11 Aug 14
Originally posted by sonhouse"the lower atmosphere would tend to contaminate IT..." could removing lower atmosphere contaminants be its purpose?
Like he said, pretty close to zero interaction with the atmosphere, but there still is stuff up there, better vacuum than I get at work, right now 9 E-8 torr, a very good vacuum for industrial purposes but the vacuum up there is like minus 14 torr or so, a million times better a vacuum than we can make in standard industrial uses. Don't quote me but I think ...[text shortened]... d if anything, the stuff from the lower atmosphere would tend to contaminate IT, not vice versa.
11 Aug 14
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyWhat he said was the atmosphere would contaminate it, and not that it removes atmosphere contaminants.
"the lower atmosphere would tend to contaminate IT..." could removing lower atmosphere contaminants be its purpose?
But as I said before, it is an error to think that features of the universe have some purpose.
11 Aug 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhere do the contaminants go? Do the Van Allen Belts open and close or remain in a fixed position?
What he said was the atmosphere would contaminate it, and not that it removes atmosphere contaminants.
But as I said before, it is an error to think that features of the universe have some purpose.
11 Aug 14
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyAtmospheric contaminants tend to be higher AMU #'s meaning heavier molecules and elements. Heavy molecules will be held down by gravity and would not get to the altitudes to enter the Van Allen belts. AMU= Atomic Mass Units, where hydrogen is 1, helium is 4, Arsenic is 75 just as examples. You won't find much Arsenic in the Van Allen belts, for instance. Hydrogen can escape and probably helium, not sure of exactly what AMU limit there is to gravitational escapes but for any given temperature particles have velocities and some approach escape velocity of 7 miles per second. Quantum theory says most every particle will have SOME bits that will attain escape velocity but only a small fraction of the total.
"the lower atmosphere would tend to contaminate IT..." could removing lower atmosphere contaminants be its purpose?
So the lighter elements are the ones that could reach the Van Allen belts.
11 Aug 14
Originally posted by sonhouseThanks. More questions if I may: a) What is the relative weight of carbon emission particulate matter and monoxide gases? b) If the Van Allen belts systematically open and close to allow and restrict passage of something in and out of the earth's atmosphere, what might it/they possibly be? c) What are the descriptions or names of the "lighter elements" or examples?
Atmospheric contaminants tend to be higher AMU #'s meaning heavier molecules and elements. Heavy molecules will be held down by gravity and would not get to the altitudes to enter the Van Allen belts. AMU= Atomic Mass Units, where hydrogen is 1, helium is 4, Arsenic is 75 just as examples. You won't find much Arsenic in the Van Allen belts, for instance. Hy ...[text shortened]... ion of the total.
So the lighter elements are the ones that could reach the Van Allen belts.
11 Aug 14
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyIf you are looking at soot, pure carbon, it clocks in at 12 AMU, and Oxygen at 16 so carbon would weigh less than half of CO which comes in at 28 AMU.
Thanks. More questions if I may: a) What is the relative weight of carbon emission particulate matter and monoxide gases? b) If the Van Allen belts systematically open and close to allow and restrict passage of something in and out of the earth's atmosphere, what might it/they possibly be? c) What are the descriptions or names of the "lighter elements" or examples?
As far as I know there is no opening and closing of the belts except for sporadic holes that can appear due to low frequency radio waves generated by solar corona discharges and maybe by lightning, the verdict is still out but it won't due us much good for getting craft in and out.
The belts have much less effect the further north you get so if you have to avoid the belts one way is to launch from high latitudes, say 80 degrees north or south, the only problem there is you lose a bit of thrust because launching from places near the equator gives you about 1000 mph free velocity because of the spin of the Earth so it is more economical, less fuel needed or more mass launched than doing the same launch from the poles where obviously you don't get any help from the spinning Earth.
BTW, there are three belts, a third discovered quite recently, here is a link to the Van Allen belts:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_radiation_belt
There are 7 elements I would consider light, Hydrogen, 1 AMU, helium, 4, Lithium at 7, beryllium at 9, Boron at 10, Carbon at 12, Nitrogen at 14, and oxygen at 16.
Since oxygen comes in 16 times heavier than hydrogen, the same kick to a hydrogen atom makes it go a LOT faster than that kick to an Oxygen. So that means that hydrogen will escape a lot easier out of the atmosphere than oxygen.
You can see that looking at Mars' atmosphere, where the main constituent is CO2, which comes in at 44 for the molecule, so lighter gasses like oxygen are driven off by the solar wind and the fact that Mars has a very poor excuse for a magnetic field, which is probably due to the core getting cold enough it no longer flows which is what produces the magnetic field on Earth, we have an active core, which is why we have a magnetic field in the first place.
So that magnetic field is what both protects us and makes the Van Allen belts. All that radiation is being wrapped around each magnetic line of force, following a corkscrew path so gets mis-directed away from Earth and mainly confined to the belts. The lowest one starts out at around 600 miles up to about 3000 or so, the second one way out 20 or 30 thousand miles out.
So you don't get to open a trap door to the belts, just go up the poles if you want to escape the radiation during launch.
For instance, the Apollo guys launched from Florida, fairly close to the equator and got a few hundred mph of free velocity but they had to go through the belts but they were really cranking so it didn't take long and their exposure was small.
12 Aug 14
Originally posted by sonhousesonhouse, you certainly do know your subject and write about it authoritatively. I'll check the wiki site Tuesday. Thanks.
If you are looking at soot, pure carbon, it clocks in at 12 AMU, and Oxygen at 16 so carbon would weigh less than half of CO which comes in at 28 AMU.
As far as I know there is no opening and closing of the belts except for sporadic holes that can appear due to low frequency radio waves generated by solar corona discharges and maybe by lightning, the verdi ...[text shortened]... ugh the belts but they were really cranking so it didn't take long and their exposure was small.
13 Aug 14
Originally posted by sonhouse"Outer belt
If you are looking at soot, pure carbon, it clocks in at 12 AMU, and Oxygen at 16 so carbon would weigh less than half of CO which comes in at 28 AMU.
As far as I know there is no opening and closing of the belts except for sporadic holes that can appear due to low frequency radio waves generated by solar corona discharges and maybe by lightning, the verdict ...[text shortened]... through the belts but they were really cranking so it didn't take long and their exposure was small.
"The large outer radiation belt is almost toroidal in shape, extending from an altitude of about three to ten Earth radii (RE) or 13,000 to 60,000 kilometres (8,100 to 37,300 mi) above the Earth's surface. Its greatest intensity is usually around 4–5 RE. The outer electron radiation belt is mostly produced by the inward radial diffusion[8][9] and local acceleration[10] due to transfer of energy from whistler-mode plasma waves to radiation belt electrons. Radiation belt electrons are also constantly removed by collisions with atmospheric neutrals,[10] losses to magnetopause, and the outward radial diffusion. The outer belt consists mainly of high energy (0.1–10 MeV) electrons trapped by the Earth's magnetosphere. The gyroradii for energetic protons would be large enough to bring them into contact with the Earth's atmosphere. The electrons here have a high flux and at the outer edge (close to the magnetopause), where geomagnetic field lines open into the geomagnetic "tail", fluxes of energetic electrons can drop to the low interplanetary levels within about 100 km (62 mi), a decrease by a factor of 1,000.
The trapped particle population of the outer belt is varied, containing electrons and various ions. Most of the ions are in the form of energetic protons, but a certain percentage are alpha particles and O+ oxygen ions, similar to those in the ionosphere but much more energetic. This mixture of ions suggests that ring current particles probably come from more than one source.
The outer belt is larger than the inner belt and its particle population fluctuates widely. Energetic (radiation) particle fluxes can increase and decrease dramatically as a consequence of geomagnetic storms, which are themselves triggered by magnetic field and plasma disturbances produced by the Sun. The increases are due to storm-related injections and acceleration of particles from the tail of the magnetosphere.
On February 28, 2013, a third radiation belt was reported to be discovered. In a news conference by NASA's Van Allen Probe team, it was stated that this third belt is generated when a mass coronal ejection is created by the Sun. It has been represented as a separate creation which splits the Outer Belt, like a knife, on its outer side, and exists separately as a storage container for a month's time, before merging once again with the Outer Belt.[11]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_radiation_belt
Comment: "constantly removed"; "trapped particle population"; "particle population fluctuates widely"; "increases are due to storm-related injections"; "exists separately as a storage container for a month's time". These belts seem to have a job.
13 Aug 14
1 edit
Originally posted by twhitehead"You can see that looking at Mars' atmosphere, where the main constituent is CO2, which comes in at 44 for the molecule, so lighter gasses like oxygen are driven off by the solar wind and the fact that Mars has a very poor excuse for a magnetic field, which is probably due to the core getting cold enough it no longer flows which is what produces the magnetic field on Earth, we have an active core, which is why we have a magnetic field in the first place.
No, they do not. They are not even physical objects as you seem to think, but rather regions of space with certain characteristics.
So that magnetic field is what both protects us and makes the Van Allen belts. All that radiation is being wrapped around each magnetic line of force, following a corkscrew path so gets mis-directed away from Earth and mainly confined to the belts. The lowest one starts out at around 600 miles up to about 3000 or so, the second one way out 20 or 30 thousand miles out." -sonhouse
Fascinating how earth is different from Mars: intricate dynamics of this magnetic field appear to be functionally beneficial.
13 Aug 14
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyYes there are significant differences between Mars and Earth. And yes, Earths magnetic field is highly beneficial to life. But do not make the mistake of thinking that the magnetic field therefore has the purpose of protecting life. Rather, it is a case of life arising on Earth rather than on Mars because Earth was more habitable. If Earth was not suitable for life, we would not be here.
Fascinating how earth is different from Mars: intricate dynamics of this magnetic field appear to be functionally beneficial.
But at the same time, Earth is not perfect for life, it is only sufficiently habitable that life survives. And most importantly, not every feature of Earth is beneficial to life and certainly not every feature is designed to perform some function just for your personal benefit.
13 Aug 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadPlease realize that the focus of this inquiry since page one of this thread has been the possibility of atmospheric factors, specifically Van Allen belts, which may benefit the habitability of human life on planet earth, not twhitehead or me per se.
Yes there are significant differences between Mars and Earth. And yes, Earths magnetic field is highly beneficial to life. But do not make the mistake of thinking that the magnetic field therefore has the purpose of protecting life. Rather, it is a case of life arising on Earth rather than on Mars because Earth was more habitable. If Earth was not suitabl ...[text shortened]... certainly not every feature is designed to perform some function just for your personal benefit.
13 Aug 14
1 edit
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyThe Van Allen belts have no known benefit to you, me, humans, or life in general. Getting rid of them has even been considered, and may actually be carried out at some future date.
Please realize that the focus of this inquiry since page one of this thread has been the possibility of atmospheric factors, specifically Van Allen belts, which may benefit the habitability of human life on planet earth, not twhitehead or me per se.
Yes, there are many, many, things about planet Earth that are beneficial to humans. There are also things that are beneficial to me personally. But it is an error to conclude that that is therefore their purpose. It is no more sensible to think that the Suns purpose is to help plants grow so that we can breathe oxygen and eat plants than it is to think that the Sun's purpose is to help me read the newspaper in the mornings. The Sun serves both purposes very well, but neither is its purpose.
The Sun can also give me skin cancer.
13 Aug 14
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadThanks.
The Van Allen belts have no known benefit to you, me, humans, or life in general. Getting rid of them has even been considered, and may actually be carried out at some future date.
Yes, there are many, many, things about planet Earth that are beneficial to humans. There are also things that are beneficial to me personally. But it is an error to conclud ...[text shortened]... es both purposes very well, but neither is its purpose.
The Sun can also give me skin cancer.