Raider5678

Well, there are random atoms floating around in space. Wouldn't that theoretically eventually absorb the rays of light?

I joined my student government and got chosen to go to my state capital with about 350 other kids to present a bill. The kids are from all over the state, from different schools, with the number of students going for the Senate is based on how many kids there are, and the number of students for the house is just any kid who's in the program. One of the requirements for presenting a bill is that you need sponsors. A sponsor in the Senate, a sponsor in the house, and you. So three people supporting every bill. But the sponsors all have to be from the same delegation, meaning I'm limited to 7 other kids to find two sponsors for. And naturally, it usually comes to "I'll sponsor your bill if you sponsor my bill, and he'll sponsor our bills if we'll sponsor his bills." And, usually, that results in sponsoring a bill that I don't particularly agree with. But, I have to defend adamantly in the Senate because I'm a sponsor for it. Which means denying facts. And whitewashing most of the bill to emphasize what the other kids would probably approve of, etc. I'm starting to realize why politicians have such a hard time just going with what they believe. Because I've also heard there are about 6 well-respected kids whos opinion in the Senate will sway most of the other kids who have been there before IF they're from the same party(Liberal vs Conservative). Which I can see how that'd apply to real life with the idea that if you don't support the big players you aren't going anywhere. Because the other party won't support you, and if you speak out against your own party then they'll supposedly speak out against your own bills. Corruption in a freaking student government, I imagine it'd be worse in the national government. In my opinion, an American education system is simply a machine that creates a member of society. Who needs free thinkers? They mess up the system. If it succeeds, you get someone who sure, may have gotten bad grades or good grades, but they're usually going to end up working some job for the rest of their life without a society driving career. If it fails, then either they succeed and become the members of society who drive it, like scientists, leaders, politicians, inventors, etc. Or. They become the unproductive members of society. Drug dealers, thieves, etc. But that's just my opinion.

The reaction wheel will most likely be bought, if I can't buy one, I'll have to find some other method to control the rocket.

I did. Sadly, I lack access to a 3d printer capable of that.

I believe very simply that for the majority of cases if you believe your integrity will be perfectly fine, and you have no doubts that you will have no problem with what you've done, then it's perfectly fine. For example, if you're married and thinking about sleeping with another woman. Would your integrity be intact? Would you have any regrets? Are there consequences? And never ever base the pros and cons on "If I get caught then" consider them as everyone knows. Chances are if that seems like a bad option you probably shouldn't do it.

I have a large clear flat area to launch the rocket. It should be well away from danger even if it passes that because then there's only 1 lousy barn and house, before clear all over again. Regardless, proper precautions will be taken. I do have a video of the previous rocket, however, I don't want to share it because it's technically the group's rocket and their video, which is linked to their group directly. Although, the previous was a relatively simple two-stage rocket that landed with a parachute. It is a modified version of the randomizer rocket built by grant Thompson, which is the first rocket I built. The second one had a larger parachute container, so it deployed easier, and a larger nose cone. The rubber will keep burning, that's how I restart the engine. However, when simply burning on atmosphere without the oxidizer, it'll basically just become smoldering hot rubber, and when the oxidizer is reintroduced it'll burn again. The paraffin wax would be around twice as powerful as the rubber, however, I'm concerned that when the oxidizer stops the wax will still be melting, resulting in a lot of loss of potential fuel, and possibly even resulting in the nozzle becoming clogged, resulting in an explosion when the pressurized oxygen burns with the wax. Not a major explosion, but enough to possibly damage the rocket. Hence why I'm leaning towards using a rubber. I'm using oxygen because then I don't have to worry about the gas catching on fire and burning back through the tube and into the container. THAT, would result in one hell of a firework and probably be getting me investigated by firefighters for a safety hazard.

Hello guys. I have an engineering project I've been working on for quite some time now. It's a large hybrid rocket that I plan to build, and I expect it to cost around 2-3k. Now, because it costs so much, I plan to build it over the course of a few years. But at the same time, I really don't want to waste money so I'd like some tips. So, I'll explain it now. Firstly, it's objective. The objective is to get it to around 1k meters, and then bring it in for a propulsive landing. I know landing it will be extremely hard, but that's more of an afterthought. For comparison, my highest rocket got to about 1800 feet, but that was for a church group who asked me to make them one. I built two, but one of the parachutes failed. Either way, that's the objective. (It's always good to have an objective for a project in mind right? Beats randomly putting it together.) 1k meters with a propulsive landing. So, now I'll cover the engineering part of it. For the engine, obviously, I'll be using a hybrid rocket engine. The fuel will be solid rubber-based fuel fed by gaseous oxygen OR a solid paraffin wax fuel fed by gaseous oxygen. The oxygen cannister will be controlled by a motorized valve that can not only open and shut quickly but can be opened specific amounts. Allowing me to control the throttle of it through an onboard flight computer. The flight computer will have a simple motherboard, a gyroscope, an altimeter, a battery pack, an inertial measurement unit, a small camera, and an accelerometer. This is mainly going to collect data because I don't believe the first few flights will be a success, so I'd like to have as much data as possible to see where it went wrong(I.E. wasn't slowing down as expected because it wasn't pointing the right direction). It will use a reaction wheel located near the top of the rocket to control its rotation. But I'm not sure on the physics of that one so please tell me if that's wrong I'll accommodate changing it to a different section, like the middle. The nose cone will contain a small parachute that the flight computer will activate should data reach certain parameters(I.E. not pointing the proper direction, not slowing down like expected, or going too fast at a predetermined height.) Other than that, basic specifications are currently 3 1/2 inches in diameter and 4 ft tall without the nose cone and the rocket is expected to weight around 40-60 pounds. I plan to test the engine first after making it so that I can learn exactly how much thrust I'm getting, how long it can burn, how well it restarts, etc. Necessary things for the flight computer. As for the flight computer, I plan to have it fairly small, so I'll send it up on a reliable rocket that I have that can lift around 3 pounds of extra weight so that I can test the computers readings and everything else. Once the engine and the computer have been I will start work on integrating them into the main rocket together. After that is done, I'll do a static test of the rocket to make sure the flight computer is capable of controlling the rocket, the reaction wheel, and interpreting expected data and actual data. So, before I commence with assembling the engine and flight computer, is there anything major that I missed?

This is probably a no-brainer and might have already been said. But if you keep smoking, it means you have access to cigarettes quickly and easily. So, do two things right now. 1. Get rid of any cigarettes you currently have. Soak them in water. Then throw them away. If you just throw them away you might be tempted to get them again. If soaking them doesn't do it enough alone, then do anything you can to make them absolutely not smokeable. 2. Get rid of your access to cigarettes. If you live with someone, have them hold all of your money so that you have no chance to get cigarettes without going out of your way. Often, with the addiction, it's easier to resist if you have to go out of your way to do it then when it's easy to do. If you don't have anyone to hold your money, make a budget. Allocate all your money so that at the end of the day you have no money floating around to buy a cigarette. Heck, spend it on going to the movies or something. Maybe it's wasting some money, but it's better than spending it on cigarettes. 3. Print a no smoking sign and hang it where ever you smoke if it's on your property. 4. Get real. Stop smoking now, and really mean it. If you really mean it, you'll have no problem completely destroying your access to cigarettes, getting rid of any current ones, and having someone else help you stop smoking by holding you accountable. Also, weaning yourself off of cigarettes does not work. Don't bother trying. All or nothing. The reason is that when you say "I'll go for 1 whole day today, then two whole days after, etc." the cigarette becomes a reward. Not the enemy. You don't indulge yourself with the enemy, you stop all contact with them. The cigarette is the enemy. It is the enemy. It is working to destroy you. You're letting it control your life. Write stuff down. Again and again and again. Force feed your brain that cigarettes are the enemy. First three days are the hardest. Get past them, and never ever ever ever give in again.

Yeah. I was thinking if there was a way to set up like 10 "bottle contraptions" that use this same principle to make the water go faster and faster with each hit.

So I was watching a video on bottle busting. Basically, you take a non-carbonated liquid, smack your hand onto the top of the glass bottle, and then the bottom of the bottle shatters. This happens because the bottle moves down faster than the water, creating a vacuum at the bottom of the bottle. The water then rushes to fill that gap 10x faster then what you hit the bottle with. Effectively, it seemingly magnifies the energy to break the bottle. But that's impossible, and I know it. So where did the extra energy come from? Assuming you transfer 7 kilograms of force to the top of the bottle, why does the bottle break from a force of 70 kilograms(estimate)? Where did that extra 63 kilograms of energy come from? Now that I'm thinking about it I'm realizing that just because it's faster doesn't mean that it's got more force, but just to confirm I'm still asking. The video I saw this on: He was a NASA engineer once and he explains it.

Hydrogen?

I already realized that trying to split it up on the fly wasn't going to work. However, when you guys mentioned it, it sparked my curiosity again and I wondered once again if I could use it. Right now I'm working on a way to keep liquid oxygen cold enough inside of a small rocket.

Sorry for taking so long, been busy. I'm trying to achieve a way to continuously and quickly separate hydrogen peroxide into Hydrogen and Oxygen so that I can create a sustained burn for a liquid fuel rocket engine. Yes, I know it's dangerous. Yes, I know it's most likely easier to use a different liquid fuel. However, I'm just kinda messing around here. So the idea is to have the tank run the hydrogen peroxide over a catalyst and immediately following either do electrolysis OR start running it through the engine. However, so far, water and Hydrogen don't burn well. This creates hydrogen and water.

Yeah. Sorry.

Um, no. That's not perpetual motion. That's changing chemical energy into them moving around to keep balance.

Same here. The new SF might be the reason?

Actually, if the perpetual motion machine runs off the battery yet charges the battery with even more power then it put out, then you have a perpetual motion machine. However, using a battery means you're GOING TO LOSE energy when you store it and retrieve it. Which means even if you did stumble across a perpetual motion machine, if you're using a battery there's a good chance you wouldn't know it.

So planning phase it is. First, be very aware it is highly likely this is not possible without some sort of advanced physics due to the laws of thermodynamics.

Fair enough. You're just in the planning phase, aren't you?

A nuclear explosion is out for me. So what would you recommend as a catalysis?

Fair enough. What would be the most efficient method?

A perpetual motion machine has never been created before, and many people have tried. However, if you happen to find some way to stumble across a way to do this then please, by all means do it. However, what's your current idea?

Nope. Not very efficient or quick without a massive amount of electric charge.

What is the fastest way to separate hydrogen peroxide into hydrogen and oxygen?

Amazing. You're one of the first people on this forum that I know is younger than me. Just reading through half of these discussions you'll realize just how much there is that you don't know, and how much fun it is to learn so much so quickly. If you have a few hours to kill, I suggest watching these: 14 videos of well thought out and accurate things for quantum mechanics. And generally, check out a lot of their videos. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7_gcs09iThXybpVgjHZ_7g/playlists Not everything on youtube is accurate but some things are capable of building a basic understanding of it. If you watch all these videos, I guarantee you'll be able to understand Vmedvil's post if you can't already.