Offline somerled

  • *
  • Posts: 319
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #160 on: February 21, 2020, 09:32:09 AM »
He gives a good demonstration of Joules law. Several failed attempts to ignite a rocket engine in a vacuum. Changes his rocket into a bomb at 9mins since he can't get it to work (predicted by Joules law) . He eventually is able to produce a force by exploding his pressurised bomb and demonstrates Newtons 3rd  after proving rockets don't work or even ignite in a vacuum .
 

 

totallackey

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #161 on: February 21, 2020, 12:12:40 PM »
The law of free expansion has already been proven...
But you are the only one claiming a link between that and conservation of momentum not working for rockets in space.
The Nobel Prize awaits you if you can prove that link as it seems to have eluded scientists. And rockets, come to think of it, which seem to work perfectly fine.

And all the videos you have posted bear this fact out quite nicely.
Someone posted a video of the moon lander launching from the moons surface and you just yelled fake with no evidence, so I doubt any video would change your mind since you're unwilling to take anything that goes against your belief seriously.
Yeah, someone posted a video of that in another thread.

The validity of the video in question is up for debate.

Plus the same poster was forced to admit that it isn't a vacuum environment.

That lander video is entirely fake.

The whole moon landing story is fake.

Neil Armstrong was damn near killed when trying to fly the thing.

No way they landed on the moon, let alone took off.

Offline iCare

  • *
  • Posts: 101
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #162 on: February 22, 2020, 03:05:45 PM »
Rockets are containers of gas.

If the gas they contain is expelled into a vacuum, the work performed by the gas = 0.

I'm not entirely convinced that a rocket which expels gas with explosive force is equivalent to the free expansion result.
But OK, let's say it is.
No, let's not.
Rockets are not containers of gas.
The workings of a rocket are not equivalent to free expansion.
In free expansion the amount of gas is constant (only its distribution in a defined "enclosure" changes) whereas a rocket dramatically increases the amount of gas (and there is no enclosure).

Similar effect:
Inflate a balloon,
  • let it go ... it will "rocket" away.
  • conenct it to an empty balloon, let it go ... no "work done.

That does not change the fact that gas expelled into a vacuum does 0 work.
There is no point in following this line of argument, when the starting point is known to be wrong.
See above.

iC
"I'm sorry, if you were right, I would agree with you."
Robin Williams as Dr. Sayer in "Awakenings" (1990)

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #163 on: February 22, 2020, 03:10:55 PM »
Another fantastic video proving rockets don't work in a vacuum.
TL, if you don't agree with T_E_T's assessment, please provide an argument as to why. Don't just "nuh uh" him, as that doesn't really add anything to the discussion.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

totallackey

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #164 on: February 22, 2020, 07:36:07 PM »
Another fantastic video proving rockets don't work in a vacuum.
TL, if you don't agree with T_E_T's assessment, please provide an argument as to why. Don't just "nuh uh" him, as that doesn't really add anything to the discussion.
Sorry Pete.

I just removed the offending post, since somerled already addressed the issues with the video (I missed his succinct and accurate rebuttal).

Rockets are containers of gas.

If the gas they contain is expelled into a vacuum, the work performed by the gas = 0.

I'm not entirely convinced that a rocket which expels gas with explosive force is equivalent to the free expansion result.
But OK, let's say it is.
No, let's not.
Rockets are not containers of gas.
Yes, they are.
The workings of a rocket are not equivalent to free expansion.
Yes, it is.

All the videos posted here succinctly and distinctly offer affirmative proof this is the case.
In free expansion the amount of gas is constant (only its distribution in a defined "enclosure" changes) whereas a rocket dramatically increases the amount of gas (and there is no enclosure).
All containers of gas are under pressure.

Gas, when released into a vacuum, regardless of the pressure behind it, performs 0 work.
Similar effect:
Inflate a balloon,
  • let it go ... it will "rocket" away.
  • conenct it to an empty balloon, let it go ... no "work done.


That does not change the fact that gas expelled into a vacuum does 0 work.
There is no point in following this line of argument, when the starting point is known to be wrong.
See above.

iC

I suggest you look at all these marvelous videos posted by these like minded people here, offered in support of rockets working in a vacuum.

They actually prove exactly what I am stating.

Rockets do not work in a vacuum.

Gas, when released into a vacuum, performs 0 work.

The equal and opposite reaction to 0, not surprisingly, is 0.

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6488
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #165 on: February 22, 2020, 11:07:27 PM »
All I have posted here is the sheer science of the matter.
Science you repeatedly fail to understand. You are making a link between free expansion and rockets. I note you have failed to produce any source at all which agrees with you.
It's bizarre how confident you are in your ability in this area when you don't seem to understand that gas ejected from a rocket must have velocity. It is propelled (speed) away from the rocket (direction). That's literally the definition of velocity.
If it has velocity then since it has mass it must have momentum. Which is how rockets work, by conservation of momentum, not because they are pushing against anything.

Quote
You have posted a video of a guy who is tapping on a malfunctioning gauge (with no real rocket in sight, by the way) as evidence rockets do work in a vacuum. When asked for a scientific paper concerning proper protocol for the amount of force to be applied to each tap and the number of taps to be administered to a malfunctioning gauge, the answer is...
Nothing in response.

Why do you keep lying about this? The gauge is clearly not malfunctioning, you can see in the video the gauge recording the pressure drop as he pumps the air out.
In reply 20 in this thread I posted a link to a paper about how to calibrate pressure gauges which mentions in section 14 why someone might tap the gauge. Here's the relevant section if you didn't bother looking at it before:

Quote
Sometimes a mechanical pressure gauge may need a gentle tapping in order to make sure that it is released from any friction or lost flexibility, especially if it has not been exercised in normal use. During the calibration, once the input pressure is stabilized, you can gently tap the gauge to see if the indication changes. Of course, you need to be gentle in tapping not to damage the gauge


Quote
In addition, you posted a video of a guy who had mounted two model rocket engines inside what is purported to be a vacuum chamber and then fires them off.

I've posted several videos. Here's another for you to excuse somehow.



Quote
No scientist would ever publish a paper admitting they know rockets cannot work in a vacuum.

Correct. Because they know that the free expansion result does not mean rockets can't work in a vacuum. Because the gas expelled from rockets has momentum and conservation of momentum is real and proven...
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

totallackey

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #166 on: February 23, 2020, 09:17:57 AM »
All I have posted here is the sheer science of the matter.
Science you repeatedly fail to understand. You are making a link between free expansion and rockets. I note you have failed to produce any source at all which agrees with you.
Why should I post anything?

All you have done is post videos that clearly support the fact rockets do not work in a vacuum.
It's bizarre how confident you are in your ability in this area when you don't seem to understand that gas ejected from a rocket must have velocity. It is propelled (speed) away from the rocket (direction). That's literally the definition of velocity.
If it has velocity then since it has mass it must have momentum. Which is how rockets work, by conservation of momentum, not because they are pushing against anything.
All the videos you have posted support that rockets do not work in a vacuum.
Quote
You have posted a video of a guy who is tapping on a malfunctioning gauge (with no real rocket in sight, by the way) as evidence rockets do work in a vacuum. When asked for a scientific paper concerning proper protocol for the amount of force to be applied to each tap and the number of taps to be administered to a malfunctioning gauge, the answer is...
Nothing in response.

Why do you keep lying about this? The gauge is clearly not malfunctioning, you can see in the video the gauge recording the pressure drop as he pumps the air out.
In reply 20 in this thread I posted a link to a paper about how to calibrate pressure gauges which mentions in section 14 why someone might tap the gauge. Here's the relevant section if you didn't bother looking at it before:

Quote
Sometimes a mechanical pressure gauge may need a gentle tapping in order to make sure that it is released from any friction or lost flexibility, especially if it has not been exercised in normal use. During the calibration, once the input pressure is stabilized, you can gently tap the gauge to see if the indication changes. Of course, you need to be gentle in tapping not to damage the gauge
Why tap on a gauge if it is not malfunctioning?

Not to mention...is there a rocket visible anywhere in the video...answer - no.

Quote
In addition, you posted a video of a guy who had mounted two model rocket engines inside what is purported to be a vacuum chamber and then fires them off.

I've posted several videos. Here's another for you to excuse somehow.

The rocket shown in this video also doesn't work in a vacuum.

That happens to be the video done prior to the one where the guy turns the rocket into a bomb.
Quote
No scientist would ever publish a paper admitting they know rockets cannot work in a vacuum.

Correct. Because they know that the free expansion result does not mean rockets can't work in a vacuum. Because the gas expelled from rockets has momentum and conservation of momentum is real and proven...
Gas, when expelled into a vacuum, does 0 work.

All the videos you have posted clearly prove this fact.

Offline iCare

  • *
  • Posts: 101
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #167 on: February 23, 2020, 10:23:06 AM »
As you haven't responded to my reasoning other then repeating the same (know and disproved) claims over and over, I will let it stand as it is until you feel like engaging in a real discussion, as in providing facts and reason instead of simply reiterating claims. 

I suggest you look at all these marvelous videos posted by these like minded people here, offered in support of rockets working in a vacuum.
They actually prove exactly what I am stating.
Well, I've looked at the videos and I honestly cannot see, where they would prove what you are saying.
Would you care to be more specific or will you keep doing the "nuh uh" routine?

Gas, when released into a vacuum, performs 0 work.

In addition to the previously postet reasoning (still valid), why this isn't relevant for rockets:
Do you understand, what "work" means in the context of free expansion? (http://www.physics4kids.com/files/motion_work.html)

With free expansion no "work" is performed by the gas because there is no energy transfer. (Note, however, that there is still movement, as the gas moves to occupy a larger volume).
With a rocket, in contrast, there is a lot of energy transfer (e.g. exothermic reaction solid/liquid fuel). => free expansion does not disprove rockets working in a vacuum; totally different stories.

iC
"I'm sorry, if you were right, I would agree with you."
Robin Williams as Dr. Sayer in "Awakenings" (1990)

EngineerMan

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #168 on: February 24, 2020, 03:27:42 AM »
I guess my whole career is a sham.  All that time I spent away from my family working on the space shuttle and the space station.  All that time I wasted working on experiments that never really flew or were operated by astronauts.  All of my family members that worked on Apollo lied to me.  All of those calculations I made assuming the earth was round made for nothing.

Bummer...

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6488
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #169 on: February 24, 2020, 10:38:25 AM »
Why should I post anything?

You don't have to do anything. But it's telling that you can't.
You are making a link between free expansion and rockets. Does anyone in science agree with you?
Rockets work by conservation of momentum. I've explained ad nauseum why the gas projected from a rocket must have momentum.
You do have a habit of just stating things without any evidence.
iCare has carefully explained why your link between free expansion and rockets is invalid, all you're doing is repeating your stock phase over and over again, you're not providing any evidence for the link you're making.
And we both know why that is - because there isn't one.

Quote
All you have done is post videos that clearly support the fact rockets do not work in a vacuum.

I've posted several videos showing rockets working in vacuums, all you've done is go "nuh-uh"

Quote
Why tap on a gauge if it is not malfunctioning?

What a strange response to a post where I literally pasted part of a technical manual on pressure gauges which explains exactly why.

Quote
Gas, when expelled into a vacuum, does 0 work.

In a very specific circumstance which does not apply to rockets. Again, look at iCare's posts where he clearly explains why.
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

Offline somerled

  • *
  • Posts: 319
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #170 on: February 24, 2020, 10:51:52 AM »
As you haven't responded to my reasoning other then repeating the same (know and disproved) claims over and over, I will let it stand as it is until you feel like engaging in a real discussion, as in providing facts and reason instead of simply reiterating claims. 

I suggest you look at all these marvelous videos posted by these like minded people here, offered in support of rockets working in a vacuum.
They actually prove exactly what I am stating.
Well, I've looked at the videos and I honestly cannot see, where they would prove what you are saying.
Would you care to be more specific or will you keep doing the "nuh uh" routine?

Gas, when released into a vacuum, performs 0 work.

In addition to the previously postet reasoning (still valid), why this isn't relevant for rockets:
Do you understand, what "work" means in the context of free expansion? (http://www.physics4kids.com/files/motion_work.html)

With free expansion no "work" is performed by the gas because there is no energy transfer. (Note, however, that there is still movement, as the gas moves to occupy a larger volume).
With a rocket, in contrast, there is a lot of energy transfer (e.g. exothermic reaction solid/liquid fuel). => free expansion does not disprove rockets working in a vacuum; totally different stories.

iC
Where is this energy transfer ?
Explain the physical process please , of conversion of thermal energy to kinetic energy in a vacuum which will result in the reactive force of thrust required to accelerate a rocket . Acceleration requires a force , momentum is not a force .
Movement of gas into a larger volume does not produce a force , which Joule proved.

totallackey

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #171 on: February 24, 2020, 11:33:53 AM »
As you haven't responded to my reasoning other then repeating the same (know and disproved) claims over and over, I will let it stand as it is until you feel like engaging in a real discussion, as in providing facts and reason instead of simply reiterating claims.
Okay.

Describe your reasoning a little bit more, because my point is pretty clear.

Rockets do not work in a vacuum.
I suggest you look at all these marvelous videos posted by these like minded people here, offered in support of rockets working in a vacuum.
They actually prove exactly what I am stating.
Well, I've looked at the videos and I honestly cannot see, where they would prove what you are saying.
Would you care to be more specific or will you keep doing the "nuh uh" routine?
Reasoning must include the following on your part: "I know I just wrote, 'I will let it stand as it is...' but let me get this in here..."

As far as you not being able to see in the videos what everyone else sees, the videos prove that rockets do not work in a vacuum.
Gas, when released into a vacuum, performs 0 work.

In addition to the previously postet reasoning (still valid), why this isn't relevant for rockets:
Do you understand, what "work" means in the context of free expansion? (http://www.physics4kids.com/files/motion_work.html)

With free expansion no "work" is performed by the gas because there is no energy transfer. (Note, however, that there is still movement, as the gas moves to occupy a larger volume).
With a rocket, in contrast, there is a lot of energy transfer (e.g. exothermic reaction solid/liquid fuel). => free expansion does not disprove rockets working in a vacuum; totally different stories.

iC
0 work means exactly that.

These videos show rocket motors releasing gas into a vacuum.

The rockets do not move until there is no more vacuum.
Why should I post anything?

You don't have to do anything. But it's telling that you can't.
You are making a link between free expansion and rockets. Does anyone in science agree with you?
Are the videos you have provided created by scientists?

If they are, then yes...the people who made the videos agree with me.

And they prove it on camera.
Rockets work by conservation of momentum. I've explained ad nauseum why the gas projected from a rocket must have momentum.
You do have a habit of just stating things without any evidence.
iCare has carefully explained why your link between free expansion and rockets is invalid, all you're doing is repeating your stock phase over and over again, you're not providing any evidence for the link you're making.
And we both know why that is - because there isn't one.
Your videos have actually provided all the evidence for me.

They definitively show and prove that rockets do not work in a vacuum.
Quote
All you have done is post videos that clearly support the fact rockets do not work in a vacuum.

I've posted several videos showing rockets working in vacuums, all you've done is go "nuh-uh"
Not only have I not written the words, "nuh-uh,", both somerled and myself have written clear points as to why your video evidence actually supports the fact rockets do not work in a vacuum.
Quote
Why tap on a gauge if it is not malfunctioning?

What a strange response to a post where I literally pasted part of a technical manual on pressure gauges which explains exactly why.
Yeah...it explains why...

The gauge is malfunctioning...
Quote
Gas, when expelled into a vacuum, does 0 work.

In a very specific circumstance which does not apply to rockets. Again, look at iCare's posts where he clearly explains why.
ICare and you have no clue about what you are writing about.

Your videos prove one very, simple fact.

Rockets do not work in a vacuum.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2020, 12:28:55 PM by totallackey »

Offline iCare

  • *
  • Posts: 101
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #172 on: February 24, 2020, 01:08:39 PM »
Where is this energy transfer ?

While this is actually more down AllAroundTheWorld's line of reasoning (which I think explains it very well) ...
Rockets work by conservation of momentum. I've explained ad nauseum why the gas projected from a rocket must have momentum.
... here's my take:

Explain the physical process please , of conversion of thermal energy to kinetic energy
A rocket does not work by converting thermal energy to kinetic energy, at least not directly/mainly. See below.

in a vacuum which will result in the reactive force of thrust required to accelerate a rocket . Acceleration requires a force , momentum is not a force .
While I didn't bring up the term momentum, let me point out, that this is not about momentum being a force.
It is about "conservation of momentum" (https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/momentum/Lesson-2/Momentum-Conservation-Principle).
In other words: When an object (a rocket with everything in it) has no momentum (floating in a vacuum) and part of it (gas generated from fuel) is forced (exhausted/pushed) one way (gaining momentum), the remaining part of the object (rocket) must gain the same momentum in the opposite direction (accelerate).
This is not free expansion, it is "forced expansion".

Movement of gas into a larger volume does not produce a force , which Joule proved.
It may be true, but it does not apply (see above).
Free expansion is about a fixed amount of gas moving into a vacuum; no energy is added in the experiment.
Gas expands (same amount, more volume) & pressure drops accordingly => both cancelling each other out.
The "energy" of the gas stays the same.

Rockets are about fuel undergoing a chemical reaction, resulting in (lots of) heat, gas and whatever other byproducts.
Energy stored in fuel => chemical reaction => lots of gas (and heat) produced => increased pressure  within rocket motor => physical reaction => gas gets "pushed" out into vacuum => physical reaction => rocket gets "pushed" the other way.

The amount and the temperature of the gas increase dramatically => this is not free expansion
Unlike a propeller, which "pushes" against the medium surrounding it (and hence wouldn't work in a vacuum), a rocket "pushes" against the gas it generates (and hence works in a vacuum).

Counter question:
As rockets obviously work within our atmosphere, i.e. somehow increasing the (kinetic) energy of the rocket ... where does that energy go to in a vacuum?

iC
"I'm sorry, if you were right, I would agree with you."
Robin Williams as Dr. Sayer in "Awakenings" (1990)

totallackey

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #173 on: February 24, 2020, 01:19:08 PM »
in a vacuum which will result in the reactive force of thrust required to accelerate a rocket . Acceleration requires a force , momentum is not a force .
While I didn't bring up the term momentum, let me point out, that this is not about momentum being a force.
It is about "conservation of momentum" (https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/momentum/Lesson-2/Momentum-Conservation-Principle).
In other words: When an object (a rocket with everything in it) has no momentum (floating in a vacuum) and part of it (gas generated from fuel) is forced (exhausted/pushed) one way (gaining momentum), the remaining part of the object (rocket) must gain the same momentum in the opposite direction (accelerate).
This is not free expansion, it is "forced expansion"

iC
Funny, I look at the videos presented here by AATW...

They show the rockets going off...after they have been altered...and not moving in a vacuum...

Only when the gas expelled by the rocket turns the vacuum chamber in a pressurized environment do they actually move...

But they certainly do not show the rockets moving in a vacuum.

And the reason why is simple...gas, when released into a vacuum, is not, and cannot be "forced," into a vacuum.

All containers of gas have pressure.

When any container of gas is opened, the gas is released with that amount of instantaneous pressure applied at the opening...with the following notable exception...

When the opening of the container of gas is exposed to a vacuum...in which case...the gas just freely expands into the vacuum.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2020, 01:29:06 PM by totallackey »

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6488
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #174 on: February 24, 2020, 01:39:16 PM »
They show the rockets going off...after they have been altered...and not moving in a vacuum...
The first video I posted - the one which you keep obsessing about with the gauge tapping - addresses this.
The tapping has been explained in a technical reference manual which is about how to calibrate pressure gauges and is NOT because the gauge doesn't work.
 
If you actually watch that video you'll note that it's his second attempt at an experiment to show a rocket working in a vacuum.
His first attempt drew some of the criticisms you are raising so the second attempt has a much longer tube to address the criticism that it's only once the rocket vents sufficient gas into the vacuum that the rocket has something to "push against". Because that's not how rockets work.
And if you watch his video you'll note that the gauge - which you can clearly see working in the video - doesn't change, or not significantly, when the rocket has burned. So while yes, the gas would have added some gas into the tube the gauge shows that it's not a significant amount.

iCare has explained in far better detail than I could why the free expansion result does not apply to rockets.
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

Offline iCare

  • *
  • Posts: 101
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #175 on: February 24, 2020, 03:09:17 PM »
<Deleted my post, as you didn't refer to it anyway ... why quote it at all?>
Funny, I look at the videos presented here by AATW...
I'll leave that one to AATW. (Sharing is caring ... iCare  ;) ).

And the reason why is simple...gas, when released into a vacuum, is not, and cannot be "forced," into a vacuum.

Of course it can. Gas is always "forced" from where the pressure is higher to where the pressure is lower - until there's equilibrium.
Why would gas care if the lower pressure is 0?

When any container of gas is opened, the gas is released with that amount of instantaneous pressure applied at the opening...with the following notable exception...
When the container is closed, there is pressure at the valve (the valve being closed, it makes no difference, if there's a vacuum on the other side or not).
Case one: No vacuum, lower pressure outside => open valve => pressure applied
Case two: vacuum (lowest pressure) outside=> open valve => pressure "magically disappears"?  ???
Thinking of vacuum as 0 pressure, it's pretty much the same as low pressure ... just lower.
What is so significantly different about vacuum that it requires a "notable exception"?

Free expansion happens between two connected volumes/chambers; one contains a gas, the other "contains" a vacuum.
The chamber containing the gas is "pushed" one way by the "leaving" gas, but at the same time the other chamber is "pulled" the other way by the "leaving" vacuum.
With that specific (closed) setup all forced cancel each other out in the end and "no work" is done.

When the opening of the container of gas is exposed to a vacuum...in which case...the gas just freely expands into the vacuum.

Again: Free expansion does not apply to rockets. For the free expansion experiment you need a fixed amount of gas in a closed space (two connected chambers).
A rocket generates additional gas (through chemical reaction) and expels it into the "open", i.e. an "infinite" (at least compared to the amount of gas) space not connected to the rocket.

As I asked in my other post: For rockets to work in an atmosphere (which they observably do) kinetic energy needs to be "generated" somehow.
If in a vacuum this energy does not accelerate the rocket ... where does it go?
 
iC
 
"I'm sorry, if you were right, I would agree with you."
Robin Williams as Dr. Sayer in "Awakenings" (1990)

totallackey

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #176 on: February 24, 2020, 04:15:20 PM »
They show the rockets going off...after they have been altered...and not moving in a vacuum...
The first video I posted - the one which you keep obsessing about with the gauge tapping - addresses this.
The tapping has been explained in a technical reference manual which is about how to calibrate pressure gauges and is NOT because the gauge doesn't work.
You do not tap on gauges to calibrate them.

You tap on them because they are malfunctioning.

If you actually watch that video you'll note that it's his second attempt at an experiment to show a rocket working in a vacuum.
His first attempt drew some of the criticisms you are raising so the second attempt has a much longer tube to address the criticism that it's only once the rocket vents sufficient gas into the vacuum that the rocket has something to "push against". Because that's not how rockets work.
And if you watch his video you'll note that the gauge - which you can clearly see working in the video - doesn't change, or not significantly, when the rocket has burned. So while yes, the gas would have added some gas into the tube the gauge shows that it's not a significant amount.

iCare has explained in far better detail than I could why the free expansion result does not apply to rockets.
Yes, we have already concluded, as you now admit here...

Rockets do not work in a vacuum.

Your videos conclusively prove this.

totallackey

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #177 on: February 24, 2020, 04:18:41 PM »
<Deleted my post, as you didn't refer to it anyway ... why quote it at all?>
Funny, I look at the videos presented here by AATW...
I'll leave that one to AATW. (Sharing is caring ... iCare  ;) ).

And the reason why is simple...gas, when released into a vacuum, is not, and cannot be "forced," into a vacuum.

Of course it can. Gas is always "forced" from where the pressure is higher to where the pressure is lower - until there's equilibrium.
Why would gas care if the lower pressure is 0?

When any container of gas is opened, the gas is released with that amount of instantaneous pressure applied at the opening...with the following notable exception...
When the container is closed, there is pressure at the valve (the valve being closed, it makes no difference, if there's a vacuum on the other side or not).
Case one: No vacuum, lower pressure outside => open valve => pressure applied
Case two: vacuum (lowest pressure) outside=> open valve => pressure "magically disappears"?  ???
Thinking of vacuum as 0 pressure, it's pretty much the same as low pressure ... just lower.
What is so significantly different about vacuum that it requires a "notable exception"?

Free expansion happens between two connected volumes/chambers; one contains a gas, the other "contains" a vacuum.
The chamber containing the gas is "pushed" one way by the "leaving" gas, but at the same time the other chamber is "pulled" the other way by the "leaving" vacuum.
With that specific (closed) setup all forced cancel each other out in the end and "no work" is done.

When the opening of the container of gas is exposed to a vacuum...in which case...the gas just freely expands into the vacuum.

Again: Free expansion does not apply to rockets. For the free expansion experiment you need a fixed amount of gas in a closed space (two connected chambers).
A rocket generates additional gas (through chemical reaction) and expels it into the "open", i.e. an "infinite" (at least compared to the amount of gas) space not connected to the rocket.

As I asked in my other post: For rockets to work in an atmosphere (which they observably do) kinetic energy needs to be "generated" somehow.
If in a vacuum this energy does not accelerate the rocket ... where does it go?
 
iC
 
It is quite evident from everything you have posted here that you do not understand what you are looking at in the videos here...the rockets are not moving in a vacuum and do not move until a sufficient amount of gas is present in the vacuum.

I do not doubt you care deeply about the subject, but until you realize that gas freely expands when released into a vacuum, as the videos here conclusively demonstrate, we will agree to disagree.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2020, 04:36:32 PM by totallackey »

Offline somerled

  • *
  • Posts: 319
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #178 on: February 24, 2020, 04:19:59 PM »
Where is this energy transfer ?

While this is actually more down AllAroundTheWorld's line of reasoning (which I think explains it very well) ...
Rockets work by conservation of momentum. I've explained ad nauseum why the gas projected from a rocket must have momentum.
... here's my take:

Explain the physical process please , of conversion of thermal energy to kinetic energy
A rocket does not work by converting thermal energy to kinetic energy, at least not directly/mainly. See below.

in a vacuum which will result in the reactive force of thrust required to accelerate a rocket . Acceleration requires a force , momentum is not a force .
While I didn't bring up the term momentum, let me point out, that this is not about momentum being a force.
It is about "conservation of momentum" (https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/momentum/Lesson-2/Momentum-Conservation-Principle).
In other words: When an object (a rocket with everything in it) has no momentum (floating in a vacuum) and part of it (gas generated from fuel) is forced (exhausted/pushed) one way (gaining momentum), the remaining part of the object (rocket) must gain the same momentum in the opposite direction (accelerate).
This is not free expansion, it is "forced expansion".

Movement of gas into a larger volume does not produce a force , which Joule proved.
It may be true, but it does not apply (see above).
Free expansion is about a fixed amount of gas moving into a vacuum; no energy is added in the experiment.
Gas expands (same amount, more volume) & pressure drops accordingly => both cancelling each other out.
The "energy" of the gas stays the same.

Rockets are about fuel undergoing a chemical reaction, resulting in (lots of) heat, gas and whatever other byproducts.
Energy stored in fuel => chemical reaction => lots of gas (and heat) produced => increased pressure  within rocket motor => physical reaction => gas gets "pushed" out into vacuum => physical reaction => rocket gets "pushed" the other way.

The amount and the temperature of the gas increase dramatically => this is not free expansion
Unlike a propeller, which "pushes" against the medium surrounding it (and hence wouldn't work in a vacuum), a rocket "pushes" against the gas it generates (and hence works in a vacuum).

Counter question:
As rockets obviously work within our atmosphere, i.e. somehow increasing the (kinetic) energy of the rocket ... where does that energy go to in a vacuum?

iC

Rockets are reactive engines - always . They use the reactive force of thrust .

The physical process of igniting rocket fuel with its own oxidizer does not happen in a vacuum . No work would be done even if it did ignite .
Gases expanding into a vacuum are not forced or pushed - that would require a resistance to expansion or gas flow . There is no force produced anywhere . Hence there is no reaction - no reactive thrust to accelerate . Hot gas expanding freely into the vacuum would merely raise the temperature since it cannot convert to kinetic energy. There is the conservation of energy .








*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6488
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #179 on: February 24, 2020, 04:20:54 PM »
You tap on them because they are malfunctioning.

Please stop lying.

Quote
Sometimes a mechanical pressure gauge may need a gentle tapping in order to make sure that it is released from any friction or lost flexibility, especially if it has not been exercised in normal use. During the calibration, once the input pressure is stabilized, you can gently tap the gauge to see if the indication changes. Of course, you need to be gentle in tapping not to damage the gauge

Quote
Yes, we have already concluded, as you now admit here...

Rockets do not work in a vacuum.

Your videos conclusively prove this.

And please stop trolling.
iCare has explained very clearly why the free expansion result does not apply to rockets.
I have explained as clearly as I can why the gas expelled from a rocket has momentum and thus rockets work by conservation of momentum.
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"