Main Page | Report Page

 

  Science Forum Index » Space Forum » The First Step in Creating a Space Age - Treat Earth...

Author Message
Pat Flannery...
Posted: Wed Nov 10, 2010 11:38 am
 
On 11/8/2010 12:32 PM, Alan Anderson wrote:
[quote]On Nov 8, 2:28 am, Fred J. McCall<fjmcc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
So I guess the Hindenberg didn't really explode and burn, then?

It didn't explode. Really.

It did burn, but blaming the hydrogen is almost certainly wrong.
Burning hydrogen gas produces a pretty blue smokeless flame. The
Hindenberg burned bright yellow, with plenty of smoke. Hydrogen rises.
A lot of the burning material fell. Ignition of the aluminum paint on
the airship's skin, perhaps from a discharge of static electricity, is
a very reasonable explanation for what happened.
[/quote]

Hydrogen burns colorless or light blue if optimally mixed with air; in
the case of Hindenburg the mixing was too hydrogen rich, and so the
flames were red-yellow
The Delta IV's RS-68 engine runs hydrogen-rich, and produces a
red-yellow flame also: http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/d4h1.jpg
the Mythbuster guys checked out the burning envelope concept for the
Hindenburg disaster by replicating the hull fabric from the original
recipe. Their figures showed that at the rate it burned, it would take
dozens of hours for the fire to get from the tail to the nose of the
airship.
When Hindenburg came in to land it was unexpectedly tail heavy, probably
from a internal brace wire snapping during the sharp turn it made at
full speed as it came in to align itself with the mooring mast, and
ripping open one of the stern gasbags. This would lead to leaking
hydrogen mixing with air inside the hull and creating an explosive
mixture that it would only take the smallest spark to ignite.
Once ignited, it created a fuel-air explosion in the aft hull that blew
the covering skin off of it, and then spread forward down the airship's
hull.
If you look at this photo taken just after the original blast (which was
loud enough to be heard miles away) you note that the height of the
flames over the whole rear hull is pretty much identical, indicating
that the whole rear of the airship ignited at pretty much the same
moment, rather than having a spreading fire start on its skin:
http://hauntednorthamerica.webs.com/hindenburg.jpg
The whole "burning skin" idea started with an article someone from The
Hydrogen Institute wrote for Smithsonian Air & Space Magazine, to help
remove the bad name the Hindenburg had given hydrogen.
It was almost immediately discredited, but has been hanging around ever
since.
If you like a sabotage theory for the destruction of the airship, then
the surviving crew's statement that the fire started at the center of
gasbag #4 where the axial walkway went through it, combined with this
guy's suspicious actions regarding pumping ballast water back toward the
tail earlier, and the fact that when his body was found it wasn't on the
axial walkway where he was supposed to be, but way up in the nose, makes
him the ideal suspect:
http://facesofthehindenburg.blogspot.com/search/label/Ludwig%20Knorr

Pat
 
Jeff Findley...
Posted: Wed Nov 10, 2010 1:36 pm
 
In article <13af1543-d24e-4aa8-91fc-
be250272ddfb at (no spam) v19g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, mokmedical at (no spam) gmail.com says...
[quote]
The point is hydrogen fueled and hydrogen filled balloons using modern
materials and methods are as safe as kerosene fueled jet liners or
gasoline fueled automobiles.
[/quote]
Yes Mr. Mook, paper vehicles that have never flown are always safer than
vehicles which have been driving and flying for decades. Just like Ares
I was *always* safer than the shuttle.

Jeff
--
42
 
Brad Guth...
Posted: Wed Nov 10, 2010 2:44 pm
 
On Nov 10, 1:00 pm, William Mook <mokmedi... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 10, 1:36 pm, Jeff Findley <jeff.find... at (no spam) ugs.nojunk.com> wrote:



In article <13af1543-d24e-4aa8-91fc-
be250272d... at (no spam) v19g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, mokmedi... at (no spam) gmail.com says....

The point is hydrogen fueled and hydrogen filled balloons using modern
materials and methods are as safe as kerosene fueled jet liners or
gasoline fueled automobiles.

Yes Mr. Mook, paper vehicles that have never flown are always safer than
vehicles which have been driving and flying for decades.  Just like Ares
I was *always* safer than the shuttle.

Jeff
--
42

There will be accidents with any fuel.  Every week dozens die in
gasoline fires.  Every month a hydrocarbon fueling station burns to
the ground.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/729595/gas_station_fire_from_electrosta...

The death rate for hydrogen fires and the loss of equipment and
facilities due to hydrogen accidents is far far less than that for
hydrocarbons today even when adjusting for the smaller quantity of
hydrogen in use.

There is every reason to believe that systems developed for handling
and using hydrogen will be safer than the systems developed for
hydrocarbons on the basis of this disparity in accident rates
(normalized for volume)

Again, Jeff is guilty of fuzzy thinking.  He argues against something
that isn't built on the basis that its not built and so we shouldn't
build it because anything we say about it can't be proven because it
doesn't exist.  lol.   By this illogical series we would never build
anything.
[/quote]
Our Jeff is a closed mindset parrot, almost like yourself, so what do
you expect?

I agree that hydrogen and even HTP are each manageable energy
alternatives to that of liquid or gaseous hydrocarbons, not that
hydrogen and HTP should ever be used exclusively, especially since HTP
should be utilized along with a small amount of hydrocarbons, just
like H2 must always be utilized along with O2.

~ BG
 
Jeff Findley...
Posted: Thu Nov 11, 2010 8:39 am
 
In article <ce67646d-2191-4bf3-82ce-f5925df36390
at (no spam) r6g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>, mokmedical at (no spam) gmail.com says...
[quote]
Jay Leno is not a spokesperson paid or otherwise for BMW or hydrogen.
Jay Leno is knowledgeable about the facts of hydrogen and facts as
they relate to the Hindenberg. I dare say that Leno's knowledge and
care are vastly superior to that of folks like Fred McCall.
[/quote]
You're an idiot. Again, Jay Leno is a comedian and late night talk show
host. Cars is his hobby. Certainly he's more knowledgeable than the
average Joe about cars, but hydrogen? Really? I mean REALLY?!?!?

You're such a tool Mook. You think research is posting links to YouTube
videos, while never showing anyone any real progress you've made on your
own mooky ideas.

Jeff
--
42
 
Jeff Findley...
Posted: Thu Nov 11, 2010 3:50 pm
 
In article <7941cba8-a78e-4a35-b953-b59b1da57ebc at (no spam)
37g2000prx.googlegroups.com>, bradguth at (no spam) gmail.com says...
[quote]
Our Mook has YouTube for the dysfunctional half of his brain, whereas
the other half is actually capable of coming up with a few original
solutions that are way better than most.
[/quote]
Original, yes. Way better, no. They're better only in a fantasy land
where engineering is as easy as slapping together a Lego Mindstorms
model. In Lego, nearly everything is ABS and every part has common
interfaces which were engineered to work together. In other words, the
systems level engineering problems have already been solved.

In Mook's proposals, none of the systems level engineering has been
done. He just assumes it will be a cake walk to get all of his proposed
disparate technologies to work together (even though many of them aren't
even proven in and of themselves).

Systems engineering is *freaking hard*! In just about any engineering
organization, the engineers who get paid the big bucks are often the
most senior level systems engineers. There are huge reasons for that.
If you don't believe me, find a few real aerospace engineers and ask
them about systems level engineering.

Jeff
--
42
 
Brad Guth...
Posted: Thu Nov 11, 2010 3:55 pm
 
On Nov 11, 3:27 pm, Jeff Findley <jeff.find... at (no spam) ugs.nojunk.com> wrote:
[quote]In article <89485f83-8581-41fe-87c7-
3189c059a... at (no spam) n24g2000prj.googlegroups.com>, bradg... at (no spam) gmail.com says...



Yes, most all of Mook?s stuff is complex and potentially very spendy.
However, when there?s a greater than investment payback, and not even
that far down the road, then where?s the logic in stonewalling or not
going ahead?

Mook asserts that there is a payback, but his cost and schedule
estimates are completely bogus.  The technologies he picks are mostly in
the small scale research phase (i.e. not ready for "prime time").  I've
pointed this out many times.  

There is no good reason to "go ahead" with these Mood designs until each
and every one of the required technologies matures and is scaled up to
the size needed.  That will likely take decades and several billions of
dollars that Mook simply does not have, nor is he likely to convince
other people to give him their money to play with.  So unless you've got
a spare billion dollars to give Mook, nothing is going to come of his
"deisgns".

Jeff
--
42
[/quote]
Not everything of Mook is extreme cutting edge.

Even though I don't agree with many of his notions, none the less if
we had more Mooks and fewer naysayers we'd be a whole lot better off.

Mook loves to use LH2 and LOx, as well as using the existing inventory
of suitable rocket engines that have proven as highly reliable. So,
give Mook a few dozen of those engines and access to the best of
rocket and aerodynamic engineering plus whatever fly-by-rocket
software that we've already bought and paid for (several times over).

Doesn't the USAF, DARPA and NASA work for us, as well as everything
they have to work with also belong to us?

~ BG
 
Jeff Findley...
Posted: Thu Nov 11, 2010 6:27 pm
 
In article <89485f83-8581-41fe-87c7-
3189c059a05d at (no spam) n24g2000prj.googlegroups.com>, bradguth at (no spam) gmail.com says...
[quote]
Yes, most all of Mook?s stuff is complex and potentially very spendy.
However, when there?s a greater than investment payback, and not even
that far down the road, then where?s the logic in stonewalling or not
going ahead?
[/quote]
Mook asserts that there is a payback, but his cost and schedule
estimates are completely bogus. The technologies he picks are mostly in
the small scale research phase (i.e. not ready for "prime time"). I've
pointed this out many times.

There is no good reason to "go ahead" with these Mood designs until each
and every one of the required technologies matures and is scaled up to
the size needed. That will likely take decades and several billions of
dollars that Mook simply does not have, nor is he likely to convince
other people to give him their money to play with. So unless you've got
a spare billion dollars to give Mook, nothing is going to come of his
"deisgns".

Jeff
--
42
 
Jonathan...
Posted: Thu Nov 11, 2010 9:03 pm
 
"William Mook" <mokmedical at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:454b7554-0a1f-4f4e-b48e-4705b2ce97d2 at (no spam) r21g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
[quote]The Earth As a Planet.

Science has shown that it is highly efficient at doing things when
enough people put enough resources behind the right sorts of
programs. For example, fission was discovered in 1938 and this
resulted in the Manhattan Project in 1942 and the first atomic bombs
in 1946. Humanity built a network of nuclear weapons capable of
ending modern civilization in an afternoon should we choose to do
that.

Can we move as quickly to create what Buckminster Fuller called
'livingry' (as opposed to weaponry) to make our world a paradise?
[/quote]

Oh, this post shows so clearly that abstract thought
is a lost art.

How to build Utopia, in ten easy steps!
Maybe the next step to Utopia is to put all
the 'ingredients' in a single box, marked
"add water only". Like pancake mix.

Paradise Mix!

Utopia is not some shining city on the hill.
Paradise is not an Avatar-like glimmering forest.
There can be no equation or formula
for Utopia.

There is /only one/ necessary condition required
for humanity to build paradise on Earth.

And that is ...understanding...how Nature works
but in /abstract/ form, so the forces and properties of
Nature can be applied to /any/ human endeavor.

Understanding the abstract mathematics of Darwinian
evolution. Called the science of self-organizing systems
or Complexity Science, provides the knowledge
needed so humanity can create societies that
take care of themselves, self organize.

Paradise cannot be designed in advance, it must
be allowed to emerge as it will. From natural
processes. Utopia is something that designs and builds...itself.

Any man-made creation, which means the final form
is known in advance, cannot become utopian/ideal.
The very fact this post is an attempt to design some
utopian system shows you don't understand how
Nature works.

So how can you comprehend the notion of paradise?


Jonathan


Calresco.org
http://www.calresco.org/

*Calresco Themes (in essay form)
http://www.calresco.org/themes.htm

Dynamics of Complex Systems
(full online text)
http://necsi.org/publications/dcs/

Self Organizing Faq
http://www.calresco.org/sos/sosfaq.htm




"Growth of Man like Growth of Nature
Gravitates within
Atmosphere, and Sun endorse it
Bit it stir alone

Each its difficult Ideal
Must achieve Itself
Through the solitary prowess
Of a Silent Life

Effort is the sole condition
Patience of Itself
Patience of opposing forces
And intact Belief

Looking on is the Department
Of its Audience
But Transaction is assisted
By no Countenance"




s
 
William Mook...
Posted: Fri Nov 12, 2010 5:21 am
 
On Nov 11, 9:03 pm, "Jonathan" <Jo... at (no spam) yahou.net> wrote:
[quote]"William Mook" <mokmedi... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message

news:454b7554-0a1f-4f4e-b48e-4705b2ce97d2 at (no spam) r21g2000pri.googlegroups.com...

The Earth As a Planet.

Science has shown that it is highly efficient at doing things when
enough people put enough resources behind the right sorts of
programs.  For example, fission was discovered in 1938 and this
resulted in the Manhattan Project in 1942 and the first atomic bombs
in 1946.  Humanity built a network of nuclear weapons capable of
ending modern civilization in an afternoon should we choose to do
that.

Can we move as quickly to create what Buckminster Fuller called
'livingry' (as opposed to weaponry) to make our world a paradise?

Oh, this post shows so clearly that abstract thought
is a lost art.

How to build Utopia, in ten easy steps!
[/quote]
We only need one step. Find people like Ford and Kaiser and challenge
them to solve the problem after giving them valid data. You quote my
preamble. You fail to recount the details I gave that we already know
that gives us the scale of the problem and the resources available.

This is where we start.

We've spent trillions wiring our world for instant anihilation, and
we've spent trillions killing hundreds of millions in warfare for a
century. Its time we put at least as much effort in seeing what we
can do to build a better world for everyone.
 
Jeff Findley...
Posted: Fri Nov 12, 2010 8:48 am
 
In article <c17517b5-e028-4fdf-b465-e703fb86b958
at (no spam) n10g2000prj.googlegroups.com>, bradguth at (no spam) gmail.com says...
[quote]
Not everything of Mook is extreme cutting edge.

Even though I don't agree with many of his notions, none the less if
we had more Mooks and fewer naysayers we'd be a whole lot better off.

Mook loves to use LH2 and LOx, as well as using the existing inventory
of suitable rocket engines that have proven as highly reliable.
[/quote]
About the only thing "easy" about the design is the ET derived
structure, and even that will take a lot of development work in order to
integrate it with all the other new systems he proposes (aerospike
engine, parallel staging with cross-fed propellants, reusable inflatable
TPS, and etc.).

He proposes using *pieces* of existing engines to build a completely new
aerospike engine. Ignoring the fact that no aerospike engine built to
date is close to as big as he proposes (his aerospike engine would be
10x bigger than the linear aerospikes which were under development for
X-33 and never actually flew). Liquid fueled rocket engine development
isn't cheap or easy, history has proven that. Mook chooses to ignore
history and insist that developing his new engine will be cheap and
easy. These things aren't as easy as slapping together Lego's.

And the engine is the next easiest part of his "design". Everything
else is harder. Don't get me started on all of his proposed
technologies which aren't even close to being ready for use on a
reusable launch vehicle that big. And then there is the Rube Goldberg
reentry and landing this thing makes. That's the really stupid part of
this whole "design".

Jeff
--
42
 
Fred J. McCall...
Posted: Fri Nov 12, 2010 10:43 pm
 
William Mook <mokmedical at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

[quote]On Nov 10, 11:43 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
William Mook <mokmedi... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

Mook, you're WRONG.  

No

[/quote]
Yes, and I'm not wading through any further nonsense from you on this
topic until you come up with something credible.


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine
 
Fred J. McCall...
Posted: Fri Nov 12, 2010 10:45 pm
 
William Mook <mokmedical at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

[quote]
Interesting how Jeff, Fred and Brad all tend to echo one another when
it gets right down to it. lol. Everyone knows you three have
destroyed any logical discourse on this group.

[/quote]
You mean we keep puncturing you for the buffoon that you are.


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine
 
William Mook...
Posted: Sat Nov 13, 2010 9:13 am
 
On Nov 12, 10:43 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]William Mook <mokmedi... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 10, 11:43 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
William Mook <mokmedi... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

Mook, you're WRONG.  

No

Yes, and I'm not wading through any further nonsense from you on this
topic until you come up with something credible.

--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
 only stupid."
                            -- Heinrich Heine
[/quote]
Dude, I read you cites. Did you read mine? You are guilty of all the
things you wrongly ascribed to me.

The cite you gave concluded that;

(a) a spark cannot cause a thermite reaction
(b) without a thermite reaction, the skin takes 10+ hours to burn.

I don't have any issues with those conclusions. I *do* have issues
with your interpretation of them. Namely;

(a) experiments with the skin show it can sustain a thermite reaction
(b) a thermite reaction in the skin consumes the ship in seconds
(c) film and photography from the disaster show evidence of a
thermite reaction

It is likely that hydrogen played a role in getting the thermite
reaction started. It is not likely that it caused the disaster.
Consider the USS Shenandoah;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Shenandoah_%28ZR-1%29

it is a HELIUM filled airship that was destroyed in a storm in Ohio.
The structures possible in the 1920s weren't sufficient to withstand
the forces generated by operation of the airship. It was very much
likely that structural failure preceded containment failure of the
hydrogen. That poor ventilation inside the airship caused a deadly
air/fuel mixture to occur (similar to TWA Flight 800) and that
detonation of that air/fuel mixture led to a thermite reaction of the
skin of the airship.

http://www.seas.ucla.edu/hsseas/releases/blimp.htm

NONE of this would happen with hydrogen filled and hydrogen fueled
airships I propose. So, your citation of the Hindenburg as a caution
against modern use of hydrogen is ill-placed and frankly unfounded.
Your continuing willful ignorance of the facts just shows how pig
headed you are and to what lengths you will go to disagree with
whatever I say.
 
William Mook...
Posted: Sat Nov 13, 2010 9:14 am
 
On Nov 12, 10:45 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]William Mook <mokmedi... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

Interesting how Jeff, Fred and Brad all tend to echo one another when
it gets right down to it.  lol.  Everyone knows you three have
destroyed any logical discourse on this group.  

You mean we keep puncturing you for the buffoon that you are.

--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
 only stupid."
                            -- Heinrich Heine
[/quote]
I'm smarter than you Fred. But, that's not saying much! lol.
 
Brad Guth...
Posted: Sat Nov 13, 2010 12:38 pm
 
On Nov 12, 7:21 am, William Mook <mokmedi... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 11, 9:03 pm, "Jonathan" <Jo... at (no spam) yahou.net> wrote:



"William Mook" <mokmedi... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message

news:454b7554-0a1f-4f4e-b48e-4705b2ce97d2 at (no spam) r21g2000pri.googlegroups.com....

The Earth As a Planet.

Science has shown that it is highly efficient at doing things when
enough people put enough resources behind the right sorts of
programs.  For example, fission was discovered in 1938 and this
resulted in the Manhattan Project in 1942 and the first atomic bombs
in 1946.  Humanity built a network of nuclear weapons capable of
ending modern civilization in an afternoon should we choose to do
that.

Can we move as quickly to create what Buckminster Fuller called
'livingry' (as opposed to weaponry) to make our world a paradise?

Oh, this post shows so clearly that abstract thought
is a lost art.

How to build Utopia, in ten easy steps!

We only need one step.  Find people like Ford and Kaiser and challenge
them to solve the problem after giving them valid data.  You quote my
preamble.  You fail to recount the details I gave that we already know
that gives us the scale of the problem and the resources available.

This is where we start.

We've spent trillions wiring our world for instant anihilation, and
we've spent trillions killing hundreds of millions in warfare for a
century.  Its time we put at least as much effort in seeing what we
can do to build a better world for everyone.
[/quote]
I 100% agree with that medicated version of Mook. We need to refocus
and pool our best talent and remaining resources for the greater good,
which means setting the record straight (using "valid data") plus
setting the best possible examples for others to follow, as well as
giving reason to join forces.

Better management of global resources is a priority, especially of our
global biodiversity that's currently getting kicked in the teeth and
butt at the same time.

In most instances that would mean treating mainstream religions and
their political puppets as the home-grown enemy, or at least treated
like private special-interest corporations or cabal/mafia voodoo cells
that have only their own best reelected or government grant funded
interest at heart, and otherwise because such pretend faith-based
groups seldom police their own kind and they've been getting way too
much protection as well as being untaxable for all the wrong reasons.
(remember that I'm not even an Atheist)

The risk of global annihilation was created by our mutually
perpetrated cold-wars and the subsequent global inflation of darn near
everything, as fully orchestrated by the rich and powerful that too
often used their faith as justification as well as a protective cloak
or shield. Now it's payback time, even though it'll be too little too
late for most of us.

You see, the past does come back to haunt us, and to impede progress
just by having wasted so much of our hard earned loot, resources and
decades of precious time. As long as fewer than 0.0001% are in charge
of most everything that matters, we're screwed because they really
don't care how many of us have to sacrifice everything, and that's
what has to change for the better.

In other words, out with the old, in with the new. Since you can't
possibly do everything; what position of global authority is Mook
going to take?

~ BG
 
 
Page 6 of 7    Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Mon Jul 28, 2014 7:35 am