Hoax? - Lunar Launches - Too Fast

[Mag40]

Your goal is to stall this, because the end of the road, looks bad for the Apollogy.

Oh do shut up with this endless childish posturing. You're not on Facebook now amongst the ignorant.

This claim has stood 40+ years without debunk..  because it can't be debunked.

Who first made this claim 40 years ago? Did they provide rocket equations to dispute it? Or did they jump up and down like a five-year old throwing their toys on the floor in a huff?

[JayUtah]

19.4 MJ/kg for O2 - was just LOOKED UP.  For popular combustion formulas - these #'s are already known.

No. "Standard heat of combustion" is a particular thing that has a particular function in thermodynamics. It's not just a shortcut. You tried to discredit the analytical approach because its results didn't agree with your expectation that you could just look up a one-size-fits-all number that was the universal right answer. You made a point about trusting the combined work of the industry over some allegedly ad hoc analytical approach, so no—it's not a matter of you making an innocent error in what you thought were looking up. You were pretty overt in claiming that the analytical approach itself was suspect. Every step of this process runs up against you being confidently wrong, and as I said, there's a limit to how much I'm going to spend my holiday free time defusing your hubris.

So - I've calculated 23 MJ/kg

What's included in your kilogram?

how close is this to the # you calculate or have in mind?

Not close at all, because my answer depends on my choice of answers to the paragraph of corollary questions you've ignored, and because it's not clear whether your kilogram includes the oxidizer. When you provide your answers to all those questions and justify them, then we can agree on what the total enthalpy of the system should be and how we got there.

[JayUtah]

I checked through our 30 pages here, and see no such mention of "other significant contributors"

https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=2016.msg58227#msg58227

[ApolloEnthusiast]

You've already established that pedagogy is something you're not competent to critique. Stop biting the hand that feeds you and take the free education you're being graciously given in spite of your arrogance and lack of gratitude.

Unclog your nose, so you can smell the fish.  He's doing all he can do to discredit me, and find excuses to stall.

He couldn't possibly do anything more to discredit you than you've done yourself. I've been correcting your extremely poor research and discussion habits for weeks now and it hasn't even made a dent with you. You're a fraud and con man. I sincerely hope that you will learn how to productively participate in discussions like these, but failing that, I would settle for you to just admit that the conspiracy theory is fun for you and you don't want to give it up. Either way, just stop wasting everyone's time.

[najak]

I checked through our 30 pages here, and see no such mention of "other significant contributors"

https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=2016.msg58227#msg58227

Thank you.

If I'm reading it correctly , I see your mention here of two other factors to examine:
1. Ignition Transient behavior
2. Descent Platform - Rebound Shock wave.

Please confirm my understanding of what you wrote.

So we have this Top Level view of Factors that do/could impact Thrust during the first 1-second:
1. Normal Momentum Thrust + Pressure Thrust.
2. Static Pressure Thrust
3. Ignition Transient behavior
4. Descent Platform - rebound Shock wave.

Got anything else to add to this list?


ALSO - SHOCKWAVE:
Also for the "Shock wave" concept - please describe in better detail the nature of this contributor.  Are you suggesting the platform bends and then snaps-back?
And in doing so adds acceleration in which of these two ways?
(a) striking the platform itself against the rocket nozzle exit?  (like a hammer strike)
(b) OR, that the whole AM will "lower with the bend, and then be launched upwards from it?" (like a kid on a trampoline)

Is there any more to this theory than the above?

[najak]

So - I've calculated 23 MJ/kg

What's included in your kilogram?

Kg of A50 only.   I believe this AM is burning about 2 kg/sec at steady state, correct? 

So if this approach provides an accurate prediction of combustion energy, then we're dealing with about 46 MJ/sec of energy output.

Please confirm or correct, and let's move on.  What are you going to do with this result?

[najak]

Kg of A50 only.   I believe this AM is burning about 2 kg/sec at steady state, correct? 
So if this approach provides an accurate prediction of combustion energy, then we're dealing with about 46 MJ/sec of energy output.
Please confirm or correct, and let's move on.  What are you going to do with this result?

@JayUTAH, yoohoo...  what's the next step?

[bknight]

Kg of A50 only.   I believe this AM is burning about 2 kg/sec at steady state, correct? 
So if this approach provides an accurate prediction of combustion energy, then we're dealing with about 46 MJ/sec of energy output.
Please confirm or correct, and let's move on.  What are you going to do with this result?

@JayUTAH, yoohoo...  what's the next step?

That's not how it works.

[JayUtah]

@JayUTAH, yoohoo...  what's the next step?

I have zero tolerance for your obsession over me personally, and it appears Lunar Orbit has only slightly more. It's the holiday season. I desire to spend the bulk of it with my family, not with you. I am endeavoring to finish up my company's business so that my employees can enjoy the holidays similarly unfettered. Teaching you remedial thermodynamics is not high on my priority list right now.

No, you got the wrong answer for your implied conditions. No, I'm not going to debug your scatterbrained spreadsheet to figure out why. Perhaps if you wrote your answer out in a more conventionally narrative or structured form, you'd have a better chance of discovering your own error.

The next steps—as I've told you the previous two or three times you asked—are to examine the conditions that apply and determine how to adjust the thermodynamic model away from standard conditions to more accurately reflect the actual conditions. As I explained, that starts with your answers to the paragraph of questions I included in the post where I specified the reactions and thermodynamic patterns.

[JayUtah]

Got anything else to add to this list?
* * *
Also for the "Shock wave" concept - please describe in better detail the nature of this contributor.  Are you suggesting the platform bends and then snaps-back?
* * *
Is there any more to this theory than the above?

As I suspected. Stop trying to make the Gish gallop happen.

[bknight]

On a personal note I really hated Thermo. 
Too much enthalpy and entropy.