@@michaelcondoulis2509 basically it provides the fuel with enough oxygen that it can burn without a secondary oxygen source such as air, thats why solid fuel rockets can burn in a vacuum
@@robertnorthrup5415 if it was a solid fuel rocket like the one in the video, the solid fuel has the oxidiser in the fuel so if you have more fuel there is also more oxidiser present so you dont need a supply of oxygen unless the rocket is luqued fueled, in that clase there is a seperate tank of liqued oxygen that is mixed with the miqued fuel and burned, this also means that no air is needed so both kinds of rockets work in a vacuum
*Nothing funnier than piss poor grammar in an insult about intelligence.* Juss sayin bruh. Than. It's than the. Than - introducing the second element in a comparison. Then - at that time; at the time in question. ROFL!!!
the lack of your own intelligence you mean right? You dont even know the guy. Not everyone on the internet is a native english speaker. Just like me. English is a 2nd language to me and i spent time learning it. Ofcourse i make mistakes, and so do others. Go ahead and speak Dutch to me and allow me to piss on your poor grammar. But i doubt you have the intelligence for a 2nd language.
Nice video. I did notice that the rocket only started moving once the tube was full of smoke which means it was no longer a vacuum and therefore had something to propel against. That wouldn’t be the case in space. Still a good experiment though
This is incorrect, it only moves forward because the entirety of the fuel grain takes a second to ignite. The fact that it no longer was a vacuum is irrelevant. This would still propel itself in space
@@jaimeaparicio3392 This is true, but it is a poor experiment. However @TillaMC is still wrong in saying that it would not work in space. If mass is ejected in one direction then the rocket must accelerate in the other direction. Saying that this is untrue means that you think energy and momentum can just be created from nothing.
Ryan Taylor Hey dude, I saw you at the video where that singer lied about getting injured in Afghanistan. Everyone is negative about you and I'm gonna say what should've been said earlier. Ryan, thank you for your service.
Blu3B33r thank you very much. I got the idea from the inside of a refrigeration scroll compressor comma I used to build install and design Supermarket refrigeration systems for a living.
Warped Perception If you ever watch a super slow mo. playback of a pistol firing a bullet you can clearly see that the recoil occurs significantly after the slug, and vapors have left the barrel. This is to say that after the slug and vapors leave the barrel, there is a period when it seems like nothing is happening before any visible recoil occurs. Would you have any interest in shedding some light on where that energy is during that apparently inactive period?
I would hazard a guess that the delay in the recoil motion is due to the automatic loading mechanism inside the pistol moving backwards. As it travels forward, reloading a bullet into the chamber, the action imparts an equal and opposite reaction force to the body of the pistol, this will account for the delay.
The problem with this experiment is that the moment the rocket fires it is no longer in a vacuum. Bigger vacuum tube required I think. Nice experiment.
Its a failed experiment, because Creating a true vacuum, where there are absolutely no gases present, is extremely challenging and often not entirely achievable in practical conditions. Even in a laboratory setting, it's impossible to create a perfect vacuum.
@@vz7042 It is a perfectly valid experiment. The concept of a perfect vacuum is a theoretical idealization used in physics for simplification, but it doesn't exist in the practical sense. Even in space, there is no perfect vacuum. So, flat earthers are wrong - as always.
We can create a better vacuum than space, have you done the science to prove me wrong? no. @@vz7042 And doesnt matter, a rocket engine is NOT a jet engine, it does not require external air to function, you just need to learn some chemistry
The problem with using a tube with a short end to it , the end of the tube will provide something to push against . It would need a very long end to it to avoid affecting the experiment
That’s irrelevant. Once the particle has left the engine why would it hitting a surface affect an object which is no longer connected to it? Is there some magic link through spacetime? No. Force is created when the particle leaves the thruster via Newton’s third law. 🙄 sheesh
The engine didn't seem to move until the spent gases created a back pressure. This looks like it worked but space is much larger that the tube. Great video 👍
@@vijithkumar the thing is that the plume of exhaust is not oxygen so it wont make a difference in how the motor burns. There is no experiment that i know of that is in a big enough scale for the exuaghst to be insignificant besides actual space.
@@vijithkumar I believe this video does a good job to prove everything other than conservation of momentum ( at least not in an obvious way ), which is what you want if you need proof that the exhaust doesn't have to push against something to generate thrust, you could change the same experiment to use a water rocket type deal or a spring loaded counter mass, there are countless other intuitive experiments that prove conservation of momentum.
@@Lifeisgood262 - "suction power" doesn't exist a vacuum is simply emptiness "suction" is actually pressure attempting to equalize an area of lower pressure
Man on man was this video awesome. What is also impressive is the amount of money and effort you put into showing something that a lot of people wouldn't get to see otherwise. Oh and of course repping science is always cool.
+muh1h1 because the GoPro had a mechanical connection to the tube, the tube had a physical connection to the vacuum pump through the hose comma if you notice in the beginning of the burn the sound is much less. The sound came from the physical contact the rocket was also in physical contact with the tube through the mounting device.
I'd like to know if the rocket burning produced gas that dropped the vacuum in the chamber. If it did, would be good to see this again showing the gauge and how the Vac dropped off.
Oil Burner i think this experement has two problems a the rocket was so close to the end of tube the gasses hit on the tap so you have thrust. b the chamber is so small the pressure rises so it seizes to be a vacuum
@ both of you, Why wouldn't those particles simply escape aside the rocket instead of generating thrust? The particles tend to distribute evenly through the tube and not gather at one side. Compare it to a gun. If you fire, you get the recoil when the gun powder explodes. Not when the bullet hits a wall right? The same happens in a rocket engine. The recoil is what makes it move.
+WildPhotoShooter , the exhaust gas consists of particles and therefore *does* pressurize the chamber. If the gasses wouldn't produce pressure (in the combustion chamber), the rocket wouldn't fly. You don't need air to pressurize, you can also use nitrogen, water or whatever substance.
I don't believe you , prove it. Did it pressurise to 15 psi ( same as the atmosphere at sea level) Did you personally measure the pressure in the tube caused by the gasses ? HaHa! I'm just taking the piss out of people who think rockets don't work in a vacuum.
Great job. A side note, to those who think that this wasn't big enough -- consider the fact that the gas that is ejected becomes something for the next cycle of gas to push against. And magnets still work in a vacuum as well - just because there is no air doesn't make it void of all energy.
I have also done this experiment however I realized it was flawed in order to get the rocket to go off you have to cap the igniter which is okay but in doing so you keep the rocket pressurized internally which allows it to ignite in the first place the second flaw is the size of the vacuum chamber the instant the rocket goes off the vacuum chamber is no longer able to keep a vacuum due to the off-gassing of the rocket the vacuum chamber would need to be incredibly large to not be affected buy a model rocket engine remember model rocket engines work by creating gases and enormous pressure from solid state fuel so much so that it can push an object off the ground and into the air
wesnxs exactly, thanks for sharing in the next episode it's going to be more comprehensive, I'm going to explain and explore a couple different fuels to clear up some very serious and widespread misconceptions
agree with the second one. However, for the first one, I thought all space rockets are capped and pressurized internally before ignition? Otherwise, the fuel would just spill out everywhere. What I'm going to say is, capped and pressurized ignition mechanism is more similar to actual rockets in space than uncapped and unpressurized ones.
measure the rockets volume , multiply by 1000 ,that its final gas volume use the smallest rocket you can or make a chamber big enough so that the final pressure is changed only 1% difference ,,, lol i just trolled you
Dude you're so right on the experiment is flawed the vacuum is nowhere near what the vacuum of space would be and it is such a small chamber that the rocket is able to pressurize the chamber which is why it moves
Collin Daugherty I agree the experiment is not good enough for definitive proof, but it is an indicator. However, the rocket doesn’t move because of pressure, if fact it would be less efficient in a higher pressure.
If you would like to contribute subtitles in your language we greatly appreciate it !! heres the link ruclips.net/user/timedtext_video?ref=share&v=GxBRQXxBRic
When the fuel is mixed with an oxidizer when burning it will create it's own source of oxygen to burn. That's why potassium nitrate is used in black powder as it is an oxidizer.
Very cool! Back about 1967 I wanted to do a science fair project using a model rocket engine thrust meter. My father suggested using a syringe hooked up to a mercury manometer to measure thrust equivalent to mm of mercury displacement. I submitted something else for the project.
Here is a good explanation by a RUclips commenter from another channel. Quote: "I tell you where the force is. Think as an experiment of thought you sit in a non working rocket and you fire a rifle, aiming through the exhaust nozzle. When the bullet is fired, the bullet moves with high speed out of the nozzle and the recoil moves the rocket with a much slower but constant speed in the other direction. Same with gas molecules. Every gas molecule is a bullet. To accelerate gas molecules to a high speed needs a force, and the counter force - recoil - moves the rocket. Not the molecules on their way drive the rocket, the rocket is driven in the moment when the molecules are accelerated by the combustion process."
Bnslamb Bro.... the gun is still fired in Atmosphere... Bullet is resisting against air, and pressure in barrel.. How do u not see, the Vacuum is Sucking"" out the thrust at same pace thrust is shooting out.. anyways . irrelevant as Nasa has been caught using green screen many times, bubbles, other wierd stuff.
So there are no recoil in space? Vacuum does not suck, it's the surrounding higher pressure that press. There can be up to several 100 atm pressure inside the combustion chamber during combustion, zero or one atm pressure outside means nothing. NASA does not use green screen and you have never seen bubbles in space, you have no credible source for that claim. If that was true all news agencies would know it. Don't believe lies. _JULY 17, 1969: On Jan. 13, 1920, Topics of The Times, an_ _editorial-page feature of The New York Times, dismissed the notion that a_ _rocket could function in a vacuum and commented on the ideas of Robert_ _H. Goddard, the rocket pioneer, as follows._ _"That Professor Goddard, with his 'chair' in Clark College and_ _the countenancing of the Smithsonian Institution, does not know the_ _relation of action to reaction, and of the need to have something better_ _than a vacuum against which to react -- to say that would be absurd. Of_ _course he only seems to lack the knowledge ladled out daily in high_ _schools." [Oh, snap!]_ _Further investigation and experimentation have confirmed the_ _findings of Isaac Newton in the 17th century and it is now definitely_ _established that a rocket can function in a vacuum as well as in an_ _atmosphere. The Times regrets the error."_ goo.gl/UeK2J2
Here is how much fuel Saturn V used. First stage carries 203,400 gallons (770,000 liters) of kerosene fuel and 318,000 gallons (1.2 million liters) of liquid oxygen. The second stage carries 260,000 gallons (984,000 liters) of liquid hydrogen fuel and 80,000 gallons (303,000 liters) of liquid oxygen. The third stage carries 66,700 gallons (252,750 liters) of liquid hydrogen fuel and 19,359 gallons (73,280 liters) of liquid oxygen. -All- most was burned in a few minutes. So you can see zero or one atmospheric pressure outside the engine means nothing
Dillon Harr the explosion in the chamber is pushing off the bullet and the firearm at the same time, this would work in a vacuum to produce thrust or movement in both objects. An explosion pushing against nothing doesn't produce thrust, this video even proves that. No thrust is produced until the rear of the chamber is filled with a small amount of gas. If that gas was being sucked away into infinite space...no thrust.
He can't do that, since that would invalidate his programming. This is a mason and like all masons he tells you exactly what he is about with the title of his show. What is the title of his show?: "Warped perception". That is what this show is about. If you pay more attention to stuff like this, the world becomes a lot more interesting.
@@wtfvids3472 I hate to tell you this, I am an industrial chemical process engineer and among many other projects, I lead engineered the world's biggest air movement and purification project of its kind at the world's biggest automotive plant of its kind -- and it worked. The same equations we use to engineer your working car and working mobile phone also easily predict that if you are in a vacuum chamber on ice in a chair with rollers and you throw a basketball that you will move in the opposite direction you threw the basketball. Except when it is done with a rocket, you are throwing tons of mass per second at incredible speeds. So, really, there is not even a reason to discuss this. It only shows you would never be accepted to engineering school to create safe, working environments to manufacture the most essential elements of civilization. Thanks for playing.
Has nothing to do with the vacuum. People are confusing vacuum and lack of oxygen. What they are really saying a rocket won't work without oxygen, which of course it can as the propellant is made with chemicals that burn with either a combination of hydrogen and oxygen propellant or other chemicals that do not need oxygen to explode.
Vacuum _is_ lacking in oxygen though. :-) But yeah, the naysayers have two objections to space flight. They claim rockets can't burn in space (false), and they claim that even if they did burn, there's nothing to push against (irrelevant).
Richard Head hey I try my best, the vacuum pump I was using at 7 CFM comma and according to the rocket specs it puts out about 9 CFM , so throughout the burn technically it was still in a vacuum just not a perfect vacuum.
2 questions... 1) since the rocket didn't begin to show signs of propulsion until the smoke filled the back of the chamber, can you keep the air compressor on so that the gasses emitted from the rocket are immediately sucked up instead of building up pressure to push off of, as it would happen in a non-enclosed vacuum. 2... why did you say there was still vacuum in the chamber after everything??? The fact that you opened it up to show the smoke kinda makes me feel like something is fishy here.
1. Air compressor wont pump faster than a rocket engine, also intertia is why it took some time for the rocket to start moving 2. Idk why he said that, maybe he just ment that there was no outside atmospheric air inside, since the exhaust obviously filled the chamber. This test works i guess, but its too small to convince people who doubt newtons third law; for every action (force) in nature there is an equal and opposite reaction. If object A exerts a force on object B, object B also exerts an equal and opposite force on object A. Rocket exhaust doesnt need to push against air to propel the rocket forward, the exhaust isnt attathced to the rocket anyway.. wouldnt make sense, its the exhaust being pushed out thats sending the rocket forwards.
This is perfect to show why rockets don't working space. it's because they will burn but they don't produce thrust, this rocket should have easily left the Cradle that it was in with the amount of thrust it can create but it was not even able to leave the copper wire harness. This is a win for Rockets not being able to work in a vacuum!
Any real flat earther would tell you not to give 1 iota of your time to the flat earth society because they are controlled opposition. The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves - Vladimir Lenin
They think that because a car engine can't run in a vacuum a rocket can't either. Flat earthers the difference is the car engine needs air but a rocket has an oxidizer in its fuel. Oxidizer = oxygen = air = 🤯 👈flat earther brain trying to understand.
@@Jonathan.D you definitely don't sound any smarter than the flat earthers you make fun of! A rocket motor would be completely useless in the vast void of space because reguardless of how fast that rocket can produce expelling gas for trust, the vast void of space will absorb that rocket gas faster than it can produce it resulting in ZERO thrust. The fact that you can't even recognize that this video "experiment" of a rocket in a vaccum chamber that is laughably small making everything about it a joke shows your own ignorance of anything scientific. 🙄
Also, I find it hilarious that half of the comments here are flat earthers decrying you as a NASA actor, and the other half are people who actually have some understanding of the science decrying your vacuum as not good enough. XD
Correct, That vacuum isn’t good enough, It still has oxygen in it.. Space has “ZERO OXYGEN” right? Therefore this “experiment” is absolutely worthless.
@@sforge2414 Incorrect. Space most certainly does _not_ have zero oxygen. Or, more relevant to this discussion, it does not have zero pressure. The pressure is very _low_ compared to at sea level on Earth; how low depends on where you are in space. But keep in mind, that it's a smooth transition, from ground level all the way out to infinity. Not linear... but _smooth._ So there is _nowhere_ in space with _zero_ pressure. There is no such thing as a perfect vacuum. There are only _relative_ vacuums; relative pressures. This vacuum chamber is fine to demonstrate the difference in a rocket exhaust plume depending on pressure. Is it a perfect vacuum? Of course not; but that doesn't actually exist. Is it even as much of a vacuum as low-Earth orbit? Nah, surely not. But is it a very low pressure compared to that just outside the chamber? Of course it is. As for oxygen to enable combustion, the _definition_ of a rocket motor is that it carries its own fuel _and_ oxidizer. A model rocket engine like that is usually packed with black powder. That's charcoal (carbon) and sulfur for fuel, and saltpeter (potassium nitrate, KNO3) as an oxidizer. Once ignited, the potassium nitrate decomposes. The nitrogens combine to form nitrogen gas; the carbon pairs up with oxygen to form carbon dioxide; the potassium uses leftover carbon, sulfur, and oxygen to form various sulfates and sulfides. Many of these compounds being gasses, they take up far more volume than the solid black powder did, and expand violently to do so. By providing just a small nozzle for them to escape through, we convert what would otherwise be a deflagration explosion into thrust. _No oxygen from outside sources is required._ I mean... just to be clear, did you seriously just comment under a comment making fun of people claiming his vacuum wasn't good enough, to demonstrate that you are one of them?
@@barefootalien You yourself just now admitted he DID NOT replicate the same conditions that are to be expected in space or even the earth’s upper atmosphere. Therefore the “experiment” is technically worthless/invalid and your lengthy seemingly elaborate word stew is rendered pointless. Do you not see that?
@@barefootalien So yes, Good.. I’m not your adversary by the way, Incase that’s what you were thinking. I’m just looking for the truth/Ways to get closer to the truth no matter what it may be. If a theory/claim fails to hold water (no pun intended) It should be thoroughly re-examined over and over until a clear result/straight answer is reached.
Why in the world would people think that a rocket motor, not engine, would not burn in a vacuum?????????? It's rocket fuel, there is no oxygen in that tube when you fire the propellant. The propellant is an oxidizer and creates its own chemical reaction to produce thrust. An engine has moving parts that convert energy into motion, like a piston and crankshaft.
I don't think anyone thinks that rocket engines can't fire in space - its called a strawman argument. The real argument is that in the limitless vacuum of space, the gases would shoot out into the void and the rocket would have no propulsion since there is no atmosphere to push off of.
@@MoneyIsSilver you're right . in his experiment the exhaust gases quickly eleminates any possibility of a vacuum just a fire seconds after the engine starts
@@MoneyIsSilver don't be so sure, the ridiculousness of flat earthers knows no bounds and many of them believe different things. At least one even questioned how the sun could be burning when there's no oxygen in the vacuum of space.
Thanks for the video. Notice that the rocket does not move, even slightly, until enough gas has filled the rear of the tube (creating backpressure). There is a tiny white fleck on the cylinder just in front of the rocket I used to gauge movement. This confirms that a rocket cannot 'thrust' itself in vacuum.
I get why people would think that rockets don’t work in space because forward momentum is based on the objects ability to push against itself and with no air pressure in space to push against the rocket you would think that the rocket would just burn and not go anywhere but forward propulsion is a self contained mechanism that pushes away from its own mass which is what allows rockets to have forward momentum in a vacuum. Just like if you were holding a rock in space and just hurled it as hard as you could, it would simply keep flying away at the same speed that it left your hand going until another object or the gravity of a planetary body snared it. I certainly understand the confusion people have about it but it’s easily explained.
thats a great question. maybe because the rocket was attached to the spring which is fastened to the tube on the inside, thus making the tube a "speaker" . Ill let Warp perception chime in here.
i would also see what the air pressure was in the tube during and after the rocket expelled all its fuel. the flat earthers, think that the cartridge created enough atm to work against. so, by showing the mass that has been produced in the chamber, you can address that factor. maybe there was an enough molecules to transfer sound.
from 2:52 to 3:03 there is a vacuum in the pipe and your engine does not move. Then there is no longer a vacuum, a lot of gas from which the movement begins. The scale of the vacuum tube is needed much more. But it's a good attempt.)
Unable to reply to the pinned thread, but to the people making the odd claim that the expelled gas from a rocket engine has nothing to push against in space, you are simply not understanding the mechanics of thrust, and would benefit greatly from a physics lesson. Newton is your friend.
I'm definitely looking forward to it! Rocketry and spaceflight are very interesting and also a good context in which to understand physics. Plus it looks cool in slow motion :P
Not trying to troll, genuine questions. Is this actually a complete vacuum? What was the reading before and after? And then the other question is, the moment the rocket is it still a vacuum? Look, your model rocket doesnt move until the space behind the rocket is filled up with smoke by the gasses released by the rocket. This would not happen in space because there is no vessel in space. In other words, your experiment might only works because your rocket is contained in a small glass container, not infinite space. Does that make sense? Is their a rebuttal to this? Am i missing something?
What youre really saying is, you dont think rockets can work in space. If you even think outer space even exists beyond a "dome" in the first place. You probably will dismiss it, but you can watch the artemis spacecraft that launched recently. No, you wont see a flame when the cut to the live feed. You will see the solar panels fold in while the lady talks about a burn to correct course, but ask yourself: 'How are they able to course correct if its not possible in a vacuum?'
Delta P = 0 m1v1 + m2v2 = 0 m1v1 = -m2v2 Hot exhaust goes one direction. Rocket goes the other. Rockets dont push on anything. Its all conservation of momentum.
See, now you're using math and logic. They don't speak math because its one of the evil quartet in STEM. Likewise they don't care much for logic because it can tend to get in the way of feelings.
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Hot gasses get explosively launched out the back, therefore rocket goes forward. the faster you make that gas go out the back the faster the rocket can go with the same mass of fuel. The fact people can't grasp concepts this simple is concerning, I don't even have a major physics education I just play way too much Kerbal space program and watch a lot of SpaceX stuff for fun. One of these days I need to get my knowledge base more up to speed with my interests XD
Notice that the engine initially doesn't move AT ALL. Only when its exhaust gasses have filled the tiny vacuum chamber, and provided the requisite air pressure, can the rocket achieve any thrust. This doesn't prove that rockets work in space, as space is a near-infinite void in comparison to this tiny chamber. The gasses coming out of a rocket in space would shoot off into the void while performing no work on the rocket.
WeeSleeket - "The gasses coming out of a rocket in space would shoot off into the void while performing no work on the rocket." So in your vast Physics understanding WHAT WOULD HAPPEN if I had a machine, in zero-G, in a *VACUUM* that could propel a 500 kilogram block of WATER ICE out at 2500 meters per second into space? WOULD THAT propel the machine backwards, yes or no? how about a block of DRY ICE (Solid CO2) would THAT push the machine backwards? (for comparison on earth, the block would WEIGH 1100 pounds and would be travelling at 5600 MPH or about MACH SEVEN!) Would a Machine ON EARTH *feel a recoil* IF it fired an 1100 pound block of ice at MACH 7?
Cool experiment. Without getting into flat earth and stuff, we have to remember that this rocket is inside a "finite" space. Are you sure the effects are the same out in the "open" space? Cheers
I think you'd get the same results, its the reaction environment that matters. But the burntime could be significantly shorter than in high pressure environments, as low pressure supports the chemical reaction from solid(fuel) to gas(exhaust)
Same reason all the rest of us are lying, because the government pays us to keep stupid people from learning the truth about the shape of the planet. I'm still not sure how the government profits from misconceptions about the shape of the planet, but they must, to pay us so much money to lie, right? I had trouble paying my rent this month, because they gave me too much money!
Was there really a vacuum in the tube? It let out smoke almost instantly and high burn rate is more in line with elevated pressure. After the smoke cools down, there will be a slight vacuum though.
the instant smoke is because the engine brings it's own oxygen supply in the form of potassium Nitrate (the Nitrate having the oxygen the rocket needs) and charcoal as the burning fuel. That reaction is smoky for the same reason a musket is smoky. It's black powder. And it burns faster in lower pressures due to a higher exhaust velocity. Pressure slows the burn time, or makes the rocket explode if it's really high.
I'm sorry to be that guy to call bullshit but 900 microns? seriously? you expect me to believe that after burning rocket fuel in a small chamber you still have less than 1/760th of an atmosphere? I'm doubtful you had 900 microns to begin with.
I did the maths on this for the similar Cody's Lab video. Turns out that these little motors don't really produce all that much gas (only a few grams). Even assuming that the pump was non-functional, the final pressure ends up very low simply because there aren't enough gas molecules to produce high pressure without massive temperatures: I did the calculations for Cody's 50 gallon vacuum chamber and no pump assuming a final temperature of 600K (over 300 Celsius) and got a pressure rise of something like 0.002 atmospheres assuming he used 8g of rocket fuel. In reality the final temperature is probably much less than 600K (especially if there's some residual atmosphere in the chamber to dilute the hot exhaust), so the pressure rise should have been even lower!
You may be talking in the earth airspace with our regular air pressure. But if the Outer Space is A VACCUM SPACE, forget it, everything gonna be suck into negative at soon as You reach Outer Space; and that is another problem to this dilema. How can You set a rocket in VACCUM SPACE if the transition is IMPOSIBLE? But, we ate that one on 1968.
I don't think this experiment is valid because boundary conditions are totally different in a confined space to outer space. Inside the test vacuum the thrust can react off the walls of the chamber.
Rockest are reaction engines and work in a vacuum. Do the experiment yourselves in any way you want so that you can't scream "fake" every time someone shows you how REAL science works.
Reading through the comments, it's pretty clear that some people don't understand how any of this stuff works! A: Space isn't a vacuum. Just because it lacks oxygen, nitrogen, and other gas density, it doesn't mean that it's a vacuum. It is a neutral state, which is neither pressure nor vacuum. B: Some of them also aren't understanding that solid rocket fuels use oxidizers to supply the flame with oxygen. The flame isn't dependent on external oxygen to maintain ignition.
@@bengray5013 no freakin way. Theory is THEORY for a reason. Like the THEORY of gravity, evolution THEORY and the special/general THEORY of relativity. But there is the LAW of conservation of energy, momentum, etc. Get your facts right, stupid!
For this to be anywhere near a valid experiment the length of the tube would need to be extremely long to provide an even half way decent analog for space
What is a "true vacuum"? So where is the air pressure threshold from where rockets won't producing thrust anymore? And is there a relation between air pressure and thrust (so thinner air - lower thrust; would make sense I think?)
The mass flow out of the nozzle is what is producing the thrust, which means that the thrust is the same in space and on the ground. Newton's third law baby!
The rocket vibrates de metal coil that is atached to the tube vibrating the tube, and the tube that is in contact with the exterior air "translate" the vibrations on sound; and more, the rocket produce gases that can hit the wals of the tube makig noises.
+Sebastian Nolte Yes there is a relation but the other way around. The bigger the pressure difference between the burning fuel and the sorrounding gas the bigger the thrust. Think of a water gun shooting in to the air and inside a pool. The water shoots out quicker in the air.
It appears to me that the actual thrust is only present when the exhaust reaches the rear wall of the chamber. This is evident on the portion of your video that shows the 2500 FPS.🤓
You can't even see the rear wall, but also if you notice that the exhaust flame burns brighter when it seems to be producing ample thrust which is indicative of reactive force from the hot gases rapidly exiting.
I think there are still some inconsistencies in the test. Look at when the rocket actually starts moving in the slow motion. I think it pushes off the end cap of the tube. If you run tests based on the size of different vacuum chambers then you could probably tell how much force is been exerted on the spring. Of course, the spring would have to be exactly the same for each test. Have 3 different size vacuum chambers and shoot all 3 at the same time and see if the spring force will be the same. The whole thing is to see if the larger vacuum chamber will exert the least force on the spring when the rocket is ignited. If yes, then imagine an infinite size vacuum chamber such as "space" where there is absolutely nothing to push off from.
I'm glad you're saying something about that topic because I was about to have to mention it myself in the comments! I don't know about you exactly but my thoughts are the rocket engine thrust plume was pushing off of the edges of the vacuum tube so that's why there was a little bit of push back on the spring holding the engine etc... And it did seem like there was an initial stronger push or jerk when the small cap object was seemingly being pushed off against by the rocket until it was thrown down the vacuum tube and no longer could be pushed off against I think that the Small tube allows some of the thrust currents on the outskirts of the vacuum tube well be like turbulence mixed with a sort of eddy current type phenomenon causing a slight bit of pushback but not enough was seen by me at least to make me think or believe yet that that rocket engine would be able to fly through space or through a large vacuum chamber the size of an Olympic swimming pool or something let's say if it didn't have the edge of the vacuum tube to push off of as well as his own gases and plumes and other things that are basically building up right behind the rocket plume and possibly simulating an atmosphere to be pushed off of instead of a more realistic situation in an open world vacuum like space supposedly where all those gases would dissipate and not just hang around right there to be pushed off of conveniently all lined up linear in a tube I would like to see you much larger vacuum chamber with nothing near the engine that's being fired for me to agree that rockets can push off of nothing through space and still move around maybe there's more to it than they even realize like it pushing off of its own exhaust gases but if that were the case that would be pretty dumb that they don't know that that is occurring if it is even possible to do so in space never been there myself! 😵💫🤭😵💫✌️✌️✌️
so let me know when you have read August Picard and read his personal experience way back when they were doing actual science experiments you have just compared yourself like August Packard to be a science experimenter and compared the small tube to infinite space your also not informed the first heavens or whatever number of heavens are water dude the August Packard commercial for hennisy or whatever commercial it was for shows more truth in the stories of old just like alot of what HOLLYWOOD put out in movies they make fantasy reality and reality fantasy
How many microns did you run the vacuum into, I notice you had a set of digital gauges. I'm not skeptical but it also seems you would need a much larger vacuum chamber to properly test the engines thrust. Theoretically the back of the chamber would act as a source of lift for the engine. I'm also very curious to see if you could actually maintain a direct course in a vacuum. I guess what I'm asking is could you hit a target inside the chamber with a rocket or would it even be possible to direct a flight path and keep on that path without constantly correcting your course. Good video but there are still a lot of variables involved here
All these comments about rockets not working in a vacuum and the need to demonstrate it with an actual rocket in a vacuum are just wrong. Rockets operated on the conservation of momentum. This is demonstrated in EVERY beginning physics lab course. Anyone that denies this is welcome to take a physic lab class and prove it or disprove it. Until you do and understand what you are testing you really are not basing your arguments on actual knowledge.
Indeed. Besides, in this trial he is generating a lot of fumes which most likely killed his vacuum and that little pump could not recover. You are right, this is not the way to prove that the wrong is wrong. Because you cannot prove the wrong is wrong doing it wrong. lol!
Tim, Momentum is indeed conserved even if the rocket does not move. The gas exiting the rocket produces a force on the rocket. If the rocket is anchored to something then the force and motion is transferred though to that anchor. A much much smaller reaction motion is produced as the anchor has a very very large mass. Same very basic physics.
Tim, The pressure built up inside of a rocket engine and it's nozzle is quite high, about 1000 psi. This is because of the combustion of the liquid oxygen and the RP-1 propellant. The pressure inside any explosion is quite high until the gases produced by the reaction have a chance to equalize with the surrounding environment. The rocket motor combustion chamber and nozzle allow this gas to escabel inonly one direction, the rocket goes the other. The thrust, the reaction to all the escaping high speed gas, is produced if the rocket is moving or not. The pressure is not really needed for this conversation though. I could make a rocket go, slowly, by just sitting on the rocket and throwing bricks off it, the rocket moves because of the momentum I put into the bricks when I throw them in the other direction. This is all that is happening in a rocket, it is throwing gas away from it very very fast, and a lot of it.
Tim Webb This is for all you flathead dullards. From the very first flame that exits the rocket, what is the flame/exhaust pushing off of? As a matter of fact, if you watch the video, there is a plug that shoots off the back first. That plug has no rocket on it, yet it flew away extremely fast. That is because of the force of the expanding gas, and the gas alone. You can even imagine scaling this experiment up so that the cap that shot off was the capsule of a spacecraft. It sure flew off in a near-complete vacuum before ANY of the exhaust could enter the chamber. All the basic rocket functions were thus indisputably demonstrated. So, quit being so thick, and RECOGNIZE!
Tim Webb "All I recognize is that you are not the brightest simian in the troop." That much is okay, as I never made any such claim, but such an obvious observation on your part isn't near enough to elevate your lowly status. "The situation...is identical to that pertaining in the gun + bullet scenario...Nobody disputes this; least of all me." First of all, you totally ignored my question, "From the very first flame that exits the rocket, what is the flame/exhaust pushing off of?" The answer to this, and the correlation to the error in your logic can be simplified by using your own recognized situation: A grenade works exactly like a bullet, with the exception of many fragments replacing the shell and single projectile. If, instead of the nebulous imaginings of an expanding gas, you built a device that had trillions upon trillions of tiny grenades continuously fed into a nozzled chamber where they were detonated, you would get a steady flow of minute projectiles banging into and pushing off of the chamber until they exited the nozzle, save for those with initial egress paths. The end result is the rocket goes in one direction and the shrapnel exits via the nozzle and diffuses en-masse, as deemed by their individual escape trajectories and post-chamber inter-exhaust collisions. So, a violently explosive chemical reaction works in the same way. However, it is the gas molecules that become the shrapnel - the rocket remains as just itself. "If you have any other questions or observations, please do not hesitate to bring them here to me, and we can analyse them together, in more detail" My only question is why you are, or have been, too confused to understand this?
This was explained to everyone in middle school. Its basic chemistry. Solid rocket boosters (s.r.b.'s) are made with a combination of fuel, and an oxydizer. Oxydizers provide oxygen, like the name implies. The solid fuel is mixed with the oxidizer, and burned. It doesn't need an oxygen supply. And it would move forward in a vacuum due to Newton's third law of motion, which implies an equal and opposite reaction. Fuel burns and expels hot, fast gasses in one direction, propelling the rocket in the opposite direction, regardless of outside atmosphere. Sea level to the moon, the laws of physics don't change. If you can't grasp these simple concepts, the comments section of a rocketry channel may not be the place for you. Also, the earth is round, and we didn't fake the moon landing. Suck it.
The issue the skeptics have about "rocket's working in space" is not will a rocket ignite. Hence you experiment proved nothing because the solid rocket you have has the necessary oxygen in the chemical compound used. Hence it should work. An electric spark does the rest. The issue is the vast vacuum of space and how it interacts with the ignited rocket. And here you have a scaling problem. Hence the movement of the rocket in that chamber does not help to answer that question. Otherwise nice try. Invoking "flat earth" in the discussion shows the inability of the party to debate the issue rationally.
@@mathiasschmidt7316 I've read that intergalactic space has 1 atom per cubic metre, so not quite that empty. I would still say that's damned near perfect, but flat earthers and other such morons want a literal perfect vacuum.
I guessed the volume and an engine of that size can't produce much gas. After some math it would still be at 0.001 - 0.00016 times air pressure. It's even thinner gas than the martian atmosphere.
A lot of people here seem to be confused about what makes a rocket engine provide thrust. It's understandable because in our daily lives, we "push off of" something to make ourselves move in the opposite direction. It only seems natural to think that a rocket engine needs something to push off of too. But... no. Force = Mass x Acceleration When the gasses expand and shoot out the back of the rocket engine, the mass of the gas molecules times their incredible acceleration is evidence of the force of the burn. Newton's third law ... says that there's an equal and opposite reaction, i.e. the rocket accelerates in the opposite direction from the rocket gasses. Since the rocket probably has more mass than the gasses, it will accelerate slower than the gasses but that's still pretty fast. Think of what happens if you stand perfectly still and toss a heavy bowling ball, or cinder block forward. You will be pushed backwards (unless you balance yourself which is a natural reaction). The bowling ball doesn't need a surface to "push off of." Also, as for the comparison of the airplane wing. This is something completely different. An airplane wing produces lift when the air must travel faster over the top than the bottom because the shape of the wing makes the distance over the top longer. Think of a marching band that is split in two where half the band must take a longer route so they have to walk faster to meet up with the other half. As they do, they spread out. Same with molecules of air going over and under a wing. And when the molecules are spread out, that's less pressure than the molecules under the wing, causing the pressure underneath to push the wing (and the plane) up. I also see comments about "sucking" - When you draw air out of a straw with your mouth, the air pressure in the room pushes on the water to make it rise in the straw. Using a term like "sucking force" is like using a term like "cold energy," there's no such thing as "sucking" unless you're talking about Tom Brady in which case I stand corrected. As for the engine being able to burn in a vacuum because there's no air, I'd remind people that there are welding tools that work under water. The welding torch carries its own oxygen, just like the fuel in the rocket.
I don't think you understand. But I'm curious as to why would you try to deny that rockets work in a vacuum when clearly they do? Do you just like arguing regardless of whether it makes sense?@@papalegba6796
Creating true vacuum is impossible, anything that sucks air out will obviously still left some air, but the air itself is so minute in amount that you can say that it is vacuum, but not true vacuum
He didn't leave air in the chamber. The rocket expels gas which fills the chamber when it is ignited, so it's no longer a vacuum after the rocket has been fired.
@Ganiscol Rockets dont shot bullets and i have never seen anything flying based on a recoil mode, hot exhaust gasses cant push against nothing, it has to be in the air to work. You fell for the worlda biggest hoax, lol feel sorry for you.
Zauważ milordzie , że dopiero jak gazy wypełniły rurę to zaczął się ruch rakiety. Wiec to doświadczenie to bulshit . Dowodzi jedynie że w próżni nie może to działać :)
Obejrzałem ten eksperyment i faktycznie rakietka ruszyła po 3 sekundach od zapłonu. Czyli jak została wypełniona przez gaz a pewnie ciśnienie wzrosło dość znacznie. Lepiej niech NASA szybko zrobi rurę o kilku m średnicy i z 200 m długości i powtórzy taki eksperyment bo zacznę dochodzić do wniosku, że bez materii do odbicia się gazów , rakiety nie latają w próżni.
Does a rocket engine work in a vacuum? Yes. Yes it does...more efficiently too...higher vacuum specific impulses because no atmosphere to push against the exhaust gasses, kind of. Look up de Laval nozzle :^)
why do we hear the sound though.. very curious. should be NO sound in a vacuum, yet we hear everything even the pop of the igniter. wonder if the suspension of the rocket motor with the metal spring is making the tube act like a speaker
I like and subscribe to your channel. A question I have is why did the rocket not move on initial ignition? The rocket did not appear to move until the smoke passed by it after the smoke filled the right half of the chamber. Also, even after it moved it was not very much thrust. What effect do you think a larger vacuum space would have?
Rocket motors take a while to generate full thrust from ignition. At slow motion, it will take quite a few frames before enough of the blackpowder (which Estes uses for propellant) to starti to burn to produce thrust. The motor was retained by a spring of wire. it effectively is a "force gauge" showing how much thrust the motor was producing. Estes motors of that size don't generate very much thrust at all. Don't need much to fly a rocket that only weighs 50-100gm. But restrained by heavy copper wire, it won't move much.
@@E9X330 Maybe for little noBrainers like you... XP After NASA LostALL ORIGINAL VID& DATA ofALLMOON MISSIONS, DESTROYED theTECH to go back to theMOON, PENTAGON LOST $2.3TRILLION TAXMONEY, NASA gets50 MIL/DAY! YOU STILL SWALLOW THEIR SHIT😋💩? 😷😂 NASA AstroNOT: Don Pettit:" We Can´t go back🚀🚫 to the MOON" HAHA!!! "We destroyed the tech OOPS." HAHA!! "We CANT go TROUGH the VAN ALLEN RADIATION BELT🚀🚫" 😂 NASA FRAUDSTERS! Research! BALLEarth is REAL?! NOPE! 🚫This is FAKE like your EDUCATION! Studying 8 HRS/DAY on University DON´T makes you smarter! It just makes you a BELIEVER through repetition of LIES! WAKE UP! Start REAL thinking!
I particularly like the comments that try to point out the whole "no sound in space" bit because they heard sound. Fun fact, the speed of sound through copper is roughly 4660 m/s, and the speed of sound through acrylic (I'm guessing that tube is acrylic) is roughly 2730 m/s. So, noticing that the engine is in direct contact with matter that is in direct contact with the wall of the tube that's in direct contact with our atmosphere... Now, cue the whole "well, why didn't we hear a sonic boom if the sound was traveling at 4660 and/or 2730 m/s and planes make a kaboom at ~350 m/s?!? WHERE IS THE EARTH SHATTERING KABOOM? That requires a space modulator and I'm pretty sure there is a rabbit out there who has it. source: www.olympus-ims.com/en/ndt-tutorials/thickness-gage/appendices-velocities/
Conservation of momentum proves that rockets can work in a vacuum. Simple Lets say you have a space ship weight a total of 1005Kg. You then eject 5 kilos of gas backwards at 2000m/s. This gas has a momentum of 10000kgm/s. By conservation of momentum the rocket must gain 10000kgm,/s in the opposite direction, giving it a velocity of 10m/s. QED.
Nice try but your pressure external is zero pa. thermodynamic Free Expansion brings your acceleration to zero, look it up. Pressurized gasses released into a vacuum produces no work, so no propulsion. Nice example of how to use conservation of momentum in an atmosphere though.
@@uncommonsense9948 I've looked it, and it doesn't do what you think it does. The fact is the free expansion does not require a vaccum to work. If I had two containers at different pressures and then I connected them to eachother, Free expansion would still happen. Ergo if free expansion worked the way you think it did then rockets wouldn't work in an atmosphere either. Conservation of momentum applies in a vaccum as well as in the atmosphere. Newtons 3rd law means that their must be a large force produced on the rocket.
@@uncommonsense9948 When combustion occurs, the gas expands in every direction. Creating pressure. If you have the left side close and the right side open, the gas will impact the left side of the combustion creating a pressure and thus a force. Without a right hand wall to counter the pressure on the left wall, there is a resulting force pushing to the left.
@@11cookeaw14THE CONSERVATION OF MOMENTUM FALLACY Here the idea is that when a rocket “expels” mass, in the form of burned fuel, in one direction, conservation of momentum says it has to be propelled in the opposite direction in order to conserve the total amount of momentum in the system. The law of conservation of momentum states that in a system not subject to external forces the total momentum is always conserved. That's a logical consequence of Newtonian laws. Without external forces the interactions inside a system must always involve some kind of exchanging, like typically in a collision between two objects, where the energy/velocity lost by an object has to be transferred to the other (inelastic collision) or simply exchanged (elastic collision), so that in the end the total momentum of the two objects is the same before and after the collision. Let's take a look at how that applies to a gas expanding in a vacuum. A gas expanding against a vacuum is not interacting with anything, by definition, hence its momentum cannot be exchanged with anything, and it follows that: THE EXPANSION OF A GAS IN A VACUUM WILL NOT AND CANNOT AFFECT ITS TOTAL MOMENTUM (i.e. THE TOTAL MOMENTUM OF THE GAS MOLECULES BEFORE THE EXPANSION IS CONSERVED AFTER THE EXPANSION). The logical, unavoidable consequence, and key point here, is that - if we assume a rocket in space can be accelerated by expanding gas in a vacuum - in order to account for the accelerating rocket we end up INCREASING the total momentum of the system. In other words, we end up violating the law of conservation of momentum. Bottom line: the law of conservation of momentum actually disproves rockets working in the vacuum of space. Have a great holiday Mate,
As soon as you started firing it, your little tube filled with exhaust gas, and it was no longer a vacuum chamber. When it stopped firing, the gas was immediately removed, returning it to a state of vacuum. This is a nonsense demonstration.
@@Lifeisgood262 You idiots neglect the fact that rocket thrust is created by rapidly expanding gasses right. The exhaust gas from the rocket represured the chamber to normal levels or possibly more.
The gases expelled from the rocket made the chamber no longer a full vacuum. They also pushed against the back of the tube, which in the vastness of space, there is nothing to push against. Furthermore, you stated that the rocket burned up in less than one second, which normally lasts 8 seconds, so you're getting 1/8 the efficiency. It's definitely not debunked.
there's a slight but significant difference to what is called a 'false vacuum' to what is called a 'true vacuum' although the word 'vacuum' can be used to refer either. A 'true vacuum' cannot be man made.
Akbar hahahahaha who told you that? A vacuum is an area void of air, they literally showed the air being drawn out of the area. It is a vacuum, true vacuum just sound like some bizarre flat earth claim 😂
A bunch of these people that doubt it don't know what a fuel oxidizer is.
They didn't even know that the Earth is round. What do you expect?
what is fuel oxidizer?
How big of an oxygen supply do you think would be needed to fly around in space?
@@michaelcondoulis2509 basically it provides the fuel with enough oxygen that it can burn without a secondary oxygen source such as air, thats why solid fuel rockets can burn in a vacuum
@@robertnorthrup5415 if it was a solid fuel rocket like the one in the video, the solid fuel has the oxidiser in the fuel so if you have more fuel there is also more oxidiser present so you dont need a supply of oxygen unless the rocket is luqued fueled, in that clase there is a seperate tank of liqued oxygen that is mixed with the miqued fuel and burned, this also means that no air is needed so both kinds of rockets work in a vacuum
My brain is turning into sand after reading through some comments
Wile E Coyote is watching this and taking meticulous notes. :D
Im sure even he has more brains then flat earthers
*Nothing funnier than piss poor grammar in an insult about intelligence.* Juss sayin bruh.
Than. It's than the.
Than - introducing the second element in a comparison.
Then - at that time; at the time in question.
ROFL!!!
the lack of your own intelligence you mean right? You dont even know the guy. Not everyone on the internet is a native english speaker. Just like me. English is a 2nd language to me and i spent time learning it. Ofcourse i make mistakes, and so do others. Go ahead and speak Dutch to me and allow me to piss on your poor grammar. But i doubt you have the intelligence for a 2nd language.
Idid ton nvee ees yna sistakesm.
MisterE I hear from former non-English speakers that English is very difficult to learn, write, and speak well. You, Sir, have done well!
Nice video. I did notice that the rocket only started moving once the tube was full of smoke which means it was no longer a vacuum and therefore had something to propel against. That wouldn’t be the case in space. Still a good experiment though
This is incorrect, it only moves forward because the entirety of the fuel grain takes a second to ignite. The fact that it no longer was a vacuum is irrelevant. This would still propel itself in space
@@temdb3939 the pourpes of the experiment is to see if the rocket works with no air lol
@@jaimeaparicio3392 This is true, but it is a poor experiment. However @TillaMC is still wrong in saying that it would not work in space. If mass is ejected in one direction then the rocket must accelerate in the other direction. Saying that this is untrue means that you think energy and momentum can just be created from nothing.
No smoke escaped so vacuum still intact
smh.. y'all wrong earth is banana shaped
Everybody90 I'll go along with that.
Everybody90 it is actually the shape of a planet...
Technically it's Plantain shaped, but that's an NSA secret.
Ryan Taylor Hey dude, I saw you at the video where that singer lied about getting injured in Afghanistan. Everyone is negative about you and I'm gonna say what should've been said earlier. Ryan, thank you for your service.
Tell me again how sheep bladders can be used to prevent earthquakes
I love the way you mounted the rocket engine! genius!
Blu3B33r thank you very much. I got the idea from the inside of a refrigeration scroll compressor comma I used to build install and design Supermarket refrigeration systems for a living.
Blu3B33r that's why I have these vacuum pumps.
I agree. It was beautifully simple and acted like a spring to show the force of the rocket.
Great video Warped Perception!
Warped Perception If you ever watch a super slow mo. playback of a pistol firing a bullet you can clearly see that the recoil occurs significantly after the slug, and vapors have left the barrel. This is to say that after the slug and vapors leave the barrel, there is a period when it seems like nothing is happening before any visible recoil occurs. Would you have any interest in shedding some light on where that energy is during that apparently inactive period?
I would hazard a guess that the delay in the recoil motion is due to the automatic loading mechanism
inside the pistol moving backwards. As it travels forward, reloading a bullet into the chamber, the action imparts an equal and opposite reaction force to the body of the pistol, this will account for the delay.
The problem with this experiment is that the moment the rocket fires it is no longer in a vacuum. Bigger vacuum tube required I think. Nice experiment.
Rocket propellant was added but no atmospheric gasses.
Its a failed experiment, because Creating a true vacuum, where there are absolutely no gases present, is extremely challenging and often not entirely achievable in practical conditions. Even in a laboratory setting, it's impossible to create a perfect vacuum.
@@vz7042 It is a perfectly valid experiment. The concept of a perfect vacuum is a theoretical idealization used in physics for simplification, but it doesn't exist in the practical sense. Even in space, there is no perfect vacuum. So, flat earthers are wrong - as always.
@@VivekanandaKF You have been on space personally to prove it.. or sharing your imagination yet..?
We can create a better vacuum than space, have you done the science to prove me wrong? no.
@@vz7042
And doesnt matter, a rocket engine is NOT a jet engine, it does not require external air to function, you just need to learn some chemistry
Lol! For a few seconds I thought this guy was making a serious video! 😂😂😂
And he isn't?
The problem with using a tube with a short end to it , the end of the tube will provide something to push against . It would need a very long end to it to avoid affecting the experiment
That’s irrelevant. Once the particle has left the engine why would it hitting a surface affect an object which is no longer connected to it? Is there some magic link through spacetime? No. Force is created when the particle leaves the thruster via Newton’s third law. 🙄 sheesh
The engine didn't seem to move until the spent gases created a back pressure. This looks like it worked but space is much larger that the tube. Great video 👍
Pressurization requires containment. Who woulda thunk - GEOCENTRISTS
the system is closed, quickly ceases to be a vacuum, filled with gases
it wont make a difference
@@vertex3243 Do you have an or know of an experiment to prove that? Thank you in advance.
@@vijithkumar the thing is that the plume of exhaust is not oxygen so it wont make a difference in how the motor burns. There is no experiment that i know of that is in a big enough scale for the exuaghst to be insignificant besides actual space.
@@vijithkumar I believe this video does a good job to prove everything other than conservation of momentum ( at least not in an obvious way ), which is what you want if you need proof that the exhaust doesn't have to push against something to generate thrust, you could change the same experiment to use a water rocket type deal or a spring loaded counter mass, there are countless other intuitive experiments that prove conservation of momentum.
@@vertex3243 Yet no rocket engine has ever gone beyond the exosphere so when will we prove that 😂
FEs: Rockets don't work in a vacuum!
This video: **Rocket works in vacuum**
FEs: That's no proof!
That vacuum was comparable to a Barbie vacuum. Lol! Not enough suction power to be a notable reliable source. Oops!
What is 'suction power'? Get some education.
@@Lifeisgood262 Proof of it? No? Okay
@@Lifeisgood262 It thrust against the end of the tube, but very little, do the same experiment with out the vacuum. you will see the difference.
@@Lifeisgood262 - "suction power" doesn't exist a vacuum is simply emptiness "suction" is actually pressure attempting to equalize an area of lower pressure
Man on man was this video awesome. What is also impressive is the amount of money and effort you put into showing something that a lot of people wouldn't get to see otherwise. Oh and of course repping science is always cool.
you mean repping lies and deception?
I see it coming "If there was a vacuum, why were we able to hear the rocket? Sound needs air to travel". Its coning guys, take my word for it!
+muh1h1 because the GoPro had a mechanical connection to the tube, the tube had a physical connection to the vacuum pump through the hose comma if you notice in the beginning of the burn the sound is much less. The sound came from the physical contact the rocket was also in physical contact with the tube through the mounting device.
LOL, don't worry, we know, we were just making fun of the conspiricy guys (a.k.a flat earthers) :D
I'd like to know if the rocket burning produced gas that dropped the vacuum in the chamber. If it did, would be good to see this again showing the gauge and how the Vac dropped off.
Oil Burner i think this experement has two problems
a the rocket was so close to the end of tube the gasses hit on the tap so you have thrust.
b the chamber is so small the pressure rises so it seizes to be a vacuum
@ both of you, Why wouldn't those particles simply escape aside the rocket instead of generating thrust? The particles tend to distribute evenly through the tube and not gather at one side.
Compare it to a gun. If you fire, you get the recoil when the gun powder explodes. Not when the bullet hits a wall right?
The same happens in a rocket engine. The recoil is what makes it move.
Rocket engines do not produce air as a by product of burning fuel, its only smoke so it would not pressurise the chamber.
+WildPhotoShooter , the exhaust gas consists of particles and therefore *does* pressurize the chamber. If the gasses wouldn't produce pressure (in the combustion chamber), the rocket wouldn't fly.
You don't need air to pressurize, you can also use nitrogen, water or whatever substance.
I don't believe you , prove it. Did it pressurise to 15 psi ( same as the atmosphere at sea level) Did you personally measure the pressure in the tube caused by the gasses ?
HaHa! I'm just taking the piss out of people who think rockets don't work in a vacuum.
Great job.
A side note, to those who think that this wasn't big enough -- consider the fact that the gas that is ejected becomes something for the next cycle of gas to push against. And magnets still work in a vacuum as well - just because there is no air doesn't make it void of all energy.
Next cycle? The rocket burns in 1 second flat. There is nothing for it to ever push against. Thats not how rockets work.
You should do more experiments inside this tube. Really fun to watch!
I'm not a flat earther and it is plain to see this is bogus. To believe you can simulate space in a tube is man due to man greatest flaw. Ego
Its bogus how? He created a vaccuum...
I have also done this experiment however I realized it was flawed in order to get the rocket to go off you have to cap the igniter which is okay but in doing so you keep the rocket pressurized internally which allows it to ignite in the first place the second flaw is the size of the vacuum chamber the instant the rocket goes off the vacuum chamber is no longer able to keep a vacuum due to the off-gassing of the rocket the vacuum chamber would need to be incredibly large to not be affected buy a model rocket engine remember model rocket engines work by creating gases and enormous pressure from solid state fuel so much so that it can push an object off the ground and into the air
wesnxs exactly, thanks for sharing in the next episode it's going to be more comprehensive, I'm going to explain and explore a couple different fuels to clear up some very serious and widespread misconceptions
agree with the second one. However, for the first one, I thought all space rockets are capped and pressurized internally before ignition? Otherwise, the fuel would just spill out everywhere. What I'm going to say is, capped and pressurized ignition mechanism is more similar to actual rockets in space than uncapped and unpressurized ones.
measure the rockets volume , multiply by 1000 ,that its final gas volume
use the smallest rocket you can or make a chamber big enough so that
the final pressure is changed only 1% difference ,,, lol i just trolled you
Dude you're so right on the experiment is flawed the vacuum is nowhere near what the vacuum of space would be and it is such a small chamber that the rocket is able to pressurize the chamber which is why it moves
Collin Daugherty I agree the experiment is not good enough for definitive proof, but it is an indicator. However, the rocket doesn’t move because of pressure, if fact it would be less efficient in a higher pressure.
If you would like to contribute subtitles in your language we greatly appreciate it !! heres the link ruclips.net/user/timedtext_video?ref=share&v=GxBRQXxBRic
When the fuel is mixed with an oxidizer when burning it will create it's own source of oxygen to burn. That's why potassium nitrate is used in black powder as it is an oxidizer.
Very cool! Back about 1967 I wanted to do a science fair project using a model rocket engine thrust meter. My father suggested using a syringe hooked up to a mercury manometer to measure thrust equivalent to mm of mercury displacement. I submitted something else for the project.
Very well done. End of discussion right there.
Here is a good explanation by a RUclips commenter from another channel.
Quote: "I tell you where the force is. Think as an experiment of thought you sit
in a non working rocket and you fire a rifle, aiming through the
exhaust nozzle. When the bullet is fired, the bullet moves with high
speed out of the nozzle and the recoil moves the rocket with a much
slower but constant speed in the other direction. Same with gas
molecules. Every gas molecule is a bullet. To accelerate gas molecules
to a high speed needs a force, and the counter force - recoil - moves
the rocket. Not the molecules on their way drive the rocket, the rocket
is driven in the moment when the molecules are accelerated by the
combustion process."
Bnslamb Bro....
the gun is still fired in Atmosphere... Bullet is resisting against air, and pressure in barrel..
How do u not see, the Vacuum is Sucking"" out the thrust at same pace thrust is shooting out..
anyways .
irrelevant as Nasa has been caught using green screen many times, bubbles, other wierd stuff.
So there are no recoil in space? Vacuum does not suck, it's the surrounding higher pressure that press.
There can be up to several 100 atm pressure inside the combustion chamber during combustion, zero or one atm pressure outside means nothing.
NASA does not use green screen and you have never seen bubbles in space, you have no credible source for that claim. If that was true all news agencies would know it. Don't believe lies.
_JULY 17, 1969: On Jan. 13, 1920, Topics of The Times, an_
_editorial-page feature of The New York Times, dismissed the notion that a_
_rocket could function in a vacuum and commented on the ideas of Robert_
_H. Goddard, the rocket pioneer, as follows._
_"That Professor Goddard, with his 'chair' in Clark College and_
_the countenancing of the Smithsonian Institution, does not know the_
_relation of action to reaction, and of the need to have something better_
_than a vacuum against which to react -- to say that would be absurd. Of_
_course he only seems to lack the knowledge ladled out daily in high_
_schools." [Oh, snap!]_
_Further investigation and experimentation have confirmed the_
_findings of Isaac Newton in the 17th century and it is now definitely_
_established that a rocket can function in a vacuum as well as in an_
_atmosphere. The Times regrets the error."_
goo.gl/UeK2J2
Here is how much fuel Saturn V used.
First stage carries 203,400 gallons (770,000 liters) of kerosene fuel and 318,000 gallons (1.2 million liters) of liquid oxygen.
The second stage carries 260,000 gallons (984,000 liters) of liquid
hydrogen fuel and 80,000 gallons (303,000 liters) of liquid oxygen.
The third stage carries 66,700 gallons (252,750 liters) of liquid
hydrogen fuel and 19,359 gallons (73,280 liters) of liquid oxygen.
-All- most was burned in a few minutes.
So you can see zero or one atmospheric pressure outside the engine means nothing
So just curious, do you believe that a gun fired in a vacuum would have zero recoil? Lol
Dillon Harr the explosion in the chamber is pushing off the bullet and the firearm at the same time, this would work in a vacuum to produce thrust or movement in both objects. An explosion pushing against nothing doesn't produce thrust, this video even proves that. No thrust is produced until the rear of the chamber is filled with a small amount of gas. If that gas was being sucked away into infinite space...no thrust.
I wish you showed the pressure gauge.
He can't do that, since that would invalidate his programming. This is a mason and like all masons he tells you exactly what he is about with the title of his show. What is the title of his show?: "Warped perception". That is what this show is about. If you pay more attention to stuff like this, the world becomes a lot more interesting.
@@wtfvids3472 I hate to tell you this, I am an industrial chemical process engineer and among many other projects, I lead engineered the world's biggest air movement and purification project of its kind at the world's biggest automotive plant of its kind -- and it worked. The same equations we use to engineer your working car and working mobile phone also easily predict that if you are in a vacuum chamber on ice in a chair with rollers and you throw a basketball that you will move in the opposite direction you threw the basketball. Except when it is done with a rocket, you are throwing tons of mass per second at incredible speeds. So, really, there is not even a reason to discuss this. It only shows you would never be accepted to engineering school to create safe, working environments to manufacture the most essential elements of civilization. Thanks for playing.
You should have done it with and without vacuum and compare the two.
Nailed it! Perfectly clear.
Rockets work in a vacuum.
Done and dusted.
What a cool experiment. Really enjoy seeing theory put into practice in a practical way. wish I had the space to experiment like this too.
I believe youre correct. The difference is in space, if you can make just a slight thrust, you will go for a while.
you destroyed the vacuum with the exhaust gas, but nice video :P
+CDom very true, but it definitely served its purpose, the whole engine burn in one second vs 9 seconds under atmospheric pressure
Has nothing to do with the vacuum. People are confusing vacuum and lack of oxygen. What they are really saying a rocket won't work without oxygen, which of course it can as the propellant is made with chemicals that burn with either a combination of hydrogen and oxygen propellant or other chemicals that do not need oxygen to explode.
Vacuum _is_ lacking in oxygen though. :-) But yeah, the naysayers have two objections to space flight. They claim rockets can't burn in space (false), and they claim that even if they did burn, there's nothing to push against (irrelevant).
CDom Yeah he definitely should have expended the rocket engine _without_ generating exhaust gasses. *_DERP!!!_*
Richard Head hey I try my best, the vacuum pump I was using at 7 CFM comma and according to the rocket specs it puts out about 9 CFM , so throughout the burn technically it was still in a vacuum just not a perfect vacuum.
2 questions... 1) since the rocket didn't begin to show signs of propulsion until the smoke filled the back of the chamber, can you keep the air compressor on so that the gasses emitted from the rocket are immediately sucked up instead of building up pressure to push off of, as it would happen in a non-enclosed vacuum. 2... why did you say there was still vacuum in the chamber after everything??? The fact that you opened it up to show the smoke kinda makes me feel like something is fishy here.
1. Air compressor wont pump faster than a rocket engine, also intertia is why it took some time for the rocket to start moving
2. Idk why he said that, maybe he just ment that there was no outside atmospheric air inside, since the exhaust obviously filled the chamber.
This test works i guess, but its too small to convince people who doubt newtons third law; for every action (force) in nature there is an equal and opposite reaction. If object A exerts a force on object B, object B also exerts an equal and opposite force on object A.
Rocket exhaust doesnt need to push against air to propel the rocket forward, the exhaust isnt attathced to the rocket anyway.. wouldnt make sense, its the exhaust being pushed out thats sending the rocket forwards.
This is perfect to show why rockets don't working space. it's because they will burn but they don't produce thrust, this rocket should have easily left the Cradle that it was in with the amount of thrust it can create but it was not even able to leave the copper wire harness. This is a win for Rockets not being able to work in a vacuum!
"The flat earth society has members all around the globe" - The Flat Earth Society
🤣🤣🤣
Dumbasses lol
Ya he so dumb af
Any real flat earther would tell you not to give 1 iota of your time to the flat earth society because they are controlled opposition.
The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves - Vladimir Lenin
They think that because a car engine can't run in a vacuum a rocket can't either. Flat earthers the difference is the car engine needs air but a rocket has an oxidizer in its fuel. Oxidizer = oxygen = air = 🤯 👈flat earther brain trying to understand.
@@Jonathan.D you definitely don't sound any smarter than the flat earthers you make fun of! A rocket motor would be completely useless in the vast void of space because reguardless of how fast that rocket can produce expelling gas for trust, the vast void of space will absorb that rocket gas faster than it can produce it resulting in ZERO thrust. The fact that you can't even recognize that this video "experiment" of a rocket in a vaccum chamber that is laughably small making everything about it a joke shows your own ignorance of anything scientific. 🙄
Also, I find it hilarious that half of the comments here are flat earthers decrying you as a NASA actor, and the other half are people who actually have some understanding of the science decrying your vacuum as not good enough. XD
Correct, That vacuum isn’t good enough, It still has oxygen in it.. Space has “ZERO OXYGEN” right? Therefore this “experiment” is absolutely worthless.
@@sforge2414 Incorrect. Space most certainly does _not_ have zero oxygen. Or, more relevant to this discussion, it does not have zero pressure. The pressure is very _low_ compared to at sea level on Earth; how low depends on where you are in space. But keep in mind, that it's a smooth transition, from ground level all the way out to infinity. Not linear... but _smooth._
So there is _nowhere_ in space with _zero_ pressure. There is no such thing as a perfect vacuum. There are only _relative_ vacuums; relative pressures. This vacuum chamber is fine to demonstrate the difference in a rocket exhaust plume depending on pressure. Is it a perfect vacuum? Of course not; but that doesn't actually exist. Is it even as much of a vacuum as low-Earth orbit? Nah, surely not. But is it a very low pressure compared to that just outside the chamber? Of course it is.
As for oxygen to enable combustion, the _definition_ of a rocket motor is that it carries its own fuel _and_ oxidizer. A model rocket engine like that is usually packed with black powder. That's charcoal (carbon) and sulfur for fuel, and saltpeter (potassium nitrate, KNO3) as an oxidizer. Once ignited, the potassium nitrate decomposes. The nitrogens combine to form nitrogen gas; the carbon pairs up with oxygen to form carbon dioxide; the potassium uses leftover carbon, sulfur, and oxygen to form various sulfates and sulfides. Many of these compounds being gasses, they take up far more volume than the solid black powder did, and expand violently to do so. By providing just a small nozzle for them to escape through, we convert what would otherwise be a deflagration explosion into thrust. _No oxygen from outside sources is required._
I mean... just to be clear, did you seriously just comment under a comment making fun of people claiming his vacuum wasn't good enough, to demonstrate that you are one of them?
@@barefootalien You yourself just now admitted he DID NOT replicate the same conditions that are to be expected in space or even the earth’s upper atmosphere. Therefore the “experiment” is technically worthless/invalid and your lengthy seemingly elaborate word stew is rendered pointless. Do you not see that?
@@sforge2414 lol
@@barefootalien So yes, Good.. I’m not your adversary by the way, Incase that’s what you were thinking. I’m just looking for the truth/Ways to get closer to the truth no matter what it may be. If a theory/claim fails to hold water (no pun intended) It should be thoroughly re-examined over and over until a clear result/straight answer is reached.
looks like the rocket didn't move until the smoke filled the back of the chamber. thanks for sharing.
It just needs time to move lmao
I have not launched a model rocket in 25+ years, yet I knew exactly what that smell was in the tube.
Why in the world would people think that a rocket motor, not engine, would not burn in a vacuum?????????? It's rocket fuel, there is no oxygen in that tube when you fire the propellant. The propellant is an oxidizer and creates its own chemical reaction to produce thrust. An engine has moving parts that convert energy into motion, like a piston and crankshaft.
I don't think anyone thinks that rocket engines can't fire in space - its called a strawman argument. The real argument is that in the limitless vacuum of space, the gases would shoot out into the void and the rocket would have no propulsion since there is no atmosphere to push off of.
@@MoneyIsSilver you're right . in his experiment the exhaust gases quickly eleminates any possibility of a vacuum just a fire seconds after the engine starts
@@MoneyIsSilver don't be so sure, the ridiculousness of flat earthers knows no bounds and many of them believe different things.
At least one even questioned how the sun could be burning when there's no oxygen in the vacuum of space.
Thanks for the video. Notice that the rocket does not move, even slightly, until enough gas has filled the rear of the tube (creating backpressure). There is a tiny white fleck on the cylinder just in front of the rocket I used to gauge movement. This confirms that a rocket cannot 'thrust' itself in vacuum.
Why did you argue with ignorance? They would take you to their level and beat you with experience.
it's stupidity. There isn't even a religious justification for such a claim.
I get why people would think that rockets don’t work in space because forward momentum is based on the objects ability to push against itself and with no air pressure in space to push against the rocket you would think that the rocket would just burn and not go anywhere but forward propulsion is a self contained mechanism that pushes away from its own mass which is what allows rockets to have forward momentum in a vacuum. Just like if you were holding a rock in space and just hurled it as hard as you could, it would simply keep flying away at the same speed that it left your hand going until another object or the gravity of a planetary body snared it. I certainly understand the confusion people have about it but it’s easily explained.
such a great , well done and scientifically significant video. thanks for posting!
zanick2 the new version of this posts tomorrow. Glad you like it, thanks for the feedback
@Warped Perception, how do you get sound in a vacuum?
...and how long do those rockets have ignition for? Seemed like only a few seconds, shouldn't it have gone longer?
thats a great question. maybe because the rocket was attached to the spring which is fastened to the tube on the inside, thus making the tube a "speaker" . Ill let Warp perception chime in here.
i would also see what the air pressure was in the tube during and after the rocket expelled all its fuel. the flat earthers, think that the cartridge created enough atm to work against. so, by showing the mass that has been produced in the chamber, you can address that factor. maybe there was an enough molecules to transfer sound.
*2nd video is satisfying Very cool*
from 2:52 to 3:03 there is a vacuum in the pipe and your engine does not move. Then there is no longer a vacuum, a lot of gas from which the movement begins. The scale of the vacuum tube is needed much more. But it's a good attempt.)
Unable to reply to the pinned thread, but to the people making the odd claim that the expelled gas from a rocket engine has nothing to push against in space, you are simply not understanding the mechanics of thrust, and would benefit greatly from a physics lesson.
Newton is your friend.
+Ryleigh S I'm thinking about revisiting this in the future from an entirely different angle that people would have a very tough time arguing.
I'm definitely looking forward to it! Rocketry and spaceflight are very interesting and also a good context in which to understand physics. Plus it looks cool in slow motion :P
+Warped perception we won't, you cannot produce thrust in a proper vacuum environment.
Tell that to Newton.
+Ryleigh S He would agree and point out how stupid you are for thinking his third applies in vacuum.
Beautiful experiment! Thank you!
Warped perception.....Can you repeat the experiment by keeping the vacuum pump on,, I want to see if there is any difference in the thrust force?
That would be a great comparison. Also moving the rocket towards the front of the vacuum would also be interesting to see how differently it reacts.
Vacuum chamber is pathetically toosmall to make the remotest claim it reflects a space vacuum.
Good question
Not trying to troll, genuine questions. Is this actually a complete vacuum? What was the reading before and after? And then the other question is, the moment the rocket is it still a vacuum? Look, your model rocket doesnt move until the space behind the rocket is filled up with smoke by the gasses released by the rocket. This would not happen in space because there is no vessel in space. In other words, your experiment might only works because your rocket is contained in a small glass container, not infinite space.
Does that make sense? Is their a rebuttal to this? Am i missing something?
What youre really saying is, you dont think rockets can work in space. If you even think outer space even exists beyond a "dome" in the first place.
You probably will dismiss it, but you can watch the artemis spacecraft that launched recently. No, you wont see a flame when the cut to the live feed. You will see the solar panels fold in while the lady talks about a burn to correct course, but ask yourself:
'How are they able to course correct if its not possible in a vacuum?'
wait rockets use an oxidizer meaning it provides what it needs to burn OMG science
next he will say the earth is round like a globe...hahahaha
Thank you so much!❄️❄️❄️💛💛💛 from SAN84🙏🙏🏻🙏🏾
@@williamnordeste9653 your IQ is somewhere between 0 and -1000
Lame
@@toomanyblocks8448 nah, his IQ is lower than room temperature in degrees Celsius
Very very very cool
The rocket can operate in vacuum because it carry its own oxygen so it doesnot need other sourse of oxygen
Delta P = 0
m1v1 + m2v2 = 0
m1v1 = -m2v2
Hot exhaust goes one direction. Rocket goes the other. Rockets dont push on anything. Its all conservation of momentum.
See, now you're using math and logic. They don't speak math because its one of the evil quartet in STEM. Likewise they don't care much for logic because it can tend to get in the way of feelings.
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
Hot gasses get explosively launched out the back, therefore rocket goes forward.
the faster you make that gas go out the back the faster the rocket can go with the same mass of fuel.
The fact people can't grasp concepts this simple is concerning, I don't even have a major physics education I just play way too much Kerbal space program and watch a lot of SpaceX stuff for fun.
One of these days I need to get my knowledge base more up to speed with my interests XD
Rocket still have to push air to move forward.
@@donnyariyono09 explain
@@nickbisson8243 Space is not vacuum chamber. If so, why satellite hover on stratosphere @300km high instead of exosphere @10000 km?
Notice that the engine initially doesn't move AT ALL. Only when its exhaust gasses have filled the tiny vacuum chamber, and provided the requisite air pressure, can the rocket achieve any thrust.
This doesn't prove that rockets work in space, as space is a near-infinite void in comparison to this tiny chamber. The gasses coming out of a rocket in space would shoot off into the void while performing no work on the rocket.
This is what space travel believers just can't wrap their heads around.
WeeSleeket - "The gasses coming out of a rocket in space would shoot off into the void while performing no work on the rocket."
So in your vast Physics understanding WHAT WOULD HAPPEN if I had a machine, in zero-G, in a *VACUUM* that could propel a 500 kilogram block of WATER ICE out at 2500 meters per second into space? WOULD THAT propel the machine backwards, yes or no?
how about a block of DRY ICE (Solid CO2) would THAT push the machine backwards?
(for comparison on earth, the block would WEIGH 1100 pounds and would be travelling at 5600 MPH or about MACH SEVEN!)
Would a Machine ON EARTH *feel a recoil* IF it fired an 1100 pound block of ice at MACH 7?
You are wrong - period! Rockets are reaction engines and work better in a vacuum than in the atmosphere. Sorry you are too stupid to understand.
@@MoneyIsSilver What? An incorrect concept? You are nothing but a fool.
Yeah it works, because the engine has it's own oxidizer.
Cool experiment. Without getting into flat earth and stuff, we have to remember that this rocket is inside a "finite" space. Are you sure the effects are the same out in the "open" space? Cheers
I think you'd get the same results, its the reaction environment that matters. But the burntime could be significantly shorter than in high pressure environments, as low pressure supports the chemical reaction from solid(fuel) to gas(exhaust)
Well, lets see - have we sent rockets into space? I think so.
It would be fascinating to see what the pressure delta was during the burn. Nice Video
Why rocket can ignited in a vacuum ? simple : Rocket are just "controlled continuous explosion"
thanks for proving rockets work for a second and then stop you made our point
that rocket engine was an estes D12 engine and they normally only have 1.7 seconds of burn time
Great. Now this time do the experiment while we can see that the vacuum meter is connected..
Disabler why would he lie?
Same reason all the rest of us are lying, because the government pays us to keep stupid people from learning the truth about the shape of the planet. I'm still not sure how the government profits from misconceptions about the shape of the planet, but they must, to pay us so much money to lie, right? I had trouble paying my rent this month, because they gave me too much money!
BluewaterBoof same reason they all lie
wasn't a vacuum for long
+Mark Brand true talk !
Was there really a vacuum in the tube? It let out smoke almost instantly and high burn rate is more in line with elevated pressure. After the smoke cools down, there will be a slight vacuum though.
+WGwireless yes 900 microns
the instant smoke is because the engine brings it's own oxygen supply in the form of potassium Nitrate (the Nitrate having the oxygen the rocket needs) and charcoal as the burning fuel. That reaction is smoky for the same reason a musket is smoky. It's black powder. And it burns faster in lower pressures due to a higher exhaust velocity. Pressure slows the burn time, or makes the rocket explode if it's really high.
I'm sorry to be that guy to call bullshit but 900 microns? seriously? you expect me to believe that after burning rocket fuel in a small chamber you still have less than 1/760th of an atmosphere? I'm doubtful you had 900 microns to begin with.
I did the maths on this for the similar Cody's Lab video. Turns out that these little motors don't really produce all that much gas (only a few grams). Even assuming that the pump was non-functional, the final pressure ends up very low simply because there aren't enough gas molecules to produce high pressure without massive temperatures: I did the calculations for Cody's 50 gallon vacuum chamber and no pump assuming a final temperature of 600K (over 300 Celsius) and got a pressure rise of something like 0.002 atmospheres assuming he used 8g of rocket fuel. In reality the final temperature is probably much less than 600K (especially if there's some residual atmosphere in the chamber to dilute the hot exhaust), so the pressure rise should have been even lower!
thanks for your hard work in proving this out, I'm not here to make jokes about it, well done, thanks again
It was a fail, the rocket was pushing against the end of the tube.
Why no vacuum guage showing the vacuum of the tube once the engine starts it burn?
This doesn't even HAVE to be tested (but hey, views lol). Solid rockets contain their own fuel and oxidizers so they don't need air to function.
it has to. believe me, i think you neber argued with a real flatearther before.
that has absolutely NOTHING to do with net thrust.
@@stratoleft yes it does. Newtons 3rd law bitch
You may be talking in the earth airspace with our regular air pressure. But if the Outer Space is A VACCUM SPACE, forget it, everything gonna be suck into negative at soon as You reach Outer Space; and that is another problem to this dilema. How can You set a rocket in VACCUM SPACE if the transition is IMPOSIBLE? But, we ate that one on 1968.
@MArk Reaves, I would disagree... I'd like to know how you rocket blast sound in a vacuum?
The obvious problem, genius, is that your rocket filled the tube with gases. You should work for NASA.
For real. Still can’t explain how propulsion works with no atmosphere to push against.
It pushes against the gases in the tube
I don't think this experiment is valid because boundary conditions are totally different in a confined space to outer space. Inside the test vacuum the thrust can react off the walls of the chamber.
@@snappatruce NO , they dont need to "push against" anything its newton's third Law: gases go in one Direction and the rocket moves to the other
Rockest are reaction engines and work in a vacuum. Do the experiment yourselves in any way you want so that you can't scream "fake" every time someone shows you how REAL science works.
Reading through the comments, it's pretty clear that some people don't understand how any of this stuff works!
A: Space isn't a vacuum. Just because it lacks oxygen, nitrogen, and other gas density, it doesn't mean that it's a vacuum. It is a neutral state, which is neither pressure nor vacuum.
B: Some of them also aren't understanding that solid rocket fuels use oxidizers to supply the flame with oxygen. The flame isn't dependent on external oxygen to maintain ignition.
except space IS a vacuum for all (physical, mechanical) practical purposes. It is at 0.0 PSI.
Space IS a vacuum, but you have the right general idea.
Enclosed chamber vs. infinite space, haha...
what difference does it make?
+FeLiNe418 Close sides. I like your FE icon.
thank you. i didn't know that yin and yang meant flat earth
cause everything shaped like a circle means Flat Earth
+FeLiNe418 Its all about opposites, day, night, hot cold, dark light, etc. The dark circle=sun in the day, the white circle=moon in the dark of night.
You, sir are a real scientist. Now you don't have a theory, you have a fact. Good stuff man.
Dave Dennis and a fact is basically a theory in scientific terms
no, it isn't.
notmyrichie a scientific theory is effectively as close to something being a fact as you can get.
@@bengray5013 no freakin way. Theory is THEORY for a reason. Like the THEORY of gravity, evolution THEORY and the special/general THEORY of relativity. But there is the LAW of conservation of energy, momentum, etc.
Get your facts right, stupid!
Mathias Schmidt gravity is both a law and a theory
For this to be anywhere near a valid experiment the length of the tube would need to be extremely long to provide an even half way decent analog for space
I love to see that smoke floating in the tube🤫
Sound does not carry in a vacuum environment. You can hear the rocket working so it is not a true vacuum environment. This test is completely flawed
What is a "true vacuum"? So where is the air pressure threshold from where rockets won't producing thrust anymore? And is there a relation between air pressure and thrust (so thinner air - lower thrust; would make sense I think?)
the sound of the slo mo is aded in and the sound of the go pro is recorded bc the rocket re pressurised the chamber again
The mass flow out of the nozzle is what is producing the thrust, which means that the thrust is the same in space and on the ground. Newton's third law baby!
The rocket vibrates de metal coil that is atached to the tube vibrating the tube, and the tube that is in contact with the exterior air "translate" the vibrations on sound; and more, the rocket produce gases that can hit the wals of the tube makig noises.
+Sebastian Nolte Yes there is a relation but the other way around. The bigger the pressure difference between the burning fuel and the sorrounding gas the bigger the thrust. Think of a water gun shooting in to the air and inside a pool. The water shoots out quicker in the air.
It appears to me that the actual thrust is only present when the exhaust reaches the rear wall of the chamber. This is evident on the portion of your video that shows the 2500 FPS.🤓
You can't even see the rear wall, but also if you notice that the exhaust flame burns brighter when it seems to be producing ample thrust which is indicative of reactive force from the hot gases rapidly exiting.
It starts to move as soon as the vacuum is broken by the gas created
Very cool, rocket engine has its own oxidizer and allows it to fire in a vacuum
I think there are still some inconsistencies in the test. Look at when the rocket actually starts moving in the slow motion. I think it pushes off the end cap of the tube. If you run tests based on the size of different vacuum chambers then you could probably tell how much force is been exerted on the spring. Of course, the spring would have to be exactly the same for each test. Have 3 different size vacuum chambers and shoot all 3 at the same time and see if the spring force will be the same. The whole thing is to see if the larger vacuum chamber will exert the least force on the spring when the rocket is ignited. If yes, then imagine an infinite size vacuum chamber such as "space" where there is absolutely nothing to push off from.
I'm glad you're saying something about that topic because I was about to have to mention it myself in the comments!
I don't know about you exactly but my thoughts are the rocket engine thrust plume was pushing off of the edges of the vacuum tube so that's why there was a little bit of push back on the spring holding the engine etc...
And it did seem like there was an initial stronger push or jerk when the small cap object was seemingly being pushed off against by the rocket until it was thrown down the vacuum tube and no longer could be pushed off against I think that the Small tube allows some of the thrust currents on the outskirts of the vacuum tube well be like turbulence mixed with a sort of eddy current type phenomenon causing a slight bit of pushback but not enough was seen by me at least to make me think or believe yet that that rocket engine would be able to fly through space or through a large vacuum chamber the size of an Olympic swimming pool or something let's say if it didn't have the edge of the vacuum tube to push off of as well as his own gases and plumes and other things that are basically building up right behind the rocket plume and possibly simulating an atmosphere to be pushed off of instead of a more realistic situation in an open world vacuum like space supposedly where all those gases would dissipate and not just hang around right there to be pushed off of conveniently all lined up linear in a tube I would like to see you much larger vacuum chamber with nothing near the engine that's being fired for me to agree that rockets can push off of nothing through space and still move around maybe there's more to it than they even realize like it pushing off of its own exhaust gases but if that were the case that would be pretty dumb that they don't know that that is occurring if it is even possible to do so in space never been there myself! 😵💫🤭😵💫✌️✌️✌️
...you think the explosion of the fuel behind the rocket, onto the end cap is what caused thrust?
Proof that the Earth is Round right here : ruclips.net/video/Cun6_fh1wQs/видео.html
Fish-eye looooool
Sorry man but this is no proof at all ;-)
Nice try tho..
Keep it up!
so let me know when you have read August Picard and read his personal experience way back when they were doing actual science experiments you have just compared yourself like August Packard to be a science experimenter and compared the small tube to infinite space your also not informed the first heavens or whatever number of heavens are water dude the August Packard commercial for hennisy or whatever commercial it was for shows more truth in the stories of old just like alot of what HOLLYWOOD put out in movies they make fantasy reality and reality fantasy
How many microns did you run the vacuum into, I notice you had a set of digital gauges. I'm not skeptical but it also seems you would need a much larger vacuum chamber to properly test the engines thrust. Theoretically the back of the chamber would act as a source of lift for the engine. I'm also very curious to see if you could actually maintain a direct course in a vacuum. I guess what I'm asking is could you hit a target inside the chamber with a rocket or would it even be possible to direct a flight path and keep on that path without constantly correcting your course. Good video but there are still a lot of variables involved here
@@brianbible8415 1000 microns.
All these comments about rockets not working in a vacuum and the need to demonstrate it with an actual rocket in a vacuum are just wrong. Rockets operated on the conservation of momentum. This is demonstrated in EVERY beginning physics lab course. Anyone that denies this is welcome to take a physic lab class and prove it or disprove it. Until you do and understand what you are testing you really are not basing your arguments on actual knowledge.
Indeed. Besides, in this trial he is generating a lot of fumes which most likely killed his vacuum and that little pump could not recover. You are right, this is not the way to prove that the wrong is wrong. Because you cannot prove the wrong is wrong doing it wrong. lol!
Tim, Momentum is indeed conserved even if the rocket does not move. The gas exiting the rocket produces a force on the rocket. If the rocket is anchored to something then the force and motion is transferred though to that anchor. A much much smaller reaction motion is produced as the anchor has a very very large mass. Same very basic physics.
Tim, The pressure built up inside of a rocket engine and it's nozzle is quite high, about 1000 psi. This is because of the combustion of the liquid oxygen and the RP-1 propellant. The pressure inside any explosion is quite high until the gases produced by the reaction have a chance to equalize with the surrounding environment. The rocket motor combustion chamber and nozzle allow this gas to escabel inonly one direction, the rocket goes the other. The thrust, the reaction to all the escaping high speed gas, is produced if the rocket is moving or not.
The pressure is not really needed for this conversation though. I could make a rocket go, slowly, by just sitting on the rocket and throwing bricks off it, the rocket moves because of the momentum I put into the bricks when I throw them in the other direction. This is all that is happening in a rocket, it is throwing gas away from it very very fast, and a lot of it.
Tim Webb
This is for all you flathead dullards. From the very first flame that exits the rocket, what is the flame/exhaust pushing off of?
As a matter of fact, if you watch the video, there is a plug that shoots off the back first. That plug has no rocket on it, yet it flew away extremely fast. That is because of the force of the expanding gas, and the gas alone. You can even imagine scaling this experiment up so that the cap that shot off was the capsule of a spacecraft. It sure flew off in a near-complete vacuum before ANY of the exhaust could enter the chamber. All the basic rocket functions were thus indisputably demonstrated. So, quit being so thick, and RECOGNIZE!
Tim Webb
"All I recognize is that you are not the brightest simian in the troop."
That much is okay, as I never made any such claim, but such an obvious observation on your part isn't near enough to elevate your lowly status.
"The situation...is identical to that pertaining in the gun + bullet scenario...Nobody disputes this; least of all me."
First of all, you totally ignored my question, "From the very first flame that exits the rocket, what is the flame/exhaust pushing off of?"
The answer to this, and the correlation to the error in your logic can be simplified by using your own recognized situation:
A grenade works exactly like a bullet, with the exception of many fragments replacing the shell and single projectile. If, instead of the nebulous imaginings of an expanding gas, you built a device that had trillions upon trillions of tiny grenades continuously fed into a nozzled chamber where they were detonated, you would get a steady flow of minute projectiles banging into and pushing off of the chamber until they exited the nozzle, save for those with initial egress paths. The end result is the rocket goes in one direction and the shrapnel exits via the nozzle and diffuses en-masse, as deemed by their individual escape trajectories and post-chamber inter-exhaust collisions.
So, a violently explosive chemical reaction works in the same way. However, it is the gas molecules that become the shrapnel - the rocket remains as just itself.
"If you have any other questions or observations, please do not hesitate to bring them here to me, and we can analyse them together, in more detail"
My only question is why you are, or have been, too confused to understand this?
This was explained to everyone in middle school. Its basic chemistry. Solid rocket boosters (s.r.b.'s) are made with a combination of fuel, and an oxydizer. Oxydizers provide oxygen, like the name implies. The solid fuel is mixed with the oxidizer, and burned. It doesn't need an oxygen supply. And it would move forward in a vacuum due to Newton's third law of motion, which implies an equal and opposite reaction. Fuel burns and expels hot, fast gasses in one direction, propelling the rocket in the opposite direction, regardless of outside atmosphere. Sea level to the moon, the laws of physics don't change. If you can't grasp these simple concepts, the comments section of a rocketry channel may not be the place for you. Also, the earth is round, and we didn't fake the moon landing. Suck it.
The issue the skeptics have about "rocket's working in space" is not will a rocket ignite. Hence you experiment proved nothing because the solid rocket you have has the necessary oxygen in the chemical compound used. Hence it should work. An electric spark does the rest. The issue is the vast vacuum of space and how it interacts with the ignited rocket. And here you have a scaling problem. Hence the movement of the rocket in that chamber does not help to answer that question. Otherwise nice try.
Invoking "flat earth" in the discussion shows the inability of the party to debate the issue rationally.
exactly true
So what about the countless satellites, space probes and astronauts in the last 60 years? All fake? You are truly stupid beyond belief.
This is considered evidence...? lol Build a PERFECT vacuum and try again...
It's impossible to create a perfect vacuum. It doesn't exist.
@@lukerichardson2404 The supposed space is 1 hydrogen atom per 100 kilometres, I would call that the perfect vacuum
@@mathiasschmidt7316 I've read that intergalactic space has 1 atom per cubic metre, so not quite that empty. I would still say that's damned near perfect, but flat earthers and other such morons want a literal perfect vacuum.
Keep moving the goalposts :)
exhausts refilled the small vacuum chamber. try a bigger one
I guessed the volume and an engine of that size can't produce much gas. After some math it would still be at 0.001 - 0.00016 times air pressure. It's even thinner gas than the martian atmosphere.
There is no sound in a vacuum but you could clearly hear the rocket in the tube. Fail!
the sound is just the vibrations escaping through the tube , into the outside.
The exhaust wasn’t pushing the engine forward, the thrust was
ben gray When your arguments turn to name calling and insults you discredit yourself.
A lot of people here seem to be confused about what makes a rocket engine provide thrust. It's understandable because in our daily lives, we "push off of" something to make ourselves move in the opposite direction. It only seems natural to think that a rocket engine needs something to push off of too. But... no.
Force = Mass x Acceleration
When the gasses expand and shoot out the back of the rocket engine, the mass of the gas molecules times their incredible acceleration is evidence of the force of the burn.
Newton's third law
... says that there's an equal and opposite reaction, i.e. the rocket accelerates in the opposite direction from the rocket gasses. Since the rocket probably has more mass than the gasses, it will accelerate slower than the gasses but that's still pretty fast.
Think of what happens if you stand perfectly still and toss a heavy bowling ball, or cinder block forward. You will be pushed backwards (unless you balance yourself which is a natural reaction). The bowling ball doesn't need a surface to "push off of."
Also, as for the comparison of the airplane wing. This is something completely different.
An airplane wing produces lift when the air must travel faster over the top than the bottom because the shape of the wing makes the distance over the top longer. Think of a marching band that is split in two where half the band must take a longer route so they have to walk faster to meet up with the other half. As they do, they spread out.
Same with molecules of air going over and under a wing. And when the molecules are spread out, that's less pressure than the molecules under the wing, causing the pressure underneath to push the wing (and the plane) up.
I also see comments about "sucking" - When you draw air out of a straw with your mouth, the air pressure in the room pushes on the water to make it rise in the straw. Using a term like "sucking force" is like using a term like "cold energy," there's no such thing as "sucking" unless you're talking about Tom Brady in which case I stand corrected.
As for the engine being able to burn in a vacuum because there's no air, I'd remind people that there are welding tools that work under water. The welding torch carries its own oxygen, just like the fuel in the rocket.
F=ma refers to external force, which a vacuum cannot apply. Newton is not your friend 😂
I don't think you understand.
But I'm curious as to why would you try to deny that rockets work in a vacuum when clearly they do? Do you just like arguing regardless of whether it makes sense?@@papalegba6796
he left air in the chamber, I didn't hear the suction when he opened the chamber.
Creating true vacuum is impossible, anything that sucks air out will obviously still left some air, but the air itself is so minute in amount that you can say that it is vacuum, but not true vacuum
You won’t get suction when the chamber is opened, it’s not a vacuum you use to clean your house with 😂
He didn't leave air in the chamber. The rocket expels gas which fills the chamber when it is ignited, so it's no longer a vacuum after the rocket has been fired.
Pete Smith that would mean space is no longer a vacuum if we use this logic
ben gray Well, the space inside the chamber fills up with exhaust gasses, yes. It's not the greatest test to see a rocket produce thrust in a vacuum.
When did the pressure drop after it was lit? You should have had the gauge in view.
He's a l!@r.
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction
Wow! you just debunked all the flat earthers in the comments 👏👏
@@astron3133 quite the opposite
@@astron3133WAIT so how does the 3rd N. law debunks the flat earthers? elaborate please.. :)
@@camranh_royal *doesn't*
@Ganiscol Rockets dont shot bullets and i have never seen anything flying based on a recoil mode, hot exhaust gasses cant push against nothing, it has to be in the air to work. You fell for the worlda biggest hoax, lol feel sorry for you.
Flat earthers is why aliens wont talk to us.
Zauważ milordzie , że dopiero jak gazy wypełniły rurę to zaczął się ruch rakiety. Wiec to doświadczenie to bulshit . Dowodzi jedynie że w próżni nie może to działać :)
Obejrzałem ten eksperyment i faktycznie rakietka ruszyła po 3 sekundach od zapłonu. Czyli jak została wypełniona przez gaz a pewnie ciśnienie wzrosło dość znacznie. Lepiej niech NASA szybko zrobi rurę o kilku m średnicy i z 200 m długości i powtórzy taki eksperyment bo zacznę dochodzić do wniosku, że bez materii do odbicia się gazów , rakiety nie latają w próżni.
Does a rocket engine work in a vacuum? Yes. Yes it does...more efficiently too...higher vacuum specific impulses because no atmosphere to push against the exhaust gasses, kind of. Look up de Laval nozzle :^)
they wont look up anything, they will not be proved wrong
No friction to slow down the rocket either. High School physics is a lost art to these ignoramus'.
why do we hear the sound though.. very curious. should be NO sound in a vacuum, yet we hear everything even the pop of the igniter. wonder if the suspension of the rocket motor with the metal spring is making the tube act like a speaker
zanick2
That would be my hypothesis. The metal transmitted vibration to the tube.
I like and subscribe to your channel. A question I have is why did the rocket not move on initial ignition? The rocket did not appear to move until the smoke passed by it after the smoke filled the right half of the chamber. Also, even after it moved it was not very much thrust. What effect do you think a larger vacuum space would have?
Rocket motors take a while to generate full thrust from ignition. At slow motion, it will take quite a few frames before enough of the blackpowder (which Estes uses for propellant) to starti to burn to produce thrust.
The motor was retained by a spring of wire. it effectively is a "force gauge" showing how much thrust the motor was producing.
Estes motors of that size don't generate very much thrust at all. Don't need much to fly a rocket that only weighs 50-100gm. But restrained by heavy copper wire, it won't move much.
HEY !!! I saw my comment in their :-) hehehe
Enclosed chamber vs. infinite space, haha...XP THIS proofs NOTHING!! HAHA! XP
Yes it does
@@E9X330 Maybe for little noBrainers like you... XP After NASA LostALL ORIGINAL VID& DATA ofALLMOON MISSIONS, DESTROYED theTECH to go back to theMOON, PENTAGON LOST $2.3TRILLION TAXMONEY, NASA gets50 MIL/DAY! YOU STILL SWALLOW THEIR SHIT😋💩? 😷😂
NASA AstroNOT: Don Pettit:" We Can´t go back🚀🚫 to the MOON" HAHA!!! "We destroyed the tech OOPS." HAHA!! "We CANT go TROUGH the VAN ALLEN RADIATION BELT🚀🚫" 😂 NASA FRAUDSTERS! Research!
BALLEarth is REAL?! NOPE! 🚫This is FAKE like your EDUCATION! Studying 8 HRS/DAY on University DON´T makes you smarter! It just makes you a BELIEVER through repetition of LIES! WAKE UP! Start REAL thinking!
I particularly like the comments that try to point out the whole "no sound in space" bit because they heard sound. Fun fact, the speed of sound through copper is roughly 4660 m/s, and the speed of sound through acrylic (I'm guessing that tube is acrylic) is roughly 2730 m/s. So, noticing that the engine is in direct contact with matter that is in direct contact with the wall of the tube that's in direct contact with our atmosphere...
Now, cue the whole "well, why didn't we hear a sonic boom if the sound was traveling at 4660 and/or 2730 m/s and planes make a kaboom at ~350 m/s?!? WHERE IS THE EARTH SHATTERING KABOOM? That requires a space modulator and I'm pretty sure there is a rabbit out there who has it.
source: www.olympus-ims.com/en/ndt-tutorials/thickness-gage/appendices-velocities/
Conservation of momentum proves that rockets can work in a vacuum.
Simple Lets say you have a space ship weight a total of 1005Kg.
You then eject 5 kilos of gas backwards at 2000m/s. This gas has a momentum of 10000kgm/s. By conservation of momentum the rocket must gain 10000kgm,/s in the opposite direction, giving it a velocity of 10m/s.
QED.
Nice try but your pressure external is zero pa. thermodynamic Free Expansion brings your acceleration to zero, look it up. Pressurized gasses released into a vacuum produces no work, so no propulsion. Nice example of how to use conservation of momentum in an atmosphere though.
@@uncommonsense9948
I've looked it, and it doesn't do what you think it does.
The fact is the free expansion does not require a vaccum to work.
If I had two containers at different pressures and then I connected them to eachother, Free expansion would still happen.
Ergo if free expansion worked the way you think it did then rockets wouldn't work in an atmosphere either.
Conservation of momentum applies in a vaccum as well as in the atmosphere.
Newtons 3rd law means that their must be a large force produced on the rocket.
@@uncommonsense9948 When combustion occurs, the gas expands in every direction. Creating pressure. If you have the left side close and the right side open, the gas will impact the left side of the combustion creating a pressure and thus a force. Without a right hand wall to counter the pressure on the left wall, there is a resulting force pushing to the left.
@@11cookeaw14THE CONSERVATION OF MOMENTUM FALLACY Here the idea is that when a rocket “expels” mass, in the form of burned fuel, in one direction, conservation of momentum says it has to be propelled in the opposite direction in order to conserve the total amount of momentum in the system. The law of conservation of momentum states that in a system not subject to external forces the total momentum is always conserved. That's a logical consequence of Newtonian laws. Without external forces the interactions inside a system must always involve some kind of exchanging, like typically in a collision between two objects, where the energy/velocity lost by an object has to be transferred to the other (inelastic collision) or simply exchanged (elastic collision), so that in the end the total momentum of the two objects is the same before and after the collision. Let's take a look at how that applies to a gas expanding in a vacuum. A gas expanding against a vacuum is not interacting with anything, by definition, hence its momentum cannot be exchanged with anything, and it follows that: THE EXPANSION OF A GAS IN A VACUUM WILL NOT AND CANNOT AFFECT ITS TOTAL MOMENTUM (i.e. THE TOTAL MOMENTUM OF THE GAS MOLECULES BEFORE THE EXPANSION IS CONSERVED AFTER THE EXPANSION). The logical, unavoidable consequence, and key point here, is that - if we assume a rocket in space can be accelerated by expanding gas in a vacuum - in order to account for the accelerating rocket we end up INCREASING the total momentum of the system. In other words, we end up violating the law of conservation of momentum. Bottom line: the law of conservation of momentum actually disproves rockets working in the vacuum of space.
Have a great holiday Mate,
Sound effects are so cool on this one.
Ok. I just wasted my precious 3 hours in your 2 episodes,specially your newton thing..sorry for the english.
As soon as you started firing it, your little tube filled with exhaust gas, and it was no longer a vacuum chamber. When it stopped firing, the gas was immediately removed, returning it to a state of vacuum. This is a nonsense demonstration.
Your wrong
If that was a true vacuum why wasn’t there a pressure change when you took the end off? Fake science and clever editing
Exactly. The lies and the ignorance never end!
Probably because he already let air in?
Maybe?
Hm?
@@Lifeisgood262 You idiots neglect the fact that rocket thrust is created by rapidly expanding gasses right. The exhaust gas from the rocket represured the chamber to normal levels or possibly more.
The gases expelled from the rocket made the chamber no longer a full vacuum. They also pushed against the back of the tube, which in the vastness of space, there is nothing to push against. Furthermore, you stated that the rocket burned up in less than one second, which normally lasts 8 seconds, so you're getting 1/8 the efficiency. It's definitely not debunked.
No vacuum. want to see the gauge as it's burning.
You know that it is infact impossible to create "true vacuum"? The one on the video is infact vacuum but not true vacuum.
Yeah, because this guy is so interested in deceiving us...
Akbar a vacuum is a vacuum,you keep saying it’s not a true vacuum, but it is.
there's a slight but significant difference to what is called a 'false vacuum' to what is called a 'true vacuum' although the word 'vacuum' can be used to refer either. A 'true vacuum' cannot be man made.
Akbar hahahahaha who told you that? A vacuum is an area void of air, they literally showed the air being drawn out of the area. It is a vacuum, true vacuum just sound like some bizarre flat earth claim 😂
there actually is magnesium in this rocket wish provide oxygen when buring
Dindonmasker V magnesium provides oxygen? Dahell you been smoking?
Most likely, the oxidizer is potassium nitrate.
Thank you. Fight the ignorance!