"I'll call it the supersonic Ferris wheel. ... or could it work?" Could a centrifuge design be adopted to sling material up at high speed. >From the mining industry vertical shafts have been proven usually more >economic than use of conveyor belts that were tried in 1960's and 1970's. I >believe the simplicity of gun designs will reduce the amount of moving parts >plus wear and tear. Using ferris weels or centrifuges means more moving parts >and maintenance. High speeds required also wear materials. As per these I >think the gun blasting stuff remains likely to be the best option besides >using stratospheric balloons and aircraft that are readily available.
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 19:48:53 +0100 Subject: Re: [geo] Another look at gunnery? From: andrew.lock...@gmail.com To: albert_kal...@hotmail.com; geoengineering@googlegroups.com The design of the Iraqi supergun is also not appropriate for geoengineering, as its range is far too long. I don't know the payload, but it is likely to be of the order required, as the bore was 1m. With a lower pressure, I guess it could be used.... An alternative gun technology is here: http://www.physorg.com/news183023838.html I'm not sure about your idea of using frozen sulphuric acid. Surely the acceleration of launch would cause the particles to fuse? My suggestion is to use a supercritical H2S payload (+90bar, +100C), which is slow-bled from a supersonic/hypersonic shell, rather than a bursting charge. This should ensure much more efficient mixing into ambient air, and should also give the shell a bit more lift as the critical fluid escapes in gas form. You'd need a bit of overpressure to keep it supercritical until largely emptied. I'd be interested to know if anyone has an opinion on the use of steam to launch projectiles? This would likely be cheaper than a lifting charge, and furthermore the existence of a large reservoir should allow a leak-tolerant seal between barrel and round. Steam catapults launch fighter jets around 1 order of magnitude slower than is required, but with a far greater mass than would be needed for geoengineering - so the external forces would be similar. What are the limits to steam pistons? Does anyone on this list have experience of their design? I've conceived of a further idea, which I'd be grateful of comment on. I'll call it the supersonic Ferris wheel. Imagine, if you will, a large Ferris wheel, such as the London eye. If this were made from appropriately strong materials (eg kevlar), could it spin fast enough to drive the 'carriages' at the ~M2.5 required to launch from the ground to the stratosphere? By firing explosive bolts, the carriages would be freed to follow their own trajectory upwards. As I see it, the main limitation is the g-force tolerated, which drops as a larger wheel is used. Is this just bonkers, or could it work? A On 5 April 2011 09:38, Veli Albert Kallio <albert_kal...@hotmail.com> wrote: I think the bulk volume is a crucial element of the effectiveness. The economies of scale is important just like Saddam Husseins supergun. Could we get the design for geoengineering tests. He inteneded to shoot 1.2 tonne projectile to suborbital tracts. What I suggested was perhaps somewhere around 10,000-15,000 kilogram projectiles of frozen, pulverised sulphuric acid in an explosive projectile shell. Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 09:11:23 +0100 Subject: Re: [geo] Another look at gunnery? From: andrew.lock...@gmail.com To: albert_kal...@hotmail.com I don’t think that mine shafts are necessarily the right answer. The best approach IMO would be to use either a vertical tower on a high-altitude plateau, or an inclined gun built up the side of a mountain. Altitude saves propellant and money. The advantage of using a mountain gun is that easy access to all parts of the gun would be available. Sections could be easily refurbished, aligned or replaced. Crucially, for a Ram Accelerator, there has to be a series of either frangible diaphragms or fast acting valves along the length of the gun, and easy access for heavy plant, stores, workers, etc. would be needed. The gun relies propellant supply and pumping along its length, to maintain the variable pressures along the length. The advantage of the Ram Accelerator over other techniques is that it’s a fairly developed technology – far more so than the space fountain concept. We already have fairly decent ram launchers which can fire small payloads at high velocity. A On 5 April 2011 08:43, Veli Albert Kallio <albert_kal...@hotmail.com> wrote: A good starter could be a study to identify the worlds disused mine shafts to test the concept of long barrels firing shells made of supercooled sulphuric acid. The shell casing could be considerably reduced, but ultimately these shafts would have to be dug into mountains to make the benefit of altitude and thin atmosphere to help them carry payloads higher and to right areas of atmosphere. Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 18:08:24 -0700 Subject: Re: [geo] Another look at gunnery? From: voglerl...@gmail.com To: andrew.lock...@gmail.com CC: and...@andrewlockley.com; geoengineering@googlegroups.com Hi Andrew, the Space Fountain Concept could give us very important multiple benefits in one project. Here is the Wiki primer on the concept. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_fountain As you can see, this is an advanced concept which can be built with todays technology. By focusing on a multi use project, the cost of SRM becomes almost an after thought. If we are to use stratospheric injection as the main SRM tool, keeping the injection going for many decades will be needed. By backing a multi use commercial space delivery system, the SRM cost would simply be absorbed as a cost of doing business. My earliest submission to this group was on the subject of a similar concept and it was a clumsy effort. I was too focused on nuts and bolts and not on theory. At that time, I had not found the concept of the Space Fountain, yet there are some similarities. I did call for a vacuum tube extending up into the stratosphere and the use of High Temp. Super Conductive Magnetic in a coil gun fashion. The main difference was that I proposed a more mechanical lift system than that of the Space Fountain concept. We do need all of the benefits that the Space Fountain has to offer to launch us beyond this time of critical energy/pollution problems. Huge amounts of capital are going to be spent one way or the other to deal with the issues we face. A concept like the Space Fountain can be a focus for that investment and it can be a net benefit as opposed to a net loss. I am not an expert on any aspect of this issue, however, I believe this type of multi problem solving approach is something that might be supported by most sides in this debate. Thanks, On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Andrew Lockley <and...@andrewlockley.com> wrote: Hi I've been going over some reports and notes recently, notably the Aurora report http://people.ucalgary.ca/~keith/Misc/AuroraGeoReport.pdf The report makes it pretty clear that they've not done a huge amount to expand on gunnery as a tool. Specifically, the report states that: " In the 80-100 kft range, the relative simplicity of the gun system begins to look attractive despite the high recuring cost of shells, if the payload fraction can be increased" Back to basics here. Gunnery was developed by the military. Navies need portable guns that aren't fired often - the exact opposite design criteria that geoengineers need. Sailors therefore have short thick barrels with massive overpressures, and robust shells to withstand the high g forces a short barrel requires.. This is absolutely nothing like what we need for geoengineering. We need long guns that work at low overpressure. Low overpressure means a lightweight shell casing, a less tight barrel seal leading to lower friction and hence lower wear and thus lower costs. I think we need to look at completely different gunnery technologies, as well as just looking at gun redesign. My favorite is the ram launcher. This works with a loose (sub calibre) shell as it doesn't rely on barrel friction, so there's not the wear and cooling problem you get with a gun. It doesn't require expensive propellants, as you can run it on a cheap fuel/air mix. The acceleration is continuous, not declining like with a gun - so it's much gentler. In fact, accelerations as low as 600g with a 1.2km barrel are possible - and that still gives you 8kms/s launch speed - well over what's needed for accessing the stratosphere. That's 1/10th the acceleration in a conventional gun (although you do need to initiate the projectile with a primary launcher - a ram accelerator can't self start). In case people need a reminder, the ram projectile works by firing a loose-fitting projectile which relies on aerodynamic effects to ingnite fuel behind it by compression ignition, like a ramjet. It travels through the propellant, rather than being pushed in front of it. As a result of the loose fit and low launch stresses, the shells are likely to be very much thinner, cheaper and less well-engineered than conventional shells, and it may even be possible to make the shells reusable or at least recyclable. What do other people think of this? For more info on the technology, check the following links: http://www.tbfg.org/papers/Ram%20Accelerator%20Technical%20Risks%20ISDC07.pdf and for an improved version, check http://www.galcit.caltech.edu/~jeshep/icders/cd-rom/EXTABS/178_20TH.PDF A -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. -- Michael Hayes 360-708-4976 http://www.wix.com/voglerlake/vogler-lake-web-site -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
