Directional Explosions

Let's see if I can manage to get a little intellectual honesty from round earthers. I'm not a regular here, but I may pop back every now and again to see if you're still lying.

Look at a rocket. Inside the rocket an explosion occurs: that's how they work. This force can't be directional, no explosion is. So, it explodes in all directions, and you just need to look at how much force comes out, to see how much is at play.
So, then, tell me how the rocket stays together? While small scale directional explosives exist, they're ruined after one use: rockets are far more powerful and suffer constant use for hours at a time. Make anything explode that amount, with that force, and it wouldn't last a minute.

Are you still going to cling to your bs about rockets? An explosion that magically only goes one direction without hurting anything in every other direction?

If you're told one lie about them, why do you believe everything else?

It's hard to tell if you're joking or not.

Let's see if I can manage to get a little intellectual honesty from round earthers. I'm not a regular here, but I may pop back every now and again to see if you're still lying.

Look at a rocket. Inside the rocket an explosion occurs: that's how they work. This force can't be directional, no explosion is. So, it explodes in all directions, and you just need to look at how much force comes out, to see how much is at play.
So, then, tell me how the rocket stays together? While small scale directional explosives exist, they're ruined after one use: rockets are far more powerful and suffer constant use for hours at a time. Make anything explode that amount, with that force, and it wouldn't last a minute.

Are you still going to cling to your bs about rockets? An explosion that magically only goes one direction without hurting anything in every other direction?

If you're told one lie about them, why do you believe everything else?

Presumably you dont believe that internal combustion engines work either?

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on June 23, 2015, 04:24:32 AM

Let's see if I can manage to get a little intellectual honesty from round earthers. I'm not a regular here, but I may pop back every now and again to see if you're still lying.

Look at a rocket. Inside the rocket an explosion occurs: that's how they work. This force can't be directional, no explosion is. So, it explodes in all directions, and you just need to look at how much force comes out, to see how much is at play.
So, then, tell me how the rocket stays together? While small scale directional explosives exist, they're ruined after one use: rockets are far more powerful and suffer constant use for hours at a time. Make anything explode that amount, with that force, and it wouldn't last a minute.

Are you still going to cling to your bs about rockets? An explosion that magically only goes one direction without hurting anything in every other direction?

If you're told one lie about them, why do you believe everything else?

Presumably you dont believe that internal combustion engines work either?

Comparing the force in a car to the force required to blast a massive weight like a rocket into space. About the intellectual honesty I expected.

What is the reaction speed of a rocket engine, both solid and liquid?

What is the reaction speed of a rocket engine, both solid and liquid?

How about you try to answer the question rather than evade?

This is pathetic.

Let's see if I can manage to get a little intellectual honesty from round earthers. I'm not a regular here, but I may pop back every now and again to see if you're still lying.

Look at a rocket. Inside the rocket an explosion occurs: that's how they work. This force can't be directional, no explosion is. So, it explodes in all directions, and you just need to look at how much force comes out, to see how much is at play.
So, then, tell me how the rocket stays together? While small scale directional explosives exist, they're ruined after one use: rockets are far more powerful and suffer constant use for hours at a time. Make anything explode that amount, with that force, and it wouldn't last a minute.

Are you still going to cling to your bs about rockets? An explosion that magically only goes one direction without hurting anything in every other direction?

If you're told one lie about them, why do you believe everything else?

You've never seen fireworks?    Ok,  that's possibly true,   maybe you have never seen fireworks...

Here's a better idea,  how about you head over to one of the rocketry forums and tell them that their rockets don't work.   
http://www.rocketryforum.com/forumdisplay.php?9-High-Power-Rocketry-%28HPR%29

And just to correct a misconception,  the  velocity in an internal combustion engine is actually higher than a rocket engine.   An internal combustion engine is closer to an explosion than a rocket.

You've never seen fireworks?    Ok,  that's possibly true,   maybe you have never seen fireworks...
I've seen fireworks. They explode. Did you forget that? That is exactly what I'm saying, and it's an irrelevante xample. I explicitly said it works on a small scale: but the force needed squares as you increase the size of what it acts on, which the protection cannot. COmbustion engines are tiny, it doesn't matter. Look at a rocket and tell me that's not a huge explosion.

Forgot how ignorant all of you are. What does it take to get anyone to pay attention to and respond to the argument I am making rather than responding with irrelevant shit and bringing up completely pointless examples?!

Quote from: sokarul on June 23, 2015, 05:40:02 AM

What is the reaction speed of a rocket engine, both solid and liquid?

How about you try to answer the question rather than evade?

This is pathetic.

I was going to show their flame speed is not fast enough to be considered an explosion. Maybe it is though, but you just jump to conclusions because you don't understand what makes a reaction an explosion.

Also, shape charges could be said to be directional. Thanks for playing.

Forgot how ignorant all of you are. What does it take to get anyone to pay attention to and respond to the argument I am making rather than responding with irrelevant shit and bringing up completely pointless examples?!

Stop insulting people and calling them ignorant, when it's painfully obvious who is ignorant,   to try a serious answer to your question,   rocket engines are controlled explosions,  sometimes the control fails,  due to combustion instabilities or equipment failure.   Rockets sometimes explode on the launch pad.   

Fireworks,  don't have to explode.  they can just burn depending on how they are packed.   You can cut the exploding top off a bottle rocket and just have the rocket part.
http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/videos/its-rocket-science/

I was going to show their flame speed is not fast enough to be considered an explosion.
So a semantic complaint with no relevancy? got it.

Also, shape charges could be said to be directional.
I specifically mentioned directional explosives in my first post, moron. Scale.

Stop insulting people and calling them ignorant, when it's painfully obvious who is ignorant,
when literally all any of you have offered when we're ten posts in is completely irrelevant evasions, things i specifically brought up in my first fucking post, and one insult, i am fully allowed to call you ignorant. If you want to prove otherwise TRY TO ACTUALLY ANSWER THE QUESTION I ASKED IN MY FIRST POST. HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO ASK YOU TO DO THIS?!

rocket engines are controlled explosions
Ar eyou going to explain how the hell they stay together? You know, WHAT I EXPLICITLY ASKED IN MY FIRST POST YOU ILLITERATE MORON
nope, just going to ignore it and repeat what I already know and even what I stated in my first post? ok.

Rockets sometimes explode on the launch pad.   
And yet are apparently stable anough to go for days...

Fireworks,  don't have to explode. 
who gives a fuck? we're talking about rockets capable of going to space. the force we're dealing with does not compare. If I use a peashooter and you survive, doe sthat mean I can shoot you with a gun and you'll survive?
Or, radical thought, does scale actually matter?

WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE
ANSWER WHAT I AM ASKING
HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO ASK FOR ANY OF YOU TO SAY SOMETHING RELEVANT THAT WASN'T COVERED IN MY FIRST POST
COME ON

Documentary on Soviet Rocket Design, that will answer all your questions.
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

So if no one's going to answer without evasion or a handwave hidden in a video longer than anyone could have watched so you're proably just asserting it has an answer (otherwise you could have given the relevant time), just admit it rather than wasting time.

There is no hand waving going on but what you constantly do.  No insulting behavior coming from anyone but you. 
Please return to the tfes.org  No one there is going to question your stupidity. 
Yes they are controlled explosions of a sort.  The bell housing of the rocket and the combustion chamber is designed to redirect the force of the explosion to where you want it to go.  Also there are different types of rockets and depending on how you use the fuel, be it solid or liquid, you can feed that fuel over time to the engine.  Just because you say it only works on small scales does not mean it doesn't work on larger scales.  A very few things, yes, but this is not one of those things.
When you can learn to take responses to your questions, maybe someone will take you seriously.  Right now you are once again taken as a joke because you always put forth this stupidity and will not take any response other than someone agreeing with you.

I was going to show their flame speed is not fast enough to be considered an explosion.
So a semantic complaint with no relevancy? got it.

Also, shape charges could be said to be directional.
I specifically mentioned directional explosives in my first post, moron. Scale.

Stop insulting people and calling them ignorant, when it's painfully obvious who is ignorant,
when literally all any of you have offered when we're ten posts in is completely irrelevant evasions, things i specifically brought up in my first fucking post, and one insult, i am fully allowed to call you ignorant. If you want to prove otherwise TRY TO ACTUALLY ANSWER THE QUESTION I ASKED IN MY FIRST POST. HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO ASK YOU TO DO THIS?!

rocket engines are controlled explosions
Ar eyou going to explain how the hell they stay together? You know, WHAT I EXPLICITLY ASKED IN MY FIRST POST YOU ILLITERATE MORON
nope, just going to ignore it and repeat what I already know and even what I stated in my first post? ok.

Rockets sometimes explode on the launch pad.   
And yet are apparently stable anough to go for days...

Fireworks,  don't have to explode. 
who gives a fuck? we're talking about rockets capable of going to space. the force we're dealing with does not compare. If I use a peashooter and you survive, doe sthat mean I can shoot you with a gun and you'll survive?
Or, radical thought, does scale actually matter?

WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE
ANSWER WHAT I AM ASKING
HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO ASK FOR ANY OF YOU TO SAY SOMETHING RELEVANT THAT WASN'T COVERED IN MY FIRST POST
COME ON

Whoa, he only made it 4 posts without using the caps lock.  I think you guys are getting better at this.

It takes much practice to piss the king of trolls off.  New record guys.

A typical conversation with Jrowesceptic.   

Paraphrasing
JR:Why don't rockets just explode?
ME: You've never seen fireworks?   

JR:I've seen fireworks. They explode. Did you forget that?
ME:Fireworks,  don't have to explode.  they can just burn depending on how they are packed. 

JR: who gives a fuck? we're talking about rockets capable of going to space

WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE
ANSWER WHAT I AM ASKING
HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO ASK FOR ANY OF YOU TO SAY SOMETHING RELEVANT THAT WASN'T COVERED IN MY FIRST POST
COME ON


I think we have the makings of a monty python sketch....   

The bell housing of the rocket and the combustion chamber is designed to redirect the force of the explosion to where you want it to go
well done. would you care to explain how it survives a constant explosive force liek i have been asking sicne my very first post or are you just going to evade as well?!

When you can learn to take responses to your questions,
YOU ARE NOT ADDRESSING MY QUESTIONS. YOU ARE EVADING EVERY SINGLE TIME. YOU LITERALLY JUST IGNORED WHAT MY QUESTION ACTUALLY WAS. READ.

Oh, and Rayzor, you try to read as well. If you were capable of reading, you would see I specifically said fireworks were an irrelevant example in my first response to you. Unfortunately, you do seem incapable of logic, though that's no surprise. Otherwise maybe you could try to actually answer my question.

WHAT DOES IT TAKE TO GET ANY OF YOU TO ANSWER ME?!
YES I AM GETTINGA NNOYED BECAUSE YOU'RE ACTING SMUG AND ARROGANT AND YOU REFUSE TO EVEN TRY TO ANSWER MY QUESTION
WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?!

Answer, morons, otherwise it will be clear to everyone that you can't. It shoudl not be like pulling teeth to try to get a very simple answer, but you all seem incapable of anything other than evasion. this is pathetic.

There is no explosion inside rockets. Combustion occurs at the nozzle, where fuel is being ejected at high velocity. Not inside the rocket itself.

If the inside the rocket explodes, you have a disaster - see Challenger.

The bell housing of the rocket and the combustion chamber is designed to redirect the force of the explosion to where you want it to go
well done. would you care to explain how it survives a constant explosive force liek i have been asking sicne my very first post or are you just going to evade as well?!

When you can learn to take responses to your questions,
YOU ARE NOT ADDRESSING MY QUESTIONS. YOU ARE EVADING EVERY SINGLE TIME. YOU LITERALLY JUST IGNORED WHAT MY QUESTION ACTUALLY WAS. READ.

Oh, and Rayzor, you try to read as well. If you were capable of reading, you would see I specifically said fireworks were an irrelevant example in my first response to you. Unfortunately, you do seem incapable of logic, though that's no surprise. Otherwise maybe you could try to actually answer my question.

WHAT DOES IT TAKE TO GET ANY OF YOU TO ANSWER ME?!
YES I AM GETTINGA NNOYED BECAUSE YOU'RE ACTING SMUG AND ARROGANT AND YOU REFUSE TO EVEN TRY TO ANSWER MY QUESTION
WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?!

Answer, morons, otherwise it will be clear to everyone that you can't. It shoudl not be like pulling teeth to try to get a very simple answer, but you all seem incapable of anything other than evasion. this is pathetic.

Just step back and listen to yourself,  I did answer you question,  the fireworks example is valid,  when you asked for something more relevant to space flight I gave you a link to the documentary which covers in great detail why rocket engines are designed the way they are, why closed cycle russian engines were developed and some reasons why they sometimes explode. 
Your response to that was, "It's too long I can't be bothered"    You really need to stop attacking everyone.   It's becoming a comedy show.

There is no explosion inside rockets. Combustion occurs at the nozzle, where fuel is being ejected at high velocity. Not inside the rocket itself.

If the inside the rocket explodes, you have a disaster - see Challenger.

NO,  NO,   combustion occurs in the combustion chamber,  the nozzle is just to direct the exhaust gases.

Quote from: Itchy_Arris on June 23, 2015, 09:49:44 AM

There is no explosion inside rockets. Combustion occurs at the nozzle, where fuel is being ejected at high velocity. Not inside the rocket itself.

If the inside the rocket explodes, you have a disaster - see Challenger.

NO,  NO,   combustion occurs in the combustion chamber,  the nozzle is just to direct the exhaust gases.

And to speed the exhaust gas up for more lift.

Ok you do know what combustion is right?

There is no explosion inside rockets.
wrong, the end.

the fireworks example is valid,
No, it's not. I explained why. I am fine with the idea of directed explosions on the small scale, I said this in the first post and mutliple times sicne. You ginroed me, becaus ethat is all you are capable of doing. A rocket is orders of magnitude more powerful than a piddling firework, the size of the rocket means the weight icreases by the proportion squared (that's just how everything is scaled up, very basic stuff), so the explosion would need to be a LOT more powerful than it would be on a scaled down model, even if a firework was a valid comparison. Just look at the strength of a rocket explosion, and realise how much force must be constantly acting on it.
You could always try actually responding for once, instead of evading. You have literally evaded this exact point since the very first post in the thread. Are you going to respond this time or just evade yet again?

Your response to that was, "It's too long I can't be bothered"   
I ma not going to watch an hour logn documentary that probably doesn't have the answer in. If you're too lazy to write it out yourself, at least give the time at which my question is answered. If you are incapable of doing this, I can only conclude even you coudln't be bothered with that bs, so you simply cannot know if it has the answer in.
Look at that, I said that before as well.

Feel capable of doing anything other than ignoring me yet? Moron. I will insult you when you persist in this blatant dishonesty, ignorance, evasion and hypocrisy.

Once again, the reactions aren't fast enough to be an explosion. If this link works, skip to 4 min(or watch it all) to see a clear solid fuel rocket ignite.
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Once again, the reactions aren't fast enough to be an explosion. If this link works, skip to 4 min(or watch it all) to see a clear solid fuel rocket ignite.

Once again, semantics aren't relevant. I don't care what you call them. If you think rockets aren't destructive go stand next to one on the launch pad. Until them, stop fucking evading and answer the question.

Feel capable of doing anything other than ignoring me yet? Moron. I will insult you when you persist in this blatant dishonesty, ignorance, evasion and hypocrisy.

I have done none of those things and you know it.   The fireworks example is actually valid,  the critical factor is the rate of the reaction,  if you control the rate of the reaction you get a rocket, if you don't control it or pack it tightly into a enclosed space you get an explosion.   It's not my problem that you can't seem to grasp this simple fact.

Let's  try it again slowly,    FAST == BOOM ,    SLOW == ROCKET

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on June 23, 2015, 10:25:00 AM

Feel capable of doing anything other than ignoring me yet? Moron. I will insult you when you persist in this blatant dishonesty, ignorance, evasion and hypocrisy.

I have done none of those things and you know it.   The fireworks example is actually valid,  the critical factor is the rate of the reaction,  if you control the rate of the reaction you get a rocket, if you don't control it or pack it tightly into a enclosed space you get an explosion.   It's not my problem that you can't seem to grasp this simple fact.

Let's  try it again slowly,    FAST == BOOM ,    SLOW == ROCKET

Fast or slow, it's going to destroy the rocket. It's hardly at a snail's pace, look at a rocket for once.
Whether you're hitting a sheet of metal with a hammer, or putting a bomb next to it, it'll break eventually. One's slow, one's fast. Both damage. Are you really denying that?

Look at the force involved in a rocket. Think. Seriously. How does that not destroy the rocket?
You aren't answering that, you're outright lying. You have done every single one of those things. You insult me for not watching a video you clearly couldn't be bothered to watch, you ignore how I refuted your fireworks bs and then made the exact same argument (and look at that, did so again) without acknowledging or responding to my refutation in any way. You're pathetic. if my argument is so weak why are you incapable of responding?
Stop obsessing over fireworks if you're not even going to respond to my reply. I'm not the joke here.

Sceptimatic - Serious question. Do you believe that jet engines are possible?

If you do then rockets are fine as well. Jet Engines and rockets operate in a very similar principle in that are combustable fuel is mixed with oxidiser and ignited in a combustion chamber which is then directed through a shaped nozzle to provide thrust. The main difference is that oxidiser is provided by atmospheric oxygen that is compressed into a jet by turbo fans, and in a rocket by contained source by a turbo pump.

Both jet engines and rockets operate by a controlled combustion reaction that is NOT an explosion.

Sceptimatic - Serious question. Do you believe that jet engines are possible?

If you do then rockets are fine as well. Jet Engines and rockets operate in a very similar principle in that are combustable fuel is mixed with oxidiser and ignited in a combustion chamber which is then directed through a shaped nozzle to provide thrust. The main difference is that oxidiser is provided by atmospheric oxygen that is compressed into a jet by turbo fans, and in a rocket by contained source by a turbo pump.

Both jet engines and rockets operate by a controlled combustion reaction that is NOT an explosion.

Sceptimatic has not posted in this thread. If by some miracle you were referring to me even though I repeatedly ask you to stop attributing my work to other people meaning you've openly shown you're interested in antagonizing and not in thinking at all, I would still have to ask you to learn to read. Rocket engines are possible: model rockets exist. My problem is scale. The size you claim they are would require enough force to blow themselves to shreds.
But of cours,e you'd never know that because you're still incapable of reading.