( including atomic; plus all those thermal signatures and just a super loads of vertical CO2 wind-power which NASA still can't seem to identify )
( by; Brad Guth / IEIS   updated January 20, 2004 )

It's certainly better off as to having "TOO MUCH ENERGY" then of not enough
(The energies of Venus are certainly a whole lot more rational, realistic and life sustaining beneficial then can be said of anything Mars)

This page is now quite old and become extremely overloaded with my line of thoughts and return fire, while it deals or focuses upon all sorts of worthy planetary energy potentials (of what known Earthly technologies could accomplish if you had no other choice and, you were situated on what was becoming a truly hot and nasty planet, or at least one that was going "greenhouse" before your eyes), as supported by the likes of Dr. Robert Zubrin, Geoffrey A. Landis and of many others thinking that Mars is a good sort of place for humanity to go, as well as towards one's comprehending upon the vastly more positive aspects of Venus, that which is offering so much if not a great deal more possibilities of sustaining life then even of these following concepts (several of the Venus energy solutions have been surpassing anything Earth has to offer):

Where there's heat, especially of compressed CO2, there's loads of energy to being had

( to be honest, we're speaking of more resource than you can shake a flaming stick at )

So, exactly what's all the fuss over a little heat?

Where there's pre heated CO2, that substance can be efficiently converted into CO/O2...

There's obviously been sufficient volumes of electrolytes within them clouds available...

Applied physics of vertical kinetics from 4+bar/km of compressed CO2 is truly impressive...

The vertical differential energy formula for such kinetic wind energy is KE=.5MV2*(%eff)...

Near ground thermal differentials of their extended season of nighttime offers 10+K/km...

From 5.5e20 kg of clouds, mega tonnes worth of H2O and subsequently H2 is available...

Wherever there's a resource of H2O, and there's bound to be H2O2 just around the corner...

Surface geothermals are abundant, bringing loads and/or volumes of elements to the surface...

Heat in the form of most any compressed gas may also produce electrons, as well as refrigeration...

Further compressing CO2 offers a better resource than freon solution for heat-exchanging...

Fully utilizing the properties of thermal conduction, especially of such compressed CO2 works quite nicely in the favor of appplied physics-101, that is if you wanted to heat-exchange upon something other or, just wanted to fly off somewhere in your rigid airship that's either displaced with the likes of N2 or H2 or perhaps just by what of vacuum, or if you wanted to refrigerate nearly anything to whatever extent, or wanted to extract the elements of CO/O2 on the fly, ever wanted to apply the resources of what the vertical pressure and thermal differentials have to offer as for producing Giga watts of energy, wanted to take benefit from the absolute best possible shield against meteorites, solar flares and cosmic radiation so as to subsequently live as to seeing tomorrow. Other than all that, Venus is a sufficiently hot and nasty sor of place for Earth humans to live, unless you're a highly evolved (intellectually as well as physiologically) Islamic lizard sort of individual, as perhaps the less you have to deal with those cold, clammy wet and insainly WMD mutated and thus absolutely dumb and dumber Earth humans the better. In fact, if we (Earthlings) weren't so easily snookered about our moon, we'd have been to places like Veas a decade ago, if not sooner.

Those structural and insulation properties of basalt/silica composites and micro-spheres is good for an insulative factor of R-1024/m, and otherwise being 10 fold tougher per kg than steel alloys, thus certain construction/insulation units or modules could actually be individually buoyant, while other major structural items might represent as little as 120 kg/m3, whereas nothing of such composites need weigh more than 250 kg/m3. Thus subtracting the factor of buoyancy and also keeping in mind the 91% gravity adds further advantage into whatever something weighs in respect to any similar application as here on Earth. We even have loads of basalt and silica by which we too could be utilizing such for similar benefits, although most of us are too snookered and besides, we no longer have the necessary energy reserves by which to produce such composites, and we certainly do not have the buoyancy advantage, and everything weighs more on Earth than it does on Venus.

January 18, 2003:  I've located yet another calculation that places a relatively conservative Venus daytime solar panel conversion at roughly 25 watts per m2 (best Earth based solar panel might deliver 250 watts/m2, so that the Venus panel of similar but obviously much higher temperature tolerant construction and obtaining it's mostly near-UV spectrum of illumination photons from below those thick clouds should deliver this 25 watts/m2, and might even last an hour or so). That's certainly not very much until you realize the area or size represents little restriction and, that their daytime represents a long season worth 2900+hours. With sufficiently large collector area arrays along with relatively simple vacuum formed parabolics or of those silica retro-reflectors, and of having all of that added illumination focused onto solar pannels, all of the sudden you've got loads of available solar conversion into electrons, all in spite of those thick clouds and, if such not being of direct PV conversion, there's always good old STERLING thermomechanical into electric conversions, which just so happens to like all the heat it can get, as long as whatever geothermal wells and/or perhaps just very large area H2/CO2 heat exchangers provides a sufficient sink or thermal differential.

Thermopiles, or perhaps we should call this "warm fusion", is yet another alternative as for offering something of a reliable energy tap which may resolve into something that's a little more portable. This is not your typical NPNP consideration (as that couldn't take the heat), but rather the more robust and thermally tolerant alloys of Chromel and Alumel, along with perhaps a third intermediary or electron conducting interface (sort of a solid electrolite) alloy, all of which mechanically fused/bonded into a solid composite rod, as that of creating a tube that's suitable for containing near CO2/N2 plasma, producing electrons as this bimetal thermalpile conduction reacts to the thermal differential which subsequently performs as the CO2/N2 heat-exchanger. The typical thermal differentials (thermopile end to end or top to bottom) are roughly as initiated with 1500K, then as a result of heat-exchanging taking a toll by that of removing at least 300K, yielding an average thermal stack or cell value of perhaps 1300K (that alone is a differential which is in addition to the exterior residing at 675K which offers the other 625K worth of differential), as then electrons being created are utilized to perform CO2/N2 compression and vacuum extractions, all of which contributes to pulling out considerable Btu's for the obvious benefit of whomever or of whatever needs to survive at the lesser temperature of 300K as compared to what's most likely surrounding you at 675K.

Of course, none of this frail solar PV stuff, nor even of the robust sterling process, or of whatever is possible to obtain in electrons by way of thermoelectric/thermopile conversion is actually worth all that much energy when stacked up against the truly monstrous potential of vertical CO2 kinetics, that which can easily provide continuous Giga Watts of energy day or night. This form of windpower kinetics is obviously derived from what can be easily induced when such a terrific density of such CO2 pressure differential is made vertically captive, subsequently driving through a rather substantial radial turbine situated atop the vertical venturi shaped wind-tower, as 4+Bar/km at the sort of mass and subsequent kinetic velocity is absolutely nothing to sneeze at.

BTW; there are no limitations of available technology or even products of electro-mechanical items that can operate continuously within an environment of 1000F, thus the greater thermal issues associated with Venus are just a wee bit testy, but doable.

November 23, 2002:  Tried and proven thermopile conversion; even though this method is relatively inefficient per kg (say at best 5% conversion efficiency and where more likely as low as 1% conversion could impose limitations) however, if your all-essential thermal heat source is absolutely free, then there's nothing but positive energy delivery, continuously at that. Cell voltage, as per thermal conversion factor is where each and every Alumel/Cromel junction produces 15.5 mV at the toasty nighttime elevated environment of 650K (377C), thus an allotment of 1800 such junctions will provide 27.9 N/L volts and, of any number of such stacks can obviously be tied in parallel so as to obtain whatever amount of desired amperage, (with sufficient temperature, a good deal of energy conversion is obviously available [100+ watts/kg] when the proper amounts of junction assembly/layering is applied), where an individual 1800 junction stack, whereas if 0.05mm/alloy layer = 180 mm (7+") and, from applying 12.5 mm diameter junctions is worth roughly .2 kg (I'm thinking of electro depositing such layers at no more then the 0.05mm per layer, even though a 0.01mm deposit of such alloys could be sufficient).

I seem to recall of some 30 years ago, when I was reviewing the capability of what was then available as remote site power cells, as those energy sources being purely thermally powered. Essentially I'm again referring to the thermoelectric generation of voltage and of rather substantial current that was capable of created from your basic junctions of Alumel and Cromel alloys, as when the applied heat is introduced is where basically you obtained a good flow of electrons and, under the absolute worst possible external environments at that. On Earth those power cell units were often Propane fueled and then naturally consumed a great deal of O2 in their combustion process (thus some corrosion and oxidisation placed limitations upon the life of those power cells). On Venus, you obviously don't need to consume any stinking fuel nor O2, just of the 5+km nighttime ambient heat of for example 650K will do quite nicely and, there's essentially no corrosion nor subsequent alloy degrade whatsoever. Under load, a 1800 junction Cromel-Alumel array or layered power cell delivers 24 volts, accommodating any number of these stacks and you've got yourself a good 24 Volts at 10 amps and/or of even 100 amps should become easily obtainable since amperage or power density is merely junction surface area dependent, as long as space and/or weight is not becoming a factor (of course we're at the further advantage of 81% gravity and, we certainly need to further realize that the open environment as for producing extremely pure alloys as well as other pure chemicals is more then self evident, in other words little if any O2 contamination, thus even more efficient junctions as well as subsequent electron flow).

Here is simply yet another thermal conversion commercial product (off the shelf HZ-14) that's been around for quite a while, where it operates within somewhat lower temperatures and unlike Alumel/Chromel it needs a thermal differential but produces 0.17 W/g (170 watts/kg) Once I actually started searching for whatever there was in the way of thermoelectric generators, there seems to be lots to pick from and, if your application environment just happens to already include an abundant supply of FREE BTUs to start off with, then there's certainly no valid excuse, as well as no logic as to preventing the utilization of such an environment as for creating those free electrons, other then as for being way too cold, of which the likes of Mars offers more cold then you can shake a frozen stick at, so there's little option except nuclear as for sustaining anything upon Mars and, it only gets worse off as the further away you are from the sun, or God forbid nighttime on Mars is CO2 time and worse, at least until you've obtained something of geothermal activity, of which geothermals exist upon Venus as well as on certain moons of Jupiter and perhaps of whatever is orbiting Saturn (although there's a multi-trillion dollar deficit if there ever was, as for humanity ever utilizing anything Mars, Jupiter and/or Saturn simply isn't within the cards, yet our immoral scientific communities and of their pagan God [NASA/NSA/DoD] are always ready and willing as to accomplish the bidding on behalf of the devil him self if need be).

As for assisted/artificial illuminations, perhaps as tailored for those Venus nocturnal lizard sorts (I do believe that I've previously mentioned that 1 watt as being sufficient), therefore, in order to obtain a drive voltage of 3.4 volts at 0.3 amps would necessitate junction stacks of roughly 250 (that's a stack or essentially a cube like worth all of 12.5 mm and of perhaps a mere 25 grams worth of alloy material) in order to drive those white emitting LED to a point of being downright obnoxiously bright, although a near-UV spectrum of 407 nm might offer as much as 170,000 lunmen/watt, as in remembering that any good nocturnal sort is likely to have a magnitude 5 visual peak sensitivity advantage that's more towards the 407 nm rather than our 507 nm, as well as perhaps a few million additional visual rods for added resolution to boot, so their optical resolution capability is certainly another strong advantage.  Super Bright LEDs, This locates a white spectrum LED that offers 10 cd @15 degree divergence, consuming at 68 mw. That's 0.147 cd/mw or 147 CD/W across a 15 degree cone spread per emitter. That sort of performance of 147 cd, as applied into the total blackness of a Venus season of nighttime is entirely sufficient as for pathetic humans. Again folks, that's a mere watt of energy (obviously there's nothing all that bad about any of this, except naturally those LED's would have to be ceramic or diamond based LEDs and not the sort of plastic encapsulated crap as for here on Earth and, as for driving a full body Liberache jump suit having a cluster/array of 1000 such LEDs at a mere 1 mW apiece is obviously not something overheating upon a damn thing).

Of course, rather than of some ceramic or diamond based LED's, there's certainly the vastly superior illumination advantage of merely micro-gap xenon lamp performance that's already so nicely accommodated by the surrounding atmosphere, which would allow any number of and of any size to coexist, right there in the open (no stinking glass containment jar), and also try to realize that with CO2/xenon there's really no limit as to how small of an arc gap can be ignited and sustained. It's possible to have any number of 0.1 mm gap illuminations per body suit or perhaps per body platelets, thus relatively low voltage differentials would be required as to sustain the arc and, the CO2 is already perhaps at 650K, so there's little if any significant prerequisite ignition as to start this 0.1 mm arc. Obviously the CO2 gas surrounding each illumination arc-gap is entirely free, sufficiently pure and under good pressure as well as preheated.

As for conventional batteries (who the hell needs them), well guess what; those nifty cool clouds have been reported as supporting a great deal of H2SO4 (that's at a good density of being 50+% sulfuric acid). Bringing some of that back home (as is), into a much warmer environment and, instantly you've got loads of fresh energy as long as your supply of Zinc holds out (zinc is the most common element which hot H2SO4 consumes, however there are certainly other alloys worth considering). More importantly, who really needs batteries when you can simply consume the likes of CO/O2, and otherwise get yourself by along with whatever bio-illumination and/or a flow of electrons from those Alumel/Cromel junction power cells. You certainly don't require batteries as for supporting your main power grid because, all of that becomes derived by vertical CO2 kinetic energy, which is continuous (ample surplus energy, even if need be for recharging those inefficient batteries).

I'm certainly not an airship engineer, so feel perfectly free to jump right in if you can provided better numbers, but until then, try to remember something that's entirely positive about those sleek rigid airships of Venus, especially as for their navigating in the calm and crystal clear CO2 ocean that's nicely situated below those relatively cool nighttime clouds;  not all that much energy is going to be required, perhaps as little as 1 kw/1000 tonnes for speeds below 10 m/s, 1 kw/100 tonnes for speeds below 40 m/s and perhaps all of 2 kw/100 tonne if sustaining 52 m/s. Remember also that tonnage on Venus is worth but 91% of Earth's and, that of any large counter rotating ducted propulsion is going to be vastly more thrust efficient then of anything Hindenburg, especially as operating in that dense CO2 atmosphere that's nearly 10% that of water (airship tonnage/ballast typically is adjusted ever downward as altitude demands). Operating into and above those clouds may impose some added energy demands (unless you've decided to essentially go with the winds, which certainly could always be your intentions), like as much as 10 kw/100 tonnes, although, at such atlitudes the airship displacement or tonnage will likely become no more then 25% normal and more likely less if need be as for sustaining an altitude of 75 km (from recent calculations, I believe 60+km altitude is going to become their near maximum sustainable cruising). Ballasting has always been the normal routine for Earthly airships, even of those operating on Venus should do the same, as for your returning to base requirements, that's ultra simple; just gather up whatever thousand tonnes of that handy H2SO4 and commence vacuum distillation while on your way back to the garage, as every one will certainly appreciate all those acquired tonnes of pure H2O.

April 30, 2003: my latest formula upgrade (No.7) for Vertical CO2 wind power, as now I'm conservatively hitting 75 GW, by way of utilizing a calculation reference to steam kg/s as that being per equal amounts CO2 kg/s, as then based upon a 35% turbine efficiency and matching the 7K differential thermal drop, where actually Venus may offer nearly 10K/km (nighttime) for the first km off the surface.

Sept. 07, 2002:   Recalling that once we establish N2/O2 airships at their offering 25 kg/m3 buoyancy, by that method alone we effectively obtain substances such as H2O from within those cool nighttime clouds (via simple and efficient vacuum distillation), to only further be offering resolve into producing H2O2 and then whatever mass volumes of just H2, which then represents an even more impressive working buoyancy of 64 kg/m3.

June 09;   This is an excerpt from my "Seasons of Venus" page.
Even though such massive airship transports some 50,000+ hardy lizard folk and, it is responsible for otherwise transporting some 300,000 metric tons worth of precious fluids, minerals, chemicals and construction materials, since it may be yet another 1500 hours before any significant precipitation begins to accumulate into those otherwise parched high mountain reservoirs. Smaller transports dispatched from and utilizing the airport and tarmac complex (situated just North of town) will each contribute at least another 1000 metric tons worth of gathered and distilled fluids, chemicals and minerals in addition to their hundred or so passengers, as these smaller airships are those which otherwise make regular excursions into those 40+km clouds, so as to gather upon and process out literally tonnes of their renewable resource of H2O (thanks to the ambient temperatures and pressures, merely pulling a simple vacuum effectively accomplishes this extremely efficient airborne distillation process).

Folks, lets us run this one through the hopper once again;  From that of that warm and mostly sulphuric upper cloud atmosphere (obviously loaded with mega tonnes ofpotential H2O), as typically nighttime residing at something like 3 to 5 bar, now we merely pull upon a modest vacuum in order to suction in whatever amounts and then apply evaporative process upon all that abundant moisture by sustaining the vacuum while decending into the warmer atmosphere (perhaps if need be further heating from the main engine CO2-->CO/O2 combustion byproduct or perhaps just from that of the solar energy reaching the dark outer steel alloy airship hull) and, without all that much fuss we soon have ourselves 1000 tonnes of toasty but absolutely pure H2O to take home (in addition to whatever subsequent H2 and H2O2 considerations, that's certainly a lot of beer and pizza potential for the responsible crew).

I must ask you;  how could the mining and/or processing via airship distillation of H2O from those relatively cool dense clouds become any simpler or more efficient then just that?

June 08;  My recent knowledge obtained of utilizing CO2 is becoming a bit more valid then even I originally thought possible. As according to many others (far smarter then I), CO2 is apparently not of any mere byproduct of burning fossil fuels, it's basically that of an actual product of incomplete first phase burning. CO2-->CO/O2 is in fact another viable fuel product, that which by some records indicates a specific impulse value of 280 is obtainable (on Venus that might have to start itself off at 200 until higher altitudes are obtained), thereby as a second phase ignition of these elements occurs (as within the hearth of first phase combustion of whatever other fossil fuels as perhaps spiked by H2O2), where this added or replacement Co/O2 impulse value can soon be achieved, thereby acquiring the obvious benefits of essentially combusting fron an abundant external fuel source by doing so (by the way; if the total combustion is being that sourced from the surrounding atmosphere, then the Mj/kg are seriously off the charts), leaving the final exhaust remainder as somewhat pure and relatively harmless (none the less extremely hot) carbons. Supposedly then, according to the many experts (including a few within NASA), the entire combustion process can become based solely upon using CO2. Such a deal (to think that my loyal opposition was actually trying to apply as much spin and disinformation possible, so as to pull this one over my eyes; how totally pathetic).

One might have to think that this CO2-->CO/O2 combustion issue is a rather good thing. Hmmmmm, apparently not so, especially if you've been one of those desperately trying to derail my discovery and subsequent research.

Are we (NASA/NSA/DoD) being just so thoroughly bad or what?
Since we humans (I'm speaking mostly of Americans) have shown no real concerns of ever becoming energy efficient, thereby that much politically and physically healthier, as our true motivations towards accomplishing such humanitarian and worldly beneficial goals do not seem to truly exist. Perhaps it's our brimming stockpiles of cold-war plutonium that are simply too comforting as well as so advantageous, especially as the remainder of this world struggles to keep pace with our rising cost and energy demands of living, which influences upon those ever more so illusive fossil fuels, causing all others (especially without plutonium access) into basically bankrupting their societies just trying to keep their lights on and perhaps warm.

A further fossil fuel energy boosting concept has something to do with introducing nuclear utilization;  as applied into the second phase combustion process, where this too may eventually become the nearly ideal trigger/mechanism that basically accomplishes the very same beneficial CO2 conversion results, along with whatever all that supposedly surplus cold-war plutonium has to offer (at least speaking of such tonnage which remains accounted for).

This is a brief summary of only some of what's there, on Venus, for the taking.

CO2 winds (knock your shocks off powerful, primarily I'm speaking of vertical differential offsets providing 4+bar/km [that's 60 psi per km and of mostly dense CO2 at that).

CO2-->CO/O2 is simply a done deal (directly processing upon all that abundant CO2 as becoming the primary in-flight airship energy solution).
According to Donald Haarmann, CO/O2 burning offers 2873K (which is hot but not even nearly as hot as h2o2/c12h26 @4000+K)

Conventional planetary geothermals (according to the record, that planet is simply chuck full of it, offering a bare minimum of 1000K differentials just about everywhere you care to look)

Petrol/chemicals and compound elements (such as c12h26 and h2o2 and far too many others to mention, such as U239 do exist)

H2O collection and subsequent production of H2O2 (safe as hell, especially on Venus and even on Earth, unless you're educated by an American school)
Venus atmosphere(s) (according to Dr. Robert Zubrin) offers 100 times the amount of H2O/m3 as that compaired to Earth (it's just situated a bit higher up at 40 to 60 km), where the Mars atmosphere is not even at best 1% that of Earth.

Always there is atomic potential (first get yourself a true education; fusion is most certainly not an Earth proprietory secret, let alone resource)
Petrol/chemical cracking (essentially this is something far better then Earth standards, by merely pulling an efficient vacuum, thereby not even taking 10% of our process energy requirements, to as little as 1%)

Solar UV/IR (sterling power conversions; I'm still working upon this phase, however, with simply larger collectors, there is certainly no obvious problem)

A little over 2/3 of the way through this document is where you'll locate all sorts of links and hopefully worthy considerations.

Fortunately, I'm learning how to ask for and search out more correct data. Lo and behold, I'm discovering a great deal more then I imagined possible, as well as identifying a limited number individuals that those "nondisclosure" cops have little if any restraint upon (either that or they each hold nearly the same "Apollo insurance" coverage policy as I have).

May 21, 2002:  According to Dr. Robert Zubrin; National Space Society and founder of the Mars Society (
Among many other planetary life essential considerations, the cracking of CO2 is no longer such a complex issue (most certainly nothing unknown, as being previously suggested by my critics), as depending upon what end result you're after, various highly capable methods do exist (including the obvious natural or bio-technology process).

So, unless Dr. Robert Zubrin is yet another cleaver ruse implant by the likes of NSA/DoD, this guy seems to be somewhat intelligent, perhaps even smarter then you and I combined.

Robert Zubrin further accredits the works of others as equally having the very same honest (purely science based) positive outlook, then as to equally supporting my limited knowledge and subsequent conjecture of initially burning a little h2o2/c12h26 in order to initiate further processing and the eventual igniting of that CO2-->CO/O2, tapping and utilizing that mostly CO2 atmosphere as for the bulk of their energy requirements (at the very least boosting the available [atmospheric based] oxidizer levels) as to be powering this massive airship consideration. Surface power plants are simply the next logical assumption, however, vertical atmospheric offset differentials (4+bar/km) seems to offer more then enough such resource of an energy solution for a limited but sufficient nighttime/seasonal existence per location (of which I know of at least three such planetary worthy locations, two of which are those nearly exactly at 180 from site #1). The damndest things happen when actually you go about looking for other potential habitats on Venus; they simply do exist!, almost exactly where they need to be at that.

Sorry onto my pathetic critics once again; It seems as though your sworn duties at providing such intentional disinformation only lasted a month or so and, if that's the best you have to offer, perhaps you had better start your packing before those pink slips start arriving, and before those internal "nondisclosure" security forces (those men in black) lock down your hard drives (better safe then sorry).

May 11, 2002;  This paragraph really has to go out to my pathetic critics;
Sorry folks, it looks like I've been right all along and, I'm so stupid that I didn't even know it. In spite of my lack of proper chemical and/or physics semantics and/or poor syntax getting in the way, my basic belief that somehow a vast resource of highly pressurized and thereby hotter yet CO2 can in fact become that processed into CO/O2, as subsequently ignited on demand, and thereby utilized as a rocket fuel and/or at least a combustion/oxidizer booster, was only a little off track. Actually, according to Geoffrey Landis being somewhat associated with NASA, a conversion of co2-->co/o2 has been a done deal (without even introducing any h2o2 and/or c12h26). Admittedly, having the 4000+K initial start-up supported by a little h2o2/c12h26 could actually prove as being a nearly ideal ramp-up or standby prior to switching over to the full co/o2 burn. In one specific trimix combination, I further discovered that by introducing the h2o2 along with the co/o2 can essentially damn near double upon that co/o2 performance, lord only knows what introducing a little c12h26 will further enable.

So, as far as any creditable arguments as to whether or not those on Venus could have powered their environmental life support and transportation via essentially burning that co2, there simply is no longer any argument base because, it most certainly can be accomplished and, with a little motivation (such as living or not) there is absolutely no rational reason to believe otherwise (unless of course you are a steadfast NASA damage control mole/freak and/or perhaps just plain stupid, in which case you would simply have preferred to have died right on the spot, without even trying).

May 6, 2002   This is what I'm currently working on:

There certainly are ample resource(s) of generating energy and thereby electricity on Venus.

To be considering the greater of possibilities;  Just for starters, there are ample geothermals (all sorts), then perhaps a bit slower but representing very hard winds (CO2 as being so much so denser), therefore wind speed is simply not such a requirement and, there certainly have been recorded atmospheric thermals on Venus, as well as differential vertical offset potentials which can be worthy of accomplishing at least 10 meters per second. Certainly this planet (not always greenhouse) holds onto vast quantities of generic petrol/chemicals and, that upper atmosphere (50+ km) still holds onto vast mega-tonnes worth of h2o. In spite of those clouds, there could still be solar conversion of UV/IR, just of that requiring substantially larger collectors (regarding my pathetic opponents and besides the superior size of their brains; why is size representing any limitation and thereby problem for Venus?, as it looks to me like there is all the room in the world for accommodating large solar colletctors, at least two of which seem to be situated at GUTH Venus #1). Don't try to leave out nuclear; as one of my supporters keeps his pointers aimed at atomic solutions as being their best hope of survival (at least this sounds good to me, as being something positive as well as entirely possible and not merely another stone walled rejection and/or intentional idea bashing as has been coming from my typical pro-NASA know-it-all brown-nosed critic).

Gathering and processing all of the available energy potential into something as useful as for producing h2o2 can obviously represent a serious challenge, so, this was where I thought a little co2 burning (if need be via laser cannon excitation combustion) could be in order, as to supplement (conserve upon) some of that precious h2o2. One might think that by electrically igniting this compressed and thereby rather super heated co2 might actually become worthy by the sheer mass or bulk of co2 being injected, of at least significantly improving upon the thermal mass and thereby improving upon the essential energy conversions to SHP via whatever power turbine stage(s).

If one is to be leaning towards the more bio-natural process of co2-->o2 conversion, as far as plants go, I do believe that sheltered environments are there to be found (they most certainly have all the raw construction materials and/or minerals, then by merely whatever controlled delivery of co2, you've got yourself a darn good indoor garden), supporting an environment of mostly containing N2 and subsequently becoming a little O2 enriched. At those pressures (say 75 bar at the 5km elevation), as little as 10% and perhaps even 1% o2 (if evolution ever kicked in) could suffice. As with certain Earthly life forms and even for burning of coal as an example; coal has been known to burn nicely with as little as 1% O2, where as on Venus you most certainly would not be growing or even burning anything outside, underground and/or within large suitable facilities perhaps yes, why the hell not? And, why would anyone ever burn something as valuable as coal or petroleum reserves, when those chemicals and raw elements are and have always been worth so much more (unlike here on Earth, where hydro and nuclear should have become our global energy solutions as of 50 years ago, instead we're burning off our most precious [finite] natural resources, as containing some of the most complex of chemicals known to mankind and, in the process creating mega tonnes more co2 then we obviously know what to do with. Perhaps some day this entire globe will become one giant "Easter Island" [unless we've managed first to have poisoned and blown ourselves up], except surrounded and subsequently smothered by thick hot smog comprised of mostly co2).

Regarding geological reserves; If one ever needed to process anything petrol based, once relocating that product or substance even near the surface, then merely pulling an energy efficient vacuum should do that trick. If your life depended upon extracting and thereby producing various chemicals and thereby energy so as to further purify, extract and/or produce h2/N2/O2/CO as well as a little other H2O2 or jusr CO2 vertical wind power as for subsequently powering up all of those CO2 based air conditioners. I'll bet you could think of all sorts of options, as either that or you would certainly die (let me guess; you would probably opt for a dozen or so time consuming and costly government studies, then perhaps years (decades) worth of NASA/NSA/DoD and whatever other governmental petty arguments over which agency takes power over another and then as always pork/profit gouging, I know, how about getting our trusty ENRON/Andersen executives and their close nit partners Clinton and Bush to run the show of salvaging your sorry butt, as that should work!).

I would have to believe "Venus Beer" has become a relatively and perhaps literally one of their hottest selling items and, for that you'll certainly need grain and hops. For grain and hops you obviously need a little h2o, however, not all that much h2o as long as it's being thoroughly recycled essentially everywhere, from the closed environments of growing plants to re capturing urination and even spit (sort of by accomplishing all of this within a reverse greenhouse environment). I'm thinking, you certainly would not leave your gold bullion just laying about, as you would cherish it and perhaps hoard it away from those that would abscond with it (like NSA/DoD). Likewise on Venus, you would not toss out anything containing h2o (it's probably worth a whole lot more then gold anyway and, it might even be a federal crime as to taking a whiz outside, that being punishable by death, but that's upon your body being thoroughly processed and distilled for whatever remaining h2o and other valuable elements).

WITH A COLD BEER IN HAND, YOU'll CERTAINLY NEED PIZZA (cooking? who needs any stinking gas or electric ovens);  Venus pizza lovers never had it so good. Just opening a through vent/port into your counter top pizza Zap-O-Matic oven and, within seconds you've got instant piping hot pizza (thoroughly self cleaning and sanitary CO2 ovens at that). Is this seriously becoming a guy planet or what?

As you must realize by now, I'm certainly not all that qualified (at least not yet) as to proclaiming all that much about thermal energy and/or towards chemical physics, which obviously has to exist prior to much of anything else, however, from what I'm being told by those that apparently do know about such things, as it's beginning to sound as though introducing substantial amounts of co2 at the required temperatures and pressures, as to be injecting this abundant raw element into our mostly h2o2/c12h26 4000+K flaming hearths, that in fact certain favorable reactions may occur and, without all that much difficulty.

Prior to May 01, 2002.  My understanding, as being received from other expertise; I've learned and now somewhat understand that of any Earthly known process which involves the blending or mixing of co2 along with any h2o2 fire, that this process on Earth is not by itself likely to enhance the amount or thereby numbers of o2 molecules (not necessarily subtracting neither), thus essentially a net O2 gain of zero. However, as that co2 is considerably more dense then the combined product of h2o2 (especially that of h2), yet we have essentially supported the same 4000+k furnace at somewhat (perhaps even a whole lot) greater thermal mass, as well as doing so from a resource which this airship did not have to carry aloft. It seems as though this consideration of enhanced thermal mass should by itself improve the MJ/kg as being delivered by whatever carried elements, but according to at least one supposedly qualified NASA source, I guess not (either that or I've crossed into one of those NSA/DoD "nondisclosure" areas).

Now I'm believing this; even if the potential advantage of improving upon combustion mass were even slight (besides any benefits obtained from electrically energising such by way of co2 laser cannons must do), having this as a unlimited resource of compressible co2 freely available and furthermore as a process or byproduct of airship cabin air conditioning, this should certainly make this next phase at least worth the challenge.

In my untrained theory; by improving upon the combustion mass, as to be applied against a power turbine energy/torque converter (even if accomplishing this feat it at the same o2 count), at some point in this overall equation of feeding this fire, we could be approaching thermal solids. This is where the use of co2 may become sort of like launching tonnes of precharged/preheated (possibly even electrically energised) ball bearings into a hot air cannon, which must then exit via that power turbine, in which instance, that turbine converter becomes more like hydro efficient solution working from a greater head pressure, instead of the much lessor gas phase efficiencies (unfortunately, this power turbine becomes thoroughly bashed to death by all those super sonic screaming 4000K ball bearings).  OOPS!

If we somehow managed to compensate for handling those flaming CO2 ball bearings and, thereby obtain added turbine conversion efficiency improvement, which seems nearly as good if not better then merely increasing upon the flaming MJ/kg (as more mass even if even at lessor heat is nearly always a desirable outcome) and, if to be considering that a whole lot of heat is one thing, however, if that amount of heat were to represent little mass, then converting that into something mechanical via a power turbine is not going to be all that effective. If on the other hand, through our increasing of that flaming mass by an ideal factor of 10 or even 4, now you're kicking over some serious turbine ass.

Same heat at greater mass = greater MJ/kg  (especially when you don't have to haul that greater mass resource about).

I was recently asked by a somewhat critic (NASA type); "if sand were to hold minute amounts of O2, would I burn that?"  You bet!, especially if I had the motivation of desiring to live in order to see another 2900 hour day and, essentially an unlimited external resource of that sand, of which I did not have to carry onboard. On Earth we burn off such unlikely elements as Aluminum oxides and, obtain considerable energy release by doing so. Consider if that Aluminum dust were simply thick in our atmosphere, just imagine the possibilities and, what if we could fire off our laser cannons by merely exciting our very own co2 atmosphere, wouldn't that become a great thing.

This following statement is from: Hans Moravec

"Simple thermodynamics doesn't have a temperature limit, but quantum gravity probably does. A great candidate is the Planck temperature, 3.6 x 10^32 degrees K."

"This is the effective temperature of a photon energetic enough to be so small and so massive as to collapse into a black hole of its own making."

"Its wavelength is the Planck length, 4.1 x 10^-35 meters, its mass the Planck mass 5.5 x 10^-8 kg, and its frequency the reciprocal of the Planck time, 1.4 * 10^-43 sec. Its life expectancy is just the Planck time."

OK, I obviously do not really understand all that but, it certainly indicates that other energy possibilities or at least realities do seem to exist.

If all this technical stuff is too much, all that I'm saying is this; For those remaining on Venus, as tough and unlivable as NASA and the status quo claims that planet to be, to have sufficiently evolved and survived in spite of all greenhouse odds, simply means that once their survival motivation kicked in, all sorts of viable life supporting issues were obviously resolved. Exactly why NASA and the vast majority of pro-NASA supporters can't see this for what it is, has become a truly remarkable pointer directed at perhaps the real issues of hidden agendas and upon a lethal ruse or two (as something has to be pulling the resources and talents away from the reality of what I've discovered).

THE NUCLEAR AIRSHIPS of VENUS;  inside that atomic powered airship (you can have it all).
Now of course; if this airship has in fact become atomic powered, then we are also talking about having sufficient energy for easily exceeding 100 knots even near the ground (50 MW should do that trick) and, with the increased buoyancy capability (by simply further reducing airship mass and/or implementing lessor ballast), then we can also fully conclude that astronomy grade navigation has been entirely possible, perhaps well above 75 km and, that air conditioning and whatever mass production of ice certainly is no longer any problem (extracting h2o from those clouds becomes a totally done deal). With such energy, plenty of O2 can certainly be scrubbedor processed out of that CO2 and, H2 can certainly be readily forced out of nearly any form of matter (obviously from all that upper atmosphere, even from certain rocks or simply via lizard poop for example). Those extremely large area excavation/quarry sites (situated just North of that suspension bridge) may become a fairly good indication of their doing just that, as either acquiring the atomic elements and/or stripping out the H2 (perhaps both). Such a large planet surely has other buried geological elements capable of holding onto valuable elementa including hydrogen, as well as all sorts of worthy petrol chemicals (according to many researchers, you don't even require past life extinction to have accumulated such worthy deposits).

For their ground based power generation @4+bar per km and perhaps @10 meters per second:

As an obvious energy potential for Venus, that's worth at least a quick review, is having to do with whatever vertical tunnel or shaft/column updraft's can ce utilized. How much CO2 wind might be generated if there were a 1 km vertical vent/shaft. let us say offering a thousand meters across the top opening and at least half that much opening at the base. There would certainly be a constant and stiff CO2 wind. So, how much vertical updraft might there be and, at the greater density of that Venus co2 atmosphere; what might a 100 meter win turbine develop in terms of MW/hr, and please do remember, that's representing a continuous resource. If we were to be producing 10 MW/hr/turbine, that's 58,000 MWH per Venus day or night (240 MWH/Earth day), where even at 1/10 that amount of essentially free energy could certainly come in real handy.

CHEMICAL/PETROL FUELS:  As I understand such refining should become a real snap; as merely bringing such elements to the hotter (daylight exposed) surface, especially of those areas situated well below the average surface radious of 6052 km @100+bar and perhaps 750K, as that alone could offer the thermal requirements needed for various cracking or separation of useful elements. Merely pulling an efficient vacuum upon most any such hot fluid would then be requiring far lessor technology as well as so much lessor energy then accomplishing that same cooking process here on Earth. With regard to processing most any such petrol/chemical derivatives, lots of heat is certainly a good thing and, having all that co2 and n2 about is also a good thing (no fires and unlikely any explosions).

April 27, 2002   (petrol/chemicals and worthy energy elements likely do exist on or at least within the planet Venus)

For my limited ref; maximum energy from Diesel No.2 = 45.75 MJ/kg
and another ref; maximum energy from Kerosene = 42.85 MJ/kg

These two above MJ/kg are propellant/fuel only (excluding their Earthly air/oxidizer component). If you were to include having to haul about all of that compressed Earthly atmosphere (80%N2/20%O2) as for oxidizer consumption, then those MJ/kg obviously become much lessor.

A typically good turbo diesel engine that's consuming .065 L/sec of fuel, is also consuming 1230 L/sec of atmosphere (a volume ratio of 19,384:1), with other engines consuming at ratios exceeding 20280:1, any way you care to look at it, if we were to average upon 20 m3, that's certainly a lot of atmospheric volumetric ratio per misally fractional liter of fuel per second. Unless I've misplaced a decimal point, that computes out to exceeding 300 m3 of N2/O2 per liter of fuel.

(try packing 375 kg worth of N2/O2 per liter of fuel and see how far you get)

Just for the above diesel engine, taking this air/fuel ratio into account; a conservative air mass @1.25 kg/m3 X 20 = 25 kg.

25 kg of air per fractional liter (0.815 kg*.065) of kerosene = 25.053 kg/sec, by which at best 43 MJ/kg is being released. From this combined total of 25.053 kg/sec, this typical internal combustion engine is thereby obtaining a mere 1.7 MJ/kg.

As energy performance compares; as to that of any directly rocket fueled radial or multi-staged axial turbine engine (requiring no compressor stages, only the final conversion via the power turbine/turboprop), as functioning purely from the h2o2/c12h26 at 8.5 MJ/kg. As far as those MJ/kg, there certainly is no contest.

As we further strive to obtain something better yet from the process of potentially introducing the 25% worth of o2, as being released/extracted by merely heating through compressing and perhaps further preheating upon all that available co2 and, if we exclude (as with the internal combustion engine) the associated mass of available o2 as being derived from all that co2, we should now be approaching at least triple that amount of energy if not more:  8.5 X 3 = 25.5 MJ/kg = 7.08 KWH/kg

In the Sebatier process, CO2 is reduced in combustion with hydrogen to form methane and oxygen. Accomplishing this feat on Earth represents disadvantages mainly due to the fact that it requires complex equipment requirements, a large mass of equipment and very high energy requirements and cooling down. However, with any regard to this Venus airship, space and weight are not even serious considerations and, the 700K co2 atmosphere is perhaps half or better along the way towards achieving darn good conversion results.

THE "DUH" FACTOR: Just the basic process of having to compress upon co2 as for local cabin air conditioning requirements, the resulting/available byproduct(s) or initial spinoff is obviously tonnes of extremely hot co2, at pressures likely suitable for either injecting into a turbine burner (combustion chamber) or as to blending in with the h2o2 or the c12h26 (if nothing else, as a darn good atomizer method as well as providing a considerable increase in the final thermal mass equation).

By introducing some or a lot of that plentiful co2, we've undoubtedly cooled off that 4000K fire (but not necessarily because, co2 laser cannons are fine examples of extremely hot/energised energy releases) along with improving upon the exhaust mass, thereby enhancing our turbine conversion efficiency. Sort of the difference as to your facing into a dry and hot 50 knot wind as compared as to being a whole lot healthier then if facing into a cold 50 knot rock slide. Just maybe our final exhaust product will become the remaining C (carbon).

If I am looking as to generate 25000 SHP = 18650000 W = 18.65 MW

Now further calculate upon a likely 75% efficiency factor (this rocket fueled of large scale radial or multi-staged axial power turbine having not size nor weight limitations), then we'll be needing roughly 25 MWH or 90000 MJ worth of hourly energy (absolute worse case might ultimately require sustaining 100000 MJ).

Total fuel burn, in addition to whatever amounts of co2-->o2 = 3530kg/hr.

At 3.53 t/hr X 100 hours travel = 353 tonnes worth of liquid fuel elements, which is roughly 1/3 the amount if having to be dependent solely upon the h2o2/c12h26 components. This might represent wishful thinking, but at least I am thinking and not just having to implement "damage control".

From my limited understanding of the internal combustion engine, as any reference example of the actual amount of atmosphere (oxidizer) consumption, that which delivers 43 MJ/kg, as that atmosphere is representing by weight 30 times greater mass (on Earth 20% of which = 6kg O2) then of the actual amount(s) of fuel, therefore, hopefully a lessor amount of co2 (25% of which may become O2 oxidizer) benefit could represent 15:1 (3.75kg of O2), which is conservatively half the atmospheric mass for your typical internal combustion engine cycle and, a mere fraction of the actual atmospheric volume. It may even be conceivable that a fuller 30:1 (extracting 7.5kg 02) ratio can become a reality (however, someone needs to plug in all the pressures and temperature factors before we can start swinging from the vines).

I would have to believe that supplementing with a misally 3.75kg O2 should certainly do the trick. These preliminary results will obviously have to be revised once others have provided the overall co2-->o2 benefit (including thermal mass) calculations, however, I expect that I'm being conservative. This is a wait and see situation and, I'm as interested as ever, as to understanding the implications and potentials of such triplex energy conversions.

I do recall informing others some time ago, of the obvious need for and how I understand that such air conditioning can be obtained; By merely compressing upon that co2 atmosphere and then heat exchanging prior to applying this element into the cabin space evaporators. Well guess what; Venus has lots of co2 to work with and, co2 compressors do exist here on Earth (so I would have to suppose these could exist and function on Venus). Heat exchanging via that hot Venus atmosphere is certainly not any problem, being that first stage compressed co2 could easily be achieving 1000 K and therefore a minimum of 300 K differential for being at the 5 km altitude, whereby even at that 700 K of mostly co2 atmosphere is making for a thoroughly excellent thermal conductor, so much so that a heat exchanger itself would not even impose all that much size. Should the propulsion co2-->o2 oxidizer feed pump/compressor become more likely obtaining a 2000 K performance, we now have a whopping 1300K worth of working differential and, if that's not air conditioning as well as whatever o2 benefit potential, then I guess I don't know what is.

Hopefully soon, others with the right physics background will inform the rest of us idiots, if all that abundant and already hot co2 can be sufficiently compressed to even higher temperatures, then injected as hopefully oxidizer o2 additions and/or simply as representing damn good thermal mass improvements, where these ultimate pressures may indeed be rather substantial, in which case we could be obtaining substantially more favorable thermal reactions as well as air conditioning benefits, perhaps more then we'll know what to do with.

In continued support of this airship discovery; I've recently located some WWW resources that may help those of us as challenged chemical and rocket engineers, as to compare various propellant cocktails, those capable of converting various chemicals as into heat and/or thrust (usually both). No dought, NASA and their vast army of pro-supporters (even their clutch of braille image interpreters) have likely known about these fuel combinations as well as having knowledge of many other worthy information resources, that which we taxpayers must either continue to simply do without altogether or at best, acquire such on a "need to know" basis. This method of learning is called "bureaucratic efficiency", NASA's way (in other words; everything has been made as pretentious and difficult as possible as well as at the taxpayers expense).

A lot of what's offered on this and other pages is having to do with supporting or not various other discoveries; Defencively (as any reference of "extraordinary proof") I'm having to include those Apollo missions in relation towards supporting what others and I believe is entirely possible as with regard to Venus, as to considering that which may still be entirely viable, as existing on the planet. Just like it's pretty hard to have lunar surface images if you can't even document the technology to get the photographer there in the first place, it may be equally as difficult to appreciate let alone understand the existence of any airship on Venus, unless of course there are sufficient other issues which go a long way towards supporting the conjecture(s) of life existing on Venus (actually this entire issue is no longer a conjecture and not even a fair contest because, unlike our lunar landing sites, we can see the damn airship, we just don't know for certain what's powering it or by whom).

Rocket Stuff (all sorts, far more then most of us Earthly space exploration observers should ever need to know). On most of these sites there is enough chemistry formula to vaporise entire neighborhoods, even small towns.

Same as above, except with a direct link into their Rocket Propellant Index

A fairly comprehensive Flame Temperature Calculator

This reference page gets into far more then I currently understand;
GPL'ed rocket engine scripts:

This CO2 reference page indicates upon all sorts of methods which are capable of extracting and/or re-utilizing the O2 as contained within CO2: This worthy link offers more of the same CO2-->O2

This link is officially NASA, however, I'm thinking this may also be somewhat skewed unless Geoffrey A. Landis just happens to own his very own flak suit. So far this resource has been most informative, at least to my limited degree of such knowledge. His work has a fair amount to do with issues concerning the utilization of co/o2 as derived mostly if not entirely from co2. His focus has been upon Mars as having sufficient amounts of co2 (nowhere as much as Venus) where it's availability is terribly cold and under nowhere as much pressure as existing on Venus. According to Goeffrey, having an abundance of both heat and pressure are equally good considerations for the conversion process.

Here are some further references considerations:

Flame temperature of: ---- Fahrenheit ---- Celsius ----- Kelvin ------ ISP
Hydrogen / F2  (c12h26) ----7232--------4000--------4300--------
H2O2 / C12H26 ------------6888--------3809--------4082--------320+
CO2 (convert)-->CO/O2 ---4712--------2600--------2873--------

This is a direct quote from Geoffrey A. Landis; "CO/O2 is a little low on specific impulse (250 seconds for the system we analyzed; 270 or 280 for a bit better technology)"

Enthalpy Results (in kJ/mol)
CO/O2 ( 1 delta ) = 48.9 kj/mol
CO/O2 (w/H2O2) = 81.5 kj/mol  (if that's not something interesting, I don't know what is).

In my beginning, in order to obtain some crude bearings with regard to energy issues and, mostly because those rocket wizards of NASA have had far better things to do, so to start off, I initially located my references to the thermal potentials of Diesel#2, based upon an Earthly environment of 1 bar at 30% relative humidity (#2 diesel offering approximately 5% greater energy then Kerosene). The gross energy figures are these; based upon 21,127 btu/pound, there is roughly 7.1 pounds per gallon of diesel, therefore, the available btu/gallon conversion (as applied into a diesel engine) is roughly 158,000 (x 0.95 = 150,000 btu for that of Kerosene).

As one example; A good efficient (continuous rated output) 1400 SHP diesel engine burns nearly 68 gallons per hour from the gross thermal energy as being achieved from #2 fuel. The converted energy output, if that were re-converted from SHP into watts = 1.05 MW watts and then that amount as related to btu equivalent is now 3,580,500 btu. Roughly speaking, that's representing 33% thermal efficiency or 20.5 SHP per gallon per hour (based upon 746 watts per SHP), but all that's here on Earth and not upon hot Venus and, that's still not SHP as being produced from any purely rocket powered (H2O2/Kerosene) turbine engine, as would become a viable solution which should somewhat offset for having so many other negative impact factors (such as higher ambient and lots of that co2 atmospheric pressure). About the best any large aeroderivative turbine (turboprop) can achieve is 39% (even that's applying a whole bunch of energy just to compress our thin and relatively o2 deficient atmosphere) and, smaller turboprops have been capable of as little as 25% overall efficiency (due to having to devote considerable energy into compressing thin [21% O2] air into being a relatively poor oxidizer).

Since I personally have no previous experience nor qualifications as to anything purely rocket powered, let alone that of any rocket powered turbine/turboprop engine, therefore, specifically what I'm most interested in is this; Obtaining your expertise help in the ongoing efforts as to establishing the mix ratio of h2o2/kerosene (taking pressures and temperatures into account) as well as other such potential fuels and, then something as to their rates of consumption per thermal energy output and/or of whatever energy formula happens to suite your style. Ideally, I'll eventually require that result as Mega Joules, Watts [kwh] or preferably as turboprop SHP (only because I understand SHP).

If you can help, don't go about making this into something other then what this is, which is merely an attempt at estimating the energy requirements as to produce a known amount of usable output torque or SHP gear reductions and associated losses I understand, such as your best quality turboprop gear reduction is nearly 99% efficient, so, by allotting 2% for that of a higher speed and/or greater capacity rocket powered turbine engine as having to perform on Venus should become something well within acceptable standards).

If you can manage to locate the actual fuel consumption of such a purely rocket powered turbine (of most any power output), that would certainly be great, downright super, as then others and myself will be sufficiently impressed so as to insure that you receive the credits for your knowledge and/or efforts and remember, I am not looking for anything so damn precise, just the raw numbers that relate eventually into output shaft horse power and/or mega watt output will do just fine, then of the required fuel consumption in grams or liters to tonnes or whatever per hour will fill out what I'm looking for. +/-20% is more then just fine for now, as I'm simply trying to understand approximately how much fuel would be needed for sustaining 100 hours operation, that which will enable others and myself to better calculate upon the necessary fuel load capability of the massive airship.

If such a turbine engine were to be configured, as fueled purely via two chemical fluids, such as 98% hydrogen peroxide and ethanol or perhaps just your basic petrol/Kerosene (as Kerosene offers nearly the same boiling point as H2O2), what would be the amounts of these two propellants, as consumption that would be capable of producing 100000 MJ of hourly performance. In other words, how much hourly tonnage of the H2O2 oxidiser along with how much ethanol or Kerosene or whatever per hour. Please try to clarify if your are providing information about energy as per second, per minute or per hour (hourly being my preferred standard).

Eventually, along with your assistance, we will sort all this out, establish the working fuel load capacity or likely volumes of these two elements, of an allotment that would yield an operational period exceeding 100 hours. Obviously, other combinations of such propellant cocktails will offer their respective advantages and/or disadvantages and, these will equally be reviewed, but mostly focusing upon those with the greater likelihood of being produced as well as being safely stored on the planet Venus will be taken more seriously, as to be keeping in mind, it's damn hot, even under the greater pressures, perhaps too damn hot for many alternative fuels. As I was recently informed by a fairly good source, atomic power could be an obvious solution, however, if you think our cooling towers are big, those on Venus may have to be at least 10 times larger and, I have not sofar discovered that sort of structure, unless those massive reservoir looking elements are geothermal cooling ponds (perhaps full of mineral oils so that they don't simply boil off). In re-thinking about reactor cooling towers, a co2 atmosphere is sufficiently thermally conductive, so much more so then Earth's thin atmosphere that heat exchanging may in fact not be such an issue.

Here was my previously dead wrong preliminary study/report on what such a multi-fueled or hybrid rocket/turbine engine might actually consume, I was trying to be as conservative as possible, however, please do feel free as to correcting my figures at any time.

On Earth, a good conventional atmospheric breathing turbine of a 10,000 SHP verity, develops roughly 20 SHP per gallon from kerosene (JP5). Of course that's using up a lot of engine compressed oxygen as well as requiring a substantial amount of the fuel consumption to be utilized just for compressing our thin atmosphere into something worthy as a fuel (oxidizer) component. Where as with a H2O2/Kerosene concept (basically a rocket powered formula), where there is no such compressor stage required (just propellant and oxidizer delivery pumps and/or compressors) and, if to be considering that such machinery mass and diameter and/or space for such an engine is not going to represent any problem, then utilizing a fairly large scale three stage (sort of triple expansion as well as that of permitting intermediate stage reductions) such a thermal energy conversion turbine should be at the very least capable of delivering half that amount of usable output per volume of blended fuel, in other words, something like 10 kwh/kg (I somehow believe this estimate is being sufficiently conservative).

As to re-calculate energy; based upon the Venus airship H2O2/Kerosene combustion (@7:1) cocktail, which is representing roughly 11 Earth pounds or 8.9 Venus pounds (5 kg) per gallon volume. So far, there is absolutely no problem here and, both of these elements are fluids as well as sufficiently stable at the available pressures and daytime temperatures of Venus (otherwise being most likely nighttime as well as held within pressurized tanks and then obviously shielded and thereby insulated within this massive airship are all representing very positive considerations). How can this not work?

How about introducing a little atomic power ?

UPDATE March 22 According to Thomas Goodey, in his mind, nuclear remains a fairly strong possibility.

If this airship were to become nuclear, then also could be their local township and mining operations supported by such. Which seems that might also be providing for nearly all their energy solutions, which should indicate as a fairly detectable thermal signature (that is of course, if anyone were actually looking for such, which I do not believe NASA ever was, at least I've never located one pathetic study as related to searching for identifiable artificial content).

Any significant amount of nuclear power generation, especially that on Venus, would offer a fairly substantial thermal signature. I am thinking that such heat exchanging requirements might need to be at least 10 fold larger and/or more highly developed then here on Earth and, this is entirely possible. (note/update: In re-thinking about reactor cooling towers, a co2 atmosphere is sufficiently thermally conductive, so much more so then Earth's thin atmosphere that such heat exchanging may in fact not be such an issue after all).

Since several of the Venus exploration missions had various IR detection ability and apparently failed to record such worthy hot-spots, other then what was perceived as volcanic considerations (which certainly could have been mistaken), I feel the likelihood of anything much larger then a 50 MW power source could have been easily missed, gone undetected (although on Venus, where we are likely dealing with a lessor nuclear conversion efficiency factors of perhaps 25%, in which case that leaves us with 75% as waste heat to exchange, and that's 150 MW worth of fairly concentrated thermal rejection, which perhaps should have been detected).

However; If to be considering what NASA has to offer in there own defence (actually not all that much), along with all of their crack wizards so failing to even spot these massive installations at "GUTH Venus", just as they thoroughly missed those large and somewhat complex and connected reservoirs, then never once spotted that half mile long suspension bridge, totally missed that unusually symmetrical/geometrical raised airport/platform issue and that of the associated township, also never realizing those engraving/quarry sites or significant road and/or rail beds, tunnels entrances situated all over the place, several parabolic considerations and not but least of all, missed that massive airship protruding from under that entrance hatch associated with an appropriate silo/hangar suited for the massive airship and, in fact they still can't manage to see a damn thing, so it is entirely possible that nuclear power signatures are simply all over the place and still, our "not so poor" Club NASA apparently can't be bothered, nor as to their impressive staff of affirmative action braille image interpreters, as they obviously can't feel anything when they tried to read those SAR images (besides, they all must have received paper cuts from trying their best at just determining the size of those photo prints, now fully retired and on full disability at that).

UPDATE March 16; I have just re-calculated these figures, this time based upon a 7:1 mixture (@1.31 g/cc or 1.31 kg/liter) ratio and then more so accounting for the 81% gravity, which represents that 1235 Earth metric tonnes of said would become equal to 1000 Venus metric tons and, if to be utilizing 90% of that amount permits a 100 hour fuel burn rate of 24,497.5 pounds per hour or 11,112 kg/hr. That amount of fuel burn (based upon a energy release of 12 mj/kg) times 3.333 kwh per kilogram produces 37,036 kwh, which is then developing a potential gross energy delivery of 49,646 HP. Final calculation is still based upon an overall turbine conversion efficiency of 50%, thus we have obtained 24,823 net usable SHP. Of course, this airship could easily manage to carry in excess of 4 times that amount of fuel load, thereby achieving 100,000 SHP.

UPDATE March 15;   According to a far better researcher (Thomas Goodey) then I can provide with any regard to h2o2/kerosene as fuel:
If I understood his drift; The potential energy release from the proper mixture of two such chemicals could be worth as much as 12 MJ/kilogram (that's MegaJoules per kilogram, which is equal to 2.6 kilograms of TNT and, that's certainly a lot of "BANG" per kilogram). If we were to utilize this as any basis as to calculate the potential energy available on an hourly basis (such as to eventually convert this into conventional turboprop Shaft Horse Power) and, based upon burning off that 2000 metric tons worth of fuel over a period of 100 hours: the net result can be something like producing 44,665 SHP per hour, given a 10% fuel reserve factor and we have a total energy of 40,000 SHP to work with. Now, blow away another efficiency factor of 50% into the fire and we end up with a misally 20,000 SHP. Now, that certainly should do the trick, as the LZ-129 made due with 3300 SHP. Obviously 20,000 SHP leaves enough energy to air condition this 100+ knot Venus Metro Airship and, obviously this is more then I had thought possible and, apparently I could still be overly conservative as with regard to obtaining only 50% thermal efficiency from a good rocket/turbine conversion into SHP.

UPDATE April 13; Just re-discovered what I had once seen a fairly long time ago, this issue is having to deal with a rather specific rocket powered turbine driven fuel pump and, among several such power turbine pumps, this pre-1980's one was rated at 23,000 horse power (1.716 MW) and having a thermal conversion efficiency rating of 76%, while yet other larger capacity turbine powered pumps were achieving 84% efficiency. Thus, it is fairly safe to consider, especially if size, number of stages and weight were not any factor, that the least amount of conversion efficiency is going to be something like 75% and, not the 50% as I had previously stated in order to remain as conservative as possible. Therefore, 75% of 49,646 now represents 37,235 SHP, which is well over eleven times greater then what LZ-129 had to work with, then also remember, that a ducted counter rotating thrust fan is going to offer at minimum another 50% advantage above that of any four open propellers (in other words, we have established something based upon a mere 1000 Venus metric tons of fuel load) so that this airship can easily sustain a minimum of 22 times increase in available full time cruising trust over that of the LZ-129 (@4 times more fuel and, we now have achieved 88 times more thrust, perhaps more like 100 times greater thrust if you simply consider the thicker atmosphere). Even if the available MJ/kg were to be half that of the previously estimated 12 MJ/kg, that only requires the airship to manage with 2000 metric tonnes of fuel, which is not a problem as far as accommodating such amounts.

Fortunately, whatever safety issues are those being greatly enhanced by the sheer bulk of the Venus atmosphere being comprised of CO2 and Nitrogen, then just as well, as the atmospheric pressure of 90+ bar is greatly improving upon raising the boiling point of just about everything. On Earth (@1 Bar), H2O2 boils at 150C, where as on Venus, that very same 1 Bar is representing nearly a full vacuum and, even well above 10 km, @50 bar, water boils at 265C whereas, H2O2 as well as Kerosene might boil at approximately 336C. (@90+ Bar, those boiling points are obviously placed considerably higher yet). The recorded daytime atmospheric temperature @10 km has been reported as 325C. So, if we were to consider their nighttime at 300C and doing the math, under the worst possible conditions, that's offering a 36C safety margin and that's if both chemicals are fully exposed and not being insulated or further pressurized, which is absurd because, why would anyone openly store H2O2 and Kerosene (at least not in the same room).

I have applied several new calculations as to the potential lift of that airship, overall revisions that have become as a result of what Thomas Goodey offered, where his more correct calculations place a potential at 63 kg/cubic meter as to what Hydrogen can manage. Such buoyancy is sufficient to have constructed this airship out of iron (various steel alloys would naturally have become the preferred material, if not basalt composites as for the ultimate solution).

Do try to keep this in mind; those highly evolved lizard DNA's on Venus may have arrived into this solar system somewhat after Earth and, part of the Venus evolution or creation if you will, Venus could very well have been that as being situated at EL1 + VL2 (that's anywhere from 2.5 to 3.5 million kilometers apart from Earth (depending upon where Earth was at the time in relation to it's distance from the Sun).

As always; If you believe you can provide other such useful information, and/or a link to a physics, chemical or thermal cross reference table, or that of most any good energy/chemical calculator, please do so, and I'll post the credits for your support, applying whatever updates and corrections into my equations and post those results, though I would rather post a link directly into your research. (by the way, I do seem to have another effective E-Flak suit, just in case you need one).
Copyright © 2000/2001/2002/2003 - Brad E. Guth
GUTH Venus: All Rights Reserved
Webmaster: Brad Guth -
Brad Guth / IEIS