1. Consider motion of an object in a straight line. The following equation applies:

Work done on object (W) = Force (F) applied in the direction of travel * displacement (x)

Consider the object of mass 1000 kg initially at rest. A constant force is applied. For simplicity, assume that frictionless motion.

Initial velocity, v0 = 0.
Acceleration, a, is constant (constant force) = 1 m/s2

F = 1000 N

Consider first period of 10 seconds.

t1 = 10 seconds

x1 = 50 m

Work done in first 10 seconds, W1 = 1000 * 50 = 50 000 J.

v1 = 10 m/s

Kinetic energy = 0.5 * 1000 * 10^2 = 50 000 J.

So, all work done has been converted to kinetic energy.

================================

Consider second interval of 10 seconds.

t2 = 20 seconds

t2 - t1 = 10 s

Distance travelled during 2nd interval, x2 = 150 m

Work done in 2nd interval, W2 = 1000 * 150 = 150 000 J.

v2 = 20 m/s

Kinetic energy = 0.5 * 1000 * 20^2 = 200 000 J.

This equals W1 + W2.

=====================================

All very simple so far!

Now, this constant force was the constant thrust of a rocket engine. Thus the W1 and W2 was done by the rocket.

Since thrust was constant, the same amount of fuel was consumed in the 1st 10 seconds as the 2nd interval of 10 seconds. (A)

If the rocket's efficiency of converting fuel energy into work is assumed to be constant at 0.5.

Fuel energy in 1st interval = W1 / 0.5 = 50 000 / 0.5 = 100 000 J

Fuel energy in 2nd interval = W2 / 0.5 = 150 000 / 0.5 = 300 000 J

This contradicts (A) and common sense, which states that the rate of fuel burnt is constant!!!

Doug

2.

3. I think the answer to this one lies in the fact that you are imparting kinetic energy to both the rocket and the exhaust gases. At the extreme case where the rocket engine is firmly anchored to the earth, all the kinetic energy is going into the exhaust gas.

At slow speeds of the rocket, and if the rocket is much more massive than the gases, the gases are exhausted at maximum velocity and are getting most of the KE. As the rocket picks up speed, the exhaust gases are coming out slower (relative to an observer on earth) while the rocket is gaining more speed; therefore it is gaining KE at a more rapid pace, KE being proportional to the square of the velocity.

Remember that kinetic energy is relative to the observer, because velocity is relative.

If the source of the force is an electric motor (to get rid of those exhaust gases!), everything else being the same in the example given above, how does one explain that as the velocity eventually increases to a point where the tractive force, 1000 N, multiplied by the velocity is a very large number, exceeding the power rating of the motor.

(Originally, what gave rise to my question, was that I was doing some calculations about my train journey, and I could not get my calculation to work. The train engines draw 100 A at 25 kV, power factor 0.8 to give a shaft power of 2000 kW. I measured the acceleration using a stopwatch, found out the mass of the train and hence could calculate the tractive force. The nett force was worked out by calculating the dynamic friction and air resistance, the coefficients of which are published for trains. What got me thinking was that there is obviously an upper limit on the engine power, but that this was soon exceeded by the tractive force multiplied by the velocity – dimensionally the same as the power – in my calculation.)

I am obviously missing some basics here!

Doug

5. Originally Posted by Harold14370
I think the answer to this one lies in the fact that you are imparting kinetic energy to both the rocket and the exhaust gases. At the extreme case where the rocket engine is firmly anchored to the earth, all the kinetic energy is going into the exhaust gas.

At slow speeds of the rocket, and if the rocket is much more massive than the gases, the gases are exhausted at maximum velocity and are getting most of the KE. As the rocket picks up speed, the exhaust gases are coming out slower (relative to an observer on earth) while the rocket is gaining more speed; therefore it is gaining KE at a more rapid pace, KE being proportional to the square of the velocity.

Remember that kinetic energy is relative to the observer, because velocity is relative.
But what is repelling the rocket, it is not the sky below the rocket. Because it will function in space. The pressure in the rockets port, is what propels the rocket. Remember the rocket is pushed upwards. That is why high speed explosive fuels are used. To create the pressure within the rockets port, to drive the ship upwards. The speed of the craft has literally no effect on this.

That is how Roy Grumman went to the moon in four hours with his hobby crafts. The world was not ready for him yet. Ha-ha.
His craft just used a substance that when subjected to disintegrative laser beam, would expand exponentially and create the same effect. But with exponentially less fuel.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

6. William, you pushed me over the edge. I've added you to my ignore list.

Douglas, I don't think there is any paradox. The tractive force, related to motor torque, really does decrease with increasing speed, to keep the power the same. This is why the train will have a top speed, along with the fact that the wind resistance goes up. But even if the wind resistance didn't go up with speed, there would still be a top speed.

You can see this with an automobile which has to gear up as the speed increases. The torque to the wheels decreases in high gear.

7. Originally Posted by Harold14370
William, you pushed me over the edge. I've added you to my ignore list.

Douglas, I don't think there is any paradox. The tractive force, related to motor torque, really does decrease with increasing speed, to keep the power the same. This is why the train will have a top speed, along with the fact that the wind resistance goes up. But even if the wind resistance didn't go up with speed, there would still be a top speed.

You can see this with an automobile which has to gear up as the speed increases. The torque to the wheels decreases in high gear.
That is fine Harold, you are entitled to your opinion and your own actions.

However, the question was about a rocket with no friction. Which would require no atmosphere. Which would mean nothing much to push against. Which would mean that the velocity of the rocket would not mean much at all, if anything in space.

A pressure is developed in the rockets port. This pressure pushes the rocket. Added to that, the actual venturi, is injecting exploding fuel at very high pressures, against this backed up gas.

The speed of the rocket has nothing to do with it. The gas cannot escape into the almost total vacuum fast enough. The speed of the ship is not going to help it.

A car on the other hand is facing high friction as it goes faster and faster. And does need more horse power to the wheels, as the car goes faster. To offset the friction. I did not argue that.

Many would be surprised though just how fast you can get a car with a parkway rear end gear set to go. Some of the troopers cars have high end gears. And those cars can move.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

8. Tell me William, if you throw a bowling ball while on a smooth layer of ice, what exactly are you pushing against for you to be propelled backwards?

9. Originally Posted by douglasm6
Consider motion of an object in a straight line. The following equation applies:

Work done on object (W) = Force (F) applied in the direction of travel * displacement (x)

Consider the object of mass 1000 kg initially at rest. A constant force is applied. For simplicity, assume that frictionless motion.

Initial velocity, v0 = 0.
Acceleration, a, is constant (constant force) = 1 m/s2

F = 1000 N

Consider first period of 10 seconds.

t1 = 10 seconds

x1 = 50 m

Work done in first 10 seconds, W1 = 1000 * 50 = 50 000 J.

v1 = 10 m/s

Kinetic energy = 0.5 * 1000 * 10^2 = 50 000 J.

So, all work done has been converted to kinetic energy.

================================

Consider second interval of 10 seconds.

t2 = 20 seconds

t2 - t1 = 10 s

Distance travelled during 2nd interval, x2 = 150 m

Work done in 2nd interval, W2 = 1000 * 150 = 150 000 J.

v2 = 20 m/s

Kinetic energy = 0.5 * 1000 * 20^2 = 200 000 J.

This equals W1 + W2.

=====================================

All very simple so far!

Now, this constant force was the constant thrust of a rocket engine. Thus the W1 and W2 was done by the rocket.

Since thrust was constant, the same amount of fuel was consumed in the 1st 10 seconds as the 2nd interval of 10 seconds. (A)

If the rocket's efficiency of converting fuel energy into work is assumed to be constant at 0.5.

Fuel energy in 1st interval = W1 / 0.5 = 50 000 / 0.5 = 100 000 J

Fuel energy in 2nd interval = W2 / 0.5 = 150 000 / 0.5 = 300 000 J

This contradicts (A) and common sense, which states that the rate of fuel burnt is constant!!!

Doug
When a rocket operates at constant thrust and constant rate of fuel consumption you are not dealing with a constant mass system so F=ma does not work. You have to use the full F=dP/dt where P is momentum. If you do that you can derive the rocket equation which is

delta V = C*ln(m0/mf) where C* is the velocity of the exhaust gasses m0 is the initial mass, mf is the final mass and delta V is the change in velocity. Instantaneous kinetic energy is still 1/2 mf^2 and work done on the rocket and kinetic energy of the rocket are still thrust x distance.

10. <<<
When a rocket operates at constant thrust and constant rate of fuel consumption you are not dealing with a constant mass system so F=ma does not work. You have to use the full F=dP/dt where P is momentum. If you do that you can derive the rocket equation which is

delta V = C*ln(m0/mf) where C* is the velocity of the exhaust gasses m0 is the initial mass, mf is the final mass and delta V is the change in velocity. Instantaneous kinetic energy is still 1/2 mf^2 and work done on the rocket and kinetic energy of the rocket are still thrust x distance.
>>>

Dr Rocket,

You are of course correct. I was assuming, for simplicity and for argument's sake, that the mass of rocket plus payload is constant. Large mass of fuel and initial percentage change of mass small enough so as to be ignored.

I hear William's argument about pressure being developed in the rockets port to provide the thrust, and the velocity of the rocket having nothing to do with the argument.

Sounds reasonable to me.

Doug

11. You can simplify the rocket example by considering discrete projectilles instead of a steady stream of gas particles.

Let's say you have a gun that weighs 10 kg and shoots a shell of 1 kg If the gun is mounted on wheels so that it can recoil freely, and if the shell is given a velocity of -10 m/sec, then from conservation of momentum, we can calculate the free recoil velocity.
m1v1+m2v2=0,
v2==m1v1/m2 = 10*1/10 = 1
The ke of the shell is 0.5*m1*v1^2=0.5*1*100=50
The recoil ke of the gun is 0.5*m2*v2^2=0.5*10*1=5
The total system KE is 55.

Now if we mount the gun on a flatcar going 1 m/sec, the velocities after firing the shell in a direction opposite to the car's motion are v1=-9 and v2=2.
Before firing, the ke of the shell is 0.5*1*1=0.5
Before firing, the ke of the gun is 0.5*10*1=5
After firing, the ke of the shell is 0.5*m1*v1^2=0.5*1*81=40.5
After firing, the ke of the gun is 0.5*m2*v2^2=0.5*10*4=20
The change in ke of the system is 40.5+20-5-.5=55, the same as in the case where the system was initially at rest. But note that the gun has gained 15 this time instead of 5 and the projectile gained 40 instead of 50.

12. Originally Posted by douglasm6
<<<
When a rocket operates at constant thrust and constant rate of fuel consumption you are not dealing with a constant mass system so F=ma does not work. You have to use the full F=dP/dt where P is momentum. If you do that you can derive the rocket equation which is

delta V = C*ln(m0/mf) where C* is the velocity of the exhaust gasses m0 is the initial mass, mf is the final mass and delta V is the change in velocity. Instantaneous kinetic energy is still 1/2 mf^2 and work done on the rocket and kinetic energy of the rocket are still thrust x distance.
>>>

Dr Rocket,

You are of course correct. I was assuming, for simplicity and for argument's sake, that the mass of rocket plus payload is constant. Large mass of fuel and initial percentage change of mass small enough so as to be ignored.

I hear William's argument about pressure being developed in the rockets port to provide the thrust, and the velocity of the rocket having nothing to do with the argument.

Sounds reasonable to me.

Doug
Virtually nothing coming from Willian McCormick is reasonable.

There are a couple of problems with your analysis. It is true that the thrust of the rocket is not dependent on the velocity, when viewed in a reference frame attached to the rocket. But you have to be very careful with tht reference frame.

The rocket is accelerating relative to an observer on the ground. The reference frame of the observer is inertial. Newton's laws of motion apply in an inertial reference frame. A reference frame attached to the rocket is not inertial, and you cannot apply Newtons's laws (for instance F=ma), directly.

Rocket mechanics is a bit strange because of the factor that the reference frame attached to the rocket is accelerating and because the rocket is not a constant mass system. In fact, and this is a bit counter-intuitive, there comes a point in the trajectory of the rocket when the rocket continues to accelerate but the momentum starts to decrease. This happens when the velocity of the rocket relative to an inertial observer equals the velocity of the exhaust gasses relative to the rocket. Basically the exhaust gasses are at that point moving in the same direction as the rocket, rather than in the opposite direction. This situatin illustrates a problem with your idea of a factor relating propellant consumption to energy.

The chemical energy of the propellant goes into three things: Kinetic energy of the rocket itself, kinetic energy of the propellant gasses that are expelled, and heat of the propellant gasses. But the kinetic energy of the propellant gasses, relative to a ground-based observer, varies as the rocket accelerates, and is zero at that time when the rocket velocity equals the exhaust velocity (relative to the rocket). The exhaust velocity relative to the rocket is important, it is in fact the most important characteristic of rocket propellant and is called specific impulse, or Isp.

There is no paradox with respect to the laws of mechanics. But you have to be very careful how you apply them in the case of rockets because you are working with non-Newtonian reference frames and bodies that change in mass.

13. Originally Posted by MagiMaster
Tell me William, if you throw a bowling ball while on a smooth layer of ice, what exactly are you pushing against for you to be propelled backwards?

It depends upon your approach. I could hurl one, and not be pushed backwards. By using the pendulum effect, and offset the balls movement with body movement. Never really needing traction. That is the perfect ball thrown in bowling.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

14. Originally Posted by Harold14370
You can simplify the rocket example by considering discrete projectilles instead of a steady stream of gas particles.

Let's say you have a gun that weighs 10 kg and shoots a shell of 1 kg If the gun is mounted on wheels so that it can recoil freely, and if the shell is given a velocity of -10 m/sec, then from conservation of momentum, we can calculate the free recoil velocity.
m1v1+m2v2=0,
v2==m1v1/m2 = 10*1/10 = 1
The ke of the shell is 0.5*m1*v1^2=0.5*1*100=50
The recoil ke of the gun is 0.5*m2*v2^2=0.5*10*1=5
The total system KE is 55.

Now if we mount the gun on a flatcar going 1 m/sec, the velocities after firing the shell in a direction opposite to the car's motion are v1=-9 and v2=2.
Before firing, the ke of the shell is 0.5*1*1=0.5
Before firing, the ke of the gun is 0.5*10*1=5
After firing, the ke of the shell is 0.5*m1*v1^2=0.5*1*81=40.5
After firing, the ke of the gun is 0.5*m2*v2^2=0.5*10*4=20
The change in ke of the system is 40.5+20-5-.5=55, the same as in the case where the system was initially at rest. But note that the gun has gained 15 this time instead of 5 and the projectile gained 40 instead of 50.

Harold if you fired a machine gun from the rear turret of a B17 bomber, while it was on the ground. And measured the recoil against the plane. Are you saying that when it is flying at a couple hundred miles an hour, there will be any less force applied to the plane?

The gun and the bullet are moving at the same speed. When the powder goes off, it is going to create the same muzzle pressure.

Heck the world is spinning at the equator at 1500 feet a second, that is faster then some rounds fired from a gun. Yet you cannot even notice the difference, in recoil in the gun firing east or west.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

15. William, if you don't even understand what's being said, don't bother posting. You only make yourself look like more of an idiot. They're talking about the gun and the bullet as viewed from a third frame of reference, not from the point of view of someone holding the gun.

16. You can see the counter-intuitiveness that goes into this "paradox" more easily if you abstract away the actual source of motion etc. Suppose I have a 1 kg object sitting in space that can magically convert the energy in a battery into kinetic energy. The object draws a constant 1 watt from its battery. In the fist ten seconds my object will have accelerated from zero m/s to 4.47 m/sec based on the 10 joules that it spent from its battery. But during the next ten seconds it will only be able to accelerate an additional 1.85 m/s, since it has now extracted 20 joules from its battery. Power consumption remains steady, but acceleration decreases. This seems especially confusing because if our magical device moves itself by using the energy in the battery to generate some sort of artificial force upon the device to push it, one would expect that if the power drain from the battery is constant then the motive force would be constant, and therefor the acceleration should be constant.

17. Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee
You can see the counter-intuitiveness that goes into this "paradox" more easily if you abstract away the actual source of motion etc. Suppose I have a 1 kg object sitting in space that can magically convert the energy in a battery into kinetic energy. The object draws a constant 1 watt from its battery. In the fist ten seconds my object will have accelerated from zero m/s to 4.47 m/sec based on the 10 joules that it spent from its battery. But during the next ten seconds it will only be able to accelerate an additional 1.85 m/s, since it has now extracted 20 joules from its battery. Power consumption remains steady, but acceleration decreases. This seems especially confusing because if our magical device moves itself by using the energy in the battery to generate some sort of artificial force upon the device to push it, one would expect that if the power drain from the battery is constant then the motive force would be constant, and therefor the acceleration should be constant.
But power relates to expenditure of energy per unit time. And energy relates to application of force over a distance. So if you are applying a constant force (motive force) and moving faster, then in any given unit of time that force is applied over a greater and greater distance, hence the energy per unit time would be constantly increasing. So, the notion that a constant rate of energy expenditure results in a constant acceleration (or equivalently a constant force) is not correct. You can also see this by noting that energy rises like the square of the velocity.

It is more useful to look at change in momentum than change in energy. That is because momentum is force x time. So with constant motive force, the increase in momentum per unit time is constant. In the case of rockets one does tend to consider momentum change rather than energy. But you have the added complication that mass is also changing so the momentum analysis becomes a bit more involved.

There is no paradox. But there are some misconceptions regarding how one ought to look at energy considerations.

18. Originally Posted by DrRocket
So, the notion that a constant rate of energy expenditure results in a constant acceleration (or equivalently a constant force) is not correct. You can also see this by noting that energy rises like the square of the velocity.
...
There is no paradox. But there are some misconceptions regarding how one ought to look at energy considerations.
I know, I'm just trying to point out the "tricky part" that's confusing douglasm6. One would intuitively think that it should take as much energy to accelerate from 10 m/s to 20 m/s as it does to accelerate from 0 m/s to 10 m/s, because both involve the same change in velocity.

19. Originally Posted by Harold14370
You can simplify the rocket example by considering discrete projectilles instead of a steady stream of gas particles.

Let's say you have a gun that weighs 10 kg and shoots a shell of 1 kg If the gun is mounted on wheels so that it can recoil freely, and if the shell is given a velocity of -10 m/sec, then from conservation of momentum, we can calculate the free recoil velocity.
m1v1+m2v2=0,
v2==m1v1/m2 = 10*1/10 = 1
The ke of the shell is 0.5*m1*v1^2=0.5*1*100=50
The recoil ke of the gun is 0.5*m2*v2^2=0.5*10*1=5
The total system KE is 55.

Now if we mount the gun on a flatcar going 1 m/sec, the velocities after firing the shell in a direction opposite to the car's motion are v1=-9 and v2=2.
Before firing, the ke of the shell is 0.5*1*1=0.5
Before firing, the ke of the gun is 0.5*10*1=5
After firing, the ke of the shell is 0.5*m1*v1^2=0.5*1*81=40.5
After firing, the ke of the gun is 0.5*m2*v2^2=0.5*10*4=20
The change in ke of the system is 40.5+20-5-.5=55, the same as in the case where the system was initially at rest. But note that the gun has gained 15 this time instead of 5 and the projectile gained 40 instead of 50.

Thanks, everyone, especially to Harold14370 and DrRocket. Your replies have been helpful and the cobwebs have been cleared. Gosh what a blockhead I am!

Doug

20. Originally Posted by MagiMaster
William, if you don't even understand what's being said, don't bother posting. You only make yourself look like more of an idiot. They're talking about the gun and the bullet as viewed from a third frame of reference, not from the point of view of someone holding the gun.

I appear to be the only one that does know what I am saying. Because most here have left a trail of false information.

If you fire a hand gun in space. And it accelerates you from, zero to ten miles an hour. And you fire it again. You will be going 20 miles an hour. Each time you fire it you gain the same difference in velocity.

The same is true from an explosive highly expansive release of gases from a rocket engine.

Once an object is turned into a diode in space. So it can move through space, and ambient radiation. It wants to move along in a straight line. With only the light gases to stop it.

Upon each frequency of explosion in the rocket engine, the explosion is taking place in a rocket engine already positively accelerated. So each new blast, pushes the rocket from the positive velocity it was at already, to the new higher velocity.

As a Grumman kid all we did was talk about this stuff every night. Roy Grumman's toys went to the moon in four hours.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

21. Originally Posted by William McCormick

I appear to be the only one that does know what I am saying. Because most here have left a trail of false information.

If you fire a hand gun in space. And it accelerates you from, zero to ten miles an hour. And you fire it again. You will be going 20 miles an hour. Each time you fire it you gain the same difference in velocity.
The trail of false information is yours. You don't know what you are talking about.

Your gun analogy is approximately correct at low velocities. But it does not hold up as the speed of the gun relative to a ground-based observer increases and eventually exceeds the speed of the individual bullets, relative to the gun.

The same is true from an explosive highly expansive release of gases from a rocket engine.
Not at all. Your statement is false for the gun analogy and it is well known to be false for rockets. That is why you need the rocket equation to describe the change in velocity of a rocket.

Delta V = Isp*ln(initial mass/final mass)

Once an object is turned into a diode in space. So it can move through space, and ambient radiation. It wants to move along in a straight line. With only the light gases to stop it.

Upon each frequency of explosion in the rocket engine, the explosion is taking place in a rocket engine already positively accelerated. So each new blast, pushes the rocket from the positive velocity it was at already, to the new higher velocity.

As a Grumman kid all we did was talk about this stuff every night. Roy Grumman's toys went to the moon in four hours.

Sincerely,

William McCormick
Objects don't turn into diodes in space, except in the recesses of a delusional mind.
They don't turn into anything. They are what they are. No magic involved.

We don't have explosions in rocket engines, except when we have catastrophic failures. When that happens it is rathe difficult to keep track of the velocity, positive, negative, or transverse, of the pieces. Been there, done that. Not pretty.

Nobody, not Roy Grumman, not Santa Claus, and not the tooth fairy, has ever sent anything to the moon in four hours. Were you drinking when you had those long talks?

You had previously demonstrated a record level of ignorance of basic physics, and a total lack of knowledge of mathematics. We can now add rocketry to the list of subjects about which your knowledge is negative (what you know is utterly false).
Care to try for cats ?

A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. – Mark Twain

22. Originally Posted by DrRocket
Originally Posted by William McCormick

I appear to be the only one that does know what I am saying. Because most here have left a trail of false information.

If you fire a hand gun in space. And it accelerates you from, zero to ten miles an hour. And you fire it again. You will be going 20 miles an hour. Each time you fire it you gain the same difference in velocity.
The trail of false information is yours. You don't know what you are talking about.

Your gun analogy is approximately correct at low velocities. But it does not hold up as the speed of the gun relative to a ground-based observer increases and eventually exceeds the speed of the individual bullets, relative to the gun.

The same is true from an explosive highly expansive release of gases from a rocket engine.
Not at all. Your statement is false for the gun analogy and it is well known to be false for rockets. That is why you need the rocket equation to describe the change in velocity of a rocket.

Delta V = Isp*ln(initial mass/final mass)

Once an object is turned into a diode in space. So it can move through space, and ambient radiation. It wants to move along in a straight line. With only the light gases to stop it.

Upon each frequency of explosion in the rocket engine, the explosion is taking place in a rocket engine already positively accelerated. So each new blast, pushes the rocket from the positive velocity it was at already, to the new higher velocity.

As a Grumman kid all we did was talk about this stuff every night. Roy Grumman's toys went to the moon in four hours.

Sincerely,

William McCormick
Objects don't turn into diodes in space, except in the recesses of a delusional mind.
They don't turn into anything. They are what they are. No magic involved.

We don't have explosions in rocket engines, except when we have catastrophic failures. When that happens it is rathe difficult to keep track of the velocity, positive, negative, or transverse, of the pieces. Been there, done that. Not pretty.

Nobody, not Roy Grumman, not Santa Claus, and not the tooth fairy, has ever sent anything to the moon in four hours. Were you drinking when you had those long talks?

You had previously demonstrated a record level of ignorance of basic physics, and a total lack of knowledge of mathematics. We can now add rocketry to the list of subjects about which your knowledge is negative (what you know is utterly false).
Care to try for cats ?

A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. – Mark Twain
You seem to want to throw around insults, rather then discuss scientific points, that anyone can demonstrate.

You mentioned at low velocity I am correct, and then you claimed at higher velocity the same things do not hold true. Maybe you should let everyone know when this modern science was introduced. So we can gather it and flush it down a toilet.

I demonstrated that at over 1000 feet a second, standing on the earth , there is no noticeable, difference in recoil, no matter which way you fire a gun, either east, west, north or south.
Even from a gun that does not fire a round at that velocity. So we know that at 2000 feet a second difference, there is no effect on the repulsion created between the round fired and the gun. Meaning the velocity of the rocket and fuel, at the time of the explosion is irrelevant.

These facts, place your theory in jeopardy, and I have not had to learn years of senseless mathematics that are based on misunderstood basics, to demonstrate it.

Things move because of electricity, repulsion from electrons. You can start to realize that or keep using failed multi subatomic particle science that cannot even get us safely to orbit.

You can use gyros to propel a craft in space faster and faster. But law makers will not allow us to leave earth. As Kunta Kinta could not leave, the plantation.

If you were stupid enough to be a law maker, wouldn't you be afraid that all the smart people would want to get away from you and leave you. I know I would like to.

If you look at the weight of fuel compared to the size of the rocket, I doubt that with just pressure alone you could force the fuel out of the rocket, and propel the rocket into space.
So there is certainly another force present that can change the weight of the fuel to the forward momentum ratio. It is the fact that the fuel is exploding.
At each frequency of explosive thrust, the explosion is taking place in a rocket moving faster then the rocket was going before the last explosion. So it is a totally compounding effect.

I have been in the Grumman Aero Space plant many times, and I have seen all this stuff. You seem to have trouble with reality. And attack mine.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

23. As far as cats go doctor rocket, I used to hold a cats tail and let her run on a slippery ceramic floor. It was pretty funny, and she kind of liked it.

But if you want to quickly get a hold of a cat, you grab them by the scruff of the neck.

I once had a cat, that ate a large windup airplane rubber band. I did not know that she ate the rubber band. Nor did I know what worms looked like. My mother, had called me to look at this thing hanging out of the cats butt. I thought it was a worm. So I got a pair of pliers, and grabbed it.

The cat was on a ceramic floor, and she started to run. She went about eight to ten feet, her feet were slipping on the floor, the rubber band was still in her butt. I had the other end. I realized what it was, and I was going to let go of it. But I felt bad, about what it might do to her. With that it let loose from her butt. And spattered me with brown spots. Ha-ha.
The moral of the story is, let it go. Ha-ha.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

24. A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. – Mark Twain
What a fantastic quote!

25. William, you're still completely missing the point. Sure, from the point of view of the gunman, it's the same in any direction. From the point of view of a stationary (relative to the gunman, initially) observer, that's simply not true.

And I believe that DrRocket said you were approximately right at low speeds, which means you become more and more wrong at higher speeds.

26. [quote="William McCormick"]

You seem to want to throw around insults, rather then discuss scientific points, that anyone can demonstrate.
You don't seem to like your own medicine very much. Get used to it. More is on the way.

I have certainly discussed scientific points. The pont is in fact that your "points" are not only not demonstrated, and false, they are ridiculous.

You mentioned at low velocity I am correct, and then you claimed at higher velocity the same things do not hold true. Maybe you should let everyone know when this modern science was introduced. So we can gather it and flush it down a toilet.
If you read a little closer, you would note that I said your statement is APPROXIMATELY correct, at low velocity but not as the velocity of the gun WITH RESPECT TO THE OBSERVER approaches the speed of the bullet WITH RESPECT TO THE GUN. This modern science was introduced by Isaac Newton and published in basically the final form in 1687 in Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica or what is not called the Principia Mathematica. It is not a big secret, and is known to most freshmen in the sciences and engineering. You might want to brush up on it a bit.

I demonstrated that at over 1000 feet a second, standing on the earth , there is no noticeable, difference in recoil, no matter which way you fire a gun, either east, west, north or south.
And the observer was situated on the earth (I started to say that the observer had his feet solidly on the ground, but then realized that the observer was probably you.] You proved absolutely nothing.

Even from a gun that does not fire a round at that velocity. So we know that at 2000 feet a second difference, there is no effect on the repulsion created between the round fired and the gun. Meaning the velocity of the rocket and fuel, at the time of the explosion is irrelevant.
That rather depends on one's reference frame, and for the purposes of reasonable discussions the reference frame is usually taken as one in which the rocket is moving. If you adopt the reference frame of the rocket, then you measure no velocity and no acceleration. Also, since that reference frame is accelerating with respect to an inertial reference frame you cannot even apply Newton's laws of motion. ROCKET FUELS DO NOT EXPLODE. Rocket fuels burn in a precisely controlled manner, called deflagration. When rockets explode, the result is not forward motion, it is shrapnel. Been there. Done that. It isn't pretty.

These facts, place your theory in jeopardy, and I have not had to learn years of senseless mathematics that are based on misunderstood basics, to demonstrate it.
It is not my theory. It is quite well established and demonstrated physics. It is rather well supported -- by thousands of experiments conducted by professional scientists, by the numerous rockets that have been built and in the design of which I have participated directly, and by the myriad of satellites circling the earth that don't crash. I certainly agree that you have learned no mathematics whatever, and less physics (you have actually learned a negative amount of physics, what you "know" is utterly false).

Things move because of electricity, repulsion from electrons. You can start to realize that or keep using failed multi subatomic particle science that cannot even get us safely to orbit.

You can use gyros to propel a craft in space faster and faster. But law makers will not allow us to leave earth. As Kunta Kinta could not leave, the plantation.
You actually cannot use gyros to propel anything. A gyro uses conservation of momentum in order to help maintain a sense of direction, but it is not even slightly useful for propulsion.

There is no law against leaving the earth. Why don't you try it? You don't appear to be earth-bound at all. In fact I see no evidence of a firm foundation whatever.

It is Kunta Kinee, and his confinement to the plantation had rather little to do with Newtonian mechanics. So besides an inability to spell the name correctly, what is your point ?

If you were stupid enough to be a law maker, wouldn't you be afraid that all the smart people would want to get away from you and leave you. I know I would like to.
I am not a lawmaker. I am not particularly afraid of all the smart people leaving. There seems to be little danger of that.

If you would like to leave, no one is stopping you. I doubt the loss would be felt.

If you look at the weight of fuel compared to the size of the rocket, I doubt that with just pressure alone you could force the fuel out of the rocket, and propel the rocket into space.
The mass fraction of a rocket has absolutely no bearing on the issue. It is pressure, pressure alone, nothing but pressure that causes the gasses to leave the combustion chamber and propel the rocket. It is pressure that in fact determines the density of the gasses at the nozzle throat, where the velocity is the sonic velocity of the gas at the temperature and thermodynamic state at that point, that is a key factor in determining the rate of momentum transfer and hence thrust.

I know that you doubt this. That is simply because you don't know what you are talking about.

So there is certainly another force present that can change the weight of the fuel to the forward momentum ratio. It is the fact that the fuel is exploding.
At each frequency of explosive thrust, the explosion is taking place in a rocket moving faster then the rocket was going before the last explosion. So it is a totally compounding effect.
Momentum ratio? That makes no sense. Ratio of what quantities ?

No, there is not some other force. You can analyze the operation of a rocket on the basis of the pressure alone. That is enough.

To carry out a more fundamental analysis, one does look at the chemistry and thermodynamics of the propellant, but those factors simply determine the pressure.

Rocket fuel does not explode. There is no such thing as "frequency of explosive thrust". Rockets produce a relatively smooth pressure-time curve. That curve is determined by propellant geometry in solid rockets and by throttling in liquid rockets. But there is no succession of explosions and no frequency of explosions either.

The only thing that is compounding is the idiocy of your statements. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

I have been in the Grumman Aero Space plant many times, and I have seen all this stuff. You seem to have trouble with reality. And attack mine.

Sincerely,

William McCormick
ee

So you managed to get by the guard at the gate. So what? Seeing the stuff is, quite obviously, different from understanding the stuff or knowing the principles involved in the design and operation of the stuff. I have no trouble whatever with reality. I appreciate that you distinguish between ordinary reality and your reality. They certainly do seem to be different. Perhaps your recognition of that fact might facility your reovery. Perhaps when you stop deluding yourself you can stop trying to delude others.

The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool. --
Richard P. Feynman

27. Originally Posted by William McCormick
As far as cats go doctor rocket, I used to hold a cats tail and let her run on a slippery ceramic floor. It was pretty funny, and she kind of liked it.

But if you want to quickly get a hold of a cat, you grab them by the scruff of the neck.

I once had a cat, that ate a large windup airplane rubber band. I did not know that she ate the rubber band. Nor did I know what worms looked like. My mother, had called me to look at this thing hanging out of the cats butt. I thought it was a worm. So I got a pair of pliers, and grabbed it.

The cat was on a ceramic floor, and she started to run. She went about eight to ten feet, her feet were slipping on the floor, the rubber band was still in her butt. I had the other end. I realized what it was, and I was going to let go of it. But I felt bad, about what it might do to her. With that it let loose from her butt. And spattered me with brown spots. Ha-ha.
The moral of the story is, let it go. Ha-ha.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon -- it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory." - Scott D. Weitzenhoffer

28. Originally Posted by DrRocket
Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon -- it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory." - Scott D. Weitzenhoffer
Great quote! Made me laugh. But sadly it's true. The worst thing is that these individuals even dare teaching others playing.

29. Originally Posted by MagiMaster
William, you're still completely missing the point. Sure, from the point of view of the gunman, it's the same in any direction. From the point of view of a stationary (relative to the gunman, initially) observer, that's simply not true.

And I believe that DrRocket said you were approximately right at low speeds, which means you become more and more wrong at higher speeds.
There is no difference in the velocity of the craft to the effect of the propulsion per cycle. As can be proven right on the earths surface, with a gun. That has a lower velocity then the speed of the planets surface. The recoil will be the same, either towards the east or the west.

And if you look at the scientific simplicity of it. You have the lighter projectile in the gun the bullet, representing the fuel to the rocket.
When aimed to the west, or to the east. You can see that there is no difference because the ammo about to be fired is moving with the gun, in both directions.

I would get a refund from your forth grade science teacher. If you cannot grasp this. I think you have a law suit on your hands. It is relativity, at its most basic level.

Why do you think they were making and experimenting with gyros to propel space ships. Because although the gyro would only apply a hundred pounds of force intermittently, it could take a ship to any speed. With each movement of the gyro, it would propel the ship just like it did the first time.

The other point you are trying to throw in here, is not related to the original question, or analogy used. The point about someone else looking at the rockets thrust from a stationary position, is just another point of view. It does not effect propulsion in anyway.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

30. Originally Posted by DrRocket
Originally Posted by William McCormick
As far as cats go doctor rocket, I used to hold a cats tail and let her run on a slippery ceramic floor. It was pretty funny, and she kind of liked it.

But if you want to quickly get a hold of a cat, you grab them by the scruff of the neck.

I once had a cat, that ate a large windup airplane rubber band. I did not know that she ate the rubber band. Nor did I know what worms looked like. My mother, had called me to look at this thing hanging out of the cats butt. I thought it was a worm. So I got a pair of pliers, and grabbed it.

The cat was on a ceramic floor, and she started to run. She went about eight to ten feet, her feet were slipping on the floor, the rubber band was still in her butt. I had the other end. I realized what it was, and I was going to let go of it. But I felt bad, about what it might do to her. With that it let loose from her butt. And spattered me with brown spots. Ha-ha.
The moral of the story is, let it go. Ha-ha.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon -- it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory." - Scott D. Weitzenhoffer
I always thought that playing chess was a waste of time.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

31. Originally Posted by William McCormick

I always thought that playing chess was a waste of time.

Sincerely,

William McCormick
I am sure that you did. I am equally sure that opinion would be shared by anyone who contemplated playing with you.

"There's nothing wrong with you that reincarnation won't cure."
Jack E. Leonard

32. Originally Posted by William McCormick

There is no difference in the velocity of the craft to the effect of the propulsion per cycle. As can be proven right on the earths surface, with a gun. That has a lower velocity then the speed of the planets surface. The recoil will be the same, either towards the east or the west.
Do you even know what's cycling?

33. WORK=FORCE*DISTANCE.
DISTANCE2(distance in interval 2)=3*DISTANCE1(distance in interval 1)
since the fuel is burned at the same rate,the FORCE in the two intervals should be the same.so,WORK2(work in interval 2)=3*WORK1(work in interval 1).
that means fuels burnt of the same mass does necessarily do the same work.
so why is that?How can this happen?
I think that's because the fast the rock is,the more energy the gas(released by the fuel) give to the other part rocket.

34. Okay, let's see if we can take the confusion up a notch.

Suppose instead of a gun firing a shell, I have a 1 kg flashlight that emits a single 300 MJ photon with a wavelength of 6.626E-25 nanometers every second (it's probably best to stay out of this photon's way). Since the momentum of a photon is energy/C, this means that my flashlight will now be accelerating by 1 m/sec every second. The flashlight will also be draining power from the battery at an average rate of 300 megawatts.

But now the total energy transfer between the photons and the flashlight will no longer balance properly as the kinetic energy of the flashlight increases, since the apparent energy (wavelength) of the emitted photon is directly related to velocity (unlike the bullets, whose energy was related to the square of their velocity).

35. Regarding our friend William McCormick, before I added him to my ignore list I once had an argument with him about whether or not the formula for ammonia was NH3. He didn't believe that ammonia had any nitrogen in it. I posted links to several online chemistry textbooks and encyclopedias that explained ammonia was NH3, but he refused to believe any them. I don't remember his explanation for why ammonia couldn't have any nitrogen in it, but apparently it made complete sense to him.

I'm relating this story to everyone so that you will all hopefully realize how futile it is to try to discuss anything with him. If he isn't willing to believe that ammonia is NH3, I doubt very much that you will ever be able to have a rational discussion with him about something as relatively complicated as momentum and kinetic energy. If you find it amusing to argue with him then I suppose you can go ahead, but I think the best thing for the forum is for everyone to simply add him to their ignore list (since the mods here apparently don't have the balls to actually ban him). Until people start ignoring him, he will continue to derail every interesting thread here with his gibberish.

36. I didn't catch the bit about the no nitrogen, but at the same time he said ammonia was .

Anyway, like DrRocket says, someone has to argue with him, since it's to the benefit of the innocent lurkers. Since I do somewhat enjoy arguing, and can't find any other good outlet for it, I'll continue to do so here.

37. Originally Posted by DrRocket
Originally Posted by William McCormick

I always thought that playing chess was a waste of time.

Sincerely,

William McCormick
I am sure that you did. I am equally sure that opinion would be shared by anyone who contemplated playing with you.

"There's nothing wrong with you that reincarnation won't cure."
Jack E. Leonard

The outcome of a chess game will not make science better. If I had nothing to do, I would play a game. I have played chess. But my mind is on real things and the "attraction" to chess is low to me.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

38. Originally Posted by MagiMaster
Originally Posted by William McCormick

There is no difference in the velocity of the craft to the effect of the propulsion per cycle. As can be proven right on the earths surface, with a gun. That has a lower velocity then the speed of the planets surface. The recoil will be the same, either towards the east or the west.
Do you even know what's cycling?
Did you ever hear a rocket engine? There is a noticeable harmonic. Either a rumble or a hiss on the really good systems.

That sound is representative of the cycles of propulsion in the engine.

But the bottom line is that each time a particle/atom/molecule leaves the engine. It was propelled from an engine moving at a slightly higher velocity then it was moving before the last particle was expelled. And it will have the same effect as the last particle did.

Because it has been accelerated with the rocket already.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

39. Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee
Regarding our friend William McCormick, before I added him to my ignore list I once had an argument with him about whether or not the formula for ammonia was NH3. He didn't believe that ammonia had any nitrogen in it. I posted links to several online chemistry textbooks and encyclopedias that explained ammonia was NH3, but he refused to believe any them. I don't remember his explanation for why ammonia couldn't have any nitrogen in it, but apparently it made complete sense to him.

I'm relating this story to everyone so that you will all hopefully realize how futile it is to try to discuss anything with him. If he isn't willing to believe that ammonia is NH3, I doubt very much that you will ever be able to have a rational discussion with him about something as relatively complicated as momentum and kinetic energy. If you find it amusing to argue with him then I suppose you can go ahead, but I think the best thing for the forum is for everyone to simply add him to their ignore list (since the mods here apparently don't have the balls to actually ban him). Until people start ignoring him, he will continue to derail every interesting thread here with his gibberish.
Well you just showed your inability to even duplicate a simple sentence. I stated that anhydrous ammonia has a formula of NO2. Not NH3, as is commonly believed.

In my school and in other schools on Long Island we had Mallincrodt Ammonia, and it was labeled NO2, not NH3.

During HAZMAT training I learned about what I already had heard was a farm accident. A crew of HAMAT professionals were making a film. It was to show how to suit up to clean up an anhydrous ammonia spill.

I knew ammonia was dangerous and could explode. But I had never seen it, and I had no idea of the power of the blast. I had already heard that it could make a silent explosion. But I never really understood it.

When I was watched the training video I got the idea. Three guys entered a room with the spill. Two guys were working, one was filming. One of the guys jumped on the forklift at the request of the other. When he went to start the forklift, there was some kind of a disturbance in the room.

The camera guy kind of dropped his camera. The guy on the forklift was not effected. But the other guy was blown through a cinder block wall. He was stopped by his turtle re breather pack. It acted like a harness and stopped him from really taking off.

The moral of the story is that ammonia and propane fumes form an almost silent but super high speed explosive. The fellow outside survived the acceleration in four feet from zero to the speed necessary to put a hole in a cinder block wall.

We knew it was NO2, and that ammonia can do that with aromatic hydrocarbons. Ammonia factories I believe fusion hydrogen to nitrogen, under super heat and pressure, to create oxygen, which forms NO2 in the chamber.

I do not believe ammonia has any hydrogen in it.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

40. I will tell you guys something. I do not believe you have much or any faith in your science.

But when you attack my science, with a bunch of verbal insults, and no facts that you can demonstrate. When someone dies because they did not have at least a chance to see what I am saying. I just want you to know, that I was doing my job.

You on the other hand have probably through peer pressure scared poor scientists and moderators into moving the all electron universe thread into the pseudo science area.

When someone is dead I hope it is you, rather then a good person that came here for a real look at the world. Or to at least have a view of what was and what is, to different people.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

41. Originally Posted by Wikipedia
Ammonia, as used commercially, is often called anhydrous ammonia. This term emphasizes the absence of water in the material.
Anhydrous does not refer to the absence of hydrogen. is not ammonia, but is highly flammable, being an oxidizer (if you even know what the word means).

It is people like you responsible for the deaths for spreading falsehoods and preventing the progress of science. That you honestly believe exactly the opposite is just sad. I have faith in the scientific method. To have faith in science is more or less an oxymoron.

You continue to ignore the facts presented to you as being "just quoted from the corrupt universities" and instead spout nonsense quoted from the nonexistent universal scientists. Guess which one I choose to follow, though I do so knowing it's never the whole truth.

42. Originally Posted by William McCormick
Originally Posted by MagiMaster
Originally Posted by William McCormick

There is no difference in the velocity of the craft to the effect of the propulsion per cycle. As can be proven right on the earths surface, with a gun. That has a lower velocity then the speed of the planets surface. The recoil will be the same, either towards the east or the west.
Do you even know what's cycling?
Did you ever hear a rocket engine? There is a noticeable harmonic. Either a rumble or a hiss on the really good systems.

That sound is representative of the cycles of propulsion in the engine.

But the bottom line is that each time a particle/atom/molecule leaves the engine. It was propelled from an engine moving at a slightly higher velocity then it was moving before the last particle was expelled. And it will have the same effect as the last particle did.

Because it has been accelerated with the rocket already.

Sincerely,

William McCormick
Let me make this simple.

1) I have heard a lot of rocket motors. There are no cycles of propulsion, and in fact that notion is utterly meaningless. As meaningless as the rest of your posts.

2) You don't know what you are talking about. You are simply dead wrong. In fact if each incremental amount of mass leaving the rocket resulted in the same incremental change in velocity, you would have discovered a new law of physics, and found a way to violate conservation of energy, and conservation of momentum.

If this is coffee, please bring me some tea; but if this is tea, please bring me some coffee. --Abraham Lincoln

43. Originally Posted by MagiMaster
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
Ammonia, as used commercially, is often called anhydrous ammonia. This term emphasizes the absence of water in the material.
Anhydrous does not refer to the absence of hydrogen. is not ammonia, but is highly flammable, being an oxidizer (if you even know what the word means).

It is people like you responsible for the deaths for spreading falsehoods and preventing the progress of science. That you honestly believe exactly the opposite is just sad. I have faith in the scientific method. To have faith in science is more or less an oxymoron.

You continue to ignore the facts presented to you as being "just quoted from the corrupt universities" and instead spout nonsense quoted from the nonexistent universal scientists. Guess which one I choose to follow, though I do so knowing it's never the whole truth.
Anhydrous means having no water. It was taught in my school as NO2 being the formula for ammonia. I hauled NO2 Mallincrodt ammonia from many schools here on Long Island. I just thought they were going to replace it. By the time I realized what happened, I could not even find one bottle marked NO2.

We knew law makers should have been put in a lethal chamber for their own good, and spiritual benefit, as well as the benefit of the world. I just could not believe the madness was starting to take over here.

As far as wishing current science to spread, that is like wishing for a deadly virus to spread.

The reason current science is stymied, and has not done anything good. Except give the ok with the power of meaningless college degrees, to weaken the basic structure of the United States. For quick grant monies and phony projects.
Is that modern science has nothing Benjamin Franklin did not have. In fact it has less, less the guts and courage of Benjamin Franklin. And less scientific facts.

You have presented no facts. You have quoted proven irresponsible sources of information, again and again. Proven liars, and proven hypocrites are your sources, of what you call facts.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

44. Originally Posted by DrRocket
Originally Posted by William McCormick
Originally Posted by MagiMaster
Originally Posted by William McCormick

There is no difference in the velocity of the craft to the effect of the propulsion per cycle. As can be proven right on the earths surface, with a gun. That has a lower velocity then the speed of the planets surface. The recoil will be the same, either towards the east or the west.
Do you even know what's cycling?
Did you ever hear a rocket engine? There is a noticeable harmonic. Either a rumble or a hiss on the really good systems.

That sound is representative of the cycles of propulsion in the engine.

But the bottom line is that each time a particle/atom/molecule leaves the engine. It was propelled from an engine moving at a slightly higher velocity then it was moving before the last particle was expelled. And it will have the same effect as the last particle did.

Because it has been accelerated with the rocket already.

Sincerely,

William McCormick
Let me make this simple.

1) I have heard a lot of rocket motors. There are no cycles of propulsion, and in fact that notion is utterly meaningless. As meaningless as the rest of your posts.

2) You don't know what you are talking about. You are simply dead wrong. In fact if each incremental amount of mass leaving the rocket resulted in the same incremental change in velocity, you would have discovered a new law of physics, and found a way to violate conservation of energy, and conservation of momentum.

If this is coffee, please bring me some tea; but if this is tea, please bring me some coffee. --Abraham Lincoln
Each molecule or atom leaving the engine represents a new time frame. Each particle leaving a rocket that is accelerating. Is leaving a rocket that is moving faster, then the rocket was moving when the last or previous particle left the rocket.

That is why velocity is compounded as I have stated all along. Each atom leaving in succession, leaves a rocket that is going faster then it was, when the previous atom left.

Often these events set up noticeable or measurable frequencies. Or multiple pressure waves a second.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

45. Originally Posted by William McCormick

Anhydrous means having no water. It was taught in my school as NO2 being the formula for ammonia. I hauled NO2 Mallincrodt ammonia from many schools here on Long Island. I just thought they were going to replace it. By the time I realized what happened, I could not even find one bottle marked NO2.

We knew law makers should have been put in a lethal chamber for their own good, and spiritual benefit, as well as the benefit of the world. I just could not believe the madness was starting to take over here.

As far as wishing current science to spread, that is like wishing for a deadly virus to spread.

The reason current science is stymied, and has not done anything good. Except give the ok with the power of meaningless college degrees, to weaken the basic structure of the United States. For quick grant monies and phony projects.
Is that modern science has nothing Benjamin Franklin did not have. In fact it has less, less the guts and courage of Benjamin Franklin. And less scientific facts.

You have presented no facts. You have quoted proven irresponsible sources of information, again and again. Proven liars, and proven hypocrites are your sources, of what you call facts.

Sincerely,

William McCormick
Ammonia is NH3. NO2 is nitrogen dioxide. They are not even similar.

There is no such thing as a nitrogen bomb. But that is not a surprise. Almost all of your statements refer to false or non-existent science.

What is your problem with colleges and universities. Did one reject you ?

"He has no enemies, but is intensely disliked by his friends."
Oscar Wilde

46. Originally Posted by DrRocket
Originally Posted by William McCormick

Anhydrous means having no water. It was taught in my school as NO2 being the formula for ammonia. I hauled NO2 Mallincrodt ammonia from many schools here on Long Island. I just thought they were going to replace it. By the time I realized what happened, I could not even find one bottle marked NO2.

We knew law makers should have been put in a lethal chamber for their own good, and spiritual benefit, as well as the benefit of the world. I just could not believe the madness was starting to take over here.

As far as wishing current science to spread, that is like wishing for a deadly virus to spread.

The reason current science is stymied, and has not done anything good. Except give the ok with the power of meaningless college degrees, to weaken the basic structure of the United States. For quick grant monies and phony projects.
Is that modern science has nothing Benjamin Franklin did not have. In fact it has less, less the guts and courage of Benjamin Franklin. And less scientific facts.

You have presented no facts. You have quoted proven irresponsible sources of information, again and again. Proven liars, and proven hypocrites are your sources, of what you call facts.

Sincerely,

William McCormick
Ammonia is NH3. NO2 is nitrogen dioxide. They are not even similar.

There is no such thing as a nitrogen bomb. But that is not a surprise. Almost all of your statements refer to false or non-existent science.

What is your problem with colleges and universities. Did one reject you ?

"He has no enemies, but is intensely disliked by his friends."
Oscar Wilde
You must have some personal experience with ammonia that you feel so strongly that it is NH3. Why don't you tell us about it?

I am stating that ammonia was in my area NO2 for many years, most of my life. Learned it that way in school. Mallincrodt sold it that way for many years. Mallincrodt was the company that sold reagent chemicals to many agencies for many years.

They have almost disappeared.

No one has even shown or proven the bond between hydrogen and nitrogen. Nitrogen is almost inert if it was not for oxygen.

Nitrogen in Siamese form N2 can hold some hydrogen loosely, because Siamese nitrogen takes on some of the properties of carbon. However they are not really hard chemical bonds.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

47. Originally Posted by William McCormick
Originally Posted by DrRocket
Originally Posted by William McCormick

Anhydrous means having no water. It was taught in my school as NO2 being the formula for ammonia. I hauled NO2 Mallincrodt ammonia from many schools here on Long Island. I just thought they were going to replace it. By the time I realized what happened, I could not even find one bottle marked NO2.

We knew law makers should have been put in a lethal chamber for their own good, and spiritual benefit, as well as the benefit of the world. I just could not believe the madness was starting to take over here.

As far as wishing current science to spread, that is like wishing for a deadly virus to spread.

The reason current science is stymied, and has not done anything good. Except give the ok with the power of meaningless college degrees, to weaken the basic structure of the United States. For quick grant monies and phony projects.
Is that modern science has nothing Benjamin Franklin did not have. In fact it has less, less the guts and courage of Benjamin Franklin. And less scientific facts.

You have presented no facts. You have quoted proven irresponsible sources of information, again and again. Proven liars, and proven hypocrites are your sources, of what you call facts.

Sincerely,

William McCormick
Ammonia is NH3. NO2 is nitrogen dioxide. They are not even similar.

There is no such thing as a nitrogen bomb. But that is not a surprise. Almost all of your statements refer to false or non-existent science.

What is your problem with colleges and universities. Did one reject you ?

"He has no enemies, but is intensely disliked by his friends."
Oscar Wilde
You must have some personal experience with ammonia that you feel so strongly that it is NH3. Why don't you tell us about it?

I am stating that ammonia was in my area NO2 for many years, most of my life. Learned it that way in school. Mallincrodt sold it that way for many years. Mallincrodt was the company that sold reagent chemicals to many agencies for many years.

They have almost disappeared.

No one has even shown or proven the bond between hydrogen and nitrogen. Nitrogen is almost inert if it was not for oxygen.

Nitrogen in Siamese form N2 can hold some hydrogen loosely, because Siamese nitrogen takes on some of the properties of carbon. However they are not really hard chemical bonds.

Sincerely,

William McCormick
Anyone who has ever taken a chemistry course can tell you that ammonia is NH3. You might also try Google and get some positive benefit from your keyboard.

I have a little experience with it. The company from which I retired uses rather a lot of ammonia in explosives. We know the difference between ammonia and nitrogen dioxide.

I doubt very strongly that you were taught in school that ammonia is NO2. What school would that be ? And if they taught such garbage are they still accredited and in operation -- one would hope not.

So we have now extended the list of fields in which you have demonstrated complete ignorance to include chemistry. I think it now comprises Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, History and English grammar -- in short everything that you have ventured to opine upon and the tools with which your opinions are communicated. Quite a record.

48. Originally Posted by DrRocket
Originally Posted by William McCormick
Originally Posted by DrRocket
Originally Posted by William McCormick

Anhydrous means having no water. It was taught in my school as NO2 being the formula for ammonia. I hauled NO2 Mallincrodt ammonia from many schools here on Long Island. I just thought they were going to replace it. By the time I realized what happened, I could not even find one bottle marked NO2.

We knew law makers should have been put in a lethal chamber for their own good, and spiritual benefit, as well as the benefit of the world. I just could not believe the madness was starting to take over here.

As far as wishing current science to spread, that is like wishing for a deadly virus to spread.

The reason current science is stymied, and has not done anything good. Except give the ok with the power of meaningless college degrees, to weaken the basic structure of the United States. For quick grant monies and phony projects.
Is that modern science has nothing Benjamin Franklin did not have. In fact it has less, less the guts and courage of Benjamin Franklin. And less scientific facts.

You have presented no facts. You have quoted proven irresponsible sources of information, again and again. Proven liars, and proven hypocrites are your sources, of what you call facts.

Sincerely,

William McCormick
Ammonia is NH3. NO2 is nitrogen dioxide. They are not even similar.

There is no such thing as a nitrogen bomb. But that is not a surprise. Almost all of your statements refer to false or non-existent science.

What is your problem with colleges and universities. Did one reject you ?

"He has no enemies, but is intensely disliked by his friends."
Oscar Wilde
You must have some personal experience with ammonia that you feel so strongly that it is NH3. Why don't you tell us about it?

I am stating that ammonia was in my area NO2 for many years, most of my life. Learned it that way in school. Mallincrodt sold it that way for many years. Mallincrodt was the company that sold reagent chemicals to many agencies for many years.

They have almost disappeared.

No one has even shown or proven the bond between hydrogen and nitrogen. Nitrogen is almost inert if it was not for oxygen.

Nitrogen in Siamese form N2 can hold some hydrogen loosely, because Siamese nitrogen takes on some of the properties of carbon. However they are not really hard chemical bonds.

Sincerely,

William McCormick
Anyone who has ever taken a chemistry course can tell you that ammonia is NH3. You might also try Google and get some positive benefit from your keyboard.

I have a little experience with it. The company from which I retired uses rather a lot of ammonia in explosives. We know the difference between ammonia and nitrogen dioxide.

I doubt very strongly that you were taught in school that ammonia is NO2. What school would that be ? And if they taught such garbage are they still accredited and in operation -- one would hope not.

So we have now extended the list of fields in which you have demonstrated complete ignorance to include chemistry. I think it now comprises Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, History and English grammar -- in short everything that you have ventured to opine upon and the tools with which your opinions are communicated. Quite a record.
Another lie. I took chemistry, college chemistry in grade school. I was taking a lot of college courses in public school. It was taught that ammonia was NO2.

Why do you feel ammonia is NH3. You certainly would not risk someone else's life merely based on what you do not understand? Would you?

Why is ammonia NH3, not why Joe multi subatomic particle scientist thinks so, but why do you think it is NH3.

I can show that it is NO2. I had to work with it. I had to know it was NO2. I have caused doctors to pass out standing up, just discussing this subject. And even government agents.

Doctors and agents when hit with enough proofs and with enough of their own beliefs challenged, actually can pass out standing up. Their strong beliefs form a powerful hypocrisy in their own minds. In stead of a strong, Socrates in their own mind, Ha-ha.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

49. Originally Posted by William McCormick
Originally Posted by DrRocket
Originally Posted by William McCormick
Originally Posted by DrRocket
Originally Posted by William McCormick

Anhydrous means having no water. It was taught in my school as NO2 being the formula for ammonia. I hauled NO2 Mallincrodt ammonia from many schools here on Long Island. I just thought they were going to replace it. By the time I realized what happened, I could not even find one bottle marked NO2.

We knew law makers should have been put in a lethal chamber for their own good, and spiritual benefit, as well as the benefit of the world. I just could not believe the madness was starting to take over here.

As far as wishing current science to spread, that is like wishing for a deadly virus to spread.

The reason current science is stymied, and has not done anything good. Except give the ok with the power of meaningless college degrees, to weaken the basic structure of the United States. For quick grant monies and phony projects.
Is that modern science has nothing Benjamin Franklin did not have. In fact it has less, less the guts and courage of Benjamin Franklin. And less scientific facts.

You have presented no facts. You have quoted proven irresponsible sources of information, again and again. Proven liars, and proven hypocrites are your sources, of what you call facts.

Sincerely,

William McCormick
Ammonia is NH3. NO2 is nitrogen dioxide. They are not even similar.

There is no such thing as a nitrogen bomb. But that is not a surprise. Almost all of your statements refer to false or non-existent science.

What is your problem with colleges and universities. Did one reject you ?

"He has no enemies, but is intensely disliked by his friends."
Oscar Wilde
You must have some personal experience with ammonia that you feel so strongly that it is NH3. Why don't you tell us about it?

I am stating that ammonia was in my area NO2 for many years, most of my life. Learned it that way in school. Mallincrodt sold it that way for many years. Mallincrodt was the company that sold reagent chemicals to many agencies for many years.

They have almost disappeared.

No one has even shown or proven the bond between hydrogen and nitrogen. Nitrogen is almost inert if it was not for oxygen.

Nitrogen in Siamese form N2 can hold some hydrogen loosely, because Siamese nitrogen takes on some of the properties of carbon. However they are not really hard chemical bonds.

Sincerely,

William McCormick
Anyone who has ever taken a chemistry course can tell you that ammonia is NH3. You might also try Google and get some positive benefit from your keyboard.

I have a little experience with it. The company from which I retired uses rather a lot of ammonia in explosives. We know the difference between ammonia and nitrogen dioxide.

I doubt very strongly that you were taught in school that ammonia is NO2. What school would that be ? And if they taught such garbage are they still accredited and in operation -- one would hope not.

So we have now extended the list of fields in which you have demonstrated complete ignorance to include chemistry. I think it now comprises Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, History and English grammar -- in short everything that you have ventured to opine upon and the tools with which your opinions are communicated. Quite a record.
Another lie. I took chemistry, college chemistry in grade school. I was taking a lot of college courses in public school. It was taught that ammonia was NO2.

Why do you feel ammonia is NH3. You certainly would not risk someone else's life merely based on what you do not understand? Would you?

Why is ammonia NH3, not why Joe multi subatomic particle scientist thinks so, but why do you think it is NH3.

I can show that it is NO2. I had to work with it. I had to know it was NO2. I have caused doctors to pass out standing up, just discussing this subject. And even government agents.

Doctors and agents when hit with enough proofs and with enough of their own beliefs challenged, actually can pass out standing up. Their strong beliefs form a powerful hypocrisy in their own minds. In stead of a strong, Socrates in their own mind, Ha-ha.

Sincerely,

William McCormick
Accusing me of lying is just comical. There is no lie in anything that I have said. Most specifically there is absolute truth in my many statements to the effect that you don't know what you are talking about. Not in any field. Not in any language.

Ammonia is NH3, period. NO2 is nitrogen dioxide.

I strongly doubt that you took college chemistry in grade school. I strongly doubt that you even managed to graduate from grade school.

I believe that you caused doctors to pass out while standing up. They probably were laughing too hard at your idiocy.

Government agents ? Were they carrying butterfly nets ? Did they offer you a nice coat with sleeves that buckle in back ?

50. Originally Posted by DrRocket

Accusing me of lying is just comical. There is no lie in anything that I have said. Most specifically there is absolute truth in my many statements to the effect that you don't know what you are talking about. Not in any field. Not in any language.

Ammonia is NH3, period. NO2 is nitrogen dioxide.

I strongly doubt that you took college chemistry in grade school. I strongly doubt that you even managed to graduate from grade school.

I believe that you caused doctors to pass out while standing up. They probably were laughing too hard at your idiocy.

Government agents ? Were they carrying butterfly nets ? Did they offer you a nice coat with sleeves that buckle in back ?
You said anyone that took a chemistry course knows it is NH3, that is not true, that is a lie. I know a lot of people that took chemistry courses and they know it is NO2.
All you said was that many more people are not properly trained or given proper chemical information in chemistry class. To that I would agree.

You have never even offered your opinion of anything. You just quote what is currently believed. I know I have dealt with others over the years. And their views and scientific beliefs change with the latest Wiki page. It is almost funny if it were not so sad.

Take ferric chloride for instance. If you have ever seen it you would know it is rust in water or hydrochloric acid solution. They use it to etch. I have handled it hauled it. Yet many feel that orange rust, is ferric oxide. It is not. But you cannot tell any modern scientist that because they do not believe it. Because the most modern books say it is an oxide.

The different ways you can make ferric chloride is part of the problem. You can make it with either hydrochloric acid, or with nitric acid. Actually better put you can strengthen the solution either way. That is what is taking place, most of the time in an etching factory. You can add either chemical, one an oxide and one a chloride.

Both processes are called oxidation. I believe that is where a decent scientist probably became very embarrassed with the new labelling system. And confused the two substances.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

51. Originally Posted by William McCormick
You said anyone that took a chemistry course knows it is NH3, that is not true, that is a lie. I know a lot of people that took chemistry courses and they know it is NO2.
drat - i suppose wikipedia has got it wrong again

52. If so, then it must be wrong twice. :wink:

53. Since the original subject has been addressed to the satisfaction of the original poster, I see no reason to continue this thread and therefore am locking it.

 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement