Hoax? - Lunar Launches - Too Fast

[najak]

Ok, I guess I stepped too far, but as you stated there will be an increased thrust for a few seconds, but not necessarily 177%, something lower but above nominal thrust.

Thank you for correcting yourself.  Unlike others here, I won't "rub your nose in it" - because I view this debate as "white boarding" - where corrected mistakes are simply forgotten.

We're on the same team, in my view.   Society has been fooled by this govt-created religion, and if I'm right - then we're all victims.

The 177%, AFAIK, has more to do with "max stress" before the hardware might break... and ensuring that transients don't deliver any "breaking impulses."

These impulses are very short (like a hammer blow) - and since "time is nearly zero" - the impact they have on acceleration is also mostly negligible...

Typically when "exhaust is blocked" causing the chamber to build up "pressure" it constricts the outflow of exhaust - and thus decreases "Momentum Thrust" -- which is the "good thrust" from which of the thrust is typically derived.

Even if there is some sort of "POP" at the start that somehow generates 172% the thrust at the onset -- once this "Pop" happens, that added thrust is gone... It's short-lived.

What Apollogists need to reconcile here is 1-full-second of STEADY +72% thrust.  And to date, we see no legitimate attempts on the internet.   Where are these attempts?  Why hasn't this been done yet?

[JayUtah]

The 177%, AFAIK, has more to do with "max stress" before the hardware might break... and ensuring that transients don't deliver any "breaking impulses."

Increased chamber pressure means increased thrust.

These impulses are very short (like a hammer blow) - and since "time is nearly zero" - the impact they have on acceleration is also mostly negligible...

According to whom?

Typically when "exhaust is blocked" causing the chamber to build up "pressure" it constricts the outflow of exhaust - and thus decreases "Momentum Thrust" -- which is the "good thrust" from which of the thrust is typically derived.

No.

Even if there is some sort of "POP" at the start...

No. "Pops" are different.

[najak]

By how much, and why?  Isn't it true that you would simply continue down the path you're on now, without so much as a pause for self-reflection? 

NOPE.  If Jay can provide a valid proof for the 1-full-second of added thrust, I'll be floored.  Will give me GREAT PAUSE -- and gleefully so.  When I change positions on something, I do so PROUDLY -- because as I said, "people changing sides/positions based on new info" is FAR TOO RARE.   I would be honored and glad to be able to do this -- but I need Justification.

I'm going to provide a bit more meat into the analysis to discuss my methods of measurement, and the potential error that might be introduced, and the maximum impact those errors could have on the mathematical conclusion (which boils down to the "upward force required to produce the witnessed acceleration").

Given that the Apollo 17 video and Audio clip both have 9 seconds between "ignition" and "Pitch-over" - provides extra validation that the "time line we're witnessing on film isn't notably scaled/skewed".

Given that ALL 3 exhibit the same behavior, plus the correlation with the audio track -- indicates that the chance of "time skew/scale" is astonishingly miniscule.

[najak]

....

You won't make this proof, because you CAN'T.  It's not MY CLAIM -- but a 40+ year famous MLH Claim that remains UNDEBUNKED.

You reside safely inside of your echo chamber, where your cultic followers will "believe you can do a miracle, simply because you say you can."

But they are asking you to do this for them - they WANT TO SEE IT..  The WHOLE WORLD WANTS TO SEE IT..

[JayUtah]

But they are asking you to do this for them - they WANT TO SEE IT..  The WHOLE WORLD WANTS TO SEE IT..

If you think so, then you had better address those corrections I reminded you of today.

[najak]

For reference, @LunarOrbit and @Mag40, and anyone who wants to know the truth about Google AI related to Science, as I was searching for articles regarding "Pressure Thrust in vacuum vs. atmosphere"... I simply asked the same type of question in two different browsers, and got the EXACT OPPOSITE answer from Google AI.   So when I say "never use Google AI as a reference" -it's because it's stupid.   It only provides you "some clues", but the conclusions can be completely wrong.

First google search: "in a vacuum does pressure thrust provide more of the rocket thrust?"

Answer: "In a vacuum, pressure thrust does not contribute to a rocket's thrust at all, as there is no ambient pressure to create a pressure differential; therefore, the thrust of a rocket in a vacuum is entirely due to the momentum of the expelled exhaust gases which is achieved through the high velocity of the ejected gas, not pressure differences."
===

This didn't sound right to me, so I opened another browser tab, and asked it a different way.

Google: "for rockets is pressure thrust greater in a vacuum?"

Answer: "Yes, for rockets, the pressure thrust is significantly greater in a vacuum compared to an atmosphere because there is no ambient pressure to oppose the expanding exhaust gases, allowing for more efficient expulsion and therefore greater thrust; essentially, a rocket works better in space due to the lack of air resistance."

===
First one says "NO", 2nd says "YES"...   alongside spouting some stuff that is general "true/sourced" -- but this Yes/No answer/conclusion --- totally unreliable.

So do not EVER rely on Google AI for "conclusions" -- but only "clues" about what to google next in order to find the true sources it's using.

[najak]

If you think so, then you had better address those corrections I reminded you of today.

So I went back, pasted your "wisdom" into the final pages of the Doc - and answered them there.  Read the doc for the full response:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sJsIUlzdVF3brADa8YwR4XTg59mod-K2ct4jQCSKlyA/edit?usp=sharing

===
As it boils down to the following point, of why I'm confident that you cannot "explain away this extended +72% is this this:

The Law of Conservation of Energy also applies as we translate the energy released via Hypergolic combustion into THRUST/Power.  You CANNOT CREATE MORE ENERGY THAN WAS PRODUCED BY THE COMBUSTION.  Whether it be in the form of Pressure Thrust, Static Pressure, or Momentum Thrust - the combination of all of these thrust factors, CANNOT EXCEED THE POWER/ENERGY GENERATED BY COMBUSTION.

So which claim are you suggesting:
1. The engine only operates at 60% efficiency in steady state?
2. Or that we can Break the Law of Conservation of Energy


THIS is why I stand confident why this has NEVER BEEN DEBUNKED, nor ever will.   Not by you; not by anyone.   It BREAKS PHYSICS in some very simple core fundamental ways.

[JayUtah]

First one says "NO", 2nd says "YES"...   alongside spouting some stuff that is general "true/sourced" -- but this Yes/No answer/conclusion --- totally unreliable.

Neither one is correct.

So do not EVER rely on Google AI for "conclusions" -- but only "clues" about what to google next in order to find the true sources it's using.

Agreed, but you still don't understand the sources you've cited, no matter how you came by them. And instead of paying attention to the correction, you just doubled down on it. This one is not correct either :—

Typically when "exhaust is blocked" causing the chamber to build up "pressure" it constricts the outflow of exhaust - and thus decreases "Momentum Thrust" -- which is the "good thrust" from which [most] of the thrust is typically derived.

This is so full of errors it's difficult to know where to start. Literally the only thing that even comes close to being correct is the last half of the last sentence.

Blocking the exit plane does not cause a rise in chamber pressure. Chamber pressure exists literally only between the injector and the throat. After the exhaust is "choked" there, a different regime takes place. Chamber pressure results in exhaust velocity between the throat and the exit plane.

A rising chamber pressure does not impede exhaust flow. Rather, it accelerates it.

Pressure thrust is purely a function of the ambient pressure at the exit plane, the static exhaust pressure at the exit plane, and the exit plane area. The static exhaust pressure is largely a function of the expansion ratio. None of this has anything to do with chamber pressure.

There is nothing magical about momentum thrust. The different modes of thrust simply have their jobs to do. Exhaust velocity is unimpeded in a vacuum, but it is impossible for the plume to be as coherent in a vacuum as it is in the ambient. In the high-priesthood form of the rocket thrust equation, v_e is not a scalar quantity.

Now to examine your AI misdirections...

Answer: "In a vacuum, pressure thrust does not contribute to a rocket's thrust at all, as there is no ambient pressure to create a pressure differential; therefore, the thrust of a rocket in a vacuum is entirely due to the momentum of the expelled exhaust gases which is achieved through the high velocity of the ejected gas, not pressure differences."
===

This didn't sound right to me...

It isn't. The pressure differential is highest when the ambient pressure is zero. And the only way to achieve a zero static pressure in vacuum is to have an infinitely long exhaust nozzle.

Answer: "Yes, for rockets, the pressure thrust is significantly greater in a vacuum compared to an atmosphere because there is no ambient pressure to oppose the expanding exhaust gases, allowing for more efficient expulsion and therefore greater thrust; essentially, a rocket works better in space due to the lack of air resistance."

No, pressure thrust has absolutely nothing to do with the "efficient expulsion" of the exhaust.

[JayUtah]

So I went back, pasted your "wisdom" into the final pages of the Doc - and answered them there.  Read the doc for the full response:

I don't care about your document. If you have an argument to make, make it here.

The Law of Conservation of Energy also applies...

So which claim are you suggesting:
1. The engine only operates at 60% efficiency in steady state?

Where are you getting this figure?

[najak]

Where are you getting this figure?

My first answer was Draft #1.  Now I've made a 2nd draft with more clarity, as my 1st draft didn't clarify "heat" produced in combustion - a necessary waste.

Here is Revision #2:

The Law of Conservation of Energy also applies as we translate the energy released via Hypergolic combustion into THRUST/Power.  You CANNOT CREATE MORE ENERGY THAN WAS PRODUCED BY THE COMBUSTION.  Whether it be in the form of Pressure Thrust, Static Pressure, or Momentum Thrust - the combination of all of these thrust factors, CANNOT EXCEED THE POWER/ENERGY GENERATED BY COMBUSTION.

Apollo Ascent Engine converts about 60% of the combustion energy into Kinetic energy, and the other 40% mostly into Heat.

In order to increase the nominal thrust from 15600 N to 26000 N, we’d need to convert over 100% of the combustion energy into kinetics, which allows 0% to be converted to Heat.  Not possible.

So which claim are you suggesting:
1. The engine can convert the other 40% of heat energy into Kinetic energy, and therefore generate no heat.
2. Or that we can Break the Law of Conservation of Energy, outputting MORE energy than is produced by combustion.

Note: During the first 0.80 seconds we see signs of unburned fuel, which means we have even less combustion energy to begin with.

[JayUtah]

Apollo Ascent Engine converts about 60% of the combustion energy into Kinetic energy, and the other 40% mostly into Heat.

According to what?

So which claim are you suggesting:

I'm not suggesting any claim. Don't try to put words in my mouth.

The engine can convert the other 40% of heat energy into Kinetic energy...

Not all thrust is from the kinetic energy of the exhaust. If you had paid attention to anything I've said in the past 24 hours, you'd realize this.

[TimberWolfAu]

...

From reading yours and Jays posts, this looks a lot like the kangaroo/sack of potatoes analogy.

In short, we can determine the amount of energy a kangaroo requires each day, by comparing the lifting and dropping of a sack of potatoes of equal weight, counting how many 'jumps' are made each day. From this we learn that a kangaroo cannot possible consume sufficient energy from their food to meet this energy requirement, and thus, all kangaroos are extinct.

But, as the late Terry Pratchett put it, "Strangely, Australia is positively teeming with kangaroos, who fortunately cannot do physics."

Watch a kangaroo though, they don't jump, they bounce, 'borrowing' energy between each bounce, and paying it back, so very little energy is spent overall. A similar analogy would be to compare the exhaust from the ascent engine as it forces it's way out of its initially constrained area, resulting in additional forces being applied to the bottom of the ascent stage, ie we've borrowed energy from the exhaust, giving the ascent stage a little boost. Naturally, this boost would be short lived, but we don't have sufficient details or resolution to be able determine this, as the footage we have, converted to digital mediums, doesn't give sufficient resolution to accurately track specific locations, since we would care more about the amount of movement in parts of seconds, rather than full seconds.

But I could be way off, I'm not a rocket engineer after all, just some thoughts.

[Mag40]

For reference, @LunarOrbit and @Mag40, and anyone who wants to know the truth about Google AI related to Science, as I was searching for articles regarding "Pressure Thrust in vacuum vs. atmosphere"... I simply asked the same type of question in two different browsers, and got the EXACT OPPOSITE answer from Google AI.   So when I say "never use Google AI as a reference" -it's because it's stupid.   It only provides you "some clues", but the conclusions can be completely wrong.

So do not EVER rely on Google AI for "conclusions" -- but only "clues" about what to google next in order to find the true sources it's using.

There's a reason we have the phrase "it's not rocket science". It is extremely complex. As JayUtah has told you, neither of those answers are correct. But your extremely bad analogous comparison needs quantifying. On the one hand I asked AI to help you to understand your appalling physics failures, where you reconciled soil rising with a jumper to some suction-cup/vacuum explanation and then when realising how dumb that was you moved on to a force that isn't even a propelling one. AI is quite able to gleam how physics works in such simple circumstances - you though, not so much.

Quit behaving like some prima-donna and take your rocket science lessons.

[najak]

But I could be way off, I'm not a rocket engineer after all, just some thoughts.

Your analogy involved biology -- living creatures and complex types of physics which can involve elastic rebounding (spring-like actions) that transfer the energy from the fall back into a rise.

But if you were to capture a single jump of the Kangaroo, and measure it's velocity every 1/3rd second, I guarantee you that we could accurately estimate the NET Acceleration at each point.  Granted the kangaroo STILL is far more complex, because it's not a "rigid body"... so you'd have some error in trying to estimate the center of mass.

With the AM, it simplifies much closer to "Rigid body physics" - the easiest kind.   Since we're upright, not rotating with lunar gravity, this limits the fuel sloshing, and the astronauts are firmly on the ground -- there is a negligible amount of sloshing.   So we can solve this via simply Rigid-Body Physics, and estimate accurately and with CERTAINTY - the NET FORCE operating on this module.

Since it starts at rest - there is no "kinetic energy" starting out, to wonder "where did that go?" --  We have a very SIMPLE context to solve, because we have ONE ENERGY/POWER source - the fuel combustion.  And somehow this fuel combustion which NOMINALLY outputs 15600 N, is somehow producing a 26000 N STEADY 1-full-second force.  (+72% above nominal)

From where is this ENERGY coming that provides this super-natural force?  Maybe the Astronauts studied with Yoda.

At minimum, Jay is claiming he can to "use complex logic to explain how this context Breaks the Law of Conservation of Energy".  In my world, he might as well be saying "I can walk on water". 

I say "do it, do it, do it -- already".   But he won't because he CAN'T.

[najak]

Not all thrust is from the kinetic energy of the exhaust. If you had paid attention to anything I've said in the past 24 hours, you'd realize this.

Yet ALL THRUST in this context must be derived from Fuel Combustion.  And since we're not just talking about a 1-time fluke Impulse, because it's a full 1-second of steady double-acceleration, we're talking about SERIOUS ENERGY CREATION.

If you had paid more attention in high school physics, you'd realize that what you are claiming to be able to do - isn't possible (i.e. creating new energy).  Thus, why this has NEVER BEEN DEBUNKED.

You won't debunk this, because you CAN'T.  I don't believe you are uneducated enough to truly believe that you can, which implies bad things about your honesty/integrity/motivations.