|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Quick Questions, Short Answers - No Debate | |||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 23144 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
crashfrog writes: How, for instance, would your model be different than this? In my model you are strapped to one of the propeller blades. ![]() --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1784 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I spent about two minutes trying to figure out how that was analogous to space travel before I realized you were burning me.
![]() It's a slow brain day.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 6186 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
Oh wow! The Bootstrap Drive!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3961 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Space propulsion has nothing to do with gases being pushed off of anything, or pushing on anything. Almost. Change the "nothing" to "everything" and you've got it ![]() This is a classic case of taking the debunking of a fallacy too far. The original fallacy is thinking that the exhaust gases push against the ground at take off, generating the upward thrust. But in dismissing this erroneous idea, the correct situation of the exhaust gases interacting with the walls of the combustion chamber seems to have been dismissed as well. The obvious picture to visualise is a small rocket sat in zero-g inside the combustion chamber of a much larger rocket. The small rocket fires. Observed from a distance, the large rocket will seen to be expelling exhaust gases, yet will not move. It will only accelerate once the small rocket impacts on the larger combustion chamber.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1784 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
If I designed a rocket engine that had no combustion chamber at all - let's say a pair of hollow tubes delivered propellant and oxidizer to a location well aft of the rocket where it was ignited - would it be able to move? Or would it move simply as a function of the fuel and oxidizer it was spraying out, with the energy of combustion lost?
Thanks for the correction, though. I was hoping you'd arrive to explain how wrong I was.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I think I've sussed this one out ...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3961 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Or would it move simply as a function of the fuel and oxidizer it was spraying out, with the energy of combustion lost? Essentially, yes. There will also be some propulsion from the impact of the combustion gases on the rear of the ship. Think of the Orion spacecraft design, which ejects H-bombs out the rear, detonates them, and rides the shock-wave.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1784 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Think of the Orion spacecraft design, which ejects H-bombs out the rear, detonates them, and rides the shock-wave. I think that was my favorite part of Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle's "Footfall." But now that I think of it - since you asked - why is there a shock-wave at all in the vacuum of space? It's easy to imagine a longitudinal wave through an atmospheric medium or the hot gases of chemical combustion, but how does the mechanical energy from the nuclear detonation actually reach the blast plate of an Orion-type spacecraft?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 157 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Is it time to move the propulsion to its own thread?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped! |
|||||||||||||||||||||
fearandloathing Member (Idle past 4462 days) Posts: 990 From: Burlington, NC, USA Joined: |
crashfrog writes: Yes it is. How, for instance, would your model be different than this? ![]() This was on myth-busters last nite, they used an air boat with the engine on backwards, it actually moved forward. Blow your own sail "I hate to advocate the use of drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they always worked for me." - Hunter S. Thompson Ad astra per aspera
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3961 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
It's not a shock-wave but a "shock-wave"
![]() We do get real shock-waves in space: the termination shock in the heliosphere being an obvious one, where the solar wind is impacting the interstellar medium.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3609 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
I watched march of the penguins. Remember the part where they try to transfer the egg and fail? The egg freezes and remains there for all of eternity.
There's a limited number of organic molecules on Earth. Almost everything gets recycled. But no, the penguins have to spend energy to produce the eggs and then dump them where it's always cold all the time so that the material is never recycled. (1) How long will it take for the penguins to take out enough organic material from the echosphere to start impacting the rest of us? (2) Are they anti-life? (3) Should we exterminate them to prevent a future disaster?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
According to my calculations, if the earth really was billions of years old then we'd all be knee-deep in discarded pinguin eggs. Since we're not, then the earth is young, evolution is false, creationism is true and there is a god. QED.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2424 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Taz writes:
They're just sequestering carbon. That's the latest fad. Give them a break.
I watched march of the penguins. Remember the part where they try to transfer the egg and fail? The egg freezes and remains there for all of eternity. There's a limited number of organic molecules on Earth. Almost everything gets recycled. But no, the penguins have to spend energy to produce the eggs and then dump them where it's always cold all the time so that the material is never recycled. (1) How long will it take for the penguins to take out enough organic material from the echosphere to start impacting the rest of us? (2) Are they anti-life? (3) Should we exterminate them to prevent a future disaster?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined: |
(1) How long will it take for the penguins to take out enough organic material from the echosphere to start impacting the rest of us? The dry biomass of the earth is ~ 3 quadrillion kilogrammes. An emperor penguin's egg weighs ~ 500g. An egg is ~ 75% water. Hence it would take ~ 24 quadrillion eggs to sequester the Earth's biomass. The world population of emperor penguins is something under half a million, and they lay one egg a year. Only half of them are female, so let's call it a quarter of a million eggs per year. Obviously they need to maintain their numbers in order to carry out what would necessarily be a very long-term plan. However, even if we were to neglect this factor, it would still take them 96 billion years to convert all life on Earth into penguin eggs.
(2) Are they anti-life? Yes. They're just not very good at it.
(3) Should we exterminate them to prevent a future disaster? While the threat from their egg-laying activities is minimal, there is always the possibility that they'll think of some more efficient way to destroy life as we know it. It would therefore be prudent to take some pre-emptive measure such as the annihilation of all penguins. There will be the usual protests from animal rights activists, so I suggest that we kill them too. You can't be too careful. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025