Re: Konstantin Tsiolokvsky was wrong?!


"Greg Neill" <gneillREM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:iDcMf.32235$%14.861035@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Spaceman" <Realspace@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ecudnWk3WfJCbJ3ZRVn-qg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Greg Neill" <gneillREM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:6z4Mf.32054$%14.808036@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Spaceman" <Realspace@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:OLidneDYdeZgTJ3ZRVn-jw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Greg Neill" <gneillREM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:GZ3Mf.32047$%14.803426@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Spaceman" <Realspace@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:BK6dnWvW6dYbVJ3ZnZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Greg Neill" <gneillREM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Fw3Mf.32034$%14.798729@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
It can never be relatively constant,

Why? If the fuel is fed at a constant rate and he
burn continues at a constant rate, and the pressure in
the combustion chamber is constant,

Bingo!
There is your problem,
A pressure chamber can not remain constant,
when it is not closed.
Again you seem to not even know basics
about an open or closed "system".

Hey James, when you're driving your car down the
highway (assuming that you have a car), how do
maintain a constant speed?

I hit the cruise control,
and sadly, my fuel does not stay constant

No, it wouldn't if there are hills and variable
winds. Fortunately we don't have that problem
with the empty space of our gedanken experiment.

You still burn fuel, and that is not constant
so the mass is changing so even with a constant
fuel burn, you will not have a constant speed.

You fail to understand the equation. It is specifically
taking into account the changing mass; it's the dm and
M - dm bits.

No it does not,
It is using the "beginning mass" and does not even have a time
operation included.


Thrust is not velocity.

I did not say thrust is velocity ***,
I said the thrusting force must have a velocity
and such a force can't be constant if the mass is
changing over time.
You are ignoring mass loss over time when you
use that equation.


James has not plugged any numbers into the trivial
rocket equation, or else he wouldn't be making
such bone-headed statements.

The "trivial" rocket equatrion is missing
factors of reality all over the place.
Why would I use such a silly equation
that is even ignoring time?


You work it out. You've been spoon fed the equation,
now plug in some numbers. You're obviously typing your
posts from a computer, use it for something other than
typing lame usenet posts -- write a program to plot
the terminal velocity of rockets with various starting
masses and fuel capacities. Use the Saturn V exhaust
velocity information.

You are a freaking moron,
I will use data that has been fixed by an equation
to make an equation?
What a dipwad, Is that how you do your science?
Take data that has already been screwed by an equation
to show the data itself?
LOL
You are a fool Greg.


.

Quantcast