As you suggested Rockets do actually produce more thrust in a vacuum. Most designs will have a lower specific impulse at sea level and by extension a lower thrust. This is mostly down to the pressure differential between the combustion and the exit nozzle being lower when there's air pushing back, leading to a lower exhaust velocity. Also, I strongly suggest getting a dedicated camera, like a go-pro with a dive housing - would such to ruin your iPhone.
Scott Manley Indeed, the lower the average molecular weight of the products, the higher the C* value (which expresses the average speed of the products, hence taking the MW into account), the higher this differential will be!
Thrust in atmosphere is lower because you can't expand the gasses as much before flow separation. But also because once the static pressure of the exhaust drops below atmospheric, any further expansion will only cause the thrust to decrease.
They still use solid fuel cells on Rockets? I thought they stop doing that before we even got to space, space shuttles use Liquid hydrogen and oxygen and and other fluids that will ignite on their own when mixed.
@@sludgut the problem isn’t lack of oxygen. The problem is a lacking of atmosphere to push against. Ergo, everyone talking about the vacuum. In the previous rocket/vacuum video he showed that the burn pushed against the atmosphere, and the atmosphere pushed the heat back against the fuel source; with no atmosphere, there’s no thrust in the initial burn, with no atmosphere, there’s no back pressure to push the flame into the fuel.
@@lanceroark6386 - So you think that MECHANICAL RECOIL stops working in a vacuum? Sorry to break it to you but only those COMPLETELY UNEDUCATED about basic physics think that "Rockets push on air". Now try taking AT LEAST high school physics before telling every engineer to have ever lived that THEY are a bunch of morons. Rocket engines are MORE EFFICIENT IN A VACUUM!
Well, in space the water mostly stays around the towel and the hands in micro-gravity as the strongest force is surface tension (there's a Hadfield video showing this). If you shake the towel, then you'll get droplets flying off, but as there's no gravity to pull the water into crevices, it's actually quite unlikely to get inside the equipment (that same surface tension will make it want to stay in a ball on the surface). And even if it does make it to some circuitry, it'd likely be purified water from the ISS, so unless the towel was particularly dirty it's unlikely to cause any damage (it's the impurities in tap water that allow it to conduct electricity).
Nicolas Bana +1 to that I bet I speak for a lot of people here...I would absolutely love to see a collaboration video between Cody and NileRed. If that isn't possible, at the very least do a spin off/ video based on one of his experiments. I know Cody watches NileRed because I saw him in the comments section of Nilered's most recent video. Thumbs up so Cody can see. It would be fantastic.
Noticed there was some water still pooling in the bottom of the chamber at ignition. Your vacuum might be also limited because of the boiling/sublimating water bringing the preasure up. Would love to see a large pool of water in the bottom of the chamber get pumped down...
A similar technique can be used to assist the parachute ejection charges on high altitude high power rockets. I tested 35 mm film containers over a decade ago when I had a level 2 cert and was active in building and flying these. Black powder charges are notorious for failure at high altitudes due to lack of pressure. Black powder is usually the choice for these.
when i saw the video i thought "no, of course not! ...right?" and then i clicked the video anyway ^^ and i'm glad i did! i didn't even think about the fact that rockets work in space and was just thinking about if there's no air to push against, it can't produce thrust. so i'm glad you cleared that up.
Before clocks were first invented, it was common practice to mark the time of day with apparent solar time (also called "true" solar time) - for example, the time on a sundial - which was typically different for every location and dependent on longitude.When well-regulated mechanical clocks became widespread in the early 19th century,[1] each city began to use some local mean solar time. Apparent and mean solar time can differ by up to around 15 minutes (as described by the equation of time) because of the elliptical shape of the Earth's orbit around the Sun (eccentricity) and the tilt of the Earth's axis (obliquity). Mean solar time has days of equal length, and the difference between the two sums to zero after a year. Greenwich Mean Time (GMT) was established in 1675, when the Royal Observatory was built, as an aid to mariners to determine longitude at sea, providing a standard reference time while each city in England kept a different local time.
Holy shit you have 1 Mil subs already?! Congrats man I've been here since 20k subs and last time i really looked at your sub count was at 200k and now you've already hit a million! Holy fudge man... Life is so strange sometimes, it feels like it was still yesterday I saw you metal refining video's in my recommended feed and end up subbing to your channel.... I wish you the very best good sir!
Nodus Tollens I hope Cody doesn't get tied up in the flat earth non sense. Debunking flat earth is just a waste of time tbh. This rocket video falls into the flat earth debate. Maybe flat earthers thing space can't be real and rockets wouldn't work in space if it was real. This video and his last video both are very flat earthish. Not saying I don't appreciate them. I just hope he doesn't spend too much time debunking flat earth
I don't know ... Cody's just using basic math and science to talk about natural and man-made phenomena ... most of his videos "prove" something that's already been proven academically. What's fun is watching the way HE does it. Using math to measure the friggin Earth is a cool idea. Who cares which anti-science idiots he disproves along the way! These videos are interesting in their own right, imo. (that said, I'm jonesing for some more Cody's Mine or Precious metals vids...:))
The failure at 3:56 is not a failure of a rocket motor in a vacuum. It is a failure of the igniter used. Those ignitors do not have an oxidizer, the motor does have an oxidizer. You could conduct a test of the igniter outside the rocket motor to verify this.
Hm. To be accurate, the expanding gas is pushing against the firing chamber (and in this case the enclosing jar) and the only place there isn't resistance for it to push against is the aperture/opening. The gas escapes the aperture, pressing on every other point of contact inside, and the rocket moves in the opposite direction from the gas.
Usually SRF is very seldomly used in vacuum, and if they operate in vacuum they were usually ignited somewhere in the atmosphere before they passed the karman line, IF they for some reason need to be ignited in a vacuum, there usually is a thin metal membrane in the opening and the inside slightly pressurized, or it is ignited by hypergolic liquids or monopropellants... In almost every case where a light or re-light of a rocket engine is to be performed in vacuum, its allmost allways liquid propellants, and most often Oxygen and Hydrogen, and usually nasty hypergolics as ignition source, in addition to the fact that the propellant tanks are pressurized, so when the gasses expand through the turbopumps and meets the restriction in the pre-burner and in the main combustion chamber, it lights off easily :)
The most famous rocket that uses solid fuel as a vacuum engine is the ATK's Antares and Airbus' Vega. Also, older rockets use solid rocket booster as "kicker stage" on 3rd-4th stages. Examples are the one used to "kick" Voyager Spacecrafts to higher velocity if I'm not mistaken.
And speaking of vacuum solid motors, most of which have a relatively small nozzle throat and a very large nozzle bells to improve specific impulse. :) And from what I read, the reason why solid motors still have a place on space program is that it has a very reliable ignition. And the reliability of solid rocket motors was made possible by the lack of moving parts aside from the nozzle gimbals. Turbo pump-driven liquid fuel engine has a tendency of failing on its own during ignition and while it is running because of the numbers of moving parts like pumps, valves, regulators, etc. that could fail at any moment. Aside from turbo pumps, the other way to push fuel into the combustion chamber is by pressurizing the fuel tanks itself. This type of engines are called Pressure-fed engines. It is used in many ACS/RCS engines and many descent engine for smaller spacecrafts when landing on Mars or on the Moon. One example is the descent and ascent engine on Apollo LM. The simplicity of the design is a big plus for improving its reliability. :)
Yes the LEM used a pressurized tank-fed hypergolic fueled engine, and the exhaust is so corrosive they were actually never test-fired before beeing installed in the LEM, as it would deteriorate it too much.
Iirc, another method used for probes, etc, was to light a motor off in a sealed chamber to generate pressure, and valved that pressurized gas out to nozzles for pitch and attitude control.
Gunpowder needs pressure to burn - the burn rate is proportional to pressure. More pressure, faster burning = yet more pressure. Unconstrained gunpowder is hard to burn rapidly at sea level. This is not an issue with solid rockets per se but is a problem for GUNPOWDER type rockets in a vacuum. To work properly you need to fit a much smaller throat than is optimal at sea level (in fact if ignited at sea level pressure the rocket may explode). Ignition requires a far more energetic (explosive even) ignition to get to working pressure and hold it there until the propellant grain is burning properly.
I quit using those electric igniters back in the 60's. They have about a 50% fail rate. Now, if you pack a little black powder in around those igniters the fail rate drops to about 10%. For those little Estes motors we always used a piece of Visco fuse. About 1/4" from the the end of the fuse we would bend the fuse over and force that into the motor thrust nozzle. Out of hundreds, we never had one fail to ignite. You remind me of myself about 35 to 40 years ago, except you seem to have much more to work with. Growing up in a suburban neighborhood in the 60's it wasn't as easy to set off large explosions and similar attention getting experiments as it would be out on a ranch, but we managed. I remember telling my parents that the explosion that shook the house was from construction blasting somewhere near. I think the best thing I made back then was a Tesla coil. I used Coca-Cola bottles as capacitors and made a rotating stop gap from an old chain saw blade sharpening motor and a dimmer switch. I got 48" continuous arcs out of it. Not bad considering the plans I ordered from Lindsay's Publications came with no illustrations. I had to imagine how each component was made and how it worked in concert with everything else.
AndrewRG10 I second that. My long outstanding request has been to try to hover a quadcopter in Mars air pressure. NASA is investigating this, so it must be plausible.
One meant to fly on earth wouldn't work well. The blades would have too little resistance and spin too fast and mess up the motor. Would need a much larger prop than normally suitable for the motor size, but still the right motors for the size of quad
And I think we all wan't to see, how it would work if it was floating 1 ft off the ground and then as the pressure decreases, see how what pressure it can no longer stay in the air.
As long as the rocket engine contains its own oxidizer then it will burn in a vacuum. All liquid fuel rocket engines have their own oxidizers therefore burn in space
and also the point isn't really that it will ignite "which it wont" its that there is nothing for the expanding gas to push off of to give thrust wake up man Nasa is full of shit the truth is coming out there's nothing that will stop it don't be the last to know brother
It doesnt need to push off of anything. Its Newton's third law 'For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction'. Action:rocket exhaust is expelled, Reaction: rocket moves forward
A couple of cool things here. 1) did you notice the water at the bottom boiling off, hard to notice but it was,and 2) the motor works because solid fuel rockets do rely on air as the oxidizer. In vacuum the oxidizer is carried along. You will see these fuels only as a liquid. A really cool vid here.
Atmospheric oxygen would have a very difficult time getting past the nozzle pressure. There are Solid fuel rockets without solid oxidizer but they use liquid oxygen which is pumped down the center of the solid fuel.
@Adventist pretty sure it's impossible to make a rocket without an oxidizer unless you just use pressure How would you get enough oxygen inside ti rocket from the atmosphere to provide thrust? It would be extremely interesting to see a design that can do this because if you just put fuel in a tube then it will only burn as it exits into the oxygen around it.
NASA have the largest vacuum chamber in existence, I bet it cost magnitudes more than 30milllion just to build the chamber. It's the unfortunately by product of holding yourself to the highest standard for precise data.
They're both huge but NASA is larger by more than double the volume, the largest vacuum area at the LHC is 9000m3, while the Space Power Facility's vacuum area is 22,653m3. EDIT: The confusion may come from the fact that there are actually three separate areas that have to be subjected to vacuum at the LHC, so it might be easier to say the SPF is the largest single vacuum chamber.
The LHC is the longest by length but the NASA one is the largest by volume. I don't know if NASA have ever tried igniting solid rocket motors in a vacuum though, as far as I know they've only been used for the first stage/side boosters (so by the time they get to the vacuum bit they're already ignited).
No need to be focused on semantics. He can already see the screens fine and has a phone case that can most likely survive a few sparks, the only thing on that phone that is bare and had no protection against the sparks was the lens of the camera so of course he wants to know if thats ok. This wasn't an explosive TNT test, just thrusts in a vacuum
@@flumblumsummers5068 I mean these hobby motors specifically. Actual rocket engines work in a vacuum. Though given how I worded this it isn’t very clear
No, it didn't. The experiment proved that model rockets can _work_ in a vacuum, but can't ignite in a vacuum. They need that initial pressure to start the reaction.
Why don't you explain how it nullified the experiment? You know you can't just say it and it's automatically true the guy had a rocket inside of a vacuum to show what a rocket does inside of a vacuum how was it nullified by they're being pressure around the rocket? It required a bit of pressure around the rocket to set it off but he was not trying to set off gunpowder in a vacuum. He already did that test.
Whats interesting is the ignition and burn for the first and second attempt only lasted for a single frame, were as the third attempt actually showed alot in the first few frames, first frame it ignited, second frame was the pressure build up and in the third frame it burns though the bottle and starts to propel itself. To those that do not know hit < and > when a video is paused to go frame by frame, some videos you have to tap it twice before it changes, all depends on the videos fps.
Luke Himself it did, or else it wouldn't have spun the arm around as violently. The difference is that the exhaust can evacuate the rocket much more quickly in vacuum than in normal atmosphere.
Seriously? Whether a rocket produces thrust in a vacuum isn't in doubt; measuring the difference in thrust between atmospheric pressure and a vacuum would have been educational.
"Whether a rocket produces thrust in a vacuum isn't in doubt" Unfortunately it is, there's a contingent of conspiracy theorists who claim that thrust in a vacuum is impossible.
Difference in thrust between atmospheric pressure and a vacuum is also not in doubt. You can literally calculate these numbers at home on paper. Whether a rocket produces thrust in a vacuum isn't in doubt either, but this video raises a lot of questions. I dont doubt nasa, or any rocket manufacturer. Intuitively everyone thinks all you need is an oxidizer and fuel to create a reaction, which is wrong. Obviously as seen with this video you need pressure, BUT WHY? That is the educational part. And tbh, it is not explained well in this video why you need pressure.
+iwillavenge you Without pressure the gases disperse, so no chemical reaction happens. This is why there is no visible flame from the LM ascent stage after liftoff from the moon. Once the gases leave the combustion chamber the pressure quickly drops and the chemical reaction ceases.
So why is pressure needed for the chemical reaction to continue? I mean the necessary ingredients are (or atleast we thought) fuel, an oxidizer, and heat. Which is all there. You said without pressure the gasses disperse, but the fuel/oxidizer is solid in this case. Why do we care if the products of the fuel/oxidizer reaction (the gasses) disperse? How do the products of the reaction (the gasses) have anything to do with how the reactants (fuel/oxidizer) react? Thanks for your comment, i am still failing to see why pressure is needed.
thankfully a smart comment somewhere on the list instead of "oh it worked perfectly the entire time since the burn was started, I accept everything about space now! even the proven claymation astronaut in the 70's spacewalks!"
I like the rotary motion deal. This is the same as what Goddard did in a small vacuum chamber using a gun showing that the gases momentum causes motion even in a vacuum.
OR you COULD just watch this weekend's launch of Falcon heavy. The LIVE video had numerous examples of rocket propulsion in a vacuum. If you can't spot the MULTIPLE examples of rocket propulsion IN A VACUUM in that video, just let me know and I will point them out to you.
The video is titled "Falcon Heavy From Launch to Landing in 4K! USSF-67" by Astronomy Live. It is LIVE video of the launch and booster return and never loses sight of the boosters.
Yea those rockets DID NOT GO INTO SPACE. I watched the vid. They went high in the air like an overpriced bottle rocket but never went to space like you claim. Anyone can easily prove this with the science that’s given. If they went into space then they would’ve instantly left the cameras view as soon as they left the atmosphere as the earth is supposedly spinning at over the speed of sound.... So no... giant bottle rockets going up and coming back down don’t prove anything other than they never left the atmosphere.
@@mushmmm1509 - "yea those rockets DID NOT GO INTO SPACE. I watched the vid. They went high in the air like an overpriced bottle rocket but never went to space like you claim." Oh REALLY? SO YOU know more about this stuff than an actual Aerospace Test Engineer that has been launching things to space since before you were born? Sorry, but those side boosters reached 50 kilometers before they separated. The atmospheric pressure at 50 kilometers is LESS THAN 1.0 Torr. This is ALREADY VACUUM. The side boosters then went as high as 120 kilometers where they did some More "propulsive steering" before descending again. Stick to topics you are familiar with. This is not one of them. And before you try to lecture me on the meaning of the word "Vacuum": I am Also a vacuum test specialist with almost 30 years' experience operating some of the nation's largest thermal vacuum chambers with Billion-dollar defense vehicles inside them.
@@stuartgray5877 if that’s true you of all people should know you can’t get something from nothing... but your stating the opposite by saying rockets can propel themselves off the nothingness of space. It literally doesn’t make sense. When can nothing produce a force to be propelled off of. It simply can’t and doesn’t. As for a vacuum test they’re all flawed, cause the vacuum isn’t a constant it’s a chamber that fills up which is where thrust is possible. There’s no filling the vacuum of space so a rocket would never work. Or y’all can change the definition of what space is to fit the bs narrative, until then “nothing” can’t produce “something” and recoil and propulsion aren’t the same thing. One is an action while the other is a reaction.
@@mushmmm1509 - " but your stating the opposite by saying rockets can propel themselves off the nothingness of space." I said no such thing. For YOU to state the rockets DO NOT work in a vacuum means you don't understand inertia and Momentum. When a rocket PUSHES OUT the MASS of the exhaust gas it feels an "equal and opposite" reaction force. Per newtons laws, any device that PUSHES ON (Accelerates) any type of MASS MUST exert a FORCE to do so. Any FORCE creates and equal and opposite force. No machine can accelerate mass without feeling a RECOIL force. Rocket propulsion is the REACTION to pushing on the mass of the exhaust gas.
this sucked cody. where was the proper testing the good theory's the calculations of volume of air released by the rocket. did you burn the used rocket to see if all the fuel was burned ???. cody i want you to redo this.
@@01wadder that is not true. maybe Cody should have been included a explanation to head off people like you that think air pressure is an oxidizer for solid fuel rockets.
thank God for this video because I was actually starting to think that rocket engines wouldn't work in a vacuum. I would like to see this done when it's not raining.
"Flat earth" is an emotional thing for these people. It makes them feel good, the reply comments make them feel good. Evidence is not going to make them change their mind because it's not a replacement for those emotions or the attention they receive.
There was still a vacuum, you realize the vacuum was never going to be perfect. This does prove that a rocket produces just as much if not more thrust in a vacuum, if the vacuum negated the thrust then there would have been less thrust than the first test but there's actually more. Its Newton's third law as the other guy said. Really should have learned about this in third grade. You think the air pressure outside of Rocket is what gives it thrust but in reality that air pressure trying to holding in the pressure in the rocket nozzle and reduces thrust.
So you proved the rocket didn't work in a vacuum, so you put it in a not-a-vacuum where it did work, and then said it works in a vacuum? Mind blowing stuff.🤦
These vacuum rockets in space tests are all flawed and nobody’s calling it out. These test aren’t in a constant vacuum. As soon as the rocket engine puts out one molecule the vacuum isn’t constant anymore as the exhaust is filling up the chamber which is where it gets thrust. But space is a constant vacuum so there’s no “filling of the chamber” so unless you can calculate exactly what the rocket thrust is and apply the same vacuum constantly while it’s going than your whole test is flawed from the start. The fact that people are using closed systems to simulate a supposed endless vacuum of open space is kinda mind boggling. If space is nothing then you can’t produce something from nothing it’s that simple. Rockets literally break the laws of physics
- "Rockets literally break the laws of physics" They do no such thing. Rocker propulsion is just the mechanical RECOIL of pushing on mass. Are you suggesting that RECOIL stops working in a vacuum? What would happen if you fired a CROSSBOW into the vacuum? Would you feel a recoil force? YES! Newton's laws say rocket propulsion MUST work in a vacuum. Study the "Law of Conservation of Momentum" then check back.
@@mushmmm1509 - "There’s no mass in space, so hows it work?" The ROCKET TAKES MASS WITH IT TO SPACE Let me guess, you are one of those morons that thinks that Exhaust gas HAS NO MASS. Bless your little heart! Let's try completing HIGH SCHOOL, before calling every Rocket Scientist to have ever lived a bunch of imbeciles, shall we?
@@stuartgray5877 so where’s the opposing force to create thrust on the “mass it takes with it come from”? Why can’t any you retards answer that? You just keep saying the same thing over and over. If you can’t understand this question you don’t know how thrust is achieved and what’s actually happening when thrust is created.
@@mushmmm1509 - "If you can’t understand this question you don’t know how thrust is achieved Just so I have this straight: High School dropouts, such as yourself, DO know how Rocket Propulsion works, but ROCKET SCIENTISTS DO NOT? Sorry But I have been building, testing, launching and operating earth orbiting spacecraft and deep space science probes since before you were born. I tell YOU how this stuff works, NOT the other way around genius. Now GO BACK and finish HIGH SCHOOL, then you can try challenging actual engineers about basic physics.
im pissed at the poor level of usefull info in this video. he could have made a video entirely on why the pressure gauge didnt go to full vacuum . and maybe another one about how the atmospheric pressure can change from day to day and why it does ? he could have made conclusions based on his observations of the malfunctioning pressure gauge and hypothesized how accurate pressure gauges are. and reflect on all the times he measured pressure gauges to a millimeter to see if he had full vacuum. and say in conclusion it was stupid. and that for all he knew he had half a vacuum. a pressure gauge that can be off by like 20 percent from day to day is useless when trying to measure stuff like .1 percent from full vacuum. among so many other stuff i think this video should be taken down and redone as it is so below codys standards. i watch cody because hes smart and notices stuff like that and then explains them. this video is like what any other "science'' channel could have made. like hydraulic press channels.
Rain reduces pressure because it condenses the particles in the air, there are less particles in the air which means less pressure the pressure gauge is completely accurate but reads relative to outside pressure. He really did not need a whole video on this Also he was never going to have a complete vacuum it's nearly impossible to get one on earth and he did know exactly how much of vacuum he had, the gauge being affected by the outside pressure does not mean he could have been at half of the vacuum he thought he was at you just adjust for barometric pressure. also any amount of vacuum would demonstrate the effect of vacuum has on the thrust of a rocket.
2010invent it needed pressure to initialize the reaction. After it began, the pressure of the exhaust within the rocket allowed the rest of the fuel to burn.
actually what you did was encase the rocket preserving enough atmosphere to burn the fuel while also giving the rocket something to push off of. So the rocket once ignited pushed off the containment unit. The containment unit went one way the rocket went the other. But that is not what Nasa states that they do. to have rockets like that in space you would have to contain each rocket that you wanted to use. Then once used go out and contain them again for a subsequent use. But The rocket could not fire directly into space. What you basically made was a bullet cartridge. Nasa claims it works like a balloon. You blow up a balloon and have even pressure on all sides. You release the pressure on one side and you watch the balloon go flying around the room. They disregard that the reason the balloon moves is because of the air flowing from the open source and pushing of the atmosphere and instead state that it is because the pressure is no longer pushing at the open source but still pushing in the remaining directions. It is a big leap to state that nasa has figured it out because you figured out how to do it in the way stated above when the way they say they do it is more aligned with your first experiments which failed.
NUCK CHORRIS Although 'Live Fantasy' is a bit rude it does not detract in any way from the fact that the OP is indeed an asshat. All flat earthers are asshats as well, in fact thats actually an insult to asshats everywhere.
Live Fantasy They (flat earthers) would drive you mad with their stupidity, I agree with you fully. The 'dome above us' people are the worst. Bruce Lee used to say that it was unwise to argue with an idiot because onlookers would not be able to distiguish the idiot. He said it better than that but the exact quote eludes me at the moment, but basically he meant arguing with an idiot is idiotic. I stand by what I said however, calling flat earthers 'asshats' is an insult to genuine asshats everywhere... peace.
It didn't sound like the parachute ejection charge went off on the successful vacuum-burn motor. I hypothesize that the 'slow burn' fuel between the boost stage and the parachute ejection charge didn't produce enough gas to keep the combustion chamber pressurized and went out. I'd love to see that motor dissected and see how much did/didn't burn.
he didn't mention that it went out at the exact moment the vacuum was reintroduced. Yes it was able to start in atmospheric pressure (he's proved that over and over), but it doesn't change anything at all.
The fact that the rocket motor accelerated the rotor assembly to a great rate of speed, while also producing lots of smoke, demonstrates that the rocket motor did NOT extinguish immediately after the air bottle broke down. You are asserting that rockets don't work in the vacuum of space, but I am sure you have not done any experiments of your own in order to prove this.
Perhaps so, perhaps no. Maybe a bigger vacuum tank, and a bit more testing would be useful here. Either way, it is proven that rockets work perfectly well in the vacuum of space :) .
any vacuum chamber made on EARTH cannot compare to the absolute vacuum of space. No matter what, it would be too small for experiments. Besides space is WATER. GOD BLESS
Space is water? I love how you say a vacuum chamber doesn't compare to the vacuum of space and then pull that out of your ass... Its almost as if your contradicting yourself?
My ass, hahaha your stupidly funny. Go figure it out yourself smartboy. Rockets in space have nothing to push against, like air, in space, as they do here ON earth. That's LEO that is. We have no clue what's out there in deep space. Oh but I'm sure you know all about what's out there in deep space. Explain to me why NAZI say's we cannot get past the radiation belts, then in their same breath they talk about Mars and beyond? Really????? I only comment to get responses like yours, you know, the DUMB ones. It just makes me laugh at the ingenuity of people, like you blu3flare25. HAHAHA GOD BLESS
Rockets are pushing off the explosion they are creating from expanding gas, like proved in this video.. If they did not it would be a violation of newtons third law.. NASA can go past the van Allan radiation belts the radiation is not enough to kill someone, but enough for radiation poisoning if they are in it long enough. I know much more about space than you i have my own telescope and can see Jupiter and its moons clearly, i also have to track it because it constantly moves across the sky from the earths rotation.. Your just another average conspiracytard that doesn't have a IQ above about 10...
Could be... Hydrogen and oxygen rises initially all the time for obvious reasons, but the upper layers of the atmosphere (many hundreds of miles up) get colder and colder, so they condense - and you get water again, or something like water
cody disproved flat earth last week now he disproves the conspiracy nuts on how rockets don't work in space keep it up cody your doing God's work we love you for it.
Thank you for extending your experiment to prove that rockets do provide thrust in a vacuum. Most other so called "researchers" that think that rockets can't work in a vacuum would have stopped with the first test and claimed "proof"
The thing is the first test still demonstrated Newton's third law just fine, the rocket did move in the vaccum when the igniters went off it just didn't ignite properly Also someone literally stole Cody's videos said they were the ones doing the experiment and cut out the last one to claim that it proved Newton's third law is wrong
Hey just curious in the third attempt in vacuum chamber when the engine went off under vacuum how come there be liquid water present on the base of Chamber 6:40. (Given the Chamber was in vacuum i.e. 25 inches of mercury).
It does need a certain temperature and pressure to ignite. I've got a 1950s rocket manual for amateurs and it includes a section on modifying the design of the igniters for second and third stages so they'll function at high altitudes.
cody, so thats a no right? because to achieve the results you used a mini atmosphere inside the vacuum to feed the rocket oxygen. also noted that the vacuum in the chamber was gaining pressure suggesting that the rocket preformed outside the vacuum. if space expands then lets think of that as the superior vacuum pump and a gain of pressure may not even be messurable. ie nuclear bombs produce no shock waves in space.
Interesting to see an atmospheric rocket motor being made to work in vacuum, and how it started working in the vacuum once fully ignited. You should start testing building rocket engines!
Man I work for a crbenfiber company and we do vacuum assisted resin transfer molding and we have got a vac manifold throughout the building that sits at - 27 to - 29 it's kinda impressive
Would not the boiling water produce a gas which oxygen would be a part of this result via air bubbles of H2O. Yes carbon dioxide being the main gas, nitrogen as well maybe argon. Just asking? Wouldn't this sublimation of gas create extra pressure within your vacuum? Something that I am wanting to know. My interest would be a complete bullet cartridge, primer ignited from it's regular brass case underwater be enough to ignite the powder and sufficiently release the bullet from it's case more than a foot?
@@jettzbigdaddy3055 no you need to put energy into water to separate the hydrogen and oxygen molecules all of the water vapor is still water, it's still oxidized hydrogen, if you put water on something does it help it burn Because of the oxygen in the water? No. Not to mention if it was separating into oxygen and hydrogen then there would also be hydrogen in the container in a perfect mixture to detonate. Think about it like carbon dioxide it says it right there that there's oxygen bound to the carbon, but you can't burn it because it's the result of burning the oxygen and hydrocarbons. Literally the same deal with this except there's no carbon, just hydrogen
Thanks for doing that Cody. First, I commend you on your ingenuity for making a rocket rotate (instead of attempting it going in a straight line, like I've seen other folks try. Reminds me of how backwards inventors first attempts usually are. For example, the first records were cylinders until someone's bright idea made them discs taking up far less room (that innovation took years). The first jukeboxes had 8 records, 8 turntables and 8 shafts on a Ferris wheel that would all rotate individually to the top to play requiring a huge cabinet, then someone thought, "hey, why not stack the records and us one turntable?". but that list goes on and on so your approaches always find a better way without years of waiting for someone else to .). Was kinda bummed the vacuum chamber here wasn't clear, so it was bright putting your iphone in there too. The reflection of your light source in the water droplets looked long and that puzzled me until I saw your iphone was on top of a fluorescent bulb. So good on you for that innovation as well. I didn't know if or not your iphone would video anything in pitch black (mine doesn't) and the light didn't cast a shadow of the turning arm. - so you're batting 1000 so far. And for all that, you give McGiver a run for his money. But your confidence saying "If I can figure it out, I'm sure the people at NASA can do it". still excels mine.
They don’t, srbs aren’t ignited in the vacuum of space much, and if they are, they have a frangible diaphragm allowing pressure build up. For liquid fueled rockets ( Hydrolox, Methalox, Kerolox) they build enough pressure in the combustion chamber from the expanding gasses that they don’t need an external pressure chamber or diaphragm.
Cody'sLab As soon as the rocket burns the chamber will be filled with combustion products. It is these products of combustion that cause the pressure that the rocket needs to work against in order to cause thrust. This is not the same as a rocket in a total vacuum. Also, there is some liquid boiling in the bottom of the tank. That will be producing vapour to which all adds to the restive pressure. What is the liquid in the bottom?
1. Rockets 'push' against their own exhaust jet. There is no need for them to be surrounded by a fluid for this to occur. To demonstrate this, I suggest you do an experiment. Get a skateboard (or roller skates) and something that's heavy and throwable (e.g. a medicine ball). Now go somewhere with a smooth, flat surface, stand on the board and throw your ball as hard as you can. You'll roll backwards a bit (or fall off. If this happens try again). Once the ball has left your hands, it is no longer connected to you in any way- so all the momentum (momentum is mass multiplied by velocity) you gained must have been transferred to you in the time while the ball was still touching your hands. In fact if you measure your speed and the speed of the ball immediately after throwing you'll find that you and the ball have the same amount of momentum. This is Newton's third law of motion: for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. We can fairly trivially demonstrate that you didn't roll backwards due to pushing on the air by trying the exact same experiment with a party balloon: the balloon has similar cross sectional area to a medicine ball, so it should have roughly equal ability to 'push' on the air. I can guarantee that if you re-try the experiment with a balloon you'll barely move if at all. A rocket uses the same principle, it just throws a jet of gas rather than a ball. While the gas is much less dense than a piece of exercise equipment, a rocket nozzle can accelerate it to much greater speed (over 4 kilometers per second for a hydrogen/oxygen rocket) which allows it to get the same amount of momentum from a smaller mass of stuff to throw. Note that this experiment is limited to some degree by friction in the skateboard's wheels. You might get a more noticeable result if you get ice skates and try it on an ice rink. A heavier medicine ball (or other heavy object) will also help, which is just further evidence that the air has nothing to do with it! 2. The liquid is water. It's boiling because the pressure inside the tank is less than the vapour pressure of water at room temperature. If Cody had switched off his vacuum pump the water would have boiled until the pressure above the water equaled that value. In this case he left it on during the experiment, so the pump was sucking the water vapour out as fast as it formed and the water carried on boiling until he switched the pump off and opened the chamber.
This experiment is supposed to show that rockets will work in a vacuum, however, this is not a simulation of the stated hypothesis. As soon as combustion gases leave the rocket they spread out and fill the void. This is a flawed experiment. Either we are scientific about it or we are not. I have seen too many fudge over this major flaw and this needs to be addressed, understood and recognised. We must also recognise that the rocket in this experiment is not subject to a force such as gravity as it is working horizontally on the end of a counter balanced arm. This means it only needs a tiny force to make it move. We must also recognise that the chamber is being filled with very hot exhaust gasses, this heat will increase pressure to. All respect to you Cody'slab, I've seen many of your experiments and are usually impressed at what you do. However, in this test, It needs a very close looking at.
But how flawed? That vacuum chamber has a volume of 50 gallons, or 189.27L. The motor looks like a class A motor, which according to a google search holds 3.6g of gunpowder. Using a simplified equation for combustion of gunpowder that gives 0.029 moles of gaseous combustion products. I'll assume that the gas in the chamber is at a temperature of 300K (remember it cools very fast as it expands). Put these numbers into the ideal gas law (PV=nRT) and we get a pressure of 397 Pa, or around 0.38% of atmospheric pressure at sea level. If we assume that the temperature is 600K (close to the melting point of lead) the pressure will instead be 0.76% of sea level. In other words, the volume of gas produced by the rocket is small enough that its effect on the experiment should be minimal. In fact the water in the bottom of the chamber would have more effect, as the vapor pressure of water at room temperature is around 3 kPa. Accounting for the water, If we assume that the rocket works by 'pushing off the air' we can reasonably expect the motor to produce less than 4% of the thrust it delivered at 1 atmosphere. Such a large difference in performance should have easily been visible in the footage, as the motor would only be able to attain around 4% of the speed seen in the control test.
nerd1000ify very flawed. Does a rocket produce gas? yes... do people want rockets to work in space so badly that they will accept biased results? yes... If this test is supposed to recreate the infinite vacuum of space, it fails. If this test is supposed to test a rocket with zero reaction pressure, it fails. If it is supposed to test whether thrust can be generated in an infinite vacuum whilst the force of gravity is applied to the rocket.....you guessed it, it fails. If there is 1% of air pressure at sea level, this will return some force back to the rocket. Since the rocket is working horizontally, gravity has been excluded from the test. Are you a scientist? is truth more important than validation of belief? It seams belief is king and Tesla was right. RIP science.
the igniters are not designed for 120V : it causes then to burn too fast and 'pop' if you use say 9V , they will burn much slower like a match and keep the heat near the propellant for longer. I believe your experiment may have worked on first try had you use appropriate voltage.
Have you ever even touched one of these igniters? Why do you say that? Why are you 'sure' that's not AC? The fact that the vacuum pump shares the same power bar is a dead giveaway also the distinctive 'pop' the igniter does is typical of over-voltage.
I predict that it will work because a) the fuel is under mechanical pressure since it's packed together tightly, so the chain reaction is more likely to get started, and b) the rocket provides its own back pressure to drive the gasses out in a single direction.
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
As you suggested Rockets do actually produce more thrust in a vacuum. Most designs will have a lower specific impulse at sea level and by extension a lower thrust. This is mostly down to the pressure differential between the combustion and the exit nozzle being lower when there's air pushing back, leading to a lower exhaust velocity.
Also, I strongly suggest getting a dedicated camera, like a go-pro with a dive housing - would such to ruin your iPhone.
hay scott love your video! !!
Scott Manley Indeed, the lower the average molecular weight of the products, the higher the C* value (which expresses the average speed of the products, hence taking the MW into account), the higher this differential will be!
Hullo! :)
Thrust in atmosphere is lower because you can't expand the gasses as much before flow separation. But also because once the static pressure of the exhaust drops below atmospheric, any further expansion will only cause the thrust to decrease.
Don't NASA's rockets work by adding the oxygen needed for combustion...
I learned more science watching your channel than I ever did in school. A lot of people all over the world must learn a lot from you which is awesome.
This is actually how rockets work. The solid fuel cells are incapsulated. Great vid as always Cody.
They still use solid fuel cells on Rockets? I thought they stop doing that before we even got to space, space shuttles use Liquid hydrogen and oxygen and and other fluids that will ignite on their own when mixed.
@CosmicDamian FALSE. The SRBs detached at 24 nautical miles high. I assure you. It's not a vacuum there.
Nope terrible video. Lacks understanding of how boosters work on spacecraft. They have their own oxidizer in the chemical mixture.
@@sludgut the problem isn’t lack of oxygen. The problem is a lacking of atmosphere to push against. Ergo, everyone talking about the vacuum. In the previous rocket/vacuum video he showed that the burn pushed against the atmosphere, and the atmosphere pushed the heat back against the fuel source; with no atmosphere, there’s no thrust in the initial burn, with no atmosphere, there’s no back pressure to push the flame into the fuel.
@@lanceroark6386 - So you think that MECHANICAL RECOIL stops working in a vacuum?
Sorry to break it to you but only those COMPLETELY UNEDUCATED about basic physics think that "Rockets push on air".
Now try taking AT LEAST high school physics before telling every engineer to have ever lived that THEY are a bunch of morons.
Rocket engines are MORE EFFICIENT IN A VACUUM!
wow the rocket actually worked! you're one step ahead of North Korea
Dr.StickFigure I see you every where
Q: why did the chicken cross the road
A: to get out of range of north Korea's nuclear capabilities
+Christopher Fajardo maby becaus he and you have the same taste in videos ?
ppffthahaha
Dr.StickFigure and light years ahead of the flatearthers who deny rockets work in space
nothing like using a power strip in the rain
iraq just the Tim Taylor in Cody showing through lol
Probably not as dangerous as wringing out a wet towel in the space shuttle...
nothing like using a phone and ducktape for camera and a stand
Well, in space the water mostly stays around the towel and the hands in micro-gravity as the strongest force is surface tension (there's a Hadfield video showing this). If you shake the towel, then you'll get droplets flying off, but as there's no gravity to pull the water into crevices, it's actually quite unlikely to get inside the equipment (that same surface tension will make it want to stay in a ball on the surface). And even if it does make it to some circuitry, it'd likely be purified water from the ISS, so unless the towel was particularly dirty it's unlikely to cause any damage (it's the impurities in tap water that allow it to conduct electricity).
I'm guessing it wasn't hooked up to mains, just a local power supply
I'm always suprized, that so much pyrotechnic mixtures don't work in a vacuum. Nice video as usual!
not what I expected to be honest , I learned a lot from this!
Hey Cody ! Will you try making bakelite in your pressure chamber using NileRed process ?
Nicolas Bana +1 to that I bet I speak for a lot of people here...I would absolutely love to see a collaboration video between Cody and NileRed. If that isn't possible, at the very least do a spin off/ video based on one of his experiments.
I know Cody watches NileRed because I saw him in the comments section of Nilered's most recent video.
Thumbs up so Cody can see. It would be fantastic.
NileRed said he was talking to Cody about it in the comments. Whether or not Cody does it is up to him.
Mitchell G yeah I can get on board with that nile red and Cody would be awesome
Is it me or does EVERY video on youtube lately have a "you should do collab with xyz streamer" thread? WTF #illuminaticonfirmed
PLEASE
Noticed there was some water still pooling in the bottom of the chamber at ignition. Your vacuum might be also limited because of the boiling/sublimating water bringing the preasure up. Would love to see a large pool of water in the bottom of the chamber get pumped down...
Exactly. Ad strange cut screens and pretend it's science. Make a vacuum in your backyard during a rainstorm.
The unlit rocket came off because it was still at full weight when the bar was spinning the fastest.
The bar did a Spinaroonie like Booker T
Can't wait for Cody to get into orbit...
you read my mind with that clip in the end. that's exactly what i was gonna ask you to do
Tapes phone in a vacuum with explosives for science
with over 136 million views on his channel, I doubt 1 iPhone will set him back much XD
Romo Sapien yea probably true
HunterM2100 thats the kerbal way to do it
relax, it's just an apple phone. They are not designed to function for long anyway.
HunterM2100 you must be new to his channel
1:50 Bless you Cody!
Lmao glad im not the only one who noticed
Holy Fuzzy Cat that was the kind of sneeze my little 8 year old niece would do
A similar technique can be used to assist the parachute ejection charges on high altitude high power rockets. I tested 35 mm film containers over a decade ago when I had a level 2 cert and was active in building and flying these. Black powder charges are notorious for failure at high altitudes due to lack of pressure. Black powder is usually the choice for these.
when i saw the video i thought "no, of course not! ...right?" and then i clicked the video anyway ^^ and i'm glad i did!
i didn't even think about the fact that rockets work in space and was just thinking about if there's no air to push against, it can't produce thrust. so i'm glad you cleared that up.
For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
At least you came to the video with an open mind. Some people would just deny the evidence right in front of them.
Just when I'm about to go to sleep. Thanks haha
Aidan Nina Maybe because its not the same time all around the world?
Aidan Nina time zones
Aidan Nina it's only 4:00 PM here. It's because of time zones throughout the Earth
Before clocks were first invented, it was common practice to mark the time of day with apparent solar time (also called "true" solar time) - for example, the time on a sundial - which was typically different for every location and dependent on longitude.When well-regulated mechanical clocks became widespread in the early 19th century,[1] each city began to use some local mean solar time. Apparent and mean solar time can differ by up to around 15 minutes (as described by the equation of time) because of the elliptical shape of the Earth's orbit around the Sun (eccentricity) and the tilt of the Earth's axis (obliquity). Mean solar time has days of equal length, and the difference between the two sums to zero after a year.
Greenwich Mean Time (GMT) was established in 1675, when the Royal Observatory was built, as an aid to mariners to determine longitude at sea, providing a standard reference time while each city in England kept a different local time.
Harry Ward 10:34 am here in NewZealand
Holy shit you have 1 Mil subs already?! Congrats man I've been here since 20k subs and last time i really looked at your sub count was at 200k and now you've already hit a million! Holy fudge man... Life is so strange sometimes, it feels like it was still yesterday I saw you metal refining video's in my recommended feed and end up subbing to your channel.... I wish you the very best good sir!
cody what happened to the methane generator project?
Nodus Tollens It got too cold as the heater failed.
I'd like to know the answer, too. :)
Matthias Plus how do you know
Nodus Tollens I hope Cody doesn't get tied up in the flat earth non sense. Debunking flat earth is just a waste of time tbh. This rocket video falls into the flat earth debate. Maybe flat earthers thing space can't be real and rockets wouldn't work in space if it was real. This video and his last video both are very flat earthish. Not saying I don't appreciate them. I just hope he doesn't spend too much time debunking flat earth
I don't know ... Cody's just using basic math and science to talk about natural and man-made phenomena ... most of his videos "prove" something that's already been proven academically. What's fun is watching the way HE does it.
Using math to measure the friggin Earth is a cool idea. Who cares which anti-science idiots he disproves along the way! These videos are interesting in their own right, imo. (that said, I'm jonesing for some more Cody's Mine or Precious metals vids...:))
The failure at 3:56 is not a failure of a rocket motor in a vacuum. It is a failure of the igniter used. Those ignitors do not have an oxidizer, the motor does have an oxidizer.
You could conduct a test of the igniter outside the rocket motor to verify this.
it wasn't in a vacuum. the rising smoke proves it.
Cody never ceases to surprise. Thought this would be straightforward, but I guess one learns something new every day!
Damn it Cody, you did it again. You linked to an editor page of a video in your description. ;)
whoops
what does that mean?
Cody'sLab hey it was not fully successful it didn't burn completely because the parachute charge did not go off..
Brandon Cramer I thought it was a shorter burn.
its was a shorter burn.. tisk tisk cody you didn't catch that buddy
8:33 that sound is priceless
Hm. To be accurate, the expanding gas is pushing against the firing chamber (and in this case the enclosing jar) and the only place there isn't resistance for it to push against is the aperture/opening. The gas escapes the aperture, pressing on every other point of contact inside, and the rocket moves in the opposite direction from the gas.
Usually SRF is very seldomly used in vacuum, and if they operate in vacuum they were usually ignited somewhere in the atmosphere before they passed the karman line, IF they for some reason need to be ignited in a vacuum, there usually is a thin metal membrane in the opening and the inside slightly pressurized, or it is ignited by hypergolic liquids or monopropellants... In almost every case where a light or re-light of a rocket engine is to be performed in vacuum, its allmost allways liquid propellants, and most often Oxygen and Hydrogen, and usually nasty hypergolics as ignition source, in addition to the fact that the propellant tanks are pressurized, so when the gasses expand through the turbopumps and meets the restriction in the pre-burner and in the main combustion chamber, it lights off easily :)
The most famous rocket that uses solid fuel as a vacuum engine is the ATK's Antares and Airbus' Vega.
Also, older rockets use solid rocket booster as "kicker stage" on 3rd-4th stages. Examples are the one used to "kick" Voyager Spacecrafts to higher velocity if I'm not mistaken.
And speaking of vacuum solid motors, most of which have a relatively small nozzle throat and a very large nozzle bells to improve specific impulse. :)
And from what I read, the reason why solid motors still have a place on space program is that it has a very reliable ignition. And the reliability of solid rocket motors was made possible by the lack of moving parts aside from the nozzle gimbals. Turbo pump-driven liquid fuel engine has a tendency of failing on its own during ignition and while it is running because of the numbers of moving parts like pumps, valves, regulators, etc. that could fail at any moment.
Aside from turbo pumps, the other way to push fuel into the combustion chamber is by pressurizing the fuel tanks itself. This type of engines are called Pressure-fed engines. It is used in many ACS/RCS engines and many descent engine for smaller spacecrafts when landing on Mars or on the Moon. One example is the descent and ascent engine on Apollo LM. The simplicity of the design is a big plus for improving its reliability. :)
Yes the LEM used a pressurized tank-fed hypergolic fueled engine, and the exhaust is so corrosive they were actually never test-fired before beeing installed in the LEM, as it would deteriorate it too much.
Iirc, another method used for probes, etc, was to light a motor off in a sealed chamber to generate pressure, and valved that pressurized gas out to nozzles for pitch and attitude control.
Gunpowder needs pressure to burn - the burn rate is proportional to pressure. More pressure, faster burning = yet more pressure. Unconstrained gunpowder is hard to burn rapidly at sea level.
This is not an issue with solid rockets per se but is a problem for GUNPOWDER type rockets in a vacuum. To work properly you need to fit a much smaller throat than is optimal at sea level (in fact if ignited at sea level pressure the rocket may explode). Ignition requires a far more energetic (explosive even) ignition to get to working pressure and hold it there until the propellant grain is burning properly.
Can a magnesium fire be put out by a vacuum?
Yes. Burning magnesium needs oxygen from the air (or from water). No oxygen, no burn.
M'aiq the Liar well if it gets it from the water thers no need for oxegen in the air
Vacuum = no (or insignificant amounts) of anything around. That includes water.
Temple of the Dog
Um... Magnesium is an element. It contains only magnesium and nothing else. Look it up on the periodic table.
Oh allright then. No worries, everyone makes mistakes. ^^
Cody, I don't care what you make a video on. Just blow my mind or discover something that no one else has. I don't know...just make it unique
I quit using those electric igniters back in the 60's. They have about a 50% fail rate. Now, if you pack a little black powder in around those igniters the fail rate drops to about 10%. For those little Estes motors we always used a piece of Visco fuse. About 1/4" from the the end of the fuse we would bend the fuse over and force that into the motor thrust nozzle. Out of hundreds, we never had one fail to ignite.
You remind me of myself about 35 to 40 years ago, except you seem to have much more to work with. Growing up in a suburban neighborhood in the 60's it wasn't as easy to set off large explosions and similar attention getting experiments as it would be out on a ranch, but we managed. I remember telling my parents that the explosion that shook the house was from construction blasting somewhere near. I think the best thing I made back then was a Tesla coil. I used Coca-Cola bottles as capacitors and made a rotating stop gap from an old chain saw blade sharpening motor and a dimmer switch. I got 48" continuous arcs out of it. Not bad considering the plans I ordered from Lindsay's Publications came with no illustrations. I had to imagine how each component was made and how it worked in concert with everything else.
See how long a RC helicopter can hover as you lower the pressure.
AndrewRG10 I second that. My long outstanding request has been to try to hover a quadcopter in Mars air pressure. NASA is investigating this, so it must be plausible.
One meant to fly on earth wouldn't work well. The blades would have too little resistance and spin too fast and mess up the motor. Would need a much larger prop than normally suitable for the motor size, but still the right motors for the size of quad
And I think we all wan't to see, how it would work if it was floating 1 ft off the ground and then as the pressure decreases, see how what pressure it can no longer stay in the air.
this has already been done a couple times by other people on youtube and seems like more of a gimmick than anything to repeat this specific instance
could start by "overpropping" the motors. i'm sure there are some numbers to determine a general prop size for a given motor in different atmospheres
Cody you are an experimental genius.
Why dont you try to make a space suit?
how is he going to test it
He'll find out :)
Kontrol Kabel how
Vacuum chamber
Do you know how much a human size vacuum chamber costs? And if it fails the person inside the suit is going to die
Release the schmoo!
Matheus ave?
What with the pokey bits goin in the pokey bit receptacle to set off the choocher at subpar atmocylindrical pressures.
This JustIn: The Kimes Times is it skookum though?
It's pretty farkin' skookum
skookum as frig
CONGRATULATIONS ON 1 MILLION CODY! I KNEW YOU WOULD GET HERE!!
As long as the rocket engine contains its own oxidizer then it will burn in a vacuum. All liquid fuel rocket engines have their own oxidizers therefore burn in space
"Let's insert the plug" -Cody'sLab 2k17
;)
watching this in 20 24 before you got harassed by big gov...wow you had so much fun doing these experiments.
North Korea ought to take some lessons from Cody. Wait, they restrict their own internet to not include RUclips... I guess they're screwed.
NASA'S rockets work in space because they have an on board oxidizer, usually liquid oxygen.
Is that so?
So does gunpowder.
and also the point isn't really that it will ignite "which it wont" its that there is nothing for the expanding gas to push off of to give thrust wake up man Nasa is full of shit the truth is coming out there's nothing that will stop it don't be the last to know brother
It doesnt need to push off of anything. Its Newton's third law 'For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction'. Action:rocket exhaust is expelled, Reaction: rocket moves forward
devin elliott
How do you think the whole universe is moving... an explosion... the big bang 💥 derff
A couple of cool things here. 1) did you notice the water at the bottom boiling off, hard to notice but it was,and 2) the motor works because solid fuel rockets do rely on air as the oxidizer. In vacuum the oxidizer is carried along. You will see these fuels only as a liquid. A really cool vid here.
Donald Parlett jr Solid Fuel rockets contain their own oxidizer.
Atmospheric oxygen would have a very difficult time getting past the nozzle pressure. There are Solid fuel rockets without solid oxidizer but they use liquid oxygen which is pumped down the center of the solid fuel.
Solid fuel rockets do not rely on the air as an oxidiser. Where did you get that silly idea?
Rockets do not run on oxygen from Air.
I don't think any Rockets have ever done that but certainly not this one.
@Adventist pretty sure it's impossible to make a rocket without an oxidizer unless you just use pressure
How would you get enough oxygen inside ti rocket from the atmosphere to provide thrust?
It would be extremely interesting to see a design that can do this because if you just put fuel in a tube then it will only burn as it exits into the oxygen around it.
NASA could have done the same test, however, they would spent closer to 30 million dollars to do it.
probably did
NASA have the largest vacuum chamber in existence, I bet it cost magnitudes more than 30milllion just to build the chamber. It's the unfortunately by product of holding yourself to the highest standard for precise data.
Anticonny no you are right
They're both huge but NASA is larger by more than double the volume, the largest vacuum area at the LHC is 9000m3, while the Space Power Facility's vacuum area is 22,653m3. EDIT: The confusion may come from the fact that there are actually three separate areas that have to be subjected to vacuum at the LHC, so it might be easier to say the SPF is the largest single vacuum chamber.
The LHC is the longest by length but the NASA one is the largest by volume.
I don't know if NASA have ever tried igniting solid rocket motors in a vacuum though, as far as I know they've only been used for the first stage/side boosters (so by the time they get to the vacuum bit they're already ignited).
2:28
"let's make sure my CAMERA is okay"
hmm, so that's nothing more than a camera huh. Looks like them patreons sure do donate! lol
No need to be focused on semantics. He can already see the screens fine and has a phone case that can most likely survive a few sparks, the only thing on that phone that is bare and had no protection against the sparks was the lens of the camera so of course he wants to know if thats ok. This wasn't an explosive TNT test, just thrusts in a vacuum
i appreciate the little zoom transitions you did between cuts on this video
Now try it with a liquid one XD
Before I see another comment on how " rockets don't work in vacuum ", Just remember these are not designed to work in a vacuum in the first place.
So you rely solely on the momentom gained in the atmopshere to get to mars? Or did I missinterpret your comment
@@flumblumsummers5068 I mean these hobby motors specifically. Actual rocket engines work in a vacuum. Though given how I worded this it isn’t very clear
Science badass...glad there are people like this guy.
did you vacuum the air out of that little container that the rocket is in? that just nullified the hole experiment...🤣🤣
Harlon David How exactly did this nullify the experiment do you even know what an oxidizer is?
No, it didn't. The experiment proved that model rockets can _work_ in a vacuum, but can't ignite in a vacuum. They need that initial pressure to start the reaction.
Damn, it's almost as if solid fuel rockets were mostly used as boosters during atmospheric flight.
Do you really think the air would have time to fill up the vacuum chamber?
Why don't you explain how it nullified the experiment?
You know you can't just say it and it's automatically true the guy had a rocket inside of a vacuum to show what a rocket does inside of a vacuum how was it nullified by they're being pressure around the rocket?
It required a bit of pressure around the rocket to set it off but he was not trying to set off gunpowder in a vacuum. He already did that test.
> filming it with an iphone with that narrow fov
Dušan Pešić sometimes you need to work with what you have!
doesn't he have a gopro or something
Whats interesting is the ignition and burn for the first and second attempt only lasted for a single frame, were as the third attempt actually showed alot in the first few frames, first frame it ignited, second frame was the pressure build up and in the third frame it burns though the bottle and starts to propel itself. To those that do not know hit < and > when a video is paused to go frame by frame, some videos you have to tap it twice before it changes, all depends on the videos fps.
it didn't burn after the vacuum hit the fuel if you notice the major difference in burn times.
Luke Himself it did, or else it wouldn't have spun the arm around as violently. The difference is that the exhaust can evacuate the rocket much more quickly in vacuum than in normal atmosphere.
Seriously? Whether a rocket produces thrust in a vacuum isn't in doubt; measuring the difference in thrust between atmospheric pressure and a vacuum would have been educational.
"Whether a rocket produces thrust in a vacuum isn't in doubt"
Unfortunately it is, there's a contingent of conspiracy theorists who claim that thrust in a vacuum is impossible.
+BadWolf HS Mostly flat Earthers, who don't think that space even exists.
Difference in thrust between atmospheric pressure and a vacuum is also not in doubt. You can literally calculate these numbers at home on paper.
Whether a rocket produces thrust in a vacuum isn't in doubt either, but this video raises a lot of questions.
I dont doubt nasa, or any rocket manufacturer.
Intuitively everyone thinks all you need is an oxidizer and fuel to create a reaction, which is wrong. Obviously as seen with this video you need pressure, BUT WHY? That is the educational part. And tbh, it is not explained well in this video why you need pressure.
+iwillavenge you Without pressure the gases disperse, so no chemical reaction happens. This is why there is no visible flame from the LM ascent stage after liftoff from the moon. Once the gases leave the combustion chamber the pressure quickly drops and the chemical reaction ceases.
So why is pressure needed for the chemical reaction to continue? I mean the necessary ingredients are (or atleast we thought) fuel, an oxidizer, and heat. Which is all there.
You said without pressure the gasses disperse, but the fuel/oxidizer is solid in this case. Why do we care if the products of the fuel/oxidizer reaction (the gasses) disperse? How do the products of the reaction (the gasses) have anything to do with how the reactants (fuel/oxidizer) react?
Thanks for your comment, i am still failing to see why pressure is needed.
You're asking the real questions Cody
Rockets in space have their own oxygen supply stored in liquid form!
ODD channel had an amazing rebuttal to your experiment on earth curve
I thought he made a solid valid point definitely a theory that could use some testing by more people don't get angry get informed
I thought he made a solid valid point definitely a theory that could use some testing by more people don't get angry get informed
thankfully a smart comment somewhere on the list instead of "oh it worked perfectly the entire time since the burn was started, I accept everything about space now! even the proven claymation astronaut in the 70's spacewalks!"
+Luke Himself They didn't have to use claymation in the 70's they had Kubrick
makes you wonder why the rocket motor only lit for a fraction of a second and didn't do a full burn
I like the rotary motion deal. This is the same as what Goddard did in a small vacuum chamber using a gun showing that the gases momentum causes motion even in a vacuum.
goddard was a liar & a crank.
you shouldn't light the rocket under pressure
182 why not? That's how they do it when launching from Earth.
How do you suggest he Lights off the rocket?
The fuel does not ignite in a vacuum.
OR you COULD just watch this weekend's launch of Falcon heavy. The LIVE video had numerous examples of rocket propulsion in a vacuum. If you can't spot the MULTIPLE examples of rocket propulsion IN A VACUUM in that video, just let me know and I will point them out to you.
The video is titled "Falcon Heavy From Launch to Landing in 4K! USSF-67" by Astronomy Live.
It is LIVE video of the launch and booster return and never loses sight of the boosters.
Yea those rockets DID NOT GO INTO SPACE. I watched the vid. They went high in the air like an overpriced bottle rocket but never went to space like you claim. Anyone can easily prove this with the science that’s given. If they went into space then they would’ve instantly left the cameras view as soon as they left the atmosphere as the earth is supposedly spinning at over the speed of sound.... So no... giant bottle rockets going up and coming back down don’t prove anything other than they never left the atmosphere.
@@mushmmm1509 - "yea those rockets DID NOT GO INTO SPACE. I watched the vid. They went high in the air like an overpriced bottle rocket but never went to space like you claim."
Oh REALLY?
SO YOU know more about this stuff than an actual Aerospace Test Engineer that has been launching things to space since before you were born?
Sorry, but those side boosters reached 50 kilometers before they separated.
The atmospheric pressure at 50 kilometers is LESS THAN 1.0 Torr.
This is ALREADY VACUUM.
The side boosters then went as high as 120 kilometers where they did some More "propulsive steering" before descending again.
Stick to topics you are familiar with. This is not one of them.
And before you try to lecture me on the meaning of the word "Vacuum": I am Also a vacuum test specialist with almost 30 years' experience operating some of the nation's largest thermal vacuum chambers with Billion-dollar defense vehicles inside them.
@@stuartgray5877 if that’s true you of all people should know you can’t get something from nothing... but your stating the opposite by saying rockets can propel themselves off the nothingness of space. It literally doesn’t make sense. When can nothing produce a force to be propelled off of. It simply can’t and doesn’t. As for a vacuum test they’re all flawed, cause the vacuum isn’t a constant it’s a chamber that fills up which is where thrust is possible. There’s no filling the vacuum of space so a rocket would never work. Or y’all can change the definition of what space is to fit the bs narrative, until then “nothing” can’t produce “something” and recoil and propulsion aren’t the same thing. One is an action while the other is a reaction.
@@mushmmm1509 - " but your stating the opposite by saying rockets can propel themselves off the nothingness of space."
I said no such thing.
For YOU to state the rockets DO NOT work in a vacuum means you don't understand inertia and Momentum.
When a rocket PUSHES OUT the MASS of the exhaust gas it feels an "equal and opposite" reaction force.
Per newtons laws, any device that PUSHES ON (Accelerates) any type of MASS MUST exert a FORCE to do so. Any FORCE creates and equal and opposite force.
No machine can accelerate mass without feeling a RECOIL force.
Rocket propulsion is the REACTION to pushing on the mass of the exhaust gas.
You, Cody (and your channel), is what RUclips needs NOW.... a LOT! A guy who puts all the 'naysayers' (we all know them) in their place! :)
this sucked cody. where was the proper testing the good theory's the calculations of volume of air released by the rocket. did you burn the used rocket to see if all the fuel was burned ???. cody i want you to redo this.
you also forgot a proper explanation of why the rocket wouldn't work without the pressure.
Connor Dow " explanation"!
That pressure was your oxidizer!
@@01wadder that is not true. maybe Cody should have been included a explanation to head off people like you that think air pressure is an oxidizer for solid fuel rockets.
thank God for this video because I was actually starting to think that rocket engines wouldn't work in a vacuum. I would like to see this done when it's not raining.
Hopefully the flat earth people will now accept this and shut up.
@AM, good point and hopefully give me a break,..P
They're mentally insane believers. They will certainly not.
"Flat earth" is an emotional thing for these people. It makes them feel good, the reply comments make them feel good. Evidence is not going to make them change their mind because it's not a replacement for those emotions or the attention they receive.
Did you not watch the part when it didn't move? Obviously not!!
Is that a double negative or triple? No! Who are you talking to anyway?
That's silly experiment. The vacuum was compromised when the motors started. This proves nothing !
We don't need such "proof" anyway, Newton laws proves it works.
There was still a vacuum, you realize the vacuum was never going to be perfect. This does prove that a rocket produces just as much if not more thrust in a vacuum, if the vacuum negated the thrust then there would have been less thrust than the first test but there's actually more.
Its Newton's third law as the other guy said. Really should have learned about this in third grade.
You think the air pressure outside of Rocket is what gives it thrust but in reality that air pressure trying to holding in the pressure in the rocket nozzle and reduces thrust.
@@FrancisR420 It was a joke, man ..
The video at the end was fascinating!
under 301 club
So you proved the rocket didn't work in a vacuum, so you put it in a not-a-vacuum where it did work, and then said it works in a vacuum? Mind blowing stuff.🤦
Rocket propulsion works JUST FINE in a vacuum, exactly as the 100-year-old Tsiolkovsky Rocket Equations says.
@@stuartgray5877 the fake equation that nobody uses that was written by a crank? 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
@Pounder - "your arguments are tiresome and lame"|
Tell me you completed high school and I will kiss your ass.
@@stuartgray5877 no aerospace engineer talks like you, chatbot 😂
Cody's Lab is now Cody's Vacuum
These vacuum rockets in space tests are all flawed and nobody’s calling it out. These test aren’t in a constant vacuum. As soon as the rocket engine puts out one molecule the vacuum isn’t constant anymore as the exhaust is filling up the chamber which is where it gets thrust. But space is a constant vacuum so there’s no “filling of the chamber” so unless you can calculate exactly what the rocket thrust is and apply the same vacuum constantly while it’s going than your whole test is flawed from the start. The fact that people are using closed systems to simulate a supposed endless vacuum of open space is kinda mind boggling. If space is nothing then you can’t produce something from nothing it’s that simple. Rockets literally break the laws of physics
- "Rockets literally break the laws of physics"
They do no such thing.
Rocker propulsion is just the mechanical RECOIL of pushing on mass.
Are you suggesting that RECOIL stops working in a vacuum?
What would happen if you fired a CROSSBOW into the vacuum? Would you feel a recoil force?
YES!
Newton's laws say rocket propulsion MUST work in a vacuum.
Study the "Law of Conservation of Momentum" then check back.
@@stuartgray5877 you said it yourself pushes off of mass. There has to be mass for it to push. There’s no mass in space, so hows it work?🤷🏼♂️
@@mushmmm1509 - "There’s no mass in space, so hows it work?"
The ROCKET
TAKES
MASS
WITH
IT
TO
SPACE
Let me guess, you are one of those morons that thinks that Exhaust gas HAS NO MASS.
Bless your little heart!
Let's try completing HIGH SCHOOL, before calling every Rocket Scientist to have ever lived a bunch of imbeciles, shall we?
@@stuartgray5877 so where’s the opposing force to create thrust on the “mass it takes with it come from”? Why can’t any you retards answer that? You just keep saying the same thing over and over. If you can’t understand this question you don’t know how thrust is achieved and what’s actually happening when thrust is created.
@@mushmmm1509 - "If you can’t understand this question you don’t know how thrust is achieved
Just so I have this straight: High School dropouts, such as yourself, DO know how Rocket Propulsion works, but ROCKET SCIENTISTS DO NOT?
Sorry But I have been building, testing, launching and operating earth orbiting spacecraft and deep space science probes since before you were born.
I tell YOU how this stuff works, NOT the other way around genius.
Now GO BACK and finish HIGH SCHOOL, then you can try challenging actual engineers about basic physics.
im pissed at the poor level of usefull info in this video. he could have made a video entirely on why the pressure gauge didnt go to full vacuum . and maybe another one about how the atmospheric pressure can change from day to day and why it does ? he could have made conclusions based on his observations of the malfunctioning pressure gauge and hypothesized how accurate pressure gauges are. and reflect on all the times he measured pressure gauges to a millimeter to see if he had full vacuum. and say in conclusion it was stupid. and that for all he knew he had half a vacuum. a pressure gauge that can be off by like 20 percent from day to day is useless when trying to measure stuff like .1 percent from full vacuum. among so many other stuff i think this video should be taken down and redone as it is so below codys standards. i watch cody because hes smart and notices stuff like that and then explains them. this video is like what any other "science'' channel could have made. like hydraulic press channels.
Rain reduces pressure because it condenses the particles in the air, there are less particles in the air which means less pressure the pressure gauge is completely accurate but reads relative to outside pressure.
He really did not need a whole video on this
Also he was never going to have a complete vacuum it's nearly impossible to get one on earth and he did know exactly how much of vacuum he had, the gauge being affected by the outside pressure does not mean he could have been at half of the vacuum he thought he was at you just adjust for barometric pressure. also any amount of vacuum would demonstrate the effect of vacuum has on the thrust of a rocket.
I was not expecting ignition difficulties. Cool test.
You cheated. The motor was not in vacuum.
2010invent it needed pressure to initialize the reaction. After it began, the pressure of the exhaust within the rocket allowed the rest of the fuel to burn.
Yes it was.
It had a pressurized container around it but after that container burst it was just the rocket motor in a vacuum.
actually what you did was encase the rocket preserving enough atmosphere to burn the fuel while also giving the rocket something to push off of. So the rocket once ignited pushed off the containment unit. The containment unit went one way the rocket went the other. But that is not what Nasa states that they do. to have rockets like that in space you would have to contain each rocket that you wanted to use. Then once used go out and contain them again for a subsequent use. But The rocket could not fire directly into space. What you basically made was a bullet cartridge. Nasa claims it works like a balloon. You blow up a balloon and have even pressure on all sides. You release the pressure on one side and you watch the balloon go flying around the room. They disregard that the reason the balloon moves is because of the air flowing from the open source and pushing of the atmosphere and instead state that it is because the pressure is no longer pushing at the open source but still pushing in the remaining directions. It is a big leap to state that nasa has figured it out because you figured out how to do it in the way stated above when the way they say they do it is more aligned with your first experiments which failed.
It's called a combustion chamber.
Moron.
NUCK CHORRIS
Although 'Live Fantasy' is a bit rude it does not detract in any way from the fact that the OP is indeed an asshat. All flat earthers are asshats as well, in fact thats actually an insult to asshats everywhere.
Live Fantasy
They (flat earthers) would drive you mad with their stupidity, I agree with you fully. The 'dome above us' people are the worst.
Bruce Lee used to say that it was unwise to argue with an idiot because onlookers would not be able to distiguish the idiot. He said it better than that but the exact quote eludes me at the moment, but basically he meant arguing with an idiot is idiotic. I stand by what I said however, calling flat earthers 'asshats' is an insult to genuine asshats everywhere... peace.
It didn't sound like the parachute ejection charge went off on the successful vacuum-burn motor. I hypothesize that the 'slow burn' fuel between the boost stage and the parachute ejection charge didn't produce enough gas to keep the combustion chamber pressurized and went out. I'd love to see that motor dissected and see how much did/didn't burn.
great video, sad ignorant conclusion at the end.
What was so bad about the conclusion?
he didn't mention that it went out at the exact moment the vacuum was reintroduced. Yes it was able to start in atmospheric pressure (he's proved that over and over), but it doesn't change anything at all.
The fact that the rocket motor accelerated the rotor assembly to a great rate of speed, while also producing lots of smoke, demonstrates that the rocket motor did NOT extinguish immediately after the air bottle broke down.
You are asserting that rockets don't work in the vacuum of space, but I am sure you have not done any experiments of your own in order to prove this.
+Scavenger_mi
So, you are saying that rocket propulsion in a vacuum is impossible?
Perhaps so, perhaps no.
Maybe a bigger vacuum tank, and a bit more testing would be useful here.
Either way, it is proven that rockets work perfectly well in the vacuum of space :) .
any vacuum chamber made on EARTH cannot compare to the absolute vacuum of space. No matter what, it would be too small for experiments. Besides space is WATER. GOD BLESS
Space is water? I love how you say a vacuum chamber doesn't compare to the vacuum of space and then pull that out of your ass... Its almost as if your contradicting yourself?
My ass, hahaha your stupidly funny. Go figure it out yourself smartboy. Rockets in space have nothing to push against, like air, in space, as they do here ON earth. That's LEO that is. We have no clue what's out there in deep space. Oh but I'm sure you know all about what's out there in deep space. Explain to me why NAZI say's we cannot get past the radiation belts, then in their same breath they talk about Mars and beyond? Really????? I only comment to get responses like yours, you know, the DUMB ones. It just makes me laugh at the ingenuity of people, like you blu3flare25. HAHAHA GOD BLESS
Rockets are pushing off the explosion they are creating from expanding gas, like proved in this video.. If they did not it would be a violation of newtons third law.. NASA can go past the van Allan radiation belts the radiation is not enough to kill someone, but enough for radiation poisoning if they are in it long enough.
I know much more about space than you i have my own telescope and can see Jupiter and its moons clearly, i also have to track it because it constantly moves across the sky from the earths rotation..
Your just another average conspiracytard that doesn't have a IQ above about 10...
Could be... Hydrogen and oxygen rises initially all the time for obvious reasons, but the upper layers of the atmosphere (many hundreds of miles up) get colder and colder, so they condense - and you get water again, or something like water
It is. Messes up a few scientific facts doesn't it ;)
cody disproved flat earth last week now he disproves the conspiracy nuts on how rockets don't work in space keep it up cody your doing God's work we love you for it.
@8:14 You have a leak in the vacuum chamber, I see it bubbling in the water at the bottom.
I knew you were going to make that vacuum chamber fun!
that is the most scientific camera rig i have ever seen
Thank you for extending your experiment to prove that rockets do provide thrust in a vacuum. Most other so called "researchers" that think that rockets can't work in a vacuum would have stopped with the first test and claimed "proof"
The thing is the first test still demonstrated Newton's third law just fine, the rocket did move in the vaccum when the igniters went off it just didn't ignite properly
Also someone literally stole Cody's videos said they were the ones doing the experiment and cut out the last one to claim that it proved Newton's third law is wrong
Hey just curious in the third attempt in vacuum chamber when the engine went off under vacuum how come there be liquid water present on the base of Chamber 6:40. (Given the Chamber was in vacuum i.e. 25 inches of mercury).
It was raining into it before he put the tarp over it. Its in the beginning of the video, if you missed it.
It does need a certain temperature and pressure to ignite. I've got a 1950s rocket manual for amateurs and it includes a section on modifying the design of the igniters for second and third stages so they'll function at high altitudes.
Nice paint on the vacuum chamber. It looks nice
Love you videos! Keep up inspiring peeps like me!
cody, so thats a no right? because to achieve the results you used a mini atmosphere inside the vacuum to feed the rocket oxygen. also noted that the vacuum in the chamber was gaining pressure suggesting that the rocket preformed outside the vacuum. if space expands then lets think of that as the superior vacuum pump and a gain of pressure may not even be messurable. ie nuclear bombs produce no shock waves in space.
liking the paint job. well done
Interesting to see an atmospheric rocket motor being made to work in vacuum, and how it started working in the vacuum once fully ignited. You should start testing building rocket engines!
nice vacuum cam setup cody!
Cody, that is some great science!
Cody is the coolest nerd ever.
Great video as usual Cody :) Nice paint job as well :)
Man I work for a crbenfiber company and we do vacuum assisted resin transfer molding and we have got a vac manifold throughout the building that sits at - 27 to - 29 it's kinda impressive
Do you have a little leak in the bottom of the chamber or why is the water at 7:57 bubbling?
edit: might be some air trapped below the bottle?
Also despite being only about 34degrees F that day the water was boiling.
The lower the pressure the lower the boiling point of water.
Would not the boiling water produce a gas which oxygen would be a part of this result via air bubbles of H2O. Yes carbon dioxide being the main gas, nitrogen as well maybe argon. Just asking? Wouldn't this sublimation of gas create extra pressure within your vacuum? Something that I am wanting to know. My interest would be a complete bullet cartridge, primer ignited from it's regular brass case underwater be enough to ignite the powder and sufficiently release the bullet from it's case more than a foot?
@@jettzbigdaddy3055 no you need to put energy into water to separate the hydrogen and oxygen molecules all of the water vapor is still water, it's still oxidized hydrogen, if you put water on something does it help it burn Because of the oxygen in the water? No.
Not to mention if it was separating into oxygen and hydrogen then there would also be hydrogen in the container in a perfect mixture to detonate.
Think about it like carbon dioxide it says it right there that there's oxygen bound to the carbon, but you can't burn it because it's the result of burning the oxygen and hydrocarbons.
Literally the same deal with this except there's no carbon, just hydrogen
Thanks for doing that Cody. First, I commend you on your ingenuity for making a rocket rotate (instead of attempting it going in a straight line, like I've seen other folks try. Reminds me of how backwards inventors first attempts usually are. For example, the first records were cylinders until someone's bright idea made them discs taking up far less room (that innovation took years). The first jukeboxes had 8 records, 8 turntables and 8 shafts on a Ferris wheel that would all rotate individually to the top to play requiring a huge cabinet, then someone thought, "hey, why not stack the records and us one turntable?". but that list goes on and on so your approaches always find a better way without years of waiting for someone else to .). Was kinda bummed the vacuum chamber here wasn't clear, so it was bright putting your iphone in there too. The reflection of your light source in the water droplets looked long and that puzzled me until I saw your iphone was on top of a fluorescent bulb. So good on you for that innovation as well. I didn't know if or not your iphone would video anything in pitch black (mine doesn't) and the light didn't cast a shadow of the turning arm. - so you're batting 1000 so far. And for all that, you give McGiver a run for his money. But your confidence saying "If I can figure it out, I'm sure the people at NASA can do it". still excels mine.
Fred - So when the rocket engine is firing is it ejecting MASS?
Is this MASS - ACCELERATED?
Does the mass change velocity as it leaves the nozzle?
Love your method of recording
Never saw a rocket with a melting pressurechambre around it.. OMG you guys are so funny.
They don’t, srbs aren’t ignited in the vacuum of space much, and if they are, they have a frangible diaphragm allowing pressure build up. For liquid fueled rockets ( Hydrolox, Methalox, Kerolox) they build enough pressure in the combustion chamber from the expanding gasses that they don’t need an external pressure chamber or diaphragm.
Cody'sLab
As soon as the rocket burns the chamber will be filled with combustion products. It is these products of combustion that cause the pressure that the rocket needs to work against in order to cause thrust. This is not the same as a rocket in a total vacuum. Also, there is some liquid boiling in the bottom of the tank. That will be producing vapour to which all adds to the restive pressure.
What is the liquid in the bottom?
1. Rockets 'push' against their own exhaust jet. There is no need for them to be surrounded by a fluid for this to occur. To demonstrate this, I suggest you do an experiment. Get a skateboard (or roller skates) and something that's heavy and throwable (e.g. a medicine ball). Now go somewhere with a smooth, flat surface, stand on the board and throw your ball as hard as you can. You'll roll backwards a bit (or fall off. If this happens try again). Once the ball has left your hands, it is no longer connected to you in any way- so all the momentum (momentum is mass multiplied by velocity) you gained must have been transferred to you in the time while the ball was still touching your hands. In fact if you measure your speed and the speed of the ball immediately after throwing you'll find that you and the ball have the same amount of momentum. This is Newton's third law of motion: for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. We can fairly trivially demonstrate that you didn't roll backwards due to pushing on the air by trying the exact same experiment with a party balloon: the balloon has similar cross sectional area to a medicine ball, so it should have roughly equal ability to 'push' on the air. I can guarantee that if you re-try the experiment with a balloon you'll barely move if at all. A rocket uses the same principle, it just throws a jet of gas rather than a ball. While the gas is much less dense than a piece of exercise equipment, a rocket nozzle can accelerate it to much greater speed (over 4 kilometers per second for a hydrogen/oxygen rocket) which allows it to get the same amount of momentum from a smaller mass of stuff to throw.
Note that this experiment is limited to some degree by friction in the skateboard's wheels. You might get a more noticeable result if you get ice skates and try it on an ice rink. A heavier medicine ball (or other heavy object) will also help, which is just further evidence that the air has nothing to do with it!
2. The liquid is water. It's boiling because the pressure inside the tank is less than the vapour pressure of water at room temperature. If Cody had switched off his vacuum pump the water would have boiled until the pressure above the water equaled that value. In this case he left it on during the experiment, so the pump was sucking the water vapour out as fast as it formed and the water carried on boiling until he switched the pump off and opened the chamber.
Rockets don't need "pressure to work against" in order to cause thrust.
This experiment is supposed to show that rockets will work in a vacuum, however, this is not a simulation of the stated hypothesis. As soon as combustion gases leave the rocket they spread out and fill the void. This is a flawed experiment. Either we are scientific about it or we are not. I have seen too many fudge over this major flaw and this needs to be addressed, understood and recognised.
We must also recognise that the rocket in this experiment is not subject to a force such as gravity as it is working horizontally on the end of a counter balanced arm. This means it only needs a tiny force to make it move.
We must also recognise that the chamber is being filled with very hot exhaust gasses, this heat will increase pressure to.
All respect to you Cody'slab, I've seen many of your experiments and are usually impressed at what you do. However, in this test, It needs a very close looking at.
But how flawed? That vacuum chamber has a volume of 50 gallons, or 189.27L. The motor looks like a class A motor, which according to a google search holds 3.6g of gunpowder. Using a simplified equation for combustion of gunpowder that gives 0.029 moles of gaseous combustion products. I'll assume that the gas in the chamber is at a temperature of 300K (remember it cools very fast as it expands). Put these numbers into the ideal gas law (PV=nRT) and we get a pressure of 397 Pa, or around 0.38% of atmospheric pressure at sea level. If we assume that the temperature is 600K (close to the melting point of lead) the pressure will instead be 0.76% of sea level.
In other words, the volume of gas produced by the rocket is small enough that its effect on the experiment should be minimal. In fact the water in the bottom of the chamber would have more effect, as the vapor pressure of water at room temperature is around 3 kPa. Accounting for the water, If we assume that the rocket works by 'pushing off the air' we can reasonably expect the motor to produce less than 4% of the thrust it delivered at 1 atmosphere. Such a large difference in performance should have easily been visible in the footage, as the motor would only be able to attain around 4% of the speed seen in the control test.
nerd1000ify
very flawed. Does a rocket produce gas? yes... do people want rockets to work in space so badly that they will accept biased results? yes...
If this test is supposed to recreate the infinite vacuum of space, it fails. If this test is supposed to test a rocket with zero reaction pressure, it fails. If it is supposed to test whether thrust can be generated in an infinite vacuum whilst the force of gravity is applied to the rocket.....you guessed it, it fails.
If there is 1% of air pressure at sea level, this will return some force back to the rocket. Since the rocket is working horizontally, gravity has been excluded from the test.
Are you a scientist? is truth more important than validation of belief?
It seams belief is king and Tesla was right. RIP science.
great video Cody well done
the igniters are not designed for 120V : it causes then to burn too fast and 'pop' if you use say 9V , they will burn much slower like a match and keep the heat near the propellant for longer. I believe your experiment may have worked on first try had you use appropriate voltage.
That's actually a really interesting idea, I didnt even think of that.
Simon L im sure that was not AC power, rather just a switch
Have you ever even touched one of these igniters? Why do you say that? Why are you 'sure' that's not AC?
The fact that the vacuum pump shares the same power bar is a dead giveaway also the distinctive 'pop' the igniter does is typical of over-voltage.
Simon L he may have used the power strip in order to get More Heat to ignite the rocket..
just a thought
Slipped Halo, Its not my idea.. just product specs. These are standard Estes igniters, they have not changed in the last 25 years (or more)
I predict that it will work because a) the fuel is under mechanical pressure since it's packed together tightly, so the chain reaction is more likely to get started, and b) the rocket provides its own back pressure to drive the gasses out in a single direction.
2:00 that ejection charge
8:20 next to the bottel is that oil or some sort of tar?
water don't ''boil'' like that?