Comments by "YSongCloud" (@YSongCloud) on "Искаженное восприятие" channel.

  1. Well he is from Chicago, where we typically don't use the metric system for almost anything, so....
    10
  2. Indeed. And they have it in the form of the oxidizer that is already mixed in with the fuel to form the propellant mixture.
    3
  3. The OXIDIZER IS the oxygen. It's right in the name.... Not sure why you are having such a hard time with the concept. I'm not spouting any jibber jaber stuff, I'm stating scientific FACTS. Things that have been proven again and again. You're the one saying something and then saying to ignore it. a fire extinguisher works by REMOVING OXYGEN and replacing it with some other inert gas, so you statement that "A fire extinguisher has nothing to do with space or oxygen." is completely incorrect. Your comparison of a flare to a rocket motor is also completely incorrect as one has combustion on the surface (the flare), whereas the other (the solid rocket motor) burns completely internally. A flare does not produce thrust for this very reason whereas a rocket motor does. Go back and re-take grade school chemistry and try again.
    3
  4. Awesome job, as always! This video should help clean the floor with those doubters! They can just suck up their pride and admit the clean job you did on this video in proving that rockets will burn anywhere, and simply leave behind the dirty old conspiracy and flat earth theories. :)
    3
  5. Good old Chicago water!!!!! In watching a few of your videos, and seeing the alley, I had a distinct feeling you were from Chicago. Good to see a great channel from a local guy! :)
    2
  6. Um.... that's not how a rocket works. It does not "push" off of it's surrounding environment.
    2
  7. Because your WiFi transmitter's overall power output is in the milliwatt range and the transponders that are used to communicate with satellites are much more powerful. Even radio station transmitters will broadcast in the megawatt range in order to have their signal reach as far as it does.
    2
  8. Well, considering that rockets don't work by pushing off of walls, or anything else behind the direction of movement, the fact that there is anything there in the first place is a moot point. When the shuttle launched, it was not pushing on the ground or the atmosphere behind the shuttle, but instead pushing against the front of the rocket motor in a equal and opposite reaction from the high velocity exhaust gasses which are being accelerated through the nozzle and out the "back" or "rear" end of the rocket motor when looking at it in the direction of thrust.
    2
  9. First off, it would not be measured in lbs of vacuum, but in tor or in inches of mercury. Secondly, the issue was not with the chemical rocket motor, but instead with the igniter and the lack of time allowed for the flame/hot end from it to ignite the APCP. This is because the igniters used for model rocketry was never designed to be operated in a vacuum or without the earth atmosphere surrounding them. As a result, they contain much less oxidizer than a similar composition that would be used to ignite a similar rocket motor in a vacuum.
    2
  10. It would probably work, however to maintain a vacuum in a chamber that size would require rather large vacuum pumps and would still not accomplish anything since we saw thrust in the first few seconds of ignition, long before the chamber had a chance to become compromised. Add to this the fact that rockets do not produce thrust by pushing off of atmosphere, but instead by using Newton's third law to push the motor in the opposite direction of the nozzle opening due to uneven pressure on the internal walls of the combustion chamber, and you will see why it didn't really matter that the chamber was eventually compromised by the exhaust gasses.
    2
  11. No worries. Also, I agree with you. It's sad, indeed.
    2
  12. The oxygen is contained in the fuel grain mixture of the solid rocket motor itself. Of course you can't get a candle to burn in a vacuum, it needs the oxygen provided by the surrounding air as it does not contain it's own oxidizer. Solid rocket motors do. Space exists, and so do rockets traveling through it.
    2
  13. Are they really not teaching these things in science class in school anymore? Gravity keeps the atmosphere in place due to the force on all atoms. This force gets lighter the further from the earth's core you go. This is why you weigh less on top of a mountain than you would at sea level. Anyway, we do lose atmosphere to space on a regular basis, but some of the atoms that are lost, mostly of hydrogen since it has the lowest atomic mass, are replaced by other particles flowing in from things like comets, meteoroids, the solar wind, etc. There is no "seal" to break through, as you put it. There is no giant bag or barrier surrounding the earth, it just goes from more dense to less dense. Even deeps space isn't completely empty, there are always a few atoms around, it's just that the spaces between them are so far apart, we call it space. This is similar to the way the atoms are tightly packed in a solid, looser in a liquid, and very loosely packed in a gas. This arrangement is also why gasses can be compressed (pressing the atoms closer to each other, thereby raising both the temperature and pressure as per Boyle's law) and why liquid cannot be compressed. The atoms in a liquid are already too tightly packed.
    2
  14. @MrCcfly OK, tablet aside, you still have no clue what you are talking about. A rocket does not work by pushing against anything. A rocker works by ejecting mass at high velocity out of an opening. The mass is hot gas produced by the combustion process inside the combustion chamber of the rocket motor. This hot gas is funneled through a nozzle, which helps with accelerating it to very high velocity. This imparts a force as the gas leaves the chamber, and via Newton's third law, an equal and opposite force is produced in the direction directly opposite of the nozzle and the force pushes in the direction opposite of the direction of the escaping gasses. This force has no where to go as the opposite end of the combustion chamber from the nozzle is a solid wall, so the force acts on this surface, imparting force which results in a net motion in the direction opposite of the escaping gasses. This force is also transferred to the rest of the rocket as it is connected to the motor, and as long as the force is strong enough to overcome the force of gravity and friction due to air resistance, the rocket will move. This is why rocket engines are more efficient in a vacuum, they do not need to fight the friction of air resistance caused by an atmosphere. At distances further from the surface of the earth, the pull of gravity is lessened, so rockets leaving earth also are more efficient the further they go until the mull of the earth's gravity is a negligible factor. That being said, a rocket starts it's journey with all of the fuel it will need for the entire trip. The first few minutes are ones with lowest fuel to motion ratio as the motor has to move not only the rocket, but the rest of the fuel with it. Once a few minutes have elapsed, the mass of the rocket is less, the pull of gravity is less, and it is usually at a high enough altitude that the air resistance is greatly reduced, thereby allowing the rocket motor to be much more efficient. I should also add that the ratios you give in your examples, from what I can decipher of them, are completely incorrect. In solid rocket motors, the oxidizer usually exceeds the fuel to ensure complete combustion. In liquid or hypergolic mixtures, excess fuel is usually the norm so that it can be used to purge and cool the combustion chamber and nozzle, as excess oxidizer would cause pitting in the metal of the nozzle or detonation of any fuel pockets left. The fuel is also used to cool the nozzle during operation. In addition, the liquid fuels used are never helium, which is relatively stable. Liquid hydrogen can be used along with liquid oxygen, but other mixtures, like the hypergolic mixture of hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide are also used as they do not require an ignition source. Solid fuels are usually APCP, or ammonium perchloride composite propellant or a variation thereof. Seems like, perhaps, you need to take some more classes on chemistry and physics before you attempt to lecture anyone on how things work.
    2
  15. But, there is oxygen already contained in the rocket motor in the form of an oxidizer.
    2
  16. OMG!! THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH!!!! Finally, another person who can see and understand the science at work. It's so mind numbing to have to see all the comments about how rockets need atmosphere to push against, or how it pushed against the back of the chamber, or how there is no oxygen in space, so no fire. It hurts my head to think about how much we have failed at being able to have people absorb basic scientific principles like oxidizers and basic laws of motion. Thank you, sir, for giving me hope that not everyone was asleep all through science classes.
    2
  17. The forward motion has nothing to do with pushing off of the plexiglass because that's not how rockets work. Even if you fired a rocket engine in a 20' cubed room under an almost perfect vacuum, there would still be thrust because the forces working to produce the movement are all doing so within the constructs of the rocket motor itself.
    2
  18. And, was there motion at the very beginning, before the vacuum had a chance to be impacted by the escaping gasses in any sort of meaningful way? Yes, yes there was motion, thereby proving movement of a rocket in a vacuum. What is more sad is that it even HAD to be proven in the first place. It's not like it's exactly a new idea.
    2
  19. What are you talking about? Even in 1890, they knew it was round. It's the dumbasses today who want to go back to the dark ages and believe in myths and idiocy. Just for fun, how about some details on how they determined this distance? Any interviews? Any evidence of these findings? That must have been one long level if they were able to measure across the distances needed to determine "level".
    2
  20. A rocket motor has it's own oxygen in the form of an oxidizer. A rocket does not need a surrounding atmosphere to "push off against" as that's not how thrust works in a rocket motor. We do not live in a closed system at all.
    2
  21. Actually, the reason why the balloon in your example doesn't go anywhere is due to the pressure of the air around the balloon more than the lack of thrust. In order to move, the balloon has create enough thrust through the escaping gas to create a force that exceeds that of the air pressure of the surrounding environment, which is pressing against the balloon from all sides and causing the balloon to stay stationary. However, because the vacuum created by the vacuum cleaner nozzle is in one area only, it creates only a localized area of lower pressure, thereby lowering the force of air resistance at the rear of the balloon. This means that the surrounding air pressure that is pressing against the balloon and resisting movement is no longer equal on all sides, but is instead larger in front due to the lack of opposing force pushing on the rear of the balloon. Because of this, the balloon has to generate much more thrust to be able to overcome the external force of the surrounding environment pushing greater at the front of the balloon than at the rear. If the vacuum were all around the balloon, the external forces pushing, or in this case not pushing, against the balloon from the outside, and resisting movement, would again be equal on all sides. This would effectively cancel those forces out of the equation, allowing the only hindrance to motion to be the frictional resistance of the surrounding air, which in a vacuum chamber should be almost nothing as there are very few air molecules left to resist the movement. You can see the result of this air pressure differential between atmospheric pressure and the lack of pressure in a vacuum on a balloon by looking at one placed into a vacuum chamber and watching it grow as the vacuum is created. The lack of air pressure outside the balloon causes the air inside the balloon to exert a greater force on the walls of the balloon, making it grow larger. Because air behaves like a fluid, I can explain it like a boat in a sea, if that makes more sense, even though the method of propulsion is different. Picture a boat with a fixed engine that only has a 2HP motor. On a calm lake, even this small motor can move a rather large boat, no issues. But should a sinkhole open up behind the boat, and the water is now rushing from the front of the boat to the back, the small engine will no longer be able to overcome the force of the water pushing on the front of the boat as it tries to flow to the area of lower pressure at the back. On a calm lake, the water pushes against the boat equally from all sides. Streamlining of the boat's shape notwithstanding, it takes the same amount of force to move the boat in any direction from a standstill on a calm lake. However, in the second example, it will take more force to move the boat away from the sinkhole and less force to move it towards it, as the external forces acting on the boat are no longer pushing against all sides equally. There is a greater resistance to movement at the front of the boat due to the water rushing rearwards and pushing against the boat, as well as because the force of the water at the back of the boat is lower, due to the overall amount of water pressure there being lower. To move the boat to either side, however, would still take the same force as if the lake were calm, as those opposing forces are still equal. Does that make more sense? I think the main thing that everyone tends to get confused about when dealing with a vacuum is that a vacuum has no force of it's own. The force we feel, aka. the suction itself that most people think of, is not caused by the vacuum, but instead by the air pressure as it attempts to reach a state of equilibrium between the pressure differential, akin to a small, localized strong wind. This action, which you incorrectly describe as the expanding gasses being "sucked" into space, actually help the overall thrust by increasing the velocity of the escaping gasses due to the greater pressure differential inside the combustion chamber of the rocket motor vs. the outside environment. Greater velocity of the escaping gasses equals greater overall force imparted on the opposite side of the combustion chamber from the nozzle. This, combined with the lower external resistance that I spoke of earlier, means that a rocket motor is actually more efficient in a vacuum than in a normal earth atmosphere. Sorry for the long reply, but I hope this helps everything make more sense. :)
    2
  22. But you are comparing and they are two different things. A rocket motor can be the size of a flare and this could be placed into space and lit and would burn properly. You are mistaken that the amount of oxygen doesn't matter, because the oxidizer is present in a greater quantity than needed, and the placement of the oxygen produced is what matters the most. There does not need to be enough oxygen in the entire volume of carbon dioxide (to use your comparison) just the proper amount at the site of combustion, which there is since the oxidizer produces the oxygen at the combustion site itself. The atmosphere internal to the motor is oxygen-rich, regardless of the atmosphere external to the motor. The same can be said of your flare if that flare contains an oxidizer such as ammonium perchlorate. Because the oxygen needed for combustion is produced at the site of combustion itself, the oxygen would always be present once the motor, or flare in this case, is ignited. As shown in the Warped Perception video, the issue becomes how to light the motor/flare in space as the igniters used in model rocketry are usually black powder based, which will have a hard time maintaining a flame long enough to properly ignite the rocket motor. This can be solved with other ignition methods, however that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about the ability of a solid rocket motor to remain lit and burning in an atmosphere of either nothing (vacuum, no oxygen or other gasses present) or in an atmosphere of inert gasses (nitrogen, carbon dioxide, etc). In either of these cases, the self-contained combination of fuel and oxygen present in the motor itself and available at the site of combustion will be what is able to keep the reaction going until either the fuel, the oxidizer, or both are exhausted.
    2
  23. What, exactly, did he fake?
    2
  24. You see thrust from the second of ignition, long before the box filled with exhaust gas. This is because a rocket does not work by pushing off the surrounding atmosphere.
    1
  25. Incorrect. In the initial seconds of the rocket motor firing, you can clearly see the scale needle moving from negative into the positive part of the scale, long before the first gasses escaped. See at 10:20, this is at rest and before the engine ignites, the scale gauge is registering a reading of just over -2 lbs. At 10:24, only 4 seconds later and with very little exhaust gas having escaped due to the ignition process only now beginning, the force on the scale has already brought it to a positive .5 lbs. Once it begins to fully ignite, at 10:34, there is 4 lbs of force on the scale being registered. Add to it that the volume of the container was 220L and the rocket motor was rated at producing 26L of gas when burned, so even assuming an incomplete vacuum of roughly half the gas contained therein, the gas produced by the rocket would still not have been enough to completely offset the vacuum produced, although it would lessen it.
    1
  26. Actually, they have. The moon is much further away than 365 miles and we sent several astronauts there back in the 1960's and 1970's. Plenty of things have had to operate in a vacuum, so I'm really surprised that you don't quite grasp that concept. Even pilots of the U2 spy plane were subject to partial vacuums should the cabin depressurize, hence why they would sear pressure suits, just like astronauts.
    1
  27. Sarcasm, I suspect?
    1
  28. Rockets do not work on the same principles as birds and flies. They move their wings to impart a force onto the surrounding air, which in turn forces the air backwards, propelling them forwards. This is not how rockets work. Rockets work by taking the fuel and turning it into high velocity gas that is then ejected through a nozzle, thereby imparting an even greater velocity to it. This high velocity gas produces an equal and opposite reaction in the direction opposite of the nozzle, which in our case is the front of the combustion chamber of the rocket motor. The force pushing on the wall of the combustion chamber opposite of the nozzle has no exit, as it is solid, so the force pushes against it, thereby imparting force to the system as a whole. This force is then translated into motion of the system as any force acting against an object will impart movement unless another force directly opposes it. In this case, the force created from the escaping gases through the nozzle is enough to overcome the forces of gravity and friction and impart a movement into the motor, and thereby, the rocket as a whole. The fact that you reference anything to do with the Hebrew language tells me that you are obviously disturbed and will most likely not pay the least bit of attention to the science, but instead, spout more crazy conspiracy theories.
    1
  29. The opposite force is the force of the expanding gasses pushing against the opposite wall of the combustion chamber. Einstein was no where near a fraud, sir. I'd like to see you try and disprove any of his calculations. Either way, as I stated previously, a fly or bird flies by pushing against the air with their wings. That mechanism is completely different from how rocket engines work. Saying the two are the same is like saying a boat and a car are the same. Both move, so why does a boat not work on land? Two different methods of producing motion.
    1
  30. If so, do us all a favor and jump off the edge, please. That will be the proof that convinces me you're right.
    1
  31. Wow.... Such compelling arguments. And you people wonder why no one takes you crackpot flat earthers seriously.
    1
  32. So you're what? 11? maybe 12? Does your mommy know you're using the internet, child?
    1
  33. Not brainless at all. Not a sheeple. Someone who did the calculations himself to determine the curvature of the earth. Someone who has seen it and can understand the science behind the FACT that the earth is round. In fact, I'm someone who is not a sheeple, as you seem to be, since you're the one to follow some crackpot theory about the earth being flat when no one has shown any actual EVIDENCE of it, but instead can only reply to criticism with insults and weak arguments that have no basis of fact. Prove your crackpot theory to me. Go ahead and try, I'll wait....
    1
  34. How so? Again, just insults and no proof of your idiotic claims.
    1
  35. Wow.... Again with the slinging of insults. Sure, buddy. Ask away. I can't wait to see what "simplistic maths question" you have.
    1
  36. Air density to support what? Planes cannot fly in a vacuum, but missiles and rockets are completely different.
    1
  37. Actually, it's not in the first few seconds, which is when you still can see thrust occurring as per the force gauge. The thrust you see there is from the rocket engine behaving exactly as if there were infinite space behind it, because there is still a good vacuum present.
    1
  38. What are you even going on about? None of what you said makes any sense.
    1
  39. But that's not how rockets work. They don't move by pushing off of their surroundings.
    1
  40. And you're stupid if you deny it even to those of us who have seen it with our own eyes. Oh, and also, your misuse of your/you're and misspelling of think makes me also question why you would want to call anyone else stupid in the first place.
    1
  41. Well, having proper spelling and grammar tends to allow others to take one more seriously as it shows that person as having received a proper education. As for what I've seen with my own eyes.... Well, I've seen shuttle launches, rocket launches of all kinds, I have launched model rockets myself, I have see the live feeds from space, spoken with people who have been there, worked with people who have helped launch satellites, seen satellites with my own eyes, both on the ground and in space, and have used the services that are provided using the technology of the satellites themselves. I've also seen and understand the math and science that makes it possible for us to "thrust tons of metal into space". It's physics and chemistry at work. So, as I've said, I believe because I know it to be true. I know, without a doubt, that we go into space. Now, what proof do you have as to your argument that those of us who believe we go into space are "stupid"? Show us your evidence to the contrary.
    1
  42. Tyler Sanders Balloons are not able to survive in any type of orbit due to decreasing air pressure and resistance as the balloon ascends. Once it reaches a specific altitude, the lack of surrounding air pressure will cause the balloon to grow larger than the material that makes up the balloon can handle and it will burst. It is the same for weather balloons and any other balloons that achieve very high altitudes. In addition, without angular momentum caused by some kind of thrust, a geostationary orbit cannot be achieved as the momentum needed would have to be continually renewed due to the friction of the atmosphere on the balloon due to the lower altitudes that balloons are able to operate at, thereby slowing the speed of the balloon. This is why satellites have to have a specific velocity and geostationary orbit is only achieved in a very small area above the earth where the pull of gravity and friction from what little of the atmosphere is left is offset by the angular momentum to allow for the "freefall" motion to keep things in synchronicity. Too far out, and the angular momentum has to be faster, which means more inertia and a greater chance of lower gravitational pull keeping things in place, leading to an eventual escape trajectory. To close and the friction from the atmosphere will slow the satellite down, eventually slowing angular momentum enough to cause the satellite to go into a declining orbit and re-enter the lower atmosphere, causing atmospheric heating and breakup/burnup.
    1
  43. It's called perspective, sir. From a stationary point on a globe, to achieve the proper angular momentum to reach an orbital velocity, once must have more than simply vertical motion. If rockets only went straight up, then a force equal to the amount needed to launch them would be needed to stop them. With angular momentum, we are able to use the pull of gravity to guide them either into an orbital trajectory or to use the motion and atmospheric resistance to slowly bring them back down once needed. When we sent the men to the moon, we used the same principles to line them up for a proper trajectory for a safe approach to it. The reason that, when viewed from the ground, it looks like the rocket goes up and comes down is due to the curvature of the earth and perspective from the ground. Take a balloon and draw a dot on it. That's you at the launch site. Now take your finger and put it a few inches above the dot and circle it around the center of the balloon. Do you see how, from the perspective of the dot, your finger seems to come down as it moves out of view around the balloon? Another good example is the sun. Does it "land" on the ground when it sets? Well, neither does a rocket. It goes around the world and comes back on the other side. You say you've been educated properly, but i disagree as it seems that you can't grasp basic viewing perspective and geometry. And I agree, you're not here to debate because you have no valid arguments or proof of your own flawed opinions. However, you have no issue making a statement putting down those who think contrarily to your theories. So yes, you are here to debate, instead you simply are here to add to the proof that people are becoming less educated now than in generations prior as even basic science and math seems to be beyond their grasp.
    1
  44. If you believe that the earth is flat, then you are more ignorant than I originally thought. Not using any "stupid big words", just using the proper words to convey what is occurring. I'm sorry that your limited intellect cannot grasp that the earth, like every other celestial body out there in the universe, is round (actually more of an ovoid sphere, but I'm trying not to use large, scary words for you). I'm sorry you can't understand prospective and simple math. I'm sorry you seem incapable of of the most basic understanding of how things work. The earth is and has been proven to be round. Your view, which has no scientific proof, nor mathematical possibility, is wrong. As it is your theory, please feel free to show me any sort of proof whatsoever to back up your claim. As I say to every single flat earther... want to prove to me definitively that the earth is flat? Go to the edge and jump off. Do this, and I'll 100% believe you. It's always funny how I provide evidence and no space denier or flat earther is able to do anything other than sling insults, make wild accusations with no proof, or remark how they aren't here to debate anything.
    1
  45. Rockets don't work by pushing off of any atmosphere. While the exhaust gases do compromise the vacuum, by that point thrust was already shown, so your logic is flawed.
    1
  46. Because of external forces acting on the masses contained in the positive pressure system.
    1
  47. How exactly, did he "create a small atmosphere behind the rocket"? I see someone using a method to plug a motor so that the igniter, which is manufactured for the model rocket hobby and designed to be ignited in a normal environment, can function as designed. I'm sure that if he was able to get one similar to the ones used by NASA and other space agencies in solid rocket motors that are designed to be ignited in a vacuum, they would not have any need to be plugged as he had to do in order to get the SRMs to fire. As for your second point, you again mention creating an atmosphere directly behind the rocket, something I'm trying to understand why you would need in the first place. The laws of motion will work in a vacuum or in a pressure vessel the same way as the forces related to motion apply in the same manner regardless of the surrounding atmosphere or lack thereof. He did not need to change his hypothesis, he needed to change the way the test was being conducted so that what he was truly trying to measure could be tested. The was not a test to determine if a standard hobby SRM could be ignited using a standard hobby igniter in a vacuum, this was a test to determine if thrust is produced in a vacuum, and it was as you can clearly see in the captured slow motion footage from 10:20 to 10:24, in those 4 seconds, before any appreciable amount of exhaust had vented to the chamber to decrease the vacuum, there was a net thrust forward of about 2.5 lbs. Yes, more thrust was produced once the nozzle was unplugged due to the increased exit velocity of the gasses resulting in mass acceleration out the nozzle and a greater specific impulse, but even before that the uneven pressure caused by the nozzle being the slightest bit uncovered was enough to cause the system to move forward, just as Newton had stated.
    1
  48. 100 agree! It was a great video to see, but the flatards will say that it's either CGI, or it's not live from the ISS and is being produced on a sound-stage in Hollywood. It's a damn shame when science is overruled by stupidity.
    1
  49. You mean....embarrassment?
    1
  50. Movement occurs well before anything would have a chance to even reach the walls, so your assertation that the movement is caused by "stuff being shot out" the back of the rocket and hitting the walls, is disproven. Rockets move due to Newton's Third Law on the pressure reaction going on in their combustion chamber and the mass ejection of hot expanding gasses escaping the nozzle at high speeds causing a net force in the direction equal and opposite to the flow of those gasses.
    1