Youtube comments of YSongCloud (@YSongCloud).

  1. Are those acute angles or obtuse angles? Maybe right angles? 馃槈
    30
  2. Well he is from Chicago, where we typically don't use the metric system for almost anything, so....
    10
  3. 聽@Mercyfouranimals聽 Stay mad, he's still your Daddy for the next 4 years. 馃ぁ
    9
  4. 5 mil now. :p
    7
  5. Some of these things are just not true, or based on a single view from a single city. In almost any city in the US (sure, not small local towns always) you will find local bakeries and delis that specialize in fresh bread or imported cheeses from all around the world, or even some specific locations. Being that you're in Cincinnati, I'm very shocked you can't find good Mozzarella cheese considering that there's many Italian specialty Delis around the city that import it directly from Italy. I know that, here where I live, I routinely get my imported Pecorino Romano cheese from my local Italian Deli. Shower heads are an each change out, and I have always changed the ones where I've lived to hand-held ones for the same reasons you mentioned. it's just that a good handheld shower can cost quite a bit vs. sub-$10 for a cheep built-in one. Also, we normally like our space, so having exposed pipes means more to clean behind, whereas a flat wall works better. Very, very few people I know keep the A/C down so low as what you mentioned (62 I think). Most people, and even most places I've worked, keep the A/C at between 70-75. The only exception I've seen are places where they expect a large number of people (like a movie theater), or where there will be heat offset from other things. In addition, sometimes restaurants and other similar places keep the A/C lower as it makes people not as comfortable and so they tend to linger less, allowing for more turnover of tables and higher overall sales. Likewise, some states have the same deposit system you mentioned that Germany has. Comparing Germany to the US is hard because Germany is a country, and the US is a country, but in reality you can thing of the US almost like the EU with the states being their own "countries" inside it. So while Germany might have a deposit system, maybe Spain or Poland or some other EU member does not. Same as the US, Michigan has one, Ohio does not. See what I mean. I have no idea why the push with What's App when most NEWER native phone apps do more than just SMS/MMS. I've been alive for a long time now, and I've seen the same kinds of apps come and go. ICQ, MSN Messenger, AOL Messenger, KIK, What's App, Telegram, etc... The only thing I'll say regarding the washing machine is that most people would have no idea what exact temperature to set the washer at. Almost ALL of the laundry I do, I was in cold water since it works just as good as warm or hot water without worrying about shrinking the clothes and it still gets them perfectly clean. Regarding not feeling safe. I live in Chicago. There are some times when I have my guard up, but overall I've never really feared for my life since I don't go into neighborhoods and areas that are inherently unsafe. Most times, tourists will not have any reason to venture into those neighborhoods, and most times will feel so out of place when compared with the normal "tourist" areas, that they will either sense it and get our quickly, or in a few cases, someone more good natured from that area will see that they are lost and help get them out to safety before things happen. Most violence happens within certain areas and neighborhoods and is mostly a result of gang violence and drug-related factors. Violence against MOST innocent people is usually a result of mis-identification, caught in crossfire, or other similar factors. However, theft and other crimes do happen, and in the case of theft, it's best to just let them have it so it doesn't turn violent unless you're prepared to fight back properly, which is why us Americans love our 2nd amendment right. But that's a topic for a whole other time. Regarding the banking system, almost everyone uses direct deposit. And bank-to-bank transfers are a thing, as is automatic payments. Yes, some have to use a third party, but this is largely dependent on the recipient of said payments more than the sender. Zelle, Venmo, and Paypal, etc are great mostly because they can transfer instantly whereas most bank-to-bank transfers take a day or so to proceed. I think the largest thing about believing "facts" that you mentioned is that a lot of Americans have an innate distrust of being told things that might run counter to their beliefs, or they have various degrees to which they believe things, especially depending on WHO it is coming from. This is because so much of the time, people feel like those in power lie to get their way or push an agenda. Like climate change, most everyone believes it's happening, but the main argument I see is to what degree human involvement is playing a part. I have a feeling that your views on this are fairly sheltered as I can PROMISE you that there are people in Germany that don't believe the same things you mentioned. My entire family shops as Aldi, but at the same time, there's things that I like the name brand better for since the ones from Aldi are just a lot more sub-par. Yes, it's cheaper, but you also tend to get what you pay for. I can understand the trash thing, but again, it's all about convivence, more than worrying about the results. Overall, Feli, I think a lot of these things might be just because of how sheltered it seems like you've been both in Germany and who you've lived with as well as where you loved in America.
    7
  6. Luke: "I need batteries!!" Also Luke: Running past nearly every battery in the game.
    7
  7. She might have had the right, but not the ability.
    7
  8. 聽@EZ_Case聽 It's not. Almost all of this information is freely available. What they can't put in the video is all of the newer technology that we also have, which is not yet declassified, and as such, is not generally known.
    6
  9. 聽@Hamish-y2c聽 They actually aren't. All of that information is freely available on the web and most of this timeline has been the same since the 70's and 80's with the ICBM threat during the cold war. What they can't include in the video is the newer stuff that is not yet declassified. A lot of what is mentioned is actually quite old and most likely not how things would play out now. For the intercept, we already do have newer technology, but we can't go into details. For the retaliation into North Korea, most would not be personnel, but instead the first wave would be drone strikes against key communications and defensive targets, then followed by the manned planes to drop key munitions and the bunker busters. Ground based personnel, other than perhaps some elite teams, would be sent in later, after we already removed much of the defensive equipment threat.
    6
  10. Yep. When we have suspension parts we replaced that need to be loaded, we take it over to the drive-on rack so that weight is still on the wheels, but we don't have to go crawling in the dirt to do the final torque.
    5
  11. 鈥嬄燖ThePianistONE聽Nope, they should not have been in the road, period.
    5
  12. 聽@donlee.4308聽 Most likely going to be on the heli pilots. They were on VFR and the tower asked if they could see the CRJ, they answered in the affirmative and were then told to pass behind. If they lost sight of the CRJ or were saying they could see it when they could not, that is 100% on them. ATC followed the protocols in place here.
    4
  13. Reckless how? They're detaining people who may have been involved in a crime, that's their job.
    4
  14. 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
  15. The patron saint of amnesia. He's so old, I'm sure he knew several of the existing saints.
    3
  16. 聽@FrankStanley-j5y聽 It was a training flight, so most likely just poor decision making.
    3
  17. Unfortunately, this man is NOT the real problem. You could tell that he was remorseful for doing something bad, but he kept making bad decisions, like running. If he was a security guard, as the relative interview claimed, then he probably knew what would happen to him in jail as someone in the security sector, and possibly in retaliation to whomever he took out. He weighed that and decided that ending it would be better (it would most likely not be). But unlike a lot of the murderers, thugs, and gang bangers in the city, this person genuinely seemed to feel remorse for what they had done. As much as he put many lives in jeopardy and did some very stupid and questionable things, he seems like he might have been a good person under it all. I'd claim him as a fellow Chicagoan, just someone deeply flawed like so many of us here. Unfortunately, his flaws cost him.
    3
  18. Where was he going to have them stand? Outside the door on their own? SHE was making it 100% worse for the kids than he was. This should have been a teaching moment for the kids that if you leave without paying for something, you get punished. Instead, she went the dumb route of escalating it, and blaming the "racist" cop instead of just taking responsibility. She does kind of do that later by offering to pay for everything, which means she clearly knows she stole, but that was after the kids were out of the room. Shitty parent is a shitty parent. I'm sure that's not the first or last time those kids saw something unlawful happen.
    3
  19. Thank you! We are so glad to have you as an American!
    3
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. It was not Dixieland Square Mall, it was just Dixie Square Mall and it had already been shuttered before the movie purchased the rights to film/trash it for the movie. After that, it sat in disrepair and allowed to decay while multiple redevelopment attempts were made. It was finally fully demolished in 2012. So I'm not sure where you got your info, but there was no lawsuit, and the mall was well and truly closed by that point.
    3
  23. 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
  24. Um.... that's not how a rocket works. It does not "push" off of it's surrounding environment.
    2
  25. 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
  26. I don't know of very many people who keep their A/C at 62F. Most people I know, as well as most businesses keep it at between 70-75. Only some places that expect large crowds, movie theaters for example, tend to keep theirs cooler so it can offset the large group of people who will be in the space. I've also never understood the hype around front loading washing machines.
    2
  27. 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
  28. I was honestly surprised that the pursuit went on for as long as it did. They had several chances on lightly populated roads early on to PIT the car and end it. They could have moved in to box the car in when they went into the parking lot as well, but the cops stayed back. It's like they are so scared to do their jobs at risk of being called out that they let a high speed pursuit go on WAY longer than was needed.
    2
  29. 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
  30. 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
  31. No worries. Also, I agree with you. It's sad, indeed.
    2
  32. 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
  33. 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
  34. @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
  35. 聽@rbtgoodson聽 I disagree. Heli pilots are in the wrong. We have the audio from the tower where they confirmed they had the CRJ in sight, they were flying VFR, and the tower specifically requested them to pass behind the CRJ, which they did not do.
    2
  36. But, there is oxygen already contained in the rocket motor in the form of an oxidizer.
    2
  37. There is no legal case for having a lawyer present when you're not in custody. Once they were detained, then they could deal with Miranda rights.
    2
  38. What video were you watching? As an ASE certified tech myself, I saw exactly the kind of diagnosis that is needed. "Throw parts at it"?? You mean replace the started that had died in the middle of testing and the battery that died trying to turn it over during diagnosis? I'm sure you would have just charged the battery or put on a jumper pack, right? At my shop we have a battery rack with spare and new batteries on it for just such an occasion and we use them to test things during diagnosis. If the customer decides to keep the new battery, then great, but we don't sell it to them if theirs is good and can be charged and re-installed. "No diagnosis or plan of attack"?? Did you miss the part where he checked fuel pressure to rule out a fuel pump? Blocked off the fuel return to rule out a bad return valve? Tried to have it run on brake cleaner to check for a lack of fuel condition? Pulled the plugs to check for spark issues or fuel fouling? Did you hear him say that one of the codes was from him pulling an injector wire to check for pulse width? Using the scan tool you can also check many other areas. You talk about him not using a test light, were you talking about an inductive probe or inline spark checker to confirm that the coil for #3 was not firing or not strong enough, or were you implying that a normal DC test light should have been used on a circuit somewhere? To be honest, given your apparent level of displeasure over his methods, I'd love to hear exactly how you would have done things differently in order to diagnose the issue so that we may all learn.
    2
  39. 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
  40. 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
  41. 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
  42. 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
  43. I mean, the 1-2 shift should happen during normal driving, so any driving would have been doing it. Ray was just being a tad more forceful to ensure that it was making the shift and not slipping directly into 2. No torture, just seeing if it would do what it was supposed to do without the shudder, which it did not.
    2
  44. 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
  45. He's done that.
    2
  46. 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
  47. 聽@georgemason4921聽 A whole cart full of stuff. She only paid for the Dr. Pepper.
    2
  48. Artur: "I want to make a compilation video of every 50 BMG shot Matt has done on his channel!" Me: "So you're wanting to make a video that is over an hour long with hundreds of clips. Sounds like fun!"
    2
  49. 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
  50. If you're talking about the clip that starts around 0:55, then the car is most definitely in the wrong. Not only does it appear to be an actual runway that the pilot is landing on and not a simple CAR ROAD as you put it, but there are also what appear to be warning signs on both sides of the road on both sides of the runway, probably to warn them to watch for planes. It was the DRIVER who didn't bother to look. I've seen similar setups like this in residential airport runways, especially when they are not officially controlled runways (ie. lack a tower, lighting, or other officials to control approach, landings, take-offs, etc). normally jurisdiction over the airspace itself is with the reginal ATC, but local control is shared among the pilots using the field itself. Would be 100% different if we were talking about the later clip where the pilot institutes an emergency landing on a highway, but this was definitely a runway.
    2
  51. The rods cannot be recharged as the metal undergoes radiation fatigue making it more brittle over time, this is why they are stored in water to reduce the heat and radioactivity of the short lived isotopes, then transferred to dry cask storage currently. Once they get vitrified (combined with silica and ceramic into an intert glass) they are as safe as they can be and the metal brittleness no longer matters. However, the spent fuel pellets IN the fuel rods COULD be recycled and made into mixed-oxide fuels and used in reactors that can use that kind of fuel, however the US currently has banned used fuel recycling due to President Jimmy Carter back in 1977 believing that it was not cost effective or safe to do so. Why we have not lifted the ban and started recycling the waste here like countries such as France, Japan, and others have done seems crazy to me. I believe that a fuel plant making mixed-oxide fuels is currently being built in South Carolina, however this plant is not to recycle spent fuels, but will make mixed-oxide fuels out of excess plutonium left over from weapons programs. As far as keeping bad actors from building power plants, the costs and regulations involved with building a plant as such that they present hurdles to most private companies who would look to build one. The DoE, NRC, and IAEC all have oversight into much of the regulatory dealings of a plant when both during construction as well as operation. Add in other agencies that might be involved like the DoL, EPA, Homeland Security, and others, and you have so much oversight and regulations that someone is bound to notice something not right going on. There are also the technological advances made over the years that decrease the likelihood of operator induced problems, such as those that caused Chernobyl and TMI. In addition, even IF a "bad actor" did manage to build or do something with nuclear fuel, there is not much that can be done with it. In order to be made into a weapon, normal nuclear fuel pellets would need to be highly enriched, something that is near impossible for the normal person to do without very specialized equipment especially on the scale needed for a weapon. In fact, unused fuel is so low in terms of radioactivity that you can stand next to it and not be in any danger. As for the possibility of using the spent fuel for a weapon, the largest concern would be that of a "dirty bomb" wherein a conventional explosive spreads the highly radioactive used fuel over a large area thereby causing a radiation emergency. in reality, this would be much harder to do than most people think, not only because of the regulations and oversight involved with tracking nuclear materials, but also due to the heat (both thermal and nuclear) of the used fuel. It would take someone highly specialized with the appropriate know-how in handling and transportation of the material in order to even attempt to smuggle it out of the site, let alone the radiation detectors and other hazards that come with it. in all, the obstacles to overcome in order to use nuclear material, used or unused, from a reactor are too many to be feasible since there are other, much less complicated ways to cause havoc.
    2
  52. What, exactly, did he fake?
    2
  53. 聽@humbull聽 That's not how it works. You make a claim, you are required to back it up. Not tell others to "look it up for themselves" I want to know YOUR sources. Only way to have a logical debate. Oh wait, most people don't know how to do that anymore.
    2
  54. MMA and martial arts might be a mind game leading up to it, but it is just as much a physical game. The mind game comes in preventing the need for it to turn physical in martial arts. Once the fight has started, the only part of the mind games that comes into it is getting the fight over as fast as possible with the best outcome. To that end, it's the physical advantage that helps achieve that goal. No matter what the sport or activity, if two people or two teams of people are facing off against one another, they need to treat each other as equally skilled and capable. THAT is true equality. So for all those times in the video where it looks like the guys are "going hard" or being "too tough" on the women, it's not that at all. They are simply treating them as equals, people who are equally as capable, and approaching the situation as such. Equality is what so many claim to want, but actually most don't really want equality, they want things to be easier for the women.
    2
  55. Because he doesn't have any legs.
    1
  56. What banned ones did he shoot?
    1
  57. And how does this have to do with climate change again?
    1
  58. Why not. That powder is simply the phosphor coating, not mercury.
    1
  59. Not enough mercury there to poison anyone.
    1
  60. Calm down, he will be fine.
    1
  61. They are the same compounds in the same way, and neither is a major issue. He's in a well ventilated area. It's all just elemental mercury, btw. No special thing just because it's in a light.
    1
  62. Not really. It's just a phosphor coating.
    1
  63. elemental mercury doesn't really do much unless it's injected into your bloodstream or inhaled over a very long period of time. This being the outdoors, which is extremely ventilated, there is no real worry.
    1
  64. Argon is 100% non-toxic. Try again.
    1
  65. And that danger is...?
    1
  66. Wow.聽 Anyone who believes this crap needs to up their meds.聽 I can take almost anything and fold it in a way that shows something that any gullible idiot can believe.聽
    1
  67. 聽@IcyBird420聽 Cool, I did. Space exploration is needed, not some Alphabet agenda Sesame Street show in Iraq.
    1
  68. Yes, Matt is a Veterinarian. He has another channel, Vet Ranch, where he showcases his work there.
    1
  69. 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
  70. 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
  71. 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
  72. Sarcasm, I suspect?
    1
  73. 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
  74. 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
  75. Da fuq?
    1
  76. Good for you! What does that have to do in the least with this video?
    1
  77. 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
  78. Wow.... Such compelling arguments. And you people wonder why no one takes you crackpot flat earthers seriously.
    1
  79. So you're what? 11? maybe 12? Does your mommy know you're using the internet, child?
    1
  80. 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
  81. How so? Again, just insults and no proof of your idiotic claims.
    1
  82. Wow.... Again with the slinging of insults. Sure, buddy. Ask away. I can't wait to see what "simplistic maths question" you have.
    1
  83. Air density to support what? Planes cannot fly in a vacuum, but missiles and rockets are completely different.
    1
  84. He lives in Texas.
    1
  85. Same, bro. Same. It would be funny to watch the shitshow here if it wasn't so damn sad. The Mayor and Pritzilla fearmongering among the crowd, channel 7 and 9 and to some extent even Fox here among others just pushing the narrative and trying to put out BS stories. And meanwhile a majority of us here want the illegals gone, even in the Hispanic neighborhoods, I hear and see from people saying, "I'll help! I'll point out here shouldn't be here!" So many of these immigrant communities have people that came in the right way, had to wait, had to struggle to get their citizenship, and they will be dammed if someone else can just come in and have it EZ. But that's not what anyone hears in the media or from the windbags in office. Corruption in City Hall, corruption in Springfield, corruption with the media, the trifecta of misinformation and BS. I love Chicago, but I hate it here so much at the same time.
    1
  86. 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
  87. What are you even going on about? None of what you said makes any sense.
    1
  88. You go buy them.
    1
  89. I swear, for a minute there, I thought they were trying to arrest one of those screaming goats. Neither one seems to understand the word "NO".
    1
  90. Over 8 minutes in and he's still saying "No". 5 minutes longer than they should have given him, just pull him out of the damn car.
    1
  91. I know I'm late to the party with these, but you really need to go after the videos and check out the actual SCP entry in the wiki as most have pictures and you can see what the animations are based off of. Just to add a little bit to these animated ones.
    1
  92. What is happening in this country is that the media is sensationalizing the shooters who commit these horrible crimes and pushing blame onto the weapon itself instead of the causes behind the people who committed the crimes. When people were run down with cars, why were there no calls for common-sense car laws? It's just as easy, if not easier, to kill more people with a car than with most guns. The issue is that people don't want to think critically and they are, instead, ruled by their fears over being shot, as unlikely as that is. I liken it to the same reason people are afraid to fly on planes, but have no problem driving cross country. More deaths each year are on the roads than from planes going down, yet a plane crash is big news, so it feed the irrational fears that people have of that happening to them. If you take away guns, you only take them away from the law-abiding citizens that want to use those guns responsibly, be it for hunting or for self-defense. Anyone who has a gun with the sole intention of killing someone, or many people, is already a criminal as they intend to commit murder, a crime. If someone is a criminal, they do not care about the law, therefor more laws regulating any weapon, be it a gun, knife, bomb, etc, will not mater to them as they're already breaking the law by doing whatever criminal act they are doing. Sadly, the media never seems to dwell on the people who STOP shootings by using their own legally owned firearms. Like the guy from Texas who shot the shooter from that church shooting, or the school resource officer than shot the kid in Maryland before he had a chance to kill anyone, only injured 2, I believe. They don't dwell on those for weeks and weeks, because it goes against the fear mongering and ratings that scary stories bring. There are just as many guns today as there were even a few years ago, and I was never afraid of a school shooting. Even before my time, still no afraid, because people had respect for everyone and they were taught properly. They weren't these precious little kids who were raised in "safe" households, no exposure to germs or hard times, and given participation awards for everything. Now these kids are growing up and finding out the world will knock you on your ass. You aren't given anything, you have to work for it, and sometimes you don't come in first, but you try again and get better. These kids never had the small disappointments growing up, so when the bigger ones come, as they always do in life, they can't handle it, and their worldview shatters. They lash out at everyone for things being "too hard for them to handle" and, because they never learned to respect other's lives, because they were coddled and made to believe they were the center of mommy or daddy's attention, they blame everyone else and target them. Do all shooters fit this pattern, no, not all.... some are straight up whack jobs, like the guy from Sandy Hook, or the shooter in Florida who all had patterns of behavior that should have led to them being put away for the good of themselves and others, or at least under a more watchful eye, but a lot of the school shooters happen to be people who either had warning signs or who should have been under a hell of a lot closer supervision. Don't blame the weapon, blame the person using it for the wrong reason. Also, where do you draw the line for what guns to ban and what to allow? Matt clearly demonstrates that this weapon is good for hunting, so why ban it? Why ban the other ones you classify as "not for hunting or self-defense"? You do understand self-defense means more than the criminal breaking in your door at 2am, right? It means defending yourself from ANYONE that would take away the freedoms offered to you by the US constitution, including a corrupt government or foreign invader, should that need arise. If that were ever to come to pass, I'd bet a hell of a lot more people would be wishing for a .50 BMG vs. a .22 Luger.
    1
  93. My name is "Sweet T"... I literally threw up in my own mouth a bit. There is NOTHING sweet about... that. About ANYTHING associated with this thing. I wish the best for whomever found her in the act in the hopes that they are able to get the horrible sight out of their memory.
    1
  94. But that's not how rockets work. They don't move by pushing off of their surroundings.
    1
  95. 聽@matan.saster聽 I'll bet you're one of those Sovereign Citizen types, huh?
    1
  96. 聽@aj.j5833聽 Because there are varying degrees of "breaking the law" from relatively minor offences to major ones. In this case, his would have been misdemeanors and they did NOT have to arrest him, but could have written tickets either for payment of fines or court date via promise to appear. In order to DO that they need IDENTIFICATION on who he is so that they can, you know, write the ticket. Because he failed to ID himself when lawfully ordered, he could face a charge of felony obstructing, which is 100% an arrestable offense and does require a trip to the jail. If he would have simply IDed himself, either with DL, ID, or just giving his name/birthday, he could have had a ticket or two, probably a warning about drinking in public, and been on his way. No need for any drama. This is how the majority of rational adults would have handled it, but this guy was either too drunk or too dumb to figure all that out, so off he went. Also, if you heard the radio while they were trying to wrestle "Mr. Afinna Leave" into the car, there was reports of two people wounded in a shooting. Instead of taking tickets, this guy made how many officers deal with his resistive tubby butt? Now they also have to deal with extra time for the trip to jail. Just frickin' ID yourself, take your tickets, and if you want to, fight it out in court. Very easy.
    1
  97. 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
  98. 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
  99. 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
  100. 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
  101. 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
  102. High, since they both get the same amount of usage and unless there's something seriously mechanically wrong with a wire or a plug, the coils are going to have the same amount of heat and use time. Replacing both instead of one ensures that the customer will not have to come back prematurely when the other one dies and also ensures that the generated spark is even among all the cylinders.
    1
  103. NASA doesn't build rockets. It contracts them out. Apollo first flight was a failure, Shuttle was rushed and both Challenger and Columbia proved it, as well as being extremely risky time and time again. Your ignorance of how things work shows in your comment.
    1
  104. Because the codes are already history codes. Without clearing them, they would still be there. Basic Auto Tech 101, always clear codes after a repair and drive the vehicle at normal operating temperature until all systems register in a ready state. Anything still having issues will pop a new code. No code = problem resolved.
    1
  105. 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
  106. Because of external forces acting on the masses contained in the positive pressure system.
    1
  107. 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
  108. Some of this is just wrong or not logical. Aiming all 8 MIRVs from the trident at the same target negates the entire benefit of the MIRV package. Plus, the calculations are wrong as to the destructiveness as the explosions would not truly release their entire power as the blast pressure waves would cancel each other out as they met in the center, decreasing the overall effectiveness. In order to truly get the maximum destructive power from the MIRV, you would split the warheads so that they struck close enough to hit the intended target area, but far enough apart that one or even a few last-ditch missile defenses cannot take out all warheads with a single blast.
    1
  109. If you're not here illegally, you have nothing to fear. Otherwise, get the F out. Stop harboring these illegals and send them back. I have no idea why this is so hard for people to understand?
    1
  110. 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
  111. You mean....embarrassment?
    1
  112. 鈥嬄燖dianeknox6049聽are you high? HE was the problem? You are either trolling or absolutely stupid. Drunk chick had every opportunity to walk away and go on about her night but she wanted to act like a fool. Cop did absolutely nothing wrong.
    1
  113. 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
  114. Solid rocket motors have been used on occasion in space, and are usually reserved for missiles and other equipment that needs long storage times and can be quickly deployed without the need for lengthy fueling processes. If used in space, the igniter used is much different from the black powder igniters used in the experiment, which are produced specifically for use in the model rocket hobby and designed to be ignited on earth in a normal atmosphere. Ones that NASA or any other space agency would use would have an overabundance of oxidizer incorporated into it so as to assure complete ignition and temperatures high enough and long enough to ignite the fuel grains and create the appropriate flame front in the solid rocket motor combustion chamber in order to ignite the entire surface as designed. This need to fully ignite the fuel grain and allow the chamber to come up to proper pressure is why there is almost always a short delay between ignition of a solid rocket motor and the time in which full thrust is produced. Examples of these are the Castor-30 and Castor-120 solid rocket motors being used on the Athena IC and IIC launch vehicles, as well as in the Peacekeeper and Trident ICBMs. Now, to address another thing that Fancy Man Of Cornwood said, rockets do not work by "pushing on old exhaust gasses burnt moments before", because they don't operate like that. Thrust is produced inside the combustion chamber of all rocket engines due to unequal forces pushing against the walls of said chamber. The wall or area opposite where the nozzle is will have the greatest pressure due to the uneven pressures caused by the hot gasses being able to escape the system via the nozzle, so the net movement of the system is in the direction opposite the nozzle, as per Newton's third law, exactly what this video is proving. The surrounding environment of the rocket motor is of no consequence to this basic operation, and in fact, rockets are more efficient when in a vacuum as there is less friction from the surrounding air molecules that need to move out of the way. Finally, in regards to the "they use completely different systems of propulsion you twit" comment, Fancy Man of Cornwood seems to be the twit in that while the operation of the engines is different between solid rocket motors, liquid fueled motors, or even hybrids, the actual reason behind the thrust and propulsion is the same. Both use Newton's third law to produce a net movement due to unequal forces acting upon one particular surface of the combustion chamber with greater force than the others. It's science! :)
    1
  115. 聽@Derideo聽 So who cares about space? Who cares about learning more about where we are? I'm sure you're one of those that wants to bash DOGE and others for finding the waste of projects like those at USAID and shutting down those idiotic projects.
    1
  116. There is a section on his new site, Bunkerbranding.com where you can apply to be a creator. Downside is you have to have over 100K followers.
    1
  117. How so? This is exactly what testing is for.
    1
  118. 聽@danielnavarro9807聽 No one is taking money from social security or health care, nutcase.
    1
  119. @ Can't handle what he's saying? He's saying erroneous statements parroted by people who believe what the garbage media is telling them to believe. And yes, using that many emotes makes the writer immediately lose credibility and show that they are not a source I'd trust for any facts.
    1
  120. Because gravity plays no part in holding molecules, which have mass, to a planet, which also has mass, against a vacuum, which has nothing BECAUSE THE PARTICLES ARE BEING PULLED FROM IT VIA GRAVITY. Gravity is one of the 4 fundamental forces of the universe. In fact, we are losing the lighter particles to the vacuum of space all of the time. Our planet regularly has a net loss of hydrogen, the lightest element, due to it's low mass. However, we also gain particles in the form of the solar wind and charged particles streaming in from space, especially the sun, so things stay fairly equal. There is no firmament, stop mixing your religion with science. Religion is religion and it is your belief/crutch/moral guide, it is not a substitute for science, nor should it ever be.
    1
  121. @Vary Thank you!!!
    1
  122. Correct. It is because of the pressure differential of the systems and how quickly that pressure changes that causes one to need a barrier and the other to be able to gradually transition. Look at the weather as another example of this. Storm systems are usually concentrated around low pressure areas, while clear, calm areas with little clouds are higher pressure areas. I can go into the mechanics of storm systems and density/temperature/pressure relationships, but it would be getting off track. My main point is that we can measure these pressure differences with a barometer as the high pressure/low pressure areas move across the planet. What separates these areas from each other? Not any physical barrier, but pressure gradients from one to the other, and the constant struggle for the systems to reach equilibrium in both pressure and temperature is called wind, IE. the movement of air, a fluid, from higher pressure to lower pressure and from warmer areas to cooler ones. This is the same thing that happens with our atmosphere being lost to space, but instead of temperature/pressure/density relationships causing air movement resulting in the high/low pressure systems, it is gravity. Actually, since the pressure difference is the measurement of the force of the atmosphere pressing down on the Earth's surface, technically gravity has a part to play in that as well. Science is fun! ;)
    1
  123. Rockets don't work by pushing against the surrounding atmosphere, so your claim that the vacuum chamber being compromised had anything to do with the thrust shown is incorrect. In the initial seconds of ignition, before the chamber was filled with anything from the engine itself, you could see the thrust being produced.
    1
  124. Rockets don't work by pushing on the surrounding atmosphere, so the smoke in the chamber has essentially no effect on anything.
    1
  125. Actually, the ESRBs used on the shuttle were gimbaled and had fairly good controls. Even the early V2 had jet vanes in the exhaust stream that could be moved to control flight direction, and the Titan IIIC controlled it via LITV (Liquid Injected Thrust Vectoring), in which liquid nitrogen tetroxide was injected into the exhaust stream at any one of several points around the nozzle, changing the exhaust flow due to the added mass and allowing flight to be controlled. They have even designed and tested solid engines which can be throttled and shut down through use of variable nozzle geometry or vent ports, however you are correct in that most solid rocket motors in operation will not stop until completely spent and that they have a lower specific impulse than liquid propellant rocket motors.
    1
  126. Incorrect on all accounts. Rockets don't work by pushing off of the surrounding atmosphere, so there is no need to have any atmosphere surrounding a rocket engine for it to work. As for being unable to ignite or burn anything in a pure vacuum, that is completely false as long as you have all of the components needed for combustion to occur, namely fuel, oxygen, and heat. A rocket motor contains all of those things within itself, so no external anything is required for combustion to occur.
    1
  127. What does that have to do with the movement of the rocket? The motor burned and produced movement in the vacuum in the milliseconds before anything escaped, plus, the volume of the chamber is quite a bit more than the volume of the gasses produced by the rocket motor. Either way, Newton's Third Law is confirmed.
    1
  128. The gasses burned inside the combustion chamber of the rocket motor. They did not burn at the back of the chamber. And again, in the first few milliseconds, just as the hot vapors are beginning to escape the nozzle, there is already movement. Rocket motors don't push off the surrounding environment, the force of the high velocity flow of exhaust through the nozzle creates an opposing force pushing the motor in the opposite direction from the flow. It's really that simple. No external environment needed.
    1
  129. Really wish you would get more Eagle of Freedom shirts in in the larger sizes again. So bummed that they've been sold out for a while now.
    1
  130. 鈥嬄燖kennethlewis3881聽no, you can't. You are required to produce ID or provide name and birthday and address when legally requested by an officer investigating a crime. You don't have to answer more than that, but you cannot remain silent or you can get an obstructing charge.
    1
  131. Then make one yourself and post a proper response video.
    1
  132. I always love to see videos from you. They are entertaining and informative and just awesome! Plus, seeing another Chicagoan is great! Keep up the amazing work, Matt!!!
    1
  133. Actually, it's not.
    1
  134. 聽@chikushodiz91聽 No one cut corners. Where are you getting this info?
    1
  135. 聽@packardroundtree6971聽 And? So technology can never advance and we can never test new rockets because we had one that worked, was inefficient, and cost overall more per flight? Yeah, that makes tons of sense.
    1
  136. 聽@AirDOGGe聽 Of course he was hoping it would be a success. Everyone who is testing something hopes that it will work, but failures also show us where more work is needed. Are you successful at everything you do first time? If so, maybe you should build a rocket and go for it.
    1
  137. Gun crazed, yes. Maniac, no.
    1
  138. 聽@t0nje聽 correct. I misspoke. Once they were arrested, they could have invoked their right to silence. Failing to identify if the police are investigating a crime with reasonable suspicion of parties involved, not providing your basic information is obstruction.
    1
  139. Indeed, and both have been around long before we were here, yet here we are. Amazing what happens when people don't go overly crazy about things.
    1
  140. That can happen in most switchyards, or even low enough high voltage lines. We have a substation here where the lines going into it are close enough down to make florescent tubes light up when held up.
    1
  141. 鈥嬄燖tamrasecond5335聽WTF is the Zeus network?
    1
  142. 鈥嬄燖UMPGamer565聽that's cool. Comparing someone who is not a star to another person people don't know and who also isn't a star will definitely will you that argument.
    1
  143. 聽@nicovalentine5353聽 To accomplish what NASA has?? NASA has build a rocket that can colonize Mars? NASA has built a rocket that can return and be reused? Oh wait, let's go even more simple... NASA has built a rocket? Oh yeah, they DON'T. They contract it out, just like they are doing with SpaceX. Lockheed Martin and Boeing primarily in the case of the Shuttle program via the United Space Alliance company those two formed together. The Saturn series of rockets was manufactured by Boeing, North American Aviation, and Douglas. So again, what is the point of all of this? Testing new rockets, just like they had to do back then. I'm more likely to ask what the point of your comment was since it seems fairly obvious what the point of all of this is, except maybe to you.
    1
  144. Would be easy for him. Can you say the same?
    1
  145. Just as it takes a while to create the vacuum by evacuating the air inside the chamber, so it does not instantly come back the second the motor is ignited. The total volume of gas produced by the combustion of the motor is less than the total volume of the chamber. In addition, thrust can be seen in the first few milliseconds of combustion, well before any appreciable loss of vacuum has occurred.
    1
  146. LOL, Good to watch some of the old videos and see the table back when it was relatively new. :D
    1
  147. What are you talking about? Rockets don't work by pushing against an atmosphere, they work by mass ejection and the overall net force of the pressure being exerted on the end of the combustion chamber of the rocket motor that is opposite of the nozzle.
    1
  148. Yes. Pressure in a weightless vacuum called space. The combustion chamber of a rocket holds pressure, as do many other tanks that are flown in space. The shuttle itself is a pressure vessel as it holds pressure against the vacuum of space.
    1
  149. Ok, let's deal with some of the problems in your response because I believe you are confusing weight with mass, which are NOT the same thing. 1. Things to not move because of resistance. Resistance is the force PREVENTING things from moving, hence the name, they RESIST things. 2. If you were somehow able to exist in the vacuum and extreme cold temperatures of space without a spacesuit and could exhale the air from your lungs somehow using a sort of magical scuba tank so you could still breathe, then yes, when you exhaled the air from your lungs, you would move because there is no resistance from the surrounding environment to stop you. There are not enough molecules or atoms around you to provide the frictional force to keep you in place. On earth, both the air and gravity provides forces that hold you in place. The air provides friction that needs to be overcome, when you move, you have to move the air molecules out of the way, each bump of a molecule slows you down, even though they are minuscule, but because there are thousands of molecules per liter of air, they add up. The force of gravity also resists movement, albeit in a more vertical direction, but it adds friction with whatever you are standing on, also preventing movement. However, in space, microgravity does not affect things as much, so although it still provides some force, it is many times less than that here on the surface. Because there are very few molecules in the vacuum of space (don't ever let anyone tell you the vacuum is completely empty, that's not true in the least), there are less molecules to bump into, therefore less frictional force to prevent movement and slow you down once you are moving. This would also be a good example of Newton's First law of motion as you would continue to drift simply from the one puff of air until you encountered enough molecules in your way to offset your inertia, or until the force of gravity from a passing object were able to interact with you enough to offset or change your path of motion. 3. Yes, in a weightless environment, if you were to push against your ship, it would move, as would you. However you have less mass than the ship, so the action would have more of an effect on you than on the ship. Again, here you are confusing mass with weight. Mass is the amount of matter in an object, essentially telling you how many atoms are contained in the specific object. This differs among objects as each material has it's own specific density, but a 2cm x 2cm x 2cm cube of solid lead will always have the same mass regardless of where it is, on earth or in space, or on some other planet. In this example, the volume of the cube is 6 cm鲁 and the density of lead is 11.34 g/cm虏, which means that our cube has 68.04 grams of mass. To calculate its weight, we would take the mass of the object times the force of gravity, which on earth is 9.8 m/s虏. This gives us a result of 0.666792 Newtons, which is the international standard for weight. Converting this back into grams properly gives us our 68.04 grams of weight, which on earth, equals the mass of the object. However, if we did the same equation, substituting the gravity on the moon, for example, then we would have 9.8 m/s虏 multiplied by 1/6, since the gravitational force of the moon is 1/6 that of earth's, which gives us a gravitational force of 1.6333333333333 m/s虏 (rounding to the closest ten trillionth). Plugging this into our formula for calculating the weight of an object ( W = m * g), we get 0.1111319999999 N (again, rounding to the closest ten trillionth). Converting this into grams, we would come up with a weight of 11.3323102 grams (rounded to the closest ten millionth). As this clearly shows, mass and weight are different, yet intertwined. On earth, we use the interchangeably, but this is not the case for places where for force of gravity is something other than the 9.8 m/s虏 we are used to. 4. Pressure can and does exist in space, as it is a force acting upon an object. This can and does happen in space all of the time. In your example, the wind blowing from every direction does, in fact cancel out as the net force is 0, however, that does not mean that you will not feel anything from the 100 mph wind pushing on you from all directions. You would, in fact, feel the pressure of those 27 lbs/ft虏 of force surrounding you. So even though you would have pressure around you, you would not move anywhere because the net forces cancel each other out. This is how pressure vessels normally work. A rocket motor is similar, except that they have a opening in one end, so the pressures do not cancel out. There is a net force in the direction OPPOSITE the nozzle as the nozzle creates an unequal force OUT of the vessel in that direction. Due to Newton's third law, the entire system moves in the direction opposite where the expanding gasses are now escaping. The nozzle design characteristics help to accelerate this flow via fluid dynamics and increase the increased flow velocity results in a larger opposing net force in the opposite direction to the flow, thereby adding to the force acting on the system in the direction opposite of the nozzle. I sincerely hope you are able to understand the things I am saying as it seems from your reply that there is the possibility of a language barrier. However, I hope that my responses have been clear enough, albeit not as concise as I would have liked, so that you are able to understand the mistakes you made in your response.
    1
  150. What are you talking about? Everything has mass. Mass is the measure of the amount of matter in an object. All objects have matter. The spaceship and rocket motor both have mass. Your logic from the start is therefore flawed. Things most certainly burn in space as long as they have fuel, heat, and oxygen. All of those are things that are contained internal to a rocket motor. The atmosphere is constantly being lost to space, so I'm a bit confused as to why you think it isn't going anywhere. However it is gravity that is keeping the majority of it here, where we are. The model of the earth with gravity is that way because it is the currently accepted theory that best fits the expiriments that we are able to perform on our own planet due to the nature of what we are able to observe, and that includes it being a globe. I do agree that the test as he performed was not an exact representation of the true vacuum of space, however it was close enough that reasonable assumptions can be drawn from the results. I agree, you cannot have mass without matter, which is what makes the possibility of dark matter so interesting if it is actually proven to exist. But as for conventional matter, this is absolutely correct in that photons of light have high energies but almost no mass, the mass to energy equations account for this via the conservation of matter/energy. I fail to see what a parachute has to do with anything as the functions are different, yes the overall net movement is the same. the friction of air filling the parachute offsets the constant pull of gravity. This would be akin to the orbiting ISS having to perform orbital correction burns every few days to ensure the orbit remains in the proper range as the pull of gravity and the minuscule friction from the very thin layer of atmosphere still existing in the orbital zone induce friction which results in a net momentum loss, as expected. The air does not have to hit anything to cause movement, as the equal forces in your mouth and lungs is being unbalanced by air leaving in one direction, thereby causing movement in the other direction directly proportional and opposite to the force of the escaping air. This is Newton's Second Law of motion. Because we have a lot of mass when compared to the amount and velocity of the air escaping our mouth, we do not move much, but the movement still occurs. We do not need to fill space or have the escaping air push against any outside force as it is already pushing against the inside of our mouth in an unbalanced reaction. I wish I could draw a diagram and explain it so much clearer. And air pack or can of compressed air being vented to space would and has been proven to cause movement. A bird, however, would not be able to fly normally as they move by pushing against the air with their wings, creating an airfoil and pressure differences to keep them aloft. They are completely different from a rocket in that they utilize their environment to assist with movement, whereas a rocket is environmentally independent. What does anything meaning anything in Hebrew have to do with anything? And you are incorrect there as well. In Hebrew, deceit is 专址诪旨指讗讜旨转 or 讛讜止谞指讗指讛 based on the context of which you're talking about, these are spoken phonetically as ramaut or honaah. I don't know what "chi" pics you are talking about, again, I think this might be a language barrier, as I don't think English is your first language, so I'm not able to respond to your claims that they aren't real. We have been and can go through the Van Allen belts. No one has said that we cannot go through them. If you have proof of someone in the scientific community stating this, please provide evidence. There are no contradictions other than the ones being made by people with absolutely no scientific proof or backgrounds using flawed logic and wild claims that do not hold up to the rigors of scientific and mathematical testing. I'm not biased, I simply am able to understand basic physics, chemistry, and mathematics.
    1
  151. In a room with no air movement, you would feel no pressure because our bodies are used to standard atmospheric pressure at approximately sea level, however, that does not mean that it doesn't exist. If I crush your foot in a vice for years until your body is used to it, does that mean it's no longer being crushed in the vice? This type of logic is akin to a 2 year old believing Mommy is gone because she hid her eyes playing peek-a-boo. Forces are still present and can be measured as such. If you feel no air flow around you when you walk or run, if you cannot hear and feel the air around you when you move, then it is you who need help sir, not I. Air and gas and a brick wall and the ground under your feet will all stop things, I agree, because they all have mass, and as such have an effect on each other. The forces you use to push off the ground are no different than the forces the rocket is using to move, they are just in different places. Your legs push against the ground, which propels your body forward in an equal and opposite reaction, while at the same time pushing the earth away from you with the same amount of force. However, the effect on the earth, due to it being much more massive is absolutely minuscule, however the effect on your body is larger and more obvious because of the small mass you have compared to the earth. A rocket works in the same manner, exhaust streams out the nozzle and the net result is the force of it exiting pushes against the opposite wall of the rocket combustion chamber, thereby producing an equal and opposite force from the escaping gasses. The movement of the exhaust is larger and fasted than the movement of the rocket itself due to the increased mass of said rocket. And air pack will move you on the earth if you're on wheels due to the same reasons it would move you in space with microgravity and it's not because of the interactions of the escaping air with the surrounding environment. In fact, the air pack will be more efficient in space due to less frictional resistance from the surrounding air and the friction of the wheels. The friction of the exhausting air hitting other air molecules is not how movement is created, especially since the air itself isn't very dense and as such, the interactions between molecules are extremely low. Who, exactly, went to space and was killed? How are the videos faked? What do you mean their hair would not stand up? Why would it not stand up? There is microgravity, so it would behave similar to a weightless state. Please provide evidence as to where the wires are and what "springing back" you're talking about. What flow should their hair have? These are all legitimate questions and it is on you to provide proof as you are the one claiming something different than that which has been tested time and again and shown to be valid. So, instead of telling me to just "do research", show me your proof. The only things I see making "zero logic" are the arguments you have presented thus far.
    1
  152. You are the one who is confused. The rocket is pushing off of its own interior space due to the velocity of the exhaust gasses leaving the nozzle. I'm not sure how many more times or how much clearer I can state the same thing, without you comprehending the basic nature of how force works. Unfortunately, if you look at your replies, the spelling, grammar, and sentence structure are completely abhorrent, which is why I assumed that English may not be your first language, and was giving you a pass in that respect. Sadly, I think this is what is confusing you even more since what you are trying to convey to me might not be coming across correctly due to the poor use of language. This being a free country, you are free to believe anything you want, no mater how scientifically incorrect it is. However, as I stated previously, when making claims that something that has been tested and proven to work or be true is actually false, you need to back up those claim with scientific proof. In this case, the burden of proof lies on you to substantiate those claims, just as the people in the scientific community had to do when building and designing the rockets in the first place.
    1
  153. And why don't you believe that humans can travel into space?
    1
  154. It's absolutely crazy that a large majority of us have to have documentation on what we do daily, but these people get upset because someone asks them what they did in a week. I'm sorry, but if you can't name 5 things you did in the past week that were job related and you collected a check, then you don't deserve to collect that check. Period. Doesn't matter if it's government related or private sector.
    1
  155. This is because the igniters that were used for black power type igniters, made for hobby model rockets and designed to be fired on earth where there is an abundance of oxygen to be able to supplement the oxidizer contained in the black powder. Any time NASA has to use a solid rocket motor that will be started in space, they use a much different kind of igniter with an overabundance of oxidizer to ensure reliable ignition. Use of a solid motor in space is rare, except in missiles where long storage times and quick deployment outweigh the drawbacks, as liquid fueled motors are much more powerful and can be easily throttled, controlled, and restarted as needed.
    1
  156. A rocket does not need, nor does it care, about the surrounding atmosphere in order to function and produce thrust.
    1
  157. 聽@CTFoodReview聽 Anyone who had to look at that thing pleasuring herself in the theater. 馃ぎ馃ぎ
    1
  158. huh?
    1
  159. Why not?
    1
  160. Rockets don't work by pushing against their surrounding environment. Your point is therefore invalid.
    1
  161. Very well done! I loved learning about the old AT&T Long Lines towers and antennas when I first learned of them many years ago. We still have multiple towers still standing here around Chicago, but sadly most of the horns are gone, replaced with cellular antennae clusters. Not too far from where I live, we have one of the Gen1 concrete towers and a newer metal one right beside it. Always wished I could have taken a tour of them. It is good to hear that people are re-embracing this awesome tech and, hopefully, we will see more horns once again taking their rightful place on the towers.
    1
  162. It can be lit in a vacuum using igniters that are properly manufactured so as to be lit in a vacuum. These are for the model rocket hobby and are made to be lit on the ground, hence why they had issues lighting them in the vacuum. Igniters made to be lit in the vacuum of space would have had a larger amount of oxidizer present in the mixture.
    1
  163. What the hell are you going on about? And yes, the earth rotates around the sun, and yes, the movement and gravity of the earth's movements, as well as the other planets, causes the sun to wobble, but the mass of the earth is very small compared with the mass of the sun, so we move easier relative to it.
    1
  164. Was this not entertaining, while also being informative?
    1
  165. He didn't say it was in a complete vacuum.....he said it was in a complete vacuum cleaner. ;)
    1
  166. There is no such thing as a perfect vacuum. This was not a test of a perfect vacuum, but of a vacuum itself in the first few milliseconds of the motor igniting, where you can clearly see movement and know that Newton's Third law still applies, just as anyone with a brain knew it would.
    1
  167. What are you babbling on about? That is completely false on all accounts.
    1
  168. She isn't as into it as Matt, but she can hold her own as far as shooting goes.
    1
  169. Yes, but the reaction of the escaping gasses well before the flame started is what he was after. The movement caused by those gasses escaping into the chamber when there was still a vacuum present is exactly what the experiment was about. Movement from a burning rocket engine does produce thrust in a vacuum. Newton's Third Law proven.
    1
  170. Yes, that is exactly how a vacuum is defined. Nothing we can reproduce can create a perfect vacuum. As per Wikipedia: "Vacuum is space devoid of matter. The word stems from the Latin adjective vacuus for "vacant" or "void". An approximation to such vacuum is a region with a gaseous pressure much less than atmospheric pressure.[1] Physicists often discuss ideal test results that would occur in a perfect vacuum, which they sometimes simply call "vacuum" or free space, and use the term partial vacuum to refer to an actual imperfect vacuum as one might have in a laboratory or in space. In engineering and applied physics on the other hand, vacuum refers to any space in which the pressure is lower than atmospheric pressure." So being that this is more of an engineering and applied physics application, the term "vacuum" is perfectly acceptable as there is no one who could possibly believe that a perfect vacuum could be achieved here. That being said, the amount of gas removed by the vacuum pump still results in a partial vacuum low enough to be considered a vacuum for testing purposes. In addition, the volume of the gasses produced by the rocket motor combustion are less than the volume of the chamber, even at a partial vacuum like what was able to be produced. The net result is that even after the burn, there would still be a lower pressure inside the chamber, hence, it would still contain a vacuum, albeit one of less magnitude than there was to start with.
    1
  171. Yes, the vacuum chamber used buy NASA is larger, as it is testing larger motors and equipment. And yes, it can hold a better vacuum, but neither of those invalidates this test. - Was there a partial vacuum? - Yes. - Did the crudely improvised, highly inaccurate, force gauge produce a reading indicating thrust? - Yes. - Was that reading taken in the milliseconds after motor ignition, well before the expanding gasses being released from the nozzle had any chance to have an appreciable affect on the quality of the vacuum? - Yes. So if the criteria of the experiment were met, and a result was obtained, how is it not a valid test? Even an amateur experiment, if constraints are followed and the results obtained can be replicated by others in a peer-review of said findings, is still a completely valid test.
    1
  172. Rockets don't push against their own exhaust or any other atmosphere for that matter, they use Newton's third law to move in the direction opposite of where the hot expanding gasses are able to exit because of the unequal forces pushing against the inner chamber wall opposite of where the nozzle is positioned. In fact, all rocket engines are more efficient in a vacuum as there is less drag from the atmosphere on them.
    1
  173. You are correct in that the law at work is an equal and opposite reaction, but you are mistaken in what the system is that is involved. The reaction/opposite reaction occurs as a result of the expanding gasses escaping at high velocity out the nozzle of the rocket. This reaction of the ejection of mass away from the center of the combustion chamber imparts an equal and opposite reaction at the wall of the combustion chamber directly opposite of the nozzle. The force imparted there pushes against that wall and produces movement of the combustion chamber, thereby also imparting force onto the system as a whole. This force must not only move the mass of the system, but must also overcome any external forces, such as friction from any surrounding atmosphere, in order to produce net thrust in the direction away from the nozzle opening. This is why most rockets move slowly at first and then gather speed as more and more momentum is gained from the constant force produced by the mass ejection of material through the nozzle.
    1
  174. People have been to space, we are not in a closed system, and our atmosphere is constantly being lost to space. Try again.
    1
  175. I have done the research and I do know. We have put 12 men into space as defined by them being outside LEO, we have put many more into space as defined by the Karmen line, the internationally accepted line at which our atmosphere ends and space begins. This line is set as 100 km above sea level, however our actual atmosphere stretches much further than this, simply thinning out as it goes with a continual loss of some of it to space. However, using the Karmen line as a boundary, even the astronauts and cosmonauts aboard the ISS are in space, as they are orbiting between 330 and 435 km above sea level. This has been shown and proven time and again. The burden of proof is not on me to prove something that has been done time and again for over 50 years, the burden of proof is on you to show some evidence as to your wild claims.
    1
  176. Why would any crater be seen? The descent module is used as the launching platform for the ascent module that lifts back off of the lunar surface. In every video I've seen of the ascent module disconnecting and launching itself up, there is a clear flame as it disconnects and leaves the decent module below, then as the camera pans up to follow it, you can clearly see the orange flame of he hypergolic engines used on it. These engines used hydrazine as the fuel and nitrogen tetroxide as the oxidizer This mixture is hypergolic, meaning it will ignite upon contact with each other, so no external ignition source is needed. In fact, you can see a good view of it in this video from the Apollo 17 mission (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/Ap17-ascent.ogv).
    1
  177. A rocket doesn't work by pushing off the surrounding atmosphere, so the vacuum being compromised after the rocket began to fire is inconsequential as thrust was still shown in the first few seconds after ignition before the vacuum had a chance to be overtaken by the escaping exhaust gasses.
    1
  178. Seriously? The landing gear failed, looks like most likely due to a previous attempt that went wrong, hence the emergency personnel on standby.
    1
  179. It was glue, to seal the nozzle. And just the fact that you understand the reaction and that the rocket motor contains its own oxidizer, you should know that, either way, Newton's Third Law would apply, in a vacuum or not.
    1
  180. Which god? Your god? Someone else's god? Who is keeping that score? I'd like to know as I have some questions on the rules of how things are scored here.
    1
  181. Because they are amazing.
    1
  182. Yes, motion will occur because rockets don't work by pushing off the surrounding atmosphere, but instead of propelled via mass ejection of the expanding gasses out the nozzle and a high velocity and the difference in net pressure forces acting on the combustion chamber wall directly opposite of the nozzle as all of the other areas in the combustion chamber have forces which cancel each other out. Please learn some basic physics.
    1
  183. No. Why would you think he does?
    1
  184. Incorrect as rockets do not work by pushing against the surrounding atmosphere. Try again.
    1
  185. Yes, things can and do burn in space.
    1
  186. A good flare will burn in a vacuum, or underwater, because it contains its own oxidizer, just like a SRM.
    1
  187. The pressure changes because the volume of the gas contained in a space decreases, meaning that the volume of oxygen changes, along with nitrogen and other elements that comprise "air" at sea level here on earth. So you are incorrect when you say it has nothing to do with oxygen. In either case, you could see the same thing if you were in an environment of pure nitrogen and lit the flare, it should still burn due to having its own oxidizer. Not all flares contain an oxidizer, so it's possible you were testing using one of these, which would explain your findings.
    1
  188. You are incorrect in thinking that a rocket needs an atmosphere around it in which to burn. It is not like a fire and having carbon dioxide onto a fire because that fire is not in a confined space. If you have a solid rocket motor, for example, and light it, even on earth, then try to extinguish it using a fire extinguisher, you will not be successful due to the self-contained oxygen-rich atmosphere inside the rocket motor itself. The fast moving exhaust out of the nozzle and high pressure contained inside the motor body prevents any CO2 from entering and disrupting the combustion process. This is simple physics and chemistry at work. Furthermore, the more commonly used propellants once something is already in space (higher than 100 KM above the earth's surface at sea level) are hypergolic propellants that ignite upon contact with each other with no external ignition source. These would ignite and burn no matter if there is an atmosphere present or not.
    1
  189. I still am unsure of why you are comparing a rocket motor to a flare, they are NOT THE SAME!! Even so, I don't care if you have carbon dioxide or nothing, the rocket has it's own oxygen present in the oxidizer and can support combustion completely self-contained. You truly aren't getting that there does not need to be any oxygen present EXTERNAL to the motor because more than enough oxygen is already contained INTERNAL to the motor. Get it now? Flames, as you are trying to describe them, rely on an EXTERNAL supply of oxygen to support combustion. Rocket motors *DO NOT HAVE THAT LIMITATION*.
    1
  190. The Stoichiometry doesn't come into play as the atmosphere inside the burning motor is the proper mix for combustion to occur. The ratio is already pre-mixed, which is why the oxidizer and the fuel are put together to make the solid motor fuel. As for your latest response, I fail to see what your first line in that response "You can't be that dense? You do know what happens in a vacuum don't you?" is ever referring to? The fuel/oxidizer in the solid rocket motor is in solid form, bound together, so if you're trying to suggest that it somehow evacuates the chamber into the vacuum of space, then you are the one who is dense. As for once combustion occurs, the solid mater is transformed, via the combustion process, directly into hot, expanding gasses, which exit the combustion area through the nozzle and into the vacuum of space. That being said, solid rocket motors are usually used for boost purposes and are jettisoned before reaching the full vacuum of space, but even so, they could and do continue to burn there, being even more efficient as there is less drag on the vehicle to which they are attached. Your next line, talking again about oxygen in space, is once again pointless as there does not need to be oxygen in space for the motor to combust. This is, as I stated several times before, but which you either don't seem to understand, or care not to listen to, is because the motor *caries it own oxygen with it in the form of the oxidizer*. What I think, or to be more clear, what I know happens due to the pressures and the vacuum of space is that thrust is produced via the stream of hot gasses exiting the combustion area via the nozzle into the expansive vacuum of space due to Newton's 3rd law. Also, to be clear, the booster never has to "open" to expel it's gasses, the booster is always "open" as the nozzles to not have flaps or covers, that would be a technical point of failure, and could cause catastrophic issues as a solid rocket motor cannot be shut down or extinguished once it is lit, again, due to the overabundance of oxygen and the fuel already contained therein. So try again. I don't believe everything I'm told. I perform experiments and understand how science, physics, and chemistry work.
    1
  191. What does a high pressure hose and a cigarette have to do with anything? Please explain how that has any bearing on the conversation at hand.
    1
  192. When an aircraft window breaks at high altitude, do the people immediately die? No, it's because the pressure loss is mitigated by the fact that the internal atmosphere is being drawn out of a small hole, same thing in the rocket engine, and the pressure and nozzle flow dynamics ensure that the flow of material out cannot exceed that which is being produced, thereby a net positive pressure internal, so try again. Perhaps if the plane in your analogy had a way to create a very large pressurized environment many times the capacity of the internal cabin, it would be somewhat similar to the rocket motor, but still not quite the same. However, if this were the case, you would see a dramatic instability in the handling of the plane due to the immense off-center thrust being applied by the pressure of the gas exiting the interior structure and causing the plane to move in the direction opposite the broken window. In a rocket engine, the oxygen and fuel are constantly being consumed when lit, so there is no time, nor outside environment that could strip either away before combustion. The fuel and oxygen are both in solid form, so tell me again how this is being dissipated? As I said before, tell me again how this has anything to do with a high pressure hose and a cigarette. I'm only guessing you're trying to use the cigarette as out "rocket motor" and the high pressure hose as....... no clue, as there is nothing that would be directing a stream of anything at the rocket motor, and even if there was, the rocket motor would have combustion occurring internally, not externally, so once again, bad analogy. Care to try again?
    1
  193. The reason I asked if the people die is because, if the oxygen was immediately dissipated, as you claim happens in a vacuum, then no one would have time to don oxygen masks, as the oxygen already present in the cabin would immediately be lost. My second sentence, "No, it's because the pressure loss is mitigated by the fact that the internal atmosphere is being drawn out of a small hole, same thing in the rocket engine, and the pressure and nozzle flow dynamics ensure that the flow of material out cannot exceed that which is being produced, thereby a net positive pressure internal, so try again." only serves to prove my point in that your argument about oxygen being lost is completely flawed and you have no further basis with which to argue your ridiculous theory. Sounds like you're giving up because I continue to re-state the same basic facts and principles that rocketry was based on even as you continue to try and use analogy after bad analogy to prove your claim, something that is simply not scientifically possible.
    1
  194. Yes, sadly, you did.
    1
  195. 鈥嬄爂gwp-c1f聽no reason? Did you see the absolute disrespect and b3ligernt behavior? Like, you don't live there, fuckin leave. Not that hard. You live there, go home! Almost everyone there could have just walked away clean.
    1
  196. All rocket motors contain an oxidizer. Please stop trying to be smart when you only have the most basic grasp of elementary chemistry.
    1
  197. 2nd amendment is perfectly fine as it is, and will continue to be perfectly fine. Why would you want to take away the main freedom that ensures our other freedoms stay intact?
    1
  198. Human lives are worth more than any hobby, but taking away guns from responsible gun owners will not save any lives, no matter how much you want to kid yourself into thinking that it will. If someone wants to kill people, there are many more ways to do it than with guns, most of which will be much more effective. Tell me again how criminals that want to kill people will pay any more attention to stricter gun laws? You know, because they obviously care so much about the law that they are willing to COMMIT A CRIME. How many other countries have had freedoms eroded or been invaded because they had no way to fight back? how many tyrannical leaders have come to power because the rights of the citizens to fight back against the tyranny was taken away from them? You take away the rights of the people to enforce the freedoms that we have, then any freedoms can be taken away. Out forefathers new this, which is why they included that particular clause to begin with. Look at Russia. Look at Germany. First thing people do when they come to power is take away the ability of the people to fight back. What other countries are "more equal and free"? Go ahead, name them.... I'll wait..... Go on, tell me all about those third world countries that are better off than us simply because of the gun laws. I'd love to hear all about them.
    1
  199. Yes, but the movement still occurs in the milliseconds before the vacuum is decreased due to the expanding gasses. In addition, the total volume of expanding gasses is far below the volume of the container itself, so I fail to see the point of your comment.
    1
  200. Why? It's a legally owned weapon.
    1
  201. True rocket fuel with most certainly ignite in a vacuum. Not sure what tests you've seen, but I highly doubt they were accurate or using proper rocket propellant.
    1
  202. You are correct that first needs oxygen to burn, which is why rocket motors carry their own in the form of an oxidizer. You are also correct in that they did not fake the moon landing.
    1
  203. You are missing the fact that that is not how a rocket works at all. It does not push off of it's surrounding environment at all, it is the flow of high velocity gasses ejected through the nozzle that creates a new pressure difference from the combustion chamber, causing pressure on the vessel in the opposite direction from the flow of those gasses. It pushes off of itself, in a way, not off of the surrounding environment. In fact, in space, rockets move with more ease as there is no surrounding environment to cause friction from the bombardment of air molecules against the outer surface of the rocket as it moves.
    1
  204. Pressure is contained within the combustion chamber of the rocket motor through the use of nozzle geometry. Try again.
    1
  205. The only place the rocket needs to produce pressure at is inside the combustion chamber, a very small area indeed. A rocket does not care in the least about it's surrounding environment as it has no bearing on the thrust produced other than the possibility of an atmosphere causing friction to lower the overall total thrust as it moves through it, which is why rockets are much more efficient in a vacuum.
    1
  206. Yes, you are correct. The oxygen present in the case is the result of the oxidizer contained in the fuel grain, same as a rocket in space that has to carry the oxygen needed for combustion with it as well. Not sure how this makes him a phony, though....
    1
  207. WTF are you talking about? Space travel is 100% possible, we have sent probes out of our solar system and men to the moon. We have people in LEO right now, and will continue to push the boundaries of what can be done. The main purpose of space travel is to further our understanding of the universe in which we reside, but a secondary one is to ensure that, should it be necessary to leave this planet in order to survive, we have the capability to do so. Just because you see nothing of value here, doesn't mean that there is no value to be had. You seem completely closed minded to science or learning how something works, either due to the ideology that you believe or because you cannot understand the concepts that are being shown. In either case, it is your own issues, not those of the experiment, that are preventing you from comprehending the value that even an amateur experiment like this can have. You claim that no one has gone into space. Well, where is your proof? In order for a claim to be even considered as possible, evidence has to be given. I have evidence of people going into space. I have seen evidence with my own eyes of us having been to the moon. What evidence do you have to the contrary? Show me something concrete, not just your ramblings and cries of everyone being phony and then, perhaps, your claims will be taken seriously. Until then, I will continue to believe that which is can see and feel and touch and know to be true based on my own experiences.
    1
  208. I do hope to be able to leave this planet in my lifetime, albeit not permanently. However, only living for and caring about one's own existence on this rock and not caring about future generations is absolutely absurd. I want to do things that will carry on and that my children can continue to work with. There is no excuse. I want to know, personally, the answers that await us in space. Your attitude is what is immature, childish, and downright selfish. There are no fears in my answer, there is only the belief in what I can see and know to be true. Something that you seem to disregard with every response because you purposely reject that which you can replicate for yourself. Feelings are irrelevant to science. Facts are all that maters. Evidence and proof of what happens. And it is these very facts, evidence, and proof that you blatantly ignore, and then fail to produce for your own inaccurate claims. You, sir, are the true phony. The fake news. If anything, you are the one with the fears as your own mind is unable to comprehend that there is anything greater than you. You fail to see the big picture in life, and that's just downright sad.
    1
  209. You can recommend all that you'd like, but anyone with half a brain can look at these comments and see that you're a rambling fool who has no clue about science or what the terms that they are using really mean. It literally takes a short amount of research to find proof of everything I have said in my comments, and I would be more than happy to provide sources where I haven't already given them. In fact, I find it funny that you decide to "recommend" that I give up when I did exactly as you suggested, did research into "leverage", and showed you that you usage of the term "leverage" was completely incorrect. Perhaps you are choosing to "suggest" this to me now only because your only point has been invalidated. So again, as I said before, seems like you are the phony.
    1
  210. There was also an insane amount of glass dust in the air here as well.
    1
  211. You must not have read the title completely. This was not made to be an actual test, but a jab at all of the people who said he didn't fire the rocket in a complete vacuum before. Now, he has. ;)
    1
  212. Really? There's a bunch of other stuff on the channel that isn't gun videos, but that's what the majority of this channel is about. ;)
    1
  213. Because even NASA has a problem producing a complete vacuum here on earth. It takes a very large chamber, with vacuum reservoirs and huge pumps to maintain the vacuum when tests are taking place.
    1
  214. Because this is the closest one can get without expensive equipment and in the initial seconds after the rocket ignites, you can see the force of the net thrust being produced long before the exhaust gasses have a chance to negate the vacuum. In addition, the chamber size and the volume of gasses being produced would only cause a small decrease in the overall vacuum, even if the chamber was only able to draw an imperfect vacuum. Still, the first few seconds are all that is needed to prove that thrust from a rocket motor does, in fact, happen in a vacuum.
    1
  215. It's sad how, in addition to believing garbage as opposed to proven science, you also seem to be unable to grasp the concept of humor.
    1
  216. Good, house them in your house. All these people supporting the flood of illegals are not only giving the giant finger to those who came here the right way and followed the law and process, but you never see them opening their doors to house the illegals. Instead, they want tax dollars to be spent to put them up in hotels and give them things that we don't even provide for our own homeless American citizens. It's absolutely crazy. Every supporter of the flood of illegals should be required to house a certain number in their own homes. Let's see how quick people start backing the borders being more tightly controlled.
    1
  217. Oxygen is already contained in the rocket motor via the oxidizer that is present in the fuel grain. Unlike a campfire, which utilizes atmospheric oxygen, the rocket does not need any external source of oxygen. If you had a campfire that contained an oxidizer, then it would burn on the ground just as well as in space. No false proof, just chemistry and science.
    1
  218. Not only that, but a rocket does not work by pushing against the surrounding atmosphere, so your first point is not valid. The odd fluctuations in thrust are normal depending upon the grain pattern of the rocket motor itself as the proper flame front and pressure is built in the combustion chamber itself.
    1
  219. 聽@danielnavarro9807聽 Took from where? I can't wait to hear this.
    1
  220. 聽@humbull聽 Yes, we have NASA, which is contracted via SpaceX to build rockets for them, just as they previously contracted with Boeing, Lockheed Martin, General Aviation, Douglas, Etc. NASA does not build rockets, it contracts them out, always has. Learn some history.
    1