# Simple Balloon "Rocket"...

• 1234 Replies
• 127504 Views

#### ausGeoff

• 6091
##### Re: Simple Balloon "Rocket"...
« Reply #30 on: November 13, 2014, 05:47:31 AM »
My explanations prove without doubt that I know what I'm talking about and you are merely duped into thinking that you know what really happens.

Your so-called "explanations" actually prove that you have not the faintest idea of what you're talking about sceptimatic.  And you also seem impervious to the fact that everybody else here—including even the flat earthers—are laughing at you behind your back.

A rocket engine can be regarded as "throwing" a mass opposite to its trajectory—in the form of a high-pressure gas (similar to firing a bullet from a gun). The engine "throws" this mass of gas out in one direction in order to get a reaction in the opposite direction. The mass comes from the weight of the fuel that the rocket engine burns.

The burning process accelerates this mass of fuel so that it comes out of the rocket nozzle at high speed. The fact that the fuel turns from a solid or liquid into a gas when it burns does not change its mass. If you burn a kilogram of rocket fuel, a kilogram of exhaust comes out the nozzle—in the form of a high-temperature, high-velocity gas. The form changes, but the mass does not, and the burning process accelerates the mass.

And you really need to do some serious homework yourself if you don't even know the basics of how a rocket engine works.  You still seem to be confused, in that you think rockets can't work in a vacuum.  The atmosphere/air has nothing at all to do with rocket theory.

#### sceptimatic

• Flat Earth Scientist
• 28374
##### Re: Simple Balloon "Rocket"...
« Reply #31 on: November 13, 2014, 05:50:43 AM »
My explanation fits perfectly with reality, yet it kills off the ruse of a rocket working in a so called vacuum, which then kills off the whole concept of space and space travel.
It does not match, amount of thrust is inversely proportional to ambient pressure; max altitude for jets is limited by amount of oxygen needed for burning fuel - and rockets ofc bring their own oxygen. Ambient pressure is not required.
There is a remakable difference between horizontal winged flight using air intake and vertical wingless flight having to provide it's own air/fuel mix.

Now even though there is a remarkable difference, it essentially performs the exact same task, which is the use of the atmosphere to attain flight.
Yes, wings require air to generate lift. That, or vertical or horizontal direction of flight, has absolutely nothing to do with fundamental principle of thrust generation. How does Isp work in your model? Hint: not like in an actual engine.
So, then show me exactly how it works. That's all I'm asking. What I don't want to see, is one arrow going one way and another going opposite. Show me how it works and what is hitting what to create the equal and opposite forces or action/reaction.

#### sceptimatic

• Flat Earth Scientist
• 28374
##### Re: Simple Balloon "Rocket"...
« Reply #32 on: November 13, 2014, 05:55:21 AM »
My explanations prove without doubt that I know what I'm talking about and you are merely duped into thinking that you know what really happens.

Your so-called "explanations" actually prove that you have not the faintest idea of what you're talking about sceptimatic.  And you also seem impervious to the fact that everybody else here—including even the flat earthers—are laughing at you behind your back.

A rocket engine can be regarded as "throwing" a mass opposite to its trajectory—in the form of a high-pressure gas (similar to firing a bullet from a gun). The engine "throws" this mass of gas out in one direction in order to get a reaction in the opposite direction. The mass comes from the weight of the fuel that the rocket engine burns.

The burning process accelerates this mass of fuel so that it comes out of the rocket nozzle at high speed. The fact that the fuel turns from a solid or liquid into a gas when it burns does not change its mass. If you burn a kilogram of rocket fuel, a kilogram of exhaust comes out the nozzle—in the form of a high-temperature, high-velocity gas. The form changes, but the mass does not, and the burning process accelerates the mass.

And you really need to do some serious homework yourself if you don't even know the basics of how a rocket engine works.  You still seem to be confused, in that you think rockets can't work in a vacuum.  The atmosphere/air has nothing at all to do with rocket theory.
Ok, so explain in a diagram, because rockets do not fire bullets and a recoil action/reaction would shake a rocket to its destruction on the platform.

I'm not confused as to how a rocket engine works, Geoffrey. I'm only confused as to why people swallow the bullshit story for how they are supposed to work.
You daren't or can't show it because you know it makes no sense at all.

?

#### neimoka

• 738
##### Re: Simple Balloon "Rocket"...
« Reply #33 on: November 13, 2014, 06:23:17 AM »
My explanation fits perfectly with reality, yet it kills off the ruse of a rocket working in a so called vacuum, which then kills off the whole concept of space and space travel.
It does not match, amount of thrust is inversely proportional to ambient pressure; max altitude for jets is limited by amount of oxygen needed for burning fuel - and rockets ofc bring their own oxygen. Ambient pressure is not required.
There is a remakable difference between horizontal winged flight using air intake and vertical wingless flight having to provide it's own air/fuel mix.

Now even though there is a remarkable difference, it essentially performs the exact same task, which is the use of the atmosphere to attain flight.
Yes, wings require air to generate lift. That, or vertical or horizontal direction of flight, has absolutely nothing to do with fundamental principle of thrust generation. How does Isp work in your model? Hint: not like in an actual engine.
So, then show me exactly how it works. That's all I'm asking. What I don't want to see, is one arrow going one way and another going opposite. Show me how it works and what is hitting what to create the equal and opposite forces or action/reaction.
Haven't you read anything I've posted in this thread  I can't give you such an explanation. Which does not mean that your idea would be correct; the problem I brought up is still there and you haven't said anything at all about it.

#### sceptimatic

• Flat Earth Scientist
• 28374
##### Re: Simple Balloon "Rocket"...
« Reply #34 on: November 13, 2014, 06:35:21 AM »
My explanation fits perfectly with reality, yet it kills off the ruse of a rocket working in a so called vacuum, which then kills off the whole concept of space and space travel.
It does not match, amount of thrust is inversely proportional to ambient pressure; max altitude for jets is limited by amount of oxygen needed for burning fuel - and rockets ofc bring their own oxygen. Ambient pressure is not required.
There is a remakable difference between horizontal winged flight using air intake and vertical wingless flight having to provide it's own air/fuel mix.

Now even though there is a remarkable difference, it essentially performs the exact same task, which is the use of the atmosphere to attain flight.
Yes, wings require air to generate lift. That, or vertical or horizontal direction of flight, has absolutely nothing to do with fundamental principle of thrust generation. How does Isp work in your model? Hint: not like in an actual engine.
So, then show me exactly how it works. That's all I'm asking. What I don't want to see, is one arrow going one way and another going opposite. Show me how it works and what is hitting what to create the equal and opposite forces or action/reaction.
Haven't you read anything I've posted in this thread  I can't give you such an explanation. Which does not mean that your idea would be correct; the problem I brought up is still there and you haven't said anything at all about it.
Of course I've read it. You admit that you can't give an explanation, yet I can give a perfectly good explanation for why rockets cannot work in space and how they really work. You seem to want to deny it for no apparent reason.

?

#### neimoka

• 738
##### Re: Simple Balloon "Rocket"...
« Reply #35 on: November 13, 2014, 06:40:47 AM »
My explanation fits perfectly with reality, yet it kills off the ruse of a rocket working in a so called vacuum, which then kills off the whole concept of space and space travel.
It does not match, amount of thrust is inversely proportional to ambient pressure; max altitude for jets is limited by amount of oxygen needed for burning fuel - and rockets ofc bring their own oxygen. Ambient pressure is not required.
There is a remakable difference between horizontal winged flight using air intake and vertical wingless flight having to provide it's own air/fuel mix.

Now even though there is a remarkable difference, it essentially performs the exact same task, which is the use of the atmosphere to attain flight.
Yes, wings require air to generate lift. That, or vertical or horizontal direction of flight, has absolutely nothing to do with fundamental principle of thrust generation. How does Isp work in your model? Hint: not like in an actual engine.
So, then show me exactly how it works. That's all I'm asking. What I don't want to see, is one arrow going one way and another going opposite. Show me how it works and what is hitting what to create the equal and opposite forces or action/reaction.
Haven't you read anything I've posted in this thread  I can't give you such an explanation. Which does not mean that your idea would be correct; the problem I brought up is still there and you haven't said anything at all about it.
Of course I've read it. You admit that you can't give an explanation, yet I can give a perfectly good explanation for why rockets cannot work in space and how they really work. You seem to want to deny it for no apparent reason.
I have given the reason why your idea doesn't work a number of times. That I can not give a clear explanation of thrust generation does not mean that your idea is right, especially as your idea is not supported by any actual data.

#### sceptimatic

• Flat Earth Scientist
• 28374
##### Re: Simple Balloon "Rocket"...
« Reply #36 on: November 13, 2014, 06:43:19 AM »
I have given the reason why your idea doesn't work a number of times. That I can not give a clear explanation of thrust generation does not mean that your idea is right, especially as your idea is not supported by any actual data.
It requires nothing more than common sense, where-as the scam model requires faith.

?

#### neimoka

• 738
##### Re: Simple Balloon "Rocket"...
« Reply #37 on: November 13, 2014, 06:44:57 AM »
I have given the reason why your idea doesn't work a number of times. That I can not give a clear explanation of thrust generation does not mean that your idea is right, especially as your idea is not supported by any actual data.
It requires nothing miore than common sense, whereas the scam model requires faith.
Haha, this is pure gold, guaranteed scepti quality

p.s I see that you still haven't addressed the problem I pointed out

#### sceptimatic

• Flat Earth Scientist
• 28374
##### Re: Simple Balloon "Rocket"...
« Reply #38 on: November 13, 2014, 06:53:17 AM »
I have given the reason why your idea doesn't work a number of times. That I can not give a clear explanation of thrust generation does not mean that your idea is right, especially as your idea is not supported by any actual data.
It requires nothing miore than common sense, whereas the scam model requires faith.
Haha, this is pure gold, guaranteed scepti quality

p.s I see that you still haven't addressed the problem I pointed out
What problem is that?

?

#### Goth

• 220
##### Re: Simple Balloon "Rocket"...
« Reply #39 on: November 13, 2014, 07:03:14 AM »
Including even the flat earthers - are laughing at you behind your back.

No we don't,,

And pay no mind to those who laugh, behind your back, it simply means that you're two steps ahead.

#### sceptimatic

• Flat Earth Scientist
• 28374
##### Re: Simple Balloon "Rocket"...
« Reply #40 on: November 13, 2014, 07:06:11 AM »
Including even the flat earthers - are laughing at you behind your back.

No we don't,,

And pay no mind to those who laugh, behind your back, it simply means that you're two steps ahead.
I take their attempted ridicule as a sign of their naivety and weakness.

#### ausGeoff

• 6091
##### Re: Simple Balloon "Rocket"...
« Reply #41 on: November 13, 2014, 07:13:43 AM »
Ok, so explain in a diagram, because rockets do not fire bullets and a recoil action/reaction would shake a rocket to its destruction on the platform.

Uh... are you seriously asking for a picture sceptimatic?  Are you a grade schooler that needs pictures to explain something?

Do you only read scientific texts that have a lot of pictures on every page?  Unbelievable.

#### ausGeoff

• 6091
##### Re: Simple Balloon "Rocket"...
« Reply #42 on: November 13, 2014, 07:18:08 AM »
I take their attempted ridicule as a sign of their naivety and weakness.

Correction sceptimatic:  It's not "attempted" ridicule.  It's genuine, kosher, bona fide ridicule.

#### LuggerSailor

• 216
• 12 men on the Moon, 11 of them Scouts.
##### Re: Simple Balloon "Rocket"...
« Reply #43 on: November 13, 2014, 07:19:33 AM »

Er, NO!

The pressure in the balloon is maintained by the surface tension of the rubber skin. Once the neck of the balloon is released, the pressure inside accelerates the stream of air out. The accelerating mass of air causes a force (remember f=ma (force = mass * acceleration)) and for every force, there's an equal and opposite force which in the balloon system moves the balloon and it's air in the opposite direction to it's nozzle.

To experience this for yourself; sit still on a swing and throw a large rock horizontally away and see how much you can deflect yourself and the swing. Then to prove it's not just "pushing against the atmosphere" throw an even larger soccer ball at about the same speed as the rock. It will have moved more air but let us know how much deflection you attain.
I'm right, you're wrong but it's not your fault. It's the way you've been taught. You've been scammed.

You’re right, I’m wrong? Yeah right!

Consider the possibility we’re both wrong. I’m willing to experiment and investigate to find out for myself, are you?

Is the swing, rock and ball experiment too much for you?
LuggerSailor.
Sailor and Navigator.

?

#### Goth

• 220
##### Re: Simple Balloon "Rocket"...
« Reply #44 on: November 13, 2014, 07:30:28 AM »

Satans'' ugly boy ,,

#### sceptimatic

• Flat Earth Scientist
• 28374
##### Re: Simple Balloon "Rocket"...
« Reply #45 on: November 13, 2014, 08:26:35 AM »
I take their attempted ridicule as a sign of their naivety and weakness.

Correction sceptimatic:  It's not "attempted" ridicule.  It's genuine, kosher, bona fide ridicule.
Well if it is, I suggest you up your game because it's so mild it's almost pleasant.

#### sceptimatic

• Flat Earth Scientist
• 28374
##### Re: Simple Balloon "Rocket"...
« Reply #46 on: November 13, 2014, 08:27:53 AM »

Er, NO!

The pressure in the balloon is maintained by the surface tension of the rubber skin. Once the neck of the balloon is released, the pressure inside accelerates the stream of air out. The accelerating mass of air causes a force (remember f=ma (force = mass * acceleration)) and for every force, there's an equal and opposite force which in the balloon system moves the balloon and it's air in the opposite direction to it's nozzle.

To experience this for yourself; sit still on a swing and throw a large rock horizontally away and see how much you can deflect yourself and the swing. Then to prove it's not just "pushing against the atmosphere" throw an even larger soccer ball at about the same speed as the rock. It will have moved more air but let us know how much deflection you attain.
I'm right, you're wrong but it's not your fault. It's the way you've been taught. You've been scammed.

You’re right, I’m wrong? Yeah right!

Consider the possibility we’re both wrong. I’m willing to experiment and investigate to find out for myself, are you?

Is the swing, rock and ball experiment too much for you?
The swing, rock and ball experiment proves nothing to those who are blind and unable to see what's happening.

#### ausGeoff

• 6091
##### Re: Simple Balloon "Rocket"...
« Reply #47 on: November 13, 2014, 08:48:07 AM »

Satans'' ugly boy ,,

And to think inside that deformed skull lies a brain with an IQ of 180, whereas when you look at your undoubtedly handsome face in the mirror, you see someone with an IQ of 80.  Ain't nature strange?  The uglies get the brains and the dummies get the looks.

?

#### neimoka

• 738
##### Re: Simple Balloon "Rocket"...
« Reply #48 on: November 13, 2014, 09:17:55 AM »
I have given the reason why your idea doesn't work a number of times. That I can not give a clear explanation of thrust generation does not mean that your idea is right, especially as your idea is not supported by any actual data.
It requires nothing miore than common sense, whereas the scam model requires faith.
Haha, this is pure gold, guaranteed scepti quality

p.s I see that you still haven't addressed the problem I pointed out
What problem is that?
What I said about specific impulse in couple posts in the antares rocket thread and a couple more times in this thread, in posts that you said you had read?

That is: thrust of a propelling jet increases, as ambient pressure decreases. As in, does not depend on air outside of it to work. That problem.

#### sceptimatic

• Flat Earth Scientist
• 28374
##### Re: Simple Balloon "Rocket"...
« Reply #49 on: November 13, 2014, 09:57:26 AM »
I have given the reason why your idea doesn't work a number of times. That I can not give a clear explanation of thrust generation does not mean that your idea is right, especially as your idea is not supported by any actual data.
It requires nothing miore than common sense, whereas the scam model requires faith.
Haha, this is pure gold, guaranteed scepti quality

p.s I see that you still haven't addressed the problem I pointed out
What problem is that?
What I said about specific impulse in couple posts in the antares rocket thread and a couple more times in this thread, in posts that you said you had read?

That is: thrust of a propelling jet increases, as ambient pressure decreases. As in, does not depend on air outside of it to work. That problem.
Let's get down to the basics of the basics and go from there.

Do you agree that a blow torch, or gas welding torch/burner, gas cooker burner, etc - all push a flame out under pressure?
If so, you will also notice that the flame does not touch the nozzle when ignited under pressure, right?

The only time you would see a nozzle burn is if there was a lack of pressure. Do you agree with this?

#### ausGeoff

• 6091
##### Re: Simple Balloon "Rocket"...
« Reply #50 on: November 13, 2014, 10:15:56 AM »
Do you agree that a blow torch, or gas welding torch/burner, gas cooker burner, etc - all push a flame out under pressure?
If so, you will also notice that the flame does not touch the nozzle when ignited under pressure, right?

LOL..... we're not talking abut mum cooking the spuds on her gas stove sceptimatic.

We're actually discussing rocket propulsion.  Which is a different subject altogether.  Please try and keep up.

#### sceptimatic

• Flat Earth Scientist
• 28374
##### Re: Simple Balloon "Rocket"...
« Reply #51 on: November 13, 2014, 12:15:32 PM »
Do you agree that a blow torch, or gas welding torch/burner, gas cooker burner, etc - all push a flame out under pressure?
If so, you will also notice that the flame does not touch the nozzle when ignited under pressure, right?

LOL..... we're not talking abut mum cooking the spuds on her gas stove sceptimatic.

We're actually discussing rocket propulsion.  Which is a different subject altogether.  Please try and keep up.
Yep, we are discussing rocket propulsion, which is why I mentioned the above, because that's all a rocket is. It's a burn of fuel and oxygen under pressure. It's nothing more than that.

?

#### neimoka

• 738
##### Re: Simple Balloon "Rocket"...
« Reply #52 on: November 13, 2014, 01:55:33 PM »
Let's get down to the basics of the basics and go from there.

Do you agree that a blow torch, or gas welding torch/burner, gas cooker burner, etc - all push a flame out under pressure?
If so, you will also notice that the flame does not touch the nozzle when ignited under pressure, right?

The only time you would see a nozzle burn is if there was a lack of pressure. Do you agree with this?
I agree on all three and must point out that that's not a jet or a rocket, that's a gas torch. In case of a reaction engine the combustion does take place before the nozzle in the engine's combustion chamber and that's the whole point on having combustion in the first place; it is what increases the pressure, which then is used to accelerate the gases.

#### ausGeoff

• 6091
##### Re: Simple Balloon "Rocket"...
« Reply #53 on: November 13, 2014, 11:37:22 PM »
Yep, we are discussing rocket propulsion, which is why I mentioned the above, because that's all a rocket is. It's a burn of fuel and oxygen under pressure. It's nothing more than that.

Totally erroneous.  Again LOL.

A gas stove and a welding torch do not burn a fuel and oxygen "under pressure".  The gas, or the acetylene/oxygen burn only when they're depressurised.

Despite what you think sceptimatic, this flame from a welding torch is not burning compressed gases of any sort...

A rocket engine works on an entirely different principle;  the fuel/oxygen mixture is burning within the containment vessel or fuel cell, and not external to it such as a welding torch.  That's how the rocket's thrust is produced.

If that wasn't the case, then we'd have oxy-actelyne bottles flying into space from every mechanic's workshop.

?

#### guv

• 1132
##### Re: Simple Balloon "Rocket"...
« Reply #54 on: November 14, 2014, 12:47:42 AM »
Give up you lot, septic is either too stupid or ignorant for any info input.

#### ausGeoff

• 6091
##### Re: Simple Balloon "Rocket"...
« Reply #55 on: November 14, 2014, 12:55:42 AM »
Give up you lot, septic is either too stupid or ignorant for any info input.

Maybe both?

#### sceptimatic

• Flat Earth Scientist
• 28374
##### Re: Simple Balloon "Rocket"...
« Reply #56 on: November 14, 2014, 02:50:45 AM »
I see a lot of yap yap yapping but I don't see any of you putting up this combustion chamber that apparently happens inside of the rocket engine.
How about showing me this and it's real size and how it manages to combust inside.
Then, show me how that combuston manages to lift the rocket into space.

I'm well aware of how cars run with their combustion chambers to drive pistons of which we see an exhaust. We know this drives the wheels on a horizontal surface.

SOOOO.

Knowing what we know. How about showing me how this equates to lifting a rocket, vertically into space. Oh, and before someone goes into a frenzy -no I'm not suggesting a rocket has pistons like a car, I am simply asking one of you rocket scientists to explain the combustion chamber and how big it is and exactly what it's function is in pushing a big space rocket into space.

Coming back with "oh scepti is a fool, he's stupid." is not an answer, even if it tickles your fancy. It wins you no prizes.

For all those who are viewing. I hope you are taking in just how these shills operate. Concentrate on what I'm saying and you will find out how rockets into space, is nothing more than fantasy Hollywood special effects.

?

#### neimoka

• 738
##### Re: Simple Balloon "Rocket"...
« Reply #57 on: November 14, 2014, 04:25:34 AM »
Posting from my phone now so I won't paste links, though you can do a web search just as well as I. If you want I'll refer to a picture later. In the mean time, maybe look at a jet or a solid fuel rocket - a normal fireworks kind will do - and tell me if you're still not seing that the ignition of fuel / combustion is happening inside the engine?? Airliners would be *spectacular* if all that kerosene got burnt after leaving the engines

#### ausGeoff

• 6091
##### Re: Simple Balloon "Rocket"...
« Reply #58 on: November 14, 2014, 04:27:35 AM »
How about showing me this and it's real size and how it manages to combust inside.

Quote
How about showing me how this equates to lifting a rocket, vertically into space.

Oh dear... just how many times do we have to explain this for you sceptimatic?      Rockets launched from the earth's surface do NOT travel vertically into space.  They follow a trajectory that's perpendicular to the earth's surface.  In space, there is no "up" and no "down".  Both words are simply an abstract, human construct to enable us to speak in comparable terms regardless of our locations on earth.

How is it that for a self-proclaimed genius and scientist with thirteen academic qualifications you can't even comprehend this simple sort of high-school science?  Or are you just playing dumb for the laughs maybe?

This is a photo of a real rocket engine as portrayed above diagrammatically:

?

#### neimoka

• 738
##### Re: Simple Balloon "Rocket"...
« Reply #59 on: November 14, 2014, 04:46:17 AM »
[/center]

Diagram seems to be of a solid fuel rocket, and the photo of a liquid fuel rocket engine; very different bits of kit. Not that the general principle of operation wouldn't be the same, but a bit misleading to portray them in the same post like that.