Venus Numbers or perhaps this is another Venus for Dummies

(truth doesn't much matter, especially when somehow my inaccuracies and poor syntax are more than my opponents can tolerate)

by; Brad Guth / IEIS    updated: May 14, 2003

I've recently been asked to supply and/or point out some specific numbers. Well, I've actually already accomplished just that on multiple other pages, but perhaps not so just as any bureaucrat or negative-only astrophysics sort can decipher. I hope this revised page offers less words and more of those numbers, of which I'm certain I'm being somewhat inaccurate but unintentionally so.

It is not that any Earth to Venus via direct laser packet call is our one and only alternative, as for having a Venus L2 (VL2) relay platform would most certainly improve upon all sorts of what if's. As viewed from VL2, utilizing a fast scan (1 ms or better) 1/2" B/W/UV (350 to 650 nm) sensitive CCD of 0.01 lux or better as outfitted with a 600 mm lens would cover a 90+% scan of the globe, thereby nicely excluding the solar surround except for the corners and of various lens refractions, of those unwanted refractions could be significantly limited by a suitably baffled gun barrel sort of tunnel vision. Also from VL2, almost any sub-milliradian laser performance would become outstanding, excellent in terms of spot density or intensity as well as greater photon passage through those cool nighttime clouds, where presumably spectrums ranging from 350 to 550 nm could be applied as well as detected. Obviously having roughly 0.68 degrees to work with, in which case there'd be several, a dozen or more gun barrel single channel detectors, each capable of selective targeting (0.1) and of extremely high packet rates, thus if we should strike pay dirt in the form of any reply, we'll have a sufficiently capable array of detectors capable of handling just about all the digital smut throughput those Venus lizard folks can toss at us, as hopefully vise versa.

TRACE-II

Regarding that same TRACE CCD camera or another as outfitted utilizing a 500 or lesser mm lens of 0.734+ would nicely include the otter solar portion plus some it's corona. Thus incorporating a full spectrum camera that's nearly identical to what TRACE already has online would accomplish another terrific superlative job of monitoring solar data, as well as benefiting from whatever the planet had to offer, except for being 0.27 AU closer and if instead of the 1024 pixel format was 2048 would yeld another 6 fold improvement, not to mention the central black body shield created by Venus, of which would enable far better crorna imaging of whatever's extending away from the sun. Good grief folks, it doesn't get any better than that, unless you wanted to go for Mercury L2.


Regarding affordable interplanetary laser communications: of Quantum Binary Packets

0.5 milliradian source (near UV 400 nm)
Exiting Earth's atmosphere at 5w/m2
Total photon output (w*l*10^28) = 34.2^30
Free space distance of 25 million miles (40.25^6 km)
Target radius of 351.5 km (diameter of 703 km)
Target area of 388^9 m2 (top of Venus clouds)
Photon Luminance per m2 of 88^18 photons (top of clouds)
Cloud transparency of near UV = 10% (estimate)
Bottom of cloud luminance = 8.8^18 photons/s/m2

Just so that you know, I was informed by a fairly competent organization that currently utilizes the IR spectrum, that as few as 10 photons per bit is what's considered sufficient to insure a communications link. If we divide the above photon delivery by 1 gb, even those cloud bottoms could offer 8.8 billion photons per bit and, of taking a thousand fold lesser performance of cloud penetrating illumination throughput is still offering one million photons per bit. Sorry folks but, that's called a done deal, as it'll work, doing such for not even a penny on the dollar as compared to almost anything NASA.

As far as 400 nm offering a photon energy level of 3eV, or of some other spectrum goes, I've since learned that 450 nm +/- 5 nm is a narrow spectrum that's actually least absorbed by a fully fluid acid, where roughly 8% of those 450 nm photons get absorbed, whereas 15% of 400 nm photons fail to pass through such an acidic fluid. Since I'm not your "all knowing" chemist nor science expert upon light transmission, I've had to rely upon what others have to offer and, I still believe that a laser beam migrating those photons through a fluid bath is going to be somewhat more so absorbed than if those same focused photons were going through an atmospheric fog (cloud) would be somewhat more efficient, but I could certainly be wrong.

Let us presume that 50% of those 400 nm photons are absorbed prior to exiting Earth's atmosphere at roughly an exit beam area of one m2. This factor merely represents that we'll be needing 10 watts of initial photon energy in order to accommodate a divergence of what 5 watts/m2 of exiting photons transmitting their way through free space. Surely there's a number of solid state lasers capable of delivering such 100 ms packets. Even a 500 watt pulsed laser seems within current solid state technology and, of whatever KW (COIL) lasers of CO2/mercury has been off the commercial shelves for more than a decade.

Observationally, I could not uncover much in the way of specific numbers, as patterns of what's natural as well as for whatever is artificial is somewhat at the interpretation of what something looks like while viewing out the window of an airplane. However, without all that much trouble, I could manage to locate upon other similar SAR images indicating as looking exactly like what's situated on Venus, as for there being structures, reservoirs and bridge like formations that exist right here on Earth. The only problem being is that every other SAR image of any such similar attributes were of those artificially created by mankind. As you already know, I've asked of others to point out anything that's remotely similar to the scale and nature of what's showing itself on Venus and, I allowed those images to come from any moon or planet (including Earth), yet so far there's been no cigar, nothing remotely complex nor of size that's not otherwise an image of something artificial that's right here on Earth. Numbers associated with photographs, unless it relates to the 8-bit contrast and/or the 43 viewing perspective along with the satellite altitude, these numbers only seem to cloud what's observed as being more likely paterns of what's artificial rather than not, as the viewing angle is execellent and there's sufficient numbers of those pixels per item and, size being entirely irrelevant if one is looking at what some other life (NOT as we know it) managed to construct, where actually bigger is better.

So what if those reservoirs are massive, if the bridge issue is so horribly long as well as massive (even though long and masive would seem to go together), if the airship consideration is equally so massive by any Earthly standard, if those township community structures are those situated near a rather substantial tarmac hosting sub-service bays and even indicating some other form of equipment on deck. Seems like size is somewhat a good thing, as bigger is obviously better for including more of those irrefutable SAR imaging pixels, as well as for the sheer numbers of those pixel patterns qualifying all that much more so as for being more likely artificial than not, as it takes two or more pixels before there's any form associated and, fortunately there's far more than just a couple of pixels involved, as more like dozens and even more so associated with those larger considerations. I may not be saying this correctly but, pixel wise and certainly after photoShop enlargement, there's more sheer numbers of those pixels to work with than of all of what the Mars mission has to offer that's been poorly and perhaps rightfully contended as not being all that artificial.

Because the Magellan imaging was acquired from such a highly elliptical orbit (lots of numbers there too), the global resolution per raw pixel is all over the place but, fortunately the altitude over the sites in question was such as to be just sufficient as to making out the rather noticeable patterns which have otherwise have not been recorded as being anything so natural, not even a geology based conjecture of skewed physics can explain away what's looking like a rather substantial community of symmetrical structures, having a tarmac, a suspension bridge, a nearby complex of reservoirs and even of that rigid airship consideration. And, so what if those are massively large in comparison to what's typically found on Earth, that's all the more reason to be considering upon their artificial nature than not, especially if further considering the rugged mountainous location having such a deep canyon/rille for a little added depth contrast. Of course it helps greatly that this imaging was acquired via SAR at 8 bits in depth, plus 4 confirming looks per pixel and acquired at 43 perspective that's offering nearly a 3D view of what's on the surface, thus the terrain is clearly being depicted as rugged and loaded with primary as well as secondary erosions, not to mention what's appearing like an active fluid arch having it's own erosions associated at either end.

Of what's so rugged and entirely natural looking about the site is also what's making such artificial looking considerations so much more so likely as being intentionally constructed, as of other equally or more so rugged sites which offer loads of complex patterns of their natural surroundings don't seem to be conjuring up anything artificial looking, and where the very same PhotoShop enlargements applied were equally improving upon what's to be seen, again without distortions or of creating any illusions out of thick air. So, get over it, the images of what's artificial are more real than your beliefs in what's here on Earth or on the moon for that matter and, so far there's been nothing of science nor physics that disqualifies upon anything, where it's only been the arrogance and pure stupidity of the greater body of astronomy and astrophysics that has gone astray fro the past few decades, openly motivated by their own greed, power and willingness to being under the thumbs of their very own cloak and dagger cult "nondisclosure policy". In other words, it's become a "no win" situation for our esteemed communities of science and astrophysics and of their prestigious positions within the institutions of what's moderated to death by NASA/NSA/DoD agendas, and more so self moderated by their own morals or lack thereof.

Regarding the relative coolness of the Venus season of nighttime:
(relative to perhaps lizard folk, especially of those nocturnal sorts)

1) I started off my calculating as based upon what all those "all knowing" critics stipulated, as that be an average of 25K differential between daytime and nighttime.

2) Then I discovered upon a planetary average of there being roughly 8+K/km thermal reduction (some research suggesting that as high as 9K/km).

3) Next I found research based upon computer models indicating a wide variety of vertical flows or atmospheric convection currents, followed by somewhat more recent IR imaging that seemed to indicate far greater contrast or of thermal differentials of those clouds than of the originally published 20:1.

4) I located upon a number of reports and subsequent charts created from various probes accomplishing their measurements taken previous to the Magellan mission, permitting further evaluation of the atmospheric thermal and pressure gradients.

5) I then came across another article discussing the observation and measurements that located upon the 50/50 waypoint of CO2/O2 being at approximately 155 km, thus a sort of O2 gradient must exist and this further confirms the H2O content of those clouds.

6) I had long understood from official NASA moderated reports that the atmospheric pressure differential starts itself off at 4+ bar/km.

7) I had already understood the laws of basic refrigeration and related heat transfer, thus understood something of what such dense CO2 was accomplishing in reverse of thermal influx, as outfluxing is the other half of the equation.

8) I learned that all solar influx must equalize, else the planet would explode, thus whatever goes in must exit along with some of the planet's core heat. Therefore actually more energy must exit the nighttime side than is being delivered and absorbed by the solar influx.

9) I've since learned that I'm not alone in the understanding that Venus was not always so hot and nasty and, that the planetary evolution of it's becoming greenhouse may even have taken millions of years. Even at a rise of 0.1K/year, that 4200 years taking it from 300K to 720K, sufficient time for an expedited or motivated evolution as well as technology advancement to occur.

10) Putting 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 and 9 altogether seemed to indicate some rather considerable discrepancies in those previous understandings that Venus was supposedly too hot and nasty for life. Yet in spite of what been published for the general public, some how there's always been more of raw science and physics stipulating otherwise, that life could have and may still be surviving, except for the skewed values of astronomy and astrophysics communities that seems to have selectively included whatever qualified their "doom and gloom" ideas as opposed to their excluding any laws of physics that might otherwise reveal truths (somewhat like how our pro-NASA types exclude whatever science and physics of our Apollo missions, if that should cast a shadow upon the supposed truths which seem to be contradicting the otherwise known laws of science and physics, not to mention rational human logic and, further not to mention that there's more ulterior motive and paper trails than you'll ever need to convect O.J.).

I think I'm beginning to realize why all of this is;  As long as astronomy and astrophysics can't officially discover any worth of life on what's existing right next door to Earth, then billions and hundreds of billions can be invested into other endeavors, where actually such endeavors as Apollo and even of Hubble represent trillions if you care to include the Earth based industries and institutions that surrounds whatever Apollo represents and/or of what Hubble looks at, most of which has been humanly unobtainable by even the best founded conjectures of what science future can offer, as only science fiction is able to travel at multi-lightspeed while surviving the cosmic radiation.


In spite of all the intentionally misleading and/or of information voids intended to throw myself off track, I merely applied the basic laws of thermal dynamics which clearly indicates that when temperature slides downward by X amount at night, then the nighttime atmospheric pressure increases by X amount. This is not rocket science nor is it not that I haven't asked the right questions and requested of others to supply the more correct answers, it's just that those opposing the very notion that they've been snookered for decades seem foolishly opposed to discovering other life of any form, unless perhaps it's in the form they can eat (you simply can't eat something that's a whole lot smarter than yourself, as that's considered bad form, not to mention immoral even if it's a dumb creature that can't figure out how to utilize radio).

I then utilized some honest and well intended yet I believe conservative supposition or call it user friendly interpretation to indicate upon a more likely nighttime surface differential of being 50K less than daytime and of taking 10K/km as for the initial vertical offset and, I took the first 5 km in altitude as being 20+ bar lesser than the ocean-less sealevel surface (obviously there's going to be arguments over all that), as that places the 5 km estimate of site No.1 as being roughly 100K lesser than of it's SL and daytime counterpart of 720K (720K - 100K = 620K).

620K is still darn humanly hot but, that's without applied technology nor are we acclimated or evolved with the right physiology, having flammable hair, frail UV sensitive skin instead of scales or platelets, eyes that can't see into the UV/a spectrum nor of any magnitude 5 nightvision performance. Our brains are certainly not sufficiently developed in order to interpret the visual color spectrums as communications, where instead we utilize the crude and inefficient acoustical method along with a mixture of complex languages that isolates most of those on Earth from each other and, we seem to get great pleasure out of devising technology for the task of killing one another (the Pope leading by example with their exterminating millions of Cathars and of those associating, now our cold-wars being responsible for at least hundreds of thousands along with a future full of tit for tat exchanges like 9/11), so many needless deaths in part also accommodated by our ignoring the obvious solutions and otherwise just for the sake of promoting our global domination which does little good if that doesn't include energy domination.

From such raw collaboration of information from others, in addition to my initial observationology along with my direct knowledge of thermal expansion and of basically heat transferring as within refrigeration and HVAC, all of this seemed to weigh heavy upon the notion that from such a terrific gas such as CO2 being the excellent thermal conductor that it is, this being the core reason for so much solar influx heating, is also what's equally capable of extracting said heat and then some, especially if there's a 70 bar or greater differential between the warm near surface atmosphere and of those clouds that could be not only at such lesser pressure but then also at least 300K cooler than the base. If that's not terrific refrigeration heat exchanging potential in action, then I don't know what is.

As molecules go, CO2 is in my opinion very slippery and certainly thermally conductive, I believe even more so mobile if there's a little N2 mixed in as sort of acting as ball bearings that'll only improve the vertical up/down slide and especially where the N2 factor accelerates mostly upon upward flows. Because the density is such that it is, all that much natural flow velocity simply isn't needed in order to transfer great amounts of thermal energy. Even 0.15 m/s is offering a terrific energy transfer rate, where surface heat goes up and coolness migrates down and, so what if it takes 100 hours for that cycle to hit the deck with substantially cooler atmospheres, when there's another 2800 hours worth of the nighttime season to go.

So again, I reviewed the preliminary data and applied that into the scope of my considering upon what's "positive" as opposed to what's so freaking negative about Venus and, lo and behold, if there doesn't seem to be a great deal more piling up in the positive column than in the negative column. Of course I'd not be doing much of any of this if I hadn't first observed what I did, as for my seeing a large number of structure like patterns that seemed way more likely artificial than not and, I'd not be having to learn of such science and physics if others reportedly responsible for and officially employed by the taxpayers for doing such were simply doing their jobs instead of endangering astronauts and otherwise squandering hundreds of billions of our tax dollars upon humanly unobtainable goals, or otherwise upon dastardly things worse than death such as Boeing's Phantom Works and that IR as well as UV/a/b/c capable laser cannon (193 nm seems rather useless except for killing off life as we know it).

Another interesting atmospheric positive worth of numbers seems to come by way of what the sheer density and pressure differential is offering, as where I've calculated upon what I believe a 1 km tall wind tunnel/venturi could deliver in the way of energy, of which this aspect is rather considerable. If there were to be truly honest arguments against this form of natural energy recovery, I'd expect those arguments to offer their opinion as to how much or even as to how little energy there is, along with some of their opposing formulas, but that's not been the case, as all I've received is their flak without the substance backing it up. In other words, those trying hardest are those attempting to disqualify upon anything Venus, while they're supporting absolutely everything Mars as well as Apollo under lesser qualifications than what I'm suggesting is what those artificial looking attributes are, as existing on Venus, in spite of their sorely motivated support of their status quo.

This following formula No.7 excerpt was taken from the recently updated "co2-windpower.htm" document, as obtaining atmospheric energy based upon this formula, of which I'm certain that I've not displayed correctly nor have I made it entirely clear that I've reversed engineered this, as only my best estimate by way of another steam turbine energy calculator that calculated upon a similar differential and of it's mass flow. This is not yet an all encompassing formula nor even all that correct but, it's certainly a whole lot better than what my opposition is having to offer, which has so far been squat worth of nothing beyond their sanctimonious flak.

I've previously tried out the wind energy formula that employed V[3} upon purely wind kinetics. I found it interesting but misleading, in that Earthly winds do not have all that much of a pressure differential factor and, such purely thin air is not only inconsistent with moisture content but also highly compressible (thus the V cubed factor) to a much greater extent than of what the already dense CO2 component of the relatively consistent and bone dry Venus atmosphere is offering and besides, we're obviously not talking about simply horizontal wind energy, which isn't all that much above 1 m/s. However 1 m/s worth of 75 bar CO2 isn't all that feeble, especially if that's backed by a rather considerable vertical pressure differential.

This being my seventh energy formula, as based upon a 35% turbine efficiency and that of applied onto a somewhat large power turbine rotor area having a net 17,000 m2 as residing at 1 km above its vertical column inlet, or all the way down to a 10 meter tall variation for powering a small habitat, where obviously this optimistic efficiency conversion factor is yet another missing link in my expertise. As I discover more upon that nifty "need to know" basis, I'll share such data and apply whatever corrections into the next update, or if you have some better ideas and expertise upon this subject, in that case I'll post your work and credits for doing such.

VERTICAL WIND/PRESSURE DIFFERENTIAL COLUMN ENERGY

Pd x A x (1+V)[2] x M x 3.6^3 x Eff / 184 = watts per hour

Pd = Pressure differential in psi
A = Power turbine area (- hub) in m2
V = Velocity of in m/s (1+V)[2] accommodates pressure differential
M = Mass of the atmosphere at altitude (nighttime adds < 7%)
3.6^3 merely accounts for an hour worth of volumetric flow
Eff = turbine conversion efficiency (typically I've used 35%)
184 = 735/4 in order to convert output into watts/hr

(nighttime CO2/N2 density at 5 km I've based upon 66 kg/m3)

Because this formula is work in progress, I'm not entirely certain, unless my estimates of density and throughput are incorrect or just the formula is lacking it's final polish (more likely than not), I somehow think that even of obtaining a forth of the calculated energy is considerable. Most certainly there is ample kinetic energies if not nearly being hydrostatic to be had, where at even substantially less bar differential and of reduced velocity throughput we're still capable of delivering those electrons. And b.t.w.; anything of such nearly hydrostatic power turbines is going to be providing somewhat better off than 35% efficiency, even poorly engineered ones;

a 1 km version that's offering 17,000 m2 turbine and a flow of 6 m/s = 21.8 GW

a 100 meter version at offering 300 m2 turbine and a flow of 3 m/s = 12.5 MW.

a 10 meter tower version offering 18 m2 turbine and a flow of 1 m/s = 18 kw.

For further argument sake; let's assume that I'm 400% overly optimistic; even obtaining a forth of the above performance is still a great deal of renewable energy, especially if it's essentially free and absolutely continuous, so I'm not convinced that I'm not being conservative by suggesting this for energy that can be easily had with the known technologies of what even Earth has to work with and, remembering that we've not had the incentives of being hounded by any greenhouse impact. So, why on Venus wouldn't another civilization take appropriate steps?

The formula for a purely hydrostatic power turbine is obviously off the scale. However, the Venus atmosphere is roughly 1/15th the density of water, thus hydraulic energy conversion formulas are equally interesting to compare with, as long as a fudge factor is accommodating the compressible CO2, rather than the solid form of any fluid. As such, I've run the numbers and, lo and behold, if anything formula No.7 is way short of energy output, as what 1 m/s at 58 psi through 17,000 m2 is right off the charts (59.7^12 / 15 is a whopping 3980 giga watts), I therefore realize that if anything I'm way short of a full load potential.

In addition to all of the above, in order to further defend myself against the assaults of "spin" and "damage control" comming from pro-NASA freaks, I've had to learn more of Earthly biology and of physiology adaptations surviving at ever greater temperatures and upon less than 1% O2 (humans at 4% O2), as in doing such right here in River City, with indications of other life as we know it sustained at 0.1% as living at pressures where humans obviously can not. So, where's all the hocus-pocus mystery of what some other well motivated evolution could have accomplished, especially if it were being pursued and thereby motivated along by the onset of such a hot and nasty greenhouse.

In my opinion, none of this planetary evolution need include anything radio, so why should we expect of others to have knowledge of or even need of anything radio in order to exist elsewhere. I mean, I realize that most Earth humans are relatively stupid and that we need all the technology including radios that we can get our hands on but, if your resources were sufficiently different and your priorities were more along the lines of staying alive, seems that of anything radio isn't going to be of much value and, certainly of little worth if you were trying to contact Earth, especially when we're not the least bit interested in receiving anything that others (outsiders) might have to say, for the most part we don't want to hear what others on Earth have to say, instead we'd rather deal with 9/11's or far worst things before we'll bother to listen to anyone.

I fully realize that I'm considered the official village idiot and, that you're not, so please tell me something that I don't already know about Venus, proving to me your worth and of all things other, placing your expertise as well as your morals where your words and actions are. I promise, I'll not bite.


The INDEX page: GUTH Venus (with loads of UPDATES)
alternate URL's: http://guthvenus.tripod.com  and  http://geocities.com/bradguth
Copyright © 2000/2003 - Brad E. Guth
GUTH Venus: All Rights Reserved
Webmaster: Brad Guth - Brad Guth / IEIS   ~  1-253-8576061
created: April 29, 2003

Brad Guth / IEIS IEIS-Brad@Juno.com