-- Forwarded message --
From: Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com
Date: 5 April 2011 09:11
Subject: Re: [geo] Another look at gunnery?
To: Veli Albert Kallio albert_kal...@hotmail.com
I don’t think that mine shafts are necessarily the right answer. The best
approach IMO
Dr. Robock (with ccs, and adding Dr. Seitz)
Thanks for early and full comments, with your (unexpected) already prepared
response to Dr.
Seitz' SRM proposal for Bright Water. This is mainly to express hope that
Dr. Seitz has already been thinking of a response.
I put the albedo
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
Andrew, In my most humble opinion, Geoengineering must take the broadest
view as possible. What you say about the ram accelerator is true and I have
even run across an ocean based concept that looked very interesting. The
technology is so simple that Iraq almost got one set up before the 1st war.
For guns, see:
Robock, Alan, Allison B. Marquardt, Ben Kravitz, and Georgiy Stenchikov,
2009: The benefits, risks, and costs of stratospheric geoengineering.
/Geophys. Res. Lett./, *36*, L19703, doi:10.1029/2009GL039209.
http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/2009GL039209.pdf
For bubbles,
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:
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
