Thank you very much for sharing this with us. I was wondering whether this behavior may similarly occur for nozzles immersed in pressurized fluid-chambers or if the same effect is observable instead for inlet pressure increments for a fixed exit pressure. If immersed, What will be the conditions for the shock waves to happen within the surrounding fluid?

3:02 wow I am impressed you have a map where L3 L4 and L5 are not on the orbit of earth, but above! thank you, this is great

Good work. Appreciate your hard work.

So you are assuming that the Earth is in fact ROUND?

Great video

Trust is faith graduated to perfect healing. ❤

Trust is faith graduated to perfect healing. ❤

Excellent!

Oh man thank you for making me understand about CD nozzles in compressible flow case and ..Most importantly, Pe and PA variations.

OMG THIS VIDEO SAVED ME IN HYPERSONIC AERODYNAMICS!!!!!!! Thanks from Brazil🟢🟡

Amazing!!😮😮😮

"What happens next will SHOCK you" ...badum tss

Very informative and nicely animated. I would love to see the same but with the moon<->earth instead, obviously focusing on tidal effects

Well done mate. I had naively thought the Lagrange points were points where the gravity was equal, although if I ever thought about it, that won't make sense.

Someone has explained it to me, but I still only have a rough grasp of: why spacecraft at a L point dong just go there and stay there. It's seemed to me that this would minimize station-keeping fuel use. But, apparently, orbiting the L points instead is actually more efficient, station-keeping wise. I suppose it's to do with the, in real life, changeable nature of the L points. I wonder if you would perhaps include a visualization of the changing location a L points over long timespans? This video came very close to doing that, but it was mostly about what happens if you perturb a spacecraft at the L point, not so much about the dynamic nature of that point itself over long time frames. Obviously, aside from station-keeping concerns there are other good reasons for orbiting that point instead of going right there, like there might be several spacecraft who want to be there, and they can't all inhabit the same point in space! Good video, enjoyed this.

great video, can you make a video on nrho orbits ?

Congratulations Master for your beautiful presentation and interesting manter! I learnt so much! Thank's a lot and my best regards! Jacareí-Sao Paulo- Brazil.

Does KZfaq also put cookies in my brain because I literally thought of this " ok the math says so but what's the reason for supersonic flow".

Hi I left a comment on your follow up comment looking forward to ur response

Thank you, well done. I fell about 50 years younger. All the best to you:))

I have a question, u mentioned that pressure at the exit nozzle must match the atmospheric pressure. So how do you reduce the atmospheric pressure. Also the part abt shock was a bit confusing Looking forward to your reply

amazing video!! i totally thank myself for picking aerospace!!

This was 2 years ago but I can't wait for the next one

Great video.

I am halfway trhough the video. This video does a great job explaining. Finally I understand the L4 and L4 points.

Thank you… just thank you so much. I finally understand why Lagrange points work

It is criminal that you are so under-subbed! I did my part in trying to rectify that grievous error by subscribing. Lol. Great videos, very informative and easy to follow. Keep up the great work, don't give up, and I'm sure you'll go far on this platform. I can't wait to see how far you go!

Where is part 2!!!!

I hope you're able to make more of these videos, this was absolutely fascinating.

BEST FUCKING VIDEO EVER, SAVED MY PROPULSION MID TERMS

Where's part 2??

The biggest question I have is just “how do you reduce the pressure at nozzle exit?” Does the air coming out of the nozzle play any part in this? I can certainly understand a pressure controlled room or environment, but I don’t think that’s really what’s meant or else it’d be kind of useless.

I'm out of mind! Accidentally watched this video, now I'm forced to subscribe this channel. ❤❤❤ More info expected on DSN communication. Best wishes, keep educating.

Make more videos please? pleeaassseee?🙏🙏🙏

Great for ksp FAR

Where's part 2?

gonna try this in ksp now

9:35 yooo dudee whaaatt?? awesome!! nice!

A couple questions: 1. How much gravity do LaGrange Points have? Is there a direct relationship to the strength of that points gravity when compared to the celestial bodies that created it? 2. Are LaGrange Points taken into account when trying to predict the orbits of the planets? 3. Do Lagrange Points create gravitational lensing? Efforts are currently underway to use the suns gravity as a telescope, thanks to the gravitational lensing the sun creates. If these LaGrange Points have the necessary gravity, could they be used the same way as, "Gravity Telescopes", so to speak?

tanh(x)for fluid supersonic. cosh(x) for object driven in flow..... why?

Hi! I'm currently designing a Nozzle for a CubeSat, I used MOC to obtain the design of the wall. I then passed it to ANSYS and i have an underexpansion effect which was expected if my ambient pressure is 0. So, I want to know how much I can expand the exit area to get the pressures to balance. I want to model this just like your video where I can have two charts and see the change in Mach and Pressure changing the velocity and exit area, what program do you use or what can you recommend for this. Thank you!

Outstanding video!!!!!

Why this video has so little views?

Great explanation with very explanatory graphics. Many thanks. A question though: what are design parameters for a nozzle to create certain effects? E.G., if I wanted te create maximum shockwaves, regardless wat happens to the airspeed at the exit, what would that mean for the design of the nozzle?

Is there part 2?

As an aerospace engineer, I think your videos are fantastic! The animation is awesome and the detailed explanation of the theory is pretty clear. 😇 I can't wait to see more videos.(I love hypersonic topics🤩)

Great informative video, but at 5:07, the formula you use is T^2/2pi, where I believe I should have been (T/2pi)^2 or T^2/4pi^2. can anyone confirm this? thank you

Great video. Can I know what software or tool you used to illustrate the flow field and post shock properties?

In this video you put a lot of emphasis on the rotating coordinate system. I believe you are not doing your audience any favors with that. Please allow me to explain. Before I get to my main point, let me first acknowledge the history of the Lagrange points problem. Today we live in the age of computers that can do high precision numerical analysis, allowing us to create visualizations such as the potential surface representation. Before the age of electronic computers the choice of way to bring the Lagrange point problem to a solution was determined by computational efficiency. Using a rotating coordinate system was more efficient, so that is what physicists used. Choice of computation method and how to physically understand a phenomenon do not necessarily coincide. Very often they do, but not always. Example: there is the branch of electronic engineering that deals with the equipment for generating, or receiving, or processing electric oscillations. These circuit boards have resistors, capacitors and inductors. The electric oscillations in those circuit board can be modeled with sines and cosines, but when using sine-cosine notation it is tedious to keep track of phase. As we know, sines and cosines can be represented with exponential notation, by using complex number notation. To make the calculations more efficient electronics engineers introduce imaginary current and imaginary voltage, allowing them to move the calculation to complex number space. The electronics engineers are aware that the imaginary current and imaginary voltage have no physical counterpart; they are purely computational tools. To *explain* to students what is happening in the circuit board the teacher uses only the physical current and the physical voltage. In Celestial mechanics: The intuitive understanding of celestial mechanics is in term of the quantities momentum, angular momentum, and kinetic energy. Example: Halley's comet: The major axis of Halley's comet's orbit is about four times greater than the minor axis. Let's start from the aphelion of Halley's comet. Moving at its slowest velocity of all its orbit the comet starts falling to the Sun. The comet has only a bit of radial velocity, but it is enough to not hit the Sun. Moving down the gradient of the Sun's gravitational field the comet is constantly being accelerated. As the comet approaches its perihelion the gravitational acceleration becomes ever larger, and that acceleration vector is shifting to perpendicular to the instantaneous velocity. At perihelion there is a local maximum in how much the orbit curves. The ascending journey back to the aphelion is the time inverse of the descend to perihelion. I think we will all agree that the above is the way to understand the orbit of Halley's comet intuitively. Another expression would be 'visceral understanding'. Conversely, any attempt to present the mechanics of Halley's orbit in terms of a rotating coordinate system would be absurd. In my opinion this generalizes to all of celestial mechanics. Why does an asteroid orbiting near L4/L5 of Jupiter never escape? Well: that is due to celestial orbital mechanics, which arises from the inverse square law of gravity and inertia. The inverse square law of gravity gives rise to a Kepler orbit, and a Kepler orbit loops back onto itself. Let's say you are a celestial object, and you are orbiting right at the L4 point of a primary and secondary. Some perturbation (from yet another planet, far away, in that same system) makes you slide away from the L4 point. Well, there is no escape; the orbital mechanics brings you right back to where you started from; a Kepler orbit loops back onto itself. My point is: there should not be a tacit assumption that there is a 1-on-1 relationship between efficient computation and physical understanding. They often coincide, but sometimes they don't. Some years ago I created a physics simulation for orbiting motion along the L4/L5 points. I programmed the calculation for motion with respect to the inertial coordinate system. Using inertial coordinate system or rotating coordinate system, the computer performs the computation in real time either way, so for programming the computer there is no need to use a rotating coordinate system. For programming the numerical analysis: using the inertial coordinate system is simpler. As to the display of that simulation: that is a two-panel display. One panel for the inertial point of view, the other for the rotating coordinate system point of view. The computer performs that coordinate transformation in just a couple of processor cycles, so of course I added that coordinate transformation.