You seem to forget one thing:
The solar winds are charged particles. When they hit an atmosphere,
they induce a field. This field saves Venus' atmosphere from being
tossed into space.
If we created a thick atmosphere on Mars, the charging of the solar
winds would protect it itself from erosion!
"True, we won't coat 70% of Venus' surface with water
without finding a celestial source of it, but the same is true for
Mars."
The second one is not true.
Mars has had abundant water and still has in frozen form. It has polar
Ice caps, the North caps consisting of much water ice and the South
pole are nearly pure water ice.
On 2 Feb., 14:18, mad_casual <ademloo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 1, 4:56 pm, CoryG <c...@geesaman.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I don't understand the context of this statement, though if you aren't
> > using nuclear transformation you are most definitely using strictly
> > chemical transformations to terraform (aside perhaps from physical
> > transformation - moving materials from another source).
>
> chemical energy, thermal energy, electromagnetic radiation,
> gravitational energy, electric energy, elastic energy, nuclear energy,
> rest energy, kinetic energy...
>
> I agree with you, without nuclear energy (and possibly even with),
> it's a bit of a shell game shuffling/converting around constantly
> diminishing resources. That's one reason why I favor Venus over Mars
> to begin with, it brings us closer to the most abundant source of
> nuclear energy in the Solar System. Earth's current population is too
> large for current solar technology to sustain. The same isn't true for
> the atmospheric surface of Venus, not only is there more solar energy,
> the non-human (and human) population is much lower, and unlike on
> Mars, the atmosphere would already be there.
>
> > I would hope the balloon is anchored, as it wouldn't do much floating
> > in the air - and for that matter it would be wiser to just make it on
> > the ground as a windmill on a balloon will still suffer during changes
> > of wind direction based on the distance it is able to travel before
> > getting anchored again.
>
> If I let a zeppelin run in the breeze and let the propellers spin in
> the wind, so long as I avoided catastrophic winds (predominantly the
> lower part of Venus' atmosphere) and dead spots (no part of Venus'
> atmosphere) I'd collect lots of energy from the propellers.
>
> > If taken alone, the 10x volume would have more in a nuclear sense -
> > they are both equally nothing in a thermodynamic sense unless you can
> > mix them, in which case they are both limited by the smaller volume
> > (since they are the same substance).
>
> 10X the mass would have more in a nuclear sense. I didn't say either
> the glass or the crock pot were in a vacuum. Even if they were in a
> vacuum, I could easily bleed steam off the crock pot to power
> SOMETHING. Two glasses of water of differing mass is too simple and
> too abstract relative to the actual system in question. Even if you
> slammed something into Mars, it's entirely possible that you pulverize
> or shatter it; converting it back to a proto-planet rather than
> liquefying it's cold core.
>
> > That's not more a more complex set of terms - the only energy to be
> > extracted exists by moving material between the heat and cold
> > sources.
>
> The correct arrangement for maximum extraction of energy from 1.5
> glasses of water using gravity: pour all the water into the
> gravitational minima absent a gravitational minima, there is no energy
> to be collected. However, we're talking about the solar system there
> are hundreds of local minima, not to mention thermal, chemical, etc.
> minima. Since my example was equal in complexity to Cathal's, would
> you mind providing the 'not more complex' arrangement for extracting
> the maximum survival out of the freezer situation.
>
> > For example, in your previous suggestion of using the
> > surface of the planet as the cold spot (assuming that it isn't already
> > heated heavily, which is unlikely)
>
> I didn't suggest this. The surface is 700 degrees. It would be an
> abundant source of thermal energy and molten metal.
>
> > In the case of Venus, radiating
> > the heat into space is likely the only option.
>
> Good thing there's an entire Earth-sized planet at 700 degrees and a
> massive excess of CO2 to do it with.
>
> > Venus does have an
> > extremely slow rotation (over a hundred earth days to a day) - so
> > hugging the hot/cold area would likely be the only meaningful way to
> > extract energy without enormous reservoirs to store it and control the
> > release at approximately 50% of the total change happening naturally
> > (assuming zero losses and accounting for the differences in
> > temperature at different parts of the day-night cycle following a
> > sinusoidal pattern). Ultimately following the horizon would be energy-
> > intensive in itself, and even to utilize it as wind you would need to
> > chase it, root your position until the wind stops, then catch back up,
> > or make a power grid circling the equator and only actually attain
> > power from a portion of it at a time (still needing to be rooted to
> > the ground to turn the windmills).
>
> The atmosphere circles the planet faster than the planet rotates,
> around the perimeter of the planet the temperature is rather uniform.
> Out from the surface, the planet has an atmospheric thermal gradient
> unseen anywhere else in the solar system.
>
> > And frankly, if it requires
> > thinking in terms that don't make sense so as to confuse yourself in
> > such a manner that you can't understand the implications, it doesn't
> > make them solvable, just that your bong is probably empty.
>
> Hey, you're the one talking about relying on nuclear technology that
> doesn't exist yet. I wouldn't argue that there aren't nuclear
> advancements coming or worth pursuing. But I think you're smoking
> something if you think we're going to build and run a nuclear reactor
> using human bodies in an environment that doesn't abundantly support
> human bodies already. And if we can "live" off of a nuclear reactor
> without human bodies, well we'll have solved our problems for both
> Mars and Venus, and a number of other planets as well.
>
> > Changing subjects doesn't change the underlying principles that govern
> > both. If you don't have a gradient you can't extract the energy
> > because it is for all intents and purposes, just potential energy.
>
> I wasn't really changing the subject. I wouldn't propose going to
> Venus if there weren't a gradient and, unlike Mars, breathable air.
> The surface of Mars is varies from a low of 180K to a high of 290K
> from the light to dark side. Unless these maxima and minima are 11 km
> apart and all over the planet, they don't match the 10K/km vertical
> gradient that exists everywhere on the surface of Venus. Even if they
> are 11 km apart and all over the planet, the solar radiance on Venus
> is still higher than Mars.
>
> > Personally I believe a focus on developing nuclear technologies will
> > yield better results than trying to harness anything chemical or
> > physical in nature, as there is an incredible amount of energy
> > condensed in any bit of matter that if unleashed in full could heat
> > and instill a gradient between itself and the surrounding matter -
> > being able to "burn" dirt or any other matter into electromagnetic
> > waves would be the apex of energy generation that is likely to arise
> > from current foreseeable technological trends.
>
> I think burning the candle from the other end would be a good idea as
> well. As I said before one can look at the problem of human running a
> nuclear reaction and equally say the problem of death is cause by the
> toxicity of nuclear energy as by the susceptibility of humans bodies
> to that energy.
>
> > In the long term, if
> > we become nomadic aliens to foreign worlds, it will likely be for the
> > purpose of attaining matter to burn in such a manner - unless we
> > figure out how to condense it from background radiation in a less
> > cumbersome way - but beyond that I can't see how the alien invasion
> > comment even remotely plays into the thread.
>
> Terraforming Mars or Venus, we're implying abundant travel between the
> two (or three and some asteroids and the moons of Saturn, etc.).
> Saying we can travel between planets freely but can't find energy
> gradients is like saying the aliens can fly across the universe but
> don't have air support for ground troops. Everyone's considering
> planets in the from the basal isolationist physics point of view and
> ignoring the fact that that's the opposite of the goal (or one of the
> major subgoals). One easily foreseeable solution to my 'man in the
> freezer' example includes taking the glass of water and pour it in the
> pot of boiling water on the oven.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group.
To post to this group, send email to diybio@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/diybio?hl=en.
0 comments:
Post a Comment