|
Post by tedward on Jan 28, 2012 14:20:58 GMT -4
What are your qualifications you alluded to in another post?
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Jan 28, 2012 14:27:31 GMT -4
I'll take that as none then.
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Jan 28, 2012 15:18:44 GMT -4
chew i have multiple degrees in science i know how it works For posterior. Edit. Page 77
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Jan 28, 2012 15:22:58 GMT -4
What are your qualifications you alluded to in another post? what are you talking about the #126 post that was bob b. "Taking T1 and P1 as the temperature and pressure at the throat, we can easily calculate the temperature at any other pressure. At the nozzle exit, the temperature is 917 K (1191o F)." my qualification? what difference does it make what my qualifications are? is my data correct? if not, why not? Your the one with multiple degrees in science. I am not, so I assume you use it as a way to say "I know and you do not", and here you would be right. These calculations your own? How will this pressure affect dust in a vacuum?
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jan 28, 2012 16:29:00 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Jan 28, 2012 16:36:39 GMT -4
there is no vacuum in space. it is just void of matter.
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Jan 28, 2012 16:38:41 GMT -4
teward "How will this pressure affect dust in a vacuum? " what dust are we talking about? vacuum - what vacuum? can we all discuss vacuum for a minute a vacuum is man made phenomenon, we can provide a force to move matter, if it is done to an enclosed area, the area may be voided of matter, this void can not suck anything into it to stabilize with its surroundings, it can not provide any exchange of energy to move anything. surrounding matter will move into the void because of internal pressure to expand. there is no vacuum in space. it is just void of matter. and if space scientists use vacuum to mean space they would be wrong. You mentioned boulders page over. If it is moving boulders, it would move dust,no? Your formula? Talk me through it. Start with the shape of the bell. You are qualified with multiple science degrees after all. Demonstarte how the force is enough to move boulders.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jan 28, 2012 16:42:09 GMT -4
there is no vacuum in space. Bwahahahahaha! Now you're just embarrassing yourself.
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Jan 28, 2012 16:49:23 GMT -4
Seems like an awfully bad foot in mouth there, diversion from something else?
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jan 28, 2012 17:07:40 GMT -4
let me make this simple so you may understand what space is and what it is not. thought experiment. you are in space you take 1 molecule, you are able to place this molecule in space, and are able to place it so that it is completely stationary. what will make it move? which direction will it move and why? where is the "vacuum" of space now? How does this thought experiment in any way, shape, or form explain in the least what is space and what is not space? More importantly, how in the world does trying to redefine "space" pertain to the matter of dust being blown away by the LM? It sounds an awful lot like you're trying to answer the question "How will this pressure affect dust in the vacuum of space?" with something along the lines of "Well, that just depends on your definition of 'vacuum' and 'space', really." What's next, a thought experiment where we examine what "dust" is by waving around brooms in dimly lit rooms?
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Jan 28, 2012 17:28:35 GMT -4
Seems like an awfully bad foot in mouth there, diversion from something else? you believe in the big bang? that all matter in the universe came from a point as big as a gain of sand? if that is how big matter is when it is all condensed to a point. what is between all the matter now that it fills a universe. space you are space with the tiniest bit of matter. think about that. Tell me about pressure and dust and multiple science qualifications.
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Jan 28, 2012 17:35:24 GMT -4
Yes back to the lem, where is the crater that should have been produced by 1080 pounds of thrust per square foot of pressure? There isn't one because the surface was never exposed to 1080 pounds of thrust per square foot.
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Jan 28, 2012 18:08:55 GMT -4
You brought up the multiple science degrees first, although, strangely, you couldn't tell us what your degrees were in.
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Jan 28, 2012 18:19:34 GMT -4
i have told you that they are not in space science or physics And yet for some reason you assume that you know more than people who actually have degrees in "space science." Why?
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Jan 28, 2012 18:19:41 GMT -4
tedward if i am not correct with my deductions on pressure please post your revisions to my posts and an explanation as to why my data is not correct. dust? EAGLE called it "picking up some dust" from over 40 feet away, why would someone take it literally? it would have been regolith moving, small particle first, followed by heavier particles as the FORCE increased. another way to put it, if there is a fine layer of "dust" sitting only on the top of the regolith, an explanation has to be forthcoming as to what mechanism would account for a fine layer of dust to be present only on top of the regolith and not uniformly distributed throughout the regolith. The process of producing the regolith does not change, it is continual....uniform...same...unchanging... if there is a process to produce dust the process of producing the dust would not change, it would be continual....uniform...same...unchanging... if you claim there is a unique layer it must be accounted for its presence. i know dirt yes, i have multiple science degrees, why would you bring it up? do you really care? First up you use the degrees to lend authority. You brought it up. What are they? Now use that to talk me through it. I was quite clear I am not as qualified as you. Start with the bell and the benefits of its design maybe? From that and the engine you have derived the pressure, you can show that in your own workings out? Yes?
|
|