Jump to content

Moontanman

Senior Members
  • Posts

    12455
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    28

Posts posted by Moontanman

  1. some good ideas i supose...

    nuclear fusers are very simple devices made as simple science projects...

    they are a confermed form of nuclear fussion...

    thanks for advice.

     

    Can you provide links to information about these fusors? I am interested.

  2. Actually a high altitude nuclear detonation is more damaging than one close to the ground due to interactions with the earths magnetic field and the effects of the earth absorbing the EMP when it is close to the ground.

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_pulse

     

    The relatively small magnitude of the Starfish Prime EMP in Hawaii (about 5600 volts/metre) and the relatively small amount of damage done (for example, only 1 to 3 percent of streetlights extinguished)[8] led some scientists to believe, in the early days of EMP research, that the problem might not be as significant as was later realized. Newer calculations[9] showed that if the Starfish Prime warhead had been detonated over the northern continental United States, the magnitude of the EMP would have been much larger (22 to 30 kilovolts/metre) because of the greater strength of the Earth's magnetic field over the United States, as well as the different orientation of the Earth's magnetic field at high latitudes. These new calculations, combined with the accelerating reliance on EMP-sensitive microelectronics, heightened awareness that the EMP threat could be a very significant problem.


    Merged post follows:

    Consecutive posts merged

    very funny

  3. It has always bothered me that because I do not agree with all Conservative or Republican ideas that I am immediately labeled a Liberal or Democrat (as though there are only two possible ways of thinking) and that as a Liberal I am automatically assumed to believe everything Liberals are supposed to stand for.

     

    Conservatives are more of a mono culture and Liberals are more of a jumble of different cultures or ways of thinking. But I do not think either party represents everyone no matter what culture they affiliate themselves with. I do know people who are Conservative who do not agree with all Conservative view points.

     

    In a sane political system there would be several parties (at least) who would share power through coalitions instead of one group opposing another.

     

    Far too many people do not really fit into either extreme for either party to really represent everyone. Several different parties would better represent everyone and allow for power sharing instead of constant dead locks between two opposing parties.

  4. you could possibly dehydrate the person first.

    there has been cases of people being lost in the Arctic, froze, then reviving once they warmed up.

     

    Can you support this contention? No one has ever been revived after being frozen.

     

     

    One theory of why this worked was because of the extreme lack of oxygen caused the cells to hibernate instead of dying, but the people lost probably got dehydrated first.

    assuming that the rest of the cells stay pliable long enough, the water could probably freeze and expand without damaging anything.

     

    Drying out the human body would be just was impossible to revive from as freezing.

  5. So it will much deeper in the crust where temperatures would be quite warm right? Mars said to have geysers so I think it's going to be pretty warm somewhere.

     

    Thanks ttyo888.

     

    Yes, assuming Mars is warmer inside like the Earth there might even be an aquifer on Mars and anaerobic organisms could very well live there.

  6. Hey speaking of which scientists just discovered a bacteria that uses methane to produce oxygen.

     

    Moontanman can you verify if this is true? I know that wikipedia has mistakes on the science parts.

     

    http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100324/full/news.2010.146.html

     

    I think it is misleading to say oxygen is released in the same way photosynthesis releases oxygen, the bacteria actually use nitrogen oxides to produce oxygen it then uses the oxygen to metabolize methane, no free oxygen is produced. This is however an interesting metabolic pathway but some energetic reaction must produce the nitrogen oxides.

     

    Many bacteria use oxides of various elements, usually a metal, to produce energy often oxygen is an intermediate part of the reaction but the oxygen is not released as waste like photosynthesis does. Even some metabolic pathways involving photosynthesis do not produce free oxygen. (some release sulfur) There are even metabolic pathways that do not use oxygen as energy at all but actually use sulfur or even hydrogen as an energy source.

     

    I think mouse is wanting an underground oxygen atmosphere on Mars due to chemo-synthesis and I doubt this is possible. some sort of photosynthesis using another energy source such as heat or even radioactive particles might be possible in theory but the conditions to allow this are hard to imagine. Some fungi use gamma rays to produce food in a photosynthesis (gamma-synthesis?) process using melanin as a energy gathering pigment.

     

    Chemo-synthesis is actually based in the heat energy of the earth released by radioactivity, this excess energy produces chemicals whose energy content is higher than it's ground state and life uses that chemical energy to metabolize. In other words, there is no free lunch.

     

    It might be relevant to mention that the surface of mars is thought to contain lots of peroxide chemicals that might be used by life forms, even complex life forms as an energy source, these peroxides are produced by sunlight and might even be used as a body fluid by these life forms since hydrogen peroxides stay liquid at lower temps than pure water.

     

    http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/H/hydrogenperoxide.html#H2O2

  7. I see thanks for clearing this up Moontanman.

     

    so the result is CO2 instead right?

     

    If I read the equation correctly the end result is eventually ferric oxide.

  8. Where concentrations of organic material exceed the concentration of dissolved oxygen required for complete oxidation, microbial populations with specialized enzymes can reduce insoluble ferric oxide in aquifer soils to soluble ferrous hydroxide and use the oxygen released by that change to oxidize some of the remaining organic material:[1]

     

    You'll notice this oxygen is not released into the environment but is used by the bacteria to oxidize more organic material, they have to have organic material to start the process, no net free oxygen is produced by these bacteria.

  9. Well according to what I found out iron bacteria can turn ferrous oxide into ferrous hydroxide and oxygen.

     

    Or is the article I found wrong?

     

    Do you have a link to the article?

  10. It would take energy input to produce oxygen from ferric oxide, where would this energy come from? Photosynthesis uses sunlight to produce carbohydrates, oxygen is a waste product produced in the presence of sunlight, in the dark, plants use oxygen just like animals. Without a surplus of energy how would any martian microbes produce oxygen? Doing so would use more energy than they are getting from the chemicals like an over unity energy machine. For chemo-synthetic microbes energy is already bound up in the chemicals.

  11. I am an atheist and I do not get my morals from god but I see the whole sex with a coma patient as fundamentally wrong on every level I can possibly conceive of, and just how deeply does your wife sleep skeptic? I am skeptical any one could have sex and not wake up. I thought my wife was a heavy sleeper :doh:

  12. But most chemosynthetic organism today use oxygen right? If say all of the photosynthetic orgamism die out, will they suffocate?:doh:

     

    No, the vast majority of chemo-synthetic organisms are poisoned by free oxygen and would do quite well if it were to disappear.

  13. It's no more implausible than nuclear detonations or hydrogen fusion. As for a flying Chernobyl you really should read the article and it's take on risk mitigation. Having made my living at one time at Du Pont and being part of a very successful "risk mitigation" team you should know there is a big difference between the unexpected accident and the expected accident. As is quoted in the article one hydrogen bomb detonation released many times the radioactive debris of Chernobyl and no one died, Chernobyl is not a reasonable example of risk mitigation by any sense of the word and using it as such is nothing more than fear mongering.

  14. it might. It depends on the materials. We could build a lunar space elevator with current materials if we wanted.

     

    I'm not so sure, a space elevator implies an orbit that allows the anchor of the elevator to be stationary over the surface of the object it rises from, a 28 day orbit would mean a very tall, much taller than from the earth, elevator.

     

    also, you really don't want a nuclear powered rocket for lifting things from earth into space. you really don't.

     

     

    And why would that be? Risk mitigation can deal with any risks involved.

  15. one of the main problems is that the current way of getting stuff up there is by going straight up, which is done by essentially building a high-pressure column of air faster than it can dissipate.

    If the space elevator by some sort of miracle becomes a reality, then it would be a whole lot easier.

     

    Building gaseous fission nuclear powered rockets would be much easier and cheaper than a space elevator.

  16. Since I am not religious or wealthy I had to send my boys to public schools, they were not bad, they provided students who wanted an education with a very good one, good enough to get my boys in good universities. So now we have at least three points of view.

  17. I'm curious, project Orion which used nuclear detonations to launch a space craft into orbit is being considered as usable technology but the idea of gaseous fusion (nuclear light bulb variant) which could, with relative ease, lift 1000 tons into orbit and return under power one stage, reusable, ground to orbit and back, is not even considered?

     

    That's 1000 tons payload by the way.

     

    http://www.nuclearspace.com/Liberty_ship_menupg.aspx

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.