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.
A rocket is a closed system.If that's true, then you shouldn't have any trouble citing a credible source that agrees with you. If you can't do that, then don't bother replying.
It is a fact it loses matter to its external environment.
It takes in nothing in exchange from its external environment.
All facts.
If there is truly nothing that anyone can say or do to prove to you that a rocket (i.e., a closed system) can lose matter to its external environment (i.e., exhaust gas) then you need to stfu and never post any more the bs you love so well.I agree wholeheartedly that a rocket can, and does, lose matter to its external environment. I simply don't agree that the rocket does so as a closed system.
A rocket is a closed system.If there is truly nothing that anyone can say or do to prove to you that a closed system cannot lose matter to its external environment, then there is no point in further discussion.
Once it is on the launchpad and ready to fire, it takes in nothing else from any system external to itself. It does, however, lose matter (i.e., its exhaust gas) to its external environment.
A closed system can lose matter.No, it cannot. That's why it's called a closed system. You're thinking of an open system. If you don't believe me, then let's ask Professor Google:
BWHAHAHAHA! In other words, "No, I am not claiming that, but let me restate that claim here in direct response."*sigh* Okay, so you don't understand the difference between "with" and "within" either. Here's a hint: "within" means "inside". So when I say that objects can force pair within a closed system, I mean that objects can force pair inside a closed system. Does that help?
Absolutely gaslighting again.If we were using the word "exchange" in its everyday usage, then you might be correct. However, we are (or at least I am) using it in the context of its scientific definition, which does not necessarily imply a 2 way trade.
An exchange is where 1 system provides something to a 2nd system in exchange for something the 2nd system provided to system 1.
You are lying and gaslighting. You cannot even comprehend the sources you provide to support your bankrupt position, so providing additional sources would be foolish.So I'm just supposed to take your word for it?
You are claiming that a closed system can form a force pair with itself, ffs!No, I am not claiming that. I am claiming that objects within a closed system can, and must, force pair with each other in order to conserve momentum. I am claiming that the rocket engine and the exhaust are two of the many objects that make up a closed system rocket and form a force pair that allows the exhaust to accelerate in one direction and the rest of the rocket to accelerate in the opposite direction.
Sorry, but an exhaust plume force pairing with the ever thinning atmoplane doesn't cut it. That is unless you can show the math that proves that an ever thinning atmpolane can form a force pair that is sufficient to propel several hundred tons of rocket upwards.If there is no force pair, then what causes the exhaust to accelerate in one direction and the rocket to accelerate in the other?Have you read the thread?
Losing sight of the word, "exchange".Not at all.
Two types of exchange can occur between system and surroundings: (1) energy exchange (heat, work, friction, radiation, etc.) and (2) matter exchange (movement of molecules across the boundary of the system and surroundings).
Based on the types of exchange which take place or don't take place, we will define three types of systems:
isolated systems: no exchange of matter or energy
closed systems: no exchange of matter but some exchange of energy
open systems: exchange of both matter and energy
Have you read the thread?Have you read a physics text book?
Or are you just going to continue your lying, gaslighting ways?No lying or gaslighting. Just trying to educate you. Some words can have a somewhat different meaning in physics than in everyday usage, so I suppose that I can see how you might not be able to tell the difference.
If there is no force pair, then what causes the exhaust to accelerate in one direction and the rocket to accelerate in the other?The exhaust gas (plume) is part of the rocket. A single system cannot form a force pair with itself.
So there is a force pair between the rocket and the exhaust gas? Glad we have that settled.
I think you are blind to the meaning of the word "exchange."And you are blind to the meaning of the word "closed".
A rocket does not exchange matter with its surroundings, It only gives matter (i.e., exhaust) to its surroundings. It takes in nothing from its surroundings.
A closed system cannot form a force pair with itself.
Why should Congress put Biden through the wringer for something they refused to hold Trump accountable for?Because Trump is above the law and Biden isn't. Why else?
So there is a force pair between the rocket and the exhaust gas? Glad we have that settled.Relevance?A rocket is a closed system. I haven't ignored the conservation of momentum.You do understand that a closed system can have more than one component, don't you?The rocket engine is one component and the propellant is another.Oh, here is the relevance. A statement of something very obvious. Thank you.If the propellant is burnt in the combustion chamber causing the exhaust gasses to be accelerated out the back, then what balances the momentum of that accelerated exhaust gas?Exhaust gas goes one direction, rocket goes the other direction.
Jesus, how many times must this be written?Until we get this next bit straightened out.
A closed system cannot form a force pair internal to itself. In the case of both jets and rockets, that force pair can only be formed with an outside environment that has measurable air pressure.Okay, I think that I see the source of your confusion. You don't seem to understand what "closed system" means. A closed system does not exchange matter with its surroundings. That's why it's called a CLOSED system.
A rocket is a closed system. I haven't ignored the conservation of momentum.You do understand that a closed system can have more than one component, don't you? The rocket engine is one component and the propellant is another. If the propellant is burnt in the combustion chamber causing the exhaust gasses to be accelerated out the back, then what balances the momentum of that accelerated exhaust gas?
Just what is the "relevant work " of a rocket?What causes the exhaust plume to accelerate in one direction? Or do exhaust gasses not require a force pair to accelerate?
It is the exhaust plume (i.e., mass ejected, at an accelerated rate) going in one direction causing the rocket or jet to go in the opposite direction.
The exhausted gas is part of the rocket. A rocket is a closed system.If you want to consider a rocket to be a closed system, then you must not ignore conservation of momentum. If the exhaust is being accelerated one way, then the rest of the rocket must be accelerated the opposite way in order for momentum to be conserved. That is, unless you think that accelerating rocket exhaust doesn't exhibit momentum.
Gas, when released to vacuum, performs 0 work.True, but irrelevant. All of the relevant work is done inside the rocket engine, before the exhaust is released into the vacuum.
You should have asked about conservation of momentum in general rather than angular momentum in particular.What "angular momentum?"
I’m not talking about rockets in this case. I’m asking simply if you believe the concept of conservation of angular momentum to be correct. Out of curiosity. Literally a yes or no question.
I've no idea what the "plume" is that Action80 refers to in respect of a gas turbine engine.
Jet engines do the same.The atmoplane doesn't seem very solid to me. Wouldn't that "monstrous jet of energy" just push the atmoplane out of its way, especially at higher altitudes where the air is much thinner?
“After compression it was heated, augmented by additional burning fuel(reported in the press to be kerosene), and finally discharged from the aft vent in a monstrous jet of energy pushing against the atmosphere.”
Even under the scenario that Hunter Biden was collecting money under the guise of providing access to political power, but was really scamming the people paying him, how can you maintain that this shouldn't be investigated by Congress? Why are you guys crying that this should not be investigated?Hey, it's not as if Joe Biden appointed Hunter as a presidential advisor while Hunter was making truckloads of money from outside business interests.
Too bad that winning polls doesn't necessarily translate into winning elections. Or criminal trials.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67598948
Are you MAGA lot sick of all the winning yet?
Ironic comment from you since Trump is now winning the polls.