HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)

Quote from: JackBlack on August 19, 2019, 01:58:39 PM

Quote from: boydster on August 19, 2019, 10:41:17 AM

There is someone here who is willing and able to test the claim of the OP and people just want to keep arguing with each other while ignoring the fact that they need not argue because someone is willing to empirically demonstrate whether or not a rocket can work in a vacuum.

That speaks volumes about the debaters. So many posts, and clearly most of the parties just want to talk without listening.

They have already been tested countless times.
There is always some excuse.
The typical one is that it isn't a vacuum as the rocket is generating a bunch of gas.
This means a very large vacuum chamber (or just space itself) is needed, at which point you end up dealing with large government agencies or corporations that would be dismissed as part of the conspiracy.

Meanwhile, my very simple question shows that rockets need to work in a vacuum, yet it is continually being avoided.
That speaks volumes about clickljamas.

Perhaps reread what Bom Tishop posted about his proposed method. And perhaps cikljamas, if you guys can hold off on the frothing-at-the-mouth posting for a few minutes, could comment on whether he thinks the proposed test would be something he could get behind.

I realize that you and Rab are like dogs with a bone here, completely unwilling and unable to control yourselves from posting copious amounts of condescending comments and playing holier-than-thou over those you perceive as your intellectual underlings. But it sure would be nice if you could cut that out long enough for the OP to address a proposed experiment by another member of this very community to possibly determine if the OP's position has something to it or not.

Literally none of the experiments you could possibly refer to were conducted with any sort of dialog or collaboration between cikljamas and the person conducting the experiment. We have a chance to resolve that here. You could get out of the way and let progress happen, or you can keep clogging this thread with noise like you've been doing.

What a based message and of course jackblack completely ignored it lol.

From what I see of other tests, a simple rocket bought at a hobby store will not suffice. Will probably need to make something that can use it's own oxidizer...maybe a small hybrid rocket.

It doesn't seem cik would think mine is big enough, he said size of a room and mine is "only" about 900ft3. Which is actually very large for a vacuum chamber, but not the "size of a room".

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82766.0

Here is thread with pictures and design if anyone actually cares.

As for the rocket disturbing the vacuum itself, I don't think that will be an issue especially after watching other examples on YouTube. It should be large enough and able to pull a deep enough vacuum to have very little effect. Most of the ones on YouTube are tiny and have pumps that can't even pull 30. Certainly not a hard vacuum.

Also, remember it can flow nitrogen through the chamber during nitriding and still hold a deep vacuum. So I can just leave the pumps running during the test as well.


I doubt any of this will make any difference as it seems most people here don't care about the truth one way or another. Just want to keep slap fighting each other.

Is this foreplay?

It doesn't seem cik would think mine is big enough, he said size of a room and mine is "only" about 900ft3. Which is actually very large for a vacuum chamber, but not the "size of a room".

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82766.0

I doubt that anything will convince those with a "religious belief" against a rocket working in a vacuum would ever be convinced.
But experiments like this seem worthwhile (to those of us not footing the bill ) because it is more evidence against the deniers.
Yours might be "only" about 900ft3 but it's far bigger than any chamber I've seen used.

I doubt any of this will make any difference as it seems most people here don't care about the truth one way or another. Just want to keep slap fighting each other.

That's the big problem.
Most deniers seem unmoved by real evidence and most of the rest are quite prepared to accept the basic physics.

On the practical side.
It would be good to measure the static thrust in normal air pressure and under vacuum. Then with the exhaust facing a wall and far from a wall.

I do hope that the residue won't contaminate your chamber - if there's a risk of that it might be prudent not to go ahead.

But it's up to you. If I wore a hat "I'd dip me lid to you ."

Quote from: boydster on August 19, 2019, 03:46:10 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on August 19, 2019, 01:58:39 PM

Quote from: boydster on August 19, 2019, 10:41:17 AM

There is someone here who is willing and able to test the claim of the OP and people just want to keep arguing with each other while ignoring the fact that they need not argue because someone is willing to empirically demonstrate whether or not a rocket can work in a vacuum.

That speaks volumes about the debaters. So many posts, and clearly most of the parties just want to talk without listening.

They have already been tested countless times.
There is always some excuse.
The typical one is that it isn't a vacuum as the rocket is generating a bunch of gas.
This means a very large vacuum chamber (or just space itself) is needed, at which point you end up dealing with large government agencies or corporations that would be dismissed as part of the conspiracy.

Meanwhile, my very simple question shows that rockets need to work in a vacuum, yet it is continually being avoided.
That speaks volumes about clickljamas.

Perhaps reread what Bom Tishop posted about his proposed method. And perhaps cikljamas, if you guys can hold off on the frothing-at-the-mouth posting for a few minutes, could comment on whether he thinks the proposed test would be something he could get behind.

I realize that you and Rab are like dogs with a bone here, completely unwilling and unable to control yourselves from posting copious amounts of condescending comments and playing holier-than-thou over those you perceive as your intellectual underlings. But it sure would be nice if you could cut that out long enough for the OP to address a proposed experiment by another member of this very community to possibly determine if the OP's position has something to it or not.

Literally none of the experiments you could possibly refer to were conducted with any sort of dialog or collaboration between cikljamas and the person conducting the experiment. We have a chance to resolve that here. You could get out of the way and let progress happen, or you can keep clogging this thread with noise like you've been doing.

What a based message and of course jackblack completely ignored it lol.

From what I see of other tests, a simple rocket bought at a hobby store will not suffice. Will probably need to make something that can use it's own oxidizer...maybe a small hybrid rocket.

It doesn't seem cik would think mine is big enough, he said size of a room and mine is "only" about 900ft3. Which is actually very large for a vacuum chamber, but not the "size of a room".

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82766.0

Here is thread with pictures and design if anyone actually cares.

As for the rocket disturbing the vacuum itself, I don't think that will be an issue especially after watching other examples on YouTube. It should be large enough and able to pull a deep enough vacuum to have very little effect. Most of the ones on YouTube are tiny and have pumps that can't even pull 30. Certainly not a hard vacuum.

Also, remember it can flow nitrogen through the chamber during nitriding and still hold a deep vacuum. So I can just leave the pumps running during the test as well.


I doubt any of this will make any difference as it seems most people here don't care about the truth one way or another. Just want to keep slap fighting each other.

Is this foreplay?

It seems to me that you need our approval for conducting your experiment? As far as i am concerned you have (my) approval. If you can meet basic scientific conditions (which could pass scientific peer review) for conducting scientifically well-grounded experiment, then what stopping you from carrying it forward? If you want me to keep my mouth shut while JackBlack, Rabinoz and others are viciously biting and barking (in this one man fighting many show), then just say it...As for me this show is over, anyway, so the mic is all yours...Good luck, and don't worry...i am the last person in this world who would be afraid of acknowledging validity of scientifically verified (non-biased, genuine) experiments!!! Looking forward for the final results of your awesome enterprise!!!

Wonder how those reflectors got there?

"One Apollo 11 Experiment Is Still Going 50 Years Later"

https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-institute/ieee-history/one-apollo-11-experiment-is-still-going-50-years-later

It seems to me that you need our approval for conducting your experiment? As far as i am concerned you have (my) approval. If you can meet basic scientific conditions (which could pass scientific peer review) for conducting scientifically well-grounded experiment, then what stopping you from carrying it forward? If you want me to keep my mouth shut while JackBlack, Rabinoz and others are viciously biting and barking (in this one man fighting many show), then just say it...As for me this show is over, anyway, so the mic is all yours...Good luck, and don't worry...i am the last person in this world who would be afraid of acknowledging validity of scientifically verified (non-biased, genuine) experiments!!! Looking forward for the final results of your awesome enterprise!!!

No, I don't think you should just keep your mouth shut at all. If you read the first or second post I wrote in this thread I said you were doing a great job at standing your ground with everyone after you. Said you were doing well in supporting your case.

Just read boydster's post and that is what I was trying to say.

I also don't need your permission to do anything. However, attempting to gather information from sceptics on what would actually prove a fruitful experiment is what I was looking to do. That is all.

Despite my doubts of the moon landing and space travel outside high orbit, I don't have much doubts on rockets working in a vacuum. So I am simply trying to gather information from those most skeptical. I am not attacking anyone whatsoever (at least on this subject).

I am willing to accept the results one way or the other. To be honest I would prefer it not to work, because that would absolutely blow my mind, and what that would implicate

Quote from: cikljamas on August 20, 2019, 03:25:40 AM

It seems to me that you need our approval for conducting your experiment? As far as i am concerned you have (my) approval. If you can meet basic scientific conditions (which could pass scientific peer review) for conducting scientifically well-grounded experiment, then what stopping you from carrying it forward? If you want me to keep my mouth shut while JackBlack, Rabinoz and others are viciously biting and barking (in this one man fighting many show), then just say it...As for me this show is over, anyway, so the mic is all yours...Good luck, and don't worry...i am the last person in this world who would be afraid of acknowledging validity of scientifically verified (non-biased, genuine) experiments!!! Looking forward for the final results of your awesome enterprise!!!

No, I don't think you should just keep your mouth shut at all. If you read the first or second post I wrote in this thread I said you were doing a great job at standing your ground with everyone after you. Said you were doing well in supporting your case.

Just read boydster's post and that is what I was trying to say.

I also don't need your permission to do anything. However, attempting to gather information from sceptics on what would actually prove a fruitful experiment is what I was looking to do. That is all.

Despite my doubts of the moon landing and space travel outside high orbit, I don't have much doubts on rockets working in a vacuum. So I am simply trying to gather information from those most skeptical. I am not attacking anyone whatsoever (at least on this subject).

I am willing to accept the results one way or the other. To be honest I would prefer it not to work, because that would absolutely blow my mind, and what that would implicate

Given all you've just said, and everything you had written in your first few posts left in this thread (thanks for reminding me to your supporting words in those comments, although i remember them well) i hope your experiment is going to be a substantial contribution to our time and efforts invested into settling this matter out, once and for all...I am also willing to accept the results one way or the other, and i am very glad you would prefer it not to work, not because that would absolutely blow your mind (and what that would implicate), but because it further reinforces (in my view, at least) your status of an objective, unbiased researcher. ....

Maybe, just one little tip, if you allow me :

Quote from: Bom Tishop on August 20, 2019, 05:20:27 AM

Quote from: cikljamas on August 20, 2019, 03:25:40 AM

It seems to me that you need our approval for conducting your experiment? As far as i am concerned you have (my) approval. If you can meet basic scientific conditions (which could pass scientific peer review) for conducting scientifically well-grounded experiment, then what stopping you from carrying it forward? If you want me to keep my mouth shut while JackBlack, Rabinoz and others are viciously biting and barking (in this one man fighting many show), then just say it...As for me this show is over, anyway, so the mic is all yours...Good luck, and don't worry...i am the last person in this world who would be afraid of acknowledging validity of scientifically verified (non-biased, genuine) experiments!!! Looking forward for the final results of your awesome enterprise!!!

No, I don't think you should just keep your mouth shut at all. If you read the first or second post I wrote in this thread I said you were doing a great job at standing your ground with everyone after you. Said you were doing well in supporting your case.

Just read boydster's post and that is what I was trying to say.

I also don't need your permission to do anything. However, attempting to gather information from sceptics on what would actually prove a fruitful experiment is what I was looking to do. That is all.

Despite my doubts of the moon landing and space travel outside high orbit, I don't have much doubts on rockets working in a vacuum. So I am simply trying to gather information from those most skeptical. I am not attacking anyone whatsoever (at least on this subject).

I am willing to accept the results one way or the other. To be honest I would prefer it not to work, because that would absolutely blow my mind, and what that would implicate

Given all you've just said, and everything you had written in your first few posts left in this thread (thanks for reminding me to your supporting words in those comments, although i remember them well) i hope your experiment is going to be a substantial contribution to our time and efforts invested into settling this matter out, once and for all...I am also willing to accept the results one way or the other, and i am very glad you would prefer it not to work, not because that would absolutely blow your mind (and what that would implicate), but because it further reinforces (in my view, at least) your status of an objective, unbiased researcher. ....

Maybe, just one little tip, if you allow me :

Yes, I was thinking the same thing. Was thinking of making a slide out of plastic (I make things mainly out of metals, but was going to use plastic so it can be clear to avoid people saying trickery etc) and have it stuck to the top. The very top unscrews (that is why I keep one of my hoist over it to make opening easier), so was going to stick the rocket and everything else on that.

The rocket at that point will be about 14 feet away from the bottom.

I think this will be the easiest, most efficient way for mounting. Will have a go pro next to it and a very bright light, all stuck on with separate magnets.

All of those should be relatively quick to construct.  The only hold up is the actual rocket itself. From seeing other videos, you have to encapsulate it for them to even light. I don't want to do that.

I am thinking of a possible hybrid rocket, made of solid acrylic with a gas oxidizer. Though that can get complicated when trying to operate in the chamber sealed. So I am still pondering on the best way to simulate the actual rocket. It's about the only hold up currently. As chamber contamination isn't a monster concern as long as it is within reason. I also don't want to spend a ridiculous amount of time building the rocket either if possible.

Quote from: cikljamas on August 20, 2019, 07:34:10 AM

Quote from: Bom Tishop on August 20, 2019, 05:20:27 AM

Quote from: cikljamas on August 20, 2019, 03:25:40 AM

It seems to me that you need our approval for conducting your experiment? As far as i am concerned you have (my) approval. If you can meet basic scientific conditions (which could pass scientific peer review) for conducting scientifically well-grounded experiment, then what stopping you from carrying it forward? If you want me to keep my mouth shut while JackBlack, Rabinoz and others are viciously biting and barking (in this one man fighting many show), then just say it...As for me this show is over, anyway, so the mic is all yours...Good luck, and don't worry...i am the last person in this world who would be afraid of acknowledging validity of scientifically verified (non-biased, genuine) experiments!!! Looking forward for the final results of your awesome enterprise!!!

No, I don't think you should just keep your mouth shut at all. If you read the first or second post I wrote in this thread I said you were doing a great job at standing your ground with everyone after you. Said you were doing well in supporting your case.

Just read boydster's post and that is what I was trying to say.

I also don't need your permission to do anything. However, attempting to gather information from sceptics on what would actually prove a fruitful experiment is what I was looking to do. That is all.

Despite my doubts of the moon landing and space travel outside high orbit, I don't have much doubts on rockets working in a vacuum. So I am simply trying to gather information from those most skeptical. I am not attacking anyone whatsoever (at least on this subject).

I am willing to accept the results one way or the other. To be honest I would prefer it not to work, because that would absolutely blow my mind, and what that would implicate

Given all you've just said, and everything you had written in your first few posts left in this thread (thanks for reminding me to your supporting words in those comments, although i remember them well) i hope your experiment is going to be a substantial contribution to our time and efforts invested into settling this matter out, once and for all...I am also willing to accept the results one way or the other, and i am very glad you would prefer it not to work, not because that would absolutely blow your mind (and what that would implicate), but because it further reinforces (in my view, at least) your status of an objective, unbiased researcher. ....

Maybe, just one little tip, if you allow me :

Yes, I was thinking the same thing. Was thinking of making a slide out of plastic (I make things mainly out of metals, but was going to use plastic so it can be clear to avoid people saying trickery etc) and have it stuck to the top. The very top unscrews (that is why I keep one of my hoist over it to make opening easier), so was going to stick the rocket and everything else on that.

The rocket at that point will be about 14 feet away from the bottom.

I think this will be the easiest, most efficient way for mounting. Will have a go pro next to it and a very bright light, all stuck on with separate magnets.

All of those should be relatively quick to construct.  The only hold up is the actual rocket itself. From seeing other videos, you have to encapsulate it for them to even light. I don't want to do that.

I am thinking of a possible hybrid rocket, made of solid acrylic with a gas oxidizer. Though that can get complicated when trying to operate in the chamber sealed. So I am still pondering on the best way to simulate the actual rocket. It's about the only hold up currently. As chamber contamination isn't a monster concern as long as it is within reason. I also don't want to spend a ridiculous amount of time building the rocket either if possible.

I hope you are gonna find feasible solution to the actual rocket problem, and once everything is finalized, i've no doubts that we will  remember it (and pay homage to it) as one of a kind decisive amateur experiment, like this one :

Extended Michelson-Morley Interferometer experiment. English version :

Martin Grusenick, an experimenter in Germany, has repeated the Michelson-Morley interferometer experiment with a rather simple laser set-up and has found - to no great surprise - that rotating his apparatus horizontally, no shifts in the interference fringes are observed. Grusenick however had another idea. He modified his apparatus to make it possible to rotate in a vertical plane ... documenting his results in a video above...

I've paid homage to Grusenick's experiment with this video :
AETHER FIELD IS THERE - THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING!!!


FOUCAULT DEBUNKED by Rob Durham :


FOUCAULT DEBUNKED by me :


CONCORDE ARGUMENT :
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=78814.msg2128697#msg2128697
ACCOMPANYING VIDEO :
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7gtor4

Some more food for thought :

Quote from: cikljamas on August 20, 2019, 07:34:10 AM

Quote from: Bom Tishop on August 20, 2019, 05:20:27 AM

Quote from: cikljamas on August 20, 2019, 03:25:40 AM

It seems to me that you need our approval for conducting your experiment? As far as i am concerned you have (my) approval. If you can meet basic scientific conditions (which could pass scientific peer review) for conducting scientifically well-grounded experiment, then what stopping you from carrying it forward? If you want me to keep my mouth shut while JackBlack, Rabinoz and others are viciously biting and barking (in this one man fighting many show), then just say it...As for me this show is over, anyway, so the mic is all yours...Good luck, and don't worry...i am the last person in this world who would be afraid of acknowledging validity of scientifically verified (non-biased, genuine) experiments!!! Looking forward for the final results of your awesome enterprise!!!

No, I don't think you should just keep your mouth shut at all. If you read the first or second post I wrote in this thread I said you were doing a great job at standing your ground with everyone after you. Said you were doing well in supporting your case.

Just read boydster's post and that is what I was trying to say.

I also don't need your permission to do anything. However, attempting to gather information from sceptics on what would actually prove a fruitful experiment is what I was looking to do. That is all.

Despite my doubts of the moon landing and space travel outside high orbit, I don't have much doubts on rockets working in a vacuum. So I am simply trying to gather information from those most skeptical. I am not attacking anyone whatsoever (at least on this subject).

I am willing to accept the results one way or the other. To be honest I would prefer it not to work, because that would absolutely blow my mind, and what that would implicate

Given all you've just said, and everything you had written in your first few posts left in this thread (thanks for reminding me to your supporting words in those comments, although i remember them well) i hope your experiment is going to be a substantial contribution to our time and efforts invested into settling this matter out, once and for all...I am also willing to accept the results one way or the other, and i am very glad you would prefer it not to work, not because that would absolutely blow your mind (and what that would implicate), but because it further reinforces (in my view, at least) your status of an objective, unbiased researcher. ....

Maybe, just one little tip, if you allow me :

Yes, I was thinking the same thing. Was thinking of making a slide out of plastic (I make things mainly out of metals, but was going to use plastic so it can be clear to avoid people saying trickery etc) and have it stuck to the top. The very top unscrews (that is why I keep one of my hoist over it to make opening easier), so was going to stick the rocket and everything else on that.

The rocket at that point will be about 14 feet away from the bottom.

I think this will be the easiest, most efficient way for mounting. Will have a go pro next to it and a very bright light, all stuck on with separate magnets.

All of those should be relatively quick to construct.  The only hold up is the actual rocket itself. From seeing other videos, you have to encapsulate it for them to even light. I don't want to do that.

I am thinking of a possible hybrid rocket, made of solid acrylic with a gas oxidizer. Though that can get complicated when trying to operate in the chamber sealed. So I am still pondering on the best way to simulate the actual rocket. It's about the only hold up currently. As chamber contamination isn't a monster concern as long as it is within reason. I also don't want to spend a ridiculous amount of time building the rocket either if possible.

This guy did the experiment. Version 2 where he learned some stuff from commenters. It might give everyone some insights into how to perform the experiment so it's a whatever level of conclusivity and so that it doesn't blow up Bom's workshop:

This guy did the experiment. Version 2 where he learned some stuff from commenters. It might give everyone some insights into how to perform the experiment so it's a whatever level of conclusivity and so that it doesn't blow up Bom's workshop:

First of all, let me entertain you with just a few warm-up comments left below this video :

Tore Wilhelmsen
2 months ago
it is not a test only talk

Grant Perkins
3 years ago
kids please don't watch this, it could damage your brain.

Freddie Maré
2 years ago
mmm yes we all believe that you still have a chamber and your rocket fuel expand filling the tube with oxide for the rocket to pouch against so come up with a more solid explanation and a system that will keep the vacuum and no particles in that vacuum as we have it in apparent space as we have been told but no physical prove to date.
you still just speculating here!

Sal Amander
2 years ago
This is the most idiotic test ever.
It's like saying that because a tennis ball will bounce off the floor in a vaccum chamber, then the tennis ball will bounce off of space in space, also.

Furlock Furli
3 years ago
how incredibly dumb can you be making people believe that a vacuum tube is like a vacuum of no limits (so called space). I mean, don't waste the time of people. 

Samuel Dye
2 years ago
You have the "rocket" sitting on a surface to push off on.  In the vacuum of space there is nothing to push off on.  Faulty experiment.

Larry Bowleg
2 years ago
If that is proof of anything, I have a unicorn for sale. Poor attempt at replicating reality, Peter, but hey, that's what space research is all about.

ThomasG10mtn
2 months ago
I stopped the video @2:22 to comment: THERE IS NO WAY YOU ARE GOING TO PULL A TRUE VACUUM IN ANY OF THOSE CHAMBERS!
(and before you state he will still be pulling a vacuum to prove his point, let me state this: We already know rockets can fly as high as Mount Everest. That's not the point. They are still pushing off of air. There is still RESISTANCE.

Tri Le
1 year ago
try a bigger vacuum where the exhausts don't refill the chamber

Cruze Missile
2 years ago
this  is in no way any proof that a rocket will fly in a vacuum !!! Launch a rocket from the bottom of a large 4 inch pipe at least 20 feet tall and pull a vacuum and leave the pump running and if it can't hit the top your so called proof is debunked!!!

Pascal xavier
1 year ago
It's not an absolute proof, your rocket can push against the bottom of your tube.

Gustav Gans
3 years ago
your ignorance and stupidity is more than sad.  the vacuum chamber contains still about 5 - 10% of the normal air pressure . that is not even near to the vacuum in that the iss allegedly flies. furthermore it demonstrates the complete contrary of your statement.

And now, i warmly recommend everyone to read this very important comment which sums up the whole problem with these vacuum chamber experiments :

Markoul11
1 year ago (edited)
Sir,

Just two points and a conclusion.

1) Very High speed cameras 2,500 FPS and not the 1200 FPS you are using, are clearly showing that in a vacuum chamber the chamber gets FIRST, pressurized by the rocket exhaust gases during the ignition or detonation phase locally in the vicinity where the rocket is located inside the tube and only then and after,  it starts to move forward. You can also see this in your experiment, the pressure gauge ticked for a brief moment when the rocket was fired.

This delay is NOT because the inertia of the rocket and we can calculate this, which considerring the mass of your rocket is almost null.

This instanteneous local presuarization is much larger than the gauge tickle shown in your experiment and is only partially registered by the gauge meter because the relative large response time of the meter.

Furthermore, making the chamber in the form of a relative narrow tube you use in your experiment, makes things even worse pressure vise, adding to the build up of local pressure during ignition of rocket. Considering the rocket you used, you tube should be at minimum 20cm in diameter (for this small rocket a 3 meter distance from the bottom end of the tube should be enough).

2) I quote:

"All propellants in a vacuum must be compressed by an extra one atmosphere (101325 pa) to compensate for the loss of ambient  pressure, in order to ignite using thermal activation, alternatively the propellant must be ignited using a detonation charge,..  Cody failed to do this,..a mistake I  also made with at first,...P"
end quote

So now , you admit that there is  pressurized air inside the rocket casing. Certainly not for a sustained thrust but just enough for a push!

Tip: Next time during ignition leave the vacuum pump ON and working AND CLOSE TO THE ROCKET exhaust!!

I rest my case.

Conclusion:

1) All these vacuum chamber experiments are destined to fail to emulate rocket thrust in space and and don't produce conclusive results therefore deemed as unsuitable and can not be used as proof.

2) There is not such thing in science like final conclusion or absolute proof.

3) So far latest very high speed camera tests show that Newton's 3rd law is not applicable for chemical thrust rockets in space.
---------------------------------------

I am sorry to steer this matter again Sir but it catch my eye and couldn't leave it without a proper response.

ROCKET ENGINE IN A VACUUM CHAMBER IN SLOW MOTION - VIDEO :
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7gugbj

ORIGINAL VIDEO :

Kind Regards,

Markoul11

Quote from: Stash on August 20, 2019, 12:08:41 PM

This guy did the experiment. Version 2 where he learned some stuff from commenters. It might give everyone some insights into how to perform the experiment so it's a whatever level of conclusivity and so that it doesn't blow up Bom's workshop:

First of all, let me entertain you with just a few warm-up comments left below this video :

~comments~

That's all fine and well. I wasn't posting the video as "proof" that rockets work in a vacuum but more for how an experiment should or should not be conducted. I think I got my answer.

Basically what you're saying is that no experiment in a vacuum chamber would suffice - There is no non-space based experiment that would adequately demonstrate a rocket working in a vacuum for you? Do I have that right?

Just trying to make it so Bom and others don't waste their time trying to set something up only to have you, or the likes of you, perpetually conjure up reasons why your errant belief system is so blind that even a physical experiment is invisible to you.

Quote from: cikljamas on August 20, 2019, 01:52:59 PM

Quote from: Stash on August 20, 2019, 12:08:41 PM

This guy did the experiment. Version 2 where he learned some stuff from commenters. It might give everyone some insights into how to perform the experiment so it's a whatever level of conclusivity and so that it doesn't blow up Bom's workshop:

First of all, let me entertain you with just a few warm-up comments left below this video :

~comments~

Basically what you're saying is that no experiment in a vacuum chamber would suffice - There is no non-space based experiment that would adequately demonstrate a rocket working in a vacuum for you? Do I have that right?

No, you don't have that right, as usual!

It’s that time again, how does one exhaust molecule hitting an air molecule transfer a force to the rocket?

Quote from: Stash on August 20, 2019, 02:21:17 PM

Quote from: cikljamas on August 20, 2019, 01:52:59 PM

Quote from: Stash on August 20, 2019, 12:08:41 PM

This guy did the experiment. Version 2 where he learned some stuff from commenters. It might give everyone some insights into how to perform the experiment so it's a whatever level of conclusivity and so that it doesn't blow up Bom's workshop:

First of all, let me entertain you with just a few warm-up comments left below this video :

~comments~

Basically what you're saying is that no experiment in a vacuum chamber would suffice - There is no non-space based experiment that would adequately demonstrate a rocket working in a vacuum for you? Do I have that right?

No, you don't have that right, as usual!

Great, so instead of being a dick about it, why don't you help us design an experiment that would answer the question, "Do rockets work in a vacuum?"

What would a well designed experiment look like? Is Bom's chamber big enough? What kind of rocket engine would we use? Etc., You know, practical insights rather than just copy and pasting comments that support your world view about a video that doesn't.

Great, so instead of being a dick about it, why don't you help us design an experiment that would answer the question, "Do rockets work in a vacuum?"

He knows very well what he has to do, why are you panicking? It seems to me you just couldn't stand you errant belief system crumbling down before you own eyes...that is why you encourage him to give up the experiment, isn't that so? Stop panicking and stay tuned...

He knows very well what he has to do, why are you panicking?

All those people before him also know what was required, yet their experiments have been dismissed by you and others like you.
It seems that you aren't giving details so if the experiment works and shows that rockets don't work in a vacuum you can just pick out some "flaw" and dismiss it.

Just what is required for an experiment like this in order for you to accept it?

Quote from: Stash on August 20, 2019, 02:56:32 PM

Great, so instead of being a dick about it, why don't you help us design an experiment that would answer the question, "Do rockets work in a vacuum?"

He knows very well what he has to do, why are you panicking? It seems to me you just couldn't stand you errant belief system crumbling down before you own eyes...that is why you encourage him to give up the experiment, isn't that so? Stop panicking and stay tuned...

No one is panicking. I have mountains of evidence to support my position already. You have literally none. I don't need any new experiments to prove me right. So I'm cool as a cucumber.

But I'm all for breaking CFC's vacuum in with a rocket experiment. I think it would be interesting to do so. It's just that I know your kind. So the best order of business is for you to clearly state how the experiment should be performed that would satisfy that it was done correctly. So lay it on us. How should it be set up? What's a worthy vacuum level needed? Having the engine push on a scale? If it's sufficiently high enough in the chamber, does that remove the "It's pushing of the walls/bottom" argument? etc.

Be helpful, not a hindrance if you really want to seek the truth.

Quote from: cikljamas on August 20, 2019, 03:17:50 PM

Quote from: Stash on August 20, 2019, 02:56:32 PM

Great, so instead of being a dick about it, why don't you help us design an experiment that would answer the question, "Do rockets work in a vacuum?"

He knows very well what he has to do, why are you panicking? It seems to me you just couldn't stand you errant belief system crumbling down before you own eyes...that is why you encourage him to give up the experiment, isn't that so? Stop panicking and stay tuned...

No one is panicking. I have mountains of evidence to support my position already. You have literally none. I don't need any new experiments to prove me right. So I'm cool as a cucumber.

You are scared to death, sonny boy, i can feel your horror, it's very tangible...

Should i quote Bom Tishop, once again?

Here we go :

Quote 1 : As for the rocket disturbing the vacuum itself, I don't think that will be an issue especially after watching other examples on YouTube. It should be large enough and able to pull a deep enough vacuum to have very little effect. Most of the ones on YouTube are tiny and have pumps that can't even pull 30. Certainly not a hard vacuum.

Also, remember it can flow nitrogen through the chamber during nitriding and still hold a deep vacuum. So I can just leave the pumps running during the test as well.

Quote 2 : Yes, I was thinking the same thing. Was thinking of making a slide out of plastic (I make things mainly out of metals, but was going to use plastic so it can be clear to avoid people saying trickery etc) and have it stuck to the top. The very top unscrews (that is why I keep one of my hoist over it to make opening easier), so was going to stick the rocket and everything else on that.

The rocket at that point will be about 14 feet away from the bottom.

I think this will be the easiest, most efficient way for mounting. Will have a go pro next to it and a very bright light, all stuck on with separate magnets.

All of those should be relatively quick to construct.  The only hold up is the actual rocket itself. From seeing other videos, you have to encapsulate it for them to even light. I don't want to do that.

I am thinking of a possible hybrid rocket, made of solid acrylic with a gas oxidizer. Though that can get complicated when trying to operate in the chamber sealed. So I am still pondering on the best way to simulate the actual rocket. It's about the only hold up currently. As chamber contamination isn't a monster concern as long as it is within reason. I also don't want to spend a ridiculous amount of time building the rocket either if possible.

So, he definitely knows very well what he has to do, and you are definitely scared to death sunny boy!!!

Now it's time to relax : Stay tuned and keep being cool as a cucumber, sunny boy!!!

Can you use kerosene and liquid oxygen for the fuel and oxidizer?

Quote from: Stash on August 20, 2019, 03:50:16 PM

Quote from: cikljamas on August 20, 2019, 03:17:50 PM

Quote from: Stash on August 20, 2019, 02:56:32 PM

Great, so instead of being a dick about it, why don't you help us design an experiment that would answer the question, "Do rockets work in a vacuum?"

He knows very well what he has to do, why are you panicking? It seems to me you just couldn't stand you errant belief system crumbling down before you own eyes...that is why you encourage him to give up the experiment, isn't that so? Stop panicking and stay tuned...

No one is panicking. I have mountains of evidence to support my position already. You have literally none. I don't need any new experiments to prove me right. So I'm cool as a cucumber.

You are scared to death, sonny boy, i can feel your horror, it's very tangible...

Interesting, your perceptions regarding another's demeanor are even more faulty than your logic regarding, well pretty much everything. But cool, as long as you're on board and you're helping to define and drive the experiment, that's great.

Looking forward to the results, carry on.

Edit: Who uses 'sonny boy'? Were you born in the teens of the last century?

Can you use kerosene and liquid oxygen for the fuel and oxidizer?

Hybrid rockets are usually far more simple to build.  No cryogenic plumbing or pumps to worry about.  That and you can use just about anything flammable as the fuel.

Ok, one good thing I have gotten out of this so far is there needs to be a scale at the top of the plastic slide. That was we can see the comparison of vacuum vs none.

I started drawing up some ideas on solid works for the slide, but will need to figure out the dimensions of the rocket before finishing. Will need to send that off to my friend to make, as all my machinery is designed for metal works.

The rocket is the only thing that is the hold up currently

Wonder when a FEer will say "the moment the rocket started firing there were then gases in the chamber for it to push against". I imagine the vacuum pump wouldn't work fast enough to remove the gases during firing.

Of course that can be countered by observing that, if true, the rockets thrust should increase as the gas pressure rises, though you'd have to be very sure your engines power remains constant throughout the experiment.

Wonder when a FEer will say "the moment the rocket started firing there were then gases in the chamber for it to push against". I imagine the vacuum pump wouldn't work fast enough to remove the gases during firing.

You mean: "the moment the rocket started firing at the orbit around Moon, there wasn't vacuum at the nozzle exit any more".

Wonder when a FEer will say "the moment the rocket started firing there were then gases in the chamber for it to push against".

As I recall, one of the arguments is that the propellant can't burn in a vacuum in the first place, so that's the first domino that needs to tumble.

Wonder when a FEer will say "the moment the rocket started firing there were then gases in the chamber for it to push against". I imagine the vacuum pump wouldn't work fast enough to remove the gases during firing.

Of course that can be countered by observing that, if true, the rockets thrust should increase as the gas pressure rises, though you'd have to be very sure your engines power remains constant throughout the experiment.

Yeah, this is the problem with all these little hobby rockets.  There seems to be a significant delay between ignition and achieving full thrust. 

That just make rocket deniers think that you only get the thrust as the chamber fills with gas.  It’s not helped by the fact there’s a lot of smoke, which just looks bad, even if the pressure is actually still low.

I once suggested to the makers of one of these videos they could ditch the rocket entirely, and replace with an air line from an air cylinder or compressor to an appropriate nozzle.  That would allow them to get a steady full flow virtually instantaneously.

Hook up the nozzle to a force or strain gauge on the support, and use a pressure transducer to monitor pressure in the chamber.  Use a computer, digital oscilloscope, or data logger to record all results. 

Plot a graph of both nozzle force and chamber pressure wrt time.

If the rocket deniers are right, the force should start at zero and gradually climb as air is let into the chamber.  If regular physics is right, the force should be applied instantly and even drop slightly over time (assuming the pressure regulator is outside the vacuum chamber).

Repeat test for chamber at atmospheric pressure as a control.  Plot these results too.

And for Gods sake, spend some time discussing results.  These guys always spend most of the time describing how they built the thing, then just say “yep, that works”.  It’s kind of infuriating to be honest.

I think there's a much easier way you can demonstrate that pressure differences move vessels around even in a vacuum.  Any chance you can rig remote-controlled scissors?  Might be simpler than a fuse detonator.

What I'm thinking this: slightly inflate a balloon and tie it off.  Put the slightly-inflated balloon in the vacuum chamber's platform and pump out the chamber's air.  (This will also give us a cool visual of the balloon inflating in the vacuum.)  Then, snip the balloon.  What happens next?

If rocket exhaust needs to push off of air in order for rockets to be propelled, then it should also be the case that balloon air needs to push off of air in order for the balloon to be propelled, right?  So then if the balloon goes pbthpbhptbhtpbht and flies off its platform, then it should be the same with rockets going pfsshooooooeeerrrrrhhhh and flying around space.

Rocket deniers, tell me if I'm wrong here.

Any chance you can rig remote-controlled scissors? 

Graduated from the Wallace and Gromit school of engineering, did we?



In principle your idea is pretty similar to what I just suggested, so don’t mean to be harsh.  It just sounds a little comical.

Graduated from the Wallace and Gromit school of engineering, did we?

pls dont doxx me

Yes, your post is what got me thinking.  All the smoke and sparkle of a hobby rocket could give deniers an excuse to ignore the results, as you said.  Perhaps with a simple balloon we could get rid of that.

(Although I'm actually more interested in hearing illogical excuses as to how balloons really are pushing off air or whatever when they flbplbpfpbpbbb around a room.)

Quote from: Unconvinced on August 21, 2019, 09:51:48 AM

Graduated from the Wallace and Gromit school of engineering, did we?

pls dont doxx me

Only kidding.  Besides Wallace and Gromit are awesome engineers.  They just have a distinctive style.