totallackey

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #380 on: March 19, 2020, 12:22:59 PM »
  • Gas in a rocket does not expand freely.
Right here is your problem in a nutshell...

Any gas (regardless of how it is contained and regardless of how it released) when released to the presence of a vacuum, expands freely.

Period, end of sentence.

All gas, when placed in a container, is confined at pressure.

When that pressure is released, regardless of how it is released, to a vacuum, the gas, under that pressure DOES NO WORK.

All these videos here distinctly and clearly prove that.
« Last Edit: March 19, 2020, 12:39:57 PM by totallackey »

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 3179
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #381 on: March 19, 2020, 12:46:14 PM »
I am referring to the ballistics tests conducted by police, utilized to determine the gun used to fire the bullet.

Great, show us any reference therein to expansion of a bullet within the barrel
I'll open a thread in Science and Technology with the info.

OK, accepted. Obturation causes deformity in the bullets, the extent of which is determined by the texture of said bullet.

Causing the gasses to expand behind it.

Still insist, though, that the bullet doesn't cause gases to expand, the ignited propellant is what does that

EDIT - in fact, any increased resistance from the bullet expanding in the barrel generates compression, not expansion ...
« Last Edit: March 19, 2020, 01:04:59 PM by Tumeni »
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

Offline somerled

  • *
  • Posts: 319
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #382 on: March 19, 2020, 01:01:35 PM »
icare will have to show the scientific experiment that proves his ad nauseum "explanation".
No, he will not. Why would I need to provide prove for what as been proven over and over again?
The experiments are all there and have been repeated again and again (I'm not talking about youtube, but of the experiments that led to e.g. Newton's and Joule's Laws).
The correct application of those laws and the findings of those experiment all line up to prove that rockets do not care about their environment. => They work in a vacuum.

Your interpretation of the laws/experiments and the way you apply them to how rockets are incorrect - that is what I have pointed out and explained.
As mentioned before: Even if rockets wouldn't work in a vacuum, it would not be because of the reasons you have given.

Taking the example of Free Expansion again:
  • No work does not equal no force.
  • Gas in a rocket does not expand freely.
  • You cannot simply ignore the difference between a closed container and opening towards a vacuum.
  • The law/experiment have requirements/a specific setup, that are different from how rockets are built/work.
Joule's Law does not say, that rockets couldn't work in a vacuum.

So it is not up to me to show why the laws are what they are.
It is up to you to show how the breaks in your logic can be fixed.
If you can't it is likely because you are wrong.

iC

Yet you are unable to provide any details of these experiments which you say have provided proof . Where be they?

Offline iCare

  • *
  • Posts: 101
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #383 on: March 19, 2020, 01:03:42 PM »
What happens when the rockets go off in these videos?
They remain perfectly still, until such time a pressurized environment exists...
There goes your argument.
Not really.

Rockets will always remain still for a short while after ignition, as thrust needs to build and inertia must be overcome.
To draw a valid conclusion from the videos that would have to be taken into account, i.e. by a series of experiments to calibrate for different levels of pressure .
With the data provided in the videos this may or may not be coincidental.

  • Gas in a rocket does not expand freely.
Right here is your problem in a nutshell...

Any gas (regardless of how it is contained and regardless of how it released) when released to the presence of a vacuum, expands freely.

Period, end of sentence.

All gas, when placed in a container, is confined at pressure.

When that pressure is released, regardless of how it is released, to a vacuum, the gas, under that pressure DOES NO WORK.

All these videos here distinctly and clearly prove that.

Actually, that is not my problem.
As repeatedly stated, "no work" is not the same as "no forces".
Also you might review the Joule–Thomson effect, as the way the gas is released does make a difference.
And it still stands to be proven, that Joule's experiment can be generalized from a closed container to open vacuum.
As far as I recall, there is no work done, because the forces inside the container balance each other out - which would not happen in a rocket that is open to vacuum.

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

Offline iCare

  • *
  • Posts: 101
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #384 on: March 19, 2020, 01:07:10 PM »
The experiments are all there and have been repeated again and again (I'm not talking about youtube, but of the experiments that led to e.g. Newton's and Joule's Laws).
Yet you are unable to provide any details of these experiments which you say have provided proof . Where be they?
I think you misunderstand my meaning. I am referring to the experiments, that led to e.g. Newton's Law.
Why would I need to point to experiments to support a law that is already accepted as a Law of Physics/Nature.

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

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #385 on: March 19, 2020, 02:49:47 PM »
When that pressure is released, regardless of how it is released, to a vacuum, the gas, under that pressure DOES NO WORK.

All these videos here distinctly and clearly prove that.

Okay how would these behave differently in a vacuum, Newton's 3rd law would still apply right?



You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Inigo Montoya

Offline somerled

  • *
  • Posts: 319
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #386 on: March 19, 2020, 04:22:47 PM »
The experiments are all there and have been repeated again and again (I'm not talking about youtube, but of the experiments that led to e.g. Newton's and Joule's Laws).
Yet you are unable to provide any details of these experiments which you say have provided proof . Where be they?
I think you misunderstand my meaning. I am referring to the experiments, that led to e.g. Newton's Law.
Why would I need to point to experiments to support a law that is already accepted as a Law of Physics/Nature.

iC
No one is questioning Newton's laws .

Provide details of the scientific experiment resulting in the conclusion that a rocket engine can provide thrust in a vacuum in contravention of Joules law (the one that relates to work in a vacuum) . Straight forward enough.





*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6535
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #387 on: March 19, 2020, 04:27:46 PM »
Provide details of the scientific experiment resulting in the conclusion that a rocket engine can provide thrust in a vacuum in contravention of Joules law (the one that relates to work in a vacuum) . Straight forward enough.
Tell ya what.
How about you provide a link to a credible scientific paper which claims that rockets can't work in a vacuum?
You are claiming a link between Joule's law and rockets.
iCare has very carefully and patiently explained why that link is erroneous.
If he's wrong then you should be able to provide a scientific article which backs up your assertion.
Straight forward enough.
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 #388 on: March 19, 2020, 06:17:50 PM »
No one is questioning Newton's laws .
Provide details of the scientific experiment resulting in the conclusion that a rocket engine can provide thrust in a vacuum in contravention of Joules law (the one that relates to work in a vacuum) . Straight forward enough.

As I keep trying to explain: You are questioning Newton's Laws.
A rocket provides thrust by accelerating a mass (gas, as can easily be observed as exhaust) in one direction, which - by Newton's Law - requires another mass (the rocket) to undergo a corresponding acceleration in the opposite direction.
Newton's Third Law, straightforward. No reason it shouldn't provide thrust unless you can prove so.

I cannot provide details "of the scientific experiment resulting in the conclusion that a rocket engine can provide thrust in a vacuum in contravention of Joules law", because providing thrust in a vacuum is not in contravention of Joule's Law.

"No work done" (comparing initial state and end state) does not mean "no force"; it means - in this case - same temperature at the beginning and at the end of the experiment.
Free expansion works, because at a certain temperature gas molecules have a specific kinetic energy that has them moving around randomly.
At the beginning of Joule's experiment they do so within a smaller volume.
After removing the barrier to the vacuum part of the container the gas molecules' random movement simply continues, but with the barrier gone, it will eventually take the molecules across the whole volume.
There is no work done, because the gas doesn't have to to extra work to move into the previously empty volume.
The vacuum provides no resistance and the the random movement of the gas molecules so it (and hence the temperature) does not change, it simple gets more space to happen in.
=> Temperature stays the same; if the volume increases by factor x, the pressure will decrease by factor x.

Due to the exothermic chemical reaction that powers a rocket, the kinetic energy of the gas molecules increases a lot and and additional gas molecules are generated (also hot, i.e. with high kinetic energy).
=> This is not Free Expansion.
Initial state: little/no gas, cold
Fuel burning: lots of (new) gas, hot
=> The high kinetic energy of the gas molecules forces gas through the nozzle and (Newton's Third Law) accelerates the rocket in the opposite direction.   

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

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #389 on: March 19, 2020, 07:54:14 PM »
Duncan the Know-Nothing time-served Licensed Aircraft Engineer again;

Are we considering the vacuum as a static state?  Because it may not be. 

With the rocket engine at rest in space then the combustion chamber, nozzle and environment are at zero pressure, and no gas is present; no flow, no thrust.  Once the motor fires, fuel and oxidiser combine in the combustion chamber and a chemical reaction converts them to (mainly) carbon dioxide and water.  As the chemical reaction is exothermic, this material is at high pressure and temperature in the form of a gas.  The gas attempts to equalise with environmental pressure (zero) by escaping through the nozzle.  Because the nozzle is a choke it restricts the flow. 

You understand a choke?  You inflate your car tyres from a compressed air cylinder.  Your tyre pressure is 2 bar, the cylinder air is 10 bar.  You pull the lever and does the tyre jump to 10? Does the compressor plummet to 2?  No, air flows across the choke (the tyre valve) creating a pressure drop and accelerating (hear the hiss?).  As more gas enters the tyre its pressure slowly rises.  As air is lost from the cylinder its pressure slowly falls.  At no point are the pressure in the cylinder and tyre equal, and the pressure in the tyre-valve is somewhere beteen 10 and 2. 

Our rocket exhaust gas similarly experiences a pressure drop and accelerates as it exits the nozzle; If the pressure in the chamber is x, nozzle presure is y and the environmental pressure is zero, then x>y>zero.  The nozzle pressure is greater than zero.  It is not a vacuum.   As the exhaust gas accelerates in one direction, blah blah, you and Newton know the rest of the story, and on we go to Destination Moon. 

If the exothermic reaction produced its gas in a free vacuum it would dissipate freely in all directions = no work. 

And once its LEFT our nozzle it does just that, but we don't care, because it did its work already in the nozzle. 


totallackey

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #390 on: March 20, 2020, 10:37:27 AM »
I am referring to the ballistics tests conducted by police, utilized to determine the gun used to fire the bullet.

Great, show us any reference therein to expansion of a bullet within the barrel
I'll open a thread in Science and Technology with the info.

OK, accepted. Obturation causes deformity in the bullets, the extent of which is determined by the texture of said bullet.

Causing the gasses to expand behind it.

Still insist, though, that the bullet doesn't cause gases to expand, the ignited propellant is what does that

EDIT - in fact, any increased resistance from the bullet expanding in the barrel generates compression, not expansion ...
Yeah, I meant to type "compress."

Sorry.

totallackey

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #391 on: March 20, 2020, 10:43:38 AM »
What happens when the rockets go off in these videos?
They remain perfectly still, until such time a pressurized environment exists...
There goes your argument.
Not really.

Rockets will always remain still for a short while after ignition, as thrust needs to build and inertia must be overcome.
Sure they do, even in a pressurized environment.

Doesn't alleviate the fact a pressurized environment is required, as evidenced and presented in the videos in this thread.
To draw a valid conclusion from the videos that would have to be taken into account, i.e. by a series of experiments to calibrate for different levels of pressure .
With the data provided in the videos this may or may not be coincidental.
If you watch the videos, it demonstrates that gas begins to perform work at about the same levels on the gauges.
  • Gas in a rocket does not expand freely.
Right here is your problem in a nutshell...

Any gas (regardless of how it is contained and regardless of how it released) when released to the presence of a vacuum, expands freely.

Period, end of sentence.

All gas, when placed in a container, is confined at pressure.

When that pressure is released, regardless of how it is released, to a vacuum, the gas, under that pressure DOES NO WORK.

All these videos here distinctly and clearly prove that.

Actually, that is not my problem.
As repeatedly stated, "no work" is not the same as "no forces".
In this case (i.e., rockets WORKING in a vacuum), it is.
Also you might review the Joule–Thomson effect, as the way the gas is released does make a difference.
No, it doesn't.

What matters is the environment to which it is released.
And it still stands to be proven, that Joule's experiment can be generalized from a closed container to open vacuum.
Actually, the videos remain as proof that rockets (i.e., containers of gas) do not work in a vacuum.
As far as I recall, there is no work done, because the forces inside the container balance each other out - which would not happen in a rocket that is open to vacuum.

iC
The video evidence clearly proves you wrong.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2020, 01:12:39 PM by totallackey »

totallackey

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #392 on: March 20, 2020, 10:45:20 AM »
Duncan the Know-Nothing time-served Licensed Aircraft Engineer again;

Are we considering the vacuum as a static state?  Because it may not be. 

With the rocket engine at rest in space then the combustion chamber, nozzle and environment are at zero pressure, and no gas is present; no flow, no thrust.  Once the motor fires, fuel and oxidiser combine in the combustion chamber and a chemical reaction converts them to (mainly) carbon dioxide and water.  As the chemical reaction is exothermic, this material is at high pressure and temperature in the form of a gas.  The gas attempts to equalise with environmental pressure (zero) by escaping through the nozzle.  Because the nozzle is a choke it restricts the flow. 

You understand a choke?  You inflate your car tyres from a compressed air cylinder.  Your tyre pressure is 2 bar, the cylinder air is 10 bar.  You pull the lever and does the tyre jump to 10? Does the compressor plummet to 2?  No, air flows across the choke (the tyre valve) creating a pressure drop and accelerating (hear the hiss?).  As more gas enters the tyre its pressure slowly rises.  As air is lost from the cylinder its pressure slowly falls.  At no point are the pressure in the cylinder and tyre equal, and the pressure in the tyre-valve is somewhere beteen 10 and 2. 

Our rocket exhaust gas similarly experiences a pressure drop and accelerates as it exits the nozzle; If the pressure in the chamber is x, nozzle presure is y and the environmental pressure is zero, then x>y>zero.  The nozzle pressure is greater than zero.  It is not a vacuum.   As the exhaust gas accelerates in one direction, blah blah, you and Newton know the rest of the story, and on we go to Destination Moon. 

If the exothermic reaction produced its gas in a free vacuum it would dissipate freely in all directions = no work. 

And once its LEFT our nozzle it does just that, but we don't care, because it did its work already in the nozzle.
The nozzle is open to a vacuum.

Gas released to a vacuum does 0 work.

totallackey

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #393 on: March 20, 2020, 10:47:42 AM »
When that pressure is released, regardless of how it is released, to a vacuum, the gas, under that pressure DOES NO WORK.

All these videos here distinctly and clearly prove that.

Okay how would these behave differently in a vacuum, Newton's 3rd law would still apply right?


If you bust a CO^2 cartridge open in a vacuum chamber, what do you think would happen?

Would the cartridge:

1. move immediately; or,
2. would it sit still until there was adequate pressure in the chamber and then move?

Answer = 2
« Last Edit: March 20, 2020, 01:09:40 PM by totallackey »

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 3179
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #394 on: March 20, 2020, 12:17:54 PM »
If you bust a CO^2 cartridge open in a vacuum, what do you think would happen?

Would the cartridge:

1. move immediately; or,
2. would it sit still until there was adequate pressure in the container and then move?

Answer = 2

What are you talking about here? Surely the container - the cartridge - is already pressurised, to a pressure above the pressure outside it?

What "adequate pressure" do you mean?
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

Offline somerled

  • *
  • Posts: 319
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #395 on: March 20, 2020, 12:40:55 PM »
Duncan the Know-Nothing time-served Licensed Aircraft Engineer again;

Are we considering the vacuum as a static state?  Because it may not be. 

With the rocket engine at rest in space then the combustion chamber, nozzle and environment are at zero pressure, and no gas is present; no flow, no thrust.  Once the motor fires, fuel and oxidiser combine in the combustion chamber and a chemical reaction converts them to (mainly) carbon dioxide and water.  As the chemical reaction is exothermic, this material is at high pressure and temperature in the form of a gas.  The gas attempts to equalise with environmental pressure (zero) by escaping through the nozzle.  Because the nozzle is a choke it restricts the flow. 

You understand a choke?  You inflate your car tyres from a compressed air cylinder.  Your tyre pressure is 2 bar, the cylinder air is 10 bar.  You pull the lever and does the tyre jump to 10? Does the compressor plummet to 2?  No, air flows across the choke (the tyre valve) creating a pressure drop and accelerating (hear the hiss?).  As more gas enters the tyre its pressure slowly rises.  As air is lost from the cylinder its pressure slowly falls.  At no point are the pressure in the cylinder and tyre equal, and the pressure in the tyre-valve is somewhere beteen 10 and 2. 

Our rocket exhaust gas similarly experiences a pressure drop and accelerates as it exits the nozzle; If the pressure in the chamber is x, nozzle presure is y and the environmental pressure is zero, then x>y>zero.  The nozzle pressure is greater than zero.  It is not a vacuum.   As the exhaust gas accelerates in one direction, blah blah, you and Newton know the rest of the story, and on we go to Destination Moon. 

If the exothermic reaction produced its gas in a free vacuum it would dissipate freely in all directions = no work. 

And once its LEFT our nozzle it does just that, but we don't care, because it did its work already in the nozzle.
Do the teach engineering differently these days?

As an engineer you know that thermal energy,however it is produced , must be converted to kinetic energy by mechanical means - be it piston ,drive shaft ,steam or air pressure , in order to produce a force and thrust .
         A choke is just an opening in a chamber of whatever size you make it . You know that being an engineer .  Have a look at Joules experiment . His experiment found that no work is done by free expansion of thermal energy through a hole or choke as you call it. Because there is no way to convert thermal energy to provide a force and its reactive force of thrust. It's what happens outside the nozzle that produces force . No outer pressure no force .
 
Thinking about it I can't recall being told about Joules experiment at college or uni .
     
     Equating a chamber at 2psi and it's interaction with another at 10psi to interaction , with a chamber at 0psi (rocket combustion chamber in a vacuum) and the vacuum of space at 0psi is a silly analogy.

    I was also taught that the rocket is the most inefficient of all heat exchange engines . Wastes alot of energy sounding powerful and looking good .

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 3179
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #396 on: March 20, 2020, 01:02:50 PM »
It's what happens outside the nozzle that produces force

What IS happening outside the nozzle?
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

totallackey

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #397 on: March 20, 2020, 01:06:58 PM »
If you bust a CO^2 cartridge open in a vacuum, what do you think would happen?

Would the cartridge:

1. move immediately; or,
2. would it sit still until there was adequate pressure in the container and then move?

Answer = 2

What are you talking about here? Surely the container - the cartridge - is already pressurised, to a pressure above the pressure outside it?

What "adequate pressure" do you mean?
Are you aware of a vacuum chamber that is not some sort of container?

ETA: I changed my post to read "chamber," to further clarify.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2020, 01:10:39 PM by totallackey »

totallackey

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #398 on: March 20, 2020, 01:08:31 PM »
It's what happens outside the nozzle that produces force

What IS happening outside the nozzle?
Gas is freely expanding into a vacuum and performing 0 work.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 3179
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #399 on: March 20, 2020, 01:14:32 PM »
It's what happens outside the nozzle that produces force

What IS happening outside the nozzle?
Gas is freely expanding into a vacuum and performing 0 work.

So where's the force coming from, where Somerled says "It's what happens outside the nozzle that produces force" .... ?
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?