Rockets in a Vacuum Chamber - Newton's third law of motion Visualized
I Ignite a SRB Rocket Motor in a vacuum chamber in slow motion to Challenge Newtons Third Law of motion.
Do newtons laws of motion apply in a Vacuum?.
If we get a reaction and the rocket motor produces thrust while in a vacuum then we know Newtons 3rd Law applies regardless of the presence of an atmosphere and many of the theories can be put to rest.
Heres the law: www.physicsclassroom.com/class...
Check out the other rocket videos in this Playlist: • Rockets and Science
I Also Ignited a Model Rocket Engine inside the giant vacuum chamber, engines cannot burn in space at all, in a way we are busting a myth, but this was a viewer request.
The result of this experiment was very fascinating, surprising and interesting, tell us what you think about the results in the comments below.
👊 ►Subscribe to get notified when we post new episodes and videos. PLEASE SUBSCRIBE HERE: goo.gl/ffsm8r
Heres our Google Plus:
plus.google.com/u/0/+WarpedPe...
🌟 FOLLOW US ON SOCIAL NETWORKS:
🐦 ► Twitter: / warpperception
👍 ► Facebook: / warpperception
◙ ► Instagram: / warped.perception
☢ ► IMDB: www.imdb.com/title/tt5548028/?
Please leave any opinions suggestions or comments Below and don't forget to check out our other videos and subscribe , we have many more videos on the way. Thank you.
Watch this in 4k whether you have a 4k tv or not, it looks incredibly insane, in a good way. its awesome !
Directed By: Matt Mikka
Carbon 12
www.c12.tv
Matt Mikka
www.MattMikka.com
Here's a quandary for anyone who believes rockets don't work in space. Say you're in space and you're just floating. You're wearing a spacesuit and holding a basketball. You then decide to throw the basketball. Does the basketball move? If not, what's stopping it? If it does move, do you move the other way? If you do, then that's how rockets work in space. If you don't move, then why are you so different from the basketball in this physical interaction?
The "rocket propulsion deniers" will agree that physics works when applied to a solid object like in your example. What you CANNOT convince them of is that GAS will behave the same way. They REFUSE to believe that each gas molecule behaves EXACTLY as the basketball and induces recoil to anything that accelerates it. They believe this because they think the "vacuum of space" will PULL Gas molecules from the rocket, but they dont realize the "vacuum of space" DOES NOT PULL ON ANYTHING.
@@stuartgray5877 them we just have to whack them on the nose with a newspaper and say "no" sternly until they learn to behave. If people are going to be selective with their use of the laws of motion then they can fuck off.
@@stevencurtis7157 they usually deny gravity is real as well. So there is that.🔨
@@cory5797 Not sure that really affects rocket exhaust, but if they can deny one demonstrable physical phenomenon, they can deny any.
So after the first basketball was pushed away from you....and pushing it away from you would feel weird because there would be no additional resistance from space, unlike being on the basketball court, where the atmosphere offers resistance to the basketballs movement as you push it away...... So pushing the basketball away from you in space is easily done. You push it away it offered very little weight resistance and flew away fast and kept going. You on the other hand may have felt a slight backlash from doing that, and lets say that amount of kickback made you move 1mph in the opposite direction, as the basketball is moving 30mph away from you not slowing down at all....so neither are you.....so now you are moving 1mph in the opposite direction away from the basketball while it moves away from you. Well what happens when you go to use another basketball now to make yourself speed up from 1mph to 2mph? Since you are now moving at a constant velocity of 1mph away from the direction you plan on pushing the next basketball away from you, it's the same as being on the basketball court, and walking backwards while you simultaneously try to pass the basketball someone in front of you as you are walking backwards away from them. Now pushing that basketball away from you doesn't have as much kick as the first time you did it....now pushing it away from you with the exact same amount of force doesn't make it move 30 miles per hour away from you...it's slower now because you are constantly moving the other direction. Pretty soon it doesn't do any good to push basketballs away from you, because you can't push them away fast enough to do anything now....You are moving at a constant velocity so you have to push the basketball away at least that velocity or it won't offer any resistance, and will no longer provide any thrust for you. this is exactly rockets do NOT work in space.
One problem with this test! The second the rocket gases began to fill the chamber, you lost your vaccume and created an atmosphere.
@Spot So??? That does not replicate a non-atmosphearic environment!
The vacuum would be progressively lost not instantly
And we don't question how do they navigate their rockets in a vacuum. BS
@@sekainiheiwa3650 - With more rockets...
Exactly!
Thats not a vacuum chamber its too small the thrust of the rocket can hit the walls , the rocket produces it own atmosphere and the vacuum gauge moves proving an atmosphere what a joke
jason grice it’s a vacuum for a moment. He was trying to test weather it would even light n a vacuum. I think
The very fact that people have to try to prove this is so telling. ...
@@zeppelin67637 you "think". Meaning you don't know.. He was trying to see if a rocket will thrust in a vaccum. Listen to what people say instead of what you want to hear.. Get your facts correct
@@stevewittwer7444 says the guy who never thought about what if a grenade exploded next to you in space
@dar'man beskar Ordo I'm suggesting only (and I don't believe the earth is flat also I'm not an astronaut pilot physicist or mathematician) that if you take a step back and clear your mind of any previously held notions, there is ALOT wrong with why it is 2019 with the technologies and we have almost no actual untainted PHOTOGRAPHS of the planet Earth...the shot showing half the earth illuminated from the moon is from 71 I think...the rest of the images, the blue marble images the images of earth that was in my grade school text book are ALL COMPOSITE IMAGES...all the planets are the same. Ally life I was under the impression that when I saw the picture if Saturn in front of me that it was a photograph of Saturn from a telescope..that's not the case. I'm rambling. My point is all of this flat Earth stuff is because of NASA's Shannigans...why did we have the tech to go to the moon during the Nixon administration...yet we never went back? We don't have THOUSANDS OF ACTUAL PHOTOGRAPHS OF OUR IWN PLANET? there's no satellites in upper earth orbit that can relay a live stream with an actual real live picture of the planet turning no astronaut up on the cool wonky good time Iss while they let their hair loose for photoshoots ever took there phone out and filmed or shot the whole planet and Instagramed the pic? I'm not talking about low orbit where you just see the curve. I'm saying the planet itself spinning....think about it there is NEVER a smooth video of launch orbit shot of earth then reentry etc. Yet Nixon was on the phone in live time with Niel and Buzz in 1969. This is just the beginning of the problems and I'm not good at debating. I'm open to anything. I think we are on a globe. Research a good flat Earth channel with an open mind not trying to debunk. Dismiss the stuff you think they are wrong about. Concentrate on why they fake the majority of Space stuff . NASA is fraudulent liars so caught in one lie..why would you believe other stuff....oh and they just happened to tape over the original footage right? And then accidentally lost the telemetry Data? Come on man. None of it. NONE of IT makes sense when you take it all in. Use reason and common sense. Leave what you don't like. They are hiding something...if you want a decent moon landing debunk research. Basically irrefutable once you open your eyes, let me Kno. So they pull that stunt off. Ask yourself why they'd tell you the truth after that. And don't be a NASA apologist and say oh the cold war etc. No. Why didn't Russia go to the moon after we "made it"? What Russia just "ah fuck we were beat...screw it" what and China just finally made it 50 years later? It makes no sense. Why didn't china publish a full earth photo or better yet a video wouldn't it be nice to have a live video of the earths rotation and etc etc. Then kids could really learn...the list goes on man...
Outer space is an infinite vacuum, that box is a finite small vacuum.
Waterworld 360 there is not such thing as an infinite vacuum, though I think I know what you’re saying. Space is a *complete* vacuum. The box is as good as we can do on earth, especially with consumer products. The engine did produce thrust when the effective pressure in its immediate vicinity is zero.
Bingo!
Prove space is a vacuum! Prove anything that holds weight for all eternity!
don't kid yourself, it's not even a real vacuum. Can remove air, but not all.
@@NoAgendaVideo And on top of that the gases expelled from the oxider built up pressure removing the vacuum element out of the equation.
Well done. As other have said the smoke from the exhaust created its own atmosphere inside a closed chamber. Space has no walls.
It’s still being pumped, how much gas do you think it makes?
@@Skeleton-bs7zy The pump if it does exist could not keep up. The speed of the exhaust is too great...The wall/rocket also reacts with Newton 3rd law of motion. Use a large chamber...
@@johnguy1350 what of the amount of thrust, it was highest at the start and still high at reasonable low pressure compared to its normal ability if the rocket relied on pressure to work shouldn't produce less inside a vacuum chamber. is the rocket producing enough atmosphere to act as normal pressure. Why would the third law work on the wall but not the gas
@@johnguy1350 Also their just a diy channel, how large do you expect them to build it
@@Skeleton-bs7zy I would suggest you conduct your own test and make a video of it. See what happens. The thrust coming out the tail will most likely move the rocket forward. The question then becomes control. Newton third law will work.
You need to show what is happening with the pressure gauge inside your vacuum while the fuel is burning because inside a sealed case it would probably create it's own atmosphere.
True its faken Its correct he fooled ...he created the Atmosphere to burn the oxygen but not really used Vacuum Because he'll fail and no one will see this video
@@anjanikumar.t1708 - Maybe you should leave the thinking to those that actually bothered to finish high school?
@@anjanikumar.t1708 Prime example of how some people won't believe anything, regardless of the evidence provided. Like all Flerfs, the'll just scream "nuh-uh!" and claim they've debunked it.
It lost half its vacuum when fired up.
@@lomasck LMAO. Half? You honestly think a little fire cracker like that created 0.5 Atmos of gas in a chamber that size? You'd be lucky if the pressure increased by even a full percent.
The problem is once the rocket lights off it fills the chamber with matter thus nullifying the vacuum. This experiment starts off in a vacuum but ends up a pressurized chamber.
It doesn't matter either way. A rockets thrust is not pushing off of anything.
@Jason Jennings ... dude these guys are shills! They always rely on Newton's third lie! They don't even understand it! They're deceivers and charlatans the science of today is like bad religion of yesterday. Anyway dude you rock God bless
@@ToxicTeemoOCE it is. In this case the chamber is too small and it's own particulates act as a backstop using it's own exhaust as atmosphere creating thrust. That is the experiments downfall. Chamber too small, igniter sealed in a air pocket nor in vacuum (epoxy) allowing ignition,. Failed test, but leaves some interesting questions and experiment ideas. Cheers
Yes,all man made. Rockets start in the atmosphere.then enters the vacuum of space
Not enough atmosphere generated by that rocket motor before it was effected by Newtons third law. It applied pressure to that scale within milliseconds. Your supposition failed.
I think you have to try it with longer chamber, so we can see how many "smokes" needed to reach the dead end of the room before it push the non-vacuum material.
Doesn't the rocket push against the wall's of the small chamber, seems like its the wrong parameters for any real conclusion. Much respect for effort and engineering though.
The thrust meter measures thrust before the plume of smoke gets a few inches from the nozzle. SO thrust is there before the chamber fills up.
There was no more vacuum when the smoke and gases filled the chamber. Even more, it is seen that the thrust increases with the increasing concentration of gas and particles inside the chamber. An even bigger chamber with constant dynamic vacuum would be required.
In increase in thrust over time is due to the motor design, these motors rarely have a constant thrust it changes over time depending on the thrust curve of that particular motor.
Correct. This video actually does more to prove that propulsion DOES NOT work in a vacuum.
@@MoneyIsSilver why did you run away from your other thread in this video coward? Are you SCARED of people that are more intelligent than you are? So you are afraid of EVERYONE? What a miserable life that must be...
@@MoneyIsSilver I could explain how rocket propulsion works but you must have at least a high school grasp of basic physics. I guess that disqualifies YOU.
@@stuartgray5877 You guys just embarass yourselves with the insults and lack of any real arguments.
space is not a confined box where exploding pressure can build up, same as if you put a grenade in the box and pull the pin. pressure would dismantle box.
Gary Davis oh yea? You’ve been to space? Grow up. Grenades are suspect too on another note
@@zacharyhill5052 Gary is absolutely spot on and concise. He makes a great point without being an insulting little flerf. However your post needs further explanation, because nobody can discern your point
Myco Fairbanks discussing outer space is theoretical only.
@@zacharyhill5052 I am sorry you feel that way. In my line of work, I discuss space with SpaceX, Blue Origin, Honeywell, and NASA scientists every day, and none of it is theoretical.
Myco Fairbanks Discuss their 401k options maybe. I can guarantee none of them have been to outer space. In my line of work, Spacex and Blue Origin are clients of my company. Write back after you ride in a blue origin or spacex rocket.
Your comparing the vacuum of space to a tiny chamber...? As soon as that rocket starts expelling gasses, it’s no longer a vacuum. So what’s the point here?
yes its true that the chamber fills up 100 % in a hundreds of a nanosecond. this is true also if the vacuum chamber is big as earth as the fill up is directly. Gases fill out with speed of the tens of the speed of light.
@larry ballard Its no vacuum...there is smoke and a atmosphere. Yes. We went to the moon in a Hollywood movie.
@Plasma Matter "Without the ether"?? SMH. You obviously skipped some class in science because there is no experiment that had proven the aether
to prove that solid rocket motors can burn with out oxygen?
no matter how hard you rage the vacuum of space exists rockets work we landed on the moon & the earth is still not flat
but dident the roccket produce atmosphere while burning off the oxidizer??
Exactly. And you can see the rocket produced more thrust as more atmosphere was produced.
You could do the same experiment with water blasting out and it would give the same result.
@Bobby b Same thing happens when you open a soda can in vacuum. You have immediate trust, without building up the atmosphere. So yes, the rocket would have moved even if it wouldn't produce "atmosphere".
@@amunra4015 No, it's producing more atmosphere as the thrust builds up.
No Not at all. Atmo means air, sphere means a spherical shape, atmosphere is therefore air that takes a spherical shape. No he did Not produce that at all.
I really liked your video. Thank you for going through all the trouble. I wish you showed us the vacuum pump setup and what the readings were throughout the experiment. Also I'd like to see what the amount of force generated was with an atmosphere and in a vacuum to compare.
This would have been the whole reason I performed the experiment. A test with no data is little more than playing around with no purpose at all
Hate to give those flatear ammo but you realize the second you expand gas inside the chamber you no longer have a vacuum.
+Daniel Atkins the difference between a deep vacuum and a medium vacuum is 0.0001% . But I was only concentrating on the first 10 or 20 milliseconds of the burn, that initial impulse, that's it.
Daniel Atkins - rockets don’t work in a vacuum, just face facts
Daniel Atkins lol thank you. I watched this video and was like that proves nothing. I still think the box was to small anyways. It most definitely got some velocity off the end of the tank. It doesn't have air to push off of.
Rockets do not push off anything. PERIOD. If anything rockets must OVERCOME the atmospheric pressure which causes drag. In space, no such problem exists. Rockets work more efficiently. This has been known longer than you've been alive. Learn something. kzhead.info/sun/ZbmcgadqaqWQYIE/bejne.htmlm32s
Thank you for being impartial it’s a breath of fresh air... which by the way you can’t get in a vacuum. 😏
Comparing a box made from plexiglass to the vacuum of space? Not sure if that really is apples to apples.
Its not but the soy boy NASA herd loves this shit.
@@fifthhorseman6933i love how u can explain in great detail how rockets won't work in space
@@cory5797 no need. There are videos explaining in detail why they don't. And you have watched them and trolled on them, fúckstick.. Mr NASA fúckstick is talking shit again using Another of his multitude of aliases he uses to write his many troll posts on every fe video he can find. Ignore him. He is baiting you.
@@cory5797 you tell us how they can thrust in space when there is nothing to thrust against. You are the Smartass here who thinks he knows it all. And how do they keep cool. Cannot convect, blow or radiate the heat in the vaccum of space.. Impossible to keep cool.
@@stevewittwer7444 lol let it go. U can't comprehend the concept. Obviously you can't be swayed with logical arguments
Has this guy done a video on building 7 yet?
Not yet it's coming up in about a week or so
@@WarpedPerception wow quick reply thank you. I am very much looking forward to a video from you about building 7. I'm sure you already know that if your video implies in any way that building 7 was a controlled demolition that you risk being demonitized? Well it shouldn't be difficult to do a better job than NIST did when it comes to explaining how building 7 reached free fall acceleration for about 100 ft. Looking forward to the video, got yourself a new sub, thanks!
@@FalconPunch1978 Termite + directed energy weapons. You can thank me later.
What is a "complete vacuum"? There is no such thing. Vacuum levels are have specific terms tied to them as follows: (RV) Rough vacuum= 1x10-3 torr, (HV) High Vacuum= 1x10-7 Torr, (UHV) Ultra High Vacuum 1x10-11. The terms "complete vacuum" and "full vacuum" are meaningless.
@@OliverMiles98 This guy doesn''t have a high vacuum pump[ (turbo pump or cryo pump). So he is operating in the rough vacuum regime. So that means lots and lots of molecules left in that box. In fact I would be surprised if he is even less than 1 torr.
You lost the vacuum by pressuring the chamber with the rocket exhaust. Show constant vacuum on video next test.
thank goodness someone with a brain.....good one dan..theses guys are ether trolls or feds...no ones this dumb...lolol..u are right dan...
Plus, I believe they only used solid fuel boosters for liftoff. Once they were in space they used the liquid fuel rockets. Basically another reason this example/test doesn't prove anything. Well, it DOES prove something but to say it would seem 'trollish'. LOL Take Care All
that and there is a wall 3 ft away from the rocket... you would have to build a much bigger chamber imo and show that you had a sollid vacuum the whole time
Nice to see a few Lions among all the Sheep.
Not enough atmosphere generated by that rocket motor before it was effected by Newtons third law. It applied pressure to that scale within milliseconds. Your supposition failed.
Was I the only one that noticed that sick SUPRA?!?!??
Yeh
I did
Better feature it more!
Noticed it.... what else happened in the video?
Wrxles Xxx/Missed it. What is the supra?!?!?!?
video of vacuum gauge is also got to be constantly monitored
the lid lifting proofs positive presure not a vacuum
Damn so stupid
If rockets required an atmosphere to work then jet engine performance would progressively get worse with altitude as the air thins but as long as airspeed is increased to maintain sufficient airflow for combustion performance is unaffected by altitude (it technically gets better) Until the air becomes too thin to maintain combustion and wingborne lift but that's why rockets exist since they carry their own oxygen
clearly an idiot trying to educate ppl haha lol
@@PabloGonzalez-hv3td are you stupid ? Do you know that solid rockets burn without oxygen ?
@@sigmamale4147 Solid fuels still contain an oxidizer you muppet
You "think" it's enough proof for you?? Sounds very convincing to me. What's next ?? You going to prove 2 alloy planes can down 4 buildings??
I don't just like your comment.....I love it.
You need to I dare you
no but Judy Woods proved that the Towers and other building were atomized by directed energy weapons, check it out!
Ok so does a flat basket ball wiegh less then a full one
@B.A.T. Guts and Glory your looking though nothing right now there is space between air molecules
A good experiment would be: instead of testing a rocket thrust in a huge ass vacuum chamber (it's hard to make one), you should make a huge pressurized chamber and see if there is a thrust increase due to increase of pressure. If there is an increase in thrust then you can say it would lack trust in a vacuum because of a direct relation ship of thrust increases directly as pressure increases.
Very Good! But there is no reason to build a chamber to test this (huge-ass or otherwise). Water is 784X more dense than air. So rockets should work 784X better underwater if they needed something to push on. And there is lots of video of underwater rockets. kzhead.info/sun/aph_eb1rinmaZ6M/bejne.html
Severely underrated comment.
oof you are thinking outside the box
Wouldn't that be why the nozzle size of a rocket engine only works nominally at one specific altitude? So obviously pressure is a factor for thrust....
@@kk3623 That relates to something called specific impulse the pressure can reduce the impulse dependant on engine design. It has more to do with the atmospheric pressure preventing fuel from leaving the engine than anything else. But now that I think about it this would further prove the idea that you need a atmosphere to push off wrong since the atmosphere hinders the engine efficiency instead of helping it.
Great Work! I would like to see the pressure guage reading along with the scale reading side by side. I suspect that initial ignition might re-pressurize the vacuum chamber? The vastness of space would be hard to re-pressurize. Kudos to the ingenuity and effort!
You "suspect"? Please calculate the volume of gas produced in the burning of the rocket fuel. Don't forget to show your working. In the meantime, you can watch countless armature rocket videos of vehicles continuing to accelerate under power as they climb through the rapidly thinning atmosphere.
you can see in the video there no suspecting, you see the exhaust pushing off the walls and the back end of the chamber filling up which then pushes it back towards the rocket. even a long bit of soot can be seen(in slo mo part of clip) travelling towards the backend and hit the higher pressure coming back up towards the scale end and joining it, it even passes through/against the new exhaust when its burning it hardest and catches fire but that new exhaust isn't enough to push agaist the pressure built up from the other end and goes to land at the scale end. as for him working out the volume there a pressure guage on the chamber all you need to do is see what it at before starting and what it is at after should tell you the new mass in the chamber. rockets lose speed travelling straight up as the air gets thin the exhaust flame spreads right out in all directions meaning less going straight down giving less thrust upward to the point they can't keep going staight up and so you see them arc over and fly out of sight crash in the ocean or whatever lol they not going up into a vacuum and getting any thrust at all
@@darrenprebble6921 wow, you clowns are getting really desperate now aren't you? You don't need to watch videos of rockets in vacuum chambers to know that they work in a vacuum. Newton's laws tell us that they do. Footage of rocket launches tell us that they do. Your desperate word salad doesn't change the FACT thst rockets work in a vacuum. The gasses push off the rocket which pushes back. QED.
@@darrenprebble6921 more to the point, rockets work BETTER in a vacuum as there's zero resistance. At least get SOMETHING right.
@@TheTruthHz rockets can only go straight up until the air get that thin the exhaust spreadout in all direction giving less trust upwards which is why they then fly off to the side away out of sight , if they worked better in a vacuum there be no need as they would be getting more trust being up there but thats not the case
If the smoke exits the vacuum chamber, is it still a vacuum chamber? (asking for a friend)
No, it’s not. He was talking about how much pressure there is inside that chamber. Any opening would instantly cause air to rush in.
Yes.
Don’t know about science much how exhaust come out and still conclude that was a vacuum please enlighten me
Ok never mind I guess there is a vacuum and a full vacuum
@@a-reecetyopo2252 And a true full vacuum isn't physically possible due to quantum fluctuations.
I have a question. Did you measure the amount of vacuum within your chamber during the entire burn process? This seems important as the demonstration of a continuous vacuum throughout the process is necessary to establish whether or not the thrust results were actually obtained in a steady state of vacuum. Is the lack of atmosphere steady or dynamic? In true space, a rocket motor will have no vacuum altering affects on its surroundings.
Yes this makes this test invalid. At 3:10 with partial vacuum you can see the lid pop off when rocket fires. Heat will rapidly increase the pressure inside this chamber giving mass to the surrounding air and provide thrust. Would be nice to see a PSIA gauge shown in the high speed video to know what pressure the test starts with. Then observe the pressure increase after rocket fires. How strong is his vacuum pump? How close to 0 psi can it get? Takes a very strong pump to do this and no pump can get to 0.00 psi like you would experience in outer space. Besides thrust by definition is a force created through interaction with a fluid. Could be water or air etc. The heavier (more mass) the fluid, the greater potential for thrust. In this test, if 0 psi was reached there would be no mass to the air inside and no way to shift weight, hence produce thrust. This test is a misconception from the start because it attempts to prove Newtons Thirld Law in a vacuum and not thrust in a vacuum. The rocket would need to be mounted by something with near zero friction to measure the very small amount of force created from transferring mass out of the rocket and exiting into the chamber. It would need to be very sensitive to pick up the small amount of force.
@@RNDInnovators - So are you one of those that does not believe that thrust works in a vacuum? Your explanation seems like you are still unsure. For example: A space Shuttle Main engine (SSME) at sea level, combusts 500 kilograms of liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen PER SECOND. It combusts this mixture creating 500 kilograms of PURE WATER. It then ACCELERATES these 500 kilograms of water to MACH EIGHT in about 10 feet (the length of the engine). Now tell me: does the engine experience RECOIL force from accelerating those 500 kilograms of MASS to MACH EIGHT? Why YES IT DOES experience a HUGE force from accelerating that mass! So is the recoil from accelerating that same 500 kg of mass INTO THE VACUUM a "small amount of force" or is it a REALLY BIG FORCE?
@@stuartgray5877 You are confusing recoil with thrust. They are two different things. Recoil is the transfer of a mass within the object. Thrust is the interaction with a fluid that has mass. The more mass a fluid has, the greater ability to produce thrust. You need to understand that in a vacuum or zero pressure, air has no mass. You can move as much of it as you want but there is no resulting force. As atmospheric pressure increases from 0.00 psi, surrounding air increases mass and the potential to produce thrust is made possible. THRUST in a vacuum is impossible. Recoil as you state is but don't confuse recoil with thrust.
@@RNDInnovators - "You are confusing recoil with thrust. They are two different things" They are NOT different things. they are BOTH results of the Law of Conservation of Momentum. "You need to understand that in a vacuum or zero pressure, air has no mass" This is 100% FALSE. Air has mass regardless. I will BET that you have never even taken a physics class, but you feel confident trying to explain rocket propulsion to an actual rocket scientist? Answer these three questions: When a rocket engine is running: 1 - Is the exhaust gas ACCELERATED as it leaves the nozzle? (does it undergo a change in velocity)? 2 - Does the exhaust gas have MASS? Yes or No? 3 - Can MASS be ACCELERATED without a FORCE? (or is a FORCE required to ACCELERATE MASS?) Answer these three questions to get a baseline and Ill ask the REAL questions.
@@stuartgray5877 Sorry but you are failing physics class right now. Look up whether air has mass in a vacuum. Look up what happens as you increase air pressure within a tank. It gets heavier. Reduce pressure and it weighs less. Water becomes a gas as you go below 0.5psi. Again understand the difference between thrust and recoil. Recoil in a vacuum is not thrust. A jet boat produces thrust due to the interaction with the fluid it passes through the pump. Jet aircraft engine interacts with air to produce thrust. The amount of fuel burned and exiting at high velocity is producing miniscule amounts of thrust. A rocket at launch has both a recoil force from high velocity exhaust gas but majority of the thrust is produced by pushing against the surrounding high pressure air that has mass. The rocket fuel tries to expand but it meets resistance by the pressurized air that does not want to move out of the way so easy. At high altitude the air has almost no mass and easily displaces when acted upon by a rocket. The X-15 was losing "thrust" as altitude increased. I've been a pilot for 25 years and have a shop with a vacuum press. Have you taken any flying lessons? You should. Also learn how a vacuum press works.
Did you prove that you were maintaining a perfect vacuum the whole time? I never saw any gauges to prove you had a vacuum? Just curious.
Its not close to a vacuum. There isn't enough suction power on the planet or material strong enough to even come close. This is a terrible experiment
@@trexx32 i agree
@@trexx32 It is extremely easy to create a perfect vacuum without any sort of vacuum pump!! 1. Get a thick walled glass tube say, six feet high 4 inches diameter. 2. Seal it perfectly at one end. 3. Place it so the tube is vertical along the 6 feet axis. 4. Fill it completely with mercury, with the mercury forming a convex bolster at the top of the tube. 5. Press and fix a blanking plate over the upright end. 6. Turn the tube upside down into a large diameter tank with enough mercury in it to be able to submerge the open end of the tube into it. The tank should be able to take the whole of the mercury in the tube in case of a accident. 7. With the tube vertical and the blanking plate under the mercury,take off the blanking plate. 8. The mercury will drop such that about 26 to 31 inches in the tube will be above the level of the mercury in the tank. 9. Above the mercury in the tube is a complete vacuum. 10. The height of mercury in the tube is being held up by the pressure of the atmosphere. You now have a barometer and can measure the atmospheric pressure by the height of the mercury above the tank level. No need for a vacuum pump at all to get a vacuum.
TheStraightPath Asshole!!
trexx32 there is no vacuum in space.
How could you post this......so very flawed. Very insufficient vacuum.
Just for fun
@@AriM Then why are you here? Obviously what he did and his results are fact! Just because it don't prove or disprove what you want does not change the fact what a rocket in a box does. Quit being such a moron!
Space is flat ! (that should keep em busy for a while)
A truly objective person would see this experiment is highly flawed. If you can't see that it tells you something about yourself.
@@bdm1000 feel like explaining your rant, because my guess is that it is your thinking which is most probably flawed. rockets work in space get over it.
@bigpigslapper Oink Like your head then :)
In the interests of seeing how well this experiment replicated a state of perpetual vacuum, I would have liked to have seen the pressure measurement gauge at all times also throughout the entire duration of the experiment. This data is more than somewhat crucial to the entire experiment if to challenge Newton's 3rd Law of Motion. Thrust was measured. Tick that box. But was this within a state of perpetual vacuum? It's a shame the experiment did not demonstrate this at all times. If you look at the pressure gauge at around 10 minutes of the video, you can actually see the pressure gauge moving rapidly in direct response to the rocket burn. So on that basis, this in itself demonstrates the experiment is a fail. I believe that this shows that the chamber was immediately subject to positively increasing pressure in direct ratio to the energy release of the rocket burn. I think that there is a distinct prospect here that chamber was immensely too small for this experiment to be accurate. Would love to see a re-run with this aspect compensated for properly. The vacuum chamber would have to be quite huge I think, and the actual size would have to be mathematically derived at.
The rocket doesn't push on the air; the propellant pushes on the rocket as it ejects.
Force=Mass X Acceleration. The gasses accelerating out the back provide a force.
@Papa Legba How do you explain GPS satellites or the ISS. I have made telescopic and naked eye observations of the ISS. Without functional rocket propulsion, no space vehicle could maintain a stable orbit.
@@twistedyogert and I don't care how fucking good you are at bullshitting .............catching an object whizzing at 17,000 miles per hour and docking on a fitting basically the size of a mason jar is pure fantasy.
@@ulfhenarpolymathmilitant6258 It all has relative speeds. Picture two cars driving next to each other at 100mph, if you're in one car, the other one will appear stationary if both speeds are exactly the same. Orbital rendezvous is achieved by matching velocity and direction to the target.
@@twistedyogertthe iss isn't in the vacuum of outer space, it's in low earth orbit.
There's one little problem. Once the rocket motor is ignited, the vacuum is not a vacuum anymore because the chamber gets filled with gasses and building up pressure. This experiment has to be conducted in a much larger vacuum chamber that is constantly being kept in a state of vacuum despite the rocket engine gasses produced.
Watch at 12:10. He addresses that we saw measured thrust at the very moment of ignition, before there was an appreciable amount of gas inside the chamber.
That was awesome. You people have way more patience than I do.
This gentlemen needs some instruction in both physics and research methods.
Care to explain why?
tell me about it.
so you are insecure , ok
@Derick Leja again, why don't you tell me what's wrong with the video?
@Derick Leja why? You make a claim, (well, not really actually but eeh) ao it's your responsibility to back it up
Nice try but no go you need to go back to science 101 If such is still available in the government indroctrnation centers
@ Mike, I have no idea what happened to schools, I thought it was bad when I was in school. Now we have total socialist tree hugging types being churned out like crazy. I guess the Soviets were right when they said they would get us through our kids. I weep for the future, it has gone down hill at an alarming rate.
@@faithismespeaks6848 It is bad. To understand it better Read some of Johon Taylor Gatto or Charlotte Iserbe.
Mike Makuh fuk science I call b.s fiction
@@faithismespeaks6848 search yt for 'Yuri bezmenov, ideological subversion'
Mike Makuh Asshole
I was going to disagree with your "vacuum chamber" but after reading the comments I rather thank you for and entertaining show 👍
um dude! You only have a vacuum until you light your engine, then a split second later, you just have a box full of hot rocket gases, so umm no vacuum...
So you started with the box (small closed system) under vacuum,... once the solid state fuel finally achieved stable ignition, the gasses created a toxic but physical atmosphere thus filling the (small closed system) vacuum with pressure. Once the volume of vacuumed space was pressured by the gases (I assume the vacuum was nolonger running) the rocket gained increased footing for which to push off of. Build a new vacuum chamber the size of a room and try this experiment again while continuously running the vacuum on high to simulate the open expanse of space. I'll feel better with those results. This test will take into account the variables in question as mentioned above thus reducing the likelihood of the propellent creating its own atmospheric conditions. Thanks
It would probably work, however to maintain a vacuum in a chamber that size would require rather large vacuum pumps and would still not accomplish anything since we saw thrust in the first few seconds of ignition, long before the chamber had a chance to become compromised. Add to this the fact that rockets do not produce thrust by pushing off of atmosphere, but instead by using Newton's third law to push the motor in the opposite direction of the nozzle opening due to uneven pressure on the internal walls of the combustion chamber, and you will see why it didn't really matter that the chamber was eventually compromised by the exhaust gasses.
Oh god, it would not work. Constant vacuum will constantly negate any atmosphere created by the fuel hence no atmosphere, no barrier=no going to space and no thrusts. Do not be silly my man lol
+Rizal Jose Your nonsensical gibberish was silly, not Newton's third law. For an example of constant vacuum, see Peter Leane's videos. Very tiny motor. Chamber was large enough that the expelled gas didn't make the pressure gauge on the chamber twitch. Produced thrust.
I was thinking the same thing , this vacuum is no where near scale
I doubt that thing could hold the vacuum. It would have been nice if you showed the pressure gauge too.
booger king doubt all you want, it did, I did all of the math when I built it, why do you think we're standing behind a blast Shield for show? We show the Gage at 10:12, we did it that way so it was uncut, so people couldn't claim that it was a separate shot. You can clearly see the pressure change when the rocket is burned
you can also see that vacuum is lost during ignition because of the gases produced, you can see that on the gauge...so..it wasn't a vacuum then
MyVumvuvum Hurts Actually his failed burn where the ignition pops out proves that thrust can be achieved in a vacuum, granted on accident.
That pressure gauge isn't capable of showing anything near a "complete" vacuum or conditions in space anyways.
The pressure gauge is at the wrong place it should be above the weighing scale...
" Guys !i got it ! Dont panic ! If we put a baseball cap and a lumberjack shirt on him he will be be more believable as a scientist . "
In fact, i think the case was proven just by the way the igniter gets jetisoned from the rocket booster. What's left is simply cool to see :)
Do a few control test inside the chamber in normal atmospheric conditions , for example 3, then take notes of the thrust and calculate an average and/or a total from each test, (as they will most likely vary a small amount) then, do the test 3 more times, while in a vacuum environment and calculate the average and/or total thrust.
In all fairness I have flown model rockets, and I've had the igniter fail just like that one did. It just did not have enough contact with the fuel, and the ignition of the fuse blew it out the nozzle.
I like your video... what I wish you would have done, what I would have done... would have been to install an O-Gauge railroad track into the container, onto that place a 1/2A Estes motor onto a flat car. The thrust should have been enough to move it at least a meter or so. If not, continue with an A8, and if needed (doubtful) a B motor. You could have even had the track at a slight incline such that the railroad car rolled back to the left. Then you would clearly see movement to the right, then rolling back to the left. If you do decide to do this experiment, I would not recommend using anything higher than a B motor... it could get dangerous.
The scale's needle deflects as soon as the engine starts, when the vacuum is at it's greatest, and then decreases as time goes on and the vacuum is filled. If pressure is needed for the engine's force you'd see the opposite pattern.
rtensor That’s why the efficiency of a rocket engine gets higher when going higher haha
But the gasses instantly collect before ignition showing it wasn't in a vacuum to being with. An object in motion stays in motion until acted upon by an outside force. Why did the gasses initially collect in the middle? Answer, there was an opposing force remaining within this supposed vacuum. THIS is what you call bunk science.
@@bdm1000 This guy is a paid for government shill promoting lies ❗ 1) you cannot pull a complete absolute vacuum in any vacuum chamber. 2) In that vacuum chamber the gases produced by that rocket engine could not be absorbed as fast as they got produced. 3) the gases coming from the rocket engine pressed against the side of the vacuum chamber which gave it its boost pushing it across the alleged vacuum chamber. 4) Just like in a vacuum flies can't fly. Everyone should know that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, that is, as long as you have something to be pushing off of or against. So, what you just inadvertently proved to the world, if the sheeple can see it; is that, like a fly that can't without an atmosphere for its wings to be beating against, a rocket engine cannot Propel anything in a complete vacuum either; because there's no atmosphere for the hot escaping gases to push against. Proving that there's no such thing as space travel. Like going to the moon, satellites in outer space or sending a rocket probe to other alleged, so-called planets. Wake up sheeple❗ NASA, Never A Straight Answer - National Academy of Space Actors. They are lying to you, belittling you, making fools out of you, taking you away from our Creator God. The Words of Christ: "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven." John 3:13 KJV Let those words sink in, think long and hard about what it is telling you. Yahushua, the Lord Jesus Christ KNEW that we were going to be fed the lies of allegedly traveling in the heavens, what they call outer space. Repent and be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. We are in the very last days of this Earth's history ❗
@@jrngln I see u lack a basic understanding of how a rocket engine actually works. The burning propellant of a rocket has mass. The rocket engine pushes against burned propellant. The rocket engine creates its own "atmosphere".
@@lifepolicy The rocket doesnt poop propellent, it burns it and only ejects hot exhaust gasses, gas can not push against nothing. Gas can push against other gasses only. Also the weight difference of exhaust gasses to the weight of the whole rocket is so insanely different, if it really did work on recoil mode that you so desperately wish it did then rocket would still not have ehough recoil/mass ejecting to even just move the rocket. In short, you are indoctrinated sheep. You can thank me later when you grow up.
Can we see the pressure gauge as this thing is replacing vacuum with gas?
Yes but the exhaust gases are not nitrogen and oxygen, so there still is no air in the vacuum chamber.
@@danzervos7606 does it matter what it is? As long as it isn't vacuum (nothing)? Whether it's co2, nox, argon, r22 or fairy dust? Anyway, the poster already responded to a similar comment. He said he was only interested in the initial pulse.
more likely NASA will show 4th wall. check my comment few minutes ago with time stamps, tell me if i imagine things.
This simulation is in closed system. Space is no closed system. This is bull crap
I have the same request as it was missing from observation.
Nice. I am not fully convinced by these results though. We need a test like this done in a giant vacuum chamber using the same size rocket to settle this argument once and for all.
he should just used a slingshot inside a vacuum chamber and control the triggering of the slingshot remotely.
We still have some skeptics here. How about a simple change? - instead of using a rocket engine build a small bomb (nothing huge). Put it in a little plastic easter eggs. - Then "boom." - What will happen? Before the gas "creates an atmosphere" in the chamber, one half of the plastic egg will go that way and the other half will go the other way. The same with a rocket in a vacuum. Half the blast goes into the vacuum. The other half pushes your rocket. Action - Reaction moves your rocket.
A flat earther does not do experiments. They just call experiments done by others as “fake”. And when they do the experiments, they don’t understand the results and always assume it proves earth is flat.
Not completely true. A small fraction do some poorly thought out experiments. For example, why make a vacuum chamber when you you have a perfectly good vacuum cleaner, and a couch: kzhead.info/sun/d5Gvj69pomqJmGg/bejne.html
Flat earthers dont do experiments because their moms forbid them to have sharp things or matches in the basement.
Your vacuum chamber walls create the medium needed to create thrust. It’d require a much larger vacuum chamber for useful results. Thanks for the attempted study.
Exactly right. The opposite reaction is created by the rocket thrust pushing off the wall of the enclosure.
that is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Shame on you. Once the exhaust leaves the rocket it is no longer in contact with the rocket. So how the fuck can it impart thrust to the rocket when it hits the wall. Use your fucking brain, if you have any!!
Except he "thrust" gauge increases before the gas plume hits the back of the chamber. Also, how do you propose the particles of gas transmit the "resistance" back though the gas to the thrust sensor, champ?
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to agree with the viewers about your Vacuum being 'LOST IN SPACE'! Definitely need to show the vacuum gauge consistently with your next tests. Your attempts at proving Newton's Law of motion was still entertaining to say the least, and for that, we thank you.
who claims a rocket can only get thrust from air and not from a solid side wall as seen in this video?
Not a chance of that creating a vacuum especially without the top center not collapsing inwards
Don't forget the level of vacuum of deep space has not been reproduced on Earth even when encasement of meters of concrete - your puny vacuum here encased in plexiglass is so far off the vacuum of space it is laughable....and that would make a huge difference to the rocket thrust and its ignition. .....plus don't forget nature hates a vacuum....the only way it is created is in an 'enclosed' environment.....is space an 'enclosed' environment ??.......
Your statements prove you have no idea what you are talking about. The difference between the FORCE ON on a Vacuum enclosure is NEGLIGIBLE whether the vacuum is "ROUGH VACUUM" or "Ultra-HIGH Vacuum". The enclosure CANNOT TELL the difference. Lets call "ROUGH Vacuum" equal to 1.0X10-3 Torr or 0.001 Torr While "Utlra HIGH Vacuum" equal to 1.0X10-17 Torr or 0.00000000000000001 Torr Do YOU personally know how to calculate the difference in the force on the enclosure between those two numbers? DIDNT THINK SO.
@Dark Star.....Damn bruh you got owned!
@@maxmaximus3428 Yeahh boiiii all we care about is who gets owned by whom. We live in a society of mass entertainment afterall, truth can wait as long as we have fun and spit at each other's face in delight !
Doesn't really matter because we can't go to space anyway it is impossible
@@jamescoli3209 are you blind? There are tons of clips from space.
The rocket thrust isn’t pushing against the atmosphere…the engine is accelerating gas at velocity out the back. The reaction is between the exhaust and the base of the rocket. Also…the vacuum you built doesn’t work
nice trick for a non vacuum chamber with this breathable sealing XD In the middle it pushes down and on the sides it pushes up you can easy see this :D next time make a full epoxy chamber (only the output had to sealed perfectly)
The ignitor flying out of the motor already proved there was thrust
Yes that's logical, however it was pushing against the fuel cell to gain momentum, I'm not a flat earther by the way 🤣
@@peterkeogh6428 ... very observant. People always get Newton's law of f***** up! Of course it has breasts it just need something to react off of and in this case the ignition cap. In space they would have a hard time going anywhere
That was preasure, lying fool.
Rockets dont produce thrust by pushing against atmosphere they produce thrust by expelling highly pressurized gas out of a nozzle, similar to the recoil of a gun, atmosphere has nothing to do with it
Nick Jean thank you for that., why don't people remember physics 101?
People who understand basic physics don't go spouting flat earth nonsense to begin with. Heck it doesn't even take basic physics, understanding some simple geometry is sufficient. As demonstrated by ancient Greeks who measured the circumference of Earth at a time when aristotelian physics was pinnacle of understanding of nature. In other words, they didn't know physics from an donkeys arse, but even they weren't stupid enough to spout flat earth nonsense.
SRIKANTH BAYAGANI This may surprise you, but everything in the universe is composed of atoms. When those atoms react in various ways, they create compounds. These rockets use compounds that, when ignited, supply their OWN combustion fuel. Imagine this; Imagine a magic water that if you boiled, would create butane that lights itself at water's boiling point. This is a solid rocket engine. As it burns, it supplies fuel to itself through the very combustion reaction. It doesn't suck oxygen out of the atmosphere to burn, genius.
It does have something to do with the atmosphere, but more in the sense of chamber pressure, hence the different size of nozzle. This means that the majority of thrust in the atmosphere is created by pushing against it. In vacuum high chamber presure is key since the ammount of thrust generated is determined by the speed of the exhaust gasses
SRIKANTH BAYAGANI "How the fuel burnt in vaccum chamber that is there is no oxygen?" i literally can't believe that we have to explain the concept of fuel and oxidizer in this day and age. heck, ask a 12 year old, even they have heard of the fire triangle.
You can clearly see the rocket fill the chamber full of gasses so much so That it lifted the top
Excellent execution of a hypothesis this definitely changed my mind
remember that space has infinite volume of vacuum. this tank becomes pressurized when the volume of gas created from the burn overcomes the volume of your pump and thus gives you some thrust. If your pump could suck as much as your rocket blows then nothing could happen .Once again space has an infinite volume and your pump is extremely under rated !!!!
Cruze Missile In the slow motion footage you can see a force being exerted on the scale during ignition before the chamber gets filled with gas. That proves it riight there, FE's no longer have a good reason to deny Newton' s third law in a vacuum.
bcd7977 That's not why it moves.
@Cruze Missile True i agree with you
True its faken Its correct he fooled ...he created the Atmosphere to burn the oxygen but not really used Vacuum Because he'll fail and no one will see this video
100% correct.
That is a little smaller area than supposed outer space. Not quite a comparative environment.
The needle was moving before the chamber filled with exhaust gases! 🍺😎👍
That is because his igniter was epoxyed shut with whatever air that got trapped in the chamber allowing for ignition, which failed without this chamber. Then because it was sealed it created internal pressure upon that chamber jarring the rocket apparatus a bit before going full burn and creating thrust using it's own artificial atmospheric pressure. Sorry for the run on there. Cheers!
@Thane Mac In a finite vacuum, yes.
In this experiment's initial vacuum, then quasi-vacuum (vacuum until it started to be filled up with an atmosphere). This particular experiment does not prove its hypothesis. Does that make the hypothesis wrong? Not necessarily. Just not proven here.
5:21... how he holds a pen. Alien confirmed.
I think he's holding it that way because he looks to be missing his middle finger
@@cptramius3477 OH SHIT UR RIGHT lol, stupid me, 4 years ago
Love the clip of your zipping down to the lab in your red Supra 😍😍😍 I don't think anyone else noticed or cared ♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️ great content!
Really glad you compared thrust values. Nice inclusion of a vacuum reading throughout the test. Science
Didn't expect a heart. You do understand i was ironically pointing out failures right? The scientific method was not applied here even a little.
Didn't hold a vaccum an atmosphere was created. Bullshit
Pmsl how can it be a vacuum with the lid lifting off you clown !
Because that was the control experiment? Try watching the rest of the video where the lid doesn't pop off.
@@GilesBathgate LMFAO the control. he openly admits to there being an "issue"
@@GilesBathgate 200 proofs . thanks for the sideshow my judas goat
Btw, in "space" 🤣 the rocket would have no underground or something to push against to create thrust. But your motor has, it is attached to iron bars and to the box, so it has resistance from something. Excuse me 4 my english, i'm dutch...
@@ronnieberck6505 the same force rockets rely on is the same force that holds lakes as a liquid state. Atmospheric pressure. These people think you could just have a drop of water in space
hello. thanks for your videos. Am I right if a say the vacuum depend on the pump wich extract air. If the vacuum was really high, i guess the tank would collapse on itself under pressure?
You dont need a rocket engine to test that. Shoot out something with a mechanical spring. That gives thrust
Robert Blixt not true because using something mechanical like a spring means it's still storing energy, and taking the air out the container wouldn't affect it
And a rocketengine is also mechanical so same
A rocket engine shoots out molecules that is mechanical
@@Joh.N_FT Same principle. Different energy conversions. Spring - mechanical potential to mechanical kinetic. Rocket - Chemical potential to chemical kinetic.
It’s scary to think that there are flat earthers all around the globe
It's even more scary to think they believe Mars is in fact, ROUND...
Yes I agree this is very strange. Just thinking how they could prove they're flat earth theory. I know. They could all walk to the edge and jump off. : )
It's more scary to believe that people just take NASA's BS at face value without questioning it. Who is the real idiot? How many times has NASA been busted so far? You people just say "not true" and it's over.
The Real Elvis but why do you guys deny everything that has happened in space?
There's enough proof to show they've lied about everything in space
Assuming that space is in a contained vacuum? 😆 I love science fiction, its so imaginative! 🤗
Yep
Wow that was amazing video and very interesting with space travel great work and loved the video
not real result... once the rocket fires the chamber pressure is instantly increased by the gasses from the rocket so the rocket is not in a vacuum anymore...
IamIUareU yes but only the initial impulsive thrust is important to prove Newton's third law, not the entire burn, only the moment where the rock that has mass behind it but no mass in front of it.
true, you are right...
Such smart Very science
When the gas in the chamber increases and the thrust would be produced by pushing against gas, then the thrust force would constantly increase as the gas pressure increases. Do we see that in this experiment? No!
Walter Bislin i dont think that "pushing against air or gas" is a thing at all for rocket motors, but i would like to see a test if there is a difference in thrust depending if the motor is fired in vacuum or in atmosphere...
But solid rocket motors never operate in a complete vacuum, they are always ignited on the ground and released before they reach space.
+Green Silver exactly. That's completely true. Although I did a little bit of research and I found that there have been a few times they ignite solid Rockets in space with a rupture disc.
Solid propellant engines and gas generators operate in space all the time. Every sounding rocket that is launched, for one. The Minautaur rockets that Orbital ATK launches, every ICBM in the US arsenal, every ICBM built after 1995 in Russia, I can keep going. ...
Brian Streufert Keep going..
Ullage motors used to settle the propellants into the base of the propellant tanks to cover the inlets prior to turbopump start after a long duration without thrust in space (coast phase). They are often solid propellant motors because they are far more reliable and they do not require an ullage motor of their own. CGT RCS engines lack the thrust level to settle propellants and hypergolic RCS motors wouldn't waste their valuable propellants for anything other than orientation tasks. Here is one specifically.... kzhead.info/sun/mJGKh95-fJehZnk/bejne.html
Green Silver I know you're probably being serious by saying "go on", but Brian knows his stuff.
I would have used metal drawer guides to slide the rocket on and use a digital scale with the reading on the outside of the acrylic for better visual effects but hey, you definitely gave a great experiment here! Btw, can i have that acrylic to make a reef tank with? :)
What type of ignition did you use? Solid propellant is really difficult to ignite anyway. We used to use E-matches to ignite a small chunk of thermite, then bank on that lighting the propellant. The ignitor doesn't have its own oxidizer, so if it has to burn itself for a bit to ignite the propellant, it's going to struggle to do so without air. I have a bunch of solid propellant that is diffult to get burning with a lighter, but once it starts, it burns great
What a wonderful example and display of deceptive science.
Gerard Kuzawa Well put !!!
And those that believe this nonsense are only religious... so, you have another false god to make believe in. Good for you... you moron.
Noooo... I was saying that morons would only believe this... my bad for my fast responsive typing and not looking at my wording, lol. Sorry! WE see it as deceptive, while those who believe this uneducated way of science, would never even attempt to look any further into it.
Now, look at what you have done. Internationally I could be embarrassed (if I gave a damn ever of being embarrassed). Hey, it is okay. I understand. I have had to go back and edit many a post for my grammar did not match what I meant. I understand... (but I will never forgive... for I am triggered so easily so I am told often, and I unnaturally just am an ass(whole)). I have to admit that you are probably the only person that has never doubled-down on a comment when I suspected that they had errored for their forwarding commenting. You just have given me at least one reason to respect you. Good for you. Be that as that all is, I sure wish I had back to me all the money that I was forced to pay into the USofA educational system for the education of children that turned out to be nothing but beyond total idiots.
There is nothing deceptive about your overt display of willful ignorance.
The thrust isn’t generated by pushing against something (or nothing). Mass is projected backward regardless of atmosphere (assuming ignition occurs), and the total momentum of that mass that’s projected backwards will be equal to the forward momentum of whatever object is being accelerated.
Mike Taffet you need to study a little more action does not equal reaction in a vacum it does in Hollywood but that's a hole different subject in fact you simply can't produce any kind of thrust if you could NASA would show us seeing as they have the world's largest vac chamber very little vid exists on propulsion or space suits or really any decent thing in that huge vac chamber they drop a feather and a bowling ball and kind of disprove gravity but don't give any of the data such as beginning weights rate of descent psi on contact ect. It's something they don't want us paying to much attention to vacum is cool but the suez canal is better it has no locks at 120miles plus a lot of water on both sides even if you call it 300 miles shore to shore 4.5 miles of curve does not equate but hay I could this all day how bout electro magnetic rail guns the USA has a new weapon projectiles travel up to mach 7 in a absolute strait line so in about 98 seconds that projectile travels 100 miles but what about the 1.5 miles of curve it does not ground out it does not arrive 1.5 miles above target it arrives level with it's launch level everywhere so it's flat or the magic of gravity some how can specifically grab an object traveling at mach 7 while gently bending large water surfaces and not pulling to hard on any birds or clouds
Robert Newer WTF? What's your point?
Rocket and burning rocket fuel are certainly pushing against each other.
Flatters are not thinking science or reasons or evidence or logic. They are thinking if they can say something to get attention. And the best thing to do is not give it to them. "Rockets don't work in space" is no different than claiming a forest is full of fairies, or the god's demand a virgin sacrifice. The argument is made to gain attention. The best thing we can do is ignore them. Then we can use the time to learn actual science. Like how a rocket engine works. Then maybe the the maker of this video would have known the ignitor he was using does not contain oxygen, and will not work in a vacuum.
That's what THEY want you to think!!!
Did the vacuum pressure stayed constant? What would happen if the engine is suspended or hanged on one point making friction equal to zero?
What was the vacuum guage reading on completion of test. Was is equal to or less than the reading prior to test ? Less will mean atmosphere was created by the rocket combusion.
Did you not prove Newton’s 3rd law with the hangfire? Though it did not propel your sled, it did propel the smoke. Smoke is a physical object as well. In your second attempt, you see the fuse and ignitor swing free, so as the thrust pushed, the ignitor moved. 3rd law.
Exactly..... Agreed
how about for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction .... no 3rd law except on earth
Dennis Allen It moves down because everything that is not affixed to something will go down and since it was curved it moved down towards its curvature and that happens in oxygen as well with out having to ignite it.
nickacelvn what the f*** are you talking about? The Earth doesn't have something behind it pushing it? The Earth is basically falling in a straight line and being bent by gravity around the Sun. What exactly are you even asking here?
c5elmo76 but why didn't move anywhere? In order for it to move down or swing it had to be pushed off of what it was connected to. How did it do this with no Force? Was it gravity that pushed it away from what it was connected to and then made it swing down?
Literally, you prove 3rd law by needing to reinforce your vacuum chamber.
Makes You wonder if the Astronauts feel,, felt the thrust change performance as they leave, left the Earths Atmosphere? Mmm,,, "Newton, We have a problem!" Great Study WP.
Hi, I know I am joining the party very late. But for the sake of eliminating doubts, can you perform this experiment with the vacuum pump continuously running so as to immediately remove the expelled gas in the chamber. Also, it will be nice to have a guage to help us know the pressure in the chamber? Thank you.
As an aeronautical engineer, I have to say I'm glad you are questioning these bases of our science. They should be constantly reevaluated. That being said, Newton's 3rd Law is actually a part of a group of conservative ideas: conservation of momentum, conservation of mass, conservation of energy. Newton's 2nd is conservation of momentum, if you want to test that out next. A cool way to test conservation of energy (well, at least to a nerd like me) is actually just dissolving salt in water. Saltwater is a lower energy state than salt and water, which means that dissolving salt in water causes energy to be released, aka it heats up. Grab an IR camera or thermometer, dissolve enough salt, and you can see the temperature of the water heat up.
Out of curiosity, Sir, what field of aero do you currently occupy?
233kosta orbital mechanics, satellite dynamics, that sort of thing. I just graduated from my school's program, though, and I took classes in propulsion systems (turbine engines, ramjets, rockets, propellers), aerodynamics, boundary layers, and thermodynamics. I also took classes in mechanical engineering.
Gabe McDonald nice! I am a spacecraft test engineer and I have worked numerous deep space programs. Care to take a challenge? I dare you to have a conversation with 'rockets push off air'? Here is his video kzhead.info/sun/lqmbZrx-f4aDg6s/bejne.html I tried to debunk his BS, but he just refuses to listen.
Gabe McDonald when you get past low earth orbit and go through the thermosphere and the radiation belt then I'll believe what your saying
svborek 1975 I hope I do! Unfortunately my current company doesn't work in cubesats (which I found I loved designing in my senior year of college), but I have my whole career ahead of me to pursue other interests. What specifically don't you believe?
I find it strange that you could not attach your vacuum gauge at the same end as the rocket… Just how much of a vacuum was there? And just how perfectly sealed was this container... too many unanswered questions as to the legitimacy of this test…
Exactly!
Then demonstrate he's wrong, go ahead! Oh yeah, that's what I thought
Your vacuum is not airtight you can see where the air came out of it on the first launch😂
Exactly it’s a pathetic attempt at defending a religious bias 🤣
@@tonysmith9646 Yup, their cognitive dissonance is so bad that they are literally lying to themself. They believe rocket is flying on a recoil mode lol, what a silly religion.
@Clayton Holmes True its faken Its correct he fooled ...he created the Atmosphere to burn the oxygen but not really used Vacuum Because he'll fail and no one will see this video
@@tonysmith9646 Yeah. This video is not a great, data driven experiment. I hate to tell you this, I am an industrial chemical process engineer and among many other projects, I lead engineered the world's biggest air movement and purification project of its kind at the world's biggest automotive plant of its kind -- and it worked. The same equations we use to engineer your working car and working mobile phone also easily predict that if you are in a vacuum chamber on ice in a chair with rollers and you throw a basketball that you will move in the opposite direction you threw the basketball. Except when it is done with a rocket, you are throwing tons of mass per second at incredible speeds. So, really, there is not even a reason to discuss this. It only shows you would never be accepted to engineering school to create safe, working environments to manufacture the most essential elements of civilization. Thanks for playing.
@@idontcare7961 Yeah. This video is not a great, data driven experiment. I hate to tell you this, I am an industrial chemical process engineer and among many other projects, I lead engineered the world's biggest air movement and purification project of its kind at the world's biggest automotive plant of its kind -- and it worked. The same equations we use to engineer your working car and working mobile phone also easily predict that if you are in a vacuum chamber on ice in a chair with rollers and you throw a basketball that you will move in the opposite direction you threw the basketball. Except when it is done with a rocket, you are throwing tons of mass per second at incredible speeds. So, really, there is not even a reason to discuss this. It only shows you would never be accepted to engineering school to create safe, working environments to manufacture the most essential elements of civilization. Thanks for playing.
How is this a vacuum when you’ve got smoke coming out of the corners of the box?
Because it isn't 😂
light a candle , put it in a jar , Put a lid on the jar ,Waite a few seconds and the candle extinguishes Why ? you just use what oxygen was in the container , I believe there was still atmosphere in the chamber.....oxygen = fire
You can put oxygen in the fuel or bring liquid oxygen with u
Prepper TECH be ready - ugh! Keep telling yourself that! This study is flawed. Just admit it!
@@itsMe..GaryLee umm thats nothing to do with my comment this is flawed but a flawed experiment proves nothing
Your point is what? In space its accomplished with an oxidizer. Is there some further point people are trying to make with this? Are you suggesting it's not possible to have a fire in a a vacuum?
@@ElasticReality Have you been to space and conducted this experiment ? or is it just speculation on your behalf .
Two Words: ENCLOSED SYSTEM
Yep
Two more: Says who?
I don't know how anyone gets paid on KZhead because I never ever ever ever will click on any of the ads. I always just hit skip ad
The propulsion is pushing up against the back wall and 2x4's, The rocket has also created its own atmosphere from the particulates of the spent solid fuel. Proves nothing.
,,complete vacuum"... lol
I noticed your vacuum gauge gained pressure as the propellant burned. Creating an atmosphere. Mmmm, Fail!
Yeah that doesn't matter, all I was worried about was the first 10 or 20 milliseconds of ignition. The rest of the burn was just for entertainment.
Earth is round, but I don't trust space people. Heliocentrism has been debunked (search this video on YT: "The path of solar eclipses proves a geocentric universe : FULL"). So how can we trust NASA? In my view, Newton's law is not in question, but rather its honest application to the whole dynamic... I believe that the thrust from combustion is 90% is from the reaction between that high velocity exhaust and the atmosphere. This experiment only seems to isolate the thrust from ignition/combustion, but does not prove that it is what accounts for the majority of thrust capacity. Of course there will be a kickback (thrust) from the ignition. The question is: does that create the majority of a rocket's thrust capacity? I think not. Also, any vacuum chamber cannot be a similar comparison with space, because space is not a contained volume. Any gas in space would be compelled to expand and disperse rapidly without being contained. In any case, thanks for the experiment.
שילה בן אדם - I propose an experiment for you: get on a skateboard or chair with wheels or something similar. Take a heavy object and throw it (in line with the wheels). Do you move backwards? Now do the same thing and throw the object at a wall. Was there any difference? You are suggesting that having a wall would make a difference in this experiment.
The phases of Venus prove that the Earth is not the center of the universe, a geocentric universe is 100% bullshit. Stop believing the bullshit conspiratards put up on youtube only for the money and go read a book and/or buy a telescope and look at Venus, I mean ffs, even Galileo knew the geocentric model was bullshit. But hey, don't take my word for it, do that simple research yourself, I guess you won't do it because you're actually afraid of being wrong.
"Creating an atmosphere." nope...it just raised the pressure. no "atmosphere' was created...that actually doesn't make any sense as written. vacuum isn't a complete lack of matter, there are differing degrees of vacuum the same way there are different degrees of pressure. such a simplistic viewpoint....
Awesome video; however, I am not sure if the vacuum chamber had enough volume to offset the pressure difference. Was the vacuum chamber able to maintain absolute vacuum no increases of pressure during the burn?
This question is merely regarding the thrust, not if the engine can burn in a vacuum.
Actually gaining speed in space isn’t the problem , Stopping is the real problem! 🍺😎👍
I hope Not really. Just turn off the drive, use little sideways jets to rotate you 180, and turn it back on to slow down to a stop. :)
Aim at a large mass and the gravity will add alot of speed to your craft as you sling shoot around a Sun so now you are going a million miles an hour, how much fuel do you have?? To make corrections and to stop. How long will it take? You don’t have friction, you have to rely on newtons law to stop. If gravity from another source pulls this and that way you will use up fuel quickly! You have to travel at the speed of light and it would take four years to get to our closest neighbour. So going fast is a basic necessity and easily accomplished! 🍺😎👍
Note that they used hypergolics for lander decent and ascent, not solids. Same physics though.
solid fuels are used only as boosters and to produce enough impulse to lift the rocket to space, in space everyone uses liquid motors or other types of fuels...
IamIUareU originally I even said that in the video, but my rocket science is friend told me that there were a few instances where they used solid rocket boosters in space with rupture discs, so that part got pulled out of the episode as to not create confusion there.
Gregory Hughes those are coming up soon.
merlin 1 for Falcon 9 used Kerosene and LOX .Try that.
Same principles for solid rocket boosters or liquid rockets. The only reason they tend to not use solid boosters in space is because once ignited, it burns until done, while with liquid rockets, you can turn them off when you want, so you can control the burn. Very nice experiment. Not sure it'll satisfy the flat earthers, since nothing so far has. lol
Solid rocket boosters are not used in space.... They are boosters. They're ignided from launch, up to where they're empty. In space, they use liquid oxygen and some sort of fuel (kerosene, etc),
Riddum Dubstep - Check your facts. Solid rocket boosters are used frequently in space. The Castor 3rd stages on 4 of my five spacecraft launches carried solid upper stages. Magellan to Venus used a solid to enter Venus orbit.
Stuart - I don't doubt your expertise in this area, but I'd love to learn more about the propellants used in these rockets and the method(s) of igniting them. My initial thoughts regarding SRBs were similar to Riddim Dubstep's - My only awareness of SRB use was with the space shuttle. There must exist some differences between those SRBs and the ones you've worked with. I'd love to learn more if you're willing to share.
Yes. Solid rockets may be used where a little bit of overshoot doesn't matter that much but in situations where only one second of overshoot here can cause serious consequences on the trajectory at the destination, noone will use solid rockets. They can't be stopped once ignited.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_(rocket_stage)
The simplest form of solid fuel you can make at home. 65% KNO3 (potasium nitrate, stump remover or fertilizer) and 35% sugar (and you can add sodium bircabonate, baking soda to slow down the reaction). On Space Shuttle SRBs they used ammonium perchlorate 70%, 16% aluminium powder, 0.5% iron oxide, 10% polybutadiene acrylonitrile and some sort of epoxy. Usually they're ignited from the top. They have an hollow middle section the same diameter as the nozzle. Fire that comes down through the hollow section ignites the rest of the fuel. Indeed SRBs are used in space but only with probes, satelites, etc, and only when overshooting a little bit won't cause any problems. The downside with them is that once ignited, you can't stop them. You can't control the thrust they generate. They go full blast till they're empty.
Quick question, If a digital scale was used, or the chamber set to it points 'up' would the exhaust from the engine erase the 'full vacuum' from the formula? Once there is any gas to push against, the rocket should have lots of thrust.
Question, you stated you created thrust at the initial point of ignition, what about on a continuous basis? Shouldn't have the rocket if it were burning kept the thrust going? Why did the thrust stop?