General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

Chrnc Avngr
Искаженное восприятие
comments

Comments by "Chrnc Avngr" (@aznmutt15) on "Rockets in a Vacuum Chamber - Newton's third law of motion Visualized" video.

@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
@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
@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
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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@bethechange4934 what specifically were did i get wrong?
2
@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
@meh11235 you do realize anytime there is a lower pressure, it is considered a vacuum. In the 90s lotus designed
2
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@meh11235 you actually learn to answer questions, instead of makong excuses. Maybe you can actually learn a thing or two.
2
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
But the force is shown before the smoke.
1
Yet no exhaust leaks out?
1
How does the force travel faster than the exhaust to hit the wall and then push on the rocket?
1
Complete vacuum is not needed. A near perfect vacuum is not much different than a perfect one.
1
How does the exhaust not escape?
1
@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
How is the force measured before the exhaust can hit the wall?
1
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
If there is ether in the chamber then there is ether in space so rockets can still work
1
@NormanLy101 you state there is a medium in a vacuum. So there is a medium in space. If there is no ether then there is no medium in the chamber or in space. So the point you brought up is completely pointless.
1
@NormanLy101 the whole point of the video is about Newton's third law. No medium necessary. Conservation of momentum also ststes that a rocket would work in a mediumless enviroment. Is mass is loss at speed a force is generated on the opposite direction to keep the overall momentum zero. Nothing to do with mediums. Also ether is just a hypothesis, never been measured or proven. While general releativity has been tested, observed and proven. So why the hell would you believe i something with absolutely no backing?
1
@NormanLy101 by the way idea of an ether has been around long before einstein. Many people have tried to test for it and failed. Einstein realized light does not need a medium to travel through because light does not act only as a wave, but a particle as well. So don't tell me Einstein never considered a medium, he just thought it was wrong and unnecessary. By the way scientific theory are rigorously tested and shown to be true by the results. You think a theory and Scientific theory is are the same. Science has a very specific terminology and definitions for the words they use. So your idea of the ether is completely hypothetical and have never been observed.
1
@NormanLy101 so why are you trying to contradict the law of motion? Go on ice and throw a beach ball and a medicine ball that are the same size. The amtospheric effect should be the same because atmopheric drag and resistance only has to do with surface area, not density. The reason why you would move more with a medicine ball than a beach ball has to do with the overall momentum and force applied to eject the ball. Another test is with a gun. Does the density of the atmosphere have a significant effect on the recoil? If the recoil is dependant on the force ejecting the bullet then there will be no real significance in felt recoil due to altitude. If the atmosphere is the csuse then there will be a great difference in the felt recoil. Unfortunately for you, there is not.
1
@NormanLy101 general relativity has nothing to do with this action.
1
@NormanLy101 i thought germs were proven to cause illness. Then why is it called germ theory. You have the understanding of science as a sixth grader. Observation are laws, causes are theories. Get your fact straight.
1
@NormanLy101 there is a huge difference in the density of a medium. Hence there should be a difference in recoil. Remember we are testing if the medium is the cause of motion or Newton's third law.
1
@NormanLy101 you could fire it in a vacuum, but that is very dangerous because of the bullet and the implosion you will cause.
1
He wasn't testing the burning of the fuel in a vacuum.
1
Amateur model rocket motors are built by the thousands by civilians.
1
How come there is no exhaust leaking out?
1
All you need to do is map out the forces and it does not seem that strange. A helium molecule is in a tug of war with the buoyant force and the gravitational force. It stops at the equilibrium through the density gradient. Buoyancy and density gradient would not exist without a force down, it does not matter what that force is called. Note density is not a force
1
@jrk9372 how does the sr 71 generate thrust at 85,000-100,000 ft? If the atmosphere has a pressure that is 2% that of sea level. More importantly, the top speed is mach 3+. So how is the exhaust supposed to push against the atmosphere that is moving away from it at mach 3+?
1
Once the exhaust leaves the system to at velocity the force to pushing it out has an opposite reaction pushing against the rocket. This is Newtons third law.
1
Another example is a gun. Imagine the gun is the rocket, barrel is the exhaust, and the bullet and gasses escaping is the exhaust of the rocket. If what you said is true then the air pushing back is causing the recoil, then the recoil felt would be dependent on the atmospheric pressure. The recoil would be significantly decreased at high altitudes. I'm sorry shooting a gun at 10,000 feet vs sea level does not feel any different.
1
It get's hard to tell who people are arguing against.
1
So the exhaust from the ignitor was able to move across the entire chamber and back to push on the rocket in an instant?
1
@rickyclark2659 no kidding. They both create thrust by expelling mass at an extremely high velocity out of the exhaust. Not by pushing the exhaust off the atmosphere. But i guess you missed that point.
1
@bbj5958 so how can the thrust push off of an atmosphere at supersonic speed?
1
@Curious Life completely false information. F=ma fundamental law of motion. You have a mass and accelerate it away from you, you create a force. That force has an equal and opposite reaction, another fundamental law of motion. Which leads to consevation of momentum. If you have two bodies of mass and an internal force between the two bodies causing one to be ejected out the bodies would both have to have a change in velocity to conserve momentum. If what you say is true, then a jet engine would never be able to get enough pressure to push off of to gain thrust to go mach 3 in the upper atmosphere. You say it needs to push off the air, yet that medium is moving away fromnthe thrust as fast as the plane is going. Also this would have to effect the recoil of a gun as well. The higher altitude, there should be a significant drop in recoil. Unfortunately this is completely false. You say in a zero g or accelerated state like in free fall or orbit is similar to testing in water is a completely false analogy. The resistance the water would have on the subject would negate almost all effect of the reaction. You are trying to isolate the external forces acting on the system. Gravity does nothing to resist the motion. You would want to minimize all friction including drag. Placing the experiment in the water is increasing friction by many times. But hey, try this in Pool, instead of using your arms to push the bowling ball, use your legs. Your center of mass will be shifted away from the push by a little. Also wouldn't the pressure of pushing off the water greatly increase the force reacting against you, by your logic?
1
@Curious Life or are you trying to say newtons 3rd law and the conservation of momentum is false?
1
@Curious Life oh yeah you got one more thing wrong as well. The burn chamber is where the pressure is contained. That pressure is what causes the exhaust to accelerate out. The surounding atmosphere does effect the exhaust. It effects the efficiency of the exhaust acceleration. That is why they use different size bells for different stages.
1
@enigmagroup413 quick questions. Is newtons third law correct? Is the conservation of momentum accurate?
1
@redsampler2017 oh the car in space. Heat transfers a lot differently in a vacuum than in an atmosphere. Electromagnetic radiaition is the least efficient way of transfering heat. That's why vacuums are used as insulation. With the rotation it's like a rotisserie over a fire. Oneside heats up while the other is cooling down.
1
@redsampler2017 this is also a different kind of radiation. It's not the nuclear radiation you are used to hearing about. Lead doesnt protect you from it. We are up there to have a better understanding of the universe around us. Our curiosity allowed us all of the advances we have today. Without the curiosity of what is out there and how it works we will be stuck, stagnant in our advances.
1
@redsampler2017 big computer with elementary electronics. Your phone is a million times more powerful than the computers at houston that took up an entire room
1
@redsampler2017 once again the vacuum of space is an insulator. The cold would not destroy the car, nor would the slow rise in temperature from the radiant heat.
1
@redsampler2017 how much do you think all that shielding weighs? How long do you think we want to be in space for? From launch to return apollo 17 mission w awa s 14 days. It's going to take 3 months just to get to mars. Nasa is pushing long term space habitation. This is a new horizon. They are looking to spend not days, but months in deep space and the long term effects on our bodies and equipment. We have used that past decades understanding and extending our capabilities of surviving in space. It's the difference of a weekend backpacking trip vs preparing a 3 month long excursion into the jungle.
1
@redsampler2017 through space we have a better undersranding of our climate and weather. We research the sun and try to understand it's capabilities. We look at the stars to know where we come from and where we can go. The research now will benefit us a decade from now, but the benefits will be beyond what we can imagine. The little advances takes years for us to figure out how it will benefit us. The military and sciences have brought us all of the advances we have. Without looking forward we will get nowhere.
1
@redsampler2017 most of the radiation in the belt is from the sun and does not even come close to the surface of the earth. This is because of the magnetic field protecting us. They are trying to minimize the exposure for long term flight. There will be constant bombardment by the solar radiation on the way. Plus the weight is a huge issue. They are looking to protect the crew for months efficiently, not day. That takes us to understand the sun and more.
1
@redsampler2017 look there are going to be huge advancements on space and satellite technology in the next decade. You will soon realize the amount of information travelling through space is going to be incredible. The fact that space has become privatized is going to revolitionize the industry. It's going to be sad when you look back at this.
1
@frankfacts6207 but the force is shown before it could hit the backstop. How does the force bounce off of the backstop and back up to the rocket to push it?
1
The fact that he used a high speed camera and showed forces during the ignition sequence instantaneously proves the 3rd law.
1
@noneofyourbeeswax01 it's a simple fact that newtons 3rd law and conservation of momentum is what causes the rockets acceleration. An atmosphere does not need to be present to push off of.
1
@Escape from Plato's Cave maybe if you understood that they have been formed for over a millennia, plenty of time for the water to radiate heat to form ice. I thought the question was to pointless to answer.
1
@Escape from Plato's Cave just because you do not understand doesn't mean it is a contradiction.
1
@Escape from Plato's Cave alright lets get to the nitty gritty of newtons third law, something you completely fail to understand. The third law and the conservation of momentum both shows that the atmosphere is not necessary to push off of. By using a force to expell the gas, there is an equal and opposite reaction back on the rocket itself. Now let's try momentum. The gas has a mass and the mass is being expelled at an extremely high velocity. To conserve the momentum of the system the rocket must gain velocity to balance out the momentum of the exhaust. Simple laws of physics
1
@Escape from Plato's Cave hmm let's take a gun. The gun itself is the rocket, the breach is the burn chamber, the nozzle is the barrel, and the expelled gas and bullet is the exhaust of the rocket. When the gun is fired fhe action causes a recoil, like how it is on a rocket. Except for a rocket it is continuously firing. Now if what you say is true and the rocket needs to push off of something to move, why doesn't the gun have a significant reduction in recoil at high altitudes?
1
@Escape from Plato's Cave here is another model. The sr71 blackbird can fly at 85,000-100,000 feet and have a velocity of mach 3+. If the atmospheric pressure is needed to push off of, how does it generate enough force to go that fast off of such a thin atmosphere? More importantly how can it push off of an atmosphere moving away along the force at mach 3+? Or is it the force of expelling the exhaust causing the acceleration?
1
@noneofyourbeeswax01 all of that verbage and you can't explain why the atmosphere does not effect the gun and the jet engine. It's as if newtons law causes recoil and does not need atmosphere. As if the exhaust being expelled causes thrust and does not need an atmosphere to push off of. Just like a flat earther, can't explain it so you mock it. Come on, tell me why doesn't the atmosphere have any effect on the gun or the jet engine. How can a jet engine push off an atmosphere that is moving away from it at mach 3?
1
@noneofyourbeeswax01 also the fact that you do not understand how temperature works is hilarious. Temperature is a measurment of the energy of a molecule. Heat is the exchange of the energy. In simple terms the energy created in the burn chamber of the rocket well exceeds the energy loss through radiation. It has so much extra energy that it is able to convert that energy of heat into kinetic energy and direct it out of the nozzle. Yes a comet is frozen, it has formed in the ort cloud in the deepest parts of the solar system. Where it was formed for thousands, if not millions, maybe billions of years.
1
@noneofyourbeeswax01 let's take a quote from Bluffton university's physics department. "Heat transfer is most efficient by convection, then by conduction; radiation is the least efficient and slowest means of heat transfer. Low efficiency of heat transfer means that vacuums make excellent insulation."
1
@jacquesmurrell8760 why would it not work in space?
1
Larger the space the harder it is to create a vacuum. By the way a near vacuum is pretty much the same as a perfect vacuum. It's measured with negative exponential.
1
@paulnotdownunder3172 l wow you are comparing the deep oceans pressure with the surface vs the surface to space. Maybe you should actually look up the values. At sea level it is about 15 psi and in space it is 0psi of course. Let's look at that fish you were talking about. Hmm at 30 ft it is about 30 psi, a 15 psi difference. 60 ft it is at 45 psi, that's a 30 psi difference. 90 ft is 60 psi, a 45 psi difference. Guess you do not realize what pressure differential is. You are comparing something that will go through 5-10 the preassure change than a craft would going into space. It is much more dangerous to go to the bottom of the marianas trench than it is to go to space.
1
So why does is the force felt before the exhaust is created?
1
Liquid O2?
1
All of that had nothing to do with what he was trying to show. He was trying to show if there is a force generated by the exhaust in a vacuum. Flat earthers believe that because there is no atmosphere the exhaust has nothing to push against so the rocket will not go anywhere.
1
@deathblosomrules didn't see that you were replying to someone.
1
@deathblosomrules my favorite flattard comment is, " they can't get anywhere near the vacuum of space." They dont understand that vacuums are that crazy power as seen in the movies.
1
@deathblosomrules with Newton's third law. I thought i made that very clear? The explosion inside the burn chamber that ejects the exhaust at an extremely high rate and speed causes an equal and opposite reaction. As i said with the gun example, the recoil of the gun would be dependant on altitude if atmosphere was a factor. With the sr71, ir would be impossible because the atmosphere would be too thin and moving away from the exhaust too fast to push off of. If the atmosphere was the cause of reaction then surface area of an object would be more important than size. So if i was in an ice rink and threw a 20 lb weight vs a beach ball. Which would cause me to move further back?
1
That's where the high speed footage comes in. Force is recorded instantaneously, even during the ignition sequence. Before any gass is formed or exhaust has time to hit the walls.
1
Why dont you just take a gun and shoot it at sea level and then shoot it at 10-15,000 feet up and see if there is a significant difference in felt recoil. The rocket is just feeling the recoil of the exhaust.
1
Force is shown before smoke.
1
@WarpedYT ive actually seen someone do that on youtube
1
@GlorifyGodInEverything absolutely wrong. A rocket is a contained explosion. Let's try a firecracker hanging inside a vacuum with a little plastic cup over it. What happens to the cup. You do realize that a rocket burns through tons of fuel every minute. That mass is ejected out of the nozzle. Now what happens when you have mass moving at velocity? Momentum. Now how is momentum conserved if the rocket and fuel system have a momentum gain for the exhaust and not the rocket?
1
@GlorifyGodInEverything what turbine? There is no turbine in a rocket. Even in a turbine jet engine, it burns the fuel to cause expansion and eject the exhaust at high velocity to create thrust. How do you think after burners work? There is no pushing off the atmosphere. How can a jet flying at mach 3 push off an atmosphere, when the atmosphere is moving away from the thrust at mach 3? I describe how all of physics describes how rocket works. You describe your misunderstanding of physics. Still waiting on your answer how momentum is conserved.
1
@GlorifyGodInEverything momentum is mass and velocity. If you have mass, such as the burning gasses escaping the end of a nozzle at a rate of hundreds of ton per minute, leaving at a high velocity, it has a momentum. Now how is momentum conserved for the entire system, if you do not have momentum being created in the opposite direction equal to the momentum of the exhaust?
1
@GlorifyGodInEverything I'm sorry, but the thrust does not leave the engine at mach 3 in an sr 71 engine. Even if it did, it will still not have sufficient energy to push against the friction of the atmosphere. It is pushing off of an atmosphere that is moving away from the exhaust at mach 3. Don't forget it is a very thin atmosphere to begin with. And you said the bullet is a terrible example? Then why does recoil not effected by the atmosphere? Why is there not a significant drop in recoil from sea level to 10,000 feet? If it needs an atmosphere to push off of? Maybe you should try googling, "what is thrust?" Where do they say it needs an atmosphere to push off of?
1
@GlorifyGodInEverything oh yeah and i forgot, turbine is a transfer of energy. It uses the thrust from the exhaust to turn the turbine. In other words the turbine uses energy of the system, not creates energy. So how does a turbine in a jet causes acceleration? Where is the turbine located in a rocket engine?
1
@GlorifyGodInEverything you are avoiding the question. How is momentum conserved for the entire system if there is a momentum increase of the exhaust? Momentum is just mass and velocity. So if the mass of the exhaust is moving at velocity, it has momentum. It is irrelevant if there is a vacuum around the system. In fact the system is usually imagined in a vacuum. So how is momentum conserved? Where is it in the momentum equation, the atmosphereic pressure come into play?
1
@GlorifyGodInEverything and you dont know how guns work either. Tell me, is recoil is felt after the bullet leaves the barrel. So if the recoil is dependant on the surrounding atmosphere and not the momentum of the bullet leaving, why is recoil independant of the pressure?
1
@GlorifyGodInEverything actually, no. Everything you said is all internal forces until the bullet leaves the barrel. The forces felt is dependant on the weight of the bullet and the velocity it leaves the barrel. Not the atmosphere pushing back on the bullet. It is the exact same principal to how rockets work. Once again conservation of momentum. And the semi auto is entirely dependant on the type of system you are using. Are you using a blowback, direct impingement, or gas piston. All of which are different. Blow back is dependant on the recoil, but once again doesnt occur till after the bullet leaves the barrel. Piston and direct impingement is dependant on siphoning some of the gas back to cycle the gun. If the gun is recoiling at the ignition of the gun powder, how are people accurate for over a mile? The gun is moving before the bullet leaves the barrel, will cause the bullet to stray off course. Even having the barrel touching something during firing will cause the barrel resonance to shift to throw off the shot. A person will not be able to manage the recoil exactly the same way everytime they shoot. It's as if the recoil occurs after the bullet leaves the barrel.
1
@GlorifyGodInEverything who says you dont feel recoil from a blank? It is a limited amount, but there is still recoil. As i stated there is mass, the bullet, moving at velocity creating momentum, bow how is the momentum conserved for the bullet and gun system. Hmmmm, oh it is the recoil. Wait, isnt that exactly how i described the rocket? The mass of the exhaust, considering it has thousands of tons of fuel and that is getting ejected at high velocity. Now how is the the rocket, exhaust system conserve momentum?
1
@GlorifyGodInEverything what happens to the gas is burned at a rapid rate in a contained chamber? It is expanding exponentially. The only difference between burning and explosions is the rate which the fuel is consumed. The burn process is being controlled to a precise rate preventing an explosion. Since the fuel is burned and the pressure of the expanding gas is causing the mass of the exhaust to escape at a high velocity. Since there is mass and velocity the exhaust has momentum. So how is the momentum of the entire system conserved? No. The rocket is represented by the entire gun. The firing chamber represents the burn chamber. The barrel represents the nozzle allowing the gas to expand and pick up velocity. The bullet and the burning gas represents the tons of exhaust being expelled out of the back of the rocket or muzzle of the gun
1
@GlorifyGodInEverything the bottle is flying because the liquid inside is suddenly epanding and the mass of the liquid being ejected out the neck is causing a force. There is an equal and opposite reaction on the bottle. One concept you need to understand is that vacuums have no power, they do not suck. The motion and power comes from the pressure differential of the higher pressure wanting to go to the lower pressure. The size of the nozzle will limit how much pressure is released at any given moment. This will have a maximum flow rate given by fluid dynamics.
1
@GlorifyGodInEverything look, conservation of momentum is a fundamental law of motion. This is something we have based many engineering feet around. The concept of thrust is based on this principal. You have a mass and eject it out of the system will cause the mass to have momentum, the system as a whole needs to conserve momentum, so there must be a momentum gain equal and opposite to the momentum of the ejected mass to conserve the momentum for the whole system.
1
@GlorifyGodInEverything what side to side thrust?
1
@GlorifyGodInEverything the rcs thrusters? Same properties. Hydrogen peroxide interacting with a metal catalyst to boil and create steam at a high velocity. It's the same mechanism used by those jet packs that bond and michael Jackson wore. Remember mass at velocity equal momentum. There must a momentum to counter act the steams momentum to conserve the momentum of the entire system. Now place that thruster away from the center of balance, you create torque. Torque causes rotation.
1
@GlorifyGodInEverything seems like rockets works in space. All of the excuses i have heard is the failure to understand the basic physics involved. If you go into the difficulty of pumping the fuel at the high rate or the difficulty of reigniting the engine in the vacuum of space, now those are the engineering problems nasa scientists has had to over come.
1
@jondextersalise3649 once again. The burning exhaust has mass and is being ejected at velocity. If it has mass and velocity it has momentum. Since there is no external force at work, how is the momentum of the entire system conserved? If there is a momentum gain on the exhaust, there has to be a momentum equal and opposite to conserve the momentum of the system. This is a fundamental law of motion
1
@jondextersalise3649 since you believe a rocket needs to push off of something. Let me ask you a question. How come a guns recoil is not effected by elevation? Since there is a significant difference from sea level to 10,000 feet in the atmospheric pressure, there should be a significant difference in recoil, since the bullet is pushing off the air. Will a gun have recoil a vacuum?
1
@meh11235 what does that have to do with the thrust pushing off an atmosphere that is moving along with the thrust at mach 3. How can it gain force if the air it is pushing off of is moving faster than the thrust?
1
@meh11235 there is two concepts of rockets not working in space. Rockets needing to push off of air and burning in a vacuum is impossible. I use the sr 71 as an example and ask how can the thrust push off an atmosphere moving mach 3. The exhaust is not being ejected at mach 3.
1
@meh11235 how a jet and rocket create thrust is irrelevant to the point. The fact that jets and rockets create thrust and how that thrust causes acceleration is the point. If thrust is dependant on pushing on the atmosphere, how does the exhaust push on an atmosphere moving away from it at mach 3. Yes if a rocket was shot straight up and has not reached escape velocity, it will fall back. Since rockets are not shot straight up and launched at an angle where the velocity will be perpendicular to the pull of gravity. At certain altitudes, a specific speed will cause the object to reach orbit. That speed is determined by matching the centrifugal force and the force of gravity. This will cause the objects acceleration to be perpendicular to the velocity creating a circular motion.
1
@meh11235 you fail to realize that a chamber that there is little difference between 0.01 tor and 10^-10 tor. There is still only 0.01 difference.
1
@meh11235 a car tire and a bike tire uses different methods to create torque, but the torque causes accelerate the same way for both. A rocket burns fuel and an oxidizer to create thrust. A jet burns fuel and air to create thrust. How the thrust is created is irrelevant to how the thrust causes acceleration.
1
@meh11235 i know how both engines work as i spelled it out to you. As i said how they create thrust is irrelevant. They both use thrust to create a force. Now if thrust is dependant on pushing against the atmosphere, how does the sr71 push off an atmosphere that is thin and moving away from the jet at mach 3. You do understand that both engine uses thrust to accelerate right? You do know what thrust is right?
1
@meh11235 the funniest thing is the comment of "pressure so low that it is almost non existent " is pretty much the deffinition of a vacuum. A vacuum is a state of lower pressure where the higher pressure aeeks to create equilibrium. The strength of a vacuum is based on the differential of the pressure. The vacuum itself holds little value, the differential is the important factor. What you fail to realize is the fact that vacuums don't suck.
1
@meh11235 here is a simple questions. How does a burning of the fuel from a jet cause acceleration? How does burning of the fuel from a rocket create acceleration? I do not care how they burn the fuel, just how does the burning of the fuel create acceleration.
1
@meh11235 you still are missing the point. I am not interested in how the jet and rocket burn the fuel. What i am interested is how the burning of the fuel causes acceleration. You keep focussing on how they are different because of how they burn fuel. I am asking you to look at how they are the same on how they use the burning fuel to create thrust and how does that thrust create acceleration. The method they use to burn the fuel is irrelevant to the question.
1
@meh11235 ok this is getting annoying. You are talking about points that are different than what im talking about. Ok lets start over. Do rockets and jets need to push off the atmosphere to accelerate? We can get to vacuums after.
1
@fromagefrizzbizz9377 ok i just realized there are two people. I usually do not focus on the names. Both of you have purple icons and it seemed like i was talking to one person
1
@fromagefrizzbizz9377 it gets confusing. Im on my cell and see a purple logo and assumed it was the same person
1
@meh11235 what is the pressure differential between the layers? What's the difference between density gradient and pressure gradient? So do you believe that a rocket/jet engine needs to push off the atmosphere to accelerate?
1
@meh11235 as before i was sayimg whenever there is a significant pressure differential the lower pressure is considered a vacuum. If you imagine the atmosphere like a bunch of balloons piled on top of each other, the bottom ones are going to be smaller because they are being compressed by the weight of the balloons above. The higher you get the less weight of the balloos above you press down on you. Now the vacuum of space is just empty space with miniscule amount of balloons inside it. The vacuum holds no force, strength, or power. Only when there is a significant pressure differential is when there is a force. This is because the higher pressure wants to go fill in the void. The force is derived from the higher pressure. Vacuums do not suck.
1
@meh11235 they are not intertwined. You avoided the question. What is the pressure differential between the density gradient? If i meassured the pressure above the briny water and inside the briny water what will the difference in pressure be between the two reading?
1
@meh11235 wow. Just making things up. What does volume have to do with f=ma?
1
@meh11235 fluid dynamics is the limiting factor on the pressure loss, as i have already explained. Momentum has nothing to do with geometry. Forces are calculated as vectors and is not concerned with geometry. Even drag is simplified to the drag coefficient.
1
@meh11235 space does nothing to the motor. The area which the gas can escape the burn chamber is limited in area. As you said and i have stated before yhe fluid dynamics and the area limits the maximum flow of the gasses from escaping. This allowing pressure to be sustained. Vacuums don't suck.
1
@meh11235 the fact that there is no impedance has nothing to do with how thrust works. The simple act of applying force on the exhaust gases will impart a force back on the rocket itself. Newtons 3rd law. As i stated before, if a rocket/jet engine needs to push off an atmosphere, then how does the jet engine of an sr71 push off an atmosphere that is moving away from the nozzle at mach 3? Since you like to talk about momentum, then let's also talk sunly the conservation of momentum. If the mass of the exhaust gases is ejected out of the rocket with velocity, how is momentum conserved in the system as a whole. Without an external force there can be no momentum loss or gain on the system. So what cancels out the momentum of the exhaust?
1
@meh11235 energy and force are two different things. External Forces causes differential of momentum. Without an external force, momentum can not change. Since the force is internal and there is a momentum gain in the exhaust gases escaping the system, how is momentum conserved in the system as a whole? Where is the momentum gain in the opposite direction to conserve momentum?
1
@meh11235 actually, you imparted a complete different ideas. Ideas that are not linked to anything. Your concept is something you made up. Energy and force are two different concept and you are trying to link them as if they are one in the same. All the concepts i have stated is thought up in a frictionless enviroment. Meaning no air resistance, no drag.
1
@meh11235 let me ask ypu a basic question. If i had a stick of dynomite next to a bucket floating in the vacuum of space. What happens to the bucket when the dynomite explodes, assume the bucket will not be destroyed.
1
@fromagefrizzbizz9377 dont forget, he will try and skew anything you said to fulfill his narrative. As you seen him do in this thread many times
1
@meh11235 wow. You gave off a word salad to avoid answering the question. How the dynomite explodes is irrelevant. I could use and electronic fuse, i could use detcord because there is an oxidizer inside and it is contained. The geometry of the bucket will not change what happens to the bucket. So what happens to the bucket when the dynomite explodes? Once again, assume the bucket will not be destroyed by the blast.
1
@meh11235 you are confusing a perfect vacuum and a vacuum. To achieve a perfect vacuum is almost impossible, but will still have the same properties of a near perfect vacuum. So you believe that there is a fluid with low pressure in space. So what force gives it the pressure?
1
@fromagefrizzbizz9377 did you just read what mh wrote? He had to use word salad to avoid answering a simple question
1
@meh11235 no. You are just avoiding to answer simple questions. What happens to the bucket? Does it move away, doesnt move, or gets closer to where the dynamite was?
1
@meh11235 so what happens to the bucket? Does it move away, not move, or gets closer?
1
@meh11235 if a hippo farts in space inside a space craft it will move forward. Outside is dependant on whether or not the gas can escape. Is it wearing a suit that will contain the escaping gas? Notice how i can actually answer your question and i do not get hung up on what the hippo ate that caused the gas to be built up. So what happens to the bucket?
1
@meh11235 you should really learn about how thrust works before you ask about the type of engine it uses.
1
@meh11235 even better. Why dont you explain what happens to the hippo when it farts inside the space craft and outside. Lets assume that the hippo is wearing a suit that will allow the fart to escape in the same position of the anus. What happens to the hippo? Does it move forward, backwards, up, down, not move?
1
@meh11235 oh i know why you won't answer, it's because you know anything you say will completely debunk you. If you say it doesn't move, it can be shown to move in a vacuum because the expanding gas will cause it to move. If you say it does move, the i can put the dynamite inside and use it as an instantaneous rocket boots causing the bucket to move. Relating to the burning of the fuel in a slower process and limiting the area which the expaning gas can escape, like a nozzle. Hmmm some one won't answer cuz he is scared of the truth. Now lets hear some stupid excuse or see you impart information that i never said. Remember vacuums dont suck.
1
@meh11235 it's funny cuz you won't even answer your own analogy because it completely debunks you. Way to debunk yourself.
1
@meh11235 oh damn. Even stuart ses that you are dodging questions because you know it will completely debunk your understanding. So what happens to the bucket? What happens to the farting hippo?
1
@stuartgray5877 damn misunderstood #3. I know. I asked a guy that a rocket has thousands of tons of fuel, if the mass of the fuel does not get ejected creating momentum, what happens to the mass of the fuel. He says it gets burned. Then i explained to him that burning of the fuel releases chemical energy, but does not destroy the mass of the fuel.
1
@meh11235 no i compared the way jet engine uses thrust to a rocket and then asked about how does the rocket push off the atmosphere going mach 3. You brought up the point on how they burn fuel is different, which is completely irrelevant how the thrust of both engines work with the same pricipals. Then i ask about the dynamite and the bucket and you ask about the fuse and the geometry of the bucket. Avoiding actually answering the question. You are basically saying how cow digest food is different than i do, so it cant be shit that is coming out the back. Stop dodging and answer the basic question.
1
@meh11235 so what happens to the bucket when the dynamite explodes next to it? If you dont like my question, then at least answer your own. What happens when a hippo farts in space? Inside a craft and outside the craft. Let's ignore the effect of built up pressure on the hippo saying it does not need a suit to survive. So what happens when the hippo farts? You call thia bating? No it is me simplifying the concept and leading it to a more complex system. You just know the outcome and can't refute the answer, so you dodge. Stuart seems to get my point pretty easily. Fromage gets my point pretty easily. You just turn a blind eye and jump topics to answer a basic question.
1
@meh11235 i havent even made my point yet. You haven't come close to answering before a point can be made. It's as if you are affraid to answer. Since you say it is a "false premise" then please elaborate why. Wasn't the farting hippo your question also?
1
@meh11235 it's funny cuz when i posed the same questions stuart was able to answer and elaborate how it relates to thrust. All you have given is a throw away statement without any context.
1
@stuartgray5877 are you talking about the 6 timed falcon landings?
1
@stuartgray5877 that's awsome. Ive never been to a launch before
1
@stuartgray5877 check out this eclipse photo i took http://imgur.com/gallery/mczgB3l http://imgur.com/gallery/8Qih4Ra
1
@meh11235 all of what you say is pointless or wrong. Space is not a vacuum? As i said any time there is a differential in pressure, the lower pressure is considered a vacuum. A vacuum cleaner creates a pressure zone that is lower than the surrounding atmosphere, that is a vacuum. Space is not a perfect vacuum, but is near perfect. The difference in pressure of a near perfect vacuum and a perfect one is negligible. 0.01 tor vs 0.000000001 tor is still only 0.01 tor difference. It's like saying 0.01 milligrams is significantly heavier to 0.000000001 grams. As for the vast volume of space will dissipate the exhaust. So what? Vacuums do not suck, so the pressure will always be in the burn chamber because the nozzle will limit the loss of pressure. As i stated before, the area of the nozzle will limit how fast the pressure is lost because of fluid dynamics. There is a maximum speed which a gas can flow through a specific area. It is irrelevant how much space there is and how low of a pressure there is in the vastness of space. You think that vacuums will have some great power and suck the air out. The fact is vacuums don't suck, everything is dependant on how fast pressure is able to escape. The difference of the rate pressure can escape a burn chamber is solely dependant on the area of a nozzle. From sea level and a perfect vacuum will have little effect to the rate pressure is created in the burn chamber. Since burn can be sustained and thus ejecting mass at high velocity, this creates thrust. This act alone is enough create an acceleration on the rocket due to newtons third law. As for the bucket, we all know that the bucket will move because of the dynamite, you are just affraid to admit it. Now if i place said dynamite inside the bucket, the bucket will direct more of the blast in the same direction creating thrust. So a rocket engine does this million times a second. Guess what, the rocket will move like the bucket. Now, since the rocket can sustain burn inside a vacuum because there is a maximum rate pressure can escape due to the size of the nozzle, irrelevant to ruger size and pressure of the vacuum it is in. And the fact that simply ejecting mass a high velocity, the exhaust, is enough to accelerate the rocket, due to newtons third law and the conservation of momentum. Thrust does not need a medium to resist the exhaust. So why can't a rocket work in space? What happens to the farting hippo in the vacuum of space?
1
@alexrussell6770 consevation of momentum says that the momentum of a system must remain constant unless an outside force is introduced. If the rocket is ejecting the mass of the exhaust at velocity, that contains momentum. Since the combustion was an internal force of the system and not external, how is momentum conserved for the system as a whole?
1
@alexrussell6770 oh and a rocket/jet engine uses a different physics to create motion vs prop or helicopter engine. The prop and helicopter engine pushes the atmosphere with a prop creating an opposite reaction in force. A rocket/jet engine is burning fuel causing a rapid expansion forcing the burning gas out the nozzle at high velocity creating an opposite reaction to the force of the chemical reaction. Your little point of the feather and fan in a vacuum will show why a helicopter won't work in space, but is complete lo y pointless when talking about rockets.
1
@robguyatt9602 actually, there is a minor recoil once the bullet moves due to air resistance, but as soon as the bullet or gas has a vent to escape from, that is when the real recoil occurs.
1
@robguyatt9602 well the physics is, is that the explosion of the powder does is really pushing in all direction and is an internal force. Though there is a slight recoil due to the bullet traveling through the barrel, the real recoil does not start until after the bullet and expanding gases leave the barrel. It is the conservation of momentum. Until the bullet and gas leaves the system momentum, there is little change in momentum. The center of mass will hardly change with the traveling bullet and gas. This is why you wouldn't have to compensate for recoil. Though the resonance of the barrel can effect the trajectory of the bullet.
1
@robguyatt9602 https://youtu.be/zbtyaKAMDdk If you pause at 1:40, and use the . and , button to move skip frame by frame. You will see that the slide does not start to reciprocate until the gas leaves the barrel.
1
The difference of a near vacuum and a perfect vacuum is negligible.
1
The modification made to ignite the booster is irrelevant. No exhaust leaked out so the seal held. Also the force was measured instantaneously in the ignition process before any exhaust can have any effect
1
@scottsvt9104 a cannon will still have recoil even when firing without a cannon ball, but it will be significantly less. Without the cannon ball there will be a significant amount of mass being accelerated. So over all less mass means less force (Newton's second law). Less force is less recoil (Newton's third law). If your theory is correct the atmosphere is needed to push off of, then the recoil would be directectly linked to the altitude and atmospheric pressure surrounding the cannon. It doesn't. Also the jet would not be able to fly anywhere near the speeds they do because the atmosphere would be moving with the thrust at supersonic speed. Meaning there would be no real "wall of atmosphere " to push off of, since the atmosphere is moving with the exhaust of fhe engine.
1
@LiZzardLips66 the thing is, it is inherently true. The fact that newtons thrid law does not need an atmosphere to push off of is evident in guns, jet engine thrust, even throwing a ball. If the atmosphere was the reason we feel a force back then me throwing a medicine ball and a beach ball with the same volume would have the same effect.
1
You have no idea what you are talking about. The force applied to the exhaust gasses to expel it from the engine will cause an equal and opposite force on the rocket. This is Newton's third law. Conservation of momentum will also be in effect as well. If a mass (exhaust gases) is being ejected at velocity, then the rocket must gain velocity to balance out the momentum because no outside force is applied.
1
Reality, if the thrust needs an atmosphere to push off of, then the sr 71 would never be able to fly mach 3+. At 85,000 feet there would not be enough atmosphere to push off of. Let's not forget the atmosphere would be moving with the thrust at mach 3+, preventing the exhaust to be able to get proper thrust.
1
Oh my god 10^-7 torr. Wait isnt that a negative exponent? So 10^-1 torr isn't that much different to 10^-7 torr. As a number grows exponentially, the difference is grows significantly. As the grow in exponentially negatively, the difference becomes less and less significant in an exponential rate.
1
@MariusDihoru here is the thing. Newton's law of motion states that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Also the conservation of momentum states that momentum of an isolated sys tr em must remain constant unless an outside force is applied. If a rocket is expelling gas, which has mass, at high velocity there is an internal momentum that must be cancelled by the rockets gain in momentum. Momentum must always be concerved. As well as the fact that a force is applied to the exhaust to accelerate it out, so there must be a reaction in the opposite direction of the force.
1
@waptek2 there is negative pressure when ever there is a pressure differential. It's all relative to where your starting point is. There is no negative psi.
1
You have no idea what you are talking about. Vacuum is a measured in negative exponentials. That means the closer you get to a near vacuum, the difference in vacuum becomes less and less significant.
1
Yes, look at the second stage burn from the ground. You can see a much larger plume.
1
One the force is shown almost instantaneously in the ignition. How much pressure do you think that little ignitor can generate?
1
@sihop9220 enough atmospheric pressure in the engine not the chamber.
1
@sihop9220 rockets move because of the recoil felt from the exhaust being expelled at high velocity. If the surrounding atmopshere is necessary to push back, then the felt recoil of a gun would significantly drop at high altitude. This does not happen.
1
@sihop9220 the chamber and casing is the ignition chamber of a rocket, the end of the barrel is the exhaust. Now as flat earthers state the surrounding atmosphere pushing back is the reason why rocoil happens, then there should be a significant decline in recoil felt at higher altitudes
1
@sihop9220 i wrote this long response, but then i realized you completely misunderstood what i was saying. The rocket isn't the bullet. The rocket is the gun. The bullet represents the exhaust of the bullet. The firing chamber is the burn chamber for the rocket. The barrel is the nozzle. As i stated before, the recoil from the bullet leaving the barrel, because that is when recoil occurs, should be affected by the ambient atmosphere in your hypothesis. It doesn't.
1
@sihop9220 the expelled gas in the exhaust has mass. It is excelled at extremely high velocity at a very high rate. Newtons third law applied to the gun is the same reaction applied to the rocket. Once again the recoil is caused during the bullet being expelled from the end of the barrel. Once the mass leaves the barrel it is then whem the force now has a net direction on the bullet and gun. Newtons third law. As i said, if your beliefs are true then the atmosphere would be a significant variable for the recoil.
1
@sihop9220 you idea of the atmosphere pushing against the thrust would mean that the sr 71 would never be able to achieve mach 3 because the high altitude needed ti reduce friction and heat would never allow enough atmosphere to push against. Especially since the air would be travelling away from the engines at mach 3. How can the thrust have enough power if it needs to push off of the limited atmosphere that is flying in the same direction of the thrust at mach 3?
1
@sihop9220 completely irrelevant to what was said. How can it push off of an atmosphere that is barely there? As well as an atmosphere moving along with the thrust? The motion alone would prevent the ability to generate enough force to go mach 3+.
1
@sihop9220 in fact the engine would open up the nozzle which is opposite what you are suggesting.
1
But he shows forces before any exhaust can really effect the pressure.
1