You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/03/0 … x.html]CNN- NASA announcement
I just wanted to be the first one to post it. I've been waiting for it all day.
you just take half the pressure at the bottom and use it as the average, since the pressure at the top is near zero. Then use that pressure for the whole tube. of course there is error because the pressure at the bottom is based on one atmosphere. Every time you recalculate with the new average pressure you increase your accuracy.
Sorry, I didn't realise you guys wanted to pump H2 waaayyyy up there. Then centripetal acceleration becomes a factor at 35000 km, I think...
the pressure at sea level of a 200 KM column of H2 gas is 2 kg per square centimeter- this is a rough estimate, because I used the density of H2 at one atmosphere, but in this case it would be 0 pressure at the top and almost two atmospheres at the bottom. The actual pressure at sealevel should be less than 1.79 kg/cm^2, or 1.73 atmospheres. The point is that by adding some amount of hydrogen to the bottom of the tube, the pressure wave will travel to the top and an equal amount of H2 will be pumped to the top. All this requires is a pump with a pressure of two or three atmospheres, which is easy to build.
Since the hydrogen is supposedly isolated from the atmosphere, the air pressure outside the tube doesn't matter at all.
Using the air pressure at sea level to push H2 up is impossible because that would add air to the pure H2...
Well, maybe I was partially wrong- it slipped my mind that we have 'spare' nukes we can get rid of. Of course there are plenty of larger, equally useless federal programs. But like martian4u, I'm not that thrilled about leaving it up to the gov. anyway.
I suppose you are an objectivist then... I have considered whether a perfect capitalist society could exist on mars. Of cours you could also create a social democracy within this framework. How DO you decide what rights are superior? is it by their order in the BOR?
I am tempted to start a political discussion... I won't. But shaving a few billion off the nuclear program is harder than it sounds... Most of that money goes towards maintenance and I think neglecting to maintain radioactive materials facilities might be short sighted.
I am however very interested in martian4u's proposal. I am just a salesman, but I am currently studying engineering and I would like to hear more about your plans.
Pages: 1