While I appreciate other channels that make rockets/nozzles, they often feel like high school science fair projects. I feel like this is the first channel that’s actually used at minimum undergrad level math to design the nozzle geometry instead of eyeballing it or using a blackbox calculator. It’s exactly what I’ve been looking for in an aerospacey design channel!
Dude for real. Far too many channels skip over the math or programming in a project because they're worried people will be scared off by it. But like, we're here for the rocket science! The audience is already composed of huge nerds, let's nerd it up!
I am part of the problem cause I can’t tell the difference, but I think this about Integza (in the best way, I love him) but not about TechIngredients. Like maybe he’s eyeballing the nozzle geometry? But the overall experiments run, and the presentation of the content, feel to me like undergrad. I’ve missed your point haven’t I
@@TastySlowCooker I mean I also enjoy Integza, but he scares the shit out of me. He feels similar to Backyard Scientist in that regard. Like if I were a different person, I'd be on the betting markets trying to figure out which of those two guys were going to blow off one of their hands first. Actually that's not hard, I've gotten to see a bit of the Backyard Scientist behind the scenes, and he's absolutely going to blow off a hand before Integza. But my point is that we shouldn't skip over the math, and we probably shouldn't fire experimental rocket motors indoors with no real safety gear. Also I was a math teacher until recently so I'm biased
@TastySlowCooker Another difference aside from safety is that Integza doesn't really collect data and analyze it. How many rocket videos did he make before he even tried to measure the thrust of his rockets?
@@evanbarnes9984 iirc, integza has fired off rockets inside population centers. injuring yourself is already bad enough, but integza is playing with the potential to injure those who had no decision in or knowledge of whatever he is doing and I consider that to be far worse
Nice. Good math. You can fly supersonic with a sonic nozzle as the speed of sound of the exhaust is quit higher than the speed of sound in atmosphere. This is due to the higher temp of the exhaust. a=sqrt(RTy)
Nozzles are cool, mach diamonds are cool, shock waves are cool, a vortex is cool, and so is this video. The cross section, and imaging were wonderful (it's also super nice to see the attribution for the clips used -honor is to be applauded) and this video and discussion was great I love this kind of testing and demonstrations. As a spaceflight and rocket appreciation enthusiast, I fully enjoyed this video. (Twice, actually, so I could postea comment. Yt Mobile is annoying often) Since I'm not deep into that math, physics and model making and study, I'm only half way to fill rocket nerd- I have too many nerddoms for full citizenship in all.
This is probably an unpopular opinion, but I much prefer this type of video than the ~whoa look at how crashy I can make this rc~ video. If Mark Rober wasn’t trying to be the “world’s” “biggest” “coolest” “and” “awexomest” “vtuber” he’d be making this type of video. Keep the tomato though, I appreciate the nod to Integza.
little children get bored out too easily with these terms they don’t understand and also there are less things going on at once. also things don’t break so that’s a big nono
I am not quite sure if you necessarily need the razor blade in this case. First, shockwaves are very easily visible and are commonly viewed with shadowgraphy instead of schlieren. The reason for that is due to the first-order nature of schlieren techniques. That also brings us to the second point. Your razor blade is horizontal. But from the images of the Mach diamonds on the edges close to the nozzle, the top and bottom edges are vertically symmetrical, i.e. dark-bright above and bright-dark below. For schlieren, the upper and lower parts of the image would be the same, indicating what is observed here is shadowgraphy instead of schlieren. I don't actually have a point here, btw.
Awesome! Love the schlieren shots! Curious if you were purging the tank between fills. It looks like there is more water as you progress, which will result in higher thrust readings.
It would be really cool to see more of the schlieren imaging with obstacles like lego-men, and figgit spinners, and playdough.. you know.. totally standard scientific testbenches (LMAO!!). Awesome video, you just got my sub!
I'm curious, what force is generated with no nozzle. Also, is it possible the pressure in the accumulator may have had variations to account for the differences in measured force? I love your video! This is such a GREAT example of homebrew science. And by homebrew, I mean proper science done on the cheap. Truly fantastic work. Thank you!
Consider using a pressure regulator to apply even combustion chamber pressure. I would argue it's more precise than measuring peak thrust under blow down
You may want to consider adding an air dryer to your compressor as it seemed that with each successive test the amount of compressed water vapor seen during the initial valve release increased. As water has 830 times the mass of air it may be slightly skewing your results.
They say overexpanding nozzles are bad because they break easily. But did I understand the wikipedia rabbithole correctly that they do increase the impulse closer to the theoretical maximum, so I'd be curious about the thrust of the overexpanded one?
Great video! Nicely done! This is completely out of my wheelhouse, so forgive me if my question seems elementary, but would the calculations and formulas be different if your propellant fluid was a liquid instead of a gas? Specifically, how could I get maximum velocity out of a low volume, high pressure water stream, such as what one might see on a pressure washer?
Just a slight correction on your terminology, when you showed a chart for under expansion and over expansion in a converging-diverging nozzle, you seemed to have mixed up the terms. An over expanded nozzle doesn’t refer to the exhaust gases expanding outward past the nozzle area, instead it refers to the nozzle having a larger cross sectional area than the idealized gas leaving the nozzle causing those gases to be over expanded. And with an under expanded nozzle it is the opposite in that the nozzle cross sectional area is smaller than the exhaust area, constricting it and causing the exhaust to create thrust vectors at an angle. In both cases these cause inefficiencies in thrust which is why a perfectly expanded nozzle is sought after.
A very interesting topic, but I wish you had gone into more detail about the specific reasons why the shape is more efficient and the role speed plays. At one point, you say that the narrowing increases the mass flow, which, according to the continuity equation, is not correct, but the speed increases because the same mass flow passes through a narrower cross-section: A1*v1 = A2*v2. If I understood correctly, with a simple opening, the air expands as soon as it reaches the environment. So it doesn't have to be incompressible but compressible, correct? That means the air exits the nozzle and has a higher pressure outside the nozzle than the environment. Because of this pressure, it expands radially, creating a non-axial force vector, thus losing thrust, correct? And with the bell shape, the gas is allowed to expand, but the force vector is redirected axially, correct? The next question that interests me is the impact of speed. Because impulse consists of mass and velocity: I = m*v [F] What I have personally never understood is the difference between high mass with low velocity and high velocity with low mass. So, tell me, if I have a large hole, the mass exits at low speed, and if I have a narrow opening, the mass exits at high speed. But shouldn't that produce the same thrust? Although I see that if mass is kept constant in the equation and speed is increased, the force increases. But I don't exactly understand why. Another question that interests me is why a certain speed must be reached. Theoretically, one could fly into space at 100 km/h instead of 40,000 km/h, right? Of course, the fuel would run out before that, but theoretically, that would be possible, wouldn't it?
You are asking the right questions :) high mass with low velocity versus the opposite will result indeed in the same force. But what you're missing out, is that mass flow is constant and we have stored pressure energy to be transformed into kinetic energy to propel our object. Mass flow is constant, because it may be the reaction to a chemical reaction or the trust of a turbine, where we wanna increase efficiency at levels of fuel flowrate. That's why we want to increase the speed of the mass flow. Regarding why we need a certain velocity. Following explanation holds true for rockets trying to reach space. Theoretically we could use a slow (and steady speed) rocket, therefore we would have to constantly produce a force, which fights against the gravitational force while still carrying a lot of propellant. Instead we want to reach a certain speed (escape velocity) early, which allows us to exit the gravitational force without the need for further propelling. In a lot of other use cases of turbines of any kind speed is required because of different reasons. E.g. military to avoid detection, civil because the market (passangers) longs fast air travel, etc...
could this be applied to propelling a nerf dart? having a nerf berral at the exhaust of the nozzle with a dart at the end? i admit id don't understand the science well enough. it seems like the air discharge is a bit to slow for a dart blaster, but can that be compensated for with a larger diameter nozzle at a loss of end air speed/thrust? other consideration is do you get more of a burst with a smaller pressure chamber. the smaller pressure chamber allowing for a faster drop in thrust?
I really really wanna try taking a rocket nozzle like this, and putting it in a nerf blaster. My theory is that with most blasters the air pressure has no problem pushing the dart, so mont of the air is wasted. If you could start with the air movinc almost supersonic i think it would help
Keep in mind the rigidity of the dart when doing this, if you blast something that’s made for a children’s toy with supersonic airflow it’s probably going to rip and not fly very well
Great video, what kind of camera lens did you use for the Schlieren, because my setup is very difficult to adjust correctly and to focus on the mirror. (f=250)
Hi, what do you use for CFD? I would like to do some liquid CFD on my project, but dont know where to start (never properly learned CAD or similar stuff)
Hi, I'm designing a racecar intake restrictor which wants to minimum the pressure drop under known massflowrate at exit, woul a bell shape nozzle like this also helps?
Have a question. I have an interest in 2 Stroke engines and am a welder/fabricator. I've been wondering for a while if there is a readily available CFD program that can accurately model acoustic exhaust wave flow/pattern. Can anyone recommend a software capable of that which I could use in designing novel exhaust expansion chambers?
Rocket nozzles tested in tomatoes? Is this bate for me?
Yes integza, yes it is
Ya gotta get out more content, we are looking for alternatives :p
how did integza comment and it not become the top comment?
@@dabob2652 Someones not paying attention. Lol I would have pinned that quick!
It surely is. I have seen almost every video you have made, and without a tomato, it definitely is not your video.
rocket nozzles and tomatoes? am i watching integza?
He would approve
No you're not watching Integza. How to tell? The guy presenting isn't an idiot.
Tomatoes are disgusting!
Yes
He is watching integza
While I appreciate other channels that make rockets/nozzles, they often feel like high school science fair projects. I feel like this is the first channel that’s actually used at minimum undergrad level math to design the nozzle geometry instead of eyeballing it or using a blackbox calculator. It’s exactly what I’ve been looking for in an aerospacey design channel!
Dude for real. Far too many channels skip over the math or programming in a project because they're worried people will be scared off by it. But like, we're here for the rocket science! The audience is already composed of huge nerds, let's nerd it up!
I am part of the problem cause I can’t tell the difference, but I think this about Integza (in the best way, I love him) but not about TechIngredients. Like maybe he’s eyeballing the nozzle geometry? But the overall experiments run, and the presentation of the content, feel to me like undergrad. I’ve missed your point haven’t I
@@TastySlowCooker I mean I also enjoy Integza, but he scares the shit out of me. He feels similar to Backyard Scientist in that regard. Like if I were a different person, I'd be on the betting markets trying to figure out which of those two guys were going to blow off one of their hands first. Actually that's not hard, I've gotten to see a bit of the Backyard Scientist behind the scenes, and he's absolutely going to blow off a hand before Integza. But my point is that we shouldn't skip over the math, and we probably shouldn't fire experimental rocket motors indoors with no real safety gear. Also I was a math teacher until recently so I'm biased
@TastySlowCooker Another difference aside from safety is that Integza doesn't really collect data and analyze it. How many rocket videos did he make before he even tried to measure the thrust of his rockets?
@@evanbarnes9984 iirc, integza has fired off rockets inside population centers. injuring yourself is already bad enough, but integza is playing with the potential to injure those who had no decision in or knowledge of whatever he is doing and I consider that to be far worse
Yes, please do an aerospike! I'd love to see how the spike can be tweaked and how different exhuast pressures will affect the shape of the exhaust.
0:30 *Integza gets wood*
Integza is whats wrong with this world, he is the beginning of "Idiocrazy"
“Innocent” tomato
I love it. Your editing is really tight and you're concise without sacrificing information. Really great video
Integza would be proud of the tomato destruction!
Really enjoyed the level of detail and fluid mechanics formulas here, i think you nailed this format, great work and look forward to more - thanks
Nice. Good math. You can fly supersonic with a sonic nozzle as the speed of sound of the exhaust is quit higher than the speed of sound in atmosphere. This is due to the higher temp of the exhaust. a=sqrt(RTy)
I'm with the others on the Aerospike. Please do!
Also, this channel got an immediate sub. Thanks for including real science with the material!
Nozzles are cool, mach diamonds are cool, shock waves are cool, a vortex is cool, and so is this video.
The cross section, and imaging were wonderful (it's also super nice to see the attribution for the clips used -honor is to be applauded) and this video and discussion was great
I love this kind of testing and demonstrations.
As a spaceflight and rocket appreciation enthusiast, I fully enjoyed this video. (Twice, actually, so I could postea comment. Yt Mobile is annoying often)
Since I'm not deep into that math, physics and model making and study, I'm only half way to fill rocket nerd- I have too many nerddoms for full citizenship in all.
Great visualizations and graphics. Definitely would love to see an aero-spike comparison.
8:02 Integza is gonna like this
This is probably an unpopular opinion, but I much prefer this type of video than the ~whoa look at how crashy I can make this rc~ video. If Mark Rober wasn’t trying to be the “world’s” “biggest” “coolest” “and” “awexomest” “vtuber” he’d be making this type of video. Keep the tomato though, I appreciate the nod to Integza.
Yeah but this is not how youtube works.
@@omaraissani6255 consider me appropriately caned with the reality stick
@@omaraissani6255 Must work to some extent if we're all here watching this.
little children get bored out too easily with these terms they don’t understand and also there are less things going on at once. also things don’t break so that’s a big nono
What cfd program did you use?
Seconded, I'd love to know too
I am not quite sure if you necessarily need the razor blade in this case. First, shockwaves are very easily visible and are commonly viewed with shadowgraphy instead of schlieren. The reason for that is due to the first-order nature of schlieren techniques. That also brings us to the second point. Your razor blade is horizontal. But from the images of the Mach diamonds on the edges close to the nozzle, the top and bottom edges are vertically symmetrical, i.e. dark-bright above and bright-dark below. For schlieren, the upper and lower parts of the image would be the same, indicating what is observed here is shadowgraphy instead of schlieren. I don't actually have a point here, btw.
Aerospikes, gotta have them aerospikes!
a cold aerospike would be cool to see for sure.
Well convergent divergent nozzles are efficient but you can try aerospike and plug nozzles for better efficiency and higher thrust
Fantastic work, Michael! Really well done! 😃
Looking forward to see where you're going to use those! 😂
Stay safe there with your family! 🖖😊
tomatoes are delicious!
tomatoes are evil
Anti integza
Dark-integza
They cry out for salt
Awesome! Love the schlieren shots!
Curious if you were purging the tank between fills. It looks like there is more water as you progress, which will result in higher thrust readings.
8:46 "Alright so what do we learn from this..." cutting tomatoes with rocket nozzle
Aerospike please!
Would be cool to see it handle the drop in pressure as your tank gets empty!
5:06 Wait, so shock diamonds are bad across the board or...? They look so nice though.
Yes, they are sighn of lost efficency, but they do look nice, idk the math behind it tho
It would be really cool to see more of the schlieren imaging with obstacles like lego-men, and figgit spinners, and playdough.. you know.. totally standard scientific testbenches (LMAO!!).
Awesome video, you just got my sub!
Realy great video, you can try an aero spike nozzle also
Well done, well thought out.
I'm curious, what force is generated with no nozzle. Also, is it possible the pressure in the accumulator may have had variations to account for the differences in measured force?
I love your video! This is such a GREAT example of homebrew science. And by homebrew, I mean proper science done on the cheap. Truly fantastic work. Thank you!
Being a mechanical engineer, it's nice to sometimes not deal with partial differential equations to see a nozzle.
Consider using a pressure regulator to apply even combustion chamber pressure. I would argue it's more precise than measuring peak thrust under blow down
You may want to consider adding an air dryer to your compressor as it seemed that with each successive test the amount of compressed water vapor seen during the initial valve release increased. As water has 830 times the mass of air it may be slightly skewing your results.
Thanks for your interesting well-made video❤
Great video! Now, how bout those plans for the new foam cutter ?!
That calculator is really handy. Now one thing remaining is to find the internal pressure generated in a DIY rocket motor when it burns.
Try using such a nozzle for 3D printing applications for really high speed flows. Cheers
Continuing the tomato hate that Integza guy started...
Moisture in your air will effect the air flow and thrust. Great video
would multiple nozzle stages not be nice :D have you tried to make a twist in the nozzle? for a more vortex like propulsion.
It would be cool to test ejector designs this way for CO2 refrigeration.
Aerospike, pleaseeee
This was awesome!
Integza would probably approve of the tomato being used as a test object.
Can you try other gasses? Helium I think should give much higher exhaust velocity. CO2 would also be interesting.
We're you able to make any sonic booms with it?
They say overexpanding nozzles are bad because they break easily. But did I understand the wikipedia rabbithole correctly that they do increase the impulse closer to the theoretical maximum, so I'd be curious about the thrust of the overexpanded one?
Great video! Nicely done!
This is completely out of my wheelhouse, so forgive me if my question seems elementary, but would the calculations and formulas be different if your propellant fluid was a liquid instead of a gas? Specifically, how could I get maximum velocity out of a low volume, high pressure water stream, such as what one might see on a pressure washer?
What did you use for CFD? Great video and cool experiments!
@integza needs to be summoned
Your graphic is wrong! At 4:06 it’s the opposite
You’re right! That’s what I get for using images from the internet haha
No Teflon around the threads for dealing? You see alot of air escaping there,possibly changing your result.
Nice video, can these nozzles be tested with ion thrusters.
I was going to do something like this... cool stuff
I'd like to see a comparison of the total impulse of each
freedom for tomatoes! no experiments with tomatoes! 😂
Thank you very much! Your video is strongly beneficial to me. May I know your 3D printer model and type of printing material?
Just a slight correction on your terminology, when you showed a chart for under expansion and over expansion in a converging-diverging nozzle, you seemed to have mixed up the terms. An over expanded nozzle doesn’t refer to the exhaust gases expanding outward past the nozzle area, instead it refers to the nozzle having a larger cross sectional area than the idealized gas leaving the nozzle causing those gases to be over expanded. And with an under expanded nozzle it is the opposite in that the nozzle cross sectional area is smaller than the exhaust area, constricting it and causing the exhaust to create thrust vectors at an angle. In both cases these cause inefficiencies in thrust which is why a perfectly expanded nozzle is sought after.
need a little teflon to seal the threads
Could you do a nozzle that has a sine wave and see what it does to the output pattern?
im pretty sure you arent adding that water so you should drain your compressor i think there should be some kind of metal cap on the air tank
A very interesting topic, but I wish you had gone into more detail about the specific reasons why the shape is more efficient and the role speed plays. At one point, you say that the narrowing increases the mass flow, which, according to the continuity equation, is not correct, but the speed increases because the same mass flow passes through a narrower cross-section: A1*v1 = A2*v2.
If I understood correctly, with a simple opening, the air expands as soon as it reaches the environment. So it doesn't have to be incompressible but compressible, correct?
That means the air exits the nozzle and has a higher pressure outside the nozzle than the environment. Because of this pressure, it expands radially, creating a non-axial force vector, thus losing thrust, correct?
And with the bell shape, the gas is allowed to expand, but the force vector is redirected axially, correct?
The next question that interests me is the impact of speed.
Because impulse consists of mass and velocity:
I = m*v [F]
What I have personally never understood is the difference between high mass with low velocity and high velocity with low mass.
So, tell me, if I have a large hole, the mass exits at low speed, and if I have a narrow opening, the mass exits at high speed.
But shouldn't that produce the same thrust?
Although I see that if mass is kept constant in the equation and speed is increased, the force increases. But I don't exactly understand why.
Another question that interests me is why a certain speed must be reached. Theoretically, one could fly into space at 100 km/h instead of 40,000 km/h, right? Of course, the fuel would run out before that, but theoretically, that would be possible, wouldn't it?
You are asking the right questions :) high mass with low velocity versus the opposite will result indeed in the same force. But what you're missing out, is that mass flow is constant and we have stored pressure energy to be transformed into kinetic energy to propel our object. Mass flow is constant, because it may be the reaction to a chemical reaction or the trust of a turbine, where we wanna increase efficiency at levels of fuel flowrate. That's why we want to increase the speed of the mass flow.
Regarding why we need a certain velocity. Following explanation holds true for rockets trying to reach space. Theoretically we could use a slow (and steady speed) rocket, therefore we would have to constantly produce a force, which fights against the gravitational force while still carrying a lot of propellant. Instead we want to reach a certain speed (escape velocity) early, which allows us to exit the gravitational force without the need for further propelling.
In a lot of other use cases of turbines of any kind speed is required because of different reasons. E.g. military to avoid detection, civil because the market (passangers) longs fast air travel, etc...
Nice work
If the goal is exhausting as much air as possible with a given throat diameter, would a converging-diverging-nozzle be better than a converging one?
This is fr awesome and remember. Tomatoes are disgusting
The amount of integza comments might summon him
Do not be alarmed-we are about to engage... ... ... The Nozzle. Lol
what would happen if you add a spiral down the nozzle? would it add only rotational movement or would it add any extra velocity?
Is their a way to design a nozzle that goes in to supersonic and creates as much as possible shockwaves?
could this be applied to propelling a nerf dart? having a nerf berral at the exhaust of the nozzle with a dart at the end? i admit id don't understand the science well enough. it seems like the air discharge is a bit to slow for a dart blaster, but can that be compensated for with a larger diameter nozzle at a loss of end air speed/thrust? other consideration is do you get more of a burst with a smaller pressure chamber. the smaller pressure chamber allowing for a faster drop in thrust?
What we learned from this? That tomato skin is air dynamic.
I really really wanna try taking a rocket nozzle like this, and putting it in a nerf blaster. My theory is that with most blasters the air pressure has no problem pushing the dart, so mont of the air is wasted. If you could start with the air movinc almost supersonic i think it would help
Keep in mind the rigidity of the dart when doing this, if you blast something that’s made for a children’s toy with supersonic airflow it’s probably going to rip and not fly very well
the thread diameter suggests some coke+mentos test launches
Is there a reason why leaf blowers don't' utilize bell nozzles?
Great video, what kind of camera lens did you use for the Schlieren, because my setup is very difficult to adjust correctly and to focus on the mirror. (f=250)
Next video: aerospike?
0:03 haha it sounds like sonic
Would you attach all links to the papers etc to this video?
great video!
Great video. A follow up for "beyond the scope of this video" - video, would be cool!
What CFD software did you use?
Would a water turbine not benefit from these calculations?
Do get yourself a blast screen, safety first. :)
Remember to apply Teflon Sealant Tape over the threads before attaching the nozzle. *Love the project
What I got from this video, tomatoes are tough
I will always vote for aerospike
So much leakage. How about an o-ring in the bottom of the thread-groove?
Hi, what do you use for CFD? I would like to do some liquid CFD on my project, but dont know where to start (never properly learned CAD or similar stuff)
Hi, I'm designing a racecar intake restrictor which wants to minimum the pressure drop under known massflowrate at exit, woul a bell shape nozzle like this also helps?
Aerospike pleez!
Perhaps increase your sample size
Robisz ciekawe rzeczy :)
want to see aerospike nozzle
Oh yeah gimme Dat aerospike
NASA makes nozzles in your garage?!?!
tomatoes are disgusting! :)
3:57 aaaah ahahahah nice.
Aerospike!
So tomatoman could stop a tornado
Have a question. I have an interest in 2 Stroke engines and am a welder/fabricator.
I've been wondering for a while if there is a readily available CFD program that can accurately model acoustic exhaust wave flow/pattern.
Can anyone recommend a software capable of that which I could use in designing novel exhaust expansion chambers?
Itegza?
i like your videos
Aerospike plzzzzz