People on skateboards.

And this:

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.

And this:

Quote from: sceptimatic

nuzzle nuzzle nuzzle

What was that sceptimatic I couldn't hear you properly while you're nuzzling at Appeal Bag's teats.

Looks like he is a funny person and you are dumb.

Oh, he's funny all right!

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 12, 2016, 03:10:00 PM

You are easily confused. You sometimes forget which name you're posting under. 

Too right.

Look at what Rayzor was coming out with last night as 'SkepticMike':

Quote from: SkepticMike on January 12, 2016, 01:24:41 AM

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!

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.

Quote from: markjo on January 12, 2016, 07:08:53 AM

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.

The liquids are in a liquid state when introduced into the vacuum.

Quote from: markjo on January 12, 2016, 07:08:53 AM

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?

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.

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?

Quote from: markjo on January 12, 2016, 07:08:53 AM

Yes, but you keep ignoring the fact that free expansion only applies in a closed system

Aaand there it is: the Big Lie.

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?

And this:

Quote from: SkepticMike on January 11, 2016, 11:26:41 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic

nuzzle nuzzle nuzzle

What was that sceptimatic I couldn't hear you properly while you're nuzzling at Appeal Bag's teats.

SkepticMike seems obsessed.

Quote from: Empirical on January 12, 2016, 02:38:30 PM

Quote from: Papa Legba on January 12, 2016, 12:58:41 PM

Quote from: Empirical on January 12, 2016, 12:49:47 PM

Quote from: Papa Legba on January 12, 2016, 12:48:24 PM

Quote from: Empirical on January 12, 2016, 12:46:54 PM

Quote from: Papa Legba on January 12, 2016, 12:46:18 PM

Quote from: Empirical on January 12, 2016, 12:40:22 PM

What gains momentum to counter the plane's?

YOU TELL ME!

I would say it's air

LOL!!!

If it isn't air, what is it.

No - you are right.

It is the air.

So the air can gain momentum, which means rockets work.

By pushing off the air, yes?

Here's a reminder:

Yes, yes, the turbine sucks air into the engine, compresses it, then shoots it out the back at very high velocity. I see no problem with the simplified training pdf made for children.

From the same source material

SkepticMike seems obsessed.

Yeah; just like you-know-who, eh?

LOL!!!

Anyhoo; time for this 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 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:



Ooh - vacuum-proof!

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, 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.

Quote from: Empirical on January 12, 2016, 02:38:30 PM

Quote from: Papa Legba on January 12, 2016, 12:58:41 PM

Quote from: Empirical on January 12, 2016, 12:49:47 PM

Quote from: Papa Legba on January 12, 2016, 12:48:24 PM

Quote from: Empirical on January 12, 2016, 12:46:54 PM

Quote from: Papa Legba on January 12, 2016, 12:46:18 PM

Quote from: Empirical on January 12, 2016, 12:40:22 PM

What gains momentum to counter the plane's?

YOU TELL ME!

I would say it's air

LOL!!!

If it isn't air, what is it.

No - you are right.

It is the air.

So the air can gain momentum, which means rockets work.

By pushing off the air, yes?

So gas can have momentum, so when the gas leaves the rocket, the rocket must gain a forward momentum.

so when the gas leaves the rocket, the rocket must gain a forward momentum.

And Fail.

Not as big a fail as this though:

Quote

Free 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

STFU, psycho-nonce.

STRANGER DANGER! STRANGER DANGER!

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.

Yes you are.

Nobody else is this psychotic & unfunny.

Your new avatar gives you away even more...

Seriously; give it up, Geoff.

Quote from: Empirical on January 12, 2016, 04:32:52 PM

so when the gas leaves the rocket, the rocket must gain a forward momentum.

And Fail.

Not as big a fail as this though:

Quote from: Empirical on January 12, 2016, 06:54:53 AM

Quote

Free Expansion of gas in a vacuum is a scientific Fact.

No it's not.

Lulz!

Quote from: sokarul on January 12, 2016, 04:15:57 PM

You literally ran away from his post.

No; I ignored it because it was uninformative & irrelevant.

Like you.

Quote from: SkepticMike on January 12, 2016, 04:18:39 PM

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!

That's much better, see what you can do when you try.

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?

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.

LOL!!!

You know damn well it was designed for 'vacuum use' (lol!)!

What a fraud!

You keep saying that, yet you can't cite a single credible source that says that I'm wrong.

Yes I can; the Laws of Physics.

Free Expansion of gas in a vacuum is a FACT, hypnotoad.

You can't talk your way out of it, somehow...

Really; just give it up.

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.

lol.

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.

'8 inch'...

lol.

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.

Quote from: markjo on January 12, 2016, 03:42:57 PM

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?

These manned launches and the 10s of millions of people that made it happen would prove you don't know what you're talking about.

1961   Vostok 1 — Mercury-Redstone 3 — Mercury-Redstone 4 — Vostok 2
1962   Mercury-Atlas 6 — Mercury-Atlas 7 — Vostok 3 — Vostok 4 — Mercury-Atlas 8
1963   Mercury-Atlas 9 — Vostok 5 — Vostok 6 — X-15 Flight 90 — X-15 Flight 91
1964   Voskhod 1
1965   Voskhod 2 — Gemini 3 — Gemini 4 — Gemini 5 — Gemini 7 — Gemini 6A
1966   Gemini 8 — Gemini 9A — Gemini 10 — Gemini 11 — Gemini 12
1967   Soyuz 1
1968   Apollo 7 — Soyuz 3 — Apollo 8
1969   Soyuz 4 — Soyuz 5 — Apollo 9 — Apollo 10 — Apollo 11 — Soyuz 6 — Soyuz 7 — Soyuz 8 — Apollo 12
1970   Apollo 13 — Soyuz 9
1971   Apollo 14 — Soyuz 10 — Soyuz 11 — Apollo 15
1972   Apollo 16 — Apollo 17
1973   Skylab 2 — Skylab 3 — Soyuz 12 — Skylab 4 — Soyuz 13
1974   Soyuz 14 — Soyuz 15 — Soyuz 16
1975   Soyuz 17 — Soyuz 18-1 — Soyuz 18 — Apollo-Soyuz — Soyuz 19
1976   Soyuz 21 — Soyuz 22 — Soyuz 23
1977   Soyuz 24 — Soyuz 25 — Soyuz 26
1978   Soyuz 27 — Soyuz 28 — Soyuz 29 — Soyuz 30 — Soyuz 31
1979   Soyuz 32 — Soyuz 33
1980   Soyuz 35 — Soyuz 36 — Soyuz T-2 — Soyuz 37 — Soyuz 38 — Soyuz T-3
1981   Soyuz T-4 — Soyuz 39 — STS-1 — Soyuz 40 — STS-2
1982   STS-3 — Soyuz T-5 — Soyuz T-6 — STS-4 — Soyuz T-7 — STS-5
1983   STS-6 — Soyuz T-8 — STS-7 — Soyuz T-9 — STS-8 — Soyuz T-10-1 — STS-9
1984   STS-41-B — Soyuz T-10 — Soyuz T-11 — STS-41-C — Soyuz T-12 — STS-41-D — STS-41-G — STS-51-A
1985   STS-51-C — STS-51-D — STS-51-B — Soyuz T-13 — STS-51-G — STS-51-F — STS-51-I — Soyuz T-14 — STS-51-J — STS-61-A — STS-61-B
1986   STS-61-C — STS-51-L — Soyuz T-15
1987   Soyuz TM-2 — Soyuz TM-3 — Soyuz TM-4
1988   Soyuz TM-5 — Soyuz TM-6 — STS-26 — Soyuz TM-7 — STS-27
1989   STS-29 — STS-30 — STS-28 — Soyuz TM-8 — STS-34 — STS-33
1990   STS-32 — Soyuz TM-9 — STS-36 — STS-31 — Soyuz TM-10 — STS-41 — STS-38 — STS-35 — Soyuz TM-11
1991   STS-37 — STS-39 — Soyuz TM-12 — STS-40 — STS-43 — STS-48 — Soyuz TM-13 — STS-44
1992   STS-42 — Soyuz TM-14 — STS-45 — STS-49 — STS-50 — Soyuz TM-15 — STS-46 — STS-47 — STS-52 — STS-53
1993   STS-54 — Soyuz TM-16 — STS-56 — STS-55 — STS-57 — Soyuz TM-17 — STS-51 — STS-58 — STS-61
1994   Soyuz TM-18 — STS-60 — STS-62 — STS-59 — Soyuz TM-19 — STS-65 — STS-64 — STS-68 — Soyuz TM-20 — STS-66
1995   STS-63 — STS-67 — Soyuz TM-21 — STS-71 — STS-70 — Soyuz TM-22 — STS-69 — STS-73 — STS-74
1996   STS-72 — Soyuz TM-23 — STS-75 — STS-76 — STS-77 — STS-78 — Soyuz TM-24 — STS-79 — STS-80
1997   STS-81 — Soyuz TM-25 — STS-82 — STS-83 — STS-84 — STS-94 — Soyuz TM-26 — STS-85 — STS-86 — STS-87
1998   STS-89 — Soyuz TM-27 — STS-90 — STS-91 — Soyuz TM-28 — STS-95 — STS-88
1999   Soyuz TM-29 — STS-96 — STS-93 — STS-103
2000   STS-99 — Soyuz TM-30 — STS-101 — STS-106 — STS-92 — Soyuz TM-31 — STS-97
2001   STS-98 — STS-102 — STS-100 — Soyuz TM-32 — STS-104 — STS-105 — Soyuz TM-33 — STS-108
2002   STS-109 — STS-110 — Soyuz TM-34 — STS-111 — STS-112 — Soyuz TMA-1 — STS-113
2003   STS-107 — Soyuz TMA-2 — Shenzhou 5 — Soyuz TMA-3
2004   Soyuz TMA-4 — SpaceShipOne flight 15P — SpaceShipOne flight 16P — SpaceShipOne flight 17P — Soyuz TMA-5
2005   Soyuz TMA-6 — STS-114 — Soyuz TMA-7 — Shenzhou 6
2006   Soyuz TMA-8 — STS-121 — STS-115 — Soyuz TMA-9 — STS-116
2007   Soyuz TMA-10 — STS-117 — STS-118 — Soyuz TMA-11 — STS-120
2008   STS-122 — STS-123 — Soyuz TMA-12 — STS-124 — Shenzhou 7 — Soyuz TMA-13 — STS-126
2009   STS-119 — Soyuz TMA-14 — STS-125 — Soyuz TMA-15 — STS-127 — STS-128 — Soyuz TMA-16 — STS-129 — Soyuz TMA-17
2010   STS-130 — Soyuz TMA-18 — STS-131 — STS-132 — Soyuz TMA-19 — Soyuz TMA-01M — Soyuz TMA-20
2011   STS-133 — Soyuz TMA-21 — STS-134 — Soyuz TMA-02M — STS-135 — Soyuz TMA-22 — Soyuz TMA-03M
2012   Soyuz TMA-04M — Shenzhou 9 — Soyuz TMA-05M — Soyuz TMA-06M — Soyuz TMA-07M
2013   Soyuz TMA-08M — Soyuz TMA-09M — Shenzhou 10 — Soyuz TMA-10M — Soyuz TMA-11M
2014   Soyuz TMA-12M — Soyuz TMA-13M — Soyuz TMA-14M — Soyuz TMA-15M
2015   Soyuz TMA-16M — Soyuz TMA-17M — Soyuz TMA-18M — Soyuz TMA-19M

Do you lot feel that a new thread is needed to explore the key points made thus far?

Do we have members willing to invest money and time into conducting their own research?

These manned launches military deception operations and the 10s of millions of people military intelligence organisations that made it happen would prove you don't know what you're talking about are 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.

What is Joule-Thomson Expansion and How does it relate to Rockets in Space?
from: http://www.etomica.org/app/modules/sites/JouleThomson/Background2.html

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? Let’s 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.

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.

Fig 2 modified from same reference.

I am sure that this can be tidied up a bit, and any case our mutual "friend" will simply say "wrong", without any explanation of why.  I am always prepared to learn, but simply being told I am wrong does is not the slightest bit constructive.  Of course said "friend" has no interest in being constructive.
I will admit that, as he, himself has stated, I have learnt a lot from him!  Just read carefully what he says, and 99% of the time take the exact opposite.  Mind you I can't find that 1% anywhere!

Quote from: cucked-by-goats on January 12, 2016, 05:17:37 PM

These manned launches military deception operations and the 10s of millions of people military intelligence organisations that made it happen would prove you don't know what you're talking about are good at their jobs.

Fixed that for you, Geoff!

Quote from: Andromeda Galaxy on January 12, 2016, 05:29:41 PM

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.

Do you have a particular thermodynamics text book that states that rockets cannot work in a vacuum?

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.

Quote from: cucked-by-goats on January 12, 2016, 05:17:37 PM

These manned launches military deception operations and the 10s of millions of people military intelligence organisations that made it happen would prove you don't know what you're talking about are good at their jobs.

Fixed that for you, Geoff!

Quote from: Andromeda Galaxy on January 12, 2016, 05:29:41 PM

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.

You mean something like any one of these?

https://www.google.com.au/search?num=100&lr=&hl=en&as_qdr=all&q=thermodynamic+textbook+rocket+propulsion&spell=1&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjf2YC616XKAhXIOJQKHen1DZQQvwUIGigA&biw=1920&bih=949

Cheers Numb-nuts

Quote from: rabinoz on January 12, 2016, 05:35:15 PM

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.

Nope, Newton!  (Without the Professor Legba appendices)

You mean something like any one of these?

Nah.

A real one, not propaganda bullshit, spooky Geoff.

Let's look at your erotic fanfic again, psycho-nonce:

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.

lol.

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.

'8 inch'...

lol.

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.

Quote from: Papa Legba on January 12, 2016, 05:53:18 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on January 12, 2016, 05:35:15 PM

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.

Nope, Newton!

Indeed.

That's because you can't.

Nice try, schizo-nonce!

Quote from: cucked-by-goats on January 12, 2016, 05:56:38 PM

You mean something like any one of these?

Nah.

A real one, not propaganda bullshit, spooky Geoff.

So provide a link to a "real" textbook that shows how rockets don't work in a vacuum because of free expansion.

No.

Your dumb alter-ego rabinoz has just showed how Free Expansion proves rockets don't work in a vacuum for us.

He's just too dumb to realise it.

Like you.

Now; let's enjoy your erotic Papa Legba fanfic again:

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.

lol.

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.

'8 inch'...

lol.

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.

Toodle-pip, RentboyMike!

Anyhoo; time for this 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 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:



Ooh - vacuum-proof!

Also, markjo never addressed this post, which proves he is a Liar:

Quote from: Papa Legba on January 12, 2016, 06:53:18 AM

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.

Oh; look what I found:

Quote from: Papa Legba on December 24, 2015, 06:17:27 AM

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?

Oops!

Busted again...

You REALLY need that hyALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD!!!

Just open a book on thermodynamics & read it ffs.

Free Expansion = No Shpayze-Shippz.

So you still can't find a "real" textbook that supports your opinion.