And when a plume is formed, the rocket can react to the plume.
Please do take my advice and take a look at the different stages of the process. Propulsion does not happen by interaction with the plume.
When the rocket is exposed to a vacuum, no plume can be be formed...because gas expelled into a vacuum freely expands.
If it is expelled, it does not expand freely (see below).
Even if it would expand freely, that is not an instantaneous process, so a plume will form in any case.
So even if your assumption of free expansion was right (which isn't), the result still wouldn't be what you suggest (no plume).
The distinction made here is between expelled as in "forced through a nozzle" (rocket propulsion) in contrast to being released as in "expanding without restriction" (free expansion, if being released to a vacuum).
Gas, when placed in any container, is under pressure.
When said gas is expelled from said container, it comes out of said container, under pressure.
You claim that said gas can be provided more "oomph,"
Indeed.
Unlike in free expansion, where the amount of gas and the energy contained in it, are (as Joule requires) constant, the exothermic reaction in a fuel burning rocket increases the temperature and amount of gas. That would qualify as adding "oomph", I'd say.
It definitely raises the pressure in the combustion chamber significantly. More gas, at higher temperature and higher pressure should have more "oomp" than less gas at less temperature and less pressure, shouldn't it?
It not only seems logical (and common sense), that adding energy to gas must result in more "oomph", it is also scientifically required to maintain conservation of energy.
when coming out of a rocket in order to miraculously overcome the law that states gas will freely expand in a vacuum...
You need to get your understanding of basic science straight:
There is no law to overcome; there is no law stating, that gas
can only expand freely into a vacuum.
Gas does not
need to be forced into a vacuum, because - due to its nature - it will expand anyway, trying to reach equal distribution.
(If the available volume - e.g. space - is much larger then the volume the available gas can fill that way, that will change it behavior. Hence releasing gas into an enclosed vacuum is different from releasing it into an endless vacuum.)
If it expands freely into a vacuum, it will do no work. That does
not mean it must only expand freely.
If you let go of a ball, you don't need to push it to fall down freely (when it bounces back to the same height, its energy is the same again); that doesn't mean you can't still add energy and throw it down (it will bounce back higher, having gained energy, as you added energy).
So the energy added by the endothermic chemical reaction must have an effect, i.e. forcing the gas through the nozzle instead of having it "leisurely" expand under lower pressure.
That effect - in an atmosphere - is to accelerate the rocket. If that effect is - as you claim - doesn't take place in a vacuum,
you need to explain where that additional energy "miraculously" goes to, if it doesn't do any work:
All relevant factors are (in essence) the same ... so where does the force (that obviously is at work in an atmosphere) disappear to?
It disappears when gas is released into a vacuum.
Force doesn't just "disappear". Where does it go to?
Your claim is proven wrong, right in front of our very eyes, courtesy of these fine videos found in the thread.
As stated before, that may be what
you want to see in them, but it cannot validly be concluded from those videos (and it is not what the majority of people in this thread see in those videos).
Unless you have to add any actual reasoning to reiterating your disputed claim, the "Period." is on you for being wrong and stuck with it.
Take a CO2 cartridge and have them open it up in a vacuum...see what happens...time it...compare...
Sadly I don't have access to a total vacuum. But as I'm in full accordance with the relevant scientific laws, there is no doubt about the outcome - the CO
2 cartridge would accelerate pretty much the same way.
But you sound pretty sure of the result "no acceleration" (which would be in direct violation of Newton's 3rd Law), so - if only to prove me wrong - you can surely provide some evidence, can't you?
I am not going to bother with the rest of your post now...I will later...probably already linking to prior written replies since you first posted.
If you can't add anything substantial beyond reiterating your mantra "vacuum => always free expansion => never any work", please don't go to any effort on my account.
Rather use your time to learn how to objectively analyze a scientific problem how to read, understand and correctly apply scientific laws to solve it.
iC