Danny Deobald

equipment operator, construction
Regina Saskatchewan, Canada

Someone is shy

Danny hasn't completed a profile. Should we look for some other people?

Comments & conversations

185948
Danny Deobald
Posted about 2 years ago
Building a massive vacuum chamber, manufacture a "hose", lower and connect it to the facility in a vacuum state, create a controlled siphon
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
185948
Danny Deobald
Posted about 2 years ago
Building a massive vacuum chamber, manufacture a "hose", lower and connect it to the facility in a vacuum state, create a controlled siphon
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.
185948
Danny Deobald
Posted about 2 years ago
Building a massive vacuum chamber, manufacture a "hose", lower and connect it to the facility in a vacuum state, create a controlled siphon
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
185948
Danny Deobald
Posted about 2 years ago
Building a massive vacuum chamber, manufacture a "hose", lower and connect it to the facility in a vacuum state, create a controlled siphon
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