Model Rocket Engine In A Vacuum Chamber – 4K Slow Motion – will it burn? – Rockets (S1 • E3)


I was scrolling through the comments section. Of our see-through model rocket engine video. That we uploaded the other day. And a few comments there caught my attention. Apparently. The same people that think the Earth is flat. And Rockets cant fly in space. Also think. That a rocket can’t burn in a vacuum. The words hoax. Space flight. Moon landing. The Earth is flat. And stupid. Were few of the words being thrown around
in there. So. I’m going to run this model rocket engine. In this giant vacuum chamber. And let you be the judge. Alright yeah. Look at this baby this looks great. The scroll is done. This is my idea. to mount the rocket engine inside the tube. And what this is going to do. I got this idea. From the inside of a scroll compressor. And what this is going to do. Is not only hold the rocket in the center
of the tube. It’s also going to allow us. To see how much force the rocket is producing. I like the fact that it’s kind of like a scale. That looks pretty sinister. Alright that looks just about good there. That looks nice. We got our cameras all set up. Our Chamber is in a vacuum. And we are ready to roll it. Godspeed. Model rocket engine in a vacuum. It was a success. It burned. The whole rocket engine burned like in one
second. boom gone. It was crazy. Anyway. So yeah. it looks like that was a success. It was amazing because the entire rocket engine. Which usually last about 8 Seconds. Burned up and about. Literally one second In a vacuum. It was gone. So I found that amazing. It was the exact opposite of what everybody
thought it was going to do. Which was not burn at all. And let’s take a look inside there. Look at that a lot of debris. All kinds of stuff in there. And oh yeah. Our GoPro survived. A little bit chart up but it survived. Okay open it up there. I’m going to have you give it a little blow. Look at all the smoke that’s in there. And ready go. Wow that smells good. Thanks to all the viewers. For asking for this particular episode. Because this one was really good. This one was a lot of fun. Surprisingly. After this entire engine burned. We still have vacuum left. In our vacuum chamber. Which was impressive. So I hope you like this video. This was a great subject. Keep the ideas coming. A lot of these ideas. If you haven’t figured out already. We do listen to our audience. We integrate a lot of those ideas into these
episodes. Which in my opinion makes them more
organic. And gives me a lot of ideas. That I wouldn’t think of on my own otherwise. So keep the ideas coming. Keep telling us what you think. And keep watching. So that’s about it for this one. See you in the next episode.

100 comments

  1. It only proves that ignition of rocket fuel works in vacuum, not that it generates motion
    which it won't 🙂
    Many researches are uncovering these basics, just search youtube
    for why rockets don't fly in vacuum

  2. your tube developed an atmosphere when the fuel and oxygen immediately ignited and vacuumed was lost. Try that in real space and you won't even get ignition.

  3. You cannot simulate an infinite dimension of full vacuum with a small volume vacuum.
    It's simple to understand, the helicopter need air density to push against air. It's same for rocket.

  4. Now NASA talks about using helicopters in space………..no gravety………a lot of dry dust……..is NASA a FOX company…..

  5. No success . show vaccum gage at same time as burn, observation spring did not move until gases built up in chamber providing resistance.

  6. You are not showing/proving that you are truly creating a vacuum. Others have done this & had absolutely NO trust whatsoever! You have to show that your tube is indeed in a vacuum!!

  7. Warped Perception, how do you synchronize or coordinate the electric igniter timing with the high-peed camera timing? Or do you? I realize the experiment in this video was done almost 2 years ago and you've moved on since then.

    Suggestions for characterizing your chamber:
    1) Get chamber to standard atmospheric pressure (SAP). Seal it. Perform the Estes engine burn with camera viewing your digital pressure gauge to see how much the chamber pressure increases during and after the burn. Do it several times to get an average. With same setup film engine to see if it moves any sooner at SAP. It should not move any sooner — engine's burn profile can be found on the Estes website and/or the datasheet that came with the engine. Show that profile to your audience as it helps explain thrust timeline.
    2) Pump air into your chamber (probably requiring a different end cap sealing mechanism – but you're clever) and perform the hi-speed camera on engine to find out when (how soon) its thrust first deflects your spring-loaded holder (another clever device).

    Now you can and others compare timelines for engine startup and burn deflection for: below SAP (near vacuum), at SAP, and above SAP. This data would make it easier to address ignorant claims made about the rocket's exhaust being coupled to the chamber or the atmosphere outside the engine.

  8. Howdy! I don’t believe the earth is flat! But doesn’t the wire insert in the vacuum corrupt your experiment because it is the mass that your rocket is exerting thrust on?

  9. The true and real answer to why thrust rockets do not work in space. Sir shill Isaac newton half lie of a law is you have positive reaction with equal opposite reaction. That only applies to environments where there is enough resistance that allows the opposite reaction to occur.
    Thrust rockets momentum is propelled with opposite reaction. There are zero to very little atoms in space to which gives the thrust 0 resistance to gain momentum. On Earth there are billions of atoms per square meter. which allows opposite reaction to occur.

  10. Just cuz you make a vacuum chamber doesn't mean you can create vacuum like the scientists say "space" is and does your vacuum chamber also magically make the oxegen disappear too?

  11. Your experiment is flawed! The vacuum environment is nowhere near of the vacuum of space would be and it is so small that when the rocket ignites it can now create pressure and fill the small vacuum chamber you have up which is why it moves. Completely flawed experiment

  12. No one is saying a rocket can't ignite in space. The problem is vacuum a rocket can only truly work in a pressurized environment

  13. And speaking of pressure differentials, nothing launched here on Earth could go to the negative pressure of a complete vacuum in a matter of seconds and survive. It would have to be depressurized the higher it when which would make breathing really hard. It would be the equivalent I'm going to the bottom of the ocean in 30 seconds in a tin can only the opposite a pressurized vessel would rip apart instantly entering space

  14. hohoho… with the internal pressure of the burst gases the vacun dont exist my maaaannnn.!!! in the space these gases cant get resistence.. and cant move nothing… baby… such asshole!

  15. Only thing proved here is the extent at which some people simply cannot admit to themselves that they have been lied to their entire life. As well as their parents and their parent’s parents.

  16. you lose your vacuum shortly after ignition. where is your common sense!? I guess that is not too common anymore.

  17. FEs: Rockets don't work in a vacuum!
    This video: *Rocket works in vacuum*
    FEs: That's no proof!

  18. Wait a minute. Doesn't the burning rocket create a reverse vacuum in the limited room in the chamber? Plus smoke also creates an atmosphere. You need to see the effect in a much longer vacuum chamber, or observe if propulsion occurs more after some atmosphere is replaced than right at the beginning. ????

  19. I have a better vacuum pump then that a.c. pump and it is way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way to small for that test and YOU KNOW IT!!!! Your generating your own atmosphere. Either your a liar or a fool.

  20. If that was a true vacuum why wasn’t there a pressure change when you took the end off? Fake science and clever editing

  21. How was the level of vacuum maintained during the reaction of the expanding gas? I watched your video "
    Burning Model Rocket Engine Underwater in 4K Slow Motion – Rockets (S1 • E4)" and the water level rose in the tank, even on the rocket-engine nose side of the tank where there wasn't as much turbulence. That is to say, with what degree of confidence can we say that the level of vacuum in the container was maintained during the rapid expansion of gas inside the container? Cool experiment! I'm glad there are curious people like you out there doing this cool crap and sharing info! I wish you were my neighbor!

  22. You're nothing but a friggin fraud dubya. Your AC evacuation didn't pull a complete vacuum on your skinny tube and even if it did that doesn't prove anything. Get in your "space suit" , LoL, in a decompression chamber and pull a COMPLETE vacuum. Then try the Estes motor test again. Yeah, dubya. Your perception is warped.

  23. The only Comet I have is that your chamber is so small and being that the fuel itself has an oxidizer then as soon as you force the fire with atmospheric pressure you are creating a false atmosphere in such a small vacuum. Try to do the same experiment in a much larger vacuum where the oxidizer and the waste of the fuel-burning does not create a sense of a false atmosphere

  24. And if you notice in the model rocket in the tube, the forward movement doesn't happen until the fuel exhaust has accumulated behind and has created a quote atmosphere

  25. You're vacuum chamber is a joke. It cannot achieve the vacuum of space. Visit a vacuum deposition tool used in wafer fabrication to get an idea of the pressures your dealing with and what kind of equipment it takes to achieve them. (Cryogenics, etc.)

  26. Something is wrong with your vacuum. Lol! Oxygen is impossible in a vacum. No oxygen? No rocket. That tube would have collapsed in the supposed strong vacuum of “space”

  27. In the expanding vacuum of space there is no molecules to push against and no reactive motion without gravity. Liquid oxygen and hydrogen would burn, but it's just fire in space with nothing solid to push against, on earth the air molecules are being pushed against to produce reactive thrust.

  28. Vacuum ..you must be joking u don t have no ideea what is a vacuum looks like,what u have there is a pice of crap

  29. The rocket engine in the video has the end of the tube to push off. In a true vacuum (outer space) it wont work and also the fuel was expelled 8 times faster than normal so the test, in my opinion, was not valid and failed.

  30. Wouldn’t the tube just fill with exhaust and then it repressurizes the tube and then it has thrust?

  31. Maybe the atmosphere's oxygen messes with the air/fuel ratio, and when it's in a near vacuum, it uses up the oxidizer super fast, and that might be why it burns in almost a second, could be completely wrong, please correct me

  32. Under that premise which is Awesome by the way you're doing great work how much fuel would you need under this premise to get to the Moon and back no wonder we haven't been back since that first fake time

  33. You are a complete moron if you can’t see this is just gaining trust against the end of the tube a meter and a half away
    This can be seen by the delay in propulsion generated by the time it takes with the wave to travel to the end of the tube

  34. For this to be anywhere near a valid experiment the length of the tube would need to be extremely long to provide an even half way decent analog for space

  35. 🎯 Rockets can't propulse through a 10-Torr vacuum. Space
    travel is a hoax predicated on incredulous presumptions.

  36. This doesn't even HAVE to be tested (but hey, views lol). Solid rockets contain their own fuel and oxidizers so they don't need air to function.

  37. the rocket emits air or impulses, so it's no longer a vacuum … but in space … it's not enough to fill air from a rocket …

  38. It is not a perfect vacuum as in the space once the racket starts to fume plus it is enclosed tube compare to open space out there.

    What the actual argument in this debate is if the flame purged out of the exhaust is acting as pushing power against the exhaust funnel/cone/tailpipe on the way out which is attached to the racket's body and causing the racket going the opposite way of the flame. My theory is that since there is no any atmospheric condition but vacuum only, the exhaust will just go away with no effect on the racket's body.

    Newton's law: 1: Every object in a state of uniform motion will remain in that state of motion unless an external force acts on it.
    In the case of racket in the space the "external force" is not there because the force of burnt fuel is happening inside the racket its self and it is forced out where it does not meet any obstacle like here on earth where the air is the obstacle.

    So the question now is if the exhausted gas separating from the exhaust tube/funnel is capable in the vacuum to push the racket's body the other way while combustion/main point of burning is happening in the actual spot where the solid fuel is burning and dissipating due to the reaction. Here on earth I fully understand that the exhaust gas is pushing against the air causing the opposite reaction according to the Newton's law but in a vacuum the air is not present so the only obstacle on the way out would be the end of the tailpipe. If the exhaust fumes have no obstacle, can it push such heavy object like racket away from its self to change direction or accelerate or will it just exit obediently with no effect?

    When something explodes all the sudden the fragments fly in all direction unless intentionally directed like explosive charges. Inflate balloon and let the end go and it will accelerate because the exiting air from the balloon will push against the surrounding air and same applies to high PSI tanks when valves break off suddenly when accidents happen.

    In case of the racket out there in the space/vacuum when burning solid fuel exiting, could it be considered as controlled "explosion" in much slower rate where the effect of separation of these two parts like fumes from the racket's body attached to the exhaust would be able to provide maneuverability? In that case the 3rd Newton's law would apply: 3: "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." It seams to me that it would need lot of puff without an assistance of the outside surrounding air. These minuscule tests in enclosed tubes seem not reliable. NASA has some huge building for testing under vacuum conditions but yet I have to find if they show some of these tests.

    Just something to think about also: In case of no wind on a lake or sea, sailboat with sails will not move. Place a big blower on the deck of the sailboat and blow into these sails. They will stretch for sure but I think no movement will happen unless some back push because of the blower attached to the deck will be cutting through the air and moving opposite direction of the air blowing into these sails.
    Just something else came to my mind, garden hose with sprayer or firemen hose: it will kick or constantly push at higher PSI while letting it run. Not holding it would cause a snake action when PSI is higher so I think this can be duplicated also in a vacuum. Now still the question is if in vacuum light gases exiting at speed given by the controlled burning of the fuel would cause the racket to move that much so it can be used in that environment. Of course there is no air resistance and the racket is orbiting in high speed so perhaps it doesn't need that much of force to command direction of the flight once the gravitational field of the earth is mostly gone after all the major fuel is gone lifting the racket to the place of intention.

  39. What a joke. Without a vacuum gage you proved nada. The rocket eliminated the vacuum and it moved. Useless unless you just were trying to fool flat earthers. We are not that stupid. Sorry. You seem to be very stupid to believe this is science. It is just a act. A stage would be proper. Though I guess your video could be projected on it. You are not a bad actor.

  40. W tej rurze całkiem wyraźnie widać w zwolnionym tempie, że siła działa dopiero po całkowity wypełnieniu rury gazami z wielkim ciśnieniem. Czyli rakiety nie mogą działać w próżni.

  41. It only started pushing when the vacuum was broken by the addition of atmosphere from the rockets engine. This isn’t the case in space.c

  42. can you do a bigger vacuum chamber and a smaller rocket… or maybe it would use its exhaust to push against as well, idk

  43. Cool. Love the setup and slow motion. But if we are being scientific here, the large amount of emissions being released into the small vacuum chamber negates the vacuum, there by invalidating the experiment.

    I suggest setting up the experiment again using a much larger vacuum chamber or a much smaller "rocket".

  44. it doesn't move forward until the chamber loads up with gas matter proving thrust movement would not occur against zero matter in a vacuum environment such as space. Unless you can remove the gas as fast as it is produced this proves only the burn theory.

  45. DO YOURSELVES A FAVOR – STOP CLAIMING WHAT 'FLAT EARTHERS' ARE SAYING – YOU'RE ONLY CREATING YOUR OWN STRAW MAN ARGUMENTS – NOT VERY SMART. THE PROBLEM WITH YOUR EXPERIMENT IS THAT IT'S WITHIN THE CONFINES OF A VERY SMALL 'VACUUM' CHAMBER WHERE THE ENGINE ESTABLISHES AND CREATES VERY RAPIDLY, AN ATMOSPHERE THAT OBLITERATES THE 'VACUUM' THE INSTANT IT IGNITES, THUS NULLIFYING YOUR RESULTS. THIS EXPERIMENT FAILS TO PROVE YOUR HYPOTHESIS.
    .

  46. When I watch these kind of videos I start LMAO because I know the flatheads watching this are going to expend so much energy trying to sound smart but keep proving how stupid they are instead.

  47. Could you do the same experiment in a bigger vaccum chamber? Im currently debating a dude who doesnt think rockets produce thrust in a vaccuum. I showed him this but he thinks the exhaust.fills the chamber enough to not be a vaccuum anymore. Hes bonkers but he is reasonable enough to say that the same experiment run in a bigger vaccuum chamber would be more convincing

  48. One commentor has also suggested comparing the rocket in the vaccuum chamber to a firig done (in the same tube even) without a vaccuum. This commentor predicts a difference in observations. Lets test that!

  49. Delta P = 0
    m1v1 + m2v2 = 0
    m1v1 = -m2v2

    Hot exhaust goes one direction. Rocket goes the other. Rockets dont push on anything. Its all conservation of momentum.

  50. This demonstration shows viewer how dumb the one who conducted it,why dont you build a very big vacuum chamber like the one in sandusky ohio to be your so called space and a very little rocket so it will be more realistic rather than building a small vacuum chamber, i dare you if that so called rocket can propel on a very big vacuum chamber,dont be so stupid, i know your a fucking dumb shit.

  51. I'm not a scientist but my thought is that the thrust is pushing off the side walls in the chamber. This expirement needs done in a far greater chamber where physical walls are too far away. That would be a better more comprehensive experiment.

  52. My head hurts. How could we hear it? especially in the tube when sound can not travel through a vacuum? That is what i was made to believe anyway….

  53. Notice that the engine initially doesn't move AT ALL. Only when its exhaust gasses have filled the tiny vacuum chamber, and provided the requisite air pressure, can the rocket achieve any thrust.
    This doesn't prove that rockets work in space, as space is a near-infinite void in comparison to this tiny chamber. The gasses coming out of a rocket in space would shoot off into the void while performing no work on the rocket.

  54. I've never heard anyone say that rockets can't fire in a vacuum. What I have heard is that it can't provide propulsion because there is no matter (gas) to push off of. Basically, in a vacuum, and jet would just shoot its burned gasses into space but not move.

  55. Wow, this clearly proves that rockets don't work in the vacuum of space. As a kid, I shot off dozens of model rockets that used engines exactly like this. There is no delay at all between ignition and takeoff. In this experiment, you can clearly see in slow motion (@2:54) that the engine doesn't move until there are sufficient gasses in the tube to push off of.( @3:01) In fact, you can actually see the gas as smoke working its way back to the engine and when it does you start to see the engine pushing off of it.

  56. So an 8 second rocket lasted 1 second. I think we would all know or have a reason for why it would burn so much more fuel in a vacuum. If the fuel composition didn't change and the oxidizers are the same, why did it burn so much faster. Furthermore, I didn't know the flat-earthers didn't think it would burn. Who would think that? it has its own oxygen coming out the oxidizer and it has carbon to actually burn. My buddy would just always argue that it wouldn't move in space.

  57. Nice try.
    The thin walled plastic tube cannot hold a vacuum. You can collapse a tanker truck with a hobby compressor.
    The rocket is pushing against the end of the tube.
    The expelled gas from the rocket quickly turn that tube into a pressurized vessel.
    Fail.

  58. It makes sense, but another factor to consider is that all of these experiments reproduce vacuum but not gravity 0. So much so that you have to rest your devices on something fixed in the camera. Now we know that between centrifugal and centrifugal force generates a resultant that drives forward. These experiments all do not nullify the influence of gravity which may be the factor that generates at least minimal force with minimal reaction by burning oxygen itself and in a system that facilitates movement such as a soft spring or a propeller. In the case of space this does not occur.

  59. you dont have an "infinite" vacuum. you are filling a defined space with enough gas to have a substance in which the continued combustion can push upon in order to achieve "movement" . in an infinite vacuum of 10 to the negative 17 Tor you go no where . Your test is at best inconclusive for the limited container volume and the not nearly negative pressure required to simulate " space" but you tried.

  60. Напишите пожалуйста, какой у вас манометр цифровой, коллектор и вакуумный насос. Производители и модели.

  61. Only after the pressure is equalized then the engine moves.Tried a co2 cartridge in a large vacuum chamber …. doesn’t move till the very end .

  62. That won't work because there is no oxygen in there to burn and start ignition.I suggest this guy might want to look first at the fire triangle,therefore this is fake

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *