Planets and moons losing mass by the tonnes/sec
BradGuth
contains
Helium (He) 5.24 ppmv (0.000524%), He = .1786 kg/m3
Hydrogen (H2) 0.55 ppmv (0.000055%), H2 = .0899 kg/m3
We seem to know more about the perpetual loss/sec of hydrogen and
helium for planets (including a few exoplanets) other than Earth.
http://vega.lpl.arizona.edu/~gilda/extrass.html
At 0.55 ppmv, in order that our atmosphere sustain that average H2
saturation, at any given moment there’s 25e6 kg of hydrogen getting
made available and unavoidably migrating upwards and away from Earth’s
surface in order to create and sustain the average 0.55 ppmv. The
question is, at what average vertical escapement velocity or
volumetric/sec exit away from Earth?
Is our hydrogen escapement worth merely 25e6 kg per day = 9.125e6
tonnes/yr, or is it as great as 25e6 kg per hour = 219e6 tonnes/year?
Like the GP-B fiasco, at best our EUVE (Extreme Ultra Violet Explorer)
could have been representing a false positive, all be its
observationology given a nifty eye-candy yellow and reddish colorized
UV image of Earth’s surrounding cloud of helium and hydrogen.
However, the solar wind caused planetary exhaust trail of H2 and He is
what needs to be more closely looked at and objectively quantified, as
most easily accomplished from our Selene/moon or from it's L1 that we
still do not have.
Existing UV and IR imaging:
http://www.fas.org/irp/imint/docs/rst/Sect20/A3.html
The badly failing magnetosphere has been capable of restraining or
mildly sequestering some of Earth's hydrogen and helium by way of
having been protecting our atmosphere, but unfortunately for the past
2000 years this too is going away (most recently at -.05%/year or even
<–120 nT/yr), is perhaps as good of reason why that lofty cloud of
hydrogen and helium isn't sticking around, and why the lethal SAA
contour has been exponentially growing and nearing the surface. On
the other hand, care to imagine what could happen if such terrestrial
hydrogen and helium didn’t leak away?
http://io9.com/395272/is-earths-magnetic-field-failing-us
http://digitaldiatribes.wordpress.com/category/geomagnetism/
Of course our perpetual naysayers and usual evidence excluding
gauntlet of our resident Usenet/newsgroup wizards and brown-nosed
clowns are not paying serious attention, or allowing any context of
consideration as to the worth or consequences of our badly failing
geomagnetic force and of its subsequent magnetosphere. It’s as though
our best physics and/or objective science doesn’t hardly matter,
unless it’s strictly interpreted in order to sustain their mainstream
status quo. In other words, for sustaining our mainstream as a viable
cabal of happy campers, apparently our best public funded science is
but worth used toilet paper.
I recall mentioning at least a few thousand times, about our having
the Selene L1 platform of science instruments easily established as of
4 decades ago, including many UV and IR imaging cameras looking at
Earth and equally at our Selene/moon that's losing it's sodium and a
few other elements at an alarming rate. However, without our having
such a nifty perspective it's simply much harder if not nearly
impossible to interpret whatever's going on.
btw, the often bogus mindset of "I always had the thoughts that free
hydrogen, and helium were lost in space and that Earth's gravity was
not strong enough to hold it" isn't what I'd gotten out of those
previously posted comments. In fact, it's pretty much the opposite of
what we’ve typically heard from most others, insisting that supposedly
Earth never loses mass, whereas instead I was the first in this or any
other Usenet/newsgroup to insist that our moon and Earth have each
been losing mass, and implying that the modern day human race has been
artificially assisting in this natural process.
Perhaps this can also explain as to why ETs would bother going to all
the trouble of extracting minerals and raw elements from another
planet or moon, such as our dire need of extracting He3 from our
Selene/moon, or that of whomever is taking substances away from Venus.
~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
Saul Levy
DOOM AND GLOOM FOREVER!
Saul Levy
Saul Levy
date of the coming apocalypse.
I guess 2012 is coming too soon for them since NOTHING IS HAPPENING!
Too bad NOTHING WILL HAPPEN DURING OUR LIFETIMES!
BET ON IT! So about 2016 expect them to extend the onset of this
TOTAL DISASTER ad nauseum!
Saul Levy
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 12:20:31 -0700, Saul Levy <saul...@cox.net>
wrote:
BradGuth
Sorry, I had to use our rabbi Saul Levy for my topic Gold Stars,
although I'm fairly certain that his cabal isn't going to let it stand
without first delivering a few swift kicks into my private parts.
Fortunately, Earth isn't going to run itself out of hydrogen or helium
anytime soon, not even with our help. However, thus far we have
managed to lose much of our valuable He and He3, and mother Earth
certainly isn't getting itself any heavier, nor is our geomagnetic
force showing any signs of slowing its ongoing demise.
~ BG
Double-A
> As another note: Hoax to Hoax is now moving more toward 2019 as the
> date of the coming apocalypse.
>
> I guess 2012 is coming too soon for them since NOTHING IS HAPPENING!
>
> Too bad NOTHING WILL HAPPEN DURING OUR LIFETIMES!
>
> BET ON IT! So about 2016 expect them to extend the onset of this
> TOTAL DISASTER ad nauseum!
>
> Saul Levy
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >FUCKING SHIT, BradBoi, I thought we were ALL DOOMED in 2012? lmfjao!
>
> >DOOM AND GLOOM FOREVER!
>
> >Saul Levy
I was once concerned wirh this prophesy by Mother Shipton (reputed to
be the Devil's daughter!):
"The world to an end shall come
In nineteen hundred and eighty-one."
After the year went by safely, I found out that the original version
had been:
"The world to an end shall come
In eighteen hundred and eighty-one."
Now I know that even that "original" was a fake written some 300 years
after her death.
Just wait until they reprint it in 2080, or so!
Double-A
BradGuth
The good news, Earth will still have a healthy surplus of hydrogen and
helium by 2080, although Earth may weigh a whole lot less, that is
unless we're impacted by Apophis in 2036 and pick up those 20e6 tonnes
plus 5e6 of other assorted debris, offers perhaps roughly 4% of what
mass in hydrogen and helium that'll have been lost over the next 70
years.
We're losing our geomagnetic force by roughly -.05%/year, so that's
not exactly a good sign.
~ BG
Saul Levy
Too bad you think the opposite!
Saul Levy
BradGuth
Earth receives but 2 to 3 kg of space dust and assorted meteorites per
second.
At the same time we're most likely losing at least 300 kg/s of our
hydrogen and helium.
There's simply no contest, whereas Earth is losing mass, and by some
basic accounting it is easily worth a tonne/sec if you'd care to
honestly include the human derived forms of hydrogen and helium
released and/or wasted from all of our fossil energy and many
artificial forms of having created such gasses.
~ BG
Uncle Al
>
> For example: Earth surface area = 5.1e14 m2, and its atmosphere
> contains
> Helium (He) 5.24 ppmv (0.000524%), He = .1786 kg/m3
> Hydrogen (H2) 0.55 ppmv (0.000055%), H2 = .0899 kg/m3
>
> We seem to know more about the perpetual loss/sec of hydrogen and
> helium for planets (including a few exoplanets) other than Earth.
> http://vega.lpl.arizona.edu/~gilda/extrass.html
Hey stooopid - second by second the Earth sweeps up more non-volatile
debris mass than it loses light gas mass.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
BradGuth
Earth receives as little as 1 kg/sec, but otherwise perhaps as much as
2 to 3 kg of space dust and assorted meteorites per second. However,
at the same time we're most likely losing at least 300 kg/s of our
hydrogen and helium.
There's simply no contest, whereas Earth has been losing mass, and by
some basic accounting it is easily worth as much as losing a tonne/sec
if you'd care to honestly include the human derived forms of hydrogen
and helium released, and/or that which is mostly wasted from all of
our fossil energy and many artificial and industrial forms of having
created such gasses.
Our badly failing geomagnetic field is not exactly helping, and yet
there is still no official accounting of Earth’s mass reduction that
we can objectively agree upon, which leads to our using swags and
deductive speculations because so much of our basic public funded
science is either need-to-know, taboo/nondisclosure rated and/or
having been overlooked, obfuscated, or simply lost along the way.
Science obfuscation = lying by omission.
Physics obfuscation = worse than lying by omission.
The public accessible science pertaining to our Selene/moon and the
planet Venus are each loaded with mainstream obfuscation.
On the other hand, what government and of it’s many agencies doesn’t
obfuscate?
Clearly the Pope on multiple occasions has obfuscated his holy butt
off, and Zionist Jews just can’t seem to keep from obfuscating as long
as it’s only taking advantage of others.
The public funded Stanford executed GP-B experiment was obfuscation on
steroids.
Is there some kind of public mainstream policy or tradition of
systematic obfuscation? (apparently there is if our Ponzi Madoff
approved SEC and more than half our banking and mortgage
infrastructure is any example)
What I’d like to know is exactly (+/-10%) how much tonnage per second
or per year our planet is typically losing, in much the same way that
exoplanets of viable habitats have been recently identified by their
loss of such elements. An average vertical escape velocity or
migration or propagation of 4 to 5 m/s seems likely, but there's still
no objective science to go by, other than an artificial release of H2
that’s clocked at roughly 16 m/s. So, as far as I can tell there’s no
actual need of conditional physics or hocus-pocus science obfuscation,
but then I certainly could be wrong.
~ BG
Saul Levy
You can't shed any light on gas losses, only a REAL scientist can even
attempt that task.
And you don't know any scientists, do you?
Saul Levy
namekuseijin
man was to explode all existant nukes on it would have much effect other
than killing us off and saving other species from our monkey
shit-throwing. Not much of a dent on Earth's surface, though.
If Earth loses matter, there's nothing we can do, only prepare our
future to abandon ship eventually. Live with it as the rest of mankind
has been doing for the past few millenia.
Double-A
I see other things besides daffodils popping up out of the fround
now. In spite of the freezing temperatures, nothing can stop the
irrepressible force of spring! Except that is for the Tholen doomsday
asteroid: Apophis!
> We're losing our geomagnetic force by roughly -.05%/year, so that's
> not exactly a good sign.
>
> ~ BG
Not a good sign.
Double-A
BradGuth
Doing nothing is not an option, unless you're a Zionist Nazi
republican Mafia cabal, then by all means continue to do nothing
that'll benefit humanity or that of our badly failing environment.
Failing to understand out best science is also not an option, because
what's next?
~ BG
Michael Moroney
>Earth receives but 2 to 3 kg of space dust and assorted meteorites per
>second.
>At the same time we're most likely losing at least 300 kg/s of our
>hydrogen and helium.
Umm, you better check your figures. The earth gets a net increase of mass
from intercepted space dust and meteors, which exceeds that lost from
light gases. Some of the H/He in the atmosphere is from intercepted solar
wind, so is really just a visitor to Earth. Except for solar hydrogen
which reacts with oxygen, which becomes a permanent contribution to the
oceans.
Besides, who cares? Hydrogen would come from photodisassociation from
water, and less water would mean a decrease in sea level, a good thing if
global warming is real, and if there's enough of that to be noticeable.
Helium is a limited supply, but once it gets into the atmosphere, it's
pretty much lost (not worth trying to extract), and who cares if it sticks
around or escapes into space.
BradGuth
wrote:
What part of the artificially released H2 and He didn't you get?
Are these figures correct, and if so is there an increase taking
place, and if not then where is all the artificial plus natural H2 and
He going?
Helium (He) 5.24 ppmv (0.000524%)
Hydrogen (H2) 0.55 ppmv (0.000055%)
What combined tonnage of H2+He is Earth losing per hour?
Is your private data that you have no intentions of sharing based upon
some secret satellite data?
The 1< 3 kg/sec of incoming debris doesn't seem like much, does it?
~ BG
BradGuth
Once upon a time Earth had 100 bar of atmosphere to work with.
99 bar worth of atmosphere (5.1e20 kg) is quite a bit of bulk mass
reduction, especially considering the ongoing natural production of
atmosphere plus the artificial contributions by way of humanity.
~ BG
Saul Levy
He stated that the Earth is hit by 10^12 meteors EVERY DAY!
That's a TRILLION, BradBoi! lmfjao!
The current gas mass loss is TINY compared to that.
Saul Levy
On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 21:47:46 -0800 (PST), BradGuth
<brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > On Feb 15, 3:12 pm, Saul Levy <saulle...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > As another note: Hoax to Hoax is now moving more toward 2019 as the
>> > > > date of the coming apocalypse.
>>
>> > > > I guess 2012 is coming too soon for them since NOTHING IS HAPPENING!
>>
>> > > > Too bad NOTHING WILL HAPPEN DURING OUR LIFETIMES!
>>
>> > > > BET ON IT! So about 2016 expect them to extend the onset of this
>> > > > TOTAL DISASTER ad nauseum!
>>
>> > > > Saul Levy
>>
>> > > > On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 12:20:31 -0700, Saul Levy <saulle...@cox.net>
>> > > > wrote:
>>
>> > > > >FUCKING SHIT, BradBoi, I thought we were ALL DOOMED in 2012? lmfjao!
>>
>> > > > >DOOM AND GLOOM FOREVER!
>>
>> > > > >Saul Levy
>> > The good news, Earth will still have a healthy surplus of hydrogen and
>> > helium by 2080, although Earth may weigh a whole lot less, that is
>> > unless we're impacted by Apophis in 2036 and pick up those 20e6 tonnes
>> > plus 5e6 of other assorted debris, offers perhaps roughly 4% of what
>> > mass in hydrogen and helium that'll have been lost over the next 70
>> > years.
>>
>> I see other things besides daffodils popping up out of the fround
>> now. In spite of the freezing temperatures, nothing can stop the
>> irrepressible force of spring! Except that is for the Tholen doomsday
>> asteroid: Apophis!
>>
>> > We're losing our geomagnetic force by roughly -.05%/year, so that's
>> > not exactly a good sign.
>>
>> > ~ BG
BradGuth
Try to find the ongoing production of Earth's atmosphere, and lo and
behold it's another one of those science obfuscated matters that's
still in the wind (so to speak).
Once upon a time Earth had a robust 100 bar of atmosphere to work with
(perhaps similar to Venus).
99 bar worth of atmosphere (5.1e20 kg) is quite a bit of bulk mass
reduction, especially considering the ongoing geophysics venting and
natural productions of atmosphere, plus those artificial contributions
by way of humanity.
Supposedly there's still <3 kg/s arriving via meteor influx that had
been much greater in the past. So, that's certainly a lot of lost
atmospheric tonnage per thousand years, and the ongoing rate of loss
is clearly increasing.
Once Mars lost its geomagnetic force and subsequent loss of
magnetosphere, it didn't take long for the solar wind to extract the
vast bulk if its atmosphere and of most everything else responsible
for having created and sustained that once viable atmosphere. Now you
get to hold your breath, or else.
~ BG
namekuseijin
> On Feb 16, 1:44 pm, namekuseijin <namekusei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> If Earth loses matter, there's nothing we can do, only prepare our
>> future to abandon ship eventually. Live with it as the rest of mankind
>> has been doing for the past few millenia.
>
> Doing nothing is not an option
I said "prepare our future to abandon ship". It takes time, though, and
if you think Earth is doomed tomorrow, then there's nothing we can do, yes.
What would you do?
BradGuth
I'd hire the likes of William Mook, as long as sufficiently medicated
for his bipolar disorder, but otherwise I'd start creating underground
and undersea habitats.
The only viable off-world option seems to be the robust planet Venus,
however robotics could make our Selene/moon worthy, along with its
256e6 tonne LSE-CM/ISS.
The planet Venus offers unlimited local energy that's 100% renewable
as is (nothing of hydrocarbons or otherwise combustible needed), a
thick protective atmosphere that's 65+kg/m3 buoyant and rather nicely
shields your frail DNA against cosmic and solar radiation, hundreds of
teratonnes of easily accessible water and otherwise by far the easiest
access to planetary minerals, and everything weighs roughly 10% less.
Perhaps only to a smart ET, the planet Venus is representing the
ultimate mother load of Eden on steroids.
On Feb 13, 5:09 pm, namekuseijin <namekuseijin.nos...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I don't know if I recommend for you to read a physics book (and even try
> it out yourself) or for you to go see a mental doctor.
Instead of your conditional laws of physics and science obfuscation, I
stick with using the exact same deductive observationology, regular
physics and best available science for interpreting Venus as per the
same as that of our terrestrial physics and science, whereas you folks
tend to use faith-based and/or politically correct conditional physics
and as much hocus-pocus infomercials packed with all sorts of eye-
candy and hype, along with your obfuscation laced science to boot,
that you and others of our mainstream can manage to get away with.
~ BG
Saul Levy
Especially about Venus.
Saul Levy
namekuseijin
> The planet Venus offers unlimited local energy that's 100% renewable
> as is (nothing of hydrocarbons or otherwise combustible needed), a
> thick protective atmosphere that's 65+kg/m3 buoyant and rather nicely
> shields your frail DNA against cosmic and solar radiation,
My skin may be shielded away from radiation, only to be melted away
under hot carbon dioxide!
> hundreds of
> teratonnes of easily accessible water and otherwise by far the easiest
> access to planetary minerals, and everything weighs roughly 10% less.
> Perhaps only to a smart ET, the planet Venus is representing the
> ultimate mother load of Eden on steroids.
Too hot to be Eden. OTOH, Africa too was too hot for Eden, though not
nearly as much. My view of Eden is that a temperate forest full with
plenty of trees to provide fruits and the all too-important shadows,
as well as rivers nearby for hygiene and recreational needs.
Michael Moroney
>On Feb 16, 8:14=A0pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
>wrote:
>>
>> Umm, you better check your figures. The earth gets a net increase of mass
>> from intercepted space dust and meteors, which exceeds that lost from
>> light gases. Some of the H/He in the atmosphere is from intercepted solar
>> wind, so is really just a visitor to Earth. =A0Except for solar hydrogen
>> which reacts with oxygen, which becomes a permanent contribution to the
>> oceans.
>>
>> Besides, who cares? Hydrogen would come from photodisassociation from
>> water, and less water would mean a decrease in sea level, a good thing if
>> global warming is real, and if there's enough of that to be noticeable.
>> Helium is a limited supply, but once it gets into the atmosphere, it's
>> pretty much lost (not worth trying to extract), and who cares if it sticks
>> around or escapes into space.
>What part of the artificially released H2 and He didn't you get?
What about it?
>Are these figures correct, and if so is there an increase taking
>place, and if not then where is all the artificial plus natural H2 and
>He going?
H and He in the atmosphere is in equilibrium between loss to space,
outgassing from the earth, solar wind and cosmic dust (can contain several
PPM of embedded solar wind atoms). The amount over time doesn't change
much.
> Helium (He) 5.24 ppmv (0.000524%)
>Hydrogen (H2) 0.55 ppmv (0.000055%)
And what if all that H + He completely disappear tomorrow? Will it
even be measurable on a barometer on tomorrow's weather report?
Will your voice be a millionth of an octave lower, now that that helium
is all gone?
>What combined tonnage of H2+He is Earth losing per hour?
>Is your private data that you have no intentions of sharing based upon
>some secret satellite data?
Once you tell me which orifice you got your data from. On the other
hand, I don't want to know.
BradGuth
wrote:
Your not wanting to know is what tells us more than we needed to know
about your mindset.
~ BG
Saul Levy
ABOUT YOU! lmfjao!
Maybe you should read up on the Zetas?
Saul Levy
BradGuth
> On Feb 17, 3:33 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The planet Venus offers unlimited local energy that's 100% renewable
> > as is (nothing of hydrocarbons or otherwise combustible needed), a
> > thick protective atmosphere that's 65+kg/m3 buoyant and rather nicely
> > shields your frail DNA against cosmic and solar radiation,
>
> My skin may be shielded away from radiation, only to be melted away
> under hot carbon dioxide!
Your dumbfounded intentions of doing Venus in the nude is noted.
>
> > hundreds of
> > teratonnes of easily accessible water and otherwise by far the easiest
> > access to planetary minerals, and everything weighs roughly 10% less.
> > Perhaps only to a smart ET, the planet Venus is representing the
> > ultimate mother load of Eden on steroids.
>
> Too hot to be Eden. OTOH, Africa too was too hot for Eden, though not
> nearly as much. My view of Eden is that a temperate forest full with
> plenty of trees to provide fruits and the all too-important shadows,
> as well as rivers nearby for hygiene and recreational needs.
You must be Muslim, obfuscating whatever it takes and excluding
applied physics and otherwise banishing proven technology.
Your terrestrial limited idea of Eden wouldn't impress a 5th grade ET.
~ BG
BradGuth
Maxwell Boltzmann
http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~wilkins/energy/Companion/E07.4.pdf.xpdf
“Hydrogen and helium have a mean speed that is a significant fraction
of the escape speed. For this reason, there is almost no hydrogen or
helium in Earth’s present atmosphere.”
As our geomagnetic field fades away at -0.05%/year (possibly signaling
another magnetic pole reversal) and subsequently our protective
magnetosphere fails us, the SAA contour expands and deepens, as the
average 400 km/s solar wind (halo CME 600<1600 km/s) reaches ever
deeper into the upper atmosphere, whereas subsequently our natural and
artificially introduced hydrogen and helium gets superheated and
easily accelerated above 11 km/s.
Earth is simply not gaining sufficient mass to offset the escapement
of our hydrogen and helium. In other words, there is not a volumetric
balance of mass taking place.
~ BG
Saul Levy
BradBoi? lmfjao!
DAMN LITTLE!
The Earth is GAINING MASS anyway! 10^12 (A TRILLION) meteors enter
the atmosphere EVERY DAY!
Saul Levy
Michael Moroney
>On Feb 17, 2:07=A0pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
>wrote:
>>
>> And what if all that H + He completely disappear tomorrow? =A0Will it
>> even be measurable on a barometer on tomorrow's weather report?
>> Will your voice be a millionth of an octave lower, now that that helium
>> is all gone?
>>
>> >What combined tonnage of H2+He is Earth losing per hour?
>> >Is your private data that you have no intentions of sharing based upon
>> >some secret satellite data?
>>
>> Once you tell me which orifice you got your data from. =A0On the other
>> hand, I don't want to know.
>>
>> >The 1< 3 kg/sec of incoming debris doesn't seem like much, does it?
>Your not wanting to know is what tells us more than we needed to know
>about your mindset.
That's the best answer you can come up with? Not that I expected anything
any better.
BradGuth
wrote:
Maxwell Boltzmann
http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~wilkins/energy/Companion/E07.4.pdf.xpdf
“Hydrogen and helium have a mean speed that is a significant fraction
of the escape speed. For this reason, there is almost no hydrogen or
helium in Earth’s present atmosphere.”
As our geomagnetic field fades away at -0.05%/year (possibly signaling
another magnetic pole reversal) and subsequently our protective
magnetosphere fails us, the SAA contour expands and deepens, as the
average 400 km/s solar wind (halo CME 600<1600 km/s) reaches ever
deeper into the upper atmosphere, whereas subsequently our natural and
artificially introduced hydrogen and helium gets superheated and
easily accelerated above 11 km/s.
Earth is simply not gaining sufficient mass to offset the escapement
of our hydrogen and helium. In other words, there is not a volumetric
balance of mass taking place.
Now it's your turn to obfuscate.
~ BG
Michael Moroney
>On Feb 18, 8:09=A0am, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
>wrote:
>> >> >Is your private data that you have no intentions of sharing based upon
>> >> >some secret satellite data?
>>
>> >> Once you tell me which orifice you got your data from. =3DA0On the other
>> >> hand, I don't want to know.
>>
>> >> >The 1< 3 kg/sec of incoming debris doesn't seem like much, does it?
>> >Your not wanting to know is what tells us more than we needed to know
>> >about your mindset.
>>
>> That's the best answer you can come up with? =A0Not that I expected anyth=
>ing
>> any better.
>Maxwell Boltzmann
>http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~wilkins/energy/Companion/E07.4.pdf.xpdf
[snip irrelevant explanation of mechanism]
Lack of any source for your figures, nor of the orifice of origin, noted.
BradGuth
wrote:
> BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> writes:
> >On Feb 18, 8:09=A0am, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
> >wrote:
> >> >> >Is your private data that you have no intentions of sharing based upon
> >> >> >some secret satellite data?
>
> >> >> Once you tell me which orifice you got your data from. =3DA0On the other
> >> >> hand, I don't want to know.
>
> >> >> >The 1< 3 kg/sec of incoming debris doesn't seem like much, does it?
> >> >Your not wanting to know is what tells us more than we needed to know
> >> >about your mindset.
>
> >> That's the best answer you can come up with? =A0Not that I expected anyth=
> >ing
> >> any better.
> >Maxwell Boltzmann
>
> [snip irrelevant explanation of mechanism]
>
> Lack of any source for your figures, nor of the orifice of origin, noted.
I've given multiple sources for quantifying the artificial dumping of
helium. Obviously you can't read or much less think for yourself.
So, you admit that you have no idea as to how much Earth is outgassing
and/or venting atmospheric worthy gasses from the surface.
Why isn't there absolute objective quantified science existing about
Earth?
Why are you so deathly afraid of using our Selene/moon L1 to discover
anything?
~ BG
Michael Moroney
>On Feb 19, 9:55 am, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote:
>> BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> writes:
>> >On Feb 18, 8:09=3DA0am, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
>> >wrote:
>> >> >> >Is your private data that you have no intentions of sharing based
>upon
>> >> >> >some secret satellite data?
>>
>> >> >> Once you tell me which orifice you got your data from. On the other
>> >> >> hand, I don't want to know.
>>
>> >> >> >The 1< 3 kg/sec of incoming debris doesn't seem like much, does it?
>> >> >Your not wanting to know is what tells us more than we needed to know
>> >> >about your mindset.
>> >> That's the best answer you can come up with? Not that I expected
anything
>> >> any better.
>> >Maxwell Boltzmann
>> >http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~wilkins/energy/Companion/E07.4.pdf...
>>
>> [snip irrelevant explanation of mechanism]
>>
>> Lack of any source for your figures, nor of the orifice of origin, noted.
>I've given multiple sources for quantifying the artificial dumping of
>helium. Obviously you can't read or much less think for yourself.
No you haven't given any sources to the amount of gas escape. I have,
however, found a few online sources that state loss of all atmospheric
gases ranges from about 1/3 the mass gained from meteors/space debris to
an order of magnitude less. In other words, the earth is still gaining
mass. Not that it makes any difference, the net increase of the mass of
the earth is so small compared to the mass of the earth it won't change
anything.
>So, you admit that you have no idea as to how much Earth is outgassing
>and/or venting atmospheric worthy gasses from the surface.
See above. And such gases are hardly "worthy", they're too dilute to be
worth recovering for anything, and their eventual loss has no effect.
>Why isn't there absolute objective quantified science existing about
>Earth?
There is, but you simply ignore it.
>Why are you so deathly afraid of using our Selene/moon L1 to discover
>anything?
Your imagined fear of mine is just another part of your obsession.
BradGuth
So, the amount of tonnage in helium that's 7< 8% per volume of natural
gas doesn't count?
The ongoing terrestrial outgassing of water and other gaseous elements
from within doesn't count?
>
> >So, you admit that you have no idea as to how much Earth is outgassing
> >and/or venting atmospheric worthy gasses from the surface.
>
> See above. And such gases are hardly "worthy", they're too dilute to be
> worth recovering for anything, and their eventual loss has no effect.
Your subjective science and conditional laws of physics with
obfuscation is noted. When are you going to provide something purely
objective, like I have done?
>
> >Why isn't there absolute objective quantified science existing about
> >Earth?
>
> There is, but you simply ignore it.
I can't hardly ignore what can't be found. Please cite whatever of
public and/or private funded science that is posted to the internet or
otherwise published.
>
> >Why are you so deathly afraid of using our Selene/moon L1 to discover
> >anything?
>
> Your imagined fear of mine is just another part of your obsession.
Then what's your wiser plan of action, or rather same old status quo
inaction about not utilizing our Selene/moon L1?
I'm only obsessed about learning and utilizing the best available
truths for the greater good. Sorry about that, I'll have to try being
more mainstream brown-nosed and otherwise like Hitler and Bush if that
would make you a happier camper.
~ BG
Michael Moroney
>On Feb 19, 11:45 am, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
>wrote:
>> BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> >> Lack of any source for your figures, nor of the orifice of origin, noted.
>> >I've given multiple sources for quantifying the artificial dumping of
>> >helium. Obviously you can't read or much less think for yourself.
>>
>> No you haven't given any sources to the amount of gas escape. I have,
>> however, found a few online sources that state loss of all atmospheric
>> gases ranges from about 1/3 the mass gained from meteors/space debris to
>> an order of magnitude less. In other words, the earth is still gaining
>> mass. Not that it makes any difference, the net increase of the mass of
>> the earth is so small compared to the mass of the earth it won't change
>> anything.
>So, the amount of tonnage in helium that's 7< 8% per volume of natural
>gas doesn't count?
Only the outgassing from the atmosphere to space would count. Somewhere
from 10-33% of the gain in mass from meteroids.
>The ongoing terrestrial outgassing of water and other gaseous elements
>from within doesn't count?
No. Earth's atmosphere is part of Earth. Some mass (water, CO2) can go
back and forth between the atmosphere and liquid or solid Earth.
>> >So, you admit that you have no idea as to how much Earth is outgassing
>> >and/or venting atmospheric worthy gasses from the surface.
>>
>> See above. And such gases are hardly "worthy", they're too dilute to be
>> worth recovering for anything, and their eventual loss has no effect.
>Your subjective science and conditional laws of physics with
>obfuscation is noted. When are you going to provide something purely
>objective, like I have done?
Show me a process that can recover gaseous H/He from the atmosphere
that is worth the effort, objectively.
>> >Why are you so deathly afraid of using our Selene/moon L1 to discover
>> >anything?
>>
>> Your imagined fear of mine is just another part of your obsession.
>Then what's your wiser plan of action, or rather same old status quo
>inaction about not utilizing our Selene/moon L1?
Not relevant to this discussion.
I don't see much of interest about the earth-moon L1 other than as a
temporary waypoint for lunar missions. It's unstable long term. Lunar
orbits are also long-term unstable (due to mascons) but have the advantage
of being closer to the moon for study of the moon.
>I'm only obsessed about learning and utilizing the best available
>truths for the greater good. Sorry about that, I'll have to try being
>more mainstream brown-nosed and otherwise like Hitler and Bush if that
>would make you a happier camper.
Hah! You obsess over:
The moon, imaginary "DARPA" conspiracies, the moon, "brown-nosing" someone,
the moon, "Jewish Nazis" (whatever the hell they're supposed to be, kind of
like red-hot ice or black polar bears or something, I guess), the moon, the
moon and the moon.
I almost forgot one - the moon.
namekuseijin
> On Feb 17, 1:59 pm, namekuseijin <namekusei...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > My skin may be shielded away from radiation, only to be melted away
> > under hot carbon dioxide!
>
> Your dumbfounded intentions of doing Venus in the nude is noted.
>
> > nearly as much. My view of Eden is that a temperate forest full with
> > plenty of trees to provide fruits and the all too-important shadows,
> > as well as rivers nearby for hygiene and recreational needs.
>
> You must be Muslim, obfuscating whatever it takes and excluding
> applied physics and otherwise banishing proven technology.
No.
> Your terrestrial limited idea of Eden wouldn't impress a 5th grade ET.
I think it's better than living in an astronaut's suit all day long or
deep below the ground to protect against a ravaging atmosphere.
Saul Levy
Been there, done that, have the bubble gum card!
Saul Levy
BradGuth
Without our help, the lithosphere alone creaes an extra 3e3 tonnes/
year of helium.
Why exactly are you excluding our commercial extractions of natural
gas?
Natural gas alone contributes a minimum of 4e6<40e6 tonnes of helium.
Earth uncontrollably vents hundred+ millions of hydrogen and helium
tonnes per year, however some of which is derived from the 3.5e12 m3/
year of natural gas.
At the natural gas wellheads, a cryogenic process could extract and
salvage the bulk of he2, he3 and he4. H2 can be safely passed along
and consumed with the methane.
>
> >> >Why are you so deathly afraid of using our Selene/moon L1 to discover
> >> >anything?
>
> >> Your imagined fear of mine is just another part of your obsession.
> >Then what's your wiser plan of action, or rather same old status quo
> >inaction about not utilizing our Selene/moon L1?
>
> Not relevant to this discussion.
Your perpetual denial and obfuscation is noted.
>
> I don't see much of interest about the earth-moon L1 other than as a
> temporary waypoint for lunar missions. It's unstable long term. Lunar
> orbits are also long-term unstable (due to mascons) but have the advantage
> of being closer to the moon for study of the moon.
Again, your purely subjective interpretation that's mostly negative is
noted.
>
> >I'm only obsessed about learning and utilizing the best available
> >truths for the greater good. Sorry about that, I'll have to try being
> >more mainstream brown-nosed and otherwise like Hitler and Bush if that
> >would make you a happier camper.
>
> Hah! You obsess over:
>
> The moon, imaginary "DARPA" conspiracies, the moon, "brown-nosing" someone,
> the moon, "Jewish Nazis" (whatever the hell they're supposed to be, kind of
> like red-hot ice or black polar bears or something, I guess), the moon, the
> moon and the moon.
>
> I almost forgot one - the moon.
What's wrong with obsessing over our physically dark and naked Selene/
moon that's loaded with nifty minerals and valuable elements like He3?
I also obsess over the planet Venus. Sorry about that.
btw, Earth is losing mass.
~ BG
Michael Moroney
>On Feb 19, 2:36 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
>wrote:
>>
>> Show me a process that can recover gaseous H/He from the atmosphere
>> that is worth the effort, objectively.
>Without our help, the lithosphere alone creaes an extra 3e3 tonnes/
>year of helium.
>Why exactly are you excluding our commercial extractions of natural
>gas?
You didn't answer the question.
>At the natural gas wellheads, a cryogenic process could extract and
>salvage the bulk of he2, he3 and he4. H2 can be safely passed along
>and consumed with the methane.
No such thing as He2.
You still haven't given us any reason why anyone should worry about helium
loss.
For a few gas wells, there's enough helium in them to be worth it to
extract commercially. It's not worth it to extract it from the air or
from most of the other wells.
>btw, Earth is losing mass.
Still no source (or even orifice identification) for this claim, I see.
BradGuth
wrote:
> BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> writes:
> >On Feb 19, 2:36 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
> >wrote:
>
> >> Show me a process that can recover gaseous H/He from the atmosphere
> >> that is worth the effort, objectively.
> >Without our help, the lithosphere alone creaes an extra 3e3 tonnes/
> >year of helium.
> >Why exactly are you excluding our commercial extractions of natural
> >gas?
>
> You didn't answer the question.
Silly boy. I have a number of derogatory names for naysay folks of
denial like yourself.
>
> >At the natural gas wellheads, a cryogenic process could extract and
> >salvage the bulk of he, he3 and he4. H2 can be safely passed along
> >and consumed with the methane.
>
> No such thing as He2.
Word games, you know exactly what I meant.
>
> You still haven't given us any reason why anyone should worry about helium
> loss.
>
> For a few gas wells, there's enough helium in them to be worth it to
> extract commercially. It's not worth it to extract it from the air or
> from most of the other wells.
>
> >btw, Earth is losing mass.
>
> Still no source (or even orifice identification) for this claim, I see.
It's a Muslim encrypted top secret called the world wide web. Some of
our public funded and even privately funded science gets posted and/or
made accessible via the WWW, but only accessible to those of us
smarter than a 5th grader or Elmo. Some faith-based mindsets can't
interpret the obvious, so it's all up to myself.
2009/2010 ~ 3.5e12 m3/year of natural gas, with some of those NG wells
offering <9% helium. Do the math.
So, how much mass is Earth losing per second?
~ BG
Michael Moroney
>On Feb 20, 1:19 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
>wrote:
>> BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> writes:
>> >On Feb 19, 2:36 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
>> >wrote:
>>
>> >> Show me a process that can recover gaseous H/He from the atmosphere
>> >> that is worth the effort, objectively.
>> >Without our help, the lithosphere alone creaes an extra 3e3 tonnes/
>> >year of helium.
>> >Why exactly are you excluding our commercial extractions of natural
>> >gas?
>>
>> You didn't answer the question.
>Silly boy. I have a number of derogatory names for naysay folks of
>denial like yourself.
I know you do, but I still find it interesting that you refuse to answer
the question.
>> >At the natural gas wellheads, a cryogenic process could extract and
>> >salvage the bulk of he, he3 and he4. H2 can be safely passed along
>> >and consumed with the methane.
>>
>> No such thing as He2.
>Word games, you know exactly what I meant.
Yes, it means that you're ignorant. Also I find it interesting that you
changed your own quoted reply to read simply "he, he3 and he4", rather
than "he2, he3 and he4", foolishly thinking that removing the evidence of
your ignorance would be that easy.
>>
>> You still haven't given us any reason why anyone should worry about helium
>> loss.
>>
>> For a few gas wells, there's enough helium in them to be worth it to
>> extract commercially. It's not worth it to extract it from the air or
>> from most of the other wells.
>>
>> >btw, Earth is losing mass.
>>
>> Still no source (or even orifice identification) for this claim, I see.
>It's a Muslim encrypted top secret called the world wide web. Some of
>our public funded and even privately funded science gets posted and/or
>made accessible via the WWW, but only accessible to those of us
>smarter than a 5th grader or Elmo. Some faith-based mindsets can't
>interpret the obvious, so it's all up to myself.
You mean the same world wide web that told me that mass loss in offgassing
to space was 10% the mass gained from space dust/meteroids?
>2009/2010 ~ 3.5e12 m3/year of natural gas, with some of those NG wells
>offering <9% helium. Do the math.
Knowing that there may be a single well or three that contains 9% helium
doesn't help us make any such calculatations, since we don't know the
helium content of all the other wells.
And once again, why does it matter?
>So, how much mass is Earth losing per second?
The earth gains mass somewhere between 40,000,000 and 500,000,000 kg/yr,
according to that evil top secret web.
BradGuth
You can also find all sorts of certified disinformation and fancy
infomercial hype that's government published on the WWW. In fact, the
vast majority of what the WWW contains and/or offers links to is
either false, bogus or entirely subjective data to start with.
How long does it take a surface release of raw helium to reach 100 km?
I'll have to edit/revise my topic into LeapFrog format, and
essentially give this another lose cannon shot in the dark, so to
speak.
~ BG
BradGuth
For example: Earth surface area = 5.1e14 m2, and its atmosphere
contains
Helium (He) 5.24 ppmv (0.000524%), He = .1786 kg/m3
Hydrogen (H2) 0.55 ppmv (0.000055%), H2 = .0899 kg/m3
We seem to know more about the perpetual loss/sec of hydrogen and
helium for other planets (including a few exoplanets) other than
Earth.
http://vega.lpl.arizona.edu/~gilda/extrass.html
At 0.55 ppmv, in order that our atmosphere sustain that average H2
saturation, at any given moment there’s 25e6 kg of hydrogen getting
made available and unavoidably migrating upwards and away from Earth’s
surface in order to create and sustain the average 0.55 ppmv. The
question is, at what average vertical escapement velocity or
volumetric/sec exit away from Earth?
Is our 0.55 ppmv of hydrogen escapement worth merely 25e6 kg per day =
9.125e6 tonnes/yr, or is it as great as 25e6 kg per hour = 219e6
tonnes/year?
If the H2 loss isn’t impressive enough, now we need to focus on our
atmospheric helium that’s nearly ten fold greater by volume.
Like the GP-B fiasco, at best our EUVE (Extreme Ultra Violet Explorer)
could have been representing a false positive, all be its
observationology given a nifty artificial eye-candy hue of yellow and
reddish colorized EUV image of Earth’s surrounding cloud of helium and
hydrogen. However, the solar wind caused planetary exhaust trail of
H2 and He is what needs to be more closely looked at and objectively
quantified, as most easily accomplished from our the surface of our
Selene/moon or best from it's L1 that oddly we still do not have to
work with.
Existing EUV, UV and IR imaging:
http://www.fas.org/irp/imint/docs/rst/Sect20/A3.html
The badly failing magnetosphere has been capable of restraining or
mildly sequestering some of Earth's hydrogen and helium by way of
having been protecting our upper most atmosphere, but unfortunately
for the past 2000 years this too has been going away (most recently at
-.05%/year or even <–120 nT/yr), is perhaps as good of reason why that
lofty cloud of hydrogen and helium isn't sticking around, and why the
lethal SAA contour has been exponentially growing and nearing the
surface. On the other hand, would anyone care to imagine what could
happen if such terrestrial hydrogen and helium didn’t leak away?
http://io9.com/395272/is-earths-magnetic-field-failing-us
http://digitaldiatribes.wordpress.com/category/geomagnetism/
Of course our perpetual naysayers and the usual evidence excluding
gauntlet of our resident Usenet/newsgroup wizards and brown-nosed
clowns of perpetual obfuscation and denial are not paying serious
attention, or allowing any context of consideration as to the worth or
consequences of our badly failing geomagnetic force and of its
subsequent fading magnetosphere. It’s as though our best physics and/
or objective science doesn’t hardly matter, unless it’s strictly
interpreted by those in charge in order to sustain their mainstream
status quo. In other words, for sustaining our mainstream as a viable
cabal of happy campers, apparently our best public funded science is
but worth used toilet paper, and whatever NASA mishaps of botched or
failed missions are not to be taken seriously, if at all.
I recall mentioning at least a few thousand times, about our having
the Selene L1 platform of science instruments easily established as of
4 decades ago, including a 10x TRACE-II, plus many UV and IR imaging
cameras looking at Earth and equally at our Selene/moon that's losing
it's sodium and a few other elements at an alarming rate. However,
without our having such a nifty perspective it's simply much harder if
not nearly impossible to interpret whatever's going on.
btw, the often bogus mindset of "I always had the thoughts that free
hydrogen, and helium were lost in space and that Earth's gravity was
not strong enough to hold it" isn't what I'd gotten out of the vast
bulk of previously posted comments. In fact, it's pretty much the
opposite of what we’ve typically heard from most others, insisting
that supposedly Earth never loses mass, whereas instead Earth
supposedly gains several thousand tonnes per year. However, I was the
first in this or any other Usenet/newsgroup to insist that our moon
and Earth have each been losing mass, and implying that the modern day
human race has in fact been artificially assisting in this natural
process.
Perhaps this can also explain as to why ETs would bother going to all
the trouble of extracting minerals and raw exotic elements from
another planet or moon, such as our dire need of extracting He3 from
our Selene/moon, or appreciating that of whomever is taking substances
of value away from Venus.
BradGuth
that is continually escaping towards space, along with hydrogen,
certain freons and perhaps even pulling some methane along for the
ride, that’s all helping to create and/or expand those ozone holes
along the way. On any given day there’s 26.5e8 m3 of helium made
available, as otherwise our atmosphere simply wouldn’t sustain those
readings of 5.2 ppm, and at 1 bar that’s worth 472e3 tonnes per any
given day.
2009 wellhead natural gas extraction = 3.5e12 m3, <9% (avg 1.5%) of
this natural gas volume is the element of helium.
Coal at 4.75e9 m3, crude oil 5.25e9 m3 of production and their
subsequent consumption might suggest <1% per volume as helium, but let
us say 0.1% on average = 1e7 m3.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium
“In 2005, approximately one hundred and sixty million cubic meters of
helium were extracted from natural gas or withdrawn from helium
reserves”
2008 only 175e6 m3 (31.5e3 tonnes) of helium got commercially
extracted from natural gas, of which is not accounting for the ongoing
natural flux or terrestrial helium that’s continually leaking away
from Earth, and of course most of the hydrogen is a given loss in this
process.
LNG (geopressurized deep within Earth) = 450 kg/m3
Natural gas(methane) = 0.72 kg/m3 (@20°C and 1 bar)
Extracting 125e12 cf/year (3.5e12 m3/yr) or 2.5e9 tonnes/year
He@1.5% of 3.5e12 m3/yr = .0525e12 m3, @.178 kg/m3 = 9.345e6 t/yr
Otherwise helium is continually created and given off as a perfectly
natural byproduct via radioactive decay of existing terrestrial
elements within rocks and minerals, including within those hydrocarbon
packed minerals of coal and oil. It has been suggested the world
helium reserves total some odd 30 billion compressed cubic meters,
however much is geophysically stored in a highly compressed form with
always more getting created by the surrounding natural radioactive
decay, and that’s an assessment not even including the recently
discovered reserves in India that’s apparently sitting on top of the
global mother load cache of thorium and uranium that could suggest we
have at least a 300e9 m3 reserve of such Geopressurized helium,
indirectly accessible from WHPs of <100+ bar, might suggest the deeper
(5+ km) underground volumetric worth along with the more conventional
well depths is a worthy reserve of 300e12 m3 at 1 bar (roughly at best
a thousand years worth at the current rate plus natural loss that’s
being taken, although the next decade of human consumption could
revise that estimate down to lasting only another century).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium
“In this way an estimated 3000 tonnes of helium are generated per
year throughout the lithosphere.” (from what I’m reading of India,
I’d personally revise that estimate to 30,000 tonnes/year)
Helium has also been otherwise extensively expedited unto our
atmosphere, as derived from our commercial mining those volumes of
various minerals including nuclear ore extractions and vast
consumptions of coal, oil and by way of a few other commercially
accomplished methods contributing <7e6 tonnes He/yr.
At any one time our atmosphere unavoidably contains vast millions of
helium tonnes, with the bulk of that hovering near the top, just below
the vast bulk of excess hydrogen that’s also leaking away even
faster. Each geomagnetic pole reversal brings another era of losing
our life essential hydrogen and helium, as forever removed from the
atmospheric cycle of sustaining terrestrial life as we know it.
Otherwise our lithosphere outgassing flux (depending on which source
of research you’d care to cite) leaks and/or gives up 2e11<2e12 kg/
year (200<2000 million tonnes/year) of complex elements from Earth’s
interior, some of which (say at the very least 1% or 2s6<20e6 tonnes
unavoidably includes the atmospheric gasses of helium and hydrogen.
Radioactive decay of Thorium, Uranium, Radium and Potassium within
Earth is what continually creates elements of helium and a few other
isotope gasses, including radon. As part of the 64 TW from Earth’s
core, Earth has been losing <16e6+MW or 16+ TW via surface and
undersea geothermal vents and volcanic activity that’s at least
partially sustained by the 2e20 N/s trauma of the tidal radius force
it takes for holding onto our Selene/moon.
Earth has roughly 700 some odd active volcanoes as mostly identified
above sea level, with some of these fire and brimstone spewing
monsters degassing and contributing their physical flux <4e8 kg/sec, a
slight portion of which (<4000 kg/s) are gasses. Roughly an average
of 64~72 volcanoes erupt each year, 20~24 of which are actively
erupting on any given day.
Remote Sensing of Active Volcanoes:
Schneider (1999) estimated that 7.1e9 kg of gas is contributed per
year.
For example, a seriously explosive volcano might deliver a mass flux
of 5e4 kg/sec. However, such a typical volcano is otherwise
contributing 50 kg/sec of gaseous elements if taking just 0.1% of
those eruption contents into account.
http://www.terrapub.co.jp/journals/EPS/pdf/2002/5403/54030327.pdf
“Satsuma-Iwojima volcano continuously releases magmatic volatiles
from the summit of Iwodake, a rhyolitic lava dome. The temperature of
fumaroles is high, between 800◦ and 900◦C, and the water-rich
composition of volcanic gases has not changed essentially over the
past 10 years. Sulfur dioxide flux measured by COSPEC is almost
constant with an average of 550 t/d since 1975.” (this was only
accounting for the SO2 = 6.4 kg/s, whereas the hydrogen and helium
could easily represent another kg/sec.)
India must be setting on the global mother load of thorium and uranium
and radium.
http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/jun252005/1883.pdf
Large-scale helium escape from earth surface around Bakreswar–Tantloi
geothermal area in Birbhum district, West Bengal, and Dumka district,
Jharkhand, India
http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/apr252002/993.pdf
“Once emission begins, there is a gradual helium build-up in the air
till it reaches a maximum, typically between 2000 and 20,000 ppm, at
which level it remains steady for a duration ranging from about 5 to
20 min before falling rapidly to normal background.”
This also represents how quickly the outflux of helium and of course
hydrogen manage to vertically escape once their having migrated past
the surface, with only our failing magnetosphere acting as their final
buffer before getting solar wind extracted.
Inter-American Corporation Helium
http://www.helium-corp.com/facts/heliumfound.html
Perhaps our global combined natural and artificial release of helium
and hydrogen is worth <200e6 tonnes/year. In other words, in spite of
the100e3 < 400e3 tonnes of comet, meteor and dust influx/year, Earth
has been losing at least 100e6 tonnes/year, whereas of lately much of
that lost tonnage has become directly related to human activity that’s
responsible for directly and indirectly releasing hydrogen and helium,
thereby thinning the upper atmospheric density and allowing more solar
and secondary moon emitted energy to reach our polluted lower
atmosphere that’s now containing a higher percentage of water. How
can this trend not help but to warm Earth?
Unfortunately, we still do not have the Selene/moon L1 platform of
science instruments by which to properly quantify the ongoing loss or
outgoing flux of helium and hydrogen from Earth. In fact we don’t
even have objective science on many terrestrial and moon related
factors that our Selene L1 could have easily provided as of 4 decades
ago. Therefore we have to make due with our swags and educated
guesses as based upon the best available science that’s seldom if ever
in agreement.
Of what publicly funded satellite obtained science we have is often
kept need-to-know encrypted, and/or having been obfuscated to death in
order to suit whatever they think we didn’t need to know about, and
thereby keeping us snookered and just dumbfounded enough to think only
the most highly paid wizards are capable and/or entitled to
interpreting such data. Sorry, I just do not agree with that
methodology of our always having to pay for everything multiple times
and having to settle for the select and clearly biased interpretations
by those having a vested interest in protecting their personal status
and/or the future status of others.
At an average or perhaps conservative vertical rise (w/o payload or
balloon drag) of 2 m/s, it would only take helium 43,200 seconds or 12
hours for raw helium to reach 86.4 km. That means for each and every
atom of helium that emerges from the surface will in as little as one
day or at most within another day manage to reach the necessary
altitude of becoming affected and/or picked off by the fast (400 km/s)
moving solar wind that manages to penetrate our badly failing
magnetosphere, giving Earth a comet like trail of hydrogen and helium.
http://moo.pl/~tygrys/balloon/
w/payload it reached altitude of 28.8 km (94550ft) AMSL
Using helium, the average ascent rate: 5.5 m/s
The question of the day is; how much of our helium (including He3 and
H2) do we intend to ignore and subsequently waste, and to what extent
is this contributing to our AGW?
As is, it’s looking as though better than 99.9% of our helium has been
going to waste and unavoidably escaping away from the weak gravity and
badly diminished magnetosphere of Earth. Within this global warming
and resource limited era, is that a good or a bad thing?
Can Earth afford to continually waste and subsequently lose all 300e12
m3 of helium (53.4e9 t) along with an even greater tonnage of
hydrogen?
In other words, how much all-inclusive mass can mother Earth afford to
lose?
Mother nature may eventually come to our rescue, whereas shortly after
oil becomes depleted is also when our deposits of methane and next
coal should start to run out and/or become too spendy to locate and
extract, whereas much like a near empty tank of LNG or propane, it’ll
become a rather sudden decline in global NG and coal synfuel
production and thereby termination of affordable natural gas and
synfuel fossil energy, as well as the end to those vast underground
reservoirs or pocket reserves of helium.
Natural gas and of its extensive pipe distributed infrastructure
should eventually and for all the right business and environmental
reasons (as so often detailed to death by William Mook) be entirely
replaced by green/renewable hydrogen, and otherwise the ongoing
thorium and uranium decay process will likely sustain <30,000 helium
tonnes/yr, most of which (<99% or 29,000+ tonnes/yr) will likely
continue to be wasted and unavoidably vented off into space, because
of our having no valid infrastructure of otherwise appropriately
dealing with it, not even through nanofilters or molecular sieves that
can be systematically regenerated seems a bit odd, in that so many of
us are continually dumbfounded past the point of no return. Hopefully
by the end of such fossil and geothermal created energy, whereas in
spite of ourselves we’ll become nearly 100% thorium reactor based and/
or having He3/fusion making up whatever our moon assisted geothermal
and other renewable energy can’t, with India setting the lead example
due to their massive reserves of thorium and uranium that’s creating
so much of their surplus helium outgassing.
Here’s the geothermal alternative, just like I and Steven Chu said.
Plug into a Greener Grid: RE<C and RechargeIT Initiatives
Video: Intro to Enhanced Geothermal Systems
http://www.google.org/rec.html
BradGuth
There's no law or policy that'll make or force you to use the laws of
physics or technology. Doing Mars in the buff isn't advisable, any
more so than our moon or Venus.
Perhaps you shouldn't consider ever leaving Earth.
~ BG
BradGuth
atmosphere to work with, and was obviously losing little of its
original hydrogen and helium due to the passive solar wind and because
our geomagnetic force and subsequent magnetosphere was at least ten
fold stronger, and our sun was at the time even more passive, as not
likely delivering more than half the average solar wind.
99 bar worth of atmosphere (5.1e20 kg) is actually quite a bit of bulk
mass reduction, especially considering those early arrivals of <1e9 kg/
yr that’s extensively vaporized into becoming atmosphere, water and
minerals, along with the terrestrial/natural outgassing of atmospheric
elements including raw hydrogen and helium that tend to uncontrollably
rise, plus all the recent artificial contributions by way of humanity
and our mass consumption of various natural and synthetic hydrocarbons
plus having created nearly a million tonnes per year of potentially
toxic CFCs, HFCs and HCFCs that should have been replaced by good old
CO2, though even CH4 would have always been a better alternative to
artificial CFCs and HCFCs, but that kind of common sense would have
destroyed those wealthy empires of Union Carbide and DuPont. Seems
the general public’s lack of physics and science education has been a
perpetual godsend treasure trove of loot for the Rothschilds.
If Earth had been capably holding onto its atmosphere (including its
H2 and He), whereas instead of having lost 5.1e20 kg, perhaps like a
immature gas giant we’d still be gaining atmospheric mass. Lucky for
us that hasn’t been the case, though not to say that a gas giant with
a substantial solid core (16+ Me) like Jupiter couldn’t coexist at 1
AU.
As of lately our lower (6 km) half of atmospheric mass has been rather
nicely polluted, warming and thereby increasing its density by way of
holding more water along with our toxic laced soot, while the upper
atmospheric density has been gradually decreasing or thinning by
having received a greater percentage of methane topped off by natural
and artificial freons and then good old He and H2 that Earth’s gravity
and weak magnetosphere simply can not forever hold onto.
Earth currently receives an average of as little as 1 kg/sec, but
otherwise perhaps at times as much as 10 kg/sec of space dust and
assorted meteorites per second. However, my recent interpretation is
that at the same time along with our assistance we're most likely
losing at least 300 kg/s (9.5e6 tonnes/year) of our hydrogen and
helium.
In running the numbers of what we annually extract and attempt to
utilize of our terrestrial gasses, there's simply no viable contest,
whereas Earth has been losing mass, and by some basic accounting it is
easily worth losing a tonne/sec if you'd care to honestly include the
natural and human derived forms of hydrogen and helium released, plus
that which is mostly wasted from all of our fossil energy and many
artificial and industrial forms of having created and subsequently
released such lofty gasses. Perhaps that the best reason why we do
not have the whole Earth coverage from Selene L1.
Our badly failing geomagnetic field is not exactly helping, and yet
there is still no official accounting of Earth’s mass reduction that
we can objectively agree upon, which leads to our using swags and
deductive speculations because so much of our basic public funded
science is either need-to-know encrypted, taboo/nondisclosure rated
and/or having been systematically overlooked, obfuscated, or simply
lost along the way because otherwise it makes ‘Big Energy’ look even
worse than it is.
Science obfuscation = lying by omission.
Physics obfuscation = worse than lying by omission.
The public accessible science pertaining to our Selene/moon and the
planet Venus are each examples loaded with such mainstream
obfuscation.
On the other hand, what doesn’t our disingenuous government and of
it’s many faith-based agencies that in perpetual denial obfuscate in
order to protect thy public funded job security, thy nifty benefits
and their golden egg retirement at public expense?
Clearly the Pope on multiple occasions throughout history has
obfuscated his holy butt off, and Zionist just can’t seem to keep from
obfuscating as long as it’s only taking advantage of others or false
flag blaming of others. On the other hand, you can believe it was
always those physics and science smart Atheists as having supposedly
gotten us safely to/from our moon, and otherwise only these smart
Atheists and Muslims as having helped Hitler, if that’s what makes you
a happy camper.
The public funded and Stanford executed GP-B experiment was every bit
as good as any obfuscation on steroids, and their perpetual denial of
being in denial is every bit as disingenuous.
Is there some kind of public mainstream policy or tradition of
systematic obfuscation? (apparently there is, if our SEC approved
Ponzi Madoff and more than half our banking and mortgage
infrastructure is any example)
Outside of pretending at being politically correct and always having
to be faith-based passive or neutral, what I’d like to know for the
pure sake of knowing is exactly (+/-10%) how much tonnage per second
or per year our planet is typically losing, in much the same way that
exoplanets of viable habitats for life have been recently identified
by their loss of such EUV detected elements as hydrogen and helium.
In the case of Earth, an average vertical escape velocity of helium
migration or vertical propagation of merely 2 to 4 m/s seems likely,
except there’s much the same devoid of objective data as raw ice
coexisting in 1 AU space, with still no objective science on behalf of
our H2 or He escapement to go by. As far as I can tell, there’s no
actual political or faith-based need of their mainstream imposing
conditional physics or the hocus-pocus infowar tactics of science
obfuscation, but then I certainly could be wrong.
~ BG
BradGuth
isn’t hardly in question, so much as is the given amount of mass loss
per second can be argued fairly extensively, especially since we still
have not established the Selene/moon L1 in behalf of Earth, solar and
moon observations that could have told us nearly everything we needed
to know as of 4 decades ago.
Maxwell Boltzmann
http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~wilkins/energy/Companion/E07.4.pdf.xpdf
“Hydrogen and helium have a mean speed that is a significant fraction
of the escape speed. For this reason, there is almost no hydrogen or
helium in Earth’s present atmosphere.”
As our geomagnetic field proceeds to fade away at -.05%/year
(signaling yet another magnetic pole reversal) and subsequently our
protective magnetosphere fails us for another extended period of time,
allowing the SAA contour to expand and deepen, as the average 400 km/s
solar wind (halo CMEs of 600<1600 km/s) reaches ever deeper into the
upper atmosphere, whereas subsequently our natural and artificially
introduced volumes of hydrogen and helium gets solar and even somewhat
via Selene/moon superheated and easily accelerated above 11.2 km/s
(enough to easily escape Earth).
As a direct result, Earth is simply not gaining a sufficient influx of
mass to offset the ongoing and accelerated escapement of our natural
and artificial hydrogen and helium. In other words, there is simply
not a volumetric balance of sufficient oncoming mass taking place, and
at the least our upper 50% mass of atmosphere is getting thinned out
and/or displaced by the vertical supply of helium and hydrogen, and
perhaps how could this not allow more solar and secondary Selene/moon
radiated energy in?
The current rate of Earth’s surface and ocean floor outgassing of
mineral saturated fluids and otherwise natural gas saturated matter
from deep geothermal vents and volcanoes is likely in the realm of
contributing at least 1e12 kg/year, and perhaps roughly 10% of that
being in the form of direct atmospheric worthy gasses (including raw
hydrogen and helium).
If this were introducing 1e12 kg/yr or 1000 megatonnes/year (<1e10 kg/
yr of He and H2) of such gasses from within Earth isn’t bad enough,
there’s an influx of mostly vaporized meteorites worthy of
contributing another 1e8 to 5e8 kg/yr, from which hydrogen and helium
(including He3) is always a part of. Factor in the electrostatic/
lightning created hydrogen if you’d care to add a little more insult
to injury.
Now add the human contributed/expedited volumetric tonnage of helium
that’s typically 1<9% of our natural gas. In India they have recently
quantified some of their natural geothermal venting areas as giving
off <2% helium per volume of what’s surface escaping along with many
other gasses (including radon), meaning there’s loads of nearby
thorium, uranium and radium below, along with a substantial natural
gas reserve of perhaps <10% helium purity. In other words, India
can’t possibly lose, with far cheaper and more abundant energy that’s
as close to renewable as you’re going to get.
If clean energy derived via renewable alternatives and thorium isn’t
quite good enough to suit your fancy, here’s the geothermal
alternative, just like I and Steven Chu said. (how many hundred GW
would you like?)
“Plug into a Greener Grid: RE<C and RechargeIT Initiatives”
Video: Intro to Enhanced Geothermal Systems
http://www.google.org/rec.html
Even the nearly all electric 18<24 wheeler isn’t outside of what clean/
renewable energy can deliver, within as little as 6 hours of 3 phase
recharging or battery pack exchange that’s capable of providing <12
hrs of serious truck long hauling, and better yet if the hybrid ICE
option could run on h2o2+synfuel or replaced by an h2o2 fuel cell kind
of super-battery. In which case little if any hydrogen gets released,
and the whole birth-to-grave energy process contributes zero NOx as
well as zero helium.
~ BG
Saul Levy
realize that NUCLEAR POWER is the cleanest source, don't you?
He is going to go DOWN IN FLAMES!
ObaMAO is talking about RAISING ENERGY COSTS by $1.2 TRILLION!
EVERYONE WILL SUFFER BECAUSE OF THAT ALONE!
Yet the SPENDING continues unabated: $20 BILLION here, $10 BILLION
there, etc. $837 BILLION too. $1.75 TRILLION DEFICIT ALONE!!!!!!!!!!
IMPEACH OBAMA NOW! DESTROY THE DEMORATIC PARTY! They continue to
SELL THE U.S. OUT!
FUCK THESE SOCIALIST SCUM OF THE EARTH!
Saul Levy
Saul Levy
You are only worried about loss of hydrogen and helium, the most
abundant elements in the Universe? They've been leaking away for the
entire 4.5 BILLION YEAR history of the Earth. Seems we haven't run
out yet! The Earth's gravity hasn't changed all that much during that
entire period, has it? Even if the atmospheric pressure used to be
much higher, that would only cause a greater amount to leak away,
wouldn't it?
Our KNOWN natural gas deposits are at an ALL-TIME HIGH, aren't they?
New discoveries of oil and gas occur every year. We have tremendous
reserves of both, don't we? The Bakkan Fields are HUMONGOUS and have
hardly been touched yet. There are other such huge fields that are
now known. Roughly one per year are still being discovered!
As a number of us have told you many times already: the Earth is
GAINING mass EVERY DAY from the ONE TRILLION METEOROIDS entering the
Earth's atmosphere! The losses you worry about are more than made up
by this mass increase. It doesn't matter whether in a volumetric
sense or by mass. The volcanic contributions are even MORE HUMONGOUS!
The Earth is VERY geologically active and will remain so for a VERY
long time to come.
So why are you so worried about a possible thining of the upper
atmosphere? The upper atmosphere isn't breathable NOW, is it? Is the
lower atmosphere getting thinner too? You seem to be worried about
something which won't affect life on Earth for a VERY LONG TIME, IF
EVER! There is plenty of lower atmosphere to protect life from any
harmful solar or cosmic rays.
What humans add to our atmosphere compared to nature is NOTHING! It
just doesn't make any kind of a dent!
Isn't this topic just more DOOM AND GLOOM FOREVER! WITHOUT ANY REAL
SUBSTANCE? I think that's exactly what it is!
Quit CRYING WOLF already. You haven't shown us any harm from any of
this. It's just another of your FIXATIONS!
Battery technology is still way off what's needed to be successful.
The batteries in the Chevy Volt aren't recyclable at all, have to be
replaced every 3 years or so and COST PLENTY! The battery costs alone
will prevent the Volt from ever paying back the EXCESSIVE up-front
costs! Newer battery technology is STILL UNPROVEN! Note that GM will
LOSE money on every Volt they sell! Are we going to have to make that
up too? Another bailout? BULLSHIT on BAILOUTS!
Meanwhile, Chu is a WACKO GLOBAL WARMING NUTJOB who happens to be a
scientist. He's toeing the ObaMAO line to the HILT. Eventually this
will get him into BIG TROUBLE when GW turns out to be a GIANT FRAUD!
It is and that knowledge is growing! Al Gore and friends will be
shown to be nothing more than the MONEY GRUBBING FRAUDS we already
know they are!
Saul Levy
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 13:56:14 -0800 (PST), BradGuth
<brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>The question imposed by this topic, about mass leaving Earth isn’t
>If clean energy derived via thorium is quite good enough, here’s the
>geothermal alternative, just like I and Steven Chu said. (just how
>many GW would you like?)
>
>“Plug into a Greener Grid: RE<C and RechargeIT Initiatives”
>Video: Intro to Enhanced Geothermal Systems
> http://www.google.org/rec.html
>
>Even the nearly all electric 18<24 wheeler isn’t outside of what clean/
>renewable energy can deliver, within as little as 6 hours of
BradGuth
For example: Earth surface area = 5.1e14 m2, and its atmosphere
contains
Helium (He) 5.24 ppmv (0.000524%), He = .1786 kg/m3
Hydrogen (H2) 0.55 ppmv (0.000055%), H2 = .0899 kg/m3
We seem to know more about the perpetual loss of hydrogen and helium
for the likes of other planets (including a few exoplanets) other than
Earth.
http://vega.lpl.arizona.edu/~gilda/extrass.html
At 0.55 ppmv, in order that our atmosphere sustain that average H2
saturation, at any given moment there’s a natural 25e6 kg flow of
hydrogen getting made available and unavoidably migrating upwards and
away from Earth’s surface in order to create and sustain the average
0.55 ppmv. The question is, at what average vertical escapement
velocity or volumetric/sec exit away from Earth?
The question is, is our 0.55 ppmv of hydrogen escapement worth merely
cameras looking at the whole sphere of Earth and equally at our Selene/
moon that's losing it's sodium and a few other elements at an alarming
rate. However, without our having such a nifty perspective it's
simply much harder if not nearly impossible to interpret whatever's
going on.
Btw, the often bogus mindset of "I always had the thoughts that free
hydrogen, and helium were lost in space and that Earth's gravity was
not strong enough to hold it" isn't what I'd gotten out of the vast
bulk of the previously posted comments. In fact, it's pretty much the
opposite of what we’ve typically heard from most others, insisting
that supposedly Earth never loses mass, whereas instead Earth
supposedly gains several thousand tonnes per year. However, I was
clearly the first contributor in this or any other Usenet/newsgroup to
insist that our moon and Earth have each been losing a great deal of
mass, and implying that the modern day human race has in fact been
artificially assisting in this natural process.
Perhaps this can also explain as to why ETs would bother going to all
the trouble of extracting minerals and raw exotic elements from
another planet or moon, such as our dire need of extracting He3 from
our Selene/moon, or appreciating as to that of whomever is taking
substances of value away from Venus.
~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
BradGuth
bar worth of atmosphere to work with, and was obviously losing little
of its original hydrogen and helium due to the passive solar wind and
because our geomagnetic force and subsequent magnetosphere was at
passive, as not likely delivering more than half or even a quarter the
average solar wind.
A loss of 99 bar worth of atmosphere (5.1e20 kg) is actually
suggesting quite a bit of bulk mass reduction, especially considering
those early arrivals of <1e9 kg/yr that’s extensively vaporized into
becoming additional atmosphere, water and minerals, along with the
terrestrial/natural outgassing of atmospheric elements including
impressive amounts of raw hydrogen and helium that tend to
uncontrollably rise, plus all the recent artificial contributions by
way of humanity and our mass consumption of various natural and
synthetic hydrocarbons as having created another million of tonnes per
year of potentially toxic CFCs, HFCs and HCFCs that should have been
replaced by good old CO2, though even CH4 would have always been a
better alternative to artificial CFCs and HCFCs, but that kind of
common sense would have destroyed those wealthy empires of Union
Carbide and DuPont. Seems the general public’s lack of physics and
science education has been a perpetual godsend kind of treasure trove
of vast loot for the Rothschilds.
If Earth had been capably holding onto its atmosphere (including its
H2 and He), whereas instead of our having lost 5.1e20 kg to start
with, perhaps like a immature gas giant we’d still be gaining
atmospheric mass. Lucky for us that hasn’t been the case, though not
to say that a gas giant with a substantial solid core (16+ Me) like
our Jupiter couldn’t coexist at 1 AU, along with life sustaining
moons.
As of lately our lower (6 km) half of atmospheric mass has been rather
nicely polluted, warming and thereby increasing its density by way of
holding more water along with our toxic laced soot, while the upper
atmospheric density has been gradually decreasing or thinning by
having received a greater percentage of methane topped off by natural
and artificial freons and then loads of good old He and H2 that
Earth’s gravity and weak magnetosphere simply can not forever hold
onto.
Earth currently receives an average of as little as 1 kg/sec, but
otherwise perhaps at times as much as 10 kg/sec of space dust and
assorted meteorites. However, my recent interpretation is at the same
time along with our persistence is why we're most likely losing <300
kg/s (9.5e6 tonnes/year) of our hydrogen and helium, and even if it
were a tenth that amount is still an impressive million tonnes/year
loss in mass.
In running the numbers of what we annually extract and attempt to
utilize of our terrestrial coal, oil and gasses, there's simply no
viable contest, whereas Earth has been losing mass, and by some basic
accounting it is easily worth losing as great as a tonne/sec if you'd
care to honestly include the natural and human derived forms of
hydrogen and helium released, plus that which is mostly vented and/or
wasted from all of our fossil energy and many artificial and
industrial forms of having created and subsequently released such
lofty gasses. Perhaps that’s the best reason why we do not have the
whole Earth coverage from Selene L1, because it would only become too
much bad news to deal with.
Our badly failing geomagnetic field is not exactly helping, and yet
there is still no official accounting of Earth’s mass reduction that
we can objectively agree upon, which leads to our using swags and
deductive speculations because so much of our basic public funded
science is either need-to-know encrypted, taboo/nondisclosure rated
and/or having been systematically overlooked, obfuscated to death, or
simply lost along the way because otherwise, it makes ‘Big Energy’
look even worse than it already is.
Science obfuscation = lying by omission.
Physics obfuscation = worse than lying by omission.
The public accessible science pertaining to our Selene/moon and the
planet Venus are each examples loaded with such mainstream
obfuscation.
On the other hand, what doesn’t our disingenuous government and of
it’s many faith-based agencies that in perpetual denial obfuscate in
order to protect thy public funded job security, thy nifty benefits
and their golden egg retirement at public expense?
Clearly the Pope on multiple occasions throughout history has
obfuscated his holy butt off, and Zionist just can’t seem to keep from
obfuscating as long as it’s only taking advantage of others or false
flag blaming of others. On the other hand, you can believe it was
always those physics and science smart Atheists as having supposedly
gotten us safely to/from our moon, and otherwise only these smart
Atheists and Muslims as having helped Hitler, if that’s what makes you
a happy camper.
The public funded and Stanford executed GP-B experiment was every bit
as good as any obfuscation on steroids, and their perpetual denial of
being in denial is every bit as disingenuous.
Is there some kind of public mainstream policy or tradition of
systematic obfuscation? (apparently there is, especially if our SEC
approved Ponzi Madoff and more than half our banking, investment and
mortgage infrastructure is any example)
Outside of pretending at being politically correct and always having
to be faith-based passive or neutral, what I’d like to know for the
pure sake of knowing is exactly (+/-10%) how much tonnage per second
or per year our planet is typically losing (mostly in hydrogen and
helium), in much the same way that exoplanets of viable habitats for
Saul Levy
I've already shown that your GRAVE CONCERN about this STUPID TOPIC is
NONSENSE!
Get a LIFE already!
NOTHING IS HAPPENING! BET ON IT!
The Earth continues to GAIN mass every day.
Who cares about the other planets? I sure don't! You haven't proven
anything about them either!
Saul Levy
On Wed, 4 Mar 2009 05:56:01 -0800 (PST), BradGuth <brad...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>Here’s a somewhat better researched and context improved version.
BradGuth
isn’t hardly in question, so much as is the given amount of mass loss
per second can be argued fairly extensively, especially since we still
have not established the Selene/moon L1 in behalf of Earth, solar and
moon observations that could have told us nearly everything we needed
to know as of 4 decades ago.
Maxwell Boltzmann
http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~wilkins/energy/Companion/E07.4.pdf.xpdf
“Hydrogen and helium have a mean speed that is a significant fraction
of the escape speed. For this reason, there is almost no hydrogen or
helium in Earth’s present atmosphere.”
As our geomagnetic field proceeds to fade away at -.05%/year
(signaling yet another magnetic pole reversal) and subsequently our
protective magnetosphere fails us for yet another extended period of
time, allowing the SAA contour to expand and deepen, as the average
400 km/s solar wind (halo CMEs of 600<1600 km/s) reaches ever deeper
into the upper atmosphere, whereas subsequently our natural and
artificially introduced volumes of hydrogen and helium gets solar and
even somewhat via Selene/moon superheated and easily accelerated above
11.2 km/s (enough to easily escape Earth).
As a direct result, Earth is simply not gaining a sufficient influx of
mass in order to offset the ongoing and accelerated escapement of our
natural and artificial hydrogen and helium. In other words, there is
simply not a volumetric balance of sufficient oncoming mass taking
place, and at the very least our upper 50% mass of atmosphere is
getting thinned out and/or displaced by the vertically migrating
supply of helium and hydrogen, and perhaps how could this atmospheric
thinning not allow more solar and secondary Selene/moon radiated
energy in?
The current rate of Earth’s surface and ocean floor outgassing of
mineral saturated fluids and otherwise natural gas saturated matter
from deep geothermal vents and volcanoes is likely in the realm of
contributing at least 1e12 kg/year, and perhaps roughly 1% of that
being in the form of direct atmospheric worthy gasses (including raw
hydrogen and always helium that doesn’t naturally recombine with
anything).
If this were introducing 1e12 kg/yr or 1000 megatonnes/year (<1e10 kg/
yr of He and H2) of such gasses from within Earth isn’t bad enough,
there’s an influx of mostly vaporized meteorites worthy of
contributing another 1e8 to 5e8 kg/yr, from which hydrogen and helium
(including He3) is always a part of that meteor/comet influx. Factor
in the electrostatic/lightning created hydrogen if you’d care to add a
little more insult to injury.
Now add the human contributed/expedited volumetric tonnage of helium
that’s typically 1<9% of our natural gas. In India they have recently
quantified some of their natural geothermal venting areas as giving
off <2% helium per volume of what’s surface escaping along with many
other gasses (including radon), meaning there’s loads of nearby
thorium, uranium and radium below, along with a substantial natural
gas reserve of perhaps <10% helium purity. In other words, India
can’t possibly lose, with far cheaper and more abundant energy that’s
as close to renewable as you’re going to get.
If clean energy derived via renewable alternatives and thorium isn’t
quite good enough to suit your fancy, here’s the geothermal
alternative for us, just like I and Steven Chu said. (how many hundred
GW would you like?)
“Plug into a Greener Grid: RE<C and RechargeIT Initiatives”
Video: Intro to Enhanced Geothermal Systems
http://www.google.org/rec.html
Even the nearly all electric commercial 18<24 wheeler isn’t outside of
what this clean/renewable energy can deliver, within as little as 6
hours of 3 phase recharging or battery pack exchange that’s capable of
providing <12 hrs of serious truck long hauling, and better yet if the
hybrid ICE option could run on h2o2+synfuel or replaced by an h2o2
fuel cell kind of super-battery, in which case little if any hydrogen
gets released, and the whole birth-to-grave energy process contributes
zero NOx as well as having contributed zero helium.
Put Steven Chu and even the bipolar wizardly likes of William Mook in
our national think tank, and right off the bat we’ll start going
places without nearly as much environmental consequences. It would be
nice if a physics kind of stop-loss order could be placed, so that
mother Earth and our one and only Eden stops losing mass.
~ BG
BradGuth
Interesting how the best available truth is so upsetting to those in
charge of mainstream PR damage control. Speaking of Earth losing its
hydrogen and helium to space is not an accepted topic among to hose in
charge of keeping us snookered and dumbfounded past the point of no
return.
Thankfully there was no good reason to sabotage the Kepler mission, as
having existed with the OCO mission.
According to Wikipedia, in addition to our heading towards Sirius at
7.6 km/s, seems we’re also headed towards “Cygni A” at 64 km/s, and
it’s only 11.4 ly distant as is. A large red dwarf with likely
planets is what the spendy Kepler mission is going to catalog the
obvious, that other stars accommodate planets. “61 Cygni” may have a
large outer planet with a 7.5 year orbit. The smaller “Cygni B” could
also have planets, just like a much larger version of Jupiter would
have moons. Eventually we’ll get to within 9 ly of “Cygni A/B”.
Our Selene L1 along with an artificial shade would have been an ideal
location for such observations as of 4+ decades ago. According to our
Apollo missions, our Selene/moon L1 is quite passive, not the least
bit toasty or receiving any kind of X-ray or gamma from our naked
Selene/moon. (must be the unusually high vacuum of 1e-18<1e-21 bar)
~ BG
BradGuth
Kepler, whereas thankfully there were no corporate syndicated reasons
to sabotage the Kepler mission, as having clearly existed with the OCO
mission.
OCO would have given substantial data as to the methane released and
otherwise consumed, that contains known amounts of hydrogen and
helium, as indirectly telling us about the ongoing loss in global mass
we are experiencing, although other existing ESA, ISRO and JAXA
missions would likely provide better objective accounting of those two
lofty gasses. I think Canada is deathly afraid to look.
According to Wikipedia, in addition to our heading towards Sirius at
7.6 km/s, seems we’re also seemingly headed towards Cygni at 64 km/s,
and it’s only 11.4 ly distant as is. Obviously stellar motions
(including our own) are a wee bit more complicated then that.
A large red dwarf with those likely planets is what the spendy Kepler
mission is going to catalog the obvious, that other stars (the older
the better) accommodate viable life capable planets. “Cygni A” may
have a large outer planet with a 7.5 year orbit. The smaller “Cygni
B” could also have planets, just like a much larger version of Jupiter
would have moons as possibly larger than Earth. Eventually we’ll get
to within 9 ly of “Cygni A/B”, or rather it’s “Cygni A/B” that’s
migrating its way towards us and Sirius at the same time.
Our Selene L1 along with an artificial shade would have been an ideal
location for such observations as of 4+ decades ago. According to our
Apollo missions, our Selene/moon L1 is quite passive, not the least
bit toasty or receiving any kind of unusual X-ray or gamma from the
physically dark surface of our naked Selene/moon. (must be the
unusually high vacuum of 1e-18<1e-21 bar that’s keeping the Selene L1
dosage to the bare minimums)
~ BG
Saul Levy
Saul Levy
On Sat, 7 Mar 2009 16:23:15 -0800 (PST), BradGuth <brad...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>OCO may have rather oddly failed, but at least it's so far so good for
Saul Levy
about it, GOOFBALL? lmfjao!
The difference in mass (weight) will be MEANINGLESS!
0.00000000000001?
BAWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Saul Levy
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 16:54:35 -0800 (PST), BradGuth
<brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>The good news, Earth will still have a healthy surplus of hydrogen and
>helium by 2080, although Earth may weigh a whole lot less, that is
>unless we're impacted by Apophis in 2036 and pick up those 20e6 tonnes
>plus 5e6 of other assorted debris, offers perhaps roughly 4% of what
>mass in hydrogen and helium that'll have been lost over the next 70
>years.
>
>We're losing our geomagnetic force by roughly -.05%/year, so that's
>not exactly a good sign.
>
> ~ BG
Saul Levy
Everyone KNOWS you're INSANE so even that would mean no harm occurs!
Your BORG friends on VENUS are calling you!
Saul Levy
On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 16:05:32 -0800 (PST), BradGuth
<brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Silly boy. I have a number of derogatory names for naysay folks of
>denial like yourself.
>
>
BradGuth
Some global warming is unavoidable by way of volcanism, the vast
majority of which takes place underwater. Ever since the last ice age
it seems our terrestrial volcanism has been increasing, as though the
reactive core of Earth hasn’t seen its last spurt of growth.
In addition to an extremely slight rise per century in solar influx of
perhaps <0.1 w/m2 that amount to merely 25.5e9 kw, whereas in order
to raise the ocean temperature by an average of 1°C per century would
require an extra continuous energy influx of 1.1e12 kw above whatever
you can say is the norm. For considering one fully interactive source
of such energy that’s keeping Earths’ core a little extra hot, our
Selene/moon demands a holding force of 2e20 N.m, and this interactive
force alone equals 55.5e12 kw if it were all converted into geothermal
energy. However, at 1% conversion via internal friction of the 2e20
N.m force into energy = 0.555e12 km, roughly half of the required
energy to raise the ocean temperature by 1°C/century and seems
perfectly conservative enough, because at 2% conversion it more than
covers the entire global warming package deal.
There is also the ongoing -.05%/year demise of our magnetosphere that
ties in rather nicely to what is geothermally manifesting, as though
the internal process is somehow indirectly contributing additional
ocean and surface heat.
“Will Compasses Point South?” http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9803E3DD1E3BF930A25754C0A9629C8B63
Robert W. Felix, as author of “Not by Fire but by Ice” is not saying
that we humans haven’t contributed to the global warming trend, but
instead is looking at the greater geothermal picture, though without
his fully understanding exactly where and how mother Earth sustains or
much less increases her geothermal output is only somewhat misleading
or at least incomplete data in order to draw a fully informed opinion,
as to what is primarily driving our global thaw from the very last ice
age this planet w/moon is ever going to see. In other words, there’s
still a question as to where exactly other than the sun is Earths’
surface environment getting this extra dosage of energy, if not from
within and from our interactive tidal grip of our moon.
There is global warming from the inside out:
With more than 200,000 counted thus far, there could be “Three Million
Underwater Volcanoes” (venting superheated gasses, fluids and solids)
Researchers estimate that in total there could be about 3 million
submarine volcanoes, 39,000 of which rise more than 1000 meters over
the sea bed.
http://www.iceagenow.com/Ocean_Warming.htm
http://www.iceagenow.com/Three_Million_Underwater_Volcanoes.htm
Besides underwater venting of geothermal superheated solids (including
S8) and new water, however this activity is also venting a great deal
of CO2, SO2, CH4, Rn, He and H2.
Earths’ relatively thin-crust ocean floor and the underlying cache of
our georeactive core, as further agitated along by the interactive
2e20 N tidal force that’s holding onto our Selene/moon, plus a solar
tidal force, whereas this continuous interaction along with our geo-
reactor core is what subsequently produces the 64 TW of surplus/spare
geothermal radiated energy, along with having been creating a number
of gasses and radioactive decay products, such as radon and helium.
(64 TW was an amount based upon a square meter of cleared test area
that’s situated under a thick layer of Antarctica ice as radiating at
125 mw, thus I am ignoring the million some odd global hydrothermal
vents or hot spots, and otherwise keeping in mind that in sufficient
thickness ice is actually a good thermal insulator)
In addition to our artificial ocean heating that’s worth a good TW, "A
normal hydrothermal vent might produce something like 500 megawatts -
this is producing 100,000 megawatts. It's like an atom bomb down
there.”
http://www.iceagenow.com/Megaplume.htm
If given a speculation of 100 MW per each of one million natural
hydrothermal vents is worth 1e11 kw. However without the likes of OCO
and PFS global readings we can’t be sure.
None the less, this brings a good portion of our human environmental
impact into perspective, as a contributing but somewhat minor factor
in our continued thaw from the very last ice age this planet w/moon is
ever going to see. However, the OCO mission would have rather easily
mapped those primary natural and artificial ventings of gasses in
sufficient resolution that would have removed most all doubt as to the
sources, volumes and objectively quantified affects. With some easily
validated interpolation as to the extent or volumes of helium released
could also have been established, along with a mission of PFS deep IR
penetration imaging would map every 0.1 km2 of Earth’s surface
(including the ocean floor at 1 km2 or better).
All of terrestrial venting or outgassing that includes solids, fluids
and various gasses can not help but include those two most lofty
elements of hydrogen and helium that eventually leave us for places
unknown. The heavier of gaseous elements (natural as well as
artificial) do however stick around to haunt us, and not always in a
positive or constructive way.
As I’ve stated before, along with some limited science interpretation
as having suggested that our human impact upon this global warming
trend could be as little as 10% of the overall picture, and otherwise
it’s certainly not more than 25%, of which is entirely different than
our much greater contribution on behalf of having physically polluted
and otherwise contaminating most of everything in sight. Until the
failed and/or intentionally foiled OCO mission is replaced, along with
a PFS or similar IR imager, we’ll not have sufficient global data to
draw upon, which is not to say that current information and the
regular laws of physics need be ignored or systematically excluded, as
is so often the case by those having a vested interest in Big Energy
that would pay nearly any amount to have such an openly objective
source of atmospheric, chemical and thermal data put off for as long
as possible, because obviously they do not want to held accountable.
~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
Saul Levy
Volcanism IS NOT GROWING EITHER.
Why do LOONS always claim these things are INCREASING?
Oh yeah, WE ARE DOOMED! lmfjao!
Saul Levy
On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 15:45:11 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
<brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Mar 7, 4:23 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> OCO may have rather oddly failed, but at least it's so far so good for
>> Kepler, whereas thankfully there were no corporate syndicated reasons
>> to sabotage the Kepler mission, as having clearly existed with the OCO
>> mission.
>>
>> OCO would have given substantial data as to the methane released and
>> otherwise consumed, that contains known amounts of hydrogen and
>> helium, as indirectly telling us about the ongoing loss in global mass
>> we are experiencing, although other existing ESA, ISRO and JAXA
>> missions would likely provide better objective accounting of those two
>> lofty gasses. I think Canada is deathly afraid to look.
>>
>> According to Wikipedia, in addition to our heading towards Sirius at
>> 7.6 km/s, seems we’re also seemingly headed towards Cygni at 64 km/s,
>> and it’s only 11.4 ly distant as is. Obviously stellar motions
>> (including our own) are a wee bit more complicated then that.
[I've already corrected you on this WRONG ASSUMPTION!]
BradGuth
You notice whatever makes you and other Zionist Nazis of your kind
happy campers, just like you'd noticed all of those Muslim WMD.
Earth loses several million tonnes per year, mostly of hydrogen and
helium.
What keeps our helium from being blown away by the solar wind?
How much if any of our released helium never leaves us for good?
~ BG
Saul Levy
Only an INSANE IDIOT like YOU!
Saul Levy
BradGuth
Darn, I'd forgotten to mention the 1.7 million tonnes of sodium that
our Selene/moon has to keep replenishing, and perhaps its even having
to lose a good portion of that much sodium per year.
Seems Earth and Selene each need more meteor influx and asteroid
impacts, in order to make up for the ongoing loss in mass.
~ BG
BradGuth
> For example: Earth surface area = 5.1e14 m2, and its atmosphere
> contains
> Helium (He) 5.24 ppmv (0.000524%), He = .1786 kg/m3
> Hydrogen (H2) 0.55 ppmv (0.000055%), H2 = .0899 kg/m3
>
> helium for planets (including a few exoplanets) other than Earth.
> http://vega.lpl.arizona.edu/~gilda/extrass.html
>
> At 0.55 ppmv, in order that our atmosphere sustain that average H2
> made available and unavoidably migrating upwards and away from Earth’s
> surface in order to create and sustain the average 0.55 ppmv. The
> question is, at what average vertical escapement velocity or
> volumetric/sec exit away from Earth?
>
> tonnes/yr, or is it as great as 25e6 kg per hour = 219e6 tonnes/year?
>
> could have been representing a false positive, all be its
> UV image of Earth’s surrounding cloud of helium and hydrogen.
> However, the solar wind caused planetary exhaust trail of H2 and He is
> what needs to be more closely looked at and objectively quantified, as
> still do not have.
>
> Existing UV and IR imaging:
> http://www.fas.org/irp/imint/docs/rst/Sect20/A3.html
>
> The badly failing magnetosphere has been capable of restraining or
> mildly sequestering some of Earth's hydrogen and helium by way of
> 2000 years this too is going away (most recently at -.05%/year or even
> <–120 nT/yr), is perhaps as good of reason why that lofty cloud of
> hydrogen and helium isn't sticking around, and why the lethal SAA
> contour has been exponentially growing and nearing the surface. On
> hydrogen and helium didn’t leak away?
> http://io9.com/395272/is-earths-magnetic-field-failing-us
> http://digitaldiatribes.wordpress.com/category/geomagnetism/
>
> gauntlet of our resident Usenet/newsgroup wizards and brown-nosed
> consideration as to the worth or consequences of our badly failing
> our best physics and/or objective science doesn’t hardly matter,
> unless it’s strictly interpreted in order to sustain their mainstream
> status quo. In other words, for sustaining our mainstream as a viable
> cabal of happy campers, apparently our best public funded science is
>
> I recall mentioning at least a few thousand times, about our having
> the Selene L1 platform of science instruments easily established as of
> Earth and equally at our Selene/moon that's losing it's sodium and a
> few other elements at an alarming rate. However, without our having
> such a nifty perspective it's simply much harder if not nearly
> impossible to interpret whatever's going on.
>
> hydrogen, and helium were lost in space and that Earth's gravity was
> previously posted comments. In fact, it's pretty much the opposite of
> what we’ve typically heard from most others, insisting that supposedly
> other Usenet/newsgroup to insist that our moon and Earth have each
> artificially assisting in this natural process.
>
> Perhaps this can also explain as to why ETs would bother going to all
> planet or moon, such as our dire need of extracting He3 from our
>
> ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
Apparently, our having essential knowledge about Earth is not a good
thing, but we can never have too much knowledge about Mars or other
godforsaken planets and moons. Such as knowing our thermal imbalance,
extent of pollution and the ongoing loss in mass isn’t worth the
trouble if there’s any price or consequences to pay.
Some if not the greater portion of our global warming is unavoidable
by way of volcanism and geothermal ventings, the vast majority of
which has been taking place underwater. Ever since the last ice age
it seems our terrestrial thermal activity has been increasing, as
though the reactive core of Earth hasn’t seen its last spurt of
growth.
In addition to an extremely slight rise per century in solar influx of
perhaps <0.1 w/m2 that amounts to merely 25.5e9 kw, whereas in order
to raise the ocean temperature by an average of 1°C per century would
require an extra continuous energy influx of 1.1e12 kw above whatever
we can say is the norm. For considering one fully interactive source
of such energy that’s keeping Earths’ core a little extra hot, there’s
our Selene/moon which demands a holding force of 2e20 N.m, and this
interactive force alone equals 55.5e12 kw if it were all converted
into geothermal energy. However, at 1% conversion via internal
friction of this 2e20 N.m force into thermal energy = 0.555e12 kw,
roughly half of the required energy to raise the ocean temperature by
1°C/century, and 1% seems perfectly conservative enough, because at 2%
conversion is where this alone more than covers the entire global
warming package deal.
There is also the ongoing -.05%/year demise of our magnetosphere that
ties in rather nicely to what is geothermally manifesting, as though
the internal process that sustains our global magnetic field is
somehow indirectly contributing ocean hydrothermals and volcanic
activity that in turn unavoidably impacts our oceans, surface and
global environment as measurable heat.
“Will Compasses Point South?” http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9803E3DD1E3BF930A25754C0A9629C8B63
Robert W. Felix, as author of “Not by Fire but by Ice” is not saying
that we humans haven’t contributed to the global warming trend, but
instead is looking at the greater geothermal picture, though without
his fully understanding exactly where and how mother Earth sustains or
much less increases her geothermal output is only somewhat misleading
or at least incomplete data in order to draw a fully informed opinion,
as to what is primarily driving our global thaw from the very last ice
age this planet w/moon is ever going to see. In other words, there’s
still a question as to where exactly other than the sun is Earths’
surface environment getting this extra dosage of energy, if not from
within and from our interactive tidal grip of our moon.
There is global warming from the inside out:
With more than 200,000 counted thus far, there could be “Three Million
Underwater Volcanoes” (venting superheated gasses, fluids and solids)
Researchers estimate that in total there could be about 3 million
submarine volcanoes, 39,000 of which rise more than 1000 meters over
the sea bed.
http://www.iceagenow.com/Ocean_Warming.htm
http://www.iceagenow.com/Three_Million_Underwater_Volcanoes.htm
Besides underwater venting of geothermal superheated solids (including
S8) and new water, however this kind of activity is also venting a
great deal of CO2, SO2, CH4, Rn, He and H2.
Earths’ relatively thin-crust ocean floor and the underlying cache of
our georeactive core, as being further agitated along by the
interactive 2e20 N of tidal force that’s holding onto our Selene/moon,
plus always a solar tidal force, whereas this continuous interaction
along with our geo-reactor core is what subsequently produces the
average background of 64 TW in surplus/spare geothermal radiated
energy, along with our reactive core energy having been creating a
number of gasses and radioactive decay products, such as radon and
helium. (note: 64 TW was an amount based upon a square meter of
cleared test area that’s situated under a thick layer of Antarctica
ice as radiating at 125 mw, thus I am ignoring the million some odd
global hydrothermal vents or hot spots, and otherwise keeping in mind
that in sufficient thickness ice is actually performing as a good
thermal insulator)
In addition to our own artificial ocean heating that’s worth at least
something more than a few good terawatts, "a normal hydrothermal vent
might produce something like 500 megawatts - this is producing 100,000
megawatts. It's like an atom bomb down there.”
http://www.iceagenow.com/Megaplume.htm
If given a highly conservative speculation of 100 MW per each of a
million natural hydrothermal vents is worth 1e11 kw (100 TW).
However, without the likes of OCO and PFS global readings we’re kind
of brain dead and can’t be sure.
None the less, this brings a good portion of our human environmental
impact into a better perspective, as a contributing but somewhat minor
factor in our continued thaw from the very last ice age this planet w/
moon is ever going to see. The OCO mission would have rather easily
mapped those primary natural and artificial ventings of gasses in
sufficient resolution that would have removed most all doubt as to the
specific sources, volumes and objectively quantified affects. With
some easily validated interpolation as to the extent or volumes of
helium released could also have been established, along with a mission
of PFS deep IR penetration imaging would map every 0.1 km2 of Earth’s
surface (including the ocean floor at 1 km2 or better).
All of terrestrial venting or outgassing that includes solids, fluids
and various gasses can not help but include those two most lofty
elements of hydrogen and helium that eventually leave us for places
unknown. The heavier of gaseous elements (natural as well as
artificial) do however stick around to haunt us, and not always in a
positive or constructive way.
As I’ve stated before, along with some limited science interpretation
as having suggested that our human impact upon this global warming
trend could be as little as 10% of the overall picture, and otherwise
it’s certainly not more than 25%, of which is entirely different than
our much greater contribution on behalf of having physically polluted
and otherwise contaminating most of everything in sight. Until the
failed and/or intentionally foiled OCO mission is replaced, along with
a PFS or similar IR imager, we’ll not have sufficient global data to
draw upon, which is not to say that current information and the
regular laws of physics need be ignored or systematically excluded, as
is so often the case by those having a vested interest in Big Energy
that would pay nearly any amount to have such an openly objective
source of atmospheric, chemical and thermal data put off for as long
as possible, because obviously they do not want to held accountable.
In other words, the more withholding and/or obfuscating of science the
better chance Big Energy has at pulling out profits before the jig is
up, so to speak. Otherwise it’s also like a form of Ponzi geology,
whereas keeping the rest of us snookered and dumbfounded past the
point of no return has terrific benefits for those in charge that’ll
continue to make future generations pay for our actions or inactions.
In this method no one of the current generation is ever going to be
held accountable, or much less responsible. Therefore it is
imperative on behalf of Big Energy to subvert or foil whatever science
that’s capable of being all-inclusive and current enough to apply as
to the situation at hand.
Saul Levy
HE BELIEVES ALL THAT SHIT!
Your posts are on the Web too. Full of FALSE, BOGUS and ENTIRE
SUBJECTIVE SHIT!
You and PIGGY really should get married! lmfjao!
Saul Levy
On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 11:29:50 -0800 (PST), BradGuth
<brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>You can also find all sorts of certified disinformation and fancy
>infomercial hype that's government published on the WWW. In fact, the
>vast majority of what the WWW contains and/or offers links to is
>either false, bogus or entirely subjective data to start with.
>
> ~ BG
Saul Levy
BETTER RESEARCHED? Like your comment that the Sun is headed to BOTH
Sirius and 61 Cygni AT THE SAME TIME?
What a VILLAGE IDIOT you are, BradBoi! lmfjao!
It's hard to be more WACKO than a REAL WACKO!
Saul Levy
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 22:09:57 -0800 (PST), BradGuth
<brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Here’s a somewhat better researched and context improved version.
>
>For example: Earth surface area = 5.1e14 m2, and its atmosphere
>contains
> Helium (He) 5.24 ppmv (0.000524%), He = .1786 kg/m3
>Hydrogen (H2) 0.55 ppmv (0.000055%), H2 = .0899 kg/m3
>
>We seem to know more about the perpetual loss/sec of hydrogen and
>helium for other planets (including a few exoplanets) other than
>Earth.
> http://vega.lpl.arizona.edu/~gilda/extrass.html
>
>At 0.55 ppmv, in order that our atmosphere sustain that average H2
>saturation, at any given moment there’s 25e6 kg of hydrogen getting
>made available and unavoidably migrating upwards and away from Earth’s
>surface in order to create and sustain the average 0.55 ppmv. The
>question is, at what average vertical escapement velocity or
>volumetric/sec exit away from Earth?
>
>Is our 0.55 ppmv of hydrogen escapement worth merely 25e6 kg per day =
>9.125e6 tonnes/yr, or is it as great as 25e6 kg per hour = 219e6
>tonnes/year?
>
>If the H2 loss isn’t impressive enough, now we need to focus on our
>atmospheric helium that’s nearly ten fold greater by volume.
>~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
[I deleted the rest of your RANT, unread as usual! Hope you don't
mind!]
BradGuth
Where's all the love and affection from those claiming to know all
there is to know?
Where's our Selene/moon L1 platform of remote science, with all of its
nifty global science data?
~ BG
Saul Levy
here should be able to quote the rest from memory by now!
Why don't we send you there. No space suit. No oxygen. No NOTHING!
So you can explore L1 all you want!
What a WONDERFUL IDEA!
Let us know what you find out!
Saul Levy
On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 16:59:27 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
<brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Apparently, our having essential knowledge about Earth is not a good
>>
>> Some if not the greater portion of our global warming is unavoidable
>>
>> In addition to an extremely slight rise per century in solar influx of
>>
>> There is also the ongoing -.05%/year demise of our magnetosphere that
>>
>> Robert W. Felix, as author of “Not by Fire but by Ice” is not saying
>>
>> There is global warming from the inside out:
>>
>> Besides underwater venting of geothermal superheated solids (including
>>
>> Earths’ relatively thin-crust ocean floor and the underlying cache of
>>
>> In addition to our own artificial ocean heating that’s worth at least
>>
>> If given a highly conservative speculation of 100 MW per each of a
>>
>> None the less, this brings a good portion of our human environmental
>>
>> All of terrestrial venting or outgassing that includes solids, fluids
>>
>> As I’ve stated before, along with some limited science interpretation
>>
>> In other words, the more withholding and/or obfuscating of science the
>
BradGuth
know all there is to know?
Where's our Selene/moon L1 platform of remote science, along with all
of its nifty global science data?
Why exactly are the environmental related satellites having such a
tough time of their getting into orbit?
I have far more questions than answers. Sorry about that.
~ BG
> “Will Compasses Point South?”http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9803E3DD1E3BF930A25754...
BradGuth
released is the whole petrochemical thing.
Helium from extracting and processing crude oil:
If we on average we used a conservative 500% per volume of oil as
methane vapor we’d be close enough (it’s actually much worse), and
using 1% of that methane as helium certainly wouldn’t be unheard of.
Thus 5% per given volume of oil is helium.
The all-inclusive global oil production (including spillage and
wastage) as of 2009-2010 is roughly 86.4e6 barrels/day = 3.15e10
barrels/yr (5e9 m3/yr), and if anything it’s actually somewhat greater
because the industry itself takes nearly 10% of its own product in
order to function (much worse yet for oily sand, not to mention
synfuel from coal), so we can safely make that volumetric accounting
5.5e9 m3/year.
5.5e9 x .05 = 2.75e8 m3 helium/yr
2.75e8 x .178 = 4.895e7 kg = 48,950 tonnes/yr is helium
~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
> “Will Compasses Point South?”http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9803E3DD1E3BF930A25754...
BradGuth
One fairly obvious secondary source of helium (to that of natural
gas), that’s artificially released is via the whole petrochemical
thing. On a global basis, it seems we dispose of or burn off nearly
as much natural gas than regular energy consumers actually use.
Helium from extracting and processing crude oil (aka flare gas burnoff
or just venting of crude methane):
If we on average we used a conservative 500% per volume of oil as
methane vapor we’d be close enough (it’s actually much worse), and
using 1% of that methane as helium certainly wouldn’t be unheard of.
Thus 5% per given volume of extracted oil is helium.
The all-inclusive global oil production (including spillage and
wastage) as of 2009-2010 is roughly 86.4e6 barrels/day = 3.15e10
barrels/yr (5e9 m3/yr), and if anything it’s actually somewhat greater
because the industry itself takes nearly 10% of its own product in
order to function (much worse yet for oily sand, not to mention
synfuel from coal), so we can safely make that volumetric accounting
5.5e9 m3/year.
5.5e9 x .05 = 2.75e8 m3 helium/yr
2.75e8 x .178 = 4.895e7 kg = 48,950 tonnes/yr is helium, and I believe
that’s taking about all the natural production of Earth’s helium/year,
if not exceeding the internal makings of helium.
BradGuth
Apparently those Big Energy folks and their money hording cabal/cartel
has informed their brown-nosed minions to lay off this topic, as well
as the other related one "Is this why we still do not have Selene L1".
~ BG
BradGuth
Perhaps it’s a good thing that fossil derived energy and its
unavoidable consequences is not necessary on Venus. However, our Eden
has become highly dependent or rather addicted to the stuff regardless
of the mostly negative consequences.
One fairly obvious secondary source of helium (to that from natural
gas) that’s artificially released is via the whole petrochemical
thing. On a global basis, it seems we dispose of and/or they consume
and otherwise burn off nearly as much natural gas than regular energy
end-use consumers actually use, and it unavoidably polluting high and
low in more invisible ways than most of us would care to know.
Helium from extracting and processing crude oil (aka flare gas burnoff
or just raw venting of crude methane):
If on average we used a conservative 500% per volume of oil as methane
vapor we’d be close enough (it’s actually much worse, <30 m3/m3), and
using 1% of that methane as helium certainly wouldn’t be unheard of.
Thus 5% per given volume of extracted oil is helium.
The all-inclusive global oil production (including spillage and
wastage) as of 2009-2010 is roughly 86.4e6 barrels/day = 3.15e10
barrels/yr (5e9 m3/yr), and if anything it’s actually somewhat greater
because the industry itself takes at least 10% of its own product in
order to function (an EROEI ratio of 4:1 or 25% is perhaps more
typical, and much worse yet for oily sand whereas the NEG>0,
especially ineffective whenever the global spot market drops below $45/
barrel, not to mention synfuel from coal), so for this effort we can
safely take this volumetric extraction of oil accounting to at least
5.5e9 m3/year.
5.5e9 x .05 = 2.75e8 m3 helium/yr
2.75e8 x .178 = 4.895e7 kg = 48,950 tonnes/yr as helium.
I believe that’s taking about all the natural production of Earth’s
helium/year, if not exceeding the internal makings via radioactive
decay, and remember this helium release is just from our oil
extraction process, and the industry consumption of its raw natural
gas simply does not consume the element of helium. In some instances
the surplus of this raw natural gas is for the moment getting pumped
back into the ground, through also requiring considerable process
energy in of itself. Oil extraction and process data w/o obfuscation
is next to impossible to come by, therefore you can bet your bottom
dollar that it’s actually much worse off than we can imagine, and the
failed or perhaps foiled OCO mission would have easily quantified such
data with sufficient resolution as to pinpoint each and every natural
and artificial source of released and/or consumed gas.
Give or take e few numbers here and there, as to the all-inclusive oil
extraction and processing that often utilizes other sources of natural
gas, could easily push their volumetric release of helium upwards of
100,000 tonnes per hear, not to mention whatever mother nature
releases, or the volumetric worth of the global natural gas industries
that do nothing but extract and distribute their methane laced with
BradGuth
Eden/Earth is still thawing out from the last ice age this planet w/
moon is ever going to see. Most of this process (at least 75% and
perhaps <90%) is perfectly natural considering the interpretation that
we’ve only somewhat recently obtained our Selene/moon, and the obvious
matter of the geological evolution on behalf of any similar planet
having two primary gravitational tidal issues along with our failing
geomagnetic force that’s becoming insufficient for sustaining our
protective magnetosphere.
With our planet loosing primarily its helium and some hydrogen <1000
kg/sec or roughly 30e6 tonnes/year may seem a bit exaggerated,
although at times of major geological eruptions and geothermal out
gassing (the vast majority of which is underwater), when combined
along with our multiple commercial means of extracting coal, oil,
natural gas and quite a fair number of lesser contributors of
releasing helium and hydrogen, is perhaps not too far off the mark.
Thankfully we’re still receiving 50e3 to 500e3 tonnes per year of
local and cosmic dust along with our fair share of meteors. However,
at best that’s merely 0.5 million tonnes/year, and some of that is in
unavoidably the form of hydrogen and even helium that simply does not
stick around. None of our helium or that of whatever gets imported
ever combines with anything that’ll ever stay with the all-inclusive
mass of Earth.
In the media as well as these Google Groups (aka Usenet/newsgroups),
it’s like this artificially and otherwise naturally released tonnage
of helium per year along with our failing geomagnetic force is no big
deal, so instead lets all focus on the CO2 that’s too heavy to be
going anywhere. JAXA is recently giving it a go: http://www.eorc.jaxa.jp/en/index.html
The polluted element of CO2 is after all a darn good indicator, though
not in of itself a cause of GW. Perhaps it’s a good thing that fossil
derived energy and its unavoidable consequences is not necessary on
the geothermally driven environment of Venus. However, our unusually
wet and icy Eden has within the last thousand years become highly
dependent or rather addicted to the stuff, regardless of the mostly
negative and/or acidic consequences of the sooty wet CO2 and sooty wet
NOx within our lower atmosphere and surface environment, whereas the
substantial thinning of our protective upper most dry atmosphere has
only recently been given loads of extra H2 and He.
One fairly obvious secondary source of helium (to that derived from
natural gas) that’s artificially released, is via the whole
petrochemical thing that’s creating essentially a one-way helium
ticket to ride. On a global basis, it seems we dispose of and/or the
industry consumes and otherwise burns off nearly as much natural gas
than regular end-use energy consumers actually use, and as such it is
unavoidably polluting high and low in more invisible ways than most of
us would care to realize, especially since all of the methane
containing toxic elements plus helium never manages to actually
consume or otherwise recombine any of the helium.
Helium from extracting and processing crude oil (aka flare gas burnoff
or just raw venting of crude methane):
If on average we used a highly conservative 500% per volume of oil
as methane vapor we’d be close enough (it’s actually much worse, <30
m3/m3 for coal and oil extraction), and by using 1% of that methane as
helium certainly wouldn’t be unheard of. Thus I’ll suggest for this
limited analogy that we use a round number of 5% per given volume of
extracted oil is helium.
The all-inclusive global oil production (including spillage and
wastage) as of 2009-2010 is roughly 86.4e6 barrels/day = 3.15e10
barrels/yr (5e9 m3/yr), and if anything it’s actually somewhat greater
because the industry itself takes at least 10% of its own product in
order to function (an EROEI ratio of 4:1 or 25% is perhaps more
typical, and it gets much worse yet for oily sand whereas the Net
Energy Gain of zero (NEG>0), as well as being especially cost
ineffective whenever the global spot market for crude oil drops below
$45/barrel, not to mention the process of synfuel from coal), so for
this conservative analogy effort we can safely take this volumetric
extraction of oil accounting to at least 5.5e9 m3/year.
5.5e9 x .05 = 2.75e8 m3 helium/yr
2.75e8 x .178 = 4.895e7 kg = 48,950 tonnes/yr as helium.
I believe that’s taking just about all the natural production of
Earth’s helium/year, if not exceeding the internal makings via
radioactive decay, and remember this artificial helium release is just
from our oil extraction process, including the oil industry
consumption of its raw natural gas that simply does not consume or
recombine that element of helium. In some instances the surplus of
this raw natural gas is for the moment getting pumped back into the
ground, through also requiring considerable process energy demand in
of itself. Oil extraction and process data w/o obfuscation is next to
impossible to come by, therefore you can bet your bottom dollar that
it’s actually much worse off than we can imagine, and the failed or
perhaps foiled OCO mission would have easily quantified such data
independently, with sufficient resolution as to pinpoint each and
every natural and artificial source of released and/or consumed gas.
Give or take e few numbers here and there, as to the all-inclusive oil
extraction and processing that often utilizes other commercial sources
of natural gas, could easily push their volumetric release of helium
upwards of 100,000 tonnes per year, not to mention whatever mother
nature releases, or the volumetric worth of our global coal that
directly vents, and of the global natural gas industries that do
nothing but extract and distribute their methane laced with the
element of helium, that only goes up up and away.
Even though we can’t see it, smell it or touch it, it’s still the one
of a kind mass that’s primarily derived from within Earth via
radioactive decay, and lo and behold once released its forever going
away from us. Remember, this report is just focused upon what’s
conservatively related to crude oil extraction, and not of our natural
gas which is unavoidably laced with helium, and there’s other
significant sources including coal, multiple other mining operations
and deep water extraction that’s also continually adding to mother
nature’s flatulence. Basically Eden/Earth has been hemorrhaging its
precious helium, and having only been expedited by humanity, that
which for the most part this helium doesn’t recombine with anything.
I’m sure that others here will have to side with Big Energy, employing
their usual failsafe obfuscation and denial as though the regular laws
of physics and best available science simply doesn’t apply to them,
and perhaps it doesn’t because supposedly most bad or even
questionable things are the fault of Muslims. (if you don’t get the
jest of that satire, don’t worry because most others don’t either)
~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
BradGuth
and artificial pollution and quantifying our global loss in mass per
year isn’t worth the trouble if there’s any Big Energy price or
consequences to pay. Apparently, any objectively scientific founded
notions or subsequent improved science interpretations as could have
been easily obtained from a Selene/moon L1 platform of instruments, or
even via OCO, as to our having essential knowledge about Earth is not
such a good thing according to Big Energy, though apparently on the
other hand we can never have too much knowledge about Mars or most any
other godforsaken planets and moons (apparently the cost and time be
damned).
Some if not the greater portion of our global warming trend is
unavoidable by way of volcanism and geothermal ventings, whereas the
vast majority of which has been taking place underwater is by far
exceeding all of our human contributions. Ever since the last ice age
it seems our terrestrial internal thermal activity has been
increasing, as though the reactive core of Earth hasn’t seen its last
spurt of growth.
In addition to an extremely slight rise per century in solar influx of
perhaps <0.1 w/m2 that amounts to merely 25.5e9 kw, whereas in order
to raise the ocean temperature by an average of 1°C per century would
require an extra continuous energy influx of 1.1e12 kw above whatever
can be said is the global background norm. For considering one fully
interactive source of such energy that’s keeping Earth’s core on the
move and a little extra hot, there’s always our Selene/moon which
demands a radial holding force of 2e20 N.m, and this interactive force
alone equals 55.5e12 kw if it were all converted into geothermal
energy. However, at 1% conversion via internal friction caused by
this 2e20 N.m force into thermal energy = 0.555e12 kw, roughly half of
the required energy to raise the ocean temperature by 1°C/century, and
1% seems perfectly conservative enough, because at 2% conversion is
where this alone more than covers the entire global warming package
deal.
There is also the ongoing -.05%/year demise of our geomagnetic force
that sustains our protective magnetosphere, and ties in rather nicely
to what is geothermally manifesting as though the internal process
that sustains our global magnetic force field is somehow indirectly
contributing ocean hydrothermals and volcanic activity that in turn
unavoidably impacts the thermal balance of our oceans, surface and
global environment as measurable heat. My observationology includes
NOAA, USGS and a number of other public and private funded
authorities, whereas this ongoing demise in our geomagnetic force and
subsequent magnetosphere is actually somewhat worse off than I’d
thought.
“Will Compasses Point South?” http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9803E3DD1E3BF930A25754C0A9629C8B63
Robert W. Felix, as author of “Not by Fire but by Ice” is yet another
honest investigative soul that’s not saying we humans haven’t
contributed to the global warming trend, but instead looking at the
greater geothermal picture, though without his fully understanding
exactly where and how mother Earth sustains or much less increases her
geothermal output is only somewhat misleading or at least incomplete
data in order to draw a fully informed opinion, as to what is
primarily driving our global thaw from the very last ice age this
planet w/moon is ever going to see. In other words, there’s still an
ongoing question as to where exactly other than the sun is our surface
environment getting the bulk of this extra energy dosage, if not from
within and from our unusually nearby interactive tidal grip of our
moon.
There’s always global warming from the inside out:
With more than 200,000 counted thus far, there could be “Three
Million Underwater Volcanoes” (venting superheated gasses, fluids and
solids)
Researchers estimate that in total there could be about 3 million
submarine volcanoes, 39,000 of which rise more than 1000 meters over
the sea bed.
http://www.iceagenow.com/Ocean_Warming.htm
http://www.iceagenow.com/Three_Million_Underwater_Volcanoes.htm
Besides underwater venting of geothermal superheated fluids and solids
(including S8) and new water, whereas this kind of internal activity
is also venting a great deal of CO2, SO2, CH4, Rn, He and H2.
Earths’ relatively thin-crust ocean floor and the underlying cache of
our georeactive mantel and its core, as being further agitated along
by the interactive 2e20 N of tidal force that’s holding onto our
Selene/moon, plus there’s always a solar tidal force, whereas this
continuous interaction that flexes Earth’s surface by 55 cm, along
with our geo-reactor core is what subsequently produces the average
background of 64 TW in surplus/spare geothermal radiated energy, along
with our reactive core of energy having been creating a number of
gasses and radioactive decay products, such as radon and helium.
(note: 64 TW was an amount based upon a square meter of cleared test
area that’s situated under a surrounding thick layer of Antarctica
ice, as bedrock radiating at 125 mw/m2, thus I am ignoring or
excluding those million some odd global hydrothermal vents or hot
spots, and otherwise keeping in mind that in sufficient thickness of
all that surrounding ice is actually performing as a good thermal
insulator by which those exposed bedrock thermal measurements become
more normalized)
In addition to our own commercial methods of artificial environment
heating that’s worth at least something a little more than a good
hundred some odd terawatts, "a normal hydrothermal vent might produce
something like 500 megawatts - this is producing 100,000 megawatts.
It's like an atom bomb down there.”
http://www.iceagenow.com/Megaplume.htm
If given a highly conservative speculation of merely 100 MW per each
of a million natural hydrothermal vents is worth 1e11 kw (100 TW).
However, without the likes of our OCO and PFS global readings we’re
kind of brain dead, and therefore we can’t be sure.
None the less, this limited knowledge brings a good portion of our
human environmental impact into a better perspective, as a
contributing but somewhat minor factor in our continued thaw from the
very last ice age this planet w/moon is ever going to see. The
recently failed OCO mission would have rather easily mapped those
primary natural and artificial ventings of gasses in sufficient
resolution that would have removed most all doubt as to the specific
sources, their volumes and objectively quantified affects. With some
easily validated interpolation as to the extent or volumes of helium
released could also have been established, along with a mission of PFS
giving deep IR penetration imaging would map every 0.1 km2 of Earth’s
surface (including the ocean floor at 1 km2 or better).
All of terrestrial venting or outgassing that includes solids, fluids
and various gasses can not but help include those two most lofty
elements of hydrogen and helium that eventually leave us for places
unknown, whereas some of the H2 recombines and returns to our surface
environment as rain, and except for helium the heavier of gaseous
elements (natural as well as artificial) do however stick around to
haunt us, and not always in a positive or constructive way.
As I’ve stated before, along with some limited science interpretation
as having suggested that our human impact upon this global warming
trend could be as little as 10% of the overall picture, and otherwise
it’s certainly not more than 25%, of which is entirely different than
our much greater contribution on behalf of having physically polluted
and otherwise measurably contaminating most of everything in sight.
Until the failed and/or intentionally foiled OCO mission is replaced,
along with a PFS or similar IR spectrometry imager, we’ll not have
sufficient global data to draw upon, which is not to say that current
information and the regular laws of physics need be ignored or
systematically excluded, as is so often the case by those having their
vested interest in Big Energy that would pay nearly any amount to have
such an openly objective source of atmospheric, chemical and thermal
data put off for as long as possible, because obviously the current
generation simply do not want to held accountable.
In other words, the more withholding and/or obfuscating of science the
better chance Big Energy has at pulling out profits before the jig is
up, so to speak. Otherwise it’s also like a form of Ponzi geology and
the environmental golden nest egg for continued public funded research
grants, whereas keeping the rest of us snookered and dumbfounded past
the point of no return is what offers terrific benefits for those in
charge that’ll continue to make future generations pay for our actions
or inactions. In this method no one of the current generation is ever
going to be held accountable, or much less responsible, and therefore
it is imperative on behalf of Big Energy to subvert or foil whatever
science that’s capable of being all-inclusive and current or real time
enough to apply as to the situation at hand.
~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
BradGuth
Planets and moons losing mass by the tonnes/sec ?
Here’s a somewhat better researched and a little context improved
version.
For example: Earth surface area = 5.1e14 m2, and its atmosphere
contains
Helium (He) 5.24 ppmv (0.000524%), He = .1786 kg/m3
Hydrogen (H2) 0.55 ppmv (0.000055%), H2 = .0899 kg/m3
We seem to know more about the perpetual loss of sodium, methane,
hydrogen and helium for the likes of other moons and planets
(including a few exoplanets) other than Earth.
http://vega.lpl.arizona.edu/~gilda/extrass.html
At 0.55 ppmv, in order that our atmosphere sustain the average H2
saturation, at any given moment there’s a natural 25e6 kg outflow of
hydrogen getting made available and unavoidably migrating upwards and
away from Earth’s surface in order to create and sustain the average
0.55 ppmv. The question is, at what average vertical escapement
velocity or volumetric/sec exit away from Earth?
The question is, is our 0.55 ppmv of hydrogen escapement worth merely
25e6 kg per day = 9.125e6 tonnes/yr, or is it ever as great as 25e6 kg
per hour = 219e6 tonnes/year?
If the H2 loss isn’t impressive enough, now we need to focus on our
volumetric worth of atmospheric helium that’s nearly ten fold greater
by volumetric saturation, and this He element having roughly twice the
mass of H2.
Like the GP-B fiasco, at best our EUVE (Extreme Ultra Violet Explorer)
could have been representing a false positive, all be its published
observationology given a nifty artificial eye-candy hue of yellow and
reddish colorized EUV image of Earth’s surrounding cloud of helium and
hydrogen. However, the solar wind caused planetary exhaust trail of
H2 and He is what seriously needs to be more closely looked at and
objectively quantified, as most easily accomplished from the naked
surface of our Selene/moon or best from the more ideal vacuum of the
Selene/moon L1, that which oddly after all these decades we still do
not have to work with.
Existing EUV, UV and IR imaging:
http://www.fas.org/irp/imint/docs/rst/Sect20/A3.html
The badly failing geomagnetic field and subsequent magnetosphere has
been capable of restraining or mildly sequestering some of Earth's
hydrogen and helium by way of having been protecting our upper most
atmosphere, but unfortunately for the past 12000 years this too has
been going away (most recently at -.05%/year or <–120 nT/yr), is
perhaps as good of reason as any why that lofty cloud of hydrogen and
helium isn't sticking around, and why the lethal SAA contour has been
exponentially growing and nearing the surface. On the other hand,
would anyone care to suggest what could happen if such terrestrial
hydrogen and helium didn’t get blown away?
http://io9.com/395272/is-earths-magnetic-field-failing-us
http://digitaldiatribes.wordpress.com/category/geomagnetism/
Of course our perpetual naysayers and their usual evidence excluding
gauntlet of their Big Eneregy resident army of Usenet/newsgroup
wizards and brown-nosed clowns of perpetual obfuscation and denial are
not paying this topic serious attention, or having allowed any outside
context of consideration as to the greater worth or consequences of
our badly failing geomagnetic force and of its subsequent fading
magnetosphere. It’s as though our best physics and/or objective
science doesn’t hardly matter, unless it’s strictly interpreted by
those of Big Energy in charge of sustaining their mainstream status
quo. In other words, for sustaining our mainstream as a viable cabal
of happy campers, apparently our best public funded science has been
the worth of used toilet paper, and whatever NASA mishaps of botched,
failed or foiled missions are not to be taken all that seriously, if
at all.
I recall mentioning at least a few thousand times, about our having
the Selene/moon L1 platform of science instruments easily established
as of 4 decades ago, including by now a 10x TRACE-II, plus an array of
UV and IR imaging cameras looking at the whole sphere of Earth and as
equally at our Selene/moon that's losing it's sodium and a few other
elements at an alarming rate. However, without our having such a
nifty viewing perspective it's simply much harder if not nearly
impossible to interpret whatever's going on without our having to
connect many terrestrial and LEO obtained dots, so to speak.
Btw, the often bogus mindset of "I always had the thoughts that free
hydrogen, and helium were lost in space and that Earth's gravity was
not strong enough to hold it" isn't what I'd gotten out of the vast
bulk of the previously posted comments. In fact, it's pretty much the
opposite mindset of what we’ve typically heard from most others,
insisting that supposedly Earth never loses mass, whereas instead
we’ve been systematically informed that our Eden/Earth supposedly
gains several thousand tonnes per year, as what most others and myself
used to believe. However, I was clearly the first contributor within
this or any other Usenet/newsgroup to insist that our moon and Earth
have each been losing a great deal of mass, and implying that the
modern day human race has in fact been artificially assisting in this
mostly natural process.
Perhaps this personal deductive analogy can also explain as to why ETs
would ever bother going to all the trouble of extracting minerals and
raw exotic elements from an exoplanet or its moon, such as our dire
needs of extracting He3 and a number of other elements from our Selene/
moon, or as to otherwise why having any appreciation as to that of
whomever is taking substances of value away from the planet Venus.
BradGuth
100 bar worth of primal atmosphere to work with, and was obviously at
that time losing little of its original hydrogen and helium due to the
passive solar wind and because our geomagnetic force and subsequent
magnetosphere was at least ten fold stronger, plus our sun at that
early time was relatively passive, as not likely delivering more than
half or even a quarter the average solar wind with few if any halo
CMEs.
A loss of 99 bar worth of this robust atmosphere (5.1e20 kg worth) is
actually suggesting quite a bit of our global bulk in mass reduction,
especially considering those early meteor and comet arrivals of <10e9
kg/yr that extensively vaporized into becoming additional atmosphere,
water and minerals, along with the terrestrial/natural outgassing of
many atmospheric elements including impressive amounts of raw hydrogen
and helium that tend to uncontrollably rise (helium recombining with
nothing), plus all the recent artificial contributions by way of
humanity and our mass consumptions of various natural and synthetic
hydrocarbons as having created another million tonnes per year of
potentially toxic CFCs, HFCs and HCFCs that should have been replaced
by way of simply using good old CO2, though even CH4 (methane) would
have always been a better alternative to artificial CFCs and HCFCs,
but that kind of common sense would have destroyed those wealthy
petrochemical and synthetic chemical empires of Union Carbide and
DuPont. Seems the general public’s lack of physics and science
education has been a perpetual godsend kind of commercial treasure
trove, of vast loot for the Rothschilds.
If Earth had been capably holding onto its atmosphere (including its
lofty H2 and He), whereas instead of our having lost 5.1e20 kg to
start with and perhaps like a immature gas giant we’d still be gaining
atmospheric mass. Lucky for us that hasn’t been the case, though not
to say that a gas giant with a substantial solid core (16+ Me) like
that of our Jupiter couldn’t coexist at 1 AU, along with any number of
goldilocks sustaining moons.
As of lately our lower (6 km) half of atmospheric mass has been rather
nicely polluted, warming and thereby increasing its density by way of
holding more water vapor along with our sooty saturations of toxic CO2
and NOx, while the upper atmospheric density has been gradually
decreasing or thinning by having received a greater percentage of
methane topped off by natural and artificial freons plus loads of good
old He and H2 that our gravity and weakening magnetosphere simply can
not forever hold onto.
Earth currently receives an average of as little as 1 kg/sec, but
otherwise perhaps at times as much as 10 kg/sec of space dust and
assorted meteorites and a few asteroid encounters. However, from my
recent interpretation, Eden is at the same time along with our human
enterprising persistence why we're most likely losing at least 300 kg/
s (9.5e6 tonnes/year) of our hydrogen and helium, and even if it were
as little as a tenth that amount is still an impressive million tonnes/
year loss in mass.
In running the numbers of what we annually extract and attempt to
utilize of our terrestrial coal, oil and natural gasses there's simply
no viable contest, whereas Earth has been losing considerable mass,
and by some basic accounting this kind of loss can become easily worth
losing as great as a tonne/sec if you'd care to honestly include the
natural and human derived forms of hydrogen and helium getting
released, of which has to include that which is mostly vented and/or
wasted from all of our fossil energy and many ongoing artificial and
industrial forms of having created and subsequently released such
lofty gasses as hydrogen and helium. Perhaps that’s the best kind of
reason why we do not have the whole-Earth science coverage from Selene
L1, because it would only become too much public bad news for Big
Energy and our industrial chemical empires to deal with.
Our badly failing geomagnetic field is not exactly helping, and yet
with all the best of intentions there is still no official accounting
of Earth’s mass reduction that we can objectively agree upon, which
only leads to our using out best swags and deductive speculations
because so much of our basic public funded science is either need-to-
know encrypted, kept taboo/nondisclosure rated and/or having been
systematically overlooked and otherwise obfuscated to death, or simply
lost along the way because otherwise, it would sort of make ‘Big
Energy’ and other Big Money look even worse than it already is.
Science obfuscation = lying by way of omission
Physics obfuscation = worse than lying by omission
Ponzi Physics = perpetual job and benefit security as priority No.1
It’s not just about Earth, whereas the public accessible science
pertaining to our unusually massive and nearby Selene/moon and also
the planet Venus are each examples loaded with such mainstream
obfuscation, and otherwise Mars is just an infomercial game of
perpetual hype and loads of mostly inert eye-candy.
On the other hand, what doesn’t our disingenuous government and of
it’s many faith-based dominated agencies of mostly the devout pretend
Atheists cabal or Mafia kind, that in their perpetual denial tend to
obfuscate as policy in order to protect thy public funded job
security, thy nifty golden nest egg benefits and their precious
retirements at public expense?
Clearly the Pope on multiple occasions throughout history has
obfuscated his holy butt off, and Zionists just can’t seem to keep
from obfuscating as long as it’s only taking advantage of others or
capably false flag blaming of others. On the other hand, you can
believe it was always those physics and science smart Atheists or
Muslims as having supposedly gotten us safely to/from our moon, and
otherwise believe it was only these smart Atheists and Muslims as
having helped Hitler achieve so much global domination from so little,
if that’s what makes you a happy camper.
The public funded and Stanford University executed GP-B experiment was
every bit as good as any obfuscation on steroids, and their perpetual
denial of being in denial is every bit as disingenuous. Perhaps there
is some kind of public mainstream policy or tradition of systematic
obfuscation? (apparently there is, especially if our SEC approved
Ponzi Madoff and more than half our banking, investment and mortgage
infrastructure is any example)
Outside of our having to pretend at being politically correct and
always having to be faith-based passive or neutral, what I’d like to
know for the pure sake of knowledge is exactly (+/-10%) how much
tonnage per second or per year our planet is typically losing (mostly
in hydrogen and helium), in much the same way that exoplanets of
viable habitats for life have been recently identified by way of their
loss of such EUV detected elements as hydrogen and helium. In the
case of Earth, an average vertical escape velocity of helium migration
or vertical propagation of merely 2 to 4 m/s seems likely, except
there’s much the same devoid of objective data as with raw ice
coexisting within 1 AU space, along with still no objective science on
behalf of the volumes of our H2 and He escapement or loss to go by.
As far as I can tell, there’s no actual political or faith-based need
of their mainstream policy imposing such conditional physics or the
hocus-pocus infowar tactics of science hype and obfuscation, but then
I certainly could be wrong.
~ BG
Saul Levy
You said NOTHING NEW!
Saul Levy
BradGuth
leaving Earth isn’t hardly in question, so much as it’s the given
amount of the ongoing mass loss per second or per year that can be
subjectively argued fairly extensively, especially since we still have
not established the Selene/moon L1 science platform on behalf of whole
Earth, solar and moon observations that could have told us nearly
everything we needed to know as of 4 decades ago.
Maxwell Boltzmann
http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~wilkins/energy/Companion/E07.4.pdf.xpdf
“Hydrogen and helium have a mean speed that is a significant fraction
of the escape speed. For this reason, there is almost no hydrogen or
helium in Earth’s present atmosphere.” (considering the vast volume of
our atmosphere, there’s actually quite an extensive tonnage that gets
maintained and/or replenished in spite of such lofty elements as H2
and He that tend to forever rise, becoming heated and continually
escape Earth’s gravity)
As our geomagnetic field proceeds to fade away at -.05%/year
(signaling yet another magnetic pole reversal) and subsequently our
protective magnetosphere fails us for yet another extended period of
time, allowing the SAA contour to expand and deepen, as the average
400 km/s solar wind along with halo CMEs of 800<1600 km/s reaches ever
deeper into the upper atmosphere, whereas subsequently our natural and
artificially introduced volumes of hydrogen and helium gets solar and
even somewhat via Selene/moon superheated and thereby easily
accelerated above 11.2 km/s (affording enough solar wind enhanced
velocity to easily escape Earth).
As a direct result, Earth is simply not gaining a sufficient influx of
mass in order to offset the ongoing and accelerated escapement of our
natural and artificial hydrogen and especially that of our helium. In
other words, there is simply not a volumetric balance of sufficient
incoming mass taking place, and at the very least our upper 50% mass
of atmosphere is getting progressively thinned out and/or displaced by
the vertically migrating supply of helium and hydrogen. How could
this upper atmospheric thinning not allow more solar and secondary
Selene/moon radiated energy in (including UV, X-rays and gamma)?
The current rate of Earth’s surface and ocean floor outgassing of
mineral saturated fluids and otherwise natural gasses from deep
geothermal vents and undersea volcanoes is likely in the realm of
contributing at least 1e12 kg/year, and perhaps roughly 1% of that
being in the form of direct atmospheric worthy gasses (including raw
hydrogen and always helium that doesn’t naturally recombine with
anything unless we’re talking fusion).
If this 1e12 kg/yr or 1000 megatonnes/year (<1e10 kg/yr of He and H2)
of such solids and gasses from within Earth isn’t bad enough, there’s
an influx of mostly vaporized meteorites worthy of contributing
another 5e7 to 5e8 kg/yr, from which hydrogen and helium (including
He3) is always a part of that meteor/comet influx, and factor in the
electrostatic/lightning created hydrogen if you’d care to add a little
more insult to injury.
Now add the human contributed/expedited volumetric tonnage of helium
that’s released, such as typically 1<9% of our natural gas and
otherwise from the extractions of coal and oil. In India they have
recently quantified some of their natural geothermal venting areas as
giving off <2% helium per volume of what’s surface escaping along with
many other gasses (including methane and radon), meaning there’s loads
of nearby thorium, uranium and radium below, along with a substantial
natural gas reserve of perhaps certain locations worth <10% helium
purity. In other words, India can’t possibly lose, with far cheaper
and more abundant nuclear worthy ore that’s as close to sustainable if
not somewhat renewable as we’re going to get.
If clean energy derived via a number of renewable alternatives plus
thorium isn’t quite good enough to suit your fancy, here’s the old
reliable geothermal alternative for us, pretty much just like I and
Steven Chu said. (how many hundred GW or TW would you like?)
“Plug into a Greener Grid: RE<C and RechargeIT Initiatives”
Video: Intro to Enhanced Geothermal Systems
http://www.google.org/rec.html
Commercial hybrids: With a national surplus of clean energy, even the
nearly all electric commercial 18<24 wheeler isn’t outside of what
this geothermal renewable kind of energy can deliver, such as within
as little as 3 hours of 3 phase recharging or battery pack exchange
that’s capable of providing <12 hrs of serious truck hauling, and
better yet if the hybrid ICE option ran on h2o2+synfuel or replaced by
an h2o2 fuel cell kind of high energy density battery (similar to what
the GM Volt has planned), in which case little if any hydrogen gets
released, and the whole birth-to-grave energy consumption process
become capable of contributing zero NOx as well as having released
zero helium.
Put Steven Chu and even the bipolar wizardly likes of our informative
William Mook in our national green/renewable energy think tank, and
right off the bat we’ll start going to better places without nearly as
much environmental consequences, creating a national surplus of clean
energy to boot. In closing, it would certainly be nice if a physics
kind of stop-loss order could be placed, so that mother Earth as our
one and only Eden could also stop losing mass.
~ BG
BradGuth
Shouldn’t we have the right to know about our own planet? (apparently
not)
By the observationology science of our looking at Mars and deductively
interpreting the UV obtained data, we know that <21,000 tonnes of
methane is seasonally vented and most likely lost to space within a
given amount of time. By way of using the same degree of
observationology science can also quantify exactly how much of Earth’s
methane is made available, as well as for observing our build up of
CO2 plus any number of many other elements, including helium and
hydrogen that do not stick with Earth.
If the general public knew what our government agencies of DARPA,
NASA, DoE, DNR and their Big Energy puppet masters have been
obfuscating and otherwise doing to us and our frail environment
(similar to our SEC approved Ponzi Madoff), we’d likely terminate the
whole lot as though they were nothing but worse than another Muslim
sleeper cell hiding WMD and OBL. In other words, we’d react first and
ask questions later, especially since the darkening cloud of evidence
by way of their actions isn’t all that hidden from modern observation
methods of easily detecting and quantifying such atmospheric elements.
(in other words, perhaps our recently foiled Orbiting Carbon
Observatory mission wasn’t of such an unavoidable anomaly after all)
As of 4 decades ago, the Selene L1 (Earth-moon L1) platform of global
observation and other science instruments could have been accomplished
for 10% the cost of one Apollo mission, and as such it could have been
interactively station keeping and telling us the whole body of naked
truths about Earth, instead of our being limited by the published
mainstream and obfuscated infomercial alternatives that’s telling us
only what limited parts of our public funded science they see fit to
share, so that we can’t be well informed as to how much and from which
sources are contributing the most into our environment.
Not so unexpected, it seems Big Energy and those otherwise invested
have needed something to refocus or divert our public media and the
general public attention away from the ugly truths, whereas the AGW
fiasco as having fingered freons and then CO2 as being the primary
culprit has certainly been their failsafe ticket to ride thus far.
Oddly, it seems Earth has been unexpectedly warming as of 11,711 years
ago (long before artificial freons and CO2 were invented), and only as
of lately has Earth been losing a great deal of its mass at the same
time, partially via natural causes including by holding onto our
Selene/moon, and otherwise extensively due to all of the human
released gasses of mostly methane, hydrogen and helium in addition to
our CO2. The volumes and subsequent gigatonnage/year of terrestrial
methane for the most part is consumed and otherwise recombines and
doesn’t manage to leave our environment, however, eventually the
megatonnage/year of its helium and even some of its hydrogen does
manage to leave.
We’ve been told and/or informed by those in charge that our planet is
always gaining mass. However, in spite of the local and cosmic influx
of 1<5 kg/sec, seems Earth has actually been losing a great deal of
its mass, mostly by way of its insufficient tidal radius grip on our
helium and hydrogen. Directly related to where some of that hydrogen
and helium comes from, and far away from the supposed mainstream
promoted and heavily infomercial hyped truth, whereas it seems there’s
actually nothing all that clean or environmentally friendly about our
extracting and using coal, not to mention the obvious atmospheric
pollution of toxic elements you wouldn’t dare breath yourself, plus
surface and aquifer loads of mostly fresh water consumptions and
subsequent contamination of the surrounding terrain and ground water
that’s downright mind boggling.
On the lighter side of such released elements, Earth’s atmosphere
sustains an average 5.2 ppm of helium (5.2e-6 parts per volume or
0.00052%) that continually migrates towards space along with freed
hydrogen leading the way, plus certain freons and perhaps even pulling
some of our methane along for the ride, that’s all helping to expand
those O3 ozone holes along the way. In other words, within any given
minute or hour there’s a volume of 26.5e8 m3 of helium being made
available from the interior and surface of Earth, as otherwise our
atmosphere simply wouldn’t sustain those background readings of 5.2
ppm, and at 1 bar this kind of saturation is worth a global volumetric
472e3 tonnes of helium per vertical cubic meter of added mass, that’s
continually made available on any given minute, hour or day after day
(try to remember that’s per vertical meter, whereas a km gives us
472e6 tonnes to work with).
Methane w/helium:
Our global 2009 wellhead natural gas extraction = 3.5e12 m3, He<9%
(avg 0.5<1.5%) of this natural gas volume is always contributing our
isotope element of helium. Using 1% as the helium content average =
3.5e10 * .178 = 6.23e9 kg or 6.23 million tonnes of He/year.
Basically, other than our trusty DoE and USGS, there’s no one all-
inclusive or any other specialized agency of oversight for this global
accounting on behalf of released hydrogen and helium from oil wells,
oily sands, coal, methane or multiple other deep aquifer and mineral
mining operations, so instead we have any number of a mostly industry
self funded and of a few semi-private research reports to pick from,
none of which agree with most any other report. Therefore, tossing
out the high and the low, we get to use our loose cannon swag of our
deductive interpretation in order to obtain rough estimates as based
upon average of everything else. Being highly conservative, I have
used 1% of the methane volume and 0.1% of the extracted coal and oil
volumes as a rough basis for estimating the extent of helium
released. However, as it turns out I’ve only been off by a factor of
10<30 fold at having underestimated the raw methane and subsequent
helium per m3 of coal and oil, mostly because I had no educated idea
how much methane comes along with the process of uncovering or
extracting each tonne or m3 of coal and oil.
Judging by the following US Coal reports on methane absorption and
subsequent emissions, if used for further interpreting such on behalf
of speculating global methane released from abandoned mines, as likely
in excess of contributing 1e10 m3/year in raw methane, and therefore
we’re looking at perhaps 1e8 m3 of helium, or 0.178e8 kg = 17.8e3
tonnes He/year that’s derived from just those abandoned sites, and
because of so much interior having been exposed from deep within
Earth, whereas even those flooded mines do not entirely stop this
ongoing release of helium, means that previous estimate of 17.8e3
tonnes/year could easily be conservative by a factor of 10.
http://www.coalinfo.net.cn/coalbed/meeting/2203/papers/coal-mining/CM030.pdf
This next example of an active coal mining operation of extracting
<4e6 t/year of coal is worth 30<35 m3 of methane/tonne, directly
venting <72 m3/minute of methane, or 37.8e6 m3/yr, and otherwise less
than a third of the 30<35 m3/tonne of extracted coal is captured, and
for the most part utilized on site.
http://www.methanetomarkets.org/Data/Coal_MX_Mimosa_poster.pdf
Total volume of ventilation from mine: 150 m3/sec = 9000 m3/minute
Volume of raw methane in ventilation air: 72 m3/min
Average methane concentration in ventilation air: 0.5%
Fluctuation of methane concentration: 0.5% -0.8%
Total volume of gas drained: 22.5 m3/minute
Volume of pure methane drained: 18 m3/minute
Average methane concentration in drained gas: 75%
Fluctuation of methane concentration in drained gas: 50 –75%
Coal permeability: 30 – 4 milidarcy
Coal in situ gas content: 10 m3/tonne
Relative emissions: 30 m3/tonne of coal mined
“From the present coal production the emissions from the mines are
30-35 m3 of methane per tonne of coal mined. Only 30% of the average
gas emitted is captured from underground mining operations of each
mine. The remaining 70% is exhausted in the atmosphere as ventilation
air methane (VAM).”
In other words, the vast bulk of their VAM from the coal related
mining is 130e6 m3/yr, including whatever portion that’s helium is
simply vented, and their consumed methane simply does not consume or
otherwise recombine its content of helium. At the distributed energy
equivalent value of 33<36e3 btu/m3 or ~10.5 kwh/m3 @100% eff. (typical
power generation efficiency at 39% = 4.1 kwhr/m3, and top quality home/
office/commercial heating can supposedly extract <96% eff), means
these coal and methane energy supplying wizards never heard of the
wise old phrase “waste not, want not”. Perhaps BHO as our new and
improved fearless leader needs to create a national methane piping
grid with 99% helium removal, just as badly as we have needed to
upgrade and expand our national electrical grid, because our Big
Energy providers are clearly wasting nearly as much or more energy via
vented and/or burned off methane than we actually need to use, and
otherwise needlessly venting helium in the process.
Richard Heinberg's MuseLetter: Coal in China
http://globalpublicmedia.com/museletter_coal_in_china
http://www.itc.nl/personal/coalfire/index.html
When underground coal uncontrollably burns (thousands of such fires
exist, and many of those were artificially caused and/or of
spontaneous fires via exposed coal as having been allowed to burn),
besides all the toxic CO2 and multiple other sooty and gaseous
pollutants released (China’s underground fires alone providing 360
million tonnes/year of CO2), whereas the geologically stored element
of helium is never consumed, but instead the release of coal, oil and
methane sequestered helium is greatly accelerated. With perhaps 250
million tonnes/year of global underground coal fires plus whatever
associated methane per year going up in smoke, so to speak, there’s
perhaps a bare minimum of a million of tonnes worth of helium getting
released per year by this process alone. This natural plus artificial
release of helium, much like that continually released via commercial
and residential natural gas consumption, simply doesn’t recombine or
otherwise stick with the mass of Earth.
Perhaps our not having put out or terminated those underground coal
fires has been a bad idea, and simply not a viable future option
unless 1000 ppm of CO2 plus multiple other toxic pollutants isn’t a
bother. Of course it’s much worse if you’re situated near or down
wind of any natural pockets, underwater volumes or geothermal vents of
CO2, that from time to time gets released and manages to kill off most
of everything each invisible and often odorless cloud of CO2
surrounds.
Frankly, I’ve had no good idea as to how utterly dynamitic and
extensive the natural outflux plus that of our artificial release of
helium was, and that so little of the bulk methane per tonne of
excavated coal and oil was even captured. I’m only now understanding
how limited or rather systematically obfuscated our public knowledge
has been about the vast extent of this ongoing factor of released
methane and subsequent helium via oil, coal and multiple other mining
operations. Another important consideration is that it takes anywhere
from 3 to 9 tonnes worth of coal per tonne of synfuel, so that option
of solid to liquid fuel conversion isn’t exactly a viable solution
unless the ultimate goal is actually intended to toxic gas and mineral
saturate our frail environment while roughly quadrupling the release
of coal sequestered helium in order to supplement our ongoing
consumption of liquid hydrocarbons.
Apparently 130e6 m3 of methane released per year from a given coal
mining operation is not all that uncommon. Whereas <1% of this gaseous
volume is likely helium, thus 1.3e6 m3 of helium (231 t) is released
per year from a typical coal mining operation, and throughout the
world there’s at least a thousand of such major underground mines
ongoing = 231e3 t of He/year, plus a thousand more of active surface
mines, and of course we don’t want to even discuss deaths directly
related to this global extraction, transporting, processing and the
final consumption and/or conversions of coal. Gee, I wonder why BP,
GE and ExxonMobil are not bragging about who has contributed the most
helium. Is there a secret DNR (department of natural resources)
promoted race with China to see who can manage to release the most
helium?
If I were the proper kind of brown-nosed NASA or DARPA puppet, and/or
the good kind of public funded minion of such a faith-based government
that’s run extensively by the likes of those Rothschilds and Big
Energy cartels and Mafia cabals, I sure as hell would not want to see
any such OCO (Orbiting Carbon Observatory) mission or that of any
Selene L1 platform of objective spectrometer founded battery of
science instruments looking at our environment, and much less allowing
the general media access to interpreting any of such publicly funded
research that would easily identify and even quantify per km3 as to
how much of our environment is getting consumed by natural and
artificial fire, and otherwise as having been polluting our upper most
atmosphere with additional helium and hydrogen that’s unavoidably
going away from Earth at a fairly alarming rate, because we might
actually realized how extensively screwed we are.
Wonder how those smart ETs on Venus ever manage to get by without
having created their fair share of internal or open combustion? (just
kidding, because there’s all sorts of perfectly renewable and/or
geothermal accomplished ways that’ll put most anything we have [short
of He3/fusion] to shame, and then some). Too bad we don’t have the
cool Venus L2 location as for accommodating our POOF City or future
ISS outpost as our interplanetary Oasis/Gateway home away from home,
perhaps for the same insidious and/or obfuscated reasons we still
don’t have anything of Selene L1 at our disposal for even robotic/
remote obtained solar/Earth/moon science.
BradGuth
and behold all the sudden the Usenet/newsgroup lights go out. No
wonder they foiled our spendy OCO mission.
~ BG
On Feb 15, 10:27 am, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> For example: Earth surface area = 5.1e14 m2, and its atmosphere
> contains
> Helium (He) 5.24 ppmv (0.000524%), He = .1786 kg/m3
> Hydrogen (H2) 0.55 ppmv (0.000055%), H2 = .0899 kg/m3
>
> We seem to know more about the perpetual loss/sec of hydrogen and
> helium for planets (including a few exoplanets) other than Earth.
> http://vega.lpl.arizona.edu/~gilda/extrass.html
>
> At 0.55 ppmv, in order that our atmosphere sustain that average H2
> saturation, at any given moment there’s 25e6 kg of hydrogen getting
> made available and unavoidably migrating upwards and away from Earth’s
> surface in order to create and sustain the average 0.55 ppmv. The
> question is, at what average vertical escapement velocity or
> volumetric/sec exit away from Earth?
>
> Is our hydrogen escapement worth merely 25e6 kg per day = 9.125e6
> tonnes/yr, or is it as great as 25e6 kg per hour = 219e6 tonnes/year?
>
> Like the GP-B fiasco, at best our EUVE (Extreme Ultra Violet Explorer)
> could have been representing a false positive, all be its
> observationology given a nifty eye-candy yellow and reddish colorized
> UV image of Earth’s surrounding cloud of helium and hydrogen.
> However, the solar wind caused planetary exhaust trail of H2 and He is
> what needs to be more closely looked at and objectively quantified, as
> most easily accomplished from our Selene/moon or from it's L1 that we
> still do not have.
>
> Existing UV and IR imaging:
> http://www.fas.org/irp/imint/docs/rst/Sect20/A3.html
>
> The badly failing magnetosphere has been capable of restraining or
> mildly sequestering some of Earth's hydrogen and helium by way of
> having been protecting our atmosphere, but unfortunately for the past
> 2000 years this too is going away (most recently at -.05%/year or even
> <–120 nT/yr), is perhaps as good of reason why that lofty cloud of
> hydrogen and helium isn't sticking around, and why the lethal SAA
> contour has been exponentially growing and nearing the surface. On
> the other hand, care to imagine what could happen if such terrestrial
> hydrogen and helium didn’t leak away?
> http://io9.com/395272/is-earths-magnetic-field-failing-us
> http://digitaldiatribes.wordpress.com/category/geomagnetism/
>
> Of course our perpetual naysayers and usual evidence excluding
> gauntlet of our resident Usenet/newsgroup wizards and brown-nosed
> clowns are not paying serious attention, or allowing any context of
> consideration as to the worth or consequences of our badly failing
> geomagnetic force and of its subsequent magnetosphere. It’s as though
> our best physics and/or objective science doesn’t hardly matter,
> unless it’s strictly interpreted in order to sustain their mainstream
> status quo. In other words, for sustaining our mainstream as a viable
> cabal of happy campers, apparently our best public funded science is
> but worth used toilet paper.
>
> I recall mentioning at least a few thousand times, about our having
> the Selene L1 platform of science instruments easily established as of
> 4 decades ago, including many UV and IR imaging cameras looking at
> Earth and equally at our Selene/moon that's losing it's sodium and a
> few other elements at an alarming rate. However, without our having
> such a nifty perspective it's simply much harder if not nearly
> impossible to interpret whatever's going on.
>
> btw, the often bogus mindset of "I always had the thoughts that free
> hydrogen, and helium were lost in space and that Earth's gravity was
> not strong enough to hold it" isn't what I'd gotten out of those
> previously posted comments. In fact, it's pretty much the opposite of
> what we’ve typically heard from most others, insisting that supposedly
> Earth never loses mass, whereas instead I was the first in this or any
> other Usenet/newsgroup to insist that our moon and Earth have each
> been losing mass, and implying that the modern day human race has been
> artificially assisting in this natural process.
>
> Perhaps this can also explain as to why ETs would bother going to all
> the trouble of extracting minerals and raw elements from another
> planet or moon, such as our dire need of extracting He3 from our
> Selene/moon, or that of whomever is taking substances away from Venus.
Saul Levy
No one really cares about your questions!
Saul Levy
On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 06:50:00 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
<brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Where's all the topic/author love and affection from those claiming to
>know all there is to know?
>
>Where's our Selene/moon L1 platform of remote science, along with all
>of its nifty global science data?
>
>Why exactly are the environmental related satellites having such a
>tough time of their getting into orbit?
>
>I have far more questions than answers. Sorry about that.
>
> ~ BG
>
>
>On Mar 15, 4:32 am, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 15, 10:27 am, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > For example: Earth surface area = 5.1e14 m2, and its atmosphere
>> > contains
>> > Helium (He) 5.24 ppmv (0.000524%), He = .1786 kg/m3
>> > Hydrogen (H2) 0.55 ppmv (0.000055%), H2 = .0899 kg/m3
>>
>>
BradGuth
Is there some good reason why our resident rabbi is trying to foil
this topic?
~ BG
BradGuth
can hear those tiny pins drop. Is this topic banishment all because
of the tonnage of helium Eden/Earth is losing?
~ BG
On Mar 30, 7:22 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
Saul Levy
Saul Levy
On Fri, 3 Apr 2009 21:01:39 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth <brad...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>It has gotten so dark and deathly quite in Usenet/newsgroups that we
BradGuth
What happens when our geomagnetic force is half of what it is today?
BradGuth
losing. Of course faith-based cabals and Big Energy cartels could
each care less, but never quite enough less to keep their brown-nosed
spooks and moles from screwing with and pouncing upon any methods of
others obtaining objective science. It’s as though there’s simply too
much bad news that needs to get banished or at least obfuscated to
death and/or made entirely taboo/nondisclosure rated.
The best resolution and even the dynamic range from ISRO sucks.
http://www.universetoday.com/2009/04/03/latest-images-from-chandrayaan-1/
Oddly there’s still equal or better resolution images via them old
Apollo analog metric mapping images, even as poorly scanned into
digital format none the less.
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/catalog/metric/
However, now there’s atmospheric bacteria surviving at 41 km above
Earth. “ISRO makes intriguing "extraterrestrial" life discovery --
let's hope they're on our side!”
http://www.worldnewsforum.net/computers-space-technology-gaming/3530-ndian-space-researchers-claim-extraterrestrial-life-discovery.html
Discovery of New Microorganisms in the Stratosphere
http://www.isro.org/pressrelease/Mar16_2009.htm
By rights, this means there should be Mars microbes, and/or at least
spores.
Notice how all of the American media has been instructed/warned not to
convey anything positive or otherwise constrictive about ISRO,
obviously it’s because ISRO at less than ten cents on the dollar is
making our NASA and DARPA look entirely pathetic, if not bogus.
Instead of being continually outdone by India, Japan and even China,
the Selene/moon L1 could have been all ours as of 4 decades ago.
In addition to obtaining far superior Earth, sun and moon science, as
accomplished from Selene/moon L1, with an optical telephoto lens or
sufficient telescope could have accomplished a whole lot better job
than one meter per pixel, along with a DR of at least 32 DB, and with
multiple narrow bandpass filters to boot. In other words, we wouldn't
have needed OCO or a dozen other spendy satellite obtained science
missions, plus so much other could have been accomplished from Selene
L1.
~ BG
hanson
What happens ....hanson wrote:
Brad, Brad, Brad... You are talking to *yourself*. That's
not a good way to advance your cause. You need to
convince your clients/readers, NOT yourself.... ahahaha...
>
BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
ETs would bother going to all the trouble... taking substances away
from ... Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
>
hanson wrote:
WOW.!.. that's quite possibly the source and cause for
you failing in your mission, Brad. Never the less, you are
still a good man. Carry on. Don't let me or anyone elese
cramp your style. Thanks for the laughs, Brad...ahahaha
ahahahaha... ahahahahahanson
BradGuth
The Zionist Nazi mindset of hanson doesn't hold much water, though
perhaps that's only because it's already chock full of the usual
mainstream status quo shit that Old Testament certified. Your every
word has proven that I'm right, as otherwise you'd be easily proving
me wrong or constructively assisting by way of your superior talent,
expertise and first hand knowledge, though oddly none of which has
ever shown its face.
btw, your bogus/stealth profile sucks and blows like every other
brown-nosed spook and mole. At least Hitler never hid his ID or kept
his intentions and global domination mindset from the public, so you
must be something worse than Hitler.
~ BG
hanson
>
"BradGuth" <brad...@gmail.com> cranked himself & wrote:
> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
>> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
What happens ....
>
BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
I recall mentioning at least a few thousand times,
>
hanson wrote:
Brad, Brad, Brad... You are talking to *yourself*. That's
not a good way to advance your cause. You need to
convince your clients/readers, NOT yourself.... ahahaha...
>
BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
ETs would bother going to all the trouble... taking substances away
from ... Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
>
hanson wrote:
WOW.!.. that's quite possibly the source and cause for
you failing in your mission, Brad. Never the less, you are
still a good man. Carry on. Don't let me or anyone elese
cramp your style. Thanks for the laughs, Brad...ahahaha
ahahahaha... ahahahahahanson
>
The Zionist Nazi mindset of hanson doesn't hold much water, though
perhaps that's only because it's already chock full of the usual
mainstream status quo shit that Old Testament certified. Your every
word has proven that I'm right, as otherwise you'd be easily proving
me wrong or constructively assisting by way of your superior talent,
expertise and first hand knowledge, though oddly none of which has
ever shown its face.
>
.... ahahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... now you are getting somewhere,
with your "I'm right"... But you will have to prove or at least announce
where that "where" is... ahahaha... Is it in jerUSAlem or in L1?
>
BradGuth wrote:
tw, your bogus/stealth profile sucks and blows like every other
brown-nosed spook and mole. At least Hitler never hid his ID or kept
his intentions and global domination mindset from the public, so you
must be something worse than Hitler.
>
Ahhh, the "spook and mole and Hitler"... ahahaha... You would be in
the clear about all that and not "suck and blow", like you constantly do,
if you were to study --- [ http://www.jewwatch.com ] ---- ahahahaha....
>
ahahahaha... Brad, don't wanker, strain &
crank yourself so obviously. I know you try
your hardest to be funny. And you are a
very good joke, especially in your tortured
attempts to have the last word. Will that
make you happy?... Thanks for the laughs.
ahaha... ahahaha... ahahahanson.
BradGuth
> -------- AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.... ----------
>
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> cranked himself & wrote:> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
> >> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
Didn't read anything you had to say, but then you (aka nobody) didn't
actually have anything to say, so what's the difference?
~ BG
hanson
-------- AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.... ----------
>
"BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> cranked himself & wrote:
> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
> >> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
>> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
Didn't read anything you had to say, but then you (aka nobody) didn't
actually have anything to say, so what's the difference?
>
ahahahaha... then why did you answer?
AHAHAHA... Brad, don't wanker, strain &
BradGuth
> AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.... ----------
> -------- AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.... ----------
>
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> cranked himself & wrote:> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
> > >> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> cranked himself & wrote:> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
> >> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
Atill didn't read anything you had to say, but then you (aka nobody)
didn't actually have anything to say, so what's the difference?
~ BG
BradGuth
wisely taking the fifth.
I can see that our official Usenet/newsgroup topic banishment policy
is running at full tilt, whereas in this case Big Energy and our soon
to be unplugged NASA are in some kind of mutual cahoots with one
another.
~ BG
> ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
Saul Levy
Saul Levy
On Wed, 8 Apr 2009 18:08:20 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth <brad...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>Too bad the whole truth and nothing but the truth in this case is
hanson
:::: BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
hanson wrote:
... ahahahaha... Brad, Brad, Brad, old buddy,....
you are talking to yourself again... ahahaha....
>
But then, the FULL MOON is coming up... ahaha
Thanks for the laughs... ahahahanson
BradGuth
Thanks for the usual topic update, of adding nothing of any relevance
whatsoever. We know, it's what you and others of your kind do best.
~ BG