totallackey

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #280 on: March 11, 2020, 11:41:41 AM »
This source does not claim, that a rocket is a closed system.
Yes, it does.
A rocket is all a rocket is.
Please excuse for asking so bluntly, but are you trying to be dense on purpose?
If you understand the word dense to mean specific and to the point, then yes.
The source says, as you quoted: "If we define our system to be the rocket + fuel, then this is a closed system."
The system is explicitly defined as "rocket + fuel" and "this" system is then considered closed for the purpose of calculating momentum/acceleration.
It does not say, that the rocket itself is a closed system.
It also doesn't say, that the defined system "rocket + fuel" can be considered closed under any circumstance - that is only true for the assumptions made.
A rocket is a closed system.

You stated earlier you understood what a closed system is, but it seems I erroneously allowed that claim to go unchallenged, as you are now revealing your claim of understanding to be false.
Would you also say, that fuel or passengers are part of a car?
What does a car have to do with rockets?

Answer - nothing...

A car needs the intake of air to operate and is not a closed system.
So when you're running on empty or someone gets out, your car is missing parts?
There are different valid definitions for systems in a given setting; however, some are more useful (or expedient) than others.
In that sense a car is not necessarily a car and a rocket is not a rocket. It depends what has been defined and once defined, you have to stick with that definition for the time being.
So what is your definition of "rocket"? Which parts a part of it (pun intended) and which aren't?
I posted my source.

Please try to gain a semblance of understanding of that source before asking superfluous questions.
Does that mean, you now agree, that rockets will work in a vacuum?
I am not the one left to explain videos, clearly proving a rocket will not work in a vacuum, somehow do prove a rocket will work in a vacuum.
Did I reference videos? I don't think so.
Of course you didn't...

...except to CLAIM those videos, which clearly prove rockets do not work in an environment CLOSE to a vacuum...

...somehow PROVE rockets will work in a vacuum...

...because of...

...reasons...
I was referring to the explanations, how conservation of energy and momentum would require rockets to work in a vacuum.
Are you bringing up videos again to deflect from your inability to construct a fault in the open/closed system discussion?
No, I am bringing up the videos again to show the speciousness of your argument.
Changing the scope of the system doesn't change the fact, that rockets work in a vacuum, it simply changes your view of the problem.
Defining the system IS science.

Of which you need further education.
Perhaps explain to thor's evil twin, because it is apparent he doesn't.
Actually it's quite apparent, that you do not understand how systems can be defined, what the theory behind different types of systems is and how that can be applied in science.
Where do you get the idea, that thors_evil_twin doesn't understand?
He appears to have a much better grasp of the issue than you do.
Please point to where you think he's wrong?
Like I wrote earlier, you have no clue what constitutes an open or closed system.

You want to introduce cars as a comparison...

Forget I asked you to explain anything to anyone.

I will amend my request to ask you to not explain anything to anyone, however.
Well, it is apparent you do not even know how how to define the word," exchange."
Obviously appearances are deceiving ... what do you think is my definition of the word "exchange" and why would it be wrong?
Whatever your definition is, it is apparent it doesn't match the actual definition.
A rocket is a closed system.
Kind of depends on your definition of "rocket". As defined by the source you quoted, it is only a closed system, when you include the fuel (inside the rocket and after being expelled) and only under the circumstances given.

In any case, this does not affect if a rocket works in a vacuum or not.
So what is your point, except being contradictory without providing substantiating facts or reason?

iC
The substantiating facts and evidence for a rocket not working in a vacuum are all here...

Multiple videos of rockets not working in an environment CLOSE to a vacuum...

All provided by proponents of rockets working in a vacuum...

The case for rockets working in a vacuum clearly shot down by its champions...

Case closed...next victim...
« Last Edit: March 12, 2020, 10:33:07 AM by totallackey »

Offline somerled

  • *
  • Posts: 319
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #281 on: March 11, 2020, 12:24:54 PM »
Propulsion of rocket engine according to the laws of physics , step by step , under atmos pressure and then in a vacuum .

1 . Exothermic chemical reaction - burn of rocket fuel - produces thermal energy . At this stage I will point out that thermal energy , heat , is NOT a force .Thermodynamics . Rocket will not be accelerated until a force is applied Newtons 1st law

2. Production of force - occurs when thermal energy is converted to kinetic energy ( all heat exchange engines work on this principle ) as expansion of hot gas encounters resistance of air pressure . Once the internal chamber pressure exceeds outer pressure then gas forces out into the atmos layer. Newtons 2nd law . We have a force .

3. Thrust produced in accordance with  Newtons 3rd law . Equal and opposite to force produced in step 2 . Hot gas accelerated out , thrust produced perpendicular to this provides acceleration of rocket in opposite direction .

4. Acceleration will occur as long as thermal energy is produced and is able to be converted to kinetic energy by an outer pressure .

Under vacuum conditions

1. Exothermic chemical reaction produces thermal energy ( assuming this reaction can occur under vacuum conditions ).

2. Step two does not occur . No force produced since thermal energy will expand freely into the vacuum Joules second law of thermodynamics. Thermal energy remains as thermal energy and does not convert to kinetic energy and hence no force manifests .

Joules proved in his vacuum experiment that thermal energy is not a force , no work can be done since a vacuum provides no method of conversion of thermal energy into kinetic energy.

The idea that Newton's 3rd law can take over and provide thrust is untenable - a scientifically unsubstantiated claim  , since thermal energy is not a force and cannot convert to kinetic energy in a vacuum. Newton 3rd is a reaction to Newton's 2nd .
 


Offline iCare

  • *
  • Posts: 101
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #282 on: March 11, 2020, 03:21:23 PM »
Propulsion of rocket engine according to the laws of physics , step by step , under atmos pressure and then in a vacuum .
Thank you for the detailed description. It is, however, what has been described before and still shows the the same faults, which I have pointed out repeatedly and which you keep ignoring.

1 . Exothermic chemical reaction - burn of rocket fuel - produces thermal energy . At this stage I will point out that thermal energy , heat , is NOT a force .Thermodynamics .
Thrust is produced by resistance to this active force . Thermal energy converts to kinetic energy .
Thrust is produced by accelerating/expelling the gas. Resistance of the environment is not important, because thrust has been created before resistance even becomes relevant.
Thermal energy can be part of the process, but a rocket would function as well, if no heat (thermal energy) was produced.
Please let me encourage you to google "cold gas thruster" (one example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_gas_thruster)
At this point, we could skip the rest of your explanation, because your starting point (1) is already proven wrong: A rocket does not create thrust by converting thermal energy.
The thrust is created by dramatically increasing the amount of gas.
Did you look at the concept of "cold gas thruster"?

Regardless, let me address some of your arguments in detail:

2. Production of force - occurs when thermal energy is converted to kinetic energy ( all heat exchange engines work on this principle ) as expansion of hot gas encounters resistance of air pressure . Once the internal chamber pressure exceeds outer pressure then gas forces out into the atmos layer. Newtons 2nd law . We have a force .
What exactly are you referring to as a heat exchange engine?
In any case, as quoted above, the force is not created by converting heat. It created creating a large volume of gas, thereby creating pressure, thereby creating a force.

Under vacuum conditions
There is still no reason, why the process should be any different in a vacuum. What you claim to be different (no conversion of thermal energy into kinetic energy) is not a relevant aspect to a rocket engine.
The gas is expelled, because it simply becomes more, not because it expands due to getting hotter.
And even if it became hotter, that would disallow the use of Joule's Law, as Joule's Law requires constant temperature.

2. Step two does not occur . No force produced since thermal energy will expand freely into the vacuum Joules second law of thermodynamics. Thermal energy remains as thermal energy and does not convert to kinetic energy and hence no force manifests .

Joules proved in his vacuum experiment that thermal energy is not a force , no work can be done since a vacuum provides no method of conversion of thermal energy into kinetic energy.
Joule's Law still doesn't apply, as the amount of gas is dramatically increased, whereas Joule's Law requires a constant amount of gas.
As the kinetic energy isn't created by converting heat in the first place (see above), your reasoning is built on wrong assumptions and therefore void.


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 #283 on: March 11, 2020, 03:44:50 PM »
In any case, as quoted above, the force is not created by converting heat. It created creating a large volume of gas, thereby creating pressure, thereby creating a force.

iC
Just for giggles, tell us how gas can best be created...

You know, describe the process that creates pressure and large volumes of gas most efficiently....

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 2168
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #284 on: March 11, 2020, 03:55:25 PM »
Just for giggles, tell us how gas can best be created...
You know, describe the process that creates pressure and large volumes of gas most efficiently....

Like this;



It deals with explosives and high explosives, but the same principles apply.
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

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

Nearly?

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #285 on: March 11, 2020, 04:01:13 PM »
Just for giggles, tell us how gas can best be created...

You know, describe the process that creates pressure and large volumes of gas most efficiently....

Well by burning a fuel in the presence of an oxidizer is the short answer. Possible fuels are kerosene, alcohol, hydrazine and its derivatives, and liquid hydrogen and the oxydizers could be nitric acid, nitrogen tetroxide, liquid oxygen, and liquid fluorine.

Here is the long answer for you to ignore.

From (https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/rocket.html)
"In a rocket engine , fuel and a source of oxygen, called an oxidizer, are mixed and exploded in a combustion chamber. The combustion produces hot exhaust which is passed through a nozzle to accelerate the flow and produce thrust. ... There are two main categories of rocket engines; liquid rockets and solid rockets."

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

Offline iCare

  • *
  • Posts: 101
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #286 on: March 11, 2020, 04:18:28 PM »
Please excuse for asking so bluntly, but are you trying to be dense on purpose?
If you understand the word dense to mean specific and to the point, then yes.
Actually I was thinking of https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dense 2a:  "slow to understand"
I'm still waiting for a "specific and to the point" reaction to most of my arguments.

You stated earlier you understood what a closed system is, but it seems I erroneously allowed that claim to go unchallenged, as you are now revealing your claim of understanding to be false.
In what way? Please be specific ...

What does a car have to do with rockets?
Answer - nothing...
Correct answer: It was a simile for how systems can be defined.

A car needs the intake of air to operate and is not a closed system.
Well ... so what, if it gets the air from a container inside the car?

So what is your definition of "rocket"? Which parts a part of it (pun intended) and which aren't?
I posted my source.
You posted your source, but what you are posting is in conflict with that source.

Please try to gain a semblance of understanding of that source before asking superfluous questions.
Source:  "If we define our system to be the rocket + fuel"
You: "A rocket is all a rocket is."
Please stop doubting my understanding without substantiating that claim (which is a cheap trick, shame on you), when you're obviously misquoting your own source at the same time.

Of course you didn't...
...except to CLAIM those videos, which clearly prove rockets do not work in an environment CLOSE to a vacuum...
...somehow PROVE rockets will work in a vacuum...
...because of...
...reasons...
Please reread my postes, it would seem you have misunderstood them.
I didn't say the videos prove rockets would work in a vacuum: I said, they show that rockets work in very low pressure and that indicates, they would work in a vacuum as well.
I have given "specific and to the point" reasons in the respective posts.

Defining  he system IS science.
It is. And systems can be defined in different - valid - ways. Same science, different perspective/approach.

Of which you need further education.
I do embrace livelong learning, that's why I enjoy this discussion despite your aggressive and impolite manner.
I have substantiated my claims, you haven't - once again, I recommend you take your own advice.

Whatever your definition is, it is apparent it doesn't match the actual definition.
"Whatever" could be exactly the actual definition. So, care to share, what you perceive as the "actual definition"?
This would be a great opportunity to be "specific and to the point".

Case closed...next victim...
If it makes you feel better, keep telling yourself that you closed the case and you were in the right.

The rockets won't care, they'll just keep working.
By name iCare, because it is sad to see you clinging to misinterpretation and error in judgement, when several people are going above and beyond to explain things in a sensible manner. 

iC

Edited to remove potentially offensive quote/wording
« Last Edit: March 12, 2020, 03:02:07 PM by iCare »
"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 #287 on: March 11, 2020, 05:18:44 PM »
In any case, as quoted above, the force is not created by converting heat. It created creating a large volume of gas, thereby creating pressure, thereby creating a force.
Just for giggles, tell us how gas can best be created...
Just for giggles, I can imagine two fun ways to create gas:
  • Eating a large serving of Indian Curry.
  • Posting a RE comment and waiting for FE response (often hot air).
The process for (1) is quite enjoyable, but the product (gas) has as a certain ... odor.
The process for (2) is rather tedious and the product (responses) is often somewhat tasteless.

You know, describe the process that creates pressure and large volumes of gas most efficiently....
What exactly are you asking? How about thors_evil_twin's answer, as he was quicker to respond?
Well by burning a fuel in the presence of an oxidizer is the short answer. Possible fuels are kerosene, alcohol, hydrazine and its derivatives, and liquid hydrogen and the oxydizers could be nitric acid, nitrogen tetroxide, liquid oxygen, and liquid fluorine.
If you google "rocket propellant" or fuels in general, there are plenty of detailed descriptions, which fuels can be used and how efficient they are.
Efficiency is, however, not an issue here. An inefficient rocket will still work.

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

Offline somerled

  • *
  • Posts: 319
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #288 on: March 11, 2020, 10:11:51 PM »

Please let me encourage you to google "cold gas thruster" (one example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_gas_thruster)
[/quote]
At this point, we could skip the rest of your explanation, because your starting point (1) is already proven wrong: A rocket does not create thrust by converting thermal energy.
The thrust is created by dramatically increasing the amount of gas.
Did you look at the concept of "cold gas thruster"?


iC
[/quote]

iCare look at your cold gas thruster and then look at joules 2nd law experiment  - they are the same lol .

You are aware that when you compress a gas it heats up yes - stores thermal energy which is not a force . That's what your cold gas thruster does .
Thats what Joules did .

Him being a scientist found that when he released his pressurised gas into vacuum resulted in no work done - it's a law of physics.
Somehow you believe the same pressurised gas released into the big vacuum of space produces work . Who's law is this ?

Very amusing .

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1452
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #289 on: March 11, 2020, 11:23:47 PM »
Please let me encourage you to google "cold gas thruster" (one example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_gas_thruster)
At this point, we could skip the rest of your explanation, because your starting point (1) is already proven wrong: A rocket does not create thrust by converting thermal energy.
The thrust is created by dramatically increasing the amount of gas.
Did you look at the concept of "cold gas thruster"?

iC
[/quote]

iCare look at your cold gas thruster and then look at joules 2nd law experiment  - they are the same lol .

You are aware that when you compress a gas it heats up yes - stores thermal energy which is not a force . That's what your cold gas thruster does .
Thats what Joules did .

Him being a scientist found that when he released his pressurised gas into vacuum resulted in no work done - it's a law of physics.
Somehow you believe the same pressurised gas released into the big vacuum of space produces work . Who's law is this ?

Very amusing .

First off, learn to work quoting. You're a mess when it comes to that.

Secondly, and I'm not sure why this is lost, what is the result of thermal energy? What might it have done? Where did it go? Do tell.

Thirdly, no one in the pantheon of rocket scientists has ever claimed "work is done" in a vacuum. Reason being, it's not required. No work needs to be done in a vacuum.

When you can cite any respectable, peer reviewed paper that claims rockets can't work in a vacuum, I'll listen. In the mean time, you are fringe at best, mostly a delighted devotee clutching to a law of physics that to the lay and conspiratorially predisposed is considered luscious in its "no work is done" motif. It sucks to be only of the partially informed and learned. Cling to one axiom, dismiss another when convenient to Dunning–Kruger your way into and out of an argument. It's all quite sapping and extraordinarily absent of logic.

Carry on.
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #290 on: March 11, 2020, 11:29:03 PM »
Ignore it if you want but the facts are clear, we never went to the moon because we can't. Satan rules most lives and they believe the garbage NASA puts out.

"Moon landing PHOTOS reignite conspiracy theories… again"

https://www.rt.com/usa/410360-moon-landing-new-conspiracy/

Hey bozo. You can't different levels of gravity. Your theories are stupid. Please stop. Get a life.

Offline somerled

  • *
  • Posts: 319
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #291 on: March 12, 2020, 07:32:31 AM »
Please let me encourage you to google "cold gas thruster" (one example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_gas_thruster)
At this point, we could skip the rest of your explanation, because your starting point (1) is already proven wrong: A rocket does not create thrust by converting thermal energy.
The thrust is created by dramatically increasing the amount of gas.
Did you look at the concept of "cold gas thruster"?

iC

iCare look at your cold gas thruster and then look at joules 2nd law experiment  - they are the same lol .

You are aware that when you compress a gas it heats up yes - stores thermal energy which is not a force . That's what your cold gas thruster does .
Thats what Joules did .

Him being a scientist found that when he released his pressurised gas into vacuum resulted in no work done - it's a law of physics.
Somehow you believe the same pressurised gas released into the big vacuum of space produces work . Who's law is this ?

Very amusing .

First off, learn to work quoting. You're a mess when it comes to that.

Secondly, and I'm not sure why this is lost, what is the result of thermal energy? What might it have done? Where did it go? Do tell.

Thirdly, no one in the pantheon of rocket scientists has ever claimed "work is done" in a vacuum. Reason being, it's not required. No work needs to be done in a vacuum.

When you can cite any respectable, peer reviewed paper that claims rockets can't work in a vacuum, I'll listen. In the mean time, you are fringe at best, mostly a delighted devotee clutching to a law of physics that to the lay and conspiratorially predisposed is considered luscious in its "no work is done" motif. It sucks to be only of the partially informed and learned. Cling to one axiom, dismiss another when convenient to Dunning–Kruger your way into and out of an argument. It's all quite sapping and extraordinarily absent of logic.

Carry on.
[/quote]

Peer reviewed - Joules 2nd law of thermodynamics pertaining to expansion of gas into a vacuum (which include the vacuum of space). All of Newton's laws  1,2,3 .

Your going to have to show the experiment with peer reviewed paper showing that these laws do not apply to rocket engines in a vacuum. That is all you have to do .

Show the physical process by which thermal energy , which is NOT a force , is converted to kinetic energy in order to provide an active force and hence the reactive force of thrust in accordance with the laws of physics.

Cold gas thruster system is just Joules experiment in space ,just look at the design . Maybe those mini  satellite systems are not so high up . Thrust can be produced in reduced pressure since it is dependant on nozzle area - but never in a vacuum .

Now all of that can be debated but a law of physics is a law of physics . Nasa knows this but must maintain it's stance that it can create a kinetic force of acceleration in a vacuum without converting thermal energy to kinetic in violation of the laws of physics .

You could tutor me on "quoting " if you like but it aint a priority for me . I usually just ignore walls of repetitive bs and sophistry.

 


totallackey

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #292 on: March 12, 2020, 10:39:22 AM »
A rocket does not create thrust by converting thermal energy.
The thrust is created by dramatically increasing the amount of gas.
Right here, you contradict yourself.

Explain how a rocket converts its fuel to gas, if not by thermal energy conversion.



Offline iCare

  • *
  • Posts: 101
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #293 on: March 12, 2020, 11:21:42 AM »
A rocket does not create thrust by converting thermal energy.
The thrust is created by dramatically increasing the amount of gas.
Right here, you contradict yourself.

It's only a contraction if you take it out of context and if don't understand the process as a whole.
So let me reiterate:

Rocket fuel undergoes a exothermic chemical reaction producing (among other things) gas and heat.
That produced gas requires a significantly larger volume than the fuel did. => increased pressure in the reaction chamber.
Also the gas is a lot hotter than the fuel was, intensifying the effect . => even more increase of pressure in the reaction chamber.
The pressure inside the rocket is much higher than outside the rocket. => gas (which has mass) gets expelled at high speed.
=> the rocket accordingly accelerates in the opposite direction.

My original point was, that Newton's Laws make a rocket work in any environment; Newton's Laws aren't about thermal energy (but they work side by side).
Thrust is created by expelling mass; the energy to power this process is created as described above.
But you could also accelerate a rocket by ejecting bricks or firing a "Gatling gun" mounted on it ... or anything that accelerates mass away from the rocket, regardless of thermal energy being part of it or not.

Newton is happy, Joule is happy, the rocket happily speeds away ...

Explain how a rocket converts its fuel to gas, if not by thermal energy conversion.
Like any other chemical process of burning fuel?
I didn't say (conversion of) thermal energy wasn't involved at all. As we are talking about exothermic reactions and "hot gas" (see above) it obviously is.
Still thrust is created by expelling mass. Thermal energy is simply part of what's powering that process.

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 #294 on: March 12, 2020, 11:32:35 AM »
I didn't say (conversion of) thermal energy wasn't involved at all.
Oh...
A rocket does not create thrust by converting thermal energy.
Yeah...

You didn't "say" it...

You wrote it.

Offline iCare

  • *
  • Posts: 101
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #295 on: March 12, 2020, 11:40:17 AM »
iCare look at your cold gas thruster and then look at joules 2nd law experiment  - they are the same lol .

Unsurprisingly all of Newton's Laws apply to a cold gas thruster; including the 3rd law, which requires the rocket to accelerate in the opposite direction the gas is accelerating.
Which leads to the same conflict you haven't been able to solve: Newton requires the rocket to work in a vacuum, your (faulty) interpretation of Joule's Law suggests they don't.
So, what is your point?

You are aware that when you compress a gas it heats up yes - stores thermal energy which is not a force .
And - for the inverse process - when a gas "uncompresses" it cools down, releasing the stored energy.
How does that matsch with Joule's Law of Free Expansion - as that claims gas expanding into a vacuum would not change its temperature (aka "no work done")?

That's what your cold gas thruster does .
Thats what Joules did .
No, it is not.
Free expansion requires a fixed amount of gas in a closed container.
A thruster - by definition - is not closed.

Him being a scientist found that when he released his pressurised gas into vacuum resulted in no work done - it's a law of physics.
Joule: fixed amount of gas, closed/mesurable volume, no change in temperature, isolated container, gas released
=> His law does not describe what you are trying to apply it to.

Somehow you believe the same pressurized gas released into the big vacuum of space produces work . Who's law is this ?
Rocket: changing amount of gas, open/unlimited volume, change in temperature, open container, gas ejected
=> It is not "the same" pressurized gas.

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 #296 on: March 12, 2020, 12:07:58 PM »
A rocket does not create thrust by converting thermal energy.
Yeah...

You didn't "say" it...

You wrote it.

As explained, that statement was in the specific context of thrust being created by expelling mass and the fact, that there are other ways than combustion (conversion of thermal energy) to power rocket engines .
I'm sorry, if my focusing on the creation of thrust itself (i.e. expelling mass) gave the impression that thermal energy couldn't be involved in the  overall process for a combustion powered rocket.

Regardless of this misunderstanding ... how would that have any impact on rockets working in a vacuum or not?

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 #297 on: March 12, 2020, 02:07:23 PM »
A rocket does not create thrust by converting thermal energy.
Yeah...

You didn't "say" it...

You wrote it.

As explained, that statement was in the specific context of thrust being created by expelling mass and the fact, that there are other ways than combustion (conversion of thermal energy) to power rocket engines .
I'm sorry, if my focusing on the creation of thrust itself (i.e. expelling mass) gave the impression that thermal energy couldn't be involved in the  overall process for a combustion powered rocket.

Regardless of this misunderstanding ... how would that have any impact on rockets working in a vacuum or not?

iC
How do you "throw," a mass of gas into a vacuum?

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #298 on: March 12, 2020, 02:25:09 PM »
Like this???



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

Offline iCare

  • *
  • Posts: 101
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #299 on: March 12, 2020, 02:46:48 PM »
How do you "throw," a mass of gas into a vacuum?
As explained before, just like you "throw" into anything else.
In the case of a rocket, the pressure in the reaction chamber increases (due to gas and heat being produced bei the exothermic chemical reaction) => gas gets "thrown" out to "wherever".
Basically the same process for vacuum and atmosphere.

One difference would be, that it is easier to do in a vacuum, as one wouldn't have to overcome external pressure to exit the reaction chamber.

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