Solar Shell
Williamknowsbest
The surface gravity of the sun is 27.9 gees.
An object held at a radius of 3.68 million km above the solar center
would feel a 1.0 gee force directed toward the sun.
If it were possible to reduce the output of the sun to about 0.24% of
its current output at peak, and make it a variable star with a 24 hour
period, with an average intensity of 0.08% its current brilliance, the
intensity of sunlight would be the same at 3.68 million km radius as it
now appears on Earth and have the same diurnal variation. All things
being equal the sun's lifespan would increase from 5.5 billion years at
present to 6.6 trillion years with this lowered output.
If it were also possible to separate the metals from the interior of
the sun and use those materials to construct a shell at this radius
that shell would have 332,000x the surface area of Earth and using
metal abundances found in the solar surface as a reference the
materials removed from the sun would form a a steel shell at this
radius 1.3 km thick, a carbon shell 7.1 km thick, a silica shell 3.7 km
thick a water shell 1.8 km thick, this allows the entire surface
covered with air of the same composition as Earth's air today, and a
biosphere as abundant as Earth's biosphere today spread throughout the
outer 100 meters. Enough material exists in the Sun to do this right
now. So, if the technical issues could be worked out, this could be
constructed.
I assume the shell is structured on the exterior facing the stars, much
like the Earth's surface is structured, providing an extremely large
habitat for humanity. The varying sunlight within this shell is
assumed to be projected through openings in the shell and reflected
back by optical structures held above the atmosphere by the same
framework technology that makes the shell possible.
Above the shell I imagine a biosphere stacked, penetrated periodically
by mountains whose top is a lens that projects intense beams of light
upward to a space borne reflector atop a tower, providing sunlight to a
region. The steepness of the land, and its distance from the tower -
along with the peak height of the light source in the tower, determines
the seasonal variation with geography. Land masses, oceanic masses,
ice masses, all are structured to replicate hundreds of thousands of
earth-like bio-tiles that populate the entire surface. White light
that mimics the spectrum of current sun, is projected in a conical
spray from a mirror above the atmosphere and the skies of the outer
shell are lit pale blue with a golden solar disk, The mirror rises and
sets as it varies output and color, to mimic sunrise and sunset on Old
Earth.
Slung beneath the shell structure, and well below the biosphere, lit
from below, is the industrial world, suspended in tension from the
shell. Powered directly by lasers projected from the sun, and housing
the stored materials extracted from the sun, and not used to support
the biosphere, this industrial reserve represents the riches of a
million Earth's collected and organized for human industrial activity.
The 332,000 biotiles are illuminated with 332,000 solar-disk mirrors
above 332,000 mega-mountains - these mountains also project copious
energy into space on demand, to support interstellar travel, and
provide solar system defense. These laser beams, with reforming
satellite networks orbiting overhead, maintain environmental conditions
on every body orbiting the solar system that is important to humanity.
Populations of 2,500 trillion people could be supported at the same
density they occur on Earth today. With less ocean mass and greater
land masses, 7,000 trillion people could be supported at the same
density as they occur today. With surface areas engineered for higher
density, and supported by subhelion industry, commercial agriculture
and commercial forestry, densities as high as that found in Manhattan
may be possible. This would be 8.5 billion billion people.
One star supporting a galaxy full of people for 6.6 trillion years.
Surely, this is an engineered structure worth contemplating.
A dyson sphere has some 1,660x the area of this sphere, but it has
several problems.
1) the amounts of material needed to make it are at least 1,660x as
great
2) gravity over large areas to support a biosphere is not well
defined
3) The lifespan of the sphere will likely be less than 900 million
years as the sun becomes too bright
4) Radiation levels on dyson sphere are high, on this sphere they are
Earth normal.
5) Material is scarce on a dyson sphere, there is a super-abundance
of energy and materials to support human industry and interstellar
commerce here.
The sphere I propose here is far more feasible than the Dyson sphere.
With a 1% annual population growth rate this sphere could be filled to
the Manhattan density in 2,095 years! Since rising living standards
correlate negatively with population growth, we are unlikely to
maintain the needed growth rates naturally.
Even so, at 1% annual growth we can fill this sphere from our present
numbers in 4102AD.
This need not be a problem if we assume machine systems can grow faster
than us. Consider a hypothetical 1 kg self-replicating machine system,
that doubled every day. Once it is figured out, such a device could be
dropped into the sun and carry out the construction program to
transform the entire sun in 100 days. We have plenty of time to do
this job.
A 1 kg seed could be imagined built on Earth and projected toward
Jupiter with a conventional rocket and Jupiter would slow it to zero
velocity relative to the sun. The seed would fall into the sun and use
the energy and materials there to replicate itself. Within 100
doublings it would have transformed the entire sun into an engineered
structure, from there, it carries out programming or received
instructions to build other structures, including the shell just
described.
Such a system might easily build large reforming satellite that orbit
just inside Earth orbit and illuminate the Earth/Moon system as before
the transformation. Similar satellites might illuminate the other
worlds of our solar system.
Immense laser powered spacecraft might be built from a small fraction
of the materials ejected from the solar interior. These might be
powered by immense laser beams originating within the sun. Might be
piloted by advanced AI, and might be surrounded by Moravec-like robot
bushes, and other advanced droid forms. One spacecraft system, with
solar shell base, surrounded by 7,000 sq km of wilderness, and tended
by 100,000s of human level robots FOR EACH PERSON ON EARTH would arrive
and make itself known to its owner. It would be up to each owner to
determine what to do with his or her assets. Families might combine
resources.
This is a measure perhaps of what we are capable of creating as a
species, and what is available to us today within our own solar system.
Unconstrained by energy, habitat, labor, resources, or skill, humanity
will have realized the promise of science and technology.
A person labors approximately 2,000 hours per year in the US. There
are 144.2 million people who work, and a total of $13 trillion is
created by their activity. That's 288.4 billion hours and $45 for each
hour of activity. 1 human level robot would, with around 9% downtime
for service, would work 8,000 hours per year. Thus, each robotic
laborer in this fantasy would produce $360,000 of wealth - less any the
robot itself needed to survive. Say $350,000 per year - net. So,
100,000 robots on each 7,000 sq km kingdom within each world sized
bio-tile would produce $35 billion worth of wealth each year for each
human using the resources extracted from the subhelion sphere beneath
the bio-tile they inhabited. WIth normal discount rates applied, each
individual would be worth over 1/3 of a trillion dollars - considerably
more than the richest person on Earth today.
These figures are arrived at by simple considerations of materiel,
labor efficiency and methods of organizing assets used today in the
United States. Incomes might be substantially in excess of this figure
when one assumes that advanced AI will be capable of organizing
superior forms industry and business - especially those using
self-replicating methods, that made this particular form of wealth
possible.
Even so, using the low-end figure of $36 billion per person per year,
and reserving 10% of the total output for collective endeavours, would
permit the equivalent of $2.6 billion billion per year to be spent on
collective activities, such as interstellar exploration.
If 100,000 robots per person seems excessive, compare the mateial tied
up in robots and their support structure to the total amounts of
material available. Even so, if all robots were on the surface, fewer
than 1 robot per acre would be present- distributed below the surface,
in the industrial infrastructure beneath the bio-tile, robotic labor
would be largely invisible, except where they interact with their human
owners.
Pat Flannery
Williamknowsbest wrote:
> VISION
>
>
He's going to do it! He's going to terraform the Sun!
Go, Bill, go! :-D
Pat
Sylvia Else
> VISION
>
> The surface gravity of the sun is 27.9 gees.
>
> An object held at a radius of 3.68 million km above the solar center
> would feel a 1.0 gee force directed toward the sun.
>
> If it were possible to reduce the output of the sun to about 0.24% of
> its current output at peak,
The only way to do this is to split it into lots of small stars.
Unfortunately, these small stars would not just radiate less each,
they'd be cooler. We'd have to get used to living under (over?) stars
that were decidely red.
Sylvia.
Williamknowsbest
THIS IS ALL HIGHLYSPECULATIVE - HOWEVER!
I would engineer things so there are hot spots that radiate at the
spectrum we have today! lol. Like filaments in light bulbs. The power
level is lowered to be sure because the radiative area is 0.24% that
of today's sun - but the temperature of those spots is the same as we
see today, so the black body radiation spectrum will be the same.
Here is my first pass at this - which will very likely be improved as
the day draws near;
One can compartmentalize the sun by spinning it. Five smaller suns
each 1/5th the mass of the sun, orbiting around a common center at a
speed of 1 million km/hr is sufficient to keep the stars separated
within the shell described. This reduces the output of the stellar
collection to the desired level since luminosity is a function of L =
M^(4.5) for masses near 1 solar mass. So,
L = M^(4.5) = 0.20^4.5 = 0.000572
Times 5 so the total is 0.00286 or 0.286%
Which is larger than the average 0.0008 called for as the average
output and more than the 0.0024 peak called for. This is alright, as
long as the extra is used by industry, to build stuff, or power laser
light sail starships in range of the Sun.
Each of these five suns is 818,000 km in diameter and all orbit within
a shell 4 million miles across. The shell processes the IR radiation
into visible light sources that are then projected onto the 7.6 million
km diameter habitable shell to illuminate it at the appropriate color
and temperature.
I can even estimate what this might be like;
Wein's law says; lambda-max = 2.898e6 / T nm
So, today's sun T=5770K so it radiates at a peak of around 500 nm - the
color our eyes are adapted to be most sensitive to.
Stephan-Boltzman and the geometry of spheres tell me what the
temperature will be. Energy per unit area is the fourth power of
temperature.
Now, 5 spheres each 818,000 km across - have a total surface area of
71% greater than a single sun we have today. The total energy radiated
by the four suns is 0.0572% per sun, - so that's a total of 0.286% of
today's solar output. Energy per unit area is 0.167% of what today's
energy per unit area is. Temperature is 20.2% - or 1186K which
corresponds to a peak wavelength of 2484 nm.
A structured metal shell made of ejected metals, built into a 4 million
km diameter shell of nanotube based diodes would efficiently absorb
blackbody radiation at this temperature and convert it to electrical
energy. This electrical energy powers quadrillions of white light
lasers. The shell itself radiates at different power levels in
different directions, so projects a pattern onto the 7.6 million
kilometer diameter shell above. This IR powered lamp rotates every
24*n hours and has n beams projected from its surface - providing
diurnal variation across the larger non-rotating shell. Microwaves
are generated to power the technosphere under the biosphere. UV light
and other wavelengths are generated for deep space and defensive
applications as needed.
The white light mimics 5770K white light that reproduces today's solar
spectrum
The visible beams are formed with white light lasers, and are directed
by conjugate optics to windows on the shell, to be efficiently
transported through the shell, and reflected off thin film mirrors held
above the atmosphere of each bio-tile as described previously - by a
space fountain type structure.
The shells are held in place by orbital ring type structures;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_fountain#Orbital_Ring
The innermost shell processes light and material flowing out of the
suns.
\The angular momentum of these five smaller suns is what is left over
after ejecting metals from the sun at high speed in a preferred
direction using fusion energy in the sun. The pattern of break-up is
achieved by creating waves in the sun by varying fusion throughout its
volume in a controlled way to change pressure, while also using a
variation of Fick's law and standing plasma waves to cause ejection of
the metals to build the waves and impart the momentum of the sun
causing it to break into five discrete sub-stars.
P^2 = a^3 / (Msol)
Where period is in years, a is in AU and M is in solar masses; since
the sum of all the star elements is about the same as the solar mass,
Msol=1, a = 1.5 million kilometers = 0.01 AU so, P = .001 = 8.766
hours. The circumference of a 1.5 million km is 9.42 million km. So,
the velocity has to be equal to 1.075 million kph. That's 299 kps -
about 1/1000th light speed.
Since only 1.57% of the Sun's mass are metals, and since mv=MV then the
metals must be ejected with no less than 6.3% light speed from the sun
to impart the necessary momentum to cause the break up. Since this is
.0031% of the rest mass energy of the sun, this is well below the
percentage of rest mass released by fusion.
This is not optimized to reduce energy to a minimum within the shell.
Also, there will be tidal effects on the shell by the ring of 5 stars.
Even so, sufficient energy exists in the sun to carry out this
operation, if we are smart enough to figure out how to do it. Also
much of the energy may be recovered from the moving stream of ejected
metals to make the system more efficient providing a way can be found
to recycle the energy retrieved. .
The sun's output is presently 383 yattowatts (383e24 W) its mass 2e30
kg, and the mass of all the metals about 3.2e28 kg. The sun can
eject 2.14e12 kg per second at today's rate of fusion. Not nearly fast
enough to build a shell in our lifetime.
To eject all the metals in 1 million seconds (12 days) - requires solar
output be increased 1.4e10 times what it is today.
In short a structured supernova explosion is called for that
preferentially blows off the metals from the sun, and leaves the
desired structure of hydrogen and helium behind without overcompressing
it.
This is clearly the next step in fusion engineering beyond the h-bomb
involing fusion powered self-replicating plasmas dropped into the sun.
In a combat situation, such machines could be 'detuned' and cause a
star to detonate destroying all life and all structures for many AU
around the sun.
Once structures of star stuff are created by cooperating populations of
self-replicating machine systems - seeds are dispatched to neighboring
stars to expand the habitable zone for humans.
Ray Kurzweil reports in his book THE SINGULARITY IS NEAR that for $1000
you'll be able to buy a human level intelligent computer before 2030.
By 2045 you'll be able to buy a computer for $1000 that has the same
intellectual capacity of 1 billion human beings!
Once these sorts of computing platforms are available asking how to
build this sort of structure might be an interesting question to ask of
it.
Obviously a R&D program would not start out experimenting with the sun
in this way. But given the speed with which self-replicating machines
might grow it need not take a long time either.
Here is a 11 step program that might serve as a first cut at how a
program might proceed;
1) Self-replicating machine system simple
2) Self-replicating machine system - supporting biological systems
3) Self-replicating space colony
4) Small asteroid conversion to space home
5) Ceres conversion to space home
6) Mars conversion to habitable planet
7) Jupiter conversion to mini-star within, habitable shell outside.
8) Proxima Centauri - conversion to mini-sol system (1 star)
9) Alpha Centauri B - conversion to full-scale sol system (5
starlets)
10) Alpha Centauri A - conversion to full scale sol system (6
starlets)
11) Sol (5 starlets)
This project may start in earnest with early-stage detail planning by
2020s and proceeding through the 2080s to completion. By that time
humanity could very well have several large habitable shells totalling
in area 1,000,000x that of Earth, with some 5,000,000x the land biomass
of Earth, and allowing each human individually the wealth of the United
States today - controlling an area comparable to that of North America.
With 10,000,000,000 alive in 2080 each Earth-sized bio-tile will have
10,000 people living on it, and they will have twice the land area as
Earth on each tile, and 2.5x the biological capacity as native Earth.
Beneath the bio-tile will be the techno-tile which will support the
10,000 humans in high-style with each person commanding an amount of
wealth equal to the entire US or Europe or Japan today...
Spreading across a sphere 25 light years in radius, encompasses some
4,000 stars. This reduces human density to 10 persons per bio-tile, or
a continent sized surface per family with each person commanding the
wealth of many times the entire human race today. This could be
achieved by 2130.
This would not be the end point of technical or economic development.
But with longevity research advancing through 2020 - many people alive
today will be alive then!
Williamknowsbest
Another possibility is to leave the sun alone until the human race
vacates the Earth. That is, instead of interplanetary spacecraft
taking people from Earth for a 3 day voyage to a sol based sphere,
interstellar spacecraft would arrive to take people who desired to
their space home on Alpha Centauri! lol. It would be a 12 year
flight, and fewer obviously would go. But still, if conditions on
Earth were poor, and conditions on alpha-centauri were great, many
would go - especially if the trip were provided with services better
than that of a luxury yacht today.
In the end, sol may be the 10th or 100th star converted in this way -
after Earth's native population has dwindled to a few million - and
they could be temporarily evacuated during the transition. (all other
stars could be converted without exposing anyone to any danger - unless
there be natives)
This might be a rule that emerges. Star systems with native life are
left untouched, whilst dead star systems are converted in this way.
If humanity should encounter other intelligences across the cosmos,
perhaps we would have a number of stars in partial conversion, and
program to meet the needs of alien species - this would give us
something of value to trade other species for. And give us detailed
biological information about their biosphere.
pete
>Williamknowsbest wrote:
>> VISION
>>
>>
Well, you know, he needs a small challenge now and then :^)
I'm particularly fond of the phrase
"if the technical issues could be worked out, this could be constructed"
You know, there's no limit to the size of spherical surface that
can be constructed with a 1g surface gravity. Why stop at one star?
We could just go 'round and collect up galaxies and add them to
our Ever Expanding Earth.
--
==========================================================================
vincent@triumf[munge].ca Pete Vincent
Disclaimer: all I know I learned from reading Usenet.
Williamknowsbest
pete wrote:
> on Fri, 19 Jan 2007 18:26:55 -0600, Pat Flannery <fla...@daktel.com> sez:
>
>
> >Williamknowsbest wrote:
> >> VISION
> >>
> >>
>
> >He's going to do it! He's going to terraform the Sun!
> >Go, Bill, go! :-D
>
> Well, you know, he needs a small challenge now and then :^)
>
> I'm particularly fond of the phrase
>
> "if the technical issues could be worked out, this could be constructed"
>
> You know, there's no limit to the size of spherical surface that
> can be constructed with a 1g surface gravity. Why stop at one star?
> We could just go 'round and collect up galaxies and add them to
> our Ever Expanding Earth.
Haha.. even in highly speculative ideas there is an order of
difficulty.
One can build a shell around a star by blowing that star into a
collection of appropriately sized sub-stars, ejecting the metals from
them at the same time - one can collect all the stars in a galaxy and
collide them into a black hole and live on the shell made from the
ejected metals.
Which is more difficult. Clearly going around colleting stars is more
difficult. Especially when one presupposes the existence of
self-replicating machine systems. When you start collecting stars at a
spot there's the time involved and energy involved in moving them
around first. Much easier to use a portion of the energy of a star to
take it as you find it and break it into a small collection of
appropriately sized stars casting off a shell of metals that is then
engineered into a habitable shell. Unless of course you're already
dealing with a compact cluster of stars.
Actually, your idea is not unique to you. It was described first in
Misner Thorne and Wheeler's GRAVITATION - where a spinning black hole
at the center of a spherical shell is fed matter by way of garbage
being dumped into the event horizon - and the burst of gravity waves
created by the interaction of the garbage and the spinning black hole
causes the garbage bucket to be kicked back to the spherical shell with
added momentum, which is captured by a turbine like brake, to power the
shell. In this way 1/3 of the rest mass energy is retrieved in this
way - which is 3x greater than fusion. .
I believe they dealt with galaxy sized objects - How big is a 1 gee
shell around a 100 billion solar mass?
g0 = G * M / d^2
g0 = 9.82 m/s/s
G = 6.67e-11 m3/s2/kg
M = 100 billion x Msol = 1e11 x 1e30kg = 1e41 kg
d = SQRT(G * M/g0) = SQRT(6.67e-11 * 1e41 / 9.82) = 824e12 m. ~ 32
light days
Nearly a trillion kilometers - a sphere 2.1e30 sq km in area. Which
is 100 billion times the area of the solar mass sized shell. So,
there's no advantage in clumping them together!
Since luminosity scales as L = M^4.5 and scales as M there is an
optimal size.
Chek it out A = 4 * pi * d^2 and d^2 = G/g0 * M So A =
4*pi*G/g0 * M
And since Msol produces a star too bright then Msol is TOO BIG -
clearly the ideal size of a star is smaller than Msol.
Now, in my thought experiment I assumed that the sub stars should be
housed inside the 1 gee field radius for a given star. This means that
the substars have to orbit one another at high speed.. Which is very
energetic and unstable relative to larger structures.
Let's reverse your idea. That is, break apart stars into appropriately
sized sub stars that are blasted far from one another - to orbit one
another slowly in a stately manner. Then the amount of energy needed
is reduced to form the structure, but there is now a requirement to
build multiple shells. Which doesn't seem too difficult, compared to
building one shell! lol.
There is an ideal size to get a single star to have simultaneously the
right luminosity AND the right gravity for Earth based life at the same
time. What is that?
Why Mideal = 0.12 Msol.
At this mass the area is 0.12 the area of Msol and the Luminosity
7.2e-5 as bright as the sun and each little star should last 76.5
trillion years!
This produces an intensity per unit area equal to that at Earth at 1 AU
for today's sun at the 1 gee radius which is around 2.6 million
kilometer radius in this case.
Another intersting point - since we know area scales with solar masses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_of_the_Observable_Universe.
Mbrigh-universe = 3e52 kg --> 1.5e22 Msol ---> 1.09e49 km2
separated into 1.25e23 separate objects lasting 76.5 trillion years.
This much area converted to habitable area supporting 50,000 humans per
sq km, would support a total 5e53 humans. That's 6e43 humans for every
human alive today. At a 1% growth rate per year, this universe would
fill with humans in 10,141 years.
Of course as the expanding shell of humans emerged from the regions of
sol, time dilation would have an effect, and reduce the growth rate
accordingly. So, there would be an expanding wave of darkness as
self-reproducing seeds spread from star to star and stars were
engineered in increasing numbers to support the flight of humans across
the cosmos - filliing all the observable universe with humanity.
Crossing 14 billion light years in 10,000 years subjective time -
requires that the shell move with a time dilation factor of 1.4 million
to 1.
Thats v/c = 0.999999999999745
Which is easier than moving the entire universe into range of the Milky
way within the next 10,000 years!
lex...@ix.netcom.com
Pat Flannery wrote:
> Williamknowsbest wrote:
> > VISION
> >
> >
>
> He's going to do it! He's going to terraform the Sun!
And it will all be funded by the sales of multicolored golf balls
delivered to your home at the top of a 10-mile-high office building by
silent laser-powered flying lunchboxes.
Alex Terrell
fold within the stasis field.
I'm not sure of the frequency shift of light when it crosses a stasis
field boundary.
Williamknowsbest
I sold the golf-ball company already, that funded some of the research
I'm doing in solar energy. That led to research in PV cells that had
low parastic losses. That led to MEMs research. Which MIGHT lead to
flying lunchboxes. A 10 mile high office building? Never proposed any
buildings office or residential. Sorry.
I am aware that Frank Lloyd Wright proposed a 1 mile high tower, 'The
Illiinois'
http://www.delmars.com/wright/flw7a.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Illinois
Which did have its own nuclear powered elevators and a nuclear station
in the basement to drive the elevators, AND had helicopter landing pads
at the upper levels. This was a period when GE was selling nuclear
power plants directly to industry, and installing tiny nukes in Little
America to promote the product. It was also a period when people spoke
about a helicopter in every garage. haha..
I love the concept of outer surface elevators proposed for this
building. This was carried a step further conceptually in the 2002 Tom
Cruise movie MINORITY REPORT where maglev vehicles not only went down
roads but also up the sides of buildings;
http://www.imdb.com/gallery/ss/0181689/CN261_12.jpg.html
Their high speeds and ability to move into garages built in the
building as shown, would make taller buildings possible.
There is a problem when there are very tall buildings - using today's
elevator technology. That is, at some point, the entire first floor
becomes elevators. Structuring the elevator system as in the WTC is
one approach. Multi-story elevators as proposed for the Illinois and
as done in Tapei 101 is another. High speed vertical travel with the
abilty to move laterally and remove 'vehicles' out of the column also
help. Combining approaches to create a vertical as well as horizontal
roadway on the outside of the building, whether for multi-tier vertical
buses or individual vehicles may appear to be the ultimate solution,
and this is proposed in Star Trek lifts. Robert Heinlein proposed yet
another solution in his Future History series. "C'mon you apes, you
wanna live forever!" - iirc Heinlein's conceptual invention is that of
a 'drop tube' - an elevator shaft that has some sort of anti-gravity
coil at the base, set to lift masses in the up shaft and drop masses in
down shaft. Clarke also had a similar device in space stations - but
this was IN zero gravity and didn't require the 'coil' - Here you
merely walk up to the shaft and step in without a vehicle, and rise or
fall slowly to the floor you want. The shaft becomes in essence a
vertical walkway. I noted once that a spiral escalator would achieve
much the same effect of getting rid of elevators, especially if a
double helix were formed in columns outside the corners of a building
with broad stairs. Mitsubishi has built spiral escalators since the
1980s.
I did propose a tethered balloon - an aerostat - to old thin film
concentrators above clouds, and more recently conjugate optical
reformers that would redirect laser or maser energy, most significantly
from IR solar pumped lasers in space. Aerostats would have to operate
at about 12,000 m - to fly above most clouds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerostat
In my concept the aerostats are tethered to the ground with optical
fibers or light pipes, or wires, but propulsive systems maintain
position with the aid of GPS, so tethers are not really structural. In
the concentrator design the concentrator is aimed using the same
propulsive system. The aerostat is filled with hydrogen for bouyancy.
A self-contained hydrogen/oxygen fuel cell system provides propulsive
power for station keeping as in the eternal airplane concept.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/FS-054-DFRC.html
Except here, bouyancy, not propulsive power provides lift. This
reduces total power requirements. And for a solar power collector,
that is important!
Another concept is a totally free-flying design that beams energy
through the clouds using microwaves or intense lasers that cut through
clouds to recievers immediately below the aerostat
Hmm.. I did talk briefly about Bob forward's idea of a space fountain
and orbital ring. These are big structures. Don't know about office
buildings though. They could be used to build big structures, but
that's not my idea, its someone elses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_fountain
I did work with Kieth Loftstrom on the idea of using a variation of
concept to transmit and store power generated by large dispersed arrays
of solar collectors. Kinetic energy in the moving pellet stream not
only can transfer momentum, it can also transfer energy. This system
can also be used to build very long span bridges as well as very large
towers. So, its ideally suited for nations like Indonesia which has
17,000 islands to connect and power. Others have proposed magnetically
coupling to the moving mass of metal that transmits momentum and energy
in these designs to move maglev vehicles like that described in the
movie Minority Report, though most designs today envision train or bus
like vehicles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_levitation.
Maglev can occur without moving masses as in the space fountain, and
forms a class of vehicle that involves a powered roadway. Maglev
tracks can also transmit power conventionally through wires. So, there
is a natural separation between short haul tracks and power
transmission and long haul tracks and power transmission. Long haul
tracks and power using kinetic masses - and are capable of spanning
huge distances. Short haul tracks and power use wiring and
conventional magnetics supported by conventional structures. The long
haul system has the advantage of storing significant amounts of energy.
For space fountain like structures one wonders why they would limit
themselves to 10 miles? The closest Java comes to Sumatra is further
than that so that's a pretty good sized bridge. Then Java to Bali is
another jump. The span from Java to Borneo is where there is a notable
jump. Panga to Belitung to Kalimantan I think is best. These spans
are so long that one might consider building linear cities along them -
similar to Asimov's Caves of Steel, or Heinlein's strip cities, in The
Roads Must Roll.
Williamknowsbest
Now now, no one knows how to build a stasis field, even in principle.
We certainly understand the principle of dividing an undivided mass.
That's how to control a star's luminosity. Check it out
Since mass and luminosity are related by L = M^4.5 for solar mass
stars, one only need divide the sun into several low mass components to
reduce its output to somewhere near the desired range.
1part sun Mt=1 Mp=1.000 Lp = 1.0000 Lt = 1.0000
2part sun Mt=1 Mp=0.500 Lp = 0.0442 Lt = 0.0884
3part sun Mt=1 Mp=0.333 Lp = 0.0072 Lt = 0.0214
4part sun Mt=1 Mp=0.250 Lp = 0.0020 Lt = 0.0080
5part sun Mt=1 Mp=0.200 Lp = 0.0007 Lt = 0.0036 <= 0.0024 peak
6part sun Mt=1 Mp=0.167 Lp = 0.0003 Lt = 0.0002
So, dividing the sun into 5 or 6 pieces and setting them to orbit one
another inside the habitable shell by directing the metal ejected from
the sun, achieves this in a more understandable way.
A 5part sun would radiate light about 150% brighter than needed, and
actually far brighter on average than the 0.008 needed. The excess
could be used industrially and for transport, as well as interstellar
transport. To make use of this excess one would increase the size of
the shell at the cost of reducing the average gravity on the shell. A
shell 150% the area of the one described earlier would have gravity
about 2/3 that of Earth and a diameter 22% greater than the 1 gee shell
While one might argue that dividing the sun into several parts is as
far out as a stasis field, I would argue that we know in principle how
to divide things, we don't know in principle how to make things like
stasis fields or even what they are. We DO know how to divide things.
We DO know how momentum and energy work. We DO know what we're
talking about when we discuss such things.
For thess reasons well before humanity builds things like stasis
fields, we'll be breaking up stars with intelligent self propagating
explosions (the ultimate smart bomb) and ejecting their metals into
orbit around the stellar components to form vast habitable shells to
turn the cosmos into something more friendly to life.
I spoke earlier of a self propagating plasma machine that made use of
the hydrogen in the sun to power and reproduce itself. It might be
easier to think of the 1 kg seed as a frozen form of catalyst that
promoted an intelligently directed thermonuclear explosion - that
preferentially ejects metals from the sun once it reaches criticality.
Terrell Miller
news:1169307606.5...@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > He's going to do it! He's going to terraform the Sun!
>>
>> And it will all be funded by the sales of multicolored golf balls
>> delivered to your home at the top of a 10-mile-high office building by
>> silent laser-powered flying lunchboxes.
>
> I sold the golf-ball company already, that funded some of the research
> I'm doing in solar energy.
be sure to tell D&B about your far-flung empire, eh boyo?
--
Terrell Miller
mill...@bellsouth.net
"Some of history's worst disasters have been brought about by taking a
solution that has worked successfully in one are, and trying to apply it in
another area where it isn't appropriate."
-James P. Hogan
raphfrk
I think you got the 6 sub-suns wrong.
6*(1/6)^4.5 = 0.0019 not 0.0002 (you probably dropped a decimal
point?).
7 masses would give
0.0011
8 masses
0.0007
This gives pretty close to the required amount.
One option there would be to not have all parts equal in mass.
See:
http://www.burtleburtle.net/bob/physics/kempler.html
2 sets of 6 masses is possibly stable. However, he says 12 to 24
pieces are needed.
Anyway, assuming that 2 sets of 6 masses is allowable,
Total power (a is how much mass is given to 1 set of 6):
P = 6*(a/6)^(4.5) + 6*((1-a)/6)^(4.5)
or
P = 6^(-3.5)*(a)^4.5 + 6^(3.5)*(1-a)^4.5
Setting a = 0.1741 gives
P = 0.0008
as required.
This means that you would have 12 sub-stars
6 with mass 0.0290 of the Sun (around one 35th of the Sun)
6 with mass 0.1376 of the Sun (around 1/7 of the Sun)
There may be a slight issue that the larger sub-stars will burn out
faster, so in a trillion years (or whatever), there may be an issue.
Also, is 0.029 solar masses enough for the M^4.5 approx to work ?
Williamknowsbest
Williamknowsbest
I like the rosette referenes. Thanks.
Now, as you move down the mass scale the power law changes... its not
fixed.
References are not consistent among themselves.
Here's a generally reputable government website:
M^4.5 here -
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/newton/askasci/1995/astron/AST186.HTM
But here are others!
M^3.5 here -
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/binaries/masslum.html
M^3.9 here - http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/208/jan23/ml.html
M^3.9 here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminosity
These state the power is an average over a broad range of masses, the
first one states its 4.5 at around 1 solar mass, falling to 2.0 for low
masses - as indicated by the data which droops down near Log(1)=0 ...
http://jersey.uoregon.edu/~imamura/122/images/mass-luminosity.jpg
I don't get the same numbers when I do it, but, I think your numbers
are 1/10th the size needed, I presume your P is power which means
Bolometric Luminosity in this analysis.
Proxima Centauri has a mass 0.12 solar masses and a luminosity of 5e-5
solar luminosity to 12e-5 solar luminosity. That's because its a flare
star. It also has an expected lifespan of 16 trillion years according
to another reference.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxima_Centauri
M 0.12 0.12
L 0.00005 0.00012
power 4.67088 4.25797
So, the flare star flares around 4.5 depending on which side of the
cycle you're on.
Here's what I get when I did a spread sheet with power 4.5;
=======
L = M^4.5
=======
parts Mpart Mtotal Lpart Ltotal
1 1.0000 1.0000 1.00000000 1.0000000
2 0.5000 1.0000 0.04419417 0.0883883
3 0.3333 1.0000 0.00712778 0.0213833
4 0.2500 1.0000 0.00195313 0.0078125
5 0.2000 1.0000 0.00071554 0.0035777
6 0.1667 1.0000 0.00031501 0.0018900
7 0.1429 1.0000 0.00015742 0.0011019
8 0.1250 1.0000 0.00008632 0.0006905
9 0.1111 1.0000 0.00005081 0.0004572
10 0.1000 1.0000 0.00003162 0.0003162
11 0.0909 1.0000 0.00002059 0.0002265
12 0.0833 1.0000 0.00001392 0.0001671
The first column is the number of parts. The second column is the mass
of each part. The third column is the sum total of all the masses -
always 1.0000 this case, since the shell is 1.0000 gee. The fourth
column is the luminosity of each part. The fifth column is the total
luminosity. Gravity is 1/r^2, so the ratio of radii is the square root
the ratio of gee forces.
And I re-did the calculation for luminosity and gravity And found the
luminosity per unit area on the shell is now .0006 NOT .0008! So, I've
copied portions of the spread sheets I used so you can see what I'm
doing. I use 1AU = 149.8 million km to figure what the area ratio is
compared to the shell at 1AU versus the shell at 1 gee around the sun.
I was off by a factor of 4 - I went back to my spreadsheet and found
that I calculated square meters and dropped a factor of 4 for my sphere
calculation A=4*pi()*r^2 for a sphere.
27.900 Gees at solar surface
0.695 Radius of solar surface millions km
5.282045058 Solar radii to 1 gee solar radii
3.671021316 Radius of 1 gee shell millions km
40.80608286 rshell 1/AU - shell to Earth orbit
1665.136399 1 AU/shell areas - 1/luminosity
0.000600551 luminosity peak power
0.0006905 8 part system luminosity of 8 parts
It seems that an 8 part system works best.to achieve the right
brightness on the solar shell - using 4.5 as the power.
I calculated the likely lifetime of the sun at its current luminosity -
5.5 billion years and divided by the change in luminosity. This
obtains 9.1 trillion years for this collection of star parts.
A shell around proxima centauri would be an interesting experiment
assuming no native life forms there;
1.271679087 Radius of proxima surface millions km
117.7970146 rshell 1/AU
13876.13666 1 AU/shell areas
7.20662E-05 luminosity peak
5.11664E-05 proxima luminosity
0.709991542 areal light intensity
A 1 gee shell is illuminated at 71% earth normal at 1 gee. A smaller
shell would have a higher surface gravity. With all the metals in
Proxima, ejecting them from the star may provide a rich source of
materials for human industry for a long long time.
Since the sun rises and sets on Earth, and since its dark 12 hours out
of every 24 - the actual intensity is 35.4% - half this intensity. So,
Proxima is actually putting out twice the intensity it needs on average
to illuminate this shell, leaving the balance for industry and
interstellar transport.
What about Ross 248? Another close companion of Sol a little over 10
ly away
M 0.10 0.10
L 0.000023 0.00033
power law 4.63827 3.48149
Its ANOTHER flare star! And its activity is changing over recorded
history.
Barnard's star is nearly 6 ly away and its a variable star, but has the
following figures reported for it
M 0.17
L 0.0004
power law 4.41548
Wolf 359 is 7.8 ly from Earth.
M 0.09 0.13
L 0.00002 0.00002
power law 4.49336 5.30324
Its mass is not well characterized, but its luminosity is.
Lalande 21185 is 8.21 ly away from Earth
M 0.46
L 0.0016
power law 8.29042
Temperature, Metallicity and Rotation is all over the map along with
power law. I don't know if there's any multi-variate analysis done to
look at these variables along with mass to determine a relation to
luminosity. Obviously something is going on in stars in addition to
mass. Clearly before any serious work is done to re-engineer the sun,
if ever, we'll have very detailed models of what's going to happen,
verified by predictions against known stars like these, along with
actual experiments done with nearby stars.
lex...@ix.netcom.com
Williamknowsbest wrote:
> I love the concept of outer surface elevators proposed for this
> building. This was carried a step further conceptually in the 2002 Tom
> Cruise movie MINORITY REPORT where maglev vehicles not only went down
> roads but also up the sides of buildings;
>
> http://www.imdb.com/gallery/ss/0181689/CN261_12.jpg.html
>
> Their high speeds and ability to move into garages built in the
> building as shown, would make taller buildings possible.
Yes, because the one thing that extremely tall buildings really need to
have to become feasible is roadways built onto their sides and
suspended between 'em, and thousands of car-mass objects zipping around
'em.
Williamknowsbest
Needs? Tall buildings need a mechanical form of lift. That's for
sure. Normal elevator operation limits the size of buildings by
turning the first floor into a huge collection of elevator shafts. The
building has to carry the weight of that if conventional elevators are
used. By removing the car from the shaft and using the shaft space as
one might a hallway or a road, these limits are largely overcome.
There is a cost however, that is the building has to carry the mass of
the empty 'vehicles' parked at various locations around the building.
There is an advantage however, shorter wait times for cars. lol. Of
course with flying lunchbox technology, you don't need shafts at all,
merely build the whole thing lwith doors to the outside, and take VTOL
aircraft to your door, using silent rockets. lol. I think the
science-fiction move Star Wars had several buildings like this. haha..
That avoids the problem of carrying the weight since the propulsive
system carries the weight. A vehicle with a dilating door in the back,
and a docking collar, connecting to a similar setup on the side of a
building would be cool if it can be made to work. Haha..
Williamknowsbest
The way the self-replicating plasma would work is as a sort of hydrogen
bomb that is dropped near the surface of the sun, and directs a
powerful structured x-ray pulse into the body of the sun. The photon
pulse in this environment is highly non-linear, so it quite possible
could carry out computations and mechanical operations.
Powerful light pulses in gases and plasmas behave in strange and
wonderful ways.
http://www.icpig.uni-greifswald.de/proceedings/data/Tsuda_1
http://www.llnl.gov/str/Petawatt.html
With better understanding it may likely be possible to engineer a
structured pulse using an atom bomb powered x-ray laser and an
associated synthetic hologram operating with the x-ray blast to produce
a 'seed' wavefront in the body of the sun.
This wavefront implements logic gates and create a sort of computing
platform at the wavefront using structured light and plasma. Laser
light has been used as optical tweezers in the lab. Laser light has
been used to implement information storage and retrieval. Laser light
has been used to implement optical computing and swtiching functions.
The interaction of plasma and powerful light pulses, that
self-propagate through a lasing medium near fusion conditions, should
be possible. Once such systems are modelled on more conventional
platforms, it very likely may be possible to engineer useful systems.
One experiment that may be interesting is the detonation of such a
structured atomic blast as I envision to carry out useful functions,
and work in conjunction with other self-replicating machines made on
more conventional robotic platforms to carry out the sort of
engineering program called forth here. One thing is for certain, the
time frame is considerably sped up when compared to mechanical
processes! The desired processes may take time it takes for a light
beam to move through the radius of the sun!
One early experiment that might be fun to carry out is to use a smart
plasma wave and Ficks' law to separate out a species from the solar
atmosphere and make a plume that can be viewed spectrographically from
the Earth. A plume of iron for example selected and ejected by a
structured self-propagating explosion. In addition to controlling what
gets ejected, experiments can be carried out related to the orientation
of the ejecta relative to the surface.
A number of well timed structured detonations that interact in the body
of the sun can also be experimented with. Ultimately, using more
conventional self-replicating machines, a small number of asteroidal
bodies may be converted to a large number of structured 'seeds' that
perform a coordinated dance around the sun, to set the ball rolling so
to speak, and carry out not only the changes wthin the sun, and its
ejecta, but also create the infrastructure around the sun to capture
and structure that ejjected material to form the sorts of produces
we're discussing here.
Williamknowsbest
> we're discussing here.
The ejected plasma rising from the sun itself can be structured and
sparse arays of cobweb like molecules is structured on the nanoscale to
redirect the ejected materials. While momentum constrains what can be
done directly, the ability to structure the ejected plasma in the
intelligent explosion and then impart additional 'information' at a
specific spot in space, by causing the structured blast to collide with
even a small amount of orbiting material, can cause that plasma itself
to carry out operations on itself. For example, a fast moving dense
plasma of hydrogen might be situated beyond regions of plasma,
containing silicon and oxygen and iron. The hydrogen might be
detonated by interacting with a structured bit of material orbiting
near the sun. The blast can be imagined to cause the silicon and
oxygen and iron to be slowed relative to the sun, whilst the helium
produced in the blast is blasted to even higher speeds -acting as a
sort of rocket braking the desired materials into orbit around the sun.
Even more speculative, but suggested by the ability to beam light
THROUGH light haze and smoke using conjugate optics, is the use of
structured wavefronts to STOCHASTICALLY COOL a hot plasma by having a
probe beam measure a region of plasma, and then have that probe beam
structure a nuclear explosion to cause the structured photons to
scatter off the plasma in a way that creates a fast moving COOL OBJECT
relative to the photons scattered off them.
So, the way things might go to engineer this product we're describing
is;
1) An atom bomb powered x-ray or gamma ray laser sporting an engineered
x-ray or gamma ray hologon is constructed and shot toward jupiter on a
conventional rocket.
2) Jupiter interacts gravitationally with the atom bomb powered device,
and as it swings around the giant planet, it slows its speed relative
to the sun, to zero.
3) The device falls into the sun and when it reaches a critical
altitude it separates into two components. One the bomb powered laser.
One a nano-structured matter hologon - a cobweb like affair that
unfolds and spreads out.
4) The 'matter hologon' uses light pressure to slow its fall to the
sun - hovering above the falling spacecraft, and casing..
5) Closer to the sun, the atom bom unleases a structured x-ray or gamma
ray pulse into the body of the sun
6) This causes a structured self-replicating 'intelligent' plasma pulse
to form in the sun and carry out desired operations.
7) The expanding pulse powered by controlled fusion events in the sun,
ejects massive quantities of desired materials. This ejecta is highly
patterned.
8) The patterned ejecta interacts with the patterned material floating
above the sun.
9) The interaction with the material causes information to be
introduced into the patterned ejecta at specific locations around the
sun.
10) This causes a portion of the ejecta to be cooled and slowed to form
structured bodies moving around the sun and a blast of structured alpha
particles scattering from them.
One of the first things that may be deposited around the sun is an
extension of the 'matter hologon' So, its clear that a single ejetion
event can spread quicly to encompass the entire surface of the sun and
create truly massive objects very quickly.
So, the second experiment, once we do the ejection of say iron or
silicon from the sun as described earlier, is to see if a small web of
triggering material can be extended from a few kg to something say the
size of the Earth before letting it fall into the sun and disappear!
The third experiment phase would be to encompass the sun in something
useful, say, solar pumped laser array, and/or space factories stocked
with raw materials. .
Further experiments involving more massive ejection events, or attempts
at dividing the sun into a rosette pattern of sub-stars, should wait
until experiments are done with nearby stars - but its clear that 100
days to convert the sun as described here and build a large shell as
described may be in error - it may take considerably less time to do
this once we figure out how.
Williamknowsbest
research program,up to this point is to eject structured bodies of
desireable materials from the sun and cause them to fall to Earth.
Say, appropriately sized bodies of gold, or copper or nickel - -
ejected on a path to take it to Earth for easy recovery.
Aluminum $1.12/lb $2.47/kg
Copper $2.51/lb $5.53/kg
Silver $12.52/oz(troy) $402.52/kg
Palladium: $340/oz(troy) $10,931.25/kg
Gold $630/oz(troy) $20,254.97/kg
Platinum $1,100/oz(troy) $35,365.82/kg
The recovery of small strcutred objects can be examined in the lab to
determine the efficiency of the various proceses used to create it, and
refine those processes further.
Since the importation of unlimited amounts of raw materials to Earth
would materially affect the price of commodities, one would have to
look at the markets for these products and engineer a mix of materials
that would bring the greatest return iwth the least mass. While
platinum may appear to be very valuable, increasing its quantity on
earth's surface by 100% would likely result in collapse of prices.
Even so, a few billion dollars of each commodity is likely possible to
market efficiently - providing an immediate payback of a few billion
dollars a year, enough to support the program in its early stages.
Williamknowsbest
http://www.rff.org/rff/rff_press/bookdetail.cfm?outputID=3199
http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=6658506
The use of metals worldwide is a function of the ability of humans to
use metals efficiently. The centrally planned economies and many of
the developming economies of the world have failed in their plans at
industrializing, and so the demand for metals has moderated. If a
limited nuclear conflict breaks out in Asia or the Indian Subcontinent,
demand could moderate there as well. One would be foolish to believe
such downturns in use are good things for humanity generally. Lack of
industrial progress outside North America and her cold war allies is
suggestive what is needed for industrial development to occur
generally.
An industrially mature world's energy use, where 7.5 billion people
consume metals at a per person rate equal to that of the per person
rate of consumption of an average american;
, aluminum, copper, lead, zinc, and nickel --
US: Aluminum 2.3 million tons (primary) --> World (@US level) =57.5
million tons (primary)
$6.0 billion --> $150.0 billion
http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/aluminum/alumimcs07.pdf
US Copper 1.2 million tons (primary) --> World (@US level) = 30.0
million tons (primary)
$8.6 billion --> $215.0 billion
http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/copper/coppemcs07.pdf
US Lead 0.135 million tons (primary) --> World (@US level) = 3.3
million tons (primary)
$0.7 billion --> $17.5 billion
http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/lead/lead_mcs07.pdf
US Zinc 0.120 million tons (primary metal) --> World (@USlevel) = 3.0
million tons (primary)
$2.3 bilion --> $57.5 billion
http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/zinc/zinc_mcs07.pdf
US Nickel 0.102 million tons (primary use) --> World (@US level) = 2.5
million tons (primary)
$3.5 billion --> $87.5 billion
http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/nickel/nickemcs07.pdf
Material gigadollar megaton tons/m3 mega m3 %Wt %Vol
Aluminum $150.00 57.5 2.7 21.3 59.7% 83.0%
Copper $215.00 30.0 8.9 3.4 31.2% 13.1%
Lead $17.50 3.3 11.3 0.3 3.4% 1.1%
Zinc $57.50 3.0 7.1 0.4 3.1% 1.6%
Nickel $87.50 2.5 8.9 0.3 2.6% 1.1%
$527.50 96.3 25.6
263,655.03 tons per day
70,216.64 cubic meters/day
3.75 avg tons/cubic meter
41.2 cube m on a side
I envision a structured intelligent ejection process being formed as
described earlier, and a stream of objects being formed moving in
controlled directions at defined speeds. The plasma stream sends
pulses of material to a point above the sun. The structured stream is
then formed into a number of metal cone shells near the solar surface
from a structured ejecta - as well as reforming the original hologon in
the original location after.
Each cone, thick at the center tapering to be thin at the rim, very
much like a badmitton birdie is aerodynamically stable when entering
the atmosphere. The cones are coated with ceramic aerogel or reduced
carbon compound and have ceramic insulators protecting the metal during
aerocapture at Earth. Each system has a RCS propulsive ring built
around trailing edge and sufficient propellant contained there to guide
the disk precisely to its desired touchdown point using existing GPS.
The cones are formed near the solar surface, and shot toward Earth with
precisely sufficient speed so as to be aerocaptured here and recovered
at a specific site in the US each day.
The solar plume created by the evolution of the bomb explosion
detonated near the sun originally, cycles continuously to provide the
needed materials at a rate demanded. The system should be capable with
clever engineering of receiving a coded radio signal from Earth to
adjust the production rate of shells as needed, or their location where
they are deposited on Earth.
Each shell with an average thickness of 10 cm of metal, consisting of
8.3 cm Al, 1.3 cm of Cu, 1.1 mm of Pb, 1.6 mm of Zn, and 1.1 mm of Ni
- each 2.8 m in diameter and with a height of 1.205 m - coated with a
cm on average of ceramic aerogel, or reduced carbon, would transport
3.05 tons of material to Earth. At a production rate of 1 per second,
ejected from the plume provides for all Earth's needs for primary
metals. Additoinal metals could be added to the mix, added behind the
cone's nose inside. Gold, platinum and other metal commodities could
be added here.
A 1 km square situated in the desert, would be populated each day,
depositing a disk every 3 meters or so, forming a square 294 disks on a
side. Each day production is shifted from one remote site to another
to allow convenient recovery by work crews from each site using special
tractors and trucks to haul them to a nearby refinery for processing
Production rates 1/25th this level would provide for ALL US needs - and
each square km receiving area would be populated in 25 days rather than
1 day. Although one might wish to stockpile a few areas at far higher
rates just to exercise the system, and then replenish at the rate
demanded by the market.
In this way, once the system were in place, a 5 year supply, at current
demand level might be stockpiled on a few dozen square km to build the
operation's credit rating - and then production to meet growing demand
to increase annual profits.from $20 billion to $520 billion could be
acquired.
Consdier the amount of gold contained in the sun and how much might be
returned to Earth using this technology.
http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=4670116
http://www.chemicool.com/elements/gold.html
Shows the relative solar abundance of gold -0.728 log
What does this mean?
The solar system abundances are relative to silicon. The actual number
given is
log[(# atoms of element/# atoms of silicon)x 1E6]
That is the relative number of atoms of the element in the solar system
compared to silicon is scaled by 1E6 and then the log is taken. The
relative abundance of silicon is then 6.
That is, the abundances are expressed in parts per million by mass and
then put onto a log scale.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun
Silicon is 0.07% by weight.
So, there are 0.187068214 gold atoms for every silicon atom in the sun.
Gold's Atomic weight is;196.97
Silicon's Atomic weight is 28.086
So, Gold consists of 9.1835E-10 parts of the sun's weight
And the sun weighs 1.988e30 kg - so, the total mass of Gold in the sun
is 1.83e+18 tonnes, and at 19.4 tonnes per cubic meter, that's a total
volume of 9.41e+16 cubic meters of gold.
So, using this technology to retrieve the gold from the sun would allow
us to plate the ENTIRE EARTH in gold 184.8 meters thick!!!
Other materials are of course, more abundant.
Clearly, if the details of this technology can be worked out, we could
provide for all our raw material needs from the sun and perhaps all our
material needs as well, if organic molecules can be reliably fabricated
in this way.
So, well before space colonies, or planets, or habitable shells are
created, very modest expansions of this technology could be of
significant value if it can be made to work at all.
Williamknowsbest
Plasma structures that create powerful beams of laser energy and
powerful beams of electrons should be able to work along the lines of
the experiment described in this URL and make large quantities of
anti-matter on demand. In fact very large particle accelerators
powered by reactions induced in the sun accelerated with magnetic
fields produced by circulating plasmas larger than the Earth, or
perhaps even spanning the sun, should allow us to engineer all manner
of interesting objects, including anti-matter and perhaps even black
hole dusts, which should open up some interesting technical
developments.
jsa...@ecn.ab.ca
> The surface gravity of the sun is 27.9 gees.
>
> An object held at a radius of 3.68 million km above the solar center
> would feel a 1.0 gee force directed toward the sun.
That is interesting.
> If it were possible to reduce the output of the sun to about 0.24% of
> its current output at peak, and make it a variable star with a 24 hour
> period,
But I think that is too ambitious.
Let us consider something more modest, which does not involve
re-engineering the Sun.
How about a sphere around the Sun with many openings, and which on the
bottom is coated with a reflective surface more than 99.76% effective?
Mirrors reflect a tiny fraction of the sunlight to reflect back on the
people living on the framework, held by the Sun's 1g gravity, and these
can easily be given a 24 hour cycle.
This is still an incredibly vast undertaking, for the far distant
future, but at least it doesn't involve re-engineering the Sun.
John Savard
jsa...@ecn.ab.ca
> I would engineer things so there are hot spots that radiate at the
> spectrum we have today! lol. Like filaments in light bulbs.
Well, maybe you could.
One thing that produces white light when heated to a temperature where
most things glow red is called a Welsbach mantle.
Maybe you could use depleted thorium, from the old thorium breeder
reactors that maintained civilization before fusion power was
developed.
John Savard
stefa...@yahoo.com
jsa...@ecn.ab.ca wrote:
> Williamknowsbest wrote:
> > I would engineer things so there are hot spots that radiate at the
> > spectrum we have today! lol. Like filaments in light bulbs.
>
> Well, maybe you could.
>
> One thing that produces white light when heated to a temperature where
> most things glow red is called a Welsbach mantle.
.> Maybe you could use depleted thorium, from the old thorium breeder
Any Thorium minerals contains 100% of 232Th. You can not enrich it and
have depleted byproduct (case with 235U/238U).
Williamknowsbest
jsa...@ecn.ab.ca wrote:
> Williamknowsbest wrote:
> > The surface gravity of the sun is 27.9 gees.
> >
> > An object held at a radius of 3.68 million km above the solar center
> > would feel a 1.0 gee force directed toward the sun.
>
> That is interesting.
>
> > If it were possible to reduce the output of the sun to about 0.24% of
> > its current output at peak, and make it a variable star with a 24 hour
> > period,
>
> But I think that is too ambitious.
Why? Why is building a shell around the sun less ambitious than
re-engineering the sun? The sun is the source of the materials I'm
using anyway, as well as the source of energy to process the materials
needed.
>
> Let us consider something more modest, which does not involve
> re-engineering the Sun.
Why? Why let the Sun burn away in 5.5 billion years when by reducing
its output as described its life can be extended to 16 trillion years.
> How about a sphere around the Sun with many openings, and which on the
> bottom is coated with a reflective surface more than 99.76% effective?
That might work.
> Mirrors reflect a tiny fraction of the sunlight to reflect back on the
> people living on the framework, held by the Sun's 1g gravity, and these
> can easily be given a 24 hour cycle.
Yes. I envision openings that account for 0.24% of the total surface
area with the output of the sun reduced.
> This is still an incredibly vast undertaking, for the far distant
> future, but at least it doesn't involve re-engineering the Sun.
Actually with self-replicating machine systems made of plasma/light
waves in the sun itself, it might be doable within my lifetime, which
is what is exciting to me.
Williamknowsbest
How is this better than reducing the output of the sun to very low
levels that is constant over very long periods of time say 16 trillion
years? Thorium has a very short life compared to the life of a red
dwarf star such as the divided sun in this scenario.
Pat Flannery
scottlo...@ixDOT.netcomARGH.com wrote:
> Yes, because the one thing that extremely tall buildings really need to
> have to become feasible is roadways built onto their sides and
> suspended between 'em, and thousands of car-mass objects zipping around
> 'em.
>
You know, this reminds me of when I was kid...and was told that if you
hold a spiral seashell up to your ear, you can hear the noise of the
waves breaking on the seashore that it came from.
Ever try that?
There really is an odd sound you hear.
But I seriously doubt that it's the sound of those waves hitting the shore.
But it is intriguing and mysterious.
What you are doing is holding William Mook up to your ear and trying to
make sense of the odd and mysterious things you are hearing.
It makes no sense whatsoever, but you keep finding yourself holding that
seashell up against your ear every few days just to hear the odd sound. :-)
Pat
lex...@ix.netcom.com
jsa...@ecn.ab.ca wrote:
> This is still an incredibly vast undertaking, for the far distant
> future, but at least it doesn't involve re-engineering the Sun.
The biggest problem with imagining far-future giga-engineering projects
is that far too often they seem to require a utopian fascism that
completely controls all sentient life. By the time mankind figures out
how to dial down the sun so that it'll last ten trillion years, we'll
also have figured out how to make the thing blow up on command. War
will make many of these projects moot.
Williamknowsbest
'intelligent' explosion in the solar corona that can then amplify
though in-situ fusion. That way, it isn't needed to carry atom bombs
across the solar system - just a few hundred kg of appropriate
chemicals that are then blown through a lasing cavity, and structured
with a synthetic hologram, after being flashed to very short time
periods, very short wavelengths and very high power levels
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_laser
http://www.bnl.gov/ATF/core_capabilities/twlaser.asp
http://lfw.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Article_ID=134104&CFID=279623&CFTOKEN=70679134
This ought to make getting permits to do the experiments and launch the
vehicle easier to obtain.
Ground experiments will preceed flight experiments obviously.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast28apr_1m.htm
http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=194882
http://www.ece.msstate.edu/~jwbruce/pubs/isvlsi02.pdf
Gates are made with transistor like switching elements that turn on and
off in response to inputs. A transistor has a potential applied
between a source and a base, and a third voltage is applied at the
gate. When the gate achieves a particular voltage, current flows
between gate and base. Typically, the transistor has a hysteresis
effect. Once on the transistor tends to stay on. When off it tends to
stay off. This makes them useful for memory elements.
transistors are built out of crystalline material that is doped to have
specific electronic properties and then aluminum conductive patterns
are applied to the patterned crystals to apply and drain currents.
Current is then applied to carry out desired operaiions..
Gates can be made with beams of light just as easily as they can be
made with wires and transistors.
A beam of light can pass through a plate of nonlinear glass. If the
thickness of the glass is an integer number of wavelengths, the beam is
reflected. If the thickness of the glass is a half-integer number of
wavelengths, the beam is transmitted. This is clearly similar to the
source/base current or lack of current. The addition of another light
beam in that region of the glass can have its refractive index changed
- changing the number of wavelengths thick it is - causing it to either
reflect or transmit the first beam.
This is equivalent to the transistor function just described. Here,
plates of nonlinear glass is sandwiched between two holograms. Light
is applied, the hologram structures the light,which then carries on the
desired operations.
A nonlinear medium cna act both as a hologram, and as a phase plate
sort of switch, depending on how the light beams are interacting in the
medium.
A hot plasma is a nonlinear optical medium that changes its refractive
index in response to light intensity.
An intensely hot plasma of dense hydrogen gas can generate light as it
releases fusion energy, reversing disappation effects.
So, it may be possible to project a structured light beam into such a
plasma and cause it to carry out logical and other operations.
Since it has potential to release more energy than came into the
system, it has the potential to be self-propagating logical system.
Light 'tweezers' have been built to capture and sort atoms with light.
So, it may be possible to move atoms and sort atoms with structured
selfpropagating light beams.
In short, by tapping the sun in the right way, with a powerful
structured light pulse, it may be possible to initiate a process in the
plasma body of the sun that carrys out logical and even physical
processes, and those processes are capable of carrying out
sophisticated programs and self-propagates and reproduce their
structure and operation.
One useful function would be to cause an ejection plume to form of
selected materials - using Fick's law to pick up and move atoms of
specific speies -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ficks_law_of_diffusion
Basically by heating them preferentially with light tuned to interact
with that chemical species and no other.
Ejected material can impart motion to the sun, causing shockwaves to
form, and even the sun to spin - leading ultimately to its controlled
break up into smaller bodies, reducing its power output. Two bodies,
then four bodies then eight bodies - cutting each of the resulting
bodies in half each time.
The ejected material is structured and interacts with structured
materials floating above the sun at specific locaales, held there by
light pressure and particle flows. Even if ejected at 6% the speed of
light, material can be slowed and even stopped with the release of
additional energy through fusion at a point in the stream. A small
amount of helium can be accelerated radially from the sun, and cause
another material to be slowed.
Hot plasmas cool rapidly. They may be cooled even more rapidly and
structured besides, by structuring photons that adjust the movement of
each atom individually - to reduce the energy of the all the atoms -
relative to one another. This active cooling process is sort of like
the anti-sound process for reducing noise. By knowing the nature of
the noise in detail, it is possible to generate a counter noise to
deaden it. Something similar here, though a different physical
process. The ramdom motions of each atom in a plasma is reduced by
scattering photons off the electrons and nucleii in such a way as to
reduce their random energy- creating a cool structured, and even fast
moving object.
Heat and entropy laws are obeyed, the resulting alpha particles are far
hotter and more randomly organized than those atoms they scatter from
leaaving them cooled and structured. It is only the application of
fusion energy possible within the sun that makes this possible at all.
Williamknowsbest
I envision this being done by an individual in their lifetime, not all
of humanity for aeons.
The amazing thing as I think about this is that this project might be
capable of just that.
All that's needed is a chemical laser, intelilgently designed, and
dropped into the sun with a structured fabric floating in the sunlight
above. Something on the scale of say a latter day clementine mission.
Before flight articles are built, lots of work would have been done in
the lab with plasma optics and so forth - but, it won't take organizing
anything more than a team of a few dozen researchers, along with some
really good modelling software - maybe the sort of software that won't
be available for another decade or so.
The interesting thing about this possibility is what happens after the
research team is successful? What rights do they have over their
creation?
Success along the lines I envision totally outclasses anything else
humanity could do prior to success. And very quickly too. The ability
to eject from the sun in a controlled way, planetary system sized
masses of raw material and shape and form them into operating finished
products by scattering structured photons off them - is just
mind-boggling.
So I'm was thinking about the history of rights of individuals over
their fellows.
Long time ago we had Right of Conquest. The right of conquest is the
purported right of a conqueror to territory taken by force of arms. It
was sometimes considered a principle of international law from the 16th
to the early 20th centuries. Conquest proved great military strength,
and defence was considered one of the most important elements required
of a king (see Lord Protector). Someone appealing to the right of
conquest was most likely planning on standing as regent, rather than
just robbing a land of its riches (like the Vandals and Mongols are
regarded as having done).
Later there was the Right of Discovery. England's bid for territorial
expansion under the leadership of King Henry VII, and the charter
granted by Henry to John Cabot ''to subdue and take possession of any
lands unoccupied by any Christian power, in the name of and for the
benefit of the crown.'' Here the belief was that Christian powers were
superior to all others and everyone benefited thereby.
Today we recognize the Right of Patent. If someone creates or
discovers a process - they have something they have rights to use it to
make money and attain power. This proposed technology provides power
and wealth on a scale unprecedented in human history. Partly beause it
derives from power sources and material resources beyond terrestrial
experience. But here again, there is a presumption that if one creates
or discovers a technique of great value, they have rights to it for a
limited period, providing they teach the process to others publicly.
The time scale with which the process operates is small compared to the
term of patent and will provide a huge advantage to anyone using this
technology in its mature form - assuming it can be fully realized.
Someone may also elect to keep secrets and use a process and not
disclose it. Like coca-cola's famous formula. There are also
copyrights, programs can be protected in this way - for long periods of
time. - longer than patents.
Also emerging is what I would call Right of Mercy. If someone in a
superior position wants to give someone something, especially in the
guise of helping the other person (irrespective of whehter they're
truly helped) one generally has the right to do that. This also gives
power to those who are more fortunate over those who are less fortunate
especially if the fortunate ones have lots and lots to give.
Assuming that processes are developed, and patented, or sucessfully
kept secret, that permits the control of the bulk of the sun's
resources, apart from the legitimate third party effects one may have
to answer for - such as maintaining sunlight and the environment of
Earth generally what it is today - one could quite conceivably rise to
a level of power and wealth on this world unprecedented in human
history.
One who achieves this might rightly claim to stand regent to the whole
planet, since every aspect of human activity would be impacted by the
success of this technology. The entire earth could be wiped out -
literally - not just surface damage due to a few thousand nukes - in an
afternoon.
One who might divide the sun into 8 pieces and establish a shell around
the resulting rosette,and establish an fully functioning ecology on its
surface during its construction - and the construction process,
including ecological elements, would take only hours in this scenario -
they would have rights, and some liberal minded folks would say an
obligation - to share a portion of their holdings with the remainder of
humanity. Of course the owners of the shell, could establish any
condition they cared to in order to let others gain access to it. So,
this gives them huge power going forward once the device is built.
One may elect to keep such a construction for themselves and for use of
themselves only. But such would not go unnoticed by the bulk of
humanity on Earth. What humanity could do about it, especially if the
process was developed largely scretly, is a question. Humanity
assuring itself that the individual had no ill will toward Earth and
getting them to share a portion of the asset s/he created would become
the central activity of humanity.
That is, a person who created this shell in the way I envision would
have power over all of humanity, no matter how uninterested s/he was in
the matter.Earth would demand the person that controlled this
technology would be the Lord Protector of Earth and stand in regent ot
the rest of humanity - to put it in more ancient terms.
Sylvia Else
Anything capable of splitting a star into convenient bite sized portions
would be capable of doing other things to it.
I wonder whether I'm the only one here who feels that the development of
this technology should be done using a different star - preferable one a
good few tens of light years away.
Sylvia.
Williamknowsbest
I agree that before we divide the star up into bite sized chunks,I
think another star should be tested first. Alpha Centauri A and B are
very good for this. Alpha Centauri C is even there to start So, I
agree with you 100%
I think 4 light years is convenient to get to, and its far enough away!
Before that hapens though, we could to simple experiments. First would
be terrestrial based, using structured plasmas. Second would be small
experiments on the sun - NOT directed toward dividing it. But merely
to get the details worked out. But the more I think about it, the more
it seems we don't need vast arrays of conventional machine systems or
asteroidal mining or large fleets of spaceships to even begin thinking
about processing the sun in a serious way. All we need do is trop the
first 'seed' in the sun. And then, just like ancient humans tended
their first fire, we'll tend this first 'explosion' and use it to meet
our needs for metals, and use it to supply raw materials and energy for
interplanetary and interstellar travel.
Just as today we can build complex machinery and even worlds in
cyberspace, here we will have created a computing platform that has
relatively unlimited capacities to make real whatever we can program
into it. 3D structures in plasma on the scale of UV light - say 100 nm
on a side, means .10^15 bits can be stored per cubic meter - in about a
kg of plasma - with processing speeds limited by the phase change time
of each of the elements and the light crossing time of the plasma -
very fast and capable computing platform.
Unlike conventional wire and electron and crystal platforms however,
this one operates more dynamically and flexibly, but its still digital
in nature, on/off, so its potentially very realiable.
Now, there is a problem in computer theory called the halting problem.
You can't tell when a computer program, once started, will halt. But I
don't think the reverse is true. That is, I think you can reliably
stop any computer program by deisgning it so. Early experiments on the
sun itself, will certainly have whatever limits seem reasonable placed
upon them. Limiting the speed of the ejecta to 0.1% light speed or
less would certainly limit our ability to tear the sun apart into
pretty rosettes.
There is a need to test the productive capacities of this technology on
the sun itself before we can design something that will work in
alpha-centauri. There is a need to have the productive capacities
possible with this technology available to even seriously consider
travelling to alpha centauri. And there is a desire to have any
technical investment pay for itself quickly. Providing Earth's
population with a steady stream of strategic materials achieves this.
NONE of this is calling for the break up of the sun, or changing any of
its essential character. But for scientific, practical, and economic
reasons - if this technology can be made to work as envisioned - I
think some work will be done on the sun before we run off and start
tearing nearby stars apart.
I would also even add another remote possibility - figuring out how to
use this technology to explore INSIDE the side. Having one fusion
powered data stream send daughter data streams through the sun and
having them return and report what they found might be a very
interesting way to map the sun's interior.QUESTION: If its possible to
structure complex computing platforms in nearly fusing plasmas in the
manner described, could it also be possible that living processes have
evolved INSIDE the sun using the same sort of physical processes? If
such natural living system should exist, perhaps we could gain their
cooperation? I'm thinking about a sci-fi book. Wherein our hero goes
and terraforms the sun, and then when doing so,discovers life, and that
that life is intelligent and thwarts some of his actvities. Finally he
communicates with the life forms and gains their cooperation. It turns
out the life on Earth was seeded by these creatures when the noted the
planets forming around their home, and knowing that the sun would last
only 10 billion years or so, established terrestrial life there in an
effort solve this problem. Or something like this. Sort of the Horta
revisted or something! lol.
But have no fear Sylvia, no experiments will be done on the sun,
without first proving all the particulars in a terrestrial lab in a
bottle of plasma, and no experiment will be done on sun to change its
essential nature until after such experiments are done light years
away. Should this technology work as hoped it will certainly be used
to help earn its keep, and to support early stage interplanetary and
interstellar travel, which can be done without changing the nature of
the sun at all.
As I mentioned, there is plenty of material in the sun by current human
standards. Enough gold for example to cover the entire Earth in 600ft
of the stuff. Human needs -if we elected to return to the gold
standard would be $250 billion if used as bullion, and $1,500 billion
if used as circulating coins - to support a $60,000 billion a year
economy. At current prices that's $40 million per ton, or $800 million
per cubic meter - 312,500 cubic meters of the stuff - a cube about 20'
on a side for gold backd bullion . A cube 60 feet on a side if used in
circulating gold coins by everyone on the planet! This is far less
than plating the entire Earth! to meet any concievable need.
Retrieving this amount of material would not affect the sun at all And
similar analysis shows that signficant use of resources by terrestrial
standards today would have similarly negligable impact. .
It likely will not always stay that way, but well before we break the
sun into pieeces we'll have done it a few times successfully elsewhere
and a few billion times in our super computers.
lol.
William Mook
dogs...@eudoramail.com
Williamknowsbest wrote:
> Actually with self-replicating machine systems made of plasma/light
> create an inside-out mini dyson-sphere] might be doable within my lifetime, which is what is exciting
> to me.
Woah! How long are you planning to live, exactly?
Williamknowsbest
As long as possible! lol. But consider what I'm proposing. Self
replicating patterns of plasma. This plasma is dense hydrogen rich
plasma at extreme temperatures. Its highly non-linear in that light
intensity markedly changes its refractive index. So, complex patterns
of light can be made to carry out sophisticated logical operations like
store information and run programs.
Since light can sort and move atoms around, its possible this process
can build things as well. Pulling material out of the plasma medium
itself.
Electronic computers consist of transistors made of silicon patterned
with atoms to give the silicon specific electrical properties, and then
patterns of aluminum are deposited on this silicon to deliver electrons
to the silicon in controlled ways to carry out logical operations and
store data.
Optical computers consist of a phase changing class patterned with
holograms to give the glass specific optical properties, and then
patterns of fixed holograms are sandwidched to the glass to deliver
light to the glass in controlled ways to carry out logical operations
and store data.
A typical system consists of a laser light source, a hologram, a
non-linear glass, and a mirror. The laser provides controlled photons
just as a power supply contains controlled electrons. Imposing
patterns of light on the hologram encodes information, reading patterns
of light coming back gives the result.
The reflected light provides feedback which changes the glass state,
which changes the reflection.. cycling very rapidly.
One of the processes that make this potentially intresting is that
intense light in dense hydrogen rich plasma also has the capacity to
detonate the plasma generating more intense light in the process. So,
self-propagating systems can be imagined.
Imagine a cubic meter of structured plasma holographically processes
10^18 bits of information in a nanosecond or 3 that's 10^26 operations
per second. Ok... that's when the first light wave went through it.
Now what? Well, if the light energy that passed through the device, is
focused to a point in such a way as to detonate a small particle of
hydrogen into a fusion explosion, another powerful pulse of light
travels back toward the cubic meter of plasma continuing the process.
Clearly, once established, a system can cycle back and forth - carrying
out any number of operations, provided sufficient fuel were available
in the plasma.
Refractive index can favor one side - this causes the light wave front
to turn to one side, closing on itself, like a snake eating its tail,
forming a large donut shaped computing structure. By changing
refractive index across each computing plane in controlled ways, the
donut can move at will in any direction through the plasma. Periodic
detonations in a ring exterior to the computing ring can provide
continuing power for the device.
Such devices may be hundreds of meters in extent, contain 10^24 bits of
information and process it at 10^33 bits per second.
How can plasma computing platforms affect the plasma in other ways?
Well, a fusion blastlet provides a broad spectrum of color. Selecting
lights of specific colors holographically from this large spectrum,
allows the preferential heating of materials which cause them to
diffuse differently than other materials by changing their partial
pressure.
How can stuff be built? Well, there are things called optical tweezers
and optical molasses. Proving that light can be structured to move
atoms around, and even cause groups of atoms to slow relative to one
another, lowering their temperature. A process called stochastic
cooling involves measuring the precise condition of atoms in a region,
and then bouncing photons off of each of them so that they cool into a
structured solid.
Imagine you have two hydrogen ions and one oxygen ion and 4 electrons.
You fire them in a specific pattern at a high rate of speed. At a
remote location you shine a light on the collection to measure their
postion. You then fire a photon or two at each particle to change its
energy state relative to the other particles so you cause the electrons
to bond to the ions and the atoms to form water - maybe even ice. Of
course nothing is done for free. The scattered photons are more messed
up than ever, but you do have a nice particle of ice where you just has
a plasma streambefore. Careful control of the scattering would also
give a net motoin to the ice particle that was formed - which you
control.
So, the idea is, you go to the sun and shine a very powerful laser at a
section of the sun so that a structured plasma is formed - sufficient
to create a sophisticated computing platform. that computing system
grows and moves through the sun, collecting desired atoms, and putting
them into specfici structures.
These structures are ejected from the sun in a structured stream -
which has the desired materials, along with the means to stochastically
cool them - with structured blasts of fusion energy - moderated through
plasma structures.
That stream at some point stochastically cools the desired materials to
form specific objects at specific locations along the beam, moving at
specific speeds and directions
To break up the entire sun, I first project a self-replicating pattern
into the sun's body. THat pattern grows according to the program
contained in it. It may be modified by laser beam or even radio
signals It may produced modulated laser beams and radio signals to
communicate with others.
The pattern replicates spreading daughters throughout the sun. They
create a network of interacting devices, capable of communicatoion
including selection and transfer or speific atoms removed from the body
of the sun.
Desired ions are placed into a relative structure and ejeted from the
solar surface, forming a structured beam of particles rising from the
sun.
That structure interacts with a structured body floating above the sun,
which causes the beam to interact with itself and leave a portion of
its behind - which can recreate the structured body, and even expand it
- among other things.
So, you drop a bomb that delivers a laser pulse to the sun, leaving
behind a small film of material spread out supported by solar light
pressure. After a few hours following the initial bomb blast,a
structured spray erupts from the sun above the point of entry. The
spray strikes the film causing a reaction, and alpha particles spray in
all directions, but the film is actually growing - along with the beam
width. After a few hours of exponential growth, the entire sun has
erupted in flows and the sun has a film surrounding it. The film
thickens and the ejection events are tilted from a radial direction to
a tangential direction - and flow speeds increase to 6% light speed.
The sun begins to spin faster. The flows modulate, creating standing
waves across the solar surface. The sun splits into two smaller stars.
The process continues, the sub stars themselves start to spin, and
they break apart - leaving four stars. These continues, leaving eight -
orbiting within the sphere.
This all ocurs within a few days of the first structured flash.
scottlowtherATixDOTnetcomDOTcom
Williamknowsbest wrote:
> scottlo...@ixDOT.netcomARGH.com wrote:
> > jsa...@ecn.ab.ca wrote:
> >
> > > This is still an incredibly vast undertaking, for the far distant
> > > future, but at least it doesn't involve re-engineering the Sun.
> >
> >
> > The biggest problem with imagining far-future giga-engineering projects
> > is that far too often they seem to require a utopian fascism that
> > completely controls all sentient life. By the time mankind figures out
> > how to dial down the sun so that it'll last ten trillion years, we'll
> > also have figured out how to make the thing blow up on command. War
> > will make many of these projects moot.
>
> I envision this being done by an individual in their lifetime, not all
> of humanity for aeons.
What, blowing up the sun? That's one of those "you only get to do it
once" things.
>
> The amazing thing as I think about this is that this project might be
> capable of just that.
>
> All that's needed is a chemical laser, intelilgently designed, and
> dropped into the sun with a structured fabric floating in the sunlight
> above. Something on the scale of say a latter day clementine mission.
Sure. Why not.
> What rights do they have over their creation?
"In the Necromonger faith, you keep what you kill."
> Success along the lines I envision totally outclasses anything else
> humanity could do prior to success. And very quickly too. The ability
> to eject from the sun in a controlled way, planetary system sized
> masses of raw material and shape and form them into operating finished
> products by scattering structured photons off them - is just
> mind-boggling.
Indeed. And imagine the fun one could have hacking into the control
computers and making the system go nova rather than just calving off
calmly.
> Long time ago we had Right of Conquest. The right of conquest is the
> purported right of a conqueror to territory taken by force of arms.
We still have that right.
> Today we recognize the Right of Patent. If someone creates or
> discovers a process - they have something they have rights to use it to
> make money and attain power.
Until the Democrats gain full power. Then "make money" will be banned
as being antisocial and against the Public Good.Then the Equalization
of Opportunity Bill will be passed.
> That is, a person who created this shell in the way I envision would
> have power over all of humanity, no matter how uninterested s/he was in
> the matter.Earth would demand the person that controlled this
> technology would be the Lord Protector of Earth and stand in regent ot
> the rest of humanity - to put it in more ancient terms.
Amazing lack of understanding of human nature, you're displaying. If
someone unveils the power to destroy the world, or build vast new ones,
the demand won't be that this someone become a benevolent dictator. It
will be that he turn over that power to some Respected Authority. The
UN or some such. Alternatively, that he should "turn the power over to
*me.*" Or that the power should be abandoned entirely.
Williamknowsbest
scottlowtherATixDOTnetcomDOTcom wrote:
> Williamknowsbest wrote:
> > scottlo...@ixDOT.netcomARGH.com wrote:
> > > jsa...@ecn.ab.ca wrote:
> > >
> > > > This is still an incredibly vast undertaking, for the far distant
> > > > future, but at least it doesn't involve re-engineering the Sun.
> > >
> > >
> > > The biggest problem with imagining far-future giga-engineering projects
> > > is that far too often they seem to require a utopian fascism that
> > > completely controls all sentient life. By the time mankind figures out
> > > how to dial down the sun so that it'll last ten trillion years, we'll
> > > also have figured out how to make the thing blow up on command. War
> > > will make many of these projects moot.
> >
> > I envision this being done by an individual in their lifetime, not all
> > of humanity for aeons.
>
> What, blowing up the sun? That's one of those "you only get to do it
> once" things.
Still, as with anything, it can be approached step-wise. One can model
what one does certainly. Then, one can do laboratory experiments.
Then, one can do small experiments in the solar environment. Then,
progress to larger experiments. By the time you're ready to divide the
sun into smaller parts, you've got a background of experience. One
might even include experimenting with Alpha Centaur A and B.
>
> >
> > The amazing thing as I think about this is that this project might be
> > capable of just that.
> >
> > All that's needed is a chemical laser, intelilgently designed, and
> > dropped into the sun with a structured fabric floating in the sunlight
> > above. Something on the scale of say a latter day clementine mission.
>
> Sure. Why not.
Yes, the more one looks at the solar environment the clearer the
approach to use becomes.
> > What rights do they have over their creation?
>
> "In the Necromonger faith, you keep what you kill."
>
But we're not killing anything here, we're making stuff.
>
> > Success along the lines I envision totally outclasses anything else
> > humanity could do prior to success. And very quickly too. The ability
> > to eject from the sun in a controlled way, planetary system sized
> > masses of raw material and shape and form them into operating finished
> > products by scattering structured photons off them - is just
> > mind-boggling.
>
> Indeed. And imagine the fun one could have hacking into the control
> computers and making the system go nova rather than just calving off
> calmly.
Who would do that and what would be their motivation? Especially since
the perps would get killed in the process.
> > Long time ago we had Right of Conquest. The right of conquest is the
> > purported right of a conqueror to territory taken by force of arms.
>
> We still have that right.
I figured you'd say that.
> > Today we recognize the Right of Patent. If someone creates or
> > discovers a process - they have something they have rights to use it to
> > make money and attain power.
>
> Until the Democrats gain full power. Then "make money" will be banned
> as being antisocial and against the Public Good.Then the Equalization
> of Opportunity Bill will be passed.
You don't know many conservative democrats do you? Used to be called
Dixie-crats in the days before Clinton. lol. Wealth is created by
human activity. Not ALL human activity creates wealth however.
Motivating people to engage in creative behaviors is the goal of any
productive society. We forget these truths at our peril.
> > That is, a person who created this shell in the way I envision would
> > have power over all of humanity, no matter how uninterested s/he was in
> > the matter.Earth would demand the person that controlled this
> > technology would be the Lord Protector of Earth and stand in regent ot
> > the rest of humanity - to put it in more ancient terms.
>
>
> Amazing lack of understanding of human nature, you're displaying.
Er, it wouldn't be the first time.
> If
> someone unveils the power to destroy the world, or build vast new ones,
> the demand won't be that this someone become a benevolent dictator. It
> will be that he turn over that power to some Respected Authority.
Two points - the Respected Authority doesn't understand the process and
could very well in their ignorance bring about the demise of humanity,
and more importantly the demise of those who created the process.
Also, people would generally respect those who created the process and
understand they're the authority regarding it. So, I would think one
would have to mis-step pretty badly lose that initial good-will.
> The
> UN or some such.
Hmm.. I'm trying to vissualize this. After working for over a decade
in obscurity, an affable, aging, Bonoesque scientist and his team of
loveable misfits gets an intelligent process working on the sun,
capable of doing all I say. People have a hard time understanding that
the tiny ill defined jet of material flrowing from the sun is larger
than the Earth. Not much is said publicly, and not a whole lot of
interest in the press conference. A press conference is held as the
first metal aeroshell falls to Earth, and the team announces a joint
deal with Alcoa, BHP Billiton, Phelps Dodge that will transform the
industrial economies of Earth generate untold jobs, new wealth, and
create the conditions that will create vast new markets for industrial
metals.
Now, what would motivate there to be a call to take control of this
obscure footnote and remove it from private control? Nothing.
> Alternatively, that he should "turn the power over to
> *me.*" Or that the power should be abandoned entirely.
Who is best suited to control a thing? Someone who creates that thing
and uses it productively, or someone who knows nothing about it and
knows nothing of its value? Hmm...
scottlowtherATixDOTnetcomDOTcom
Williamknowsbest wrote:
> scottlowtherATixDOTnetcomDOTcom wrote:
> > Williamknowsbest wrote:
> > > scottlo...@ixDOT.netcomARGH.com wrote:
> > > > jsa...@ecn.ab.ca wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > This is still an incredibly vast undertaking, for the far distant
> > > > > future, but at least it doesn't involve re-engineering the Sun.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The biggest problem with imagining far-future giga-engineering projects
> > > > is that far too often they seem to require a utopian fascism that
> > > > completely controls all sentient life. By the time mankind figures out
> > > > how to dial down the sun so that it'll last ten trillion years, we'll
> > > > also have figured out how to make the thing blow up on command. War
> > > > will make many of these projects moot.
> > >
> > > I envision this being done by an individual in their lifetime, not all
> > > of humanity for aeons.
> >
> > What, blowing up the sun? That's one of those "you only get to do it
> > once" things.
>
> Still, as with anything, it can be approached step-wise. One can model
> what one does certainly. Then, one can do laboratory experiments.
> Then, one can do small experiments in the solar environment. Then,
> progress to larger experiments. By the time you're ready to divide the
> sun into smaller parts, you've got a background of experience.
Such as the cinder that used to be the sun and the smokign ruins of the
former solar system, after the disasterous Solar Subdivision
Mini-Experiment of 2412, where Hillary's Holy Martyr Brigade invaded
the test facility with a quantum computer virus and caused things to
run a little funny.
> > > The amazing thing as I think about this is that this project might be
> > > capable of just that.
> > >
> > > All that's needed is a chemical laser, intelilgently designed, and
> > > dropped into the sun with a structured fabric floating in the sunlight
> > > above. Something on the scale of say a latter day clementine mission.
> >
> > Sure. Why not.
>
> Yes, the more one looks at the solar environment the clearer the
> approach to use becomes.
Indeed! Leave suns far behind before people gain the ability to blwo
them straight to hell. Those inhabitting the Oort cloud might survive.
>
> > > What rights do they have over their creation?
> >
> > "In the Necromonger faith, you keep what you kill."
> >
>
> But we're not killing anything here, we're making stuff.
Uh-huh. What technology has man created that we *haven't* used for war,
or at least weaponized? The ability to destroy the sun will become
available well before the abuility to neatly slice it up into dwarfs,
just as the ability to blow things to smithereens with the H-bomb came
along well before nuclear fusion rockets.
> > > Success along the lines I envision totally outclasses anything else
> > > humanity could do prior to success. And very quickly too. The ability
> > > to eject from the sun in a controlled way, planetary system sized
> > > masses of raw material and shape and form them into operating finished
> > > products by scattering structured photons off them - is just
> > > mind-boggling.
> >
> > Indeed. And imagine the fun one could have hacking into the control
> > computers and making the system go nova rather than just calving off
> > calmly.
>
> Who would do that and what would be their motivation? Especially since
> the perps would get killed in the process.
Ever hear of a suicide bomber?
For fuck's sake, Bill. Take things to a ridiculous extreme: imagine
giving a package to every human on Earth today. Inside the package was
a vial of "Instant Extinction" brand super-Ebola, genetically modified
to wipe out humanity. Also included in the package was *very* clearly
written and recorded verbal instructions: you push the red button, the
virus is released. You push the green button, the virus is incinerated
and a hundred-dollar bill pops out. Do you honestly believe that
*nobody* would push the red button?
Humanity is *not* populated exclusively by what modern Western culture
woudl consider to be enlightened, sane people who care for all of
humanity. There are a *lot* of peopel who think that humans are a
blight (ever hear of the "Human extinction Movement?"), or that an
apocolypse would help bring the Second Coming of Jesus or the Hidden
Imam or Big Bird or whatever. And there is more than a share of people
who are just plain evil or nuts.
>
> > > Long time ago we had Right of Conquest. The right of conquest is the
> > > purported right of a conqueror to territory taken by force of arms.
> >
> > We still have that right.
>
> I figured you'd say that.
Because it's correct. The land you're living on: was it taken from some
group of Injuns a century or three back? Are you going to return it?
Are the Anglo-Saxons of England going to give the land back to the
Celts? Are the Israelies going to just roll over and let the Arabs wipe
them out for their land?
"Ownership" is defined as "that which I can keep someone else from
taking."
>
> > > Today we recognize the Right of Patent. If someone creates or
> > > discovers a process - they have something they have rights to use it to
> > > make money and attain power.
> >
> > Until the Democrats gain full power. Then "make money" will be banned
> > as being antisocial and against the Public Good.Then the Equalization
> > of Opportunity Bill will be passed.
>
> You don't know many conservative democrats do you?
Not who actually gain positions of power in the Dem party, no.
> > If
> > someone unveils the power to destroy the world, or build vast new ones,
> > the demand won't be that this someone become a benevolent dictator. It
> > will be that he turn over that power to some Respected Authority.
>
> Two points - the Respected Authority doesn't understand the process and
> could very well in their ignorance bring about the demise of humanity,
> and more importantly the demise of those who created the process.
Yes, and? That's hardly stopped mobs from makign such demands before.
or even today. A lot of peopel actually want to turn a lot of power
over to the UN, *despite* the fact that it's run by incompetant
criminals.
> Also, people would generally respect those who created the process and
> understand they're the authority regarding it.
You've GOT to be fucking kidding me.
> Hmm.. I'm trying to vissualize this. After working for over a decade
> in obscurity, an affable, aging, Bonoesque scientist and his team of
> loveable misfits gets an intelligent process working on the sun,
> capable of doing all I say. People have a hard time understanding that
> the tiny ill defined jet of material flrowing from the sun is larger
> than the Earth. Not much is said publicly, and not a whole lot of
> interest in the press conference. A press conference is held as the
> first metal aeroshell falls to Earth, and the team announces a joint
> deal with Alcoa, BHP Billiton, Phelps Dodge that will transform the
> industrial economies of Earth generate untold jobs, new wealth, and
> create the conditions that will create vast new markets for industrial
> metals.
>
> Now, what would motivate there to be a call to take control of this
> obscure footnote and remove it from private control? Nothing.
Ever hear of "fear," Bill? How about "greed?" "Ignorance?"
"Holy shit, they're fucking with the sun" will be one hell of a
motivator.
Christ unmighty, have you never heard of "eminant domain?"
> > Alternatively, that he should "turn the power over to
> > *me.*" Or that the power should be abandoned entirely.
>
> Who is best suited to control a thing? Someone who creates that thing
> and uses it productively, or someone who knows nothing about it and
> knows nothing of its value? Hmm...
When has that ever stopped anyone demanding that power be turned over
to someone else? Consider if I built an actual, honest-to-Odin nuclear
bomb in my back yard. Do you think that the universal consensus would
be that, since I developed it, it shoudl remain under my control?
Williamknowsbest
It is better for a King to be feared than loved, don't you think?
> > > > The amazing thing as I think about this is that this project might be
> > > > capable of just that.
> > > >
> > > > All that's needed is a chemical laser, intelilgently designed, and
> > > > dropped into the sun with a structured fabric floating in the sunlight
> > > > above. Something on the scale of say a latter day clementine mission.
> > >
> > > Sure. Why not.
> >
> > Yes, the more one looks at the solar environment the clearer the
> > approach to use becomes.
>
> Indeed! Leave suns far behind before people gain the ability to blwo
> them straight to hell. Those inhabitting the Oort cloud might survive.
Depends on the details, and we don't know the details yet.
> > > > What rights do they have over their creation?
> > >
> > > "In the Necromonger faith, you keep what you kill."
> > >
> >
> > But we're not killing anything here, we're making stuff.
>
> Uh-huh. What technology has man created that we *haven't* used for war,
> or at least weaponized?
Cotton gin? Bridge building? Athletic shoe design? Just to name
three that come to mine.
> The ability to destroy the sun will become
> available well before the abuility to neatly slice it up into dwarfs,
> just as the ability to blow things to smithereens with the H-bomb came
> along well before nuclear fusion rockets.
Depends on the details, and we don't know those details yet.
Just as the ability to calculate with with beads and wires preceded the
ability to calculate with gears which preceded the ability to calculate
with electronic circuits. ... the order of difficulty of things
depends on the engineering details and the history of creation and
discovery. You are making judgements that are unwarranted given the
lack of detailed knowledge we have at present..
> > > > Success along the lines I envision totally outclasses anything else
> > > > humanity could do prior to success. And very quickly too. The ability
> > > > to eject from the sun in a controlled way, planetary system sized
> > > > masses of raw material and shape and form them into operating finished
> > > > products by scattering structured photons off them - is just
> > > > mind-boggling.
> > >
> > > Indeed. And imagine the fun one could have hacking into the control
> > > computers and making the system go nova rather than just calving off
> > > calmly.
> >
> > Who would do that and what would be their motivation? Especially since
> > the perps would get killed in the process.
>
> Ever hear of a suicide bomber?
Yes. This is germaine how?
> For fuck's sake, Bill. Take things to a ridiculous extreme: imagine
> giving a package to every human on Earth today. Inside the package was
> a vial of "Instant Extinction" brand super-Ebola, genetically modified
> to wipe out humanity. Also included in the package was *very* clearly
> written and recorded verbal instructions: you push the red button, the
> virus is released. You push the green button, the virus is incinerated
> and a hundred-dollar bill pops out. Do you honestly believe that
> *nobody* would push the red button?
Inappropriate comparison. - give the box to 10 top leaders who took
the threat seriously and and you would have a more realistic response.
> Humanity is *not* populated exclusively by what modern Western culture
> woudl consider to be enlightened, sane people who care for all of
> humanity. There are a *lot* of peopel who think that humans are a
> blight (ever hear of the "Human extinction Movement?"),
No.
> or that an
> apocolypse would help bring the Second Coming of Jesus or the Hidden
> Imam or Big Bird or whatever. And there is more than a share of people
> who are just plain evil or nuts.
True. There are causes for that and those will be addressed as we
advance as a species.
> > > > Long time ago we had Right of Conquest. The right of conquest is the
> > > > purported right of a conqueror to territory taken by force of arms.
> > >
> > > We still have that right.
> >
> > I figured you'd say that.
>
> Because it's correct.
I figured you'd say that too.
> The land you're living on: was it taken from some
> group of Injuns a century or three back?
Yes.
> Are you going to return it?
No plans for it no.
> Are the Anglo-Saxons of England going to give the land back to the
> Celts?
Not unless they ask for it like the mean it.
> Are the Israelies going to just roll over and let the Arabs wipe
> them out for their land?
>
> "Ownership" is defined as "that which I can keep someone else from
> taking."
What rule of acquisition is that?
> > > > Today we recognize the Right of Patent. If someone creates or
> > > > discovers a process - they have something they have rights to use it to
> > > > make money and attain power.
> > >
> > > Until the Democrats gain full power. Then "make money" will be banned
> > > as being antisocial and against the Public Good.Then the Equalization
> > > of Opportunity Bill will be passed.
> >
> > You don't know many conservative democrats do you?
>
> Not who actually gain positions of power in the Dem party, no.
Yeah, that's a problem! lol.
> > > If
> > > someone unveils the power to destroy the world, or build vast new ones,
> > > the demand won't be that this someone become a benevolent dictator. It
> > > will be that he turn over that power to some Respected Authority.
> >
> > Two points - the Respected Authority doesn't understand the process and
> > could very well in their ignorance bring about the demise of humanity,
> > and more importantly the demise of those who created the process.
>
> Yes, and? That's hardly stopped mobs from makign such demands before.
> or even today. A lot of peopel actually want to turn a lot of power
> over to the UN, *despite* the fact that it's run by incompetant
> criminals.
A lot? I don't think so.
> > Also, people would generally respect those who created the process and
> > understand they're the authority regarding it.
>
> You've GOT to be fucking kidding me.
No.
> > Hmm.. I'm trying to vissualize this. After working for over a decade
> > in obscurity, an affable, aging, Bonoesque scientist and his team of
> > loveable misfits gets an intelligent process working on the sun,
> > capable of doing all I say. People have a hard time understanding that
> > the tiny ill defined jet of material flrowing from the sun is larger
> > than the Earth. Not much is said publicly, and not a whole lot of
> > interest in the press conference. A press conference is held as the
> > first metal aeroshell falls to Earth, and the team announces a joint
> > deal with Alcoa, BHP Billiton, Phelps Dodge that will transform the
> > industrial economies of Earth generate untold jobs, new wealth, and
> > create the conditions that will create vast new markets for industrial
> > metals.
> >
> > Now, what would motivate there to be a call to take control of this
> > obscure footnote and remove it from private control? Nothing.
Well, any well run organization would address the possiblity of
negative attention before it occurred.
> Ever hear of "fear," Bill? How about "greed?" "Ignorance?"
Yes.
> "Holy shit, they're fucking with the sun" will be one hell of a
> motivator.
Depends on the details of how its done. 'fucking with the sun' would
be a mischaracterization. 'a minor structured ejection event smaller
than 99.999% of all ejecta produced by the sun but due to the sun's
huge size, will delver all the world's need for metals, whilst
eliminating the need to harm the earth with dangerous and dirty mines -
saving the environment here and saving thousands of lives' would be a
more appropriate spin on things-
> Christ unmighty, have you never heard of "eminant domain?"
Yes.
Eminent domain in the U.S means compulsory purchase. In common law
legal systems it is the inherent power of the state to expropriate
private property, or rights in private property, without the owner's
consent, either for its own use or by delegation of the taking power to
third parties who will devote it to "public uses", the most common
examples being public utilities or railroads.
So, we don't want to look like a public utility or railroad. We'll
look like a mine.
The term compulsory purchase originating in the mid-19th century, is
used primarily in England and Wales, and other jurisdictions that
follow the elements of English law. Originally, the power of eminent
domain was assumed to arise from natural law as an inherent power of
the sovereign. Some states (New York, Louisiana) use the term
appropriation as a synonym for an eminent domain taking.
Governments most commonly use the power of eminent domain when the
acquisition of real property is necessary for the completion of public
projects such as roads, military installations, or public buildings.
Since the sun is not in anyone's jurisdiction, this is not going to
happen.
Some states require that before resorting to the use of eminent domain
the condemning body must make an offer of purchase to the owner.
Since the value of the project will be well established - the purchase
price, if it comes to that, will not be in question. It will be the
Net Present Value of all the cash flow the 'solar mine' will produce.
This will be some form of time purchase - involving those who created
it involved in the management, and earning a portion of the profits.
That is, assuming eminent domain is exercised and assuming the case is
lost, there is still wiggle room to a dedicated owner to negotiate a
de-facto continuing control over the asset. But this can all be
avoided by agreeing to pay whatever portion taken by eminent domain and
not paid as a note against the purchase and not paid as a management
fee - turning that around and paying a tax - voluntarily - to avoid
prosecution. Like I said, careful negotiation and managment can avoid
much of this in the US.
The term expropriation as used in the law of eminent domain is not to
be confused with situations in which private property is seized by
revolutionary governments from its former owners and confiscated
without payment. It should also be differentiated from forfeiture which
is an uncompensated seizure of contraband from criminals and its
confiscation by the government.
Since this will not be a criminal enterprise and I do not forsee the US
being taken over by revolutionaries, or me succumbing to revolutionary
control, even if the US should be taken over by revolutionaries, this
is not a credible threat either for a US firm.
So, sending metals to Earth to meet all the world's needs for metal
involves a process that is a gnat on an elephant's ass of the sun, -
actually the proposed process is a virus on the gnats ass on the
elephants ass of the sun... and provides all the world's need for
metal - and they've worked a deal with all the world's metal companies
to increase their market share while reducing their costs in the
process, and paid off the unions and whoever else needs to be paid off
- and eveyrone's happy.
And, there's no government claim on the sun. So, no right of eminent
domain could arise. And since unlike Grotius I won't witholding
saltpeter from the King - there is no need to attract the negative
attention of the powers that be.
>
> > > Alternatively, that he should "turn the power over to
> > > *me.*" Or that the power should be abandoned entirely.
> >
> > Who is best suited to control a thing? Someone who creates that thing
> > and uses it productively, or someone who knows nothing about it and
> > knows nothing of its value? Hmm...
>
> When has that ever stopped anyone demanding that power be turned over
> to someone else?
In a law abiding society that doesn't happen. This is a law abiding
society. So, it won't happen.
> Consider if I built an actual, honest-to-Odin nuclear
> bomb in my back yard.
That is illegal in the law. So, expect folks to come knocking with
handcuffs and warrants. There is presently no law relating to mining
the sun. There are laws related to mining Earth and transporting
materials off-world. Those have to be addressed - but they can be.
.
In 1946 the Atomic Energy Act established a federal monopoly over the
use, control, and ownership of nuclear technology.
In 1954 Congress amended Atomic Energy Act to allow private ownership
of nuclear materials (i.e. fuel) but maintains certain controls over
its possession and use in the interest of public health and
safety-including the obligation for disposal.
Private construction of a nuclear weapon, or control of weapons grade
material is not permitted by law. This law is well established and not
subject to debate.
However, the ability to mine the sun might fall under the OST and the
maybe 1976 mining acts for US citizens. But OST doesn't include the
sun. It cannot. And, the mining acts involve mining on Earth, not
off-world. There are rules for launching vehicles off-world, and rules
for bringing things back to Earth. But those are rather minor and
easily addressed.
The rules for mining can easily be met even if extended off world since
they relate to the impact of mining on the biosphere of Earth.
The OST requires more thought. I believe the sun is not covered as a
celestial body under the treaty. Planets, moons, and minor bodies of
the solar system are covered. Stars are not. Including the sun.
The Outer Space Treaty represents the basic legal framework of
international space law and, among its principles, it bars States
Parties to the Treaty from placing nuclear weapons or any other weapons
of mass destruction in orbit of Earth, installing them on the Moon or
any other celestial body, or to otherwise station them in outer space.
Since my process involves no persons off-world at all, and use of
chemical laser pulse obviates the need of a nuclear pulse, then, this
isn't a problem.
OST exclusively limits the use of the Moon and other celestial bodies
to peaceful purposes and expressly prohibits their use for testing
weapons of any kind, conducting military maneuvers, or establishing
military bases, installations, and fortifications
No problem here.
The treaty does explicitly forbid any government from claiming a
celestial resource such as the Moon or a planet since they are common
heritage of humanity. Art. II of the Treaty states, in fact, that
"[o]uter space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, is not
subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of
use or occupation, or by any other means."
I'm not claiming the whole sun, only ownership of those useful parts I
bring back, and the right to run automated operations there.
OST does not include the sun however, after a careful reading. In fact
barring the use of the sun privately because it is a common heritage of
humanity would mean that every farmer, forester, fisher, windmill
operator, hydroplant operator, and solar panel operator, would be in
violation of the law, since solar energy is a resource produced by a
celestial object and sunlight would be a common heritage of humanity if
the sun were included in the treaty.
Also, the treaty speaks of stationing troops and military bases on the
celestial objects it covers. Clearly, troops and military bases cannot
be stationed on the sun.
No, the sun cannot be included - and in fact is not in the outer space
treaty at all.
.
Article VI of the Outer Space Treaty deals indeed with international
responsibility, stating that "[t]he activities of non-governmental
entities in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies,
shall require authorization and continuing supervision by the
appropriate State Party to the Treaty" and that States Parties shall
bear international responsibility for national space activities whether
carried out by governmental or non-governmental entities.
If this treaty included the sun and all useful resources produced by
the sun then very little activity on Earth would be permitted under the
treaty. Again, the sun is not a celestial body in the terms of this
treaty. Otherwise no oil (which is stored sunlight), no wood, no food,
no animals, no ecology, no wind power, no water power, no solar power -
would be permitted use without oversight and continuing supervision by
the appropriate State Party to the Treaty. Furthermore, the treaty
would have made mention of those celestial bodies where it is
impossible to locate troops or weapons - such as the sun - if the sun
were included.
> Do you think that the universal consensus would
> be that, since I developed it, it shoudl remain under my control?
Depends on the details. But a well engineered publicity campaign
combined with a well managed business structure, and supply chain -
would result in a ho-hum attitude among the public, and very positive
response in the technical press related to mining. Other more outre
notions such as those discussed here would not be given serious
credence and those who promoted such views would be undermined.
Meanwhile any legal challenges would have a tough row to hoe against
attorneys who knew their rights and the rights of the owners andn
wouldn't take any such challenges lying down.
A researcher known to me wanted to shoot a laser beam through a
hydrogen flame to see what he could make happen! lol.
Williamknowsbest
It is better for a King to be feared than loved, don't you think?
> > > > The amazing thing as I think about this is that this project might be
> > > > capable of just that.
> > > >
> > > > All that's needed is a chemical laser, intelilgently designed, and
> > > > dropped into the sun with a structured fabric floating in the sunlight
> > > > above. Something on the scale of say a latter day clementine mission.
> > >
> > > Sure. Why not.
> >
> > Yes, the more one looks at the solar environment the clearer the
> > approach to use becomes.
>
> Indeed! Leave suns far behind before people gain the ability to blwo
> them straight to hell. Those inhabitting the Oort cloud might survive.
Depends on the details, and we don't know the details yet.
> > > > What rights do they have over their creation?
> > >
> > > "In the Necromonger faith, you keep what you kill."
> > >
> >
> > But we're not killing anything here, we're making stuff.
>
> Uh-huh. What technology has man created that we *haven't* used for war,
> or at least weaponized?
Cotton gin? Bridge building? Athletic shoe design? Just to name
three that come to mine.
> The ability to destroy the sun will become
> available well before the abuility to neatly slice it up into dwarfs,
> just as the ability to blow things to smithereens with the H-bomb came
> along well before nuclear fusion rockets.
Depends on the details, and we don't know those details yet.
Just as the ability to calculate with with beads and wires preceded the
ability to calculate with gears which preceded the ability to calculate
with electronic circuits. ... the order of difficulty of things
depends on the engineering details and the history of creation and
discovery. You are making judgements that are unwarranted given the
lack of detailed knowledge we have at present..
> > > > Success along the lines I envision totally outclasses anything else
> > > > humanity could do prior to success. And very quickly too. The ability
> > > > to eject from the sun in a controlled way, planetary system sized
> > > > masses of raw material and shape and form them into operating finished
> > > > products by scattering structured photons off them - is just
> > > > mind-boggling.
> > >
> > > Indeed. And imagine the fun one could have hacking into the control
> > > computers and making the system go nova rather than just calving off
> > > calmly.
> >
> > Who would do that and what would be their motivation? Especially since
> > the perps would get killed in the process.
>
> Ever hear of a suicide bomber?
Yes. This is germaine how?
> For fuck's sake, Bill. Take things to a ridiculous extreme: imagine
> giving a package to every human on Earth today. Inside the package was
> a vial of "Instant Extinction" brand super-Ebola, genetically modified
> to wipe out humanity. Also included in the package was *very* clearly
> written and recorded verbal instructions: you push the red button, the
> virus is released. You push the green button, the virus is incinerated
> and a hundred-dollar bill pops out. Do you honestly believe that
> *nobody* would push the red button?
Inappropriate comparison. - give the box to 10 top leaders who took
the threat seriously and and you would have a more realistic response.
> Humanity is *not* populated exclusively by what modern Western culture
> woudl consider to be enlightened, sane people who care for all of
> humanity. There are a *lot* of peopel who think that humans are a
> blight (ever hear of the "Human extinction Movement?"),
No.
> or that an
> apocolypse would help bring the Second Coming of Jesus or the Hidden
> Imam or Big Bird or whatever. And there is more than a share of people
> who are just plain evil or nuts.
True. There are causes for that and those will be addressed as we
advance as a species.
> > > > Long time ago we had Right of Conquest. The right of conquest is the
> > > > purported right of a conqueror to territory taken by force of arms.
> > >
> > > We still have that right.
> >
> > I figured you'd say that.
>
> Because it's correct.
I figured you'd say that too.
> The land you're living on: was it taken from some
> group of Injuns a century or three back?
Yes.
> Are you going to return it?
No plans for it no.
> Are the Anglo-Saxons of England going to give the land back to the
> Celts?
Not unless they ask for it like the mean it.
> Are the Israelies going to just roll over and let the Arabs wipe
> them out for their land?
>
> "Ownership" is defined as "that which I can keep someone else from
> taking."
What rule of acquisition is that?
> > > > Today we recognize the Right of Patent. If someone creates or
> > > > discovers a process - they have something they have rights to use it to
> > > > make money and attain power.
> > >
> > > Until the Democrats gain full power. Then "make money" will be banned
> > > as being antisocial and against the Public Good.Then the Equalization
> > > of Opportunity Bill will be passed.
> >
> > You don't know many conservative democrats do you?
>
> Not who actually gain positions of power in the Dem party, no.
Yeah, that's a problem! lol.
> > > If
> > > someone unveils the power to destroy the world, or build vast new ones,
> > > the demand won't be that this someone become a benevolent dictator. It
> > > will be that he turn over that power to some Respected Authority.
> >
> > Two points - the Respected Authority doesn't understand the process and
> > could very well in their ignorance bring about the demise of humanity,
> > and more importantly the demise of those who created the process.
>
> Yes, and? That's hardly stopped mobs from makign such demands before.
> or even today. A lot of peopel actually want to turn a lot of power
> over to the UN, *despite* the fact that it's run by incompetant
> criminals.
A lot? I don't think so.
> > Also, people would generally respect those who created the process and
> > understand they're the authority regarding it.
>
> You've GOT to be fucking kidding me.
No.
> > Hmm.. I'm trying to vissualize this. After working for over a decade
> > in obscurity, an affable, aging, Bonoesque scientist and his team of
> > loveable misfits gets an intelligent process working on the sun,
> > capable of doing all I say. People have a hard time understanding that
> > the tiny ill defined jet of material flrowing from the sun is larger
> > than the Earth. Not much is said publicly, and not a whole lot of
> > interest in the press conference. A press conference is held as the
> > first metal aeroshell falls to Earth, and the team announces a joint
> > deal with Alcoa, BHP Billiton, Phelps Dodge that will transform the
> > industrial economies of Earth generate untold jobs, new wealth, and
> > create the conditions that will create vast new markets for industrial
> > metals.
> >
> > Now, what would motivate there to be a call to take control of this
> > obscure footnote and remove it from private control? Nothing.
Well, any well run organization would address the possiblity of
negative attention before it occurred.
> Ever hear of "fear," Bill? How about "greed?" "Ignorance?"
Yes.
> "Holy shit, they're fucking with the sun" will be one hell of a
> motivator.
Depends on the details of how its done. 'fucking with the sun' would
be a mischaracterization. 'a minor structured ejection event smaller
than 99.999% of all ejecta produced by the sun but due to the sun's
huge size, will delver all the world's need for metals, whilst
eliminating the need to harm the earth with dangerous and dirty mines -
saving the environment here and saving thousands of lives' would be a
more appropriate spin on things-
> Christ unmighty, have you never heard of "eminant domain?"
Yes.
>
> > > Alternatively, that he should "turn the power over to
> > > *me.*" Or that the power should be abandoned entirely.
> >
> > Who is best suited to control a thing? Someone who creates that thing
> > and uses it productively, or someone who knows nothing about it and
> > knows nothing of its value? Hmm...
>
> When has that ever stopped anyone demanding that power be turned over
> to someone else?
In a law abiding society that doesn't happen. This is a law abiding
society. So, it won't happen.
> Consider if I built an actual, honest-to-Odin nuclear
> bomb in my back yard.
That is illegal in the law. So, expect folks to come knocking with
No problem here.
> Do you think that the universal consensus would
> be that, since I developed it, it shoudl remain under my control?
Depends on the details. But a well engineered publicity campaign
Sylvia Else
> Haha
>
> I agree that before we divide the star up into bite sized chunks,I
> think another star should be tested first. Alpha Centauri A and B are
> very good for this. Alpha Centauri C is even there to start So, I
> agree with you 100%
>
> I think 4 light years is convenient to get to, and its far enough away!
I don't know about that. The kind of thing I'm worried about is having
bits of a star coming in our direction. Of course, no distance totally
excludes this risk, but at least it goes down with the square of the
distance. 40 light years would be 100 times safer then 4.
Sylvia.
Williamknowsbest
The Sun is not mentioned, not once, in the OST! lol. It is not a
celestial body by the terms of the OST - as argued previously.
Private ownership of assets in space, even nuclear power plants, are
permitted under the treaty. States are responsible for any damage due
to falling objects from orbit - so that will be a legitimate concern
for materials exported to Earth.
Since the sun and sunlight is not a celestial resource covered under
the treaty and operations on the sun are not covered, and resources
removed from the sun are not covered, the only issue is movement of
resources to Earth in a manner that is safe and complies with the law.
Spacecraft launched from Earth, and spacecraft returning to Earth, are
also covered under various laws.
NOT covered are spacecraft constructed from solar materials and
operating around the sun well removed from Earth. In fact, solar
resources are free to use in ways that even resources on Earth.
scottlowtherATixDOTnetcomDOTcom
Williamknowsbest wrote:
> > > Still, as with anything, it can be approached step-wise. One can model
> > > what one does certainly. Then, one can do laboratory experiments.
> > > Then, one can do small experiments in the solar environment. Then,
> > > progress to larger experiments. By the time you're ready to divide the
> > > sun into smaller parts, you've got a background of experience.
> >
> > Such as the cinder that used to be the sun and the smokign ruins of the
> > former solar system, after the disasterous Solar Subdivision
> > Mini-Experiment of 2412, where Hillary's Holy Martyr Brigade invaded
> > the test facility with a quantum computer virus and caused things to
> > run a little funny.
>
> It is better for a King to be feared than loved, don't you think?
Yes, we can see how well that worked for your sun-crushers
inspiration... the Death Star.
> > > > > All that's needed is a chemical laser, intelilgently designed, and
> > > > > dropped into the sun with a structured fabric floating in the sunlight
> > > > > above. Something on the scale of say a latter day clementine mission.
> > > >
> > > > Sure. Why not.
> > >
> > > Yes, the more one looks at the solar environment the clearer the
> > > approach to use becomes.
> >
> > Indeed! Leave suns far behind before people gain the ability to blwo
> > them straight to hell. Those inhabitting the Oort cloud might survive.
>
> Depends on the details
True. Someone tinkering with the sun might so badly fuck it up that the
sun goess full-bore supernova and takes out the Oort colonies.
, and we don't know the details yet.
> > > > > What rights do they have over their creation?
> > > >
> > > > "In the Necromonger faith, you keep what you kill."
> > > >
> > >
> > > But we're not killing anything here, we're making stuff.
> >
> > Uh-huh. What technology has man created that we *haven't* used for war,
> > or at least weaponized?
>
> Cotton gin? Bridge building? Athletic shoe design? Just to name
> three that come to mine.
You *might* have a point with the first. But the second two are clearly
and obviously bad examples on your part. The ability to quickly
engineer and build bridges has long been a staple of warfare. Atheltic
shoe design has had some role in designing combat boots.
> Just as the ability to calculate with with beads and wires preceded the
> ability to calculate with gears which preceded the ability to calculate
> with electronic circuits. ... the order of difficulty of things
> depends on the engineering details and the history of creation and
> discovery. You are making judgements that are unwarranted given the
> lack of detailed knowledge we have at present..
You are talking about surgically carving up a *star.* It's much easier
to break a rock apart than it it to carve it into a little elephant.
>
>
> > > > > Success along the lines I envision totally outclasses anything else
> > > > > humanity could do prior to success. And very quickly too. The ability
> > > > > to eject from the sun in a controlled way, planetary system sized
> > > > > masses of raw material and shape and form them into operating finished
> > > > > products by scattering structured photons off them - is just
> > > > > mind-boggling.
> > > >
> > > > Indeed. And imagine the fun one could have hacking into the control
> > > > computers and making the system go nova rather than just calving off
> > > > calmly.
> > >
> > > Who would do that and what would be their motivation? Especially since
> > > the perps would get killed in the process.
> >
> > Ever hear of a suicide bomber?
>
> Yes. This is germaine how?
Wow. Just... wow. The fact that you can't figure that out... says much.
>
> > For fuck's sake, Bill. Take things to a ridiculous extreme: imagine
> > giving a package to every human on Earth today. Inside the package was
> > a vial of "Instant Extinction" brand super-Ebola, genetically modified
> > to wipe out humanity. Also included in the package was *very* clearly
> > written and recorded verbal instructions: you push the red button, the
> > virus is released. You push the green button, the virus is incinerated
> > and a hundred-dollar bill pops out. Do you honestly believe that
> > *nobody* would push the red button?
>
> Inappropriate comparison. - give the box to 10 top leaders who took
> the threat seriously and and you would have a more realistic response.
Incorrect. By the time mankind can subdivide the sun, our population
will probably be measurable in trillions. Maybe quadrillions. So there
will be vast numbers of people spread to hell and gone from here to
Omicron Persei 8, alkl of whom you will need to control and prevent
from tinkering with your little construction project.
>> (ever hear of the "Human extinction Movement?"),
>
> No.
Then you really need to research your fellow man for a while. We ain't
exactly quite right in the head as a species.
>
> > or that an
> > apocolypse would help bring the Second Coming of Jesus or the Hidden
> > Imam or Big Bird or whatever. And there is more than a share of people
> > who are just plain evil or nuts.
>
> True. There are causes for that and those will be addressed as we
> advance as a species.
Sure. Genetic engineering will make a better breed of ideologically
pure super-slave ready to serve their Draka overloards.
> > Are the Israelies going to just roll over and let the Arabs wipe
> > them out for their land?
> >
> > "Ownership" is defined as "that which I can keep someone else from
> > taking."
>
> What rule of acquisition is that?
The first rule, figured out likely by some Australopithicus on the
plains of Africa.
> > Yes, and? That's hardly stopped mobs from makign such demands before.
> > or even today. A lot of peopel actually want to turn a lot of power
> > over to the UN, *despite* the fact that it's run by incompetant
> > criminals.
>
> A lot? I don't think so.
Once again: do some research.
>
> > > Also, people would generally respect those who created the process and
> > > understand they're the authority regarding it.
> >
> > You've GOT to be fucking kidding me.
>
> No.
Nut.
> > "Holy shit, they're fucking with the sun" will be one hell of a
> > motivator.
>
> Depends on the details of how its done.
Please. There are loonies who believe that the Galileo mission to
Jupiter was a secret NASA project to drop a nuke into Jupiter and casue
it to turn into a second sun. There are peopelw ho protested
vociferously agaisnt the launch of Cassini because it had some tiny
amount of plutonium in the RTGs... but enough, in their tiny little
minds, to kill everyone on the planet. There are people who think that
Apollo was a hoax, that the Holocaust didn't happen, that the Earth was
created 6000 years ago, that Hillary Clinton would be a great
President, that there really is a Face On Mars, that nuclear power is
evil.
'fucking with the sun' would
> be a mischaracterization. 'a minor structured ejection event smaller
> than 99.999% of all ejecta produced by the sun but due to the sun's
> huge size, will delver all the world's need for metals, whilst
> eliminating the need to harm the earth with dangerous and dirty mines -
Asteroid mining would be vastly easier and incredibly less insane.
> Governments most commonly use the power of eminent domain when the
> acquisition of real property is necessary for the completion of public
> projects such as roads, military installations, or public buildings.
Or shopping malls.
> Since the sun is not in anyone's jurisdiction, this is not going to
> happen.
You'll suddenly find that you are in somebodies juristiction. Heck,
what do you think woudl happen if asteroid mining were to begin? The
Outer Space Treaty means that you are not *allowed* to profit solely.
You *can't* claim an asteroid. or a puff of plasma. Read the thing.
> >
> > > > Alternatively, that he should "turn the power over to
> > > > *me.*" Or that the power should be abandoned entirely.
> > >
> > > Who is best suited to control a thing? Someone who creates that thing
> > > and uses it productively, or someone who knows nothing about it and
> > > knows nothing of its value? Hmm...
> >
> > When has that ever stopped anyone demanding that power be turned over
> > to someone else?
>
> In a law abiding society that doesn't happen. This is a law abiding
> society. So, it won't happen.
<Guffaw>
You are the very soul of self-deception, Bill.
>
> > Consider if I built an actual, honest-to-Odin nuclear
> > bomb in my back yard.
>
> That is illegal in the law. So, expect folks to come knocking with
> handcuffs and warrants. There is presently no law relating to mining
> the sun.
And there wouldn't be, because....
> The OST requires more thought. I believe the sun is not covered as a
> celestial body under the treaty. Planets, moons, and minor bodies of
> the solar system are covered. Stars are not. Including the sun.
The sun is covered.
Williamknowsbest
scottlowtherATixDOTnetcomDOTcom wrote:
> Williamknowsbest wrote:
>
> > > > Still, as with anything, it can be approached step-wise. One can model
> > > > what one does certainly. Then, one can do laboratory experiments.
> > > > Then, one can do small experiments in the solar environment. Then,
> > > > progress to larger experiments. By the time you're ready to divide the
> > > > sun into smaller parts, you've got a background of experience.
> > >
> > > Such as the cinder that used to be the sun and the smokign ruins of the
> > > former solar system, after the disasterous Solar Subdivision
> > > Mini-Experiment of 2412, where Hillary's Holy Martyr Brigade invaded
> > > the test facility with a quantum computer virus and caused things to
> > > run a little funny.
> >
> > It is better for a King to be feared than loved, don't you think?
>
> Yes, we can see how well that worked for your sun-crushers
> inspiration... the Death Star.
I was actually quoting King George. It didn't work for him and those
rebellious American colonies.
> > > > > > All that's needed is a chemical laser, intelilgently designed, and
> > > > > > dropped into the sun with a structured fabric floating in the sunlight
> > > > > > above. Something on the scale of say a latter day clementine mission.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sure. Why not.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, the more one looks at the solar environment the clearer the
> > > > approach to use becomes.
> > >
> > > Indeed! Leave suns far behind before people gain the ability to blwo
> > > them straight to hell. Those inhabitting the Oort cloud might survive.
> >
> > Depends on the details
>
> True.
> Someone tinkering with the sun might so badly fuck it up that the
> sun goess full-bore supernova and takes out the Oort colonies.
> , and we don't know the details yet.
There is one detail that's pretty well kinown- the Sun is gawdawful
big! So, impressing a few cubic kilometers with patterned light
doesn't seem like such a big deal.
> > > > > > What rights do they have over their creation?
> > > > >
> > > > > "In the Necromonger faith, you keep what you kill."
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > But we're not killing anything here, we're making stuff.
> > >
> > > Uh-huh. What technology has man created that we *haven't* used for war,
> > > or at least weaponized?
> >
> > Cotton gin? Bridge building? Athletic shoe design? Just to name
> > three that come to mine.
>
> You *might* have a point with the first.
Yes indeed. And that was just off the top of my head.
> But the second two are clearly
> and obviously bad examples on your part. The ability to quickly
> engineer and build bridges has long been a staple of warfare.
I challenge you to show me a weaponized bridge.
> Atheltic
> shoe design has had some role in designing combat boots.
I challenge you to show me a weaponized Nike shoe.
> > Just as the ability to calculate with with beads and wires preceded the
> > ability to calculate with gears which preceded the ability to calculate
> > with electronic circuits. ... the order of difficulty of things
> > depends on the engineering details and the history of creation and
> > discovery. You are making judgements that are unwarranted given the
> > lack of detailed knowledge we have at present..
>
> You are talking about surgically carving up a *star.*
Yes.
> It's much easier
> to break a rock apart than it it to carve it into a little elephant.
That's a rock. Not the sun. The sun is more like a candle.
It's much easier to blow a candle out than make it explode.
Please refer to what it takes for a star to go Supernova. It ain't
easy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova
Then reconsider your ill-considered position.
> > > > > > Success along the lines I envision totally outclasses anything else
> > > > > > humanity could do prior to success. And very quickly too. The ability
> > > > > > to eject from the sun in a controlled way, planetary system sized
> > > > > > masses of raw material and shape and form them into operating finished
> > > > > > products by scattering structured photons off them - is just
> > > > > > mind-boggling.
> > > > >
> > > > > Indeed. And imagine the fun one could have hacking into the control
> > > > > computers and making the system go nova rather than just calving off
> > > > > calmly.
> > > >
> > > > Who would do that and what would be their motivation? Especially since
> > > > the perps would get killed in the process.
> > >
> > > Ever hear of a suicide bomber?
> >
> > Yes. This is germaine how?
>
> Wow. Just... wow. The fact that you can't figure that out... says much.
The fact you can't figure out why I asked the question says equally
much.
> >
> > > For fuck's sake, Bill. Take things to a ridiculous extreme: imagine
> > > giving a package to every human on Earth today. Inside the package was
> > > a vial of "Instant Extinction" brand super-Ebola, genetically modified
> > > to wipe out humanity. Also included in the package was *very* clearly
> > > written and recorded verbal instructions: you push the red button, the
> > > virus is released. You push the green button, the virus is incinerated
> > > and a hundred-dollar bill pops out. Do you honestly believe that
> > > *nobody* would push the red button?
> >
> > Inappropriate comparison. - give the box to 10 top leaders who took
> > the threat seriously and and you would have a more realistic response.
>
> Incorrect.
Absolutely correct, you don't get to come to the control room without
an invitation. Others must deal with security. Ever try to get into
the control room of a nuclear power plant? This control system will be
at least as secure as that.
> By the time mankind can subdivide the sun, our population
> will probably be measurable in trillions.
Our populaiton will never exceed 12 billion on Earth without off-world
support.
> Maybe quadrillions. So there
> will be vast numbers of people spread to hell and gone from here to
> Omicron Persei 8, alkl of whom you will need to control and prevent
> from tinkering with your little construction project.
Actually, if this idea works as expected, this could happen in your
lifetime.
> >> (ever hear of the "Human extinction Movement?"),
> >
> > No.
>
> Then you really need to research your fellow man for a while. We ain't
> exactly quite right in the head as a species.
The rantings of lunatics don't interest me! lol.
> >
> > > or that an
> > > apocolypse would help bring the Second Coming of Jesus or the Hidden
> > > Imam or Big Bird or whatever. And there is more than a share of people
> > > who are just plain evil or nuts.
> >
> > True. There are causes for that and those will be addressed as we
> > advance as a species.
>
> Sure. Genetic engineering will make a better breed of ideologically
> pure super-slave ready to serve their Draka overloards.
>
Actually, cross-breed vigor works in humans too. The mutts beat the
pure-breds every time. Ever notice how healthy, happy, and just plain
better looking everyone in Hawaii is? Cross-breed vigor man. That's
the future of humanity.
> > > Are the Israelies going to just roll over and let the Arabs wipe
> > > them out for their land?
> > >
> > > "Ownership" is defined as "that which I can keep someone else from
> > > taking."
> >
> > What rule of acquisition is that?
>
> The first rule, figured out likely by some Australopithicus on the
> plains of Africa.
Oh, I was thinking more along the lines of Ferengi
> > > Yes, and? That's hardly stopped mobs from makign such demands before.
> > > or even today. A lot of peopel actually want to turn a lot of power
> > > over to the UN, *despite* the fact that it's run by incompetant
> > > criminals.
> >
> > A lot? I don't think so.
>
> Once again: do some research.
Most of humanity doesn't trust their mayor, let alone the UN.
> >
> > > > Also, people would generally respect those who created the process and
> > > > understand they're the authority regarding it.
> > >
> > > You've GOT to be fucking kidding me.
> >
> > No.
>
> Nut.
<shrug> That you think so is obvious. That you are wrong equally so.
> > > "Holy shit, they're fucking with the sun" will be one hell of a
> > > motivator.
> >
> > Depends on the details of how its done.
>
> Please. There are loonies who believe that the Galileo mission to
> Jupiter was a secret NASA project to drop a nuke into Jupiter and casue
> it to turn into a second sun.
Really? References?
> There are peopelw ho protested
> vociferously agaisnt the launch of Cassini because it had some tiny
> amount of plutonium in the RTGs...
True
> but enough, in their tiny little
> minds, to kill everyone on the planet.
That was a miscalculation
> There are people who think that
> Apollo was a hoax,
They are crazy.
> that the Holocaust didn't happen,
Equally so.
> that the Earth was
> created 6000 years ago,
Another miscalculation
> that Hillary Clinton would be a great
> President,
Indicator of the abject failure of the Democratic party to lead the
nation effectively. Where are the likes of Tilden and Cleveland when
you need them?
> that there really is a Face On Mars,
Well, it all depends on how you look at it. Sort of like seeing faces
in clouds.
> that nuclear power is
> evil.
Depends on the details of its use.
> > 'fucking with the sun' would
> > be a mischaracterization. 'a minor structured ejection event smaller
> > than 99.999% of all ejecta produced by the sun but due to the sun's
> > huge size, will delver all the world's need for metals, whilst
> > eliminating the need to harm the earth with dangerous and dirty mines -
>
> Asteroid mining would be vastly easier and incredibly less insane.
Depends on the technical details, and asteroids are covered by the OST.
>
> > Governments most commonly use the power of eminent domain when the
> > acquisition of real property is necessary for the completion of public
> > projects such as roads, military installations, or public buildings.
>
> Or shopping malls.
Kelo v. New London - the Supreme Court decided that a few hold-outs
could not stand in the way of 'progress' That's only because New
London was able to show that the shopping mall would bring jobs to the
city and everyone would be helped thereby. Even in this re-writing of
law the property was real property existing within a municipality, and
the people were fairly compensated for their land. NONE of these
conditions apply to assets erected in and around the sun.
>
> > Since the sun is not in anyone's jurisdiction, this is not going to
> > happen.
>
> You'll suddenly find that you are in somebodies juristiction.
Who's? Who would claim the sun? What is the reason? And what legal
precedent would they cite?
> Heck,
> what do you think woudl happen if asteroid mining were to begin?
Asteroids are a celestrial body under the terms of the OST - so those
rules would apply. The SUN is not a celestrial body under the OST - it
isn't even mentioned - and is not covered. If it were covered, then
any product imported to earth from the sun - i.e. SUNLIGHT - would have
to be imported under the terms of the treaty. Sunlight has been
imported to Earth for billions of years unenumbered by the treaty and
humanity has made use of sunlight its entire tenure on Earth without
reference to this treaty. Therefore, the products of the sun, and the
body of the sun iteself is not a celestrial body covered under the
terms of the OST.
> The
> Outer Space Treaty means that you are not *allowed* to profit solely.
> You *can't* claim an asteroid. or a puff of plasma. Read the thing.
You cannot claim an asteroid or mine it. You can claim a piece of the
sun and use it. Whether its on a beach, in a cornfield, or on the sun
itself.
> > >
> > > > > Alternatively, that he should "turn the power over to
> > > > > *me.*" Or that the power should be abandoned entirely.
> > > >
> > > > Who is best suited to control a thing? Someone who creates that thing
> > > > and uses it productively, or someone who knows nothing about it and
> > > > knows nothing of its value? Hmm...
> > >
> > > When has that ever stopped anyone demanding that power be turned over
> > > to someone else?
> >
> > In a law abiding society that doesn't happen. This is a law abiding
> > society. So, it won't happen.
>
> <Guffaw>
When making plans one has to make reasonable assessments as to what is
likely and what is not likely. It is likely that laws will be abided
by and that as citizens of the US, we can count on those laws being
applied fairly. Guffaw if you like, but I truly believe this and trust
this.
> You are the very soul of self-deception, Bill.
<shrug> I think people let this dramatic story about evil conspiracies
limit what they dream and think and do. That's a shame. Sure, any
great nation has secrets and the US being a great nation has its share.
But one thing I will put a stake on is that ultimate fairness of the
US legal system - and reliance on it. Not relying on existing laws is
tantamount to abrogating them and becoming a brigand.
> > > Consider if I built an actual, honest-to-Odin nuclear
> > > bomb in my back yard.
> >
> > That is illegal in the law. So, expect folks to come knocking with
> > handcuffs and warrants. There is presently no law relating to mining
> > the sun.
>
> And there wouldn't be, because....
Laws are made in response to things that actually happen. Nuclear
weapons were actually used before laws were passed limiting the
ownership of nuclear processes and materials. Steam engine boilers had
to blow up and injure an ex-president before steam boiler laws were
passed. Sure, every boiler in every schoolhouse in the country has its
own operator beause of these laws - today, but something has to
actually happen thats very bad before people over-react as you point
out.
> If someone starting mining the sun and all hell broke loose, something would be done.
That's the important point - all hell would have to break loose, THEN
something would be done. So, the solution is simple, don't let all
hell break loose! lol. The Casinni Mission, the Apollo Missions, and
all the rest, went off despite protests and beliefs - beause all hell
hasn't broken loose, and likely never will.
> > The OST requires more thought. I believe the sun is not covered as a
> > celestial body under the treaty. Planets, moons, and minor bodies of
> > the solar system are covered. Stars are not. Including the sun.
>
> The sun is covered.
Where? A strong legal argument can be made that humanity uses
products of the sun today and has used products of the sun throughout
its entire existence on Earth, just as we have used resources on Earth.
If the terms of the treaty were fairly applied to Sun and Earth, then
such use would be enforced. It is not. That's because the treaty was
never intended to cover the use of sunlight or Earth resources and the
Sun wasn't included in the treaty .
The Earth is a celestial body and its not covered under the treaty.
The Sun ISN'T MENTIONED AT ALL! Its not covered.
Williamknowsbest
Spinning a star up until it broke into pieces would require it to
travel about 1 million miles per hour. A light year is something like
6 trillion milles. 4 light years 24 trillion miles. That's 24
million hours at 1 million miles an hour. About 1 million days - or
about 3,000 years. .
It is far more likely that the rosette collapses to reform the star as
it was, rather than a piece flying off randomly. Even so, if the worst
happened, it would be 3,000 years before anything needed to be done.
And since we had the capacity to go there and do this in the first
place, we'd definitely have the capacity to change its direction of
travel well before it got close.
Williamknowsbest
the treaty to that extent.
Once a self-replicating plasma 'machine' is imprinted into the solar
body and operating according to information imprinted into the plasma
things become fuzzy from a legal standpoint.
Stuff ejected from the sun through the operation of patterned energy
released in the sun itself - is neither an object launched into outer
space, nor coming from "the moon and other similar celestial bodies"
Clearly other celestial bodies similar to the moon don't include the
sun or stars.
Plainly if the sun ejected a bar of gold that just happened to fall on
my land, and I retrieved it, I would own it just as I would own an
asteroid that fell on my land.
Surely if an asteroid fell on my land, of its own acord, I would own
it.
Obviously if I sent a robot to pick up gold bars sitting on the surface
of an asteroid and toss them onto my yard from space, I would have to
comply with the terms of OST.
Clearly, if I pattern the sun itself with information that results in
the sun ejecting a bar of gold that falls on my land, an argument can
be made that there is no robot there operating. The seed spacecraft
only impressed information into the solar atmosphere and was vaporized,
and nothing really exists there that was transported from Earth in a
materail sense - so the application of OST becomes fuzzy - and in fact
there is quite a defensible position for any mining operator to
continue his operations under normal mining laws..
Williamknowsbest
course.
The 'seed' carrying spacecraft is quite easily described as a probe to
measure the abundance of materials in the sun as well as conditions
inside the sun. It operates iby sending a structured laser light pulse
deep into the interior of the sun and retrieves materials from deep
inside the sun some of which, if successful, will be returned to the
Earth. Material not returned will be examined spetroscopically by a
portion of the spacecraft as well as by telescope from Earth.
The first few returning sample capsules containing or made of solar
material are easily characterized as scientific samples, and those
samples are the subject of intense terrestrial analysis once returned.
Of course what happens to those samples, after is really of now concern
to science.
The approvals will be very similar to the Star Dust sample return
missions already flown. After return of the samples, quite literally
nothing is left of the original spacecraft. If anything remains at
all, on the sun it is merely structured plasma - shaped sun stuff, left
by the spacecraft that was vaporized in its normal operation, not much
different legal standing than a random footprint on the moon's surface.
Of course analysis of that foot print might tell us something, and
maybe - as a long shot - be useful.
Of course the system once established on the sun capable of retrieving
scientific samples, will clearly be maintained as long as possible and
practicable to provide measurements of changes in the solar condition
over time. And if the system can be modified over time by exchanging
radio and laser pulses with Earth to improve its scientific utility,
then that's not really a problem either.
Now, once this scientific sampling process is established, it might -
as a long shot - have some practical utility. And research into that
possiblity might be done. To gain access to the scientific samples and
explore that possiblity, a consortium of mining companies might
underwrite a portion of the mission. How that develops is unknown and
unknowable until the samples are returned and the process established
and characterized.
If asked we can say quite honestly, we don't know how many solar
samples could be returned. It might be quite large. It might not be.
Who knows until the science is done? But whatever is returned,any
commercial use of returned samples is easily characterized as an
afterthought to help defray costs of the mission and will be consistent
with all applicable environmental and other laws and not compromise
science done by the mission.
This is just the first pass, but I would say it would be quite easy for
a serious program to get underway and carry out the first sample return
mission from the Sun and quite honesly and fairly give commercial
access to a consortium of mining companies to any small amounts of
solar material that might be commercially useful.
Fred J. McCall
:I don't know about that. The kind of thing I'm worried about is having
:bits of a star coming in our direction. Of course, no distance totally
:excludes this risk, but at least it goes down with the square of the
:distance. 40 light years would be 100 times safer then 4.
Why? 'Bits of stars' would just be some gas by the time they got to
us.
--
"Oooo, scary! Y'know, there are a lot scarier things
in the world than you ... and I'm one of them."
-- Buffy the vampire
scottlowtherATixDOTnetcomDOTcom
Williamknowsbest wrote:
> There is one detail that's pretty well kinown- the Sun is gawdawful
> big! So, impressing a few cubic kilometers with patterned light
> doesn't seem like such a big deal.
Or even useful.
> > But the second two are clearly
> > and obviously bad examples on your part. The ability to quickly
> > engineer and build bridges has long been a staple of warfare.
>
> I challenge you to show me a weaponized bridge.
http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/imgs/avlb.jpg
> > Atheltic
> > shoe design has had some role in designing combat boots.
>
> I challenge you to show me a weaponized Nike shoe.
http://www.militarykit.com/images/products_full/footwear_lowa_combat_boot_gtx.jpg
Same technology.
> > It's much easier
> > to break a rock apart than it it to carve it into a little elephant.
>
> That's a rock. Not the sun. The sun is more like a candle.
> It's much easier to blow a candle out than make it explode.
>
> Please refer to what it takes for a star to go Supernova. It ain't
> easy
Please refer to what it takes to surgically repair a human brain. And
what it takes to bash said brains out with a rock.
If you have the technology to actually carve up the sun into a group of
smaller, separate stars, you will ahve already long since developed the
tech to just plain destroy the star.
> > > > > > > Success along the lines I envision totally outclasses anything else
> > > > > > > humanity could do prior to success. And very quickly too. The ability
> > > > > > > to eject from the sun in a controlled way, planetary system sized
> > > > > > > masses of raw material and shape and form them into operating finished
> > > > > > > products by scattering structured photons off them - is just
> > > > > > > mind-boggling.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Indeed. And imagine the fun one could have hacking into the control
> > > > > > computers and making the system go nova rather than just calving off
> > > > > > calmly.
> > > > >
> > > > > Who would do that and what would be their motivation? Especially since
> > > > > the perps would get killed in the process.
> > > >
> > > > Ever hear of a suicide bomber?
> > >
> > > Yes. This is germaine how?
> >
> > Wow. Just... wow. The fact that you can't figure that out... says much.
>
> The fact you can't figure out why I asked the question says equally
> much.
Yes... that you are monstrously ignorant of human motivations.
>
> > >
> > > > For fuck's sake, Bill. Take things to a ridiculous extreme: imagine
> > > > giving a package to every human on Earth today. Inside the package was
> > > > a vial of "Instant Extinction" brand super-Ebola, genetically modified
> > > > to wipe out humanity. Also included in the package was *very* clearly
> > > > written and recorded verbal instructions: you push the red button, the
> > > > virus is released. You push the green button, the virus is incinerated
> > > > and a hundred-dollar bill pops out. Do you honestly believe that
> > > > *nobody* would push the red button?
> > >
> > > Inappropriate comparison. - give the box to 10 top leaders who took
> > > the threat seriously and and you would have a more realistic response.
> >
> > Incorrect.
>
> Absolutely correct, you don't get to come to the control room without
> an invitation. Others must deal with security. Ever try to get into
> the control room of a nuclear power plant?
You don;t get to enter a cockpit without an invite, either... yet a
group of people whose motives you couldn't possibly comprehend managed
to do it a few years back.
This control system will be
> at least as secure as that.
>
> > By the time mankind can subdivide the sun, our population
> > will probably be measurable in trillions.
>
> Our populaiton will never exceed 12 billion on Earth without off-world
> support.
Ummm... who said "on Earth," Bill? Please do try to keep up with your
betters.
>
> > Maybe quadrillions. So there
> > will be vast numbers of people spread to hell and gone from here to
> > Omicron Persei 8, alkl of whom you will need to control and prevent
> > from tinkering with your little construction project.
>
> Actually, if this idea works as expected, this could happen in your
> lifetime.
Riiiiiight.
>
> > >> (ever hear of the "Human extinction Movement?"),
> > >
> > > No.
> >
> > Then you really need to research your fellow man for a while. We ain't
> > exactly quite right in the head as a species.
>
> The rantings of lunatics don't interest me! lol.
Your own writings don't interest you?
(Wow, that was easy)
>
> > >
> > > > or that an
> > > > apocolypse would help bring the Second Coming of Jesus or the Hidden
> > > > Imam or Big Bird or whatever. And there is more than a share of people
> > > > who are just plain evil or nuts.
> > >
> > > True. There are causes for that and those will be addressed as we
> > > advance as a species.
> >
> > Sure. Genetic engineering will make a better breed of ideologically
> > pure super-slave ready to serve their Draka overloards.
> >
>
> Actually, cross-breed vigor works in humans too.
ZOOM! And the point goes right over Bill's head.
> Oh, I was thinking more along the lines of Ferengi
No doubt.
>
> > > > Yes, and? That's hardly stopped mobs from makign such demands before.
> > > > or even today. A lot of peopel actually want to turn a lot of power
> > > > over to the UN, *despite* the fact that it's run by incompetant
> > > > criminals.
> > >
> > > A lot? I don't think so.
> >
> > Once again: do some research.
>
> Most of humanity doesn't trust their mayor, let alone the UN.
When did "lots" become synonymous with "most?" If,say, one million
people wanted to kill *you,* it'd be fair to say that "lots" of peopel
wanted to kill you. But one million people compared to the population
or Earth, or even the US, is not "most."
> > > > "Holy shit, they're fucking with the sun" will be one hell of a
> > > > motivator.
> > >
> > > Depends on the details of how its done.
> >
> > Please. There are loonies who believe that the Galileo mission to
> > Jupiter was a secret NASA project to drop a nuke into Jupiter and casue
> > it to turn into a second sun.
>
> Really? References?
Listen to the Art Bell show. Or do a *very* basic Google search, and
you'll turn up nuts like this:
http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/JUPFULLx.htm
"7/30/03: The author believes the nuclear events reported here to be
very unlikely and only remotely possible, but just as an asteroid
impact with earth is remotely possible (and widely researched and
reported on), the Jupiter impact issue deserves exposure also, because
there is compelling evidence to suggest the feasibility of at least a
temporary Jupiter ignition. Given the potential consequences of this,
serious research is warranted."
> > but enough, in their tiny little
> > minds, to kill everyone on the planet.
>
> That was a miscalculation
No, it was a crazy-ass *lie.* A *knife* is capable of killign every
human on the planet... at least in a weirdass hypothetical world where
everyone line sup for it. Same bullcrap applied to the RTG issue. But
people *believe* that crap.
>
> > There are people who think that
> > Apollo was a hoax,
>
> They are crazy.
They exist.
>
> > that the Holocaust didn't happen,
>
> Equally so.
They exist. In annoyingly large numbers.
> Indicator of the abject failure of the Democratic party to lead the
> nation effectively. Where are the likes of Tilden and Cleveland when
> you need them?
Buried. Typically about 6 feet down.
> > > 'fucking with the sun' would
> > > be a mischaracterization. 'a minor structured ejection event smaller
> > > than 99.999% of all ejecta produced by the sun but due to the sun's
> > > huge size, will delver all the world's need for metals, whilst
> > > eliminating the need to harm the earth with dangerous and dirty mines -
> >
> > Asteroid mining would be vastly easier and incredibly less insane.
>
> Depends on the technical details, and asteroids are covered by the OST.
So is the sun.
> >
> > > Governments most commonly use the power of eminent domain when the
> > > acquisition of real property is necessary for the completion of public
> > > projects such as roads, military installations, or public buildings.
> >
> > Or shopping malls.
>
> Kelo v. New London - the Supreme Court decided that a few hold-outs
> could not stand in the way of 'progress'
There are far more cases than just that one.
> > > Since the sun is not in anyone's jurisdiction, this is not going to
> > > happen.
> >
> > You'll suddenly find that you are in somebodies juristiction.
>
> Who's? Who would claim the sun?
Every jackass with a bureauocracy and lawyers.
What is the reason? And what legal
> precedent would they cite?
>
> > Heck,
> > what do you think woudl happen if asteroid mining were to begin?
>
> Asteroids are a celestrial body under the terms of the OST - so those
> rules would apply. The SUN is not a celestrial body under the OST...
The phrase used repeatedly in the OST is "the Moon and other celestial
bodies." This covers asteroids, planets, comets, the sun.
- it
> isn't even mentioned - and is not covered. If it were covered, then
> any product imported to earth from the sun - i.e. SUNLIGHT - would have
> to be imported under the terms of the treaty.
Don;t give them ideas.
Sunlight has been
> imported to Earth for billions of years unenumbered by the treaty and
> humanity has made use of sunlight its entire tenure on Earth without
> reference to this treaty. Therefore, the products of the sun, and the
> body of the sun iteself is not a celestrial body covered under the
> terms of the OST.
Are asteroids covered? If so, then that means meteorites as well, and
the US can't legally own one.
The more likely answer: you're wrong.
> > > In a law abiding society that doesn't happen. This is a law abiding
> > > society. So, it won't happen.
> >
> > <Guffaw>
>
> When making plans one has to make reasonable assessments as to what is
> likely and what is not likely. It is likely that laws will be abided
> by...
What fucking planet do you live on???
> and that as citizens of the US, we can count on those laws being
> applied fairly. Guffaw if you like, but I truly believe this and trust
> this.
Wow. I can't wait until you get mugged.
> > > > Consider if I built an actual, honest-to-Odin nuclear
> > > > bomb in my back yard.
> > >
> > > That is illegal in the law. So, expect folks to come knocking with
> > > handcuffs and warrants. There is presently no law relating to mining
> > > the sun.
> >
> > And there wouldn't be, because....
>
> Laws are made in response to things that actually happen.
Sometimes. Banning the cloning of humans happened before humans were
cloned.
> The Earth is a celestial body and its not covered under the treaty.
> The Sun ISN'T MENTIONED AT ALL! Its not covered.
It is a "celestial body." Below is a link to the full text of the
treaty. Search it for "comet." Or "asteroid." Or "planet." Or
"meteoroid." See what you find.
http://www.unoosa.org/pdf/publications/STSPACE11E.pdf
Then, go here, and see if the sun is somehow excluded from the concept
of "celestial body:"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_body
Williamknowsbest
> Williamknowsbest wrote:
>
> > There is one detail that's pretty well kinown- the Sun is gawdawful
> > big! So, impressing a few cubic kilometers with patterned light
> > doesn't seem like such a big deal.
>
> Or even useful.
A dense hyrogen rich plasma is a nonlinear optical environment. Such an
environment may be ideally suited to be an optical computing platform.
With laser induced fast fusion powered light sources, such platforms
may be established and maintained in such a plasma by controlled fusion
events formed by the operation of the platform itself. The use of
optical tweezers have ben demonstrated in plasmas in the lab. This
might be used by the platform described to manipulate the plasma
environment. The use of optical mollasses have been demonstrated in
plasmas in the lab. This might be used by the platform described to
cool and structure the plasma environment. These are all reasonable
research goals directed toward making use of the solar environment.
The existence of the cotton gin flies in the face of your remark (which
you removed) that no technology has ever eixsted that has not been
turned into a weapon or weaponized.
> > > But the second two are clearly
> > > and obviously bad examples on your part. The ability to quickly
> > > engineer and build bridges has long been a staple of warfare.
> >
> > I challenge you to show me a weaponized bridge.
>
>
> http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/imgs/avlb.jpg
>
How does it kill people exactly?
> > > Atheltic
> > > shoe design has had some role in designing combat boots.
> >
> > I challenge you to show me a weaponized Nike shoe.
>
> http://www.militarykit.com/images/products_full/footwear_lowa_combat_boot_gtx.jpg
>
I didn't ask to be shown a combat boot made by Nike. I asked you to
show me a weaponized running show. Sorry for any confusion. You are
shoing me here not a running shoe or athletic shoe but a combat boot.
Even so, how does this boot kill people exactly?
> Same technology.
>
No its not. This isn't designed for marathon running.
> > > It's much easier
> > > to break a rock apart than it it to carve it into a little elephant.
> >
> > That's a rock. Not the sun. The sun is more like a candle.
> > It's much easier to blow a candle out than make it explode.
> >
> > Please refer to what it takes for a star to go Supernova. It ain't
> > easy
>
> Please refer to what it takes to surgically repair a human brain. And
> what it takes to bash said brains out with a rock.
Thats how rocks and brains work. Not the sun. As I said, its easier
to blow a candle out than to make it into a bomb. Oh, you can take the
wax in a candle, grind it to a powder, and mix it with an oxidizer and
then add the right detonator, and get a dandy bomb! But that's a lot
harder than lighting the candle, and far far harder than blowing it
out.
Similar for the sun. Lots of dwarf stars like the sun are easy to
light. Not so many blow up. With structured blasts the sun can be
made to blow off its metals, and can be made to break into pieces that
would dramatically reduce its output. It would take more effort than
any of these other projects to tune the ejetion events with compression
events to cause the sun to detonate. - and even then, the detonation
wouldn't be complete - not that it would matter to any civilization
orbiting it - since a partial detonation would be bad.
But we should be clear about the reality of the situation. If my
technology works as advertized, its clearly easiest to pull stuff out
of the sun compared to controlling the ejection across the whole sun to
cause it to spin. Its plainly easier to get it to spin than break
apart. Its obviously easier to get it to break apart than rapidly
burn. Its clear that such rapid burns for dwarf stars like the sun
cannot go to completion without being restarted at some point.
No, for tiny starts like the sun, and its sub-parts if they are ever
made, its far easier to reduce their output than increease it, and very
hard to cause a complete conversion of hydrogen in the sun explosively.
> If you have the technology to actually carve up the sun into a group of
> smaller, separate stars, you will ahve already long since developed the
> tech to just plain destroy the star.
You say that based on models inappropriately applied. Rocks, rocks
smashed into someone's head. I know it seems clear to you -but your
apparent knowing is not arrived at through critical thinking, but
through prejudice.
Consider what is really going on for a second. I am talking about
introducing self-replicating plasma structures that produce controlled
ejection plumes to gather and shape materials for human use that are
presently located in the sun.
Now consider;
A single ejection plume can extract material from the sun at very high
rates.
A single plume is easier than multiple ejection plumes being
coordinated Multiple ejection plumes can construct huge objects around
the sun, like the shell we're discussing.
Multple plumes are easier than using relativistic ejection plumes
directed tangentialy to the solar surface which are needed to cause the
sun to spin.
Multiple relativisitc plumes are easier than using variable
relativisitic ejection plumes that vary in direction to the solar
surface to cause the sun to break up in a controlled way as it spins.
Multiple relativisitc plumes that very are easier than using highly
variable relativisitc ejection plumes very precisely coordinated to
produce spherical compression waves that cause detonation of a portion
of the solar fuel - incidentially wiping out the self replicating
plasmas that sustains it.
Precise spherical compression waves - that are self limiting in
objects the size of the sun - are easier than precisely colliding and
configuring divided masses in controlled ways to obtain larger yields
than are possible with precise spherical compression
So, clearly, while it might one day be possible to use these systems in
warfare, if they are ever developed, the weaponized version of this
technology is several steps removed from its commercial version - and
likely will never be developed by humanity unless there is a pressing
need for it.
> > > > > > > > Success along the lines I envision totally outclasses anything else
> > > > > > > > humanity could do prior to success. And very quickly too. The ability
> > > > > > > > to eject from the sun in a controlled way, planetary system sized
> > > > > > > > masses of raw material and shape and form them into operating finished
> > > > > > > > products by scattering structured photons off them - is just
> > > > > > > > mind-boggling.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Indeed. And imagine the fun one could have hacking into the control
> > > > > > > computers and making the system go nova rather than just calving off
> > > > > > > calmly.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Who would do that and what would be their motivation? Especially since
> > > > > > the perps would get killed in the process.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ever hear of a suicide bomber?
> > > >
> > > > Yes. This is germaine how?
> > >
> > > Wow. Just... wow. The fact that you can't figure that out... says much.
> >
> > The fact you can't figure out why I asked the question says equally
> > much.
>
> Yes... that you are monstrously ignorant of human motivations.
You are ignorant of how we have been kept safe from nuclear
annihilation for over 50 years.
> > > > > For fuck's sake, Bill. Take things to a ridiculous extreme: imagine
> > > > > giving a package to every human on Earth today. Inside the package was
> > > > > a vial of "Instant Extinction" brand super-Ebola, genetically modified
> > > > > to wipe out humanity. Also included in the package was *very* clearly
> > > > > written and recorded verbal instructions: you push the red button, the
> > > > > virus is released. You push the green button, the virus is incinerated
> > > > > and a hundred-dollar bill pops out. Do you honestly believe that
> > > > > *nobody* would push the red button?
> > > >
> > > > Inappropriate comparison. - give the box to 10 top leaders who took
> > > > the threat seriously and and you would have a more realistic response.
> > >
> > > Incorrect.
> >
> > Absolutely correct, you don't get to come to the control room without
> > an invitation. Others must deal with security. Ever try to get into
> > the control room of a nuclear power plant?
>
> You don;t get to enter a cockpit without an invite, either... yet a
> group of people whose motives you couldn't possibly comprehend managed
> to do it a few years back.
Inappropriate comparison. There are tens of thousands of commercial
aircraft flying billions of people around the world everyvyear for the
past quarter century at least. Manifestly not what I'm proposing. I'm
proposing a single control room managing a single ejection plume
produced in the sun. Even my comparison to nuclear power plants is not
truly appropriate. As there are 101 nuclear plants operating in the
US.
No, a more appropriate comparison is a nuclear power plant control
room, or entry into the PANTEX plant in Texas
http://www.pantex.com/issm/index.html
I would have security on par with this, with similar successful
results.
> This control system will be
> > at least as secure as that.
> >
> > > By the time mankind can subdivide the sun, our population
> > > will probably be measurable in trillions.
> >
> > Our populaiton will never exceed 12 billion on Earth without off-world
> > support.
>
> Ummm... who said "on Earth," Bill?
I did.
> Please do try to keep up with your
> betters.
When I meet them, I do.
> > > Maybe quadrillions. So there
> > > will be vast numbers of people spread to hell and gone from here to
> > > Omicron Persei 8, alkl of whom you will need to control and prevent
> > > from tinkering with your little construction project.
> >
> > Actually, if this idea works as expected, this could happen in your
> > lifetime.
>
> Riiiiiight.
I see you have formulated a well-reasoned cogent response! lol. My
betters indeed! haha..
> > > >> (ever hear of the "Human extinction Movement?"),
> > > >
> > > > No.
> > >
> > > Then you really need to research your fellow man for a while. We ain't
> > > exactly quite right in the head as a species.
> >
> > The rantings of lunatics don't interest me! lol.
>
> Your own writings don't interest you?
Indeed they do. QED
> (Wow, that was easy)
hahaha... ayup! lol.
> > > > > or that an
> > > > > apocolypse would help bring the Second Coming of Jesus or the Hidden
> > > > > Imam or Big Bird or whatever. And there is more than a share of people
> > > > > who are just plain evil or nuts.
> > > >
> > > > True. There are causes for that and those will be addressed as we
> > > > advance as a species.
> > >
> > > Sure. Genetic engineering will make a better breed of ideologically
> > > pure super-slave ready to serve their Draka overloards.
> > >
> >
> > Actually, cross-breed vigor works in humans too.
>
> ZOOM! And the point goes right over Bill's head.
No, yours.
> > Oh, I was thinking more along the lines of Ferengi
>
> No doubt.
You're the star-trek fan aren't you?
> > > > > Yes, and? That's hardly stopped mobs from makign such demands before.
> > > > > or even today. A lot of peopel actually want to turn a lot of power
> > > > > over to the UN, *despite* the fact that it's run by incompetant
> > > > > criminals.
> > > >
> > > > A lot? I don't think so.
> > >
> > > Once again: do some research.
> >
> > Most of humanity doesn't trust their mayor, let alone the UN.
>
> When did "lots" become synonymous with "most?"
Because what most people do is what determines the response of society.
> If,say, one million
> people wanted to kill *you,* it'd be fair to say that "lots" of peopel
> wanted to kill you. But one million people compared to the population
> or Earth, or even the US, is not "most."
That's true. But you are raising all these examples as if they
actually mean something to what I'm proposing and you haven't shown a
connetion.
If I fly a solar sample return mission using the technology described I
don't see anyone objecting to it or opposing it if properly presented
and managed. There was none for the comet return mission.
Once the ejection plume is operational on the sun, I don't see anyone
objecting to the commercial use of returned samples (if any) after the
science is done.
And, once samples are returned, I don't see any objections occuring as
the rate is quietly increased. In fact, with the right PR campaign
being hailed as a hero. After all, increased use of strategic
materials along with energy allows expansion of industry to occur
cleanly, and safely. Profits earned by the mining companies who
process and market the increasing flow of metals allow them to shut
down mines and reclaim them to a high degree, and muster out with very
good pension all their workers, and send to college all the kids of all
the workers to train them in other professions.
Actually, I think I know the theme song I'll use for the campaign...
Here Comes The Sun
(George Harrison)
Here comes the sun, here comes the sun
And I say it's all right
Little darlin' it's been a long cold lonely winter
Little darlin' it feels like years since it's been here
Here comes the sun, here comes the sun
And I say it's all right
Little darlin' the smiles returning to their faces
Little darlin' it seems like years since it's been here
Here comes the sun, here comes the sun
And I say it's all right
Sun, sun, sun, here it comes
Sun, sun, sun, here it comes
Sun, sun, sun, here it comes
Sun, sun, sun, here it comes
Sun, sun, sun, here it comes
Little darlin' I feel the ice is slowly meltin'
Little darlin' it seems like years since it's been clear
Here come the sun, here comes the sun
And I say it's all right
Here come the sun, here comes the sun
It's all right, it's all right
>
>
> > > > > "Holy shit, they're fucking with the sun" will be one hell of a
> > > > > motivator.
> > > >
> > > > Depends on the details of how its done.
> > >
> > > Please. There are loonies who believe that the Galileo mission to
> > > Jupiter was a secret NASA project to drop a nuke into Jupiter and casue
> > > it to turn into a second sun.
> >
> > Really? References?
>
> Listen to the Art Bell show.
Why?
> Or do a *very* basic Google search, and
> you'll turn up nuts like this:
> http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/JUPFULLx.htm
> "7/30/03: The author believes the nuclear events reported here to be
> very unlikely and only remotely possible, but just as an asteroid
> impact with earth is remotely possible (and widely researched and
> reported on), the Jupiter impact issue deserves exposure also, because
> there is compelling evidence to suggest the feasibility of at least a
> temporary Jupiter ignition. Given the potential consequences of this,
> serious research is warranted."
How's that working out for him as a career choice? lol.
The only thing you have succeeded in proving is that there are some
troubled people in the world. You have not succeeded in demonstrating
why I should be concerned with them or how their existence adversely
affects my project. You say very surely and loudly that people will
stop me, will object, will kill me, whatever. You have failed to
demonstrate that is the case. Fact is, I can see rather clearly how it
will all go, providing of course the technology can be made to work as
advertised. Which is the REAL show stopper.
> > > but enough, in their tiny little
> > > minds, to kill everyone on the planet.
> >
> > That was a miscalculation
>
> No, it was a crazy-ass *lie.* A *knife* is capable of killign every
> human on the planet... at least in a weirdass hypothetical world where
> everyone line sup for it.
Like they did for Reverend Jim Jones. so what?
> Same bullcrap applied to the RTG issue. But
> people *believe* that crap.
Yes, lots of troubled people exist in this world. You have yet to show
me why I should be concerned with them or take them into account in any
of my thoughts or planning for this. As I said, I see very clearly how
this would proceed if the technology can be made to work, and there are
no showstoppers politically - despite the existence of trouled folk who
have done stupid things.
> > > There are people who think that
> > > Apollo was a hoax,
> >
> > They are crazy.
>
> They exist.
I agree. That doesn't mean they'll impact the proposed project here at
all.
> > > that the Holocaust didn't happen,
> >
> > Equally so.
>
> They exist. In annoyingly large numbers.
Fuck 'em. Whether they believe the holocaust happened or not has
nothing to do with what I'm discussing here. You have yet to show a
clear compelling connection.
> > Indicator of the abject failure of the Democratic party to lead the
> > nation effectively. Where are the likes of Tilden and Cleveland when
> > you need them?
>
> Buried. Typically about 6 feet down.
>
I didn't ask where Tilden's or Cleveland's bodies are today - I asked
where the likes of Tilden and Cleveland are when you need them?
They controlled the party during the Gilded Age of massive expansion of
US industry, making of the US a world power where previsouly it was
only a regional power.
The national vote was very evenly balanced in the 1880s. Though
Republicans continued to control the White House until 1884, the
Democrats remained competitive. Very similar to the situation facing us
today. The party at that time was dominated by conservative
pro-business Bourbon Democrats led by Samuel J. Tilden and Grover
Cleveland, they had a solid base in the South and great strength in the
rural lower Midwestern United States. The very base that has eroded in
modern times giving ascendancy to the Republicans.
They controlled the House of Representatives for most of that period.
In the election of 1884, Grover Cleveland, the reforming Democratic
Governor of New York, won the Presidency. He was defeated in the
election of 1888 but was re-elected in 1892. Cleveland was the leader
of the conservative Bourbon Democrats who represented mercantile,
banking and railroad interests, opposed imperialism and overseas
expansion, fought for the gold standard, opposed bimetallism, and
crusaded against corruption and high taxes and tariffs. The Bourbon
Democrats were overthrown by William Jennings Bryan in 1896.
I'd like to see a return to the gold standard and the end of government
mperialism the rise of mercantile interests and a more just world where
resources are abundantly produced by business and shared by all in a
free and fair global market.
> > > > 'fucking with the sun' would
> > > > be a mischaracterization. 'a minor structured ejection event smaller
> > > > than 99.999% of all ejecta produced by the sun but due to the sun's
> > > > huge size, will delver all the world's need for metals, whilst
> > > > eliminating the need to harm the earth with dangerous and dirty mines -
> > >
> > > Asteroid mining would be vastly easier and incredibly less insane.
> >
> > Depends on the technical details, and asteroids are covered by the OST.
>
> So is the sun.
I understand your position. Please understand mine.
No! haha.. Because if the Sun were covered by the treaty then
resources derived from the sun would be covered by the treaty.
Sunlight is a resource derived from the sun. It is used commercially
and invidiually every day by every one of us. Its use it not regulated
by the terms of the treaty, therefore sunlight isn't covered by the
treaty. If that resource from the sun isn't covered by the treaty, why
would any other resource from the sun be covered by the treaty? Anyone
holding to your position would have to bring a suit against me in
court, show why they are the appropriate party to bring that suit,
then, and only then answer this question (and others)
Fact is, once the sample return mission was done, the rates of sample
recovery would quietly be raised to commercial levels. No one would
need know what the heck was happening on a tiny little plume 150
million miles from here.
Someone somewhere would have to be motivated to assert that the treaty
applied. And I wouldn't give them that motivation. The mere
continuation and increasing of sample return rates wouldn't provide it.
Then such an assertion would have to be backed by legal action, because
I sure as hell wouldn't accede to a mere a assertion.
Once a suit was filed I would then ask the complaining party to show
why they were the ones to bring the action, why I had to answer to them
and what authority they had so forth - before they even got to argue
their case -
Meanwhile, I would put together a PR campaign detailing the benefits I
provide to humanity and the market, and question the rights of some
bureaucrat to tortuously interfere with my business..
Privately I would get to the bottom of what is motivating this action
on a political level - and correct that wherever possible to avoid
embarassment of them losing a case against me..
In short, I wouldn't make it easy for anyone, if it should come to
that, and I would avoid it anyway, since all your objections amount to
a lot of pointless handwringing over nothing.
.
> > >
> > > > Governments most commonly use the power of eminent domain when the
> > > > acquisition of real property is necessary for the completion of public
> > > > projects such as roads, military installations, or public buildings.
> > >
> > > Or shopping malls.
> >
> > Kelo v. New London - the Supreme Court decided that a few hold-outs
> > could not stand in the way of 'progress'
>
> There are far more cases than just that one.
This one is germaine to what you're talking about and shows rather
clearly that no one could easily bring an eminent domain case against a
structure that existed on and inside the sun. And if I owned the
damned thing, I sure as hell wouldn't make it easy for anyone to bring
that case - and I sure a snot ain't gonna worry about the possiblity of
that happening or let it stop me from moving forward if I can.
> > > > Since the sun is not in anyone's jurisdiction, this is not going to
> > > > happen.
> > >
> > > You'll suddenly find that you are in somebodies juristiction.
> >
> > Who's? Who would claim the sun?
>
> Every jackass with a bureauocracy and lawyers.
What is the lega precedent? You can't stop any jackass from bringing a
lawsuit against you for ANY reason. Does it make sense to worry about
all those jackases? HELL NO! It does make sense to proceed in a
reasonable manner to to the best you can with the best technology
available and not worry about what idiots might do someday. sheez.
> > What is the reason? And what legal
> > precedent would they cite?
> >
> > > Heck,
> > > what do you think woudl happen if asteroid mining were to begin?
> >
> > Asteroids are a celestrial body under the terms of the OST - so those
> > rules would apply. The SUN is not a celestrial body under the OST...
>
> The phrase used repeatedly in the OST is "the Moon and other celestial
> bodies." This covers asteroids, planets, comets, the sun.
Article 11 paragraph 6,7 and 8 of the treaty speaks about ownership and
disposition of natural resources that may be discovered on the moon.
Principle I in the Remote Sensing Annex of the treaty speaks about
sensing the natural resources on Earth from space. Principle IV same
thing.
Appendix E, talking about the special needs of developing nations,
calls for in its Annex, in Paragraph 5 speaks of allocating financial
and technical resources in nations where space faring nations have
operating centers.
> - it
> > isn't even mentioned - and is not covered. If it were covered, then
> > any product imported to earth from the sun - i.e. SUNLIGHT - would have
> > to be imported under the terms of the treaty.
>
> Don;t give them ideas.
I'm not. I'm stating a legal position that a mining interest who
economically recovered pieces of the sun would take. Its up to any
adversary to make their argument. I'm merely stating my position where
I to own such an asset and intellectual property. in fact that forms
the basis of my later arguments should the earlier ones fail.
But the early argument is a sound one. Solar powersats are permitted
by the treaty - because they harvest sunlight in space. Clearly a
resource from the sun. The use of solar batteries on satellites is
permitted under the treaty. Clearly, any use of solar resources is not
covered by the treaty, therefore I would argue that the treaty doesn't
include the Sun, or any other star, as a celestial object under the
terms of the treaty.
But say despite this argument, that you are right and the right to
bring a lawsuit against my solar operations is allowed by a court of
competent jurisdiction.
Alright, so you can bring a lawsuit, and you can interfere with my
business, and you the rules that were clearly written for mining the
moon somehow apply, FINE, what is it that I own on the sun exactly that
you want me to hand over since all I have is the ability to create
transient controlled swtiching in nonlinear plasma with light? (note I
would have a number of patents on the technique and IP related, and
copyrights on software and such)
Nope, it wouldn't be easy for anyone arguing along the lines you
propose - and anyone who wanted to have me give them a piee of the sun
I controlled on the sun, would have to show what it was exactly I was
to hand over - because I wouldn't hand over the IP. Hell the plasma
that the structured laser pattern is made in changes from moment to
moment. So what are they talking about? THEY brought the suit, if
they don't know what they want or can't defend it, then that's their
problem not mine.
And if they tried to argue that I had to turn over the IP and software
- they'd have to start at the beginning all over again. Who are they
and what right do they have to tell me what to do with my software and
IP?
> > Sunlight has been
> > imported to Earth for billions of years unenumbered by the treaty and
> > humanity has made use of sunlight its entire tenure on Earth without
> > reference to this treaty. Therefore, the products of the sun, and the
> > body of the sun iteself is not a celestrial body covered under the
> > terms of the OST.
>
> Are asteroids covered? If so, then that means meteorites as well, and
> the US can't legally own one.
Claims of sovereignty are controlled. If the US claimed to own the
entire sun, that would not be allowed.
Read it - for yourself.
http://www.unoosa.org/pdf/publications/STSPACE11E.pdf
Well, asteroids are not explicitly mentioned in connection with natural
resources. Celestial bodies are mentioned with respect to soverignty
claims, ownership claims, the placement of military forces, the
placement of weapons, and so forth.
Natural resources discovered on the moon is the only thing covered in
the treaty at present. So, asteroids and planets are not explicitly
covered except by returning any part of a celestial body to Earth you
have to claim it in some sense before selling it or using it. Ditto
with making use of resources in situ - on mars for example.
There is a claims body established in the treaty, but that is to settle
competing claims between member states. Its up to each member state to
apply the treaty to its citizens activities, and if another member
state objects to the way that state is using the trreaty it is up to
the objecting state to bring action to the claims commission. The
claims commission then must investigate and make a decision, and then
all parties must either abide by that decision or bring suit to have a
hearing and show cause why the decision should not be upheld.
If I were operating in the US and someone complained in China say that
my solar operations were killing their export market for steel,
impoverishing a poor country,while enriching a rich one, and wanted to
stop me under the terms of the treaty, they would bring a complaint to
the claims commission against the US. The commission would investigate
and rule. If they ruled against me, the US would either accede to the
ruling and tell me to comply with the ruling, or object and argue
against the ruling. At some point lets say the US tells me I must
comply with the ruling. Okay, I'm going to continue to operate while
all this goes on. I'm also going to ask what it means to comply with
the ruling. And anything I don't like - I'll force the US government
to bring suit against me in a court of competent jurisdiction while
fully complying with all things I don't mind. I will then question the
right of the US government to impede the operation of a free US citizen
under the terms of the treaty. I would then question the parties
bringing the lawsuit as being the right parties. I would then question
the US interpretation of the commissisons findings. I would then
qestion the right of the US parties to interpret the findings. I would
then question the right of the commission to make its findings. I
would then question the findings themselves. I would then question the
right of the complainant to bring a complaint. and so on.
Meanwhile I would continue operating.
And I would mount a PR campaign asking America if China has the right
to use the UN to reign in its best technology - and what sort of US
government kowtows to China and the UN?
And I would quietly approach the Chinese mining interests and see if I
could cut them into a deal they can live with.
Like I said, i don't see it as being a huge ass problem - the
technology is the problem at present.
The cool thing about this process described here is that it does not
require massive amounts of people or equipment to be supported from
Earth. One launch one payload - and bam - you've got something huge on
your hands. This makes it ideally suited for early stage development
of off world resources.
> The more likely answer: you're wrong.
About what?
> > > > In a law abiding society that doesn't happen. This is a law abiding
> > > > society. So, it won't happen.
> > >
> > > <Guffaw>
> >
> > When making plans one has to make reasonable assessments as to what is
> > likely and what is not likely. It is likely that laws will be abided
> > by...
>
> What fucking planet do you live on???
Earth
> > and that as citizens of the US, we can count on those laws being
> > applied fairly. Guffaw if you like, but I truly believe this and trust
> > this.
>
>
> Wow. I can't wait until you get mugged.
>
??? You are confusing orders of concern. I do not see any reason to
fear legal action from anyone that would successfully stop an operating
intelligent plume should one ever be established along the lines I
envision. So, I'm not going to lose a lot of sleep over the pointless
hand-wringing that passes for analysis in your world. Should the PR
spin get too far out of hand - and should nutjobs like the ones you
mention beome security threats to our operation - then, obviously I
would take all appropriate legal action to secure the operation against
illegal activities by these crazy people.
> > > > > Consider if I built an actual, honest-to-Odin nuclear
> > > > > bomb in my back yard.
> > > >
> > > > That is illegal in the law. So, expect folks to come knocking with
> > > > handcuffs and warrants. There is presently no law relating to mining
> > > > the sun.
> > >
> > > And there wouldn't be, because....
> >
> > Laws are made in response to things that actually happen.
>
> Sometimes. Banning the cloning of humans happened before humans were
> cloned.
Human reproductive technology has a long history of highly emotional
developments, since humans have a special emotional attachment to their
reproductive functions. Even so, before laws were passed there were
mammals that were cloned, so my point stands. In the less emotional
world of metals mining, I doubt you could get headlines, let alone
concerted legal action. Sorry. I don't buy it, and I'm not going to
worry too damn much about it.
> > The Earth is a celestial body and its not covered under the treaty.
> > The Sun ISN'T MENTIONED AT ALL! Its not covered.
>
> It is a "celestial body." Below is a link to the full text of the
> treaty. Search it for "comet." Or "asteroid." Or "planet." Or
> "meteoroid." See what you find.
> http://www.unoosa.org/pdf/publications/STSPACE11E.pdf
I gave the reference before you did - I read the treaty. It talks
about making claims on celestrial bodies like claiming soveriegnty -
but lesser claims, claims of using resources, cannot apply to the sun
since the use of sunlight is permitted both in space and on Earth
without recourse to the treaty. Therefore the treaty does not apply to
MY use of the sun in the way I've proposed - returning metals to my
lands for sale on Earth.
Having said all that I will say,that if I were to personaly claim
ownership of the entire Sun and decided on my own shut it down to build
the shell I describe, without taking care as to what this might do to
the good people of Earth, I would say the good people of Earth would
have grounds to object -
I would say this objection would come in the form of an easement claim
on their normal use of the sun, not imminent domain.
Furthermore, I would say that they would also claim damages should I be
so foolish as to interrupt their natural enjoyment and use of the sun.
On this basis I could be stopped and asked to restore the sun to its
former condition, and pay restitution to everyone that lost a sunny
day, and for any pracxtical losses they may have, plus damage to send a
signal to any future person that turning off the sun isn't something
the good people of Earth would like.
So, this means I won't do that. Not without taking care to make sure
that the conditions that occur on Earth and that have occurred on Earth
since the earliest days of humanity, were maintained indefintely in the
future.
HOW that is done would be up to me. But, certainly I would take care
to avoid a legitimate lawsuit from the good people of Earth and their
rightful use of the sun that they have always enjoyed since humans
first came down from trees.
> Then, go here, and see if the sun is somehow excluded from the concept
> of "celestial body:"
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_body
You are making an argument against my position. If someone brought
suit to enforce this treaty, I would not agree with this argument, nor
would I have attorneys agree with this argument, and I would argue in a
different way. As far as dictionary definitions go, each treaty has
its terms and conditions which can vary from every day usage. Terms
are defined in a well written treaty. Lacking clear definition
reasonable adversaries can argue about terms. I argue that if the sun
is a celestial body covered by the treaty, then the treaty should be
rejected on its face as tortuously interfereing with the right of the
good people of Earth to quietly enjoy and make use of the sun which
has been their right for all time before the treaty. I would ask that
the treaty be struck down and that a new treaty be written if needed,
or more reasonably ask the court to rule that the sun is not covered
under the treaty since solar resources have been used for a long time
and will likely continue to be used for a long time.
No, you won't make any progress with me that way either.
I have an easement established by a long history of use, to use
sunlight irrespective of the treaty. That means I can use the
resources of that celestial body we call the sun,regardless of any
treaty promulgated at any time. So, to the extent the treaty applies
to the sun, it is null and void by this easement - and because it is
not covered by the treaty, then ANY resource I derive from the sun, I
have rights to.
Now, if I were arguing the other side, not my case, but the other side,
I would say that everyone has the same easement rights to the enjoyment
of the sun, so anyone can establish use of it - which is fine by me -
if all they're saying is I can't shut the sun down without taking care
of making sure sunlight arrives on Earth uninterrupted. But if they
say I've got to share my technology and use of the sun, I'll point to
my patents and such - and say not till those expire son. Then, once
they expire, I'll say there's only one party that has the long decades
of experience needed to mine the sun safely, and that's me! lol.
scottlowtherATixDOTnetcomDOTcom
Williamknowsbest wrote:
> scottlowtherATixDOTnetcomDOTcom wrote:
> > Williamknowsbest wrote:
> >
> > > There is one detail that's pretty well kinown- the Sun is gawdawful
> > > big! So, impressing a few cubic kilometers with patterned light
> > > doesn't seem like such a big deal.
> >
> > Or even useful.
>
> A dense hyrogen rich plasma is a nonlinear optical environment. Such an
> environment may be ideally suited to be an optical computing platform.
Uh-huh.
> The existence of the cotton gin flies in the face of your remark (which
> you removed) that no technology has ever eixsted that has not been
> turned into a weapon or weaponized.
Let me know when the history of warfare is stripped of machines that
use the same technology that the cotton gin used.
>
> > > > But the second two are clearly
> > > > and obviously bad examples on your part. The ability to quickly
> > > > engineer and build bridges has long been a staple of warfare.
> > >
> > > I challenge you to show me a weaponized bridge.
> >
> >
> > http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/imgs/avlb.jpg
> >
>
> How does it kill people exactly?
By leading soldiers and tanks to 'em. The laser on a rifle might not
kill a person, but it sure helps the guy with the rifle kill people.
>
> > > > Atheltic
> > > > shoe design has had some role in designing combat boots.
> > >
> > > I challenge you to show me a weaponized Nike shoe.
> >
> > http://www.militarykit.com/images/products_full/footwear_lowa_combat_boot_gtx.jpg
> >
>
> I didn't ask to be shown a combat boot made by Nike. I asked you to
> show me a weaponized running show.
Same technology, Ace.
>
> > > > It's much easier
> > > > to break a rock apart than it it to carve it into a little elephant.
> > >
> > > That's a rock. Not the sun. The sun is more like a candle.
> > > It's much easier to blow a candle out than make it explode.
> > >
> > > Please refer to what it takes for a star to go Supernova. It ain't
> > > easy
> >
> > Please refer to what it takes to surgically repair a human brain. And
> > what it takes to bash said brains out with a rock.
>
> Thats how rocks and brains work. Not the sun. As I said, its easier
> to blow a candle out than to make it into a bomb.
And how easy is it to surgically remove fire from the flame?
> But we should be clear about the reality of the situation. If my
> technology works as advertized...
... it would be a first since you started posting your brain droppings
on this newsgroup.
> You are ignorant of how we have been kept safe from nuclear
> annihilation for over 50 years.
It's called "fear of death." It's a strategy that works great when your
opponant fears death from your retaliation. it won't work so well
against lunatics who think that getting nuked is the fast way to
paradise.
> Inappropriate comparison. There are tens of thousands of commercial
> aircraft flying billions of people around the world everyvyear for the
> past quarter century at least. Manifestly not what I'm proposing. I'm
> proposing a single control room managing a single ejection plume
> produced in the sun.
You are proposing dicing up the sun into dwarf stars. *All* *kinds* of
room for screwups and tampering there.
Even my comparison to nuclear power plants is not
> truly appropriate. As there are 101 nuclear plants operating in the
> US.
>
> No, a more appropriate comparison is a nuclear power plant control
> room, or entry into the PANTEX plant in Texas
Uh-huh. What happens if PANTEX gets nuked? Well, Texas and Louisiana
are in for hard times. What happens if your control room gets nuked (or
the twenty-fith century equivalent) in the midst of some delicate part
of the sun-dissection?
> > This control system will be
> > > at least as secure as that.
> > >
> > > > By the time mankind can subdivide the sun, our population
> > > > will probably be measurable in trillions.
> > >
> > > Our populaiton will never exceed 12 billion on Earth without off-world
> > > support.
> >
> > Ummm... who said "on Earth," Bill?
>
> I did.
And that's why it was irrelevant.
>
> > Please do try to keep up with your
> > betters.
>
> When I meet them, I do.
You're not trying hard enough. You're falling behind.
>
> > > > Maybe quadrillions. So there
> > > > will be vast numbers of people spread to hell and gone from here to
> > > > Omicron Persei 8, alkl of whom you will need to control and prevent
> > > > from tinkering with your little construction project.
> > >
> > > Actually, if this idea works as expected, this could happen in your
> > > lifetime.
> >
> > Riiiiiight.
>
> I see you have formulated a well-reasoned cogent response! lol. My
> betters indeed! haha..
It's a waste of time to spend a great deal of time and effort producing
well-reasoned argueemtns when dealing with the unreasonable.
>
> > > > >> (ever hear of the "Human extinction Movement?"),
> > > > >
> > > > > No.
> > > >
> > > > Then you really need to research your fellow man for a while. We ain't
> > > > exactly quite right in the head as a species.
> > >
> > > The rantings of lunatics don't interest me! lol.
> >
> > Your own writings don't interest you?
>
> Indeed they do. QED
Ah. Cognitive dissonance, thy name is "Mook."
>
> > > > > > or that an
> > > > > > apocolypse would help bring the Second Coming of Jesus or the Hidden
> > > > > > Imam or Big Bird or whatever. And there is more than a share of people
> > > > > > who are just plain evil or nuts.
> > > > >
> > > > > True. There are causes for that and those will be addressed as we
> > > > > advance as a species.
> > > >
> > > > Sure. Genetic engineering will make a better breed of ideologically
> > > > pure super-slave ready to serve their Draka overloards.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Actually, cross-breed vigor works in humans too.
> >
> > ZOOM! And the point goes right over Bill's head.
>
> No, yours.
And history made no impact on you either. How many times throughout
history have "racial/ethnic/religious/ideological purity" been striven
for? More times than I can count.
>
> > > Oh, I was thinking more along the lines of Ferengi
> >
> > No doubt.
>
> You're the star-trek fan aren't you?
Irrelevant.
>
> > > > > > Yes, and? That's hardly stopped mobs from makign such demands before.
> > > > > > or even today. A lot of peopel actually want to turn a lot of power
> > > > > > over to the UN, *despite* the fact that it's run by incompetant
> > > > > > criminals.
> > > > >
> > > > > A lot? I don't think so.
> > > >
> > > > Once again: do some research.
> > >
> > > Most of humanity doesn't trust their mayor, let alone the UN.
> >
> > When did "lots" become synonymous with "most?"
>
> Because what most people do is what determines the response of society.
Uh-huh. I'm sorry, Bill, but that displays *staggering* ignorance.
> > > Indicator of the abject failure of the Democratic party to lead the
> > > nation effectively. Where are the likes of Tilden and Cleveland when
> > > you need them?
> >
> > Buried. Typically about 6 feet down.
> >
>
> I didn't ask where Tilden's or Cleveland's bodies are today - I asked
> where the likes of Tilden and Cleveland are when you need them?
Dead. Or were you planning to clone them? The dead remain dead. Pining
for some long-gone golden age or some wonderous leader from the past is
a mark of insanity.
> No! haha.. Because if the Sun were covered by the treaty then
> resources derived from the sun would be covered by the treaty.
"Sunlight" is not a celestial body. teh Sun, however, is.
> > > > > Since the sun is not in anyone's jurisdiction, this is not going to
> > > > > happen.
> > > >
> > > > You'll suddenly find that you are in somebodies juristiction.
> > >
> > > Who's? Who would claim the sun?
> >
> > Every jackass with a bureauocracy and lawyers.
>
> What is the lega precedent?
Pretty much all of human history. Behold the workers paradise that is
today's venezuela, where Dictator For Life Chavez is nationalizing
every industry left and right. Same is going on in Russia. This sort of
thing has always happened, and probably always will.
> > > What is the reason? And what legal
> > > precedent would they cite?
> > >
> > > > Heck,
> > > > what do you think woudl happen if asteroid mining were to begin?
> > >
> > > Asteroids are a celestrial body under the terms of the OST - so those
> > > rules would apply. The SUN is not a celestrial body under the OST...
> >
> > The phrase used repeatedly in the OST is "the Moon and other celestial
> > bodies." This covers asteroids, planets, comets, the sun.
>
> Article 11 paragraph 6,7 and 8 of the treaty speaks about ownership and
> disposition of natural resources that may be discovered on the moon.
>
> Principle I in the Remote Sensing Annex of the treaty speaks about
> sensing the natural resources on Earth from space. Principle IV same
> thing.
>
> Appendix E, talking about the special needs of developing nations,
> calls for in its Annex, in Paragraph 5 speaks of allocating financial
> and technical resources in nations where space faring nations have
> operating centers.
All irrelevant.
>
> > > > > In a law abiding society that doesn't happen. This is a law abiding
> > > > > society. So, it won't happen.
> > > >
> > > > <Guffaw>
> > >
> > > When making plans one has to make reasonable assessments as to what is
> > > likely and what is not likely. It is likely that laws will be abided
> > > by...
> >
> > What fucking planet do you live on???
>
> Earth
Ah. Must be the one where everone has goatees. (You're the star-trek
fan, aren't you?)
>
> > > The Earth is a celestial body and its not covered under the treaty.
> > > The Sun ISN'T MENTIONED AT ALL! Its not covered.
> >
> > It is a "celestial body." Below is a link to the full text of the
> > treaty. Search it for "comet." Or "asteroid." Or "planet." Or
> > "meteoroid." See what you find.
>
> > http://www.unoosa.org/pdf/publications/STSPACE11E.pdf
>
> I gave the reference before you did - I read the treaty.
OK. Then where does it make mention of comets, asteroids, planets or
meteoroids? it doesn't is says "celestial bodies," which covers those
*and* the sun.
Sigh. Yet again, another waste of my time. Why *the* *fuck* do I bother
engaging in debate with someone so deranged that he thinks that in his
lifetime he will personally lead an operation to carve up the sun?
Sylvia Else
> Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>
> :I don't know about that. The kind of thing I'm worried about is having
> :bits of a star coming in our direction. Of course, no distance totally
> :excludes this risk, but at least it goes down with the square of the
> :distance. 40 light years would be 100 times safer then 4.
>
> Why? 'Bits of stars' would just be some gas by the time they got to
> us.
>
Not if they're large enough to be gravitationally bound.
Sylvia.
Williamknowsbest
scottlowtherATixDOTnetcomDOTcom wrote:
> Williamknowsbest wrote:
> > scottlowtherATixDOTnetcomDOTcom wrote:
> > > Williamknowsbest wrote:
> > >
> > > > There is one detail that's pretty well kinown- the Sun is gawdawful
> > > > big! So, impressing a few cubic kilometers with patterned light
> > > > doesn't seem like such a big deal.
> > >
> > > Or even useful.
> >
> > A dense hyrogen rich plasma is a nonlinear optical environment. Such an
> > environment may be ideally suited to be an optical computing platform.
>
> Uh-huh.
I said at the outset this was highly speculative. So, your attitude is
pointless.
> > The existence of the cotton gin flies in the face of your remark (which
> > you removed) that no technology has ever eixsted that has not been
> > turned into a weapon or weaponized.
>
> Let me know when the history of warfare is stripped of machines that
> use the same technology that the cotton gin used.
Well, the cotton gin combs cotton automatically so that the cotton
seeds aren't mixed in with the fibers and all the fibers are nicely
separated. What weapon uses that technology? lol. I suppose you
could say it uses levers and gears - but that's not the point. I
suppose you could say AT A STRETCH that uniforms that soldiers dressed
in were made of cotton combed by the cotton gin and were better
soldiers than the naked natives they attacked. SO WHAT?
The point is not ALL technology is amenable to use as a weapon and so
not all technology invariably gets used as a weapon. Including the
ability to remake stars - if it can be made to work. At least dwarf
stars like our sun.
> > > > > But the second two are clearly
> > > > > and obviously bad examples on your part. The ability to quickly
> > > > > engineer and build bridges has long been a staple of warfare.
> > > >
> > > > I challenge you to show me a weaponized bridge.
> > >
> > >
> > > http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/imgs/avlb.jpg
> > >
> >
> > How does it kill people exactly?
>
> By leading soldiers and tanks to 'em.
That's a stretch. The ability to put bridges up and move them around
in battle to provide troops easy access, I will grant you is a
weaponized sort of bridge. But the bridge iteself isn't a weapon, and
the technology shown in the bridge you referenced is not the same as
other bridge building technology. I would say this was an application
of motorized mechanical warfare, not bridges per se. After all, if
your removed the motor from that bridge, you'd have a helluva big
deadweight, and the ability to move a bridge for easy crossing of
rivers and such, is what makes it useful in combat. So, I'm no buying
it sorry.
> The laser on a rifle might not
> kill a person, but it sure helps the guy with the rifle kill people.
True, but that doesn't make the London Bridge a weapon. Put wheels on
the damn thing and make it easy to roll into battle, and you might have
a point. But bridges, as they're used every day, especially using the
technology they use for long span bridges, aren't used as weapons.
Show me a 500 m suspension bridge that's mobile and can be used in
combat. They don't exist. So, I'm not buying your bogus bullshit.
Sorry.
> > > > > Atheltic
> > > > > shoe design has had some role in designing combat boots.
> > > >
> > > > I challenge you to show me a weaponized Nike shoe.
> > >
> > > http://www.militarykit.com/images/products_full/footwear_lowa_combat_boot_gtx.jpg
> > >
> >
> > I didn't ask to be shown a combat boot made by Nike. I asked you to
> > show me a weaponized running show.
>
>
> Same technology, Ace.
So, just because a cotton gin is made partly of metal and partly of
wood, doesn't mean its a weapon just because a gun stock is made of
wood and the barrel made of metal. I don't see a helluva lot of
running shoes in combat. And I've never heard of anyone being killed
by a running shoe used as a weapon. Try again.
> > > > > It's much easier
> > > > > to break a rock apart than it it to carve it into a little elephant.
> > > >
> > > > That's a rock. Not the sun. The sun is more like a candle.
> > > > It's much easier to blow a candle out than make it explode.
> > > >
> > > > Please refer to what it takes for a star to go Supernova. It ain't
> > > > easy
> > >
> > > Please refer to what it takes to surgically repair a human brain. And
> > > what it takes to bash said brains out with a rock.
> >
> > Thats how rocks and brains work. Not the sun. As I said, its easier
> > to blow a candle out than to make it into a bomb.
>
> And how easy is it to surgically remove fire from the flame?
What the hell does that mean? A candle is an example of something
that's easy to light, easy to put out, but hard to make a bomb out of.
Just like a dwarf star.
> > But we should be clear about the reality of the situation. If my
> > technology works as advertized...
>
> ... it would be a first since you started posting your brain droppings
> on this newsgroup.
Not true.
>
> > You are ignorant of how we have been kept safe from nuclear
> > annihilation for over 50 years.
>
> It's called "fear of death." It's a strategy that works great when your
> opponant fears death from your retaliation. it won't work so well
> against lunatics who think that getting nuked is the fast way to
> paradise.
Even so, presumably those lunatics have existed for the past 60 years -
why haven't they gained access to a nuclear weapon and used it? Fact
is, they haven't and they won't because the security systems
surrounding the manufacture, deployment, maintenance of these weapons
makes them secure.
Same for other high risk operations. Nuclear power plants, chemical
plants, and so forth.
> > Inappropriate comparison. There are tens of thousands of commercial
> > aircraft flying billions of people around the world everyvyear for the
> > past quarter century at least. Manifestly not what I'm proposing. I'm
> > proposing a single control room managing a single ejection plume
> > produced in the sun.
>
> You are proposing dicing up the sun into dwarf stars. *All* *kinds* of
> room for screwups and tampering there.
But I won't be carrying billions of people a year through the system.
That's the point.
> Even my comparison to nuclear power plants is not
> > truly appropriate. As there are 101 nuclear plants operating in the
> > US.
> >
> > No, a more appropriate comparison is a nuclear power plant control
> > room, or entry into the PANTEX plant in Texas
>
> Uh-huh. What happens if PANTEX gets nuked? Well, Texas and Louisiana
> are in for hard times. What happens if your control room gets nuked (or
> the twenty-fith century equivalent) in the midst of some delicate part
> of the sun-dissection?
Obviously you don't understand distributed control systems. No single
point would be allowed to bring the whole system down. Sorry. Try
again.
> > > This control system will be
> > > > at least as secure as that.
> > > >
> > > > > By the time mankind can subdivide the sun, our population
> > > > > will probably be measurable in trillions.
> > > >
> > > > Our populaiton will never exceed 12 billion on Earth without off-world
> > > > support.
> > >
> > > Ummm... who said "on Earth," Bill?
> >
> > I did.
>
> And that's why it was irrelevant.
Very relevant. By the time we have trillions of people alive - if ever
- we'll be off-world. So, the concerns of Earth today will have little
bearing on the concerns then. in many ways today is the ideal time to
do such a project because the Earth's population is all situated at a
single point so to speak, and the benefits they would demand for
cooperation are very small indeed compared to a more mature and more
numerous number of people alive in the scenario you propose.
> > > Please do try to keep up with your
> > > betters.
> >
> > When I meet them, I do.
>
> You're not trying hard enough. You're falling behind.
I almost think that you are of the misbegotten opinion that you are my
better. Hard to concieve how anyone could come to such an egregious
opinion, but nevertheless... its funny to contemplate.
> >
> > > > > Maybe quadrillions. So there
> > > > > will be vast numbers of people spread to hell and gone from here to
> > > > > Omicron Persei 8, alkl of whom you will need to control and prevent
> > > > > from tinkering with your little construction project.
> > > >
> > > > Actually, if this idea works as expected, this could happen in your
> > > > lifetime.
> > >
> > > Riiiiiight.
> >
> > I see you have formulated a well-reasoned cogent response! lol. My
> > betters indeed! haha..
>
> It's a waste of time to spend a great deal of time and effort producing
> well-reasoned argueemtns when dealing with the unreasonable.
It also helps if your incapable of well-reasoned arguments in the first
place. lol.
> > > > > >> (ever hear of the "Human extinction Movement?"),
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No.
> > > > >
> > > > > Then you really need to research your fellow man for a while. We ain't
> > > > > exactly quite right in the head as a species.
> > > >
> > > > The rantings of lunatics don't interest me! lol.
> > >
> > > Your own writings don't interest you?
> >
> > Indeed they do. QED
>
> Ah. Cognitive dissonance, thy name is "Mook."
Thank you. Cognitive dissonance is the perception of incompatibility
between two cognitions, where "cognition" is defined as any element of
knowledge, including attitude, emotion, belief, or behavior; in other
words, it is the uncomfortable tension that comes from holding two
conflicting thoughts at the same time. The theory of cognitive
dissonance states that contradicting cognitions serve as a driving
force that compels the mind to acquire or invent new thoughts or
beliefs, or to modify existing beliefs, so as to reduce the amount of
dissonance (conflict) between cognitions.
In short, those who believe they know everything and fail to question
their beliefs due to their inability to hold two competing viewpoints
are dumber than people who know they don't know everything and question
everything and are quite capable of holding two competing viewpoints.
In this case you would be the dumber one Scott. But that's a position
you are used to holding.
.
>
> >
> > > > > > > or that an
> > > > > > > apocolypse would help bring the Second Coming of Jesus or the Hidden
> > > > > > > Imam or Big Bird or whatever. And there is more than a share of people
> > > > > > > who are just plain evil or nuts.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > True. There are causes for that and those will be addressed as we
> > > > > > advance as a species.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sure. Genetic engineering will make a better breed of ideologically
> > > > > pure super-slave ready to serve their Draka overloards.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Actually, cross-breed vigor works in humans too.
> > >
> > > ZOOM! And the point goes right over Bill's head.
> >
> > No, yours.
>
> And history made no impact on you either. How many times throughout
> history have "racial/ethnic/religious/ideological purity" been striven
> for? More times than I can count.
Yeah, but you can only count to three.
>
> >
> > > > Oh, I was thinking more along the lines of Ferengi
> > >
> > > No doubt.
> >
> > You're the star-trek fan aren't you?
>
> Irrelevant.
True, but you watch it anyway.
> >
> > > > > > > Yes, and? That's hardly stopped mobs from makign such demands before.
> > > > > > > or even today. A lot of peopel actually want to turn a lot of power
> > > > > > > over to the UN, *despite* the fact that it's run by incompetant
> > > > > > > criminals.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A lot? I don't think so.
> > > > >
> > > > > Once again: do some research.
> > > >
> > > > Most of humanity doesn't trust their mayor, let alone the UN.
> > >
> > > When did "lots" become synonymous with "most?"
> >
> > Because what most people do is what determines the response of society.
>
> Uh-huh. I'm sorry, Bill, but that displays *staggering* ignorance.
>
There exist various norms throughout the world. A general formal
framework that can be used to represent the essential elements of the
social situation surrounding a norm . A framework called comparative
institutional analysis is proposed to deal with the game theoretical
structural understanding of the variety of norms. This analysis asks a
simple question, what do MOST people do.
Scott, I think I see the reason for our disagreements in this area.
Your analysis proceeds from what seems right in your gut, with your gut
informed by the drama of your life story. Whreas my analysis proceeds
from clear understanding of scientific facts as presently known -
before resorting to my gut.
>
>
> > > > Indicator of the abject failure of the Democratic party to lead the
> > > > nation effectively. Where are the likes of Tilden and Cleveland when
> > > > you need them?
> > >
> > > Buried. Typically about 6 feet down.
> > >
> >
> > I didn't ask where Tilden's or Cleveland's bodies are today - I asked
> > where the likes of Tilden and Cleveland are when you need them?
>
> Dead. Or were you planning to clone them?
No, I was wondering where in the Democratic party today one would find
leaders of the caliber of Tilden and Cleveland. Sheez. You can really
be dense sometimes.
> The dead remain dead.
True. for now.
> Pining
> for some long-gone golden age or some wonderous leader from the past is
> a mark of insanity.
Actually, being knowledgeable about your nations history and the impact
various personalities had on its success as a nation is the first step
toward being a good citizen and even having a shot at fulfilling the
obligations and duties of citizenship. You ought to try it sometime.
> > No! haha.. Because if the Sun were covered by the treaty then
> > resources derived from the sun would be covered by the treaty.
>
> "Sunlight" is not a celestial body. teh Sun, however, is.
Sunlight is a resource of the sun. I have rights through easement to
that resource. Therefore, any claim by anyone that they can regulate
my use of resources from that particular body fail.
> > > > > > Since the sun is not in anyone's jurisdiction, this is not going to
> > > > > > happen.
> > > > >
> > > > > You'll suddenly find that you are in somebodies juristiction.
> > > >
> > > > Who's? Who would claim the sun?
> > >
> > > Every jackass with a bureauocracy and lawyers.
> >
> > What is the lega precedent?
>
> Pretty much all of human history.
How about US history? Because that's whre I live? I don't see it
happening. I'm not buying it. sorry.
> Behold the workers paradise that is
> today's venezuela, where Dictator For Life Chavez is nationalizing
> every industry left and right.
So, that's not germaine to me a US citizen! If a workers revolution
happened in the US, I would take up arms against the revolutionaries
and fight to re-establish the Republic, and pine away for the good old
days of Clinton. lol.
> Same is going on in Russia.
So? I live and work in the US. No on here -short of a revolution- is
going to stand up and say I can't operate my business and dispose of my
assets however I please, so long as I abide by all the laws on the
books.
> This sort of
> thing has always happened, and probably always will.
It hasn't happened in the US, and God willing it never will.
>
> > > > What is the reason? And what legal
> > > > precedent would they cite?
> > > >
> > > > > Heck,
> > > > > what do you think woudl happen if asteroid mining were to begin?
> > > >
> > > > Asteroids are a celestrial body under the terms of the OST - so those
> > > > rules would apply. The SUN is not a celestrial body under the OST...
> > >
> > > The phrase used repeatedly in the OST is "the Moon and other celestial
> > > bodies." This covers asteroids, planets, comets, the sun.
In terms of any one nation claiming ownership of the Sun, absolutely.
In terms of extracting resources from the sun. No way.
The treaty cannot cover the sun with respect to the extraction of
resources from the sun because that would make it illegal for people to
use sunlight - a solar resource - arriving from deep space on Earth.
Sorry, I'm not buying it, and the historic use of the sun by every
living thing on Earth flies in the face of such a treaty.
> > Article 11 paragraph 6,7 and 8 of the treaty speaks about ownership and
> > disposition of natural resources that may be discovered on the moon.
> >
> > Principle I in the Remote Sensing Annex of the treaty speaks about
> > sensing the natural resources on Earth from space. Principle IV same
> > thing.
> >
> > Appendix E, talking about the special needs of developing nations,
> > calls for in its Annex, in Paragraph 5 speaks of allocating financial
> > and technical resources in nations where space faring nations have
> > operating centers.
>
> All irrelevant.
>
Correct, but there is absolutely no basis to stop any solar mine should
one ever be built along the lines I've discussed previously. The use
of sunlight on Earth make the sun a special case. Sorry.
> > > > > > In a law abiding society that doesn't happen. This is a law abiding
> > > > > > society. So, it won't happen.
> > > > >
> > > > > <Guffaw>
> > > >
> > > > When making plans one has to make reasonable assessments as to what is
> > > > likely and what is not likely. It is likely that laws will be abided
> > > > by...
> > >
> > > What fucking planet do you live on???
> >
> > Earth
>
> Ah. Must be the one where everone has goatees. (You're the star-trek
> fan, aren't you?)
Nope, I'm aware of it and appreciate it, and I liked Gene Roddenberry
the few times we met. But, I think in today's culture the genre
mischaracterizes and limits the possibilities of off-world development
and marginalizes an otherwise important political impulse.
> > > > The Earth is a celestial body and its not covered under the treaty.
> > > > The Sun ISN'T MENTIONED AT ALL! Its not covered.
> > >
> > > It is a "celestial body." Below is a link to the full text of the
> > > treaty. Search it for "comet." Or "asteroid." Or "planet." Or
> > > "meteoroid." See what you find.
> >
> > > http://www.unoosa.org/pdf/publications/STSPACE11E.pdf
> >
> > I gave the reference before you did - I read the treaty.
>
> OK. Then where does it make mention of comets, asteroids, planets or
> meteoroids?
It doesn't. The speaks of mining the moon, and the rights of nations
and indiviuals to lay claim to celestial bodies and their resources.
If the US claimed ownership of the sun and charged a tax for everyone's
use of it, THAT would be a clear violation of the treaty. But that's
irrelevant to what we're talking about. We're talking about someone's
ability to mine the sun using appropriate technology to that task. I
say the treaty doesn't apply to the sun since solar resources are
routinely used by people today.
Sunlight is a resource arriving from the sun, a strict interpretation
of certain aspects of the treaty mean that no one can use sunlight or
anything derived from sunlight without international supervision. This
flies in the face of how sunlight and products derived from sunlight
are used today. So either the treaty is to be read this way and its
not enforced, so its a dead letter having no force in law, or the
treaty is NOT to be read this way, excluding the sun from the celestial
bodies covered, which means it doesn't apply to solar mines. In either
case its a nonissue for any potential solar miner.
The use of sunlight on Earth makes of the sun a speial case. It also
gives us all easement rights to the sun, existing for all of human
history to any miner living on Earth - so its a tough argument to make.
,
> it doesn't is says "celestial bodies," which covers those
> *and* the sun.
Yes, but any legal document has to be self-consistent. If it is not
self-consistent, then it is unenforceable, and a dead letter. Also,
any legal document must be enforced if it is to have merit. So, with
respect to the sun, the OST is either unenforceable, or unenforced -
which makes inclusion of the sun problematic for the treaty
irrespective of whether or not a dictionary includes the sun in its
list of celestial bodies.
A search of Meriam-Webster's site does not produce an exact match for
'celestial body' - nor is there a hit on Wikipedia for 'celestial body'
- although the term 'astronomical object' does include the sun. So,
its up to the treaty to tell us what is included or not by careful
analysis of the document. As I said, the use of sun resources on the
Earth preclude the sun being included in the document. That's my
position and I'm not buying any other.
>
> Sigh. Yet again, another waste of my time.
Hey, no one put a gun to your head! lol.
> Why *the* *fuck* do I bother
> engaging in debate with someone so deranged that he thinks that in his
> lifetime he will personally lead an operation to carve up the sun?
Why indeed? And I didn't say that. I said if the technology works as
advertised it may very well be possible that the sun could have a solar
shell in the lifetime of many now alive - by 2080
Williamknowsbest
It would take 3,000 years for a bit of star stuff to travel the
distance even if the escape speed was 1 million miles an hour - and the
same process that tore up the gravitationally bound star originally
would be available in all that time, to adjust its course.
The Earth is 8,000 miles in diameter and at 24,000,000,000,000 miles
away, presents a very very tiny target. A slight adjustment by the
same jets that tore the star apart originally would make sure it would
bypass the solar system altogether.
Williamknowsbest
be erected wthout impacting the view of the sun from Earth at all.
Large solar powered holographic displays around the line where the
ecliptic crosses the sphere, 200,000 km to either side - projects an
image of the sun into the disk of the solar system at the same
intensity as the sun radiated through the disk at that point. The
holograph beams energy to each body in the solar system mapped by
humans -maintaining conditions there, but using only a 0.035% of the
total output of the sun. A 1.9 million km radius ring is erected
beneath the hologram ring - to capture and redirect the ejected
material from the sun. The metals are ejected at 7% light speed into
this ring. The metals are then slowed and form a resource ring held at
the 1.9 miliion km hoop. The material is then re-directed to form the
shell above and below the hologram.
As material is ejected the sun spins up and splits into 7 parts. The 7
point rosette consists of hot substars. Ejection plumes from all these
stars are slowed below orbital speed,aand they are directed from
tangential operation toward radial operation. Ejection plumes are
pulsed to send pulses through each substar to prevent flaring and
variability. The plumes are then slowed and shot straight up, to fall
back to each of the stars. Each column form a radiator surface, to
provide for fast cooling of the star's interior to an appropriate
operating range. The final bit of metals in the star set form an IR PV
shell at the 1.9 million km mark, which is used partly to powre the
hologram ring, maintaining ancient solar conditions for the solar
system, and powering the constructoin processes taking place on the
ring framework.
With selfreplicating machine systems, the entire operation might be
carried out in less than a year.
. .
Sylvia Else
This involves some assumptions about the technology that could be used
to split a star. It's far from obvious that such a technology would
necessarily provide the ability to control the parts of the star once
the split has been achieved.
Sylvia.
Williamknowsbest
On Jan 23, 4:43 pm, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
> Williamknowsbest wrote:
> > Sylvia Else wrote:
>
> >>Fred J. McCall wrote:
>
> >>>Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>
> >>>:I don't know about that. The kind of thing I'm worried about is having
> >>>:bits of a star coming in our direction. Of course, no distance totally
> >>>:excludes this risk, but at least it goes down with the square of the
> >>>:distance. 40 light years would be 100 times safer then 4.
>
> >>>Why? 'Bits of stars' would just be some gas by the time they got to
> >>>us.
>
> >>Not if they're large enough to be gravitationally bound.
>
> >>Sylvia.
>
> > It would take 3,000 years for a bit of star stuff to travel the
> > distance even if the escape speed was 1 million miles an hour - and the
> > same process that tore up the gravitationally bound star originally
> > would be available in all that time, to adjust its course.
>
> > The Earth is 8,000 miles in diameter and at 24,000,000,000,000 miles
> > away, presents a very very tiny target. A slight adjustment by the
> > same jets that tore the star apart originally would make sure it would
> > bypass the solar system altogether.This involves some assumptions about the technology that could be used
> to split a star. It's far from obvious that such a technology would
> necessarily provide the ability to control the parts of the star once
> the split has been achieved.
>
> Sylvia.- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
Sylvia, how can it be far from obvious when I have said that
1) construction of the habitat proceeds by ejecting metals out of the
sun,
2) ejecting the metals out of the sun at 6.3% the speed of light
imparts sufficient momentum to spin the sun or other star up to the
point where it breaks up,
3) varying the speed and volume of the ejection plume causes pressure
waves to form in the body of the suin or star so that the star breaks
neatly into standing wave patterns;
Clearly the ability to eject material at high speeds using fusion
energy is a presupposition here throughout.
Plainly such ejected jets or plumes operate as rockets
Obviously, the ability to shoot rockets any direction and speed at will
from the sun a star or star fragment - gives us the ability to guide
that fragment.
Sorry. Your statement that its not obvious doesn't make any sense in
this context.
Williamknowsbest
On Jan 23, 10:30 pm, "Williamknowsbest" <William.M...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Jan 23, 4:43 pm, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Williamknowsbest wrote:
> > > Sylvia Else wrote:
>
> > >>Fred J. McCall wrote:
>
> > >>>Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>
> > >>>:I don't know about that. The kind of thing I'm worried about is having
> > >>>:bits of a star coming in our direction. Of course, no distance totally
> > >>>:excludes this risk, but at least it goes down with the square of the
> > >>>:distance. 40 light years would be 100 times safer then 4.
>
> > >>>Why? 'Bits of stars' would just be some gas by the time they got to
> > >>>us.
>
> > >>Not if they're large enough to be gravitationally bound.
>
> > >>Sylvia.
>
> > > It would take 3,000 years for a bit of star stuff to travel the
> > > distance even if the escape speed was 1 million miles an hour - and the
> > > same process that tore up the gravitationally bound star originally
> > > would be available in all that time, to adjust its course.
>
> > > The Earth is 8,000 miles in diameter and at 24,000,000,000,000 miles
> > > away, presents a very very tiny target. A slight adjustment by the
> > > same jets that tore the star apart originally would make sure it would
> > > bypass the solar system altogether.This involves some assumptions about the technology that could be used
> > to split a star. It's far from obvious that such a technology would
> > necessarily provide the ability to control the parts of the star once
> > the split has been achieved.
>
> > Sylvia.- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -Sylvia, how can it be far from obvious when I have said that
>
> 1) construction of the habitat proceeds by ejecting metals out of the
> sun,
>
> 2) ejecting the metals out of the sun at 6.3% the speed of light
> imparts sufficient momentum to spin the sun or other star up to the
> point where it breaks up,
>
> 3) varying the speed and volume of the ejection plume causes pressure
> waves to form in the body of the suin or star so that the star breaks
> neatly into standing wave patterns;
>
> Clearly the ability to eject material at high speeds using fusion
> energy is a presupposition here throughout.
>
> Plainly such ejected jets or plumes operate as rockets
>
> Obviously, the ability to shoot rockets any direction and speed at will
> from the sun a star or star fragment - gives us the ability to guide
> that fragment.
>
> Sorry. Your statement that its not obvious doesn't make any sense in
> this context.- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
Questions I think should be answered before we try it here on the Sun,
is how to the fragments really evolve? As the star fragments cool down
they radiate a lot more energy for a long period of time than their
design target. So,for a period of time the star radiates many times
more energy than the original star. How long? And how will that be
handled? And how effectively can that be handled? Will the stars be
stable? How long will that take? How can we be sure?
Worst case scenario isn't that a piece of the sun goes flying across
the solar system and smashes with a planet or two. Worst case
scenario is seven stars with surface temps as bright as the sun, take
10,000 years to cool down and over that time the Earth becomes
uninhabitable. How to handle that? There are ways to do it, and those
ways can be modeled, but they should be tried out first somewhere else
- Alpha Centauri is a good place to start.
Willie...@gmail.com
On Jan 21, 6:38 pm, jsav...@ecn.ab.ca wrote:
> Williamknowsbest wrote:
> > I would engineer things so there are hot spots that radiate at the
> > spectrum we have today! lol. Like filaments in light bulbs.Well, maybe you could.
>
> One thing that produces white light when heated to a temperature where
> most things glow red is called a Welsbach mantle.
>
> Maybe you could use depleted thorium, from the old thorium breeder
> reactors that maintained civilization before fusion power was
> developed.
>
> John Savard
So, you are suggesting we enclose the sun in a thin netting of Thorium,
Yttrium, or Zircunoium, or some mixture. Any idea of the efficiency of
the process? And, response of living things to the spectrum?
Below is what I got from a 1911 Encyclopedia on the subject;
http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Lighting
The Welsbach mantle was suggested by the fact that Auer von Welsbach
had been carrying out researches on the rare earths, with constant use
of the spectroscope. Desiring to obtain a better effect than that
produced by heating his material on a platinum wire, he immersed cotton
in a solution of the metallic salt, and after burning off the organic
matter found that a replica of the original thread, composed of the
oxide of the metal, was left, and that it glowed brightly in the flame.
>From this he evolved the idea of utilizing a fabric of cotton soaked in
a solution of a metallic salt for lighting purposes, and in 1885 he
patented his first commercial mantle. The oxides used in these mantles
were zirconia, lanthania, and yttria, but these were so fragile as to
be practically useless, whilst the light they emitted was very poor.
Later he found that the oxide of thorium - thoria - in conjunction with
other rare earth oxides, not only increased the light-giving powers of
the mantle, but added considerably to its strength, and the use of this
oxide was protected by his 1886 patent. Even these mantles were very
unsatisfactory until it was found that the purity of the oxides had a
wonderful effect upon the amount of light, and finally came the great
discovery that it was a trace of ceria in admixture with the thoria
that gave the mantle the marvellous power of emitting light.
Certain factors limit the number of oxides that can be used in the
manufacture of an incandescent mantle. Atmospheric influences must not
have any action upon them, and they must be sufficiently refractory not
to melt or even soften to any extent at the temperature of the flame;
they must also be non-volatile, whilst the shrinkage during the process
of " burning off " must not be excessive. The following table gives the
light-emissivity from pure and commercial samples of the oxides which
most nearly conform to the above requirements; the effect of impurity
upon the lighting power will be seen to be most marked.
Pure. Commercial.
Metals-
Zirconia
5
3 1
Thoria .
.
0.5
6 0
Earth metals-
Cerite earths - Ceria. .
.
0'4
Lanthania .
6 o
Yttrite earths - Yttria .
3'2
Erbia .
.
0 6
1 7
Common earths - Chromium oxide
.
0
Alumina
.
0 6
0 6
Alkaline earth metals-
Baryta. .
3.3
3'3
Strontia
.
5' 2
5.5
Magnesia
.
5.0
5.0
Of these oxides thoria, when tested for shrinkage, duration and
strength, stands pre-eminent. It is also possible to employ zirconia
and alumina. Zirconia has the drawback that in the hottest part of the
flame it is liable not only to shrinkage and semi-fusion, but also to
slow volatilization, and the same objections hold good with respect to
alumina. With thoria the shrinkage is smaller than with any other known
substance, and it possesses very high refractory powers.
The factor which gives thoria its pre-eminence as the basis of the
mantle is that in the conversion of thorium nitrate into thorium oxide
by heat, an enormous expansion takes place, the oxide occupying more
than ten times the volume of the nitrate. This means that the mass is
highly spongy, and contains an enormous number of little air-cells
which must render it an excellent non-conductor. A mantle made with
thoria alone gives practically no light. But the power of
light-emissivity is awakened by the addition of a small trace of ceria;
and careful experiment shows that as ceria is added to it little by
little, the light which the mantle emits grows greater and greater,
until the ratio of 99% of thoria and 1% of ceria is reached, when the
maximum illuminating effect is obtained. The further addition of ceria
causes gradual diminution of light, until, when with some io % of ceria
has been added, the light given by the mantle is again almost
inappreciable. When cerium nitrate is converted by heat into cerium
oxide, the expansion which takes place is practically nil, the ceria
obtained from a gramme of the nitrate occupying about the same space as
the original nitrate. Thus, although by weight the ratio of ceria to
thoria is as I: 99, by volume it is only as I: 999 The most successful
form of mantle is made by taking a cylinder of cotton net about 8 in.
long, and soaking it in a solution of nitrates of the requisite metals
until the microscopic fibres of the cotton are entirely filled with
liquid. A longer soaking is not advantageous, mantles. as the acid
nature of the liquid employed tends to weaken the fabric and render it
more delicate to handle. The cotton is then wrung out to free it from
the excess of liquid, and one end is sewn together with an asbestos
thread, a loop of the same material or of thin platinum wire being
fixed across the constricted portion to provide a support by which the
mantle may be held by the carrying rod, which is either external to the
mantle, or (as is most often the case) fixed centrally in the burner
head. It is then ready for " burning off," a process in which the
organic matter is removed and the nitrates are converted into oxides.
The flame of an atmospheric burner is first applied to the constricted
portion at the top of the mantle, whereupon the cotton gradually burns
downwards, the shape of the mantle to a great extent depending on the
regularity with which the combustion takes place. A certain amount of
carbon is left behind after the flame has died out, and this is burnt
off by the judicious application of a flame from an atmospheric blast
burner to the interior. The action which takes place during the burning
off is as follows: The cellulose tubes of the fibre are filled with the
crystallized nitrates of the metals used, and as the cellulose burns
the nitrates decompose, giving up oxygen and forming fusible nitrites,
which in their semiliquid condition are rendered coherent by the rapid
expansion as the oxide forms. As the action continues the nitrites
become oxides, losing their fusibility, so that by the time the organic
matter has disappeared a coherent thread of oxide is left in place of
the nitrate-laden thread of cotton. In the early days of incandescent
lighting the mantles had to be sent out unburnt, as no process was
known by which the burnt mantle could be rendered sufficiently strong
to bear carriage. As the success of a mantle depends upon its fitting
the flame, and as the burning off requires considerable skill, this was
a great difficulty. Moreover the acid nature of the nitrates in the
fibres rapidly rotted them, unless they had been subjected to the
action of ammonia gas, which neutralized any excess of acid. It was
discovered, however, that the burnt-off mantle could be temporarily
strengthened by dipping it in collodion, a solution of soluble
guncotton in ether and alcohol together with a little castor-oil or
similar material to prevent excessive shrinkage when drying. When the
mantle was removed from the solution a thin film of solid collodion was
left on it, and this could be burned away when required.
Alumina
. 86.88
Chromium oxide
. 8.68
Zirconia .
4'44
After the Welsbach mantle had proved itself a commercial success many
attempts were made to evade the monopoly created under the patents,
and, although it was found impossible to get the same illuminating
power with anything but the mixture of 99% thoria and 1% ceria, many
ingenious processes were devised which resulted in at least one
improvement in mantle manufacture. One of the earliest attempts in this
direction was the " Sunlight " mantle, in which cotton was saturated
with the oxides of aluminium, chromium and zirconium, the composition
of the burnt-off mantle being 100.00 The light given by these mantles
was entirely dependent upon the proportion of chromium oxides present,
the alumina playing the part of base in the same way that the thoria
does in the Welsbach mantle, the zirconia being added merely to
strengthen the structure. These mantles enjoyed considerable popularity
owing to the yellowish pink light they emitted, but, although they
could give an initial illumination of 12 to 15 candles per foot of gas
consumed, they rapidly lost their light-giving power owing to the slow
volatilization of the oxides of chromium and aluminium.
Another method of making the mantle was first to produce a basis of
thoria, and, having got the fabric in thorium oxide, to coat it with a
mixture of 99% thoria and 1% ceria. This modification seems to give an
improvement in the initial amount of light given by the mantle. In the
Voelker mantle a basis of thoria was produced, and was then coated by
dipping in a substance termed by the patentee " Voelkerite," a body
made by fusing together a number of oxides in the electric furnace. The
fused mass was then dissolved in the strongest nitric acid, and diluted
with absolute alcohol to the necessary degree. A very good mantle
having great lasting power was thus produced. It was claimed that the
process of fusing the materials together in the electric furnace
altered the composition in some unexplained way, but the true
explanation is probably that all water of hydration was eliminated.
The " Daylight " mantle consisted of a basis of thoria or thoria mixed
with zirconia, dipped in collodion containing a salt of cerium in
solution; on burning off the collodion the ceria was left in a finely
divided condition on the surface of the thoria. In this way a very high
initial illuminating power was obtained, which, however, rapidly fell
as the ceria slowly volatilized.
Perhaps the most interesting development of the Welsbach process was
dependent upon the manufacture of filaments of soluble guncotton or
collodion as in the production of artificial silk. In general the
process consisted in forcing a thick solution of the nitrated cellulose
through capillary glass tubes, the bore of which was less than the
one-hundredth of a millimetre. Ten or twelve of the expressed fibres
were then twisted together and wound on a bobbin, the air of the room
being kept sufficiently heated to cause the drying of the filaments a
few inches from the orifice of the tube. The compound thread was next
denitrated to remove its extreme inflammability, and for this purpose
the skeins were dipped in a solution of (for instance) ammonium
sulphide, which converted them into ordinary cellulose. After washing
and drying the skeins were ready for the weaving machines. In 1894 F.
de Mare utilized collodion for the manufacture of a mantle, adding the
necessary salts to the collodion before squeezing it into threads. O.
Knofler in 1895, and later on A. Plaissetty, took out patents for the
manufacture of mantles by a similar process to De Mare's, the
difference between the two being that Knofler used ammonium sulphide
for the denitration of his fabric, whilst Plaissetty employed calcium
sulphide, the objection to which is the trace of lime left in the
material. Another method for making artificial silk which has a
considerable reputation is that known as the Lehner process, which in
its broad outlines somewhat resembles the Chardonnet, but differs from
it in that the excessively high pressures used in the earlier method
are done away with by using a solution of a more liquid character, the
thread being hardened by passing through certain organic solutions.
This form of silk lends itself perhaps better to the carrying of the
salts forming the incandescent oxides than the previous solutions, and
mantles made by this process, known as Lehner mantles, showed promise
of being a most important development of De Mare's original idea.
Mantles made by these processes show that it is possible to obtain a
very considerable increase in life and light-emissivity, but mantles
made on this principle could not now be sold at a price which would
enable them to compete with mantles of the Welsbach type.
The cause of the superiority of these mantles having been realized,
developments in the required direction were made. The structure of the
cotton mantle differed widely from that obtained by the various
collodion processes, and this alteration in structure was mainly
responsible for the increase in life. Whereas the average of a large
number of Welsbach mantles tested only showed a useful life of 700 to
woo hours, the collodion type would average about 1500 hours, some
mantles being burnt for an even longer period and still giving an
effective illumination. This being so, it was clear that one line of
advance would be found in obtaining some material which, whilst giving
a structure more nearly approaching that of the collodion mantle, would
be sufficiently cheap to compete with the Welsbach mantle, and this was
successfully done.
By the aid of the microscope the structure of the mantle can be clearly
defined, and in examining the Welsbach mantle before and after burning,
it will be noticed that the cotton thread is a closely twisted and
plaited rope of myriads of minute fibres, whilst the collodion mantle
is a bundle of separate filaments without plait or heavy twisting, the
number of such filaments varying with the process by which it was made.
This latter factor experiment showed to have a certain influence on the
useful light-giving life of the mantle, as whereas the Knofler and
Plaissetty mantles had an average life of about 1500 hours, the Lehner
fabric, which contained a larger number of finer threads, could often
be burnt continuously for over 3000 hours, and at the end of that
period gave a better light than most of the Welsbach after as many
hundred.
It is well known that plaiting gave the cotton candle-wick that power
of bending over, when freed from the binding effect of the candle
material and influenced by heat, which brought the tip out from the
side of the flame. This, by enabling the air to get at it and burn it
away, removed the nuisance of having to snuff the candle, which for
many centuries has rendered it a tiresome method of lighting. In the
cotton mantle, the tight twisting of the fibre brings this torsion into
play. When the cotton fibres saturated with the nitrates of the rare
metals are burnt off, and the conversion into oxides takes place, as
the cotton begins to burn, not only does the shrinkage of the mass
throw a strain on the oxide skeleton, but the last struggle of torsion
in the burning of the fibre tends towards disintegration of the fragile
mass, and this all plays a part in making the cotton mantle inferior to
the collodion type.
If ramie fibre be prepared in such a way as to remove from it all
traces of the glutinous coating, a silk-like fabric can be obtained
from it, and if still further prepared so as to improve its absorbent
powers, it can be formed into mantles having a life considerably
greater than is possessed by those of the cotton fabric. Ramie thus
seemed likely to yield a cheap competitor in length of endurance to the
collodion mantle, and results have justified this expectation. By
treating the fibre so as to remove the objections against its use for
mantle-making, and then making it into threads with the least possible
amount of twist, a mantle fabric can be made in every way superior to
that given by cotton.
The Plaissetty mantles, which as now manufactured also show a
considerable advance in life and light over the original Welsbach
mantles, are made by impregnating stockings of either cotton or ramie
with the nitrates of thorium and cerium in the usual way, and, before
burning off, mercerizing the mantle by steeping in ammonia solution,
which converts the nitrates into hydrates, and gives greater density
and strength to the finished mantle. The manufacturers of the
Plaissetty mantle have also made a modification in the process by which
the saturated fabric can be so prepared as to be easily burnt off by
the consumer on the burner on which it is to be used, in this way doing
away with the initial cost of burning off, shaping, hardening and
collodionizing.
Since 1897 inventions have been patented for methods of intensifying
the light produced by burning gas under a mantle and increasing the
light generated per unit volume of gas. The systems have either been
self-intensifying or have depended on supplying the gas (or gas and
air) under an increased pressure. Of the self-intensifying systems
those of Lucas and Scott-Snell have been the most successful. A careful
study has been made by the inventor of the Lucas light of the influence
of various sizes and shapes of chimneys in the production of draught.
The specially formed chimney used exerts a suction on the gas flame and
air, and the burner and mantle are so constructed as to take full
advantage of the increased air supply, with the result that the candle
power given by the mantle is considerably augmented. With the
ScottSnell system the results obtained are about the same as those
given by the Lucas light, but in this case the waste heat from the
burner is caused to operate a plunger working in the crown of the lamp
which sucks and delivers gas to the burner. Both these systems are
widely used for public lighting in many large towns of the United
Kingdom and the continent of Europe
Willie...@gmail.com
On Jan 21, 6:34 pm, jsav...@ecn.ab.ca wrote:
> Williamknowsbest wrote:
> > The surface gravity of the sun is 27.9 gees.
>
> > An object held at a radius of 3.68 million km above the solar center
> > would feel a 1.0 gee force directed toward the sun.That is interesting.
>
> > If it were possible to reduce the output of the sun to about 0.24% of
> > its current output at peak, and make it a variable star with a 24 hour
> > period,But I think that is too ambitious.
>
> Let us consider something more modest, which does not involve
> re-engineering the Sun.
>
> How about a sphere around the Sun with many openings, and which on the
> bottom is coated with a reflective surface more than 99.76% effective?
> Mirrors reflect a tiny fraction of the sunlight to reflect back on the
> people living on the framework, held by the Sun's 1g gravity, and these
> can easily be given a 24 hour cycle.
>
> This is still an incredibly vast undertaking, for the far distant
> future, but at least it doesn't involve re-engineering the Sun.
>
> John Savard
I was thinking about your idea here this morning. The orbital ring
superstructure would form a mesh and could be made highly reflecting.
So, if it obstructed say 0.1% of the surface area of the sphere, then
the openings between the lines of circulating materials could easily
transmit the remaining energy.
Making panels reflective would reduce the area available to the black
body radiator within - any opening whether it were looking at the
surface of the sun or not, would appear to be a black body surface.
Since energy per unit area is proportional to the fourth power of
temperature, the ratio of temps can be calculated.
Tshell/Tsol = (1/fraction open)^(1/4)
This new temperature would communicate itself to the sun, and it would
increase its radius to compensate for the change in temperature. So,
the sun would not remain unaffected by a reflective shell of
non-radiating surface. (radiating surfaces are different)
So, if the open area were;
Open Tshel/Tsol Tshell radius-new
0.001 - 5.6 35,450K 21.9 million km
0.01 - 3.2 18,250K 3.2 million km
0.1 - 1.8 10,260K 2.1 million km
0.2 - 1.5 8,230K 1.6 million km
0.3 - 1.35 7,800K 1.3 million km
0.4 - 1.26 7,260K 1.1 million km
0.5 - 1.19 6,860K 1.0 million km
0.6 - 1.14 6,560K 0.90 million km
0.7 - 1.09 6,310K 0.83 million km
0.8 - 1.06 6,100K 0.78 million km
0.9 - 1.03 5,930K 0.74 million km
0.99 - 1.0025 5,784K 0.698 million km
1.0 - 1.00 5,770K 0.695 million km
So, the shell could consist of reflective material that had openings in
it. For safety, a large hologram spanning the line that intersect the
ecliptic would be equipped with a solar powered hologram that projects
light precisely at the same energy and color of today's sun throughout
the solar system.
We'll modify the sun in either case by building a substantial shell. A
shell only 1% populated with the reflective interior surface, would
hardly cause any change whatever - but still contain over 3,300 earth
areas!
So, this may be a place to start!
But since a shell of any size would change the sun anyway, and that
would have to be addressed as the shell was populated, then, there
would be pressure to break the sun up into parts that reduced its
output, since that increases its longevity.
Mike Combs
news:1169830326.1...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
>
> We'll modify the sun in either case by building a substantial shell. A
> shell only 1% populated with the reflective interior surface, would
> hardly cause any change whatever - but still contain over 3,300 earth
> areas!
Yeah, but the asteroid belt converted into O'Neill habitats would provide
about the same amount of land area. And that without using any technology
significantly advanced over what's currently available.
--
Regards,
Mike Combs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By all that you hold dear on this good Earth
I bid you stand, Men of the West!
Aragorn
Bill Haught -- IF YOU SEE A HAUGHTY COMMUNIST HUN IN A HEIßLUFTBALLONE, CALL ON THE OFFICE OF FATHERLAND SECRECY
Scott Lowther made the phosphors in my monitor glow in a way as to indicate
that
> Yes, because the one thing that extremely tall buildings really need to
> have to become feasible is roadways built onto their sides and
> suspended between 'em, and thousands of car-mass objects zipping around
> 'em.
How about personal rapid transit (PRT) LOTS of LINKS v1.0 Rev 1
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.policy/msg/9d5427be4ddc7359?dmode=source&hl=en
or
news:rKwuh.66578$qO4....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net
Willie...@gmail.com
We had the technology back in the 20s -
and it is powered roadways. They're the only
thing that can compete with motorcars.
We called them trolly cars then.
That's why GM and Phillips created National
City Lines and bought out all the powered
roadway companies.
Building special roadways and special
motive technology - maglev - is a way
to increase the cost and complexity
of this technology.
It need not be.
Because, the same technology that recharges Sonicare
toothbrushes may easily be put in every paved
roadway on the planet, Those transmitters with
appropriate sensors can send power bursts to
passing vehicles. The power drives electric
traction motors which turn tires that move
the vehicles.
Lightweight electric cars with very modest batteries
or super-caps would beat the shit out of ICEs -
all with electric motors and tires on today's roadways
upgraded with a few simple changes..
The vehicles are far more reliable, far less expensive
to produce, and use existing technologies, and with
no limitations due to batteries, far more powerful
than ICEs..
Can we afford the roadways? YES! In fact, they're
LESS costly than maglev and new technology
roadways!
http://www.aaawa.com/news_safety/pdf/Driving_Costs_2005.pdf
In 2005 the average cost per mile was $0.68 per mile
for 10,000 miles per year - that's $6,800 per month.
Say, $565 per month -
$200 per month for the car,
$265 per month for the fuel.
$100 per month other stuff
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html
Roadways:
total: 6,430,366 km
paved: 4,165,110 km (including 75,009 km of expressways)
unpaved: 2,265,256 km (2005)
At $200,000 per mile to repave and upgrade the roads
of the US would cost $15 billion for the expressways and
another $15 billion for the roadways that have 25% of all
traffic.
The electric cars would recharge on the expressways
and in the main drags of the big cities... and at home.
It would cost $840 billion to upgrade ALL the roadways in
this way to eliminate batteries altogether.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobiles
There are 11 million vehicles sold each year in the US,
and a total of about 150 million vehicles in operation.
Assuming 25% of these vehicles - or 37.5 million vehicles
pay $200 per month - and earn an additional $100 per month
because of vehicle simplicity and ease of maintenance -
leaving $300 per month as potential profits for road services.
Alright, so $37.5 million x $300 per month = $11.25 billion per
month!!!
That's $135 billion per year - enough to support $1.5 trillion worth of
roadway upgrades at 8% per annum return on investment.
This technology will likely become less expensive as its use
spreads along with increased use. 100% usage would quadruple
these returns.
In developing nations that do not have existing roadways or
power lines, combining power lines with roadways in this
way reduces costs of of developing power and transport
infrastructure.
pete
> Tshell/Tsol = (1/fraction open)^(1/4)
> Open Tshel/Tsol Tshell radius-new
Did I miss the part where it was explained how we overcome the inherent
instability of solid structures around spheres at gravitational
scales? And splitting up a sun into a cluster must just make the
instability problems vastly worse.
--
==========================================================================
vincent@triumf[munge].ca Pete Vincent
Disclaimer: all I know I learned from reading Usenet.
Bill Haught -- IF YOU SEE A HAUGHTY COMMUNIST HUN IN A HEIßLUFTBALLONE, CALL ON THE OFFICE OF FATHERLAND SECRECY
<Willie...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1169872946.4...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
> Building special roadways and special
> motive technology - maglev - is a way
> to increase the cost and complexity
> of this technology.
>
> It need not be.
Please read up on the concept of PRT.
Most PRT designs are NOT maglev. Special grade-separated rail lines allow
for a low profile (important for elevated systems) and near total safety (if
automated, which by definition PRT is) plus high capacity due to headways of
a fraction of a second. Expensive ramps (and overpasses and underpasses)
are simply unnecessary. Since vehicles come to you within a few minutes,
the need for parking (and the tremendous resulting space requirements) are
greatly reduced, that is, you do not need to own your own vehicle. The cost
of vehicles (which can be in constant use) becomes unimportant. Also, these
systems are lighter, so above-grade access to and from current multi-story
buildings has a negligible effect on structural loads (this is also
important).
Willie...@gmail.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroids
3.6e21 kg is the total mass of all asteroids in the main belt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun
The sun is 2.0e30 kg
The metals of the sun - the same materials the asteroids are made of,
amount to 3.4e28 kg - some 10 million times the mass of all the
asteroids in the main belt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernal_sphere
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_colonization
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/About/Education/SpaceSettlement/CoEvolutionBook/APPENDIX.HTML
The Stanford Torus masses about 500,000 kg and covers 1 km2 - So, the
total area that 3.6e21 kg could conceivably cover (assuming its
perfectly suited for building colonies, which it probably isn't!) is
7.2e15 km2.
This is 14.3 million Earth areas. - which is 45x the area of the sphere
described here.
So, you're right.
In reality, the asteroids are not that efficient. Say, that resource
limitations limit us to 10% of this - which is still 4.5x the area of
the sphere here.
But that's only because I've designed the sphere to be so damned thick!
Using the same space colony technology described here, we could make 10
million times the number of space colonies as we could make asteroids.
Does the sun have enough energy to light all these colonies?
The Earth is a sphere is 4x the area of a disk the same size. So, a
sphere 300 million km in radius would be illuminated the same on
average as the Earth. The area of this sphere is 2 billion times
larger than Earth. This is 140x the area possible with asteroids
(assuming the exact mix of materials occur) and 1/70th the area
possible with the materials within the sun.
The solar output will last about 5.5 billion more years. Reducing the
output of the sun to 0.08% of today's output - longevity increases to
10 trillion years or more - and surface area of 300,000x that of Earth
is built - very quickly - and with sufficient mass to resolve issues
with radiation hazards and mechanical longevity.
In addition to the length of time the sun lasts, there is the length of
time the artificial planet lasts.
Thin pressure vessels age, and may not last for millions or even
thousands of years. So over the course of billions or trillions of
years, pressure vessels will be reproceswsed thousand millions or even
billions of times.
For anyone who thinks its possible for pressure vessels to last for
centuries without being replaced consider how pressurized aircraft age.
They don't even last through decades of service.
We're talking about building something that will last for as long as
planets last. And since recycling is not 100% efficient, not all
material will be available for building materials - some will be in
process, some will not be available for recycling and lost. So, once
all the materials are processed into pressure vessels - the length of
service and efficiency of pressure vessel recycling will determine how
long humanity can live off world this way.
Even if pressure vessel recycling is 99.99% efficient, and each vessel
lasts 10,000 years, longer than the pyramids, over 5.5 billion years
will be reprocessed 550,000 times. Which means less than 3 grams of
the asteroid belt will be available for recycling at the end of the 5.5
billion year period.
A single shell like the one proposed that lasts 10 trillion years due
to its extraordinary size and thickness, with the sun modified to burn
10 trillion years supporting 300,000x the surface area of Earth with
5,000,000x the mass of the asteroid belt available for industrial use
to support interstellar transport over this same period - provides the
most bang for the buck - and is generally exportable to the rest of the
cosmos.
This doesn't mean the asteroids won't form an epoch of development of
humanity. But that depends on the history of technical development and
once solar materials are easily available - the asteroids will fall in
importance. Using our figures of 99.99% efficiency, and longevity of
10,000 years - asteroidal material will be reduced to 10% of its
original mass in 230 million years.
.
On Jan 26, 1:16 pm, "Mike Combs"
<mikeco...@nospam.com_chg_nospam_2_ti> wrote:
> <Willie.Moo...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1169830326.1...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > We'll modify the sun in either case by building a substantial shell. A
> > shell only 1% populated with the reflective interior surface, would
> > hardly cause any change whatever - but still contain over 3,300 earth
> > areas!Yeah, but the asteroid belt converted into O'Neill habitats would provide
Willie...@gmail.com
On Jan 27, 12:24 am, vinc...@triumfunspam.ca (pete) wrote:
> >output, since that increases its longevity.Did I miss the part where it was explained how we overcome the inherent
> instability of solid structures around spheres at gravitational
> scales? And splitting up a sun into a cluster must just make the
> instability problems vastly worse.
>
> --
> ==========================================================================
> vincent@triumf[munge].ca Pete Vincent
> Disclaimer: all I know I learned from reading Usenet.- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
Willie...@gmail.com
http://astsun.astro.virginia.edu/~jh8h/torus3d/section3.html
Not spherical shell structures in compressions.
These are stable in a gravitational compression on any scale
Which explains why the universe is filled with spherical structures.
Of course, these are not static structures. They are dynamic
structures. Orbital rings. Which I have already given reference
to.
Iron pellets circulate through magnetic tracks to create orbital
rings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_fountain#Orbital_Ring
Which hold a sheet in tension against gravity
around a spherically symmetric gravity field
Breaking the central gravity source into 5 to 8 smaller
bodies doesn't change anything for the orbital ring. solar
power combined with the ability to accelerate the circulating
particles faster or slower, in response to tidal effects,keeps
the rings and associated surface stable.
At least as stable as the tidal motions on Earth due to the sun
On Jan 27, 12:24 am, vinc...@triumfunspam.ca (pete) wrote:
> >output, since that increases its longevity.Did I miss the part where it was explained how we overcome the inherent
> instability of solid structures around spheres at gravitational
> scales? And splitting up a sun into a cluster must just make the
> instability problems vastly worse.
>
> --
> ==========================================================================
> vincent@triumf[munge].ca Pete Vincent
Willie...@gmail.com
One can imagine several approaches to introducing new transport
technology.
1) Create a battery technology that goes head to head with hydro-
carbon fuels.
This is a fundamentally flawed approach since;
a) hydro-carbon fuels are lighter elements whilst batteries
are typically heavier elements (hydrogen carbon vs
lead and sulfur for example)
b) hydro-carbon fuels react with air, which contains
more massive oxygen (16 vs 12 or 1) whilst
batteries must carry both components in the
battery.
c) hydro-carbon fuels have more electron-volts per
reaction than most batteries
2) Create an alternative source using fuel cells - this is not
fundamentally
different energy source than ICEs, its only a change in the way
the
fuel is burned
3) Create an alternative using nuclear sources - i.e. nuclear fission,
nuclear
fusion, or nuclear isomers - this presents serious technical,
safety, supply
cost and disposal issues.
4) Create a powered roadway - this process pre-dated the widespread
use
of automobiles, but came after the introduction of the railroad.
It was
sabatoged early in its development by marketers of ICE and
conventional
fuel supplies. This could easily be re-introduced using updated
technology
to reduce costs and improve efficiencies. There are several
approaches
one could take to doing this;
a) Adapt conventional roadways to provide power to electric
vehicles
that function exactly as conventional vehicles except they
obtain
their power from roadways that also admit conventional
vehicles
as well - i.e. bury electronagnetic pulse units that
communicate
with passing vehicles to send bursts of power to them as
they
operate.
b) Build unconventional limited access roadways using
unconventional
vehicles operated in unconventional manner.
Clearly adapting conventional roadways to power vehicles that
operate
conventionally is the easiest and quickest approach to
effectively
compete with present day vehicles and quickly impact the use of
those vehicles.
http://www.roadtraffic-technology.com/projects/407/images/
9_construction.jpg
Imagine roadbeds that are constructed normally, but with buried power
cables underneath.
http://www.pfrr.alaska.edu/CO-OP/MFR/STATUS/08SEP98-1.JPG
These power cables have connections to small microwave emitters
imbedded in the concrete
http://www.maxim-ic.com/appnotes.cfm/appnote_number/680
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/CuttingEdge/story?id=97846&page=2
This adds about 20% to the cost of building a roadway, and about 50%
to
to the cost of resurfacing a roadway - with a trenching operation and
then
a surface stripping operation, and placement of the power wire,
controllers
and pads, and then conventional resurfacing overhead About $100,000
per km of roadway.
Automobiles that use the power source look and perform like typical
automobiles
except they have electric traction motors driving each wheel under the
control of
a computer. These motors derive power from capacitors through a
computer
controller that changes speed and torque - and the motors also may act
as
brakes to implement regenerative braking. The capacitor bank is
intermittently
charged from the roadway. A signal is sent to a receiver beneath the
pavement
and an electromagnetic pulse is sent out to a coupling coil floating
above the
roadway on an air cushion when the coils are aligned. Pads are placed
every
3 meters or so.
The automobiles are very lightweight, and very powerful for their
weight, exceeding
the performance capacity of ICE vehicles. They have no emissions and
produce
very little noise during their operaiton.
The roadways they operate on are exactly the same as the roadways
everyone
now operates on, and in fact conventional vehicles can operate on them
seamlessly.
The only difference is that the electric vehicles don't need to stop
and be refueled
or recharged. People are charged per mile based on speed and
acceleration -
in short on the kWh used. Since the vehicles regenerate energy during
braking,
and can actually store charge when running downhill, and even send
energy back
into the roadway when overcharged, and the electric vehicles are far
lighter than
either ICE vehicles or battery driven vehicles (which may also use
this system to
recharge on the run) these vehicles are 2 to 3 times as efficient as a
comparably
sized (payload) and performing ICE vehicle. Thus, even if cost per
kWh is 50%
more than gasoline prices on an energy basis, actual cost of this
system is far
less.
There are 4.5 million km of paved roadways in the US and 75,000 km of
expressways.
Expressways may cost something like $15 billion to repave with power
and an additional
150,000 km of roadways surrounding major expressway access points
another $15 billion
which is the cost of a major refinery or oil field.
This would allow companies like GM or Ford to sell tractors to major
transport companies
to cut their fuel costs (and emissions) and set the stage for
providing electric vehicles
for the light truck and passenger car markets. Profits earned from
this central network
would be used to expand the system to include all roadways in a very
short period of
time.
Attaching this network to coal fired, gas fired, nuclear, hydro, or
solar plants, reduce
our demand for oil Conversion of 75% of all vehicles to this sort of
technology
ends our importation of oil from overseas. This is something that
could be done in
15 years if we had the natoinal will to do it.
Once conventional roadways were powered,it would be rather simple to
expand the
system of powered roadways to support a limited access powered roadway
system
as proposed by various PRT schemes,and extend this to powered railroad
beds.
Willie...@gmail.com
feed an
array of induction coils. Those coils are made of a honeycomb
structure, with
strips of aluminum with structured ceramic coating coated with copper
foils
deposited on the ceramic coating to form an array of induction
coils.
The honeycomb structure is made of strips of 'printed' material that
is then
ultrasonically bonded to a superstructure, plugs into the DC
controller. ICs
that switch on induction coils are mounted onto the strips.
The whole induction coil array with controllers is plugged in to the
controller
collapsed. The stack of strips are then 'unfolded' into hexagonal
pattern of
induction coils.
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/DTRS/2004/PDF/H-2492.pdf
Bill Haught -- IF YOU SEE A HAUGHTY COMMUNIST HUN IN A HEIßLUFTBALLONE, CALL ON THE OFFICE OF FATHERLAND SECRECY
news:1170043171....@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Once conventional roadways were powered,it would be rather simple to
> expand the
> system of powered roadways to support a limited access powered roadway
> system
> as proposed by various PRT schemes,and extend this to powered railroad
> beds.
It is obvious you have no idea what personal rapid transit is.
Willie...@gmail.com
of PRT;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_rapid_transit
I guess we can argue about what sort of environment, what sort of
transport problem and what sort of technology a "real" PRT system
meets. haha. But that takes us far away from what I was talking
about.
Fact is, I'm not talking about personal rapid transit, you are.t - I'm
talking about powered roadways as an alternative to internal
combustion engines.
Not to say PRT isn't interesting, but as an alternative to
automobiles, setting up a PRT system involves more cost more money
more changes in lifestyle than merely repaving the roadways with
sensor based inductive coil panels and powering those with a HVDC line
under the roadway. PRT I think will really come into its own as
India, Indonesia and China develop, although China is saddled with a
communist government and is likely to move the Chinese economy into
historical patterns of successful growth, rather than take big risks,
with their transportation infrastructure. So, you see them building
conventional highways and coal conversion plants to power the vehicles
they plan for their people.
Driverless taxis, whether inductively powered or conventionally
powered, or hybrid, have many of the features of a PRT system.
Its not technical reasons that driverless vehicles haven't been
developed. Its not even insurance reasons - since any automated
system of transport will likely reduce accident losses overall, and
insurance companies would support that. No, the reason driverless
vehicles have been so slow in coming is that with driverless vehicles
people wouldn't buy personal autos in such large numbers. If folks
didn't have to deal with drivers, didn't have to wait more than a
minute or two for a vehicle to arrive, and paid only a small multiple
of the actual cost of operating the vehicle on an as demand basis,
most people would prefer to use taxis, just as the preferred to use
street-cars rather than drive and park, when street-cars were really
competitive.
Why is that an issue? Because 1) we'd need far fewer cars and places
to park them if every adult didn't have one. 2) the few cars that
were purchased would be purchased by fleet buyers who were
professional buyers, instread of individual buyers who were motivated
by emotion, 3) repairs would be purchased the same way. This would
mark a move in profits from the automobile companies and those who
service them, to the taxi cab companies.
Even with drivers taxis represent a huge threat to auto companies.
That's why GM and Philips not only arranged to buy out all the street
car companies, but they also arranged to regulate out of existence any
possibility of them ever returning, and made damn sure the rules
related to taxi service were such that it was very difficult for
anyone to set up a taxi service.
Visit Taiwan. Its relatively easy to get a taxi license there if you
have an automobile. And taxi fares are relatively low in Taipei,
compared to other major cities of the world. It ties directly back to
regulation.
Certainly its possible to have roadways extend in the vertical
direction with clever engineering, and have vehicles sit on each floor
of a building. Certain approaches make for very lightweight vehicles
and roadways - which are more amenable to vertical construction. But
even automobiles have been used in vertical transport in buildings. I
recall in the 1950s a motel operator in California built a 5 storey
hotel with parking outside each room. Of course today we have hotel
and multi-story parking in seperate dedicated facilities and a valet
service connecting the two. lol.
This could all be done more efficiently with PRT technologies that
make driving the vehicle totally automated, along with inductively
powered roadway and a lighter, simpler roadway to boot. Again, it
ADDS cost and complexity when thrown into a system that is already
well served by conventional infrastructure. But when one considers
total greenfield situations as occur in 80% of the world's towns and
villages, driverless vehicles, ultra-light roadways and vehicles,
powered by the roadways, especially when combined with HVDC power
transmission systems built right in the roadway, all are very low cost
ways to deliver services to these unserved regions.
Now again, one might argue I'm not talking about PRT, but something
larger. You're right. But as this sort of system arises in the
industrializing world, the already industrialized world will find
itself falling behind, for much of the same reasons Britain fell
behind America as it developed its rail system. Britain was stuck
with narrow guage rail that serveed it well for many years, but found
it difficult to tear up narrow guage track to install wide guage
track, which America used from the outset, because it arrived later.
Placing powered roadways in the PRT camp exclusively isolates it from
being competitive with automobiles. The difficulties the major
automobile makers are having at the present moment in America is an
opportunity to change things. To introduce powered roadways on the
150,000 km of roads that 20% of all American's use - and sell
inductively powered vehicles. To introduce driverless vehicles and
expand those roadways. Once this core competency was established,then
PRT roadways could seamlessly link the long distance lines with
certain models of the inductively powered vehicles. Other PRT system
could be installed in every major city. From this base, the system
could be expanded outward to every town and village in America. The
technology would be exported at every stage, inductively powered
vehicles on major roadways, PRT hookups in the central cities,
lightweight, low cost transport/power transmission to the
countryside.
When combined with improved energy systems to power the transport
systems, it makes a powerfully successful system of generating profit.
On Jan 30, 4:41 am, "Bill Haught -- IF YOU SEE A HAUGHTY COMMUNIST HUN
IN A HEIßLUFTBALLONE, CALL ON THE OFFICE OF FATHERLAND SECRECY"
<wlhaughtto...@ameritech.net> wrote:
> <Willie.Moo...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1170043171....@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > Once conventional roadways were powered,it would be rather simple to
> > expand the
> > system of powered roadways to support a limited access powered roadway
> > system
> > as proposed by various PRT schemes,and extend this to powered railroad
> > beds.It is obvious you have no idea what personal rapid transit is.
Willie...@gmail.com
- produced at a cost low enough to be used in packgaging - can be
fabricated into a flying vehicle of very simple design - and even
flying belts, or even clothes - powered from solar pumped IR laser
from orbit.
Bill Haught -- IF YOU SEE A HAUGHTY COMMUNIST HUN IN A HEIßLUFTBALLONE, CALL ON THE OFFICE OF FATHERLAND SECRECY
good idea, at least where it would pay (batteries should generally be
sufficient for the remainder of most travels). However, with conventional
roadways there is the liability issue with respect to automation. Not
everyone can (or should) be driving. Also, PRT has the necessary capacity
needed for dense urban areas. Even Cuyahoga County's (Ohio) interstates
have express lanes in former medians. Considering how bad traffic is here,
I hate to think of what it is like in most other metropolitan areas of the
U.S. (of AmeriKKKa) which would generally be much worse. The United States
of Mexico, Federative Republic of Brazil, Bureaucrat's Junta of China, and
many others need it even more, although I agree the Bureaucrat's Junta of
China may tend to prefer the tried-and-true.
Willie...@gmail.com
HUN IN A HEIßLUFTBALLONE, CALL ON THE OFFICE OF FATHERLAND SECRECY"
<wlhaughtto...@ameritech.net> wrote:
> good idea,
Seems like a good idea to me too.
> at least where it would pay (batteries should generally be
> sufficient for the remainder of most travels).
Well, not when you consider the cost. Batteries cost lots more than
fuel on a kWh basis. And they can only be charged and discharged a
few thousand times before they can be replaced. In the end, to handle
energy batteries cost 10x to 100x as much as fuel - just to pay for
the battery, so they're a non-starter. That's why batteries lost out
out gas cars at the start of the 19th century, and there doesn't seem
to be a good way to get them competitive. The best is sodium-sulfur
battery technology, but because they operate at very high temps,
they're a logistical nightmare for mobile applications. Although,
they're fine as stationary supplies for electricity charged by solar
or space based receivers - delivering powre to roadways.
The big issue is to make enough money to allow private enterprise take
the risk in installing the roadways on existin roadways. Look how
quickly the US spent trillions of dollars putting down optical fiber!
With the right structure and technology, we can pave all our roadways,
even ones unpaved now, and put inductive power strips under the
asphalt. Once that's in place, PRT in dense regions can easily be
added, and certain smaller of the vehicles would ride on them.
The real problem is parking in the downtown areas. Toyota already has
a vehicle that can park itself. With signals coming from the
roadways, all vehicles will benefit. When combined with GPS and other
intelligence, all cars will be able to drive themselves shortly. So,
when you want to go downtown, you merely get dropped off by your car,
and you dial in -with GPS enabled phone- and are picked up by your car
in minutes.
Of course, the real solution downtown and elsewhere, is to hire cars
when you need them, and pay a small multiple of the actual cost. This
really reduces car numbers - which is why car makers don't like the
idea.
> However, with conventional
> roadways there is the liability issue with respect to automation.
So? there's a liability issuse on unconventioal roadways as well.
Dozens of people get settlements in escalator and elevator accidents
each year. Dozen's more get settlements from gas pumps that explode.
These are not well reported in our press, but they exist. You handle
these sorts of issues in the courts, and make damn sure you everything
humanly possible to make it as safe as you can and safer than any
alternative. Conventional roads is where we travel now. That's where
the market is. That's where any competitor starts. The car companies
and the fuel companies don't like to say that sort of thing because
they spent a lot of money and effort ridding themselves of competition
- and they don't like any real competition to come back. That
shouldn't be anyone's concern who wants to make a difference.
> Not
> everyone can (or should) be driving.
??? These sorts of judgements are worse than useless to a profit
making company who wants to make a profit by making a difference in
people's lives. Automated vehicles will make it possible for everyone
to travel easily and safely and quickly to their destinations. Taking
a car shouldn't be any more difficult than hopping in the back of a
cab in Manhattan and shouting your destination. Or entering an
elevator and pressing the number of your floor.
> Also, PRT has the necessary capacity
> needed for dense urban areas.
I agree that PRT type elevated roadways carrying only vehicles for
hire can ease congestion in highly congested areas. These are an
adjunct to the system I'm describing and the PRT vehicles merge
seamlessly with it (and some privately owned vehicles as well)
> Even Cuyahoga County's (Ohio) interstates
> have express lanes in former medians. Considering how bad traffic is here,
> I hate to think of what it is like in most other metropolitan areas of the
> U.S. (of AmeriKKKa) which would generally be much worse.
Automated systems that drive vehicles will reduce the number of cars
on the road - of all types. PRT systems won't have traffic jams, if
managed properly, but these get transferred to the entry points - like
a taxi stand at the airport - so, rather than bitching about traffic
on the roads, people will bitch about standing in line to get on the
PRT.
Of course people will naturally pool, if they're going to the same
place, the system ought to be configured to allow that. This is very
easy with a centralized system. Say you enter a website on your cell
phone to call for a cab. Millions of others do too. You enter your
destination. Millions of others do too. It would be very easy to
figure out who along your route could ride-share with you. So, all
you do is enable your ride-share option and when someone ride shares
too, you split the share according to some formula already in the
system. This can be done with conventional taxi service, with
automated vehicles of any type, and with PRT way stations. The good
news is shortens lines at the way stations while it reduces the
traffic jams.
When no one owns vehicles, but hires them as needed - on a per trip
basis, on a ride share basis, on a daily basis, on a weekly basis,
monthly, etc., traffic jams and lines will be a thing of the past -
regardless of the type of roadway or method of power.
> The United States
> of Mexico, Federative Republic of Brazil, Bureaucrat's Junta of China, and
> many others need it even more, although I agree the Bureaucrat's Junta of
> China may tend to prefer the tried-and-true.
Everyone needs efficient cost effective polution free transport. The
ability to bring thngs to market, the ability to buy things from
market- transportation creates vast amounts of wealth. That's why we
spend so much on it. Lowering its cost and making it widely available
is the number one way we can improve life here on this planet.
Ultimately, automated VTOL fliers operating throughout the world,
powered by solar pumped lasers in space, will provide global ballistic
air transport for everyone and we won't need any stinkin' roads! lol.
Bill Haught -- IF YOU SEE A HAUGHTY COMMUNIST HUN IN A HEIßLUFTBALLONE, CALL ON THE OFFICE OF FATHERLAND SECRECY
news:1170260293....@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Willie.Mookie: Automated systems that drive vehicles will reduce the number
of cars
on the road - of all types. PRT systems won't have traffic jams, if
managed properly, but these get transferred to the entry points - like
a taxi stand at the airport - so, rather than bitching about traffic
on the roads, people will bitch about standing in line to get on the
PRT.
Me: With multiple berths (loading stations) and sufficient reserves of
vehicles
I don't see why there should be much of a wait for PRT. Some do say the PRT
will have some traffic jams, although they will clear up much faster.
Willie.Mookie: When no one owns vehicles, but hires them as needed - on a
per trip
basis, on a ride share basis, on a daily basis, on a weekly basis,
monthly, etc., traffic jams and lines will be a thing of the past -
regardless of the type of roadway or method of power.
Me: I don't see how this reduces traffic jams. Traffic jams are the result
of not managing the flow properly. It is necessary to take control away
from the passengers. The worst mismanagent of flow and biggest cause of
traffic jams are accidents and drivers more interested in the accidents than
driving.
Willie.Mookie: Everyone needs efficient cost effective polution free
transport. The
ability to bring thngs to market, the ability to buy things from
market- transportation creates vast amounts of wealth. That's why we
spend so much on it. Lowering its cost and making it widely available
is the number one way we can improve life here on this planet.
Willie.Mookie: Ultimately, automated VTOL fliers operating throughout the
world,
powered by solar pumped lasers in space, will provide global ballistic
air transport for everyone and we won't need any stinkin' roads! lol.
Me:In the meantime major roadway upgrades and new PRT infrastructure can be
amortized, unless we send up everyone into space magnetically with a system
along the lines of a space pier/Star Tram or perhaps even a system that
shoots straight up I think could be made to work and has some advantages,
esp. if one wishes to attain HEO orbits to enable use of M2P2 to avoid going
back into the mouth of the Jules Verne Cannon which may require orbits that
go well past GEO, perhaps even the Moon. The main motivation for shooting
straight up would be that only one tower is necessary. But more on this
matter will be in a later post.
Me: Given costs of upgrading energy and transportation infrastructure over
the next few decades, it would be crazy not to do something like this.
Spend trillion$ on space settlement rather than terrorformation of the
Earth.