[Tech] HPR Tech Article - Thrust Coefficient Losses from Straight-Cut Throats

Before YOU further derail the thread as well,

Let's be MORE specific.

I replied with a question (as requested). Which was can you post a drawing of a proposed nozzle blank (I have plastic nozzles too).

You did not reply to that but you did go into an accusatory tyrade on me, which I guess is understandable at least emotionally, considering our history of your cheating TRA members and my history of outtting you on it. You must be pissed.

But once you went on that tyrade in your own follow-up to my TECH question, and did NOT respond to the question itself, I replied to what YOU posted, with clarifying facts.

So you politicized it and yes indeed I ran with it.

We are still running and I still do not see even one proposed drawing posted. I even offered to "host" the content for free, being the tech minded sort of guy I am.

Rogers: derail it and blame Jerry, everyone will believe it. They believed 18mm RMS motors were "all" certified, and believed Vulcan and ACS and Kosdon was evil. I win.

Got a drawing?

Kudos for publishing.

Now develop honor and logic.

You personify my sig.

Please bring common sense to rocketry administration. (too late)

Jerry

"It appears (in many more examples than just this), that Mr. Rogers was having extreme difficulty understanding the very obvious, purely fiduciary, and clearly moral obligation to the trust granted to him by the *members* he was obligated to represent." - John Cato (TMT Chair responsible for NFPA recognition of TRA)

"I guess this proves that no thread, no matter how flaming, is not beyond on-topic, technical redemption. :) "

- Jeff Vincent

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 11:54:06 -0800, Jerry Irvine wrote: BLAH BLAH BLA .... the same old shit.

His sock puppets will say ... the same old shit too.

In specific circumstances, mainly of interest to end consumers. (ie not TRA-EX).

You have no clue about what either Chuck or I said. That is worse.

Buy the magazine you cheap bastartd!!

You're here trying to discuss a article that you haven't read. Thanks for supporting everyone's opinion of you credibility.

Since everyone knows that Jerry has invented and / or done everything in rocketry, we might as well accept it and move on. With that in mind, at this point we should just ignore him as he never contributes anything to the rest of rocketry.

I stand in awe of you Mr. (40 Grand to the Man) Expert. You are my hero.

Now going back to an entirely tech question.

Since nozzle blanks are by definition "fixed size", and even EX and AM casing systems have nozzle inserts typically of fixed size, the only variables available to conform throats to the 0.4-0.45 rule (a good rule, thanks Chuck, I really appreciate it) are:

1 exit cone depth (changing exit ratio) 2 exit cone angle (optimizing ratio at expense of angle) 3 convergent depth (uncertain costs) 4 convergent angle (might not be bad if concentrated at the center)

So since this is a TECH thread and conforming to your rule requires changes in behavior to existing hardware, which one seems to make the most sense to you?

Let's chat.

Jerry

Your credibility is zero.

BLAH BLAH BLA .... the same old shit. The troll just said ... the same old shit too.

At Charles E. Rogers'r equest, sir :)

I assume your criticism is then primarilly of HIM?

Stop defending the indefensible. Jerry uses every topic as a chance to rant against his perceived "enemies" and post garbage about what a great rocket god he thinks he is. You're not helping him, you're enabling and encouraging his bad behavior.

"Alas, the problem isn't posts FROM Jerry. It's endless posts ABOUT Jerry. They come from Phil, Fred, Dave, Ray, and even occasionally from me!"

- Bob Kaplow

Darn Phil, there you go, confirming that our boy "big fine" is continuing to "TAKE LIBERTIES WITH THE TRUTH".. (:-)

Fred

Using the word credibility in the same sentence as "big fine" is mentioned, is an insult to the meaning of the word, god or bad..

Fred

"Alas, the problem isn't posts FROM Jerry. It's endless posts ABOUT Jerry. They come from Phil, Fred, Dave, Ray, and even occasionally from me!"

- Bob Kaplow

Has it gotten so bad you use the comments other's to attempt redefinition of the word credibility into something you understand and except??

Fred

Surely, you didn't expect him to stop did you?

Hopefully the following repost of one of my favorite Jerry posts will clarify things.

Jerry hasn't figured out how to use the word illegal yet. How can you expect him to understand credibility?

Jerry:

There's entire drawings for both nozzles in the tech article. By the way, a good point that you jogged my memory on that I forgot to mention in the tech article, is that the Optimal and Universal nozzle designs are also minimum length.

Kind of my intent here was:

(1) Let people know about the tech article if they're not HPR subscribers, so they can check it out if they're interested.

(2) People who have the tech article, have read it, can ask me questions if they have any.

(3) Post as much reasonable information as I can so others who don't have the tech article, can also ask questions.

Let's face it relative to (3), we're talking about a nozzle "drawing". You know, people just need to look at the drawing.

Posting the straight-cut throat L/D design criteria of 0.40 was easy relative to a news group. Heck, in the initial two-part post I posted most of the conclusions and recommendations section. But we're talking a drawing here, I think it's reasonable to refer people to the HPR issue.

Now it's taken 37 posts to try to get this back to a technical discussion. There was nothing adversarial about you in my initial two-part post. If you could have calmly ask technical questions, instead of jumping right into your usual "I invented everything" shtick, this whole thread might not have derailed.

The first lay-up of my next HPR tech article arrived by fax last night, and Bruce expects the mark-ups by Monday night. So I'm done here.

Also, so you won't "parrot" my own information back to me in public here to try to make yourself look good, prior to the next tech article I intend to ask you publicly here everything you claim you've invented/did first relative to the particular subject. List what you think are the key variables, list what are your design criteria values.

So when I post mine you won't say "I invented that!" "I've been doing that for years-decades", etc, etc..

All this for a tech article you haven't even read. Jeez.

Chuck Rogers snipped-for-privacy@aol.com

You might be a whole lot calmer if you posted "to the log" rather than "to theJerry" :)

Succeeded.

Less likely. rmr is decidedly reactionary not "inspired". I suggest email.

I feel you did that and in case nobody else bothered to thank you for that, I hereby do.

It appears to be the bottom line anyway.

Or the web.

It only took me one and you two. The other crap is "typical rmr".

Some self-editing is required. A skill you have not mastered WRT rmr, but you have taken to excess WRT issues raised regarding rules, regs, ethics, and policies. I suggest far more openness on the latter.

I did not claim to "invent everything" (Chuck Rogers and Phil Stein falsely did). In fact I "disclosed" a rule I have been using all a long.

1. You proved having such a rule was good after all (thanks, it could have gone the other way).
2. You proved my rule was in error by 50% or more, but seemingly on the good side?

Start a thread on why HPR needs a chokepoint called MANDATORTY CONSUMER CERTS. I claim voluntary is sufficient and will re-allow lone rangers again. Stop intentionally choking off HPR nationwide. It will cause people to join TRA as a result of the lone ranger "farm program".

No thanks. Not all things are discloseable and YOU claimed I invented everything, I didn't and never will.

Also you STILL did not even direclty addrress the issue I raised with this message.

What compromise is best for modification of existing nozzles?

I listed 4.

I use #1. Now go.

Oversensitive.

That's a given.

YOU banned me from TRA. In 1992!!! You STILL have not gotten over it. :)

Just Jerry

"Well it looks like all the trolls are back from the weekend. It was really nice here while you were gone. Chuck and I had remnants of a tech chat (albiet a bit strtained). At least we did not go well into the gutter like you folks did instantly."

- Jerry Irvine

This explains Tripoli also! "These are not the conclusions of the Roger's Commission; nor does it explain the termination of the careers of those directly responsible for pushing the contractor to agree to a launch despite that contractor's strong objections.

This business of "creeping acceptance of deviance" is a very major problem: the common tendency (demonstrated above) for technical people to insist upon a technical failure when the issue is managerial is a deep flaw both in the individual and in the technical organizations that allow it."