Mike West wrote:
>>First, I would like to think that no one is flaming anyone here. We are
expressing disagreements, but that doesn't mean anyone is flaming anyone or
that the arguments are out of control. We are just expressing contrary
views. As long as everyone is civilized, all is good.<<
That is correct. And as list Admin, I certainly don't want any flame
wars. We've had them here in the past, and they've led to some
unfortunate circumstances.
>>On the subject at hand, please know that I am not a chemist nor any
kind of
expert. All I can do is regurgitate what I remember of what I have learned
before. So, take anything I say with a grain of salt to start with.<<
I, on the other hand, have a degree in chemical engineering and worked
for several years at it before being lured away by that whole World Wide
Web thingee in the 90's. ;) Anyway, my point is that as a chem eng, we
had to take plenty of chemistry classes in order to scale up what a
chemist does in the lab to industrial capacity.
>>That said, with oxygen, my understanding is not how common or uncommon it
is. The issue is that oxygen is extremely reactive.<<
This is absolutely true. Oxygen loves to react with anything it can get
it's atomic mitts (or even molecular mitts) on and thus it's shacking up
everywhere with practically everyone (except the celibate noble gasses)
on the periodic table: Water, rust, carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide,
alcohol, acetone, lime, soda ash, baking soda, caustic soda, etc.
>> So, if you have a
completely dead world with lots of free oxygen in the atmosphere, normal
chemical processes will cause the oxygen to combine with other elements and
(relatively) quickly leach it from the atmosphere. So, after X amount of
time (millions of years?) virtually all oxygen will be removed out of an
atmosphere on a dead world. The only way to keep free oxygen in an
atmosphere is to have "life" (presumably "as we know it"). Without that, the
free oxygen is lost.<<
Exactly. How long, we don't know (and certainly out of my expertise),
although I'm sure there are theoretical formulas.
Another Carpenter wrote:
>>I'd love EDGs point of view, but as a prediction, he will grouse for
a post
or two and then link us all to his own homebrewed UWP system which is based
on current astronomical theory. Of course, with newer and better info
coming in all the time, his homebrewed system will need the occasional
tweaking as will any "hard" SF system.<<
Yes, I'll give you that about EDG. But there are enough facts out there
that, when applied to Traveller, can improve the UWP's immensely. Even
applying Traveller's own rules, like those in WBH, would be a good
start. I hope to have a post about that soon but I don't have the time
just yet.
\_/
DED
TNE @ Yahoo ml Admin
>>First, I would like to think that no one is flaming anyone here. We are
expressing disagreements, but that doesn't mean anyone is flaming anyone or
that the arguments are out of control. We are just expressing contrary
views. As long as everyone is civilized, all is good.<<
That is correct. And as list Admin, I certainly don't want any flame
wars. We've had them here in the past, and they've led to some
unfortunate circumstances.
>>On the subject at hand, please know that I am not a chemist nor any
kind of
expert. All I can do is regurgitate what I remember of what I have learned
before. So, take anything I say with a grain of salt to start with.<<
I, on the other hand, have a degree in chemical engineering and worked
for several years at it before being lured away by that whole World Wide
Web thingee in the 90's. ;) Anyway, my point is that as a chem eng, we
had to take plenty of chemistry classes in order to scale up what a
chemist does in the lab to industrial capacity.
>>That said, with oxygen, my understanding is not how common or uncommon it
is. The issue is that oxygen is extremely reactive.<<
This is absolutely true. Oxygen loves to react with anything it can get
it's atomic mitts (or even molecular mitts) on and thus it's shacking up
everywhere with practically everyone (except the celibate noble gasses)
on the periodic table: Water, rust, carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide,
alcohol, acetone, lime, soda ash, baking soda, caustic soda, etc.
>> So, if you have a
completely dead world with lots of free oxygen in the atmosphere, normal
chemical processes will cause the oxygen to combine with other elements and
(relatively) quickly leach it from the atmosphere. So, after X amount of
time (millions of years?) virtually all oxygen will be removed out of an
atmosphere on a dead world. The only way to keep free oxygen in an
atmosphere is to have "life" (presumably "as we know it"). Without that, the
free oxygen is lost.<<
Exactly. How long, we don't know (and certainly out of my expertise),
although I'm sure there are theoretical formulas.
Another Carpenter wrote:
>>I'd love EDGs point of view, but as a prediction, he will grouse for
a post
or two and then link us all to his own homebrewed UWP system which is based
on current astronomical theory. Of course, with newer and better info
coming in all the time, his homebrewed system will need the occasional
tweaking as will any "hard" SF system.<<
Yes, I'll give you that about EDG. But there are enough facts out there
that, when applied to Traveller, can improve the UWP's immensely. Even
applying Traveller's own rules, like those in WBH, would be a good
start. I hope to have a post about that soon but I don't have the time
just yet.
\_/
DED
TNE @ Yahoo ml Admin