People on skateboards.

lol

Already answered.
Got anything new that hasn't been destroyed?

Quote from: Papa Legba on November 02, 2015, 08:05:42 AM

Quote from: sokarul on November 02, 2015, 07:49:17 AM

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.

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.

Quote

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.
 

Quote

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?

Quote

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.

Quote

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?

B is the exhaust.
This is seen when a gun firing blanks will still have some recoil.

Quote

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.[/b]

Noe.

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

Pressure-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.

Quote

Read & Learn, Raown Derfers...

But most importantly of all; REMEMBER THE VACUUM!

Yes remember a vacuum is not a forced and air isn't self aware.

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?

Quote from: markjo on November 02, 2015, 08:33:37 PM

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?

And you sound a bit vague, Papa Legba.  Have you no actual rebuttal?

I already answered you.

See?

Quote from: Papa Legba on October 30, 2015, 04:39:16 AM

Quote from: chtwrone on October 29, 2015, 07:25:40 PM

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:

Quote from: chtwrone on October 29, 2015, 07:25:40 PM

You see, this Newtonian momentum stuff isn't that hard to understand at all.

You are, as ever, making a complete ass of yourself.

And now you are making an ass of yourself even more...

Are you a masochist?
[/quote]






The ass is clearly YOU.

It's YOU who lamely thinks that a rocket's exhaust is FIRMLY attached to the rocket, lol.

You might like to explain to us all, just how a gas can be attached to a solid.


No doubt you'll just make another lame excuse as to why you don't have to answer this question, but it will only serve to highlight, yet again, just how baseless and ignorant your opinions/thoughts/theories/propositions are.

Then why did you keep shitspamming the gun analogy, Papa Legba?

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'?

Quote from: TheEngineer on September 30, 2015, 09:38:52 PM

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'?

REAL engineers would laugh at u if they saw how u treat physics

Real engineers are perfectly happy with concept of rockets working in vacuum. Presumably because real engineers actually understand physics.

But then again, all the 'engineers' I know are people who make Engines.

Do any of those engineers make rocket engines?

Oh looky!

The Three Stooges have all turned up...

To defend their new best Fascist bud 'Engy Baby' with their usual shitpost torrent & reportfaggery...

LOL!!!

An 'engineer' who doesn't even understand Newton 1,2,3, let alone Free Expansion...

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...

That's because he's too busy with 01001011010010110011010010110...

He's what used to be called a 'calculator' rather than an Engineer; in other words, a scribbling Geek.

Still; as long as he has the power to Lock the thread & Turn out the lights every time he's shown up for the dumbass no-mark he is, I guess he'll always stay 'unndifeetd', won't he?

That way he can be just like Sokarul, can't he?

LOL!!!

This forum is Loserville Prime.

Lol

More insults because you can't form a proper post. 

Lol


Do you miss not saying lol all the time?


Lol


Lol



Lol

Lol

Lol

Lol

Lol

Interesting point!

But as there wasn't a fourth Stooge it seems you're surplus to requirements...

Care to quote me the formula for work done by a gas before you shitpost & reportfag your unndifeetd way home from your meth-lab, though?

Being a tip-top engineer, with Imaginary Qualifications coming out the wazoo, it shouldn't be hard, should it?

Can you fix your post? You quoted some of my post and then out theengineer. Then you refer to chemistry by the meth lab joke but then say tip top engineer. WTF???

Can you fix your post?

I'll fix my post when you stop being a psychotic lying sock-puppet troll-entity.

Look how quick your shitpost non-replies to me are arriving...

Do you think anyone believes you are a real person?

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...

Ahahahahahaha cindy, u're misunderstanding of physics is soo funny, I literally cannot stop laughing.

Here's what a garret engineer (the right kind according to u) says about backpressure downstream of a turbo
http://www.tercelreference.com/tercel_info/turbo_exhaust_theory/turbo_exhaust_theory.html

Long story short back pressure=bad

I literally cannot stop laughing LYING.

Fixed that for you!

Your article says 'you want the least back-pressure possible'.

In other words, you need SOME back-pressure or it will not work at all.

You dumb French fuck.

#Froggy-went-a-hoaxing

#LyingforParis

#FuckoffbacktoFrance-u-clochard

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?

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?

Lucy, you are merely playing parrot for your new buddies that you believe you've made on a forum.

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?

Maybe cos the article you just linked to said so, you dumb fuck?

#Idon'tspeakgibberish

#nobodycareswhatyouthink

#FrenchTrollssuck

The article i read says u need velocity before the turbo and the least amount of backpressure after.
 

Your article says 'you want the least back-pressure possible'.

In other words, you need SOME back-pressure or it will not work at all.

Really?  That's not the way that I read this:

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.

Oh, & reportfag psycho shitposting flat earther markjo; I didn't read your post.

No-one does.

Now GTFO.

After REPORTING me with your 28,000 sick-fuck sock-puppets, of course...

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

Sorry Cindy u're wrong, I'm not French.

Btw it's nice to see that English is not u're first language as well, or are u just butchering English the same way u butcher physics?
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

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

God Almighty you fucking French psycho, do you even read what you write?

Yes. If u find a way to have zero backpressure at the other end of the turbo patent it, since u've found a way to have the best condition in which a turbo operates

'Blah blah blah' says the revolting disinfo-thing...

Distracting us from this:

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'?

Hey, 'Engy'; WHERE ARE YOU?

WE THOUGHT YOU WERE A MOD?

COME ON & MODERATE US, LIAR!

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?

Quote from: Papa Legba on December 03, 2015, 08:49:52 AM

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?

Papa Legba keeps going on and on about free expansion when he should be looking at mass flow.

Quote from: luckyfred on December 03, 2015, 09:12:50 AM

Quote from: Papa Legba on December 03, 2015, 08:49:52 AM

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?

Papa Legba keeps going on and on about free expansion when he should be looking at mass flow.

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.

Mass flow will make no difference in your space of virtual vacuum.

Why don't you have a think on that for a bit.