i am asking for a peer review of my deductions and data if you don't know what is correct and incorrect with what i presented, how will my reading the "Lunar Module Blast Crater Facts and Myths Revealed " make any difference?
you trying to motivate me to educate myself or avoid saying you can't grasp my ideas?
playdor, I don't think you understand what "peer review" means.
You don't get peer review by going on a website and posting a couple of paragraphs (or, for Patrick1K, a lot of paragraphs). You write up a complete article, and submit it to a scientific journal. The journal then invites experts in the field to review it, and identify any mistakes or weaknesses in your arguments. If none can be found, then the article can be published.
"Just asking questions" is nothing that *can* be peer-reviewed. You have to put together a coherent hypothesis, and the evidence you think support it. "But what about X?" is not the way it's done.
please note Reason 3a - never mentioned craters Reason 3b - never mentioned craters Reason 3c - never mentioned craters explanation of Space & Vacuum - never mentioned craters.
craters are not part of my deductions or data presented.
Then please explain what point you were trying to make with all of this.
point is that this is enormous pressure. Ralph Rene was absolutely correct, the PRESSURE from the leaf blower just needed to be defined. it is 181 pounds per square foot applied to regolith weighing 1/6 of what it would on earth. or 1084 pounds per square foot on earth.
1084 pounds of pressure would move boulders across a desert floor, as stated by Bill Kaysing.
How silly of me to think that you were alluding to crater formation. It's just that when you referred to an experiment conducted by Ralph Rene in which he was specifically trying to demonstrate how a crater would form; and when you mentioned a comment made by Bill Kaysing during a discussion about how the LM's engine should have allegedly produced a crater; I just naturally assumed that that's where you were going with this discussion.
Joined: May 2005 Gender: Male Posts: 3,144 Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Re: Playdor shows off his lack of scientific knowl « Reply #1309 on Jan 29, 2012, 2:12am »
You know what, Playdor? I'm done with you. You don't know anything about science or Apollo and yet you seem to believe that you are right and everyone else is wrong (even those who have direct experience with rocketry and other space sciences). You're wrong, and you are too stubborn and arrogant to accept it. There is no point in us continuing to discuss this with you.
I gave you a chance for much longer than I think most people would have. But that's it, you're banned.
and for the goodness sake im telling you NASA lied about going to the moon so why would i consider their explanation as to why they can make rockets that can gain an unequal reaction from the universe?
what goes up meets must come down...simple right? use a pound of force to hold up a pound of force equal and opposite if you hold up 3,000 pounds of matter how can you provide less force then an equal force and hold it up?
which rule does not apply to NASA?
There is nothing wrong with the design of the LM or its engines. The ability of the LM to complete the descent maneuvers attributed to it has been mathematically verified here:
Joined: Dec 2007 Gender: Male Posts: 1,011 Location: Wales
Re: Playdor shows off his lack of scientific knowl « Reply #1314 on Jan 29, 2012, 6:10am »
Interesting. I genuinely do not know the facts regarding the design and operation of the LM decent engine. I refrained from looking at Bob B page, I was sure there was information there, I wanted to see if any came in through Playdor. No matter.
But once again, another point leads me off on a voyage of discovery.
Yes, I have heard of back pressure. However, you're the first person who has suggested that it is insurmountable.
How does a Harrier land, if it cannot be manipulated so that the weight of the vehicle exceeds any upward force?
As playdor wont be answering your question, here's my shot at it.
Basically, when a jet strikes a surface, it flows radially outward along the surface. This is what happens with the single nozzle of the LM, and it doesn't create significant back-pressure. In an atmosphere, the outflow actually induces a flow in the air between itself and the aircraft that sucks the aircraft down.
The four nozzles of the Harrier are a bit different, since in the region between the nozzles, the outflows from the individual nozzles are inflows from the point of view of the aircraft. This means that the flows converge and form a rising plume or fountain from the centre. This impinges on the underside of the aircraft, so there is a back-pressure that pushes the aircraft up. This is actually a valuable feature for countering the suck-down effect and braking the descent. http://on-target-aviation.com/Assetts/images/Harrier_HOVER%20DIAGRAM%20CAG.jpg The later variants of the Harrier had vanes on the undersurface to contain the plume and add to the effect. http://lh5.ggpht.com/_cTaLGgz4Ru8/SFC_X7x1ClI/AAAAAAAAGCk/3CTZYMOrU3g/AV8B.jpg
Joined: May 2005 Gender: Male Posts: 3,144 Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Re: Playdor shows off his lack of scientific knowl « Reply #1316 on Jan 29, 2012, 12:07pm »
Is it correct to say the exhaust follows the path of least resistance? It seems to me that flowing radially outwards along the surface like you say would be easier than digging a crater into solid rock or going straight back up and fighting against gravity and the rest of the exhaust coming down.
Is it correct to say the exhaust follows the path of least resistance? It seems to me that flowing radially outwards along the surface like you say would be easier than digging a crater into solid rock or going straight back up and fighting against gravity and the rest of the exhaust coming down.
Basically, provided the surface is strong enough, it turns the jet molecules through ninety degrees so they can flow outwards. After that, there's nothing to turn the jet any more and they just keep going. I think Bob(?) has shown that the pressure in the jet was low, so it is only going to shift loose material.
The core of the jet, all of it at the nozzle exit but diminishing in diameter as it goes downwards, is supersonic which means no pressure wave can travel against the flow.
Joined: May 2005 Gender: Male Posts: 3,122 Location: Space City, Texas
Re: Playdor shows off his lack of scientific knowl « Reply #1318 on Jan 29, 2012, 2:20pm »
Wow, what a stunning dive into depths of conspiracy thinking. Playdor is nothing if not persistent and finally did what was needed to get his banned at Apollo Hoax merit badge. I can't say that I will miss him much, beyond some mild amusement at his stunning ability to misunderstand.
laurel i don't see the need to share my science degrees with this forum,
No one believes you have "multiple degrees in science". We are calling your bluff.
i have told you that they are not in space science or physics (although once discovered, i love physics)
If you love physics, you should learn something about it. You have demonstrated a profound and wide-ranging ignorance of the subject.
if my data or deductions are wrong please address it.
This has been done many times, and you have been also asked many times why, when you have demonstrated such ignorance and made so many fundamental mistakes, you fail to question your own premises. If you were any sort of a scientist - even an amateur - you would at least answer this question. The fact you don't speaks volumes about your fixity of unfounded belief.
Please remember, though, you are not fooling anybody with your claims to any sort of scientific expertise.
![[Home]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/home.gif "[Home]")
![[New Topics]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/topics.png "[New Topics]")
![[Help]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/help.gif "[Help]")
![[Search]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/search.gif "[Search]")
![[Login]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/login.gif "[Login]")
![[Search This Thread]](http://images.proboards.com/search2.gif "[Search This Thread]")
![[Share Topic]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/share.png "[Share Topic]")
Author
Logged![[avatar]](http://www.braeunig.us/pics/gemini.jpg "[avatar]")
![[homepage]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/www_sm.gif "[homepage]")
![[avatar]](http://i120.photobucket.com/albums/o162/lunarorbit/manonmoon.jpg "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/4969/evergreen100.jpg "[avatar]")
![[msn]](http://images.proboards.com/msn.gif "[msn]")
![[avatar]](http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s37/b2220128/achnaten.jpg "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://www.gifs.net/Animation11/Animals/Dogs/space_dog.gif "[avatar]")