TED Conversations

Danny Deobald

equipment operator, construction

This conversation is closed.

Building a massive vacuum chamber, manufacture a "hose", lower and connect it to the facility in a vacuum state, create a controlled siphon

From space, manufacture a "hose", nano tech, layered and lower it to the massive vacuum chamber. The controlled release of gasses into the chamber should follow the vacuum "hose" as far as required. Like blowing up a long skinny balloon. Probably hundreds of km. Once 0 gravity is reached, the hose would be transformed to a more ridged, cheaper material.
The "hose" would have several qualities manufactured directly including various fuel lines for devices designed for stress relief, weight control, counter weather and wind devices, continual heating of the gasses to keep them in gaseous state, condensation collection, etc.
Weather is a rather minor factor in relation to the entire distance. At the same time, the low level area would take the majority of tech to control allignment and tension. It would be reletively easy to control with blimp technology, manufactured directly into the "hose" at regular distances to allow for allignment, stess relief and possible re-heating stations. Kept in a gaseous state, escaping earths gravity shouldn't be a problem when opened to the vacuum of space, no matter how long the line is, the end is still open, creating a siphon effect.
Now, have required capture and transport responsibility (pipeline?) from the emitters to the re-gassing and expulsion facility. Massive job creation. When the link is completed, the millions of tonnes being emmitted to the atmosphere are gone. Any components worth recycling can be removed through process. I don't envision a huge protest to that pipeline. This would encompass coal fired power plants to the oilsands to refineries.
There are several solutions to heating the gas (thermal, nuclear, plazma, lazers) and also to lowering of the flexable "hose".
I hope to hear 'This can't be done", as that is the best place to start adapting and improving.
The costs for creating an emmision free planet? Priceless.
I suggest freezing the whole Offshore banking scam. The drug laundry alone could pay for it.

Share:

Closing Statement from Danny Deobald

It's unfortunate this discussion closed so early. I appreciate the comments recieved. Some excellent points were brought up, and to a degree, addressed. True, I don't have the chemical composition for the materials to be manufactured but I believe the concept has merit with some co-operation and focus. I haven't heard any insurmountable hurdles from the comments and have suggestions and ideas for many problems that didn't have a chance to be asked.
The question of cost drives me up the wall. How much was spent to go to Mars to investigate if microbes existed there a million years ago? What is the budget for Russia to build a base on the moon? What the hell is the benefit to humanity there?
A friend visited China and observed that he couldn't tell that he was in the mountains because of the smog. I think it's obscene to invest in mega projects like that when our own planet is a total mess.
It is understandable how so many can fall into the conspiracy theory trap that whoever is pulling the strings does not have humanity or Earth in their best interests. Greed seems to be winning at this point. I choose to be optimistic and believe we as a species can still unite, create and heal.
I don't believe for one second the statement "Can't be done". The most basic of the physics says it can, it will just be up to us to figure out what we need to do it. Nobody ever climbed Everest after setting out for an evening stroll.
What are the chances this conversation will be stumbled upon or forwarded to one of our millionaire research scientists and interest them enough to park their Ferrari and inject some forward thinking into their department?
Haha! Not much but I dare you.

  • Apr 15 2013: Just like a space elevator one would have to follow the laws of physics. The latter would have a third law problem, but I assume they would have something to keep the space part in space. This idea I don't get yet, but there would still be gravity and forces including some you haven't considered yet. Then we have material problems. Corrilois(sp) force problems etc. etc. If only we had "Flubber" and magic. I wish everyone well,but there are limits to reality. The big problems in the future will I believe be to avoid mass starvation and plagues.
    • thumb
      Apr 15 2013: Hi George,
      Excellent points.
      The keeping the space part in space would require a constant pressure. One scenario I've read about is a laser powering a sail. This was for deep space propulsion but I think could be very effective for keeping a computer controlled, constant distance in near earth orbit as well as for alignment.
      I started blabbing on here hoping to learn of forces that I haven't considered.
      I think gravity could be fairly easily controlled using blimp technology built right into the "hose". I can expand on that if you would like.
      Material problems! Yes. I am lacking in this area of knowledge. Heat: Would need a layer(s) capable of conducting and retaining heat to keep the gasses in that state. Our shuttle and space suit technology have been able to handle heat transferance fairly well, I would hope to adapt some of that knowledge. The temperature change at altitude would require a re-heating station at some point up the line. Nobody would warm to the idea of a nuclear heating device floating at 10,000 meters but there are other options. Plasma, lasers, etc.
      Strength: I think with our nano technology and ability to form materials at the molecular level, especially in space, have reached a state that make it reasonable to expect this is possible. The "hose" would not have to be able to support itself from the edge of space to the ground, just from segment to segment. Controlling high level flight is well within our capabilities right now. Building that technology into the "hose" could render it almost weightless.
      Forces from weather: High winds could actually be used for alignment and height control.
      Pressures from within the "hose": Being collapsable, it needs to take more pressure than is being exerted from the outside atmosphere. I don't think this would take an unreasonable high pressure pipe, once the vacuum is engaged the gas will have a path of least resistance to follow.
      I'm running out of space. I don't think we'll need the Flubber or magic
  • thumb
    Apr 14 2013: Thanks Adir! Nice points.
    This idea is loosely based on the "elevator to space" concept. I totally agree that this could be a first step to that. As we haven't done it yet, maybe lowering this nearly weightless "hose" to a fixed structure on earth and making the connection would be a start.
    Manufacturing the "hose" in space is the big hurdle. I think with our nano technology and lining up molecules in a weightless situation to incorporate the heat layers, condensation capture, lines for "fuels" for continuous elevation, (like blimp tech), this "hose" could be kept stationary by using nothing more than circulating some inert gas through its own pattern.
    Once the needs and patterns are set, it's just like any manufacturing process.
    I also agree with Edward, but just look at the budgets for space by all space capable countries. Does a moon station benefit humanity more than a healthy environment on earth? Russia is claiming to be going that project on its own. What's the cost for that? A little co-operation and cost sharing that hard?
    Now, pipelines from the emitters is worse than them ejecting it straight to the atmosphere? Really? You may have to explain that logic to me.
    Costs are, or should, not even be a factor for a project that incorporates the entire planet and its well being. At the very least, the continual costs should be incorporated into the 'cost of doing buisness". We already do that for the current oil industry.
    Sorry, I can't foresee closing Chinese coal fired power plants for 1gm of pollution. Their excuse is they have no where else to put emissions so straight up is the option.
  • thumb
    Apr 14 2013: If you are already building a hose into space, build a space elviator- it would be of much greater use.

    As Edward sayed currently it costs about $1,250 to send an ounce into orbit, using a space elavator would cost 40$.

    Building pipes from all of earth's air polluting plants would create more harm than good, and theconstant cost would also bemuch higher than sea level clearence. There are many simpler and cheaper solutions that can end polutions, but the poluting plants just don't want to pay, and we allow them. If you want to end the polution of air (and oceans and land) you don't need to find a grand plan to fix it, you just need to put personal responsebility on 100% of the polution caused by each plant and don't allow them by any mean to continue (NEW LAW!!! 1 FOR 1 SALE!! 1 GREM OF POLLUTION AND YOUR PLANT IS CLOSED!! HURRY UP, BEFORE IT ENDS!!!).
    You can trust the brilliant minds of the market to find the most economic way, to ensure that there plants would be allowed to contenue to work.
  • Apr 14 2013: Would there not be gravity within this hose. Therefore when you evacuate some gas into it, it stays at the bottom of the gravity well (the earths surface) unless you pump it away. If you have to do that, then you might as well put it on a rocket and launch it that way.
    Probably can be done, doesn't do anything.
    • thumb
      Apr 14 2013: Thanks Gordon,
      Yes, gravity will apply to the gasses the same as when ejected from our smokestacks. In a gaseous state, how high do they go in our atmosphere? How long do they stay there before coming back to the surface? What keeps them within our atmosphere? I think by heating the gasses, possibly re-heating them along the way and making the vacuum connection, it would react the same as any siphon effect. Continually feeding the vacuum chamber would create a continuous siphon.
      We know that there is going to be no reduction in emmissions worldwide so there will be no shortage of emmisions to feed the chamber.
      Keep'em coming Gordon, lots of hurdles to discuss,
      Dan
  • thumb
    Apr 14 2013: At about $1,250.00 per ounce to put something in orbit I think you would exceed the "drug laundry" budget very quickly.
    Also, are you advocating an intentional leak in our atmosphere? I am alarmed!
    • thumb
      Apr 14 2013: Thanks Edward,
      Yes the laundered money suggestion was tongue in cheek.
      Russia for eg. has stated they are going to build a base on the moon. I see little difference in the cost for that project and that is just one country going it alone.
      An "intentional leak" is not a bad description for this concept, though it is more of a siphon effect from one contained source (vacuum chamber) to another (space). Several "stations" along the "hose" would have valves in the event of a leak below it, as low tech as a hand crank if need be. There is no threat of a flailing tube sucking up our atmosphere.
      By being alarmed by this though does move the conversation along, past the debate of the gasses actually being ejected.
      Thanks again Edward, keep them coming. Lot's of info left to fill in the gaps. 2000 characters is limiting.
      Dan