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

Quote from: markjo on August 24, 2019, 08:47:08 AM

Quote from: cikljamas on August 24, 2019, 06:28:48 AM

Quote from: markjo on August 23, 2019, 02:43:04 PM

Quote from: turtles on August 23, 2019, 03:13:41 AM

Quote from: cikljamas on August 21, 2019, 02:24:02 PM

Since combustion is impossible in a vacuum how you can get the following result (a flame - exhaust trail) in a vacuum chamber assuming that all air has been sucked out of this "vacuum" chamber? :

Combustion is not impossible in a vacuum.

I would go so far as to say that a vacuum is not possible when there is combustion.  Once a fuel and oxidizer are introduced to the flow restricted combustion chamber and ignited, it's no longer a vacuum in the chamber.

1. I would go so far as to say that they can fly as long (as high) as an environment through which they fly is enough dense to support rocket-flying (combustion + resistance (pushing off)).

If the combustion is pushing off the atmosphere, then what's pushing the rocket?

In this stupidity contest between Jack and you it's really hard to decide who wins, as far as i am concerned, you both deserve gold medal...

Let's compare your stupidity level with Jack's level of stupidity :

Quote from: JackBlack on August 18, 2019, 02:24:44 PM

Quote from: cikljamas on August 18, 2019, 07:08:20 AM

What force is acting on the gas that is exiting the rocket to make it go in a particular direction and what is the other body involved in this interaction?

Thrust is that magic word (force) you are looking for, isn't it?

Quote from: JackBlack on August 19, 2019, 01:22:24 AM

Quote from: cikljamas on August 18, 2019, 04:39:47 PM

Thrust is that magic word you are looking for, isn't it?

Thrust is the second body?
Sorry, that still doesn't answer my question.

You both (markjo and JackBlack) want us to believe that your level of stupidity is so high
So, if you are not that stupid, why do you want us to believe that you are???
Is it because you can't handle the truth?
Is it because you can't handle any truth whatsoever?
Is it because you are so rotten people that you have to twist and turn upside-down every single truth, no matter how obvious it is???

So, let me ask you this question : Who are the rotten people in our societies and what are their acts???

  Of  course,  Tomb  and  Cheney’s  admission  also  means  the  US  has   no   hard   evidence   that   “nineteen   Muslims”   piloted   and   crashed  four  US  planes;  except,  perhaps  for  the  passport  of  Mohammed  Atta  that  just  happen  to  survive  the  crash  into  the  Twin  Towers  and  flutter  unmolested  onto  the  street  below.  But  in that case Mr. Bollyn would be glad to offer you his options in Florida  swamp  land.  Later  the  report  on  Atta’s  passport  was  revised  to  say  that  it  actually  belonged  to  another  hijacker  of  Flight  11,  Satan  al  Suqami.  Incidentally,  the  Atta  passport  was  first  presented  as  evidence  to  Mayor  Giuliani  by  his  police  commissioner, Bernard Kerik, who has a notorious past and who is  presently  in  jail  for  various  crimes.  Moreover,  when  Giuliani  was  presented  with  the  questions  at  a  press  conference  of  explosions  at  WTC,  he  turned  to  Kerik  who  simply  shook  his  head  and  said  “no.”  This  was  the  first  “official”  answer  to  the  question  that  would  never  go  away.  Additionally,  the  US  presented  videos  of  bin  Laden  supposedly  taking  responsibility  and/or   being   delighted   for   the   911   attacks.   It   was   later   discovered   that   the   videos,   which   were   obviously   fakes,   originated  from  ex-Israeli  Occupation  Forces  (IOF)  soldier  Rita  Katz through her SITE Institute.

Only Aired Once About PENTAGON :

This  video  was  only  aired  once  on  television  and  never  seen  again.  Whatever debris there was, the FBI and many unidentified people were out on  the  Pentagon  lawn  combing  the  ground  for  something,  walking  back  and forth. But this was a crime scene.

Have you ever heard about  the  four-part  FOX  news  story  by  Carl  Cameron,  accompanied  by  Brit  Hume  and  Tony Snow, on its details to know that Bollyn is following the leads where they go. The FBI and other US government agencies told Cameron that Israelis were  involved  in  911,  but  that  the  information  was  “classified.”  One  can  view  these  videos  at  several  places  on  the  Internet. The  intrigue  is  only  heightened by the fact that FOX pulled the series shortly after unidentified Zionist groups asked for its removal in 2001. Not only did FOX obey, as if following some Orwellian prophecy, it also removed the written transcripts and in its place put “This story no longer exists.” Here are some gripping excerpts from the series :

Federal  officials  this  year  have  arrested  or  detained  nearly   200   Israeli   citizens   suspected   of   belonging   to   an   “organized     intelligence-gathering     operation.”     The     Bush     administration  has  deported  most  of  those  arrested  after  Sept.  11...The  suspects:  Israeli  organized  crime  with  operations  in  New  York,  Miami,  Las  Vegas,  Canada,  Israel  and  Egypt...The  problem:  according  to  classified  law  enforcement  documents  obtained by Fox News, the bad guys had the cops’ beepers, cell phones, even home phones under surveillance. Some who did get caught  admitted  to  having  hundreds  of  numbers  and  using  them  to   avoid   arrest...Asked   this   week   about   another   sprawling   investigation  and  the  detention  of  60  Israelis  since  Sept.  11,  the  Bush     administration     treated     the     questions     like     hot     potatoes...Beyond  the  60  apprehended  or  detained,  and  many  deported since Sept. 11, another group of 140 Israeli individuals have been arrested and detained in this year in what government documents   describe   as   “an   organized   intelligence   gathering   operation,”  designed  to  “penetrate  government  facilities.”  Most  of   those   individuals   said   they   had   served   in   the   Israeli   military...But   they   also   had,   most   of   them,   intelligence   expertise,  and  either  worked  for  Amdocs  or  other  companies  in  Israel    that    specialize    in    wiretapping....Well,    there’s    real    pandemonium described at the FBI, the DEA and the INS. A lot of  these  problems  have  been  well  known  to  some  investigators,  many   of   who   have   contributed   to   the   reporting   on   this   story...They  want  to  find  out  how  it  is  all  this  has  come  out,  as  well as be very careful because of the explosive nature and very political  ramifications  of  the  story  itself  –  Tony.  SNOW:    All  right, Carl, thanks.

A third van was found on King St. between 6th and 7th which the Israelis  fled  after  they  blew  it  up.  It  was  later  found  that  the  moving  company, Urban Moving Systems (UMS), was a Mossad front and that the Kurzburg  brothers,  Paul  and  Sivan,  were  the  two  Mossad  agents.  The  entire police communication was recorded and is available on the Internet. One  of  the  police  officers  describes  one  of  the  vans  having  a  mural  of  a  plane  hitting  the  Twin  Towers.  Dominic  Suter,  another  Mossad  agent  and the registered owner of UMS, was allowed to flee to Israel by the FBI on Sept. 14, 2001, just three days after the attacks.

Dr.  Alan  Sabrosky,  Director  of  Strategic  Studies  at  the  US  Army  War  College says: “It is 100 percent certain that 9-11 was a Mossad operation. Period.”  General  Hamid  Gul,  former  Pakistan  intelligence  chief,  agrees:  “It was a Zionist/Neo Con conspiracy. It was an inside job. They wanted to go  on  world  conquest,  looking  at  it  as  an  opportunity  window  when  the  Muslim  world  was  lying  prostrate;  Russia  was  nowhere  in  sight;  China  was  still  not  an  economic  giant  that  it  has  turned  out  to  be.  And  they  thought  this  was  a  good  time  to  fill  those  strategic  areas  which  are  still  lying without any American presence; and of course to control the energy tap of the world. Presently it is the Middle East and in the future it is going to be central Asia.” Francesco Cossiga, former Italian president, is of the same opinion, telling Italy’s most respected newspaper that the attacks were run by the CIA and Mossad:  “all  the  [intelligence  services]  of  America  and  Europe  ...  now  know  well  that  the  disastrous  attack  has  been  planned  and  realized  from  the  CIA  American  and  the  Mossad  with  the  aid  of  the  Zionist  world  in  order to put under accusation the Arabic Countries and in order to induce the  western  powers  to  take  part  ...  in  Iraq  [and]  Afghanistan.”

As  for  the  odd  Israeli  reaction  to  9/11,  Benjamin  Netanyahu  himself  admitted in an off guard moment: “We are benefiting from one thing, and that  is  the  attack  on  the  Twin  Towers  and  Pentagon,  and  the  American  struggle  in  Iraq...these  events  swung  American  public  opinion  in  our  favor.” The day after, Netanyahu uttered an even more audacious remark on the 9/11 attacks, saying: “It’s very good.” Realizing the implications, he caught   himself   and   said,   “Well,   it’s   not   good,   but   it   will   generate   immediate sympathy.” Similar to Netanyahu’s capitalizing on 9/11, Ehud Barak,   which   Bollyn   says   “is   suspected   of   being   one   of   the   real   masterminds  of  9/11,”  did  much  the  same  since  “within  minutes  of  the  explosive  demolitions  of  the  Twin  Towers  on  9/11,  the  Israeli  politician  and  military  leader  Ehud  Barak  was  in  the  London  studio  of  the  BBC”  and  “before  any  evidence  of  culpability  was  found,  Barak  called  for  a  ‘War on Terror’ and US military intervention in Afghanistan,” which is a “textbook  example  of  how  false-flag  terrorism  is  supposed  to  work.  The  perpetrator  is  the  first  one  to  assign  blame...which  is  the  real  purpose  of  such atrocities.”

This video sums it up :


Let me show you one interesting comment one guy has left below this video :

J Roger Trudel
1 year ago (edited)
Why have many of us lost faith in science? Very simple, deception. NASA used to be wonderful at doing many scientific portrayals of space. Everything looked so real and most of us were really caught up with it from the 1960s on. But when NASA failed miserably in the 1990s on with fake imagery, the fake ISS, and all those unprofessional actors acting as astronauts (astro-nuts), many of us woke up to reality. And, when an intelligent person has seen and witnessed the fakery of a science field for a few times, that is when 100% of that particular field of science comes into question. How would you feel about someone (example - a Mexican), that has deceived you, say for over 20 years, and you discover the truth about that person. You become very upset inside, and some will even go to the point of never trusting another Mexican person ever again. The same has come to past with space and aeronautical science. Once you have discovered the deception you begin to and lose complete faith in the whole works of its program, and you begin to question everything. As for rockets functioning propulsion in the vacuum of space, for me that is like pulling a boat out of the water, firing up the engine, engaging the prop, rev up the engine, and let's go to town boys

This video sums it up :

Let me show you one interesting comment one guy has left below this video :

J Roger Trudel
1 year ago (edited)
Why have many of us lost faith in science? Very simple, deception. NASA used to be wonderful at doing many scientific portrayals of space. Everything looked so real and most of us were really caught up with it from the 1960s on. But when NASA failed miserably in the 1990s on with fake imagery, the fake ISS, and all those unprofessional actors acting as astronauts (astro-nuts), many of us woke up to reality. And, when an intelligent person has seen and witnessed the fakery of a science field for a few times, that is when 100% of that particular field of science comes into question. How would you feel about someone (example - a Mexican), that has deceived you, say for over 20 years, and you discover the truth about that person. You become very upset inside, and some will even go to the point of never trusting another Mexican person ever again. The same has come to past with space and aeronautical science. Once you have discovered the deception you begin to and lose complete faith in the whole works of its program, and you begin to question everything. As for rockets functioning propulsion in the vacuum of space, for me that is like pulling a boat out of the water, firing up the engine, engaging the prop, rev up the engine, and let's go to town boys

Quote from: cikljamas on August 25, 2019, 08:50:37 AM

This video sums it up :

Not this idiot again. Seen it before.

Quote from: Stash on August 25, 2019, 09:58:37 AM

Quote from: cikljamas on August 25, 2019, 08:50:37 AM

This video sums it up :

Not this idiot again. Seen it before.

No, you haven't seen it before, this is totally different video...

I am transferring the following passage from one other discussion on the same subject :

Real life analogies work great to explain scientific phenomena. In fact, I prefer them because we may not all agree on the definition of terms that Nasa and other space scientists use.

You used this analogy:

“Place a firecracker under an empty inverted can and light it. When it explodes the can flies upward because the forces from the expanding gas of the explosion are not countered in the upward direction so that is the direction it moves. And, it doesn’t move merely because the gasses “push against the ground” under the can. It would work as well if the can were suspended by a string and away from the ground.”

Your assumption that a can suspended upside down by a string would also fly up in the air.

I have tried this experiment and the can DOES NOT fly up in the air. The can moves slightly upward, but does not “fly up”.

We taped a Black Cat firecracker to the inside of a green bean can with no lid, set it on the ground upside down with the wick sticking outside the can. With the same set up, we place another green bean can on the barbecue grill.

For the can on the ground, when the firecracker blew, the can soared into the air about 20 feet. For the can on the grill, when the firecracker blew, the can only jumped up about 4 inches.

Ya, we blow a lot of stuff up when its firecracker season using all manner of objects and environments. I have had a pretty active childhood and have experimented quite a bit with scientific principles.

When it is said that a can on the ground behaves the same way as a can suspended in air when firecrackers are exploding inside them I have to disagree based on my own experience.

Clearly, the ground is aiding the can somehow in gaining all that extra height. It could also be said that the grill and its lack of ground is prohibiting the can from flying up.

Without using the idea of “pushing against the ground”, how would you explain the difference in heights of the two green bean cans?

I answered your question many times, but since you are full of shit, you will continue to pretend that i didn't!

Quote from: JackBlack on August 16, 2019, 02:53:45 PM

Again:
What force is acting on the gas that is exiting the rocket to make it go in a particular direction and what is the other body involved in this interaction?

The Expansion produces THRUST FORCE!

Free expansion!

On the other hand, there is no resistance in a vacuum, hence : the second body is missing!

Was this helpful

Quote from: cikljamas on August 25, 2019, 05:12:25 AM

I answered your question many times, but since you are full of shit, you will continue to pretend that i didn't!

Stop lying.
You are yet to answer this.
This is almost certainly because you know answering it will show you have been lying the entire time and know that rockets do work in a vacuum and that they don't need to push off anything other than their own exhaust.

Spamming the same refuted nonsense again and again will not help you.
It will not magically answer the question.

Quote from: cikljamas on August 25, 2019, 05:12:25 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on August 16, 2019, 02:53:45 PM

Again:
What force is acting on the gas that is exiting the rocket to make it go in a particular direction and what is the other body involved in this interaction?

The Expansion produces THRUST FORCE!

And again, you fail to answer the question as you have failed to identify the second body involved in this interaction.
If the expansion produces thrust force, why isn't this force accelerating the rocket?

Quote from: cikljamas on August 25, 2019, 05:12:25 AM

Free expansion!

Does not apply in this case.
With free expansion, there is no net change in the velocity of the gas.
With a rocket there is.
Also note that free expansion does not care what the actual pressures are, just that there is a difference.
If free expansion would magically prevent rockets from working in a vacuum it would also prevent them working in the atmosphere.

Quote from: cikljamas on August 25, 2019, 05:12:25 AM

On the other hand, there is no resistance in a vacuum, hence : the second body is missing!

If that was the case, that would mean that the gas CANNOT accelerate.
That the gas MUST REMAIN INSIDE THE ROCKET!
By claiming there is no second body you are claiming that gas will magically be held inside the rocket rather than escaping out the opening to a vacuum.

Is that really the path of stupidity you want to go down?

Again, we know the gas will leave the rocket. To claim otherwise is claiming pure magic, that you can hold gas inside an open container surrounded by vacuum.
We also know that as there is only one opening in one direction, it will leave in a particular direction.
We know that that means it will have a velocity relative to the rocket.
We know that it started without a net velocity relative to the rocket.
We know that that means it needs to be accelerated.
We know that it has mass.
We know that that means it needed a force applied to accelerate it.
We know that that involves interaction with a second body.
We know that that will also accelerate the second body.

Claiming there is no second body means there cannot be any iteraction and thus no force and thus no acceleration and thus the gas remained trapped inside the rocket.

If that is what you want to claim, then state it directly. Go against all known physics and claim that in a vacuum, because there is no second body, gas will remain inside an open vessel with absolutely nothing to keep it in.

If you don't want to claim that and instead want to accept that the gas will escape, you need to identify the second body. Claiming there is none will not help.

As a reminder, the only thing there to act as the second body is the rocket.
That makes it clear why you are avoiding answering it. Because you know that answering it will show that you know rockets will work in a vacuum.

Quote from: cikljamas on August 25, 2019, 05:12:25 AM

Was this helpful

No, you ignoring reality and repeating the same refuted nonsense without dealing with the refutation is not helpful in any sense.

So going to answer the question yet, by either identifying the second body or by claiming the gas will magically stay trapped inside an open container?

Quote from: JackBlack on August 25, 2019, 03:08:29 AM

Quote from: cikljamas on August 24, 2019, 03:21:22 PM

In bullshit you trust

No, we don't trust in you.

So, the next time when you put forward for umpteenth time in a row, your famous idiotic question i will simply direct you to this very post. O.K.?
And the post goes like this :

BULLSHIT VS COMMON SENSE

BULLSHIT :

An airplane propeller DOES push against the air and in so doing it DOES impart a reactive force to the plane because the prop is a solid object CONNECTED to the plane.

Rocket exhaust isn’t connected to the rocket so it can’t function as a pushing medium to the rocket as a propeller does.
not the minor part, it is the major part of the force. Newtons 3rd law says it has to be.[/color]

Rockets move by creating an imbalance of forces within the rocket motor causing more internal pressure in the forward direction and very little internal pressure rearward due to the opening of the rocket nozzle.

There is also a secondary forward thrust caused by Newton’s 3rd law as regards the rearward ejection of mass.

<< simply a repetition of the above! >>

COMMON SENSE:

I fear we are now arguing semantics instead of physics.

To save time, I will tell you how I interpret Newtons 3 Laws of Motion. If you disagree then there is no longer a reason to continue this thread as we differ on basic laws of physics which won’t be resolved here. If you agree with me, then there is much to discuss.

Let’s start with Newtons 3 Laws of Motion.

Fist Law: For an object to remain as it is, either moving or not, the sum of the forces on it are zero: Sigma F = 0

Second Law: For a body to accelerate, there must be a force on it: F = ma

Third Law: For every force in one direction, there is an equal force in the opposite direction: F1 = – F2 or F1 + F2 = 0

Notice how all of Newtons Laws of Motion contain the term ‘force’. Newton used the term ‘force’ to explain how objects are pushed and pulled in our universe.

This is how I see Newtons 3rd Law applied to rockets flying through our atmosphere:

If a rocket is moving through the air at 17,000 mph in a southwesterly direction, then there must be a force in the northeasterly direction also going 17,000 mph, which is the force produced by the jet engine exhaust coming out of the back of the rocket.

The way you are explaining it, is that molecules hitting inside a chamber are moving the rocket forward, AND the rocket is moving forward. You did mention the perhaps the exhaust might move it forward also somewhat, but Newtons 3rd Law says the forward motion MUST be equal to the thrust only out the back because of the ‘opposite’ direction part of the law.

You can’t have two positive forces. F1 + F2 would then be greater than zero, and that defies Newtons 3rd Law. My point is the exhaust out the back is not the minor part, it is the major part of the force. Newtons 3rd law says it has to be.

The propellant must be accelerated from zero velocity (relative to the rocket) to the exhaust velocity within the rocket engine (combustion chamber and nozzle). This acceleration requires a rearward force to be applied to that propellant and that rearward force is applied by the forces on the throat and expanding nozzle as in the diagram on the right. If this rearward force is your F1 then that burnt propellant must apply an equal and opposite force, F2. So F2 is the negative force. I simply cannot understand why there is any problem with this approach. The tonnes of exhaust gas ejected every second at Ve must require a force to accelerate it. That force is the (predominant part of) the rocket's thrust. Note that the atmospheric pressure does not enter into that part of the thrust (a force)

Quote from: cikljamas

Remember: NASA tells us that their rockets perform below max efficiency at sea level, at optimal efficiency somewhat higher in the atmosphere (as the rocket pressure equalizes with the external air pressure) and then start losing efficiency again as they ascend into ever thinner air. Note: NASA says so - not me.

Please note exactly what NASA said:

Quote

and then start losing efficiency again as they ascend into ever thinner air

The rocket engine starts "losing efficiency" NOT losing thrust. In other words, a little more thrust could be obtained by using a larger nozzle.
But please note that NASA does not say rocket engines lose power or lose thrust "as they ascend into ever thinner air".

And then read exactly what I wrote:

Quote from: rabinoz on August 10, 2019, 05:52:06 AM

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
There is no "BIG question"! A rocket loses no thrust as it enters into a near-vacuum and in fact gradually gains thrust all the way!

Look again at "Goddard's" rocket thrust equation:
The lower the outside pressure, P_o, the higher the thrust, F.

I was comparing the rocket's thrust not the "efficiency" and as I've said before a little more thrust (and hence efficiency) could in principle be achieved by using a larger nozzle.
It is soon found that there is a practical limit on the nozzle size and this is commonly the diameter of the rocket body.

Look at this:

Quote from: StackExchange: Space Exploration Beta

What are the differences between a standard Merlin engine and the Merlin Vacuum engine?
This pic is said to be, left to right: Falcon 1 Merlin 1C, Falcon 9 1C (different mounting), and Falcon 9 2nd stage 1C vacuum -- without the extension nozzle, so it's a shorter, fatter nozzle than the others.


And here's what the extension nozzle looks like by itself:

That's what a nozzle for a vacuum engine looks like. I tried to scale the two photos correctly.

The limit on that nozzle, in this case, is the diameter of stage 2 of the Falcon 9.

Do you understand these issues yet?

Quote from: Macarios on August 25, 2019, 05:28:13 AM

So, in the air there is force between the air and the exhaust.
Why is not the rocket included?
How can rocket acceerate in the air if no force acts on it?

As Milan Tarot would say : "Javio se još jedan iz linije za pametne!"
Translation (for those who don't speak croatian) : One another "clever" guy spoke up so to join this stupidity contest.
Macarios, you landed your jump near the far end of the stupidity scale, so that you reminded me to Bob Bemon whose world record stood for almost 23 years until it was broken in 1991 by Mike Powell.

The smarther you are, the dumber you look to fools."

If the gases are pushed in to the container faster than they can exit, the pressure builds up and can combust.

Also think inside the rocket engine. The fuel and oxidizer burns rapidly and expands, pushing against all the walls of the chamber, except where the hole is at the bottom, to the nozzle. So the gasses push in all directions but less down, so the results it pushes the rocket up. So it pushes against itself, simple.

BULLSHIT VS COMMON SENSE

To save time

If a rocket is moving through the air at 17,000 mph in a southwesterly direction, then there must be a force in the northeasterly direction also going 17,000 mph

but Newtons 3rd Law says the forward motion MUST be equal to the thrust only out the back because of the ‘opposite’ direction part of the law.

If a rocket is moving through the air at 17,000 mph in a southwesterly direction, then

This video sums it up :


Let me show you one interesting comment one guy has left below this video :

J Roger Trudel
1 year ago (edited)
Why have many of us lost faith in science? Very simple, deception. NASA used to be wonderful at doing many scientific portrayals of space. Everything looked so real and most of us were really caught up with it from the 1960s on. But when NASA failed miserably in the 1990s on with fake imagery, the fake ISS, and all those unprofessional actors acting as astronauts (astro-nuts), many of us woke up to reality. And, when an intelligent person has seen and witnessed the fakery of a science field for a few times, that is when 100% of that particular field of science comes into question. How would you feel about someone (example - a Mexican), that has deceived you, say for over 20 years, and you discover the truth about that person. You become very upset inside, and some will even go to the point of never trusting another Mexican person ever again. The same has come to past with space and aeronautical science. Once you have discovered the deception you begin to and lose complete faith in the whole works of its program, and you begin to question everything. As for rockets functioning propulsion in the vacuum of space, for me that is like pulling a boat out of the water, firing up the engine, engaging the prop, rev up the engine, and let's go to town boys

If a rocket is moving through the air at 17,000 mph in a southwesterly direction, then there must be a force in the northeasterly direction also going 17,000 mph, which is the force produced by the jet engine exhaust coming out of the back of the rocket.

Bom Tishop, how's your experiment going? Has there been any progress in regard your "rocket" problem?

Quote from: cikljamas on August 27, 2019, 03:34:12 AM

Bom Tishop, how's your experiment going? Has there been any progress in regard your "rocket" problem?

Bom Tishop gave it up...

Quote from: cikljamas on August 30, 2019, 02:46:32 AM

Quote from: cikljamas on August 27, 2019, 03:34:12 AM

Bom Tishop, how's your experiment going? Has there been any progress in regard your "rocket" problem?

Bom Tishop gave it up...

Give him time! Do realise how much time some of this fabrication might take?

Quote from: rabinoz on August 30, 2019, 02:58:04 AM

Quote from: cikljamas on August 30, 2019, 02:46:32 AM

Quote from: cikljamas on August 27, 2019, 03:34:12 AM

Bom Tishop, how's your experiment going? Has there been any progress in regard your "rocket" problem?

Bom Tishop gave it up...

Give him time! Do realise how much time some of this fabrication might take?

I do realise that, but why total silence?

Bom Tishop gave it up.