Despite quoting it, you skipped the part explaining, why those videos show no valid prove of rockets not working in a vacuum.
Fine with me, I'll accept it as tacit agreement.
Just like everything else you have written in this thread, that would be wrong too.
Obviously assuming "tacit agreement" would have been wrong - hence the "
".
In contrast, most of what I have posted in this thread has been correct.
Not everything, as I recalled some (non-critical) details incorrectly, but - as mentioned before - part of why I enjoy this discussion is because I can refine my understanding of the issue.
It is the evening out that is necessary to deefine the plume.
Once the fuel is ignited, the rocket is off the pad.
Doesn't to even something out mean to make it even all over. In this case pressure/exhaust/surrounding atmosphere will interact till there is no pressure differential.
Defining a plume on the other hand should mean to have a distinct plume separated from the atmosphere. That certainly doesn't sound like evening out.
Because the only delay found for model rockets to liftoff is the fuel to ignite.
I've started small rockets myself and seen others do it and my observations differ.
The fuel ignites, there is visible exhaust and a delay before the small rockets take off.
As small rockets do have a different mass/thrust ratio (in addition to other differences) that delay may be so short as to appear nonexistent to you.
The article posted refers only to sound in reference to the activity at the nozzle.
Please, do read the reference again. I just did and it does not refer to sound, but to the speed of sound and the velocity of the flow in relation to it.
Which part of the source does refer to sound in your opinion?
The flow of gas into a vacuum is non-isentropic.
The flow of gas coming from an exhaust of a rocket, supposedly in outer space, is taking place in a vacuum.
Non-isentropic.
And non-relevant.
As you're simply repeating previous claims, please refer to my previous responses why they don't apply.
Hence the jibber jabber, ridiculous double speak in the source provided by stack...
If it sounds like "jibber jabber" to you, that may be because it is or because you do not understand it correctly.
Comparing the source in question (or the one you provided for the closed-system-discussion) to your interpretation of it, I'm leaning towards the latter.
iC