Why?

It actually has everything to do with it.

No. That's incomplete combustion. With more oxygen, you may be able to get a complete combustion.  But combustion relies on three things: heat, fuel, and oxygen. But in space, two of the three are missing.

A vacuum tube itself is not a chamber of zero gravity,

so we're not seeing in addition to zero gravity (which I don't believe in, but devil's advocate) the airless condition.

This is the reality of outer space, stripped of all your smoke and mirrors. The rocket has nothing to hold onto. Nothing to push against. It is moving across a void.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 06, 2023, 01:35:08 AM

In a vacuum, you have nothing to move against. No ground, no water, no air.

The rocket fuel burns, expands, and exerts forward momentum to the rocket through this process as the gasses exit the nozzle. 

The rocket fuel burning, creating gases that take up tens to thousands times the space of the fuel, with kinetic energy is providing the “matter”..

It’s a controlled explosion.

Quote

Figure 1.1 shows a combustion chamber with an opening, the nozzle, through which gas can escape. The pressure distribution within the chamber is asymmetric; that is, inside the chamber the pressure varies little, but near the nozzle it decreases somewhat. The force due to gas pressure on the bottom of the chamber is not compensated for from the outside. The resultant force F due to the internal and external pressure difference, the thrust, is opposite to the direction of the gas jet. It pushes the chamber upwards.

http://www.braeunig.us/space/propuls.htm

I know why "science" (really scientism) likes to make this claim. Because of this passage.

Well sorry but at the end of the day, you have no means of traveling anywhere in the outer darkness (but through God), 360k mph or 15 mph.

Comet Encke has a perihelion (closest approach to the Sun) of 0.336 AU (50.3 million km; 31.2 million mi). At perihelion Comet Encke passes the Sun at 69.9 km/s (252,000 km/h). Of the numbered comets less than 321P, only 96P/Machholz gets closer to the Sun.[12]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_Encke#Orbit

This is the reality of outer space, stripped of all your smoke and mirrors. The rocket has nothing to hold onto. Nothing to push against. It is moving across a void.

I know why "science" (really scientism) likes to make this claim. Because of this passage.

Quote

2Now the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters.

It's a "sorry God, we not you, are able to travel through the void of outer darkness."

 But such things have no conventional rules of motion. Traveling high numbers of speed (which inflated tenfold because they realized it wouldn't get them anywhere)? Yeah in your dreams.

It is because God is God that he can move across the void. We are humans, and obey laws of physics. Such laws when observed mean that if we accept gravity as a reality, then we are bound by the idea that away from Earth, we are not drawn towards anything. God makes the rules, an atheist building a rocket pretends they don't have to follow them.

Well sorry but at the end of the day, you have no means of traveling anywhere in the outer darkness (but through God), 360k mph or 15 mph.

A vacuum tube itself is not a chamber of zero gravity

This is the reality of outer space, stripped of all your smoke and mirrors. The rocket has nothing to hold onto. Nothing to push against. It is moving across a void.

I know why "science" (really scientism) likes to make this claim. Because of this passage.

But such things have no conventional rules of motion. Traveling high numbers of speed (which inflated tenfold because they realized it wouldn't get them anywhere)?

It is because God is God that he can move across the void.

Such laws when observed mean that if we accept gravity as a reality, then we are bound by the idea that away from Earth, we are not drawn towards anything.

God makes the rules

Well sorry but at the end of the day, you have no means of traveling anywhere in the outer darkness (but through God), 360k mph or 15 mph.

What is that you quote about the fire triangle?  It’s actually the fire tetrahedron now..

But this doesn't change what this triangle is about. It's a triangle for determining flammability. It's for fire safety.

You cannot however take away chemical reactions. Chemistry happens whether we like it or not. Not part of the triangle, and you have misunderstood its purpose.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on January 11, 2023, 07:26:34 AM

What is that you quote about the fire triangle?  It’s actually the fire tetrahedron now..

The tetraforce is heresy. Four is death. There is only Triforce.



But seriously, you can have chemical reactions that cause fire (for example, pyrophoric chemicals). But this doesn't change what this triangle is about. It's a triangle for determining flammability. It's for fire safety. You can snuff fires by removing their fuel source, smothering them (removing air), or blasting them with something cold or wet. You cannot however take away chemical reactions. Chemistry happens whether we like it or not. Not part of the triangle, and you have misunderstood its purpose.

https://ehs.unl.edu/sop/s-oxidizers_chem_haz_risk_min.pdf

Safe Operating Procedure


OXIDIZERS CHEMICAL HAZARDS & RISK MINIMIZATION

Extinguishing Agents for Oxidizer Fires
Extinguishing fires involving an oxidizer is difficult. A carbon dioxide extinguisher is not an effective choice for an oxidizer-fed fire because it works on the principle of excluding atmospheric oxygen, and atmospheric oxygen is not required for an oxidizer-fed fire. Dry chemical extinguishing agents will also be ineffective for the most part. They act to interrupt the chemical chain reaction, but will be overcome by the oxidizer in all but the smallest fires.
Water may be the only extinguishing agent that may be effective. Energy/heat generated during combustion must first drive off the water as steam and then reheat the surface of material to a sufficient temperature to support ignition. Some combustible materials (e.g., wood) can retain a lot of heat energy once they are hot. Adding water until the fire is out may not end the potential for fire. Instead, the combustible material may have the energy to drive off the water and still have enough residual heat to re-ignite. Camp fires re-igniting after being extinguished with water are an example of this. Therefore, water must be used in drenching quantities.
Water can also result in the fire spreading if it involves a non-miscible flammable liquid. In this situation evacuation and isolation of the fire may be the only option.
If the fire involves an oxidizing gas, then the gas supply should be shut-off (if it can be done so safely). This is the reason hospitals have remote oxygen shutoffs in hallways outside of rooms where the gas is used.

Safety Data Sheet
Trade name: Estes Model Rocket Engines (> 30g propellant)

P370+P380 In case of fire: Evacuate area.
P373 DO NOT fight fire when fire reaches explosives.


https://estesrockets.com/wp-content/uploads/SDS/Estes_Model_Rocket_Engines_Motors_Greater_Than_30.pdf

The reason an oxidizer fire can't be snuffed by carbon dioxide is because it bonds with the oxygen. ( CO₂ + O₂ -> C + 2O₂) not because having an oxidizer is a magical free pass.

Potassium nitrate, also known as ‘saltpetre’, or ‘saltpeter’, decomposes at high temperature to provide oxygen for the reaction. This means that gunpowder doesn’t need to be exposed to air to burn – and is why smothering fireworks won’t stop them burning!

https://www.compoundchem.com/2014/07/02/the-chemistry-of-gunpowder/amp/

Question:
Potassium nitrate decomposes to potassium nitrite and oxygen.


2KNO3(s)→2KNO2(s)+O2(g)
 
https://homework.study.com/explanation/potassium-nitrate-decomposes-to-potassium-nitrite-and-oxygen-2kno3-s-2kno2-s-plus-o2-g-what-volume-in-liters-of-o2-can-be-produced-from-the-decomposition-of-54-0-g-of-kno3-at-45-deg-c-and-1-15-atm.html

Carbon dioxide has a low temperature (-109° F as a solid), is highly inert under most conditions,

https://ilmoproducts.com/industries-served/welding-cutting/gases-their-applications/carbon-dioxide/

The major hazard of carbon dioxide is asphyxiation when CO2 has built up in an area and displaced the air (oxygen) needed for breathing.


https://ilmoproducts.com/industries-served/welding-cutting/gases-their-applications/carbon-dioxide/

This heretic needs to be taught of our rich culture.

Yes, there are chemical causes to fire, but the treatment is 100% following the other three. Taking off a flaming chemical fire from heat source, tossing the chemical (a fuel) in the sink, and covering it to boot tames pretty much all forms of flame.

The reason an oxidizer fire can't be snuffed by carbon dioxide is because it bonds with the oxygen. ( CO₂ + O₂ -> C + 2O₂) not because having an oxidizer is a magical free pass.

A flame will not burn infinitely

so covering it (rather than feeding it carbon dioxide) will eventually exhaust it.

https://mixkit.imgix.net/videos/preview/mixkit-time-lapse-of-a-small-town-at-night-3132-0.jpg

There is a reason CO2 is used as a shielding gas in welding.

Neither carbon nor oxygen are noble. This means they bond readily due to gaps in their structure.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 13, 2023, 12:11:08 AM

Neither carbon nor oxygen are noble. This means they bond readily due to gaps in their structure.

You sure love spouting garbage.
No element is truly noble. It reacting or not comes down to thermodynamics.  All those "gaps in their structure", by which I assume you are referring to the electron shells, means that they typically aren't found as atoms. e.g. we have gaseous oxygen which is O2. Carbon can be found as part of hydrocarbons, or as pure carbon in the form of graphite or diamond and so on, where it has bonds to other carbon atoms.

But for the reaction, if you have elemental carbon, and gaseous oxygen, they are in a relatively high energy state. They can easily lose energy (and give it off as heat) by combining to produce carbon dioxide.

Even gold can react. If you put it in aqua regia it will corrode very quickly.

Now again, you have failed to demonstrate what is missing, either from a triangle or tetrahedron, which would prevent rockets working in a vaccum.
You are yet to justify your delusional BS at all.

The reason an oxidizer fire can't be snuffed by carbon dioxide is because it bonds with the oxygen. ( CO₂ + O₂ -> C + 2O₂) not because having an oxidizer is a magical free pass.

https://flexbooks.ck12.org/cbook/ck-12-middle-school-physical-science-flexbook-2.0/section/5.22/primary/lesson/combustion-reactions-ms-ps/


A combustion reaction occurs when a substance reacts quickly with oxygen (O2). For example, in the Figure below, charcoal is combining with oxygen. Combustion is commonly called burning, and the substance that burns is usually referred to as fuel. The products of a complete combustion reaction include carbon dioxide (CO2) and water vapor (H2O). The reaction typically gives off heat and light as well. The general equation for a complete combustion reaction is:

Fuel + O2 → CO2 + H2O

Oxygen

O2   20.95%   209,500 ppm


Carbon Dioxide

CO2   
0.0397%

(Dec. 12, 2014 mean est.) 399 ppm


http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/atmospheric-composition

Using this catalyst, an electrochemical cell was developed that split carbon dioxide into carbon monoxide and oxygen.
https://science.osti.gov/bes/Highlights/2012/BES-2012-12-b

Gold can react when we put it in this solution that we have specially made through alchemy to help it break down in order that we might separate it from other materials. Yes I'm aware of metallurgy. I'm also aware that this not what I mean.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 12, 2023, 12:40:45 PM

The reason an oxidizer fire can't be snuffed by carbon dioxide is because it bonds with the oxygen. (CO₂ + O₂ -> C + 2O₂) not because having an oxidizer is a magical free pass.

Bullshit


When you burn carbon it oxidizes into CO2

    Combustion of methane
    CH₄ + 2 O₂ → CO₂ + 2 H₂O

    Burning of naphthalene
    C₁₀H₈ + 12 O₂ → 10 CO₂ + 4 H₂O

    Combustion of ethane
    2 C₂H₆ + 7 O₂ → 4 CO₂ + 6 H₂O

    Combustion of butane (commonly found in lighters)
    2C₄H₁₀ +13O₂ → 8CO₂ +10H₂O

    Combustion of methanol (also known as wood alcohol)
    2CH₃OH + 3O₂ → 2CO₂ + 4H₂O

    Combustion of propane (used in gas grills, fireplaces, and some cookstoves)
    2C₃H₈ + 7O₂ → 6CO₂ + 8H₂O

Can I quote you on that? Because that's wrong.
Combustion combines air with carbon in order to make carbon dioxide.

Unlike certain people in this forum, I was taught proper chemistry

That is, you cannot have a chemical reaction where matter is created or destroyed. This means you can't do something like this in the absence of any air.

Now, what I said before, the CO2 can break down into oxygen. If your reaction is with an oxidizer (let's say hydrogen peroxide), this is why it stays ignited despite the extinguisher.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on January 13, 2023, 07:22:11 AM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 12, 2023, 12:40:45 PM

The reason an oxidizer fire can't be snuffed by carbon dioxide is because it bonds with the oxygen. (CO₂ + O₂ -> C + 2O₂) not because having an oxidizer is a magical free pass.

Bullshit


When you burn carbon it oxidizes into CO2

Can I quote you on that? Because that's wrong.

Combustion combines air with carbon in order to make carbon dioxide.

https://flexbooks.ck12.org/cbook/ck-12-middle-school-physical-science-flexbook-2.0/section/5.22/primary/lesson/combustion-reactions-ms-ps/


A combustion reaction occurs when a substance reacts quickly with oxygen (O2). For example, in the Figure below, charcoal is combining with oxygen. Combustion is commonly called burning, and the substance that burns is usually referred to as fuel. The products of a complete combustion reaction include carbon dioxide (CO2) and water vapor (H2O). The reaction typically gives off heat and light as well. The general equation for a complete combustion reaction is:

Fuel + O2 → CO2 + H2O

fact, Antoine Lavoisier first determined that diamond is made out of carbon by burning it and showing that the combustion product was carbon dioxide. The book Diamond Films and Coatings by Robert Foster Davis states, "In 1772 the French chemist Antoine L. Lavoisier found that the products of diamond combustion behaved as, and most assuredly were, solely carbon dioxide...

https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/mobile/2014/03/27/can-you-light-diamond-on-fire/

https://ehs.unl.edu/sop/s-oxidizers_chem_haz_risk_min.pdf

Safe Operating Procedure


OXIDIZERS CHEMICAL HAZARDS & RISK MINIMIZATION

Extinguishing Agents for Oxidizer Fires
Extinguishing fires involving an oxidizer is difficult. A carbon dioxide extinguisher is not an effective choice for an oxidizer-fed fire because it works on the principle of excluding atmospheric oxygen, and atmospheric oxygen is not required for an oxidizer-fed fire. Dry chemical extinguishing agents will also be ineffective for the most part. They act to interrupt the chemical chain reaction, but will be overcome by the oxidizer in all but the smallest fires.
Water may be the only extinguishing agent that may be effective. Energy/heat generated during combustion must first drive off the water as steam and then reheat the surface of material to a sufficient temperature to support ignition. Some combustible materials (e.g., wood) can retain a lot of heat energy once they are hot. Adding water until the fire is out may not end the potential for fire. Instead, the combustible material may have the energy to drive off the water and still have enough residual heat to re-ignite. Camp fires re-igniting after being extinguished with water are an example of this. Therefore, water must be used in drenching quantities.
Water can also result in the fire spreading if it involves a non-miscible flammable liquid. In this situation evacuation and isolation of the fire may be the only option.
If the fire involves an oxidizing gas, then the gas supply should be shut-off (if it can be done so safely). This is the reason hospitals have remote oxygen shutoffs in hallways outside of rooms where the gas is used.

Added



https://www.airgas.com/msds/001013.pdf

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 13, 2023, 05:56:41 PM

Can I quote you on that? Because that's wrong.
Combustion combines air with carbon in order to make carbon dioxide.

Before you go declaring something wrong, make sure you understand the words used, and the context of it.

Carbon and OXYGEN (not air) react to produce CO2.
And if you want to play that game, then you are wrong that it is carbon. In your example, you have carbon containing compounds, not carbon.

But the important point remains, CO2 is the combustion product.

CO2 is not listed as an oxidizer with no evidence of being an oxidizer.

The reason an oxidizer fire can't be snuffed by carbon dioxide is because it bonds with the oxygen. ( CO₂ + O₂ -> C + 2O₂) not because having an oxidizer is a magical free pass.

When I say air, I mean O₂.

Burning pure charcoal is literally just C bonding with AIR (O₂). You need AIR for combustion reactions to take place. You can't burn carbon in a vacuum and expect results.

But certain chemicals (mostly oxidizers) will cause a carbon breakdown reaction.

In other words, the equation can't balance itself, so it keeps burning until heat is exhausted, the flame is snuffed by non-chemical means, or new chemicals (like hydrogen) are introduced, and the excess oxygen bonds with those.

quote author=DataOverFlow2022 link=topic=91324.msg2391423#msg2391423 date=1673623331]

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 12, 2023, 12:40:45 PM

The reason an oxidizer fire can't be snuffed by carbon dioxide is because it bonds with the oxygen. ( CO₂ + O₂ -> C + 2O₂) not because having an oxidizer is a magical free pass.

Your statement is still butshit. 

And the only thing you have proven in spades is you’re a TROLL.

Pure O2 doesn't necessarily bond with CO2 but some oxidizers might

For a few seconds. Then they smoke themselves out and the heat is transferred to the glass or whatever.

You are describing a perpetual energy reaction otherwise. I think we've discussed why perpetual motion and perpetual energy are wrong. Without constantly feeding more oxygen in, the rocket will not continue to burn in an airless environment.

Ah good, so you admit that this tiny rocket didn't even burn a full second in a vacuum. That energy expends itself to do tasks, and you can't run a car on positive vibes.



Maybe some day you will actually understand why flying a device through space through Mars and beyond simple isn't possible, and particularly not possible when we demystify all the science fantasy bullshit and actually look at our current technology.

For a few seconds. Then they smoke themselves out

You are describing a perpetual energy reaction otherwise.

Without constantly feeding more oxygen in, the rocket will not continue to burn in an airless environment.

Ah good, so you admit that this tiny rocket didn't even burn a full second in a vacuum.

Maybe some day you will actually understand why flying a device through space through Mars and beyond simple isn't possible

For a few seconds. Then they smoke themselves out and the heat is transferred to the glass or whatever.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 16, 2023, 09:18:08 AM

Ah good, so you admit that this tiny rocket didn't even burn a full second in a vacuum. That energy expends itself to do tasks, and you can't run a car on positive vibes.



Maybe some day you will actually understand why flying a device through space through Mars and beyond simple isn't possible, and particularly not possible when we demystify all the science fantasy bullshit and actually look at our current technology.

Not what I said.