22 million horsepower

[Fast Freddy]

:eek

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNBenbXJYF8

 

[bonehead]

Probably gets better gas mileage than the GT:rofl

 

[Indy GT]

Not so Fast

I realize the Fox newscaster relates that the "thrust" of this solid booster rocket is 22 million horsepower, but that analogy is not really accurate. Probably for the low-information viewer to try to convey that this rocket engine is a big deal... which it certainly is.

In classical Physics terms-

Work = Force throught a distance, and
Power (or horsepower) = the time rate at which work is done.

So we certainly have a Force produced by the buring solid propellant gasses expanding through the C/D nozzle. But the rocket motor is straped down so it CAN'T move, thus there is no distance through which the force acts. Or work = 0.

And thus with no Work actually being done (no distance traveled) there can be no Power produced.

Still a neat video to watch!

 

[Xcentric]

Nice explanation. I think most people's minds tend to wander off the subject when they hear about massive thrust. :lol

 

[33Bravo]

I realize the Fox newscaster relates that the "thrust" of this solid booster rocket is 22 million horsepower, but that analogy is not really accurate. Probably for the low-information viewer to try to convey that this rocket engine is a big deal... which it certainly is.

In classical Physics terms-

Work = Force throught a distance, and
Power (or horsepower) = the time rate at which work is done.

So we certainly have a Force produced by the buring solid propellant gasses expanding through the C/D nozzle. But the rocket motor is straped down so it CAN'T move, thus there is no distance through which the force acts. Or work = 0.

And thus with no Work actually being done (no distance traveled) there can be no Power produced.

Still a neat video to watch!

The ratio of thrust to horsepower has always eluded me. I realize these are different concepts - but have been curious for example a jet engine with 2000 pounds of thrust - what would be the equivalent horsepower?

The other part of the equation is that the faster the vehicle is moving - the more horsepower? In the case of this video - zero....

 

[Xcentric]

With a jet, you need to know the mass, time, and distance, and you could compute power. But, if the jet is at full thrust with brakes locked, no HP. Actually, the formula can get more complicated in the real world. This is why there is no fixed ratio of thrust to horsepower.

 

[Fast Freddy]

apparently this rocket has 3.6 million lbs of thrust. therefore it translates into 7.2 million horsepower. not sure where they are getting the 22 million from....

anyway, i was wondering if Kendall at Cooltech could find a way to strap this thing to my GT :lol

 

[Indy GT]

LOL! :thumbsup

And as Xcentric correctly states, there are a number of additional variables needed to correlate jet engine thrust to equivalent horsepower. Significantly over most people's appreciation and complex...

 

[Xcentric]

To compare, the Apollo program's Saturn V booster used five Rocketdyne F1 engines, producing a total of 7.8 million pounds of thrust at launch. Combined fuel consumption was 3,357 gallons per second.

 

[Wwabbit]

And thus with no Work actually being done (no distance traveled) there can be no Power produced.

Still a neat video to watch!

There are many forms of power, one that comes to mind is the watt. I'd say there were a lot of those produced here.

 

[BlackICE]

There are many forms of power, one that comes to mind is the watt. I'd say there were a lot of those produced here.

No watts were produced at all. A lot force was produced, but as Indy stated since nothing moved the work/time or power produced on what the rocket was connected to was ZERO.

However, if you account for all of the mass of gases and particulate matter expelled in the exhaust and the movement of atmospheric gases and measure their velocity, indeed work done and power has be generated!

 

[Wwabbit]

, if you account for all of the mass of gases and particulate matter expelled in the exhaust and the movement of atmospheric gases and measure their velocity, indeed work done and power has be generated!

Yep, ....measured (measurable) in watts.

 

[BlackICE]

Yep, ....measured (measurable) in watts.

Units used don't matter much, watts are the international standard, but you could use Btu/hr, Cal/hr, ftlb/sec, or even tons of refrigeration.

 

[Steve Schneider]

I think the rocket did make horse power as it affected the rotation of the earth ever so slightly and moved it
.

 

[SteveA]

me thunk it was bitchen

 

[FENZO]

I realize the Fox newscaster relates that the "thrust" of this solid booster rocket is 22 million horsepower, but that analogy is not really accurate. Probably for the low-information viewer to try to convey that this rocket engine is a big deal... which it certainly is.

In classical Physics terms-

Work = Force throught a distance, and
Power (or horsepower) = the time rate at which work is done.

So we certainly have a Force produced by the buring solid propellant gasses expanding through the C/D nozzle. But the rocket motor is straped down so it CAN'T move, thus there is no distance through which the force acts. Or work = 0.

And thus with no Work actually being done (no distance traveled) there can be no Power produced.

Still a neat video to watch!

:facepalm: P=W/Δt, W=ΔE. Certainly there was some ΔE involved.

 

[Beach-GT]

3 global warming units.

 

[Indy GT]

Mathmatics Fun

To compare, the Apollo program's Saturn V booster used five Rocketdyne F1 engines, producing a total of 7.8 million pounds of thrust at launch. Combined fuel consumption was 3,357 gallons per second.

 

[bonehead]

I was just about to say that.......:willy

 

[33Bravo]

I remember reading the fuel pumps for the Saturn V were something like 52,000 HP.

Wow.