OOPS, sorry again about this little NSA/DoD infringement

( the "GUTH Venus" discovery seems to never end with all the "what if's" )

CO/O2 BURNING (ripping O2 from CO2)

(updated May 12, 2002)

I can appreciate the fact that smart people (presumably NASA types) will not venture much past the headline and the first paragraph of any research, that's because they're so damn smart that they do not have to tolerate those beneath them, which is understandably most everyone else. However, I must offer that you proceed in spite of my delivery and/or whatever semantically incorrect chemical or physics statements (unless you have ulterior motives, you should easily understand what it is I'm trying to get across), as the perceived errors and omissions are not necessarily nor intentionally my fault. In most instances, I've been reflecting upon what I'm being told and/or trying my best to interpret (with regard to the "GUTH Venus" discovery and therefore in my case of going after supporting technology, where that effort has obviously been easier said then done).

It seems as though; Once again, I've inadvertently intruded upon yet another one of those NSA/DoD secretes (NSA/DoD because, I can't understand why NASA would have to impose the shield of their "nondisclosure policy" upon this opportunity). This issue is having to do with the potential of utilizing co2 via greater temperatures and thus permitting the ripping or pulling of o2 along with whatever ignition process and/or essentially that of bulk burning of that abundant co2 atmosphere, as an additive and/or perhaps sole oxidizer. I'm trying to further update my "energy-options" page, so keep checking back from time to time, I just might have a few more surprises coming.

Now, I could certainly be a little off, even a whole lot off, but that's not fully explaining the entire picture of events which unfolded last week. As my interest/focus was purely based upon learning about and at least somewhat understanding potential options that could be at work on behalf of those surviving on Venus. Obviously Venus has become a hot planet, so therefore you need to develope whatever energy resources in order to deal with that admittedly piss poor situation or, you could just die (going by some of my latest critic responces and otherwise lack of formal support, this ultimate result of death would apparently suit NASA/NSA/DoD just fine).

Once again, then only because of such unexpected and pro-NASA biased oppositions, as to what my discovery has to offer, did I feel the need to explore some new territory. Since no one else was budging (once again, there were no valid reasons for others not to offer their expertise unless they're not as smart as we've been told), as this time having to do with the simple concept of potentially burning off (combusting) some of that co2, as merely being a supplement oxidizer along with a little h2o2/c12h26 consumption (that's Hydrogen Peroxide and Kerosene). Exactly how hard can that be? (much harder then I thought) and, if so at what possible harm? (apparently plenty of harm because someone is obviously not all that pleased with what I'm doing).

This latest process all started off with my quest as to identify whatever potentially viable energy resources exist on the planet Venus. My opposition as usual, accomplished damn little, most focussed upon accomplishing only their continued bashing and otherwise apparently participated in what now appears as yet another orchestrated disinformation effort (they seem to be better at that and, lets see, where have I run in to this before?, I recall; those 1/6th gravity scaled lunar landers which seem to have no documentation whatsoever and of not one successful flight film footage record and, those star/no-star issues regarding all those Apollo mission photos and, how about all of that space travel radiation consideration, of which our hybrid astronauts feared not and, let us not forget about our Shuttle and Earth based SAR imaging resolution capabilities, of which NASA/NSA/DoD have reported our having but 1/30th the true capabilities of other Nations and, I suppose other then all that intentional disinformation, along with whatever else is associated, others and myself have not been intentionally misled, only lied to).

With a little further regard to co2 burning (actually that amounts to co/o2 burning);  It's looking as though there exist a proven technology or two, that which would allow for co2 combustion. According to one NASA resource, as within a reply to this previous question "On Tue, 18 Jul 2000, A.J. Libby wrote: To create fuel for use on Mars, might it be feasible to separate carbon dioxide (the dominant component of Mars' atmosphere) into oxygen and carbon monoxide?", and to this question, his official reply was; "CO/O2 is a little low on specific impulse (250 seconds for the system we analyzed; 270 or 280 for a bit better technology), it's hard to ignite, and it burns hot, but it has the tremendous advantage that it requires nothing brought from Earth".

Now that previous (official NASA) statement seems to say quite a lot.

As nearly 2 years have since passed;  this presumably ongoing research into such ignition of those co2 components, as into the applied physics of offering sufficient combustion (essentially ripping the o2 from co2 and/or if you like creating co/o2 combustion), apparently this has actually been accomplished (in theory as well as laboratory test firings and even with regard to some limited commercial applications). In addition, you must at least by now understand, besides usage for bulk steel cutting and welding applications, co2 is exactly what a large majority of our commercial lasers and of those massive star-wars laser cannons basically function upon, where all of this energy release is affected by essentially ignition/burning or perhaps just thorough excitation of that co2 gas. So, co2 (under the right conditions) will in fact burn, it simply needs those right conditions and a relatively hot environment in which to release a great deal of obviously usable energy. (why exactly am I the only one [outside of NASA] that can realize this potential?)

With a molecular weight of 44 and thereby carrying a sufficient percentage of o2 as compared to our atmosphere, if nothing else, this applied added mass of potential (o2) oxidizer is truly considerable, as you simply may need to introduce a lot of it under a fair amount of pressure and, if need be to further super-heat it via electrical ignition and/or from that of basic compression, such as 5 atmospheres worth on venus (5 x 92 bar) would yield 6670 psi and, that's something only as necessary as prior to injecting it (as to then subsequently being ignited between those injection ports and into the existing rocket/engine flame) thereby introducing a rather substantial thermally expanding mass into an otherwise existing 4000K fire, such as that easily created by using h2o2/c12h26. Now it seems, we have not only obtained the initial capability of whatever the h2o2/c12h26 was providing plus, at least that of the added thermal mass of our igniting all that co/o2 (sort of like formulating a very large CW laser cannon, except as being directed into the flaming hearths of our rocket fueled turbine engine).

From injecting something like 5 tonnes per minute of sufficiently compressed and obviously of super-heated co2 is no simple task (no task is simple on Venus), but trust me on this, if your DNA butt depended upon finding a way, there would soon be a solution found. Always further keeping in mind, the sheer abundance of all that co2 means that you could conceivably consume 10, 25 and even 50 tonnes per minute, as essentially taking in whatever the power demands are to be needed, as to be entirely met by this injection process and, do remember that none of this otherwise heavy element would be carried onboard. Naturally, what's coming out the tail pipe is hopefully the bulk of carbon remainder (relatively damn hot however harmless, even to you and me).

Being that there is so much co2 freely available on Venus, once the initial turbine machinery was ignited from using perhaps h2o2/c12h26, as to placing the primary power turbines into producing the initial co2 compression and subsequently developing the torque output (including generating electricity), it seems entirely possible that ignition of that co2 should easily become within the realm of possibilities of even sustaining the entire process or at least that of the primary Oxidizer role. By the freaking way once again, one very obvious other significant advantage of having to compress that co2 is "air conditioning", and certainly lots of it.

Venus holds a lot of co2 and, it's already under considerable pressure and it's even somewhat toasty hot (700K @5km). This set of conditions when further met with an amount of added compression in order to best process upon a release of the co/o2 portions of co2, as to be sufficiently injecting this abundant element into the combustion chambers of a fairly large power generating turbine engine, this process obviously is looking as though it has some serious merit (unless you listen to others associated with NASA, as they'll tell you that there is absolutely nothing whatsoever to be gained by burning co2 and, that there would actually be a "sink effect" [reduction] in unable energy release). Fortunately, I do understand what co2 accomplishes with a relatively low temperature flame (say under 1400K), in sufficient quantity and as applied from a relatively low temperature co2 source and even colder yet as it's being released (evaporated) into a 1 bar atmosphere, it clearly extinguishes the flame, however mostly by merely cooling and then displacing the 21% o2 content of the surrounding atmosphere, but then I've not been indicating at introducing this co2 at initially anything under 4000K, so it seems someone (my pathetic critics) should get their facts straight before trying to derail my research, as it certainly isn't helping when I keep discovering various "truths" on this "need-to-know" basis.

Now that I seem to be on a more then valid track, efforts for myself to understand the greater potentials of applied co2 usage has all of the sudden met with sudden death; as my questions became somewhat more relevant and focussed towards understanding those capabilities as may exist on Venus, the lights simply went out and communications seemed lost, where those official sources which had initially indicated onto others that there were conceivable applications for applying co2, they've nearly all dried up (I'm not sure but, I think those NSA/DoD nondisclosure cops got to them before they could spill any more of their beans, as otherwise, I'm hoping that everyone has simply run back into their laboratories for some additional trials upon using co2, where I'm certain that they will all eventually credit and support my research for re-opening this grand opportunity).

Perhaps cowering and thus protecting their job security (perhaps even their life) is the other more acceptable resolution. Hopefully for benefiting my discovery research, there will soon be others not so impeded by NSA/DoD "nondisclosure policies", of those which can continue this effort in spite of NASA's predicament. Obviously on Earth, we don't need to concern ourselves with having to burn off co2 (we're too busy doing everything possible just with regard to manufacturing it), except for welding and those star-wars laser cannons and perhaps more importantly a few thousand "paint ball guns", where on the other hand, eventually we may need to understand co2 combustion, that is if and whenever we decide as to becoming concerned about others, such as those apparently stuck on the planet Venus.

Lets se;, when exactly was the last time we were truly concerned about anyone other that could conceivably be or become competitive and/or better at doing whatever. It seems first, there always has to be something greater in the rewards for us (like Arab oil and lately Canadian diamonds, so those two countries have been temporarily removed from our nuclear targeting), otherwise you can just kiss you sorry ass goodbye and goto hell because, we must always be thought of or at least of the perception that America is simply vastly superior to all others (in the Universe? fat chance, but what do I know).

If we Americans are supposedly so damn smart, then why can't NASA/NSA/DoD prove and thus settle their outstanding criticisms and then, why is this supposedly developed Nation of the least developed in being nuclear powered and furthermore without the efficiency and safety advantages of using Hydrogen as a primary fuel resource as well as for accommodating massive airships to boot ?????....After all, Hydrogen makes for an ideal format of safely and of efficiently storing surplus energy (just ask Iceland).

A perceived void of what should be rational information (especially where there should be no such void, such as with regard to our infamous Apollo missions), is almost as good as knowing the truth, sometimes even better, especially if the work-around enables others to discover what else has been intentionally hidden and/or skewed.

If you believe you can provide other such useful information and/or a link into a better physics, chemical or thermal cross reference table and/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. Understand, I would much rather post a link directly into your research. (by the way, in case you need one, I've developed and have a few extra E-Flack suits).
Copyright © 2000/2002 - Brad E. Guth
GUTH Venus: All Rights Reserved
Webmaster: Brad Guth - BradGuth@yahoo.com
Brad Guth / IEIS IEIS-Brad@Juno.com