Comments on: The weather machine

By: Jarod Billings

Jarod Billings — Thu, 08 Sep 2011 01:28:29 +0000

I have to disagree with you Sarah. You say “us humans could not control weather”. But we already are. Just not in a positive way. And although this weather machine seems a bit out there, I think it’s just a matter of time until something very similar to this will actually exist.

By: Sarah Bernheim

Sarah Bernheim — Mon, 29 Aug 2011 17:25:28 +0000

This machine can be useful sometimes, but not at all times. We, us humans could not control weather. With this kind of incapability, there is balance in our ecosystem. Many living things depend on weather changes, most especially plants. They grow on various environmental temperature. Of course, not all people have only one weather preference, hence it is just right that humans are not capable of controlling weather. Sine there is already a weather machine for today, it is now possible for humans to control the weather. However, its weather prediction is not that perfect. In a positive way, the machine can help in preventing serious disasters, as people will be able to have enough time to prepare themselves.

By: Wendy Houses Cape Town

Wendy Houses Cape Town — Sun, 01 May 2011 13:31:51 +0000

This is not the first time I’ve read abut controlling the weather as proposed in weather machine Mark 1. Not a bad idea at all, and the way things are going at the moment as far as warming our planet due to bad eco practices are concerned, the sooner the better something like this can be applied, the better. However, it still might take many years to impliment, so in the mean time we’ll have to step up our attempts to use less polluting energy and at least try to stop the damage we do.

By: Oscar Harper

Oscar Harper — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 21:03:08 +0000

amazing.. look forward to see if these things end up happening

By:

Thu, 19 Feb 2009 13:26:16 +0000

Sounds like a good idea to me!

By:

Mon, 29 Dec 2008 18:58:46 +0000

There seem to be some confusion in the comments,
First – the balloons are not tethered to the ground.
Second – I am not sure about diamond but a single sheet of graphene (~0.34nm) has been experimentally shown not to leak hydrogen nor helium.
Third – injecting aerosols into the upper atmosphere would likely distroy the ozone layer. The surface of the aersol allows chlorine to catalitically distroy ozone.

By:

Sat, 27 Dec 2008 00:04:56 +0000

If the objective is climate control to increase food production and population (translate consumption) then there are easier, earth-bound ways.
If the objective is solar power as a universal power supply source, just 3 % of earth area all-wavelength absorption devices coverage in the vacumn of space would supply all of earth’s needs, at rates of 60 to 90 % less than today’s average of $9.0-12.0 cents per KWH(subsidized at 15-18 cents). And that level is enough to replace all of earth’s existing power generation plants with downstream distribution facilities, in effect leaving the facilities as “plants” but with a different mission, and allow for growth for the forseeable future, supporting up to double the earth’s existing population.
Parenthetically, that frees up huge resources for environmental landscaping and restoration, planet-planning for species and ecosystem preservation, end-to-end recycling to preserve resources for the future, powered by processes and systems which magically become economical with virtually unlimited, low-cost power.
I might point out that huge amounts of power are wasted even today, being absorbed by trees and buildings, plants and animals, to say nothing of the health hazards of soft tissue absorption of dangerous wavelengths.
But, I LOVE the concept.
I can’t wrap my head around the proposed technology, however, since more elegant, simpler solutions are in development.

By:

Thu, 25 Dec 2008 05:42:20 +0000

For a fraction of the cost and without exotic technology, one could achieve the similar effects with aerosols of different albedos which have a limited lifespan in the atmosphere or stratosphere (stratosphere if you wanter longer lasting)

Also, previous commenter is right. Hdrogen will diffuse out of anything.

[Might not be such a good idea to continuously pump millions of tons of stuff into the air that is intended to fall out into the ecosystem! --Josh]

By:

Thu, 25 Dec 2008 01:31:05 +0000

“In its present form, the Weather Machine is a work of futurism, not engineering. I have done only back-of-the-envelope calculations…”

Have you done any calculations for nanometre thick diamond at all? How would you stop the hydrogen diffusing out of the balloons, or the balloons from bursting when they get hit by a microscopic speck of dust? Seriously!?

[See the comment below -- atomically precise diamond shouldn't have any trouble holding H2, especially at 1 Pa and 230 K, the conditions 20 miles up. Micrometeors would kill them, as would primary cosmic rays in some spots. If they killed a billion per second it'd take 30 years to get them all -- plenty of time to replenish. --Josh]

By:

Wed, 24 Dec 2008 22:41:34 +0000

Well, I didn't read all the way through, but I think at the outset there might be a problem of aircraft becoming entangled in the quadrillions of tethers that make your little balloons to become aerostats. [An aerostat isn't necessarily a tethered balloon, but any object that can stay stationary in the air. --Josh]