Originally Posted By: paul
there really is nothing that your twisting of words and math can accomplish with me that is , I know Im right

And yet are completely unable to provide one iota of proof. Strange, isn't it - you're right and yet you've been able to convince no one here...LOL

Originally Posted By: paul

even though you have repeatedly re-stated the same old stuff over and over , never once admitting that the mass of air comming out of the nozzle has velocity , simply because the nozzle isnt really a nozzle.

And now you're lying - I've repetitively stated the mass of air has velocity upon exiting the tank. If you re-read my last few posts I've even given the exact speed it will move at - the speed of sound.

Odd, that you have to lie about my claims, in order to make your "point".

Originally Posted By: paul
a nozzle only focuses the thrust.

Nope. And once again the irony - both the page I linked to, as well as the one you linked to, clearly state how nozzles help provide additional thrust. Apparently you don't even read your own sources.

Originally Posted By: paul

in this case a nozzle is not the reason there is a thrust
the thrust comes from the m*Ve.

You're wrong here, as has been pointed out time and time again. Ignoring reality doesn't make it go away.

how m*Ve is calculated is broadly published. You ignore those formula, that doesn't make you right.

Originally Posted By: paul
so why do they bother putting fuel in jet aircraft all they really need is a nozzle.

Wow, the ignorance grows:
1) Jet engines work on a completely different concept. Ergo, not comparable to simple rocket engines

2) The combustion produces pressure. A nozzle is useless without pressure.

Originally Posted By: paul
paul is just using a tube therefore no velocity , right!!!

No increase in exhaust velocity, therefore m*Ve is zero. There will be the velocity intrinsic to [Pt-Pe]Ae.

Originally Posted By: paul
if I have a rifle and I cut the barrel off just beyond the bullet , according to your genius the bullet would just stay there when I fired the riffle.

Nope, and if that is what you think than you completely missed the point. The fact you think guns and rockets work on the same principals is particularity telling...

So there ya'll have it - Pauls argument in a nut shell:
a) ignore basic physics,
b) re-write formulas to suit his purposes,
c) lie about the claims of others, and
d) come up with irrelevant examples


Edited by ImagingGeek (06/08/10 08:44 PM)