the reaction in the opposite direction is doing any work. It is just wasted energy in the opposite direction in the form of exhaust. It can be diverted anywhere out the side of the rocket. If that is not the case then the exhaust is doing work by pushing against the ground and atmosphere and that means it must stay at the rear of the rocket facing the opposite direction.
You cannot compare to an engine or propellor because thats sole job is to move water or air. A rocket is throwing exhaust gas out constantly and thus lift.Rocket engines don't create lift. They create thrust. Rockets don't take up air so it is 'able to burn'. They carry oxidizer fuel so that the thrust can be produced.
Rockets are taken up with their own air as it were so yes they are still able to burn.
Didnt think flat earthers were so stupidThe irony.
What's an oxidizer fuel?
Nah, it doesn't work the way you think it does.The reaction in the opposite direction is of equal force. Therefore it creates acceleration.The equal and opposite reaction is created when the exhaust leaves the nozzle. This has already been explained many times in the other thread. I also said to watch October Sky to see an explanation of nozzles.Note to neutrals: free expansion is also known as Joules expansion or the Joules-Thomson effect. It states quite categorically that a gas can do no work in a vacuum.Then it's a good thing that no one is claiming that it does. We are claiming that the work is being done in the combustion chamber of the rocket engine, not in the vacuum of space.
You guys are confusing me. If the work, meaning what causes it to fly in a vacuum, is being done in the combustion chamber of the rocket engine and the expelling gasses out the nozzle is not doing any of the work, then it shouldn't matter where the exhaust nozzles are pointed. Simple little control surfaces should do the trick of steering it just fine. What I'm suggesting should also work just fine in the atmosphere as well. If not, Please explain.
I'm sorry I'm a little slow here, please be patient. I understand Newton's third law of motion, but that doesn't mean that the reaction in the opposite direction is doing any work. It is just wasted energy in the opposite direction in the form of exhaust. It can be diverted anywhere out the side of the rocket. If that is not the case then the exhaust is doing work by pushing against the ground and atmosphere and that means it must stay at the rear of the rocket facing the opposite direction.
Stand a heavy book up on a table. Now throw a ball at it. The ball bounces back and the book is pushed away. Equal and opposite forces. Now swap book with combustion chamber and ball with gas particle.
Well, besides the fact that liquid rocket propellants are often called 'fuels' (even the oxidizer, gasp!), does this change make you simpletons feel better?You cannot compare to an engine or propellor because thats sole job is to move water or air. A rocket is throwing exhaust gas out constantly and thus lift.Rocket engines don't create lift. They create thrust. Rockets don't take up air so it is 'able to burn'. They carry oxidizer
Rockets are taken up with their own air as it were so yes they are still able to burn.fuelpropellant so that the thrust can be produced.QuoteDidnt think flat earthers were so stupidThe irony.
Nah, it doesn't work the way you think it does.The reaction in the opposite direction is of equal force. Therefore it creates acceleration.The equal and opposite reaction is created when the exhaust leaves the nozzle. This has already been explained many times in the other thread. I also said to watch October Sky to see an explanation of nozzles.Note to neutrals: free expansion is also known as Joules expansion or the Joules-Thomson effect. It states quite categorically that a gas can do no work in a vacuum.Then it's a good thing that no one is claiming that it does. We are claiming that the work is being done in the combustion chamber of the rocket engine, not in the vacuum of space.
You guys are confusing me. If the work, meaning what causes it to fly in a vacuum, is being done in the combustion chamber of the rocket engine and the expelling gasses out the nozzle is not doing any of the work, then it shouldn't matter where the exhaust nozzles are pointed. Simple little control surfaces should do the trick of steering it just fine. What I'm suggesting should also work just fine in the atmosphere as well. If not, Please explain.
I'm sorry I'm a little slow here, please be patient. I understand Newton's third law of motion, but that doesn't mean that the reaction in the opposite direction is doing any work. It is just wasted energy in the opposite direction in the form of exhaust. It can be diverted anywhere out the side of the rocket. If that is not the case then the exhaust is doing work by pushing against the ground and atmosphere and that means it must stay at the rear of the rocket facing the opposite direction.
Stand a heavy book up on a table. Now throw a ball at it. The ball bounces back and the book is pushed away. Equal and opposite forces. Now swap book with combustion chamber and ball with gas particle.
The equal and opposite forces are the forces that exit the rocket and the resistance of the atmosphere. This is what moves your rocket. Nothing to do with inside of it.
We are not simpletons because you worded a statement incorrectly.Well, besides the fact that liquid rocket propellants are often called 'fuels' (even the oxidizer, gasp!), does this change make you simpletons feel better?You cannot compare to an engine or propellor because thats sole job is to move water or air. A rocket is throwing exhaust gas out constantly and thus lift.Rocket engines don't create lift. They create thrust. Rockets don't take up air so it is 'able to burn'. They carry oxidizer
Rockets are taken up with their own air as it were so yes they are still able to burn.fuelpropellant so that the thrust can be produced.QuoteDidnt think flat earthers were so stupidThe irony.
You can't go into detail, because for you to go into detail would be going into too much detail and realising that you've clung onto a huge bull's arse and been caked it it's crap.Nah, it doesn't work the way you think it does.The reaction in the opposite direction is of equal force. Therefore it creates acceleration.The equal and opposite reaction is created when the exhaust leaves the nozzle. This has already been explained many times in the other thread. I also said to watch October Sky to see an explanation of nozzles.Note to neutrals: free expansion is also known as Joules expansion or the Joules-Thomson effect. It states quite categorically that a gas can do no work in a vacuum.Then it's a good thing that no one is claiming that it does. We are claiming that the work is being done in the combustion chamber of the rocket engine, not in the vacuum of space.
You guys are confusing me. If the work, meaning what causes it to fly in a vacuum, is being done in the combustion chamber of the rocket engine and the expelling gasses out the nozzle is not doing any of the work, then it shouldn't matter where the exhaust nozzles are pointed. Simple little control surfaces should do the trick of steering it just fine. What I'm suggesting should also work just fine in the atmosphere as well. If not, Please explain.
I'm sorry I'm a little slow here, please be patient. I understand Newton's third law of motion, but that doesn't mean that the reaction in the opposite direction is doing any work. It is just wasted energy in the opposite direction in the form of exhaust. It can be diverted anywhere out the side of the rocket. If that is not the case then the exhaust is doing work by pushing against the ground and atmosphere and that means it must stay at the rear of the rocket facing the opposite direction.
Stand a heavy book up on a table. Now throw a ball at it. The ball bounces back and the book is pushed away. Equal and opposite forces. Now swap book with combustion chamber and ball with gas particle.
The equal and opposite forces are the forces that exit the rocket and the resistance of the atmosphere. This is what moves your rocket. Nothing to do with inside of it.
Wrong! atmosphere is not required as the rocket pushes on its own fuel through a nozzle as explained a bajillion times. I'm not going into detail because it makes no difference to you retarded type.
You can't go into detail, because for you to go into detail would be going into too much detail and realising that you've clung onto a huge bull's arse and been caked it it's crap.Nah, it doesn't work the way you think it does.The reaction in the opposite direction is of equal force. Therefore it creates acceleration.The equal and opposite reaction is created when the exhaust leaves the nozzle. This has already been explained many times in the other thread. I also said to watch October Sky to see an explanation of nozzles.Note to neutrals: free expansion is also known as Joules expansion or the Joules-Thomson effect. It states quite categorically that a gas can do no work in a vacuum.Then it's a good thing that no one is claiming that it does. We are claiming that the work is being done in the combustion chamber of the rocket engine, not in the vacuum of space.
You guys are confusing me. If the work, meaning what causes it to fly in a vacuum, is being done in the combustion chamber of the rocket engine and the expelling gasses out the nozzle is not doing any of the work, then it shouldn't matter where the exhaust nozzles are pointed. Simple little control surfaces should do the trick of steering it just fine. What I'm suggesting should also work just fine in the atmosphere as well. If not, Please explain.
I'm sorry I'm a little slow here, please be patient. I understand Newton's third law of motion, but that doesn't mean that the reaction in the opposite direction is doing any work. It is just wasted energy in the opposite direction in the form of exhaust. It can be diverted anywhere out the side of the rocket. If that is not the case then the exhaust is doing work by pushing against the ground and atmosphere and that means it must stay at the rear of the rocket facing the opposite direction.
Stand a heavy book up on a table. Now throw a ball at it. The ball bounces back and the book is pushed away. Equal and opposite forces. Now swap book with combustion chamber and ball with gas particle.
The equal and opposite forces are the forces that exit the rocket and the resistance of the atmosphere. This is what moves your rocket. Nothing to do with inside of it.
Wrong! atmosphere is not required as the rocket pushes on its own fuel through a nozzle as explained a bajillion times. I'm not going into detail because it makes no difference to you retarded type.
The mere fact that you people can't understand that your life giving atmosphere has no purpose in aiding a rocket into flight, and have to believe in peer pressured fantasy, is absolutely astoundingly embarrassing for you lot.
You cannot compare to an engine or propellor because thats sole job is to move water or air. A rocket is throwing exhaust gas out constantly and thus lift.Rocket engines don't create lift. They create thrust. Rockets don't take up air so it is 'able to burn'. They carry oxidizer fuel so that the thrust can be produced.
Rockets are taken up with their own air as it were so yes they are still able to burn.QuoteDidnt think flat earthers were so stupidThe irony.
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/153415main_Rockets_How_Rockets_Work.pdf (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/153415main_Rockets_How_Rockets_Work.pdf)Won't work! The Flat Earthers believe NASA is in league with the Satanist Cultists.
Take it up with NASA...
Why not prove them wrong?
The equal and opposite forces are the forces that exit the rocket and the resistance of the atmosphere.Ummm, an equal and opposite pair can only apply to a pair of objects. Your saying the two objects are the gas exiting the rocket and the atmosphere. Nothings acting on the rocket.
I know you were answering "SkepticMike" here, but the bucket analogy is not that bad!Ok let me put this into your empty head.The combustion chamber of a rocket is open to the near-infinite vacuum of space. Therefore, no gas can even be meaningfully said to exist within it, let alone combust.Bzzzt, wrong.
Let me put it in terms even someone of your low capacities can understand. A bucket with a big hole in the bottom can be filled by pouring in water faster than the water coming out of the hole in the bottom. Nod your head I can hear the hollow rattle from here.
The same concept applies to the fuel injected into the combustion chamber of a rocket motor.
End of argument, you loose.
Oh, and 60 odd years of space flight kinda piss all over your drivel.
Your bucket analogy would be your space and your rocket would be the water pouring vessel. This means that you have a infinite sized bucket with an in finite sized hole in it that?.........That?.......That cannot be filled.
It means that your water just pours into nothingness and becomes nothing, because nothing would be achieved.
The major problem here is, what I'm trying to tell you will get lost inside your empty head.
They think that the exhaust is part of the rocket, so if the exhaust pushes on the atmosphere then the atmosphere pushes back on the exhaust and therefore on the rocket.The equal and opposite forces are the forces that exit the rocket and the resistance of the atmosphere.Ummm, an equal and opposite pair can only apply to a pair of objects. Your saying the two objects are the gas exiting the rocket and the atmosphere. Nothings acting on the rocket.
atmosphere is not required as the rocket pushes on its own fuel
The equal and opposite forces are the forces that exit the rocket and the resistance of the atmosphere.Ummm, an equal and opposite pair can only apply to a pair of objects. ur saying the two objects are the gas exiting the rocket and the atmosphere. Nothings acting on the rocket.
Of course the nozzles used are de Laval (convergent-divergent) operating under choked conditions, so changing external pressure makes no difference at all to the mass flow rate!
And Papa, don't even bother replying, we've seen all you can offer dozens of times!
They think that the exhaust is part of the rocket
There is no solid evidence for your space rocket. Only lies and misinformation.You cannot compare to an engine or propellor because thats sole job is to move water or air. A rocket is throwing exhaust gas out constantly and thus lift.Rocket engines don't create lift. They create thrust. Rockets don't take up air so it is 'able to burn'. They carry oxidizer fuel so that the thrust can be produced.
Rockets are taken up with their own air as it were so yes they are still able to burn.QuoteDidnt think flat earthers were so stupidThe irony.
Yah that's why I said "air as it were"... There is no oxygen in space. They take up an oxidizer. And yes thrust, but we get the idea.
There is no irony. Flat earthers are presented with solid evidence and ignore it. Rockets can still produce thrust in space that is fact. You ignore anything that proves the round earth... Proves.
There is no solid evidence for your space rocket. Only lies and misinformation.You cannot compare to an engine or propellor because thats sole job is to move water or air. A rocket is throwing exhaust gas out constantly and thus lift.Rocket engines don't create lift. They create thrust. Rockets don't take up air so it is 'able to burn'. They carry oxidizer fuel so that the thrust can be produced.
Rockets are taken up with their own air as it were so yes they are still able to burn.QuoteDidnt think flat earthers were so stupidThe irony.
Yah that's why I said "air as it were"... There is no oxygen in space. They take up an oxidizer. And yes thrust, but we get the idea.
There is no irony. Flat earthers are presented with solid evidence and ignore it. Rockets can still produce thrust in space that is fact. You ignore anything that proves the round earth... Proves.
A rocket has oxidiser with fuel so it produces thrust against a resistance. That resistance is atmosphere.
In your fantasy space you have none of that, so your rocket is going nowhere.
The reality is that your rocket goes vertical from the ground for a small amount of time and then it arcs. It arcs because it has no more power to go vertical.
It then hits its point of full on energy then arcs back down into the drink..
Your space rocket has as much power as a shadow boxer knocking his own shadow out.
Your Earth rocket has enough power to ascend like a fire work, before being spent in short order.
Now pay attention to real and fake rockets.
The clue is in the maximum thrust that springboards the real rockets/missiles into the air, as opposed to the bicycle speed motion of the Hollywood special effect one's.
Real rockets and missiles.
In this video of a large model rocket launch, you will notice the springboard effect lift off. There's a very good reason as to why this and any other rocket has to lift off like this. It's called atmospheric stability.
Basically a vertical fairly well balanced dart, if you like.
! No longer available (http://#)
This next video of a large model shuttle is similar. It springboards into the sky because it has to for stability of vertical flight, as I mentioned.
Real rockets. It matters not about size because all rockets have to springboard to gain immediate stability at full thrust.
! No longer available (http://#)
Now let's look at the Hollywood bicycle start rockets. If these rockets were real, they would be covering the launch site in scrap metal and fuel.
No way in hell could something like this reach atmospheric stability.
! No longer available (http://#)
Simply ridiculous.
! No longer available (http://#)
Check as many as you want out. It's as clear as day how ridiculous it all is.
Now there are hundreds and hundreds of rocket/missile launches from as many countries as you care to think of.
How many are reality and how many are simply for effect, is anyone's guess.
What they aren't, are SPACE rockets/missiles.
Space rockets do no and have never, existed. And never will.
Correct. Nothing is directly acting on the rocket. The rocket shifts because it expands it's fuel and oxy at huge thrust against a dense atmosphere which is compressed by the huge expansion of gases exiting the nozzle.The equal and opposite forces are the forces that exit the rocket and the resistance of the atmosphere.Ummm, an equal and opposite pair can only apply to a pair of objects. Your saying the two objects are the gas exiting the rocket and the atmosphere. Nothings acting on the rocket.
Correct. Nothing is directly acting on the rocket. The rocket shifts because it expands it's fuel and oxy at huge thrust against a dense atmosphere which is compressed by the huge expansion of gases exiting the nozzle.The equal and opposite forces are the forces that exit the rocket and the resistance of the atmosphere.Ummm, an equal and opposite pair can only apply to a pair of objects. Your saying the two objects are the gas exiting the rocket and the atmosphere. Nothings acting on the rocket.
Notice I said EXITING.
The end result is the atmosphere acts like a barrier and creates a one potato two potato type resistance to the thrust against it.
Basically the atmosphere squeezes back against the thrust.
If that thrust had to react against that rocket like you're told, it would blow the rocket to smithereens.
Wait.... you think they would stick a human being in a rocket that takes of....well..... like a rocket? can you imagine the G loading?Sometimes you really do have to think for yourself. I can't babysit you for everything.
You really need to stop and think before posting such bollocks.
like I said your all bollocks and no jizz.
You carry on with your thought's. I can't help you any more than I've done. Maybe you'll wake up or maybe you'll spend your entire life being duped and sniggered at by those who pull this crap off. Your choice in the end so good luck.Correct. Nothing is directly acting on the rocket. The rocket shifts because it expands it's fuel and oxy at huge thrust against a dense atmosphere which is compressed by the huge expansion of gases exiting the nozzle.The equal and opposite forces are the forces that exit the rocket and the resistance of the atmosphere.Ummm, an equal and opposite pair can only apply to a pair of objects. Your saying the two objects are the gas exiting the rocket and the atmosphere. Nothings acting on the rocket.
Notice I said EXITING.
The end result is the atmosphere acts like a barrier and creates a one potato two potato type resistance to the thrust against it.
Basically the atmosphere squeezes back against the thrust.
If that thrust had to react against that rocket like you're told, it would blow the rocket to smithereens.
Wrong again
Anyway ,you obviously think they cant control a burn to make a steady lift off.
This guy says you're WrongWait.... you think they would stick a human being in a rocket that takes of....well..... like a rocket? can you imagine the G loading?Sometimes you really do have to think for yourself. I can't babysit you for everything.
You really need to stop and think before posting such bollocks.
like I said your all bollocks and no jizz.
No human beings get into rockets.
And yes I could imagine the G force, which is only one reason why no human or anything else goes in them.
Keep your rockets to Hollywood sauntering motion with a few pictures of the cramped actornought's inside some Earth container and it's all smiles for the world. No harm done. No one hurt. No expensive rockets wasted. All is well. Just a few tax dollars a piece for the population every time they pull this stuff out of the hat.
The only fool's are those who keep allowing themselves to be fooled by it.
Toodle-pip, nozzle-fetishist Newton-abusing topsy-turvy Losers!
About as real as this guy.This guy says you're WrongWait.... you think they would stick a human being in a rocket that takes of....well..... like a rocket? can you imagine the G loading?Sometimes you really do have to think for yourself. I can't babysit you for everything.
You really need to stop and think before posting such bollocks.
like I said your all bollocks and no jizz.
No human beings get into rockets.
And yes I could imagine the G force, which is only one reason why no human or anything else goes in them.
Keep your rockets to Hollywood sauntering motion with a few pictures of the cramped actornought's inside some Earth container and it's all smiles for the world. No harm done. No one hurt. No expensive rockets wasted. All is well. Just a few tax dollars a piece for the population every time they pull this stuff out of the hat.
The only fool's are those who keep allowing themselves to be fooled by it.
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTYhR7ge3YGv_2Pe6wAmd4gJOPk6QBXrDSGF4qDx51fc8lssiLW_Q)
Again.
BTW: In case you hadn't heard it before even jet engines in aircraft are reaction enginesLulz!
Let's take a gun. Let's fire it in space. Will you still get recoil? Yes you will.Already dealt with, dyslexia-face.
If you can't tell a journalists distorted ideas from fact, there's no hope. I seem to remember Robert Goddard just about fight with the editors of the New York Times about this very topic, yes Goddard won in the end. I don't take a great deal of notice of what's in the media, and evn what is presented to school-kids is not always 100% accurate!BTW: In case you hadn't heard it before even jet engines in aircraft are reaction enginesLulz! | Even schoolkids know more than you now: (http://i.imgur.com/8xBxYQG.jpg) |
Incorrect.Actually it is correct.
He is.
Papa Legba also doesn't understand the concept of one object containing another separate object.They think that the exhaust is part of the rocket
Well nothing else creates the damn thing, Hypnotoad!
I understand the concept of a strawman well enough though...You should. You use enough of them.
The powers that be are the one's that change the laws of nature. They do it so the average Joe doesn't know whether they're batting or bowling, they they tend to just accept the mass opinion generated through indoctrination.
Theboyscon-men at Mythbusters performed anexperimentfraud that provesrockets do indeed generate thrust in a vacuum.they are con-men.
LOL!!!Do you have any reply that doesn't boil down to you being an obnoxious jerk?
Do you have any reply that doesn't boil down to 'NO U!!!', sad old man?
LOL!!!Do you have any reply that doesn't boil down to you being an obnoxious jerk?
Do you have any reply that doesn't boil down to 'NO U!!!', sad old man?
In other words, no. Good to know.LOL!!!Do you have any reply that doesn't boil down to you being an obnoxious jerk?
Do you have any reply that doesn't boil down to 'NO U!!!', sad old man?
LOL!!!
You did it again!
You're like Pavlov's hypnALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD!!!
In other words, no. Good to know.LOL!!!Do you have any reply that doesn't boil down to you being an obnoxious jerk?
Do you have any reply that doesn't boil down to 'NO U!!!', sad old man?
LOL!!!
You did it again!
You're like Pavlov's hypnALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD!!!
To produce thrust the rocket is effectively an explosion acting on all sides of the internals of the chamber. Fuel and oxidizer are mixed and exploded in the combustion chamber and then accelerated through a highly tuned nozzle. The combustion chamber is actually subject to a continuous increase of pressure. You can say its like pushing someone in space. They move. But with a rocket instead of you pushing your friend (and your friends mass pushing back). You have the walls of the combustion chamber pushing back against the continuous explosion. Thus something is going to move, given it then gets accelerated out the nozzle the way its going to move is forwards...
Theboyscon-men at Mythbusters performed anexperimentfraud that provesrockets do indeed generate thrust in a vacuum.they are con-men.
Fixed.
But thanks for showing us all how gullible you are, as well as proving you haven't read the thread.
Is that the best you can do, really?Far from it; check this lot out:
Do you have any reply that doesn't boil down to you being an obnoxious jerk?
Far from it; check this lot out:
The combustion chamber of a rocket is open to the near-infinite vacuum of space.
Therefore, no gas can even be meaningfully said to exist within it, let alone combust.
Fake & bullshit experiments prove only fakery & bullshit.Anyone else ready this post in the tone of a crying little kid?
...
Funny how actual experiments demonstrate how you are wrong.
! No longer available (http://#)
! No longer available (http://#)
Anyone else ready this post in the tone of a crying little kid?
Anyone else ready this post in the tone of a crying little kid?
I've been wondering about that, scepti keeps referring back to his school days and bullying, I wouldn't be surprised if he was bullied at school, and maybe during his working life.
Could explain his weird socialization issues.... the elite keep changing the laws of nature, no wonder it's confusing...
Anyone else ready this post in the tone of a crying little kid?
I've been wondering about that, scepti keeps referring back to his school days and bullying, I wouldn't be surprised if he was bullied at school, and maybe during his working life.
Could explain his weird socialization issues.... the elite keep changing the laws of nature, no wonder it's confusing...
Actually, I think once maths got up to or just past long division he got quite lost. He may have heard of calculus but thinks that voodoo shit is just fake.
Except when the De Laval nozzle is in a choked condition, of course.Is that the best you can do, really?Far from it; check this lot out:
The combustion chamber of a rocket is open to the near-infinite vacuum of space.
Therefore, no gas can even be meaningfully said to exist within it, let alone combust.
Any gas introduced therein when the pressurised fuel tank leading to the combustion chamber is opened will simply expand freely into the enormous, zero-pressure vacuum, following the path of least resistance & doing no work whatsoever.Sorry, but free expansion does not say that the gas does no work. Free expansion says that the total work done is zero. Then again, you don't understand the conservation of momentum either so I'm not sure that I should expect you to understand the difference between no work and zero total work.
I'm not sure why I would need to do better since you have yet to show a single credible source that agrees with your assertion that free expansion applies to De Laval nozzles in a near infinite vacuum.Sorry, but free expansion does not say that the gas does no work. Free expansion says that the total work done is zero.Monster Fail.
Is that really the best you can do?
G'day
In other words, if it's your word against the word of the entire scientific community.If the 'scientific community' deny that Free Expansion clearly states a gas does no work in a vacuum then they are not very scientific, are they?
Now, here is a post by sceptimatic full of content that you all continue to ignore:Really, we've seen them before and seen comments like scepti's many times, what's the point of commenting over and over? But, if you insist I guess someone had better. Just in case scepti and papa feel neglected.
The reality is that your rocket goes vertical from the ground for a small amount of time and then it arcs. It arcs because it has no more power to go vertical. It then hits its point of full on energy then arcs back down into the drink..Of course it arcs over, you blithering idiot! Where do you think it's heading - straight for the moon, no into orbit, that's around the earth, is case you hadn't heard.
Your Earth rocket has enough power to ascend like a fire work, before being spent in short order.And I suppose you can know all this just by looking - pull the other one! Mind you NASA sure makes a better show of it than any I have seen from Hollywood"!
Now pay attention to real and fake rockets.Ah, ah - just by eyeing it off our wonderful Papa's eye can tell they need a "springboard" (I know, these are all scepti's ideas, but I thought you would like to bathe in the glory!)
The clue is in the maximum thrust that springboards the real rockets/missiles into the air, as opposed to the bicycle speed motion of the Hollywood special effect one's.
Real rockets. It matters not about size because all rockets have to springboard to gain immediate stability at full thrust.
you blithering idiot!
I got in first this time Papa
I hope you are keeping a list, because you say I'm so many different people I am getting confused. I sure hope you are keeping count! Maybe better tell me sometime.you blithering idiot!Thanks for letting us know that you're mainframes too.I got in first this time Papa
It's been a very productive night, clown derfers; I now have a much more accurate idea of who you all are & how you all work together.
Cheers for that!
Toodle-pip, Super-Losers!
Nobody cares, astroturfing shitpost meister.
Now, here is a post by sceptimatic full of content that you all ignored:
Cool story, blithering bro.I know these references are a bit of a trivial for someone of your scientific acumen, but I would trust them more than than your old kiddie stuff: Quote from: http://www.explainthatstuff.com/jetengine.html (http://www.explainthatstuff.com/jetengine.html) A jet engine is a machine for turning fuel into thrust (forward motion). The thrust is produced by action and reactiona piece of physics also known as Newton's third law of motion. The force (action) of the exhaust gases pushing backward produces an equal and opposite force (reaction) called thrust that powers the vehicle forward. Exactly the same principle pushes a skateboard forward when you kick backward with your foot. In a jet engine, it's the exhaust gas that provides the "kick". Let's have a look inside the engine... | (http://i.imgur.com/8xBxYQG.jpg) |
from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_engine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_engine)] A jet engine is a reaction engine discharging a fast moving jet that generates thrust by jet propulsion in accordance with Newton's laws of motion. This broad definition of jet engines includes turbojets, turbofans, rockets, ramjets, and pulse jets. In general, jet engines are combustion engines but non-combusting forms also exist.
In common parlance, the term jet engine loosely refers to an internal combustion airbreathing jet engine (a duct engine). These typically consist of an engine with a rotary (rotating) air compressor powered by a turbine ("Brayton cycle"), with the leftover power providing thrust via a propelling nozzle.
G'day
Only Australians use 'g'day' as a greeting...
LOL!!!
Hi Geoff!
Exactly the same principle pushes a skateboard forward when you kick backward with your foot. In a jet engine, it's the exhaust gas that provides the "kick"
Here's proof that readers of 1940's magazines knew more than you:Stop this idiocy. All you are proving is that journalists (and Papa Legba) often not quite accurate. How many jorrnalists would know about Newton's 3rd Law if they tripped over it. You explain every last detail to them, and they go write what they like, because it sounds more exciting, or easier for the "hoi polloi" to understand it. Popular science and mechanics are not immune from that problem.
'Reaction engines' - LMFAO!!!
nuzzle nuzzle nuzzle
Exactly the same principle pushes a skateboard forward when you kick backward with your foot. In a jet engine, it's the exhaust gas that provides the "kick"
LOL!!!
Kick against what?
Monster Fail.
Slow clap for Pippy Longstocking, can't actually say anything without breaking the forum rules and spamming threads, can't actually say anything that makes a lick of sense to anyone but your sycophants, nuzzling at your immature schoolgirl frolic through the forums.
Quote from: sceptimaticnuzzle nuzzle nuzzle
What was that sceptimatic I couldn't hear you properly while you're nuzzling at Appeal Bag's teats.
Exactly the same principle pushes a skateboard forward when you kick backward with your foot. In a jet engine, it's the exhaust gas that provides the "kick"
LOL!!!
Kick against what?
Monster Fail.
Your own inertia, you dumb f..k.
Slow clap for Pippy Longstocking, can't actually say anything without breaking the forum rules and spamming threads, can't actually say anything that makes a lick of sense to anyone but your sycophants, nuzzling at your immature schoolgirl frolic through the forums.So much butthurt...
Your own inertia, you dumb f..k.Exactly the same principle pushes a skateboard forward when you kick backward with your foot. In a jet engine, it's the exhaust gas that provides the "kick"
LOL!!!
Kick against what?
Monster Fail.
Ha ha ha lol!
You don't even understand the composition of matter and how gases behave. Muppet.
i have a degree and you clearly don't. I can feel the jealousy oozing from your every pore. Sorry little boy, go back to masturbating in your parents basement
Lol you are an idiot.
Oh look; the O.G. blithering blitherer mainframes is here, acting all innocent!How do satellites get into space?
Hi Walter Mitty!
Let's have a look at your reasoning powers again:Ha ha ha lol!
You don't even understand the composition of matter and how gases behave. Muppet.
i have a degree and you clearly don't. I can feel the jealousy oozing from your every pore. Sorry little boy, go back to masturbating in your parents basement
Oh, dear!
Well, good luck getting an answer out of scepti with that attitude...
Toodle-pip, Mr. Blither!Lol you are an idiot.
No; you are for believing that shit.
And also for not realising it is obvious you are sokarul.
What's the penalty for sock-puppeting again?
Toodle-pip, Mr. Fail!
^ not to mention how do we have have a rover on mars? And other craft on many other planets. How did we land on an asteroid?
You flat heads lol, pathetic ideas.
Flat Earthers only provide lies and misinformation.
Are you referring to the article below?Help, help, now I'm 20 people - ever thought you might be paranoid, probably not, the sufferer never knows.
If it's so wrong then why did you take the time to edit it out of your post?
You are such a lolcow, blithering blitherer; do you enjoy being 20 people?
Or does it send you mental?
(lol it's sent you mental!)
'Reaction engines' - LMFAO!!!
^ not to mention how do we have have a rover on mars? And other craft on many other planets. How did we land on an asteroid?
You flat heads lol, pathetic ideas.
I'm not a flat earther.
But you are sokarul.
For sure.
I can feel the seething hatred for science & barely-contained virgin-rage from here...
You know, you could fix all your problems by getting laid?
See how helpful Legba is?
Toodle-pip, Socky-boy!Flat Earthers only provide lies and misinformation.
I'm not a flat earther, slow-poke.
If you too dumb to even know that by now then why would anyone read the rest of your tl;dr sci-fi crap-fest?
Toodle-pip, Geoff!
Wow, so no force is acting on the rocket, so they don't even work in the atmosphere now. Lol.Correct. Nothing is directly acting on the rocket.The equal and opposite forces are the forces that exit the rocket and the resistance of the atmosphere.Ummm, an equal and opposite pair can only apply to a pair of objects. Your saying the two objects are the gas exiting the rocket and the atmosphere. Nothings acting on the rocket.
You're quite the evidence that getting laid is the cure for getting uptight, how is your ass by the way?
Sceptimatic...Wow... Are you really this dumb?I'v e seen docking videos of shuttles in the film "Armageddon." I've seen many more docking videos in films. Are they real?
I tell you what then. Let's take a gun. Let's fire it in space. Will you still get recoil? Yes you will.
A rocket will work in space. It is ejecting/accelerating matter out of the back. Which is passing through a highly tuned nozzle. So its effectively a steady beam of matter.
This is STS 134 launch. Its destination is the ISS. There are other videos of it docking. Also look at a docking video. You will be able to see the position adjusting jets.. And you can watch the reason why this works yourself.
Or wait is this NASA trickery????????
You're quite the evidence that getting laid is the cure for getting uptight, how is your ass by the way?
LOL!!!
Poor old Geoff doesn't even know how to do sex right!
Sceptimatic...Wow... Are you really this dumb?I'v e seen docking videos of shuttles in the film "Armageddon." I've seen many more docking videos in films. Are they real?
I tell you what then. Let's take a gun. Let's fire it in space. Will you still get recoil? Yes you will.
A rocket will work in space. It is ejecting/accelerating matter out of the back. Which is passing through a highly tuned nozzle. So its effectively a steady beam of matter.
This is STS 134 launch. Its destination is the ISS. There are other videos of it docking. Also look at a docking video. You will be able to see the position adjusting jets.. And you can watch the reason why this works yourself.
Or wait is this NASA trickery????????
Don't tell me, you're going to say, " yeah but people have seen real life space rocket launches" and all the rest of it.
Can't you see how easy it is to brainwash you?
Anyway, about your gun and recoil in your space vacuum.
No gun is going too work in a vacuum.
This is where someone will put a video up of a man showing a gun inside a rectangular perspex box, as though it's a space vacuum. Then he'll fire the gun.
Sometimes you just need to sit back and realise that those people you trust so dearly, can and do tell lies.
I hate to tell you this but your world is largely run by actors; mostly terrible actors.
Some of it is run by naivety of the parrots.
Very little of it is actually run on truthful science.
Lol what a psycho!
^ not to mention how do we have have a rover on mars? And other craft on many other planets. How did we land on an asteroid?The only rovers that have been and still are roving about, are roving about in remote areas on Earth. You can tell these are fake, they are the rovers that have crews all around them with video's and camera's, as well as a burger van that sells cold drinks and coffee, as well.
You flat heads lol, pathetic ideas.
Come on sweetie, you know how much it turns you on to play hard to get, just admit to everyone you're a woman and you like it from behind.
;D You stick to your star trek and comic book store. You're beyond help.Sceptimatic...Wow... Are you really this dumb?I'v e seen docking videos of shuttles in the film "Armageddon." I've seen many more docking videos in films. Are they real?
I tell you what then. Let's take a gun. Let's fire it in space. Will you still get recoil? Yes you will.
A rocket will work in space. It is ejecting/accelerating matter out of the back. Which is passing through a highly tuned nozzle. So its effectively a steady beam of matter.
This is STS 134 launch. Its destination is the ISS. There are other videos of it docking. Also look at a docking video. You will be able to see the position adjusting jets.. And you can watch the reason why this works yourself.
Or wait is this NASA trickery????????
Don't tell me, you're going to say, " yeah but people have seen real life space rocket launches" and all the rest of it.
Can't you see how easy it is to brainwash you?
Anyway, about your gun and recoil in your space vacuum.
No gun is going too work in a vacuum.
This is where someone will put a video up of a man showing a gun inside a rectangular perspex box, as though it's a space vacuum. Then he'll fire the gun.
Sometimes you just need to sit back and realise that those people you trust so dearly, can and do tell lies.
I hate to tell you this but your world is largely run by actors; mostly terrible actors.
Some of it is run by naivety of the parrots.
Very little of it is actually run on truthful science.
Ah you see, there's your problem, you have trouble telling fact from fiction, there should be some doctors in your local area that can help you with that.
As for gun recoil in a vacuum or in space, it does work, it even works if the gun fires blanks.
Come on sweetie, you know how much it turns you on to play hard to get, just admit to everyone you're a woman and you like it from behind.
Do you not realise how bad you're making your side look, Geoff?
Lol I hope not!
Anyhoo; should I read that PM you just sent me?
If you don't say something I'll just delete it, so speak up.
Come on sweetie, you know how much it turns you on to play hard to get, just admit to everyone you're a woman and you like it from behind.
Do you not realise how bad you're making your side look, Geoff?
Lol I hope not!
Read it, nothing bad
I know right, you always did say you preferred it straight on rather than on the side. You hope not, well I aim to fulfill your dreams babe.
Read it, nothing bad
Too bad...
Just deleted it without reading.
#SkepticMikelosesagain
Useful info here:How do they work? Link please.
'Reaction engines' - LMFAO!!!
'Reaction engines' - LMFAO!!!How do they work? Link please.
Wow, so no force is acting on the rocket, so they don't even work in the atmosphere now. Lol.Correct. Nothing is directly acting on the rocket.The equal and opposite forces are the forces that exit the rocket and the resistance of the atmosphere.Ummm, an equal and opposite pair can only apply to a pair of objects. Your saying the two objects are the gas exiting the rocket and the atmosphere. Nothings acting on the rocket.
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/114669/is-newtons-third-law-always-correct (http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/114669/is-newtons-third-law-always-correct)You're literally scraping the barrel. What's the matter with you?
Sometimes you just need to sit back and realise that those people you trust so dearly, can and do tell lies.
I hate to tell you this but your world is largely run by actors; mostly terrible actors.
Some of it is run by naivety of the parrots.
Very little of it is actually run on truthful science.
Not easy all of the time. You have to be a detective. You have to sort the wheat from the chaff. You have to look at body language and speech sounds for starters.Sometimes you just need to sit back and realise that those people you trust so dearly, can and do tell lies.
I hate to tell you this but your world is largely run by actors; mostly terrible actors.
Some of it is run by naivety of the parrots.
Very little of it is actually run on truthful science.
Interesting observation, how do you tell the truth from the lies?
Not easy all of the time. You have to be a detective. You have to sort the wheat from the chaff. You have to look at body language and speech sounds for starters.Sometimes you just need to sit back and realise that those people you trust so dearly, can and do tell lies.
I hate to tell you this but your world is largely run by actors; mostly terrible actors.
Some of it is run by naivety of the parrots.
Very little of it is actually run on truthful science.
Interesting observation, how do you tell the truth from the lies?
Then it's all about using logic to see blatant fantasy, such as space rockets and all that kind of stuff.
You look at the so called brilliant minds and wonder how brilliant they really are at reality or even if they're brilliant at all.
Arthur C Clarke: A fantasy merchant sci-fi film maker. Thinks up a fantasy satellite way before any existed and bang, satellites are passed as reality.
Stephen Hawking: The universe is made from, nothing. This genius with Lou gehrig's disease since aged, with this disease killing most people within 5 years, manages to stay alive to this day aged 74 years old.
Make your own mind up about that.
Basically search your brain for the filing cabinet titled, COMMON SENSE. Find this and you will realise how deep the bullshit goes.
What evidence are you talking about.Not easy all of the time. You have to be a detective. You have to sort the wheat from the chaff. You have to look at body language and speech sounds for starters.Sometimes you just need to sit back and realise that those people you trust so dearly, can and do tell lies.
I hate to tell you this but your world is largely run by actors; mostly terrible actors.
Some of it is run by naivety of the parrots.
Very little of it is actually run on truthful science.
Interesting observation, how do you tell the truth from the lies?
Then it's all about using logic to see blatant fantasy, such as space rockets and all that kind of stuff.
You look at the so called brilliant minds and wonder how brilliant they really are at reality or even if they're brilliant at all.
Arthur C Clarke: A fantasy merchant sci-fi film maker. Thinks up a fantasy satellite way before any existed and bang, satellites are passed as reality.
Stephen Hawking: The universe is made from, nothing. This genius with Lou gehrig's disease since aged, with this disease killing most people within 5 years, manages to stay alive to this day aged 74 years old.
Make your own mind up about that.
Basically search your brain for the filing cabinet titled, COMMON SENSE. Find this and you will realise how deep the bullshit goes.
I was hoping you would say "look at the evidence".
But you are working on questions of trust and think people are deliberately lying. That's a socialization issue.
How do you rationalize ignoring the evidence?
What evidence are you talking about.
I'll give you a start.
You're watching the news. the news states that a space rocket lifted off and a nuke was tested in another country.
A particle has been found that shows how the universe started.
A meteor is heading towards Earth and looks like it might strike us within 75 years.
I could go on and on but the issue it this: Tell me what evidence there is in all of that?
It's called source criticism. Are the news reliable? Do they refer to a source, or do they only provide the news? Have they been wrong before? Can you find details of their source, and can you get information directly from the source? A lot of people does this, especially rivaling news providers. If it was exposed that a news provider provided false information they would loose a lot of credit and reputation. Sadly, sometimes multiple big news providers all make roughly the same mistake, which sadly means that their faults are less likely to be exposed and corrected. But if you put some effort into it you could check the credibility of all the big news providers yourself.What evidence are you talking about.Not easy all of the time. You have to be a detective. You have to sort the wheat from the chaff. You have to look at body language and speech sounds for starters.Sometimes you just need to sit back and realise that those people you trust so dearly, can and do tell lies.
I hate to tell you this but your world is largely run by actors; mostly terrible actors.
Some of it is run by naivety of the parrots.
Very little of it is actually run on truthful science.
Interesting observation, how do you tell the truth from the lies?
Then it's all about using logic to see blatant fantasy, such as space rockets and all that kind of stuff.
You look at the so called brilliant minds and wonder how brilliant they really are at reality or even if they're brilliant at all.
Arthur C Clarke: A fantasy merchant sci-fi film maker. Thinks up a fantasy satellite way before any existed and bang, satellites are passed as reality.
Stephen Hawking: The universe is made from, nothing. This genius with Lou gehrig's disease since aged, with this disease killing most people within 5 years, manages to stay alive to this day aged 74 years old.
Make your own mind up about that.
Basically search your brain for the filing cabinet titled, COMMON SENSE. Find this and you will realise how deep the bullshit goes.
I was hoping you would say "look at the evidence".
But you are working on questions of trust and think people are deliberately lying. That's a socialization issue.
How do you rationalize ignoring the evidence?
I'll give you a start.
You're watching the news. the news states that a space rocket lifted off and a nuke was tested in another country.
A particle has been found that shows how the universe started.
A meteor is heading towards Earth and looks like it might strike us within 75 years.
I could go on and on but the issue it this: Tell me what evidence there is in all of that?
I was thinking more about evidence you can see with your own eyes. Like proving combustion is a chemical reaction, not related to friction.Have you ever created a fire by using wood and a rock by using friction, pressure and frequency of that friction and pressure?
Like different sized rocks falling at the same acceleration.Same acceleration from where? waist height?... head height? You see it determines what and how you want to interpret this rock falling.
I don't believe most news reports either, they nearly always spin a story to suit the agenda. You always need the bullshit detector running at maximum sensitivity.Yep and a lot more besides. The simply issue is, either question it all or just let it float above your head and get on with life but know that the potential to dupe us is always there on any scale.
Whenever I have had first hand knowledge of something reported in the press, it's amazing how they get things wrong, sometimes just details are wrong, sometimes the whole story is wrong.
As far as things like shuttle launches, if you've seen one for yourself, you'd think different.Have you see one live, not on TV but actually live and close up?
It's called source criticism. Are the news reliable? Do they refer to a source, or do they only provide the news? Have they been wrong before? Can you find details of their source, and can you get information directly from the source? A lot of people does this, especially rivaling news providers. If it was exposed that a news provider provided false information they would loose a lot of credit and reputation. Sadly, sometimes multiple big news providers all make roughly the same mistake, which sadly means that their faults are less likely to be exposed and corrected. But if you put some effort into it you could check the credibility of all the big news providers yourself.The newspapers are just the parrots for the powers that be. They just print what they're told. Just like news readers reading a script. Most news READERS are most probably reading what they believe is the truth.
Counter example to friction, cesium will react when just added to water.It's all still friction by expansion and compression of matter/molecules.
Which powers are you talking about? The government? The more lies a news provider exposes, the more prestige they get, so wouldn't it be more worthwhile to do thorough investigations and expose lies than just believe everything? And what "paid dis-informants posing as news readers" are you talking about? Do they have power? How can a news READER spread more disinformation and need more observation than a news PROVIDER? And what about those two people? Your post lacks consistency and information.It's called source criticism. Are the news reliable? Do they refer to a source, or do they only provide the news? Have they been wrong before? Can you find details of their source, and can you get information directly from the source? A lot of people does this, especially rivaling news providers. If it was exposed that a news provider provided false information they would loose a lot of credit and reputation. Sadly, sometimes multiple big news providers all make roughly the same mistake, which sadly means that their faults are less likely to be exposed and corrected. But if you put some effort into it you could check the credibility of all the big news providers yourself.The newspapers are just the parrots for the powers that be. They just print what they're told. Just like news readers reading a script. Most news READERS are most probably reading what they believe is the truth.
The paid dis-informants posing as news readers are the one's that require observation.
Whenever there's an agenda you can bet that only certain so called news reporters are employed to carry it off.
Anderson Cooper, Diane Sawyer to name two. All just less than convincing actors/actresses.
As far as things like shuttle launches, if you've seen one for yourself, you'd think different.Have you see one live, not on TV but actually live and close up?
Tell me all about it as I'd like to grill you on this.
The combustion chamber of a rocket is open to the near-infinite vacuum of space.What about liquids? Can liquids "be meaningfully said to exist within it"? What about hypergolic liquids? Can they combust within a vacuum?
Therefore, no gas can even be meaningfully said to exist within it, let alone combust.
Any gas introduced therein when the pressurised fuel tank leading to the combustion chamber is opened will simply expand freely into the enormous, zero-pressure vacuum, following the path of least resistance & doing no work whatsoever.Did you know that most rockets that operate in a vacuum use liquid propellants, not gas propellants?
Then there's the fact that you are all trying desperately to confine this 'debate' to the wrong branch of physics, i.e. Solid Mechanics rather than Fluid Mechanics...Yes, especially when you are the one ignoring mass flow (a fundamental principle of fluid dynamics).
Kinda dishonest of you, dontcha think?
Here's a combustion chamber to laugh at too:As engy pointed out, that combustion chamber goes to a Vulcain (http://www.space-propulsion.com/launcher-propulsion/rocket-engines/vulcain-rocket-engine.html) rocket engine which is a designed to work in the atmosphere.
(http://www.space-propulsion.com/launcher-propulsion/rocket-engines/images/vulcain-thrust-chamber-assembly.jpg#moved)
Ooh - vacuum-proof!
I already did, in your rusty fuel tank thread.I'd like you to explain it all for me if you will. How close you were and what camera/telescope you used and what the weather was like, plus showing me some of the fantastic clear photo's or video of the launch that you and your family took.
Getting back to combustion.That's a good word, FIZZ. ask yourself why things FIZZ.
Light a candle, now take a glass, put vinegar and baking soda in the glass, it will fizz up producing carbon dioxide, some will stay in the glass because it's heavier than air.
Now carefully take the glass over to the burning candle, and pour the carbon dioxide gas onto the flame. The candle will immediately go out, because you have removed the oxygen.
Ok, same candle, new glass, light the candle and now put the glass upside down over the flame, the flame will consume the oxygen and the flame goes out.No, the flame doesn't consume the oxygen, it simply cannot expand anymore hydrogen fuel from the fuel source (candle) into the glass because it has nowhere to expand into other than the glass, so it loses it's ability to carry on the friction/agitation of matter.
Where is friction involved in any of this?A reaction can be called anything. Chemical or abrasive or whatever. The reality to all of it is simply called friction.
Ha, would you believe someone made a YT video
(http://)
We already have an understanding of chemistry and it's not what you claim.Putting pills into bottles or mixing concentrated fruits to water is not understanding a lot.
Who puts pills into bottles?We already have an understanding of chemistry and it's not what you claim.Putting pills into bottles or mixing concentrated fruits to water is not understanding a lot.
Which powers are you talking about? The government? The more lies a news provider exposes, the more prestige they get, so wouldn't it be more worthwhile to do thorough investigations and expose lies than just believe everything? And what "paid dis-informants posing as news readers" are you talking about? Do they have power? How can a news READER spread more disinformation and need more observation than a news PROVIDER? And what about those two people? Your post lacks consistency and information.I'll leave you to figure it out. If you can't or won't, then just forget about it. It's not really worth explaining if you can't or won't grasp what's written.
No it's not, cesium only has one electron in its outer shell, it's th electron moving to a lower energy state, by moving to a oxygen atom, that releases energy.Counter example to friction, cesium will react when just added to water.It's all still friction by expansion and compression of matter/molecules.
Can you show me this electron moving into the oxygen atom please.No it's not, cesium only has one electron in its outer shell, it's th electron moving to a lower energy state, by moving to a oxygen atom, that releases energy.Counter example to friction, cesium will react when just added to water.It's all still friction by expansion and compression of matter/molecules.
So all of chemistry is now a conspiracy.I've never mentioned a conspiracy. I asked you a simple question.
What about liquids? Can liquids "be meaningfully said to exist within it"? What about hypergolic liquids? Can they combust within a vacuum?You seem confused.
Did you know that most rockets that operate in a vacuum use liquid propellants, not gas propellants?Yes.
As engy pointed out, that combustion chamber goes to a Vulcain (http://www.space-propulsion.com/launcher-propulsion/rocket-engines/vulcain-rocket-engine.html) rocket engine which is a designed to work in the atmosphere.LOL!!!
Free Expansion of gas in a vacuum is a scientific Fact.No it's not.
No because electrons are very small.So how do you know that what you're saying is true?
This deserves framing; the moment the clown derfers went full shpayze-retard.QuoteFree Expansion of gas in a vacuum is a scientific Fact.No it's not.
Can you answer some simple questions without being a condescending prick?What about liquids? Can liquids "be meaningfully said to exist within it"? What about hypergolic liquids? Can they combust within a vacuum?You seem confused.
Do you know where you are right now?
Is there someone we can call to come fetch you?
Good. Now, can liquids exist in a vacuum? Can hypergolic liquids combust in a vacuum?Did you know that most rockets that operate in a vacuum use liquid propellants, not gas propellants?Yes.
No, he pointed out that it was a first stage engine designed to work in the atmosphere and the second stage engine that is designed to work in a vacuum is hypergolic.As engy pointed out, that combustion chamber goes to a Vulcain (http://www.space-propulsion.com/launcher-propulsion/rocket-engines/vulcain-rocket-engine.html) rocket engine which is a designed to work in the atmosphere.LOL!!!
Your pal 'Engy' only 'pointed that out' after he'd made a fool of himself by describing it as Hypergolic.
What's worse, as YOU posted the photo of that combustion chamber in the first place (after I'd repeatedly asked for the combustion chamber of a SPACE-rocket like the J2), it would appear that that YOU were trying to deliberately deceive us, would it not?Again, no. Hewia first posted that picture.
Free Expansion of gas in a vacuum is a scientific Fact.Yes, but you keep ignoring the fact that free expansion only applies in a closed system, which a De Laval nozzle in a vacuum is not.
Use a battery.No because electrons are very small.So how do you know that what you're saying is true?
I already did, in your rusty fuel tank thread.I'd like you to explain it all for me if you will. How close you were and what camera/telescope you used and what the weather was like, plus showing me some of the fantastic clear photo's or video of the launch that you and your family took.
If you don't feel like it, it's ok.Getting back to combustion.That's a good word, FIZZ. ask yourself why things FIZZ.
Light a candle, now take a glass, put vinegar and baking soda in the glass, it will fizz up producing carbon dioxide, some will stay in the glass because it's heavier than air.
Now carefully take the glass over to the burning candle, and pour the carbon dioxide gas onto the flame. The candle will immediately go out, because you have removed the oxygen.
The fizz is expanding the matter and releasing the lighter elements, leaving the much denser elements to be pushed to the floor meaning they engulf the burning candle flame that is already burning the expanded hydrogen fuel due to immense friction for it's flame size. The denser molecules over it that are pushed down, are separating the expanded fuel from friction, meaning it can't continue to agitate enough to create enough friction to keep the candle alight.Ok, same candle, new glass, light the candle and now put the glass upside down over the flame, the flame will consume the oxygen and the flame goes out.No, the flame doesn't consume the oxygen, it simply cannot expand anymore hydrogen fuel from the fuel source (candle) into the glass because it has nowhere to expand into other than the glass, so it loses it's ability to carry on the friction/agitation of matter.
Having the lit candle in atmosphere (without the glass) allows the hydrogen fuel to be extracted from the candle and wick which you see as a flame of hydrogen expansion against the push back of a dense atmosphere.
As long as there's dense material under friction against that, it will continue to produce the flame by simply conversion of matter into it's elements and release them.
You never consume anything. It all simply takes it's place in the layers of atmosphere that they are expanded into.Where is friction involved in any of this?A reaction can be called anything. Chemical or abrasive or whatever. The reality to all of it is simply called friction.
Ha, would you believe someone made a YT video
(http://)
Can you answer some simple questions without being a condescending prick?
Now, can liquids exist in a vacuum? Can hypergolic liquids combust in a vacuum?
No, he pointed out that it was a first stage engine designed to work in the atmosphere
Again, no. Hewia first posted that picture.
Yes, but you keep ignoring the fact that free expansion only applies in a closed system
Pseudo scienceStill wrong.
More pseudo science
For variety, pseudo science.
How does a battery work ? Let me see what you got without looking it up and then I'll tell you how a battery really works. It's simple and fascinating to think what really happens.Use a battery.No because electrons are very small.So how do you know that what you're saying is true?
Now, what evidence can you provide to show us you are correct.
Your explanation of fire, is interesting. What if there was a better explanation, that explained more things and was more general in it's scope, would you accept a better theory of fire.I'm open to all thoughts on anything really, as long as they're not the mainstream one's that I fully reject or am severely dubious of.
I know what is written. I am asking for information which is NOT written in there. What you have written is inconsistent and requires additional writing to hold any meaningful information.Which powers are you talking about? The government? The more lies a news provider exposes, the more prestige they get, so wouldn't it be more worthwhile to do thorough investigations and expose lies than just believe everything? And what "paid dis-informants posing as news readers" are you talking about? Do they have power? How can a news READER spread more disinformation and need more observation than a news PROVIDER? And what about those two people? Your post lacks consistency and information.I'll leave you to figure it out. If you can't or won't, then just forget about it. It's not really worth explaining if you can't or won't grasp what's written.
Your explanation of fire, is interesting. What if there was a better explanation, that explained more things and was more general in it's scope, would you accept a better theory of fire.I'm open to all thoughts on anything really, as long as they're not the mainstream one's that I fully reject or am severely dubious of.
How is it much simpler?Your explanation of fire, is interesting. What if there was a better explanation, that explained more things and was more general in it's scope, would you accept a better theory of fire.I'm open to all thoughts on anything really, as long as they're not the mainstream one's that I fully reject or am severely dubious of.
Why reject the "mainstream" if it's a better explanation, and much simpler.
An electron flow from cathode to anode.How does a battery work ? Let me see what you got without looking it up and then I'll tell you how a battery really works. It's simple and fascinating to think what really happens.Use a battery.No because electrons are very small.So how do you know that what you're saying is true?
Now, what evidence can you provide to show us you are correct.
How is it much simpler?Your explanation of fire, is interesting. What if there was a better explanation, that explained more things and was more general in it's scope, would you accept a better theory of fire.I'm open to all thoughts on anything really, as long as they're not the mainstream one's that I fully reject or am severely dubious of.
Why reject the "mainstream" if it's a better explanation, and much simpler.
You're going to have to explain it in your own words. You're explaining nothing here. Show me an electron and then explain how and what the power is that comes from the positive to the appliance, let's say a bulb and then back to the negative.An electron flow from cathode to anode.How does a battery work ? Let me see what you got without looking it up and then I'll tell you how a battery really works. It's simple and fascinating to think what really happens.Use a battery.No because electrons are very small.So how do you know that what you're saying is true?
Now, what evidence can you provide to show us you are correct.
What are you trying to tell me?How is it much simpler?Your explanation of fire, is interesting. What if there was a better explanation, that explained more things and was more general in it's scope, would you accept a better theory of fire.I'm open to all thoughts on anything really, as long as they're not the mainstream one's that I fully reject or am severely dubious of.
Why reject the "mainstream" if it's a better explanation, and much simpler.
What could be simpler than carbon plus oxygen produces carbon dioxide.
When carbon burns ( things like wood, paper, wax, petrol, oil ) it reacts with oxygen to produce carbon dioxide. This is called combustion.What are you trying to tell me?How is it much simpler?Your explanation of fire, is interesting. What if there was a better explanation, that explained more things and was more general in it's scope, would you accept a better theory of fire.I'm open to all thoughts on anything really, as long as they're not the mainstream one's that I fully reject or am severely dubious of.
Why reject the "mainstream" if it's a better explanation, and much simpler.
What could be simpler than carbon plus oxygen produces carbon dioxide.
Carbon produces carbon dioxide by what means.
Explain what's happening for this to happen.
It's something to do with acids reacting with metals to cause one metal to have positive ions, and the other to have negative ones, so the electrons will flow from one metal to the other. The energy comes from chemical energy.You're going to have to explain it in your own words. You're explaining nothing here. Show me an electron and then explain how and what the power is that comes from the positive to the appliance, let's say a bulb and then back to the negative.An electron flow from cathode to anode.How does a battery work ? Let me see what you got without looking it up and then I'll tell you how a battery really works. It's simple and fascinating to think what really happens.Use a battery.No because electrons are very small.So how do you know that what you're saying is true?
Now, what evidence can you provide to show us you are correct.
Tell me what's happening .
If you want to pay me I can teach you chemistry. Until then, we are still waiting for your evidence.You're going to have to explain it in your own words. You're explaining nothing here. Show me an electron and then explain how and what the power is that comes from the positive to the appliance, let's say a bulb and then back to the negative.An electron flow from cathode to anode.How does a battery work ? Let me see what you got without looking it up and then I'll tell you how a battery really works. It's simple and fascinating to think what really happens.Use a battery.No because electrons are very small.So how do you know that what you're saying is true?
Now, what evidence can you provide to show us you are correct.
Tell me what's happening .
All created by friction due to vibration by expansion and compression of matter. It's as simple as that.When carbon burns ( things like wood, paper, wax, petrol, oil ) it reacts with oxygen to produce carbon dioxide. This is called combustion.What are you trying to tell me?How is it much simpler?Your explanation of fire, is interesting. What if there was a better explanation, that explained more things and was more general in it's scope, would you accept a better theory of fire.I'm open to all thoughts on anything really, as long as they're not the mainstream one's that I fully reject or am severely dubious of.
Why reject the "mainstream" if it's a better explanation, and much simpler.
What could be simpler than carbon plus oxygen produces carbon dioxide.
Carbon produces carbon dioxide by what means.
Explain what's happening for this to happen.
The same chemical reaction happens in your body, the carbon in sugars and fats reacts with the oxygen carried by the blood stream to produce carbon dioxide, which you breathe out.
I've just explained that friction is the reason for it all.It's something to do with acids reacting with metals to cause one metal to have positive ions, and the other to have negative ones, so the electrons will flow from one metal to the other. The energy comes from chemical energy.You're going to have to explain it in your own words. You're explaining nothing here. Show me an electron and then explain how and what the power is that comes from the positive to the appliance, let's say a bulb and then back to the negative.An electron flow from cathode to anode.How does a battery work ? Let me see what you got without looking it up and then I'll tell you how a battery really works. It's simple and fascinating to think what really happens.Use a battery.No because electrons are very small.So how do you know that what you're saying is true?
Now, what evidence can you provide to show us you are correct.
Tell me what's happening .
What's your explanation? I'm looking forward to the comedie.
I can make my own fruit juice drinks by adding water. I could easily transfer pills to a bottle. I don't need your help. I'm sure you're a good help to your pharmacist but you're never going to be able to help me. You're just not in my league. I deal in the simplicity of the science world, instead of filling blackboards up with meaningless crap.If you want to pay me I can teach you chemistry. Until then, we are still waiting for your evidence.You're going to have to explain it in your own words. You're explaining nothing here. Show me an electron and then explain how and what the power is that comes from the positive to the appliance, let's say a bulb and then back to the negative.An electron flow from cathode to anode.How does a battery work ? Let me see what you got without looking it up and then I'll tell you how a battery really works. It's simple and fascinating to think what really happens.Use a battery.No because electrons are very small.So how do you know that what you're saying is true?
Now, what evidence can you provide to show us you are correct.
Tell me what's happening .
Delusion at it's greatest.I can make my own fruit juice drinks by adding water. I could easily transfer pills to a bottle. I don't need your help. I'm sure you're a good help to your pharmacist but you're never going to be able to help me. You're just not in my league. I deal in the simplicity of the science world, instead of filling blackboards up with meaningless crap.If you want to pay me I can teach you chemistry. Until then, we are still waiting for your evidence.You're going to have to explain it in your own words. You're explaining nothing here. Show me an electron and then explain how and what the power is that comes from the positive to the appliance, let's say a bulb and then back to the negative.An electron flow from cathode to anode.How does a battery work ? Let me see what you got without looking it up and then I'll tell you how a battery really works. It's simple and fascinating to think what really happens.Use a battery.No because electrons are very small.So how do you know that what you're saying is true?
Now, what evidence can you provide to show us you are correct.
Tell me what's happening .
One day when you're old enough to graduate from making coffee for your pharmacist and are allowed to decipher prescription notes, then show the ability to actually understand things; then I'll take you a bit more serious and may take a chance on helping you out on the very basics of life to start with. Ease you in a little.
That's about the best I can offer you. Take it or leave it but be nice about it.
Friction of what.It's best that you just sit and do some crayoning. You keep coming in to say the very same stuff all the time.
And btw, you are completely wrong about EVERYTHING.
You think your smart, lol.I'm known as a genius.
When did I turn into a pharmacist assistant? I'm a bench chemist for a mining research company.I can make my own fruit juice drinks by adding water. I could easily transfer pills to a bottle. I don't need your help. I'm sure you're a good help to your pharmacist but you're never going to be able to help me. You're just not in my league. I deal in the simplicity of the science world, instead of filling blackboards up with meaningless crap.If you want to pay me I can teach you chemistry. Until then, we are still waiting for your evidence.You're going to have to explain it in your own words. You're explaining nothing here. Show me an electron and then explain how and what the power is that comes from the positive to the appliance, let's say a bulb and then back to the negative.An electron flow from cathode to anode.How does a battery work ? Let me see what you got without looking it up and then I'll tell you how a battery really works. It's simple and fascinating to think what really happens.Use a battery.No because electrons are very small.So how do you know that what you're saying is true?
Now, what evidence can you provide to show us you are correct.
Tell me what's happening .
One day when you're old enough to graduate from making coffee for your pharmacist and are allowed to decipher prescription notes, then show the ability to actually understand things; then I'll take you a bit more serious and may take a chance on helping you out on the very basics of life to start with. Ease you in a little.
That's about the best I can offer you. Take it or leave it but be nice about it.
I'm sure they'll bring you on at some stage if you keep up the training and doing as your told.When did I turn into a pharmacist assistant? I'm a bench chemist for a mining research company.I can make my own fruit juice drinks by adding water. I could easily transfer pills to a bottle. I don't need your help. I'm sure you're a good help to your pharmacist but you're never going to be able to help me. You're just not in my league. I deal in the simplicity of the science world, instead of filling blackboards up with meaningless crap.If you want to pay me I can teach you chemistry. Until then, we are still waiting for your evidence.You're going to have to explain it in your own words. You're explaining nothing here. Show me an electron and then explain how and what the power is that comes from the positive to the appliance, let's say a bulb and then back to the negative.An electron flow from cathode to anode.How does a battery work ? Let me see what you got without looking it up and then I'll tell you how a battery really works. It's simple and fascinating to think what really happens.Use a battery.No because electrons are very small.So how do you know that what you're saying is true?
Now, what evidence can you provide to show us you are correct.
Tell me what's happening .
One day when you're old enough to graduate from making coffee for your pharmacist and are allowed to decipher prescription notes, then show the ability to actually understand things; then I'll take you a bit more serious and may take a chance on helping you out on the very basics of life to start with. Ease you in a little.
That's about the best I can offer you. Take it or leave it but be nice about it.
I use chemistry every day. None of it would work if what you said was true.
expansion and compression of matter.
Delusion at it's greatest.
And btw, you are completely wrong about EVERYTHING.
You think your smart, lol.
QuoteFree Expansion of gas in a vacuum is a scientific Fact.No it's not.
Absolutely.expansion and compression of matter.
just to be clear, do u think that molecules and atoms themselves expand and compress?
Absolutely.expansion and compression of matter.
just to be clear, do u think that molecules and atoms themselves expand and compress?
He thinks something measured in the nanometer range can expand to meters.No, that's your own thought process. You decide to make up my answers because I generally bypass a lot of your child like shenanigans, like the old, " I'm undefeated global kid" and such like.
so explain expanding atoms... is the core that expands or the orbits of the electrons? how much it would expand?We need to do this slowly. Let's see if you have any rational thought and logic.
first of all which are the limits?In their natural state they would be but they're never in their natural state. Think washing up bubbles.
how far can a molecule be compressed or expanded?
no matter what molecule are we talking about they are all spherical?
Except atoms are mainly empty space. Look up Rutherford gold foil experimentPositive and negative are simply expansion and contraction in many different states of density.
And how are the positive and negative charges distributed in your model of the atom.
Except atoms are mainly empty space. Look up Rutherford gold foil experimentPositive and negative are simply expansion and contraction in many different states of density.
And how are the positive and negative charges distributed in your model of the atom.
When you wake up to the realisation of things,, you might just get to grips with why everything is friction. No friction and you get nothing. We become nothing. Earth becomes nothing. We cease to exist as energy in any form.Except atoms are mainly empty space. Look up Rutherford gold foil experimentPositive and negative are simply expansion and contraction in many different states of density.
And how are the positive and negative charges distributed in your model of the atom.
Oh my fucking life this is going strait on youtube! I haven't laughed so damn hard in ages. Friction is Everything man :P
I'm talking about the electric charges. I'm guess you didn't research the experiment I mentioned. Heard of alpha particles. You can easily show they have a positive charge by moving them through an magnetic field, their interactions with atoms show they also have positive charges within them, and the net charge of an atom is neutral.Except atoms are mainly empty space. Look up Rutherford gold foil experimentPositive and negative are simply expansion and contraction in many different states of density.
And how are the positive and negative charges distributed in your model of the atom.
Any evidence yet?When you wake up to the realisation of things,, you might just get to grips with why everything is friction. No friction and you get nothing. We become nothing. Earth becomes nothing. We cease to exist as energy in any form.Except atoms are mainly empty space. Look up Rutherford gold foil experimentPositive and negative are simply expansion and contraction in many different states of density.
And how are the positive and negative charges distributed in your model of the atom.
Oh my fucking life this is going strait on youtube! I haven't laughed so damn hard in ages. Friction is Everything man :P
Grasp this and you might start to grasp a lot more. Especially things like, rocket's not working in your supposed space.
This deserves framing; the moment the clown derfers went full shpayze-retard.QuoteFree Expansion of gas in a vacuum is a scientific Fact.No it's not.
And another.I know it's pointless, FEers don't understand big words.
Also, your still completely wrong.
It's a grammar error, not a spelling error. Like when you capitalize random words. Nice try though.Also, your still completely wrong.
And you can't spell 'you're'.
Just like sokarul can't...
What a coincidence!
Funny how actual experiments demonstrate how you are wrong.
! No longer available (http://#)
! No longer available (http://#)
What gains momentum to counter the plane's?
I would say it's air, but you said gases can't gain mometum.What gains momentum to counter the plane's?
YOU TELL ME!
I would say it's airWhat gains momentum to counter the plane's?
YOU TELL ME!
If it isn't air, what is it.I would say it's airWhat gains momentum to counter the plane's?
YOU TELL ME!
LOL!!!
If it isn't air, what is it.I would say it's airWhat gains momentum to counter the plane's?
YOU TELL ME!
LOL!!!
Object B is the exhaust.
If it isn't air, what is it.I would say it's airWhat gains momentum to counter the plane's?
YOU TELL ME!
LOL!!!
No - you are right.
It is the air.
A jet pushes on the air in order to move.Object B is the exhaust.
Too late, retard!
LMFAO - at YOU!!!
you know that you just deleted 10 of your posts
It is still true, but stick to your fantasies
I'm not Markjo.
What a suprise, no answer.If it isn't air, what is it.I would say it's airWhat gains momentum to counter the plane's?
YOU TELL ME!
LOL!!!
I can make my own fruit juice drinks by adding water. I could easily transfer pills to a bottle. I don't need your help. I'm sure you're a good help to your pharmacist but you're never going to be able to help me. You're just not in my league. I deal in the simplicity of the science world, instead of filling blackboards up with meaningless crap.
One day when you're old enough to graduate from making coffee for your pharmacist and are allowed to decipher prescription notes, then show the ability to actually understand things; then I'll take you a bit more serious and may take a chance on helping you out on the very basics of life to start with. Ease you in a little.
That's about the best I can offer you. Take it or leave it but be nice about it.
This deserves framing; the moment the clown derfers went full shpayze-retard.QuoteFree Expansion of gas in a vacuum is a scientific Fact.No it's not.
What's worse, as YOU posted the photo of that combustion chamber in the first place (after I'd repeatedly asked for the combustion chamber of a SPACE-rocket like the J2), it would appear that that YOU were trying to deliberately deceive us, would it not?Again, no. Hewia first posted that picture.
Tell you what, why don't you SHOW us exactly what these magical shpayze-rokkit Combustion Chambers you are all so obsessed with look like, then we can all have a good guess?What's wrong, is your Google broken?
(http://www.space-propulsion.com/launcher-propulsion/rocket-engines/images/vulcain-thrust-chamber-assembly.jpg#moved)
So the air can gain momentum, which means rockets work.If it isn't air, what is it.I would say it's airWhat gains momentum to counter the plane's?
YOU TELL ME!
LOL!!!
No - you are right.
It is the air.
So the air can gain momentum, which means rockets work.If it isn't air, what is it.I would say it's airWhat gains momentum to counter the plane's?
YOU TELL ME!
LOL!!!
No - you are right.
It is the air.
So the air can gain momentum, which means rockets work.If it isn't air, what is it.I would say it's airWhat gains momentum to counter the plane's?
YOU TELL ME!
LOL!!!
No - you are right.
It is the air.
By pushing off the air, yes?
Here's a reminder:
(http://i.imgur.com/8xBxYQG.jpg)
I believe its not well written.
Nah, I'm not confusing the two names. Sokarul serves behind the counter for a pharmacist and sometimes gets asked to help putting pills into pill bottles.I can make my own fruit juice drinks by adding water. I could easily transfer pills to a bottle. I don't need your help. I'm sure you're a good help to your pharmacist but you're never going to be able to help me. You're just not in my league. I deal in the simplicity of the science world, instead of filling blackboards up with meaningless crap.
One day when you're old enough to graduate from making coffee for your pharmacist and are allowed to decipher prescription notes, then show the ability to actually understand things; then I'll take you a bit more serious and may take a chance on helping you out on the very basics of life to start with. Ease you in a little.
That's about the best I can offer you. Take it or leave it but be nice about it.
This twist in the dialogue had me confused, until I realized that you are confusing the "CHEMIST" in the high street who sells pills and medicines with the branch of science called CHEMISTRY.
They aren't the same, in spite of the similarity of the names.
What grade did you reach in school?
You are easily confused. You sometimes forget which name you're posting under. ;D
I know right, you always did say you preferred it straight on rather than on the side. You hope not, well I aim to fulfill your dreams babe.
Come on love, we can admit it to the rest of the group, it was me and you all night long, my only regret is that I only had 8 inch and no more to give you....my love.
Come on sweetie, you know how much it turns you on to play hard to get, just admit to everyone you're a woman and you like it from behind.
Slow clap for Pippy Longstocking, can't actually say anything without breaking the forum rules and spamming threads, can't actually say anything that makes a lick of sense to anyone but your sycophants, nuzzling at your immature schoolgirl frolic through the forums.
Quote from: sceptimaticnuzzle nuzzle nuzzleWhat was that sceptimatic I couldn't hear you properly while you're nuzzling at Appeal Bag's teats.
You are easily confused. You sometimes forget which name you're posting under. ;D
Too right.
Look at what Rayzor was coming out with last night as 'SkepticMike':I know right, you always did say you preferred it straight on rather than on the side. You hope not, well I aim to fulfill your dreams babe.
lol wut?
There's more too; it's lulzy as f**k...
Rayzor, you are one fruity fellah!
The liquids are in a liquid state when introduced into the vacuum.Now, can liquids exist in a vacuum? Can hypergolic liquids combust in a vacuum?
Please define the state of these 'liquids' when introduced to said vacuum.
I'm saying that it was it was used in the first stage of the Ariane 5 rocket as it starts at sea level and ends up however high it could get in about 9 minutes of operation. I'll let you do the math. Oops. I forgot that you don't need math.No, he pointed out that it was a first stage engine designed to work in the atmosphere
Are you saying the Vulcain is not designed to work in a vacuum?
Also, your pal rabinoz says ALL de laval nozzles function in vacuum regardless...Yes, De Laval nozzles can work in an atmosphere, in a vacuum or anywhere in between. It's the expansion nozzle that's generally optimized for different ambient pressures. Do you have a point?
You keep saying that, yet you can't cite a single credible source that says that I'm wrong. Why is that? Could it be that maybe you're the one who's lying and not me?Yes, but you keep ignoring the fact that free expansion only applies in a closed system
Aaand there it is: the Big Lie.
And this:SkepticMike seems obsessed. ;DQuote from: sceptimaticnuzzle nuzzle nuzzleWhat was that sceptimatic I couldn't hear you properly while you're nuzzling at Appeal Bag's teats.
So the air can gain momentum, which means rockets work.If it isn't air, what is it.I would say it's airWhat gains momentum to counter the plane's?
YOU TELL ME!
LOL!!!
No - you are right.
It is the air.
By pushing off the air, yes?
Here's a reminder:
(http://i.imgur.com/8xBxYQG.jpg)
SkepticMike seems obsessed. ;DYeah; just like you-know-who, eh?
So gas can have momentum, so when the gas leaves the rocket, the rocket must gain a forward momentum.So the air can gain momentum, which means rockets work.If it isn't air, what is it.I would say it's airWhat gains momentum to counter the plane's?
YOU TELL ME!
LOL!!!
No - you are right.
It is the air.
By pushing off the air, yes?
so when the gas leaves the rocket, the rocket must gain a forward momentum.
QuoteFree Expansion of gas in a vacuum is a scientific Fact.No it's not.
You literally ran away from his post.
Hey PL, I think both of us are far too thick skinned to mind the back and forth between us
Sorry to disappoint you Pippy, I'm not Rayzor or Geoff. You should know that, when did I have the time while you were giving me bjs all night.
so when the gas leaves the rocket, the rocket must gain a forward momentum.
And Fail.
Not as big a fail as this though:QuoteFree Expansion of gas in a vacuum is a scientific Fact.No it's not.
Lulz!You literally ran away from his post.
No; I ignored it because it was uninformative & irrelevant.
Like you.Hey PL, I think both of us are far too thick skinned to mind the back and forth between us, I know I get a chuckle out of it. but I don't think raising the ire of forum mods by spamming the forums with posts that are 99% the same is the wise thing to do. I wouldn't want you getting banned, you're too funny when you try.
STFU, psycho-nonce.
STRANGER DANGER! STRANGER DANGER!
The liquids are in a liquid state when introduced into the vacuum.
I'm saying that it was it was used in the first stage of the Ariane 5 rocket as it starts at sea level and ends up however high it could get in about 9 minutes of operation. I'll let you do the math. Oops. I forgot that you don't need math.
You keep saying that, yet you can't cite a single credible source that says that I'm wrong.
Slow clap for Pippy Longstocking, can't actually say anything without breaking the forum rules and spamming threads, can't actually say anything that makes a lick of sense to anyone but your sycophants, nuzzling at your immature schoolgirl frolic through the forums.
Come on love, we can admit it to the rest of the group, it was me and you all night long, my only regret is that I only had 8 inch and no more to give you....my love.
I know right, you always did say you preferred it straight on rather than on the side. You hope not, well I aim to fulfill your dreams babe.
The liquids are in a liquid state when introduced into the vacuum.
Are they now?
And I thought you claimed they were a gas...
That was combusting...
Somehow...
In a vacuum.
You're desperate, aintcha, hypnotoad?
Thesemanned launchesmilitary deception operations and the10s of millions of peoplemilitary intelligence organisations that made it happenwould prove you don't know what you're talking aboutare good at their jobs.
Do we have members willing to invest money and time into conducting their own research?
Joule-Thomson Expansion - Free Expansion of a Gas
Imagine a gas confined within an insulated container as shown in fig 1. The gas is initially confined to a volume V1 at pressure P1 and temperature T1. The gas then is allowed to expand into another insulated chamber with volume V2 that is initially evacuated. What happens? Lets apply the first law.
We know from the first law for a closed system that the change in internal energy of the gas will be equal to the heat transferred plus the amount of work the gas does, or ∆U = Q + W. Since the gas expands freely (the volume change of the system is zero), we know that no work will be done, so W=0. Since both chambers are insulated, we also know that Q=0. Thus, the internal energy of the gas does not change during this process.(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Expansion%20into%20box_zpssowt8swc.png) Fig 1 from same reference.
| Now, how does this relate to a rocket in space? For an ideal gas, free expansion does no work, but what does this mean? It is simply that the temperature of the gas is unchanged during the expansion. But, the upper diagram does not represent our rocket in free space. The right half of this should replaced by "the infinite vacuum of space", more as in fig 2. Joule-Thomson expansion simply says that the temperature of an (ideal) gas does not change, but this in no way affects Newton's Laws of motion. The whole system is the rocket plus the "near-infinite vacuum of space". There is nothing in the Joule-Thomson free expansion to "countermand" the momentum of the gas heading right (in the lower diagram) imparting like momentum to the rocket heading left. As obviously expected there is no conflict between Newton's Laws and the Joule-Thomson free expansion. BTW: The "internal energy of the gas" remaining unchanged applies only for an ideal gas. Ideal gases have no attraction between molecules, but in real gases van de Waal's forces between molecules result in a slight cooling during expansion, so in real gases the internal energy does change slightly - some work is required to separate the molecules, not that this is significant. | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Expansion%20into%20space_zpsmjab1wvg.png) Fig 2 modified from same reference. |
Thesemanned launchesmilitary deception operations and the10s of millions of peoplemilitary intelligence organisations that made it happenwould prove you don't know what you're talking aboutare good at their jobs.
Fixed that for you, Geoff!Do we have members willing to invest money and time into conducting their own research?
No need to 'invest money'.
Just open a book on thermodynamics & read it ffs.
Free Expansion = No Shpayze-Shippz.
There is nothing in the Joule-Thomson free expansion to "countermand" the momentum of the gas heading right (in the lower diagram) imparting like momentum to the rocket heading left.
Thesemanned launchesmilitary deception operations and the10s of millions of peoplemilitary intelligence organisations that made it happenwould prove you don't know what you're talking aboutare good at their jobs.
Fixed that for you, Geoff!Do we have members willing to invest money and time into conducting their own research?
No need to 'invest money'.
Just open a book on thermodynamics & read it ffs.
Free Expansion = No Shpayze-Shippz.
Nope, Newton! (Without the Professor Legba appendices)There is nothing in the Joule-Thomson free expansion to "countermand" the momentum of the gas heading right (in the lower diagram) imparting like momentum to the rocket heading left.
Yes there is; a vacuum.
Because how is this 'momentum' transferred in the absence of resistance?
Magic?
Please explain.
You mean something like any one of these?
Slow clap for Pippy Longstocking, can't actually say anything without breaking the forum rules and spamming threads, can't actually say anything that makes a lick of sense to anyone but your sycophants, nuzzling at your immature schoolgirl frolic through the forums.
Come on love, we can admit it to the rest of the group, it was me and you all night long, my only regret is that I only had 8 inch and no more to give you....my love.
I know right, you always did say you preferred it straight on rather than on the side. You hope not, well I aim to fulfill your dreams babe.
Nope, Newton!There is nothing in the Joule-Thomson free expansion to "countermand" the momentum of the gas heading right (in the lower diagram) imparting like momentum to the rocket heading left.
Yes there is; a vacuum.
Because how is this 'momentum' transferred in the absence of resistance?
Magic?
Please explain.
You mean something like any one of these?
Nah.
A real one, not propaganda bullshit, spooky Geoff.
Slow clap for Pippy Longstocking, can't actually say anything without breaking the forum rules and spamming threads, can't actually say anything that makes a lick of sense to anyone but your sycophants, nuzzling at your immature schoolgirl frolic through the forums.
Come on love, we can admit it to the rest of the group, it was me and you all night long, my only regret is that I only had 8 inch and no more to give you....my love.
I know right, you always did say you preferred it straight on rather than on the side. You hope not, well I aim to fulfill your dreams babe.
What's worse, as YOU posted the photo of that combustion chamber in the first place (after I'd repeatedly asked for the combustion chamber of a SPACE-rocket like the J2), it would appear that that YOU were trying to deliberately deceive us, would it not?Again, no. Hewia first posted that picture.
Tell you what, why don't you SHOW us exactly what these magical shpayze-rokkit Combustion Chambers you are all so obsessed with look like, then we can all have a good guess?What's wrong, is your Google broken?
(http://www.space-propulsion.com/launcher-propulsion/rocket-engines/images/vulcain-thrust-chamber-assembly.jpg#moved)
Just open a book on thermodynamics & read it ffs.
Free Expansion = No Shpayze-Shippz.
Slow clap for Pippy Longstocking, can't actually say anything without breaking the forum rules and spamming threads, can't actually say anything that makes a lick of sense to anyone but your sycophants, nuzzling at your immature schoolgirl frolic through the forums.
Come on love, we can admit it to the rest of the group, it was me and you all night long, my only regret is that I only had 8 inch and no more to give you....my love.
I know right, you always did say you preferred it straight on rather than on the side. You hope not, well I aim to fulfill your dreams babe.
Momentum, conservation of.Great idea, Engy!
The end.
Turn off the lights and lock the thread.