One thing no one can disprove...

[ArMaP]

NOTE:  IF only Hydrogen & Oxygen is used in a Combustion type Rocket Engine This can NOT Work !

This is a fact of Physics ...   

Isn't it used in the last stages, the ones when there's less atmosphere?

I would like to see any real evidence of that fact of Physics, as, apparently, the fact that they use it appears to contradict it.

PS: adding things not related to what I'm asking doesn't help.
But thanks for the help.

[The Matrix Traveller]

ArMap

On what I'm talking about it is, as I asked about an oxygen+hydrogen rocket, not about any other oxidizer+fuel.

Or is it not possible to make an oxygen+hydrogen rocket?

I answered this in my last post !   

All about Hydrogen and Oxygen as per your Question .

ArMap

I asked about an oxygen+hydrogen rocket

AND

ArMap

Or is it not possible to make an oxygen+hydrogen rocket?

TMT

Hydrogen

Many early rocket theorists believed that hydrogen would be a marvelous propellant
since it gives the highest specific impulse.

It is also considered the cleanest when used with a liquid oxygen oxidizer because the only by-product is water.


As hydrogen in any state is very bulky, for lightweight vehicles it is typically stored
as a deeply cryogenic liquid.

This storage technique was mastered in the early 1950s as part of the hydrogen bomb
development program at Los Alamos.

It was then adopted for hydrogen fueled stages such as Centaur and Saturn upper stages
in the late 50s and early 1960s.

Even as a liquid, hydrogen has low density, requiring large tanks and pumps, and the extreme cold
requires tank insulation.

This extra weight reduces the mass fraction of the stage or requires extraordinary measures
such as pressure stabilization of the tanks to reduce weight.

Pressure stabilized tanks support most of the loads with internal pressure rather than with solid structures.

Most rockets that use hydrogen fuel use it in upper stages only.

Gaseous hydrogen is commercially produced by the fuel-rich burning of natural gas.

Carbon forms a stronger bond with oxygen so the gaseous hydrogen is left behind.

Liquid hydrogen is stored and transported without boil-off because helium, which has a lower boiling point
than hydrogen, is the cooling refrigerant.

Only when hydrogen is loaded on a launch vehicle (where there is no refrigeration) does it vent
to the atmosphere.


NOTE:  IF only Hydrogen & Oxygen is used in a Combustion type Rocket Engine This can NOT Work !

This is a fact of Physics ...   

Simply because the by-product is WATER which is far denser than Hydrogen and Oxygen Gas !

In this case an Implosion would take place !   


But if another (Inert) gas is Added, the whole Scenario changes, to that of Expansion !   


Because the Oxidising Hydrogen heats the Inert gas and thus this Inert gas, because it can't burn easily,
expands rapidly which then pushes against the 'Exhaust Cone' and as it is a Law of physics,

"To every Action there is an opposite and equal reaction"

The Rocket is pushed forward, in the opposite direction the 'Exhaust Cone' is pointing !

Thrust can also be obtained from Non chemical Jets. In other words NOT involving Combustion,
as <spacemaverick> pointed out.

[ArMaP]

ArMap
I answered this in my last post !   

You did, 2 hours after I made that post you quoted, and I read it this morning, there's no need to repeat it or to "roll eyes". 

[Logos]

If it's producing then it's not a specific amount of gas expanding, and I think that's what that "free expansion" principle is about, the expansion of a specific amount of gas into a bigger volume than the one it was occupying before.

Any amount of gas we produce will, by definition, be a "specific amount" as we do not have the ability to produce an infinite amount of gases by any means.

A rocket engine will produce a hell of a lot--yet a specific amount--of gas. After all, it won't have an infinite fuel & oxygen supply and the resulting gas product will be released into the "bigger volume" vacuum of space--entire universe--right? 

From what I can see, outer space has an infinite capacity to accept gases instantly, i.e., in so doing you cannot pressurize it like a gas tank regardless of the speed or volume at which you release gases into it. This is a critical factor in my viewpoint.

[Logos]

A plane or boat with a running propeller engine will not move in the vacuum of space and I think for the same reasons neither will a rocket in the same environment.

Really? A rocket won't work in the vacuum of space?

By "won't work" I don't mean the engine won't ignite--I allow that it might, so that's a moot point. I mean the rocket won't move.

[Logos]

You know...I never thought of that....however if you have a chamber closed at one end and you have a force coming out of that chamber then basically the force is against the closed portion of the chamber...right?  The pressure has to go somewhere and from that force you have movement.

The force produced by the expansion of the gases will be against *everything* in the way of those expanding gas molecules, including the surrounding atmosphere.

In outer space the gases will escape into the vacuum with zero resistance; those gas molecules will not push against the chamber. We tend to think certain things will behave in outer space the same way they do on earth because that is our only point of reference.

For example, we tend to act as if our surrounding atmosphere is "nothing" when it is in fact quite dense and offers resistance to the movement of other gases. It is this resistance that a rocket's escaping gases encounter, thus providing a reaction that moves the rocket in the opposite direction.

In the vacuum of space however, no atmosphere, thus no resistance encountered by exhaust gases, thus no "equal and opposite reaction", thus no movement--at least from where I'm standing.

[Logos]

If Rockets do not work in space...

...how do they get back down from orbit? Exactly! Besides, how do you truly *know* rockets are going into orbit?


If rockets do not work in space...

...then there are NO ANOMALIES in the Moon and Mars photos...

...because they could not have taken those photos on the Moon or Mars


Bingo! This is why I stated in a previous post they couldn't have done any of this with the technology they'd have us believe they used. I see two possibilities here:

(a) all NASA imagery must be fake because they couldn't have gone up there to
     capture said images, or
(b) at least some of the imagery can be real but they've been using classified
     technology to accomplish these feats.

Either way, we're being lied to.

[Logos]

If you can disprove a "positive" can you prove a negative?  I had that question offered to me at one time...

Yes.

[Logos]

In the end, whether rocket engines will or will not move something in outer space is a matter of conjecture because:

(a) we cannot replicate on earth the environment of outer space by constructing a super-massive, zero-G vacuum chamber with (and this is important) an infinite capacity to accept gases so we may observe if a rocket will or will not move in said environment, and

(b) John Q. Public cannot readily travel into outer space to observe whether or not a rocket will move in the vacuum of space.

Thus, we are left in the uncomfortable position of simply having to accept NASA's claims as a matter of faith.

I, for one, will not as they have no credibility in my book.

[zorgon]

(b) John Q. Public cannot readily travel into outer space to observe whether or not a rocket will move in the vacuum of space.

Ask Tito   he went... with the Russians, not NASA



http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=98612

[zorgon]

In the end, whether rocket engines will or will not move something in outer space is a matter of conjecture because:

[ArMaP]

Any amount of gas we produce will, by definition, be a "specific amount" as we do not have the ability to produce an infinite amount of gases by any means.

That's true, but not really an answer to what I wrote, as you broke the sentence in two parts and replied to the first half, making it look like something different.

What I said was that, from what I could find, that "free expansion" is about the expansion of a specific amount of gas, not about the burning of some fuel to produce gas.

[ArMaP]

In the vacuum of space however, no atmosphere, thus no resistance encountered by exhaust gases, thus no "equal and opposite reaction", thus no movement--at least from where I'm standing.

As you say "vacuum of space" I got a doubt: what you are saying is supposed to be applied to the "vacuum of space" or to any vacuum?

Edit: I saw now your post saying that we cannot recreate the conditions of space, so please ignore this post, as it was made before I read that post.

[zorgon]

In the vacuum of space however, no atmosphere, thus no resistance encountered by exhaust gases, thus no "equal and opposite reaction", thus no movement--at least from where I'm standing.

Well your logic is flawed   

Since there is no atmosphere large objects like a rocket or even a large bus sized satellite encounter no resistance from friction. So an Astronaut can literal push a huge satellite by hand 

The "equal and opposite reaction" is the gas pushing away from the inside of the rocket which causes the rocket to move  It is NOT the gases pushing against the atmosphere that gives thrust. If that WAS the case the rockets we launch would slow down and fall back as they reached thin air  and we KNOW that does not happen because we can see that with our eyes

Theoretically an Astronaut could point a flashlight in one direction and eventually reach the speed of light (or near it)  Provided the battery did not run out or he ran out of air   But the light beam from that flashlight would given enough time be enough to move him

THAT is basically what an ION drive is  a very big flashlight

[Logos]

Ask Tito   he went... with the Russians, not NASA



http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=98612

Right... 

BTW, I'm a billionaire who owns a mega-mansion, a yacht, and date a different supermodel each day of the week.

This is true simply because I say so.