Place a solar shield in geo. orbit and adjust it to shade the ocean for a few months to cool it before the hurricane season starts. Any thoughts on this one?
Wow, I mean, how big will this shield be? What will keep it in orbit? It would have to shield a lot of the Atlantic ocean in order to do any good because of the currents, which bring warm water from one part of the ocean to another. You have to remember that the ocean water, I think is, or somewhere around 86 degrees. You have to also remember that the region where the hurricanes that are harmful to America (I am assuming you are American) has islands which have humans and other life on them. This giant sun shield would kill everything on those islands. Not to mention the fact that doing such an evil thing would most certainly destroy the U.S.'s reputation.
On another note, where would you get the material to build such a colossal object? From looking at my globe I'm guessing you would have to have the plate about the size of the continental U.S. Now, I don't need a rocket scientist to tell me that's big. Where would you get the money? From an educated guess, I'm thinking it would cost several trillion dollars. I don't need a mathematician to tell me that's a lot of money.
A hurricane becomes stronger when more air is going out at the top than what is coming in at the bottom. A more practicle approach would be to reverse this and "snuff" the storm. I think that would be more worth the time, and money.
P.S. How the hell do you expect to modify a tornado with this?
On another note, where would you get the material to build such a colossal object? From looking at my globe I'm guessing you would have to have the plate about the size of the continental U.S. Now, I don't need a rocket scientist to tell me that's big. Where would you get the money? From an educated guess, I'm thinking it would cost several trillion dollars. I don't need a mathematician to tell me that's a lot of money.
A hurricane becomes stronger when more air is going out at the top than what is coming in at the bottom. A more practicle approach would be to reverse this and "snuff" the storm. I think that would be more worth the time, and money.
P.S. How the hell do you expect to modify a tornado with this?
Not allowing the ocean to warm up (and consequentially cool down) would devistate the ecology >.> And probably change earths climate drammatically. I wouldnt fool with something we dont understand...
555joshua & qdeathstar,
I am just guessing the shield can be made from the same material the solar sails are made of. they can be turned on or off just by turning them on edge when not needed. Since they are in space and away from the Earth and closer to the sun the shadow they will cast is much larger than the actual size of them. I know it sounds insane but it is also insane to open up a hole in the ozone layer and heat the ocean in the polar regions of the Earth and warming the Earth through all these emissions.All these things add up to modifying the weather.
The Shield Idea can actually add balance to the warm areas of the Earth. In the case for tornado's if you can moderate the ssts in the Gulf of Mexico then the air migrating to the north and west from the Gulf Of Mexico will be cooler when it mixes from the air from Canada and tornado's will not form since the air temperatures are the same and no lift will occur to spawn any tornado's.Any thoughts?
I am just guessing the shield can be made from the same material the solar sails are made of. they can be turned on or off just by turning them on edge when not needed. Since they are in space and away from the Earth and closer to the sun the shadow they will cast is much larger than the actual size of them. I know it sounds insane but it is also insane to open up a hole in the ozone layer and heat the ocean in the polar regions of the Earth and warming the Earth through all these emissions.All these things add up to modifying the weather.
The Shield Idea can actually add balance to the warm areas of the Earth. In the case for tornado's if you can moderate the ssts in the Gulf of Mexico then the air migrating to the north and west from the Gulf Of Mexico will be cooler when it mixes from the air from Canada and tornado's will not form since the air temperatures are the same and no lift will occur to spawn any tornado's.Any thoughts?
Sounds like an interesting idea, and I don't know how big it would exactly have to be. Considering something that shields light the closer it is to the light source, the bigger the shadow is on the target... Well instead of trying to shade huge parts of water that seems like a temporary fix, how about trying to shade the Icecaps to slow down the melting?
Obviously I'm no scientist.. So feel free to shoot this down. I'm interested in seeing how people respond.
Obviously I'm no scientist.. So feel free to shoot this down. I'm interested in seeing how people respond.
Idea guy,
It can be used to do that also but it seems we have to come up with such crazy ideas to counter act the damage we are already doing to the planet. There is just no way I am going to give up my gas guzzling car.
It can be used to do that also but it seems we have to come up with such crazy ideas to counter act the damage we are already doing to the planet. There is just no way I am going to give up my gas guzzling car.
Well, my thought would that this would be a temporary fix to slow down the damage we have done. Hopefully it could by us some time to implement some of these new alternative fuel sources that I keep hearing about.
(P.S.) I have become more fuel efficient by selling my 2nd car and going down to 1 car as well as carpooling every chance I can get.
(P.S.) I have become more fuel efficient by selling my 2nd car and going down to 1 car as well as carpooling every chance I can get.
Me to. I have three cars now instead of four.The problem is yes we need to make more fuel efficient cars but there will be one more billion people driving them 15 years from now thus compounding the modifications they will make on the weather.
QUOTE (Ideaguy+Oct 27 2005, 08:19 PM)
Sounds like an interesting idea, and I don't know how big it would exactly have to be. Considering something that shields light the closer it is to the light source, the bigger the shadow is on the target... Well instead of trying to shade huge parts of water that seems like a temporary fix, how about trying to shade the Icecaps to slow down the melting?
Obviously I'm no scientist.. So feel free to shoot this down. I'm interested in seeing how people respond.
Probably one of the least effective for dollar spent of any idea I've ever heard.
Lets see, object in geosync orbit 92,867,000 miles from sun, Earth surface 92,897,000 miles from sun.
Boy, that IS closer.
It costs $20,000 to get 1 lb into low earth orbit, even more for Geosync.
Lets say we can get it to GeoS altitude for the same $20,000, Lets assume a very low material and structure weight of 1 lb of material for 100 sq feet, to block out roughly 1 acre on the earth would cost ~30 million dollars. To block out 1 sq mile would cost roughly $20 Billion.
So put this in perspective, the Atlantic Ocean is ~ 40 MILLION sq miles, so if we wanted to block 0.001 % of it, that would only cost, oh, 8 TRILLION dollars.
But how much impact would cutting off 1 thousanth of a percent of the energy that falls on the Atlantic have?
Answer, to small to measure.
What if the assumptions are wrong, cut the launch cost in half, great we are down to 4 trillion dollars, double the amount of coverage for 1 lb of material, great we are down to 2 trillion dollars. Oh hell, double it again, or 400 sq ft per lb, we are still at 1 trillion dollars to block an insignificant amount of heat energy from the sun.
Posts like these make me wonder how many people have any intuitive feel for how BIG the Earth is.
Try this.
Mt Everest is a very tall mountain. The tallest in fact. 5 miles above SL.
Ok, shrink the earth to the size of a Billiard ball.
The shrunken earth is now SMOOTHER than a billiard ball.
Does this help?
The Ice Caps aren't melting because of solar energy, they get fairly little as it is, they are melting because of warm pacific water flowing North because of a major upwelling of a warm current near the Aleutians, much like England is a LOT warmer than it should be for its latitude because of the Gulf Stream.
Funny, the English don't complain.
Funny, the English once were a major Wine producing country a few centuries ago, then it cooled down so they could no longer grow grapes reliably.
Alaska and the poles go through Cycles, it was warmer in Alaska, in the 30s then it is now.
Canada just increased the number of Polar Bears that can be taken each year 'cause there are just a few too many of them. They are NOT an endangered specie.
What people THINK they know about the climate, vs what is TRUE about the earth's climate, seems to be a widening chasm.
Reminds me of Margret Hamilton,
I'm melting, I'm melting, curse you and your little dog too.
Arthur
Obviously I'm no scientist.. So feel free to shoot this down. I'm interested in seeing how people respond.
Probably one of the least effective for dollar spent of any idea I've ever heard.
Lets see, object in geosync orbit 92,867,000 miles from sun, Earth surface 92,897,000 miles from sun.
Boy, that IS closer.
It costs $20,000 to get 1 lb into low earth orbit, even more for Geosync.
Lets say we can get it to GeoS altitude for the same $20,000, Lets assume a very low material and structure weight of 1 lb of material for 100 sq feet, to block out roughly 1 acre on the earth would cost ~30 million dollars. To block out 1 sq mile would cost roughly $20 Billion.
So put this in perspective, the Atlantic Ocean is ~ 40 MILLION sq miles, so if we wanted to block 0.001 % of it, that would only cost, oh, 8 TRILLION dollars.
But how much impact would cutting off 1 thousanth of a percent of the energy that falls on the Atlantic have?
Answer, to small to measure.
What if the assumptions are wrong, cut the launch cost in half, great we are down to 4 trillion dollars, double the amount of coverage for 1 lb of material, great we are down to 2 trillion dollars. Oh hell, double it again, or 400 sq ft per lb, we are still at 1 trillion dollars to block an insignificant amount of heat energy from the sun.
Posts like these make me wonder how many people have any intuitive feel for how BIG the Earth is.
Try this.
Mt Everest is a very tall mountain. The tallest in fact. 5 miles above SL.
Ok, shrink the earth to the size of a Billiard ball.
The shrunken earth is now SMOOTHER than a billiard ball.
Does this help?
The Ice Caps aren't melting because of solar energy, they get fairly little as it is, they are melting because of warm pacific water flowing North because of a major upwelling of a warm current near the Aleutians, much like England is a LOT warmer than it should be for its latitude because of the Gulf Stream.
Funny, the English don't complain.
Funny, the English once were a major Wine producing country a few centuries ago, then it cooled down so they could no longer grow grapes reliably.
Alaska and the poles go through Cycles, it was warmer in Alaska, in the 30s then it is now.
Canada just increased the number of Polar Bears that can be taken each year 'cause there are just a few too many of them. They are NOT an endangered specie.
What people THINK they know about the climate, vs what is TRUE about the earth's climate, seems to be a widening chasm.
Reminds me of Margret Hamilton,
I'm melting, I'm melting, curse you and your little dog too.
Arthur
Lets see how about one pound of area mass can block out 2187 square feet???Oh and it costs $10,000.00 per pound to get things in low Earth orbit and very soon that figure drops to $1000.00 per pound.Now we are talking.
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/te...ail_000302.html
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/te...ail_000302.html
Funny, the article is from 2000, and the company, which still exists doesn't make this as a product.
They do have carbon springs for sale though.
According to NASA, they HOPE to launch a Solar Sail (same basic technology) sometime between 2012 and 2028!
The TARGET weight for the sail (they aren't there yet) is 225 kg for a 22,000 sq m sail.
That's 10,000 lbs for 1 sq km, which works out to 26,000 lbs per square mile.
That is assuming no extra weight when dealing with a structure this big (not likely, but hey, I'm trying to work with you here)
Costs for Geo orbit are $12,000 per pound (I was using shuttle prices, which I think you will need due to the size of this thing, but ok, lets use cheaper 1 time use rockets. GEO costs have been stable for some time and they don't appear to be on a significant downward trend, which as you say LEO is, but everything I find says your $1,000 lb is very overly optimistic with existing technology (rockets))
So now we are down to 312 million $ per sq mile
To shade 0.001% of the Atlantic ocean (400 sq miles) is a CHEAP 125 Billion dollars.
So basically what this says, is this is not nearly enough to actually affect the formation of hurricanes, but say 1% was, well that would be 1.2 Trillion dollars.
So, the obvious answer is simply use a fraction of this money to build better levees, sea walls, evacuation planning and provide flood insurance, etc.
Not only is the solar shield way too expensive, but, it still wouldn't work.
Why?
Well for the same reason that NASA is going to use these as sails to power spacecraft.
You can't hang this thing in space and expect it is going to stay there.
It would literally sail away.
So, now you have to KEEP it in place.
When you figure that problem out we can try to cut costs, but notice, none of the figures here included the cost of the cover material itself.
So how much you think 4,000 square miles of this stuff would cost?
How long do you think it would take to make 4,000 square miles of it?
Since you couldn't launch it in one piece, how would you assemble the thousands of pieces as a single unit?
Don't take this the wrong way, I think you are being quite creative, thinking outside the box, as they say, but when you consider this problem, consider the size of the Earth and the fact that the actual solar energy per sq ft is not that great, what we have is a LOT of sq feet.
You might try reworking your plan for a smaller shield that maybe moves with the hurricane cooling off the water ahead of its path. Might take much less material, and you have to be able to steer it anyway, so maybe LEO is an overall cheaper solution, particularly since GEO doesn't have the benefits you were counting on. Maybe you should consider unfurling it only when needed, which would help keeping it in place. Maybe the material could be different than a solar sail, more porous, letting through some low percentage of the light, but possibly having the advantage of more coverage area for the same weight.
Now, my favorite "out there" idea is towing parts of the break off of the Ross Ice shelf into the area. Now that would cool the water down! When the chunks get smaller they could be towed directly into the path of one.
Wonder how big a hunk you would need and how big a motor you would need to move it?
Arthur
They do have carbon springs for sale though.
According to NASA, they HOPE to launch a Solar Sail (same basic technology) sometime between 2012 and 2028!
The TARGET weight for the sail (they aren't there yet) is 225 kg for a 22,000 sq m sail.
That's 10,000 lbs for 1 sq km, which works out to 26,000 lbs per square mile.
That is assuming no extra weight when dealing with a structure this big (not likely, but hey, I'm trying to work with you here)
Costs for Geo orbit are $12,000 per pound (I was using shuttle prices, which I think you will need due to the size of this thing, but ok, lets use cheaper 1 time use rockets. GEO costs have been stable for some time and they don't appear to be on a significant downward trend, which as you say LEO is, but everything I find says your $1,000 lb is very overly optimistic with existing technology (rockets))
So now we are down to 312 million $ per sq mile
To shade 0.001% of the Atlantic ocean (400 sq miles) is a CHEAP 125 Billion dollars.
So basically what this says, is this is not nearly enough to actually affect the formation of hurricanes, but say 1% was, well that would be 1.2 Trillion dollars.
So, the obvious answer is simply use a fraction of this money to build better levees, sea walls, evacuation planning and provide flood insurance, etc.
Not only is the solar shield way too expensive, but, it still wouldn't work.
Why?
Well for the same reason that NASA is going to use these as sails to power spacecraft.
You can't hang this thing in space and expect it is going to stay there.
It would literally sail away.
So, now you have to KEEP it in place.
When you figure that problem out we can try to cut costs, but notice, none of the figures here included the cost of the cover material itself.
So how much you think 4,000 square miles of this stuff would cost?
How long do you think it would take to make 4,000 square miles of it?
Since you couldn't launch it in one piece, how would you assemble the thousands of pieces as a single unit?
Don't take this the wrong way, I think you are being quite creative, thinking outside the box, as they say, but when you consider this problem, consider the size of the Earth and the fact that the actual solar energy per sq ft is not that great, what we have is a LOT of sq feet.
You might try reworking your plan for a smaller shield that maybe moves with the hurricane cooling off the water ahead of its path. Might take much less material, and you have to be able to steer it anyway, so maybe LEO is an overall cheaper solution, particularly since GEO doesn't have the benefits you were counting on. Maybe you should consider unfurling it only when needed, which would help keeping it in place. Maybe the material could be different than a solar sail, more porous, letting through some low percentage of the light, but possibly having the advantage of more coverage area for the same weight.
Now, my favorite "out there" idea is towing parts of the break off of the Ross Ice shelf into the area. Now that would cool the water down! When the chunks get smaller they could be towed directly into the path of one.
Wonder how big a hunk you would need and how big a motor you would need to move it?
Arthur
Don't know how big a chunk of ice But I bet it would melt before it arrived. Anyways, how about out where SOHO is? I thought about shading the area infront of the storm also or even the eye of the strom to see if any effects would occur. How about computer simulations what would they show?
Ok, I got bored with the people shooting down this idea. It is a good idea. Far fetched, but not impossible. You have heared about the space elevator? It's plans are moving forward. That makes lifting large amounts of material into space easy and efficient. Collapsable nanomaterials will be the anwser to this once. Many of the materials of today are sooo light and strong that this stuff is possible. It would cost millions...but whats wrong with millions, even billions, if Katrina costs the U.S. Multiple billions in the end? Many materials we have today could have an electric current ran through them to change them from shade to light. Windows like that are in development atm and exist, but not in everyday life. We wouldn't need to blot out the sun for several months. We could simply focus the shade on the center of a storm right as it developed. If we could even lower it a couple of degrees it would be devastating to the storms development and that would save alot of money for when the storm hit land. Doing this over a day or a week would not destroy coral reefs, breeding populations of plants of fish, or destroy ecosistms. It would be just like a lunar or solar eclipse....not sure which it is, shame on me.
Something else it could be used for is to combat global warming. Sure, some polarbears and other animals may need to be relocated, but considering how low their numbers are from what we have done to their habitat, and how the ice they live on is withering away, and how in an estimated 10 years upwards of 50 million people will be homeless because of rising ocean levels caused by expansion of warming waters and vast amounts of melting ice from glaciers and the north and south poles...
You get the idea. If you are gonna NOT take action because it will hurt some animals, and allow the world to loose its checks and balanced, then I guess you are an enviornmentalist.
While changes need to be made, this is just an idea, not a plan that will be implimented. I support this idea 100% and think that we need to take desperate measures to ensure that nothing terrible goes wrong and spins out of control with the earth. We are gambling with our lives here, we just havent started to die yet and realize it. I guess well wait until those 50 million refugees come crying to us before we do anything significant, I just hope its not too late by then.
Something else it could be used for is to combat global warming. Sure, some polarbears and other animals may need to be relocated, but considering how low their numbers are from what we have done to their habitat, and how the ice they live on is withering away, and how in an estimated 10 years upwards of 50 million people will be homeless because of rising ocean levels caused by expansion of warming waters and vast amounts of melting ice from glaciers and the north and south poles...
You get the idea. If you are gonna NOT take action because it will hurt some animals, and allow the world to loose its checks and balanced, then I guess you are an enviornmentalist.
While changes need to be made, this is just an idea, not a plan that will be implimented. I support this idea 100% and think that we need to take desperate measures to ensure that nothing terrible goes wrong and spins out of control with the earth. We are gambling with our lives here, we just havent started to die yet and realize it. I guess well wait until those 50 million refugees come crying to us before we do anything significant, I just hope its not too late by then.
You got that right we have to do something and I don't think we will ever give up our lifestyles. BTW the space elevator concept will get it up there for $100.00 per pound.
MAYBE the Space Elevator will get it up there for $100 a pound, but don't you think we ought to first build one before we start quoting costs?
What is the COST of constructing the space elevator projected to be?
WHO is funding the construction?
When is it PLANNED to go into operation?
Arthur
What is the COST of constructing the space elevator projected to be?
WHO is funding the construction?
When is it PLANNED to go into operation?
Arthur
Since we do have the technology for 3 grams per square meter as I have shown.
Lets say the project costs 500 billion and it can be built in ten years. It still may be to late if the killer storm comes. Imagine a storm the size of Wilma with the strength of Andrew entering the Dade and Broward county line traveling west at 5 mph. This would be a trillion dollar storm or more.
Lets say the project costs 500 billion and it can be built in ten years. It still may be to late if the killer storm comes. Imagine a storm the size of Wilma with the strength of Andrew entering the Dade and Broward county line traveling west at 5 mph. This would be a trillion dollar storm or more.
QUOTE (zorlont3+)
how in an estimated 10 years upwards of 50 million people will be homeless because of rising ocean levels caused by expansion of warming waters and vast amounts of melting ice from glaciers and the north and south poles...
WHO made this ridiculous estimate?
OK, the oceans are rising, and HAVE BEEN, for the last 20,000 years.
They have been rising at the rate of ~3 MILLIMETERS per year for the last CENTURY.
As you can see, the RATE is not accelerating.
So, in one decade, IF THE RATE OF RISE WENT UP 10 TIMES FASTER, the sea levels would rise an ASTOUNDING 30 CENTIMETERS, or roughly 1 FOOT.
Now 1 foot of increase in Sea Level WILL NOT cause 50 million people to become homeless.
Mainly because we are not stupid.
We adapt. We change the land if necessary. We don't go, oh no, 1 foot rise, WERE DOOMED.
The fact of the matter is the MORE LIKELY rise over the next decade is actually a bit over ONE INCH.
Get a grip.
PS, the South Pole has been getting COLDER, it ain't melting. In fact it represents a water sink and contributes (overall) to a LOWERING of the oceans.
There AIN'T that many NON POLAR Glaciers, the impact of them melting is on agriculture not ocean levels.
Polar Glaciers are holding their own, some advancing, some retreating, some seem to like it just the way they are.
The sea ice of the North Pole is ALREADY floating, so any excess melting adds (almost) nothing to the sea level. Same is true for the vast Ice Sheets off of Antarctica.
Arthur
WHO made this ridiculous estimate?
OK, the oceans are rising, and HAVE BEEN, for the last 20,000 years.
They have been rising at the rate of ~3 MILLIMETERS per year for the last CENTURY.
As you can see, the RATE is not accelerating.
So, in one decade, IF THE RATE OF RISE WENT UP 10 TIMES FASTER, the sea levels would rise an ASTOUNDING 30 CENTIMETERS, or roughly 1 FOOT.
Now 1 foot of increase in Sea Level WILL NOT cause 50 million people to become homeless.
Mainly because we are not stupid.
We adapt. We change the land if necessary. We don't go, oh no, 1 foot rise, WERE DOOMED.
The fact of the matter is the MORE LIKELY rise over the next decade is actually a bit over ONE INCH.
Get a grip.
PS, the South Pole has been getting COLDER, it ain't melting. In fact it represents a water sink and contributes (overall) to a LOWERING of the oceans.
There AIN'T that many NON POLAR Glaciers, the impact of them melting is on agriculture not ocean levels.
Polar Glaciers are holding their own, some advancing, some retreating, some seem to like it just the way they are.
The sea ice of the North Pole is ALREADY floating, so any excess melting adds (almost) nothing to the sea level. Same is true for the vast Ice Sheets off of Antarctica.
Arthur
I don't how sea level rise is related to this thread. However, there are scientist who think global warming is melting polar ice. What that does do is change the salinity of the ocean and they think it may alter how the gulfstream flows. Globaly that would have an impact on weather systems.
QUOTE (cyclonekiller+Oct 29 2005, 02:06 AM)
Since we do have the technology for 3 grams per square meter as I have shown.
Lets say the project costs 500 billion and it can be built in ten years. It still may be to late if the killer storm comes. Imagine a storm the size of Wilma with the strength of Andrew entering the Dade and Broward county line traveling west at 5 mph. This would be a trillion dollar storm or more.
Having lived in Dade county, I'd think it might be an improvement.
The cost wouldn't be a trillion dollars.
But regardless, if we HAD 500 spare Billion to spend, I'd MUCH rather it be spent on LAND BASED risk mitigation. Think of it this way, if you had 500 Billion, how much could you GIVE to every homeowner on the coast to get their homes up to code, raise them if necessary or flat out move them. You are talking about 500,000 MILLION dollars. That's $100,000 each for 4 million home owners and $500,000 each for 2 million businesses.
But here's the kicker, as other's have posted, given ocean currents and the size of a big hurricane (Katrina had hurricane force winds 100 miles from the eye)easily 100 miles) thus it covered an area of ~32,000 sq miles. In the previous example, the cost to shade 1/8 th of this area was 1.2 Trillion dollars, and that didn't include the cost of building something that could steer this thing.
But the other kicker is it is real hard to say if cutting off the sunlight would have much effect any way.
Actual experience implies it wouldn't since hurricanes DO strengthen overnight.
Arthur
PS, personally I don't think the US Govt should be in the business of rebuilding private property. Ain't there job. You live on the coast, you know the risks and they sell insurance if they don't pan out. If you can't afford the insurance, then maybe you shouldn't live there. Point being, why should people who DON'T live on the coast, subsidize the people who do? Now you want to collect 500 Billion from people that live on the coast to build this thing, then I'm much more willing to say, go for it. Otherwise, I can think of numerous other worthy causes, that would save far more lives than this, if we had a spare 500 Billion to spend (which would be essentially a tax of approx $1,500 for every person in the US).
Lets say the project costs 500 billion and it can be built in ten years. It still may be to late if the killer storm comes. Imagine a storm the size of Wilma with the strength of Andrew entering the Dade and Broward county line traveling west at 5 mph. This would be a trillion dollar storm or more.
Having lived in Dade county, I'd think it might be an improvement.
The cost wouldn't be a trillion dollars.
But regardless, if we HAD 500 spare Billion to spend, I'd MUCH rather it be spent on LAND BASED risk mitigation. Think of it this way, if you had 500 Billion, how much could you GIVE to every homeowner on the coast to get their homes up to code, raise them if necessary or flat out move them. You are talking about 500,000 MILLION dollars. That's $100,000 each for 4 million home owners and $500,000 each for 2 million businesses.
But here's the kicker, as other's have posted, given ocean currents and the size of a big hurricane (Katrina had hurricane force winds 100 miles from the eye)easily 100 miles) thus it covered an area of ~32,000 sq miles. In the previous example, the cost to shade 1/8 th of this area was 1.2 Trillion dollars, and that didn't include the cost of building something that could steer this thing.
But the other kicker is it is real hard to say if cutting off the sunlight would have much effect any way.
Actual experience implies it wouldn't since hurricanes DO strengthen overnight.
Arthur
PS, personally I don't think the US Govt should be in the business of rebuilding private property. Ain't there job. You live on the coast, you know the risks and they sell insurance if they don't pan out. If you can't afford the insurance, then maybe you shouldn't live there. Point being, why should people who DON'T live on the coast, subsidize the people who do? Now you want to collect 500 Billion from people that live on the coast to build this thing, then I'm much more willing to say, go for it. Otherwise, I can think of numerous other worthy causes, that would save far more lives than this, if we had a spare 500 Billion to spend (which would be essentially a tax of approx $1,500 for every person in the US).
I think it would be more of a global tax instead of the USA always footing the bill.
i haven't read much so i don't know if this has bean mentioned already but i heard that oil acts like a layer between the core and the surface keeping the heat in and the cold out like a coolant and by mining it we create more area for the heat to escape on a daily bases.
i had an idea of my own which involved freezing a thin layer of the water right on front of the tornado with that large amounts of that gas that instantly freezes stuff. i also thought that maybe so of it could just be dumped in the cyclone at the to cool what hot ext...
i don't know that much about all of this or if it would work let alone even make any sense but i would really like to hear you perspectives on this
i had an idea of my own which involved freezing a thin layer of the water right on front of the tornado with that large amounts of that gas that instantly freezes stuff. i also thought that maybe so of it could just be dumped in the cyclone at the to cool what hot ext...
i don't know that much about all of this or if it would work let alone even make any sense but i would really like to hear you perspectives on this
Another problem (I didn't read all the posts so I might be repeating) is that is there an orbit possible that blocks off the correct position on Earth?
Its not as simple as a geosynchronous orbit as it needs to be in between the ocean and the sun. And if you say "just shove it in geosynchronous and the right area will have the noon and near noon sun blocked" then what about at other times? the sun will be blocked off at different places.
An alternative (excuse the repeating if I am) is to put something on the surface of the ocean (a liquid or powder, or whatever) that lasts long enough and has the property of strengthening the surface of the water, reducing how much water evaporates. And make it biodegradable, so it lasts long enough to stop potential hurricanes but not enough to be a environmental problem.
If what I remember from my high school geography class, hurricanes need several things to be created and stay "alive". Knock any of them off and there will be no hurricane, for instance it needs warm enough water temperature (And this energy needs to get into the air somehow, IE: evaporation, my method removes this) which is what the solar shield stops, the right Latitude and a few others.
Although my method does require a good amount of coordination to cover the required ocean area, and of course some material that does the job. And its not for tornado's.
Its not as simple as a geosynchronous orbit as it needs to be in between the ocean and the sun. And if you say "just shove it in geosynchronous and the right area will have the noon and near noon sun blocked" then what about at other times? the sun will be blocked off at different places.
An alternative (excuse the repeating if I am) is to put something on the surface of the ocean (a liquid or powder, or whatever) that lasts long enough and has the property of strengthening the surface of the water, reducing how much water evaporates. And make it biodegradable, so it lasts long enough to stop potential hurricanes but not enough to be a environmental problem.
If what I remember from my high school geography class, hurricanes need several things to be created and stay "alive". Knock any of them off and there will be no hurricane, for instance it needs warm enough water temperature (And this energy needs to get into the air somehow, IE: evaporation, my method removes this) which is what the solar shield stops, the right Latitude and a few others.
Although my method does require a good amount of coordination to cover the required ocean area, and of course some material that does the job. And its not for tornado's.
The solution you propose still has to deal with a moving target that covers 32,000 square miles, or at least a decent percent of that amount.
Second issue is the waves around a hurricane are formidable, their strengh would resist the appliation of any material in sufficient quantities to have an effect.
Third issue, is even if a fraction of the hurricane needs this "treatment", the deploying of enough material to cover thousands of square miles, would be an amazingly formidable task.
Arthur
Second issue is the waves around a hurricane are formidable, their strengh would resist the appliation of any material in sufficient quantities to have an effect.
Third issue, is even if a fraction of the hurricane needs this "treatment", the deploying of enough material to cover thousands of square miles, would be an amazingly formidable task.
Arthur
It takes a lot more than one to two days to cool down the oceans tempature enough to have an effect on something has massive as a hurricane. Something that causes shear would be MUCH much more effective...
Perhaps it will cause shear over the storm also. If we can model the effect with a computer then it may give some new information to us. When not in use the shield can be stowed away by rotating it in the verticle position to the sun.
if you cover the water with something all like whales will die.
instead you can launch missals with nitrogen into the hurricane to turn the water into ice crystals and to cool it down
any suggestions?
P.S. i like the sun shield idea but i wonder, if it is made from the same stuff as the solar sail then wouldn't it drift towards the planet constantly? and is so how do you plan to solve this problem?
instead you can launch missals with nitrogen into the hurricane to turn the water into ice crystals and to cool it down
any suggestions?
P.S. i like the sun shield idea but i wonder, if it is made from the same stuff as the solar sail then wouldn't it drift towards the planet constantly? and is so how do you plan to solve this problem?
Well during the time it not in use you stow it away by tilting it vertically towards the sun. When it is in use you can use thrusters to keep it in place.
but the sun light would still accelerate it toward the planet when it is in use and won't instantly stop when not in use (an object in motion will stay in motion unless acted on..... ext..... )
THRUSTERS ME NOT BE ENOUGH AND CAN BE EXPENSIVE
so as soon as you open it, it will start to speed up towards the earth
sorry for the bad ASCII art (if you can call that art)
WHEN IN USE
accelerating => (pushed by the light that is being blocked)
____oOo
__OooooO------------------------------>P^^^I shadowed area! _
_ooooooooo---------------------------->I^^^I shadowed area (_)
__OooooO------------------------------>L____I shadowed area
____oOo
___/\________________/\__________/\_______________/\
___[]________________[]__________[]_______________[]
__sun_______________light_____sun shield__________earth
WHEN NOT IN USE
X velocity moving the sun shield => (what ever speed it gets from the power of the sun light while it was active)
-----oOo
---OooooO----------------------------------------------------------->_
-ooooooooo---------------------------->_______ empty space(_)
---OooooO---------------------------------------------------------->
-----oOo
___/\________________/\__________/\_______________/\
___[]________________[]__________[]_______________[]
__sun_______________light_____sun shield__________earth
How will you counter the force of the light?
"for some reason this does not except spaces so i had to fill it with stuff"
THRUSTERS ME NOT BE ENOUGH AND CAN BE EXPENSIVE
so as soon as you open it, it will start to speed up towards the earth
sorry for the bad ASCII art (if you can call that art)
WHEN IN USE
accelerating => (pushed by the light that is being blocked)
____oOo
__OooooO------------------------------>P^^^I shadowed area! _
_ooooooooo---------------------------->I^^^I shadowed area (_)
__OooooO------------------------------>L____I shadowed area
____oOo
___/\________________/\__________/\_______________/\
___[]________________[]__________[]_______________[]
__sun_______________light_____sun shield__________earth
WHEN NOT IN USE
X velocity moving the sun shield => (what ever speed it gets from the power of the sun light while it was active)
-----oOo
---OooooO----------------------------------------------------------->_
-ooooooooo---------------------------->_______ empty space(_)
---OooooO---------------------------------------------------------->
-----oOo
___/\________________/\__________/\_______________/\
___[]________________[]__________[]_______________[]
__sun_______________light_____sun shield__________earth
How will you counter the force of the light?
"for some reason this does not except spaces so i had to fill it with stuff"
ion Thrusters
ion thrusters use light! which means you will have to generate more light then you block or have a powerful laser on earth pushing with might damage the ozone
Unless you make the shield like a solar panel to absorb light and use that plus the laser light from earth for the ion thrusters
----------------->l=> ion thrusters
----------------->l
----------------->l<----------------------------O
----------------->l
----------------->l=> ion thrusters
__/\_________/\______________/\
__[]_________[]______________[]
__[]_________[]______________[]
sun light____shield____laser light from earth
but i have a quick temporary fix which involves firing several missals containing nitrogen to cool it down (no heat no cyclone) and then we could name it after you as the cyclonekiller lol
Unless you make the shield like a solar panel to absorb light and use that plus the laser light from earth for the ion thrusters
----------------->l=> ion thrusters
----------------->l
----------------->l<----------------------------O
----------------->l
----------------->l=> ion thrusters
__/\_________/\______________/\
__[]_________[]______________[]
__[]_________[]______________[]
sun light____shield____laser light from earth
but i have a quick temporary fix which involves firing several missals containing nitrogen to cool it down (no heat no cyclone) and then we could name it after you as the cyclonekiller lol
Okay, I've missed a lot during the last couple of days.
First off, I don't think...let's say...Cuba would be very happy if the sun is blocked from them for prolonged periods of time—which would be necessary since Cuba is in the part of the ocean, as well as thousands of islands, needed to be cooled in order to have any effect. When all of these islands are pissed off nations like Russia, China, Brittan, France, Germany, Italy and Spain will be pissed. And I think we are already skating on thin ice, and I don't think we can single handedly kick the 'sses of SEVEN major countries.
On another note, how will shading one comparably small part of the ocean cool the air, which WARMS the water? You have to shade a huge part of the Atlantic Ocean in order to cool the air which moves throughout the globe. Have you ever heard that a flap of a butterfly's wings in San Diego causes a thunder storm in Brittan? Warm air from the equator makes its way to both poles. Likewise, the cold are at the poles makes its way to the equator. What effect would cooling the equator have on the climate? Can anyone say ICE AGE?!
And yes, hurricanes do INCREASE in strength DURING THE NIGHT. If you will take the time to remember, Hurricane Katrina strengthened from a category one to a category 5 at night—putting a gaping hole in your "follow the hurricane with a sun shield and cool the piss out of it" idea. For one thing, the hurricane is a shield in itself. Its clouds reflect a good deal of the sunlight. And they shield the water.
And, as for your little "cooling the gulf air'll stop the formation of tornados", though true it is, don't you think it'll also stop allot of rain? Or do you care if the central U.S. (where I live) suffers a severe drought?
First off, I don't think...let's say...Cuba would be very happy if the sun is blocked from them for prolonged periods of time—which would be necessary since Cuba is in the part of the ocean, as well as thousands of islands, needed to be cooled in order to have any effect. When all of these islands are pissed off nations like Russia, China, Brittan, France, Germany, Italy and Spain will be pissed. And I think we are already skating on thin ice, and I don't think we can single handedly kick the 'sses of SEVEN major countries.
On another note, how will shading one comparably small part of the ocean cool the air, which WARMS the water? You have to shade a huge part of the Atlantic Ocean in order to cool the air which moves throughout the globe. Have you ever heard that a flap of a butterfly's wings in San Diego causes a thunder storm in Brittan? Warm air from the equator makes its way to both poles. Likewise, the cold are at the poles makes its way to the equator. What effect would cooling the equator have on the climate? Can anyone say ICE AGE?!
And yes, hurricanes do INCREASE in strength DURING THE NIGHT. If you will take the time to remember, Hurricane Katrina strengthened from a category one to a category 5 at night—putting a gaping hole in your "follow the hurricane with a sun shield and cool the piss out of it" idea. For one thing, the hurricane is a shield in itself. Its clouds reflect a good deal of the sunlight. And they shield the water.
And, as for your little "cooling the gulf air'll stop the formation of tornados", though true it is, don't you think it'll also stop allot of rain? Or do you care if the central U.S. (where I live) suffers a severe drought?
QUOTE (cyclonekiller+)
I think it would be more of a global tax instead of the USA always footing the bill.
Don't you think Kenya has better things to do besides solve OUR problems, like fix aids and famine?
Shielding the ocean (a very big part of the ocean) for a very short period of time won't do squat. Notice that it is cooler now, in this part of the year, but the hurricane season is STILL in effect. Note Hurricane Alpha and Beta.
I personally like the idea of shooting N missiles into the hurricane. This causes INSTANT cooling, and DOESN'T constitute WWIII.
Don't you think Kenya has better things to do besides solve OUR problems, like fix aids and famine?
Shielding the ocean (a very big part of the ocean) for a very short period of time won't do squat. Notice that it is cooler now, in this part of the year, but the hurricane season is STILL in effect. Note Hurricane Alpha and Beta.
I personally like the idea of shooting N missiles into the hurricane. This causes INSTANT cooling, and DOESN'T constitute WWIII.
QUOTE (555Joshua+Oct 30 2005, 12:42 AM)
Okay, I've missed a lot during the last couple of days.
First off, I don't think...let's say...Cuba would be very happy if the sun is blocked from them for prolonged periods of time—which would be necessary since Cuba is in the part of the ocean, as well as thousands of islands, needed to be cooled in order to have any effect. When all of these islands are pissed off nations like Russia, China, Brittan, France, Germany, Italy and Spain will be pissed. And I think we are already skating on thin ice, and I don't think we can single handedly kick the 'sses of SEVEN major countries.
On another note, how will shading one comparably small part of the ocean cool the air, which WARMS the water? You have to shade a huge part of the Atlantic Ocean in order to cool the air which moves throughout the globe. Have you ever heard that a flap of a butterfly's wings in San Diego causes a thunder storm in Brittan? Warm air from the equator makes its way to both poles. Likewise, the cold are at the poles makes its way to the equator. What effect would cooling the equator have on the climate? Can anyone say ICE AGE?!
And yes, hurricanes do INCREASE in strength DURING THE NIGHT. If you will take the time to remember, Hurricane Katrina strengthened from a category one to a category 5 at night—putting a gaping hole in your "follow the hurricane with a sun shield and cool the piss out of it" idea. For one thing, the hurricane is a shield in itself. Its clouds reflect a good deal of the sunlight. And they shield the water.
And, as for your little "cooling the gulf air'll stop the formation of tornados", though true it is, don't you think it'll also stop allot of rain? Or do you care if the central U.S. (where I live) suffers a severe drought?
First off, I don't think...let's say...Cuba would be very happy if the sun is blocked from them for prolonged periods of time—which would be necessary since Cuba is in the part of the ocean, as well as thousands of islands, needed to be cooled in order to have any effect. When all of these islands are pissed off nations like Russia, China, Brittan, France, Germany, Italy and Spain will be pissed. And I think we are already skating on thin ice, and I don't think we can single handedly kick the 'sses of SEVEN major countries.
On another note, how will shading one comparably small part of the ocean cool the air, which WARMS the water? You have to shade a huge part of the Atlantic Ocean in order to cool the air which moves throughout the globe. Have you ever heard that a flap of a butterfly's wings in San Diego causes a thunder storm in Brittan? Warm air from the equator makes its way to both poles. Likewise, the cold are at the poles makes its way to the equator. What effect would cooling the equator have on the climate? Can anyone say ICE AGE?!
And yes, hurricanes do INCREASE in strength DURING THE NIGHT. If you will take the time to remember, Hurricane Katrina strengthened from a category one to a category 5 at night—putting a gaping hole in your "follow the hurricane with a sun shield and cool the piss out of it" idea. For one thing, the hurricane is a shield in itself. Its clouds reflect a good deal of the sunlight. And they shield the water.
And, as for your little "cooling the gulf air'll stop the formation of tornados", though true it is, don't you think it'll also stop allot of rain? Or do you care if the central U.S. (where I live) suffers a severe drought?
QUOTE (cyclonekiller+)
I think it would be more of a global tax instead of the USA always footing the bill.
Don't you think Kenya has better things to do besides solve OUR problems, like fix aids and famine?
Shielding the ocean (a very big part of the ocean) for a very short period of time won't do squat. Notice that it is cooler now, in this part of the year, but the hurricane season is STILL in effect. Note Hurricane Alpha and Beta.
I personally like the idea of shooting N missiles into the hurricane. This causes INSTANT cooling, and DOESN'T constitute WWIII.
First off it can be controlled to cool only the ocean and no land masses and for as long as we like even for months before hurricane season starts. Cuba can benifit from this since the tobacco and bannana crops won't ever be destroyed again from a hurricane. And as for those 7 nations you talk about ganging up on us that will never happen. If the USA falls the world starves since we are the bread baskett of the world. Give me my Hummer and my 30 gallons of gas please.
Don't you think Kenya has better things to do besides solve OUR problems, like fix aids and famine?
Shielding the ocean (a very big part of the ocean) for a very short period of time won't do squat. Notice that it is cooler now, in this part of the year, but the hurricane season is STILL in effect. Note Hurricane Alpha and Beta.
I personally like the idea of shooting N missiles into the hurricane. This causes INSTANT cooling, and DOESN'T constitute WWIII.
First off it can be controlled to cool only the ocean and no land masses and for as long as we like even for months before hurricane season starts. Cuba can benifit from this since the tobacco and bannana crops won't ever be destroyed again from a hurricane. And as for those 7 nations you talk about ganging up on us that will never happen. If the USA falls the world starves since we are the bread baskett of the world. Give me my Hummer and my 30 gallons of gas please.
QUOTE (cyclonekiller+)
First off it can be controlled to cool only the ocean and no land masses and for as long as we like even for months before hurricane season starts.
How? Wouldn't that constitute MORE money?
How? Wouldn't that constitute MORE money?
QUOTE (same+)
And as for those 7 nations you talk about ganging up on us that will never happen. If the USA falls the world starves since we are the bread baskett of the world. Give me my Hummer and my 30 gallons of gas please
Again, how's that? Did you know we expart MORE than we import? Did you know China, though having a very hard time doing it, supplies a whole hell of a lot of food for itself? Its called the green revalution. These countries learned to grow as much as they can on as little as possible, even growing plants on hills.
You are going to have to prove that the INTIRE world relies on us.
Again, how's that? Did you know we expart MORE than we import? Did you know China, though having a very hard time doing it, supplies a whole hell of a lot of food for itself? Its called the green revalution. These countries learned to grow as much as they can on as little as possible, even growing plants on hills.
You are going to have to prove that the INTIRE world relies on us.
555Joshua thanx for supporting my N missile idea
I don't support the Nuke Idea But I would support a few hundred MOABs to see if they could disrupt the eye wall. Check out this link::
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/11/sprj.irq.moab/
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/11/sprj.irq.moab/
It's less expensive, and more reasonable.
you won't need to refrigerate 1000 sq mile the nitrogen will be carried around by the wind to where ever necessary
QUOTE (cyclonekiller+)
I don't support the Nuke Idea
Wow wow wow, who said anything about a nuke? This has nothing to do with nuclear reactions, this is intirely N for NITROGEN. I used N because I am not sure how to spell_____________________^^^^^^^.
Wow wow wow, who said anything about a nuke? This has nothing to do with nuclear reactions, this is intirely N for NITROGEN. I used N because I am not sure how to spell_____________________^^^^^^^.
OOPS sorry
QUOTE (joshua555+)
Again, how's that? Did you know we expart MORE than we import? Did you know China, though having a very hard time doing it, supplies a whole hell of a lot of food for itself? Its called the green revalution. These countries learned to grow as much as they can on as little as possible, even growing plants on hills.
You are going to have to prove that the INTIRE world relies on us.
In 2004 the US EXPORTED 61 Billion $ worth of agricultural products.
In the same year we IMPORTED 53 Billion $ worth of agricultural products.
Thus we exported 8 Billion more than we imported.
Since this is roughly 1/7th of what we imported and since most of what we consume is domestically produced, its unlikely our total exports were equal to 1/15th what we ourselves use.
There are 330 million in the US, there are over 6 Billion on the planet. Our food exports, if they ceased tomorrow, would hardly be noticed.
Arthur
You are going to have to prove that the INTIRE world relies on us.
In 2004 the US EXPORTED 61 Billion $ worth of agricultural products.
In the same year we IMPORTED 53 Billion $ worth of agricultural products.
Thus we exported 8 Billion more than we imported.
Since this is roughly 1/7th of what we imported and since most of what we consume is domestically produced, its unlikely our total exports were equal to 1/15th what we ourselves use.
There are 330 million in the US, there are over 6 Billion on the planet. Our food exports, if they ceased tomorrow, would hardly be noticed.
Arthur
Some pretty scary "thinkers" here. Hope none of you is a presidential aid or anything eh? (of course Adoucette excepted)
How much less costly would it be to simply require anyone living in a hurricane zone to carry their own liability insurance? eg. install underground power line infrastructure, build no buildings or roads less than 20 feet above sea level, no stupid "floating casinos"?
If the feds and FEMA stopped picking up the tab, i'd bet those hurricane damage bills would rapidly disappear, eliminating the need for any nonsense like a venetian blind over equatorial waters, or trying to refrigerate 1000 sq mile areas.
How much less costly would it be to simply require anyone living in a hurricane zone to carry their own liability insurance? eg. install underground power line infrastructure, build no buildings or roads less than 20 feet above sea level, no stupid "floating casinos"?
If the feds and FEMA stopped picking up the tab, i'd bet those hurricane damage bills would rapidly disappear, eliminating the need for any nonsense like a venetian blind over equatorial waters, or trying to refrigerate 1000 sq mile areas.
You know that is not going to happen the whole state of Florida would have to evacuate and no one could live near the coast down there.
QUOTE
If the feds and FEMA stopped picking up the tab, i'd bet those hurricane damage bills would rapidly disappear, eliminating the need for any nonsense like a venetian blind over equatorial waters, or trying to refrigerate 1000 sq mile areas.
you won't need to refrigerate 1000 sq mile the nitrogen will be carried around by the wind to where ever necessary
QUOTE (adoucette+)
In 2004 the US EXPORTED 61 Billion $ worth of agricultural products.
Fuckkk!
My brain must have been a totle waist when I posted this:
I don't know what got into me. I meant Again, how's that? Did you know we IMPORT MORE than we EXPORT?
As you see, it makes more sense that way.
Anyway, I agree with you up until you said 330 million people in U.S. As far as I know, it's 294,000,000.
I don't know what got into me. I meant Again, how's that? Did you know we IMPORT MORE than we EXPORT?
As you see, it makes more sense that way.
Anyway, I agree with you up until you said 330 million people in U.S. As far as I know, it's 294,000,000.
You know that is not going to happen the whole state of Florida would have to evacuate and no one could live near the coast down there.
What's wrong with that?
Okay, the problem is, you people are thinking too far outside of the box. You are all getting too wild with your ideas. It's okay to be trying to solve the problem of hurricanes, but you have to be more realistic.
If you are like me, and want to cash in on the hurricanes, then you might just want to do nothing. But of course, we have to think of the people who live at the coast, and the price they pay.
Ta ta
My bad, I missed the typo, I round numbers, meant 300 million.
I on the otherhand could tell yours was a typo, otherwise it made no sense.
But as you can see, we do Export more than we Import,
On the other hand, the total excess exports over imports HAS been dropping on a year to year basis, if the trend continues we will begin importing more in about 5 years.
Arthur
there will be no globe worming because there will be less pollution
what i meant to say is that thy won't be as strong
That's not what I meant.
what I meant was that we would have more then enough power to power our homes, our cars and any thing else if they were all ran on electricity, thus less pollution and weaker tornadoes.
there is a way to harness the power of tornadoes now but the base of the tornado must stay in the same place and that's why the guy who came up with it also came up with a way to create artificial tornadoes. He called the proses the "Atmospheric Vortex Engine" or something like that. Check it out.
and MDT any comments on firing nitrogen in to the tornado?
Fuckkk!
My brain must have been a totle waist when I posted this:
QUOTE
Again, how's that? Did you know we expart MORE than we import?
I don't know what got into me. I meant Again, how's that? Did you know we IMPORT MORE than we EXPORT?
As you see, it makes more sense that way.
Anyway, I agree with you up until you said 330 million people in U.S. As far as I know, it's 294,000,000.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Again, how's that? Did you know we expart MORE than we import? |
I don't know what got into me. I meant Again, how's that? Did you know we IMPORT MORE than we EXPORT?
As you see, it makes more sense that way.
Anyway, I agree with you up until you said 330 million people in U.S. As far as I know, it's 294,000,000.
You know that is not going to happen the whole state of Florida would have to evacuate and no one could live near the coast down there.
What's wrong with that?
Okay, the problem is, you people are thinking too far outside of the box. You are all getting too wild with your ideas. It's okay to be trying to solve the problem of hurricanes, but you have to be more realistic.
If you are like me, and want to cash in on the hurricanes, then you might just want to do nothing. But of course, we have to think of the people who live at the coast, and the price they pay.
Ta ta
Well you could cash in them if they were modified. Lets say you reduced a typical hurricane to a category one hurricane headed towards Miami Dade county where your ten boat charter boat company is and your boats were not damaged and so now you can take your clients out tomorrow and make a huge profit on the weekend outing and they are very happy now because the fishing is better after a cat1 storm. However lets say it was a category 5 storm without modification and when you returned and all your boats were sitting on US1 high and dry with dead smelly fish all over the place due to the Storm surge. Powerful Hurricanes are bad and they kill everything they hit. Not so powerful hurricanes we can live with and they still transfer heat to the polar regions of the Earth. The idea does not eliminate it modifies.
No, no, no, silly.
I am not saying I am the person who owns the land, I am looking at the big picture.
Okay, once the hurricanes trash the coast, property value drops dramatically. I can buy the sh't, and I do mean sh't, at its lowest price, and when this hurricane era is over, and the storms weaken, and become fewer, I can rebuild, and the property value will jump sky high. Thus, I will be rich.
And if the hike of hurricanes is due to globle worming, then I'll simply buy the land and come up with a practical approach to snuffing the storms. And not build some sun shield that might not even work.
I am not saying I am the person who owns the land, I am looking at the big picture.
Okay, once the hurricanes trash the coast, property value drops dramatically. I can buy the sh't, and I do mean sh't, at its lowest price, and when this hurricane era is over, and the storms weaken, and become fewer, I can rebuild, and the property value will jump sky high. Thus, I will be rich.
And if the hike of hurricanes is due to globle worming, then I'll simply buy the land and come up with a practical approach to snuffing the storms. And not build some sun shield that might not even work.
QUOTE
Anyway, I agree with you up until you said 330 million people in U.S. As far as I know, it's 294,000,000.
My bad, I missed the typo, I round numbers, meant 300 million.
I on the otherhand could tell yours was a typo, otherwise it made no sense.
But as you can see, we do Export more than we Import,
On the other hand, the total excess exports over imports HAS been dropping on a year to year basis, if the trend continues we will begin importing more in about 5 years.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+)
My bad, I missed the typo, I round numbers, meant 300 million.
I on the otherhand could tell yours was a typo, otherwise it made no sense.
But as you can see, we do Export more than we Import,
On the other hand, the total excess exports over imports HAS been dropping on a year to year basis, if the trend continues we will begin importing more in about 5 years.
Arthur
As long as we're good.
I on the otherhand could tell yours was a typo, otherwise it made no sense.
But as you can see, we do Export more than we Import,
On the other hand, the total excess exports over imports HAS been dropping on a year to year basis, if the trend continues we will begin importing more in about 5 years.
Arthur
As long as we're good.
We are, you were just a bit ahead of the curve.
Your point, refuting the idea that the world DEPENDS on the USA for a substantial amount of its food supply, was absolutely correct.
I think people confuse the fact that we are known as "the breadbasket", with this over estimation of our global contribution. We DO produce an over abundance of Wheat, but man does not live by bread alone.
Arthur
Your point, refuting the idea that the world DEPENDS on the USA for a substantial amount of its food supply, was absolutely correct.
I think people confuse the fact that we are known as "the breadbasket", with this over estimation of our global contribution. We DO produce an over abundance of Wheat, but man does not live by bread alone.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+)
I think people confuse the fact that we are known as "the breadbasket", with this over estimation of our global contribution. We DO produce an over abundance of Wheat, but man does not live by bread alone.
Plus, once they take over the U.S. what's to stop them from continuing the farming? Surely they know how to farm.
Plus, once they take over the U.S. what's to stop them from continuing the farming? Surely they know how to farm.
What makes you think they can beat our thermonuclear protection?
What the hell are you talking about? What thermonuclear protection?
Uh!! U did!!!!
"And I think we are already skating on thin ice, and I don't think we can single handedly kick the 'sses of SEVEN major countries. "
"And I think we are already skating on thin ice, and I don't think we can single handedly kick the 'sses of SEVEN major countries. "
Huh? I'm sorry, what exactly did I do?
You didn't do anything wrong. I just had to reply to that statement.Anyways,the physics works with the idea and I don't see how we can let an opportunity like this pass by to show the world that we are interested in global warming and prefer to use alternate energy options such as the power of the Gulf-stream.
So sad. My idea would have prevented this.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051106/ap_on_...midwest_tornado
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051106/ap_on_...midwest_tornado
I doubt it.
there is something called "atmospheric vortex engine" it creates tornadoes for electricity (look at "tech news") and a tornado make more power in a few days the a power plant in a hole year. so they could be used to power electric cars and homes by replacing all the power plants and there will be no more pollution
and PRESTO! all we have to deal with is rogue tornadoes
and PRESTO! all we have to deal with is rogue tornadoes
Pretty cool but how is this going to weaken a hurricane or tornado?
QUOTE
Pretty cool but how is this going to weaken a hurricane or tornado?
there will be no globe worming because there will be less pollution
Global warming does not cause hurricanes or tornado's it just makes them stronger they have always been here.
QUOTE
Global warming does not cause hurricanes or tornado's it just makes them stronger they have always been here.
what i meant to say is that thy won't be as strong
QUOTE (Leonid05+)
there will be no globe worming because there will be less pollution
What are you talking about?
Do you really think nuclear power plants cause the temperature spike? Everything from the assembly line to automobiles causes global warming, and like that sunshield on hurricanes, your alternative power source will have little effect.
What needs to be done in order to stop global warming is to stop producing pollution.
What are you talking about?
Do you really think nuclear power plants cause the temperature spike? Everything from the assembly line to automobiles causes global warming, and like that sunshield on hurricanes, your alternative power source will have little effect.
What needs to be done in order to stop global warming is to stop producing pollution.
QUOTE
What are you talking about?
Do you really think nuclear power plants cause the temperature spike? Everything from the assembly line to automobiles causes global warming, and like that sunshield on hurricanes, your alternative power source will have little effect.
What needs to be done in order to stop global warming is to stop producing pollution.
Do you really think nuclear power plants cause the temperature spike? Everything from the assembly line to automobiles causes global warming, and like that sunshield on hurricanes, your alternative power source will have little effect.
What needs to be done in order to stop global warming is to stop producing pollution.
That's not what I meant.
what I meant was that we would have more then enough power to power our homes, our cars and any thing else if they were all ran on electricity, thus less pollution and weaker tornadoes.
Sorry man, but I just don't see how you can harness a tornado's power. Attach an extension cord to it?
The power of weather is connected to the evaporation and condensation of water. The breaking of hydrogen bonds by the sun evaporates the water. It is not coincidental that the sun, composed of primarily hydrogen, would impact the hydrogen on the earth.The reformation of the hydrogen bonds within the cooler air higher in the atmosphere to form clouds releases hydrogen bonding energy and lowers pressure as water condenses out of the air. The goal of the earth is low surface tension minimum hydrogen bonding potently water or rain. The path often leads to extreme weather events. The warmer ocean waters make it easier for the sun to evaporate the surface water thereby increasing the solar induced potential needing to be released. The solar shield might work but would be impractical to build. Global warming and cooling is a natural process of the earth. It happened before humans and will continue to cycle.
QUOTE
Sorry man, but I just don't see how you can harness a tornado's power. Attach an extension cord to it?
there is a way to harness the power of tornadoes now but the base of the tornado must stay in the same place and that's why the guy who came up with it also came up with a way to create artificial tornadoes. He called the proses the "Atmospheric Vortex Engine" or something like that. Check it out.
and MDT any comments on firing nitrogen in to the tornado?
If I was the "project manager", (piss poor that could be), I would spend the 500 billion or so dollars not on some sunshade that wasn't doubled as a giant solar collection area (yes, too expensive, especially when considering that the space elevator will probobly be used primarely for sucking money out of rich people), instead, spend it on giant wind turbines. At a dollar per watt installed, that's 500 or so gigs of installed clean energy, about the maximum potential of nuclear (open cycle) for one hundred years. X 8,760 (hours in a year) and by .3 (capacity factor), and divide by 1,000 (for KW) and you get 1.3i4 trillion KWH, about a third of what Americans use from the grid alone...
Where am I going with this, Not sure, thought it would buy more! Anyways, the estimate for a workable, sizable solar shield that also conteracts some of the solar energy, (proper orbits could do the rest), would be far more than that, even if we had 10 space elevaters! The electronics to generate energy (PV?) and to turn the thing on and off (steering it would be akin to the prehistoric trying to turn the Titanic - the thin flimsy thing wants to harminize, then reverberate and bust apart).
So, all that I could do is build about $5 trillion dollars worth of clean energy (at less than a dollar per watt). This is close to the total energy consumpsion of US. (About 15 trillion KWH). This should be enough to stop global warming. But wait, that would cost each American household 'bout $2,500 a year for twenty years without financing - just pay as we go! not counting businesses, incentives, whatever).
Someone may point to the fact the U.S use 100 quads / 3414 = about 30 trillion KWH without conversion loss, but there is plenty of quads wasted, close to 2/3rds so only 10 trillion would be needed IF we didn't have to convert most of it into storable energy (and to run the national fleet, disneyland, ect). The other 5 trillion should make the difference for losses fron conversion to hydrogen.
But wait, there's yet another problem, how much will all the electrolyzers, (or whatever) cost? This is where the global economy can help, The U.S. doesn't need to be 100% clean, just 50 or so and the rest of the world can help too.
What a shame, the rest of the world is probably doing better and condeming us because of Bushes oil thing
Excuse me, I cuold't help but promote clean energy as the solution!
Obviously, this just a scenario, all the RE will be used and something better than electrolizers will come to play. For ex. multible sun PV and cheap mylar "mirrors" wraped around a molded "frame" could be cheaper than wind? I would spend a billion just to find out how to tool up a robotic assembly for Multible sun PV, sheish, all the jobs (for humans) would be to merely place them all in the deserts!
You see, if we are to find the solution, we must offset large amounts of "dirty" fuel.
fireofenergy
Where am I going with this, Not sure, thought it would buy more! Anyways, the estimate for a workable, sizable solar shield that also conteracts some of the solar energy, (proper orbits could do the rest), would be far more than that, even if we had 10 space elevaters! The electronics to generate energy (PV?) and to turn the thing on and off (steering it would be akin to the prehistoric trying to turn the Titanic - the thin flimsy thing wants to harminize, then reverberate and bust apart).
So, all that I could do is build about $5 trillion dollars worth of clean energy (at less than a dollar per watt). This is close to the total energy consumpsion of US. (About 15 trillion KWH). This should be enough to stop global warming. But wait, that would cost each American household 'bout $2,500 a year for twenty years without financing - just pay as we go! not counting businesses, incentives, whatever).
Someone may point to the fact the U.S use 100 quads / 3414 = about 30 trillion KWH without conversion loss, but there is plenty of quads wasted, close to 2/3rds so only 10 trillion would be needed IF we didn't have to convert most of it into storable energy (and to run the national fleet, disneyland, ect). The other 5 trillion should make the difference for losses fron conversion to hydrogen.
But wait, there's yet another problem, how much will all the electrolyzers, (or whatever) cost? This is where the global economy can help, The U.S. doesn't need to be 100% clean, just 50 or so and the rest of the world can help too.
What a shame, the rest of the world is probably doing better and condeming us because of Bushes oil thing
Excuse me, I cuold't help but promote clean energy as the solution!
Obviously, this just a scenario, all the RE will be used and something better than electrolizers will come to play. For ex. multible sun PV and cheap mylar "mirrors" wraped around a molded "frame" could be cheaper than wind? I would spend a billion just to find out how to tool up a robotic assembly for Multible sun PV, sheish, all the jobs (for humans) would be to merely place them all in the deserts!
You see, if we are to find the solution, we must offset large amounts of "dirty" fuel.
fireofenergy
A tornado has more (make more in a few days) energy then a nuclear power plant makes in a year and a single "Atmospheric Vortex Engine" can replace many nuclear power plants because a tornado can be kept running all yea round. The amount of power produced can be used to power cars if they were modified so there would be no need for oil at least not much.
i have some questions if anyone can answer
1. why is the ice melting in the arctic?
2.is the sun getting the water to warm so it is melting the ice?
3.is it really going to like wipe out all the arctic animals spieces?
4.is there way to much sun light that it cant handly?
i really need the answers i have no clue where to go to find the answers ethier??!!
1. why is the ice melting in the arctic?
2.is the sun getting the water to warm so it is melting the ice?
3.is it really going to like wipe out all the arctic animals spieces?
4.is there way to much sun light that it cant handly?
i really need the answers i have no clue where to go to find the answers ethier??!!
QUOTE (unknown+Mar 27 2006, 05:44 PM)
i have some questions if anyone can answer
1. why is the ice melting in the arctic?
2.is the sun getting the water to warm so it is melting the ice?
3.is it really going to like wipe out all the arctic animals spieces?
4.is there way to much sun light that it cant handly?
i really need the answers i have no clue where to go to find the answers ethier??!!
Answers are easy to come by.
TRUTH is much harder.
Don't take just ONE answer (even mine) as the truth, compare it to other answers. Understand the BASIS for the answer, and the bias of the person providing it.
My bias is I believe that Global Warming is happening, but that it is mainly a NATURAL phenomena. The globe has been warmer before and will be warmer again, with or without man's impact.
As to your questions:
The Ice is melting in the Arctic because it ALWAYS melts in the Arctic during summer. There is no LAND under the north pole and so the melting of ice is based upon ocean currents more so than just the amount of sunlight or the average air temp.
The Arctic temps are also influenced by the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. This is a roughly 30 year cycle of warming followed by a period of cooling of the surface waters of the Pacific. When in a warm cycle, as we are now, the temps in the Arctic tend to rise and the extent of sea ice tends to drop. All warming is caused by the sun, but the PDO is not directly caused by changes in the sun's output.
As you can see from this graph:
http://i2.tinypic.com/sbn4p1.gif
during the last warm phase of the PDO, centerd in the mid 30s the arctic was quite a bit warmer than today.
Which means that this cycle of warming it as unlikely to wipe out all the arctic animals as the last cycle.
In fact, one of the most well known arctic animals, the polar bear is not even an endangered species and last year they RAISED the number that could be hunted as there are plenty of polar bears.
Arthur
1. why is the ice melting in the arctic?
2.is the sun getting the water to warm so it is melting the ice?
3.is it really going to like wipe out all the arctic animals spieces?
4.is there way to much sun light that it cant handly?
i really need the answers i have no clue where to go to find the answers ethier??!!
Answers are easy to come by.
TRUTH is much harder.
Don't take just ONE answer (even mine) as the truth, compare it to other answers. Understand the BASIS for the answer, and the bias of the person providing it.
My bias is I believe that Global Warming is happening, but that it is mainly a NATURAL phenomena. The globe has been warmer before and will be warmer again, with or without man's impact.
As to your questions:
The Ice is melting in the Arctic because it ALWAYS melts in the Arctic during summer. There is no LAND under the north pole and so the melting of ice is based upon ocean currents more so than just the amount of sunlight or the average air temp.
The Arctic temps are also influenced by the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. This is a roughly 30 year cycle of warming followed by a period of cooling of the surface waters of the Pacific. When in a warm cycle, as we are now, the temps in the Arctic tend to rise and the extent of sea ice tends to drop. All warming is caused by the sun, but the PDO is not directly caused by changes in the sun's output.
As you can see from this graph:
http://i2.tinypic.com/sbn4p1.gif
during the last warm phase of the PDO, centerd in the mid 30s the arctic was quite a bit warmer than today.
Which means that this cycle of warming it as unlikely to wipe out all the arctic animals as the last cycle.
In fact, one of the most well known arctic animals, the polar bear is not even an endangered species and last year they RAISED the number that could be hunted as there are plenty of polar bears.
Arthur
what i think is that we need to stop global warming. if we want to have people in the planet for millions and trillions of years we have to stop global warming. we also have to star5t coming up with new plans and experiment so we can save life on earth. its sad to know that the earth is kind of aging and we are making it worse. we should make it stop aging that much. if we want our culture,our people and other things that we love in this world. i hope that god wants this world to last more time and to forgive us for what we have done to it. i want my children's grandchildren to hear the music that we listen to and that past generations have also. i want them to see this site and be happy and say that we made a difference in a difficult time. i want them to see how Dr.martin Luther king and Cesar Chavez and Gandhi and other people struggled. i want them to learn and become better people. i want them to hear about the issues that people faced. i want them to be happy. i bet you want the same for your family in the future. i want the world to be like in futurama and other futuristic shows. so i hope that the world can become a warmer place with less soon to be extinct animals. and that we can figure out a plan to stop global warming without making very drastic changes in our normal life like changing cars to hybrids or other similar things.
QUOTE (Qdeathstar+Oct 27 2005, 07:21 PM)
Not allowing the ocean to warm up (and consequentially cool down) would devistate the ecology >.> And probably change earths climate drammatically. I wouldnt fool with something we dont understand...
I think is possible to create a sort of Tornado shield!
I have a idea where someone think it's crazy!!!
I could be a giant sort of umbrella that travels along with the Tornado most likely where there is Population...
This project could handle Tornados up F4.
Imagine a huge flat disk flying and carrying the Tornado away from your house!!!
Technology today is a graet gift!!!
I think is possible to create a sort of Tornado shield!
I have a idea where someone think it's crazy!!!
I could be a giant sort of umbrella that travels along with the Tornado most likely where there is Population...
This project could handle Tornados up F4.
Imagine a huge flat disk flying and carrying the Tornado away from your house!!!
Technology today is a graet gift!!!
Dear Sirs!
Please see the paper about UFO,s materials.
Thank you.Sincerely,Henadzi Filipenka,teacher of
materials. hfilipenk@rambler.ru
--------------------
Dear Sirs!The information, contained in the project is
in my
opinion
the evidence of its extraterrestrial origin.
Project
of decoding of 'The Stormer Effect'
The phenomenon is described by C.Stormer in his
work 'The
Problem of Aurora Borealis' in the chapter
entitled 'The
Echo of Short Waves, Which Comes Back in Many Seconds
After
The Main Signal'.
In 1928 the radio- engineer Jorgen Hals from Bigder
near Oslo
informed C.Stormer about an odd radio echo received 3
seconds after the cessation of the main signal;
besides, an
ordinary echo encircling the Earth within 1/7 of a
second
was received.
In July Prof. Stormer spoke to Dr. Van-der-Paul in
Andhoven
and they decided to carry out experiments in autumn
and send
telegraphic signals in the form of undamped waves
every 20
seconds three dashes one after the other. On 11
October 1928
between 15.30 and 16.00, C.Stormer heard an
echo 'beyond any
doubt'; the signals lasted for 1,5- 2 seconds on
undamped
waves 31,4 meters long.
Stormer and Hals recorded the intervals between the
main
signal and the mysterious echo:
1) 15, 9, 4, 8, 13, 8, 12, 10, 9, 5, 8, 7, 6
2) 12, 14, 14, 12, 8
3) 12, 5, 8
4) 12, 8, 5, 14, 14, 15, 12, 7, 5.5, 13, 8, 8, 8, 13,
9,10,7,14,6,9,5
5) 9
Atmospheric disturbances were insignificant at that
time.
The frequency of echoes was equal to that of the main
signal. C.Stormer explained the nature of echoes by
reflection of radio waves from layers of particles
ionised
by the Sun. But!
The Professor of the Stenford Electrotechnical
University
R.Bracewell suggested possibility of informational
communication through space probes between more or less
developed civilisations in space. From that point of
view
the information about decoding of Stormer series can be
found in following journals:
'Smena' No.2 Moscow 1966 , 'Astronautics and
Aeronautics'
No.5 USA 1973, 'Technika Molodezi' No.4 1974 and No.5
1977
Moscow, etc.
The author of this work offers the following decoding:
let
the numbers in the series be replaced for chemical
symbols
of elements with corresponding nuclear charges:
1) P F Be O Al O Mg Ne F B O N C
2) Mg Si Si Mg O
3) Mg B O
4) Mg O B Si Si P Mg N B B Al O O O Al F Ne N Si C F B
5) F
It is easy to see that the second series is repeated
at the
beginning of the forth series with the only difference
that
in the forth series silicon is alloyed with boron and
phosphorus, i.e. 'p-n transition' of a diode is
created. The
third series describes receipt of pure boron through
action
on boron anhydrite by magnesium:
B2O3 and Mg = B ...
The author of the above hypothesis wrote his degree
paper on
silicon carbide light-emitting diode, that is why the
ending of the forth series is the most simple- it is a
modern light-emitting diode. Silicon carbide is
alloyed with
nitrogen and boron with 'some participation' of
fluorine.
Approximately the same way diamond is alloyed with
participation of fluorine in laboratories of 'other
civilisations', as can be seen at the ending of the
first
series. In the middle of the forth series corundum,
the base
of ruby, is also alloyed with boron, nitrogen and
fluorine.
In the fifth series simply fluorine is educed as a
useful
but very aggressive gas. Inert neon seems to divide
optoelectronic devices.
In conclusion, some repeated applications should be
noticed:
fluorine favours in a way either diffusion of boron or
electronic processes in forbidden zones of diamond,
silicon
carbamide; for some reason magnesium contacts are used.
Now,MgB2 is supercoductor!!! (2001?)
===================================================
======
In 1928 semi-conductor devices were not in use on
Earth.
It was made in Leningrad,1978.
P.S.This paper is placed in Internet from 1998,please
see at:
http://www.belarus.net/discovery/filipenko/fil2.htm
(in English)
===================================================
==
Superconductivity in diamond, Nature, 428, 542 (2004)
Origin of Superconductivity in Boron-doped Diamond.
===================================================
=====
All this discoveries are placed in series of C.Stormer!
http://home.ural.ru/~filip
Sincerely, Henadzi Filipenka,6a-7 Boldina str.Grodno
230030
Belarus
P.S.Superconductivity in doped cubic silicon
E. Bustarret1,7, C. Marcenat3,7, P. Achatz1,3, J. Kamarik1,4, F. Lйvy3, A. Huxley3,8, L. Ortйga2, E. Bourgeois5, X. Blase5, D. Dйbarre6 and J. Boulmer6
Laboratoire d'Etudes des Propriйtйs Electroniques des Solides,
Laboratoire de Cristallographie, CNRS, BP166, 38042 Grenoble, France
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v444/...ature0
5340.html
2006.
Please see the paper about UFO,s materials.
Thank you.Sincerely,Henadzi Filipenka,teacher of
materials. hfilipenk@rambler.ru
--------------------
Dear Sirs!The information, contained in the project is
in my
opinion
the evidence of its extraterrestrial origin.
Project
of decoding of 'The Stormer Effect'
The phenomenon is described by C.Stormer in his
work 'The
Problem of Aurora Borealis' in the chapter
entitled 'The
Echo of Short Waves, Which Comes Back in Many Seconds
After
The Main Signal'.
In 1928 the radio- engineer Jorgen Hals from Bigder
near Oslo
informed C.Stormer about an odd radio echo received 3
seconds after the cessation of the main signal;
besides, an
ordinary echo encircling the Earth within 1/7 of a
second
was received.
In July Prof. Stormer spoke to Dr. Van-der-Paul in
Andhoven
and they decided to carry out experiments in autumn
and send
telegraphic signals in the form of undamped waves
every 20
seconds three dashes one after the other. On 11
October 1928
between 15.30 and 16.00, C.Stormer heard an
echo 'beyond any
doubt'; the signals lasted for 1,5- 2 seconds on
undamped
waves 31,4 meters long.
Stormer and Hals recorded the intervals between the
main
signal and the mysterious echo:
1) 15, 9, 4, 8, 13, 8, 12, 10, 9, 5, 8, 7, 6
2) 12, 14, 14, 12, 8
3) 12, 5, 8
4) 12, 8, 5, 14, 14, 15, 12, 7, 5.5, 13, 8, 8, 8, 13,
9,10,7,14,6,9,5
5) 9
Atmospheric disturbances were insignificant at that
time.
The frequency of echoes was equal to that of the main
signal. C.Stormer explained the nature of echoes by
reflection of radio waves from layers of particles
ionised
by the Sun. But!
The Professor of the Stenford Electrotechnical
University
R.Bracewell suggested possibility of informational
communication through space probes between more or less
developed civilisations in space. From that point of
view
the information about decoding of Stormer series can be
found in following journals:
'Smena' No.2 Moscow 1966 , 'Astronautics and
Aeronautics'
No.5 USA 1973, 'Technika Molodezi' No.4 1974 and No.5
1977
Moscow, etc.
The author of this work offers the following decoding:
let
the numbers in the series be replaced for chemical
symbols
of elements with corresponding nuclear charges:
1) P F Be O Al O Mg Ne F B O N C
2) Mg Si Si Mg O
3) Mg B O
4) Mg O B Si Si P Mg N B B Al O O O Al F Ne N Si C F B
5) F
It is easy to see that the second series is repeated
at the
beginning of the forth series with the only difference
that
in the forth series silicon is alloyed with boron and
phosphorus, i.e. 'p-n transition' of a diode is
created. The
third series describes receipt of pure boron through
action
on boron anhydrite by magnesium:
B2O3 and Mg = B ...
The author of the above hypothesis wrote his degree
paper on
silicon carbide light-emitting diode, that is why the
ending of the forth series is the most simple- it is a
modern light-emitting diode. Silicon carbide is
alloyed with
nitrogen and boron with 'some participation' of
fluorine.
Approximately the same way diamond is alloyed with
participation of fluorine in laboratories of 'other
civilisations', as can be seen at the ending of the
first
series. In the middle of the forth series corundum,
the base
of ruby, is also alloyed with boron, nitrogen and
fluorine.
In the fifth series simply fluorine is educed as a
useful
but very aggressive gas. Inert neon seems to divide
optoelectronic devices.
In conclusion, some repeated applications should be
noticed:
fluorine favours in a way either diffusion of boron or
electronic processes in forbidden zones of diamond,
silicon
carbamide; for some reason magnesium contacts are used.
Now,MgB2 is supercoductor!!! (2001?)
===================================================
======
In 1928 semi-conductor devices were not in use on
Earth.
It was made in Leningrad,1978.
P.S.This paper is placed in Internet from 1998,please
see at:
http://www.belarus.net/discovery/filipenko/fil2.htm
(in English)
===================================================
==
Superconductivity in diamond, Nature, 428, 542 (2004)
Origin of Superconductivity in Boron-doped Diamond.
===================================================
=====
All this discoveries are placed in series of C.Stormer!
http://home.ural.ru/~filip
Sincerely, Henadzi Filipenka,6a-7 Boldina str.Grodno
230030
Belarus
P.S.Superconductivity in doped cubic silicon
E. Bustarret1,7, C. Marcenat3,7, P. Achatz1,3, J. Kamarik1,4, F. Lйvy3, A. Huxley3,8, L. Ortйga2, E. Bourgeois5, X. Blase5, D. Dйbarre6 and J. Boulmer6
Laboratoire d'Etudes des Propriйtйs Electroniques des Solides,
Laboratoire de Cristallographie, CNRS, BP166, 38042 Grenoble, France
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v444/...ature0
5340.html
2006.
QUOTE (cyclonekiller+Oct 27 2005, 01:09 PM)
Place a solar shield in geo. orbit and adjust it to shade the ocean for a few months to cool it before the hurricane season starts. Any thoughts on this one?
Well, cooler waters may be one effect of that but I would have to imagine that there would be other consequences for this.
Well, cooler waters may be one effect of that but I would have to imagine that there would be other consequences for this.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.