Venus Illuminations Are Exactly What They Are

There is other life NOT as we know it, and that's in spite of our warm and fuzzy NASA

(by; Brad Guth / GASA~IEIS     upadat: May 15, 2004)
2X of heath4.jpg indicating illumination zone as of 2001 February 23, 18.05 UT
Going by this page link containing multiple observations as recorded by the likes of Peter Wade, David Fisher, Alen Heath and even of Lee Macdonalds' view 8 hours after inferior conjunction (2001 March 30, 11.45 UT, 22cm Newtonian x91, seeing Antoniadi IV), as for their being entirely opposed to what I'd been informed by the likes of our pro-NASA collective of "spin" and "dog wagging" damage control freaks, where I was even informed by the likes of some of our best observatories stipulating that looking at Venus was simply too dangerous and even damaging to their instruments, whereas there's been absolutely no such apparent problem whatsoever in honest folks and of their precious instruments safely imaging upon Venus while it's near or even transitting a portion of the sun, much less of preventing our laser targeting upon something that's so big and so accessible, simply because it's become so nearby.

Although, now that the KECK-II team has obviously imaged upon the Venus nighttime, of more than four years ago, their recording that green glow of all things being ionized oxygen(O2), this sort of makes for all the other observatories into LLPOF folks, as in morally stinking because, if the precious and sensitive KECK-II can manage to safely image upon the nighttime season of Venus, then lo and behold, others should have been capable. What does KECK-II have that other telescopes do not? (The green glow)

"Every time [scientists] take a look [at Venus,] they seem to see something different, with phenomena appearing or disappearing like the smile of the Cheshire Cat. In November 1999, researchers from S.R.I. International and Lowell Observatory pointed the 10-meter Keck telescope on Mauna Kea, Hawaii, toward [the night side of] Venus for eight minutes and saw the distinctive green glow of oxygen atoms. "It was a total surprise," said Dr. Thomas G. Slanger, a scientist at S.R.I. and lead author of a paper in the current issue of Science."

Obviously I had been entirely right all along, especially correct about the previous opportunity as for Viewing and attempting interplanetary communications, in that our warm and fuzzy NASA as usual blocked out the truth by way of their intentionally ignoring the opportunity and proceeded to further dog-wag and spin their Mars hype in order to avoid the subject of Venus altogether, as well as for their instructing others to avoid the subjects of Venus and as well as our moon, while our NASA/NSA/DoD managed to further screw all of humanity, by way of their usual continuation of skewing those laws of physics and science to an absolute fairlywell.

Ignore it and it'll go away didn't work for Osama bin Laden, and it's not working for my quest of getting folks involved with the truth and nothing but the truth about Venus, and about our moon, and possibly something worthy about the Sirius star system while I'm at it.

Just because it's supposedly so hot and nasty upon Venus, that doesn't specify that all portions of (day or night) are equally as hot and nasty, especially at good elevations where there's a well accepted factor of relative coolness that's otherwise surrounded by a darn good and crystal clear medium of photon conductive substance (mostly CO2) and of a sufficient overall opacity through them clouds at that, and don't forget that the Venus environment is truly chuck full of energy resources that'll surpass all of what Earth has at our disposal. So, try as to not let my dyslexia formula of encryption confuse this topic of interplanetary communications, via laser and/or whatever methods of creating sufficient outputs of photons (H-Bombs being a wee bit on the extreme).

The upper most atmosphere, extending from the fringe of space down to about 100 km above the surface, this varies in temperature from a maximum of about 298K in the daytime to a minimum of 123K nighttime (BTW; that's a rather huge thermal differential). Within the middle atmosphere, temperatures increase from about 173K at 100 km above the surface to roughly 264K at the top of the nearly continuous cloud deck, which lies at an altitude of more than 60 km. Below the cloud tops the temperature continues to increase sharply through the lower atmosphere, reaching 735K at the planet's lowest daytime surface.

However; elevated surfaces remain cooler, and at night that's cut by at least another 50K and there's yet another -10K/km compensation worth of conduction mode thermal extraction that's primarily going vertical, as the crystal clear surrounding ocean of CO2 remains relatively calm with respect to horizontal issues. In other words, of the utmost ideal rigid-airship environment if there ever was. Of course there's so much buoyancy to be had, as such there's no limitations as to the construction of said airship, that plus the lesser gravity represents that of even primitive airships would had functioned quite nicely (I wonder what sort of rigid airships they have today?).

The clouds can certainly be enormously thick (25+km worth), while clearly indicating a 20:1 ratio of density by day that's more than likely offering a greater ratio by nighttime, thus making for a minimum depth of as little as 1 km of clouds possible in limited spots. Otherwise the main cloud deck extend from about 40 km above the surface up to nearly 65 km, plus there are additional thin zones of haze that extend several kilometres below the lowest clouds and of what's floating upwards of as much as 20 km above the highest clouds. At 85+ km the outer surrounding atmosphere is once again clear, and obviously more so clear while being situated in the season of nighttime.
Fig. 2. – Variation in the temperature of the atmosphere of Venus according to altitude (B.G; I've pegged the lower portion at 10+ºK/km), obtained in-situ at the time of the descent in the atmosphere of four automatic probes during the mission Pioneer-Venus in 1979 (milked continuous). On right-hand side, the relative average density of particles of the fogs and clouds according to altitude is represented, revealing several distinct layers. The clouds, located at an altitude included/understood into 45 and 70 km, consist of fine droplets of sulphuric acid in aqueous solution, made up to 75% of sulphuric acid (H2SO4) and to 25% of water (H2O). Their diameter ranging between some dizièmes of mm and ten mm (1 mm = 10-3 mm). The lower atmosphere of Venus does not receive sunlight with the wavelengths lower than 400 Nm. In visible light, it is hardly 5% of the sunlight which reaches surface.

There are otherwise relatively small-scale brightness variations of cloud coverings that typically by day are no more than about 10%~20%, although of the much cooler nighttime clouded variations should become much greater due to the tremendous thermal differentials taking place.

Types of surface Albedo(%)
Ocean 2-10
Forest 6-18
Grass 7-25
Soil 10-20
Desert (sand) 35-45
Ice 20-70
Snow (fresh) 70-80

According to this data and a few other reports; as for offering my rough numbers there's nearly 15% of the total solar influx that reaches the surface, whereas perhaps better than a third of that energy (5%) is what falls within the human visual spectrum, although another third as for making up 2/3 of the 15% reaching the surface, of which obviously represents more than 10% of the solar spectrum of the surface photon influx could well be arriving within a good perception of a nocturnal vision, as for otherwise less than 5% as IR arrives at this surface, and of whatever the cloud density offers is a variable factor of at least 20:1, that variance most likely allows for an increased portion of the near UV spectrum of 400~450 nm to pass rather than not.

Opacity spectrum of what illumination energy is reaching the ground:
2640 * .15 = 396 watts/m2 from the full solar spectrum
2640 * .05 = 132 watts/m2 of near UV (400~450 nm)
2640 * .05 = 132 watts/m2 of 450 to 650 nm
2640 * .05 = 132 watts/m2 of 650+ nm

The amount of reflected illumination with respect to the full spectrum is 74%~82%, and of the Visible spectrum is obviously sharing less than the 0.76 albedo. Venus offers us a fully UV/a albedo of perhaps only 0.01
400~450 nm = 0.05
450~500 nm = 0.10
500~550 nm = 0.20
550~600 nm = 0.15
600~650 nm = 0.10
650~700 nm = 0.10
700~750 nm = 0.05
     750 + nm = 0.05

Of course, within the Venus extended season of nighttime there's going to be little of anything reflected as solar influx (whatever amount of earthshine is all there is, which isn't insignificant by nocturnal standards), other than for detecting of what's radiated by somewhat cooler clouds and of thermal energy (mostly IR) coming from the truly horrific Venus terrain as related to vertically conductive modes of thermal transference taking place, whereas thinner clouds and those of lower altitude could open up a few opacity windows for whatever near UV of 400~450 nm achieving as great as a 25% opacity.

All objects, at whatever temperature, emit radiant energy.
Hotter objects radiate more total energy per unit area than colder objects.
The hotter the given body makes for the shorter the wavelength of maximum radiation.
Gases are going to be selective absorbers/radiators, i.e. they only absorb or radiate at selected wavelengths. So the atmosphere is transparent to some wavelengths but opaque to others, and thereby thermal transfers are not remaining uniform.

Total volume/mass of atmosphere and clouds ~ 10e18 m3 and 4.5e20 kg

Since I'm not all that certain that you took careful notice of the mention upon 75%/25% H2SO4/H2O aspect of what those Venus Clouds contain, and I don't always intend as to be the one nitpicking at the little stuff, but good grief folks, that's just a wee bit more than a few thousand mega tonnes of potential H2O2 that's been nicely cycling within them relatively cool clouds surrounding Venus (I've substituted the H2O2 for plain old H2O because it's so much easier to keep within a heated environment, and way more useful in other ways). So, as I've stipulated previously, as in nearly three years worth and counting, with an applied basics of physics-101 for vacuum distillation, and of utilizing the absolutely free thermal resource attribute of what trapped below them cool nighttime clouds, I believe this is where all the action is, at least it would be if I were stuck nextdoor the most pathetically dumb and dumber other planet in the entire universe, and if I considered that I needed the likes of H2O in spite of my planet being thought of as being too damn hot and nasty, and thereby not worth squat to the folks of Earth.

Obviously there's one hell of a internal mode of thermal conduction issue as being continuously transferred into a great deal of radiant cooling that's ongoing throughout their extended season of nighttime, as that's a thermal balance that's a toasty fact, as otherwise Venus would have exploded long ago. I'm not suggesting at there being the likes of snow upon Venus, but I am pointing out that without all that much in applied technology, especially as long as there so much available energy transpiring at ones' disposal, that we simply need to at least consider upon how hard would it actually would have been, as to have adapted and subsequently survived?

This brings us right back into the topic of those Venus "hot-spots" or rather horrifically illuminated zones that the likes of sufficiently talented folks such as Peter Wade, David Fisher, Alen Heath and I'm now fairly certain others have noticed those illumination spots upon many previous observations, but thanks as usual to our NASA and of their warm and fuzzy attention to publishing disinformation as so much intellectual propaganda, thus I'm fairly certain that these other nice folks couldn't have possibly imagined what they were seeing.

Although this following report is suggesting a factor of lightning as the sole cause of the "ashen light", there's no apparent physics as to backing up the natural method of such energy being created and/or sustained for the duration of 30/sec and as focused and/or of the spectrum as the observed, as such illuminations having been recorded have been of considerably greater than a few seconds, and besides all of that, of those darn Venus clouds (unlike clouds of Earth) are quite electrolytic (electron conductive) and I believe unlikely to build any hot-spot of sufficient potential and duration of discharge.

As such I've run through my illumination estimate once again, of what sort of artificial illumination in the "heath4.jpg" had to offer in order to see if there's yet another outcome that's worth considering, rather than of my previous 400 mega watt artificial illumination which if anything could be skewed by a good factor of being ten fold to great, especially if we're down to a mere 5 km worth of sufficiently transparent clouds. Although trying to obtain a straight answer upon the opacity of those Venus clouds is almost as bad off as trying to locate those WMD.

I believe that if this photon source were originating from the likes of Istar Terra, as representing a well elevated territory of some 10+km to start off with, and if the cloud layer were of 25 km worth and of that starting in at 50 km, that makes the cloud tops of 75 km.

Using the 150º dispersion as such might have to be suggested of what a relatively non focused illumination is if having to start out from the surface elevation of 10 km and ultimately further diverging and/or diffusing out to the 500+ km diameter of nearly exactly what's depicted as a substantially illuminated zone of roughly 2e11 m2, and if we were to be using the overall opacity factor of 10% as for an approximation of the energy being displayed, and if we gave that a spectrum of being 425~450 nm, this is what I've come up with.

Of the 425~450 nm spectrum, I believe there's roughly 132 w/m2 of solar reflected photons to overcome. As I learn more I'll edit this document and share in whatever corrections and/or notions worth mentioning.

If we're talking about having to double upon that amount in order for us to have seen and recorded this illumination, that's obviously going to take another 132 w/m2.

2e11 * 132 = 264e11 or 26.4e12 (26.4 terawatts)

Obviously 26.4 terawatts is an impressive number, especially if they required ten fold more at the original source, as that's not going to be easily explained by anything we currently have in our inventory. Although, what if this were a resource of highly focused photons that merely diverged as it expectedly would as those photons penetrated them clouds.

After all, those elements of H2SO4 could be somewhat crystal and/or optical lens like droplets, and as such somewhat internally and thereby mutually conductive in a cohesive manner. So, of how much energy seems to get into the notion of our better understanding upon what a commercial illumination cannon is capable of delivering, and obviously of what opacity those Venus clouds represent.

This is where I seem to recall that a 4 kw xenon or actually CO2 lamp of 4 kw is capable of delivering a focused beam of 1.4e9 cd(candela), and that of somewhere I recall for the 550 nm spectrum there's supposedly 683 lumens per watt, and to add a little further confusion I've identified numbers of photons specified as little as 1.5e18/watt, of which at best (@507 nm) the human eye is obtaining 1700 lumen/w, or I've located yet another statement of 2.8e18 photons/watt. Of course all of this lumen, watt, candela and photons per watt or per lumen stuff is in relationship to the various skew factors of a given photon spectrum, plus reliant upon the relatively piss-poor performance of the human eye, of which is apparently quite badly connected into an even more pathetic brain, at least the likes of my village idiot brain can't seem to keep half of these conversions straight.

If we're focusing the entire resources of multiple 4 kw worth of those intense packets worth 1700 lumen/watt at 1º or less into those clouds, as such I'm still suggesting upon the likes of that effort requiring at most 400 MW of source illumination that could have done this trick, and then some, as that's the notion of applying 100,000 of these 4 kw commercial xenon illumination cannons upon them clouds, each cannon being of 1º or lesser divergence, which should more than have illuminated through them clouds with photons to spare, after all, we're adding those photons to what's already there, and of the 75%/25% H2SO4/H2O soup of their day is in fact offering a fair opacity to the likes of the 400~450 nm spectrum, whereas I'd have to think that a Venus nighttime environment could be even better off.

For some odd reason, I keep reading and hearing it stipulated over and over, as well as for seeing it published in all sort of reference textbooks, about such things as for how hot and nasty Venus is, or of how bad all that pressure is, and that Venus lost all of its O2, as well as all of its H2O and thereby all of its He and H2 millions of years ago, and so on. Don't these fools realize that it takes H2O in order to make the likes of those H2SO4 clouds?

I mean to say; can't these fools see the dark (SAR image signal absorbing) centers as to what certainly looks like reservoirs, natural and/or otherwise none the less, that are most likely containing something besides hot rocks?

It's almost as though the Magellan mission never transpired and thereby never imaged upon anything the least bit artificial looking, and that folks insisting that life elsewhere is impossible are biased purely upon the published words as moderated to death by the one and only doctrine offered by our NASA, and/or by the sorts of folks catering to and/or sucking up to NASA, plus defending those of our never ending FBI/CIA/NSA/DoD cold-wars, none of which care to be telling one another a damn thing until it's too late, and even then they'll consistently lie as the liars they are until them Apollo cows come home.

Or, do they think those horrific clouds surrounding Venus are merely as dry as all of their clumping moon dirt, that which has just recently become retro-reflective according to NASAs' borgs?

I mean, good grief almighty folks, take yourself out of your box for another look-see, perhaps even for the very first time and, then you tell me what it is that you see upon Venus;, then ask yourself of how many seconds a naked human would last if exposed to the likes of a winter Antarctica, whereas that sort of environment should be as much lethal as cold and nasty as Venus is hot and nasty, with the exception of Antarctica offering damn little if any natural energy resource sufficient as for altering the prospects towards your surviving, as in as much like trying to survive upon Mars is relatively pathetic as compared to what's doable upon Venus.

BTW; here is a little something where the SETI/OSETI microwave photon verses the visible photon is being compared upon technical merits alone:, whereas I believe they're referencing this as to a trek worth of 10 light years. This analogy is obviously excluding upon the nocturnal sensitivity performance of a good biological sensor (the eye) that's residing as merely a few light minutes away, as opposed to residing 10 light years further distant. They also seem to have been ignoring the overall apparatus of what it takes as for accommodating those microwave photons as opposed to the visible or near UV spectrum of photons isn't 1% of what the microwave investment takes, not to mention the fact that a good nocturnal biological sensor (eye) is already interfaced into a massively parallel quantum computer (the brain) that can interpret the intelligence within a given modulation of photons for deciphering upon something that's greater than a 3D level of interpretation, all without one iota of electronics nor artificial energy resource whatsoever. Try accomplishing that with those stinking SETI microwaves.

I've come to understand that of anything much less than 10 light years is apparently worth squat to the likes of SETI and/or apparently that includes OSETI, although here I'm still focused upon dumb old Venus that's only a few light minutes away, though I'd certainly take on a little respect of those OSETI folks if they were going for a little long-distance calling upon Sirius that's 8.65 light years away, as that's only a mere 19 years worth of our butt sitting until we get our first reply packet. Gee whiz, too bad that wasn't being accommodated as of 20 years ago, as by now we'd have something going in the way of a duplex interplanetary intellectual exchange.

Photons/watt = (J)(nm)/hc
J (joule) = watts/sec
nm = photon wavelength
hc = 6.626e-34 * 2.9979e8 = 19.864e-26

Of the mention for 1.5e18 photons/watt being representative of a common light source is perhaps sufficiently true, then of a far better illumination efficiency such as xenon should be offering considerably more of those photons, and especially if that's being well focused into a spectrum that's capable of reaching 1700 lumen/watt, whereas that's perhaps where a portion of the original skew of my previously obtaining a count of 1e28 photons/lumen came into being.

Another conversion factor that adds a little further insult to injury;
1 einstein or mole worth of whatever = 6.023e23, which might even indirectly suggest upon what a mole of photons is worth.

Although, since photons weigh so damn little (Hubble Photon Mass = 5.81e-69 Kg = 5.81e-66 g or 3.23e-33 eV), and they're so 1-D or perhaps quantum string like, as such seems logical that there's a far greater number of those wossy photons to go around than being represented by any mole, especially if your photon sensor were that of a nocturnal eye capable of a magnitude 5 better performance than human.

In order to improve a little upon my confusions:
Whereas this page isn't entirely clear, but it certainly reflects upon the sorts of conversion data that's certainly a soup of the day, much of which is reliant upon other data that's not so easily proven, like Planks constant of 6.626e-34 J/Hz. As we already know that Einstein's constant of 299,792,458 m/s depends upon what the heck the photon is traveling itself through, and/or of being influenced by the forces of energy and/or gravity, thus the actual speed of light has sort of become irrelevant, and certainly no longer a constant.

Up to a point, the fewer the atoms/m3 the faster the speed of light, and if those few atoms and their atomic Oort zones are those situated between enormous forces of gravity, there's not all that much preventing the speed of a photon packet from easily exceeding 3e8 m/s, of which photons already accommodate this performance as within a coaxial or waveguide environment.
"short wavelength ultraviolet light has much more energy per photon than either visible or long wavelength infrared".

"To put this into perspective: the human eye can detect a flux of about 10 photons per second at a wavelength of 555 nm; this corresponds to a radiant power of 3.58 x 10-18 W (or J s-1). Similarly, the eye can detect a minimum flux of 214 and 126 photons per second at 450 and 650 nm, respectively" from this and other research I've learned that the human interception and subsequent perception of detecting photons (Scotopic lm/W) is supposedly best obtained at 507 nm as being worth 1700 lm/w, however it's accepted that of certain nocturnals types the sensitivity is a good magnitude 5 better, and I believe that's yielding a hundred fold improvement over humans that perceive merely 774 lumen/watt at 450 nm, of which a good biological nocturnal photon detector and/or artificial sensor might thereby perceive those same 450 nm photons at the rate of 774,000 lumen/watt.

There's also my ongoing research lending notions of such photons having been handed off as FIFO packets, as somewhat like data packets being flung between various computer nodes, except for photons having to utilize the atomic Oort zone of each atom as for accommodating this photon atom-to-atom or  atomic Oort node-to-node method of transference through such wide-open space, whereas there's damn few atoms, as this is where there seems to be a greater reliance upon whatever is influencing those individual atoms as opposed to the considerable lightweight aspects of the individual photon thats more or less of a 1-D individual that's having to coexist within a 3-D universe that's more often than not being distorted by nearly everything under the sun.

Christ almighty folks, why don't we just poor out this horrific soup mix and start this universe allover from scratch?

I mean to say, what sort of a perverted God would have dreamed up this mess in the first place?

To the INDEX page: GUTH Venus (with loads of recently posted UPDATES)
alternate URL's:  and
Copyright © 2000~2004 - Brad E. Guth
GUTH Venus: All Rights Reserved
Webmaster: Brad Guth - Brad Guth / IEIS~GASA   ~  phone; 1-253-8576061
created: May 06, 2004

Brad Guth / IEIS
(due to officially DHS sanctioned email account bashings, as well as unauthorized moderation of my email accounts, whereas if push should come down to shove, you can always call or simply post your reply within the likes GOOGLE or using "bradguth-email" or otherwise include "guthvenus" within your subject line, in that way I'll find you, though even GOOGLE as well as can internally moderate/exclude anything by you know who)