BeanStalk Conduction limits

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N: dlzc1 D:cox :

Dear Ian Stirling:

"Ian Stirling" wrote in message
...
In sci.space.policy "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N: dlzc1 D:cox
wrote:
snip
They have to be replaced peridocially. Just as your lower end tether
will
have to be.

Which is not a really big issue.
The weight of 10Km or so of tether is well within what can be lifted by
one
car.
You just hook on a special car, which climbs to 10Km, cuts the old cable,
ties it on to the new one, and then pays out the new one as the ground
reels it in, before tying on the other end and coming back down.

The atmospheric section, as has been correctly pointed out, is serviceable.
The denial by some that the tether will be subject to damage by lightning
strikes is beyond me to fathom. Chances are it would continue to "pick on"
the same one (unless they are conductive), until it parted, so it should be
unlikely that all of the others would fail in a single storm.

The original claim was not long term damage from accumlated from lighting
strike.

The original claim was that when hit by lighting the entire lenght of ribbon
from the strike point down to the ground would be turned into plasma, this
would then short out the naturaul charges in the upper regions thru the
BeanStalk and basic blow it it up!

Don't believe me, use google to search for BeanStalk and Plasma. The claim
was one lighting strike, or one inducted current flow from the Earth's
magnetic field and the BeanStalk would be converted to plasma.

Do you agree with this claim?

By the way no-one has yet shown *ANY* man-made structure that has been
damaged by a lighting strike conducted thru accumalate dust. Water is
diffirent, I agree that that could happen but I still claim a steam explosion
not plasma.

Earl Colby Pottinger


--
I make public email sent to me! Hydrogen Peroxide Rockets, OpenBeos,
SerialTransfer 3.0, RAMDISK, BoatBuilding, DIY TabletPC. What happened to
the time? http://webhome.idirect.com/~earlcp

Dear Earl Colby Pottinger:

"Earl Colby Pottinger" wrote in message
...
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N: dlzc1 D:cox :

Dear Ian Stirling:

"Ian Stirling" wrote in message
...
In sci.space.policy "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N: dlzc1 D:cox
wrote:
snip
They have to be replaced peridocially. Just as your lower end
tether
will
have to be.

Which is not a really big issue.
The weight of 10Km or so of tether is well within what can be lifted
by
one
car.
You just hook on a special car, which climbs to 10Km, cuts the old
cable,
ties it on to the new one, and then pays out the new one as the
ground
reels it in, before tying on the other end and coming back down.

The atmospheric section, as has been correctly pointed out, is
serviceable.
The denial by some that the tether will be subject to damage by
lightning
strikes is beyond me to fathom. Chances are it would continue to "pick
on"
the same one (unless they are conductive), until it parted, so it
should be
unlikely that all of the others would fail in a single storm.

The original claim was not long term damage from accumlated from lighting
strike.

The original claim was that when hit by lighting the entire lenght of
ribbon
from the strike point down to the ground would be turned into plasma,
this
would then short out the naturaul charges in the upper regions thru the
BeanStalk and basic blow it it up!

Such behaviour has been noted in carbon nanotubes, yes. So it was proposed
that the lower section be made of kevlar, with some environmental coating.

Don't believe me, use google to search for BeanStalk and Plasma. The
claim
was one lighting strike, or one inducted current flow from the Earth's
magnetic field and the BeanStalk would be converted to plasma.

Do you agree with this claim?

It is possible, but not likely. It depends on your choices of materials,
and their extent. Induced current flow in a conductor, and a material that
seems to "concentrate" light to the point of vaporization, seems like a
model or two could be constructed, a couple of km high, just to see what
happens.

By the way no-one has yet shown *ANY* man-made structure that has been
damaged by a lighting strike conducted thru accumalate dust. Water is
diffirent, I agree that that could happen but I still claim a steam
explosion
not plasma.

Perhaps you have seen the fused sand sculptures created by lightning
strikes along a beach? Plasma will wreak havoc with the tether's long
range order. It might be economically survivable, if every tether is not
lost in a single storm.

David A. Smith

"Earl Colby Pottinger" wrote in message
...
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N: dlzc1 D:cox :

Dear Ian Stirling:

"Ian Stirling" wrote in message
...
In sci.space.policy "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N: dlzc1 D:cox
wrote:
snip
They have to be replaced peridocially. Just as your lower end
tether
will
have to be.

Which is not a really big issue.
The weight of 10Km or so of tether is well within what can be lifted
by
one
car.
You just hook on a special car, which climbs to 10Km, cuts the old
cable,
ties it on to the new one, and then pays out the new one as the ground
reels it in, before tying on the other end and coming back down.

The atmospheric section, as has been correctly pointed out, is
serviceable.
The denial by some that the tether will be subject to damage by
lightning
strikes is beyond me to fathom. Chances are it would continue to "pick
on"
the same one (unless they are conductive), until it parted, so it should
be
unlikely that all of the others would fail in a single storm.

The original claim was not long term damage from accumlated from lighting
strike.

The original claim was that when hit by lighting the entire lenght of
ribbon
from the strike point down to the ground would be turned into plasma, this
would then short out the naturaul charges in the upper regions thru the
BeanStalk and basic blow it it up!

Don't believe me, use google to search for BeanStalk and Plasma. The
claim
was one lighting strike, or one inducted current flow from the Earth's
magnetic field and the BeanStalk would be converted to plasma.

Do you agree with this claim?

By the way no-one has yet shown *ANY* man-made structure that has been
damaged by a lighting strike conducted thru accumalate dust. Water is
diffirent, I agree that that could happen but I still claim a steam
explosion
not plasma.

The lighting turns the air to plasma in the center of the stroke. If the
center of the stroke includes the bean stalk it is toast. Regardless of the
insulating qualities of the beanstalk it will be impossible to keep it from
having a different electrical charge from the air around it. Just as it is
impossible for the air to have a uniform charge over a large area. Lighting
will follow this different charge on the bean stalk when it resents the
least resistance.

We don't know how high lighting reaches. But it can be seen from space in
the form of sprites and other phenomena. I have seen thunderstorm clouds
build into the stratosphere.

The bean stalk if an insulator will charge itself in use like a Van de Graph
Generator making its own lightning unless measures are taken to prevent it.
The corona discharge associated with this will erode the bean stalk and
equipment on it. The only way to prevent the bean stalk from making
electricity are to make it a conductor or make it dissipate the electricity
some way both will draw lighting.

You have no idea of the scale and size of the device you are talking about
when you discuss the bean stalk and you sure have no idea the energy of a
thunder storm or lighting. They make atomic bombs look small in terms of
energy. You also have the terminus of the bean stalk in the wrong place. It
must be beyond the equilibrium point or hosting up a load would pull the
satellite into a lower orbit and the whole mess fall to earth after a few
loads were hauled up. The bean stalk has to be in tension not equilibrium.



Gordon

In sci.space.policy Gordon Couger wrote:
snip
You have no idea of the scale and size of the device you are talking about
when you discuss the bean stalk and you sure have no idea the energy of a
thunder storm or lighting. They make atomic bombs look small in terms of
energy. You also have the terminus of the bean stalk in the wrong place. It
must be beyond the equilibrium point or hosting up a load would pull the
satellite into a lower orbit and the whole mess fall to earth after a few
loads were hauled up. The bean stalk has to be in tension not equilibrium.

The total energy of a thunderstorm is enormous, and can be measured in
terms of many nuclear weapons.
The energy of even the largest lightning bolts is quite modest in comparison.