Comments by "Chrnc Avngr" (@aznmutt15) on "Искаженное восприятие" channel.

  1.  @snuffly569  really. They are more similar than you think. A contained explosion ejecting, mass to cause which recoil creates acceleration. The gun is a rocket, the neck of the barrel is the burn chamber, the end of the barrel is the nozzle, and the gas and bullet is the exhaust of the rocket. Breaking it down to the simplest form, they are very similar. Except one has a short impulse while the other is a constant impulse.
    14
  2.  @snuffly569  look at a bolt action gun. The recoil isn't felt till after the bullet leaves the barrel. The force of expelling the gas and bullet to leave the system is what causes recoil. Just like the force of expelling the exhaust causes recoil. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Another way of thinking is the conservation of momentum. When the bullet is inside the gun there is no momentum. As soon as the bullet exits the barrel with velocity, the bullet has momentum. Without an external force acting upon the bullet the total momentum of the bullet/ gun system must remain zero. The explosion is and internal force because it was within the bullet gun system. So the gun must have momentum in the opposite direction equal to the bullets momentum to conserve momentum. The force of the expanding gas being expelled is how ar 15 works, muzzle break, gas blowback works. It's also the reason why silencers have less recoil. The gas exiting the system is prolonged and slowed. This lengthens the impulse and lowers the momentum of the gas.
    7
  3.  @snuffly569  if thrust needs an atmosphere to push off of, how can the sr71 reach mach 3 at 85,000-100,000 feet? Wouldn't the thin atmosphere lower the force propelling the jet be greatly weakened by the thin atmosphere? How can the thrust push against the atmosphere moving away from it at mach 3?
    6
  4.    so if thrust needs a back stop to push off of, like atmosphere. How does the sr 71 flying at mach 3+ at 85,000 ft push off of an extremely thin atmosphere that is flying away from the thrust at mach 3+?
    5
  5.  @snuffly569  exactly, if elevation has nothing to do with recoil, then the atmosphere has no effect on the gun. Then the atmosphere has no effect on the rockets recoil of the thrust. If you break down the forces and momentum of the rocket, it acts just like the recoil of a gun, except it is full auto and has a much faster cyclic rate. The recoil of the gun and on the rocket is caused by newtons third law and follows the conservation of momentum. Atmosphere is not needed to cause the reaction force to propel the rocket, just like how it is not needed to cause recoil of the gun.
    5
  6.  @bethechange4934  what you just said proves that I'm saying. By having more recoil by just raising the mass of the bullet, is F=ma. The bullet and gas combine is the mass being accelerated. It has nothing to do with the atmosphere around it. Recoil isn't felt until after the bullet leaves the system. As i said, the bullet and gases as a whole represents the gases being expelled from the exhaust of the rocket. Except the rocket is expelling a lot more mass than a couple of grams and for a greater amount of time than a split second. The little recoil felt shows the exhaust has mass, but the acceleration of the mass is less and slower because it isn't contained as well. But the fact that the gun itself with the same round fired at sea level and at 10,000 has the same felt recoil shows that the atmosphere is necessary to have recoil. So in the vacuum of space the gun will still recoil, as will the rocket
    4
  7.  @shonmugerian  oh my god, i didnt think about that. You're right. The rocket is not ejecting any mass, like the gun is ejecting the 155 grain bullet. Well, except for the millions of tons of burning exhaust and fuel. You are absolutely right, it's not like a gun. The gun is too slow, it's more like a minigun capable of firing millions of rounds a second. Did you forget that the exhaust gases have mass? What was needed again to follow Newton's third law? Mass and acceleration? Well it does have a burn chamber capturing pressure and acclerating tons of exhaust at a high rate. Wait didnt i already say that the breach is like the burn chamber, the barrel is the nozzle, the bullet and gases is the exhaust? Hmm so how are they different?
    4
  8.  @frankfacts6207  if the atmosphere is needed for thrust to push off of. Then jets would never be able to fly supersonic. The atmosphere the engine would push off of, would move away at supersonic speed.
    3
  9.  @snuffly569  so if the atmosphere is needed to push off of. Can you explain why does the recoil on a gun not depend on elevation? Thinner the atmosphere the less pressure the atmosphere can push back?
    3
  10.  @bethechange4934  so there is recoil firing blanks, but a lot less. And will firing this modified gun be dependant on firing it at sea level and at 10,000 feet? Will it not cycle at 10,000 feet. Oh i deleted my comment, just because i wanted to try and word what i said better. Part of what I originally said was, how does the blank cycle a handgun. The resposne was that the handgun would have needed to be modified with a weaker spring to work.
    3
  11.  @None888.  so it is bery similar. How the engines generate thrust vary greatly, but how the thrust generates a force is exactly the same. Ejecting mass, exhaust gasses, at high velocity.
    2
  12.  @redsampler2017  nope we don't leave now earth orbit is because we use more electonics that is sensitive to the electromagnetic radiation of the van Allen belts. In the 60s we didnt use the electronics we have today. It was much more mechanical. Also we are looking to spend months in deep space not a week. The amount of time exposed to radiation is much greater.
    2
  13.  @redsampler2017  it's all about mechanical vs electrical. Mechanical is durable, but inprecise and has a lot of limitations. Electrical has more capabilities and precision, but is susceptible to the radiation. It's like comparing a car from the 60s to a modern car. The car in the 60s was purely mechanical and the tuning was very inefficient in converting energy. Now with modern cars we have a lot more precision and that allows use to less fuel. Just take a look at the rcs vs flywheel in orientating a satellite. Rcs is mechanical and is not as precise. Once you run out of fuel you are done. While a flywheel is much more precise, and can convert the kinetic energy back into the electrical energy allowing more efficiency, but it is driven electrically.
    2
  14. @Escape from Plato's Cave nothing is zero kelvin. The fact that a vacuum is nothing then that means it does not remove the temperature of the burn. The only way the burn loses temperature is the radiant heat that is emitted.
    2
  15. @Escape from Plato's Cave What do they say makes the best insulator, oh wait thats a vacuum. Hmmm what are the three ways heat is transferred? Conduction, convection, and thermal radiation. Which of these applies to space's vacuum? Conduction, no atmosphere. Convection, no winds. Radiation, there it is. Oh wait that is the slowest way of transferring temperature. You need to think about heat, not temperature. Wait, the gas pressure is contained inside a burn chamber. Space itself is acting like a giant insulator. It's not like the movies where you will freeze instantly.
    2
  16. @Escape from Plato's Cave your understanding of temperature and heat is abysmal. Liquids and air both have a high rate of convection and conduction. Unfortunately space is a vacuum and vacuum's are excellent insulators.
    2
  17. @Escape from Plato's Cave your understanding of physics is abysmal. Vacuum is just a lower pressure system next to a higher pressure system. The chamber is creating an excess pressure and the excess is the exhaust. So no the vacuum will not effect the pressure inside the burn chamber. You also have no understanding about thermal dynamics. Newton work is on motion not thermal dynamics. You do not know anything about heat and energy transfer. By the way reigniting an engine in the vacuum of space is extremely difficult. That's why they often have to use a binary chemical reaction to build temperature and pressure before they can use the standard fuel. Go learn real physics.
    2
  18. Then how does the sr 71 fly at mach 3+ at 85,000 feet? The atmosphere is very thin and what atmosphere there is is flying with the thrust going mach3+. If the thrust needs an atmosphere to push off of, how can it push off of an atmosphere that is extremely thin and moving with the thrust at mach 3+?
    2
  19.  @deathblosomrules  yeah. I try to bring up the point of the idea of the rocket is feeling the recoil of the exhaust. If the atmosphere is the reason why the rocket feels the recoil, then why does a gun not have a significant drop in recoil from sea level and 10,00 feet?
    2
  20.  @deathblosomrules  i just though up another scenario. The sr71 blackbird flew at 85,000- a supposed 100,000 feet, at mach 3+. How can the engines push off of such thin atmosphere efficient enough to generate such speed? More importantly, how can it push off of an atmosphere that is moving away from the from the engines at mach 3?
    2
  21.  @deathblosomrules  exactly. Since the gun represents the rocket, the force of the used to expell the bullet causes a recoil independant of the density of the atmosphere. That is exactly my point
    2
  22.  @bethechange4934  all of the forces are internal to the system and cancels out. Once the bullet leaves the system it becomes an external force. Any momentum while the bullet is inside the gun will not have an effect of the gun until it leaves the system.
    2
  23.  @bethechange4934  what specifically were did i get wrong?
    2
  24.  @meh11235  still avoiding the question. It doesnt matter how they work. They both rely on thrust to create a force. How that thrust is created is irrelevant. How that thrust causes a force on the rocket/jet is the point. The current consensus is that the burning is causing a force on the expanding gas accelerating it out of the nozzle creating an opposite force due to newtons 3rd law. The challenging theory is that the thrust is pushing off the atmosphere and it is the atmospheric resistance that is pushing back. So once again how does the sr 71 thrust push off an atmosphere that is moving away from the nozzle at mach 3?
    2
  25.  @meh11235  you do realize anytime there is a lower pressure, it is considered a vacuum. In the 90s lotus designed
    2
  26.  @meh11235  i did. I was writing it in the middle of work and didnt have time to post a a well thought out comment. Once i was able to sort my thoughts, i asked. What is the pressure differential between the layers? Are you confusing pressure differential and density gradient? Because the two are different concepts. The pressure difference is miniscule from one density gradient to the next. Now let's get back to the crux of this thread. Does a jet/rocket engine need to push off the atmosphere?
    2
  27.  @meh11235  the only thing geometry comes i to play is the area of the burn chamber which the expanding gass can escape. This will limit the pressure loss because there is a maximum speed, then volume of gas that will escape. Thus allowing the sustaining of pressure inside the burn chamber. Since the pressure is created faster than the pressure loss. In the end this has nothing to do with how the thrust creates acceleration
    2
  28.  @meh11235  i said nothing of the sort. Expanding vacuum? No. I said a vacuum does nothing. It does not suck. The simple act of ejecting a mass, burning exhaust, at velocity causes a change in momentum on the exhaust. Because there was no external force introduced to the system, there can be no momentum change on the entire system. Since momentum must be conserved there must be a momentum change from the rocket equal and opposite to the burning exhausts change in momentum. Newtons third law says nothing about reaistance. The simple act of throwing an object, applying a force on the object, will cause a force equal and opposite on the thrower. Nothing to do with air, vacuums, pressure.
    2
  29.  @stuartgray5877  look at how he tried to dodge the question about a bucket and a stick of dynomite. Then asked about a farting hippo and some how i can answer his question.
    2
  30.  @meh11235  i answered your hypothetical question. Still avoiding answering mine? Gonna make up some excuse about how did the dynomite and bucket get there?
    2
  31.  @meh11235  yeah still cant answer the simple question. What happens to the bucket? What happens to the hippo farting? Oh by the way does the joule expansion happen instantaneously or is there a limit to how fast the gas can fill the vacuum? So of i had an opening 0.01mm vs an opening 0.1mm vs 1mm will the will the gas reach a state of equilibrium at the same time? Now what happens if i was to fill the initial chamber faster than the gas is escaping?
    2
  32.  @stuartgray5877  1. Yes. 2. The cross bow will move away from point of origin with the same momentum as the bolt. 3. A similar effect. Conservation of momentum. Or newtons 3rd law. They are related. 4. Yes, but the propulsion is limited because of the torque applied will cause rotation which will limit the linear velocity. Yes if i knew the mass of the catapult and had the force applied directy in line with the center of mass. Lets say with a giant crossbow. 5. Yes. Every change in momentum on the projectile will cause and equal change in momentum on the crossbow. This will allow zero change in momentum of the system as a whole, thus conserving momentum
    2
  33.  @stuartgray5877  alright let me ask you some questions. 1. If i had a bucket in space and a stick of dynamite next to it. If i exploded the dynamite, what happens to the bucket, assuming will not be ripped apart? Will it stay in the same position, move closer, or away from the location of the dynamite? 2. Now if i did the same with the dynamite inside the bucket, what happens to the bucket, again assuming the blast will not destroy the bucket. 3. Lets use mh analogy. If we had a hippo farting in space what would happen to the hippo inside a space craft? Outside the spacecraft? let's assume the hippo can withstand the gasses wanting to expand and will remain the same shape. 4. Can we sustain pressure in a burn chamber by limiting the area we let pressure to escape? 5. If thrust is dependant on pushing against the atmosphere, how does the sr71 push off a thin atmosphere at 90,000 feet, while the atmosphere is also moving away from the nozzle at mach 3?
    2
  34.  @stuartgray5877  what? No excuses of how was the dynamite lit, det cord, fuse. No question of the geometry of the bucket. No explanation on how the rocket and jet engine burns fuel differently, even though it is irrelevant to how the fuel is burned, just how the burned fuel creates thrust is the same for both engines.
    2
  35.  @meh11235  you actually learn to answer questions, instead of makong excuses. Maybe you can actually learn a thing or two.
    2
  36.  @meh11235  it's funny how stuart and i can answer each other's questions without making excuses and bringing up off topic points. How do you expect to talk about the engines of the deep space probe, when you dont even understand the basics of thrust? You make up your own physics and mix up topics and ideas.
    2
  37.  @meh11235  wow, that was scathing what stuart said. Your basic understanding of the topics you talk about is abysmal. You mix up terms, concepts and mish mash them together to try and make a hodgepodge idea. You refuse to answer one question because you cant explain it. Here how does thrust cause acceleration? It does not matter if it is a rocket or a jet engine, how the fuel burns is irrelevant. How the burnt fuel causes acceleration is what im looking for. Remember f=ma. Where is the acceleration coming from
    2
  38.  @pharaohblack1784  you obviously don't if you need a college drop out to explain simple mathematical terms like negative exponents and the get fractionally smaller and less and less significant. 0psi is the lowest you can go. In the end it is negligiable. If you watch the video you can clearly see the ignitor was enough to cause a force on the rocket before any atmosphere can be created. You say you have a masters, but you can not understand the simple concept of Newton's third law and conservation of momentum? The combustion of the propellant causes a force expelling the gas, said force is reacting to the rocket like recoil. This is a basic law of motion. Since the exhaust has a mass and being expelled at high velocity, there must be a force in the opposite direction pushing on the rocket to conserve momentum of the system.
    2
  39.  @pharaohblack1784  since you were in the military you should be acquainted with fire arms. If what the flat earthers are saying is true and atmosphere pushing back is the reason for the rockets movement. Then there should be an observable difference in recoil due to elevation change because of the change in atmospheric pressure. This change should be significant. Or is the recoil caused by the expelled mass and gas?
    2
  40.  @pharaohblack1784  well mr airforce, masters degree, computer engineer, does the density of the atmosphere or the momentum of the bullet effect recoil of a gun?
    2
  41.  @stevewittwer7444  once again, how the engine generates thrust, is irrelevant to how the thrust causes a force. Please pay attention. They both use thrust to creat a force and an acceleration.
    1
  42.  @stevewittwer7444  the motion of the air or motion of the plane through the air has the same effect. If the exhaust leaves the engine at mach three as the jet moves through the air at mach three, then the exhaust has a velocity of zero to the atmosphere. If the exhaust has a velocity of zero compared to the atmosphere, then it can not push off the atmosphere.
    1
  43. But the force is shown before the smoke.
    1
  44. Yet no exhaust leaks out?
    1
  45. How does the force travel faster than the exhaust to hit the wall and then push on the rocket?
    1
  46. Complete vacuum is not needed. A near perfect vacuum is not much different than a perfect one.
    1
  47. How does the exhaust not escape?
    1
  48.  @traviswebb2543  the "crack" can let air in, but doesnt let smoke out? You see a variance and assume a crack is there. They had trouble igniting the rocket because of the vacuum and lack of pressure. The fuel has its own oxidizer, therefore it has its own oxygen. They needed to plug up the ignitor to allow it to burn long fast enough to ignite the rocket.
    1
  49. How is the force measured before the exhaust can hit the wall?
    1
  50. The force is shown way before the exhaust cause any significance. In the ignition process you can see the rocket move before the exhaust
    1