![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Dec/3/2016 at 6:57 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
Harri Tavaila wrote: 29.11.2016, 4:53, Fred J. McCall kirjoitti: Try growing plants in soil with no carbon in it and see how that works for you (it mostly will work very poorly, if at all). I believe this is essentially what hydroponic farming is about. Yes, but that's not what's being discussed. If you 'predigest' everything for the plants, you can grown them in air. Here is the silly challenge you gave me: On Nov/30/2016 at 6:31 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote : «The proof is in the pudding. Go grow some plants of various types in «sand with no carbon content. Fertilize at will, but nothing with «carbon as a component. Let us know how that goes.» Oh! So that meant fertilize at will but not using the ingredients that work. Moving the goalpost again? Alain Fournier |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
If I want any further **** from you, I'll just squeeze your head.
Alain Fournier wrote: On Dec/3/2016 at 2:00 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote : Alain Fournier wrote: On Dec/2/2016 at 8:55 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote : Alain Fournier wrote: On Dec/1/2016 at 9:36 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote : Alain Fournier wrote: On Dec/1/2016 at 2:15 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote : Alain Fournier wrote: On Nov/30/2016 at 6:31 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote : Alain Fournier wrote: On Nov/29/2016 at 9:47 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote : Alain Fournier wrote: Le Nov/28/2016 à 9:53 PM, Fred J. McCall a écrit : Alain Fournier wrote: On Nov/27/2016 at 10:26 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote : Alain Fournier wrote: On Nov/27/2016 at 1:17 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote : JF Mezei wrote: 100pax over 3-4 months will consume large amounts of food. That is a lot of mass that you have to lift and accelerate out of earth's orbit towards mars most of which will become waste. Not doing anything with it means wasting that mass which you spent much fuel accelerating. I know it's hard for you, but think about it. Most of the mass of food (and feces) is water. You're going to get the water back for recycling on the back side of the process. That means each person will generate 1-2 ounces of solid waste per day once the water has been recovered (and you'll get 3-6 ounces of water out of the same waste stream). Let's use the larger number as more 'favorable' to your case; 100 people (not sure what 'pax' are when they're up and dressed) will generate around 12.5 pounds of solid waste per day. That waste is a mix of dead bacteria, indigestible food elements like cellulose, minerals, and indigestible fats. You're not going to turn it into methane without giving up a lot of the recovered water and even then most of it isn't going to 'convert'. Recovering the water is more valuable, since you can make things like breathing air out of that stuff. So you're going to accumulate a little over half a ton of such cruft during the course of the trip. It's not one or the other. You can very well recover the methane and the water and grow food. Plants don't need the methane from human waste to grow. So after extracting methane, the waste isn't any less fertile than it was before extraction. What 'methane' is there to recover? To get methane from ****e, you have to process the ****e, removing carbohydrates. That makes it less fertile because you've removed all the carbon and hydrogen. Plants don't need carbon in soil, removing carbohydrates is not a problem. Plants get their carbon from CO2 in the air. Try growing plants in soil with no carbon in it and see how that works for you (it mostly will work very poorly, if at all). Do you have a site to support that claim. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_nutrition#Carbon Doesn't seem to agree with you. While carbon isn't used directly by plants, it seems to be very important in enabling soil chemistry that is essential to plant growth. http://www.unep.org/yearbook/2012/pd..._2012_CH_2.pdf Maybe I missed something in there. But here is what I saw. 1) Soil organic matter is important because it slows down water run off which is important not only because plants need the water but also because this reduces erosion and loss of soil and nutrients. 2) The large amounts of carbon in soil world wide is important because if all that carbon was released in the atmosphere that would exacerbate global warming. 3) The biota, mainly bacteria, in the soil decomposes soil organic matter, releasing the carbon into the atmosphere, which leaves behind important nutrients. Point 1) There shouldn't be any large sudden rain fall in the spaceship carrying colonist to Mars. So this is irrelevant here. Point 2) I think we will both agree that spacecraft greenhouse warming is a non-issue. Point 3) Basically says that to provide nutrients to plants, the carbon must be removed. The proof is in the pudding. Go grow some plants of various types in sand with no carbon content. Fertilize at will, but nothing with carbon as a component. Let us know how that goes. The hard part of that would not be growing the plants. It would be extracting all carbon from manure. Of course that means that on a spaceship they also wouldn't be able to extract all the carbon in a bio-digester, only most of it. Therefore your pudding isn't germane to the current discussion. But if you do succeed in extracting all the carbon from manure without extracting other nutrients and add it to sand, there shouldn't be much of a problem to grow plants in there. Also, how can you possibly imagine that Martian colonists would bring sand as the base for their soil? I'm sorry. I was deafened by the screeching from you dragging the goalposts like that. You are hearing sounds that don't exist. I haven't dragged any goalpost. Sure. You just keep telling yourself that while you try to come up with someplace I ever said anything about bringing sand to Mars... You didn't say anything about bringing sand to Mars. Yet you essentially claimed that I did. "Also, how can you possibly imagine that Martian colonists would bring sand as the base for their soil?" I was just pointing out that it is silly to bring into the discussion growing plants in sand. It has nothing to do with space colonist using bio-digested **** to grow food. Since no one suggested any such thing, you were merely being disingenuous. But while we were discussing recycling **** aboard a ship heading to Mars by processing it in a bio-digester, you say that it wouldn't work because that would remove the carbon rendering it infertile. I said no such thing. The whole thread is right up there. I said "less fertile", not 'infertile'. That is still false. Bio-digested **** isn't any less fertile than **** that hasn't been bio-digested. The fact that some carbon has been removed doesn't make any less fertile. So, having been caught dragging the goalposts by a second lie about what I said, you now want to drag them back? Your current statement is wrong, since it implies that the carbon you're going to remove has nothing to do with the health of the 'soil'. It has nothing to do with the ability to grow plants and food, that is what was being discussed. I'm not sure about what you mean with health of the soil. I say that if you remove carbon from **** in that way, that doesn't make it any less valuable to grow plants. Not quite what you said, either. You said absence of carbon and hydrogen in the soil would make NO DIFFERENCE. I didn't say that. Of course you did. It's right up there. I quote, "Plants don't need carbon in soil". Yes that is what I said, and that is true. I didn't say "absence of carbon and hydrogen in the soil would make NO DIFFERENCE". And that is not true. Note hydrogen is not carbon. That's when I told you to try the experiment of growing plants in soil without it. You say that I should prove it by growing plants in sand Yes, I said you should prove your claim that carbon in soil made no difference by growing plants in soil without carbon (sand). That is not my claim. "Plants don't need carbon in soil". Your words. And those words are true. It is you who fantasize about growing plants in soil without carbon. You said "Try growing plants in soil with no carbon in it and see how that works for you (it mostly will work very poorly, if at all)." I asked you if you could back up your claim. And you provided a cite that doesn't backup your claim. In any event, I don't care whether your claim is true or not. That is a totally uninteresting thing to do. It is probably doable. But who cares about that. Remove most of the carbon in a bio-digester and you don't lose any fertility. That is what we were discussing. You made a claim. "Plants don't need carbon in soil". I disagreed and told you to run an experiment, reality being the proof. You've done nothing but shuck and jive since. You made a claim "To get methane from ****e, you have to process the ****e, removing carbohydrates. That makes it less fertile because you've removed all the carbon and hydrogen". I have disagreed with you and explained to you why. You've done nothing but shuck and jive since. We are still talking about growing plants in a Mars bound spaceship. No. At that point we were talking about whether carbon in soil contributed to the fertility of the soil. Oh! I see you were no longer talking about the subject we were discussing. So essentially you moved the goalpost and then because I am still using the original goalpost you say that is no fair, because I'm not using the new goalpost. You made a claim. "Plants don't need carbon in soil". I disputed that claim and told you to try an experiment to see if you were right. Now you shuck and jive and whine. You made a claim "To get methane from ****e, you have to process the ****e, removing carbohydrates. That makes it less fertile because you've removed all the carbon and hydrogen". I have disagreed with you and explained to you why that is false. You've done nothing but shuck and jive since. No one here cares about growing plants in sand. If you want to discuss that go to sci.phytology or wherever. Here we discuss about things space related. I take it you want to walk back your claim that "Plants don't need carbon in soil", then? No. I'm not interested about growing plants in sand. That doesn't mean that plants need carbon in soil. Why do you bring up the idea of growing plants in sand? It is just silly. And has no connection to the discussion. See what I mean about those moving goalposts? You've made multiple claims that I've said things I never said, denied doing so, and now claim the context was different than what it was. The context hasn't changed. We are still in sci.space.policy. We are still talking about using bio-digested **** in a spaceship. We are not talking about growing plants in sand. You claimed "Plants don't need carbon in soil". I say you're full of **** (and not the digested kind). Wow, I'm full of ****. Your arguments are so convincing. Alain Fournier |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Alain Fournier wrote:
On Dec/3/2016 at 6:57 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote : Harri Tavaila wrote: 29.11.2016, 4:53, Fred J. McCall kirjoitti: Try growing plants in soil with no carbon in it and see how that works for you (it mostly will work very poorly, if at all). I believe this is essentially what hydroponic farming is about. Yes, but that's not what's being discussed. If you 'predigest' everything for the plants, you can grown them in air. Here is the silly challenge you gave me: On Nov/30/2016 at 6:31 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote : «The proof is in the pudding. Go grow some plants of various types in «sand with no carbon content. Fertilize at will, but nothing with «carbon as a component. Let us know how that goes.» Oh! So that meant fertilize at will but not using the ingredients that work. Moving the goalpost again? If you don't know the difference between fertilizer and hydroponics, you really are too pig ignorant to bother with. -- "Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong." -- Thomas Jefferson |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Dec/4/2016 at 2:02 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
Alain Fournier wrote: On Dec/3/2016 at 6:57 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote : Harri Tavaila wrote: 29.11.2016, 4:53, Fred J. McCall kirjoitti: Try growing plants in soil with no carbon in it and see how that works for you (it mostly will work very poorly, if at all). I believe this is essentially what hydroponic farming is about. Yes, but that's not what's being discussed. If you 'predigest' everything for the plants, you can grown them in air. Here is the silly challenge you gave me: On Nov/30/2016 at 6:31 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote : «The proof is in the pudding. Go grow some plants of various types in «sand with no carbon content. Fertilize at will, but nothing with «carbon as a component. Let us know how that goes.» Oh! So that meant fertilize at will but not using the ingredients that work. Moving the goalpost again? If you don't know the difference between fertilizer and hydroponics, you really are too pig ignorant to bother with. Oh I see now. It isn't that you moved the goalpost. It is because the dictionary doesn't have the right definition for the word fertilize. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fertilize : fertilize 1. To make (the soil) more fertile by adding nutrients to it. Silly me to use normal definitions for words. I now see that you were right all along. Alain Fournier |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Alain Fournier wrote:
On Dec/4/2016 at 2:02 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote : Alain Fournier wrote: On Dec/3/2016 at 6:57 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote : Harri Tavaila wrote: 29.11.2016, 4:53, Fred J. McCall kirjoitti: Try growing plants in soil with no carbon in it and see how that works for you (it mostly will work very poorly, if at all). I believe this is essentially what hydroponic farming is about. Yes, but that's not what's being discussed. If you 'predigest' everything for the plants, you can grown them in air. Here is the silly challenge you gave me: On Nov/30/2016 at 6:31 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote : «The proof is in the pudding. Go grow some plants of various types in «sand with no carbon content. Fertilize at will, but nothing with «carbon as a component. Let us know how that goes.» Oh! So that meant fertilize at will but not using the ingredients that work. Moving the goalpost again? If you don't know the difference between fertilizer and hydroponics, you really are too pig ignorant to bother with. Oh I see now. It isn't that you moved the goalpost. It is because the dictionary doesn't have the right definition for the word fertilize. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fertilize : fertilize 1. To make (the soil) more fertile by adding nutrients to it. Silly me to use normal definitions for words. I now see that you were right all along. It's about time you figured that out. You really are just a bit of a thickie, aren't you? -- "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory." --G. Behn |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Dec/4/2016 at 9:36 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
Alain Fournier wrote: On Dec/4/2016 at 2:02 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote : Alain Fournier wrote: On Dec/3/2016 at 6:57 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote : Harri Tavaila wrote: 29.11.2016, 4:53, Fred J. McCall kirjoitti: Try growing plants in soil with no carbon in it and see how that works for you (it mostly will work very poorly, if at all). I believe this is essentially what hydroponic farming is about. Yes, but that's not what's being discussed. If you 'predigest' everything for the plants, you can grown them in air. Here is the silly challenge you gave me: On Nov/30/2016 at 6:31 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote : «The proof is in the pudding. Go grow some plants of various types in «sand with no carbon content. Fertilize at will, but nothing with «carbon as a component. Let us know how that goes.» Oh! So that meant fertilize at will but not using the ingredients that work. Moving the goalpost again? If you don't know the difference between fertilizer and hydroponics, you really are too pig ignorant to bother with. Oh I see now. It isn't that you moved the goalpost. It is because the dictionary doesn't have the right definition for the word fertilize. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fertilize : fertilize 1. To make (the soil) more fertile by adding nutrients to it. Silly me to use normal definitions for words. I now see that you were right all along. It's about time you figured that out. You really are just a bit of a thickie, aren't you? If you wish, you can keep on believing that that wasn't sarcasm. As I have already said I don't care about that point. What I would like to know is what does this have to do with what we were discussing. You know growing food in a spaceship using human poop after extracting methane? Alain Fournier |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Dec/5/2016 at 6:10 AM, Alain Fournier wrote :
On Dec/4/2016 at 9:36 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote : Alain Fournier wrote: On Dec/4/2016 at 2:02 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote : Alain Fournier wrote: On Dec/3/2016 at 6:57 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote : Harri Tavaila wrote: 29.11.2016, 4:53, Fred J. McCall kirjoitti: Try growing plants in soil with no carbon in it and see how that works for you (it mostly will work very poorly, if at all). I believe this is essentially what hydroponic farming is about. Yes, but that's not what's being discussed. If you 'predigest' everything for the plants, you can grown them in air. Here is the silly challenge you gave me: On Nov/30/2016 at 6:31 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote : «The proof is in the pudding. Go grow some plants of various types in «sand with no carbon content. Fertilize at will, but nothing with «carbon as a component. Let us know how that goes.» Oh! So that meant fertilize at will but not using the ingredients that work. Moving the goalpost again? If you don't know the difference between fertilizer and hydroponics, you really are too pig ignorant to bother with. Oh I see now. It isn't that you moved the goalpost. It is because the dictionary doesn't have the right definition for the word fertilize. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fertilize : fertilize 1. To make (the soil) more fertile by adding nutrients to it. Silly me to use normal definitions for words. I now see that you were right all along. It's about time you figured that out. You really are just a bit of a thickie, aren't you? If you wish, you can keep on believing that that wasn't sarcasm. As I have already said I don't care about that point. What I would like to know is what does this have to do with what we were discussing. You know growing food in a spaceship using human poop after extracting methane? That was poorly formulated. Of course this has a lot to do with growing food in a spaceship using human poop. But it doesn't point to the conclusion that Mr McCall was trying to make. He was claiming that removing the methane from the poop would make it less fertile. Alain Fournier |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Alain Fournier wrote:
On Dec/4/2016 at 9:36 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote : Alain Fournier wrote: On Dec/4/2016 at 2:02 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote : Alain Fournier wrote: On Dec/3/2016 at 6:57 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote : Harri Tavaila wrote: 29.11.2016, 4:53, Fred J. McCall kirjoitti: Try growing plants in soil with no carbon in it and see how that works for you (it mostly will work very poorly, if at all). I believe this is essentially what hydroponic farming is about. Yes, but that's not what's being discussed. If you 'predigest' everything for the plants, you can grown them in air. Here is the silly challenge you gave me: On Nov/30/2016 at 6:31 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote : «The proof is in the pudding. Go grow some plants of various types in «sand with no carbon content. Fertilize at will, but nothing with «carbon as a component. Let us know how that goes.» Oh! So that meant fertilize at will but not using the ingredients that work. Moving the goalpost again? If you don't know the difference between fertilizer and hydroponics, you really are too pig ignorant to bother with. Oh I see now. It isn't that you moved the goalpost. It is because the dictionary doesn't have the right definition for the word fertilize. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fertilize : fertilize 1. To make (the soil) more fertile by adding nutrients to it. Silly me to use normal definitions for words. I now see that you were right all along. It's about time you figured that out. You really are just a bit of a thickie, aren't you? If you wish, you can keep on believing that that wasn't sarcasm. As I have already said I don't care about that point. What I would like to know is what does this have to do with what we were discussing. You know growing food in a spaceship using human poop after extracting methane? If you wish, you can keep on believing that you weren't being mocked for engaging in stupid sarcasm. What I want to know is why you so steadfastly run away from your original claim about plants and carbon in the soil. You know, the thing we're discussing. -- "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is only stupid." -- Heinrich Heine |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Le Dec/5/2016 à 6:37 PM, Fred J. McCall a écrit :
Alain Fournier wrote: On Dec/4/2016 at 9:36 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote : Alain Fournier wrote: On Dec/4/2016 at 2:02 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote : Alain Fournier wrote: On Dec/3/2016 at 6:57 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote : Harri Tavaila wrote: 29.11.2016, 4:53, Fred J. McCall kirjoitti: Try growing plants in soil with no carbon in it and see how that works for you (it mostly will work very poorly, if at all). I believe this is essentially what hydroponic farming is about. Yes, but that's not what's being discussed. If you 'predigest' everything for the plants, you can grown them in air. Here is the silly challenge you gave me: On Nov/30/2016 at 6:31 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote : «The proof is in the pudding. Go grow some plants of various types in «sand with no carbon content. Fertilize at will, but nothing with «carbon as a component. Let us know how that goes.» Oh! So that meant fertilize at will but not using the ingredients that work. Moving the goalpost again? If you don't know the difference between fertilizer and hydroponics, you really are too pig ignorant to bother with. Oh I see now. It isn't that you moved the goalpost. It is because the dictionary doesn't have the right definition for the word fertilize. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fertilize : fertilize 1. To make (the soil) more fertile by adding nutrients to it. Silly me to use normal definitions for words. I now see that you were right all along. It's about time you figured that out. You really are just a bit of a thickie, aren't you? If you wish, you can keep on believing that that wasn't sarcasm. As I have already said I don't care about that point. What I would like to know is what does this have to do with what we were discussing. You know growing food in a spaceship using human poop after extracting methane? If you wish, you can keep on believing that you weren't being mocked for engaging in stupid sarcasm. What I want to know is why you so steadfastly run away from your original claim about plants and carbon in the soil. You know, the thing we're discussing. I'm not really interested in discussing phytology. I have already told you so a few times. This is a space related news groups. But since you are so much interested in that. My original claim about plants and carbon in the soil is: "Plants don't need carbon in soil, removing carbohydrates is not a problem. Plants get their carbon from CO2 in the air." Hydroponics proves that statement to be true. Since plants don't need soil, they don't need carbon in soil. They do need carbon, but not in soil. We were not talking about removing carbon from the soil. We were talking about removing carbon from **** and then using that processed **** to fertilize plants. If you want to grow plants in sand without carbon, you can also do that by similar techniques. I really don't know why anyone would want to bring sand in a spaceship to do so, but since that is the ridiculous challenge you gave me, it could be done. I don't care if you aren't happy about that being hydroculture. I have already explained how organic matter in soil is useful. See my post of Nov 29, 19h31. The organic matter in soil is useful to keep the roots moist. But one can find many other material to do so if wished. But one does not have to wish to do so if one is removing carbon from **** and not from soil. The organic matter is also useful if you have bacteria to decompose it and in doing so release important nutrients. But if you have already decomposed **** to extract the carbon, you already have your nutrients. That being said, I know you are going to move the goalpost and cry but that's not what I want. As I have told you several times I'm not interested in discussing phytology. So be my guest and declare that my statements are false. I don't care. Alain Fournier |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Alain Fournier wrote:
Le Dec/5/2016 à 6:37 PM, Fred J. McCall a écrit : Alain Fournier wrote: On Dec/4/2016 at 9:36 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote : Alain Fournier wrote: On Dec/4/2016 at 2:02 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote : Alain Fournier wrote: On Dec/3/2016 at 6:57 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote : Harri Tavaila wrote: 29.11.2016, 4:53, Fred J. McCall kirjoitti: Try growing plants in soil with no carbon in it and see how that works for you (it mostly will work very poorly, if at all). I believe this is essentially what hydroponic farming is about. Yes, but that's not what's being discussed. If you 'predigest' everything for the plants, you can grown them in air. Here is the silly challenge you gave me: On Nov/30/2016 at 6:31 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote : «The proof is in the pudding. Go grow some plants of various types in «sand with no carbon content. Fertilize at will, but nothing with «carbon as a component. Let us know how that goes.» Oh! So that meant fertilize at will but not using the ingredients that work. Moving the goalpost again? If you don't know the difference between fertilizer and hydroponics, you really are too pig ignorant to bother with. Oh I see now. It isn't that you moved the goalpost. It is because the dictionary doesn't have the right definition for the word fertilize. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fertilize : fertilize 1. To make (the soil) more fertile by adding nutrients to it. Silly me to use normal definitions for words. I now see that you were right all along. It's about time you figured that out. You really are just a bit of a thickie, aren't you? If you wish, you can keep on believing that that wasn't sarcasm. As I have already said I don't care about that point. What I would like to know is what does this have to do with what we were discussing. You know growing food in a spaceship using human poop after extracting methane? If you wish, you can keep on believing that you weren't being mocked for engaging in stupid sarcasm. What I want to know is why you so steadfastly run away from your original claim about plants and carbon in the soil. You know, the thing we're discussing. I'm not really interested in discussing phytology. Then why did you make your original claim about carbon in soil? -- "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory." --G. Behn |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Novel Lorentz propulsion for interplanetary and interstellar propulsion. | Robert Clark | Astronomy Misc | 5 | August 24th 11 11:14 PM |
ot well that was a waste of time | Brian Gaff | Space Shuttle | 0 | August 17th 09 07:20 AM |
Waste not! | prof-rabbit | Astronomy Misc | 0 | July 28th 09 10:33 AM |
Such a Waste of Energy | G=EMC^2 Glazier | Misc | 2 | July 28th 06 08:04 PM |
So far Titan a waste | starlard | Amateur Astronomy | 25 | August 10th 04 09:34 PM |