A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Lunar water brings portions of Moon's origin story into question



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old May 29th 11, 06:45 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.physics
Sam Wormley[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,966
Default Lunar water brings portions of Moon's origin story into question

On 5/29/11 11:23 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
The extremely nearby and massive asteroid Cruithne is supposedly only
worth 2 g/cm3, and the surface of our physically dark and paramagnetic
moon has basalt worth 4.5 g/cm3, and otherwise Venus has considerably
more surface thorium than Earth. How does either of those add up to
being similar to Earth?


Helium is removed at an average rate of 10^6 atoms per square
centimeter per second from Venus's atmosphere by the solar wind
following ionization above the plasmapause. The surface source
of helium-4 on Venus is *similar* to that on Earth, suggesting
*comparable abundances* of crustal uranium and thorium.

  #12  
Old May 29th 11, 10:44 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.physics
Brad Guth[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,175
Default Lunar water brings portions of Moon's origin story into question

On May 29, 10:45*am, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 5/29/11 11:23 AM, Brad Guth wrote:

The extremely nearby and massive asteroid Cruithne is supposedly only
worth 2 g/cm3, and the surface of our physically dark and paramagnetic
moon has basalt worth 4.5 g/cm3, and otherwise Venus has considerably
more surface thorium than Earth. *How does either of those add up to
being similar to Earth?


* *Helium is removed at an average rate of 10^6 atoms per square
* *centimeter per second from Venus's atmosphere by the solar wind
* *following ionization above the plasmapause. The surface source
* *of helium-4 on Venus is *similar* to that on Earth, suggesting
* **comparable abundances* of crustal uranium and thorium.


Thanks for the usual mainstream parrot-speak.

First off, Earth has been losing a hell of a lot more helium than a kg/
sec, not that you'd have any objective way of proving otherwise
(especially since your Big Energy buddies terminated our spendy OCO
mission), and Venus is probably losing at the very least 10 kg/sec
without us humans hydrocarbon farming and extracting it to death.

Using the Venus atmospheric plasmapause radius of 6600 km = 5.474e20
cm2

According to Sam and all things NASA FUD-master approved, there’s only
their status-quo swag of 1e6 helium atoms per cm2 getting removed per
second by the solar wind. That’s only 5.5e26 atoms per second of
helium upwelling and subsequent loss, or roughly a kg/sec that seems
highly conservative and isn’t verified by anyone outside of his NASA O-
Ring insider cabal, that also happens to belong to the Skull and Bones
which we all know can be trusted about as far as we can spit into the
wind.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
  #13  
Old May 29th 11, 11:12 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.physics
Sam Wormley[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,966
Default Lunar water brings portions of Moon's origin story into question

On 5/29/11 4:44 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
On May 29, 10:45 am, Sam wrote:
On 5/29/11 11:23 AM, Brad Guth wrote:

The extremely nearby and massive asteroid Cruithne is supposedly only
worth 2 g/cm3, and the surface of our physically dark and paramagnetic
moon has basalt worth 4.5 g/cm3, and otherwise Venus has considerably
more surface thorium than Earth. How does either of those add up to
being similar to Earth?


Helium is removed at an average rate of 10^6 atoms per square
centimeter per second from Venus's atmosphere by the solar wind
following ionization above the plasmapause. The surface source
of helium-4 on Venus is *similar* to that on Earth, suggesting
*comparable abundances* of crustal uranium and thorium.


Thanks for the usual mainstream parrot-speak.


This is the data that we have, Brad, not what you might wish it to
be. Furthermore, I have steered you to credible information over the
years, and I suspect you might actually rely on me for some of your
information.



First off, Earth has been losing a hell of a lot more helium than a kg/
sec, not that you'd have any objective way of proving otherwise
(especially since your Big Energy buddies terminated our spendy OCO
mission), and Venus is probably losing at the very least 10 kg/sec
without us humans hydrocarbon farming and extracting it to death.


Measurements show the surface source of helium-4 on Venus is
*similar* to that on Earth.


  #14  
Old May 29th 11, 11:39 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.physics
Brad Guth[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,175
Default Lunar water brings portions of Moon's origin story into question

On May 29, 3:12*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 5/29/11 4:44 PM, Brad Guth wrote:









On May 29, 10:45 am, Sam *wrote:
On 5/29/11 11:23 AM, Brad Guth wrote:


The extremely nearby and massive asteroid Cruithne is supposedly only
worth 2 g/cm3, and the surface of our physically dark and paramagnetic
moon has basalt worth 4.5 g/cm3, and otherwise Venus has considerably
more surface thorium than Earth. *How does either of those add up to
being similar to Earth?


* * Helium is removed at an average rate of 10^6 atoms per square
* * centimeter per second from Venus's atmosphere by the solar wind
* * following ionization above the plasmapause. The surface source
* * of helium-4 on Venus is *similar* to that on Earth, suggesting
* * *comparable abundances* of crustal uranium and thorium.


Thanks for the usual mainstream parrot-speak.


* *This is the data that we have, Brad, not what you might wish it to
* *be. Furthermore, I have steered you to credible information over the
* *years, and I suspect you might actually rely on me for some of your
* *information.



First off, Earth has been losing a hell of a lot more helium than a kg/
sec, not that you'd have any objective way of proving otherwise
(especially since your Big Energy buddies terminated our spendy OCO
mission), and Venus is probably losing at the very least 10 kg/sec
without us humans hydrocarbon farming and extracting it to death.


* *Measurements show the surface source of helium-4 on Venus is
* **similar* to that on Earth.


They and you have no idea or honest deductive interpretation as to how
much helium Earth has been losing, much less from Venus.
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Venus_Ex...R973R8F_1.html

You seem to only know whatever they tell you to know, and you
obviously believe each and every word published by our government
agencies and their contractors, as though it were the whole truth and
nothing but the truth, whereas nothing could possibly be in error or
much less intentionally skewed to suit another agenda. Good for you,
because GW Bush and Hitler each needed mindless people and parrots
exactly like yourself.

http://www.wanttoknow.info/
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
  #15  
Old May 29th 11, 11:44 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.physics
Sam Wormley[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,966
Default Lunar water brings portions of Moon's origin story into question

On 5/29/11 5:39 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
On May 29, 3:12 pm, Sam wrote:
On 5/29/11 4:44 PM, Brad Guth wrote:









On May 29, 10:45 am, Sam wrote:
On 5/29/11 11:23 AM, Brad Guth wrote:


The extremely nearby and massive asteroid Cruithne is supposedly only
worth 2 g/cm3, and the surface of our physically dark and paramagnetic
moon has basalt worth 4.5 g/cm3, and otherwise Venus has considerably
more surface thorium than Earth. How does either of those add up to
being similar to Earth?


Helium is removed at an average rate of 10^6 atoms per square
centimeter per second from Venus's atmosphere by the solar wind
following ionization above the plasmapause. The surface source
of helium-4 on Venus is *similar* to that on Earth, suggesting
*comparable abundances* of crustal uranium and thorium.


Thanks for the usual mainstream parrot-speak.


This is the data that we have, Brad, not what you might wish it to
be. Furthermore, I have steered you to credible information over the
years, and I suspect you might actually rely on me for some of your
information.



First off, Earth has been losing a hell of a lot more helium than a kg/
sec, not that you'd have any objective way of proving otherwise
(especially since your Big Energy buddies terminated our spendy OCO
mission), and Venus is probably losing at the very least 10 kg/sec
without us humans hydrocarbon farming and extracting it to death.


Measurements show the surface source of helium-4 on Venus is
*similar* to that on Earth.


They and you have no idea or honest deductive interpretation as to how
much helium Earth has been losing, much less from Venus.
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Venus_Ex...R973R8F_1.html

You seem to only know whatever they tell you to know, and you
obviously believe each and every word published by our government
agencies and their contractors, as though it were the whole truth and
nothing but the truth, whereas nothing could possibly be in error or
much less intentionally skewed to suit another agenda. Good for you,
because GW Bush and Hitler each needed mindless people and parrots
exactly like yourself.

http://www.wanttoknow.info/
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”


Please cite the correct scientific publications for us, Brad.


  #16  
Old May 30th 11, 12:15 AM posted to sci.astro,sci.physics
Brad Guth[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,175
Default Lunar water brings portions of Moon's origin story into question

On May 29, 3:44*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 5/29/11 5:39 PM, Brad Guth wrote:









On May 29, 3:12 pm, Sam *wrote:
On 5/29/11 4:44 PM, Brad Guth wrote:


On May 29, 10:45 am, Sam * *wrote:
On 5/29/11 11:23 AM, Brad Guth wrote:


The extremely nearby and massive asteroid Cruithne is supposedly only
worth 2 g/cm3, and the surface of our physically dark and paramagnetic
moon has basalt worth 4.5 g/cm3, and otherwise Venus has considerably
more surface thorium than Earth. *How does either of those add up to
being similar to Earth?


* * *Helium is removed at an average rate of 10^6 atoms per square
* * *centimeter per second from Venus's atmosphere by the solar wind
* * *following ionization above the plasmapause. The surface source
* * *of helium-4 on Venus is *similar* to that on Earth, suggesting
* * **comparable abundances* of crustal uranium and thorium.


Thanks for the usual mainstream parrot-speak.


* * This is the data that we have, Brad, not what you might wish it to
* * be. Furthermore, I have steered you to credible information over the
* * years, and I suspect you might actually rely on me for some of your
* * information.


First off, Earth has been losing a hell of a lot more helium than a kg/
sec, not that you'd have any objective way of proving otherwise
(especially since your Big Energy buddies terminated our spendy OCO
mission), and Venus is probably losing at the very least 10 kg/sec
without us humans hydrocarbon farming and extracting it to death.


* * Measurements show the surface source of helium-4 on Venus is
* * *similar* to that on Earth.


They and you have no idea or honest deductive interpretation as to how
much helium Earth has been losing, much less from Venus.
*http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Venus_Ex...R973R8F_1.html


* You seem to only know whatever they tell you to know, and you
obviously believe each and every word published by our government
agencies and their contractors, as though it were the whole truth and
nothing but the truth, whereas nothing could possibly be in error or
much less intentionally skewed to suit another agenda. *Good for you,
because GW Bush and Hitler each needed mindless people and parrots
exactly like yourself.


*http://www.wanttoknow.info/
*http://translate.google.com/#
* Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”


* *Please cite the correct scientific publications for us, Brad.


Since there's nothing all that believable from our guys (other than
their usual subjective swags and theories that are designed to protect
special interest groups), it'll have to come from ESA or even from
those extremely old Russian missions that didn't plan on a calibrated
Helium loss determination.

As far as terrestrial loss of helium, just taking the natural gas
volumes alone is going to exceed a loss of any couple kg/sec. I
recall working that out, so I'll have to kinda revisit that data and
cites that I'd used. Supposedly this planet has to maintain 3.7+e9
tonnes of helium within its atmosphere, and that alone is going to
require a lot of helium replenishment since helium doesn't bind with
anything and it's kinda lofty stuff.

http://www.wanttoknow.info/
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

  #17  
Old May 30th 11, 01:04 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.physics
herbert glazier
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,045
Default Lunar water brings portions of Moon's origin story into question

On May 29, 7:15*pm, Brad Guth wrote:
On May 29, 3:44*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:



On 5/29/11 5:39 PM, Brad Guth wrote:


On May 29, 3:12 pm, Sam *wrote:
On 5/29/11 4:44 PM, Brad Guth wrote:


On May 29, 10:45 am, Sam * *wrote:
On 5/29/11 11:23 AM, Brad Guth wrote:


The extremely nearby and massive asteroid Cruithne is supposedly only
worth 2 g/cm3, and the surface of our physically dark and paramagnetic
moon has basalt worth 4.5 g/cm3, and otherwise Venus has considerably
more surface thorium than Earth. *How does either of those add up to
being similar to Earth?


* * *Helium is removed at an average rate of 10^6 atoms per square
* * *centimeter per second from Venus's atmosphere by the solar wind
* * *following ionization above the plasmapause. The surface source
* * *of helium-4 on Venus is *similar* to that on Earth, suggesting
* * **comparable abundances* of crustal uranium and thorium.


Thanks for the usual mainstream parrot-speak.


* * This is the data that we have, Brad, not what you might wish it to
* * be. Furthermore, I have steered you to credible information over the
* * years, and I suspect you might actually rely on me for some of your
* * information.


First off, Earth has been losing a hell of a lot more helium than a kg/
sec, not that you'd have any objective way of proving otherwise
(especially since your Big Energy buddies terminated our spendy OCO
mission), and Venus is probably losing at the very least 10 kg/sec
without us humans hydrocarbon farming and extracting it to death.


* * Measurements show the surface source of helium-4 on Venus is
* * *similar* to that on Earth.


They and you have no idea or honest deductive interpretation as to how
much helium Earth has been losing, much less from Venus.
*http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Venus_Ex...R973R8F_1.html


* You seem to only know whatever they tell you to know, and you
obviously believe each and every word published by our government
agencies and their contractors, as though it were the whole truth and
nothing but the truth, whereas nothing could possibly be in error or
much less intentionally skewed to suit another agenda. *Good for you,
because GW Bush and Hitler each needed mindless people and parrots
exactly like yourself.


*http://www.wanttoknow.info/
*http://translate.google.com/#
* Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”


* *Please cite the correct scientific publications for us, Brad.


Since there's nothing all that believable from our guys (other than
their usual subjective swags and theories that are designed to protect
special interest groups), it'll have to come from ESA or even from
those extremely old Russian missions that didn't plan on a calibrated
Helium loss determination.

As far as terrestrial loss of helium, just taking the natural gas
volumes alone is going to exceed a loss of any couple kg/sec. *I
recall working that out, so I'll have to kinda revisit that data and
cites that I'd used. *Supposedly this planet has to maintain 3.7+e9
tonnes of helium within its atmosphere, and that alone is going to
require a lot of helium replenishment since helium doesn't bind with
anything and it's kinda lofty stuff.

*http://www.wanttoknow.info/
*http://translate.google.com/#
*Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”


Water in the universe is far from rare. The Earth proves this TreBert
  #18  
Old May 30th 11, 02:24 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.physics
Sam Wormley[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,966
Default Lunar water brings portions of Moon's origin story into question

On 5/30/11 7:04 AM, herbert glazier wrote:
Water in the universe is far from rare. The Earth proves this TreBert


Correct, Herb! Water is the most abundant solid material in space.

How Water Forms in Interstellar Space at 10K

http://science.slashdot.org/story/08...r-Space-at-10K

"Water is the most abundant solid material in space. But although
astronomers see it on planets, moons, in comets and in interstellar
clouds, nobody has been able to show how it forms. In theory, it should
form easily when oxygen and atomic hydrogen meet. The problem is that
there is not enough of it floating around as gas in interstellar dust
clouds. So instead, the thinking is that water must form when atomic
hydrogen interacts with frozen solid oxygen on the surface of dust
grains in these clouds. Now Japanese astronomers have demonstrated this
process for the first time in the lab in conditions that simulate
interstellar space. That's cool because all the water in the solar
system, including almost every drop you drink on Earth today, must have
formed in exactly this way more than 5 billion years ago in a pre-solar
dustcloud (abstract)."

Water is found in liquid form on the Earth, Europa, Enceladus and has
been observed as Ice on Mars, Titan, Europa, comets, etc.

A Cloud Of Water In Interstellar Space
http://www.scienceblog.com/community...199800984.html

  #19  
Old May 30th 11, 11:28 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.physics
Brad Guth[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,175
Default Lunar water brings portions of Moon's origin story into question

On May 29, 3:44*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 5/29/11 5:39 PM, Brad Guth wrote:









On May 29, 3:12 pm, Sam *wrote:
On 5/29/11 4:44 PM, Brad Guth wrote:


On May 29, 10:45 am, Sam * *wrote:
On 5/29/11 11:23 AM, Brad Guth wrote:


The extremely nearby and massive asteroid Cruithne is supposedly only
worth 2 g/cm3, and the surface of our physically dark and paramagnetic
moon has basalt worth 4.5 g/cm3, and otherwise Venus has considerably
more surface thorium than Earth. *How does either of those add up to
being similar to Earth?


* * *Helium is removed at an average rate of 10^6 atoms per square
* * *centimeter per second from Venus's atmosphere by the solar wind
* * *following ionization above the plasmapause. The surface source
* * *of helium-4 on Venus is *similar* to that on Earth, suggesting
* * **comparable abundances* of crustal uranium and thorium.


Thanks for the usual mainstream parrot-speak.


* * This is the data that we have, Brad, not what you might wish it to
* * be. Furthermore, I have steered you to credible information over the
* * years, and I suspect you might actually rely on me for some of your
* * information.


First off, Earth has been losing a hell of a lot more helium than a kg/
sec, not that you'd have any objective way of proving otherwise
(especially since your Big Energy buddies terminated our spendy OCO
mission), and Venus is probably losing at the very least 10 kg/sec
without us humans hydrocarbon farming and extracting it to death.


* * Measurements show the surface source of helium-4 on Venus is
* * *similar* to that on Earth.


They and you have no idea or honest deductive interpretation as to how
much helium Earth has been losing, much less from Venus.
*http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Venus_Ex...R973R8F_1.html


* You seem to only know whatever they tell you to know, and you
obviously believe each and every word published by our government
agencies and their contractors, as though it were the whole truth and
nothing but the truth, whereas nothing could possibly be in error or
much less intentionally skewed to suit another agenda. *Good for you,
because GW Bush and Hitler each needed mindless people and parrots
exactly like yourself.


*http://www.wanttoknow.info/
*http://translate.google.com/#
* Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth,BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”


* *Please cite the correct scientific publications for us, Brad.


You will not find any of this published in BP or any other Big Energy
reports, however with some basic search for skills and a positive/
constructive effort of deductive reasoning, it's all there to behold:

Running this math again, using an average of 1% helium within natural
gas, whereas all by itself our global natural gas consumption (that’s
mostly CH4 plus helium and loads of other mostly nasty elements) is
only worthy of releasing that helium at roughly 226 kg/sec, which by
the way doesn’t necessarily include those other considerable volumes
directly associated with the explorations and bulk extractions of
oils, coal and even of fresh water wells and aquifers that include
trapped gasses, nor is this industry reported amount accounting for
the multiple leaks and various blowouts which collectively accounts
for another substantial portion of our global helium loss, as do many
forms of hard-rock and softer mineral/ore extractions that each
involve venting considerable volumes of their natural geology gasses
that always include a small portion of helium that’s usually less than
1% per volume but otherwise could perhaps average as little as 0.1%,
which considering those excavated volumes adds up to making our human
caused plus natural helium release worth at least an all-inclusive
tonne/sec.

Remember that Canada has been processing its oily sand along with
burning vast amounts of their natural gas that isn’t without a fair
portion of helium that’s included in such industrial volumes of
consumption that’s consumed for processing that oily muck into an
export oil that’s actually a net energy loss and representing nearly a
triple CO2 environment impact, and it seems a few other nations (such
as Russia or China) simply do not bother to include such direct
hydrocarbon industry uses of their own natural gas, so you can safely
bet the farm that our official reported global annual tally of global
natural gas consumption isn’t all-inclusive by any long shot.

Of course our spendy OCO and Glory Earth-science missions would have
significantly mapped and greatly quantified such volumes of natural
and artificial released gasses, but having been foiled by those which
could be pointed out as culprits is what took care of eliminating the
deductive science from either of those. My suggestion of having any
platform of science instruments as efficiently station-kept within the
Earth-moon L1 (Selene L1) has also been taboo/forbidden for the same
social/political faith-based and FUD-master reason as Clarke Station
and even that of our Boeing OASIS have not been funded (perhaps
because Apollo 13 was freezing to death out their).

Actually if going at this purely by the reported volumes of natural
gas, whereas the global consumption per year is supposedly 3.25e12 m3,
and if only 1% of that were helium = 533e4 tonnes/year, or merely 183
kg/sec (though again that’s not including wellhead operations and
losses, mining, other hydrocarbon processing demands, leakages and
those blowouts and flare-offs that seem none too few or far between).
The BP Gulf of Mexico blowout managed to vent roughly 1.5e7 m3/day of
mostly CH4 plus numerous other toxic gasses which taken at that
compressed reservoir depth included at the very least 1% volume as
helium, makes 1.5e5 m3/day that’s worth near 27 tonnes of He/day just
from that one blowout which lasted 83+ days (though many would suggest
at least having twice that helium concentration makes 54 tonnes/day,
or the total of having released 4482 tonnes of helium, but that’s
still only the dirty tip of the Big Energy global iceberg that most
likely blowout spews and/or vents and flares off at least ten fold if
not considerably greater amounts of helium).

So, as long as the Big Energy cartel/cabal of natural gas doesn’t
really care how much raw energy it takes for extracting and delivering
their hydrocarbon energy that’s unavoidably laced with helium to us
and into our environment, we might as well accept 4e12 m3 as
representing the current global all-inclusive natural gas consumption,
and if given 1% as the average helium content = 7.12e9 kg/yr = 226 kg/
sec.

Now let us add in those oil and coal related helium volumes, and
especially of their oil well blowouts, multiple and near continuous
flaring and power assisted mine venting that collectively can easily
match or exceed the helium contribution by way of natural gas, of
perhaps adding 275 kg/sec.

This brings us up to a tally of roughly 500 kg/sec, not including
natural vents and ground seepage that’s always venting and thus losing
its helium to the atmosphere.

Each and every m3 of atmosphere that supposedly contains 2.7e25 atoms
(2.7e19 atoms/cm3) has its small portion of helium that’s continually
replenished, and thereby every vertical meter of the global atmosphere
needs 17.4e6 kg of helium.

He at 5.24 ppm = 5.15e18 He atoms/m3
5.15e18 * 6.645e-27 = 34.2e-9 kg/m3
Earth surface area = 5.1e14 m2
34.2e-9 * 5.1e14 = 17.4e6 kg = 17.4e3 tonnes per global meter

*** if using a slightly denser/dry 3.1e25/m3 of standard air at ground
or sea level makes the 5.24 ppm saturation of our helium worth 20e6 kg
per global meter, and you’d probably think that standard of helium gas
saturation has to get replenished at least every thousand seconds (=20
tonnes/sec) because, the element of helium simply doesn’t bind or
naturally stick with anything, and its buoyancy is second only to
hydrogen. Even if this outflux rate were given a million seconds (278
hours) to replenish itself from the bottom up is still representing an
upwelling/outflux of 20 kg/sec that’s going away, and you’d think the
mostly geothermal plus solar pressure cooker kind of atmospheric
environment of Venus would have to be worth at the very least that
amount.

But does it even take any thousand seconds for the naturally escaping
or artificially released helium from Earth to migrate upwards and exit
a given cubic meter of air? (if so, perhaps using 100 seconds per
vertical meter could represent a natural global loss of 200 kg/sec)

Even some of those research wizards hired by our NASA pegged the Venus
atmospheric helium near 17 ppm (better than three times that of
Earth), which considering the smaller planet size and a lower mass and
10% less gravity plus terrific 65 kg/m3 buoyancy is suggesting those
available radioactive elements are worth at the very least 3 times the
amount for having been creating their supply of helium, unless it’s
being derived from considerably newer radioactive material because,
Venus simply isn’t nearly as old as Earth?

India actually has surveyed and reported some of the highest known
concentrations or deposits of thorium, uranium and radium with
considerable radon and helium released from a fairly large area of
geothermal vents, though once again without benefit of our OCO or
Glory missions there’s still no good remote science method of better
estimating how much primordial and geode pockets of thorium, uranium
and radium produced gasses that includes the ongoing radiation decay
produced element of helium, that has been escaping from such natural
and artificial vents, other than to suggest that it’s considerable
when some of those natural vents have been spewing large volumes
capable of delivering 2+% helium.

I could certainly be surprised and willing to concede if you or others
could manage to accomplish better math and/or prove that Earth has
been losing considerably less than a tonne/sec of its precious helium
via natural geothermal vents, along with all the other natural
upwelling or outgassing plus otherwise from all of our artificial
means that seem rather considerable if we’re being perfectly honest
and thus all-inclusive.

This is why I can’t buy the 1e6 atoms of helium/cm2/sec as
representing the ongoing loss from the planet Venus, because that’s
hardly anything compared to what Earth is losing.

The good news for those of us that enjoy environment extremes, with
Earth losing mass at this rate, the daily and seasonal heating and
cooling process is going to speed up and otherwise not regulate itself
nearly as well as a planet that has additional mass to work with,
though I wonder how much mass this planet of ours can afford to lose.

http://www.wanttoknow.info/
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
  #20  
Old May 30th 11, 11:30 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.physics
Brad Guth[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,175
Default Lunar water brings portions of Moon's origin story into question

On May 30, 5:04*am, herbert glazier wrote:
On May 29, 7:15*pm, Brad Guth wrote:









On May 29, 3:44*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:


On 5/29/11 5:39 PM, Brad Guth wrote:


On May 29, 3:12 pm, Sam *wrote:
On 5/29/11 4:44 PM, Brad Guth wrote:


On May 29, 10:45 am, Sam * *wrote:
On 5/29/11 11:23 AM, Brad Guth wrote:


The extremely nearby and massive asteroid Cruithne is supposedly only
worth 2 g/cm3, and the surface of our physically dark and paramagnetic
moon has basalt worth 4.5 g/cm3, and otherwise Venus has considerably
more surface thorium than Earth. *How does either of those add up to
being similar to Earth?


* * *Helium is removed at an average rate of 10^6 atoms per square
* * *centimeter per second from Venus's atmosphere by the solar wind
* * *following ionization above the plasmapause. The surface source
* * *of helium-4 on Venus is *similar* to that on Earth, suggesting
* * **comparable abundances* of crustal uranium and thorium.


Thanks for the usual mainstream parrot-speak.


* * This is the data that we have, Brad, not what you might wish it to
* * be. Furthermore, I have steered you to credible information over the
* * years, and I suspect you might actually rely on me for some of your
* * information.


First off, Earth has been losing a hell of a lot more helium than a kg/
sec, not that you'd have any objective way of proving otherwise
(especially since your Big Energy buddies terminated our spendy OCO
mission), and Venus is probably losing at the very least 10 kg/sec
without us humans hydrocarbon farming and extracting it to death.


* * Measurements show the surface source of helium-4 on Venus is
* * *similar* to that on Earth.


They and you have no idea or honest deductive interpretation as to how
much helium Earth has been losing, much less from Venus.
*http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Venus_Ex...R973R8F_1.html


* You seem to only know whatever they tell you to know, and you
obviously believe each and every word published by our government
agencies and their contractors, as though it were the whole truth and
nothing but the truth, whereas nothing could possibly be in error or
much less intentionally skewed to suit another agenda. *Good for you,
because GW Bush and Hitler each needed mindless people and parrots
exactly like yourself.


*http://www.wanttoknow.info/
*http://translate.google.com/#
* Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth,BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”


* *Please cite the correct scientific publications for us, Brad.


Since there's nothing all that believable from our guys (other than
their usual subjective swags and theories that are designed to protect
special interest groups), it'll have to come from ESA or even from
those extremely old Russian missions that didn't plan on a calibrated
Helium loss determination.


As far as terrestrial loss of helium, just taking the natural gas
volumes alone is going to exceed a loss of any couple kg/sec. *I
recall working that out, so I'll have to kinda revisit that data and
cites that I'd used. *Supposedly this planet has to maintain 3.7+e9
tonnes of helium within its atmosphere, and that alone is going to
require a lot of helium replenishment since helium doesn't bind with
anything and it's kinda lofty stuff.


*http://www.wanttoknow.info/
*http://translate.google.com/#
*Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth,BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”


Water in the universe is far from rare. The Earth proves this * TreBert


Yes in deed, and the interior of our moon as well as the planet Venus
are each reservoirs of water in addition to their own makings of
gasses like radon and helium.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter entered the moon's orbit at 6:27a.m. EDT today! Double-A[_3_] Misc 1 June 23rd 09 10:20 PM
Cassini Images of Enceladus Suggest Geysers Erupt Liquid Water atthe Moon's South Pole (Forwarded) Andrew Yee Astronomy Misc 0 March 9th 06 11:22 PM
Cassini Images of Enceladus Suggest Geysers Erupt Liquid Water atthe Moon's South Pole (Forwarded) Andrew Yee News 0 March 9th 06 10:44 PM
Water Crisis at ISS - Follow Up Question Water Recovery T Space Station 2 October 5th 04 07:56 AM
RAT cuts out a quarter of a blueberry (Water origin more likely?) jonathan Astronomy Misc 3 March 1st 04 07:01 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:46 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.