Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - DuncanDoenitz

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7  Next >
1
Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs
« on: June 21, 2021, 03:05:40 PM »
Oh Jesus. 7.17km/s is a velocity. As he says in his quote. They have different units than acceleration. Slow down. Take a breath.
If you understand enough to correct what it should be to your own mind, then run with it.

This is you objectively fucking up and then doubling down on it. What will it take for you to understand that you aren’t currently knowledgeable enough to analyze this issue?
The rate I put forth is fine. I mistakenly put the word acceleration instead of the word velocity.

Kindly pat yourself on the back, take two if you care, my apology for using the wrong word in this case, and have a great rest of your day.

Before you go, if you can explain how a 16,038 mile per hour velocity at t+5 could possibly translate into an average rate of 3,000 mph over 5 minutes, that would be terrific.

ETA: To totally satisfy what appears to be a certain need for perfection in others, 0 - 16,038 mph translates to an acceleration of 23.9 m/s2.


You need to understand the difference between an average and an absolute.  The average family has 2.4 children. So does an average family exist? 

In physics, averages might make for interesting comparison, but are no basis for calculation.  The only considerations in calculating the energy state at a particular instant are its instantaneous position and velocity. 

Consider this; Urbanville and Townsville and are 60 miles apart.  They are served by a train which does the journey in one hour.  How the f*** are you supposed to get off the train in Townsville if it is doing an average of 60 mph?

2
Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs
« on: June 21, 2021, 11:08:10 AM »
You are completely missing the point.  Kinetic energy and momentum have nothing to do with average speed, and even less to do with "average acceleration".  The only relevant number is its instantaneous velocity at the time of engine shutdown.  Do you not understand anything about physics?  If the average acceleration equals 3000 kmph (what?), do you not understand that the RATE of acceleration has been increasing exponentially for the entire 5 minute burn due to the decreasing mass of the projectile? 

Sorry to appeal for assistance, but can anyone out there help him with this?

3
Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs
« on: June 19, 2021, 06:04:22 PM »
I think the "missile" aspect is also a little challenging. 

He claims some experience of witnessing a Tomahawk;  "I cannot get into any particulars, except to state it was testing". 

A cruise missile, of course is fundamentally different to most other guided missiles.  A solid-fuel booster accelerates it to cruise speed, where a turbine engine takes over and propels it at a fairly constant sub-sonic speed for the next several hours under aerodynamic control to its target.  And the cruise engine keeps running right up to impact.  This was the design of the WW2 German V1, and every cruise missile since. 

I'm guessing he may also have difficulty with the concept of, for instance AAMs like AIM-9 Sidewinder, AIM-7 Sparrow and early AIM-32 ASRAAM, where the solid-fuel rocket motor accelerates it rapidly to multi-mach numbers within 2 or 3 seconds, and it glides the rest of the way to its target.  Judging from his posts, he seems to think that a (obviously fictional) ICBM motor should run until, at least, apogee. 

4
Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs
« on: June 19, 2021, 09:44:51 AM »
@A80;

Are you unfamiliar with the concept of expressing average  velocity over time?

Are you familiar with the concepts of momentum and kinetic energy?  They are completely unrelated to average speed, so why quote that? 

And I would appreciate it if you point to where I claimed quadratic functions apply to anything else other than trajectory calculations.

The point was that, over the last dozen pages, you have mentioned "quadratic equations" a gazillion times, but not actually presented one of your own.  Are you familiar with the concept of irony or, like Kim's missile, has it gone clean over your head? 

5
Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs
« on: June 18, 2021, 06:40:11 PM »
Thanks WTF_S; 

To confirm, my contention is that the missile launches at a mass of 159,000 lbs, the majority of which is fuel, and all consumed within the initial, single, 5-minute, burn, which accelerates it on a high angle trajectory where y>x.
You contend that 159,000 lbs consisted of a, "majority of which is fuel," based on "what exactly?"

Total burn time = 5 minutes.
Any idea on the altitude and rate of travel achieved by the time of engine cut off? It is apparent you disagree with the 4500 km achieved at that time, contending an unpowered ballistic object can continue gaining a significant amount of altitude after impetus is removed.

Majority of the mass is fuel?  It's an aluminium tube with a 2000lb warhead at one end, and a rocket motor at the other.  You work it out.  What exactly do you think is inside the part between the motor and warhead?  Its a fuel tank or, for a solid fuel motor, containment for the fuel mass.
You have no idea then? The materials necessary would need to be of such strength as to withstand the forces sustained.

In other words, soda can aluminum would not fit the bill and not just any aluminum tube.   So now you are a stress engineer as well as a mathematician.  Good to know. My guess would be 2024 specification aluminium , or 7075 for high-stress areas.  Maybe some titanium to cope with heat stress.  But, as I said, I'm not a rocket scientist so its just a guess.  As for the soda cans; no idea again.  Beverage Packaging Engineer is another training course I never graduated from

Plus, where does the idea of solid fuel come from?  Many missiles use solid fuel.  Just mentioned it for completeness.  North Korea's SLBM in current development is speculated to have a solid fuel booster. 

Take a shot at a figure.   I think this is your area of expertise. 

Try UDMH weight per gallon, and high tensile strength aluminum and split it all up.
Altitude and velocity at engine shut-down? 

No idea. 
Thanks.   Some people might consider this a weakness.  Whilst it may be a precedent on the Internet if I don't know I'll tell you, rather than make up a number. 


Edit.   Sorry, I've just seen this in your response to Bob; 3000kph at T+5?  What part of left-field did that come from?  That's just a bit faster than Concorde with 100 passengers.  We are talking about a space-rocket FFS.  Do you have your own random number generator on these posts?   

Edit again.   I just worked out what you did; Bob's 250 km in 5 minutes, equates to a constant 3000 kph in your brain!  Brilliant.  You think it got to end of burn from a standing start at a constant 3000 kph!  This is absolutely mind-blowing stuff.  Was that a quadratic equation by the way?  Keep the posts coming, please; this is better than Big Bang Theory.   

6
Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs
« on: June 18, 2021, 01:54:30 PM »
Thanks WTF_S; 

To confirm, my contention is that the missile launches at a mass of 159,000 lbs, the majority of which is fuel, and all consumed within the initial, single, 5-minute, burn, which accelerates it on a high angle trajectory where y>x.
You contend that 159,000 lbs consisted of a, "majority of which is fuel," based on "what exactly?"

Total burn time = 5 minutes.
Any idea on the altitude and rate of travel achieved by the time of engine cut off? It is apparent you disagree with the 4500 km achieved at that time, contending an unpowered ballistic object can continue gaining a significant amount of altitude after impetus is removed.

Majority of the mass is fuel?  It's an aluminium tube with a 2000lb warhead at one end, and a rocket motor at the other.  You work it out.  What exactly do you think is inside the part between the motor and warhead?  Its a fuel tank or, for a solid fuel motor, containment for the fuel mass.

Altitude and velocity at engine shut-down?  No idea, I'm not a rocket scientist.  As a layman, I couldn't be more specific than to say its high and fast; not only has it been accelerating for the last 5 minutes, but its rate of acceleration has been increasing as fuel is consumed.  As an aircraft engineer, I know that its aerodynamic drag following engine shutdown will be very small-to-non-existent, due to the low-to-non-existent air density (drag being {drag-coefficient x air-density x surface-area x velocity-squared}/2).  Therefore, the only braking force to its vertical velocity component is due to gravity. 

Significant amount of altitude after impetus removed?  You have maybe heard of the German Flak 36, the 88 mm anti aircraft gun from WW2?  Its impetus was removed at an altitude of about 15 feet (the end of the barrel) and it had an effective altitude range of over 30,000 feet (around 6 miles), and that was in draggy-air. 

7
Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs
« on: June 17, 2021, 06:43:39 PM »
Thanks WTF_S; 

To confirm, my contention is that the missile launches at a mass of 159,000 lbs, the majority of which is fuel, and all consumed within the initial, single, 5-minute, burn, which accelerates it on a high angle trajectory where y>x. 

Total burn time = 5 minutes. 

Unpowered ballistic cruise flight duration = 48 minutes. 

Total flight duration from launch to impact = 53 minutes. 

Anyone else having trouble with this?  Happy to see if anyone can put it in simpler terms. 

As for the x/y sums, still waiting .........

8
Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs
« on: June 15, 2021, 05:08:46 PM »
It's not like you're insistent a 5 minute burn from 177,000lbf engine can elevate 159,000lbs to 4500km.

Correct.  I don't think anyone is suggesting that.  The mass at launch 159,000 lbs.  However, the huge majority of that mass doesn't get anywhere near apogee because it is ....what?  Here's some clues; its flammable, and there's none left after 5 minutes. 

Any ideas? 

Going off at a slight tangent, but lets expand our thinking a little; the standard US Army artillery piece is the M109 Howitzer.  Its barrel is 6 metres long (around 20 feet), and it fires a 155 mm shell around 13 miles (21 km).  I confess I don't know the answer to this myself (as I'm neither an artilleryman nor a rocket scientist), but I wonder how its burn time relates to its flight time?   


9
Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs
« on: June 14, 2021, 02:58:02 PM »
This is like he's lost in the desert, and he wants us to find him by working out how he misread the map.  It's purely conjecture, but here's some calculations:

Action80 highlighted the altitude, which corresponds to 2796 miles.  If he assumed that it reached this altitude in (the highlighted) 5 minutes, at a constant velocity of 2796/5 x 60, that would give a speed of 33,500 mph, which is "over 32,000 mph". 

Of course, that would mean that he thought "end of burn time" = "apogee", and that it didn't either accelerate or decelerate during its ascent, and I'm sure he wouldn't be that dumb, because he tells us that knows what the B (and all the other letters) in ICBM stands for. 

However, as many correspondents have already said, we have no idea how he got where he is, so all we have is conjecture. 


10
Science & Alternative Science / Re: The June Eclipse
« on: June 10, 2021, 06:38:37 PM »
I also managed to take a photo of the shadow object from sunny London



Actually quite cloudy London and for a while I thought that had scuppered my attempt, but then it cleared a bit. I don't have a solar filter or anything so that's a reflection in a bucket of water I took into the garden, just took it on my Phone. Quite pleased with it though.

That's really good for being shot as a reflection in the water.  I've be very happy with that result.


Yup.  No curve on that water.

11
From the Sun's atmosphere?  There is negligible hydrogen in Earth's atmosphere. 

12
Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs
« on: June 04, 2021, 05:03:20 PM »
I think its more fundamental than that Ron; before you left home, the guy placed an ad in the paper claiming to have a gun, and the local PD, the Sheriff's Dept and State cops also were on TV telling you he has a gun. 

And the cops should know, because they also have guns. 

13
Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs
« on: June 03, 2021, 05:44:52 PM »
Though its based on personal experience, looks like RonJ was able to refer to his log to refresh his memory and add a bit of gravitas to his experience.  I don't know if you keep a diary @Action80, but could you provide more detail of your Tomahawk stuff, like where and when, and was it the sub-, surface- or land based version.  And only if its not breaching any security protocols. 

I'm still inclined to think that the whole Tomahawk thing may be a figment of the MIC pseudo-arms dealers and unicorn farmers. 

Oh, and this is a nice touch:  So tell us what was it like to see a non-ICBM in action? Pretty cool, I bet.

Now it looks like Ron is agreeing with you!  Clever!

14
Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs
« on: June 03, 2021, 01:40:46 PM »
They said paraded missiles were fake. You haven’t come close to showing that all the ICBMs are fake. In fact your own source disagreed with you. You are master of self-owning.
I think the real issue is no one here has come close to demonstrating ICBM's are real, including you.

Until then, it is just a myth propagated by liars.

You have nothing but a bunch of words from known liars, which you love to repeat.

The OP needs to go to CN.

What about Tomahawk missiles? Are they real? Are mortars real?

At what level of technology does the weapon become fake?
When you cannot produce evidence of use, I would suppose.

I have seen Tomahawks in use, hitting their intended targets.

I have also seen mortars in use, hitting their intended targets.


I am perhaps fortunate never to have seen an actual mortar fired, or a Tomahawk hit its target.  Do you have a source for their existence, or is it just your own testimony?

15
Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs
« on: June 02, 2021, 03:50:31 PM »
It is generally accepted that Russia did fake a lot of stuff during the Cold War to pretend that they had more technological prowess than they did. During the Cold War, Russia went around parading fake ICBMs for decades:

Quote from: AP News
Moscow paraded dummy missiles

MANY OF the huge strategic missiles displayed in Red Square parades during the Soviet era were only dummies, but they scared the West into an expensive response, a Russian magazine reported yesterday.

One such fake, GR-1, an acronym for Global Missile, showed during a parade in 1965, prompted the United States to build an anti- missile defence system worth billions of dollars, said the weekly Vlast (Power). In fact, the Soviets had abandoned the GR-1 project long before the parade.

Another two mobile ballistic missiles shown in the same parade were also fakes, their test launches having been a failure, the magazine said. "Foreign military attaches were scared to death, triggering panic in Nato headquarters," it said. "A huge international uproar followed, and only those who prepared this demonstration knew they were dummies." One of the authors of the Vlast report worked as a missile engineer and said he had worked on a support system for one of the fake missiles to prevent it from bouncing on the stone-paved Red Square in Moscow. The magazine said the Soviet leader Nikita Krushchev first bluffed the West with the legend of powerful Russian missiles, saying the Soviet Union was making them "like sausage". "Such comparison sounded ambiguous for the Soviet people, because the sausage was in deficit, but it duly impressed foreigners," it said. At the time of Krushchev's comment, the Soviets had only four intercontinental ballistic missiles on duty, while the United States had 60. "The myth about the Soviet missile superiority was convenient for both the Soviet leadership and the American military industrial complex, which was getting huge contracts," the magazine said.

There is also a book about Russian Cold War fakery; Russia and the Big Red Lie.


So ICBMs exist.  Can you confirm to @Action80 please.
I think the larger point Tom was making is that ICBM's do not actually exist.

Pity that went over your head or through your ears.


Many.  And the others? 


16
Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs
« on: June 02, 2021, 03:43:55 PM »
A helicopter is in the atmospheric boundary layer of Earth.   An ICBM is in space.
LOL!

The moon is in space too, in case you forgot.

You do not even know what an ICBM is and are going to presume to now lecture about where things move and how/why the mythical G is going to affect things?

I don't think so.


ICBM;

M = Missile; a projectile.
B = Ballistic; not reliant on aerodynamics for its trajectory.
IC = Inter Continental; having a range typical of the distances between continents. 

The same sources which told you that the initial test of Hwasong-14 had a range of 700 miles, and you trust, also say it reached an altitude of 1750 miles.  Apparently, this gives it the range to hit Alaska and Hawaii.  (I'm not the rocket scientist here, but you have the quadratic equations, so you do the math).  Note that this was the very first test of the Hwasong 14, subsequent development and tests have improved the performance. 

And you will do the math for us? 

17
Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs
« on: June 02, 2021, 03:22:35 PM »
A helicopter is in the atmospheric boundary layer of Earth.   An ICBM is in space.
LOL!

The moon is in space too, in case you forgot.


And? 

18
Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs
« on: June 02, 2021, 03:20:27 PM »
It is generally accepted that Russia did fake a lot of stuff during the Cold War to pretend that they had more technological prowess than they did. During the Cold War, Russia went around parading fake ICBMs for decades:

Quote from: AP News
Moscow paraded dummy missiles

MANY OF the huge strategic missiles displayed in Red Square parades during the Soviet era were only dummies, but they scared the West into an expensive response, a Russian magazine reported yesterday.

One such fake, GR-1, an acronym for Global Missile, showed during a parade in 1965, prompted the United States to build an anti- missile defence system worth billions of dollars, said the weekly Vlast (Power). In fact, the Soviets had abandoned the GR-1 project long before the parade.

Another two mobile ballistic missiles shown in the same parade were also fakes, their test launches having been a failure, the magazine said. "Foreign military attaches were scared to death, triggering panic in Nato headquarters," it said. "A huge international uproar followed, and only those who prepared this demonstration knew they were dummies." One of the authors of the Vlast report worked as a missile engineer and said he had worked on a support system for one of the fake missiles to prevent it from bouncing on the stone-paved Red Square in Moscow. The magazine said the Soviet leader Nikita Krushchev first bluffed the West with the legend of powerful Russian missiles, saying the Soviet Union was making them "like sausage". "Such comparison sounded ambiguous for the Soviet people, because the sausage was in deficit, but it duly impressed foreigners," it said. At the time of Krushchev's comment, the Soviets had only four intercontinental ballistic missiles on duty, while the United States had 60. "The myth about the Soviet missile superiority was convenient for both the Soviet leadership and the American military industrial complex, which was getting huge contracts," the magazine said.

There is also a book about Russian Cold War fakery; Russia and the Big Red Lie.


So ICBMs exist.  Can you confirm to @Action80 please.


19
Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs
« on: June 02, 2021, 02:46:50 PM »
A helicopter is in the atmospheric boundary layer of Earth.   An ICBM is in space. 

20
Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs
« on: June 02, 2021, 11:06:25 AM »
So Japan, USA, ROK and North Korea agreed to tell the same lie?  Love to be a fly on the wall at that meeting. 

Seriously, if all references we make are "liars", we can probably agree that any further discussion of any topic is pointless.  Bye.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7  Next >