|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
The First Step in Creating a Space Age - Treat Earth as a Planet
On Nov 8, 10:38*am, William Mook wrote:
On Nov 7, 10:24*pm, Brad Guth wrote: On Nov 7, 5:26*pm, William Mook wrote: Earth as a planet means Earth treated as a single entity of production and consumption. *Which stands in marked contrast to treating Earth as a divided and fractious collection of 266 nations each on their own geopolitical position defined by their access or not to resources and defined by their ability to trick, cajole or force others to hand over what they need at the expense of the rest. It is clear that despite well defined limits and options we have not made good decisions related to the development of energy resources on this planet. It is likely we have not made good decisions related to the development of other primary resources as well. So, its worth thinking of a goal and determining if this goal is at all feasible! It turns out that it may be! 8 billion millionaires is one place to start. *Its a well defined target. *We find that to achieve this goal we need vastly more than is currently being produced in terms of food, energy, wood, metals, and so on. When, we look at what the entire planet has to offer we find that we have enough - surprisingly. In the end, we look at the Earth as we might look at a space colony - and we find that we have plenty of everything to go around - if we trouble ourselves to invest in the most productive infrastructure possible and apply it as broadly as possible leaving no one out. When we do this we find that approximately 800,000 sq km of solar collectors, 800,000 sq km of green houses in the desert, a few large water works programs, and careful management of 800,000 sq km of Taiga forest, combined with the development of a yet to be determined number of deep sea trenches - connected together with space based communications, space based navigation, space based sensing, and a network of hydrogen filled hydrogen fueled UAV - creates a system that achieves the initial target of 8 billion millionaires. From the productivity of this asset we can see how our economy might adopt it as a private public partnership - allocating what Ford calls efficiency bonuses to workers, management, investors, government, and buyers alike. This is all well and good, except for the usual part where William Mook does nothing. Motivating poor folks to do whatever they can't possibly afford to accomplish isn't exactly a working plan, and especially dysfunctional if there's no actual leadership by anyone other than yourself. *Do you even have a short list of who would be put in charge of what, and have any of them been contacted by you? *~ BG The 10 million millionaires have $40 trillion. *With the collapse of the US banking system and the imminent unraveling of the US monetary system they're looking for a place to put their money. *A few billion to build a 'production cell' that puts all the pieces together is the first step. *Then, building a factory that makes factories to make the things we need to live. *Like I said; * Five Years to Engineer and Develop * Five Years to build the supply chain * Five Years to build the products We start with 1 cell and grow it 100x over three years by building a production cell per year - of each type needed to support the supply chain. They are looking for a relatively failsafe and untaxable place to put their 40 trillion so that it turns into 80 trillion at the least possible overhead, and Mook hydrogen balloon cells for accomplishing global deforestation or those terrific satellite based energy notions to go along with your terrestrial conversion of solar energy into dirt cheap LH2 and LOx are probably not on any of their short lists, perhaps because they is heavily invested in the existing hydrocarbon and nuclear energy cartels as is. However, if you can manage to brake any of those trillions lose for whatever Mook contrived investments, I'm certainly not going to stand in your way. I totally agree that we need to get our upper most wealthy loot reinvested into advanced technology, various productions of products, goods and especially energy that insures better long-term growth that's affordably clean and isn't restricted by government or faith-based policies that only get in the way and run up the cost of just about everything. Any further delay is yet another cost that we can not afford. ~ BG |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
The First Step in Creating a Space Age - Treat Earth as a Planet
On Nov 8, 9:05*am, William Mook wrote:
As Jay Leno reported, the Hindenberg ignited not because of hydrogen but because of the material that coated the surface of the balloon. The magnesium struts didn't help either. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHbaO...?v=hXjVxOGCEpQ Exactly, and not that anything is ever 100% failsafe. The use of H2 as buoyancy for such commercial usage seems every bit as good as any considering what else falls out of the sky, blows up on the ground or sinks at sea. ~ BG |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
The First Step in Creating a Space Age - Treat Earth as a Planet
On Nov 7, 11:28*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Brad Guth wrote: On Nov 7, 8:40*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote: Brad Guth wrote: On Nov 7, 7:47 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote: William Mook wrote: We are contemplating 16 million airships carrying 40 tons each Each one full of hydrogen gas, just like the Hindenberg... Not that Mook is always right about everything, because he's not unless you'd care to take his word for most everything, but you really need to get yourself educated past 4th grade and at least learn the physics basics before flatulating again. That's really QUITE funny! *You have no idea how funny that is. You see, I really AM a 'rocket scientist'. There's nothing unsafe about using pure hydrogen, because pure (95+%) hydrogen doesn't burn. *Put it this way, it's also a hell of a lot safer than gasoline or even methane or worse yet is propane. Well, except for that slight problem with there being all that surrounding air full of all that oxygen and stuff. *It doesn't take much to get an explosive mixture of hydrogen in air. *All you need is a slight leak into an internal compartment and any sort of spark or flame. I guess, given your guidance above with regard to 'pure hydrogen', that this never happened: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFptg...eature=related Secondly, don't expect Mook to ever back down, because he never does. 'Back down'? *Who cares? *He makes a Mookery of pretty much everything he touches. While you tend to just Guth things up. Hydrogen vapor always goes vertical and otherwise expands. *In fact, there's nothing much stopping it from going vertical and expanding as relatively failsafe. So I guess the Hindenberg didn't really explode and burn, then? I favor using nearly frozen or slush HTP (98+%) and a little bit of something hydrocarbon for accomplishing the most easily stored energy kick per volume, not that certain conditions of handling HTP are exactly inert. *Anytime you mess with terrific energy density, such as HTP plus whatever else, there's a risk of something going terribly wrong. You've missed the point. *Mookie was talking about INFLATING BLIMPS with it. -- "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar *territory." * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * --G. Behn H2 inflated logging blimps is actually a very good application, especially since there's little if any onboard crew. It's more likely an H2 cell could rupture and gradually down would come the load of whatever logs. You'd think that a Mook logging blimp would have at least 16 cells, so that losing one cell wouldn't be sufficient cause of an aborted mission unless another cell ruptured. The logic here is simply, the more cells the better. ~ BG |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
The First Step in Creating a Space Age - Treat Earth as a Planet
On Nov 8, 2:28*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
So I guess the Hindenberg didn't really explode and burn, then? It didn't explode. Really. It did burn, but blaming the hydrogen is almost certainly wrong. Burning hydrogen gas produces a pretty blue smokeless flame. The Hindenberg burned bright yellow, with plenty of smoke. Hydrogen rises. A lot of the burning material fell. Ignition of the aluminum paint on the airship's skin, perhaps from a discharge of static electricity, is a very reasonable explanation for what happened. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
The First Step in Creating a Space Age - Treat Earth as a Planet
On Nov 8, 12:32*pm, Alan Anderson wrote:
On Nov 8, 2:28*am, Fred J. McCall wrote: So I guess the Hindenberg didn't really explode and burn, then? It didn't explode. Really. It did burn, but blaming the hydrogen is almost certainly wrong. Burning hydrogen gas produces a pretty blue smokeless flame. The Hindenberg burned bright yellow, with plenty of smoke. Hydrogen rises. A lot of the burning material fell. Ignition of the aluminum paint on the airship's skin, perhaps from a discharge of static electricity, is a very reasonable explanation for what happened. That's 100% correct, whereas the safest part of that Hindenburg was perhaps the hydrogen, not that it didn't add to the demise which looked a whole lot worst than it actually was, because lots of folks managed to survive that horrific fiasco (better than most commercial or military aircraft crashes). ~ BG |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
The First Step in Creating a Space Age - Treat Earth as a Planet
On Nov 8, 1:10*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 7754a276-58f5-4d5f-85d0-b87317e02f08 @r21g2000pri.googlegroups.com, says... As Jay Leno reported, the Hindenberg ignited not because of hydrogen but because of the material that coated the surface of the balloon. The magnesium struts didn't help either. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHbaOX2UAs0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXjVxOGCEpQ It is true that the likely cuase of the fire was a spark which ignighted the flammable coating on the outside of the Hindenburg. *In other words, H2 wasn't the cause of the Hindenburg going up in flames. *But once it got going, the H2 certainly burned right along with the doped skin. That said, there are still very real risks of using H2 as a lifting gas. * Great care has to be taken to insure that H2 doesn't escape into enclosed areas of an air ship which are filled with air, because a flammable, or even explosive, air/H2 mixture can be created in such a situation. *H2 leaks into the atmosphere are far less of a fire risk. Note that H2 leaks in the aft section of the space shuttle have been an issue on several shuttle missions. *When such leaks are detected and are above a certain level, the launch is scrubbed until the leak is fixed. * Jeff -- 42 In a typical terrestrial blimp application, H2 only leaks upwards. When's the last time any cabins or equipment was located directly along side or much less above the H2 cells? ~ BG |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
The First Step in Creating a Space Age - Treat Earth as a Planet
In article 4e9ddae5-cf6a-475b-a4bd-
, says... On Nov 8, 2:28*am, Fred J. McCall wrote: So I guess the Hindenberg didn't really explode and burn, then? It didn't explode. Really. It did burn, but blaming the hydrogen is almost certainly wrong. Burning hydrogen gas produces a pretty blue smokeless flame. The Hindenberg burned bright yellow, with plenty of smoke. Hydrogen rises. A lot of the burning material fell. Ignition of the aluminum paint on the airship's skin, perhaps from a discharge of static electricity, is a very reasonable explanation for what happened. While true, this does not diminish the risk of H2 leaking into an enclosed area on a blimp, mixing with air, and causing a flammable, or explosive, fuel/air mixture. That's a very real hazard. Jeff -- 42 |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
The First Step in Creating a Space Age - Treat Earth as a Planet
On Nov 8, 1:19*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 4e9ddae5-cf6a-475b-a4bd- , says... On Nov 8, 2:28 am, Fred J. McCall wrote: So I guess the Hindenberg didn't really explode and burn, then? It didn't explode. Really. It did burn, but blaming the hydrogen is almost certainly wrong. Burning hydrogen gas produces a pretty blue smokeless flame. The Hindenberg burned bright yellow, with plenty of smoke. Hydrogen rises. A lot of the burning material fell. Ignition of the aluminum paint on the airship's skin, perhaps from a discharge of static electricity, is a very reasonable explanation for what happened. While true, this does not diminish the risk of H2 leaking into an enclosed area on a blimp, mixing with air, and causing a flammable, or explosive, fuel/air mixture. *That's a very real hazard. Jeff -- 42 In a typical terrestrial blimp application, H2 only leaks upwards. When's the last time any cabins or equipment was located directly along side or much less above the H2 cells? I suppose it would also be a reasonably good idea of not hauling pure oxygen along within the same H2 displaced blimp, but that's just a guess. Obviously our shuttle has little if any option but to abort if there's more than any natural background level of H2 detected, because there's actually quite a bit of pure O2 onboard. ~ BG |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
The First Step in Creating a Space Age - Treat Earth as a Planet
In article 41b7993d-0921-4844-a040-b30d717782d6
@g20g2000prg.googlegroups.com, says... On Nov 8, 1:10*pm, Jeff Findley wrote: That said, there are still very real risks of using H2 as a lifting gas. * Great care has to be taken to insure that H2 doesn't escape into enclosed areas of an air ship which are filled with air, because a flammable, or even explosive, air/H2 mixture can be created in such a situation. *H2 leaks into the atmosphere are far less of a fire risk. Note that H2 leaks in the aft section of the space shuttle have been an issue on several shuttle missions. *When such leaks are detected and are above a certain level, the launch is scrubbed until the leak is fixed. * In a typical terrestrial blimp application, H2 only leaks upwards. When's the last time any cabins or equipment was located directly along side or much less above the H2 cells? Who said anything about cabins or equipment? Interactive Hindenburg diagram: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/html/e3-diagram.html In the above, please note the areas which are inside the middle of the H2 cells. Such areas could become filled with a hydrogen/air mixture if one of the hydrogen gas cells leaked or ruptured. It's my feeling that there just weren't enough Hindenburg like air ships built and flown to find all of the possible failure modes involving hydrogen. As a thought experiment: In an alternate history where the shuttle program ended after the Challenger disaster, the failure mode which led to the loss of Columbia would never have been found. Jeff -- 42 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
mechanism for creating water in space discovered | Yousuf Khan[_2_] | Astronomy Misc | 12 | September 17th 10 08:09 PM |
NASA Takes Giant Step Toward Finding Earth-Like Planets | [email protected] | News | 0 | September 30th 05 04:48 PM |
Earth & Space Week 2005: Celebrating our Planet While Reaching for the Stars | Jacques van Oene | News | 0 | February 1st 05 02:46 PM |
old BBC review: Planet Earth From Space | ErstWhile | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | June 23rd 04 06:21 PM |
Space Engineering Helps Drill Better Holes In Planet Earth | Ron Baalke | Technology | 0 | July 18th 03 07:23 PM |