Our Selene/moon is wet, so to speak
BradGuth
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,380148,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,380148,00.html#
http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg19926644.200-now-the-moon-reveals-its-water.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=news3_head_mg19926644.200
““They concluded the moon's mantle has between 260 and 700 ppm of
water. "This is very surprising, because for 40 years people have
studied lunar rocks and no one found any water," says Saal. "We got
lucky."”
DARPA damage-control:
There’s little if any scientific luck about it. 260,000 ppb or 260
ppm as found within such Lunar volcanic or lava glasses is way more
than necessary for having accomplished good enough mass spectrometer
readings as of 50 years ago, and especially from the more recent era
of those newer than 40 year old samples, via our supposed NASA/Apollo
first hand extractions of such moon rock.
BTW; where exactly was our DARPA cartel swarm of such crack NASA/
Apollo “right stuff” hiding all of those supposed lunar “spheres of
volcanic glass”? How the hell could such fundamental geology not have
been mass spectrometer analyzed until now?
I’ll buy that our early DARPA may not have had the best capability of
detecting down to one ppb at their cloak and dagger disposal, but they
would have more than had such technology easily nailed down to at
least the resolution of detecting one ppm, and of those recently
reported 260 ppm readings were not even all that well hidden from
view, as some if not many of those moon rocks and glass spheres had
previously been cut and sliced every which way imaginable, as well as
supposedly having been optically magnified to the max, as well as
otherwise electron microscope viewed from every possible angle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_spectrometry
There's simply no plausible scientific way that our DARPA and of their
vast army of NASA/Apollo wizards and brown-nosed minions (working with
essentially unlimited funds and nothing but the very best of global
expertise and technology resources) could have missed such obvious
signs of lava glass sphere encapsulated water vapor. After all, it's
not like those moon rocks had Muslim WMD that never existed in the
first place.
Of course, from the unobstructed lunar orbit as well as from all of
their EVA’s, somehow they’d managed to entirely lose any sighting of
Venus at better than twice as bright as Earth, and better than 4 times
as bright to the unfiltered Kodak eye.
Since those mass spectrometers of sufficient resolution clearly
existed, are these DARPA folks suggesting they didn't have the
necessary heat for vaporising such small bits of lava/volcanic glass/
rock?
http://www.chm.bris.ac.uk/ms/history.html
“The next major development was that of gas chromatography and its
coupling to mass spectrometry. This allowed, for the first time, the
analysis of mixtures of analytes without laborious separation by hand.
The development of GC-MS was the trigger for the development of modern
mass spectrometry. In 1956, the first biologically important molecules
were successfully analysed.”
Are we saying that our Zionist/Nazi DARPA was technology deprived, or
too snookered and dumbfounded to have known any better?
You folks might care to realize that uncovering such raw h2o as found
within the near perfect vacuum of space has a rather nifty ISP to
offer, and I’m not talking about the internet service provider kind of
ISP.
Imagine, uncovering 500 ppm of essentially rocket fuel within the
volcanic/lava glass portions of our naked Selene/moon surface (that’s
500 ppm more than Mars has to offer). It’s like discovering the holy
grail is just hiding in plain sight, as one of the Vatican urinals.
- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth
Timberwoof
<5660cd8a-e260-4a4e...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
BradGuth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> BTW; where exactly was our DARPA cartel swarm of such crack NASA/
> Apollo ³right stuff² hiding all of those supposed lunar ³spheres of
> volcanic glass²? How the hell could such fundamental geology not have
> been mass spectrometer analyzed until now?
You missed the part about how they compared the centers of the spheres
with the outsides, and you mistook their estimate of "between 260 and
700 ppm of water" in the mantle for what they found in the surface
rocks. You're only reading to support whatever it is you've got against
DARPA and NASA.
At least you admit that the rock samples they got are actual moon rocks,
and not some fakery as part of some fast Apollo conspiracy theory.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L.
BradGuth
wrote:
> In article
> <5660cd8a-e260-4a4e-b20c-086b9ab1f...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > BTW; where exactly was our DARPA cartel swarm of such crack NASA/
> > Apollo ³right stuff² hiding all of those supposed lunar ³spheres of
> > volcanic glass²? How the hell could such fundamental geology not have
> > been mass spectrometer analyzed until now?
>
> You missed the part about how they compared the centers of the spheres
> with the outsides, and you mistook their estimate of "between 260 and
> 700 ppm of water" in the mantle for what they found in the surface
> rocks. You're only reading to support whatever it is you've got against
> DARPA and NASA.
>
> At least you admit that the rock samples they got are actual moon rocks,
> and not some fakery as part of some fast Apollo conspiracy theory.
Moon rocks can be found all over Earth, though mostly at the bottom of
oceans and great lakes.
I missed nothing that our DARPA and their vast army of brown-nosed
minions didn't have available as of 40 years ago. The physics and
science hasn't really changed all that much in 40 some odd years,
other than having better ppb resolution and much easier methods of
obtaining or extracting those measurements.
Today we get to easily measure sub ppb resolution, and it doesn't
require an Einstein or rocket scientist in order to extract that
detail of science data from the centers of glass spheres.
Imagine what an amount of lunar bed rock of old basalt lava that's
hosting hollow geodes should have to offer.
Damon Hill
news:timberwoof.spam-2A...@nnrp-virt.nntp.soni
c.net:
> At least you admit that the rock samples they got are
> actual moon rocks, and not some fakery as part of some fast
> Apollo conspiracy theory.
Ha! You almost had the Guthball here, but he danced his
weasel dance as usual and obfuscated into his usual smokescreen.
--Damon
Timberwoof
<294f1621-3dcd-4fd1...@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
BradGuth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 15, 5:24 pm, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com>
> wrote:
> > In article
> > <5660cd8a-e260-4a4e-b20c-086b9ab1f...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > BTW; where exactly was our DARPA cartel swarm of such crack NASA/
> > > Apollo ³right stuff² hiding all of those supposed lunar ³spheres of
> > > volcanic glass²? How the hell could such fundamental geology not have
> > > been mass spectrometer analyzed until now?
> >
> > You missed the part about how they compared the centers of the spheres
> > with the outsides, and you mistook their estimate of "between 260 and
> > 700 ppm of water" in the mantle for what they found in the surface
> > rocks. You're only reading to support whatever it is you've got against
> > DARPA and NASA.
> >
> > At least you admit that the rock samples they got are actual moon rocks,
> > and not some fakery as part of some fast Apollo conspiracy theory.
>
> Moon rocks can be found all over Earth, though mostly at the bottom of
> oceans and great lakes.
... where, no doubt, they are hard to find and covered with silt.
> I missed nothing that our DARPA and their vast army of brown-nosed
> minions didn't have available as of 40 years ago. The physics and
> science hasn't really changed all that much in 40 some odd years,
> other than having better ppb resolution and much easier methods of
> obtaining or extracting those measurements.
>
> Today we get to easily measure sub ppb resolution, and it doesn't
> require an Einstein or rocket scientist in order to extract that
> detail of science data from the centers of glass spheres.
>
> Imagine what an amount of lunar bed rock of old basalt lava that's
> hosting hollow geodes should have to offer.
I trust that judgement of science as trustworthy as anything from
someone who can't even calculate a simple orbit with a scientific
calculator.
BradGuth
are trying their best to topic/author stalk and trash this topic.
Seems a little physics odd that other moons can cause and/or receive
geothermal warming via tidal flex, and apparently our Selene/moon and
Earth can't.
- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth
On Jul 15, 4:39 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Water Discovered in Moon Rock Samples / By Jeremy Hsu of Space.com
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,380148,00.html
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,380148,00.html#
>
> http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg19926644.200-now-the-moon-rev...
eyeball
We just don't want you to get the word out too soon. The illuminati
told us not to.
BradGuth
That sort of figures, that our need-to-know Selene/moon has perhaps
500 ppm more h2o within its crust than does Mars. Perhaps it's
because our Selene/moon was once upon a time covered by that extremely
thick layer of salty ice, as will as once having an active geothermal
core that's still getting tidal flex heated by the orbital association
with Earth and our mutual sun.
For all we know, there could be solid basalt protected layers or pools
of brine within that crust, just like Earth having pockets of oil, gas
and seemingly endless amounts of mud that's under horrific pressure.
Too bad we still do not have those deep underground probes within our
Selene/moon, or even a platform of science instruments within the
Selene/moon L1. Perhaps China and India will accomplish what has been
needed to get done as of decades ago.
Hagar
through your asshole ?? Seems you've mastered the lingo exceptionally well
...
"BradGuth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2e6b4ff2-b852-404f...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Double-A
> Say, Guthball, did you attend a special school, in order to learn to talk
> through your asshole ?? Seems you've mastered the lingo exceptionally well
> ...
He did attend a school for "special" students.
Double-A
BradGuth
Selene/moon could be, it’s also the primary factor of global warming
Earth, as of the last ice-age this planet w/moon is ever going to see.
What is the Selene/moon tidal flex heating of Earth? (117.68e3 tw.h)
If the likes of Io and most other moons of Jupiter and Saturn are
mainstream accepted as getting tidal flex heated in addition to
whatever’s the atomic/thorium core reactions taking place, then it
stands to good enough peer replicated reasoning that our elliptical
orbiting Selene/moon with its ongoing average * 2e20 N/sec (2.04e19
kgf/sec) * of orbital tidal force is unavoidably receiving as well as
contributing to the internal and surface heating of our extremely
fluid Earth.
Upon this terrestrial Earth, at the surface we seem have these fully
mainstream accepted sorts of basic force to energy conversions to work
with.
1 kgf.m.s = 9.80665 Joules
1 kgf.m.s = 9.295e-8 therm
1 kgf.m.s = .00980665 kj
1 kgf.m.s = 2.72407e-6 kw.h
1 kgf.m.h = 9.80655e-3 kw.h
Of the 2e20 N divided equally between the Earth and our Selene/moon,
if we took 50% of this hourly tidal force as converted into geothermal
energy of kw.h, we’d get 2.04e19 / 2 * 9.80655e-3 = 11.768e16 kw.h
(117.68e15 kw.h or 117.68e6 tw.h).
How about our taking just a highly conservative 0.1% of that, which
gets us all the way down to the dull tidal flexing roar of just
117.68e3 terawatt hours worth of continuous geothermal heating via
tidal flex. Surely our absolutely impressive Selene/moon with its
fairly robust ratio to Earth is worth at least 0.05% of the 2e20 N/
sec, of which offers * 117.68e3 tw.h * in tidal flex heating (aka
global warming and perhaps loads of geophysical flex morphing) seems
likely, as after all, that’s 230 w/m2 (excluding vertical terrain
factors) but otherwise it’s not very much applied energy per cubic
meter of Earth’s volume (1.084e21 m3 [excluding our wet atmosphere])
is worth merely 108.56e-6 w/m3.
To be including the volume of our wet and otherwise polluted
atmosphere that’s also getting tidal flex heated, we’d down to roughly
100 micro watt/m3.
I know this seems like a lot of ongoing energy, but then I can't say
with any certainty if it's equally divided between our Selene/moon and
Earth or somehow getting nullified. Perhaps nearly 100% of that tidal
flex is going directly into Earth, minus whatever is taken up by our
sun. The older than Earth Selene/moon itself seems rather thick
crusted and thus kind of morph/flex inert, so that perhaps not much of
this mutual tidal radius force is likely morphing or flexing all that
much of Selene's innards, and especially so because there's no Selene
spin in relationship to Earth for whatever tidal flex to work with,
though just having a little elliptical orbit consideration might be
enough to keep Selene’s interior from ever turning solid.
If I’ve incorrectly calculated any this, as having over/under shot the
mark, then simply offer your improved or more correct rendition of
this unavoidable geothermal heating via tidal flexing.
BradGuth
> through your asshole ?? Seems you've mastered the lingo exceptionally well
I learned how to tell an honest hard working soul from that of a
Zionist/Nazi (aka DARPA) blowhard like yourself.
Hagar
Water Discovered in Moon Rock Samples / By Jeremy Hsu of Space.com
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,380148,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,380148,00.html#
http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg19926644.200-now-the-moon-reveals-its-water.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=news3_head_mg19926644.200
��They concluded the moon's mantle has between 260 and 700 ppm of
water. "This is very surprising, because for 40 years people have
studied lunar rocks and no one found any water," says Saal. "We got
lucky."�
DARPA damage-control:
> snip Guthball drivel <
The only thing that's all wet, is you, Guthball.
Now back to your basket weaving project, loon.
BradGuth
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:5660cd8a-e260-4a4e...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> Water Discovered in Moon Rock Samples / By Jeremy Hsu of Space.com
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,380148,00.html
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,380148,00.html#
>
> ��They concluded the moon's mantle has between 260 and 700 ppm of
> water. "This is very surprising, because for 40 years people have
> studied lunar rocks and no one found any water," says Saal. "We got
> lucky."�
>
> DARPA damage-control:
>
> > snip Guthball drivel <
>
> The only thing that's all wet, is you, Guthball.
> Now back to your basket weaving project, loon.
To be honest, there's nothing swimming on our Selene/moon, not even a
rad-hard spore unless it's swimming deep underground. There now, are
you a happy camper?
josephus
just for the DARPA mindset lets talk about the consequence of the ROCHE
limit. let there be two mass M1 and M2 M1 has a radius of M1 and
M2 has a radius of m2 if the distance between the two objects is such
that the ZERO GRADIENT enters the radius of M1 then M1 will lose mass
to M2 as a rain of gravel. because the attraction of M2 is greater than
the particle attraction of M2. this happens any time a massive object
approaches any other massive objects. that is what is thought to have
happened to create Saturn's Rings which is expected to dissipate in a
few hundred thousand years.
josephus
--
I go sailing in the summer
and look at stars in the winter,
"Everybody is ignorant but on different subjects"
--Will Rogers
Its not what you know that gets you in trouble
its what you know that aint so.
--josh billings.
BradGuth
A near miss by our icy Selene/moon would have given Earth lots of
seismic trauma plus loads of salty ice to work with. The actual
lithobraking encounter of an icy Selene/moon would have been downright
impressive, don't you think.
BradGuth
having uncovered 260,000 ppb or greater worth of h2o to behold within
the once ice covered crust of our Selene/moon. Meanwhile, at no
surprise there’s not 1 ppb of surface h2o to behold on Mars.
Therefore, even artificially sustaining life or much of any commercial/
private enterprise as based upon utilizing Mars is kind of nullified
by the multi-trillion dollar public cost of just getting whatever
human populated enterprise there in the first place.
On Jul 29, 11:21 am, herbertglaz...@webtv.net (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:
> Cactus Saul when China opens a fast food take out on the Moon there will
> be no spoons. I relate that to Chinese mothers never making Jello Go
> figure Bert
A Chinese takeout at the Selene/moon L1 is far more likely. Nearly
absolute zero gravity at the absolute minimum of orbital velocity, and
1e-21 bar worth of a vacuum that you can do all sorts of nifty fast
food things with. There's also never any shortage of clean and
renewable energy to work with, and it's extremely easy and energy
efficient to deploy whatever fast food as home deliveries intended for
reaching those of Earth or Selene.
The reentry into Earth's polluted environment takes care of whatever
last minute cooking, and the double IR worth of that roasting daytime
surface of our physically dark Selene/moon does essentially the same,
as well as for every bite being rather nicely gamma sterilized. As a
franchised fast food service investment, you can't possibly go wrong.
It's a win-win for China and their fast food customers to boot.
Check out Clarke Station, Boeing OASIS or that of my tethered 256e6
tonne LSE-CM/ISS. This commercial application and applied technology
on behalf of private enterprise would even continue to function once
having relocated our Selene/moon out to Earth L1, although it would
become extremely cold and the required energy for this fast food
takeout would have to be imported and/or delivered via the primary LSE-
CM/ISS tether and of its dipole element that could safely reach to
within less than 2r of mother Earth (possibly as close as 1.1r).
- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth
On Jul 15, 4:39 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Water Discovered in Moon Rock Samples / By Jeremy Hsu of Space.com
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,380148,00.html
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,380148,00.html#
>
> http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg19926644.200-now-the-moon-rev...
BradGuth
offer. It's as though the Phoenix never got itself out of LEO, or
that it landed on the wrong planet and with a broken mass spectrometer
instrument.
Other than the usual mainstream of NASA's take it or leave it
infomercials of eye-candy and subjective science hype, it seems we've
still got nothing objective pertaining to all of that supposed h2o ice
and thus free water on Mars.
Why are those raw and otherwise hard numbers of our spendy mass
spectrometer so need-to-know or nondisclosure rated?
~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth
On Jul 15, 4:39 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Water Discovered in Moon Rock Samples / By Jeremy Hsu of Space.com
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,380148,00.html
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,380148,00.html#
>
> http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg19926644.200-now-the-moon-rev...
Timberwoof
<a509cc11-d893-433d...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
BradGuth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's as though the Phoenix never got itself out of LEO, or
> that it landed on the wrong planet and with a broken mass spectrometer
> instrument.
Ho, that's funny. The wrong planet? ROFL.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." 気hris L.
BradGuth
wrote:
> In article
> <a509cc11-d893-433d-aa4d-2aed0caea...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>
> BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > It's as though the Phoenix never got itself out of LEO, or
> > that it landed on the wrong planet and with a broken mass spectrometer
> > instrument.
>
> Ho, that's funny. The wrong planet? ROFL.
Can you suggest as to why our spendy mass spectrometer data is not
working?
How many thousands or perhaps millions of ppb in h2o are they bragging
about, and what are all the other raw elements within that oven batch?
Either the digital data stream of mass spectrometer readings are
working, or it's not. Which is it?
If sitting on top of such Mars ice that's merely under a thin porous
layer of CO2/dry-ice and reddish whatever, the ppb worth of that
deeper extracted sample of h2o/ice should be at least 100e6 ppb if not
fairly close to 1e9 ppb.
Frozen h2o/ice at less than 10 mb begins to evaporate at what
temperature?
Timberwoof
<cf7a4278-19b8-4f34...@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
BradGuth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 3, 10:36 am, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com>
> wrote:
> > In article
> > <a509cc11-d893-433d-aa4d-2aed0caea...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > It's as though the Phoenix never got itself out of LEO, or
> > > that it landed on the wrong planet and with a broken mass spectrometer
> > > instrument.
> >
> > Ho, that's funny. The wrong planet? ROFL.
>
> Can you suggest as to why our spendy mass spectrometer data is not
> working?
I don't grant the premise.
> How many thousands or perhaps millions of ppb in h2o are they bragging
> about, and what are all the other raw elements within that oven batch?
>
> Either the digital data stream of mass spectrometer readings are
> working, or it's not. Which is it?
It's working.
> If sitting on top of such Mars ice that's merely under a thin porous
> layer of CO2/dry-ice and reddish whatever, the ppb worth of that
> deeper extracted sample of h2o/ice should be at least 100e6 ppb if not
> fairly close to 1e9 ppb.
>
> Frozen h2o/ice at less than 10 mb begins to evaporate at what
> temperature?
There's a disconnect between the real situation and what you *want* it
to be. You appear to *want* Mars to resemble a glacier with a couple of
inches of regolith on top. Mars *is* a fairly dry place with some water
remaining.
The other thing you fail to realize is that water isn't a very simple
substance. Unlike H2, O2, N2, CO2, CH4, NH3 and other simple gases, the
atoms don't line up nicely. The atoms in those other molecules are
nicely lined up and symmetrical, making for a fairly dull molecule. But
water's two H atoms are not on opposite sides of the O, but angled
somewhat together. The result is that water is electrically polar: it
has a + side and a - side, and that gives it all kinds of interesting
properties. Relatively high melting and boiling points are just the
start. Water's surface tension, its interesting crystallization, and its
ability to dissolve or suspend many compounds are some more.
About twenty years ago I worked for a company that builds
pollution-control monitors. One of the devices was a CO monitor, which
also contains CO2 and H2O monitors. You have to know the amounts of CO2
and H2O in your sample because their signals can completely swamp the CO
signal. Part of the manufacturing process is to dry out the inside of
the H2O sensor by baking it in an oven for a few days. Even after that,
not all the water is gone: it sticks to things. So after the baking
process, they calibrate the instrument and get a baseline H2O reading
that comes from the water remaining inside the device.
Your simple-minded ideas about water's behavior just don't cut it when
it comes to analyzing the results from the instruments on the Mars
lander. It's cold and the atmospheric pressure is low. But water is a
polar molecule that sticks to things. Sure, there could be water under
that regolith, in small concentrations. There's no reason for all of it
to have evaporated. The point of all that is that all of your "should"
ideas, based on a naive understanding of water chemistry, are just not
going to stand up to reality.
So let's talk about the people over at JPL. They're very smart. They
have read more textbooks than you, and they've done more real-world
experiments than you. When an experiment fails, they try to figure out
why, and the first answer that comes to their minds is probably not some
loony fantasy about Nazis shipping them bad equipment.
You've already made up your mind about what they're supposed to find on
Mars, and when the results are different, you resort to all kinds of
goofy explanations. Wrong planet, badly designed equipment, Nazi
conspiracy, NASA conspiracy ... anything that will serve to discredit
the actual results. Never mind that taken as a whole, all the
explanations don't even fit together with each other in anything like a
coherent hypothesis. You're grasping at straws.
Simply put, you're a kook.
BradGuth
wrote:
> In article
> <cf7a4278-19b8-4f34-8d88-8a8665454...@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
>
> BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 3, 10:36 am, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com>
> > wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <a509cc11-d893-433d-aa4d-2aed0caea...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > It's as though the Phoenix never got itself out of LEO, or
> > > > that it landed on the wrong planet and with a broken mass spectrometer
> > > > instrument.
>
> > > Ho, that's funny. The wrong planet? ROFL.
>
> > Can you suggest as to why our spendy mass spectrometer data is not
> > working?
>
> I don't grant the premise.
What premise? either it's working, or it isn't.
>
> > How many thousands or perhaps millions of ppb in h2o are they bragging
> > about, and what are all the other raw elements within that oven batch?
>
> > Either the digital data stream of mass spectrometer readings are
> > working, or it's not. Which is it?
>
> It's working.
Then where are those easily replicated and reasonably objective as
hard ppb numbers?
>
> > If sitting on top of such Mars ice that's merely under a thin porous
> > layer of CO2/dry-ice and reddish whatever, the ppb worth of that
> > deeper extracted sample of h2o/ice should be at least 100e6 ppb if not
> > fairly close to 1e9 ppb.
>
> > Frozen h2o/ice at less than 10 mb begins to evaporate at what
> > temperature?
>
> There's a disconnect between the real situation and what you *want* it
> to be. You appear to *want* Mars to resemble a glacier with a couple of
> inches of regolith on top. Mars *is* a fairly dry place with some water
> remaining.
If there's even some water remaining in direct or even indirect view
of sunlight, then perhaps our Selene/moon polar craters are chuck full
of thick glacier ice.
>
> The other thing you fail to realize is that water isn't a very simple
> substance. Unlike H2, O2, N2, CO2, CH4, NH3 and other simple gases, the
> atoms don't line up nicely. The atoms in those other molecules are
> nicely lined up and symmetrical, making for a fairly dull molecule. But
> water's two H atoms are not on opposite sides of the O, but angled
> somewhat together. The result is that water is electrically polar: it
> has a + side and a - side, and that gives it all kinds of interesting
> properties. Relatively high melting and boiling points are just the
> start. Water's surface tension, its interesting crystallization, and its
> ability to dissolve or suspend many compounds are some more.
I agree, that said water is extremely interesting stuff, but quite
frail in a low gravity and vacuum situation, worse yet if there's any
solar and cosmic energy to deal with.
You do realize that we still have no hard/objective science on ice
coexisting in space, especially not at the Selene/moon L1 of 1e-21 bar
and getting double IR roasted to death.
>
> About twenty years ago I worked for a company that builds
> pollution-control monitors. One of the devices was a CO monitor, which
> also contains CO2 and H2O monitors. You have to know the amounts of CO2
> and H2O in your sample because their signals can completely swamp the CO
> signal. Part of the manufacturing process is to dry out the inside of
> the H2O sensor by baking it in an oven for a few days. Even after that,
> not all the water is gone: it sticks to things. So after the baking
> process, they calibrate the instrument and get a baseline H2O reading
> that comes from the water remaining inside the device.
>
> Your simple-minded ideas about water's behavior just don't cut it when
> it comes to analyzing the results from the instruments on the Mars
> lander. It's cold and the atmospheric pressure is low. But water is a
> polar molecule that sticks to things. Sure, there could be water under
> that regolith, in small concentrations. There's no reason for all of it
> to have evaporated. The point of all that is that all of your "should"
> ideas, based on a naive understanding of water chemistry, are just not
> going to stand up to reality.
Then why are they hiding our mass spectrometer readings like some kind
of Muslim WMD or OBL?
Either they've got numbers, or they don't. Apparently they don't.
>
> So let's talk about the people over at JPL. They're very smart. They
> have read more textbooks than you, and they've done more real-world
> experiments than you. When an experiment fails, they try to figure out
> why, and the first answer that comes to their minds is probably not some
> loony fantasy about Nazis shipping them bad equipment.
>
> You've already made up your mind about what they're supposed to find on
> Mars, and when the results are different, you resort to all kinds of
> goofy explanations. Wrong planet, badly designed equipment, Nazi
> conspiracy, NASA conspiracy ... anything that will serve to discredit
> the actual results. Never mind that taken as a whole, all the
> explanations don't even fit together with each other in anything like a
> coherent hypothesis. You're grasping at straws.
>
> Simply put, you're a kook.
My perfectly deductive and somewhat dyslexic mindset is not made up.
I've said there should be deep tundra or more likely deep underground
water to behold, although it may have to be within a heavy mineral
brine format if not sequestered within robust geode pockets. The same
kind of analogy goes for our Selene/moon.
Tell us what those raw numbers are from our extremely advanced and
otherwise spendy mass spectrometer, as to how many ppb of h2o we're
talking about. I'll assume it's greater than 1 ppb.
Timberwoof
<244bc8e3-4a44-43e1...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
BradGuth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 3, 12:36 pm, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com>
> wrote:
> > In article
> > <cf7a4278-19b8-4f34-8d88-8a8665454...@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Aug 3, 10:36 am, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <a509cc11-d893-433d-aa4d-2aed0caea...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > > > BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > It's as though the Phoenix never got itself out of LEO, or
> > > > > that it landed on the wrong planet and with a broken mass spectrometer
> > > > > instrument.
> >
> > > > Ho, that's funny. The wrong planet? ROFL.
> >
> > > Can you suggest as to why our spendy mass spectrometer data is not
> > > working?
> >
> > I don't grant the premise.
>
> What premise? either it's working, or it isn't.
You asked, "Can you suggest as to why our spendy mass spectrometer data
is not working?" It's right up there in black and white. The premise in
that question is "our spendy mass spectrometer data is not working".
> > > How many thousands or perhaps millions of ppb in h2o are they bragging
> > > about, and what are all the other raw elements within that oven batch?
> >
> > > Either the digital data stream of mass spectrometer readings are
> > > working, or it's not. Which is it?
> >
> > It's working.
>
> Then where are those easily replicated and reasonably objective as
> hard ppb numbers?
Have you written NASA to ask them?
> > > If sitting on top of such Mars ice that's merely under a thin porous
> > > layer of CO2/dry-ice and reddish whatever, the ppb worth of that
> > > deeper extracted sample of h2o/ice should be at least 100e6 ppb if not
> > > fairly close to 1e9 ppb.
> >
> > > Frozen h2o/ice at less than 10 mb begins to evaporate at what
> > > temperature?
> >
> > There's a disconnect between the real situation and what you *want* it
> > to be. You appear to *want* Mars to resemble a glacier with a couple of
> > inches of regolith on top. Mars *is* a fairly dry place with some water
> > remaining.
>
> If there's even some water remaining in direct or even indirect view
> of sunlight, then perhaps our Selene/moon polar craters are chuck full
> of thick glacier ice.
That makes no sense.
> > The other thing you fail to realize is that water isn't a very simple
> > substance. Unlike H2, O2, N2, CO2, CH4, NH3 and other simple gases, the
> > atoms don't line up nicely. The atoms in those other molecules are
> > nicely lined up and symmetrical, making for a fairly dull molecule. But
> > water's two H atoms are not on opposite sides of the O, but angled
> > somewhat together. The result is that water is electrically polar: it
> > has a + side and a - side, and that gives it all kinds of interesting
> > properties. Relatively high melting and boiling points are just the
> > start. Water's surface tension, its interesting crystallization, and its
> > ability to dissolve or suspend many compounds are some more.
>
> I agree, that said water is extremely interesting stuff, but quite
> frail in a low gravity and vacuum situation,
What does that mean?
> worse yet if there's any
> solar and cosmic energy to deal with.
In what way?
> You do realize that we still have no hard/objective science on ice
> coexisting in space,
Sure, we do. Comets.
> especially not at the Selene/moon L1 of 1e-21 bar
> and getting double IR roasted to death.
So?
> > About twenty years ago I worked for a company that builds
> > pollution-control monitors. One of the devices was a CO monitor, which
> > also contains CO2 and H2O monitors. You have to know the amounts of CO2
> > and H2O in your sample because their signals can completely swamp the CO
> > signal. Part of the manufacturing process is to dry out the inside of
> > the H2O sensor by baking it in an oven for a few days. Even after that,
> > not all the water is gone: it sticks to things. So after the baking
> > process, they calibrate the instrument and get a baseline H2O reading
> > that comes from the water remaining inside the device.
> >
> > Your simple-minded ideas about water's behavior just don't cut it when
> > it comes to analyzing the results from the instruments on the Mars
> > lander. It's cold and the atmospheric pressure is low. But water is a
> > polar molecule that sticks to things. Sure, there could be water under
> > that regolith, in small concentrations. There's no reason for all of it
> > to have evaporated. The point of all that is that all of your "should"
> > ideas, based on a naive understanding of water chemistry, are just not
> > going to stand up to reality.
>
> Then why are they hiding our mass spectrometer readings like some kind
> of Muslim WMD or OBL?
Ask the reporters who choose not to give you the numbers.
> Either they've got numbers, or they don't. Apparently they don't.
Apparently the reporters are either to dumb to understand them to they
think you are.
> > So let's talk about the people over at JPL. They're very smart. They
> > have read more textbooks than you, and they've done more real-world
> > experiments than you. When an experiment fails, they try to figure out
> > why, and the first answer that comes to their minds is probably not some
> > loony fantasy about Nazis shipping them bad equipment.
> >
> > You've already made up your mind about what they're supposed to find on
> > Mars, and when the results are different, you resort to all kinds of
> > goofy explanations. Wrong planet, badly designed equipment, Nazi
> > conspiracy, NASA conspiracy ... anything that will serve to discredit
> > the actual results. Never mind that taken as a whole, all the
> > explanations don't even fit together with each other in anything like a
> > coherent hypothesis. You're grasping at straws.
> >
> > Simply put, you're a kook.
>
> My perfectly deductive
Hah!
> and somewhat dyslexic mindset is not made up.
> I've said there should be deep tundra or more likely deep underground
> water to behold,
I suppose you realize that you've just contradicted yourself.
> although it may have to be within a heavy mineral
> brine format if not sequestered within robust geode pockets. The same
> kind of analogy goes for our Selene/moon.
>
> Tell us what those raw numbers are from our extremely advanced and
> otherwise spendy mass spectrometer, as to how many ppb of h2o we're
> talking about. I'll assume it's greater than 1 ppb.
Your mind is already made up.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L.
BradGuth
clouds as part of Venus, as such there’s likely hundreds of teratonnes
of easily accessible h2o to work with. I wonder how many tonnes of
h2o Mars has safely sequestered below its CO2/dry-ice frozen tundra?
Too bad the Phoenix mass spectrometer instrument is broken, because
otherwise we’d have known long before now as to exactly how many parts
per billion(ppb) of h2o the frozen solid Mars surface had stored for
safe-keeping of such easily accessible h2o/ice, that which had to be
kept away from the near vacuum and badly irradiated to death
environment..
Perhaps there’s actually more easily accessible ice and thus h2o to
behold on and within our moon, than all of what little h2o/ice Mars
has to offer. At least having discovered 260,000 ppb of lunar h2o
seems more impressive than something of less than 1 ppb (meaning not
worth reporting) of Mars h2o.
~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth
On Aug 3, 10:52 pm, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com>
wrote:
> In article
> <244bc8e3-4a44-43e1-ba95-09d26e6d5...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
It seems there's still no objective science available of raw ice
coexisting in 1AU open space for any amount of time (not even while
fully terrestrial shaded), and if that's what you'd call having my
mind made up, then so be it.
~ BG
Timberwoof
<4001a209-a1a6-4d32...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
BradGuth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You know folks, as long as we include them robust layers of acidic
> clouds as part of Venus, as such thereąs likely hundreds of teratonnes
> of easily accessible h2o to work with. I wonder how many tonnes of
> h2o Mars has safely sequestered below its CO2/dry-ice frozen tundra?
>
> Too bad the Phoenix mass spectrometer instrument is broken, because
> otherwise weąd have known long before now as to exactly how many parts
> per billion(ppb) of h2o the frozen solid Mars surface had stored for
> safe-keeping of such easily accessible h2o/ice, that which had to be
> kept away from the near vacuum and badly irradiated to death
> environment..
>
> Perhaps thereąs actually more easily accessible ice and thus h2o to
> behold on and within our moon, than all of what little h2o/ice Mars
> has to offer. At least having discovered 260,000 ppb of lunar h2o
> seems more impressive than something of less than 1 ppb (meaning not
> worth reporting) of Mars h2o.
The NASA scientists are running tests, some of which take a while, to
figure out exactly what they've got. They will release findings when
they have them ... and when they've been peer reviewed. Enough of your
flights of fancy. Give them a break, Brad!
We'll see you again in a week or two when results are announced. (And if
you think you know more about chemistry and their instruments than they
do, then you should shut up and send them a job application.)
BradGuth
wrote:
> In article
> <4001a209-a1a6-4d32-948d-c84172d3a...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > You know folks, as long as we include them robust layers of acidic
> > of easily accessible h2o to work with. I wonder how many tonnes of
> > h2o Mars has safely sequestered below its CO2/dry-ice frozen tundra?
>
> > Too bad the Phoenix mass spectrometer instrument is broken, because
> > per billion(ppb) of h2o the frozen solid Mars surface had stored for
> > safe-keeping of such easily accessible h2o/ice, that which had to be
> > kept away from the near vacuum and badly irradiated to death
> > environment..
>
> > behold on and within our moon, than all of what little h2o/ice Mars
> > has to offer. At least having discovered 260,000 ppb of lunar h2o
> > seems more impressive than something of less than 1 ppb (meaning not
> > worth reporting) of Mars h2o.
>
> The NASA scientists are running tests, some of which take a while, to
> figure out exactly what they've got. They will release findings when
> they have them ... and when they've been peer reviewed. Enough of your
> flights of fancy. Give them a break, Brad!
>
> We'll see you again in a week or two when results are announced. (And if
> you think you know more about chemistry and their instruments than they
> do, then you should shut up and send them a job application.)
>
Too late, as they've apparently given up on h2o. Now it's explosive
elements that's supposed to be the important discovery of their frozen
Martian day.
BradGuth
ppb of h2o associated with our moon, and Mars still offers near squat
in mass spectrometer ppb accounting of h2o.
Wonder what's broken about the Phoenix mass spectrometer, and why all
the sudden hype and media focus over whatever's most likely
contaminated from its own rocket thrusters.
Perhaps we should have our 5th graders in charge of our DARPA and
NASA, as I'd bet they couldn't possibly have done us any worse. Of
course we'd have to feed them lunch and give sufficient recess,
instead of paying each of our supposedly adult folks ten thousand of
our hard earned public loot each month, plus pampering and protecting
each of them as though they were newborn babies.
~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth
> - Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth
BradGuth
all that's above the physically dark as coal horizon of the moon?
Northwest edge of South Pole-Aitken
http://wms.selene.jaxa.jp/data/en/hdtv/004/hdtv_004_3/hdtv_004_3_l.jpg
Their TC has more than enough dynamic range to include items other
than Earth above that nearly dark as coal surface of Selene. Even
their HDTV cameras are not the least bit deficient in dynamic range or
in color saturation capability, yet all we get are the PhotoShop
pastel images of not sharing 10% the DR potential or that of providing
hardly any mineral color/hue saturation. What gives?
It’s extremely easy for a 5th grader to tell that such images from
JAXA/Selene have been intentionally degraded in dynamic range as well
as in hue saturation. There’s even some image manipulation or skewed
content issues that’ll need further examination.
Why are those Apollo landing site images via their TC not made
available in full as-is/raw digital image format?
http://wms.selene.jaxa.jp/index_e.html
BradGuth
wrote:
> In article
> <294f1621-3dcd-4fd1-bd78-6562f32f9...@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
You're being funny again, are we not?
Is there any scrap of Mars surface ice/water? (thus far, I don't think
so)
Apparently “Above Top Secret” isn’t being all that informative or
forthcoming. It’s functioning exactly like yet another DARPA cabal of
NASA/Apollo damage control.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=366478&page=1#pid4776191
Why are the JAXA Selene/KAGUYA images getting PhotoShop revised in
order to exclude all that's above the physically dark as coal horizon
of the moon?
Northwest edge of South Pole-Aitken
http://wms.selene.jaxa.jp/data/en/hdtv/004/hdtv_004_3/hdtv_004_3_l.jpg
Their TC has technically way more than enough dynamic range to include
items other than Earth above that nearly dark as coal surface of
Selene. Even their HDTV cameras are not the least bit deficient in
dynamic range or in color saturation capability, yet all we get are
the PhotoShop pastel images of their not sharing 10% of the DR
potential or that of providing hardly any mineral color/hue
saturation. What the hell gives?
It’s extremely easy for a 5th grader to tell that such images from the
JAXA Selene/KAGUYA archives have been intentionally degraded in
dynamic range as well as highly restricted in hue/color saturation.
There’s even some image manipulation or skewed content issues that’ll
need further examination.
Why are those Apollo landing site images via their TC not being made
available in full as-is/raw digital image format? Why is there
substantially more low angle background detail than foreground?
brad
>
> - Show quoted text -
Your posts are wet... " so to speak " .
BradGuth
Your wit (of what little there is of it), is wet.
What exactly are you smart DARPA folks and of their brown-nosed
minions so deathly afraid of?
Why are you folks covering the JAXA/NASA conjoined butt?
BradGuth
As per usual, our resident rabbi Saul gets his faith-based panties in
a bunch.
Makes one wounder why them pesky Zionists keep getting so up tight
about our Selene/moon, unless it's exactly according to their DARPA
Old Testament Qur'an.