There's wind derived energy, and then there's Venus:
Brad Guth
never stipulated otherwise), though just not to the extent nor from
whatever purely greenhouse specified reasons you've been informed of.
It should mean a little something, that according to the science of more
than a few others, the thermal energy balance of Venus is simply off by
way of nearly 15% more energy leaves the nighttime season as gets solar
contributed by the season of day.
According to the likes of Alan Connor, and I'm certain by more than a
few others, another Earth (hot or cold, wet or dry) is "needed by 2050",
which actually sounds just about right, especially due to the sorry way
things related to Earth's global warming and ocean rising environment
that has otherwise gotten itself so nicely polluted, and of our limited
energy reserves having been going rather badly into the nearest
space-toilet.
In spite of the mainstream gauntlet of infomercial flak that's usually
naysay mindset about damn near everything under the sun, I still like to
constructively discuss whatever's new and improved of various wind and
solar energy extracting alternatives, even if the regular laws of
physics and math is getting a wee bit skewed or infomercial hyped ENRON
or WMD style past the point of no return. However, here's another
perfectly good alternative wind energy rant for the old green/renewable
gipper, that's using a radial power turbine which takes into account
100% of the available m3/s flow, as well as extracting energy via
pressure and thermal differentials plus the added density of whatever
local spare elements can be tossed into the existing hearth.
There's wind derived energy, and then there's Venus:
Since Earth's environment is nearly a lost cause, with our magnetosphere
failing us by 0.05%/year (morals going away much faster and otherwise
running near empty on remorse), along with our common energy resources
becoming more spendy than many of us can afford, plus WW-III coming to a
local theater of real life much sooner than you think, and damn few
individuals as claiming to being real smart that are essentially never
going to agree to agree upon one damn thing, especially never if
whatever could possibly benefit another living soul or that of salvaging
any part of our failing environment, is why I'm suggesting upon giving
up on Earth and focusing upon the vast benefits and of the
unlimited/renewable energy that's available for the taking, while
getting your naked self a serious hot foot on Venus, free of charge.
Terrestrial Wind Energy isn't exactly the same ticket to ride just
everywhere you look; whereas it's nearly hydrodynamic worthy if being
made to vertically transpire upon Venus.
KE=.5MV2 if 100% efficient (via terrestiral physics)
KE=.25MV2 if 50% efficient (about as good as it gets)
However, on Venus and thus having almost nothing to do with extracting
or reliance upon solar energy, is where a vertical pressure and thermal
differential, that could conceivably involve a little of whatever's
liquid to vapor phase change, as such is more than likely to skew the
end results towards favoring the 100% mark, if not somewhat greater
because, it's within an environment of such nifty elements and primo
conditions, as nearly representing that of a positive fluid displacement
form of energy extraction.
Tossing in the available factors of 4 bar/km of ambient vertical
pressure differential(p) and perhaps a nighttime 10 K/km of thermal
differential(t) offset as bonus dynamics of their own right, whereas the
Venusian formula of vertical differential and thereby easily extracted
atmospheric energy potential might become roughly the minimum of
KEpt=.75MV2 if not a little better off because, we're no longer limited
as to extracting energy from the mere velocity of that vertically moving
dry yet extremely robust atmosphere.
My very rough swag of what a full km worth of vertical
wind-tunnel/cooling-tower or chimney caused differential might easily
represent, as offering an exit velocity of perhaps 16 m/s, rather easily
takes advantage of the local 64 kg/m3 of what's mostly CO2, and because
of the atmospheric pressure is making it worth nearly 10% the density of
water.
Conservatively, this atmospheric pressure and thermal differential
boosted method of vertical wind energy extraction could therefore
represent KEpt=.75MV2
\////~\\\\/
| |
| |
| |
| | Height 1 km = 4 bar, 10 K and 16 m/s
| | Diameter = as large as you'd like
| | Turbine element could be radial format
| |
|___________________|
/| |\ /|\ /| |\
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry about the absolutely lousy graphics (w/o polished 3D animation or
custom surround sound).
The bottom diameter of this vertical differential formulated wind-tower
might be roughly as great as 4X the top exit diameter that's
accommodating the radial turbine, although a 2:1 ratio should otherwise
be sufficient.
In theory, this composite wind energy contraption that's on S8 gas vent
steroids could represent as great as KEpt=1.5MV2, simply because of all
the added mass, of it's initial velocity and much greater thermal
differential of likely more than 200 K upto as great as 560 K of added
thermal differential to start off with, which by rights should be
available.
The energy extraction dynamics of this idea (weird physics, skewed math
and all) gets especially interesting if we're dealing with whatever's
mostly S8 along with CO2 as emerging from the active geothermal surface
vent at a rather great deal of initial velocity, as subsequently exiting
this Venusian tower of power upon reaching the km vertical travel that
adds yet another 4 bar of pressure differential to whatever the surface
gas vent itself had to offer. Utilizing the available S8 element of
such a geothermal pressure vent is obviously going to represent a
greater worth of m3 density, as well as capable of sharing something of
much greater than 10 K/km worth of thermal differential, and of course
don't forget about the spare worth of kinetic energy via the initial
surface exit velocity alone that's perfectly good enough to burn(sort of
speak) as is. Go figure otherwise.
Even if my math has been getting a little too wishful weird, a
conservative 100 meter vertical offset should be sufficient in order to
do the trick, as for accommodating most anything you or I'd have in mind
if we were having to tough it out in such a toasty place as Venus, with
energy to spare for sustaining our mission's critical cash of ice cold
beer. In other words, specify the KJ, MJ or GJ energy demands
(including TJ if need be), and simply build the sucker to suit. As an
extra bonus. it's not at all like the raw elements for creating damn
near whatever are not already there to behold.
With such spare and perfectly renewable energy at hand, there is almost
nothing that can't be accomplished on behalf of sustaining intelligent
life on Venus, at least on behalf of such life coexisting as long as the
necessary applied technology is being the case, such as forcing co/o2
away from the toasty raw element of co2 is no longer a problem.
The bottom line of this argument is, I'll actually try my best in order
to further refine and improve upon this latest rant, coming up with new
and improved information and hopefully a better formula so that those of
you that are apparently stuck here on Earth and typically Old testament
naysay mindset until hell freezes over (which is simply never going to
happen on this polluted Earth as long as that global warming mascon of a
moon isn't leaving orbit soon enough) can take an idea or two entirely
out of context, and without bothering to give a shred of credit, unless
of course something doesn't work.
-
Brad Guth
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Brad Guth
allowed to coexist on behalf of the somewhat newish planetology worth of
Venus.
No surprise, whereas this is almost as pathetic as NASA's 14 year
hocus-pocus plan of supposedly setting another moonsuit boot on our
physically dark moon.
Too bad their very own 15 meter resolution as obtained from there very
own terrestrial optics that still can't manage to confirm a damn thing,
as to those 7+ missions that supposedly left their marks in a very big
and extremely impact messy way upon that nasty cosmic morgue of such a
DNA lethal and somewhat salty deck.
Of course, the f40 secondary mirror of KECK is still sequestered as
being taboo/nondisclosure, as is the soft-masking of the primary
mirrors.
Brad Guth
more of your body parts upon that geothermally roasting surface (day or
night), then besides a good thermal suit having it's own onboard VAC and
CO2-->CO/O2 processor, you'll also need one of these:
Vertical differential 3.6e6 J (100 KW) radial turbine @4+ m/s
< < < < \\\\\||||///// > > > >
\ /\ /\ /
| /\ /\ | Vert. Offset
| | 100 meters
| /\ /\ | -.4 bar amb
| | - 1.0 K amb
| /\ /\ | 100 K dif.
_______________ | |
_/_______________\_ / /\ /\ /\ \
/___________________\ / \
| ______ | | | / /\ 853 K /\ \
|| || | | / |||||||||||||||| \
||______||o | |>== 295K ===>| CO2/HVAC | 753 K
__|_______ |__ |____|<== 270K =X=<|__CO2->CO/O2__|_____________
______________________________________/--||--\_________________
Venus Abode (insulated R-1024/m)
(sorry about the ASCII limited graphic)
With the ongoing CO2-->CO/O2 process, which in part is essentially
incorporating a CO2 compressor that's hard at work, and thereby having
rather easily produced the 100 K thermal differential, whereas
conventional heat exchanging via titanium or similar/better alloy should
place that surplus heat into the open base inlet area of the vertical
wind producing tower. Having the radial turbine doing it's unavoidable
thing of rotating the power shaft that's directly connected into the
actual AC electrical generator that's within the base area (situated
underneath the CO2/HVAC) where it's roughly 753 K, is operating well
within the 811 K thermal design limitations of what's essentially
off-the-shelf of such electro mechanical technology as we know it.
The liquid/vapor phase change of the compressed CO2 itself is or at
least should be exactly the same process as for terrestrial HVAC units,
with the minor exception that upon Venus it's highly unlikely that you
ever need to employ the heat cycle, thus a more proper name might be
CO2VAC. Other gas elements besides CO2 should exist, that would offer
alternatives to using CO2.
Therefore, you don't even have to be a wizard or otherwise worth half
your salt in order to manage quite nicely while situated on Venus. Of
course, all the Usenet mindsets of mostly naysayers and/or rusemasters
fall far below the status of salt, and for their being snookered and
dumbfounded past the point of no-return is an automatic disqualifier if
there ever was (sorry about that).
Obviously the required volumes of CO2 getting processed and/or utilized
via this configuration are considerable, but so what? At least it's not
as though there's any shortage, or that we're introducing harmful
freons,
or otherwise imposing a damn thing that isn't there to begin with.
Brad Guth
(sorry about my previous math and this ASCII limited graphic)
First off, upon average there's damn little solar energy making it to
the surface, yet otherwise not every square meter of the Venus surface
itself is as hot as the next (especially once taking elevation into
account, or if you're situated next to whatever's geothermally active or
not. Therefore, besides the everywhere worth of vertical atmospheric
pressure and thermal differentials, we also have substantial geothermal
differential considerations that can be directly tapped and/or diverted
into producing mechanical and thereby electrical energy, not to mention
what a good velocity of an S8 vent should be worth, or if push comes
down to shove as to whatever lava/mud flows could be utilized as the
last resort of local surface energy that's there is to behold.
If you insist upon going to Venus in person, and setting a hot foot or
more of your body parts upon that geothermally roasting surface (day or
night), then besides a good thermal suit having it's own onboard VAC and
CO2-->CO/O2 processor, in addition to your composite rigid airship, you
might also need one of these:
Vertical differential / @1e5 J (100 KW) radial turbine @4+ m/s
< < < < \\\\\||||///// > > > >
\ /\ /\ /
| /\ /\ | Vert. Offset
| | 100 meters
| /\ /\ | -.4 bar amb
| | - 1.0 K amb
| /\ /\ | ~ 100 K dif.
_______________ | |
_/_______________\_ / /\ /\ /\ \
/___________________\ / \
| ______ | | | / /\ 853 K /\ \
|| || | | / |||||||||||||||| \
||______||o | |>== 295K ===>| CO2/HVAC | 753 K
__|_______ |__ |____|<== 270K =X=<|__CO2->CO/O2__|_____________
______________________________________/--||--\_________________
Venus Abode (insulated R-1024/m)
For a little size perspective and taking into account for my usual pesky
corrections in math, think of the tower's inlet base diameter as 40
meters, and of it's top radial exit as 20 meters, which should become
way more than sufficient for extracting the 3.6e8 J of energy per hour
(100 KWhr), especially if there exist the little extra thermal
differential consideration of having at least some portion of the 100 K
as imported from the CO2/HVAV and CO2-->CO/O2 conversion.
It's likely that this individual abode's vertical atmospheric shaft and
topside exit wind turbine would not have to be quite as large as I've
specified, as the energy quota per extremely large Venusian residential
unit shouldn't demand 100 KW, or even if it did it should not take such
a large diameter in order for this limited tower height of 100 meters to
provide this amount of energy. It's just knowing that space is not a
problem on Venus, and constructing large whatevers on Venus seems for
many reasons, as based entirely upon the regular laws of physics, is a
whole lot more doable than here on Earth.
With the ongoing CO2-->CO/O2 process, which in part is essentially
incorporating a CO2 compressor that's actually not so hard at work, and
thereby having rather easily produced the 100 K thermal differential,
whereas conventional surface area heat exchanging via titanium or
similar/better alloy should place that surplus heat into the open base
inlet area of the vertical wind producing tower. Having the radial
turbine doing it's unavoidable thing of rotating the power shaft that's
directly connected into the actual AC electrical generator that's within
the base area (situated underneath the CO2/HVAC) where it's roughly 753
K, is operating well within the 811 K thermal design limitations of
what's essentially off-the-shelf of such electro mechanical technology
as we know it.
The liquid/vapor phase change of the compressed CO2 itself is or at
least should be exactly the same process as for terrestrial HVAC units,
with the minor exception that upon Venus it's highly unlikely that you
ever need to employ the heat cycle unless you intend to process metals,
silica and otherwise the likes of basalt, thus a more proper name might
be CO2VAC. Other gas elements besides CO2 should exist (such as S8)
would offer alternatives to using CO2.
Therefore, you don't even have to be a wizard or otherwise worth half
your salt in order to manage quite nicely while situated on Venus. Of
course, all these Usenet mindsets of mostly naysayers and/or rusemasters
fall far below the status of salt, as well as for their being snookered
and dumbfounded past the point of no-return is an automatic disqualifier
if there ever was (sorry about that).
Obviously the required volumes of CO2 getting processed and/or utilized
via this configuration are considerable, but so what? It's not as
though there's any shortage, or much less having to introduce harmful
freons, or otherwise imposing a damn thing that isn't there to begin
with.
Brad Guth
There's unlimited wind derived energy, and then there's Venus on
vertical pressure/thermal induced wind steroids:
Don't kid yourself, Venus is quite humanly hot and nasty (at least I've
never stipulated otherwise), though just not to the insurmountable
extent nor from whatever purely greenhouse specified reasons you've been
informed of. It should mean a little something, that according to the
science of more than a few others, the thermal energy balance of Venus
is simply off by way of nearly 15% more energy leaves the nighttime
season as gets solar contributed by way of the Venusian season of day.
According to the likes of Alan Connor, and I'm fairly certain by more
than a few others, another Earth (hot or cold, wet or dry) is "needed by
2050" (a touch sooner if we're getting smacked by whatever big and nasty
asteroid come 2036), which actually sounds just about right, especially
due to the sorry way things related to Earth's global warming and ocean
rising environment that has otherwise gotten itself so nicely polluted,
and of our limited energy reserves as having been going rather badly
into the nearest space-toilet.
In spite of the mainstream gauntlet of infomercial flak that's usually
naysay mindset about damn near everything that's under their sun or
onboard their flat Earth, I still like to constructively discuss
whatever's new and improved of various wind, geothermal and various
direct solar energy extracting alternatives, even if the regular laws of
physics and math is getting a wee bit skewed or infomercial hyped ENRON
or WMD style past the point of no return. However, here's yet another
perfectly good alternative wind energy rant for the old green/renewable
gipper, that's using a radial power turbine which takes into account
100% of the available m3/s flow, as well as having extracted energy via
pressure and thermal differentials plus the added density of whatever
local spare elements can be tossed into the existing hearth.
There's wind derived energy, and then there's Venus that's going
vertically postal:
\////|\\\\/
| |
| |
| |
| | Height 1 km = 4 bar, 10 K and 16 m/s
| | Diameter = made as large as you'd like
| | Turbine element could be radial format
| |
|___________________|
/| |\ /|\ /| |\
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry about the absolutely lousy ASCII graphics (w/o polished 3D
animation or custom surround sound).
The bottom diameter of this vertical differential formulated wind-tower
might be roughly as great as 4X the top exit diameter that's
accommodating the radial turbine, although a 2:1 ratio should otherwise
be sufficient, especially considering the pressure than thermal
differential that's available as is.
In theory, this composite wind energy contraption that's capable of
being on the likes of S8 gas vent steroids, as such could represent as
great as KEpt=1.5MV2, simply because of all the added mass, of it's
initial surface exit velocity and much greater thermal differential of
likely involving more than 200 K, upto as great as 560 K, of added
thermal differential to start off with, which by all rights of physics
should be in many locations as simply available for the taking.
The energy extraction dynamics of this idea (weird but honest physics
and topic friendly skewed math) gets especially all the more interesting
if we're dealing with whatever's mostly S8 along with CO2 as emerging
from the active geothermal surface vent at a rather great deal of
initial velocity, as subsequently exiting this Venusian tower of power
upon reaching the km vertical travel that adds yet another 4 bar of
pressure differential and -10 K of thermal offset to whatever the
surface gas vent itself had to offer.
Utilizing the available S8 element of such a geothermal pressure vent is
obviously going to represent a greater worth of m3 density, as well as
capable of sharing something of much greater than 10 K/km worth of
thermal differential, and of course don't forget about the spare worth
of kinetic energy via the initial surface exit velocity alone that's
perfectly good enough to burn(sort of speak) as is. Go figure
otherwise.
Even if my math has been getting a little too wishful weird, in spite of
myself I'm thinking a conservative 100 meter vertical offset should be
more than sufficient in order to do the trick, as for accommodating most
anything you or I'd have in mind if we were having to tough it out in
such a toasty place as Venus, with loads of such renewable energy to
spare for sustaining our mission's critical cash of ice cold beer. In
other words, specify the KJ, MJ or GJ energy demands (including TJ if
need be), and simply build the sucker to suit. As an extra bonus. it's
not at all like the raw elements for creating damn near whatever are not
already there to behold.
With such spare and perfectly renewable energy at hand, there is almost
nothing that can't be accomplished on behalf of sustaining intelligent
life as locals or ETs on Venus, at least on behalf of such life
coexisting as long as the necessary efforts of applied technology is
being the case, such as forcing out co/o2 away from the toasty raw
element of co2 is no longer a problem.
The bottom line of this argument/rant is, I'll actually try my honest
best in order to further refine and improve upon this latest pro-Venus
rant, coming up with new and improved information and hopefully a better
formula so that those of you that are apparently stuck here on Earth and
typically Old Testament naysay mindset until hell freezes over (which
buy the way is simply never going to happen on this polluted Earth as
long as that global warming mascon of a moon isn't leaving orbit soon
enough) can take an idea or two entirely out of context, and without so
much as bothering to give a shred of credit, unless of course something
Brad Guth
news:e0b3ce95b5d4266826b...@mygate.mailgate.org
Residentual Energy, Venusian style
(sorry about some of my previous math and this pathetic ASCII limited
graphic)
First off, upon average there's damn little solar energy making it to
the surface by day, yet otherwise not every square meter of the Venus
surface itself is nearly as hot and nasty as the next (especially once
we're taking elevation into account, or especially if situated next to
whatever's geothermally active or not). Therefore, besides the
absolutely everywhere worth of vertical atmospheric pressure and thermal
differentials, we also have substantial geothermal differential
considerations that can be directly tapped and/or diverted into
producing mechanical and thereby electrical energy, not to mention
whatever's a good exit velocity of an S8 vent should be worth, or if
push comes down to shove as to whatever lava/mud flows (aka Fluid Arch)
could be utilized as the last resort of local surface energy that's just
about everywhere to behold.
If you absolutely must insist upon going to Venus in person, and setting
a hot foot or more of your body parts roasted upon that geothermally
roasting surface (day or night), then besides having a good thermal suit
with it's own onboard VAC and CO2-->CO/O2 processor, as well as in
addition to your composite rigid airship, you might also need one of
these nifty residential configurations:
Vertical differential / @1e5 J (100 KW) radial turbine @4+ m/s
< < < < \\\\\||||///// > > > >
\ /\ /\ /
| /\ /\ | Vert. Offset
| | 100 meters
| /\ /\ | -.4 bar amb
| | - 1.0 K amb
| /\ /\ | ~ 100 K dif.
_______________ | |
_/_______________\_ / /\ /\ /\ \
/___________________\ / \
| ______ | | | / /\ 853 K /\ \
|| || | | / |||||||||||||||| \
||______||o | |>== 295K ===>| CO2/HVAC | 753 K
__|_______ |__ |____|<== 270K =X=<|__CO2->CO/O2__|_____________
______________________________________/--||--\_________________
Venus Abode (insulated R-1024/m)
For offering a little size perspective and taking into account for my
usual pesky corrections in math, think of the tower's inlet base
diameter as 40 meters, and of it's top radial exit as 20 meters, which
should become way more than sufficient for extracting the 3.6e8 J of
energy per hour (100 KWhr), especially if there exist the not so little
extra thermal differential consideration of having at least some portion
of the 100 K as imported from the CO2/HVAV and CO2-->CO/O2 conversion.
It's likely that this individual abode's vertical atmospheric shaft and
topside radial exit wind turbine would not have to be quite as large as
I've specified, as the energy quota per extremely large Venusian
residential unit shouldn't demand 100 KW, or even if it did it should
not take such a large diameter in order for this limited tower height of
100 meters to provide this amount of energy. It's just for knowing that
space is not a problem on Venus, and constructing large whatevers on
Venus seems for many reasons (as based entirely upon the regular laws of
physics), a whole lot more doable than here on Earth.
With the ongoing CO2-->CO/O2 process, which in part is essentially
incorporating a CO2 compressor that's actually not so hard at work, and
thereby having rather easily produced the 100 K thermal differential,
whereas conventional surface area heat exchanging via titanium or
similar/better alloy should manage to place that surplus heat into the
open base inlet area of the vertical wind producing tower. Having the
radial turbine doing it's unavoidable thing of efficiently rotating the
power shaft that's directly connected into the actual AC electrical
generator that's within the base area (situated underneath the CO2/HVAC)
where it's roughly 753 K, is operating well within the 811 K thermal
design limitations of what's essentially off-the-shelf of such electro
mechanical technology as we know it.
The liquid/vapor phase change of the compressed and heat exchanged CO2
itself is or at least should be exactly the same process as for
terrestrial HVAC units, with the minor exception that upon Venus it's
highly unlikely that you ever need to employ the heat cycle unless you
intend to process certain metals, silica and otherwise the likes of
processing unlimited basalt into nifty fibers and microballoons or at
least milliballoons that'll proceed to float within that thick
atmospheric soup, thus a more proper name might become CO2VAC. Other
gas elements besides CO2 should exist (such as S8 or various NaCI/salts)
as offering alternatives to using CO2.
Therefore, you don't even have to be an actual wizard or otherwise worth
half your own salt in order to manage quite nicely while situated on
Venus. Of course, all these Usenet mindsets of mostly naysayers and/or
Old Testament certified rusemasters fall far below the status of salt,
as well as for their being snookered and dumbfounded past their minion
status point of no-return is an automatic disqualifier if there ever was
(sorry about that).
Obviously the required volumes of CO2 getting processed and/or utilized
via this configuration are considerable, but so what? It's not as
though there's any local shortage, or much less having to introduce
harmful freons, or otherwise imposing a damn thing that isn't there to
begin with.
BTW; keep reminding yourself, that every 19 monts is when Venus gets to
within roughly 100 fold the distance of our nearby moon (same face of
Venus looking at Earth to boot). If that isn't perfectly doable, then
nothing else is.
Brad Guth
Is there another accessible planet with more easily available and fully
renewable energy besides Venus?
Sharing the truth as based upon the best available science, and of the
honestly deductive interpretations thereof, doesn't actually require the
likes of our having to push or otherwise force our "technical
capability" upon another unsuspecting orb, or does it?
We simply need to accomplish a better job with the resources at hand, at
most going off-world towards our own moon or perhaps towards Venus is
about a good as it's going to get without such efforts taking more than
they could possibly contribute.
Notions by those within Usenet suggesting we terraform the likes of
Venus for our greedy and clearly remorseless needs isn't likely a viable
win-win agenda for humanity, that is unless you still don't mind pushing
whatever's likely worse off than Muslim buttons, just to see what
happens next.
Like our Columbus of 1492 as supposedly having been the first of our
kind, as having been given such credit for supposedly discovering
America, you simply need to exclude or replace all that and much other
silly infomercial crapolla you've been told, as well as a few too many
other unfortunately well orchestrated lies that were fully known by
those in charge at the time as having been fully perpetrated lies from
the very beginning, as well as can be said for much the same as to what
can and should be revised about the planet Venus, as thus far having
been depicted to us as anything but the best available truth(s).
In spite of what we've been officialy told, the planet Venus is NOT
purely roasting via greenhouse, instead it's by enlarge geothermally and
physically contributing to it's thick atmosphere, and thus unavoidably
roasting it's nifty and extremely buoyant atmosphere from the bottom up,
and that's only because of the relative newish planetology of such an
active surface environment. This isn't discounting by day whereas some
of that potential 2650 j/m2 worth of solar energy is in fact taken in,
but damn little of that influx of such energy reaches a surface that
remains geothermally hotter than the atmosphere above (especially the
case if we're going by the somewhat atmospherically cooler season of
nighttime). By way of measuring the thermal balance from their season
of nighttime is what radiates that solar influx plus roughly 15% more
than what's solar contributed is what gets radiated away from Venus
because, Venus itself has been cooling itself off, exactly as it should.
Trick physics question for the truly dumbfounded:
Within the first vertical km off the Venus deck, and say within the
somewhat more technology accessible nighttime season of our easily
extracting energy via the 4.15 bar/km of pressure differential, also
taking advantage of a 10 K/km of atmospheric thermal differential, how
the heck are you going to stop or otherwise prevent a radial power
turbine that's situated on top of a vertical atmospheric shaft or
chimney from rotating?
Excluding all the documented geothermal hot spots (of which Venus simply
has more than it's fair share), much less of those involving active lava
or mud flows as suggested by the "fluid arch" of Venus, or that of so
many S8/CO2 gas vents which John Ackerman interpreted on behalf of
sharing his openly deductive mindset worth of understanding about Venus,
as such Venus as is offers way more accessible energy that's fully
renewable and obviously it's already there for the taking, far more so
than any other known planet or moon that's robotically as well as if
need be humanly accessible via existing technology.
Venus is not exactly a humanly cozy sort of butt naked worthy planet,
though as hot and nasty as it is, at least it's technically doable
without our having to reinvent the wheel. The toasty and clearly
interactive elements of Venus are simply way better off than keeping
yourself from getting sub-frozen or otherwise TBI to death on a smaller
and much further away planet, or of some godforsaken moon that's so much
extra further away that has next to zilch worth of any remaining local
energy to spare, and by far insufficient solar influx to light off a
birthday candle, much less sharing any prospects on behalf of the
necessary O2 for feeding that wussy little birthday candle flame.
On Venus, with more spare and easily accessible local energy per
vertical m3 than you can possibly shake a bloody fist full of flaming
sticks at (sort of speak), what exactly if anything is all that
insurmountable about surviving Venus?
If there's any planet that needs terraforming in order to fix it's nasty
environment that's only getting itself worse off, perhaps Earth and even
that of our moon should be considered as our priority No.1 focus of the
current and future status quo, that's not exactly looking all that good
if we maintain our braille course of those thousand lights that are in
the process of continued GW pollution via their soot and/or simply being
responsible for the next round(s) of energy warlording that'll be taking
the rest of us village idiots to the nearest poor-house if not to our
early demise.
Brad Guth
I'll continue to improve and share my open mindset, that'll suggest
within this century if not as soon as 30 years from now, China will be
in charge of the one and only MEL1 LSE-CM/ISS. Soon enough after that
is when much of our energy pollution problems will be over, and only for
the better of sustaining our affordable quality of life as well as on
behalf of salvaging a portion of our badly failing environment that'll
actually have little to do with the ongoing fiasco of humanity upon this
terrestrial zoo of mostly infomercial spewing clowns.
Besides the somewhat initially spendy and otherwise complex investment
of China establishing my LSE-CM/ISS alternative, there's also my fully
terrestrial proven alternatives that have long since capably functioned
at delivering an affordable and sustainable rate of safe and clean
energy. If that's still not good enough, there's always the nearby
minerals, raw elements and the downright nifty energy cash of Venus
that's damn near within rock tossing range every 19 months.
I'd also have to agree with most, that we haven't now or otherwise
within 30 years or perhaps not a century from now the necessary talents
nor the required spare resources for accomplishing much of any global
scale terraforming, much less on behalf of any off-world task involving
the likes of relocating Ceres or Sedna on behalf of Venus or Earth.
Hell, we can't even come up with a viable game plan on behalf of getting
rid of our absolutely extremely large and nearby mascon of such a GW
moon, or that of blocking a small percentage of our sun that's going
somewhat CME postal while we're losing our protective magnetosphere at
the alarming rate of 0.05%/year.
However, besides this Earth or that of our moon, is there perchance
another accessible planet or moon with more easily available and fully
renewable energy besides the likes of Venus? (I don't think so)
Sharing the truth as based upon the best available science, and of the
honestly deductive interpretations thereof as based entirely upon the
regular laws of physics, as such doesn't actually require the likes of
our having to push or otherwise force our "technical capability" upon
another unsuspecting orb, or does it?
We simply need to accomplish a better job with the clearly limited
resources at hand, at most going off-world towards our own moon or
perhaps towards Venus is about a good as it's ever going to get without
such efforts taking away more than they could possibly contribute.
Notions by those within Usenet suggesting we terraform the likes of
Venus for our greedy and clearly remorseless needs isn't likely a viable
win-win agenda for humanity, that is unless you still don't mind pushing
whatever's likely worse off than Muslim buttons, just to see what
happens next.
Like our Columbus of 1492 as supposedly having been the first of our
kind, as having been given such credit for supposedly discovering
America, you simply need to exclude or replace all that and much other
silly infomercial crapolla you've been told, as well as a few too many
other unfortunately well orchestrated lies that were fully known by
those in charge at the time as having been perpetrated lies from the
very beginning, as well as can be said for much the same as to what can
and should be revised about the planet Venus, as thus far having been
depicted to us as anything but the best available truth(s).
In spite of what we've been officialy told over and over, whereas the
planet Venus is NOT purely roasting itself to death via greenhouse,
instead it's by enlarge geothermally and physically contributing to it's
thick atmosphere, and thus unavoidably roasting it's nifty and extremely
buoyant atmosphere from the bottom up, and that's only because of the
relative newish planetology of such an active surface environment. This
isn't discounting by day whereas some of that potential 2650 j/m2 worth
of solar energy is in fact taken in, but damn little of that influx of
such energy reaches a surface that remains geothermally hotter than the
atmosphere above (especially the case if we're going by the somewhat
atmospherically cooler season of nighttime). By way of measuring the
thermal balance from their season of nighttime is what radiates that
solar influx plus roughly 15% more than what's solar contributed is what
gets radiated away from Venus because, Venus itself has been cooling
itself off, exactly as it should.
Trick physics question for the truly dumbfounded:
Within the first vertical km off the Venus deck, and say within the
somewhat more technology accessible nighttime season of our easily
extracting energy via the 4.15 bar/km of pressure differential, also
taking advantage of a 10 K/km of atmospheric thermal differential, how
the heck are you going to stop or otherwise prevent a radial power
turbine that's situated on top of a vertical atmospheric shaft or
chimney from rotating?
Excluding all the documented geothermal hot spots (of which Venus simply
has more than it's fair share), much less of those area involving active
lava or mud flows as suggested by the "fluid arch" of Venus, or that of
so many S8/CO2 gas vents which John Ackerman interpreted on behalf of
sharing his openly deductive mindset worth of understanding about Venus,
as such Venus as is offering way more accessible energy that's fully
renewable and obviously already there for the taking, far more so than
any other known planet or moon that's robotically as well as if need be
humanly accessible via existing technology.
Venus is not exactly a humanly cozy sort of butt naked friendly planet,
though as hot and nasty as it is, at least it's technically doable
without our having to reinvent the wheel. The toasty and clearly
interactive elements of Venus are simply way better off than keeping
yourself from getting sub-frozen or otherwise TBI to death on a smaller
and much further away planet, or of some godforsaken moon that's so much
extra further away that has next to zilch worth of any remaining local
energy to spare, and by far insufficient solar influx to light off a
birthday candle, much less sharing any prospects on behalf of the
necessary O2 for feeding that wussy little birthday candle flame.
On Venus, with more spare and easily accessible local energy per
vertical m3 than you can possibly shake a bloody fist full of flaming
sticks at (sort of speak), what exactly if anything is all that
insurmountable about surviving Venus?
If there's any planet that needs terraforming in order to fix it's nasty
environment that's only getting itself worse off (thanks mostly to our
pesky moon), perhaps Earth and even that of our extremely nearby and
unusually massive moon should be considered as our priority No.1 focus
of the current and future status quo, that's not exactly looking all
that good if we simply maintain our braille mindset course of those
thousand lights that are in the process of continued GW pollution via
their soot, and/or simply being responsible for the next round(s) of
energy warlording that'll be taking the rest of us village idiots to the
nearest poor-house, if not to our early demise should we be accused of
hiding WMD or the likes of Usama bin Laden.
habshi
the process than you will get out of it , why not dig a few miles down
here where its even hotter?
Brad Guth
news:45986a86...@news.clara.net
> Instead of going to Venus 30m miles and losing more energy in
> the process than you will get out of it, why not dig a few miles down
> here where its even hotter?
I like where you're going with this. Straight into the likes of our
very own Bush/Cheney/ENRON hell, none the less.
That's actually what we should have been doing as of decades ago, going
for the geothermal energy that's within.
After we're done with such geothermal pillaging and raping mother Earth
via utilizing each seriously deep thermal extraction holes, as such we
can simply dump all of our spent nuclear fuel rods and anything else
that's nasty in first, before blasting and thereby caving the entire
energy extraction hole off for good.
Don't we already have fully robotic diggers that can cut through damn
near anything?
Are we talking 25 miles, or perhaps worse case 50 miles or what?
Obviously in more than a few existing hot surface places, a mere mile
down should become sufficient.
Eeyore
Brad Guth wrote:
> Don't we already have fully robotic diggers that can cut through damn
> near anything?
No.
Graham
Brad Guth
news:45992139...@hotmail.com
I beg to differ, as I've seen pictures of them, and having actually
driven through some of their vast tunnels as having been achieved
through nearly solid rock that seemed rather long and nifty, though I'd
suppose going nearly vertical or even at a 45 degree slope is a whole
lot different and more complex. I'm absolutely certain there's smaller
versions of such diggers that are nearly 100% robotic, similar to modern
oil and gas exploration well diggers that go off in all sorts of
directions as commanded from far above.
What's the longest/deepest drillings to date?
Going deeper, doesn't Earth get a little softer?
Besides, in many places you would not have to go all that deep, instead
more or less horizontal into an existing active volcano seems a little
risky but certainly doable.
Brad Guth
Unlike our nearly frozen solid to the core of Mars, on Venus there's
hardly any need of digging in to find more than your fair share of
geothermal or gas vent issues that can be put to the task of creating
renewable energy on the spot.
The vertical atmospheric differentials of pressure and thermal factors
are clearly by themselves more than sufficient. That is unless you were
one of these warm and fuzzy naysay Usenet village idiots, in which case
nothing is possible in the past, present or future, so why bother.
The devoid or rather ongoing banishment of ideas or even swags of viable
considerations from this anti-think-tank of our status quo or bust
naysay Usenet land, that's really good at their typically sucking and
blowing infomercial crapolla, is simply further proof-positive that such
has been doable.
Eeyore
Brad Guth wrote:
> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > Brad Guth wrote:
> > > Don't we already have fully robotic diggers that can cut through damn
> > > near anything?
> >
> > No.
> >
> > Graham
>
> I beg to differ, as I've seen pictures of them, and having actually
> driven through some of their vast tunnels as having been achieved
> through nearly solid rock that seemed rather long and nifty
They are far from being fully robotic. They need considerable crewing and
support. Not to mention regular repairs !
Graham.
Eeyore
Brad Guth wrote:
> "Brad Guth" <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> Unlike our nearly frozen solid to the core of Mars, on Venus there's
> hardly any need of digging in to find more than your fair share of
> geothermal or gas vent issues that can be put to the task of creating
> renewable energy on the spot.
>
> The vertical atmospheric differentials of pressure and thermal factors
> are clearly by themselves more than sufficient. That is unless you were
> one of these warm and fuzzy naysay Usenet village idiots, in which case
> nothing is possible in the past, present or future, so why bother.
>
> The devoid or rather ongoing banishment of ideas or even swags of viable
> considerations from this anti-think-tank of our status quo or bust
> naysay Usenet land, that's really good at their typically sucking and
> blowing infomercial crapolla, is simply further proof-positive that such
> has been doable.
You're barking mad.
Graham
Brad Guth
> You're barking mad.
>
> Graham
Not hardly. Obviously you don't believe in the regular laws of physics,
nor in replicated science. Why exactly do you bother getting yourself
out of bed? (how old do you think Venus is?)
Venus is just getting started at kicking DNA butt, and Mars has long
been kicked to death.
Unlike our nearly frozen solid to the core of that silly old Mars that's
also worthy of getting yourself cosmic TBI and otherwise rather easily
pulverised to death while on the surface, whereas on the relatively
newish planetology of Venus there's hardly any cosmic or nasty forms of
solar energy that's DNA lethal getting through, nor is there hardly any
need of digging in in order to find more than your fair share of
geothermal or gas vent issues that can be put directly to the task of
extracting renewable energy on the spot.
The vertical atmospheric thic soup of pressure and thermal differentials
factors alone are clearly by themselves more than sufficient to sustain
most any mere half-wit intelligent form of life. That is unless you
were one of these warm and fuzzy naysay Usenet village idiots, in which
case absolutely nothing is possible in the past, present or future, so
why bother.
The ongoing devoid or rather ongoing topic/author banishment of such
viable energy related ideas or even honest swags of viable
considerations from this anti-think-tank of our status quo or bust
naysay Usenet land, that's having been really good at their typically
sucking and blowing worth of infomercial crapolla spewing, is simply
further proof-positive that such renewable energy while on Venus has
been doable.
Venus is in fact a hot place, though actually it's not all that nasty of
an environment, but so what if you've got such access to and having the
sufficient smarts on behalf of utilizing the vast amounts of renewable
energy that's already there to behold?
Just because a given planet or moon is a little too hot, too cold or
even too wet for our naked bodies, doesn't in of itself mean that it's
100+% taboo. Escaping cosmic and solar radiation seems far more of a
life essential important issue, and secondly avoiding whatever's
physically incoming seems like yet another win-win for the old gipper,
especially if it's having to do with avoiding getting seriously smacked
in the butt by way of something that has your name on it.
Venus simply couldn't possibly be any more newish, alive and kicking on
the door of other life, especially on behalf of accommodating
intelligent other life, possibly even of a few locally evolved species
isn't outside the Venusian box. Although, I suppose if there's lots of
cosmic radiated and otherwise meteorite pulverised dry-ice, plus
whatever remains of that sub-frozen regular old Mars ice that's perhaps
near solid to the very icy dead (older than Earth) core of Mars is still
somehow life worthy, then so be it.
Pro-Mars folks should simply impress us, as in knocking our socks off,
if they can. I'm absolutely certain that millions of years ago Mars
could have had a touch of life to spare, and back a good billion some
odd years even better odds yet for sustaining sizable (larger than
rad-hard microbe) forms of such other life.
BTW; if the bleak realm of that Mars of today has any remainders of
life to behold, then upon our own pesky moon that's still more than a
touch salty is absolutely loaded to the gills with it's local and cosmic
DNA morgue worth of nifty spores, and you name it.
Brad Guth
> They are far from being fully robotic. They need considerable crewing and
> support. Not to mention regular repairs !
>
> Graham.
With a few spare billions in loot, you and I could fix most of that,
couldn't we.
What's 10+ terajoules worth of clean and essentially renewable energy
actually worth these badly polluted days?
According to other's that claim being smarter than a rock, our more than
toasty core has an ongoing/renewable 13+ terajoules worth of such energy
to spare as is (roughly 25 mJ/m2 at the surface). So, why not simply
utilize it before mother nature disposes of it entirely.
Seems like the hot prospects of eventually cooling off the surface of
this planet by a few mJ/m2 (from the inside out) would be yet another
good thing right about now.
Eeyore
Brad Guth wrote:
> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > You're barking mad.
> >
> > Graham
>
> Not hardly. Obviously you don't believe in the regular laws of physics,
> nor in replicated science. Why exactly do you bother getting yourself
> out of bed? (how old do you think Venus is?)
>
> Venus is just getting started at kicking DNA butt, and Mars has long
> been kicked to death.
So what ?
They aren't accessible.
Graham
Eeyore
Brad Guth wrote:
> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote
> >
> > They are far from being fully robotic. They need considerable crewing and
> > support. Not to mention regular repairs !
> >
> > Graham.
>
> With a few spare billions in loot, you and I could fix most of that,
> couldn't we.
It has nothing to do with money and everything about living in the real world
instead of some fantastic make-believe one.
I suppose next you'll have me believe in self-replicating robots mining the moon
or something equally berserk.
Science-fiction is *fiction* btw.
Graham
habshi
Why not just build solar mirrors and collectors in space where the
solar influx is four times that on the surface?
Eeyore
habshi wrote:
> How would you transport the energy from Venus to Earth .
> Why not just build solar mirrors and collectors in space
Because it's not possible ?
Graham
Art Deco
So you found yet another collection of newsgroups in which to whine
about Venus, Brad? But you forgot to give the links to your
over-processed radar images showing all those little alien townships.
Brad Guth
> How would you transport the energy from Venus to Earth .
> Why not just build solar mirrors and collectors in space where the
> solar influx is four times that on the surface?
Screw Earth. What happens in Venus stays in Venus.
However, utilizing a fairly massive rigid airship as our floating tarmac
or rather elevated launching pad on behalf of accommodating the
interplanetary Skylon or whatever spaceplane, that's of an airship
capable of cruising itself and piggyback spaceplane at good enough
velocity above 100 km altitude is what seems rather doable. As such, I
suppose extracting a few hundred tonnes of 80+% uranium yellowcake as
valuable radioactive elements could offer an impressive payback.
What's 100 tonnes of the highest purity yellowcake worth these days?
I heard $100/yellowcake pound the other day. That's merely
$224,000/tonne
I suppose we could just transport the fully processeed U238/U239, or as
ready to go reactor fuels of 96% U238, and 4% U235 at roughly $,$$$/kg.
Old pricing data: < http://www.uic.com.au/nfc.htm >
"Total cost is thus about US$ 1393 for 1 kg enriched fuel, plus about
$240 for actual fuel fabrication. This will yield about 3900 GJ thermal
energy at modern burn-up rates, or about 360,000 kWh of electricity (at
33% thermal efficiency), and does the same job as about 160 tonnes of
steaming coal for a total cost of 0.45 cents/kWh (US$) - a bit more at
lower burn-up."
There's certainly no complications in getting the payload tonnage of
whatever away from Venus. Every 19 months Venus gets to within nearly
100 fold the distance of our moon, so the travel time isn't even a big
factor.
All the rocket fuel of CO/O2 plus whatever else can be locally processed
into even better rocket fuel is also not the least bit of a big deal
since all the necessary energy for processing whatever into damn near
anything is already there to behold.
Dan Bloomquist
Eeyore wrote:
>
> Brad Guth wrote:
<snip>
>
> So what ?
Why are you feeding Brad?
Eeyore
Dan Bloomquist wrote:
Is he a well-known loony ?
I haven't previously had the pleasure.
Graham
Brad Guth
> They aren't accessible.
I was thinking Venus had imported DNA.
Brad Guth
> I suppose next you'll have me believe in self-replicating robots mining the moon
> or something equally berserk.
No such luck, just plan old physics and replicated to death science.
Brad Guth
Besides the habitat potential that's technically doable, the Venusian
Composite Rigid Airship is what makes Venus accessible.
It's easy to naysay Venus, but it's easier to simply pillage, plunder
and rape mother Venus for all she's worth, and than some. After all,
we've more than proven we can do it to Earth, so why stop now when we're
on such a roll.
The planetology of Venus is what's actually a very intellectually cool
and extra special planet, especially upon considering there's so much
spare and fully renewable energy to burn (sort of speak). As such, why
the hell bother to terraform a damn thing when it's more than good
enough to go as is?
Venus has only been promoted as too hot for the likes of those "Bad
Astronomy" types, and of others afraid of their own shadow, plus for
otherwise having rubbed our NASA the wrong way because, they're all
clearly one in the same mindset collective, meaning they is the truly
bad guys, the MIB kind of cloak and dagger MI6/NSA spooks and moles as
representing the borg like Skull and Bones collective that's clearly the
baysay king of this world, except without an actual soul nor so much as
a stitch of remorse. They used to get away with burning us witches and
our books at the stake, though for our kid's sake is why prime-time
media has to somewhat frown on that level of action (similar to their
avoiding being associated with those having exterminated Cathars or
pushing nuns off a bridge which doesn't exactly promote good PR), so
instead they proceed to topic/author stalk, bash and as much as possible
take to excluding evidence and/or simply banishing whatever rocks their
good but seriously rotting ship of their's, the USS LOLLIPOP that's
flying that home port flag of "up your's" USA.
I'll say it again Sam; Why bother with sustaining the ongoing ruse, or
otherwise with the daunting and nearly insurmountable task of having to
terraform Venus, when it's simply more than good enough as is?
What's really important of us to realize, is that we have a serious
Venusian composite rgid airship gap: so what's the big insurmountable
deal with that?
Why the hell not invest the necessary R&D into creating a viable
composite rigid airship (hybrid Skylon or fat waverider spaceplane), on
behalf of our doing Venus in grand style?
It's not even all that hocus-pocus or having to involve the pesky likes
of all those NASA/Apollo smoke and mirrors, instead it's simply doable
within the regular laws of physics as is. The actual rigid airship as a
Venusian atmospheric cruising probe that'll function rather nicely below
their nighttime season of clouds needn't be manned, and therefore
needn't be all that large.
Unlike most other planets, or even moons that we know of, Venus is just
getting itself started at kicking it's own DNA butt, and otherwise Mars
DNA has long been kicked, nicely cosmic zapped and then rather nicely
freeze dried to death.
The composite rigid airship as efficiently operating within the highly
buoyant Venusian environment (say cruising along at 25 km by season of
nighttime and 35 km by season of daytime) can at least accommodate
intelligent other life in more viable ways than it's being given credit
for. There has even been good enough pictures of what's been
accomplished by others. Yet lo and behold, Venus remains as by far the
most nearby and absolute most accessible taboo/nondisclosure other orb
in our solar system, that's none the less easier and much safer than
doing our moon.
Unlike our nearly frozen solid to the very core of that silly old Mars,
that's also representing an environment that's worthy of getting
yourself cosmic TBI and otherwise rather easily pulverised to death
while on that nearly naked surface, whereas on the relatively newish and
evolving planetology of Venus there's hardly any cosmic or nasty forms
of solar energy that's DNA lethal getting through all of that thick soup
of atmosphere, nor is there hardly any need of your having to dig in in
order to find more than your fair share of geothermal or terrific gas
vent issues that can be put directly to the task of extracting renewable
energy on the spot.
The vertical atmospheric thick soup of such nifty pressure and thermal
differential factors alone are clearly by themselves more than
sufficient means to sustain most any mere halfwit intelligent form of
life. That is unless you are one of these warm and fuzzy naysay Usenet
village idiots, in which case absolutely nothing is possible in the
past, present or future, so why bother.
The ongoing devoid or rather ongoing topic/author banishment of such
viable energy related ideas or even honest swags of viable
considerations from this anti-think-tank of our status quo or bust
naysay Usenet land, that's having been really good at their typically
sucking and blowing worth of infomercial crapolla spewing on behalf of
all things government and big-energy, is simply further proof-positive
that such renewable energy while on Venusian deck has been doable.
Venus is in fact a hot place, though actually it's not all that nasty of
an environment. But so what if it's hot, as long as you've got such
access to and having the sufficient smarts on behalf of utilizing the
vast amounts of renewable energy that's already there to behold?
Just because a given planet or moon is a little too hot, too cold or
even too wet for our naked bodies or physiological grasp, doesn't in of
itself mean that it's 100+% taboo. Escaping the lethal forms of cosmic
and solar radiation seems by far more of a life essential important
issue, and secondly avoiding whatever's physically incoming seems like
yet another win-win for the old gipper, especially if it's having to do
with avoiding getting seriously smacked in the butt by way of something
that has your name on it.
Venus simply couldn't possibly be any more newish, alive and kicking on
the various doors of accommodating other life, especially on behalf of
rather easily accommodating intelligent other life that's merely
visiting, possibly even of a few locally evolved species isn't outside
of this toasty Venusian box. Although, I suppose if there's lots of
cosmic radiated and otherwise meteorite pulverised dry-ice, plus
whatever remains of that sub-frozen regular old Mars ice that's perhaps
near solid to the very icy dead (older than Earth) core of Mars is still
somehow life worthy, then so be it.
These pro-Mars folks should simply impress us, as in knocking our socks
off, if they can. I'm absolutely certain that as of millions of years
ago Mars could have had a touch of life to spare, and back a good
billion some odd years even better odds yet for having sustained sizable
(larger than rad-hard microbe) forms of such other local life
(intelligent being yet to be proven unless merely visiting).
On the other very real and honest hands of utilizing those regular laws
of physics, as such there is absolutely nothing that's so downright
terribly insurmountable about Venus. Thinking otherwise is only the
proof-positive as to how completely snookered and dumbfounded past that
pathetic mindset point of no return you have become.
BTW; if the absolutely bleak realm of whatever that Mars of today has
to offer in the way of sharing any remainders of Martian life there is
to behold, then upon our own pesky moon that's still more than a touch
salty is what has to be absolutely loaded to the gills, with all of it's
local and cosmic DNA morgue worth of nifty spores, and you name it.
BTW No.2; ESA's already doing Venus, Russia is going back there next:
where's ours?
-
"habshi" <hi@anony> wrote in message
news:4599a5fd...@news.clara.net
> How would you transport the energy from Venus to Earth .
First of all, screw Earth. I say; Whatever happens in Venus stays in
Venus.
However, on behalf of good PR or rather tossing the dog a bone,
utilizing a fairly massive rigid airship as our floating tarmac or
rather elevated launching pad on behalf of accommodating our
interplanetary Skylon or whatever spaceplane, that's of an airship
w/piggyback spaceplane combo that's capable of cruising at good enough
velocity above the 100 km altitude mark, is what seems rather doable.
As such, I suppose extracting a few hundred tonnes of 80+% uranium
yellowcake as valuable radioactive elements, of going after mostly U238
could offer an impressive payback. Venus should have more than it's
fair share of yellowcake, and no GreenPeace or ELF protesters in sight.
What's 100 tonnes of the highest purity yellowcake worth these days?
I heard $100/yellowcake pound the other day. That's merely
$220,462/tonne
However, I suppose we could just transport the fully processeed
U238/U239, or as ready to go reactor fuels of 96% U238, and 4% U235 at
roughly $1,500/kg as of today, perhaps worth $3,000/kg in the near
future.
Old pricing data: < http://www.uic.com.au/nfc.htm >
"Total cost is thus about US$ 1393 for 1 kg enriched fuel, plus about
$240 for actual fuel fabrication. This will yield about 3900 GJ thermal
energy at modern burn-up rates, or about 360,000 kWh of electricity (at
33% thermal efficiency), and does the same job as about 160 tonnes of
steaming coal for a total cost of 0.45 cents/kWh (US$) - a bit more at
lower burn-up."
BTW; our government is back on the warpath for local yellowcake, using
the ruse of radon(Rn222) gas exposure as a stealth means by which they
pretend to be giving a tinkers damn about us village idiots, when in
fact they simply want to know exactly how much yellowcake your home is
sitting on or possibly how badly contaminated they've made that
environment. It's not that we don't have yellowcake potential, it's
just spread out and of relatively low purity and thus low energy value
(like much of our coal isn't hardly worth burning for all the trouble
and soot plus released toxins and even radiation that gets deployed into
our environment)
In fact, the interplanetary "tomcat" Fat Waverider or fancy Skylon like
spaceplane itself could become fully nuclear powered via those same
radioactive elements of U238/U235, as exclusively obtained from Venus.
There's certainly no insurmountable complications in getting such
payload tonnage of whatever's extracted, away from Venus. Every 19
months Venus gets to within nearly 100 fold the distance of our moon
(that's close enough to spit at one another), so the travel time isn't
even a big factor.
All the necessary rocket fuel(s) of CO/O2 plus whatever else can be
locally processed into even better reactive energy is also not the least
bit of a big deal, since all the necessary energy for processing
whatever into damn near anything is already there to behold. In other
not so silly words, you couldn't hardly ask for a better home away from
home planet than Venus.
Eeyore
Brad Guth wrote:
> "Brad Guth" <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> Besides the habitat potential that's technically doable, the Venusian
> Composite Rigid Airship is what makes Venus accessible.
If you say so then it must be !
I say the moon is made of green cheese. Shall we eat it ?
Graham
Brad Guth
> > "Brad Guth" <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote
> >
> > Besides the habitat potential that's technically doable, the Venusian
> > Composite Rigid Airship is what makes Venus accessible.
>
> If you say so then it must be !
Are you saying the regular laws of physics and of replicated science
simply do not apply to Venus?
> I say the moon is made of green cheese. Shall we eat it ?
>
> Graham
Don't be silly. Our moon according to our NASA/Apollo wizards is almost
exactly like a certain guano island that's only illuminated by the xenon
lamp spectrum, it's not even the least bit physically dark, and there's
even less TBI factors to worry about than a few places here on Earth, as
well as there being not 1% the meteorites and strewn secondary shards as
we've seen on Mars, and thank god it's not even the least bit
electrostatic dusty, with absolutely terrific soil that offers such
nifty surface tension that's far less than bone-dry holding/clumping
capable to boot. BTW; no matters what, you also can't ever see the
likes of Venus from being situated upon the moon (according to the
NASA/Apollo koran).
I'll also repost what I've corrected and hopefully improved upon with
regards to Venus. So, even though much reads the same, it's more
correct and understandable, at least from my perspective.
Brad Guth
A few more of my topic corrections and improvements (the best I can do).
Besides the well insulated and CO2-->CO/O2 thermal heat exchanged
habitat potential that's technically doable within the realm of what's
known to work, the Venusian Composite Rigid Airship is what otherwise
makes Venus truly accessible. Having a to/from spaceplane is a given,
as a Fat Waverider or fancy Skylon whatever, it technically doable
within the known space travel, reentry and launch or exit technologies
that simply do not need to be invented out of thin air, just R&D
assembled and fine tuned to the point of their being reliably safe to
utilize multiple shuttle like times.
It's certainly easy to naysay Venus, but it's easier yet to simply
pillage, plunder and rape mother Venus for all she's worth, and than
some. After all, we've more than proven we can do it to Earth, so why
stop now when we're on such a roll.
The planetology of Venus is what's actually that of a very
intellectually cool and extra special planet, especially upon
considering there's so much spare and fully renewable energy to burn
(sort of speak). As such, why the hell bother to terraform a damn thing
when it's more than good enough to go as is?
Venus has only been promoted as being too hot and nasty for the likes of
those "Bad Astronomy" types, and of most others afraid of their own
shadow, plus for otherwise having rubbed our hocus-pocus NASA the wrong
way because, they're all clearly one in the same mindset collective,
meaning they is the truly bad guys, the MIB kind of cloak and dagger
MI6/NSA spooks and moles as representing the status quo borg like Skull
and Bones collective that's clearly the top naysay king of this world,
except without an actual soul nor so much as a stitch of pesky remorse.
They used to get away with burning us witches and our books at the
stake, though for our kid's sake is why prime-time and mainstream media
has to somewhat frown on that level of action (similar to their avoiding
being associated with those having exterminated Cathars or the likes of
pushing nuns off a bridge which doesn't exactly promote good PR), so
instead they proceed to topic/author stalk, bash and as much as possible
take to excluding evidence and/or simply banishing whatever rocks their
good but seriously rotting ship of their's, the USS LOLLIPOP that's
flying that home port flag of "up your's" USA.
I'll say it again Sam; Why bother with sustaining the ongoing ruse, or
otherwise with the daunting and nearly insurmountable task of having to
terraform Venus, when it's simply more than good enough as is?
What's really important of us to realize, is to appreciate that we have
a serious Venusian composite rigid airship gap: so what's the big
insurmountable deal with that?
Why the hell not invest the necessary R&D into creating a viable
composite rigid airship (hybrid Skylon or fat waverider spaceplane), on
behalf of our doing Venus in grand style?
It's not even all that hocus-pocus or having to involve the pesky likes
of all those NASA/Apollo smoke and mirrors, instead it's simply doable
within the regular laws of physics as is. The actual rigid airship as a
Venusian atmospheric cruising probe that'll function rather nicely below
their nighttime season of clouds needn't be manned, and therefore
needn't be all that large.
Unlike most other planets, or even moons that we know of, Venus is just
getting itself started at kicking it's own DNA butt, and otherwise Mars
DNA has long been kicked, nicely cosmic zapped and then rather nicely
freeze dried to death.
The composite rigid airship as efficiently operating within the highly
buoyant Venusian environment (say cruising along at 25 km by season of
nighttime and 35 km by season of daytime) can at least accommodate our
form of intelligent other life in more viable ways than it's being given
credit for. There has even been good enough SAR obtained pictures of
what's been accomplished by others. Yet lo and behold, Venus remains as
by far the most nearby and absolute most accessible taboo/nondisclosure
other orb in our solar system, that's none the less easier and much
safer than doing our moon.
Unlike our nearly frozen solid to the very core of that silly old Mars,
that's also representing an environment that's worthy of getting
yourself cosmic TBI and otherwise rather easily pulverised to death
while on that nearly naked surface, whereas on the relatively newish and
evolving planetology surface of Venus there's hardly any cosmic or nasty
forms of solar energy that's DNA lethal getting through all of that
thick soup of atmosphere, nor is there hardly any need of your having to
dig in in order to find more than your fair share of geothermal or
terrific gas vent issues that can be put directly to the task of
extracting renewable energy on the spot.
The vertical atmospheric thick soup of such nifty pressure and thermal
differential factors alone are clearly by themselves more than
sufficient means to sustain most any mere halfwit intelligent form of
life. That is unless you are one of these warm and fuzzy naysay Usenet
village idiots, in which case absolutely nothing is possible in the
past, present or future, so why bother.
The ongoing devoid or rather ongoing topic/author banishment of such
viable energy related ideas or even honest swags of any other viable
considerations from this anti-think-tank of our status quo or bust
naysay Usenet land, that's having been really good at their typically
sucking and blowing worth of infomercial crapolla spewing on behalf of
all things government and big-energy, is simply further proof-positive
that such renewable energy while on then Venusian deck has been doable.
Venus is in fact a physically hot place, though actually it's not all
-
However, on behalf of good PR or rather tossing the Earth dog a bone,
utilizing a fairly massive rigid airship as our floating tarmac or
rather elevated launching pad on behalf of accommodating our
interplanetary Skylon or whatever spaceplane, that's of an airship
w/piggyback spaceplane combo that's capable of cruising at good enough
velocity above the 100 km altitude mark, is what seems rather doable.
As such, I suppose extracting a few hundred tonnes of 80+% uranium
yellowcake as valuable radioactive elements, of going after mostly U238
could offer an impressive payback. Venus should have more than it's
fair share of yellowcake, and no GreenPeace or ELF protesters in sight.
What's 100 tonnes of the highest purity yellowcake worth these days?
I heard $100/yellowcake pound the other day. That's merely
$220,462/tonne
However, I suppose we could just transport the fully processeed
U238/U239, or as ready to go reactor fuels of 96% U238, and 4% U235 at
roughly $1,500/kg as of today, perhaps worth $3,000/kg in the near
future.
Old pricing data: < http://www.uic.com.au/nfc.htm >
"Total cost is thus about US$ 1393 for 1 kg enriched fuel, plus about
$240 for actual fuel fabrication. This will yield about 3900 GJ thermal
energy at modern burn-up rates, or about 360,000 kWh of electricity (at
33% thermal efficiency), and does the same job as about 160 tonnes of
steaming coal for a total cost of 0.45 cents/kWh (US$) - a bit more at
lower burn-up."
BTW; our hocus-pocus government is back on the warpath for uncovering
local yellowcake, this time using the ruse of radon(Rn222) gas exposure
as their sneaky means by which they pretend to be giving a tinkers damn
about us village idiots, when in fact they simply want to know exactly
how much yellowcake your home is sitting on, or possibly how badly
contaminated they've made that environment. It's not that we don't have
yellowcake potential, it's just spread out and of relatively low purity
and thus lower energy value (like much of our coal isn't hardly worth
burning for all the trouble and soot plus released toxins and even
radiation that gets deployed via each tonne of spent coal that gets into
our above surface environment that's in the process of failing us in
more ways than mere polution).
In fact, the interplanetary "tomcat" Fat Waverider or fancy Skylon like
spaceplane itself could become fully nuclear powered via those same
radioactive elements of U238/U235, as exclusively obtained from Venus.
Therefore those nifty payloads of such fuel returned to Earth is our's
to keep, including the spent fuel remainders which unavoidably comes
along with the package deal from hell. Too bad we're still not smart
enough to figure out He3/fusion.
There's certainly no insurmountable complications in getting such
payload tonnage of whatever's extracted, away from Venus. Every 19
months Venus gets to within nearly 100 fold the distance of our moon
(that's close enough to spit at one another), so the travel time isn't
even a big factor.
All the necessary rocket fuel(s) of CO/O2 plus whatever else can be
locally processed into even better reactive thrust energy is also not
the least bit of any big deal, since all the necessary energy for
processing whatever into damn near anything is already there to behold.
In a few other not so silly words, you couldn't hardly ask for a better
home away from home planet than Venus.
Eeyore
Brad Guth wrote:
> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > "Brad Guth" <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote
> > >
> > > Besides the habitat potential that's technically doable, the Venusian
> > > Composite Rigid Airship is what makes Venus accessible.
> >
> > If you say so then it must be !
>
> Are you saying the regular laws of physics and of replicated science
> simply do not apply to Venus?
Tell me more about this 'replicated science' before I answer that ok ?
> > I say the moon is made of green cheese. Shall we eat it ?
> >
> > Graham
>
> Don't be silly. Our moon according to our NASA/Apollo wizards is almost
> exactly like a certain guano island
Pah ! Silly me. You can't eat guano.
Graham
lkgeo1
Eeyore wrote:
>
> I say the moon is made of green cheese. Shall we eat it ?Only if you have the CLAP again.
>
> Graham
Dan Bloomquist
Brad Guth wrote:
> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:459A6F70...@hotmail.com
>
>
>>>"Brad Guth" <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>
>>>Besides the habitat potential that's technically doable, the Venusian
>>>Composite Rigid Airship is what makes Venus accessible.
>>
>>If you say so then it must be !
>
>
> Are you saying the regular laws of physics and of replicated science
> simply do not apply to Venus?
This is Brad, of course........
Brad Guth
> Tell me more about this 'replicated science' before I answer that ok ?
By way of whatever's given for our interpretation via more than one
observation or method of measurement, that equals the same result.
-
I have lots more to offer, including prime examples that directly relate
and/or apply to Venus, but unfortunately it's either too complicated
and/or dyslexic encrypted for the typical closed/naysay mindset to deal
with.
Brad Guth
news:1OGmh.8527$Ka1....@news01.roc.ny
> > Are you saying the regular laws of physics and of replicated science
> > simply do not apply to Venus?
>
> This is Brad, of course........
Silly boy,
Can you be a wee bit more specific, or at least topic constructive.
Why are you afraid of whatever Venus has to behold?
Your problem(s) with the regular laws of physics are?
Your other obvious problems with replicated science are?
Are my deductive interpretations of the best available data still taboo?
Is there another Dan Bloomquist ulterior motive or hidden agenda at
risk?
Eeyore
Brad Guth wrote:
> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:459AA77C...@hotmail.com
>
> > Tell me more about this 'replicated science' before I answer that ok ?
>
> By way of whatever's given for our interpretation via more than one
> observation or method of measurement, that equals the same result.
Eh ?
Come again.
Graham
Brad Guth
> Eh ?
>
> Come again.
Double "EH ?", and then some.
What sort of infomercial spewing rusemaster or simple mindset moron are
you, that you don't know of "replicated science"?
What is your actual ulterior motive and hidden agenda of your day?
Eeyore
Brad Guth wrote:
> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
> > Eh ?
> >
> > Come again.
>
> Double "EH ?", and then some.
>
> What sort of infomercial spewing rusemaster or simple mindset moron are
> you, that you don't know of "replicated science"?
>
> What is your actual ulterior motive and hidden agenda of your day?
Why do you speak gobbledegook ?
Graham
Brad Guth
> Why do you speak gobbledegook ?
Probably for the very same reason(s) that you're a mainstream status quo
rusemaster, except that I'm sharing the truth.
Why is this faith-based naysay mindset your born-again religion? (oops!
lose cannon again. sorry about that last shot at your private parts)
Eeyore
Brad Guth wrote:
> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
> > Why do you speak gobbledegook ?
>
> Probably for the very same reason(s) that you're a mainstream status quo
> rusemaster, except that I'm sharing the truth.
>
> Why is this faith-based naysay mindset your born-again religion? (oops!
> lose cannon again. sorry about that last shot at your private parts)
Hey get stuck into these you'll love them. ;~)
http://pesn.com/2006/04/16/9600261_Joe_Cell_instructions/
http://www.evergreenltd.com.hk/EEI-Home.htm
Graham
Brad Guth
If you've got nothing constructive to say, much less to share and share
alike, then so be it.
As I've said before, that 99.9% of this anti-think-tank of a Usenet from
hell is simply chuck full of it's own crapolla. The other 0.1% of
humanity isn't interested in wasting their valuable time, and that's all
because of the sorts of spooks, moles and rusemaster naysayers exactly
like yourself, and that goes for the same reasom we've gone to war is
specifically due to the perverted mindsets of folks just like yourself.
-
Brad Gurg
Eeyore
Brad Guth wrote:
> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> If you've got nothing constructive to say, much less to share and share
> alike, then so be it.
Well you certainly haven't, so who's talking ?
Graham
Brad Guth
> Well you certainly haven't, so who's talking ?
>
> Graham
Liar, just like our resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush), arnt you.
-
Brad Guth
Eeyore
Brad Guth wrote:
> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > Well you certainly haven't, so who's talking ?
> >
> > Graham
>
> Liar, just like our resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush), arnt you.
I am the antithesis of shrub.
Graham
Brad Guth
There's wind derived energy, and then there's the absolutely impressive
Venus style of vertical differential pressure, plus factors of the
atmospheric density as having terrific thermal differential and
subsequent vertically obtained wind that's downright impressive. Yet
due to all the naysay flak, I'll have to restart this topic because of
the sorts of ulterior motives and of the not so hidden agendas imposed
by the vast bulk of what this anti-think-tank of a mostly naysay Usenet
from hell represents. For good measure, I'll try closing out this topic
with the following updated contribution, that's saying way more than
what should be necessary.
Why exactly has the planet Venus gotten itself so taboo/nondisclosure
rated?
Why can't the regular laws of physics and of replicated science apply to
Venus?
Why are the infomercial words of our NASA of greater importance than the
word of God?
Why is the truth and nothing but the truth getting summarily stalked,
bashed and wherever possible banished by this mostly Republican and
otherwise Old Testament faith-based Usenet?
Why is the honest science of observationology and of the deductive
interpretations of 36 look/pixel images causing so much all-or-nothing
banishment imposed upon anyone suggesting as to whatever is not NASA
scripted?
Why is unlimited pixel stackings and as much PhotoShop colorizing, plus
pushing of every possible artificial filter to the absolute max, as
having been approved and extensively utilized by our NASA and of those
associated, not as such being allowed at even 10% that level of image
processing, as to the far better than optical worth of those SAR
obtained images of Venus?
Once again; Why is our NASA acting as though they are better than God,
and without a stitch of remorse to boot?
Besides the well insulated and easily CO2-->CO/O2 thermal heat exchanged
habitat potential that's technically doable within the realm of what's
known to work, there's also the Venusian Composite Rigid Airship as
representing what otherwise makes the global environment of Venus truly
accessible and highly pillagable. Having the interplanetary worth of a
to/from capable spaceplane is a given, as a Fat Waverider or fancy
Skylon whatever, whereas it's technically doable within known shuttle
like space travel, reentry and dynamic launch/exit phase technologies
that simply do not need to be reinvented out of thin air, just good old
R&D that's assembled and fine tuned to the point of their being reliably
safe to utilize as multiple shuttle like times.
It's certainly easy enough to naysay Venus, especially if your mindset
is planning upon going there in the buff, and because of all that nifty
atmosphere is why it's actually easier and much safer than our moon to
simply pillage, plunder and rape mother Venus for all she's worth, and
than some. After all, we've more than proven that we can do such to
mother Earth without so much as a stitch of remorse none the less, so
why stop now when we're on such a roll.
The clearly newish planetology of Venus that's emerging from within is
what's actually representing that of a very intellectually cool and
extra special planet, especially upon considering it's so nearby and
there's so much spare and fully renewable energy to burn (sort of
speak). As such, why the hell bother to terraform a damn thing when
it's more than good enough to go as is?
Venus has only been promoted to naysay death by the mainstream status
quo's media as being too hot and nasty on behalf of all those "Bad
Astronomy" types, and of most others afraid of their own shadow, plus
for otherwise having to avoid rubbing our hocus-pocus NASA the wrong way
because, they're all clearly one in the same mindset collective, meaning
they is the truly bad guys, the MIB kinds of cloak and dagger MI6/NSA
spooks, moles and pagan rusemasters as representing the status quo's
borg like Skull and Bones collective that's clearly in charge of being
the top naysay king of this world, except without involving an actual
soul nor so much as a stitch of pesky remorse. They used to get away
with burning us witches and our books at the stake, though for our still
innocent kid's sake is why prime-time and mainstream media has to
somewhat frown on that level of action (similar to their avoiding being
associated with those having exterminated Cathars or the likes of
pushing nuns off a bridge which doesn't exactly promote good PR), so
instead they proceed to topic/author stalk, bash and as much as possible
take to excluding evidence and/or simply banishing whatever
interpretations of their own evidence rocks that good but seriously
rotting ship of their's, the USS LOLLIPOP that's flying that home port
flag of "up your's" USA.
I'll say it again Sam; Why bother with sustaining the ongoing ruse, or
otherwise with the daunting and nearly insurmountable task of our having
to terraform Venus, when it's simply more than good enough as is?
What I believe is really of the most importance for us to realize, is to
appreciate that we have a serious Venusian Composite Rigid Airship gap:
so what's the big insurmountable deal with that?
If we can manage to accomplish the shuttle/spaceplane, then doing the
composite rigid airship shouldn't be all that insurmountable. If need
be, going fully robotic for our Venusian exploitation missions seems
more than doable. Therefore, why the hell not invest the necessary R&D
into creating a viable composite rigid airship (hybrid Skylon, fat
waverider or whatever spaceplane), on behalf of our doing Venus in grand
style?
It's not even all that hocus-pocus or having to involve the pesky likes
of all those NASA/Apollo smoke and mirrors, instead it's simply doable
within the regular laws of physics as is. The actual rigid airship as a
Venusian atmospheric cruising probe that'll function rather nicely below
their nighttime season of cool clouds needn't be manned, and therefore
needn't be all that large.
The composite rigid airship as efficiently operating within the highly
buoyant Venusian environment (say cruising along at 25 km by season of
nighttime and 35 km by season of daytime) can at least accommodate our
form of intelligent other life in more viable ways than it's being given
credit for. There has even been good enough SAR obtained pictures of
what's been accomplished by others, and yet lo and behold, Venus also
remains as by far the most nearby and absolute most accessible yet oddly
taboo/nondisclosure other orb in our solar system, that's none the less
easier and much safer than doing our moon.
Unlike most other planets, or even moons that we know of, Venus is just
getting itself started at kicking it's own DNA butt, and otherwise the
likes of Mars DNA has long been kicked, nicely cosmic zapped, physically
pulverised and then rather nicely freeze dried to death.
Venus is simply unlike our mostly wet environment, especially unlike the
nearly frozen solid to the very core of that silly old Mars that's also
representing an environment of near vacuum that's worthy of getting
yourself cosmic TBI and otherwise rather easily pulverised to death
while on that nearly naked surface, whereas on the relatively newish and
evolving planetology surface of Venus there's hardly any cosmic or nasty
forms of solar energy that's DNA lethal getting through all of that
thick soup of atmosphere, nor is there hardly any need of your having to
dig in in order to find more than your fair share of geothermal or
simply terrific gas vent issues that can be put directly to the task of
extracting renewable energy on the spot.
The vertically empowered atmospheric thick soup of Venus, hosting such
nifty pressure and thermal differential factors alone are clearly by
themselves more than sufficient means to sustain most any mere halfwit
intelligent form of life. That is unless you are another one of these
warm and fuzzy naysay Usenet village idiots, in which case absolutely
nothing is possible in their Old Testament thumping past, present or
future, so why bother.
This ongoing topic that's so devoid of others contributing their input,
or much rather good at getting their usual topic/author banishment
treatment imposed against such viable energy related ideas, or even
against honest swags of any other viable planetology considerations from
this anti-think-tank of our status quo or bust naysay Usenet land,
that's otherwise having been really good at their typically sucking and
blowing worth of hypology and infomercial crapolla spewing on behalf of
sustaining and otherwise their promoting upon all things big-government
and big-energy, is simply the further proof-positive that such renewable
energy while on the Venusian deck has been doable. As why otherwise
make all the fuss over little old me?
Venus is in fact a physically hot place, as it should be, though
actually it's not all that nasty of an environment. But so what if it's
hot, as long as you've got such access to and having the sufficient
smarts on behalf of utilizing such vast amounts of renewable energy
that's already there to behold; so what's the difference?
Just because a given planet or moon is a little too hot, too cold or
even too wet for our naked bodies or in whatever excess of our
physiological naked grasp, doesn't in of itself mean that it's 100+%
taboo. Escaping the lethal forms of cosmic and solar radiation seems by
far more of a life essential important issue, and for secondly avoiding
whatever's physically incoming seems like yet another win-win for the
old gipper, especially if it's having to do with avoiding getting
seriously smacked in the butt by way of something that has your name on
it.
Venus simply couldn't possibly be any more newish, alive and kicking on
the various doors of having been accommodating other life, especially
doable on behalf of rather easily accommodating intelligent other life
that's merely visiting, whereas possibly even of a few locally evolved
species isn't outside of this toasty Venusian box. Although, I suppose
if there's lots of cosmic radiated and otherwise meteorite pulverised
dry-ice, plus whatever remains of that sub-frozen regular old Mars ice
that's perhaps near solid to the very icy dead (older than Earth) core
of Mars is still somehow life worthy, then so be it.
These pro-Mars folks should simply impress us, as in knocking our socks
off, if they can. I'm absolutely certain that as of millions of years
ago Mars could have had a touch of life to spare, and back a good
billion some odd years even better odds yet for having sustained sizable
(larger than rad-hard microbe) forms of such other locally evolved life
(intelligent being yet to be proven unless it were merely visiting
Mars).
On the other very real and honest hands of simply utilizing those
regular laws of physics, as such there is absolutely nothing that's so
downright terribly insurmountable about Venus. Thinking otherwise is
only the proof-positive as to how completely snookered and dumbfounded
past that pathetic naysay mindset point of no return, you have become.
BTW; if the absolutely bleak realm of whatever that older than Earth
orb of Mars today has to offer in the way of sharing any remainders of
whatever Martian life there is to behold, then upon our very own pesky
moon that's still more than a touch salty is what has to be absolutely
loaded to the gills, with all of it's local and cosmic DNA morgue worth
of nifty spores, and you name it.
BTW No.2; ESA's already doing Venus, Russia is going back there next:
where's ours?
-
"habshi" <hi@anony> wrote in message
news:4599a5fd...@news.clara.net
> How would you transport the energy from Venus to Earth .
First of all, screw Earth. Secondly I say; Whatever happens in Venus
stays in Venus.
However, on behalf of good PR or rather tossing the Earth dog a bone,
utilizing a fairly massive rigid airship as our floating tarmac or
rather elevated launching pad on behalf of accommodating our
interplanetary Skylon or whatever spaceplane, that's of an airship
w/piggyback spaceplane combo that's capable of cruising at good enough
velocity above the 100 km altitude mark, is what seems rather doable.
As such, I suppose extracting a few hundred tonnes of 80+% uranium
yellowcake as valuable radioactive elements, of going after mostly U238
could offer an impressive payback. Venus should have more than it's
fair share of yellowcake, and no GreenPeace or ELF protesters in sight.
What's 100 tonnes of the highest purity yellowcake worth these days?
I heard $100/yellowcake pound the other day. That's merely
$220,462/tonne
However, I suppose we could just bother to transport the fully
processeed U238/U239, or as ready to go reactor fuels of 96% U238, and
4% U235 at roughly $1,500/kg as of today, perhaps worth $3,000/kg in the
near future as our fossil fuel wars rage on and on.
Old U238/U235 pricing data: < http://www.uic.com.au/nfc.htm >
"Total cost is thus about US$ 1393 for 1 kg enriched fuel, plus about
$240 for actual fuel fabrication. This will yield about 3900 GJ thermal
energy at modern burn-up rates, or about 360,000 kWh of electricity (at
33% thermal efficiency), and does the same job as about 160 tonnes of
steaming coal for a total cost of 0.45 cents/kWh (US$) - a bit more at
lower burn-up."
BTW; It seems our hocus-pocus government is back on the warpath for
uncovering local yellowcake, this time using the ruse of radon(Rn222)
gas exposure as their sneaky/stealth means by which they pretend to be
giving a tinkers damn about us village idiots, when in fact they simply
want to know exactly how much yellowcake your home is sitting on, or
possibly how badly contaminated they've made that environment. It's not
that we don't have yellowcake potential, it's just spread out and of
relatively low purity and thus lower energy value (like much of our coal
isn't hardly worth burning for all the trouble and soot plus released
toxins and even radiation that gets deployed via each tonne of spent
coal that gets into our above surface environment that's in the process
of failing us in more ways than mere polution).
In fact, the interplanetary likes of the "tomcat" Fat Waverider or
perhaps of the fancy Skylon like spaceplane itself could become fully
nuclear powered via those same radioactive elements of U238/U235, as
exclusively obtained from Venus. Therefore those nifty payloads of such
fuels returned to Earth is our's to keep, including the spent fuel
remainders which unavoidably comes along with the package deal from
hell. Too bad we're still not quite smart enough to figure out the
nearly pure thermal energy as released by Deuterium-helium-3 or
D-He3/fusion (oops! as it turns out we are smart enough, but simply
caught with our pants down because we're still w/o access to any good
resource of He3, as being clearly why we're sort of stuck in our own
silly muck).
There's certainly no insurmountable complications in getting such
payload tonnage of whatever's extracted, safely away from Venus. As
another bonus, every 19 months Venus gets to within nearly 100 fold the
distance of our moon (that's close enough to spit at one another), so
the travel time isn't even a big factor.
All the necessary rocket fuel(s) of CO/O2 plus whatever else can be
locally processed into even better reactive thrust energy is also not
the least bit of any big deal, especially since all the necessary energy
for processing whatever into damn near anything is already there to
behold. In a few other not so silly words, you couldn't hardly ask for
a better home away from home planet than Venus.
Brad Guth
Because you're all so clearly mainstream snookered and thus easily
dumbfounded by way of all of this; Here's some old news you can all use
to blow your status quo brown nose with.
Earth has been getting rid of roughly 25+ millijoules/m2, with a surface
area of 5.112e14 m2, in that supposedly this represents a
minimum/conservative core loss of 13e12 joules. I tend to believe it's
worth at least for times that amount, but that's just my ongoing village
idiot swag of deductive thinking a little outside the box. As what the
hell would we ever do with 52 terajoules worth of essentially renewable
and clean energy?
Venus at 2625 ~ 2650 j/m2 of average solar influx
Surface area: 4.6e14 m2
Mass: 4.87x1024 kg
Density: 5.24 g/cm3
Local gravity: 8.87 m/s2
Escape velocity: 10.3 km/s
Albedo: 0.75 ~ 0.85
Just for another lose cannon worthy example; At an average surface
geothermal radiant heat loss of 10 j/m2 = 4.6e15 joules of available
core energy would have to exist. By any planetology standards, that's
absolutely impressive at even 10% that amount.
Fortunately, according to the existing and ongoing research of others,
the Venusian influx/radiative energy balance has been running at a loss,
which I believe has been a good thing to know and appreciate as to why
Venus is gradually getting itself cooler by each extremely long
daytime/nighttime season.
Energy flux absorbed by the Earth = 1370 x (1-0.3) / 4 = 239.7 W/m2
Energy flux absorbed by the Venus = 2650 x (1-0.8) / 4 = 132.5 W/m2
(a nifty looking document, but slower than hell if not impossible to
load)
http://planetologia.elte.hu/atlasz/6microenvironments.pdf
A whole lot better though incomplete info, and what there is to behold
is somewhat NASA and/or Old Testament skewed in order to suit their
'Earth only' mindset as to intelligent life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Venera13Surface.jpg
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/2002Q4/211/notes_greenhouse.html
"Even though Venus receives more solar energy than the Earth is, its
effective temperature is colder. This is due to the high albedo on
Venus (0.8): 80% of solar radiation is reflected to space and only 20%
is absorbed by the surface."
Actually it's getting primarily absorbed and rather nicely transferred
about by that extremely thick atmosphere of mostly dry CO2 and a few
hundred spare teratonnes worth of acidic clouds, and otherwise the solar
influx is extensively blocked by the robust layer of S8, and damn little
(perhaps 0.015% of 2650 j/m2) ever directly reaches the surface by means
much other than atmospheric conductive/convection.
On a clear and sunny terrestrial day that's right here on good mother
Earth, we're looking at better than 800 j/m2 that's impacting our deck,
and that's roughly 59~60% of the total solar influx which manages to
contain nearly all of the incoming IR spectrum, and that's not to
mention the secondary/recoil worth of what's unavoidably derived from
our extremely large and nearby moon's worth of IR/FIR, nor anything
tidal related. Now that's what I'd call greenhouse warming potential
that's nailing us from the top down, especially effective as our soot
and gas byproducts pollute damn near every atmospheric and terra m3 in
sight, and then some.
In other words, Venus on its far outside is cooler than Earth's thin
atmospheric realm (especially by way of their extended season of
nighttime), though upon average roughly 132 j/m2 of solar influx gets
absorbed by the entire global environment of Venus (mostly accommodated
within its robust atmosphere that otherwise reflects ~80%. It's all
pretty much the killer geothermal surface that we have to worry about if
we're ever planing to walk upon that toasty orb, especially in many
locations of active lava, mud/plastic flows of raw minerals or worse yet
if near or situated upon any of those pesky geothermal forced S8/CO2 gas
vents that should by rights be literally hotter than hell, and going
like a bat out of hell.
Of course, so much unlike our wet environment with its relatively clear
and thus solar transparent atmospheric realm of Earth, whereas so much
of the solar IR influx directly reaches our surface, as opposed to the
Venus surface environment being rather well shielded by the fully
clouded atmosphere that also includes a substantial reflective internal
boundary layer of thermal and IR spectrum isolating S8, whereas the
actual solar influx reaching the surface via direct sunlight is thereby
extensively IR filtered/moderated long before reaching the surface, and
otherwise the visual spectrum isn't hardly worth 39 j/m2 at high noon
(the average at something less) while obviously on the sunny side, and
to be certain that hardly anything of that's going to be of IR.
This leaves us with all of those Venusian boat loads of geothermal
energy that's primarily responsible for the vast bulk of why it's so
freaking toasty on that newish planetology active deck. Of course in
physics that's a darn good thing because, via those regular laws of
physics is where all sorts of nifty alternatives for extracting such
renewable energy while you're sequestered upon Venus becomes doable,
making it entirely possible to sustain as much ice cold beer and even a
few indoor ice skating rinks if you'd like.
Too bad this anti-think-tank of our status quo Usenet from the one and
only actual hell on Earth, that for some pathetic reason(s) can't manage
to pull its infomercial spewing butt-cheek brains out of the nearest
space-toilet, especially if it's having anything to do with Venus, much
less with our very own physically dark and nearby orbiting mascon and
otherwise GW worthy moon.
Brad Guth
A radial power turbine can be engineered to essentially fit or
accommodate most any volumetric capacity, for delivering nearly any
desired rotational speed, and for accommodating nearly any form of mono
hot or cold medium of gas (such as CO2) or that of a composite gas
(S8/CO2) or even if having been mixed along with a fluid composition if
that's the given form of renewable energy at hand. Hydrodynamic radial
power turbines have been the industry norm for the hydroelectric utility
form of their volumetric energy conversion of h2o into safe and clean
joules of electrical energy, and therefore the use of the radial turbine
is hardly new or without extensive application proof of the applied
physics and replicated science that created such radial turbines in the
first place.
The kinetic worth of whatever's the volumetric flow to output shaft
energy conversion efficiency can exceed 95%, although a highly
conservative 50% rating is more than effective for most applications,
and otherwise as little as a 33% efficiency of conversion can be taken
as more than good enough when there's simply far more local worth or
capacity of raw renewable energy at your disposal.
As should be well understood, the radial power turbine itself can be
made of nearly any metallic, ceramic or composite of materials that are
locally available and/or can be locally produced in order to suit the
design specifications.
If efficiency isn't an important factor, such as for the conversion of
vast amounts of renewable geothermal energy which unavoidably forces
that into becoming the vapor form of atmospheric pressure and thermal
differential energy, whereas the aerodynamic or nearly hydrodynamic
design is not nearly as critical. Although, the old 'waste not ~ want
not' analogy still applies if you actually have any real engineering
soul of expertise to share.
If you have some actual industry expertise or even a strong amateur
interest in this realm of applied radial power turbine design, as such I
have a perfectly serious remote application with your name on it.
Unlike this mostly naysay realm of a do-nothing constructive Usenet, and
in spite of their pesky anti-think-tank gauntlet of mostly orchestrated
spooks and moles tossing as much flak as they can muster, I'm going for
the full range of applications, from the portable venue of 3.6 kj to the
multi terajoule applications.
Brad Guth
Venus is still offering more than a toasty hot-foot from the inside out:
As I'd shared so many times before, that other than establishing my
LSE-CM/ISS before China or Russia does, notions of terraforming the moon
(though technically doable) is a seriously bad sort of idea, especially
when we've got the ready made-to-order likes of our not so old Venus
cruising so nearby, that's merely a little extra toasty in spots but
otherwise perfectly good to go as is. Venus needs no stinking
terraforming, that is unless you're another certified village idiot
moron like our resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush).
Because you're all so into play acting as though Venus is so
need-to-know or else taboo, and otherwise you're all so clearly
mainstream snookered and thus easily dumbfounded by way of all of this;
In spite of your own gauntlet of staying the course of those silly old
thousand lights, here's some old but updated news you can all use to
blow off each of your socks, as well as to blow off your status quo
brown noses with.
I've recently learned that supposedly Earth has been getting rid of
roughly 78~79 millijoules/m2 (with a surface area of 5.112e14 m2 = 40e12
J), in that subsequently this amount of energy represents a sustained
minimum/conservative core loss of 40e12 clean joules. I tend to believe
it's worth at least twice if not 2.5 fold that amount, but that's just
my ongoing village idiot swag of deductive thinking a little outside the
box, as to what the extra amount(s) of inside and out tidal induced
energy has to contribute. As to further think, what the hell would we
ever do with so many extra terajoules worth of essentially renewable and
clean energy?
Venus at 2625 ~ 2650 j/m2 of average solar influx
(global net solar influx = 132 j/m2)
Surface geothermal energy: 21 j/m2
Surface area: 4.6e14 m2
Mass: 4.87x1024 kg
Density: 5.24 g/cm3
Local gravity: 8.87 m/s2
Escape velocity: 10.3 km/s
Albedo: 0.75 ~ 0.85
Just for sharing another lose cannon worthy shot in the dark; At an
average surface geothermal radiant heat loss of merely 10 j/m2 = 4.6e15
joules of available core energy would have to exist (that's roughly half
the reported surplus radiated surface energy of 21 j/m2 as having been
obtained by our previous probes). By way of any planetology standards,
that's absolutely impressive energy at even 10% that amount.
Fortunately, according to the existing and ongoing research of others
(including the ESA virtis / venus express mission), the Venusian solar
influx/radiative energy balance has been running at a measured loss of
providing roughly 15% more energy than having been solar contributed,
which I tend to believe has been a good planetology thing to know and
appreciate as to why Venus is not only currently so toasty but gradually
getting itself cooler by each extremely long daytime/nighttime season.
Energy flux absorbed by the Earth = 1370 x (1-0.3) / 4 = 239.7 W/m2
Energy flux absorbed by the Venus = 2650 x (1-0.8) / 4 = 132.5 W/m2
(a nifty looking document, but slower than hell if not impossible to
load)
http://planetologia.elte.hu/atlasz/6microenvironments.pdf
There's lots of other interesting though otherwise perfectly honest
interpretations as soon becoming a bit outdated information about the
Venus atmosphere from John Ackerman.
http://www.firmament-chaos.com/papers/fvenuspaper.pdf
A whole lot better though willfully incomplete cache of info, and of
what there is to behold is somewhat NASA and/or Old Testament skewed in
order to suit their faith-based 'Earth only' mindset as to intelligent
life, and to otherwise support their only greenhouse theory as the one
and only viable basis for why Venus is so freaking hot (too bad the
regular laws of physics nor the best available replicated science do not
agree with that silly greenhouse analogy).
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/2002Q4/211/notes_greenhouse.html
"Even though Venus receives more solar energy than the Earth is, its
effective temperature is colder. This is due to the high albedo on
Venus (0.8): 80% of solar radiation is reflected to space and only 20%
is absorbed by the surface."
Actually it's getting primarily diverted and/or absorbed and rather
nicely transferred about by that extremely thick atmosphere of mostly
dry CO2 and a few hundred spare teratonnes worth of those acidic clouds,
and otherwise the solar influx is extensively blocked by the robust
composite layer of S8, and damn little (perhaps 0.015% of 2650 j/m2)
ever directly reaches the surface by means much other than atmospheric
conductive/convection (at least that's exactly what our own and of those
Russian probes have been telling us).
On a clear and sunny terrestrial day that's right here on good mother
Earth, we're looking at better than 800 j/m2 that's capable of impacting
our deck, and that's roughly 60% of the total solar influx which manages
to contain nearly all of the incoming IR spectrum, and that's not to
mention the secondary/recoil worth of whatever's unavoidably derived
from our extremely large and nearby moon's worth of IR/FIR, nor is there
anything tidal related as forced along by the 2e20 joules of the ongoing
orbital existence of our having that pesky moon to deal with as of the
last ice age. Now that's what I'd call greenhouse warming potential
that's nailing us from our badly polluted top down, especially effective
as our soot and various complex gas byproducts having polluted damn near
every atmospheric and terra m3 in sight, and then some.
In other words, Venus on its far outside/exterior is technically upon
average cooler than Earth's thin and relatively IR transparent
atmospheric realm (Venus being especially cooler by way of their
extended season of nighttime with the exception of the 21 j/m2 of
radiated surface energy), though upon average roughly 132 j/m2 of solar
influx gets absorbed by the entire global environment of Venus (mostly
accommodated within its robust atmosphere that otherwise reflects ~80%),
whereas there's actually a measured 153 j/m2 of nighttime radiated
energy to deal with.
It's all pretty much the killer geothermal smoking hot surface of 21
j/m2 along with the impressive atmospheric thermal contribution that we
have to worry about if we're ever planing to walk upon that toasty orb,
getting especially hot-spot/zone nasty in many geothermal locations of
active lava, mud/plastic flows of raw minerals or worse yet if near or
forbid situated upon any of those pesky geothermal forced S8/CO2 gas
vents that should by rights be literally hotter than hell, and going
like a bat out of hell as having been kindly pointed out to us by John
Ackerman.
Of course, so much unlike our wet environment with its relatively clear
and thus solar transparent atmospheric realm of Earth, whereas so much
of the solar IR influx directly reaches our surface, as opposed to the
Venus surface environment being rather well shielded by the fully
clouded atmosphere that also includes a substantial reflective internal
boundary layer of thermal and IR spectrum isolating S8, whereas the
actual solar influx reaching the surface via direct sunlight is thereby
extensively IR filtered/moderated long before reaching that surface, and
otherwise the visual spectrum isn't hardly worth 39 j/m2 at high noon
(the average illumination being at something far less while obviously on
the sunny side, as otherwise mostly IR illuminated within their extended
season of nighttime), and to be certain there's hardly any significant
amount of incoming solar energy that's going to be of the IR spectrum.
This leaves us with all of those Venusian departing boat loads of
geothermal energy, of roughly 21 j/m2 that's primarily responsible for
the vast bulk of why it's so freaking toasty on that newish planetology
active deck. Of course, in physics that's a darn good thing to realize
because, via those regular laws of physics is where all sorts of nifty
alternatives for extracting from such renewable energy while you're
sequestered upon Venus becomes doable, making it entirely possible to
sustain as much ice cold beer and even a few indoor ice skating rinks if
you'd like.
Too bad this continually naysay anti-think-tank of our status quo
Usenet, that's formulated from within the one and only actual hell on
Earth, that for some pathetic reason(s) can't manage to pull its
infomercial spewing butt-cheeks of its own faith-based load of
disinformation spewing brains out of the nearest space-toilet,
especially if it's having anything to do with Venus, much less with our
very own physically dark and nearby orbiting mascon of our otherwise GW
worthy moon.
Brad Guth
I see that our Usenet index has managed to lock out as much user
friendly search features that pertains to Brad Guth, at least as much as
possible has been accomplished without terminating their ongoing Old
Testament thumping ruse/sting of the century.
In case you folks haven't quite noticed, the old "Moon Landing a
Hoax??!! Real Evidence here>>>" topic is just another prime
damage-control example of their intended ruse/sting of our mutually
perpetrated cold-war century, that has recently turned itself into a
global energy domination fiasco which isn't about to end until our
energy sucking fat lady sings, or otherwise as long as we're in the
process of taking as much Muslim oil as we can before they ever manage
to realize just how dumb and dumber Muslims and Islamics have been
snookered all along.
Fortunately for Venus, there's no apparent shortage of locally available
energy, that's not only geothermally renewable but far more accessible
than here on Earth.
Actual facts as based upon actual history is what supersedes science.
However, nothing supersedes the laws of physics.
Ever since I started in as of 7+ years ago, with the
discovery/uncovering of intelligent other life having existed/coexisted
on Venus, it seems Venus has been getting more and more
taboo/nondisclosure worthy than our moon. This is rather odd, being
that there's nothing all that technically insurmountable about Venus,
and at times it's so nearby with the very same moon like face of Venus
aligned with Earth.
However, on behalf of sticking much closer to our home world that's
within the unfortunate process of going GW postal, and otherwise GW Bush
postal; If you are surrounded by the bare minimum of 3.14e6 m2 of
somewhat significant mass (especially if it's of greater density than
water), and if there's next to nothing between yourself and all of that
surrounding terrain of naked mass (such as being situated upon our
physically dark moon that should by rights be deep in meteorite debris
and secondary impact shards of everything solar and cosmic you can think
of, including the kitchen sink), whereas the incoming solar and cosmic
energy (as often nasty as that may be) is going to unavoidably cause the
natural secondary/recoil birth of soft-X-rays, hard-X-rays and gamma
radiation like nowhere other.
Human DNA as physically protected by a given spacesuit isn't going to
buy all that much attenuation of said TBI(total body irradiation)
dosage, whereas DNA/RNA damage beyond the point of no return will in
short order transpire regardless of whatever infomercial mainstream
science as based upon those conditional laws of physics has to say. The
status quo of what we've been told will NOT save your sorry moonsuit
butt for long, especially if you're standing upon a modus hill and
thereby exposed to 314e6 m2 if not just as easily trekking upon much
higher terrain that'll buy you 31.4e9 m2 of what's surrounding as
physically hot and nasty in more ways than being merely passive solar
influx and secondary IR/FIR toasty. Therefore, you simply do not
require all that much lethal radiation potential as derived per m2 in
order to amount to getting nailed by a truly great deal of what's there
to behold.
Other than those temporary Chapel Bell deployments on behalf of our
NASA/Apollo fiasco, too bad we still have not so much as once
established a robotic science platform cruising efficiently within the
interactive MEL1/(moon L1) zone that's roughly upon average 58,000 km
from the moon's CG, whereas all sorts of moon and Earth science could
have been affordably and very nicely accomplished as of four decades
ago.
Much like a poofy version of Clarke Station, Bigelow’s proposed Nautilus
station (aka POOF) simply isn't sufficiently shielded nor configured
with an adequate amount of forced heat-exchanging in order to deal with
accommodating us humans along with the 95+% solar + 50% lunar
secondary/recoil of IR/FIR. However, Venus L2 offers quite another
matter that's worth more than a few good arguments on behalf of those
POOF configured space depots, whereas frail human DNA can actually
survive the 19 month onboard stint better off than the to/from commute.
habshi
the surface of the sun ?
Brad Guth
> Why not go another 60m miles and get all the free energy from
> the surface of the sun ?
Yikes!, now that's hot and nasty, and certainly outside of our known
technology box by a fairly wide margin.
Trust me, Venus is getting plenty close enough, even VL2 is a worthy
spot of solar energy, that is if the halo station-keeping orbit even
allows in a sufficient amount of solar energy so as to keep your POOF
space depot from freezing your butt off.
Actually, there's plenty of spare terajoules of 100% clean and renewable
energy that's situated between us and our moon, and of the last time I'd
checked, that's a location we can all keep a close eye upon because,
it's always extremely nearby (326,000 km).
The tether dipole portion of my LSE-CM/ISS brings that spare energy to
within 4r of Earth. Is that good news or what?
How many terajoules of clean energy would you like? and of where and/or
in what form would you like it deposited?
Brad Guth
Sorry folks, it seems that we haven't quite walked on our extremely big
old and otherwise nearby moon that's so physically dark and nasty
(hardly Apollo passive guano island like), but so what's the difference
if one more silly lie begets another and another?
If not in person, I hope to hell we don't summarily screw up Venus via
robotics to the extent that we've accomplished so much dastardly
commercial forms of collateral damage by way of having pillaged, trashed
and the ongoing raping of mother Earth without so much as a speck of
remorse.
I obviously care most about Venus, as our moon seriously sucks, and
Venus is otherwise more than obviously where all the action is at,
especially since Pluto got the royal shaft, as seemingly Ceres is
getting a similar official NASA fid, and Mercury is simply too off-world
as well as past the point of return (similar to Mars).
At least VL2 is more than cool enough, as to being POOF/(space depot)
doable, and every 19 months it gets to within nearly 100 fold the
distance of our moon. Is that good news, or what.
While rather quickly roasting our weiners on Venus (a few seconds ott to
do the trick), how much energy do you folks suppose a good air
conditioning system as part of your CO2-->CO/O2 process is going to
demand?
Remember, at that sort of environment pressure you'll not require more
than a 1% O2 factor, and the remainder should be of H2. Thus 99% H2 and
1% O2. Also remember that you'll be continually fighting off the lesser
gravity of 90.5%, and otherwise having all of that pesky 64+ kg/m3 of
buoyancy to fend off. Of course, if you only had half a village idiot
brain, as such you might as well utilize such factors as to your
benefit.
Say per 1000 m3/(interior 10 x 20 x 5 meter abode) if that Venusian
habitat volume were insulated at R-1024/m2; what's the thermal budget
of keeping your cache of beer and vodka icy cold?
That's roughly a surface/foundation area of 264 m2, a portion of what
should be roughly a 828 m2 exterior that's exposed to the hotter than
hell surface that's getting rid of 20 J/m2, and otherwise fending off
the somewhat toasty atmosphere. Therefore without question it's nearly
always hot outside and there's just the structual composite insulated
barrier of R-1024/m that's giving way to an inward flux of thermal
conduction that's worth having 0.00097656/m2 of that bone dry heat to
deal with, which seems by right rather managable, if not a touch
overkill.
Is there something otherwise specific that you'd like to review or
constructively contribute, such as on behalf of those nifty composite
rigid airships?
How about we review on behalf of defending yourself from those
exoskeletal Cathars that can't seem to take no for an answer?
Would you like to talk about the VL2 POOF platform/depot, or how about
laser interplanetary communications (much the same as NASA's deep space
network), except for making those less spendy local interplanetary
calls.
Dan Bloomquist
Brad Guth wrote:
> "Brad Guth" <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:e0b3ce95b5d4266826b...@mygate.mailgate.org
>
> Sorry folks...
\
Well, I've read enough......
Brad Guth
Our "Space Policy Sucks, while there's Life on Venus", is no lie, and
there's renewable energy to burn (sort of speak) while on Venus.
And yet once again and again, I see that we have the usual PC/MAC
trashing game of Usenet spooks, moles and wise old Jewish fart MIB
wizards deploying their very best browser interactive
spermware/fuckware, as obviously the norm of their Old Testament
formulated mainstream status quo fuckology of topic/author stalking,
bashings and banishments. Therefore, we'll just have to keep updating
and reposting until a few of them nifty NASA/Apollo rad-hard cows come
home.
It's getting a little bit like The Wizard of Oz on steroids;
Sorry folks, whereas it seems that we haven't quite gotten around to
having walked on our extremely big old and otherwise nearby moon that's
so physically massive in ratio to Earth, as well as being so physically
dark and nasty (hardly Apollo passive guano island like and xenon lamp
spectrum illuminated at that), but so what's the difference if one more
silly lie begets another and another?
Our moon may have to remain as a mostly robotic wonderland, as otherwise
merely a nasty realm of local and secondary/recoil energy that's
accessible via a safe looking glass from the moon's L1, whereas
otherwise it's somewhat physically DNA/RNA taboo. Although, Venus isn't
off limits unless you're a certified moron, and VL2 is certainly more
than space station doable as is. Venus shouldn't ever require any
terraforming on our behalf, just damn good CO2-->CO/O2 air conditioning
and structural composite basalt as insulation that's worth R-1024/m.
If not in person, I hope to hell we don't summarily screw up Venus via
robotics to the extent that we've accomplished so much dastardly
commercial forms of collateral damage by way of having pillaged, trashed
and the ongoing energy raping of mother Earth without so much as a speck
of remorse.
I obviously care most about Venus, whereas our moon seriously sucks much
worse than Mars. The planet Venus is otherwise more than obviously
where all the serious action of other intelligent life is at, especially
since Pluto got the royal shaft, as seemingly Ceres is getting a similar
official NASA fid, and Mercury is simply too off-world as well as past
the point of return (similar to Mars being so much older than Earth and
about as near planetology death as you're going to get).
At least VL2 is more than cool enough, as to being Russian POOF/(space
depot) doable, and every 19 months it gets to within 100 fold the
distance of our moon. If that isn't the best ever Russian/POOF space
station outpost good news, or what, then nothing is.
While rather quickly roasting our wieners on Venus (a few seconds ott to
do the trick), the only question is how much energy do you folks suppose
a good air conditioning system as part of your CO2-->CO/O2 process is
going to demand?
Remember, at that sort of environment pressure you'll not require more
than a 1% O2 factor, and the remainder should be of H2. Thus having 99%
H2 and 1% O2 at 96 Bar is about all the atmospheric displacement of that
otherwise crystal clear and dry CO2 that's otherwise relatively harmless
that you'll ever need. Also remember that you'll be continually
fighting off the lesser gravity of 90.5%, and otherwise having all of
that pesky 64+ kg/m3 of buoyancy to fend off. Of course, if you only
had half a village idiot brain, as such you might as well utilize such
factors as to your benefit.
Say if this habitat were an application per 1000 m3/(interior 10 x 20 x
5 meter abode), and if that Venusian habitat volume were insulated at
R-1024/m2; what's the thermal energy budget of keeping your cache of
beer and vodka icy cold?
That's roughly a surface/foundation area of 264 m2, a portion of what
should be roughly a 828 m2 exterior that's in part exposed to the hotter
than hell surface that's getting rid of 20 J/m2, and otherwise fending
off the somewhat toasty atmosphere that's always cooler than the
geothermally forced surface. Therefore, without question it's nearly
always hot outside and there's just the structural composite basalt
insulated barrier of R-1024/m that's giving way to an inward flux of
thermal conduction that's worthy of having 0.00097656/m2 (0.0977% which
I believe is roughly less than 0.45 K/m2/hr) of having to deal with
fending off that bone dry heat, which seems by all manner of known
physics as being rather manageable, if not a touch overkill.
BTW; Venus has all the raw elements and the energy for locally
processing whatever into the required items of surviving Venus (except
for having enough ice cold beer and pizza). All that's required is the
small factor of applied intelligence or simply deductive common sense
should otherwise more than do the trick.
Is there something other that's specific about accomplishing Venus that
you'd like to review or constructively contribute, such as on behalf of
those nifty composite rigid airships?
How about we review on behalf of defending yourself from those
exoskeletal Cathars that can't seem to take no for an answer? (you're
not alone, you know)
Would you folks like to talk about the Russian VL2 POOF platform/depot,
or how about laser interplanetary communications (much the same as
NASA's deep space network), for making those less spendy local
interplanetary calls that shouldn't take hardly any energy to accomplish
with a quantum binary packet mode of those 425 nm FM/(+/-25 nm) photons
or perhaps something of UV/a doing their extremely efficient thing.
Brad Guth
Venusian habitat windows are going to take some going, but quite doable
they are.
The U/(energy transfer) per single layer of common glass = 5 j/m2/k
2 glass = 2.25 J/m2/k > 1.3 J/m2/k w/e-glass & argon > 1.0 J/m2/k
w/e-glass & xenon
3 glass = 1.0 J/m2/k > 0.5 J/m2/k w/e-glass & argon > 0.25 J/m2/k
w/e-glass & xenon
4 glass = 0.375 J/m2/k > .2 J/m2/k w/e-glass & argon > 0.1 J/m2/k
w/e-glass & xenon
5 glass = 0.125 J/m2/k >.08 J/m2/k w/e-glass & argon > .04 J/m2/k
w/e-glass & xenon
Visible light transmission of 8 mm e-silica glass is roughly 85%, thus
having four of such e-coated (IR reflective) layers is cutting the
visible light transmission down to roughly 52% (most sunglasses will put
you at 25% or less visible light transmission).
Composite basalt is worth R1024/m2 = U/conduction factor of merely
.00097656 J/m2/K
A 1000 m2 abode or habitat cell will demand having the interior walls,
floor and ceiling of roughly 700 m2 worth of exposure to everything
that's externally thermal (mostly local IR/FIR spectrum and whatever's
the thermal conduction of bone dry CO2) that Venus has to toss at you.
Silly us, at a maximum thermal differential of 450 K and using R1024/m,
that's only demanding 308 Joules, not including whatever's of windows or
persons within.
Say 10% is the given viewing area as quad-pane e-glass window at 0.1
J/m2/K
That's 70 m2 of 0.1 J/m2/K, at 450 K differential = 45 J * 70 m2 = 3.15
KJ
Therefore, having 10% as window area gives us merely 277 J for the
remaining basalt composite structure, and for taking the 3.15 KJ worth
of window area into account = 3.427 KJ to get rid of via your
co2-->co/o2 processor and thermal energy extractor.
Add in 5 active souls and their essential cache of beer that has to stay
cold, and as such we're looking at perhaps 5 KJ per unit, or perhaps at
most 1 KJ/soul unless they're having mad sex or doing some actual
physical work all the time. Of course, 70 m2 of window area is
suggesting a rather impressive habitat, so perhaps half that amount
(1.575 KJ) will be more than sufficient, and of course silica
e-glass/(anti-IR coated) would be the norm of what locally produced
glass should qualify as merely 1.868 KJ, which leaves lots of spare
energy budget if still based upon the 1 KJ/soul.
In other words, technology assisted life on Venus is perfectly doable
via the regular laws of physics, along with that geophysically toasty
environment having the local elements and whatever minerals, energy and
absolute loads of other nifty benefits to spare, means that damn near
anything is possible. If the habitat were situated upon an elevated and
thereby physically cooler site, the thermal differential will be at
something less than 400 K (as little as 350 K with the abode interior at
285 K = 635 K outside). I mean to say; How smart does the average ET
or local Venusian actually have to be in order to survive Venus?
Having a composite rigid airship as your Venusian version of a buoyant
Hummer SUV might actually work out rather nicely, as you most certainly
could go just about anywhere in comfort and grand style, especially
retrograde with hardly any applied energy.
Brad Guth
Is that because the faith based status quo or bust majority can't read?
Is it because I'm sufficiently right (+/- a few mistakes along my
dyslexic way), and you're just dumbfounded past the point of no return?
Brad Guth
> I am the antithesis of shrub.
>
> Graham
Every other soul in this anti-think-tank Usenet land is an antithesis,
yet they seem to vote and/or carry on via their actions as though their
private parts are somehow getting Old Testament traumatised if they
don't tow that silly faith based line.
Eeyore
Brad Guth wrote:
> "Brad Guth" <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> In other words, technology assisted life on Venus is perfectly doable
Idiot.
I expect life in the Sahara Desert is too. Doesn't mean it makes sense.
Graham
Brad Guth
Life on Mars certainly doesn't make any sense at all, yet we're spending
billions upon billions anyway, and there are folks willing to go there
and spend trillions if need be. I mean, how pathetic is that?
At least Venus has more than its fair share of clean/renewable energy to
burn (sort of speak), plus it has butt loads of newish planetology
that's giving us easy access to all sorts of minerals and chemicals. In
other words, the plus side of this life on Venus argument (on behalf of
ETs or possibly local Venusians) far outperforms the negative side.
Eeyore
Brad Guth wrote:
> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > "Brad Guth" <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote
> > >
> > > In other words, technology assisted life on Venus is perfectly doable
> >
> > Idiot.
> >
> > I expect life in the Sahara Desert is too. Doesn't mean it makes sense.
> >
> > Graham
>
> Life on Mars certainly doesn't make any sense at all, yet we're spending
> billions upon billions anyway, and there are folks willing to go there
> and spend trillions if need be. I mean, how pathetic is that?
Pointless more than anything else.
> At least Venus has more than its fair share of clean/renewable energy to
> burn (sort of speak), plus it has butt loads of newish planetology
> that's giving us easy access to all sorts of minerals and chemicals.
Which are no use to us there.
> In other words, the plus side of this life on Venus argument (on behalf of
> ETs or possibly local Venusians) far outperforms the negative side.
No it doesn't.
It a half-assed fantasy.
Graham
Brad Guth
> > Life on Mars certainly doesn't make any sense at all, yet we're spending
> > billions upon billions anyway, and there are folks willing to go there
> > and spend trillions if need be. I mean, how pathetic is that?
>
> Pointless more than anything else.
As having stipulated before, I totally agree, and then some.
> > At least Venus has more than its fair share of clean/renewable energy to
> > burn (sort of speak), plus it has butt loads of newish planetology
> > that's giving us easy access to all sorts of minerals and chemicals.
>
> Which are no use to us there.
There you go again, being your usual anti-think-tank naysay worth of
buttology mindset, simply because yourself and the likes of your
pathetic kind can take that low road, simply out of sheer arrogance if
not simply good old spite if need be.
> > In other words, the plus side of this life on Venus argument (on behalf of
> > ETs or possibly local Venusians) far outperforms the negative side.
>
> No it doesn't.
>
> It a half-assed fantasy.
But yet it does, as I have a rather nifty side by side listing that goes
on and on for all the positive considerations. As such, do you and your
mostly naysay/negative mindset have such a list, that we can have a
look-see at?
Otherwise, can you share as to what exactly is your physics and hard
science logic of whatever's backing up your all-knowing argument basis
against Venus, for continually taking that sort of naysay mindset?
I thought such supposed "antithesis" didn't hardly give a crapolla about
much of anything that mattered, especially about the past, much less the
future. You folks typically live only for each day by day, of course at
the demise and expense of others, as in no matters how much collateral
damage or carnage of the innocent it takes.
-
The following is a revised reply.
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > "Brad Guth" <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote
> >
> > In other words, technology assisted life on Venus is perfectly doable
>
> Idiot.
>
> I expect life in the Sahara Desert is too. Doesn't mean it makes sense.
>
> Graham
But lo and behold, in spite of your silly "antithesis" yet otherwise pro
Old Testament faith based mindset, there's all sorts of life within the
Sahara Desert, as well as in Antarctica, of what's multiple km under the
ocean, as well as now having been existing in LEO and so forth, and
that's not to mention such nasty locations having frequent visits by the
sorts of naysaying intellectual faith based mindset bigots, much like
yourself.
Life on Mars (even if it's imported as supposedly intelligent ETs such
as us) certainly doesn't make any sense at all, yet we're spending
billions upon billions anyway, and there are folks of your exact mindset
that are more than willing to go there and spend trillions of our hard
earned loot if need be, not to mention such efforts demanding vast
expenditures in raw energy and other terrestrial resources that are
getting some what harder and spendier by the year to come by. I mean,
how absolutely pathetic is that?
At least Venus already has more than its fair share of clean/renewable
energy to burn (sort of speak), plus it has butt loads of newish
planetology that's giving us or whomever is already there easy access to
all sorts of minerals and chemicals. In other words, the plus side of
this life on Venus argument (on behalf of ETs or possibly local
Venusians) far outperforms the negative side by more than 10:1.
Unlike Mars or most any other planet or moon (except for our own moon
that's extremely large, massive and nearby), in that to the best of our
knowledge are lethal to life as we know it, whereas Venus is extremely
nearby each and every 19 months, as well as whatever life on Venus as
intelligent ETs or locals being technically as well as biologically
evolved as doable.
Now which one of us is representing the true blue all-american or
whatever village idiot?
Do tell, what other none-constructive or simply topic bashing/insulting
aspects of your pathetic naysay mindset do you and others of your kind
care to share?
habshi
sustain life . How much energy would it take to keep cool on Venus.
What does the third law of energy say, something like you cant use
surrounding heat to cool something.
Dan Bloomquist
Brad Guth wrote:
> "Dan Bloomquist" <publ...@lakeweb.com> wrote in message
> news:m8Ysh.1094$ya1...@news02.roc.ny
>
>
>>>"Brad Guth" <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:e0b3ce95b5d4266826b...@mygate.mailgate.org
>>>
>>>Sorry folks...
>>
>>\
>>Well, I've read enough......
>
>
> Is that because the faith based,,,,,
'
BAWHAWHAW.
Pot, kettle......
Brad Guth
Obviously you don't understand or otherwise appreciate what Venus has to
offer. Can you explain why those regular laws of physics as applied to
the existing pressure and thermal differentials of 4+ bar/km and
otherwise 10 K/km can't function?
BTW; The average surface itself offers 20 J/m2, with gas vents worthy
of MJ/m2 if not a few at GJ/m2. So, where's the big-ass insurmountable
problem with extracting energy?
As rather easily extracted from the raw tonnage of what's sustained with
those relatively cool acidic clouds, or otherwise from the active mud
flows, or at the very least from all the ice cold beer we intend to
bring along with our cache of frozen pizza.
As I've roughly calculated, as little as a KJ/individual should do the
trick of keeping your cool, that is as long as you're not running around
outside. I'll revise and repost the edited version of that Venusian
habitat spec.
Brad Guth
The first of human habitats on Venus (naysayers and faith based bigots
need not apply) will be accomplished via those composite rigid airships,
as our do-everything mode of transportation and surface habitat that's
well enough insulated and obviously outfitted with the necessary if not
essential cache of ice cold beer.
Accomplishing the first of these Venusian terrestrial habitats along
with thermal isolation windows of mostly silica are going to take some
initial on-location expertise doings, but otherwise quite doable they
are.
http://www.sciner.com/Opticsland/FS.htm
The U/(energy transfer) per single layer of common glass = 5 j/m2/k
2 glass = 2.25 J/m2/k > 1.3 J/m2/k w/e-glass & argon > .75 J/m2/k
w/e-glass & xenon
3 glass = 1.0 J/m2/k > 0.5 J/m2/k w/e-glass & argon > 0.25 J/m2/k
w/e-glass & xenon
4 glass = 0.375 J/m2/k > .2 J/m2/k w/e-glass & argon > 0.1 J/m2/k
w/e-glass & xenon
5 glass = 0.125 J/m2/k >.08 J/m2/k w/e-glass & argon > .04 J/m2/k
w/e-glass & xenon
Due to the ongoing Usenet banishment and frequent Usenet
spermware/fuckware attacks against those of us rocking their good ship
LOLLIPOP, even appreciating this much of terrestrial physics and
replicated science is still an ongong need-to-know if not a fullly
nondisclosure situation, thus I believe the IR spectrum worth of photon
energy transfer via multuple e-silica glass is in fact capable of being
roughly half that of what's indicated by the above chart which pertains
primarily to thermal U or R-factor mode of thermal energy conduction per
m2. Therefore, if anything it's entirely capable of offering a whole
lot better thermal isolation than I've suggested, especially with the
thicker 8~10 mm of e-silica and given perhaps 20 mm of gap, for a total
composite window thickness of 100 mm.
As suggested by the folloing product of "Solarban® 80 (2) Clear", a U
factor of 0.29 on behalf of purely winter nighttime thermal conduction
(as meaning no significant external or internal IR energy to deal with),
seems rather nifty at offering less than half of the energy transfer
loss as to what I'd previously suggested as .75 J/m2/K.
http://sweets.construction.com/mfg/510/P31530.htm
On Venus, the Low-E (metallic coated) silica window element might become
the outer most or even applied onto the exterior of the outer most
silica surface. Thereby two layers of e-silica might become the norm,
with two other clear layers of silica for improving upon the full
gauntlet of isolating thermal energy transfer, which can never become as
good as the structural blocks of composite basalt that's worth R1024/m,
or a U-factor of .00097656/m2/K (per 100 mm gives us a U factor of
.0037736 J/m2/K)
Visible light transmission of 8~10 mm e-silica is roughly 80~85%
(regular clear float window e-glass being 75% down to as low as 70%),
thus having four of such e-coated (IR reflective) layers of otherwise
crystal clear e-silica is cutting the visible light transmission down to
roughly 50% (most sunglasses will put you at 25% or less visible light
transmission).
Typically there's only one layer of a multi-layer e-glass rated window
that is Low-E coated, which might bring the combined visible light
transmission of a relatively thick 4 pane version back up to something
better than 60%.
Composite structural basalt is worth R1024/m2 = U/conduction factor of
merely .00097656 J/m2/K, so other than windows or enter/exit doors,
there's actually not all that much structural thermal conduction to
worry about.
A 1000 m3/(cubic meter) abode or habitat cell that's suitable for
accommodating up to 10 individuals will demand having those interior
walls, floor and ceiling of roughly 700 m2 worth of surface area
exposure to everything that's externally thermal (mostly local IR/FIR
spectrum and whatever's the thermal conduction worth of bone dry CO2)
that Venus has to toss at you, mostly derived from the ground up since
the majority of the solar IR influx has been filtered and/or diverted by
way of the complex atmosphere and thick layer of acidic clouds that
includes a robust IR moderation layer of S8.
Silly us, at a maximum thermal differential of 450 K and using R1024/m,
that's only demanding 308 Joules, not including whatever's of windows or
persons within.
Say 10% is the given viewing area as quad-pane e-silica window at 0.1
J/m2/K
That's 70 m2 of 0.1 J/m2/K, at 450 K differential = 45 J * 70 m2 = 3.15
KJ
Therefore, having 10% as window area gives us merely 277 J for the
remaining basalt composite structure, and for taking the 3.15 KJ worth
of window area into account = 3.427 KJ to get rid of via your
co2-->co/o2 processor and thermal energy extractor.
Add in 5 active souls and their essential cache of beer that has to stay
cold, and as such we're looking at perhaps as little as 5 KJ per unit,
or perhaps otherwise at most 1 KJ/soul unless they're having mad sex or
doing some actual physical work all the time.
Of course, 70 m2 of window area is suggesting a rather impressive
looking habitat, so perhaps half that amount (1.575 KJ) will be more
than sufficient, and e-silica/(anti-IR metallic coated) would be the
norm of what's locally produced as windows should qualify the entire
1000 m3 habitat as worth merely 1.868 KJ, which obviously leaves lots of
a spare energy budget if still based upon the 1 KJ/person, that which
should include the co2-->co/o2 process. But so what, even if it took 10
KJ/person, as all of that and much more energy is 100% renewable and
rather easily obtainable right out of thick air, via the pressure and
thermal differentials of 4 bar/km and 10 K/km, not to mention whatever's
of active geotherthermal lava/mud flows or substantial gas vents.
In a few other of my dyslexic wisdom words; Technology assisted life
upon Venus has been perfectly doable via those pesky regular laws of
physics, along with that newish geophysically toasty environment
providing the vast resource of local gas elements and whatever minerals,
as well as spare energy and absolute loads of other nifty benefits to
share and share alike, means that damn near anything is possible. If
this Venusian habitat were situated upon an elevated and thereby
physically cooler site (such as Ishtar Terra), the thermal differential
could be at something less than 400 K (a polar application offering as
little as 350 K differential with the abode interior at 285 K = 635 K
outside). I mean to say; How smart does the average ET or local
Venusian actually have to be in order to survive Venus? (answer; not
very)
Having a composite rigid airship as your do-everything Venusian RV or
version of a buoyant Hummer SUV, whereas this nifty method might
actually work out rather nicely, as you most certainly could go just
about anywhere in comfort and grand style, especially for moving
retrograde with hardly any applied energy.
Brad Guth
Residentual Energy, via vertical energy extraction, Venusian style:
(sorry about some of my previous math and of this pathetic ASCII limited
graphic)
The ongoing NASA/ESA banishment that's applied against this topic is
pretty much their mainstream status quo of applied damage control. It's
what their incest cloned borg collective does best, even if it means
eating their own kind.
First off, upon average there's damn little solar energy making it to
the surface by day, yet otherwise not each and every square meter of the
Venus surface itself is nearly as hot and nasty as the next (especially
once we're taking th elocal terrain elevation into account, or if
situated or not next to whatever's geothermally active). Therefore,
besides the absolutely everywhere worth of vertical atmospheric pressure
and thermal differentials, we also have substantial geothermal
differential considerations that can be directly tapped and/or diverted
into producing mechanical and thereby electrical energy, not to mention
whatever's offered by way of a good amount of exit velocity from one of
those S8 vents, that which by rights should be worth loads of energy
density, or if push comes down to shove as to whatever lava/mud flows
(aka Fluid Arch) could be directly utilized as the last resort of local
surface energy that's just about everywhere to behold.
If you absolutely must insist upon going to Venus in person, and running
around butt-naked (good luck), and otherwise setting a human hot foot or
something more of your tender body parts as for getting such roasted
upon that geothermally active surface (day or night), then besides
having a damn good thermal suit with it's own onboard VAC and
CO2-->CO/O2 processor, as well as in addition to having your robust
composite rigid airship standing by, you might also need one of these
nifty residential configurations as your insulated home sweet Venusian
abode of a home away from home.
Vertical differential / @1e5 J (100 KW) radial turbine @4+ m/s
< < < < \\\\\||||/////. >. >. >. >
\ /\ /\ /
| /\ /\ | Vert. Offset
| | 100 meters
| /\ /\ | -.4 bar amb
| | - 1.0 K amb
| /\ /\ | ~ 100 K dif.
_______________ | |
_/_______________\_ / /\ /\ /\ \
/___________________\ / \
| ______ | | | / /\ 853 K /\ \
|| || | | / |||||||||||||||| \
||______||o | |>== 280K ===>| CO2/HVAC | < 753K
__|_______ |__ |____|<== 260K =X=<|__CO2->CO/O2__|_____________
______________________________________/--||--\_________________
Venus Abode (insulated R1024/m) (e-silica windows > 0.05 J/m2/K)
For offering a little size perspective and taking into account for my
usual pesky syntax and corrections in math, think of the vertical
tower's inlet base diameter as 40 meters, and of it's top radial exit as
20 meters, which should become way more than sufficient for extracting
the 3.6e8 J of energy per hour (100 KWhr), especially if there exist the
not so little extra worth of a geothermal differential consideration, or
that of having at least some portion of the 100 K as having been
imported from the CO2/HVAV and CO2-->CO/O2 conversion.
It's likely that this individual abode's vertical atmospheric pressure
differential shaft and topside radial exit wind turbine would not have
to be nearly as large as I've specified, as the energy quota per
extremely large Venusian residential unit might demand as little as 10
KJ and otherwise shouldn't ever demand 50 KW, or even if it did it
should not take such a large vertical wind tunnel diameter in order for
this limited tower height of 100 meters to provide this extra amount of
continuous energy. It's just for knowing that whatever space is not a
problem on Venus, and constructing such large whatevers on Venus seems
for many reasons (as based entirely upon the regular laws of physics), a
whole lot more doable than right here on Earth.
With the ongoing CO2-->CO/O2 process, which in part is essentially
incorporating a CO2 compressor that's actually not so hard at work, and
thereby having rather easily produced the 100 K thermal differential,
whereas conventional surface area heat exchanging via titanium or
similar/better alloy should manage to place that surplus heat into the
open base inlet area of the vertical wind producing tower. Having the
radial turbine doing it's unavoidable thing of efficiently rotating the
power shaft that's directly connected into the actual AC electrical
generator that's within the base area (situated underneath the CO2/HVAC)
where it's roughly 753 K, is operating well within the 811 K thermal
design limitations of what's essentially off-the-shelf of such electro
mechanical technology as we know it.
The liquid/vapor phase change of utilizing the compressed and heat
exchanged CO2 itself is, or at least should be, exactly the same process
as for terrestrial HVAC units, with the minor exception that upon Venus
it's highly unlikely that you ever need to employ the heat cycle unless
you intend to process certain metals, silica and otherwise the likes of
processing unlimited amounts of good old basalt into nifty fibers and
microballoons or at least milliballoons w/H2 core (@2.7 kg/m3) that'll
proceed to float at roughly 0.1% basalt density within that thick
atmospheric soup, thus a more proper thermal conversion or thermal
transfer name might become CO2VAC. Other gas elements besides CO2
should exist (such as S8 or various NaCI/salts) as offering alternatives
to using CO2.
Therefore, you don't even have to be an actual physics or science
wizard, or otherwise worth half your own salt in order to manage quite
nicely while situated on Venus. Of course, all these Usenet mindsets of
mostly naysayers and/or Old Testament certified rusemasters tend to fall
somewhat far below the status of salt, as well as for their being
snookered and/or dumbfounded past their minion status point of no-return
is an automatic mission disqualifier if there ever was (sorry about
that).
Obviously the required volumes of CO2 getting processed and/or utilized
via this configuration are considerable, but so what? It's not as
though there's any local CO2 shortage, or much less having to introduce
harmful freons, or otherwise imposing a damn thing that isn't there to
begin with.
BTW; keep reminding yourself, that each and every 19 monts is when Venus
gets to within roughly 100 fold the distance of our nearby moon
(offering the same face of Venus that's looking at Earth to boot). If
that isn't nifty and perfectly mission doable, then perhaps nothing else
off-world is.
Brad Guth
news:45c134b1...@news.clara.net
> Where would you get the water or superheated steam on Venus to
> sustain life.
The atmospheric realm of 45 to 75 km is that of acidic clouds and
top/bottom haze, whereas via FW Taylor and a few others having estimated
such at 25% h2o.
That's roughly 14e18 m3 of acidic clouds and haze, 25% of such being of
plain old h2o.
Taking the 90.5% gravity and the mostly co2 atmosphere into account,
thereby giving an average density worth of roughly 2 kg/m3 = 28e18 kg =
28e15 tonnes
28e15 * 25% = 7e15 tonnes
Just for being on the conservative side of such things; I'd give that
volume of such acidic cloud an h2o volumetric worth of 5e15 tonnes
(that's merely 5000 teratonnes of plain old h2o). Even if there were
but 1000 teratonnes of h2o, where's the problem?
The real question becomes; as though your cache of ice cold beer isn't
sufficient, how many of those Venusian teratonnes worth of h2o do you
thirsty folks require?
Brad Guth
news:45c134b1...@news.clara.net
> Where would you get the water or superheated steam on Venus to
For starters, keep your nasty ulterior motivated naysayism to yourself.
I hope this latest effort, that's w/o lose cannon, reads a little
better.
The environment of Venus is nowhere near the upper limits of what
applied technology can be sustained within. Heat is only a problem if
exceeding the continuous rating of a given alloy or that of whatever
substance is being utilized. Technically Venus is not too hot unless
you're talking about some active lava/mud flows or nasty S8 gas vent
that by rights should be smoking hot enough to help process the likes of
raw alloys and even extensively as to processing basalt into other nifty
composite things. Do I really have to inform you folks as to what one
can accomplish with such process heat, and of what a little applied
vacuum can muster?
Do I also have to keep explaining as to how one goes about extracting
the h2o from them cool acidic clouds? (trust me, it's less complicated
than physics-101)
Obviously you folks don't even pretend to understand or otherwise
appreciate what Venus has to offer. Can you smart folks explain as to
why those regular laws of physics as applied to the existing pressure
and thermal differentials that are available right off the geothermally
heated surface, of 4+ bar/km and otherwise 10 K/km can't function?
BTW; The average surface itself offers 20 J/m2, with obviously those
elevated cooler terrain areas and otherwise having those potential
S8/CO2/H2O gas vents worthy of at least several KJ/m2 if not offering a
MJ/m2. So, other than keeping your personal cool via applied technology
and common village idiot sense, where's the big-ass insurmountable
problem with extracting local energy? (just specify, as to how many
spare mega, giga or terajoules would you like?)
I'll likely have to keep revising and repost the edited version of that
Venusian habitat spec., although no matters what, it's entirely doable
as of old/existing technology. As for keeping your cool, I've roughly
calculated as little as one KJ/individual should do the well insulated
habitat trick of getting rid of whatever's surplus energy, that is as
long as you're not running around outside where you might require half
again to twice that much energy.
Water can be rather easily extracted from the raw tonnage of what's
sustained with those relatively cool acidic clouds, or perhaps otherwise
taken from all of those active mud flows, or at the very least obtained
from all the ice cold beer we intend to bring along with our cache of
frozen pizza, as such this requirement of water should not be a problem.
The upper and much cooler atmospheric realm of 45 to 75 km is that of
acidic clouds and top/bottom haze, whereas via FW Taylor and a few
others having estimated such at 25% h2o.
That's roughly 14e18 m3 of acidic clouds and haze, with supposedly 25%
of such being of plain old h2o.
Taking the 90.5% gravity and the mostly co2 atmosphere into account,
thereby giving an average density worth of roughly 2 kg/m3 = 28e18 kg =
28e15 tonnes
28e15 * 25% = 7e15 tonnes
Just for being on the conservative side of such things; I'd give that
volume of such acidic cloud an h2o volumetric worth of 5e15 tonnes
(that's merely 5000 teratonnes of plain old h2o). Even if there were
but 1000 teratonnes of h2o, where's the problem?
The real question becomes; As though your personal cache of ice cold
beer isn't sufficient, how many of those Venusian teratonnes worth of
h2o do you thirsty folks require?
As with the need for your biological necessity of o2 at 96 bar should
not demand greater than a 1/99 factor of o2/h2, whereas conventional
perspiration (inside and out) should also become minimal and thus the
need for water consumption should not be more than 10% of whatever's
your norm. In other words, one or two icy cold beers per 24 hours
should more than do the trick.
Venus simply is not Earth, so stop thinking like a terrestrial village
idiot's mindset that's so mainstream status quo boxed that you're beyond
the point of no return.
habshi
extract it from earth instead of going to Venus or even from ten miles
down?
Unknown
guy, please at least remove all the off-topic newsgroups he's
added to the Newsgroups line. I have him killfiled, but when
people respond, their messages get through.
I've left in one in Followup-To that I hope is appropriate,
but if you guys don't want him, either, feel free to redirect
future followups to /dev/null. :-)
Brad Guth
news:45c4cbe9$0$80132$742e...@news.sonic.net
Patty, you're such a sweet love of my broken Usenet heart.
Why on Earth would you be into speaking on behalf of others?
Why not instead constructively contribute a little something/anything on
behalf of the topic at hand, or is that asking too much from your
all-knowing status quo or bust mindset?
BTW; what the MI/NSA Sam Hell is your "/dev/null" all about?
Brad Guth
> The earth is heating up . If your scheme is so good why not
> extract it from earth instead of going to Venus or even from ten miles
> down?
I agree, Earth is unavoidably heating up (with or w/o humanity), in that
by way of moderating our pesky moon by way of simply placing that nasty
sucker further out into Earth's L1 seem doable, whereas this is perhaps
the very best game and most effective solar shade in town. Although,
there are a few spendy alternatives that are also worth our
consideration, that is before the unfortunate consequences of our
ongoing actions take us into the ultimate global energy sucking demise
of WW-III.
However, your notions of directly extracting global heat without such
efforts creating heat is simply much easier said than accomplished,
though not impossible if we had a sufficient open mindset to start with.
Unfortunately, all the sudden this perfectly nifty Usenet topic below is
going into the nearest infomercial space-toilet, and sinking fast.
"USA urges scientists to block out sun" (as though some how we're smart
enough to accomplish such without getting ourselves into more trouble
than it's worth)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.policy/browse_frm/thread/7d2296fc879dbfee/930cc79604c90eee?lnk=st&q=brad+guth&rnum=4&hl=en#930cc79604c90eee
"Ian Stirling" <ro...@mauve.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:45c388d0$0$8719$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net
> You're not looking at millions or billions.
> Sedna's orbital speed is somewhere around a kilometer a second.
> If the total delta-v needed is 2Km/s, then it needs around 10^25 Ns
> of impulse.
> Saturn V produces a little under 10^10Ns, or that means 10^15 - or a
> quadrillion.
> A million billion.
By 2075 is when Sedna should have been moving along much faster, as well
as being a whole lot closer to boot. It seems that all we've got to do
is sort of keep that ball rolling in our direction, and then try harder
to figure out how the hell we're ever going to park that arriving orb in
our L1 pocket, without causing more collateral damage than it's worth.
Because of the necessary applied energy, we'll most likely need to
incorporate the all-knowing wizardly expertise of our nuclear/U235
rocket-butt-master William Mook, and/or perhaps get into accomplishing
something He3/fusion in order to make a massive steam rocket thruster
that's being supplied the necessary mass for thermal conversion into
superheated steam from all of that red ice.
How about sharing some honest feedback as to the notions of
litho-diverting that icy sucker, via massive impactors that are already
available as NSOs(Near Sedna Objects), much like whatever NEOs or Sirius
Oort cloud items that got our moon into orbiting Earth?
-
Sliding the 1600~1800 km Sedna in the back door, of essentially parking
that icy redish orb into Earth's L1 (along with some interactive station
keeping) that's moving along at roughly 29 km/s, is at best going to be
a damn neat trick, not to mention having first accomplished one heck of
a delta-V improvement from its current km/s status.
According to the preliminary orbital physics of Ian Stirling, if
doubling its velocity from 1.04 km/s to that of 2 km/s demands a delta-v
worth 1e25 Ns, whereas obtaining 29 km/s is then imposing 29e25 Ns (or
is it the square of 29 = 841?), as clearly representing what a truly
horrific effort it's going to take, along with having to resolve any
number of other pesky complications that could easily develop along the
way (such as running itself into Earth or even smacking our moon could
lead to some rather unfortunate consequences for life as we know it).
However, Sedna may not be quite as large nor thereby as massive as we'd
thought (possibly less than 1500 km), and by the year 2075 it's going to
be moving at a much greater velocity before turning the corner and
heading itself back out into the Kuiper belt. Diverting Sedna into
taking advantage of the gravity pull of Jupiter and of whatever else can
be accommodated, should greatly help to deliver the vast majority of the
required delta-v for getting parked at Earth's L1.
Of course, whatever's the best analogy that works on behalf of
relocating Sedna is tens of folds if not a thousand fold better off for
the extremely local task of merely pushing our horrific mascon/moon away
from us, from having otherwise been simply cruising too close for
comfort and thereby mascon/tidal causing GW that's nasty inside and out
to mother Earth, whereas instead becoming safely relocated to Earth's L1
seems perfectly doable. After all, our moon is already going along for
the ride at nearly 30 km/s, and best of all, there'd still be a moon
that's orbiting Earth, which by rights could still accommodate the one
and only LSE-CM/ISS as owned and operated by China, along with its nifty
tether dipole element reaching its termination pod or platform of all
those 100 GW laser cannons to within 4r of Earth, and most likely having
lots of POOFs along the tether way (what could possibly go wrong?)
Too bad that we (meaning our warm and fuzzy NASA and of all the supposed
subcontractors and/or higher institutions of learning), as such we
simply don't seem to own a suitable supercomputer, along with a fully
interactive 3D physics simulator of dealing with such complex orbital
mechanics. Perhaps Russia, China or even India has one, and as such we
could beg for their services.
Dan Bloomquist
Brad Guth wrote:
> "habshi" <hi@anony> wrote in message
> news:45c4737b...@news.clara.net
>
>
>> The earth is heating up . If your scheme is so good why not
>>extract it from earth instead of going to Venus or even from ten miles
>>down?
>
>
> I agree...
With hashbrains? Why am I not surprised?
>
Brad Guth
> With hashbrains? Why am I not surprised?
More of your usual status quo jewspeak? (apparently so)
I suppose, like "Igor", that now you're into calling the regular laws of
physics and of multi-replicated science "bullshit".
Is that your very best Old Testament certified naysay closed mindset, or
is it limited by way of something Third Reich that's too dark and scary
to share.
Eeyore
Brad Guth wrote:
> "Dan Bloomquist" <publ...@lakeweb.com> wrote in message
>
> > With hashbrains? Why am I not surprised?
>
> More of your usual status quo jewspeak? (apparently so)
>
> I suppose, like "Igor", that now you're into calling the regular laws of
> physics and of multi-replicated science "bullshit".
There is nothing scientific in habshi's ramblings.
Graham
Dan Bloomquist
Brad Guth wrote:
> "Dan Bloomquist" <publ...@lakeweb.com> wrote in message
> news:nifxh.1889$B25...@news01.roc.ny
>
>
>>With hashbrains? Why am I not surprised?
>
>
> More of your usual,,,''
And yours, as well. Idiot....
Dan Bloomquist
Eeyore wrote:
> There is nothing scientific in habshi's ramblings....
Are you catching on? Now how about your crop fuel numbers?
Brad Guth
> There is nothing scientific in habshi's ramblings.
>
> Graham
Now what kind of silly/rambling naysay jewspeak is that all about?
What part of your Old Testament shadow are you folks so deathly afraid
of this time around?
Why are Jews so deathly afraid of Venus, or for that matter afraid of
our moon's L1?
Eeyore
Brad Guth wrote:
> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
> > There is nothing scientific in habshi's ramblings.
> >
> > Graham
>
> Now what kind of silly/rambling naysay jewspeak is that all about?
You're an idiot. Just like habshi. Do you enjoy looking stupid ?
Graham
Brad Guth
> You're an idiot. Just like habshi. Do you enjoy looking stupid ?
>
> Graham
Do you enjoy being a silly jewboy that's dumb and dumber, as in way past
the dumbfounded point of no return?
cuh...@webtv.net
cuhulin
Brad Guth
Venus has us beat at having hundreds of fold more locally available
energy/m2, that's actually environmentally clean (soot free as well as
near zero NOx and it's even free of any artificial CO2 potential) and
otherwise perfectly renewable to boot. Unfortunately, the relatively
newish planetology of Venus is still intellectually as well as
scientifically off-limits, as sequestered in official
taboo/nondisclosure mode, where it's having to remain as stealth as were
all of those Muslim or Islamic WMD.
I happen to totally agree with the honest topic intent of promoting as
much as possible "Solar, not nuclear", in that a composite solar PV,
stirling and wind turbine per energy tower can in fact deliver a clean
and perfectly safe footprint of energy density that's worth 37.5 kw/m2
(37.5 kjhr/m2). However, the nuclear alternatives at perhaps at their
best birth to grave 375 whr/m2 or 375 jhr/m2 are not going down without
a tough and bloody as hell fight, to each of our mutually polluted and
GW deaths if need be. I also agree that perhaps the best this global
energy shortage fiasco can mange is along with our utilizing nuclear
alternatives for the relatively safely (far better off than coal and
oil) methods of accomplishing 10% of our energy needs. So, I'm not and
never have been your Mr. Anti-Nuclear (after all, there are more than a
few nations of less than heathen status that probably can't be fully
entrusted with nuclear energy, but if we keep making coal and oil spendy
or unavailable, the only viable alternative may come down to WW-III).
BTW; for this and most other topic argument sake, the laws of energy
still represents that 3600 joules = 3600 whr = 1 kwhr. There's nothing
hocus-pocus about it, other than it's the truth and nothing but the
truth, which in modern times of big-energy polluting and raping mother
Earth to death obviously doesn't count for squat.
These big-energy folks that are the best and usually industry paid-for
naysayers against all that's renewable and clean, are into playing their
silly word or syntax games, thereby avoiding the honest intent or jest
of the original topic, and thus focused upon stalking and trashing
whomever and of whatever the following constructive contributions have
to share, as though we're their big-energy approved toilet-paper.
BTW No.2; Global Warming is for real, and in more ways than one, it's
at least partially caused by humanity, and there are consequences of our
past, present and future actions.
Rather oddly, but not hardly a surprise if going by these extra special
infomercial days of all that's pro big-energy and of having to protect
their puppet government(s) mainstream status quo butt, plus seeing those
usual cover thy butt-loads of faith based damage control on steroids,
whereas this following topic of perfectly honest science seems as though
rather Mailgate/Usenet taboo/nondisclosure rated, therefore it must be
offering us too much of the truth and nothing but the truth.
Mailgate/Usenet indext listed as; Message not available:
"Temperature on global warming turned up" by William Elliot
The regular laws of physics and I'm strongly suggesting that as much as
90% of our inside and out GW fiasco is derived from our moon, which
isn't discounting the 10% impact as caused by humanity (at best I'd buy
into a 75%/25% ratio). In other words, if we all departed Earth and let
nature take its planetology course, this Earth would continue to thaw
from the last ice age this planet will ever see. As long as we have
that pesky moon of ours, ice age trapped methanes and CO2 will in fact
keep "Bubbling Through Seafloor Creates Undersea Hills", though at a
reduced rate if the human factor were entirely eliminated.
http://www.mbari.org/news/news_releases/2007/paull-plfs.html
You folks do realize that Earth isn't getting itself any bigger, whereas
if anything it's ever so gradually shrinking, exactly as it should.
Imagine that, another truth being told that we're not supposed to know
about, just like we're not supposed to realize that our magnetosphere
has been losing its worth at 0.05%/year.
Clearly our nifty orbiting mascon/moon is in fact so 'one of a kind'
unusually massive and nearby, so much so extra special that as such it
can't but help to transfer and thereby induce an amount of thermal
energy into our environment by way of tidal forces (inside and out),
plus whatever's unavoidably contributed from all of those reflected and
secondary worth of IR/FIR photons.
This following topic link is still a tough mainstream nut to crack, much
less sell, as it's representing a serious load of perfectly weird
notions based entirely upon the regular laws of physics, that's having
to do with our creating a surplus of shade for Earth, by way of
relocating our moon to Earth's L1. (easier said than done)
Next Space Station: 7.35e22 kg at Earth's L1
Earth's L1 for accommodating something of the robust mass of our moon,
that also has the LSE-CM/ISS of 256e6 tonnes of our interplanetary
gateway to deal with, is essentially a planetoid parallel parking zone
that's roughly 4 fold further away than its current 384,400 km orbital
status, thus 1.5376e6 km representing 1/16th the mutual attracting or
holding force of gravity, as well as having cut the amount of tidal
energy that's getting applied back into Earth's environment should be of
a similar reduction. However, once fully aligned with the sun while
parked within this halo orbit of Earth's L1 should actually not allow
that combined sol+moon tidal energy to at most drop to half of
whatever's currently taking place. I haven't fully polished off the
physics math in order to prove all of this, but I do believe it'll end
up being somewhere between this third amount less and perhaps half of
what tides we're currently dealing with, which is actually quite a
significant reduction in tidal energy transfer, that by rights should
also tend to cool off our terrestrial environment (inside and out).
Of course the 24 hour rotation of Earth in relationship to Earth's L1 is
no longer the same as our moon's existing 1.023 km/s. In one weird
sense we'd have to speed that moon of our's up to 112 km/s, which is
actually worth 6e23 joules, and that's seemingly going to be a tough
notion to accomplish because, it's existing 1.023 km/s of 2e20
centripetal joules worth of orbital energy is clearly insufficient for
that of L1, of which can't exactly be derived out of thin air unless
having been continually pulled along and subsequently established by a
sufficient other centripetal force, for getting our moon out to Earth's
L1 in the first place.
Here's some more of this weird math, suggesting what it'll take.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/cf.html#cf
r = 1.5376e9 meters
M = 7.35e22 kg
V = 112e3 m/s
Centripetal force: Fc = 5.996254e23 N = 6.11448e22 kgf
6.11448e22 kgf * 9.80665 = 5.996e23 joules Earth-->L1
However Sol-->Earth L1 is what takes that centripetal energy back
-5.996e23 joules Sol-->L1 = 0.0 joules (near zero G)
However, since our moon is already keeping up with Earth is why there's
no real delta-v increase in its orbital velocity. In fact, it's having
to slightly reduce its average orbital velocity that'll become primarily
in relationship to Sol, as having become our binary associated L1
planetoid, as our solar shade instead of being a pesky moon.
In spite of all the usual status quo flak of Usenet's anti-think-tank
and naysayism that's typically of a faith based mindset, of borg like
individuals going postal in order to keep each and every one of their
infomercial lids on tight, whereas giving Earth some badly needed shade
while improving upon the usage of our moon's L1, at the very same time
as having moderated those global warming tidal forces by at least a
third, is what's actually quite doable in spite of whatever their
all-knowing god has to say.
BTW; my LSE-CM/ISS or at the very least a scientific (Earth facing)
tethered science platform or space depot may likely become another
requirement, that is unless having a slightly rotating L1 planetoid
isn't a problem. However, any possible rotation may remain as nullified
since the moon's original L2 tethered mass of 1e12 kg will likely still
exist at some reduced amount of mass, now modified as per acting on
behalf of representing the planetoids's (Sol facing) L1 tethered science
platform(s). In spite of my best dyslexic encrypted efforts, this
moon-->planetoid thing is certainly damn confusing, isn't it.
If you have similar or obviously better math, I'd like to hear about
that. However, if you only wish to topic/author stalk and bash upon
whatever in order to continually whine about the matter of your having
to keep everything exactly as it was, such as when your Earth was flat
and everything else was still in orbit around your faith-based solitary
existence, then don't bother. The same goes if your conditional laws of
physics only applies to terrestrial matters, or on behalf of supporting
those matters orchestrated by and thus approved by the status quo which
you must worship at all cost.
On the other honest topic constructive hand, even if your subjective
interpretations and subsequent ideas or whatever best swag is way off in
another dimension, it's not going to be all that upsetting to my kind of
open mindset way of thinking that's more often outside the box than not
to start with. If you simply can not manage to safely think for
yourself without blowing yet another mainstream status quo gasket, then
perhaps not all is lost when our resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush) has a
perfectly good paying, non-thinking as well as non-caring job without
ever involving a speck of remorse, for you and others of your kind.