Pi>>6) Over 99% of the material ejected from Earth during Brown's launch phase escaping Earth's gravity.>>
I have asserted that over a 40 day launch period, that there would indeed be well OVER 99% of the material which was launched that would escape gravity. This is due to there being a long launch period compared to a very short shut off period. I used the firehose shooting over a fence example and you have (IIRC) agreed to that.
Actually, this is probably off topic for this discussion. I have agreed that a firehose shooting water over a fence could, in certain circumstances, be 99% efficient in getting water over the fence. I have never agreed Brown's model achieves that kind of efficiency for a number of reasons we've debated in the "Fire and Brimstone" discussion.
However, let's assume you would be right that during the whole launch period there would be stuff which would fail to reach EV and much of that would fall back...let's say as much as 10%. You have claimed that amount would be lethal to the ark occupants.
IIRC, 10% wouldn't merely be lethal to the ark occupants .... it would boil every drop of water on the planet.
However, in your calcs...found on pg 1 of A Rain of Fire and Brimstone LINK ...you fail to calculate how a hot and tiny particle at the very top of our atm would RADIATE AWAY its heat into space in a microsecond (just like tiny meteorites do)...with no bad effect on the earth below. AND you bragged about how you ran your calcs past some PhD's in Physics and they agreed with you and yet THEY ALSO failed to include radiation in their evaluation of what your wrote! I guess this BA in Bus Mgt could see things those PhD physicists could NOT!
We recall that very differently. You claim that a molecule size particle at the top of the atmosphere will radiate away its heat to space. I pointed out (correctly) that the particle will radiate its heat in all directions cooler than the particle.... not just toward space as you claimed.
The particle that enters the atmosphere will radiate its energy to the ones above, below, and to the sides of it. The only particle that is able to radiate its heat to space is the one at the top of the column and is exposed to space. Even then, it is able to radiate energy to space on only that side that is exposed to space. The remainder of the energy will be radiated to other molecules.
As I pointed out in the article, what will happen is the energy will build up faster than it can be radiated to space and, as a result, those particles will carry the energy deeper and deeper into the atmosphere because they can't cool on the way down.
The bottom line in the calculation is that you have "x" amount of energy to radiate in "y" time over a surface area of "z." It doesn't matter if it's molecule-by-molecule or as an overall area. Doing it this way will give you the correct answer when you consider the amount of energy that is bounced around among the molecules before being radiated to space.... keeping in mind that the only ones who can radiate to space are those exposed to space. The physicists have the expertise to know this.... the "BA in Bus Mgt" lacks that expertise.
In addition, if you figure that some amount of friction with air molecules would be what decelerates the upward jet molecules, to cause great heat...then you must also admit that this deceleration would ACcelerate the air molecule and drag it upward toward the high atm or even into space, where it would be cooled to near absolute zero before falling back. This means it would be a net COOLING effect! And of course those molecules would NOT fall from the average of halfway to EV distance, so that means their energy would be far less than you have in some of your calcs.
Actually, Faulkner addresses idea of atmospheric friction in his analysis of Brown's launch claims. He basically comes to the same conclusion about energy transfer to the atmosphere during the launch phase as I do during the reentry phase. In other words, he concludes the launch would heat the atmosphere above survivable temperatures and I conclude the reentry would. That means double trouble for Brown.
His comment to me after he looked at my analysis was that I had looked at the other end of the process and we each got the same result.... a (heat) sterilized planet.
If I need to show calcs for how quickly the hot molecules would cool off in the high atm as they reenter, I can show that.
Oh, dude, you don't even want to go there. In fact, you really don't want to attempt the molecule-by-molecule analysis you say the physicists and I have "overlooked." To solve the problem algebraically, you would need to consider the heat transfer molecule-by-molecule in all directions all the way thru the atmosphere. Any other solution requires, at a minimum, some considerable calculus and likely some advanced differential equations. It's way beyond the skill level of either of us.
Go for it if you want, but the maximum energy transfer to space is still governed by the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
But this is really more a matter of the "Fire and Brimstone" discussion.....