Tarquinn2049

@[email protected]

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. View on remote instance

Can humans reach near neutral buoyancy in a gas that is safe to breathe and contains adequate oxygen?

People talk of potential human flight on planets. Somewhere in the recesses of my mind I still wear my inner 5 year old’s caped Superman pajamas, stressing over how many stairs one must jump from to take flight. So is it possible to flappy bird a flying monkey?

Tarquinn2049 , (edited )

Liquid is incompressible.

Compressing a gas to nearly 100x it’s natural density is going to dramatically increase it’s temperature. In simplified mechanics, you can basically think of it like all the energy that makes it the temperature it is naturally will still be there when it is 1% of it’s original size. So all that energy is “overlapping” and adding together to make it’s new temperature based on there being 100x as much energy in each place now. Even if it started at 10 degrees Kelvin, assuming a linear gain, it would be 1000 degrees Kelvin after compressing.

Of course all of that is super simplified and not the “real” math or mechanics in all their complexity. But it should help illustrate why it would not be possible or a good time.

And that is only the temperature half of it. Compressing an area to 100 atmospheres, which I’m presuming would be the level of pressure necessary to get that gas (or a safer slightly less dense one) to the needed density range, would also be pretty dangerous if not immediately fatal to the human. Again that level of pressure is assuming a linear gain, I don’t know for sure if it would be linear.

So even if you manage to find something you could breathe, you wouldn’t be able to at that level of pressure. You would need to be wearing a suit that can be pressurized and breathing from something that isn’t feeling that pressure. Which completely defeats the whole point of choosing a medium to be immersed in that doesn’t require a suit or tank like being in water does.

It is however, theoretically possible to breathe liquids. Just incredibly uncomfortable for humans. There are humans that have survived it in experiments. After an initial adjustment period where your brain is certain you are drowning for a few minutes, eventually you are able to over ride that when you don’t die. Then you can hang out for a bit not dying despite it seeming like you should be… and then when you are done breathing liquid, the terrible part starts, you have to get the remaining liquid out of your lungs so there is room to put air in them again. As much as the rest is not great, transitioning back to air was universally considered the worst part of the experiment.

Tarquinn2049 ,

Yes, your power will primarily come from your batteries. When your batteries are full, extra power generated is either sold back to the grid if you live in a nice place, or credited on your bill with some limited roll over system. When your batteries are empty, you buy power from the grid. If your batteries are empty when the grid is down, then you would indeed also experience the outage.

But you can get alerts when the grid is down and choose whether you want to conserve power to make sure you don’t drain your batteries at that time. You can still gain panel power during a grid outage, you just won’t have a back-up source of power or the ability to sell excess.

Tarquinn2049 ,

Whether solar is worth it in your area currently largely depends on the size of the government subsidies. Without subsidies it is only about a break even proposal on average, worse some places, better others.

The upfront cost is the biggest barrier, once you have a system in place, you’ll likely never replace the whole thing at once again. You’ll do the batteries, or the panels, or the wiring, or individual pieces of each if you prefer. But rarely will you do all of it in the same year again.

So if you don’t have any subsidies in your local area, it might just not be a good idea yet. It could still be, but you’d have to work out for your specific house if it is. And you’d have to take out a loan, assuming your credit/leverage is where it would need to be for that to be possible, and you can afford the repayments.

I can’t say it’s common for people to have savings when the data clearly shows such a high percentage of people live paycheck to paycheck. But in my family we were raised to abhor living paycheck to paycheck, so we’ve all taken to having savings instead. It’s much harder, and a completely different mindset. Basically you have to ignore the thought that money sitting in the bank “isn’t doing anything”. It is providing peace of mind and reducing stress.

Stress is one of the most expensive things in life. Not having whatever nice stuff you could have with that money, newer phone, better car, bigger house, doesn’t make your life anywhere near as bad as always being stressed. Live below your means. It’s very much worth it. The cost of stuff tends to rise exponentially compared to it’s value. The more you get, the more it costed to get more. Something half the price is usually still 80% as good.

It’s so nice to be able to buy stuff out of pocket with a fraction of your savings. Or to have money on-hand when an unexpected expense crops up.

Having said all that, some people don’t have anywhere to go down, they already drive a car that costed less than 5k, or better yet don’t own a car. And they live in a house that meets their needs but doesn’t exceed them. They only upgrade their electronics when they need to, and update them to last year’s midrange. If doing all that, and still living paycheck to paycheck, then you might consider if where you are living is worth it. There might be better overall options. It’s getting much easier to socialise with long distance friends and family on the cheap. Your skills might pay relatively better to the cost of living somewhere else.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • random
  • All magazines