Terraforming Venus - is it really necessary?

On Jul 3, 1:08*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Brad Guth wrote:
On Jul 2, 7:30 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Brad Guth wrote:

Your "no" based upon nothing original or even deductively considered
is noted.

He asked a yes/no question.

Everyone here always expects more.

How cute! *The Guthball thinks he speaks for everyone.



How many cities have we built inside volcanoes under 2800 feet of
water?

Hint: The answer is a number.

I take it that your conditional laws of physics are implied.

Gee, it's a simple question about reality, Guthball. *I'm sorry it's
beyond you.



I'm sure that in your home, school and work, all conversations are
limited as to using a "yes" or a "no".

The answer to yes/no questions is either 'yes' or 'no'. If you want
more than a 'yes/no' answer, ask something other than a 'yes/no'
question.

Except there's no point in asking you anything.

Then please cease to do so.




In other words, there really
are no other words, perhaps because spoiled brats and bullies of the
GOP/ZNR redneck kind really do not know why they have to say
anything. No wonder this nation and its next generation is so screwed
up.

It's you that is 'screwed up' Guthball. Seek treatment.

I'm sure Hitler, GW Bush, Dick Cheney, Kissinger and Art Deco *would
all 100% agree with you and other FUD-masters.

Btw; *why do you quote worthless context? (it seems only GOP/ZNR FUD-
masters do that)

Thanks for once more demonstrating your essentially nonexistent link
to reality.

--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
*only stupid."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Heinrich Heine

You pretend-Atheist FUD-masters really think you're funny.

Is it funny that neighbors and close friends have lost everything, as
well as far too many having to pay the ultimate price because of your
actions?

At least "Uncle Sam" knows how to start an honest topic, and knows how
to appreciate positive/constructive replies, but instead all you have
to offer is more of the same old status-quo crap that you FUD-masters
think is funny.

http://groups.google.com/group/googl...t/topics?hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/guth-usenet/topics?hl=en
http://www.wanttoknow.info/
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On Jul 1, 1:49*pm, "Uncle Sam" wrote:
Would it be possible to construct buildings on or just below the surface of
Venus that are capable of withstanding the immense heat and pressure?

Terraforming by artificial means is not necessary unless you plan on
going there in the nude. I’d have to say that it’s quite technically
possible to survive as is, and no doubt the extremely nearby planet
Venus is therefore perfectly doable for most intelligent humans other
than naked and typically dumbfounded Goldilocks types that can’t seem
to think outside their cozy mainstream status-quo box, such as our
resident GOP/ZNR rednecks and their fellow FUD-masters that couldn’t
manage to survive even if we turned parts of Venus into another Eden
for hosting fast-food vendors and the next Winter Olympics (naturally
indoors). This is not to say each and every volcano and/or terrific
geothermal vent is going to be safe to visit. However, some
geothermal vents are likely spewing hot and dense mineral brines
instead of vapors, or even spewing hydrocarbons that at 90+ bar could
seem as though acting kind of hydrodynamic.

The local pressure and/or rather substantial atmospheric density and
90% gravity is really not a problem for accommodating our genetics or
physiology as long as everything gets fully equalized over a safe
period of time, and you manage to keep yourself within +/- .2 bar/
hr(+/- 3 psi/hr) should remain as equalized without complications, and
otherwise that is also a rather nifty environment unless you don't
happen to like having 10% less gravity, terrific 65 kg/m3 buoyancy and
otherwise extremely good protection from cosmic and solar radiation,
as well as always being nicely protected from meteors and even from
encountering small asteroids should not be a problem because most of
those simply can’t get through the dense atmospheric soup.

Breathing an artificial mix of 99% H2 and 1 % O2 should easily extend
that range of atmospheric pressure change per hour to an acceptable
+/- 2 Bar (+/- 29 psi)/hr, although a km elevation change in that
lower atmosphere is worth 4.1 bar(roughly 60 psi), so it might not be
advisable to exceed any change in elevation greater than 17 meters/
minute unless some additional pressure equalization techniques are
utilized. There’s certainly never going to be any shortage of
hydrogen, and even O2 can’t honestly be in short supply as long as you
basically know what you are doing.

Heat management: R-1024/meter of thermal insulation is also not a
technical nor logistical problem (especially when the application
environment is relatively dry and CO2 inert), as easily created from
local basalt that’s effectively processed from all of the locally
renewable energy that's damn near unlimited for creating basalt
milliballoons (filled or displaced with hydrogen would simulate a
super-atom shell or electron cloud that wouldn’t compress, offering a
microballoon product density of roughly 104 kg/m3 or as an assembled
structural element of as little as 64 kg/m3 once the local buoyancy
and gravity are accounted for) and of course we’d have those terrific
fibers, although we could always use Silica Aerogel of only 2 kg/m3,
means that enclosed Silica Aerogel (such as within the structural
shell of a composite rigid airship or within geometric building blocks
that contain those basalt milli and micro-spheres) could easily allow
its volume to become worth -63 kg buoyant unless that Silica Aerogel
compresses and/or equalizes to a slightly greater than atmospheric
density, of which enclosed and displaced with hydrogen should easily
prevent.
http://www.aerogel.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerogel
Utilized as part of the structural composite: “It has remarkable
thermal insulative properties, having an extremely low thermal
conductivity: from 0.03 W/m·K[9] down to 0.004 W/m·K,[6] which
correspond to R-values of 14 to 105 for 3.5 inch thickness. For
comparison, typical wall insulation is 13 for 3.5 inch thickness. Its
melting point is 1,473 K (1,200 °C or 2,192 °F).”

The distinct advantage to utilizing uncrushable microspheres or
millispheres is that their volumetric density doesn’t change, and the
static loading and/or its surface loading capability is truly
impressive. This gets even better when the surrounding fill or matrix
of whatever binder offers a similar tough ability. Even fluffy or
highly porous ceramics are not going to be terribly dense.

Basalt as refined and made into fused glass microspheres or even using
larger millispheres as having a volumetric true sphere displacement
mass of 104 kg/m3, with a crush rating in excess of 9.5e3 bar (138e3
psi), and each hollow sphere offering its 85.7% cavity volume for
enclosing H2 at less than 0.1 bar (whereas the H2 sure as hell isn’t
going to leak out, nor is any CO2 ever going to leak in). In other
words, basalt glass spheres put into a composite structural geometric
element application (filling 65% by volume) are going to half way
float in that atmospheric soup of 65 kg/m3 buoyancy, because that
atmospheric density and the local 90.5% gravity is only making it so
much better. Perhaps using a silica gel displacement (35% by volume)
as the microballoon geometric fill matrix/binder could also be
applied.
http://composites.poly.edu/Publicati...tic%20foam.pdf

http://solutions.3m.com/wps/portal/3...W HB23F5LMRgl
http://www.esa.int/gsp/completed/030910ESTEC16292.pdf

Clearly high temperature capable materials offering exceptional
insulation and a robust structural composite that’s impervious to most
anything the Venus environment has to offer, is simply not technically
an insurmountable problem. Whereas going to Venus in the nude should
remain as highly problematic.

http://groups.google.com/group/googl...t/topics?hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/guth-usenet/topics?hl=en
http://www.wanttoknow.info/
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On Jul 1, 1:49*pm, "Uncle Sam" wrote:
Would it be possible to construct buildings on or just below the surface of
Venus that are capable of withstanding the immense heat and pressure?

Terraforming Venus - is it really necessary?
On Jul 1, 1:49 pm, "Uncle Sam" wrote:
: Would it be possible to construct buildings on or just below the
surface of
: Venus that are capable of withstanding the immense heat and
pressure?

- and -

Venus - rapid terraforming with utility fog?
On Jul 4, 10:14 am, "Richard Stephens" wrote:
: Venus has an abundance of carbon, so why not use it to create a
thick
: layer of utility fog that would cover the planet. There should be
enough
: carbon for the blanket of foglets to be tens of miles thick.
: Benefits of utility fog:
: 1. The fog would have the ability to quickly cool off the planet,
acting as
: a giant radiator.
: 2. The fog could make up for the very slow day/night cycle by
simulating
: a "normal" 24 hour Earth cycle.
: 3. 100 miles of utility fog should support a population in the
hundreds of
: billions, if not trillions.
: 4. The whole process could be completed in a decade or less, not
the
: centuries that it's estimated terraforming would take.

- and -

On Jul 4, 3:14 pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
: Now, if we can just make the nanobots for the utility fog, figure
out
: how they are to be powered, figure out how to get them to tolerate
the
: heat, pressure, and sulfuric acid at the beginning of the process,
and
: figure out how to get rid of trillions of them once the planet is
: terraformed.
: And there's another problem; studies of impact craters on the
surface
: of Venus show that all of them are fairly young in geologic terms,
: indicating the whole surface goes molten from time to time.
: A cool atmosphere isn't going to help if you are swimming around in
: red hot lava.

That’s exactly correct, whereas the geothermal upwelling of 20.5 w/m2
is going to remain extremely problematic, not that solar influx isn’t
making it kind of worse. William Mook can create and deploy trillions
upon trillions of those highly reflective nanobots that could manage
to keep themselves only on the sunward side, acting as a highly
reflective fog above those already reflective clouds.

Actually even better, is using hydrogen filled robotic airships that
are each offering 1e6 m2, as a relatively flat disk shape of 1.13 km
diameter and always laying horizontally flat with their highly
reflective gold mylar facing sunward, could prove quite nifty for a
multitude of terrific reasons other than contributing shade and
improving the average albedo. If these highly reflective airships
averaged 100 meters thick, we’re talking about a 1e8 m3 airship, that
within 1% of its volume could house at least a community of a hundred
humans, along with some pets, livestock and just about anything else
you’d care to pack along. In order to accomplish any significant
shading, there’s have to be at last a million of these saucer shaped
airships, so that accommodating 100 million of us without ever setting
one hot foot onto that geothermally heated surface seems like kind of
a good idea.

Perhaps Monsanto or even Nalco that makes Corexit and other highly
toxic substances for hydrocarbon butt covering, can devise a molecular
modifier for CO2 and S8 that'll reflect at something near 90% by day,
and automatically convert to a fully transparent cryogenic layer by
night, then somehow revert back to reflecting by day. On the other
hand, our extremely nearby and mostly geothermally heated Venus is at
least technically doable for us as is.

Terraforming by artificial means is probably not going to be necessary
unless you plan on going there in the nude. I’d have to say that it’s
quite technically possible to survive as is, and no doubt the
extremely nearby planet Venus is therefore perfectly doable for most
intelligent humans other than naked and typically dumbfounded
Goldilocks types that can’t seem to think outside their cozy
mainstream status-quo box, such as our resident GOP/ZNR rednecks and
their fellow FUD-masters that couldn’t manage to survive even if we
turned parts of Venus into another Eden for hosting fast-food vendors
and the next Winter Olympics (naturally indoors). This is not to say
each and every volcano and/or terrific geothermal vent is going to be
safe to visit, because that would be silly. However, some geothermal
vents are likely spewing hot and dense mineral brines instead of
vapors, or even spewing hydrocarbons that at 92+ bar could seem as
though acting kind of hydrodynamic to those SAR imaging methods.

The local pressure and/or rather substantial atmospheric density and
90% gravity is really not a problem for accommodating our genetics or
physiology as long as everything gets fully equalized over a
reasonably safe period of time, and you manage to keep yourself within
+/- .2 bar/hr(+/- 3 psi/hr) should remain as equalized without
complications, and otherwise that is also a rather nifty environment
unless you don't happen to like having 10% less gravity, terrific 65
kg/m3 buoyancy and otherwise extremely good protection from cosmic,
solar and local radiation, as well as always being nicely protected
from meteors and even from encountering small asteroids should not be
a problem because, most of those simply can’t get through the dense
atmospheric soup.

Breathing an artificial mix of 99% H2 and 1 % O2 should easily extend
that range of atmospheric pressure change per hour to an acceptable
+/- 2 Bar (+/- 29 psi)/hr, although a km elevation change in that
lower atmosphere is worth 4.1 bar(roughly 60 psi), so it might not be
advisable to exceed any change in elevation greater than 17 meters/
minute unless some additional pressure equalization techniques are
utilized. There’s certainly never going to be any shortage of
hydrogen, and even O2 can’t honestly be in short supply as long as you
basically know what you are doing. Without nitrogen and otherwise
kinda dehydrated, your body as breathing feed 99% H2 and 1% O2 is also
going to weigh yet another 5~10% less, so you’re not going to float
away but, you’d certainly notice the difference right off the bat.

Heat management: R-1024/meter of thermal insulation is also not a
technical nor logistical problem (especially when the application
environment is relatively dry and CO2 inert), as easily created from
local basalt that’s effectively processed from all of the locally
renewable energy that's damn near unlimited for creating basalt
milliballoons (filled or displaced with hydrogen would simulate a
super-atom shell or electron cloud that wouldn’t compress, offering a
microballoon product density of roughly 104 kg/m3 or as an assembled
structural element of as little as 64 kg/m3 once the local buoyancy
and gravity are accounted for) and of course we’d have those terrific
fibers, although we could always use Silica Aerogel of only 2 kg/m3,
means that enclosed Silica Aerogel (such as within the structural
shell of a composite rigid airship or within geometric building blocks
that contain those basalt milli and micro-spheres) could easily allow
its volume to become worth -63 kg buoyant unless that Silica Aerogel
compresses and/or equalizes to a slightly greater than atmospheric
density, of which enclosed and displaced with hydrogen should easily
prevent.
http://www.aerogel.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerogel
Utilized as part of the structural composite: “It has remarkable
thermal insulative properties, having an extremely low thermal
conductivity: from 0.03 W/m·K[9] down to 0.004 W/m·K,[6] which
correspond to R-values of 14 to 105 for 3.5 inch thickness. For
comparison, typical wall insulation is 13 for 3.5 inch thickness. Its
melting point is 1,473 K (1,200 °C or 2,192 °F).”

The distinct advantage to utilizing uncrushable microspheres or
millispheres is that their volumetric density doesn’t change, and the
static loading and/or its surface loading capability is truly
impressive. This gets even better when the surrounding fill or matrix
of whatever binder offers a similar tough ability. Even fluffy or
highly porous ceramics are not going to be terribly dense.

Basalt as easily refined and made into fused glass microspheres or
even using larger millispheres as having a volumetric true sphere
displacement mass of 104 kg/m3, with a crush rating in excess of 9.5e3
bar (138e3 psi), and each hollow sphere offering its 85.7% cavity
volume for enclosing H2 at less than 0.1 bar (whereas the H2 sure as
hell isn’t going to leak out, nor is any CO2 ever going to leak in).
In other words, basalt glass hollow spheres put into a composite
structural geometric element application (displacing 65% by volume)
are going to halfway float within that atmospheric soup of 65 kg/m3
buoyancy, because that atmospheric density and the local 90.5% gravity
is only making it so much better. Perhaps using a silica gel
displacement (35% by volume) as the microballoon geometric fill matrix/
binder could also be applied.
http://composites.poly.edu/Publicati...tic%20foam.pdf

http://solutions.3m.com/wps/portal/3...W HB23F5LMRgl
http://www.esa.int/gsp/completed/030910ESTEC16292.pdf

Clearly high temperature capable materials offering exceptional
insulation and otherwise for creating a robust structural composite
that’s impervious to most anything the Venus environment has to offer,
as well as having various electro-mechanical equipment that’ll survive
811 K is simply not technically an insurmountable problem. Whereas
going to Venus in the nude as a dumbfounded Goldilocks should remain
as highly problematic.

Otherwise that terrific atmosphere itself is an ideal freon, so to
speak, because a little compressed CO2 on Venus goes into its
supercritical liquid phase rather easily, and from that you can air
condition yourself all the way down to becoming dry ice (-78 C, 195
K), if you like. Add a little helium and you can go for running a
super collider. So, I really don’t see what the big insurmountable
deal is about the ambient surface temperatures, other than you
wouldn’t want to set yourself over a geothermal vent (of which there
are thousands) or try to trek directly over any given volcanic hot
spot of recent magma.

Here's that same old original cloudless GIF composite radar obtained
image file (as raw and not having been enlargement processed) that our
mainstream status-quo has been so deathly afraid others might actually
look at:
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hi...c115s095_1.gif
Without even downloading the GIF monochrome image, you can still
screen zoom-in on the small area in question (less than 10% of the
composite FOV), so as to keeping the raw 1:1 pixel format and its
rather limited resolution of 225 meters/pixel, and thereby have
yourself a perfectly good look-see at interpreting whatever that sort
of 225 meter per pixel resolution has to offer.

Here’s one of my basic 10:1 resampled enlargements of the very same
area that I’ve pointed out to NASA and others of their Magellan team
for more than the past decade, that’s still a generic composite
derivative like their original:
http://docs.google.com/View?id=ddsdxhv_0hrm5bdfj
If you’d care to focus on anything specific, please do so, because
I’m not certain that my interpretation of what the image depicts is
offering the best or only option.

First of all, I kind of doubt the surface is significantly cooler than
reported, however the most recent ESA data via their Venus EXPRESS
mission has been reveling considerable atmospheric thermal
differentials that haven't been reported and/or published by others as
having previously had essentially the same or better science data to
go by. Those polar surface temperatures could be considerably cooler
due to them strong atmospheric vortex considerations that's causing
such upper nighttime cryogenic atmosphere to draw energy from the much
hotter lower atmosphere and it’s geothermally heated surface.

What we have here to look at and deductively interpret is simply a
fair number of unusually complex geometric patterns, of somewhat
unusually unified or associated pixels that don't seem to be of
entirely random geology happenstance. However, there are a number of
quite large and unusual items that should be considered as natural,
such as the "fluid arch" and perhaps even that extremely large clover
shaped reservoir could be considered as perfectly natural (even though
the geology of Earth offers us nothing remotely close to such size or
geometric unified complexity). However, that extensive and complex
tarmac/airstrip as offering such an unusually flat item situated
within that mountainous terrain simply isn't as likely to be formed by
natural geology we know of, nor is that highly unusual bridge item and
those multiple other large scale items of a nearby community of
geometric shapes and a their rational community like setting, of what
seems rather artificially structural and rational infrastructure
worthy is what should be closely reviewed by others to see if any or
all of those could have been formed by natural processes.

Of course there will always be those in perpetual denial, as well as
obfuscating their FUD-master butts off in order to disqualify my
discovery and any associated topics, but then you’re not required to
read any of those disparaging replies unless you want a good laugh, or
a good cry because of how your government and its faith-based support
has systematically failed you on so many levels.

http://groups.google.com/group/googl...t/topics?hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/guth-usenet/topics?hl=en
http://www.wanttoknow.info/
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On Jul 1, 1:49*pm, "Uncle Sam" wrote:
Would it be possible to construct buildings on or just below the surface of
Venus that are capable of withstanding the immense heat and pressure?

Terraforming Venus - is it really necessary?
On Jul 1, 1:49 pm, "Uncle Sam" wrote:
: Would it be possible to construct buildings on or just below the
surface of
: Venus that are capable of withstanding the immense heat and
pressure?

- and -

Venus - rapid terraforming with utility fog?
On Jul 4, 10:14 am, "Richard Stephens" wrote:
: Venus has an abundance of carbon, so why not use it to create a
thick
: layer of utility fog that would cover the planet. There should be
enough
: carbon for the blanket of foglets to be tens of miles thick.
: Benefits of utility fog:
: 1. The fog would have the ability to quickly cool off the planet,
acting as
: a giant radiator.
: 2. The fog could make up for the very slow day/night cycle by
simulating
: a "normal" 24 hour Earth cycle.
: 3. 100 miles of utility fog should support a population in the
hundreds of
: billions, if not trillions.
: 4. The whole process could be completed in a decade or less, not
the
: centuries that it's estimated terraforming would take.

- and -

On Jul 4, 3:14 pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
: Now, if we can just make the nanobots for the utility fog, figure
out
: how they are to be powered, figure out how to get them to tolerate
the
: heat, pressure, and sulfuric acid at the beginning of the process,
and
: figure out how to get rid of trillions of them once the planet is
: terraformed.
: And there's another problem; studies of impact craters on the
surface
: of Venus show that all of them are fairly young in geologic terms,
: indicating the whole surface goes molten from time to time.
: A cool atmosphere isn't going to help if you are swimming around in
: red hot lava.

That’s exactly correct, whereas the geothermal upwelling of 20.5 w/m2
is going to remain extremely problematic, not that solar influx isn’t
making it kind of worse. William Mook can create and deploy trillions
upon trillions of those highly reflective nanobots that could manage
to keep themselves only on the sunward side, acting as a highly
reflective fog above those already reflective clouds.

Actually even better, is using hydrogen filled robotic airships that
are each offering 1e6 m2, as a relatively flat disk shape of 1.13 km
diameter and always laying horizontally flat with their highly
reflective gold mylar facing sunward, could prove quite nifty for a
multitude of terrific reasons other than contributing shade and
improving the average albedo. If these highly reflective airships
averaged 100 meters thick, we’re talking about a 1e8 m3 airship, that
within 1% of its volume could house at least a community of a hundred
humans, along with some pets, livestock and just about anything else
you’d care to pack along. In order to accomplish any significant
shading, there’s have to be at last a million of these saucer shaped
airships, so that accommodating 100 million of us without ever setting
one hot foot onto that geothermally heated surface seems like kind of
a good idea.

Perhaps Monsanto or even Nalco that makes Corexit and other highly
toxic substances for hydrocarbon butt covering, can devise a molecular
modifier for CO2 and S8 that'll reflect at something near 90% by day,
and automatically convert to a fully transparent cryogenic layer by
night, then somehow revert back to reflecting by day. On the other
hand, our extremely nearby and mostly geothermally heated Venus is at
least technically doable for us as is.

Terraforming by artificial means is probably not going to be necessary
unless you have been planning on going there in the nude. I’d have to
say that it’s quite technically possible to survive as is, and no
doubt the extremely nearby planet Venus is therefore perfectly doable
for most intelligent humans other than naked and typically dumbfounded
Goldilocks types that can’t seem to think outside their cozy
mainstream status-quo box, such as our resident GOP/ZNR rednecks and
their fellow FUD-masters that couldn’t manage to survive even if we
turned parts of Venus into another Eden for hosting fast-food vendors
and the next Winter Olympics (naturally indoors). This is not to say
each and every volcano and/or terrific geothermal vent is going to be
safe to visit, because that would be silly. However, some geothermal
vents are likely spewing hot and dense mineral brines instead of
vapors, or even spewing hydrocarbons that at 92+ bar could seem as
though acting kind of hydrodynamic to those SAR imaging methods.

The local pressure and/or rather substantial atmospheric density and
90% gravity is really not a problem for accommodating our genetics or
physiology as long as everything gets fully equalized over a
reasonably safe period of time, and you manage to keep yourself within
+/- .2 bar/hr(+/- 3 psi/hr) should remain as equalized without
complications, and otherwise that is also a rather nifty environment
unless you don't happen to like having 10% less gravity, terrific 65
kg/m3 buoyancy and otherwise extremely good protection from cosmic,
solar and local radiation, as well as always being nicely protected
from meteors and even from encountering small asteroids should not be
a problem because, most of those simply can’t get through the dense
atmospheric soup.

Breathing an artificial mix of 99% H2 and 1 % O2 should easily extend
that range of atmospheric pressure change per hour to an acceptable
+/- 2 Bar (+/- 29 psi)/hr, although a km elevation change in that
lower atmosphere is worth 4.1 bar(roughly 60 psi), so it might not be
advisable to exceed any change in elevation greater than 17 meters/
minute unless some additional pressure equalization techniques are
utilized. There’s certainly never going to be any shortage of
hydrogen, and even O2 can’t honestly be in short supply as long as you
basically know what you are doing. Without nitrogen and otherwise
kinda dehydrated, your body as breathing feed 99% H2 and 1% O2 is also
going to weigh yet another 5~10% less, so you’re not going to float
away but, you’d certainly notice the difference right off the bat.

Heat management: R-1024/meter of thermal insulation is also not a
technical nor logistical problem (especially when the application
environment is relatively dry and CO2 inert), as easily created from
local basalt that’s effectively processed from all of the locally
renewable energy that's damn near unlimited for creating basalt
milliballoons (filled or displaced with hydrogen would simulate a
super-atom shell or electron cloud that wouldn’t compress, offering a
microballoon product density of roughly 104 kg/m3 or as an assembled
structural element of as little as 64 kg/m3 once the local buoyancy
and gravity are accounted for) and of course we’d have those terrific
fibers, although we could always use Silica Aerogel of only 2 kg/m3,
means that enclosed Silica Aerogel (such as within the structural
shell of a composite rigid airship or within geometric building blocks
that contain those basalt milli and micro-spheres) could easily allow
its volume to become worth -63 kg buoyant unless that Silica Aerogel
compresses and/or equalizes to a slightly greater than atmospheric
density, of which enclosed and displaced with hydrogen should easily
prevent.
http://www.aerogel.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerogel
Utilized as part of the structural composite: “It has remarkable
thermal insulative properties, having an extremely low thermal
conductivity: from 0.03 W/m·K[9] down to 0.004 W/m·K,[6] which
correspond to R-values of 14 to 105 for 3.5 inch thickness. For
comparison, typical wall insulation is 13 for 3.5 inch thickness. Its
melting point is 1,473 K (1,200 °C or 2,192 °F).”

The distinct advantage to utilizing uncrushable microspheres or
millispheres is that their volumetric density doesn’t change, and the
static loading and/or its surface loading capability is truly
impressive. This gets even better when the surrounding fill or matrix
of whatever binder offers a similar tough ability. Even fluffy or
highly porous ceramics are not going to be terribly dense.

Basalt as easily refined and made into fused glass microspheres or
even using larger millispheres as having a volumetric true sphere
displacement mass of 104 kg/m3, with a crush rating in excess of 9.5e3
bar (138e3 psi), and each hollow sphere offering its 85.7% cavity
volume for enclosing H2 at less than 0.1 bar (whereas the H2 sure as
hell isn’t going to leak out, nor is any CO2 ever going to leak in).
In other words, basalt glass hollow spheres put into a composite
structural geometric element application (displacing 65% by volume)
are going to halfway float within that atmospheric soup of 65 kg/m3
buoyancy, because that atmospheric density and the local 90.5% gravity
is only making it so much better. Perhaps using a silica gel
displacement (35% by volume) as the microballoon geometric fill matrix/
binder could also be applied.
http://composites.poly.edu/Publicati...tic%20foam.pdf

http://solutions.3m.com/wps/portal/3...W HB23F5LMRgl
http://www.esa.int/gsp/completed/030910ESTEC16292.pdf

Clearly high temperature capable materials offering exceptional
insulation and otherwise for creating a robust structural composite
that’s impervious to most anything the Venus environment has to offer,
as well as having various electro-mechanical equipment that’ll survive
811 K is simply not technically an insurmountable problem. Whereas
going to Venus in the nude as a dumbfounded Goldilocks should remain
as highly problematic.

Otherwise that terrific atmosphere itself is an ideal freon, so to
speak, because a little compressed CO2 on Venus goes into its
supercritical liquid phase rather easily, and from that you can air
condition yourself all the way down to becoming dry ice (-78 C, 195
K), if you like. Add a little helium and you can go for running a
super collider. So, I really don’t see what the big insurmountable
deal is about the ambient surface temperatures, other than you
wouldn’t want to set yourself over a geothermal vent (of which there
are thousands) or try to trek directly over any given volcanic hot
spot of recent magma.

Here's that same old original cloudless GIF composite radar obtained
image file (as raw and not having been enlargement processed) that our
mainstream status-quo has been so deathly afraid others might actually
look at:
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hi...c115s095_1.gif
Without even downloading the GIF monochrome image, you can still
screen zoom-in on the small area in question (less than 10% of the
composite FOV), so as to keeping the raw 1:1 pixel format and its
rather limited resolution of 225 meters/pixel, and thereby have
yourself a perfectly good look-see at interpreting whatever that sort
of 225 meter per pixel resolution has to offer.

Here’s one of my basic 10:1 resampled enlargements of the very same
area that I’ve pointed out to NASA and others of their Magellan team
for more than the past decade, that’s still a generic composite
derivative like their original:
http://docs.google.com/View?id=ddsdxhv_0hrm5bdfj
If you’d care to focus on anything specific, please do so, because
I’m not certain that my interpretation of what the image depicts is
offering the best or only option.

First of all, I kind of doubt the surface is significantly cooler than
reported, however the most recent ESA data via their Venus EXPRESS
mission has been reveling considerable atmospheric thermal
differentials that haven't been reported and/or published by others as
having previously had essentially the same or better science data to
go by. Those polar surface temperatures could be considerably cooler
due to them strong atmospheric vortex considerations that's causing
such upper nighttime cryogenic atmosphere to draw energy from the much
hotter lower atmosphere and it’s geothermally heated surface.

What we have here to look at and deductively interpret is simply a
fair number of unusually complex geometric patterns, of somewhat
unusually unified or associated pixels that don't seem to be of
entirely random geology happenstance. However, there are a number of
quite large and unusual items that should be considered as natural,
such as the "fluid arch" and perhaps even that extremely large clover
shaped reservoir could be considered as perfectly natural (even though
the geology of Earth offers us nothing remotely close to such size or
geometric unified complexity). However, that extensive and complex
tarmac/airstrip as offering such an unusually flat item situated
within that mountainous terrain simply isn't as likely to be formed by
natural geology we know of, nor is that highly unusual bridge item and
those multiple other large scale items of a nearby community of
geometric shapes and a their rational community like setting, of what
seems rather artificially structural and rational infrastructure
worthy is what should be closely reviewed by others to see if any or
all of those could have been formed by natural processes.

Of course there will always be those in perpetual denial, as well as
obfuscating their FUD-master butts off in order to disqualify my
discovery and any associated topics, but then you’re not required to
read any of those disparaging replies unless you want a good laugh, or
a good cry because of how your government and its faith-based support
has systematically failed you on so many levels.

http://groups.google.com/group/googl...t/topics?hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/guth-usenet/topics?hl=en
http://www.wanttoknow.info/
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”