CO2 as a universal construction material

On Friday, August 9, 2013 6:22:05 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Friday, August 9, 2013 10:11:17 AM UTC-4, Martha Adams wrote:

On 8/8/2013 11:30 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:



wrote:







On Thursday, August 8, 2013 8:10:20 PM UTC-4, wrote:



On Thursday, August 8, 2013 1:41:06 AM UTC-4, wrote:







On Thursday, August 8, 2013 1:03:09 AM UTC-4, wrote:







Mookie mooking Mookie mooking Mookie....







When someone responds to their own posts over and over, it's a sign



that they're a real fruitcake.







For reference, examine The Guthball's posting patters....







================================================== ===========







Hi, Fred. In my view, no diet is complete without fruitcake, and if



that's your name for Mook's writings, well, it calibrates your self well



enough for practical purposes. Two key points you miss are,







1) The power of compounding / exponential processes. Especially when



digital tech is brought into the picture. It reminds me of a serious



practical problem Simak mentions in his "Time and Again," and of the



cultural strategy required to cope with it. If you can understand this



kind of thinking.







2) The utility of synthesis of organic chemicals. You always need



precursors to build from. Mook talks about *making* those precursor



chemicals. Without the presence of life to do it for you. If you can



understand this kind of thinking.







If!







Titeotwawki -- Martha Adams [Fri 2013 Aug 09]



Technology not only compounds, it spreads and costs drop.



http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....-02-604832.xml



We are being weighed in the balance Jacob Bronowski once said in his "Ascent of Man" series and book.

A scientific culture proceeds by a person's commitment to his skill.
https://vimeo.com/54252136

Delphi Technique undermines creativity to benefit a ruling elite.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrvXIc31PZQ

How people pleasers are made
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeEWPbTad_Q

Education and Community
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKci3_cmlqI

On Friday, August 9, 2013 10:11:17 AM UTC-4, Martha Adams wrote:
On 8/8/2013 11:30 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:



Hi, Fred. In my view, no diet is complete without fruitcake, and if

that's your name for Mook's writings, well, it calibrates your self well

enough for practical purposes. Two key points you miss are,


You're absolutely right Martha! Fred's opinions reflect more adversely on him than they do on any person unfortunate enough to draw his attention.


1) The power of compounding / exponential processes. Especially when

digital tech is brought into the picture. It reminds me of a serious

practical problem Simak mentions in his "Time and Again," and of the

cultural strategy required to cope with it. If you can understand this

kind of thinking.


Don't count on it. Name calling and baseless assertions of right and wrong is all you're likely to get.



2) The utility of synthesis of organic chemicals. You always need

precursors to build from. Mook talks about *making* those precursor

chemicals. Without the presence of life to do it for you. If you can

understand this kind of thinking.



If!



Titeotwawki -- Martha Adams [Fri 2013 Aug 09]

Right again Martha! Having worked in several soil chemistry labs I know just how easy it is to break down soils and extract necessary components from them. Sulphuric acid, nitric acid, hydrochloric acid, even hydrofluoric acid appear possible to make in sufficient quantity to produce leachate from which is extracted all range of elements using electrolytic means whilst recharging the acids for reuse.

On 8/08/2013 11:11 AM, Martha Adams wrote:
On 8/7/2013 7:01 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

On Wednesday, August 7, 2013 6:03:01 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Wednesday, August 7, 2013 1:29:11 AM UTC-4,
wrote:


And Mookie mooks on, making a mookery of intelligent thought.

================================================== =

I like his chemistry and math *much* better than the above wordplay,
because getting to Mars is a thing we need to *do* not game around with.

I do have a problem on one point, however. The CO2 atmosphere pressure
on Mars is about what you see in a white neon sign (using CO2) which
says to me, the supply on Mars of CO2 is small. As soon as you begin
doing anything major, the pressure of what remains will fall, which
brings in a host of problems including that of landing on Mars from
interplanetary altitude and speed.

With a surface pressure of about 0.6kPa and a surface gravity of about
3.7 m/s^2, there must be about 600 / 3.7 kilograms of atmosphere above
each square meter.

The surface area is about 144,798,500 km^2, or about 1.4 * 10^14 square
meters, so there's about 2 * 10^16 kilograms of atmosphere, of which
most is carbon dioxide.

It'll take a while to make a dent in that.

Sylvia.

On Saturday, August 10, 2013 6:20:14 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 8/08/2013 11:11 AM, Martha Adams wrote:

On 8/7/2013 7:01 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:

wrote:



On Wednesday, August 7, 2013 6:03:01 AM UTC-4, wrote:

On Wednesday, August 7, 2013 1:29:11 AM UTC-4,

wrote:





And Mookie mooks on, making a mookery of intelligent thought.



================================================== =



I like his chemistry and math *much* better than the above wordplay,

because getting to Mars is a thing we need to *do* not game around with.



I do have a problem on one point, however. The CO2 atmosphere pressure

on Mars is about what you see in a white neon sign (using CO2) which

says to me, the supply on Mars of CO2 is small. As soon as you begin

doing anything major, the pressure of what remains will fall, which

brings in a host of problems including that of landing on Mars from

interplanetary altitude and speed.



With a surface pressure of about 0.6kPa and a surface gravity of about

3.7 m/s^2, there must be about 600 / 3.7 kilograms of atmosphere above

each square meter.



The surface area is about 144,798,500 km^2, or about 1.4 * 10^14 square

meters, so there's about 2 * 10^16 kilograms of atmosphere, of which

most is carbon dioxide.



It'll take a while to make a dent in that.



Sylvia.

And no doubt there's more CO2 plus a few other elements that's coming from within that little planet.

In many examples like this one, Mook isn't half as crazy as he sometimes makes us think. The only problem, is that he always has to be in charge, but from time to time he has been corrected and willing to take a different path than he started out with.

Mook's research often proves that with applied physics and good scientific motivations, all sorts of nasty off-world locations can be adapted to and even reasonably exploited.

On Wednesday, August 7, 2013 6:11:05 PM UTC-7, Martha Adams wrote:
On 8/7/2013 7:01 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:

wrote:



On Wednesday, August 7, 2013 6:03:01 AM UTC-4, wrote:

On Wednesday, August 7, 2013 1:29:11 AM UTC-4, wrote:





And Mookie mooks on, making a mookery of intelligent thought.



================================================== =



I like his chemistry and math *much* better than the above wordplay,

because getting to Mars is a thing we need to *do* not game around with.



I do have a problem on one point, however. The CO2 atmosphere pressure

on Mars is about what you see in a white neon sign (using CO2) which

says to me, the supply on Mars of CO2 is small. As soon as you begin

doing anything major, the pressure of what remains will fall, which

brings in a host of problems including that of landing on Mars from

interplanetary altitude and speed.



Titeotwawki -- Martha Adams [Wed 2013 Aug 07]

Fred is almost always naysay, regardless of the opportunities and/or consequences of our doing nothing. Fred doesn't want anything to change, at least never for the better.

In many examples like this one, Mook isn't half as crazy as he sometimes makes us think. The only problem, is that he always has to be fully in charge, but from time to time he has been corrected and willing to take a different path than he started out with.

Mook's research often proves that with applied physics and good scientific motivations, all sorts of nasty off-world locations can be adapted to and even reasonably exploited.

On Friday, August 9, 2013 7:11:17 AM UTC-7, Martha Adams wrote:
On 8/8/2013 11:30 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:

wrote:



On Thursday, August 8, 2013 8:10:20 PM UTC-4, wrote:

On Thursday, August 8, 2013 1:41:06 AM UTC-4, wrote:



On Thursday, August 8, 2013 1:03:09 AM UTC-4, wrote:



Mookie mooking Mookie mooking Mookie....



When someone responds to their own posts over and over, it's a sign

that they're a real fruitcake.



For reference, examine The Guthball's posting patters....



================================================== ===========



Hi, Fred. In my view, no diet is complete without fruitcake, and if

that's your name for Mook's writings, well, it calibrates your self well

enough for practical purposes. Two key points you miss are,



1) The power of compounding / exponential processes. Especially when

digital tech is brought into the picture. It reminds me of a serious

practical problem Simak mentions in his "Time and Again," and of the

cultural strategy required to cope with it. If you can understand this

kind of thinking.



2) The utility of synthesis of organic chemicals. You always need

precursors to build from. Mook talks about *making* those precursor

chemicals. Without the presence of life to do it for you. If you can

understand this kind of thinking.



If!



Titeotwawki -- Martha Adams [Fri 2013 Aug 09]

Mook is more like a loose cannon, except his science and physics isn't entirely off track. He usually gets too complex and moves along way too quickly for the always naysay and usually closed mindset of Fred.

Unlike Mook, Fred probably can't name a single other human on Earth that his typically naysay intelligence has assisted and/or as having promoted, and I kinda doubt Fred has ever employed anyone.

On Saturday, August 10, 2013 9:20:14 AM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 8/08/2013 11:11 AM, Martha Adams wrote:

On 8/7/2013 7:01 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:

wrote:



On Wednesday, August 7, 2013 6:03:01 AM UTC-4, wrote:

On Wednesday, August 7, 2013 1:29:11 AM UTC-4,

wrote:





And Mookie mooks on, making a mookery of intelligent thought.



================================================== =



I like his chemistry and math *much* better than the above wordplay,

because getting to Mars is a thing we need to *do* not game around with..



I do have a problem on one point, however. The CO2 atmosphere pressure

on Mars is about what you see in a white neon sign (using CO2) which

says to me, the supply on Mars of CO2 is small. As soon as you begin

doing anything major, the pressure of what remains will fall, which

brings in a host of problems including that of landing on Mars from

interplanetary altitude and speed.



With a surface pressure of about 0.6kPa and a surface gravity of about

3.7 m/s^2, there must be about 600 / 3.7 kilograms of atmosphere above

each square meter.



The surface area is about 144,798,500 km^2, or about 1.4 * 10^14 square

meters, so there's about 2 * 10^16 kilograms of atmosphere, of which

most is carbon dioxide.



It'll take a while to make a dent in that.



Sylvia.

The CO2 and water will be used to make acetylene which is the first step in making a wide range of polymers. The machine that does this will itself be made of polymers and be capable of reproducing itself, along the lines of the Rep Rap machine made in 2005. Semiconductive plastics, conductive plastics, and insulating plastics along with structural plastics will be used to produce all the components necessary.

As I mentioned there is 25 trillion tonnes of carbon dioxide on Mars. There's also 505 trillion tonnes of water ice that has been identified on the surface of mars. Sunlight arrives at a rate 20 quadrillion watts. So the CO2 is the limiting factor here.

The net reaction is;

2 CO2 + 2 H2O -- 2 CH2 + 3 O2
88 36 28 96 amu
25.00 10.22 7.95 27.27 trillions of tonnes

The energy required is provided by the hydrogen produced in the first step, the electrolysis of water using sunlight.

2 H2O + 15.755e9/tonne/0.65 -- 2 H2 + 2O2

With 10.22 trillion tonnes of water used in the first step, this means that 2.48e+23 Joules of solar energy are required. Using all the available sunlight means that the process must take at least

2.38e+23 / 2.00e+16 = 11,900 seconds -- 3 hr 20 minutes.

If we place a 100 kg device on Mars made of polymers capable of extracting CO2 from Mars' atmosphere and H2O from Mars' subsurface, to make copies of itself, doubling in mass every 24 hour period, we can calculate how long it will take to process make 7.95 trillion tonnes from Mars' 25.00 trillion tonnes of CO2;

LN(7.95e12/0.1) / LN(2) = 46.176 days --- 1,108 hr 14 minutes

I described a machine that processed not only air, but also soil and water to build habitable areas within 10 meter diameter aramid tubes. This too was a self replicating machine system, with a one week doubling period. It spends far less than 100% replicating system it also supports the growth of plants and animals in advance of the arrival of humans. The system may be completed in less than a year after planet fall and all humans transferred to Mars in less than 5 years using a similar self-replicating system on Earth. The system is capable of supporting 556 billion humans on Mars.

A similar setup on Earth easily supports 21 billion people here. I've written about it, and spoke of it as well.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/77588930/Brand-New-World

http://www.scribd.com/doc/106112900/Resources

http://www.scribd.com/doc/121742582/Aerial-Farms

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KP6pBS6uptE