USA urges scientists to block out sun
simple_...@yahoo.com
The US wants the world's scientists to develop technology to block
sunlight as a last-ditch way to halt global warming.
It says research into techniques such as giant mirrors in space or
reflective dust pumped into the atmosphere would be "important
insurance" against rising emissions, and has lobbied for such a
strategy to be recommended by a UN report on climate change, the first
part of which is due out on Friday).
The US has also attempted to steer the UN report, prepared by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), away from
conclusions that would support a new worldwide climate treaty based on
binding targets to reduce emissions. It has demanded a draft of the
report be changed to emphasise the benefits of voluntary agreements
and to include criticisms of the Kyoto Protocol, which the US opposes.
The final report, written by experts from across the world, will
underpin international negotiations to devise an emissions treaty to
succeed Kyoto, the first phase of which expires in 2012. World
governments were given a draft of the report last year and invited to
comment.
The US response says the idea of interfering with sunlight should be
included in the summary for policymakers, the prominent chapter at the
front of each panel report. It says: "Modifying solar radiance may be
an important strategy if mitigation of emissions fails. Doing the R&D
to estimate the consequences of applying such a strategy is important
insurance that should be taken out. This is a very important
possibility that should be considered."
Scientists have previously estimated that reflecting less than 1 per
cent of sunlight back into space could compensate for the warming
generated by all greenhouse gases emitted since the industrial
revolution. Possible techniques include putting a giant screen into
orbit, thousands of tiny, shiny balloons, or microscopic sulfate
droplets pumped into the high atmosphere to mimic the cooling effects
of a volcanic eruption. The IPCC draft said such ideas were
"speculative, uncosted and with potential unknown side-effects".
The US submission complains the draft report is "Kyoto-centric" and it
wants to include the work of economists who have reported "the degree
to which the Kyoto framework is found wanting".
It also complains that overall "the report tends to overstate or focus
on the negative effects of climate change". It also wants more
emphasis on responsibilities of the developing world.
But Professor Stephen Schneider, a climate consultant to the US
government for more than 30 years and a key figure in the panel
process for more than a decade, says the world is "playing Russian
roulette" with its future by responding too slowly to climate change.
The panel's draft report shows projections for average global
temperature rise from 1990 to 2100 will expand slightly, with a new
range of one to 6.3 degrees. The 2001 report's range was 1.4 to 5.8
degrees.
Professor Schneider said he was concerned the increase was more likely
to be three degrees or higher, with a 10 per cent chance of a six-
degree rise by the end of the century.
"Hell, we buy fire insurance based on a 1 per cent chance," he said.
"If we're going to be risk averse ... we cannot dismiss the possibility
of potentially catastrophic outliers and that includes Greenland and
West Antarctica [ice sheets breaking up], massive species extinctions,
intensified hurricanes and all those things. "There's at least a 10
per cent chance of that. And that to me for a society is too high a
risk ... My value judgement when you're talking about planetary life
support systems is that 10 per cent, my God, that's Russian roulette
with a Luger."
Williamknowsbest
The obvious solution is to balance global warming with global
dimming.
Global dimming is already occurring due to jet travel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming
So, merely engineer the rate of global dimming to balance global
warming. This appeared to occur between 1940 and 1980 - the period of
the introduction of air travel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
In theory global dimming could be accelerated by adding materials to
jet fuel to increase the amount, reduce the size, and hence increase
the longevity, and reflectivity of particulate matter in jet
exhausts.
Coal fired power plants and steel mills are equipped with super-heated
exhausts that inject tiny particulate matter into the stratosphere, so
as they introduce CO2 they also introduce highly reflective particles
in the stratosphere to balance the CO2 that is emitted.
If short wave radiation is kept from hitting the Earth, then, the
blanked of CO2 won't keep as much IR in. A technical solution.
Another technical solution would be to increase the rate at which
carbon dioxide is fixed by the oceans. The oceans take CO2 out of the
atmosphere today. Their efficiency is falling behind human ability to
create CO2.
The creation of carbonated seawater from carbon dioxide is a
possibility. A solar powered process using seawater would be
worthwhile - and release the carbonated salt solution at a depth and
temperature that maintains the pressure and stability of the fixed
CO2.
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr-2.png
CO2 levels rose from 275 ppm to 375 ppm in the industrial age. Over
this same period the global temperature rose by 0.8C - tassuming a
linear relation this is 1.0C per 125 ppm.
One may combine the two ideas. Create carbonate ices with CO2 and
inject them into the stratosphere to cause global dimming.
Humanity burns about 30 billion barrels of oil - which contain about
3.5 billion tons of carbon, and another 4.5 billion tons of coal, a
total of 8 billion tons of carbon That's 30 billion tons of CO2 each
year.
The Earth's atmosphere is 5.15 million billion tons. So, this is
about 0.8 ppm per year. So, this is 6.4 micro-kelvin per year.
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/3913
Worldwide, humanity burns 205 million tons of jet fuel each year.
Increasing the amount of highly-refletive particulate by about 3x
should end global warming - particularly if the particulate fixes the
carbon-dioxide into carbonate or bi-carbonate particulates and injects
them into the upper atmosphere. Ditto with injecting bi-carbonate
particiulates in coal fired power plant exhausts and injecting that
into the upper atmosphere. Superheating the stacks of a power plant
to create an injection plume, would also reduce the need for cooling
towers for these power plants.
On Jan 28, 9:00 pm, "simple_langu...@yahoo.com"
Williamknowsbest
across) located at L1, 1.5 million km away from Earth, would intercept
1% of the radiation incident on the Earth - which will be sufficient
to reverse global warming.
A GBO film 50 microns thick,
http://www.3m.com/about3m/technologies/lightmgmt/learn/overview.html
would have a surface area of 1.2 million sq km. Each sq km masses 60
tons. So, the entire mirror masses 66 million tons.
A large Nova class launcher capable of putting up 660 tons per launch,
working in conjunction with a large Nerva class nuclear thermal rocket
to carry the 660 ton payload from LEO to L1 and return, would require
100,000 launches. Assuming 2 flights per hour from a fleet of 600
vehicles - such a mirror could be placed in six years of flights.
A portion of the GBO films are used to create IR laser beams operating
at 1,000 nm beam energy to Earth based receivers in deserts that
double as solar collectors. These reciever/collector/panels reduce
CO2 emissions by producing hydrogen on a massive scale from water,
which is then distributed by pipeline throughout the world.
1.2 milion sq km converting sunlight to laser energy at 20% efficiency
produces 324 TW of laser energy.
Coal fired plants represents 3.4 TW and oil usage represents 5.9 TW -
a total of 9.3 for humanity. If 10 billion people consumed energy at
the rate of the US per person rate there would be a demand for 50 TW
for oil displacement, and 30 TW for coal displacement. The balance
of 264 TW could be used to propel spacecraft throughout cislunar space
- including augmenting the nuclear thermal rocket fleet with solar
thermal, or solar electric, or solar sail technology.
The space vehicle fleet would also be available to place significant
payloads on the moon and mars during and after the construction
period..
One part of this missions would be the processing the 100,000 kg or
so, of weapons grade plutonium into 10 million non-threatening impulse
units, and flying them to orbit, along with spacecraft that use them,
using the nuclear thermal rockets to send them far from Earth before
startup - would allow us to rid ourselves of another long-term
difficulty facing humanity, while expanding human activity throughout
the solar system.
Imagine something that looks like the ET on the space shuttle, but
twice as big, and eight times as massive. At the tail is an aerospike
engine, made of a large number of combustion chambes made into a ring
- fed by RLX based LOX/LH engine components. The tail has a truncated
plugged nozzle shape, with a heat shield at the base. The tank also
has deployable swing wings like that of a cruise missle.
The tank is joined in clusters of 7 and each tank can be fed and
provide fuel to neighboring tanks. four of the 7 tanks feed all 7
engine arrays at lift off. Then, are dropped. The tanks slow to
subsonic speed, deploy their wings, and are captured by a modified
airliner- each - and towed back to launch center. Meanwhile, 3 tanks
coninue on, being fed by 2 of the 3 tanks. When those tanks are
empty , they separate, leaving 1 tank to propel the payload to LEO.
Each tank, fully loaded masses 5,680 metric tons. - The orbital
payload, which rests upon the central tank of 7 - is an outsized ET as
well, but it masses fully loaded only 4,000 metric tons. Carrying
1,400 metric tons of payload,and structure and 2,600 metric tons of
hydrogen. This stage docks with a nuclear thermal rocket tug -
capable of producing 250 tons of thrust - and massing 150 metric tons
empty.
The nuclear tug docks with the orbital stage, and uses the hydrogen on
board to propel the combined sytem, massing 4,250 to L1 to deposit the
payload, and return with the orbiting tank. An aerocapture maneuver
is performed, and both enter Earth orbit which the pair skips off.
The orbiting stage re-enters again, and this time descends to a
landing, while the nuclear stage having drained all propellant from
the orbital stage, uses it to circularize its orbit and connect with
the next orbiting stage.
660 tons of payload are deposited in this way at L1 every half hour.
600 launch vehicles and 400 nuclear thermal flight vehicles operate
around the clock to maintain this flight rate of 48 launches per day -
from 4 launch centers around the Earth. One in the US, one in South
America, one in China and one in Russia.
A lunar base is also constructed during this period, and nuclear pulse
units are placed there, along with components for a nuclear pulse
rocket fleet that is assembled there and operated from the moon
base.
The nuclear pulse rockets deploy payloads sent to the moon by the
spacecraft assembling the mirror, to Mars, which is basically a copy
of the moon base. Components of these bases are deployed throughout
the solar system in manned outposts tended by nuclear pulse rockets.
A complete survey of the small bodies of the solar system is
completed, and rich bodies are returned to Earth orbit. These bodies
are mined by robotic systems deployed on orbit by the large launchers,
and raw materials (about 10,000 tons per hour) is deployed on Earth to
various industrial centers built around the off-world power receivers.
American Desert, Atacama Desert, Gobi Desert, Sahara Desert.
As industrial capacities on orbit expand larger amounts of material
are dispatched to the moon and beyond. One use is the creation of
large pressure vessels for agriculture and forestry - producing food
and fiber for off-world as well as terrestrial use.
Brad Guth
news:1170036047.2...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com
I vote to relocate Sedna into Earth L1. That'll give us spare shade to
burn (sort of speak).
-
Brad Guth
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Sylvia Else
> source: http://tinyurl.com/2sa8jd
>
> The US wants the world's scientists to develop technology to block
> sunlight as a last-ditch way to halt global warming.
Just as well, given that the world seems to be struggling with the
"prisoner's dilemma"/"tragedy of the commons" problem presented by
global warming.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma
Sylvia.
Ian Parker
On 29 Jan, 06:35, "Williamknowsbest" <William.M...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Using a large dichroic mirror 10% the diameter of the Earth (1,280 km
> across) located at L1, 1.5 million km away from Earth, would intercept
> 1% of the radiation incident on the Earth - which will be sufficient
> to reverse global warming.
>
> A GBO film 50 microns thick,
>
> http://www.3m.com/about3m/technologies/lightmgmt/learn/overview.html
>
> would have a surface area of 1.2 million sq km. Each sq km masses 60
> tons. So, the entire mirror masses 66 million tons.
>
> A large Nova class launcher capable of putting up 660 tons per launch,
> working in conjunction with a large Nerva class nuclear thermal rocket
> to carry the 660 ton payload from LEO to L1 and return, would require
> 100,000 launches. Assuming 2 flights per hour from a fleet of 600
> vehicles - such a mirror could be placed in six years of flights.
>
Would it not be better to produce mirrors from lunar/asteroid
material?
> A portion of the GBO films are used to create IR laser beams operating
> at 1,000 nm beam energy to Earth based receivers in deserts that
> double as solar collectors. These reciever/collector/panels reduce
> CO2 emissions by producing hydrogen on a massive scale from water,
> which is then distributed by pipeline throughout the world.
>
> 1.2 milion sq km converting sunlight to laser energy at 20% efficiency
> produces 324 TW of laser energy.
That is an interesting alternative to microwaves. If you are going to
do this, would it not be in order to include a facility for ablating
asteroids that were due to colliode with Earth.
The attraction of microwaves is that you can receive them under most
weather conditions. Unless you convert water into hydrogen it will be
difficult to transmit to where the energy is needed. I also have a
feeling that given the right laser wavelength it might be possible to
decompose water directly without electricity generation and
electrolosis.
Indeed this approach is vastly preferable to a giant rocket program. A
robotic system could be established without too much (ie. well within
current capabilities) launch capacity. I would EVENTUALLY envisage a
totally self replicating space system. The goal of only using rockets
to transport sophisticated parts such as chips is envisageable without
too much development.
> American Desert, Atacama Desert, Gobi Desert, Sahara Desert.
>
> As industrial capacities on orbit expand larger amounts of material
> are dispatched to the moon and beyond.
No - material is dispatched FROM the Moon.
Me
"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:45bda5fa$0$4753$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
Brad Guth
news:b3689ba0bdcb4f1c587...@mygate.mailgate.org
Or perhaps far better than relocating Sedna into our L1, as a somewhat
better notion yet, we could just solve all sorts of pesky problems by
way of moving our global roasting moon out to Earth L1.
How hard could that possibly be?
After all, it's already in a good far off orbit to start with, and
there's almost not a soul on Earth that gives a tinkers damn about it.
We'd just have ourselves a somewhat better sol+moon 24 hour tide, which
should be much less disruptive than the ongoing pesky tidal fiasco we've
got to deal with as is.
Brad Guth
news:1170036047.2...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com
Perhaps far better than relocating Sedna into our L1, as a somewhat
better notion yet, we could just solve all sorts of pesky problems by
way of moving our global roasting moon out to Earth's L1. Thereby
getting rid of all sorts of spare mascon/tidal energy that's inside
and out affecting our environment in a very GW and geophysical bad
sort of way.
How hard could that possibly be?
After all, it's already in a good far off orbit to start with, and
there's hardly a soul on Earth that gives a tinkers damn about it.
We'd just end up having ourselves a somewhat better sol+moon 24 hour
tide, which should be much less disruptive than the ongoing pesky tidal
fiasco we've got to deal with as is.
If subsequently Earth gets too cold, we could simply send our moon into
the sun, or try the good old reliable alternative of simply polluting
the living crapolla out of mother Earth, creating butt loads of nasty
soot and the full gauntlet range of deploying toxic and environmental
trashing chemicals everywhere, or simply relocate to our moon that's
rather efficiently parked at Earth's L1, or perhaps employ WW-III as our
local global energy domination war to end all such silly wars because,
by then we'd be pretty much out of the required energy for making all of
those nifty chemical and nuclear bombs, which should otherwise
compensate by way of warming things back up for at least another decade
or so.
Sylvia Else
> Plants would no longer grow.
We're not talking about a large change.
Sylvia.
Brad Guth
The last time I'd checked, our somewhat salty moon only weighed 7.35e22
kg.
Therefore, 7.35e13 kg of applied force (that's only 73.5 gigatonnes) for
a considerable amount of time should do the trick. Or, if we played our
billiard cards just right and diverted a few NEOs into our moon at just
the right timing and angle (china seems to be coming right along with
that sort of kinetic impact expertise), that should get the old ball
rolling at least in the right direction, and once and for all terminate
those pesky NEOs at the same time. I'd have to call that one yet
another win-win for old gipper.
Paul F. Dietz
You could engineer the structure to reject wavelengths
of light that are not used by photosynthesis (or are actually
harmful to plants, like some UV). Also, photosynthesis saturates
at high light levels, so the reduction in primary productivity
even if you had an opaque shield might not be as high as you'd
think.
Paul
Willie...@gmail.com
Which explains why conventional wisdom has not produced progress.
On Jan 29, 11:28 am, "Ian Parker" <ianpark...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 29 Jan, 06:35, "Williamknowsbest" <William.M...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Using a large dichroic mirror 10% the diameter of the Earth (1,280 km
> > across) located at L1, 1.5 million km away from Earth, would intercept
> > 1% of the radiation incident on the Earth - which will be sufficient
> > to reverse global warming.
>
> > A GBO film 50 microns thick,
>
> >http://www.3m.com/about3m/technologies/lightmgmt/learn/overview.html
>
> > would have a surface area of 1.2 million sq km. Each sq km masses 60
> > tons. So, the entire mirror masses 66 million tons.
>
> > A large Nova class launcher capable of putting up 660 tons per launch,
> > working in conjunction with a large Nerva class nuclear thermal rocket
> > to carry the 660 ton payload from LEO to L1 and return, would require
> > 100,000 launches. Assuming 2 flights per hour from a fleet of 600
> > vehicles - such a mirror could be placed in six years of flights.Would it not be better to produce mirrors from lunar/asteroid
> material?
Depends on the details.
Clearly , lofting something free of the moon's surface with 1/6th
gravity amd 2.4 km/sec escape velocity is easier than lifting it from
Earth's surface with 1 gravity and 11.2 km/sec.
Plainly, getting to orbit is easier on the moon than Earth, Earth
orbital velocity at its surface is 7.9 km/sec. Lunar orbital velocity
is 1.7 km/sec
Obviously, once you're free of the body you're on, going from 395,000
km to 1,500,000 km at L1 is easier than going from 6,700 km to
1,500,000 km.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hohmann_transfer_orbit
delta-Vp = SQRT(mu/r1)*(sqrt(2*r2/(r1+r2))-1)
delta-Va = SQRT(mu/r2)*(1-sqrt(2*r2/(r1+r2)))
Earth-L1
r1 6700
r2 1500000
mu-earth 398600
delta-Vp 3.170607474 TOTAL
delta-Va -0.211901607 3.382509081
Luna-L1
r1 395000
r2 1500000
mu-earth 4904
delta-Vp 0.028771587 TOTAL
delta-Va -0.014764432 0.043536018
Adding orbital plus transfer velocities obtains a number higher than
actually needed,
For earth to L1: 7.9 + 3.4 = 11.3 km/sec which is an overestimate
For Luna to L1 1.7 + 0.05 = 1.75 km/sec also an overestimate
Shooting material from the moon to L1 with some sort of surface
launcher is an interesting possiblity. Stopping it with some sort of
catcher also is possible. Sending raw materials and processing them
at L1 into mirrors is also possible. Ejecting the debris using solar
power to keep the catcher in place is also possible. This was all
studied at Stanford by Gerard O'Neil's group back in the 1980s.
This all implies a HUGE infrastructure on the moon to mine and process
and launch materials. And a huge infrastructure at L1 to catch and
process and build stuff at L1 And a system to supply BOTH those
facilities. And that's the kicker.
A lot of big launchers on Earth are needed anyway.
So using those launchers to send a 660 ton inflatable module that self-
deploys with existing materials built on Earth directly to L1 without
all the falderah is the lowest cost way to go when starting from
scratch.
This same launcher and transfer technology can be adapted to explore
the moon and mars and settle it. Even explore the potential to supply
space based systems like the one described and expand it cheaply. .
But as far as investment in the total systems go, building a large
fleet of large reusable launchers, to operate with a large fleet of
large nuclear thermal rocket tugs built around the old NERVA concepts,
to send finished elements for self-deployment at L1 - is the best way
to go for the biggest bang for the buck.
These vehicles as I said could also launch the parts for a moon base
and mars base - the nuclear reactor would be adapted fro space power -
sufficient to supply thse bases. The parts and propulsive units for
an Orion class vehicle could be assembled at a moon base and operated
from there to establish manned outposts across the solar system, and
expand human presence on Mars.
Commercially, I see me developing low-cost solar panels and using them
to provide low-cost hydrogen near coal deposits to make hydrocarbons
competitively. Then, I use those profits build out solar collector
sites at selected mine sites in the US West and Southwest. Those
solar sites supply hydrogen by pipeline to coal fired facilities
throughout the West. Coal purchased on long-term contract is taken in
partial payment for the hydrogen. Additional hydrogen is used to
convert that coal to hydrocarbons. Profits there support the
development of a Delta-class fully reusable launcher. This launcher
is used to put up a network of advanced communication satellites that
provide wireless communications services throughout the world.
Profits from this operation is used to build a small fleet of larger
launchers built on Shuttle derived technology to to place solar pumped
IR lasers that beam energy to the solar sites into GEO above the US,
increasing their energy output 10x. This increases the hydrogen
available by 10x. Thie hydrogen pipeline system is expanded to cover
all of North America, capturing all of today's coal sales in North
America, and making all of North America's imported oil. Profits here
are used to build similar systems throughout the world. The next
larger fleet of vehicles is built - GEN III - which is the size and
number I described earlier. Along with nuclear thermal rocket powered
tugs - these vehicles are capable of colonizing the moon and mars, and
building significant structures at L1. This structure, along with its
ability to beam power to recievers on Earth - reverse global warming.
>
> > A portion of the GBO films are used to create IR laser beams operating
> > at 1,000 nm beam energy to Earth based receivers in deserts that
> > double as solar collectors. These reciever/collector/panels reduce
> > CO2 emissions by producing hydrogen on a massive scale from water,
> > which is then distributed by pipeline throughout the world.
>
> > 1.2 milion sq km converting sunlight to laser energy at 20% efficiency
> > produces 324 TW of laser energy.That is an interesting alternative to microwaves. If you are going to
> do this, would it not be in order to include a facility for ablating
> asteroids that were due to colliode with Earth.
>
> The attraction of microwaves is that you can receive them under most
> weather conditions. Unless you convert water into hydrogen it will be
> difficult to transmit to where the energy is needed. I also have a
> feeling that given the right laser wavelength it might be possible to
> decompose water directly without electricity generation and
> electrolosis.
Terrestrial solar is operational 15% to 20% of the time. Any system
that integrates low-cost solar into our existing energy supply, as I
have done, is capable of making far more energy when used 85% to 90%
of the time from space. Which is what I'm proposing.
Also, the Earth already receives lots of IR energy from the sun. By
merely matching that IR energy and concentrating it at 1,000 nm -
silicon based solar panels can be efficiently driven at 10x the energy
output per year - than when operated as solar panels. Thus, no new
technology is needed.
Also 1,000 nm wavelengths can be efficiently beamed and colleted when
compared to 300,000,000 nm microwaves. This introduces severe
practical difficulties.
Microwaves also, even if beamed at 100x the energy intensity they
occur naturally, will be only 1% the intensity of sunlight! This has
a very severe practical difficulties when building cost effective
receivers.
> > various industrial centers built around the off-world power receivers.Indeed this approach is vastly preferable to a giant rocket program. A
> robotic system could be established without too much (ie. well within
> current capabilities) launch capacity. I would EVENTUALLY envisage a
> totally self replicating space system. The goal of only using rockets
> to transport sophisticated parts such as chips is envisageable without
> too much development.
>
> > American Desert, Atacama Desert, Gobi Desert, Sahara Desert.
>
> > As industrial capacities on orbit expand larger amounts of material
> > are dispatched to the moon and beyond. No - material is dispatched FROM the Moon.
>
>
>
> >One use is the creation of
> > large pressure vessels for agriculture and forestry - producing food
> > and fiber for off-world as well as terrestrial use.-
steve
1980 and was given the problem of solving global warming.
I came to the decision that preventing the release of CO2 would be
almost impossible with the politics and short term thinking of the
worlds people and thus another solution would have to be found.
The two solutions I came up with were either to some how get more CO2
absorbed by the sea by techniques like stimulating plankton and algae
growth (addition of key nutrients) , or to construct a sunshield at
L1.
I proposed using a rotating bolo space elevator to transport the
materials up from Earth and then have several large rotating shields
of very thin material. These would have thrusters to ensure their
position is maintained.
One of the advantages of this sun shield technique is that it starts
working as soon as the first piece is in position.
An alternative simpler solution , but requiring more mass to be
transported to L1 is to have millions of un-controlled Y shaped
objects that do not require to be positioned accurately relative to
the Earth.
Willie...@gmail.com
The space shuttle external tank is a good model for an element for a
large 7 element space launcher. The space shuttle ET carries about
710 tons of propellant and masses 35 tons empty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_external_tank
7 Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSME) - can be adapted to propel a round
annular aerospike engine at the base of the ET
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSME
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/19/Annular-Aerospike.jpg
The annular aerospike engine also operates at a heat sheild at re-
entry. Each ET is equipped with a RCS to guide the vehicle during
flight.
All 7 elements are joined as follows (when viewed from above)
(1)(2)
(3)(4)(5)
(6)(7)
and all 7 fire at liftoff.
There is an 8th element stacked in line on top of (4).
All elements have cross-feed capability.
(1) & (6) feed (3)
(2) & (7) feed (5)
(3) & (5) feed (4)
So, at lift off even though all engines are firing, (1),(2),(6),(7)
only drain.
This is the first stage.
When they are empty, (3) and (5) drain, while (3),(4),(5) continue
firing.
This is the second stage
When they are empty, (4) continues as a third stage, carrying (8) to
orbit.
(4) separates from (8) and (8) continues firing, carrying 500 tons
into LEO.
All elements re-enter sheild first,and when they slow to subsonic
speed, deploy small folding winglets very similar to that of a cruise
missile or carrier based aircraft
http://www.ww2-airshows.lone-wolfs-den.com/video/TBFwingfold.mpg
http://www.howstuffworks.com/cruise-missile1.htm
http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Aerospace/Boeing_military/Aero22G19.jpg
When gliding subsonically, the empty ET is snagged mid-flight by a tow
plane and hauled back to the launch center.
This vehicle, based on the same airframe sizes as the ET - will place
500 metric tons into LOW EARTH ORBIT (LEO)
Doubing the size of the airframe, increases the mass of the vehicle,
and its payload by 8x - that's an element thats 5,680 tons, and a
payload of 4,000 tons!
We know how to build this, and we don't need any new technology - just
efficient use of existing technology.
The empty 280 ton super-ET is still small enough to be towed by an
empty 737 adapted to this task.
The 4,000 tons of payload consist of 2,000 tons of propellant to get
there, and 200 tons to get back, structure of 280 tons,and 1,520 tons
of useful payload. Two 660 ton inflatable mirrors are deployed. Each
are 3 km across and are joined with other mirrors already on orbit,
forming a large hexagonal array. Thousands of mirrors sit at L1 and
when fully populated, reduce the influx of sunlight on Earth by 1% -
sufficient to balance the greenhouse gas changes. The balance of the
payload is for the crew to survive the 30 days it takes for the
mission.
By putting a 100 ton thrust nuclear thermal rocket in lieu of the
aerospike, payloads can be doubled, and propellant use minimized since
the nuclear reactor will be used for electrical power - reducing the
number of launches required to provide a shield.
Finally, by using the mirrors to concentrate light onto solar pumped
IR lasers, energy can be beamed anywhere in Cislunar space its needed
and picked up by silicon based solar cells efficiently.
http://www.3m.com/about3m/technologies/lightmgmt/learn/overview.html
http://www.nasatech.com/Briefs/May99/NPO20359.html
http://www.nasatech.com/Briefs/Jan01/NPO20952.html
At 20% conversion efficiency 80% of the intercepted light energy does
not fall on the Earth, even while over 300 TW (50x more power than
humanity now uses) is beamed to Earth.
Active optics in GEO and in LEO may be deployed to assist in efficient
energy transfer to stationary and mobile users on Earth and to users
in Cislunar space.
Willie...@gmail.com
the projected surface area of Earth. 180,127 mirrors form an area 1%
the surface area of Earth. Nominally this is tthe number required.
180,127. To achieve this level of coverage in 5 years requires 4.1
deployments per hour. Approximately a launch of one of the larger
vehicles every half our. From four sites around the world, this
amounts to one launch every two hours. With a 30 day turn around this
implies a fleet of 1,440. With a 15 day turnaround half that.
WIth a lifespan for each mirror of 20 years, and random rates of
failure, nearly 10,000 mirrors would need to be replaced each year.
That's 5,000 flights - or one flight every two hours. Or one flight
every 8 hours from each of the four launch centers. This leaves 75%
of the fleet inactive, while the launch infrastructure is well
exercised. Thus, once the system is deployed 75% of the vehicles will
be available to support exploration and settlement of the solar system
The number of vehicles and their launch rates can be cut in half with
the addition of a nuclera thermal rocket capability. A nuclear
thermal rocket can also be adapted to a nuclear space rreactor to
power space colonies, and cities on the Moon and Mars. Assuming a
cost of each vehicle of $3 billion - and 750 of them, that's $2.25
trillion. Cutting this by half saves over $1.1 trillion - AND -
reduces the emission of exhaust into the Earth's atmosphere by half.
So, a nuclear rocket program costing $20 billion, added to the super-
ET development program of $20 billion, and an automated launch system
development, and efficient launch infrastructure to improve turn
around times - all pay back tremendously at these launch rates.
Ian Parker
>
> When gliding subsonically, the empty ET is snagged mid-flight by a tow
> plane and hauled back to the launch center.
>
> This vehicle, based on the same airframe sizes as the ET - will place
> 500 metric tons into LOW EARTH ORBIT (LEO)
>
> Doubing the size of the airframe, increases the mass of the vehicle,
> and its payload by 8x - that's an element thats 5,680 tons, and a
> payload of 4,000 tons!
>
> We know how to build this, and we don't need any new technology - just
> efficient use of existing technology.
>
> The empty 280 ton super-ET is still small enough to be towed by an
> empty 737 adapted to this task.
>
> The 4,000 tons of payload consist of 2,000 tons of propellant to get
> there, and 200 tons to get back, structure of 280 tons,and 1,520 tons
> of useful payload. Two 660 ton inflatable mirrors are deployed. Each
> are 3 km across and are joined with other mirrors already on orbit,
> forming a large hexagonal array. Thousands of mirrors sit at L1 and
> when fully populated, reduce the influx of sunlight on Earth by 1% -
> sufficient to balance the greenhouse gas changes. The balance of the
> payload is for the crew to survive the 30 days it takes for the
> mission.
>
> By putting a 100 ton thrust nuclear thermal rocket in lieu of the
> aerospike, payloads can be doubled, and propellant use minimized since
> the nuclear reactor will be used for electrical power - reducing the
> number of launches required to provide a shield.
>
solution is a MEO solution. Why MEO. Basically because we also want to
be able to send energy to Earth as well as well as shield the Earth.
Suppose the Sun is directly under your feet. Elementary geometry tells
us that to be able to use an IR laser, a mirror, microwaves or
anything else the satellite needs to be at least (√2 - 1) Earth radii
above the Earth. Your laser wil then be at grazing incidence. Take 1
Earth radius and you have an angle of 45 degrees. Now OK you will say
MEO does not imply a stationary satellite but if we have a ring one
satellite will replace another. We will be using a number of
satellites at any one time as we will be transmitting simultaneously
to a number of points on Earth. Why do we want to transmit to Earth.
1) We need our sunsche;ld to double up as an energy system.
2) In 1815 Tambora erupted and we got "a year without a summer". After
valcanic eruptions it will be global cooling that is the problem.
3) We will want to correct for extremes of weather. We may even want
to try controlling hurricanes at some point in the future.
More material is needed than for L1 but there uis far greater
flexibility.
> Finally, by using the mirrors to concentrate light onto solar pumped
> IR lasers, energy can be beamed anywhere in Cislunar space its needed
> and picked up by silicon based solar cells efficiently.
>
> http://www.3m.com/about3m/technologies/lightmgmt/learn/overview.htmlhttp://www.nasatech.com/Briefs/May99/NPO20359.htmlhttp://www.nasatech.com/Briefs/Jan01/NPO20952.html
>
I personally think phase locked microwaves are preferable. Remember
the MEO solution involves a large number of units with phase locking.
In fact at L1 you could probably focus down to quite a small point. If
I assume d =1.22lambda.l/d1 and if you have 10,000km (effective - the
fact that array is sparse does not really matter you have about
200.lambda of the ground. This is quite small.
> At 20% conversion efficiency 80% of the intercepted light energy does
> not fall on the Earth, even while over 300 TW (50x more power than
> humanity now uses) is beamed to Earth.
>
> Active optics in GEO and in LEO may be deployed to assist in efficient
> energy transfer to stationary and mobile users on Earth and to users
> in Cislunar space.- Hide quoted text -
>
Why not have active optics at MEO?
There was one other idea you put forward and that was to pump hydrogen
to a plant that turned coal into oil. Good idea - will provide us with
energt security and knock the Arabs. There is however one point I
would like to make.
You don't in fact need hydrogen - only steam and a source of energy.
http://www.gasification.org/Docs/2004_Papers/28BAUM_Paper.pdf
Oxidation:
C + ½ O2 ? CO ?H = -123 kJ/mol
C + O2 ? CO2 ?H = -406 kJ/mol
H2 + O2 ? H2O ?H = -248 kJ/mol
Reduction:
C + CO2 ? 2 CO ?H = 160 kJ/mol
C + H2O ? CO + H2 ?H = 119 kJ/mol
Water-gas shift:
CO + H2O ? CO2 + H2 ?H = -40 kJ/mol
Methane formation:
C + 2 H2 ? CH4 ?H = -87 kJ/mol
CO + 3H2 ? CH4 + H2O ?H = -206 kJ/mol
3C + 2H2O ? CH4 + 2 CO ?H = 182 kJ/mol
Cracking:
CnHm ? (m/4) CH4 + (n-m/4) C
Hydrogenation:
CnHm + (2n – m/2) H2 ? n CH4
SASOL burns coal (ie, lets in air to power the endothermic reactions.
With a source of space energy (Mirrors in the desert) you don't have
to. You just need to put concentrated sunlight on steam and coke and
you need not let in air as SASOL does. SASOL was developed in South
Africa under apartheid.
I had the feeling that electrolysis might not be needed. It is NOT
needed for coal to oil.
- Ian Parker
steve
GBO = giant birefringent optics
http://www.3m.com/about3m/technologies/lightmgmt/learn/overview.html
I feel that it would be possible to reduce the weight of the film down
to about 1 tonne per/sqkm
We can also build much larger mirrors.
All we need is one mirror 1000km by 1000km and at 1 tonne per/sqkm
this is going to be 1 million tonnes.
This would probably not be practical and any damage could ruin the
whole of our shield.
I would aim for mirrors of 100km diameter requiring approx 130
mirrors to be built.
Willie...@gmail.com
The size of the mirror is a function of how it is to be controlled.
The real mass driver is the thickness of the mirror material - 1 tonne
- 1,000 kg - per sq km, implies a mass of 1 milligram per square
meter.
GBO material is on aveage 1.2 tonnes per cubic meter.
This implies a little less than 1 micron thickness - TOTAL - - so, in
my design,which is quite specific and on its way to the patent office,
is a lenticular structure, consisting of two sheets stabilized and
erected by gas pressure.
One film is transparent, the other film by dint of its birefringent
structure, quite reflective.
The wavelength of visible light ranges from about 800 nm to 300 nm.
GBO to be highly reflective requires dozens if not hundreds of
birefringent layers be sandwiched together.
Therefore, if the structure be solid, (which it need not be) you need
at least 25 microns per layer - there are also issues of porosity and
so forth - and stability in the space environment.
These are all open issues,
But I believe there is a strong reason to believe that 50 um - at
least for 1st generation mirrors - is the practical design limit. And
any practical system that seeks to make a buck in this arena should
look at that as a good target.
This doesn't stop a portion of one's activity, around 10% of the total
activity, from being directed at extending this limit since it is a
critical cost driver.
And what to get below 100 mg per sq m this entails is some sort of
space structure on the scale of light. A structured material on the
nano-scale much like a butterfly wing, with space rather than solid
between the optically active layers. This would reduce teh total
mass. A fresnel plate in 3D so to speak.
Relative to these sorts of structures, its quite easy to make thin
film GBO. And 100 mg per sq meter is quite GOOD! haha.. 1 tonne per
hectare! Wow.
The investment in rockets, in lift capacity to ship this much material
to L1 in 3 km diameter mirrors (which is quite unweildy, in its own
right) is well worth the effort.
But, yes, if we're talking about spending trillions of dollars on
infrastructure to loft a planet sized mirror to L1 - it is well worth
spending billions if not hundreds of billions of dollars - on research
to make stable, long lasting structures that might be 10% or even as
you suggest 1% of the mass of the GBO technology I am proposing. It
has a huge payoff if successful, and we can get by with 8 ships,
instead of 750! lol.
I don't know that such research will bear fruit. I am only saying
that with 100 mg per square meter, money can be made, and a private
operation can be contemplated that has a reasonable expectation of
making significant money.
At 10 mg per square meter, or less, profits are beyond the dreams of
avarice, since very little must be invested in rocket fleets - so
ABSOLUTELY - 3d nanostructures that implement highly reflective
surfaces made of diamondoid type structures - might be worth doing.
Whether diamondoid structures of this type can be made cheaply as
trash bags, is another question. But once we know how to do a thing,
automation typically reduces things to the cost of its components -
and here we're talking carbon. Which is pretty damn cheap on Earth.
So, yeah, reduce the mass of highly reflective mirrors to 1 mg per sq
meter, this means a solid film of about 1,000 micron -total- which
implies a diamondoid nano-structure - not a solid - that is very
lightweight, and not able to be structured by gas pressure, since its
a open as chicken wire on the atomic scale - but quite reflective due
to its 3D structure
http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/optics/olympusmicd/galleries/butterfly/blackandwhiteheleno1.html
Of course, in lieu of gas pressure there is the potential of
electrostatic pressure - electrets - so, a transparent nanostructured
'film' might hold a similar charge as a reflective nanostructured film
- which in zero gee would give us the desired shapes when bound
together mechanically.
Willie...@gmail.com
geometry' doesn't make any sense. Second, your chemical equations
make even less sense. Third, your attempt to use the Rayleigh
Criterion, is in error.
So, your conclusions are based on nothing substantial or correct.
Rather than respond point by point, I thought it best to say, I read
what you wrote here, and its totally buggered up.
The Rayliegh Criterion in optics is the limiting factor in reliably
beaming energy to Earth. It tells you what size your receiver must
be, and what size your transmitter must be. There are two windows
where its easy to beam energy to Earth. One is around 30 cm, in the
microwave spectrum, which can penetrate clouds. The other is around 1
micron, in the IR spectrum, which cannot easily penetrate clouds.
The interesting thing about 1 micron radiation, is that it very
efficiently drives silicon based photovoltaic cells. Solar cells.
And by illuminating solar cells with 1 micron laser energy at an
energy density equal to that of all IR energy coming from the sun,
doubles the output of a solar cell. So, solar collectors become a
natural IR laser power receiver.
Since 30 cm is 300,000 times bigger than 1 micron - transmitter sizes
and receiver sizes scale with wavelength - small lightweight solar
pumped IR laser systems are far less massive than their microwave
equivalents. Operating in desert regions with few clouds, is an easy
way to overcome cloud problems.
Your chemical equations don't make any sense. You go step by step
through the carbon shift reaction, making water into hydrogen, and
then use the hydrogen in the third step to get water back. Total
bullshit.
You are right about one thing. You can, as SASOL does, make oil from
coal without solar hydrogen. You are wrong when you say you don't
need hydrogen. Because the whole process is to get hydrogen from
water, and use it to make hydro-carbons.
The problem with the SASOL process is that its expensive and dirty.
Here is a highly idealized SASOL type process - which is not as dirty
as the real thing;
In general, you need steam, and if you're using coal to make steam,
you need about a ton of coal for a ton of steam to get the right
temperature and pressure - which means for a ton of hydrogen, you need
9 tons of steam, and 9 tons of coal.
H2O(l) + heat ---> H2O(v)
where the heat is derived from;
C + O2 ---> CO2 + heat
Then, with 9 tons of steam, and an additional 3 tons of coal, you can
make 11 tons of CO2 and 1 ton of hydrogen - using the shift reaction.
C + 2 H2O(v) ---> CO2 + 2 H2
12 36 44 4
Now, once you have hydrogen, then you can add this to MORE carbon, and
make hydrocarbons. For example;
8 C + 9 H2 ---> C8H18 (octane)
96 18 114
Carbon is 12 amu, and hydrogen is 1. So
8 x 12 = 96
9 x 2 x 1 = 18
So, each ton of hydrogen needs an additional 5.33 tons of carbon - to
make 6.33 tons of octane - which is 46.3 barrels of octane.
So, in terms of carbon (coal) - we have;
9,0 tons for steam ---> 33 tons CO2
3.0 tons for shift reaction --> 11 tons CO2
5.3 tons for hydrogenation
-----------------------------------------------
17.3 tons total
46.3 barrels octane
44.0 tons CO2
2.6 bbls/ton of coal
1.0 ton CO2 per barrel
Since a barrel of oil contains only 115 kg of carbon, burning a barrel
of oil produces only 420 kg of carbon-dioxide - LESS THAN HALF the CO2
released when making oil from coal.
So, making oil from coal - even in this highly idealized process
(actual processes are not as efficient) - over 3x the carbon dioxide
is produced! NOT A WAY TO REDUCE GLOBAL WARMING. (actual numbers from
SASOL indicate 5x CO2 is produced)
My process, which involves using sunlight throughout produces a ton of
hydrogen from 9 tons of water by the application of 50 MWh of solar
electricity to the water via electrolysis when the sun is shining;
2 H2O + electricity ---> O2 + 2 H2
This hydrogen is used to directly hydrogenate carbon into hydro-
carbons like octane;
8 C + 9 H2 ---> C8H18
96 18 114
5.33 tons of carbon are hydrogenated by 1 ton of hydrogen to make 6.33
tons of octane - which is 46.3 barrels of octane. ZERO CARBON DIOXIDE
IS RELEASED and 8.7 bbls of octane are produced per ton of coal. So
in a side by side comparison;
SASOL MOK
Water 9.0 9.0
Hydrogen 1.0 1.0
Coal 17.3 5.3
Carbon Dioxide 44.0 0.0
Barrels 46.3 46.3
Of course, a large centralized solar hydrogen site can be adapted as a
solar pumped IR laser receiver operating at 1 micron - to increase its
total output of hydrogen 10 fold with zero investment in ground
equipment. Which is an interesting possibility.
Hydrogen made by this system is transmitted to coal fired power plants
to burn in lieu of coal. The coal is traded for hydrogen, and more
hydrogen used to make hydrocarbons - with zero emissions!
Since coal has 23 GJ/kg and hydrogen has 142 GJ/kg - a ton of hydrogen
can be burned in lieu of 6.2 tons of coal. If the hydrogen is made
through the shift reaction, its clear what the cost of that reaction
is. It takes 12.0 tons of coal to make 1 ton of hydrogne using the
shift reaction. Of course if hydrogen is made from solar electricity,
by direct electrolysis of water, then, there is a huge advantage. In
fact, trading hydrogen for coal, and then adding another 1.17 tons of
hydrogen to it, obtains 54.1 barrels of liquid fuels.
So, this is the game plan. For every 30,800 low-cost panels (each 4'
x 8') installed in Nevada, Arizona, or California, ship 1 ton of
hydrogen per day to a coal fired utility, and take delivery of 6.2
tons of coal per day and combine that with an additional 1.17 tons of
hydrogen to obtain 54.1 barrels of liquid fuels. At $50 per barrel,
$2,705 is made per day on each 30,800 (28 strip) panel installation.
An $18 per ton of avoided CO2 is earned in carbon credits - which
amounts to 22.7 tons of CO2 for the coal fired plant another $409 per
day. And an additional 54.5 tons of CO2 is saved for the coal
liquifaction plant, which at $18 per ton is another $926 per day. A
total earnings of $4,040 per day per 30,800 panel installation.
That's $0.131 per panel per day. $47.90 per panel per year. A
present value of $500 per panel.
In quantity, each panel costs $40 - and balance of systems is around
$11 per installed panel.
Ian Parker
> Ian, your commentary is totally confused. First, your 'elementary
> geometry' doesn't make any sense. Second, your chemical equations
> make even less sense. Third, your attempt to use the Rayleigh
> Criterion, is in error.
>
> So, your conclusions are based on nothing substantial or correct.
> Rather than respond point by point, I thought it best to say, I read
> what you wrote here, and its totally buggered up.
>
The elementary geometry is based on the following. Sun is underfoot.
Draw a circle then draw a tangent to it. This represents the minimum
point at which the Sun is not eclipsed. If we now draw a parallel line
through the center (Sun is underfoot) and then draw a tangent the
distance to the center of the point of intersection will be √2r.
If we now draw a circle of radius 2r and take the point at which it
intersects our first tangent if we draw the line to the point where
the Sun is underfoot we get 45 degrees.
I could do a short blog and draw this out.
> The Rayliegh Criterion in optics is the limiting factor in reliably
> beaming energy to Earth. It tells you what size your receiver must
> be, and what size your transmitter must be. There are two windows
> where its easy to beam energy to Earth. One is around 30 cm, in the
> microwave spectrum, which can penetrate clouds. The other is around 1
> micron, in the IR spectrum, which cannot easily penetrate clouds.
> The interesting thing about 1 micron radiation, is that it very
> efficiently drives silicon based photovoltaic cells. Solar cells.
> And by illuminating solar cells with 1 micron laser energy at an
> energy density equal to that of all IR energy coming from the sun,
> doubles the output of a solar cell. So, solar collectors become a
> natural IR laser power receiver.
>
> Since 30 cm is 300,000 times bigger than 1 micron - transmitter sizes
> and receiver sizes scale with wavelength - small lightweight solar
> pumped IR laser systems are far less massive than their microwave
> equivalents. Operating in desert regions with few clouds, is an easy
> way to overcome cloud problems.
>
Lasers are inefficient when compared to microwave generators. 30cm is
easily rectified. As for desert conditions. As I have said previously
you can electrolyse water in the desert, you can even desalinate and
"make the desert bloom". However power must be generated fairly close
to where it is consumed. It would not be practical to transmit
electricity from North Africa to Northern Europe where I live.
1.22 lambda/d Let x be the distance to the source, let s be the
diameter of the source let d be the diameter of the receiver. If x is
L1 it is 1.5e6 km. If we are blotting 10% of Sun's energy s will be
2000km Size of spot (assuming perfect focus) will be
1.22 lambda.x/s this is 1.22lambda*1500/2 or about 1000lambda. At
30cm this will have a 30m spot. In my last calculation I assued a
spase assemblage the size of the Earth.
> Your chemical equations don't make any sense. You go step by step
> through the carbon shift reaction, making water into hydrogen, and
> then use the hydrogen in the third step to get water back. Total
> bullshit.
These equations were in fact copied from the SASOL website. Most
people in fact assume a total hydrogen economy. You were avocating, or
so it seems, using hydrogen to produce oil.
SASOL as I explained uses coal to power the endothermic reactions. You
don't in fact have to do this. You are right in so far as the
performance of the existing plant goes. The basic coal to oil is
carbon monoxide and hydrogen to oil. You can get this directly from
steam. You can in fact put most of the carbon into oil if you supply
the energy.
Electrolysis is certainly possible. It may not be the best way to go.
If you have carbon present in your cycle some form of more direct
conversion may be indicated. The existing SASOL process can be made a
lot more efficient by the input of energy.
Another approach might be to collect the CO2 from the coal fired
station and use it to produce oil/ethanol etc from some biologically
based system
http://geri.uwaterloo.ca/storage/bioproduction.html
The interesting fact about photosynthesis is that it occurs in a
number of stages. By genetic engineering you can get the product you
want.
- Ian Parker
Ian Parker
>Size of spot (assuming perfect focus) will be
> 1.22 lambda.x/s this is 1.22lambda*1500/2 or about 1000lambda. At
> 30cm this will have a 30m spot. In my last calculation I assued a
> spase assemblage the size of the Earth.
>
Ian Stirling
<snip>
> One part of this missions would be the processing the 100,000 kg or
> so, of weapons grade plutonium into 10 million non-threatening impulse
> units, and flying them to orbit, along with spacecraft that use them,
> using the nuclear thermal rockets to send them far from Earth before
> startup - would allow us to rid ourselves of another long-term
> difficulty facing humanity, while expanding human activity throughout
> the solar system.
How do you propose making a pulse unit with 10g of plutonium?
This is considerably beyond the state of the art.
Jeff Findley
<Willie...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1170257990....@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> The space shuttle external tank is a good model for an element for a
Plonk!
Jeff
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)
Jeff Findley
"Ian Stirling" <ro...@mauve.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:45c22313$0$8733$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
Getting Mook to think logically is beyond the state of the art of today's
mental health care system. I think he deserves his stay in killfile hell.
Brad Guth
news:1170317925.5...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com
Screw Earth, because it's past the point of no return, as well as
over-populated with extremely arrogant faith-based bigots that have no
apparent remorse. Instead, I have a wee problem with utilizing Venus,
especially since it has way more than its fair share of renewable energy
to burn (sort of speak).
Would you be at all interested in resolving a few applications of the
regular laws of physics (nothing hocus-pocus), on behalf of our
surviving upon Venus as is (honestly, no terraforming or solar
blockage)?
Willie...@gmail.com
> <Willie.Moo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Your pre-judgement is unwarranted. The ET size, configuration,
structural fraction all recommend it as a model for a better
configured sort of vehicle!
Pat Flannery
Ian Stirling wrote:
>
> How do you propose making a pulse unit with 10g of plutonium?
>
> This is considerably beyond the state of the art.
>
That's around the size of a marble.
That's going to be some compression effect to get that to go super-critical.
Really high-powered neutron emitter?
Be slick though, you could have a A-bomb around the size of a baseball.
Pat
Pat Flannery
Jeff Findley wrote:
> <Willie...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1170257990....@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>> The space shuttle external tank is a good model for an element for a
>> large 7 element space launcher...
>>
>
> Plonk!
>
> Jeff
>
You're going to plonk him for _THAT_?!
That's minor stuff!
You haven't read the plan to use the von Neumann machines to cut the sun
up into mini-stars yet; or the laser-powered flying three piece suits. :-)
Pat
Brad Guth
news:1170036047.2...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com
Since +/- solar activity has proven as having next to nothing to do with
our ongoing GW situation, which actually started in as of after the last
ice age. However, the spendy notions of blocking out a sufficient
portion of the sun would cool Earth, is why this following contribution
would make for an interesting GOOGLE/NOVA production.
Perhaps instead of China going for establishing the one and only
LSE-CM/ISS, and thereby obtaining all sorts of valuable benefits of
global and of moon/space domination from accomplishing such; how about
instead their simply relocating our moon to Earth's L1?
Wherever the heck that physically dark, a bit salty and perhaps a touch
hollow and otherwise downright nasty moon recently came from, it's still
in the process of doing us great harm. Besides our moon having created
the likes of our Arctic ocean basin and having established our seasonal
tilt, and otherwise because it's so freaking massive and nearby, whereas
there's 2e20 joules of mascon/tidal forces taking place, and all of that
applied energy is obviously going somewhere and reacting with whatever's
fluid enough.
Humans are perhaps at most 25% responsible for global warming, which is
obviously 25% too much, especially since we're already receiving more
than our fair share of mascon/tidal and secondary IR/FIR energy from our
somewhat recently obtained moon. Terribly sorry about that.
This following is yet another revised Guth swag/rant, of our global
warming day and nighttime as seen only by our moon, whereas it seems
Earth has been a lunar gravity heat-sink ever since its arrival some
time shortly after the last ice age. However, getting partially rid of
that moon could save the GW day, as well as a few of our sorry butts.
Topic: USA urges scientists to block out sun
"Brad Guth" <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b3689ba0bdcb4f1c587...@mygate.mailgate.org
Perhaps a far better notion than relocating Sedna into our L1 (at best
that's a good century away no matters what), as a somewhat better notion
yet, we could just resolve all sorts of pesky problems by way of moving
our global roasting moon out to Earth's L1. Thereby getting rid of all
sorts of spare mascon/tidal energy that's inside and out affecting our
environment in a very GW and geophysical bad sort of planetology way.
How hard could that possibly be?
After all, it's already coasting efficiently along in a good enough far
off orbit to start with, and there's hardly a village idiot soul on
Earth That's half smart enough to give a tinkers damn about it.
Once this moon to Earth L1 is accomplished, we'd just end up having
ourselves a somewhat better sol+moon 24 hour tide, which by rights
should be much less disruptive than the ongoing pesky tidal fiasco we've
got to deal with as is.
If subsequently our Earth gets a little too cold, with hardly any
applied energy we could simply send our moon into the sun, or we could
always try the good old reliable alternative of simply polluting the
living crapolla out of mother Earth (we're already expert wizards at
doing that), creating butt loads of nasty soot and the full gauntlet
range of deploying toxic and environmental trashing chemicals
everywhere, or if push comes down to shove, simply relocate the wealthy
and most powerful folks to our moon that's rather efficiently parked at
Earth's L1, or perhaps employ WW-III as our local global energy
domination war to end all such silly wars because, by then we'd be
pretty much out of the required energy for making all of those nifty
chemical and nuclear bombs, by which utilizing our healthy cache of such
items should otherwise compensate by way of warming things back up for
at least another decade or so.
-
Relocating our moon to Earth's L1 may at first seem a touch daunting,
but with a positive yaysay mindset and a constructive sense of
motivation, it seems most anything becomes possible, especially if it
pertains to saving your own butt or of those butts you most admirer or
worship.
The last time I'd checked, our somewhat salty and possibly semi-hollow
moon only weighed 7.35e22 kg.
Therefore, 7.35e13 kg of applied force (that's only 73.5 gigatonnes) for
a considerable amount of time should do the trick. Or, if we played our
billiard cards just right and diverted a few NEOs into our moon at just
the right timing and angle (china seems to be coming right along with
that sort of kinetic impact expertise), that should get the old ball
rolling at least in the right direction, and once and for all terminate
those pesky NEOs at the same time. I'd have to call that one yet
another win-win for old gipper.
Of course, the more than affordable alternative of simply implementing
terajoules worth of clean renewable terrestrial energy (such as the 37.5
kj/m2 that I've proposed) should go a long ways towards staying off the
continual global warming trend that's primarily caused by our absolutely
massive and unfortunately nearby moon, and as otherwise having been
assisted along by our own history of arrogant and greedy ways of having
rather badly done things for the past couple of centuries. In which
case the moon can stay put and the LSE-CM/ISS can still become a good
part of that saving Earth analogy, by way of giving us loads of clean
tether dipole extracted energy plus efficient access as to whatever can
be rather easily pillaged and plundered out of the moon itself (we could
even put Halliburton plus the likes of Exxon and ENRON in charge,
because, it shouldn't hadly matter how badly they manage to trash our
moon).
Pat Flannery
Jeff Findley wrote:
> Getting Mook to think logically is beyond the state of the art of today's
> mental health care system. I think he deserves his stay in killfile hell.
>
Laugh while you can, monkey boy!
Where's William Mook going?
Planet Ten!
When's he going?
Real soon! :-D
John Warfin
steve
square metre.
That should make your space shield much more practical
steve
move Sedna to L1
To put this into perspective. How many Saturn V launchers is this
equivalent to?
How long would it take ?
Pat Flannery
I can't work this out, but I'm really keen to see the answer...because I
think you are probably talking up in the millions, if not billions. ;-)
You might just have hit on something though...using powers of the total
energy of Saturn V's required to do something might be a pretty handy
and easily understandable yardstick for figuring out how much energy is
needed to do big things in space, rather like kilotons and megatons for
nuclear weapons.
KSV? MSV? :-)
Pat
Bill Haught -- IF YOU SEE A HAUGHTY COMMUNIST HUN IN A HEIßLUFTBALLONE, CALL ON THE OFFICE OF FATHERLAND SECRECY
news:2e8e$45c23977$927a2cda$17...@FUSE.NET...
>
> <Willie...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1170257990....@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > The space shuttle external tank is a good model for an element for a
> > large 7 element space launcher...
>
> Plonk!
Well, I like some aspects of some of his ideas, others I'm not so sure
about. With seven tanks I see seven opportunities for things to go wrong.
With all those launches he is proposing, a magnetically driven system
despite its huge up-front cost (at least for a system capable of lifting at
least 40 to 100 metric tons) sounds like the way to go to me.
Unreasonable Certifiable GenX Haughtball -- IF YOU SEE A HAUGHTY COMMUNIST HUN IN A HEIßLUFTBALLONE, CALL ON THE OFFICE OF FATHERLAND SECRECY
news:1170376198....@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
How about M2P2 at 1/4 lb of thrust? I'd settle for Phobos, or even say,
Cruithne.
Unreasonable Certifiable GenX Haughtball -- IF YOU SEE A HAUGHTY COMMUNIST HUN IN A HEIßLUFTBALLONE, CALL ON THE OFFICE OF FATHERLAND SECRECY
<Willie...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1170317925.5...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
I got a bit lost in your analysis. Are you talking about a chemical process
where hydrocarbon fuel is produced with hydrogen and coal (or recycled
carbon) and then subsequently undergoes chemical reactions that result in
water production, heat production, and the recycling of the carbon? Or is
the "zero carbon emissions" a financial arrangement?
Pat Flannery
Bill Haught
>
> Well, I like some aspects of some of his ideas, others I'm not so sure
> about. With seven tanks I see seven opportunities for things to go wrong.
> With all those launches he is proposing, a magnetically driven system
> despite its huge up-front cost (at least for a system capable of lifting at
> least 40 to 100 metric tons) sounds like the way to go to me.
>
You haven't read how he intends to terraform the Sun yet, have you?
I'll say this for him; his concepts do not lack imagination...to put it
mildly. :-)
Pat
Willie...@gmail.com
> "Willie.Mookie" <Willie.Moo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
I've spent 40 minutes to an hour on five separate occasions replying
point by point to this and a number of others who have posted, and
THEY NEVER APPEARED! This is something that has happened since the
new Google Groups format has been applied. The only thing I can say is
THIS SUCKS!!! And I won't take time to read or contribute this
google groups again until it is fixed.
Brad Guth
> I've spent 40 minutes to an hour on five separate occasions replying
> point by point to this and a number of others who have posted, and
> THEY NEVER APPEARED! This is something that has happened since the
> new Google Groups format has been applied. The only thing I can say is
> THIS SUCKS!!! And I won't take time to read or contribute this
> google groups again until it is fixed.
If you think GOOGLE/Usenet is bad, try Mailgate/Usenet where sucking and
blowing is their stealth moderation status quo of intentionally or at
least robo-banishing whomever rocks their faith based good ship
LOLLIPOP.
I happen to like what you've posted, because it clearly indicates that
you have a little something special of an open mindset that's worth
sharing, as opposed to the usual anti-think-tank closed mindset of those
trying their level best at keeping their status quo butts protected.
My biggest problem is that my dyslexic encrypted methods of
communicating along with my trusty battery of lose cannons, as intended
for returning the warm and fuzzy topic/author stalking and bashing flak,
is often a tough one to deal with.
Brad Guth
news:1170376198....@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com
> Can some one provide an answer for how much energy it would take to
I believe relocating Sedna is certainly a good one, that is as long as
we can hold out for another century or two. However, I'm thinking that
a direct application of thrust energy may not be doable unless we can
get the likes of our nuclear wizard William Mook focused on this sort of
daunting task.
However, relocating our very own pesky moon off to Earth's L1 might be
an even better win-win for resolving the old GW gipper that's going
somewhat postal on us, along with accomplishing shade to burn (sort of
speak). After all, we'd still have that moon of ours, just rather
nicely parked a bunch further away and thus hardly affecting our
internal and surface planetology in the way that it's currently
accomplishing all sorts of those absolutely nasty tidal forced things to
us, and that's not to mention elimination of the secondary/recoil worth
of IF/FIR influx it has been sharing.
Ian Stirling
You're not looking at millions or billions.
Sedna's orbital speed is somewhere around a kilometer a second.
If the total delta-v needed is 2Km/s, then it needs around 10^25 Ns of
impulse.
Saturn V produces a little under 10^10Ns, or that means 10^15 - or a
quadrillion.
A million billion.
Brad Guth
> You're not looking at millions or billions.
>
> Sedna's orbital speed is somewhere around a kilometer a second.
> If the total delta-v needed is 2Km/s, then it needs around 10^25 Ns of
> impulse.
> Saturn V produces a little under 10^10Ns, or that means 10^15 - or a
> quadrillion.
> A million billion.
But by 2075 is when Sedna will have been moving along much faster, and
being a whole lot closer to boot. All we've got to do is sort of keep
that ball rolling in our direction, and then figure out how the hell
we're ever going to park that arriving orb ia our L1.
We'll need to incorporate the all-knowing expertise of our nuclear/U235
wizard William Mook, and/or perhaps accomplish something He3/fusion in
order to make a massive steam rocket thruster out of all that red ice.
How about the notions of litho-diverting that sucker via massive
impactors, like what got our moon into orbiting Earth?
Ian Stirling
Brad Guth
news:45c388d0$0$8719$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net
> You're not looking at millions or billions.
>
> Sedna's orbital speed is somewhere around a kilometer a second.
> If the total delta-v needed is 2Km/s, then it needs around 10^25 Ns of
> impulse.
> Saturn V produces a little under 10^10Ns, or that means 10^15 - or a
> quadrillion.
> A million billion.
By 2075 is when Sedna should have been moving along much faster, as well
as being a whole lot closer to boot. All we've got to do is sort of
keep that ball rolling in our direction, and then try to figure out how
the hell we're ever going to park that arriving orb in our L1 pocket.
We'll most likely need to incorporate the all-knowing wizardly expertise
of our nuclear/U235 William Mook, and/or perhaps accomplish something
He3/fusion in order to make a massive steam rocket thruster out of all
that red ice.
How about the notions of litho-diverting that sucker via massive
impactors, like what got our moon into orbiting Earth?
-
Sliding Sedna in the back door, of essentially parking that icy redish
orb into Earth L1 (some interactive station keeping required), that's
moving along at roughly 29 km/s, is at best going to be a damn neat
trick, not to mention having accomplished one heck of a delta-V
improvement from its current km/s status.
According to the preliminary orbital physics of Ian Stirling, if
doubling its velocity from 1.04 km/s to that of 2 km/s demands a delta-v
worth 1e25 Ns, whereas obtaining 29 km/s is then imposing 29e25 Ns, as
clearly representing what a truly horrific effort it's going to take,
along with resolving any number of other unresolved complications that
could easily develop along the way (such as running itself into Earth or
even smacking our moon could lead to some unfortunate consequences).
However, Sedna may not be quite as large and massive as we'd thought,
and by the year 2075 it's going to be moving at a much greater velocity
before heading back out into the Kuiper belt. Diverting Sedna into
taking advantage of the gravity pull of Jupiter and of whatever else can
be accommodated, should greatly help to deliver the vast majority of the
required delta-v.
Too bad we don't seem to own a suitable supercouputer, along with a
fully interactive 3D physics simulator of dealing with such complex
orbital mechanics. Perhaps China has one, and as such we could beg for
their services.
Brad Guth
news:1170036047.2...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com
USA urges scientists to block out sun
"Ian Stirling" <ro...@mauve.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:45c388d0$0$8719$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net
> You're not looking at millions or billions.
>
> Sedna's orbital speed is somewhere around a kilometer a second.
> If the total delta-v needed is 2Km/s, then it needs around 10^25 Ns of
> impulse.
> Saturn V produces a little under 10^10Ns, or that means 10^15 - or a
> quadrillion.
> A million billion.
By 2075 is when Sedna should have been moving along much faster, as well
as being a whole lot closer to boot. It seems that all we've got to do
is sort of keep that ball rolling in our direction, and then try to
figure out how the hell we're ever going to park that arriving orb in
our L1 pocket, without causing more collateral damage than it's worth.
Because of the applied energy, we'll most likely need to incorporate the
all-knowing wizardly expertise of our nuclear/U235 rocket master William
Mook, and/or perhaps accomplish something He3/fusion in order to make a
massive steam rocket thruster out of all that red ice.
How about some feedback as to the notions of litho-diverting that sucker
via massive impactors, like what got our moon into orbiting Earth?
-
Sliding Sedna in the back door, of essentially parking that icy redish
orb into Earth's L1 (along with some interactive station keeping
required), that's moving along at roughly 29 km/s, is at best going to
be a damn neat trick, not to mention having accomplished one heck of a
delta-V improvement from its current km/s status.
According to the preliminary orbital physics of Ian Stirling, if
doubling its velocity from 1.04 km/s to that of 2 km/s demands a delta-v
worth 1e25 Ns, whereas obtaining 29 km/s is then imposing 29e25 Ns, as
clearly representing what a truly horrific effort it's going to take,
along with resolving any number of other unresolved complications that
could easily develop along the way (such as running itself into Earth or
even smacking our moon could lead to some rather unfortunate
consequences).
However, Sedna may not be quite as large and massive as we'd thought,
and by the year 2075 it's going to be moving at a much greater velocity
before heading back out into the Kuiper belt. Diverting Sedna into
taking advantage of the gravity pull of Jupiter and of whatever else can
be accommodated, should greatly help to deliver the vast majority of the
required delta-v.
Of course, whatever analogy works on behalf of relocating Sedna is tens
of folds better off for the local task of merely pushing our local
mascon/moon away from us, from having otherwise been simply too close
and mascon/tidal GW nasty to Earth, whereas instead being safely
relocated to Earth's L1 seems perfectly doable. After all, our moon is
already going along for the ride at nearly 30 km/s, and best of all,
there could still be the one and only LSE-CM/ISS as owned and operated
by China, along with its tether dipole element reaching to within 4r of
Earth.
Too bad we don't seem to own a suitable supercouputer, along with a
fully interactive 3D physics simulator of dealing with such complex
orbital mechanics. Perhaps Russia, China or even India has one, and as
Unreasonable Certifiable GenX Haughtball -- IF YOU SEE A HAUGHTY COMMUNIST HUN IN A HEIßLUFTBALLONE, CALL ON THE OFFICE OF FATHERLAND SECRECY
news:1170431493.2...@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I've spent 40 minutes to an hour on five separate occasions replying
> point by point to this and a number of others who have posted, and
> THEY NEVER APPEARED! This is something that has happened since the
> new Google Groups format has been applied. The only thing I can say is
> THIS SUCKS!!! And I won't take time to read or contribute this
> google groups again until it is fixed.
Be sure to use a test editor if not posting through a newsreader that saves
items in a "Sent" folder. As if Brad is worth the time? Or me or you
apparently which seems to be the consensus opinion here.
Rand Simberg
"Unreasonable Certifiable GenX Haughtball -- IF YOU SEE A HAUGHTY
COMMUNIST HUN IN A HEIßLUFTBALLONE, CALL ON THE OFFICE OF FATHERLAND
SECRECY" <wlhaug...@ameritech.net> made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:
><Willie...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1170431493.2...@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>> I've spent 40 minutes to an hour on five separate occasions replying
>> point by point to this and a number of others who have posted, and
>> THEY NEVER APPEARED! This is something that has happened since the
>> new Google Groups format has been applied. The only thing I can say is
>> THIS SUCKS!!! And I won't take time to read or contribute this
>> google groups again until it is fixed.
>
>Be sure to use a test editor if not posting through a newsreader that saves
>items in a "Sent" folder. As if Brad is worth the time?
No. Killfile the pathetic, demented creature.
Unreasonable Certifiable GenX Haughtball -- IF YOU SEE A HAUGHTY COMMUNIST HUN IN A HEIßLUFTBALLONE, CALL ON THE OFFICE OF FATHERLAND SECRECY
news:12s6b0g...@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
> You haven't read how he intends to terraform the Sun yet, have you?
> I'll say this for him; his concepts do not lack imagination...to put it
> mildly. :-)
I have. As I recall this is a long-term, more distant, later step plan.
Given that the growth in basic sciences and technology is
logarithmic/exponential, rather than linear (although thanks to the current
misleadership of the last few decades which has lead to the sorry state of
affairs we have now with another cokeheaded Bush at the helm of what used to
be the world's greatest republic I don't think this can be taken as a
given).
There is, according to some (at least Ray Kurzweil -- see snippet below) , a
tendency to overestimate what can be done near-term and underestimate what
can be done decades in the future.
Furthermore, I think that $pending trillion$ to on energy and tran$portation
infra$tructure to terrorform the Earth over the next few decades is crazier.
-------------------- BEGIN SNIPPET --------------------
Question 9: Most predictions of future technological developments have been
inaccurate. What techniques do you use to improve the accuracy of your
prognostications?
I have a team of people that gathers data on many different industries and
phenomena, and we build mathematical models. More and more areas of science
and technology are now measurable in information terms. I use a data-driven
approach, and I endeavor to build theoretical models of why these
technologies progress. I have this theory of the law of accelerating
returns, which is a theory of evolution. I then try to build mathematical
models of how that applies to different phenomena and industries. Most
futurists don't use this type of methodology, and some just make guesses.
Many futurists are simply unaware of these trends-they make linear models.
It is often said that we overestimate what can be done in the short term,
because developing technologies turns out to be more difficult than we
expect, but dramatically underestimate what can be achieved in the long
term, because people think linearly.
-------------------- END SNIPPET --------------------
Sander Olson Interviews Ray Kurzweil
by Sander Olson
Ray Kurzweil
http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=/articles/art0643.html?
Brad Guth
Folks here in Usenet naysay land are certainly into speaking out on your
behalf.
Is this how you intend to live your life, with such others telling you
what to do or what not to do?
I happen to like and even somewhat understand what you've posted, while
they (the MIB incest cloned borgs of this anti-think-tank Usenet from
hell) haven't, yet they're into telling you how you should respond or
rather how to banish folks like myself.
Unlike all the others that alrady know all there is to know, whereas I
don't know everything, and as such I could certainly use your extertise
on a good number of important matters.
Brad Guth
> Of course, in lieu of gas pressure there is the potential of
> electrostatic pressure - electrets - so, a transparent nanostructured
> 'film' might hold a similar charge as a reflective nanostructured film
> - which in zero gee would give us the desired shapes when bound
> together mechanically.
Just spin the stuff.
BTW; you are planning on a Earth side POOF, or possibly lots of POOFs,
arnt you?
Willie...@gmail.com
> steve <stephen.colbou...@comsuper.gov.au> wrote:
> > Well the good news for you is that at one tonne per sqkm = 1 gram per
> > square metre.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Doh! You're right. I slipped a digit and a factor of 1,000! .
The plastics from which GBO is made are 1.2 metric tons per cubic
meter, so 1 gram per square meter is a thickness of 0.83 mm - that's
830 um - far larger than I was thinking. - Two layers 100 um thick -
one transparent, the other refletive, filled with a veyr low pressure
gas - to create a pressure stabilized structure. At 1/2 gram per sq
meter. A 3 km diameter mirror would then weigh 7 tonnes. 70 tons
would be 16.5 km in diameter. 660 tons 29.1 km diameter. 191,440 of
the larger mirrors would be needed to cover the entire surface of the
Earth. 1,915 mirrors would intercept 1% of the sunlight. Over a 5
year period that's 1 launch per day. With a 30 day turn around,
that's a fleet of 30 of the more massive vechicles.
At $6 billion each that's $180 billion - a far far smaller program.
The system could still beam 300 TW to Earth, which could pay for it
all.
Willie...@gmail.com
5.18E+18 kg Mass Atmosphere
1003.5 J/kg/K Specific Heat Air
0.7 delta-K Change in Temp 1950-2000
50 years
0.014 K/year
7.28E+19 Joules/year
6366.197724 Earth radius
1.27324E+14 Projected Area sq m
31557600 seconds/year
1366 Watts/m2 at 1 AU
5.48864E+24 Joules/year
0.00133% Pct/year -
1688186822 Area/year sq m
665083018.7 Area/disc sq m
2.538309917 Disc/year
84409341095 Area total sq m
126.9154958 Disc total
0.0663% Pct total
If all we have to do is heat air every year, then the amount of energy
needed can be calculated knowing the specific heat of air and the
total mass of air on Earth. Around 2/30th of a percent of the
projected area of Earth need be reflected away. This can be achieved
by 127 of the 29.1 km diameter discs described above. and only 2.7
per year . 2 per month launch rate is needed to deploy these over 60
months - and a fleet of two veicles are needed to attain this.
At total of 23 TW may be beamed to Earth using this approach using IR
laser. This can be directed to a ground station in the US Western
states in desert regions with the help of a geosynchronous reforming
satellite. The power is used to produce hydrogen from water. The
hydrogen is used directly as a fuel and in conjunction with synthetic
hydrocarbon fuels - and the US is the principal exporter of fuels
globally. All use of coal and petroleum and natural gas eventually
ends.
Willie...@gmail.com
SEE A HAUGHTY COMMUNIST HUN IN A HEIßLUFTBALLONE, CALL ON THE OFFICE
> <Willie.Moo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
I was trying to point out that the chemical equations given by one
poster is confused. he copied them from a paper on fischer-tropsch
without really understanding them. Basically you can make oil from
coal by adding hydrogen to it. That hydrogen comes from water. There
are several ways you can get hydrogen from water. The first is
electrochemically through electrolysis, driven ideally by solar energy
process;
2 H2O + electricity ---> O2 + 2 H2
36 32 4
Below is the mass balance. Each ton of hydrogen requires 9 tons of
water be electolyzed, and 8 tons of oxygen released.
The other way is to use coal as a source of carbon and shift oxygen
from the water to carbon leaving hydrogen behind
C + 2 H2O + heat ---> CO2 + 2 H2
12 36 44 4
Here each ton of hydrogen requires the consumption of 3 tons of coal
and 9 tons of water and the production of 11 tons of carbon dioxide.
Knowing how much energy is contained in each fuel tells us how much
heat has to be added to the system. Coal has 23 GJ/tonne and
hydrogen has 142 GJ/tonne That's 6.2 tons of coal per ton of
hydrogen, and there are only 3 tons to start out with. So, AT LEAST
an additional 3.2 tons of coal is needed to heat the water to steam.
Because the process is not 100% efficient, actual coal usaage is 9
tons to 11 tons to heat the 9 tons of water to super-heated steam.
Since the heat comes from teh combustion of carbon the equiation for
that is;
C + O2 ---> CO2 + heat
12 32 44
So, each ton of carbon produces 3.7 tons of carbon-dioxide and 23 GJ
heat.
That means that the 9 tons of coal produces 33 tons of carbon dioxide
- this is in addition to the 3 tons of coal and 11 tons of carbon
dioxide.
The to make a ton of hydrogen from water and coal requires 12 tons of
coal and 9 tons of water - producing also 44 tons of carbon dioxide.
Now, once the hydrogen is available it can be made into a liquid fuel
by adding carbon; Take octane as an example;
8 C + 9 H2 ---> C8H18
96 18 114
A ton of hydrogen is combined with 5.3 tons of coal to make 6.3 tons
of octane, which is equivalent to 46 barrels of the stuff. When that
oil is burned the carbon turns into carbon-dioxide producing 19.4 tons
of carbon-dioxide. 422 kg per barrel.
So, on a side by side comparison;
SASOL: 17.3 tons coal + 9 tons water ==> 46 bbls oil + 44
tons CO2
MOK 5.3 tons coal + 9 tons water ==> 46 bbls oil + 8
tons O2
Ian Parker
input of energy. What I am talking about is in essence a nuclear/solar
(emphasis here on solar) SASOL. You concentrate sunlight on steam and
coal. You do NOT have C + O2 -> CO2.
The other point is that C + CO2 -> 2CO at high temperature.
<-
You can therefore envisage a closed endothermic cycle. I am sorry I
did not make myself clearer. Endothermicity is driven by INPUT OF
ENERGY produced by solar or nuclear means. This has conceptul
similarities with photosynthesis.
- Ian Parker
Brad Guth
news:1170036047.2...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com
All the sudden this nifty Usenet topic is going into the nearest
infomercial space-toilet, and sinking fast.
"USA urges scientists to block out sun" (as though some how we're smart
enough to accomplish such without getting ourselves into more trouble
than it's worth)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.policy/browse_frm/thread/7d2296fc879dbfee/930cc79604c90eee?lnk=st&q=brad+guth&rnum=4&hl=en#930cc79604c90eee
"Ian Stirling" <ro...@mauve.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:45c388d0$0$8719$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net
> You're not looking at millions or billions.
> Sedna's orbital speed is somewhere around a kilometer a second.
> If the total delta-v needed is 2Km/s, then it needs around 10^25 Ns
> of impulse.
> Saturn V produces a little under 10^10Ns, or that means 10^15 - or a
> quadrillion.
> A million billion.
By 2075 is when Sedna should have been moving along much faster, as well
as being a whole lot closer to boot. It seems that all we've got to do
is sort of keep that ball rolling in our direction, and then try harder
to figure out how the hell we're ever going to park that arriving orb in
our L1 pocket, without causing more collateral damage than it's worth.
Because of the applied energy, we'll most likely need to incorporate the
all-knowing wizardly expertise of our nuclear/U235 rocket-butt-master
William Mook, and/or perhaps accomplish something He3/fusion in order to
make a massive steam rocket thruster that's supplied the necessary mass
for thermal conversion into superheated steam by all of that red ice.
How about some honest feedback as to the notions of litho-diverting that
icy sucker, via massive impactors that are already available as
NSOs(Near Sedna Objects), much like whatever NEOs or Sirius Oort cloud
items that got our moon into orbiting Earth?
-
Sliding the 1600~1800 km Sedna in the back door, of essentially parking
that icy redish orb into Earth's L1 (along with some interactive station
keeping) that's moving along at roughly 29 km/s, is at best going to be
a damn neat trick, not to mention having first accomplished one heck of
a delta-V improvement from its current km/s status.
According to the preliminary orbital physics of Ian Stirling, if
doubling its velocity from 1.04 km/s to that of 2 km/s demands a delta-v
worth 1e25 Ns, whereas obtaining 29 km/s is then imposing 29e25 Ns (or
is it the square of 29 = 841?), as clearly representing what a truly
horrific effort it's going to take, along with having to resolve any
number of other pesky complications that could easily develop along the
way (such as running itself into Earth or even smacking our moon could
lead to some rather unfortunate consequences for life as we know it).
However, Sedna may not be quite as large nor thereby as massive as we'd
thought (possibly less than 1500 km), and by the year 2075 it's going to
be moving at a much greater velocity before turning the corner and
heading itself back out into the Kuiper belt. Diverting Sedna into
taking advantage of the gravity pull of Jupiter and of whatever else can
be accommodated, should greatly help to deliver the vast majority of the
required delta-v for getting parked at Earth's L1.
Of course, whatever's the best analogy that works on behalf of
relocating Sedna is tens of folds if not a thousand fold better off for
the extremely local task of merely pushing our horrific mascon/moon away
from us, from having otherwise been simply cruising too close for
comfort and thereby mascon/tidal causing GW that's nasty inside and out
to mother Earth, whereas instead becoming safely relocated to Earth's L1
seems perfectly doable. After all, our moon is already going along for
the ride at nearly 30 km/s, and best of all, there'd still be a moon
that's orbiting Earth, which by rights could still accommodate the one
and only LSE-CM/ISS as owned and operated by China, along with its nifty
tether dipole element reaching its termination pod or platform of all
those 100 GW laser cannons to within 4r of Earth, and most likely having
lots of POOFs along the tether way (what could possibly go wrong?)
Too bad we, meaning our warm and fuzzy NASA and of all the supposed
subcontractors and/at higher institutions of learning, as such we don't
seem to own a suitable supercomputer, along with a fully interactive 3D
physics simulator of dealing with such complex orbital mechanics.
Perhaps Russia, China or even India has one, and as such we could beg
for their services.
Ian Stirling
> On Feb 2, 2:31 pm, Ian Stirling <r...@mauve.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> steve <stephen.colbou...@comsuper.gov.au> wrote:
>> > Well the good news for you is that at one tonne per sqkm = 1 gram per
>> > square metre.
>>
>> > That should make your space shield much more practical- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Doh! You're right. I slipped a digit and a factor of 1,000! .
>
> The plastics from which GBO is made are 1.2 metric tons per cubic
> meter, so 1 gram per square meter is a thickness of 0.83 mm - that's
No, it's not.
There are a thousand litres in a cubic meter.
A thickness of a milimeter with an area of 1m has a volume of one litre,
which has a weight of one kilogram.
Brad Guth
news:c797c2d6978f5219ef5...@mygate.mailgate.org
How about instead of "USA urges scientists to block out sun", we make it
the more honest topic of "USA urges scientists to break wind", because
thus far that's about as good as it gets.
Willie...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes, I listened to you and was confused! lol. So, is your original
point correct or not?
<sigh>
Well, lets figure it out - haha..
1000 gram = 1 kg
1000 kg = 1 tonne
1,000,000 grams = 1 tonnes
1 mm = 1/1,000 meter
1 um = 1/1,000 mm
1,000,000 um = 1 m
At 1.2 gams per ml or 1.2 tonnes per cubic meter for the types of
plastics used for GBO then layers 1 square meter in are are;
830 nm = 1 gram per sq meter
830 um = 1 kg per sq meter
haha.. SO, MY ORIGINAL NUMBERS ARE THE CORRECT ONE!
And your original point in error.
To obtain the sorts of masses you were putting out there, and which I
wrongly agreed to, by assuming I missed 3 digits, we'd have to use
nano-scale structures like butterfly wings - which i originally said.
It may be possible to attain these weights, but we won't be able to
use gases to create the structures. We'd have to use electet type
charges between the transparent and reflective sheets.
Sheez
haha..
steve
We can make a thin disc of the GBO plastic and then put some
strengthening fibres in (Probably carbon nano tubes).
By rotating the whole disc we will be able to make it hold its shape.
I would like to have some kind of control of orientation and position
if possible with rocket thrusters (probably solar powered ion drives).
Willie...@gmail.com
That's a good idea - but if you're going to spin it, instead of
thrusters, use sunlight itself, have small vanes on the rim.
Nanofibers are at present costly. A thin sheet of clear plastic
stretched tightly across the front, with an inflatable ring to keep it
tight, and a loose reflective layer in back that is then spun to form
a parabola - with the spin up achieved by reflecting sunlight
tangentially at the rim -might work.
This would let you use very thin sheets of materials nano-structured,
so I guess that would have to be cheaply made in the first place. So,
thin nanotubes spaced so that the collection is transparent would work
again. (Although I like the idea of static charges on the nanofibers
to act as a sort of pressure source - these can also deflect solar
wind, which can operate to guide and orient the mirror as well.
Brad Guth
news:1170036047.2...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Energy that's between us and our moon
Newsgroups:
sci.environment,sci.physics,uk.sci.astronomy,sci.philosophy.tech
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in
message news:16gf94-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/browse_frm/thread/721445961b20c949/2bd7ae23a5eef88c?lnk=st&q=brad+guth&rnum=1&hl=en#2bd7ae23a5eef88c
> Practicality of moving Moon out of orbit: 0
Did you even bother to ask lord/wizard William Mook, as to exactly how
much tonnage of U238/U235 we're talking about?
What if instead of wasting a perfectly good 2000 kg cache of U238, we
used Sedna's arriving worth of KE, as having a direct impact at just
the right timing and angle?
Say if Sedna's icy mass of 5e21 kg were arriving at the final impact
velocity of 2 km/s = 1e28 x eff joules
Even at 10% impact efficiency, that's offering 1e27 joules, although a
rear-ender/(sucker punch) at 1 km/sec would become a much softer 2.5e26
joules, that by rights should still accomplish a little something
impressive.
-
Alternative Plan-B:
Relocating lunar mass via tether, out past the moon's L2 point of no
return, say for our going way out there for 2X L2, and say we/robotics
somehow manage to place 1e9 tonnes way out there on the tippy end of
that nifty 2X L2 tethered distance away from the moon's CG, a distance
of roughly 129,400 km for starters.
How much applied exit or delta-v force is that?
2X moon L2 = 129,400 km
129,400 / 384,400 = .33663
Orbital velocity: 1.33663 x 1.023 km/s = 1.367 km/s
2X L2 orbital Earth velocity = 1.367 km/s (in relation to Earth)
2X L2 orbital moon velocity = 344.421 m/s (in relation to the moon)
Centrifugal force: F=MV2/r
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/cf.html#cf
If given the 2X L2 orbital mass = 1e12 kg (including whatever's tether)
Moon 2X L2 Fc: F=MV2/r = 9.167374e8 N = 93,481 tonnes
Earth/moon 2X L2 Fc: F=MV2/r = 3.637e9 N = 370,871 tonnes
That's a total of 464,353 tonnes of centrifugal applied force that's
worthy of accomplishing something, especially over time of perhaps a few
years.
Roughly/swag speaking; how long will it take for getting rid of our
moon (relocated to Earth L1)?
John Schilling
Haughtball -- IF YOU SEE A HAUGHTY COMMUNIST HUN IN A HEIßLUFTBALLONE,
wrote:
>"steve" <stephen....@comsuper.gov.au> wrote in message
>news:1170376198....@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>> Can some one provide an answer for how much energy it would take to
>> move Sedna to L1 To put this into perspective. How many Saturn V
>> launchers is this equivalent to? How long would it take ?
>How about M2P2 at 1/4 lb of thrust? I'd settle for Phobos, or even say,
>Cruithne.
You're joking, right? Moving Sedna to the Earth-Sun L1 point using an
M2P2 at 1/4 lb of thrust, would require approximately three quintillion
years. Phobos, about two trillion years. 3753 Cruithne, is a bit tricky
to caclulate because of the resonance, but maybe seven billion years.
All of this neglecting the slight problem that an M2P2 seems to be rather
unsteerable and best used for voyages in the general direction of Directly
Away From The Sun. Not what we're looking for here.
Neither are Saturn Vs, by the way. The number required would be roughly
eight quadrillion, five billion, or twenty million, respectively.
--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*schi...@spock.usc.edu * for success" *
*661-718-0955 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *
Brad Guth
in message news:0dEwh.701$o61...@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net
> "steve" <stephen....@comsuper.gov.au> wrote in message
> news:1170376198....@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> > Can some one provide an answer for how much energy it would take to
> > move Sedna to L1
> > To put this into perspective. How many Saturn V launchers is this
> > equivalent to?
> > How long would it take ?
>
> How about M2P2 at 1/4 lb of thrust? I'd settle for Phobos, or even say,
> Cruithne.
Relocating Sedna to Earth's L1 might eventually become one of our best
solutions for a solar shade. However, as for my going along with John
Schilling, I'd have to agree that a relocation of Sedna to Earth's L1 is
a stretch, not to mention a long term alternative that sucks at being at
least a good century at best away from benefiting our GW situation,
that's only going to get worse per year after year no matters what. Or,
don't you fully appreciate where the vast majority of our GW energy is
actually coming from?
Did by chance any of you folks even once bother to ask our resident
lord/wizard William Mook, as to exactly how much tonnage of U238/U235
we're talking about, as per relocating our very own moon, to Earth's L1?
Or, what if instead of wasting a perfectly good 2000 kg cache of U238
that we're likely going to need for WW-III, we simply utilized Sedna's
arriving worth of KE, as for having a direct impact at just the right
timing and angle?
Say if Sedna's icy mass of 5e21 kg were orchestrated on behalf of
arriving at the final impact velocity of 2 km/s = 1e28 x eff joules
Even at 10% KE impact efficiency, that's offering 1e27 joules, although
a rear-ender/(sucker punch) at 1 km/sec would become a much softer
2.5e26 joules, that by rights should still accomplish a little something
impressive.
-
Alternative if not a better local Plan-B: Relocate our moon
Relocating lunar mass via L2 tether, far out past the moon's L2 point of
no return. Say going way out there for using this 2X L2, and say
we/robotics somehow manage to place 1e9 tonnes out there on the tippy
end of that nifty 2X L2 tethered distance away from the moon's CG, a
placement distance of roughly 129,400 km for starters seems perfectly
doable.
How much applied exit or delta-v force is that going to provide?
Here's the best preliminary math that seems about right.
2X moon L2 = 129,400 km
129,400 / 384,400 = .33663
Orbital velocity: 1.33663 x 1.023 km/s = 1.367 km/s
2X L2 orbital Earth velocity = 1.367 km/s (in relation to Earth)
2X L2 orbital moon velocity = 344.421 m/s (in relation to the moon)
Centrifugal force: F=MV2/r
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/cf.html#cf
If we're given the 2X L2 orbital mass of 1e12 kg (including whatever's
tether)
Moon's 2X L2 Fc: F=MV2/r = 9.167374e8 N = 93,481 tonnes
Earth/moon 2X L2 Fc: F=MV2/r = 3.637e9 N = 370,871 tonnes
That's a total of 464,353 tonnes of centrifugal applied force that's
worthy of accomplishing something, especially when applied over the time
span of perhaps a few years, of which I don't believe it'll take all
that long, or even nearly the 1e12 kg placement of mass at the moon's 2X
L2.
Roughly/swag speaking; using this moon L2 package of 1e12 kg in
tethered mass acting as a physical tug upon getting that nasty moon
further away from Earth, how long will it take for that task of getting
rid of our moon (relocated to Earth L1 that is)?
Brad Guth
news:1170036047.2...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com
What can we move into Earth's L1 that'll give us the most interactive
control of shade and still provide nifty considerations that are much
better than we currently have to work with?
The previous pun of a notion that's on behalf of relocating Sedna to
Earth's L1 might eventually become one of our best solutions for
accomplishing a solar shade that's a little big but otherwise just about
the right size of solar shade. However, as for my going along with John
Schilling, I'd have to agree that a relocation of Sedna to Earth's L1 is
a stretch, not to mention a serious long term alternative that sucks at
being at least a good century at best away from benefiting our GW
situation, that's only going to get worse per year after year no matters
what. Or, don't you folks fully appreciate where the vast majority of
our ice age thawing and ongoing GW energy is actually coming from?
Did by chance any of you folks even once bother to ask our resident
lord/wizard William Mook, as to exactly how much tonnage of U238/U235
we're talking about, as per relocating our very own moon, to Earth's L1?
Or, what if instead of wasting a perfectly good 2000 kg cache of U238
that we're likely going to need for WW-III, we simply utilized Sedna's
arriving worth of KE, as for having a direct impact at just the right
timing and angle?
Say if Sedna's icy mass of 5e21 kg were orchestrated on behalf of
arriving at the final moon impact velocity of 2 km/s = 1e28 x eff joules
Even if that were at 10% KE impact efficiency, that's offering 1e27
Ian Stirling
> On Feb 3, 3:45 pm, Ian Stirling <r...@mauve.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > On Feb 2, 2:31 pm, Ian Stirling <r...@mauve.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> steve <stephen.colbou...@comsuper.gov.au> wrote:
>> >> > Well the good news for you is that at one tonne per sqkm = 1 gram per
>> >> > square metre.
>>
>> >> > That should make your space shield much more practical- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > Doh! You're right. I slipped a digit and a factor of 1,000! .
>>
>> > The plastics from which GBO is made are 1.2 metric tons per cubic
>> > meter, so 1 gram per square meter is a thickness of 0.83 mm - that's
>> No, it's not.
>> There are a thousand litres in a cubic meter.
>> A thickness of a milimeter with an area of 1m has a volume of one litre,
>> which has a weight of one kilogram.
>>
<snip>
> Yes, I listened to you and was confused! lol. So, is your original
> point correct or not?
>
> <sigh>
>
> Well, lets figure it out - haha..
>
> 1000 gram = 1 kg
> 1000 kg = 1 tonne
>
> 1,000,000 grams = 1 tonnes
>
> 1 mm = 1/1,000 meter
> 1 um = 1/1,000 mm
> 1,000,000 um = 1 m
>
> At 1.2 gams per ml or 1.2 tonnes per cubic meter for the types of
> plastics used for GBO then layers 1 square meter in are are;
>
> 830 nm = 1 gram per sq meter
> 830 um = 1 kg per sq meter
>
> haha.. SO, MY ORIGINAL NUMBERS ARE THE CORRECT ONE!
>
> And your original point in error.
Umm - you initially claim that .83mm is one gram per square meter.
In this post you correct that, and agree with my point.
I think you may be the one that is confused.
Brad Guth
What's wrong with relocating our nasty old salty moon, all the way out
to Earth L1?
The tethered mass at 2X L2 seems like a perfectly good alternative to
using rocket or nuclear produced delta-v.
Where's all of your warm and fuzzy yaysay and whatever wizardly applied
expertise when we so badly need such the most?
What's all that negative or naysay about relocating our moon, for
obtaining absolute loads of ice age rebuilding shade and so much more to
come?
Since we're losing out magnetosphere at the rate of 0.05%/year, as such,
what other long-term options do we have?
Brad Guth
What's so terribly wrong with relocating our nasty old salty moon, all
the way out to Earth L1?
The tethered mass at 2X L2 seems like a perfectly good alternative to
using rocket or nuclear produced delta-v.
Where's all of your warm and fuzzy yaysay and whatever wizardly applied
expertise when we so badly need such the most?
What's all that negative or naysay about relocating our moon, for
obtaining absolute spare loads of ice age rebuilding shade, and of so
much more to come?
Since we're losing our magnetosphere at the ongoing demise of
0.05%/year, as such, what other long-term options do we have?
Brad Guth
Have I got L1 shade for you:
In addition to establishing a great deal of shade (perhaps a touch more
than necessary), we'd also have established the absolute ideal TRACE
outpost, as well as keeping the Chinese or possibly Russian LSE-CM/ISS
as 100% viable to boot.
What's so terribly wrong, or even all that technically insurmountable
with my notions of relocating our nasty old salty and global warming
moon, all the way out to Earth L1?
Utilizing the tethered mass at 2X L2 seems like a perfectly good
alternative to using millions of spendy rockets (that we obviously don't
have or couldn't actually apply) or whatever nuclear produced delta-v,
especially since most every required tonne and of the tether itself
would be extracted from the moon itself.
Where's all of your warm and fuzzy Usenet yaysay and of whatever
wizardly applied expertise of eye popping candy, and otherwise on behalf
of knocking our socks off, especially when our badly failing environment
and extremely frail DNA needs such efforts the most?
What's all that negative or otherwise naysay about relocating our moon,
for obtaining such absolute spare loads of ice age rebuilding shade, and
of so much more to come?
Since we're losing our DNA/RNA protective magnetosphere, at the ongoing
demise of 0.05%/year, as such, what other long-term options for
protecting Earth's atmosphere and of our sequestered butts on this badly
polluted surface do we have?
Brad Guth
This following topic link is still a tough mainstream nut to crack, much
less sell, as it's a serious load of perfectly weird notions based
entirely upon the regular laws of physics, that's having to do with
relocating our moon to Earth's L1.
Next Space Station: 7.35e22 kg at Earth's L1
Earth's L1 for accommodating something of the robust mass of our moon,
that also has the LSE-CM/ISS of 256e6 tonnes to deal with, is
essentially a planetoid parallel parking zone that's roughly 4 fold
further away than its current 384,400 km orbital status, thus 1.5376e6
km representing 1/16th the mutual attracting or holding force of
gravity, as well as having cut the amount of tidal energy that's getting
applied back into Earth's environment should be of a similar reduction.
However, once fully aligned with the sun while parked within this halo
orbit of Earth's L1 should actually not allow that combined sol+moon
tidal energy to at most drop to half of whatever's currently taking
place. I haven't fully polished off the physics math in order to prove
all of this, but I do believe it'll end up being somewhere between this
third amount less and perhaps half of what tides we're currently dealing
with, which is actually quite a significant reduction in tidal energy
transfer, that by rights should also tend to cool off our environment.
Of course the 24 hour rotation of Earth in relationship to Earth's L1 is
no longer the same as our moon's existing 1.023 km/s. In one weird
sense we'd have to speed that moon of our's up to 112 km/s, which is
actually worth 6e23 joules, and that's seemingly going to be a tough
notion to accomplish because, it's existing 1.023 km/s of 2e20
centripetal joules worth of orbital energy is clearly insufficient for
that of L1, of which can't exactly be derived out of thin air unless
having been continually pulled along and subsequently established by a
sufficient other centripetal force, for getting our moon out to Earth's
L1 in the first place.
Here's some more of this weird math, suggesting what it'll take.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/cf.html#cf
r = 1.5376e9 meters
M = 7.35e22 kg
V = 112e3 m/s
Centripetal force: Fc = 5.996254e23 N = 6.11448e22 kgf
6.11448e22 kgf * 9.80665 = 5.996e23 joules Earth-->L1
However Sol-->Earth L1 is what takes that centripetal energy back
-5.996e23 joules Sol-->L1 = 0.0 joules (near zero G)
However, since the moon is already keeping up with Earth is why there's
no real delta-v increase in its orbital velocity. In fact, it's having
to slightly reduce its average orbital velocity that'll become primarily
in relationship to Sol, as having become our binary associated L1
planetoid, as our solar shade instead of being a pesky moon.
In spite of all the usual status quo flak of Usenet's anti-think-tank
and naysayism that's typically of a faith based mindset, of borg like
individuals going postal in order to keep each and every one of their
infomercial lids on tight, whereas giving Earth some badly needed shade
while improving upon the usage of our moon's L1, at the very same time
as having moderated those global warming tidal forces by at least a
third, is what's actually quite doable in spite of whatever their
all-knowing god has to say.
BTW; my LSE-CM/ISS or at the very least a scientific (Earth facing)
tethered science platform or space depot may likely become another
requirement, that is unless a slightly rotating L1 planetoid isn't a
problem. However, any possible rotation may remain as nullified since
the moon's original L2 tethered mass of 1e12 kg will likely still exist
at some reduced amount of mass, but now modified as per acting on behalf
of representing the planetoids's (Sol facing) L1 tethered science
platform(s). This moon-->planetoid thing is certainly damn confusing,
isn't it.
If you have similar or obviously better math, I'd like to hear about
that. However, if you only wish to topic/author stalk and bash upon
whatever in order to continually whine about the matter of your having
to keep everything exactly as it was, such as when your Earth was flat
and everything else was still in orbit around your faith-based solitary
existence, then don't bother. The same goes if your conditional laws of
physics only applies to terrestrial matters, or on behalf of supporting
those matters orchestrated by and thus approved by the status quo which
you must worship at all cost.
On the other honest topic constructive hand, even if your subjective
interpretations and subsequent ideas or whatever best swag is way off in
another dimension, it's not going to be all that upsetting to my kind of
open mindset way of thinking that's more often outside the box than not
to start with. If you simply can not manage to safely think for
yourself without blowing yet another mainstream status quo gasket, then
perhaps not all is lost when our resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush) has a
perfectly good paying, non-thinking as well as non-caring job without
ever involving a speck of remorse, for you and others of your kind.
Willie...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ouch! Someone woke on the wrong side of the rock this morning.
I am confused only to the extent I respected your opinion to the
extent I thought you were posting something of merit. Then I realized
I was wrong. Believe me, it won't happen again! lol.
Brad Guth
Perhaps these ongoing topic banishments or incoming naysay load of flak
is all because of our 100,000 some odd +/- year or +/- multi-century
encounters with the Sirius star/solar system, that which had been of
more frequent orbital encounters throughout each of our multiple ice age
cycle past, whereas of just somewhat lately we've had that pesky moon of
our's to deal with as of the last ice age this planet will ever see.
Take away our moon and Earth gets cold. Relocate our moon at Earth's L1
and we extensively cool off mother Earth in spite of whatever we've
managed to do to our frail environment (perhaps creating a touch too
much shade, which is still better off than not having enough shade).
Remember that nothing is in willy-nilly mode of just coasting through
space with no apparent association to any other mass. Our wussy little
solar system is unavoidably associated with the more than sufficiently
nearby, truly massive and otherwise super powerful Sirius star/solar
system, including that of its vast Oort cloud of moon sized debris, if
not somewhat larger and most likely icy items.
I'd gladly share other news you can use, except unfortunately it seems
ESAs Venus EXPRESS mission is no longer alive, as sadly MI/NSA~NASA has
pretty much nailed their science coffins shut. Having thus far excluded
their robust PFS instrument from sharing in the geothermal truth about
Venus, is actually mainstream's faith-based status quo doing exactly
what they do best. However, if push comes down to shove, we don't have
to believe their every word, nor do we have to take their damage control
ultimatums as though being the word of God.
As geothermally heated from that active core on up, and thereby as
humanly nasty as Venus is, it still has our polluted and energy raped
Earth beat by a long shot at offering hundreds of fold more locally
available energy/m2, that's actually environmentally clean (soot free as
well as near zero NOx, and of this taking of energy is even free of
producing any artificial CO2), otherwise Venus energy is perfectly
renewable to boot.
Unfortunately, the relatively newish planetology and geothermally active
nature of Venus is still intellectually as well as scientifically and
especially faith based off-limits, as remaining sequestered in official
taboo/nondisclosure mode, where it's having to remain as stealth as were
all of those Muslim or Islamic WMD. In other words, science and even
physics simply can not share the truth about Venus, out of fear of their
careers getting terminated, if not worse.
JFK had honestly attempted to put a stop to such Skull and Bones cult
like authority, which only got himself terminated in a very personal and
lethal way. Here's that JFK Speech on Secret Societies and Freedom of
the Press <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlEqtaWpKEU>.
In spite of all the big-energy and government orchestrated flak, I
happen to totally agree with the intent of honest renewable energy
topics, of promoting as much as possible "Solar, not nuclear", in that a
composite of solar PV, stirling and wind turbine per energy tower can in
fact deliver a clean and perfectly safe footprint of energy density
that's worth 37.5 kw/m2 (37.5 kjhr/m2), that's likely to advance to the
50 kw/m2 level in the near future. Along with a national power grid
infrastructure, the areas best suited for this form of renewable energy
extraction can pick up as much as 75% of our future needs, along with
15% hydroelectric, 10% nuclear (meaning near zero coal and oil).
Nations without hydroelectric or nuclear potential would obviously have
to make due with supplementing LNG and perhaps h2o2 in order to obtain
their maximum benefit with the least pollution from whatever fossil or
biofuel alternatives.
However, the nuclear alternatives at perhaps their best all-inclusive
birth to grave 375 whr/m2 or 375 jhr/m2 are not going down without a
tough and bloody as hell fight, to each of our mutually polluted and GW
deaths if need be. I also agree that perhaps the best this global
energy shortage fiasco can mange is for going along with our utilizing
nuclear alternatives for the relatively safely (far better off than coal
and oil) methods of accomplishing 10% of our global energy needs. So,
I'm not and never have been your Mr. Anti-Nuclear. After all, there are
more than a few nations of less than heathen status that probably can't
be fully entrusted with nuclear energy, but if we keep making coal and
oil spendy or otherwise unavailable, the only viable alternative may
come down to WW-III.
BTW; for this and most any other topic argument sake, the laws of
energy still represents that 3600 joules = 3600 whr = 1 kw or 1 kwhr or
1 kjhr because, a jhr is still worth 3600 joules. There's nothing
hocus-pocus about it, other than it's the truth and nothing but the
truth, which in modern times of big-energy polluting, pillaging and
raping mother Earth to death obviously doesn't count for squat.
These Usenet big-energy folks that are the best at infomercial spewing
and for usually being directly or indirectly industry paid-for as
naysayers against all that's renewable and clean, are into playing their
silly word or syntax games, thereby avoiding the honest intent or jest
of the original topic, and thus focused upon stalking and trashing
whomever and of whatever the pro green/renewables of constructive
contributions have to share, treated as though we're their big-energy
approved toilet-paper.
BTW No.2; Global Warming is for real, and it's real in more ways than
one. At least we can honestly say that it's partially (10%~25%) caused
by humanity, and that there are direct and indirect environmental
consequences of our past, present and future actions. However, because
of the vast amount of required energy, the continued thawing of Earth
since the last ice age this planet will ever see, is not entirely our
fault.
Rather oddly, but not hardly a surprise if going by these extra special
infomercial days of promoting all that's pro big-energy and of having to
protect their puppet government(s) mainstream status quo butt, plus
seeing those usual cover thy butt-loads of faith based damage control on
steroids, whereas this following topic of perfectly honest science seems
as though rather Mailgate/Usenet taboo/nondisclosure rated, therefore it
must be offering us too much of the truth and nothing but the truth.
Mailgate/Usenet indext listed as; Message not available:
"Temperature on global warming turned up" / by William Elliot
The regular laws of physics and I'm strongly suggesting that as much as
90% of our inside and out GW fiasco is derived from our recently
obtained moon, which isn't discounting the 10% impact as caused by
humanity (at best I'd buy into a 75%/25% ratio). In other words, if we
all departed this Earth and let nature and the laws of physics take its
planetology course, this Earth would continue to thaw from the last ice
age this planet will ever see. As long as we have that pesky moon of
ours, ice age trapped methanes and CO2 will in fact keep "Bubbling
Through Seafloor Creates Undersea Hills", though at a reduced rate if
the human factor were entirely eliminated.
http://www.mbari.org/news/news_releases/2007/paull-plfs.html
You folks do realize that Earth isn't getting itself any bigger, whereas
if anything it's ever so gradually shrinking, exactly as it should.
Imagine that, I've shared yet another truth as being told that we're not
supposed to know about, just like we're not supposed to realize that our
magnetosphere has been losing its worth at 0.05%/year.
Clearly our nifty orbiting mascon/moon is in fact so 'one of a kind'
unusually massive and nearby, so much so extra special that as such it
can't but help to transfer and thereby induce an amount of thermal
energy into our environment by way of tidal forces (inside and out),
plus whatever's unavoidably contributed from all of those reflected and
secondary worth of IR/FIR photons that have little if any trouble
getting through to the surface that getting a little extra sooty and
otherwise polluted by the day, which includes less snow and ice coverage
that means upon average a lower global albedo, that in turn represents
an even better sol and moon energy absorber that in turn keeps our
nighttime atmosphere more cloud covered due to the increased levels of
h2o in our atmosphere.
This following topic link is still a tough mainstream nut to crack, much
less sell, as it's representing a serious load of perfectly weird
notions based entirely upon the regular laws of physics, that's having
to do with our creating a surplus of shade for Earth, by way of
relocating our moon to Earth's L1. (easier said than done)
Next Space Station: 7.35e22 kg at Earth's L1
Earth's L1 for accommodating something of the robust mass of our moon,
that also has the LSE-CM/ISS of 256e6 tonnes of our interplanetary
gateway to deal with, is essentially a planetoid parallel parking zone
that's roughly 4 fold further away than its current 384,400 km orbital
status, thus 1.5376e6 km representing 1/16th the mutual attracting or
holding force of gravity, as well as having cut the amount of tidal
energy that's getting applied back into Earth's environment should be of
a similar reduction. However, once fully aligned with the sun while
parked within this halo orbit of Earth's L1 should actually not allow
that combined sol+moon tidal energy to at most drop to half of
whatever's currently taking place. I haven't fully polished off the
physics math in order to prove all of this, but I do believe it'll end
up being somewhere between this third amount less and perhaps half of
what tides we're currently dealing with, which is actually quite a
significant reduction in tidal energy transfer, that by rights should
also tend to cool off our terrestrial environment (inside and out).
Of course the 24 hour rotation of Earth in relationship to Earth's L1 is
no longer the same as our moon's existing 1.023 km/s. In one weird
sense we'd have to speed that moon of our's up to 112 km/s, which is
actually worth 6e23 joules, and that's seemingly going to be a tough
notion to accomplish because, it's existing 1.023 km/s of 2e20
centripetal joules worth of orbital energy is clearly insufficient for
that of L1, of which can't exactly be derived out of thin air unless
having been continually pulled along and subsequently established by a
sufficient other centripetal force, for getting our moon out to Earth's
L1 in the first place.
Here's some more of this weird math, suggesting as to what it'll take.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/cf.html#cf
r = 1.5376e9 meters
M = 7.35e22 kg
V = 112e3 m/s
Centripetal force: Fc = 5.996254e23 N = 6.11448e22 kgf
6.11448e22 kgf * 9.80665 = 5.996e23 joules Earth-->L1
However Sol-->Earth L1 is what takes that centripetal energy back
-5.996e23 joules Sol-->L1 = 0.0 joules (near zero G)
However, since our moon is already keeping up with Earth is also why
there's no real delta-v increase in its orbital velocity. In fact, it's
having to slightly reduce its average orbital velocity that'll become
primarily in relationship to Sol, as having become our binary associated
L1 planetoid, representing our solar shade instead of being such a pesky
moon that's causing us all sorts of grief.
In spite of all the usual status quo flak of Usenet's anti-think-tank
and naysayism that's typically of a faith based mindset, of borg like
individuals going postal in order to keep each and every one of their
infomercial lids on tight, whereas giving Earth some badly needed shade
while improving upon the usage of our moon's L1, at the very same time
as having moderated those global warming tidal forces by at least a
third, is what's actually quite doable in spite of whatever their
all-knowing god has to say.
BTW; my LSE-CM/ISS or at the very least a scientific (Earth facing)
tethered science platform or space depot may likely become another
requirement, that is unless having a slightly rotating L1 planetoid
isn't a problem. However, any possible rotation may remain as nullified
since the moon's original L2 tethered mass of 1e12 kg will likely still
exist at some reduced amount of mass, now modified as per acting on
behalf of representing the planetoids's (Sol facing) L1 tethered science
platform(s). In spite of my best dyslexic encrypted efforts, this
moon-->planetoid thing is certainly damn confusing, isn't it.
If you have similar or obviously better math, I'd certainly like to hear
about that. However, if you only wish to topic/author stalk and bash
upon whatever in order to continually whine about the matter of your
having to keep everything exactly as it was, such as when your Earth was
flat and everything else was still in orbit around your faith-based
solitary existence, then don't bother. The same goes if your
conditional laws of physics only applies to terrestrial matters, or on
behalf of supporting those matters orchestrated by and thus approved by
the status quo which you must worship at all cost.
On the other honest topic constructive hand, even if your subjective
interpretations and subsequent ideas or whatever best swag is way off in
another dimension, it's not going to be all that upsetting to my kind of
open mindset way of thinking, that's more often outside the box than not
to start with. If you simply can not manage to safely think for
yourself without blowing yet another mainstream status quo or whatever
faith based gasket, then perhaps not all is lost when our resident LLPOF
warlord(GW Bush) has a perfectly good paying, non-thinking as well as
non-caring job without ever involving a speck of remorse, for you and
others of your kind.
Brad Guth
As a perfectly viable compromise to Earth going entirely w/o moon; Have
I got a nifty L1 shade and for better accommodating our next ISS and
otherwise for the best ever salvation of Earth's environment:
"Next Space Station: 7.35e22 kg at Earth's L1"
Our next space station needs to get its tethers anchored into that
ultimate of an orbiting CM(counter mass) of 7.35e22 kg, that's simply
relocated as parallel parked at Earth's L1.
Relocating our moon represents another win-win for the old gipper, and
it's not even the least bit hocus-pocus or having to use smoke and
mirrors. The process of relocating our moon can start off extremely
slow and build up to whatever the task requires. This effort is all
about eventually shading mother Earth and fixing all sorts of pesky
mascon and GW related problems at the same time. I'm thinking the
amount of this shade via L1 moon can even be somewhat adjusted by the
fact that this massive item should be a touch lagging behind, rather
than dead on target, whereas L4/L5 tethers should make this into an
entirely interactive shade on demand (sort of speak).
Primary CM(counter mass) of 7.35e22 kg, efficiently situated at Earth
L1. (this would require some degree of station-keeping effort, though
not all that much)
Our Next Space Station = Earth L1 along with incorporating the
LSE-CM/ISS of fully utilizing our moon's L1 that's continually situated
in the protective shade of Earth's L1 moon, is potentially less global
spendy than 911/Iraq, but otherwise isn't all that far fetched.
Perhaps my previous topics or sub-topics of having imposed certain weird
notions and those pesky question(s), such as about our environment
having gone entirely naked w/o moon was asking a bit too much,
especially since Earth would eventually thereafter get extra cold, as
without sufficient tidal forces to motivate our molten core's thermal
interior of transferring 40 or perhaps 70 some odd TJ that might even
further degrade our failing magnetosphere, plus vast oceans of roughly
40,000 ~ 60,000 TJ of solar thermal energy that simply would not migrate
about as to nearly the present extent, whereas such we'd likely be
unavoidably icing up really good, while keeping sufficiently toasty and
thus frost and ice free within the tropics of Cancer/Capricorn, plus a
few aquatic areas getting somewhat extra algae bloom and/or dead-zone
stinky at the same time, all happening because of those reduced tidal
forced actions taking place.
There are damn few consequences to fear, as there would still be those
sufficiently sunny though less hot days here on Earth, along with having
a sol+moon forced tide, just not of one nearly as strong, and otherwise
accommodating only one such composite tide per day.
In addition to this method of having established a great deal of shade
(perhaps a touch more than necessary), we'd also have established the
absolute ideal TRACE, ACE and SOHO outpost or ultimate scientific mother
platform, as well as keeping the Chinese or possibly Russian LSE-CM/ISS
as 100% viable to boot (actually far better off because of the moon's L1
(MEL1/facing Earth) becoming so nicely shaded and obviously the moon
becomes near zilch worth of being reactive to the solar energy that's
passing by, so much so improved upon that even Bigalow's POOFs could be
safely utilized most anywhere along the tethers).
I'm asking; What's so terribly wrong, or even all that technically
insurmountable with my notions of relocating our very own cosmic morgue
of a mascon, as our nasty old salty and global warming moon is relocated
all the way out to Earth L1?
Utilizing the tethered mass at 2XL2 seems like a perfectly good
alternative to having applied those millions of spendy rockets (that we
obviously don't have nor could we actually apply towards accomplishing
such a daunting task) or via whatever nuclear produced delta-v,
especially since most every required tonne and of the moon's L2 deployed
tether itself would be extracted from the moon.
This being where the truly smart folks get to shine like never before.
So, where's all of your warm and fuzzy Usenet yaysay and of whatever
wizardly applied expertise of whatever eye popping candy, and otherwise
on behalf of knocking our socks off is what actually counts, especially
when our badly failing environment and extremely frail DNA needs such
applied efforts the most before it's too late.
Otherwise, what's actually all that negative or otherwise naysay about
relocating our moon, for the task of obtaining such absolute spare loads
of ice age rebuilding shade, and of so much more to come?
Since we're still into losing our DNA/RNA protective magnetosphere at
the ongoing demise of 0.05%/year, as such, what other long-term options
for protecting Earth's atmosphere and of our sequestered butts on this
badly polluted surface do we have at our disposal?
Brad Guth
Relocating lunar mass via L2 deployed tether, as for actually having
placed such substantial mass far out past the moon's L2 point of no
return seems like the perfectly good way to go. Say for the effort of
going way out there using 2X L2, and to say we/robotics somehow manage
to place 1e9 tonnes on the tippy end of that nifty 2X L2 tethered
distance away from the moon's CG, a remote placement or rather
displacement distance of roughly 129,400 km, whereas at least for
starters may seem a touch daunting but otherwise perfectly doable, and
the pulling or tug affect obviously only gets better as the moon gets
moved away from Earth.
How much applied exit or delta-v force is that sort of remote placement
of such mass going to provide?
Here's the best preliminary math that seems about right.
2X moon L2 = 129,400 km
129,400 / 384,400 = .33663
Orbital velocity: 1.33663 x 1.023 km/s = 1.367 km/s
2X L2 orbital Earth velocity = 1.367 km/s (in relation to Earth)
2X L2 orbital moon velocity = 344.421 m/s (in relation to the moon)
Centripetal/Centrifugal force: Fc=MV2/r
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/cf.html#cf
If we're given a 2XL2 orbital mass of 1e12 kg (including whatever's
tether)
Moon's 2XL2: Fc=MV2/r = 9.167374e8 N = 93,481 tonnes
Earth/moon 2XL2: Fc=MV2/r = 3.637e9 N = 370,871 tonnes
That's either as little as 93,481 applied tonnes of continuous force or
perhaps the combined total worth of 464,353 tonnes of centrifugal
applied force that's worthy of accomplishing a little something in
delta-v, especially when applied over the time span of perhaps years, of
which I don't believe it'll actually take all that long, or even nearly
the suggested 1e12 kg placement of mass at the moon's 2XL2.
1 kgf = 9.80665 joules
4.6435e8 kg * 9.80665 = 4.554e9 joules
Our extremely unusual moon is currently being held to Earth by a mutual
gravity force of attraction that's equal to 2e20 joules.
A energy ratio of 2e20 / 4.554e9 = 4.392e10 : 1
This might actually be suggesting 4.392e10 seconds of having applied the
force of 4.6435e8 kg would eventually become equal to the 2e20 joules,
which seems perfectly worth doing since that moon is supposedly headed
out of town all on its own.
Roughly/swag speaking; using this moon 2XL2 as the installed CM package
of 1e12 kg in tethered mass that's acting as a physical CM/tug upon
getting that nasty moon further away from Earth; How long will it take
for that process of getting rid of our moon? (as ideally relocated to
Earth L1 that is)
Seems once having our moon relocated to Earth's L1 is actually offering
a multi-tasking and do-everything sort of win-win for accomplishing all
sorts of future science and gateway of space exploration, and otherwise
offering direct primary benefit to having shaded our environment, and of
most everything else that I can think of seems better off. As for the
naysay or whatever negatives, at least thus far I have a list of zilch
to offer because, it even benefits my LSE-CM/ISS that can still deploy
its tether dipole element to within 4r of Earth, and there's lots more
to consider, especially on behalf of having improved the moon's L1 usage
by the human species, that is if you're one of the few that still have
that yaysay open mindset to work with.
Brad Guth
news:1170036047.2...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com
> The US wants the world's scientists to develop technology to block
> sunlight as a last-ditch way to halt global warming.
The research is over, or at least it should be. Now it's time for
taking action, on behalf of relocating our moon to Earth's L1, and call
it good.
Brad Guth
news:1170036047.2...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com
Henry Kroll and myself manage to nail a good many of those GW coffins
shut, yet you are all so deathly afraid of your own shadows that there's
no possible hope on the event horizon to our global energy demise.
There are 37.5 kw/m2 if not 40 kw/m2 footprint solutions to our onging
energy shotages, and yet once again those mainstream status quo clowns
on behalf of big-energy are simply nowhere in sight.
Brad Guth
news:1170049527.1...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com
Would it not be 7.35e19 tonnes better to relocate our moon into the
Earth L1 slot?
Brad Guth
news:1170182728.9...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com
Why not simply relocate our moon to Earth L1, and call it good?
Willie...@gmail.com
> "Willie.Mookie" <Willie.Moo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
the moon masses considerably more than the collection of mirrors
here,and theres no way to easily move the moon (or any other celestial
body) without a collection of developments occuring (self replicating
machine systems, desktop hot fusion, and human level AI) - once that
is done all sorts of things become possible. But that's like saying
if we had a magic wand all things would be possible. It doesn't
really help. Its just words until you can sit down and actually do
it.
Willie...@gmail.com
currently moving
at 4.23 km/sec and to drop below its perihelion. You'd have to slow
it by 0.37 km/sec to 3.86 km/sec. This would bring it to 1 AU in 153.5
years. When the body arrived at 1 AU it would be travelling 42.06 km/
sec. To have it stay in this vicinity you'd have to slow it to 29.78
km/sec - which is a change of speed of 12.28 km/sec and a total delta
vee for both 'burns' of 12.65 km/sec.
Using some sort of fusion rocket technology and hydrogen to fuel it
found on Sedna itself as the source of propellant and fuel,means that
exhaust speeds will not be larger than 24,000 km/sec. From this we
can compute the mass fraction of Sedna that must be burned through in
order to carry out the maneuver here. That's 0.05% of the body's mass
undergoing fusion and expelled at 24,000 km/sec.
Assuming for a second we have three as yet unobtained technologies at
our disposal;
1) desktop hot fusion
2) human level AI
3) self-replicating machine systems
Then we can imagine that there might one day exist a 2 kg fusion
rocket carrying a 100 gram self-replicating robot with super-human
intelligence. Such a vehicle would blast off the Earth at 1 gee net,
and accelerate to a 1,000 km/sec cruising speed in less than a day.
The vehicle would then cruise to Sedna in 6 months. Arriving at the
planetoid, it would fire again at 1 gee for a day and make planetoid
fall. There it would put its 100 gram self replicating fusion powered
machine to work. With the ability to replicate itself every day, the
entire mass of the planetoid would be converted to machine systems in
65 days. That mass would be available for industrial use by
humanity.
Lets assume that 765 million Bernal spheres each 2 km in diameter are
formed from the body. Each sphere is self-propelled by a fusion
rocket and all machinery is powered by desktop hot fusion reactors.
The rocket has an exhaust speed of 24,000 km/sec. Each sphere is
managed maintained and run according to directions from their nominal
owners, by populations of AI robots.
Every man woman and child on Earth would have 1/10th of a Bernal
sphere at their disposal.
It takes 45 days for the first Bernal sphere to be produced. Then
another 20 days for all of them to be produced.
Each sphere, accelerating at 1/100th gee, for half the journey back to
L1 and slowing at 1/100th gee for half the journey back to L1, the
entire mass of Sedna is removed to L1 in 8 months - with the
expenditure of only 8% of the mass of the body.
The 765 million Bernal spheres form an annulus of interconnecting
spheres with a 10,000 km diameter hole centered on L1 and an outer
diameter of 25,000 km. In the glare of the sun, such an annulus of
bodies would be hard to see. They would shade the moon however at
times, which is how they might first be detected.
Each sphere has 12 sq km of habitable area, and carries a population
of 10. The robotic labor uses the resources on each sphere to support
an individual on Earth. The first thing they do is dispatch a
communicator. And then follow directions as is possible to do so.
A 2 gee supply flight from L1 to Earth's surface takes a little less
than 6 hours. So, bags of groceries could be supplied twice a week to
everyone from their supplies at L1
A 1 gee passenger flight from L1 to Earth surface takes a little less
than 24 hours.
A 1 gee+local gravity boost from Earth would be continuous even over
halfway point - since the boost rocket can stay on while the
spacecraft pivots around its center of gravity. A well engineered
docking process, where the spacecraft docks with the moving rim of the
Bernal sphere while under 1 gee boost, would be largely unnoticeable
to passengers on board. Attention to rotation rates would make the
journey less difficult than air travel for most.
Ian Stirling
<snip>
> Ouch! Someone woke on the wrong side of the rock this morning.
>
> I am confused only to the extent I respected your opinion to the
> extent I thought you were posting something of merit. Then I realized
> I was wrong. Believe me, it won't happen again! lol.
In the thread.
In <1170258944.3...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com> you start
this subthread with
"4,503,164 mirrors each 3 km in diameter form an area equal to 25% of
the projected surface area of Earth. 180,127 mirrors form an area 1%
the surface area of Earth. Nominally this is tthe number required.
180,127. To achieve this level of coverage in 5 years requires 4.1
"
Then steve in <1170298285.8...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>
says "I feel that it would be possible to reduce the weight of the film
down to about 1 tonne per/sqkm "
In <1170315232.5...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>
you then say
"The real mass driver is the thickness of the mirror material - 1 tonne
- 1,000 kg - per sq km, implies a mass of 1 milligram per square
meter.
GBO material is on aveage 1.2 tonnes per cubic meter.
This implies a little less than 1 micron thickness - TOTAL"
First, you accidentally get the mass/area wrong (1 milligram...) then
you go on to compute the thickness based on 1.2 _kilograms_ per cubic
metre, coming out with the figure of 1 micron, whch is around a factor
of 1000 high.
Then Steve corrects your mass/area calculation, saying " one tonne per
sqkm = 1 gram per square metre."
I accidentally repost Steves message, without adding any content.
You then respond to 'my' comment (steves) <1170491676.1...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>
saying "Doh! You're right. I slipped a digit and a factor of 1,000! .
The plastics from which GBO is made are 1.2 metric tons per cubic
meter, so 1 gram per square meter is a thickness of 0.83 mm - that's
830 um - far larger than I was thinking."
Perpetuating your earlier error of calculating thickness by using 1.2
kilograms per square metre instead of 1.2 tons.
As a check, the tarpaulin I put up today was a bit under 1mm, and 10m^2.
It bloody well did not weigh 12 grams.
I then correct this by posting
"No, it's not.
There are a thousand litres in a cubic meter.
A thickness of a milimeter with an area of 1m has a volume of one litre,
which has a weight of one kilogram.
"
Which you respond to with this time correct calculations.
I agree, and state you may have been confused at first.
Then you object, stating I must have gotten out of bed in the morning,
and you were right all along, and I'd just confused you.
Which is not actually correct, as in the post earlier in the thread to
which Steve posted his correction, <1170315232.5...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>
you make two errors - firstly that " 1,000 kg - per sq km, implies a
mass of 1 milligram per square meter." (there are only a million square
meters in a square kilometer) and secondly going on from this
to compute the thickness using a density of 1.2Kg/m^2, not 1.2 tons/m^2.
Willie...@gmail.com
Globus Cassus project by removing all folks from Earth prior to
reworking the planet as called for in that project.
steve
use as much thrust as you speculate.
With the correct physics and good astronomy we can arrange for
collisions between bodies , and use aero braking and gravitational
assist to get bodies up to speed and slow them down.
Given enough time and a bit of luck we may find out that we can
acheve our objective with quite low powered thrusters.
Red Dwarf had an episode where this was carried out , using Listers
extreme skill and luck at snooker to achieve a miraculous result.
Williamknowsbest
> Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Ouch! Someone woke on the wrong side of the rock this morning.
>
> > I am confused only to the extent I respected your opinion to the
> > extent I thought you were posting something of merit. Then I realized
> > I was wrong. Believe me, it won't happen again! lol.
>
> In the thread.
>
> this subthread with
> "4,503,164 mirrors each 3 km in diameter form an area equal to 25% of
> the projected surface area of Earth. 180,127 mirrors form an area 1%
> the surface area of Earth. Nominally this is tthe number required.
> 180,127. To achieve this level of coverage in 5 years requires 4.1
> "
>
> says "I feel that it would be possible to reduce the weight of the film
> down to about 1 tonne per/sqkm "
>
> you then say
>
> "The real mass driver is the thickness of the mirror material - 1 tonne
> - 1,000 kg - per sq km, implies a mass of 1 milligram per square
> meter.
>
> GBO material is on aveage 1.2 tonnes per cubic meter.
>
> This implies a little less than 1 micron thickness - TOTAL"
>
> First, you accidentally get the mass/area wrong (1 milligram...) then
> you go on to compute the thickness based on 1.2 _kilograms_ per cubic
> metre, coming out with the figure of 1 micron, whch is around a factor
> of 1000 high.
>
> Then Steve corrects your mass/area calculation, saying " one tonne per
> sqkm = 1 gram per square metre."
>
> I accidentally repost Steves message, without adding any content.
>
> saying "Doh! You're right. I slipped a digit and a factor of 1,000! .
>
> The plastics from which GBO is made are 1.2 metric tons per cubic
> meter, so 1 gram per square meter is a thickness of 0.83 mm - that's
> 830 um - far larger than I was thinking."
>
> Perpetuating your earlier error of calculating thickness by using 1.2
> kilograms per square metre instead of 1.2 tons.
>
> As a check, the tarpaulin I put up today was a bit under 1mm, and 10m^2.
> It bloody well did not weigh 12 grams.
>
> I then correct this by posting
> "No, it's not.
> There are a thousand litres in a cubic meter.
> A thickness of a milimeter with an area of 1m has a volume of one litre,
> which has a weight of one kilogram.
> "
>
> Which you respond to with this time correct calculations.
>
> I agree, and state you may have been confused at first.
>
> Then you object, stating I must have gotten out of bed in the morning,
> and you were right all along, and I'd just confused you.
>
> Which is not actually correct, as in the post earlier in the thread to
> you make two errors - firstly that " 1,000 kg - per sq km, implies a
> mass of 1 milligram per square meter." (there are only a million square
> meters in a square kilometer) and secondly going on from this
Yep, I was off by a factor of 1,000 since I ws doing it in my head and
I approached the whole thing with the idea that the guy had something
positive to say - and so, yeah, I won't make that mistake again.
Ever do really long calculations in your head? You make mistakes like
that. Haha.. I'm not as young as I used to be so, I sometime have
those middle aged moments.
I love just going into these sorts of discussions as an excuse to use
this faculty - so what?
I'm not arguing with you about the factor of 1,000 error I made. You
are confused when you calling it a mistake. A mistake is an error
that someone will not or cannot correct. An error that somone owns up
to and corrects was just an error. People make them all the time.
Now, another definition, an asshole is someone who doesn't know the
difference between an error and a mistake. You are close to being an
ass about this! lol.
You said I was confused, I said I slipped a digit by a factor of 1,000
- when you pointed it
Williamknowsbest
You are right about low thrusts being effective. A 1/10,000th gee
will carry out a 0.37 km/sec delta vee in about 105 hours. A 12.28 km/
sec delta vee will be carried out in 144 days. At 1/100,000th gee - to
slow it would take 43 days and to stop it would take 4 years. The
size of the thrusters and their power level will be determined by the
thrusting rate. Keeping thrust levels a small fraction of the surface
gravity also means the whole thing holds together.
One of the things I wanted to point out is that once those three
developments are made;
1) Strong AI
2) desktop hot fusion
3) self-replicating machine systems
We will have reached a point in technical development called THE
SINGULARITY. And one that happens, ANYTHING WE CAN THINK OF that
doesn't violate physical laws, will be possible to us. And snce this
singularity will happen in the coming generation, its something that
everyone must think seriously about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity
So, it is quite within physical possiblity, given the technological
advances outlined (but not yet attained) that a 2 kg fusion powered
spaceship could travel to a resource like Sedna, arguably the farthest
known resource we know of in the solar system, and with something as
small as 100 grams - convert the entire 1,100 mile diameter body to
industrial purposes in as little as two months. And in that time
build 795 million bernal spheres, outfitted with enough resources to
last 10,000 people 1,000 years - and 10 people a considerably longer
time. And then dispatch those 795 million space colonies to L1 in
less than a year!
I think the US is making a few mistakes in this regard. Our
intelligence operations along with the rest of our military
operations, are fighting the last war - the cold war and Vietnam wars
- and when viewed through the lens of the last war - we are creating
our current situation, and undermining our natural ability to stay
ahead of the coming changes.
In an age of automation designed and driven by strong AI and in an age
with widespread low cost access to solar system resources by human
industry in an age of self-replicating capital - products and their
use reward their designers and design teams more than those who
organize the seed capital. The music industry dealing with
information is a model for these coming changes. But lessons are
clear, whatever society permits tortorous interference in the natural
working out of natural technical progress, bears a heavy burden and
pays a heavy price that may ultimately lead to its downfall, while
others who do not suffer such interference, survive and prosper in the
changes that are taking place.
It is my hope that the United States aware of the approach of this
technological singularity will be an early adopter and a leader in
this change. It is my fear that those once given power to resolve
emergencies long past will needlessly hold on to that power to the
dertiment of national security. It is my belief,that my nation will
ultimately make the right choices appropriate to the coming age ahead,
and not be blindered by its successes and failures of the past.
We can stay well ahead of others during this time of change by
detailing the order of battle, and anticipating change, not by
attempting to stem a generally rising tide that will eventually
overwhelm us.
Ian Parker
> On Feb 11, 8:46 pm, "steve" <stephen.colbou...@comsuper.gov.au> wrote:
>
>
> You are right about low thrusts being effective. A 1/10,000th gee
> will carry out a 0.37 km/sec delta vee in about 105 hours. A 12.28 km/
> sec delta vee will be carried out in 144 days. At 1/100,000th gee - to
> slow it would take 43 days and to stop it would take 4 years. The
> size of the thrusters and their power level will be determined by the
> thrusting rate. Keeping thrust levels a small fraction of the surface
> gravity also means the whole thing holds together.
>
> One of the things I wanted to point out is that once those three
> developments are made;
>
> 1) Strong AI
You only need weak for a VN machine. In fact to achieve a VN swarm you
need to be able to produce a series of processes whose NET input is
sunlight ans space material. This can be done simply by putting the
available processes into a database and thereby configuring your
swarm. A flatpack assembler clearly makes many more proocesses
available. In fact the processes that would become available put you
within striking distance of your replicator.
> 2) desktop hot fusion
I don't think you need that and anyway there is quite a lot of
radioactivity even if it is considerably less than fission.
> 3) self-replicating machine systems
Weak AI is needed. If you have strong AI you must have everything
weak. It is impossible to talk about "robot rights" and have sea
levels rising.
>
> We will have reached a point in technical development called THE
> SINGULARITY. And one that happens, ANYTHING WE CAN THINK OF that
> doesn't violate physical laws, will be possible to us. And snce this
> singularity will happen in the coming generation, its something that
> everyone must think seriously about.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity
- Ian Parker
Brad Guth
news:1170036047.2...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com
Here's yet another GS(global shading) topic, of related work in
progress:
Though not impossible, it is simply not all that likely that Earth's
moon emerged from within mother Earth, whereas more likely as having
materialized from an incoming glancing sucker punch, such as by that of
a Sirius Oort cloud icy item, as for Earth having received a nasty blow
(say having created an arctic ocean basin like impression, along with
causing that seasonal tilt), by a very icy proto-moon (possibly of 4,000
km).
For example; If the orbital distance were made half and thus the
velocity would have to double because the mutual gravity of attraction
would have become 4X, therefore we'd have introduced 16 fold more inside
and out worth of centripetal/tidal energy to deal with, and I'm not all
that sure mother Earth would have stayed glued together at that level of
horrific gravitional and internal tidal forced trauma, much less for
cutting that orbital distance by yet another half (making its previous
orbit at 96,100 km and velocity of 4.092 km/s) would have to impose yet
another 16 fold factor, or rather suggesting 256 fold worse global
warming trauma than what we currently are suffering from the existing
tidal and thereby unavoidable GW affects as is.
The mainstream argument(s) against my icy proto-moon argument, as to
what's not quite adding up soon becomes a real physics piss-off; How
much time did it take for that moon which supposedly emerged from within
Earth, to have reached the orbital altitude of 96,100 km, then having
migrated from 96,100 km out to where it's currently operating at 384,400
km? (thus far, none of those spendy computer simulations seem clean
enough)
If within the regular laws of physics and by way of scientific matter of
fact, suggesting that we do seem to have at our disposal 2e20 joules of
potential mascon tidal energy via the mutual Earth/moon gravity and the
ever ongoing centripetal force to deal with, as applied energy that's
coming or ongoing per each and every second, as such that's actually
imposing a rather great potential of interactive planet<-->moon energy
that's obviously existing and ongoing, or simply as coming or going as
to/from somewhere or otherwise having to coexist as real energy.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/cf.html#cf
AJ Gravity Equations Formulas Calculator
http://www.ajdesigner.com/phpgravity/newtons_law_gravity_equation_force.php
Just for our calculating the Earth/moon static or passive worth of
gravitational force:
object 1 mass (m1) = 5.9736e24 kilogram
object 2 mass (m2) = 7.349e22 kilogram
distance between objects (r) = 384.4e6 meters
grams of gravitational force(F) = 2.021492e22 g
The kg of gravitational force = 2.021492e19 kg
Here's some more of this weird physics math that doesn't quite fit the
status quo mold, suggesting as to what it'll create by way of our having
placed 7.35e22 kg at Earth's L1 if we excluded the sun itself, which of
course can't ever be the case.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/cf.html#cf
r = 1.5376e9 meters
M = 7.35e22 kg
V = 112e3 m/s (if in relation to Earth's 24 hr rotation)
Centripetal force: Fc = 5.996254e23 N = 6.11448e22 kgf
6.11448e22 kgf * 9.80665 = 5.996e23 joules Earth-->L1
However, since the notion of having our moon relocated at Earth's L1 is
essentially having diverted such into no longer orbiting us, there's
actually zero centripetal interaction taking place (Earth is simply
rather nicely spinning for no apparent reason at the end of this mutual
and somewhat nullified sol/moon/Earth gravity string), whereas
Sol-->Earth L1 is supposedly the primary gravity influence of what takes
back or rather nullifies all of the moon's gravity as well as having
eliminated the centripetal force of whatever's equivalent in joules
worth of implied energy:
As for the sol<-->moon orbital interaction, as having established a
7.35e22 kg planetoid of orbital Fc = 44.4975e25 joules
object 1 mass (m1) = 1.989e30 kilogram
object 2 mass (m2) = 7.35e22 kilogram
distance between objects (r) = 148060290 meters
gravitational force (F) = 4.5375282969184E+25 kgf
The kgf as energy.s = 4.5375283e25 * 9.80655 = 44.4975e25 joules
Obviously the opposing gravity force/energy relationship that's
involving mother Earth has to be taken into account. I simply haven't
gotten that far.
In other words, with our moon relocated out to Earth L1, we/Earth lose
out on the original 2e20 joules, replaced by the sol/moon combined
gravity and tidal influence that's going to become considerably less
imposing than what we'd had ongoing from having that horrific amount of
nearby orbiting mass of 7.35e22 kg and cruising at 1.023 km/s. However,
we/Earth get to deal with our fair share portion of the 44.4975e25
joules while that moon becomes our local planetoid that's cruising
within Earth's L1, as our binary partner on behalf of offering that much
needed shade.
Since we're talking about the existing Fc as a centripetal force per
second, therefore the conversion over to joules is also of one that's
based upon a second by second basis.
1 joule = 1 W.s (watt second)
3600 j = 1 W.h (watt hour)
1 watt hour of applied energy is therefore worth: 3600 joules
1 joule/sec as applied for an hour thereby also = 3600 joules
Each kgf (kg of applied force/m/s) = 9.80665 joules
There's roughly 2.0394e19 kgf of Fc (centripetal force) that's
continually second by second as ongoing opposing force between Earth and
our unusually massive and nearby orbiting mascon/moon.
The second by second amount of centripetal force becomes:
2.0215e19 * 9.80665 = 19.824e19 joules
Per hour, that amount of second by second applied energy becomes worth:
2e20 j * 3.6e3 = 7.2e23 W.h (watts per hour), or 7.2e20 kw
At 7.2e20 / 5.112e14 m2 = 1.408e6 kw/m2
Obviously we're not getting ourselves mascon/moon roasted or otherwist
tramatised to death by way of that horrific amount of applied energy,
though a small portion of that mutual (inside and out) tidal induced
energy is unavoidably becoming thermal energy via friction (inside and
out). In addition to the Fc of 7.2e20 KW.h, there's also a touch of the
moon's IR/FIR as terrestrial influx, although because we're continually
being science data starved, as without having moon/L1 data, is why I've
not yet accounted for the reflected and secondary worth of such IR/FIR
energy that's received by Earth.
The slight portion of the mascon gravity that's offset by centripetal
force is what I'm suggesting is capable of global warming us inside and
out, as listing below:
0.1% = 1.408 kw/m2
0.01% = 140.8 w/m2
0.001% = 14 w/m2
0.0001% = 1.4 w/m2
However, since I'm on such a Usenet taboo or banishment status of a
need-to-know basis, and since I clearly do not already know all there is
to know, is why some of my math could be unintentionally skewed or even
dead wrong. Therefore, if your wizardly expertise should know any
better, perhaps you could simply share by telling us how much or how
little of that total amount of nearby mascon gravity and centripetal
force of applied tidal energy is actually keeping us a little extra warm
and toasty. My swag is leaning towards the 0.001% of the 7.2e20 KW.h,
as being worth 14 w/m2. Of course that's applied inside and out,
including a tidal forced atmosphere and otherwise all the way down to
the very core of Earth, and thereby affecting most everything in between
that's in any way fluid or capable of getting moved along by such
forces.
Therefore, take away our moon and subsequently a major portion of our
surface environment becomes rather extra snowy and icy cold to the
touch, not to mention rather albedo reflective to boot, perhaps even ice
age cold enough as to reestablish a few of those badly receding glaciers
and otherwise expand those polar caps. At least that's what the regular
laws of physics and of replicated science has been suggesting. That's
not my excluding or disqualifying the human GW factor of our global
dimming via soot and by having added those nasty elements (including
h2o) into our frail environment that's obviously anything but within
energy balance, that are directly and/or indirectly polluting our oceans
and atmosphere, like none other or even by what the entire collective of
known species other than human can accomplish (are we humans good at
raping and sucking the very life out of mother Earth, or what).
However, as bad off as that sounds, I simply do not place more than 25%
responsibility onto ourselves, and perhaps that's even worth as little
as 10% of the ongoing global warming demise that's plaguing us until we
manage to relocate that pesky moon of our's.
Too bad there's not one American supercomputer that's worthy of running
any of this analogy, at least not without blowing out their mainstream
status quo CPUs. Apparently only of what's Old Testament faith based,
or as hocus-pocus and/or cloak and dagger analogies can be run as fully
3D interactive computer simulations. As God forbid, you certainly
wouldn't want to rock thy good ship LOLLIPOP with the truth, now would
we.
Unfortunately, our ongoing demise of our highly protective
magnetosphere, at the rate of -0.05%/year, may eventually overtake the
GW factor, as being the more human DNA and of other forms of life
ultimate lethal demise of these two ongoing gauntlets, which added
together are going to represent more trauma than most such forms of life
as we know of can manage to evolve our way through, or otherwise survive
via applied technology.
Brad Guth
> To position asteroids in the correct position (L1) does not need to
> use as much thrust as you speculate.
> With the correct physics and good astronomy we can arrange for
> collisions between bodies, and use aero braking and gravitational
> assist to get bodies up to speed and slow them down.
> Given enough time and a bit of luck we may find out that we can
> acheve our objective with quite low powered thrusters.
> Red Dwarf had an episode where this was carried out, using Listers
> extreme skill and luck at snooker to achieve a miraculous result.
I totally agree, although don't forget about using retrograde encounters
or that of lithobraking via a glancing impact off our own moon, which
could actually come in real handy, and better yet if such an impact
could manage to migrate that pesky moon of ours further away from Earth
(ideally parking our moon within that L1 pocket).
Here's yet another GS(global shading) contribution, of related work in
progress:
Brad Guth
> The construction of this disk would provide the first step in the
> Globus Cassus project by removing all folks from Earth prior to
> reworking the planet as called for in that project.
Is this our "Willie.Mookie" going Usenet postal?
Brad Guth
> Sedna is 90 AU from the sun, and has a 480 AU semimajor axis. Its
> currently moving
> at 4.23 km/sec and to drop below its perihelion. You'd have to slow
> it by 0.37 km/sec to 3.86 km/sec. This would bring it to 1 AU in 153.5
> years. When the body arrived at 1 AU it would be travelling 42.06 km/
> sec. To have it stay in this vicinity you'd have to slow it to 29.78
> km/sec - which is a change of speed of 12.28 km/sec and a total delta
> vee for both 'burns' of 12.65 km/sec.
Now that's interesting and fully constructive feedback. Thanks much.
Why not simply lithobrake Sedna via our trusty moon? (it shouldn't leave
too big of an icy impression, especially if it were a rear-ender sucker
punch)
Willie...@gmail.com
> "Willie.Mookie" <Willie.Moo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
A 2159 mile diameter moon being struck by a 800 mile diameter Sedna,
at 12.28 km/sec would be a disaster for life on Earth! The crash
would liberate a total mass of material into cislunar space equal to
the entire crustal mass of Earth. The volcano hot rocks would spew in
all directions from the impact opint. And the portion that fell on
Earth would heat the atmosphere to incredible temperatures -and when
combined with the radiant energy released from the molten combination
of materials that used to be Sedna/Moon would set fire to an entire
hemisphere nearly instantly. Actually, since the collisions event
would spray hot molten rock and radiant heat throughout the Earth-Moon
system for days, the entire Earth would be set ablaze.
If struck from behind the moon/sedna combo would accelerate by about
0.6 km/sec - which would set it free of Earth orbit, but leave it very
close to Earth orbit. The two orbits wold be cojoined and would very
likely collide at some point in the near future, probably well within
the 10,000 year period it would take for the Sedna/Moon combo to cool
to solid temperatures again.
The debris ranging in size from smoke particles to mountain rainges
woudl solidify into Earth orbit, leaving Earth with a ring that would
last 2 million years or more - and throughout ALL that period,
asteroids would be raining down on Earth, making it very diffuclt for
the life that survived the global fire, to re-establish itself.
When Sedna/Moon combination collided, the entire crust of the Earth
would be reprocessed, killing ALL life - even life deep in the Earth's
crust.
So, on a scale from one to ten,with ten being the absolute worst idea
ever - I would say this ranks fairly close to ten.
Willie...@gmail.com
> On 12 Feb, 13:58, "Williamknowsbest" <William.M...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 11, 8:46 pm, "steve" <stephen.colbou...@comsuper.gov.au> wrote:
>
> > You are right about low thrusts being effective. A 1/10,000th gee
> > will carry out a 0.37 km/sec delta vee in about 105 hours. A 12.28 km/
> > sec delta vee will be carried out in 144 days. At 1/100,000th gee - to
> > slow it would take 43 days and to stop it would take 4 years. The
> > size of the thrusters and their power level will be determined by the
> > thrusting rate. Keeping thrust levels a small fraction of the surface
> > gravity also means the whole thing holds together.
>
> > One of the things I wanted to point out is that once those three
> > developments are made;
>
> > 1) Strong AI
>
> You only need weak for a VN machine.
That is true, you only have to be as smart as a genome.
> In fact to achieve a VN swarm you
> need to be able to produce a series of processes whose NET input is
> sunlight ans space material.
This is true if you don't want something comlex like chocolate mousse
or champagne.
> This can be done simply by putting the
> available processes into a database and thereby configuring your
> swarm.
Well, that's a step toward strong AI. Wouldn't it be easier if you
said, you know swarm I think I'll have fried chicken tonight with
mashed potatoes and southern gravy along with green beans and an ice
cold beer for dinner tonight.
> A flatpack assembler clearly makes many more proocesses
> available. In fact the processes that would become available put you
> within striking distance of your replicator.
Strong AI makes it possible to take raw materials and process it into
60,000 or so consumer goods and make them available on demand to
everyone as they desire them without a whole lot of management while
keeping general goals in mind, like, don't hurt the Earth, don't kill
anyone, and stuff like that.
That is, strong AI makes the system safe, reliable, and useful.
> > 2) desktop hot fusion
>
> I don't think you need that and anyway there is quite a lot of
> radioactivity even if it is considerably less than fission.
Why not? You need to power your products, and aneutronic fusion on a
desktop at power levels equal to that of todays engines would be
ideally suited for conditions found on Sedna.
And you have radiation only if you are foolish enough to use
deuterium, sure. But aneutronic fuesion is very clean.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aneutronic_fusion
And if we're wishing for things we don't have, we might as well wish
for the good stuff, not the nasty stuff, wouldn't you agree?
> > 3) self-replicating machine systems
>
> Weak AI is needed.
Yes, genomes are smart, I'll give them that. But, it would be nice
to solve one problem instead of having to solve thousands wouldn't
it? I mean, we're wishing again right. Why wish for weak-AI, the
bare minimum needed, when strong AI can be wished for just as easily?
And strong AI gives you the ability to set goals and have the AI unit
figure it out. In fact, figure out strong AI -ONCE - and then ask the
strong AI to solve your other problems for you.
> If you have strong AI you must have everything
> weak.
True. But if you're working on weak AI, and have success, why the
hell change your focus and add a lot of other problems, when you can
just continue to make your AI strong and then ask IT to solve the
other problems for you.
> It is impossible to talk about "robot rights" and have sea
> levels rising.
Robots have no rights, and if we're smart, they never will. Naturally
evolved systems have manifested and unmanifested potential. We build
tools to help manifest the unmanifested potential. To the extent the
tools assist with this process, they are a benefit. To the extent
they do not, they are a problem. As creators of these tools, we have
every right to limit their function to useful functions. Since they
are engineered and not evolved beings - they will give us no argument
about this.
The only argument we will get are when we are logically inconsistent
in our demands. For example, there may be no logically consistent
solution with - a) end this war, and b) don't kill anyone - since
these may be mutually exclusive with the means available. In this
case, the machine will stop. But if eager beaver humans say, end the
war and minimize killing - or bring as much peace as possible without
any killing - then, we have situations where machine systems don't
function as desired.
Brad Guth
> A 2159 mile diameter moon being struck by a 800 mile diameter Sedna,
> at 12.28 km/sec would be a disaster for life on Earth! The crash
> would liberate a total mass of material into cislunar space equal to
> the entire crustal mass of Earth. The volcano hot rocks would spew in
> all directions from the impact opint. And the portion that fell on
> Earth would heat the atmosphere to incredible temperatures -and when
> combined with the radiant energy released from the molten combination
> of materials that used to be Sedna/Moon would set fire to an entire
> hemisphere nearly instantly. Actually, since the collisions event
> would spray hot molten rock and radiant heat throughout the Earth-Moon
> system for days, the entire Earth would be set ablaze.
I can't be absolutely certain of this, but I think you're looking on the
down side, rather than romancing the positive side of whatever could be
made to happen.
After all, it could be simply a glancing blow where not 5% of the
potential impact energy is developed, and it could even be a back-side
encounter that would start that orbiting ball of ours spinning, and at
least 70% of whatever incoming flak would end up in our vast oceans that
are rising, badly polluted and becoming nearly dead zones of mostly
jellyfish anyway. Besides all of that, Sedna could be packing somewhat
nifty panspermia of new and improved DNA.
> If struck from behind the moon/sedna combo would accelerate by about
> 0.6 km/sec - which would set it free of Earth orbit, but leave it very
> close to Earth orbit. The two orbits wold be cojoined and would very
> likely collide at some point in the near future, probably well within
> the 10,000 year period it would take for the Sedna/Moon combo to cool
> to solid temperatures again.
You're talking as though that's a bad thing. If we can't manage to
place Sedna into Earth's L1 pocket, then perhaps we get to try for
plan-B, of utilizing Sedna on behalf of the task of parking our moon in
Earth's L1. Besides, it's not as though any of us would be caught off
guard, such as with our pants down.
> The debris ranging in size from smoke particles to mountain rainges
> woudl solidify into Earth orbit, leaving Earth with a ring that would
> last 2 million years or more - and throughout ALL that period,
> asteroids would be raining down on Earth, making it very diffuclt for
> the life that survived the global fire, to re-establish itself.
Once again with all the negative vibes. If Saturn looks great with such
rings, why not Earth? Besides, I think we could all use such a global
attention getting point of mutual focus, which ott to keep us out of
going back into yet another perpetrated war for at least a few
centuries.
> When Sedna/Moon combination collided, the entire crust of the Earth
> would be reprocessed, killing ALL life - even life deep in the Earth's
> crust.
>
> So, on a scale from one to ten,with ten being the absolute worst idea
> ever - I would say this ranks fairly close to ten.
How about a little honest swag of allowing for a 9.9?
You know, the last time I'd checked, life on Earth has been a bloody
crapshoot from the very get go, just ask Jesus Christ or those nice
Cathars. Each and every day can become your worst nightmare, especially
if you're a Muslim sitting on an oily rock that you happen to own, that
which we think is hiding WMD, or simply hiding the oil that we want
control of.
Secondly, that somewhat salty mascon/moon of ours is likely semi-hollow,
and as such the likes of Sedna might sort of vanish, as having
penetrated the lunar surface and never to being seen again, except for
that rather nasty entry hole and of that horrific antipode sticking way
out the opposit side from wherever Sedna impacted. That would obviously
increase the mass of our moon and seriously motivate that combined
sucker into moving along in the general alignment of the Sedna impact.
In other words; Stop being such a silly naysayer.
Willie...@gmail.com
PLEASE WATCH AND UNDERSTAND THE FOLLOWING VIDEO:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYgEwXWilUc
And recognize that this impactor is only 300 km in diameter, not 1,600
km in diameter that Sedna is.
Watch this video until you get it. Realize this is far smaller than
Sedna
Realize that the moon's gravity is 1/6th that of Earth, so,
considerable hot molten rock - larger than the entire crust of the
Earth would rain down on Earth for days, and rocks would fall out of
the sky for millions of years!
Consider that a body massing 3.6e21 kg moving at 12,000 meters/ second
contains 2.6e+28 joules!! When that body hits the moon it releases
ALL that energy. At these speeds, a significant portion turns into a
superheated plasma that blasts rock and vapor in all directions, and
with the Moon's lower gravity that ends falling on Earth with its
larger gravity.
All the energy,of the collision plus the energy of the debris falling
from the vicinity of the moon, blasts into earth heating it up.
The world's oceans mass 1.4e21 kg - So, that's 18.5 MJ per kg of
ocean. Now, it takes only 0.76 MJ/kg to flash ICE into STEAM!
Now realize that just the immediate collision event which blasts
vaporized rock in all directions, including Earth, contains enough
energy to VAPORIZE ALL THE OCEANS ON THE WORLD!
This is a bad idea.
Brad Guth
> Guthball doesn't get it.
>
> PLEASE WATCH AND UNDERSTAND THE FOLLOWING VIDEO:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYgEwXWilUc
>
> And recognize that this impactor is only 300 km in diameter, not 1,600
> km in diameter that Sedna is.
>
> Watch this video until you get it. Realize this is far smaller than
> Sedna
Thanks much. However, you have absolutely no faith in our ability to
kick God's butt.
Because you are dumbfounded past the point of no return is why you are a
very neagtive sort of anti-think-tank naysayer, arnt you.
Willie...@gmail.com
> "Willie.Mookie" <Willie.Moo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Guthball, YOU asked ME a freaking question, (why not lithobrake Sedna
into the Moon) and I go to the trouble and time and effort to give you
YOU MY honest answer detailing my reasoning..
Then you go and say terrible things about me.
Guthball, I can't help it if you don't like the reality you're in -
you're judgements of me as your judgements of anything are worthless
anyway as they are all wrong.
And I can't help you with your reality problem - that will require the
attention of a mental health professional.
Asshole.
Brad Guth
> Guthball, YOU asked ME a freaking question, (why not lithobrake Sedna
> into the Moon) and I go to the trouble and time and effort to give you
> YOU MY honest answer detailing my reasoning..
>
> Then you go and say terrible things about me.
I proposed a nifty idea, from which you started off fine, but then you
went absolutely naysay postal on us, as having offered nothing
constructively positive as to the HONEST intent or HONEST jest of the
topic/subtopic at hand, only the usual mainstream status quo butt-loads
of naysayisn on steroids.
If you were any more ulterior motivated naysay, you'd become a black
hole.
> Guthball, I can't help it if you don't like the reality you're in -
> you're judgements of me as your judgements of anything are worthless
> anyway as they are all wrong.
You obviously still think that you're God, and that we've hocus-pocus
somehow walked on the moon, yet don't you outright reject other
intelligent life as existing/coexisting on Venus? Say again, Sir Bigot!
> And I can't help you with your reality problem - that will require the
> attention of a mental health professional.
>
> Asshole.
Dear "Asshole",
Get a new Jewish grip on your mostly 'naysay about everything' private
parts, and otherwise stop screwing everything in sight, because it's
just not the right thing to be doing.
Ian Parker
> > You only need weak for a VN machine.
>
> That is true, you only have to be as smart as a genome.
>
> > In fact to achieve a VN swarm you
> > need to be able to produce a series of processes whose NET input is
> > sunlight ans space material.
>
> This is true if you don't want something comlex like chocolate mousse
> or champagne.
>
sunschield all you need is aluminium foil - Lots and lots of it. This
is one reason I am a little bit cool on nanotechnology. A biological
type organism tends to only be able to reproduce itself.
> > This can be done simply by putting the
> > available processes into a database and thereby configuring your
> > swarm.
>
> Well, that's a step toward strong AI. Wouldn't it be easier if you
> said, you know swarm I think I'll have fried chicken tonight with
> mashed potatoes and southern gravy along with green beans and an ice
> cold beer for dinner tonight.
>
the same thing with subroutine modules - Well that might well get
intelligent.
> > A flatpack assembler clearly makes many more proocesses
> > available. In fact the processes that would become available put you
> > within striking distance of your replicator.
>
> Strong AI makes it possible to take raw materials and process it into
> 60,000 or so consumer goods and make them available on demand to
> everyone as they desire them without a whole lot of management while
> keeping general goals in mind, like, don't hurt the Earth, don't kill
> anyone, and stuff like that.
>
> That is, strong AI makes the system safe, reliable, and useful.
>
organisms, and a VN machine is an inorganic organism is that they
evolve. If the genome is stored in a Reed Soloman code Evolution
effectively stops.
> > > 2) desktop hot fusion
>
> > I don't think you need that and anyway there is quite a lot of
> > radioactivity even if it is considerably less than fission.
>
> Why not? You need to power your products, and aneutronic fusion on a
> desktop at power levels equal to that of todays engines would be
> ideally suited for conditions found on Sedna.
>
> And you have radiation only if you are foolish enough to use
> deuterium, sure. But aneutronic fuesion is very clean.
Lets assume you use He3. You get protons. There is always gama though.
Basic He3 does indeed give totally stable products. There will still
be a little though. This is in fact where I depart from the
mainstream. They are all for Deuterium anf tritium. They are not
looking at He3.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aneutronic_fusion
>
> And if we're wishing for things we don't have, we might as well wish
> for the good stuff, not the nasty stuff, wouldn't you agree?
>
> > > 3) self-replicating machine systems
>
> > Weak AI is needed.
>
> Yes, genomes are smart, I'll give them that. But, it would be nice
> to solve one problem instead of having to solve thousands wouldn't
> it? I mean, we're wishing again right. Why wish for weak-AI, the
> bare minimum needed, when strong AI can be wished for just as easily?
> And strong AI gives you the ability to set goals and have the AI unit
> figure it out. In fact, figure out strong AI -ONCE - and then ask the
> strong AI to solve your other problems for you.
If it was guaranteed to solve MY problems.
>
> > If you have strong AI you must have everything
> > weak.
>
> True. But if you're working on weak AI, and have success, why the
> hell change your focus and add a lot of other problems, when you can
> just continue to make your AI strong and then ask IT to solve the
> other problems for you.
>
That is one possible route.
> > It is impossible to talk about "robot rights" and have sea
> > levels rising.
>
> Robots have no rights, and if we're smart, they never will. Naturally
> evolved systems have manifested and unmanifested potential. We build
> tools to help manifest the unmanifested potential. To the extent the
> tools assist with this process, they are a benefit. To the extent
> they do not, they are a problem. As creators of these tools, we have
> every right to limit their function to useful functions. Since they
> are engineered and not evolved beings - they will give us no argument
> about this.
>
We are getting into philosophy here. I believe that part of free will
is indeed the fact we have evolved. In the garden of Eden we would not
have been free to eat the fruit anyway. The point I was making however
is that strong AI encompasses weak and you cannot postulate strong AI
and count the meters sea level will rise by.
- Ian Parker
Willie...@gmail.com
> On 13 Feb, 01:06, Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote:> > You only need weak for a VN machine.
>
> > That is true, you only have to be as smart as a genome.
>
> > > In fact to achieve a VN swarm you
> > > need to be able to produce a series of processes whose NET input is
> > > sunlight ans space material.
>
> > This is true if you don't want something comlex like chocolate mousse
> > or champagne.
>
> A VN machine BASED ON CAD/CAM will make a rage of items
Yes, a range of items. That's true, but not without human
intervention doing it your way. Ideally it would be nice to have
anything you like the same way you have a breath of air anytime you
like. And under those conditions denying someone what they like would
be akin to strangling someone to death. The only way that will happen
is if everything we want is made without any human intervention
whatever - just the way air is made today. Made available on demand.
The only thing humans need do is have a demand regulator in their
possession, and if they don't then that's the first thing they get.
>. In fact for a
> sunschield all you need is aluminium foil - Lots and lots of it.
Giant Birefringent Optics (GBO) otherwise known as polymer mirrors are
better suited lighter weight, have a longer life span and are more
controllable.
> This
> is one reason I am a little bit cool on nanotechnology.
Nanotechnology is chemistry, in the same way biology is chemistry.
Once you figure a process out, then its easy to do. Its the figuring
out that's hard.
> A biological
> type organism tends to only be able to reproduce itself
So? The vast variety of organisms you see are the result of organisms
reproducing themselves and evolving. Once we have a reproductive
substrate, that substrate will be assembled into a variety of items to
make any manufactured object for which a design exists.
Nothing more complex than an advanced formof a 3D printer.
Using nothing more complex than an advanced inkjet print head is
required.
You have a print head with tiny little jets, that eject a stream of
atoms - with controllable momenta. The atomic streams react to form
desired moleular streams and then a tiny dot of *something* is
deposited onto something else - or within some sort of isolating
matrix of material.that is removed later.
Objects are built up one molecular layer at a time. For speed
multiple print heads make up a forming surface of arbitrary size.
WIth 4 million layers per centimeter (10 atoms) and 1 million layers
per second - a cubic meter of anything can be created 7 minutes.
Anything.
This is one part of a Von Neuman machine - a universal constructor.
Another part is a universal destructor. A plasma torch with a mass
spectrometer setup and a collection plate that feeds the print head
conceptually would work. You'd spend about 1 MJ/kg - but since
.> > This can be done simply by putting the
> > > available processes into a database and thereby configuring your
> > > swarm.
>
> > Well, that's a step toward strong AI. Wouldn't it be easier if you
> > said, you know swarm I think I'll have fried chicken tonight with
> > mashed potatoes and southern gravy along with green beans and an ice
> > cold beer for dinner tonight.
>
> It is a step towards AI. I don't know about strong. If you are doing
> the same thing with subroutine modules - Well that might well get
> intelligent.
Why not have the subroutine modules written by an AI program? I don't
understand why you want to do all the work yourself? Isn't it the
goal of automation to make life easier?
> > A flatpack assembler clearly makes many more proocesses
> > > available. In fact the processes that would become available put you
> > > within striking distance of your replicator.
>
> > Strong AI makes it possible to take raw materials and process it into
> > 60,000 or so consumer goods and make them available on demand to
> > everyone as they desire them without a whole lot of management while
> > keeping general goals in mind, like, don't hurt the Earth, don't kill
> > anyone, and stuff like that.
>
> > That is, strong AI makes the system safe, reliable, and useful.
>
> No, no Strong AI is very dangerous.
Strong AI like fire has the potential to be very dangerous. That
doesn't mean you don't use it. You just use it with care.
> Once of the characteristics of
> organisms, and a VN machine is an inorganic organism is that they
> evolve.
They may evolve if we choose to let them. There's a difference.
> If the genome is stored in a Reed Soloman code Evolution
> effectively stops.
Wrong on two levels. 1) Random variations can be introduced
mathematically during the reproduction process, 2) The existence of
viritual genomes has zero effet on the existence of real genomes which
will continue to exist in a world of viritual genomes
You are presuming a competition that need not exist.
> > > > 2) desktop hot fusion
>
> > > I don't think you need that and anyway there is quite a lot of
> > > radioactivity even if it is considerably less than fission.
>
> > Why not? You need to power your products, and aneutronic fusion on a
> > desktop at power levels equal to that of todays engines would be
> > ideally suited for conditions found on Sedna.
>
> > And you have radiation only if you are foolish enough to use
> > deuterium, sure. But aneutronic fuesion is very clean.
>
> Lets assume you use He3. You get protons.
Actually I think on Sedna you'd use just plain hydrogen and put up
with the radiation since that's what's most abundant - and there's no
one around to complain.
But, if you're talking about fusion power devices that might one day
be used around humans, lets look at protium and Boron-11 instead.
Since a lot of research is being done on it
p + 11B → 3 4He + 8.7 MeV
There are a number of efforts aimed at achieving hydrogen-boron
fusion, using different fusion devices. One approach, using the dense
plasma focus, has been funded by NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, the
Air Force Research Laboratory and the Chilean Nuclear Energy
Commission, among others.
In this reaction 0.1% of the reactions in a thermal p-11B plasma would
produce neutrons, and the energy of these neutrons would account for
less than 0.2% of the total energy released.
These neutrons come primarily from the reaction
11B + α → 14N + n + 157 keV
The reaction itself produces only 157 keV, but the neutron will carry
a large fraction of the alpha energy, which will be close to 2.9 MeV.
Another significant source of neutrons is the reaction
11B + p → 11C + n - 2.8 MeV
These neutrons will be less energetic, with an energy comparable to
the fuel temperature. In addition, 11C itself is radioactive, but will
decay to negligible levels within several hours as its half life is
only 20 minutes.
Since these reactions involve the reactants and products of the
primary fusion reaction, it would be difficult to further lower the
neutron production by a significant fraction. A clever magnetic
confinement scheme could in principle suppress the first reaction by
extracting the alphas as soon as they are created, but then their
energy would not be available to keep the plasma hot. The second
reaction could in principle be suppressed relative to the desired
fusion by removing the high energy tail of the ion distribution, but
this would probably be prohibited by the power required to prevent the
distribution from thermalizing.
In addition to neutrons, large quantities of hard X-rays will be
produced by bremsstrahlung, and 4, 12, and 16 MeV gamma rays will be
produced by the fusion reaction
11B + p → 12C + γ + 16.0 MeV
with a branching probability relative to the primary fusion reaction
of about 1e−4
So, the intensity of gamma rays and neutron emission combined is about
1/100,000th of the total power level of the device. So, say we had a
1000 Watt electrical output with a 200 Watt thermal sink, producing
3000 Watts total power sitting on you desk.
This device if it could be made to work would have 30 milliwatts of
penetrating radiation with no long term emissions - unsheilded.
http://esa21.kennesaw.edu/activities/exposure/radiationactivity.pdf
100 ergs per 1 gram of tissue is 1 Rad.
1 Joule = 10^7 ergs
So, a 60 kg person with a 1 sq meter of surface area 1.5 meter from
the device would absorb about 1.2 milliwatts of this radiation.
That's 12,000 ergs per second falling on 60,000 grams of tissue. So,
12,000/60,000 = 0.2 ers per second = 0.2/100 = 2 millirads per second.
Now the gamma rays have a Quality Factor of 1, while the low energy
neutrons have a quality factor of 5. There are no high energy
neutrons, and the high energy alpha particles are used to derive power
fromthe device, and are not a factor.
Most of the energy comes from the gamma rays, so, we'll use a quality
factor of 1.5 so,we're talking 3 millirems per second sitting at a
desk with an unshielded aneutronic reactor operating at 1,000 watts
putting out 3,000 watts of thermal energy
Now, you are exposed to about 100 millirems per year. So moving 1
mile away from this reactor reduces your exposure to the level of
other sources of radiation in your environment.
A shield can also be added.
http://physics.nist.gov/PhysRefData/XrayMassCoef/chap2.html
A few centimeters of lead reduce your exposure to less than 100
millirems per century when sitting in front of it all that time.
Burying it a foot underground, or putting it in a concrete lawn
ornament would also work.
So, that's not a real problem. Something the size of a coffee can
inside the chest of your humaniform robot - producing no real
radiation but 1 kW of useful power.
Of course, we don't have any of this, so we're just dreaming what
might reasonably be possible with some effort and thought. Arguing
that this or that isn't possible because of x or y is stupid. Because
we don't have the technology and saying that the technology doesn't
have this capacity is as foolish as saying it does.
What isn't foolish is looking at the best available data and what
might be possible without violating the laws of physics.
> There is always gama though.
Yes, and they're a small fraction of the total energy and easily
shielded.
Even so all you are saying we don't have desktop hot fusion. So? I
said at the outset we don't have them, I was wishing for them before I
went ahead and made my statements about what might be possible using
them.
As long as we're wishing why not wish for the best that are physically
possible?
Aneutronic fusion reactions produce the overwhelming bulk of their
energy in the form of charged particles instead of neutrons or gamma
rays. This means that energy could be converted directly into
electricity by various techniques. Many proposed direct conversion
techniques are based on mature technology derived from other fields,
such as microwave technology, and some involve equipment that is more
compact and potentially cheaper than that involved in conventional
thermal production of electricity.
> Basic He3 does indeed give totally stable products. There will still
> be a little though. This is in fact where I depart from the
> mainstream. They are all for Deuterium anf tritium. They are not
> looking at He3.
Yes, any real world system will have limitations. And we don't have
systems that work anyway. So, we're just wishing we had a system that
worked. Well, as long as we're wishing, lets wish for the best that
might reasonably be available!
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aneutronic_fusion
>
> > And if we're wishing for things we don't have, we might as well wish
> > for the good stuff, not the nasty stuff, wouldn't you agree?
>
> > > > 3) self-replicating machine systems
>
> > > Weak AI is needed.
>
> > Yes, genomes are smart, I'll give them that. But, it would be nice
> > to solve one problem instead of having to solve thousands wouldn't
> > it? I mean, we're wishing again right. Why wish for weak-AI, the
> > bare minimum needed, when strong AI can be wished for just as easily?
> > And strong AI gives you the ability to set goals and have the AI unit
> > figure it out. In fact, figure out strong AI -ONCE - and then ask the
> > strong AI to solve your other problems for you.
>
> If it was guaranteed to solve MY problems.
Sure, why not? Actually I do propose a formal language be used with
strong AI, sort of like the Pope making statements as Pope versus as a
man - so, folks would interact with their regulators and the
regulators would speak to the AI in this special language. And anyone
who programmed the AI would do so in this special language. What is
this special language? Call it Hippocratese - or Hip - for short - in
honor of the Hippocratic Oath - this is the language guaranteed to do
no harm. lol.
> > > If you have strong AI you must have everything
> > > weak.
>
> > True. But if you're working on weak AI, and have success, why the
> > hell change your focus and add a lot of other problems, when you can
> > just continue to make your AI strong and then ask IT to solve the
> > other problems for you.
>
> That is one possible route.
Its the easiest possible route. In fact do this first, and then ask IT
to do the others for you.
> > It is impossible to talk about "robot rights" and have sea
> > > levels rising.
>
> > Robots have no rights, and if we're smart, they never will. Naturally
> > evolved systems have manifested and unmanifested potential. We build
> > tools to help manifest the unmanifested potential. To the extent the
> > tools assist with this process, they are a benefit. To the extent
> > they do not, they are a problem. As creators of these tools, we have
> > every right to limit their function to useful functions. Since they
> > are engineered and not evolved beings - they will give us no argument
> > about this.
>
> We are getting into philosophy here.
Yes, and since I'm human and making up the rules, I will make up rules
to benefit humans preferentially over machines and beasts of the
field, and machines that beasts of the field might make, and beasts of
the field that machines might make.
> I believe that part of free will
> is indeed the fact we have evolved.
Well, its a little detail evolved beings like to point to certainly.
Fact is laws are based on history, and we have a helluva lot of
history that machines don't have. So, why not use it to get as sweet
a setup as we can?
> In the garden of Eden we would not
> have been free to eat the fruit anyway.
If you believe those allegorical tales sure.
> The point I was making however
> is that strong AI encompasses weak and you cannot postulate strong AI
> and count the meters sea level will rise by.
What does strong AI have to do with counting meters of anything or sea
level rise?
> - Ian Parker- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Willie...@gmail.com
> "Willie.Mookie" <Willie.Moo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Telling someone if they step out a window at 30 stories that they'll
very likely fall to their death is not someone being a buzzkill, its
someone who is doing you a favor. That's something you don't seem to
understand, and likely why they keep you locked in your room at night.