Energy that's between us and our moon

What's the joules worth of potentially extractable energy that's
existing between us and our moon?

If we established the one and only MEL1(moon L1) of dipole elements:

What's the voltage differential?

What's the amperage potential?
-
Brad Guth



--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
news:3b4798c18ba5f7c68ea8bab83c67fd60.49644@mygate .mailgate.org

Besides gravity and of the subsequent ongoing tidal forced transfer of
energy that has been operating to the substantial tune of multi
terajoules, is there anything else worth our while that's existing
between Earth and that of our extremely substantial mascon of a moon?

The following is simply a little sub-topic of the rather substantial
applied energy that's ongoing, that's in the process of thawing out
every last km3 of ice in sight.

topic: How cold Earth w/o moon

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...13cd58f593306b

http://mygate.mailgate.org/mynews/sc...ma ilgate.org
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in message
ups.com
We conclude the moon is responsible for tectonic
and seismic action in and on Earth.

Interesting info that's getting way better than most, as to sharing the
estimated 70 megatons of TNT/day worth of energy applied into the crust
and lithosphere. What about the super-rotating muck below all of that?

How much tidal forced energy is getting applied into our oceans and
atmosphere?

What about w/o whatever 3.8 cm/yr of recession taking place, of merely
sustaining the 2e20 joules worth of centripetal/orbital force as is.
Or, is there a little something else (aka electrostatic or magnetic)
keeping that moon stuck to our realm?

In other words, how many spare/extra terajoules does it take for keeping
our oceans and atmosphere on the move, as being accomplished via the
moon's tidal/gravity forces.

According to some wise enough environmental wizards, it takes the likes
of roughy +/- 10 j/m2 in order for mother Earth's seasonal tilt to pull
off her summer/winter thing. In other words, a relatively short term
thermal shift of 20 w/m2 takes an extremely hot summer environment into
the absolute dregs of an icy winter in essentially no planetology time
at all.

Therefore, over considerable time and without benefit of orbital mascon
imposed seismic, atmospheric and ocean tidal forces at play (other than
solar gravity generated), it seems as little as a sustained impact of
+/- 1 joule/m2 could eventually turn what's left of our frail
environment upside down. Thereby taking away a mere 2 j/m2 could
nullify GW if not put us into another gradual ice age cycle.

Now, I'm not into suggesting that we actually get rid of our moon. I'm
merely pointing out that with less attention on the sorts of hocus-pocus
physics that's orchestrating so much infomercial science, as having us
hyped into being afraid of our own shadows while running us every which
way but lose, whereas instead we can focus our best talents and
resources upon efforts that could make or break our future plans.

It seems knowing where the bulk of GW energy is derived from is simply a
win-win for the old save thy butt gipper, that's unavoidably a healthy
part our ongoing environmental fiasco that has long since managed to
have taken a notch out of our insufficient albedo that's only getting
worse off as we rant on and on, that which has only created more at risk
than merely the ongoing task of our assisting in the process of melting
every last km3 of ice in order to make our badly polluted oceans of
becoming mostly jellyfish habitats deeper.

There are some species of life upon Earth (including a few too many
humans) that simply haven't evolved sufficiently or having lost too many
of those nifty DNA codes along the way, in order to cope with the
failing magnetosphere and that of our assisted GW fiasco at the same
time, at least not without having to pay the ultimate price, and then
some. For this reason I'm thinking we need to start trying out a few
weird ideas, just in case we've missed a little something important
along the way.
-
PS: This seems to account for the stagnant nature of Venus's
surface, in the past 500 million years.
Other than most likely having lost it's moon to a larger planet, what's
all that "stagnant" about the relatively newish planetology and thereby
geothermally active environment of Venus?
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
news:3b4798c18ba5f7c68ea8bab83c67fd60.49644@mygate .mailgate.org

If our MEL1(moon's L1) sweet spot or mutual gravity pocket is to remain
as author/topic taboo (reserved for China), then perhaps we'll need to
keep looking closer to home, as to the best available solutions that
have recently been at hand, but sequestered out of sight and thus out of
mindset by most all the big-energy cartels that supposedly have our best
interest at their little black hearts.

If Earth was upon average to become roughly 50% covered in snow and ice,
as such we'd have a rather nifty amount of a highly reflective albedo at
our disposal, perhaps at times half again as reflective as our current
polluted and becoming ice naked status quo, whereas instead becoming
something in the albedo realm of 0.54, which most of us could learn to
live with.

After all, there's no technical reasons for the current physics of
creating green/renewable energy that shouldn't cost us much greater than
$0.01/kwhr, especially if getting locally produced via
solar-PV/solar-Stirling and mega class wind tower, all efficiently
incorporated on the very same foundation/footprint, with surplus energy
converted into the likes of LH2 and H2O2 that can then be sold on eBay
for top dollar.

From that frosty point on, we could damn well and otherwise freely
pillage, rape and simply exploit, burn and soot the living hell out of
mother Earth, and be no worse off for ware.
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
news:3b4798c18ba5f7c68ea8bab83c67fd60.49644@mygate .mailgate.org

There is a great deal of energy that's between Earth and that pesky
mascon of a moon of ours.

Too bad that it's yet another one of those taboo/nondisclosure sort of
nasty topics.

The voltage potential simply has to be in teravolts, and the available
amperage is just about anyone's honest swag at this point.

Because we still have nothing taking honest to god real time
measurements at the moon's L1, this is the one and only reason why it's
still a guessing game, just the way our faith based NASA and those Old
Testament thumping fools likes it.
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
news:e626d95e662304049678612ff9b50a94.49644@mygate .mailgate.org...
"Brad Guth" wrote in message
news:3b4798c18ba5f7c68ea8bab83c67fd60.49644@mygate .mailgate.org

There is a great deal of energy that's between Earth and that pesky
mascon of a moon of ours.

Clueless Crackpot:

"a great deal" isn't physics. publish a really big NUMBER
for the total energy; divide that by the Volume; publish a
NUMBER for the energy density. Compare that to the
energy density of solar radiation or to that of the solar wind
or to that of cosmic radiation or to that of gravitation or to
that of the Earth's magnetic field.

Now you're cooking in shatter proof pottery, but do you
have a REALLY BIG DEAL or a SNUFF OUT ?

[Old Man]

Brad Guth

"Old Man" wrote in message
news:de6dnXowKsC6Pl_YnZ2dnUVZ_sCinZ2d@prairiewave. com

Clueless Crackpot:

"a great deal" isn't physics. publish a really big NUMBER
for the total energy; divide that by the Volume; publish a
NUMBER for the energy density. Compare that to the
energy density of solar radiation or to that of the solar wind
or to that of cosmic radiation or to that of gravitation or to
that of the Earth's magnetic field.

Now you're cooking in shatter proof pottery, but do you
have a REALLY BIG DEAL or a SNUFF OUT ?

[Old Man]

I'm the village idiot that's asking the questions here, and you're the
ones with all the supposed smarts for answing my silly questions.

In other dyslexic words, you folks obviously haven't a freaking clue.
Gee whiz, what another silly surprise.

What sort of silly faith based crapolla of naysayism do you and those of
your kind associate yourselves with?

Unless you're afraid of your own shadow, give us your best swag, or is
even that much somehow against your all-knowing faith based ideology?

For starters, I've got a really big base number of 2e20 joules, and I do
believe there's lots more to behold.
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"Old Man" wrote in message
news:de6dnXowKsC6Pl_YnZ2dnUVZ_sCinZ2d@prairiewave. com

Old Man, where the heck did you go?

Usenet WW-III is about to start and lo and behold, you're nowhere in
sight.

Tell us the amount of energy that's existing between Earth and our moon,
and this time be quick about it before Earth explodes from all the
anti-think-tank crapolla that spewing out of this mostly Old Testament
faith based Usenet from hell.

You can start off with the basic 2e20 joules and add whatever else on
top of that.
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
news:e626d95e662304049678612ff9b50a94.49644@mygate .mailgate.org

In addition to all that's clean and essentially renewable as to the
evengy existing between Earth and our moon (2e20 joules or better),
whereas those 40% efficient PVs are just another ongoing example of
where we should be focused as of decades ago, as to achieving a cleaner
and less bloody future, at the same time accomplishing as best we can
manage to salvage whatever's left of our badly failing environment.

This following energy alternative topic offers us yet another good
example as to why 99.9% of Usenet summarily sucks and blows, as well as
to why yourself and others of your kind are being continually sucked
under and summarily snookered into being dumbfounded past the point of
no return, by such a naysay Usenet mindset of infomercial spewing
buttologests, as orchestrated by those in charge that want absolutely
nothing to do with sharing the truth.

Solar, not nuclear

http://mygate.mailgate.org/mynews/sc...ma ilgate.org

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...8534ad3fe35aa2

This green/renewable energy topic and of others similar are well worth
our sharing and accomplishing something constructive on behalf of
humanity and that of salvaging our badly failing environment at the same
time, whereas instead these butt-ugly loads of mainstream infomercial
spewing damage control borgs, acting on behalf of their Old Testament
big-energy and of their bigger puppet government(s) that are clearly
owned by big-energy, are into pulling out all of their infomercial
spewing stops of feeding us disinformation.

Solar and wind derived energy is perfectly doable at an honest to God
density of 37.5 kw/m2, as per given surface footprint. That's roughly
100 fold better birth to grave footprint energy density than nuclear,
and at the same time hardly representing squat worth of anything that's
toxic nor much less radioactive, and that's not via some weird village
idiot saying that we can do entirely without nuclear picking up at least
5% of our global energy needs (at least not until He3/fusion gets the
big-energy green light so that the Exxon's and those tricky ENRONs can
proceed to pillage, plunder and rape humanity plus that of mother Earth
for all she's worth).

At nearly 85e9 oily barrels/day doesn't even include the horrific
volumes of natural gas or the km3 of coal reserves being consumed per
day, nor is it including the amounts of energy taken for extracting and
getting all of that raw energy into pipe lines or various storage
facilities that are nearly countless, and not all is without leakage or
having contributed much worse happenings per year.

Surplus clean energy as easily derived from solar and wind can be put
directly into products, such as into producing those new and improved
PVs, or into clean chemicals or raw elements of energy storage products
such as LH2 or H2O2. With such spare energy and secondary products to
burn (sort of speak, w/o NOx to boot), all sorts of nifty things become
affordable and basically doable, therefore insuring jobs and a bright
less-polluting future that'll eventually have little if anything to do
with those nasty fossil fuel alternatives, thus avoiding the associated
takings of good and bad blood that's involved.
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

In sci.environment, Brad Guth

wrote
on Sat, 3 Feb 2007 21:28:23 +0000 (UTC)
lgate.org:
"Brad Guth" wrote in message
news:e626d95e662304049678612ff9b50a94.49644@mygate .mailgate.org

In addition to all that's clean and essentially renewable as to the
evengy existing between Earth and our moon (2e20 joules or better),

Insolation (space): 1350 W/m^2
Total lunar surface area: 3.792 * 10^13 m^2
Facing lunar surface area: 1.896 * 10^13 m^2
Albedo: 0.12
Phase corrective factor: 0.50
Total available power: 1.536 * 10^15 W
Total Earth surface area: 5.101 * 10^15 m^2
Earth disc projection: 1.278 * 10^15 m^2
Orbit semimajor axis: 3.844 * 10^8 m
Total Dyson Sphere surface area: 1.857 * 10^18 m^2 (4pi steradians)
Facing Dyson Sphere surface area: 9.284 * 10^17 m^2 (2pi steradians)
Earth span in Moon's view: 8.649 * 10^-3 steradians
Earth power intercept: 1.867 * 10^12 W

Moon mass (M_m): 7.348 * 10^22 kg
Mean moon velocity: 1.022 * 10^3 m/s
Orbital escape velocity: 1.445 * 10^3 m/s
Delta velocity (v_d): 4.233 * 10^2 m/s
Moon orbital energy: 3.837 * 10^28 J
Chemical v_e: 3 * 10^3 m/s
Final mass after burn: M_f = M_m/exp(v_d/v_e) = 6.381 * 10^22
Required fuel: 9.670 * 10^21 kg
Saturn V F1 fuel flow: 1.06 m^3/s (estimated)
Saturn V F1 mass flow: 1.06 * 10^3 kg/s (estimated)
Time to eject moon from Earth using 1 F1: 289 billion years
Time to eject moon from Earth using 1,000 F1s: 289 million years
Time to eject moon from Earth using 1,000,000 F1s: 289 millennia
Total number of Saturn V stages built: 45
Total number of F1 engines built: 75 (estimated)

Practicality of moving Moon out of orbit: 0

[rest snipped]

--
#191,
Linux. Because Windows' Blue Screen Of Death is just
way too frightening to novice users.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
message

Terrific feedback. Now, try a whole lot harder, and think bigger as
though the very salvation of your sorry butt was on the line.

Relocating lunar mass via tether out past the moon's L2 point of no
return, say going way out there for 2X L2, and say we/robotics somehow
manage to place 1e9 tonnes way out there on the tippy end of that nifty
2X L2 tether for starters.

How much applied exit force is that?

Did you bother to ask lord William Mook, as to how much tonnage of
U238/U235 we're talking about?
-
Brad Guth



--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG