#1: Cobblers. You got the chance and the motivation to work it out for yourself and that is the kind of learning that sticks.
#2: YOU are dragging it out. Where's the energy balance?
#1: Nope. I spent hours learning something that should have taken seconds, simply because I didn't think I was "missing something easy but vital". It was a case of: "Oh ooops -- most of the mechanical energy from combustion at launch goes into the Exhaust, not the AM." This was not about "teaching" but "posturing".
#2: I did -- I asked "what is the Aerozine Combustion energy released?" -- it doesn't seem to be anywhere on the internet that I could find, except Google AI - but without references... so don't trust it. Finding Hydrazine was easy... So used that as a placeholder for now --
So simple, for 1 second:
{Combustion Energy released} = {Mechanical Energy change: AM + Exhaust} + {Heat}
40 MJ = {AM + 120 kJ} + {Exhaust + 24 MJ!!!} + {Heat = 16 MJ}
So clearly -- AM deviations are not unexplainable via the energy equation.
===
So next step is "Fluid Dynamics" & "Heat/Expansion/Pressure" - to figure out the resulting thrust.
This is where it gets more complex.
The aperture fo the Chamber is 16 SqIn, and the Exit Aperature of the 1.5 deg cant, is 59.3 SqIn
As the AM rises, every inch increases this outflow by 97 sqIn. So by 1 inch off the ground, we have 156 sqIn exit... about 9.5x the Chamber Aperature.
I would presume that the pressure in the Nozzle compared to the Combustion Chamber correlates (near linearly?) to the ratio of the apertures.
So starting out, the ratio is 3.6x. Not sure how quickly the Combustion chamber psia builds up to 120 -- but that's steady state.
The fuel feed line comes in at 170 psia.... so fluctuations in this Combustion Chamber pressure is BAD -- because it can cause Reverb... as high pressure slows the fuel feed rate (I presume due to less pressure differential). So it would a bad/dangerous design if they didn't manage this well enough to avoid significant reverb (presuming)...
So added to my spreadsheet, tab 3 -- "PT" -- where I calculate the resulting anticipated Pressure Thrust, every 0.1 inch interval as it takes off.
This spreadsheet is lacking and invalid, because it does not account for "Momentum Thrust" or other contributors (if any).... it only calculates Pressure Thrust, and I think my equations have one or more issues. This was my first pass through.
I understand Fluid Dynamic concepts, but not intimately, and haven't had professional experience with calculating these. My methods are crude, to give me "estimates/ideas" only. As such, it would be highly inappropriate for me to create the "real Debunk" here...
But if Jay will do it - I'll learn Fluid Dynamics well enough to check his work, and more importantly, we can farm it around for Peer Review, validation by other Rocket scientists/etc.
I'd think the professionals could simply plug this into a 3D simulation, and have it spit out the predicted results -- Fluid Dynamics Rocket engine CAD, package of some sort.
Something like this:
https://info.thermoanalytics.com/rapid-flow-cfd-softwareThis is work for an experienced professional. I'm only here to note the absence of such a proof, even after 40+ years that this claim has stood.
