https://www.eetimes.com/
If you don't have enought content, just repeat every story four times.
On 11/06/2026 20:52, john larkin wrote:
https://www.eetimes.com/
If you don't have enought content, just repeat every story four times.
There was some waffle on the news today, ahead of the SpaceX IPO, about
how one of its major earners would be by putting AI data centres into
space. Maybe, but how are they going to cool these things? Their energy consumption is enormous.
<https://www.socomec.co.uk/en-gb/solutions/business/data-centre/understanding-power-consumption-data-centres>
Assuming they'll be powered by solar panels, will the side of the panel facing away from the sun be used as a giant "black body" radiative
heatsink?
On 11/06/2026 20:52, john larkin wrote:
https://www.eetimes.com/
If you don't have enought content, just repeat every story four times.
There was some waffle on the news today, ahead of the SpaceX IPO, about
how one of its major earners would be by putting AI data centres into
space. Maybe, but how are they going to cool these things? Their energy consumption is enormous.
<https://www.socomec.co.uk/en-gb/solutions/business/data-centre/ understanding-power-consumption-data-centres>
Assuming they'll be powered by solar panels, will the side of the panel facing away from the sun be used as a giant "black body" radiative
heatsink?
On 12/06/2026 5:09 pm, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 11/06/2026 20:52, john larkin wrote:
https://www.eetimes.com/
If you don't have enought content, just repeat every story four times.
There was some waffle on the news today, ahead of the SpaceX IPO, about
how one of its major earners would be by putting AI data centres into
space. Maybe, but how are they going to cool these things? Their energy
consumption is enormous.
<https://www.socomec.co.uk/en-gb/solutions/business/data-centre/understanding-power-consumption-data-centres>
Assuming they'll be powered by solar panels, will the side of the panel
facing away from the sun be used as a giant "black body" radiative
heatsink?
That would be sensible. It's looking at the universal back-ground
radiation at about 4 degrees absolute, and the power emitted is
proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature.
It's about 500 watts per square meter at 300 degrees absolute. At that >temperature you can use water vapour to carry the heat out to the remote
end of the radiating area, and pump the water back after it has condensed.
You might want to spin the area slowly to make it easier to collect
water after it has condensed, before you pump it back to the areas where
the heat is being generated.
Running everything a bit hotter will reduce the radiating area you need,
but will increase the water vapour pressure you have to contend with in
the vapour transfer channels.
On 6/12/26 3:09 AM, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 11/06/2026 20:52, john larkin wrote:
https://www.eetimes.com/
If you don't have enought content, just repeat every story four times.
There was some waffle on the news today, ahead of the SpaceX IPO, about
how one of its major earners would be by putting AI data centres into
space. Maybe, but how are they going to cool these things? Their energy
consumption is enormous.
<https://www.socomec.co.uk/en-gb/solutions/business/data-centre/
understanding-power-consumption-data-centres>
Assuming they'll be powered by solar panels, will the side of the panel
facing away from the sun be used as a giant "black body" radiative
heatsink?
That's the plan. Scott Manley on YouTube did a video a couple of weeks
ago with a back-of-the-envelope estimation to see if it was feasible,
and he concluded that it should work, barely.
On 12/06/2026 13:52, Carl wrote:
On 6/12/26 3:09 AM, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 11/06/2026 20:52, john larkin wrote:
https://www.eetimes.com/
If you don't have enought content, just repeat every story four times.
There was some waffle on the news today, ahead of the SpaceX IPO, about
how one of its major earners would be by putting AI data centres into
space. Maybe, but how are they going to cool these things? Their energy
consumption is enormous.
<https://www.socomec.co.uk/en-gb/solutions/business/data-centre/
understanding-power-consumption-data-centres>
Assuming they'll be powered by solar panels, will the side of the panel
facing away from the sun be used as a giant "black body" radiative
heatsink?
That's the plan. Scott Manley on YouTube did a video a couple of weeks
ago with a back-of-the-envelope estimation to see if it was feasible,
and he concluded that it should work, barely.
I don't usually watch YouTube videos (TL/DW...), but that one at ><https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlQYU3m1e80> was interesting as it
tried to cover all the bases.
My original thinking was that the "dark side" of the solar panels would
have been the radiator, but I forgot about the wasted heat from the
sunlight which can only go to heat up the panels, as even the best
panels are, at present, only 30% or so efficient. So for every 1kW they
can produce, about 2.3kW is going to waste and is heating up the panel. >Well, that's unless you can add an efficient radiator to get rid of that >heat. And he didn't even mention the degradation in conversion
efficiency of solar panels over time. It all adds up.
So, as the video points out, the radiators will have to be separate and
at right-angles to the solar panels (so edge-on to the sun). Now we've
got extra weight and more cooling fluid required. Sheesh! That's going
to take a lot of rocket power to get into space, and vast amounts of >propellants.
On 12/06/2026 13:52, Carl wrote:
On 6/12/26 3:09 AM, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 11/06/2026 20:52, john larkin wrote:
https://www.eetimes.com/
If you don't have enought content, just repeat every story four times.
There was some waffle on the news today, ahead of the SpaceX IPO, about
how one of its major earners would be by putting AI data centres into
space. Maybe, but how are they going to cool these things? Their energy
consumption is enormous.
<https://www.socomec.co.uk/en-gb/solutions/business/data-centre/
understanding-power-consumption-data-centres>
Assuming they'll be powered by solar panels, will the side of the panel
facing away from the sun be used as a giant "black body" radiative
heatsink?
That's the plan.-a Scott Manley on YouTube did a video a couple of weeks
ago with a back-of-the-envelope estimation to see if it was feasible,
and he concluded that it should work, barely.
I don't usually watch YouTube videos (TL/DW...), but that one at <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlQYU3m1e80> was interesting as it
tried to cover all the bases.
My original thinking was that the "dark side" of the solar panels would
have been the radiator, but I forgot about the wasted heat from the
sunlight which can only go to heat up the panels, as even the best
panels are, at present, only 30% or so efficient. So for every 1kW they
can produce, about 2.3kW is going to waste and is heating up the panel. Well, that's unless you can add an efficient radiator to get rid of that heat. And he didn't even mention the degradation in conversion
efficiency of solar panels over time. It all adds up.
So, as the video points out, the radiators will have to be separate and
at right-angles to the solar panels (so edge-on to the sun). Now we've
got extra weight and more cooling fluid required. Sheesh! That's going
to take a lot of rocket power to get into space, and vast amounts of propellants.
On Fri, 12 Jun 2026 20:39:04 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 12/06/2026 5:09 pm, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 11/06/2026 20:52, john larkin wrote:
https://www.eetimes.com/
If you don't have enought content, just repeat every story four times.
There was some waffle on the news today, ahead of the SpaceX IPO, about
how one of its major earners would be by putting AI data centres into
space. Maybe, but how are they going to cool these things? Their energy
consumption is enormous.
<https://www.socomec.co.uk/en-gb/solutions/business/data-centre/understanding-power-consumption-data-centres>
Assuming they'll be powered by solar panels, will the side of the panel
facing away from the sun be used as a giant "black body" radiative
heatsink?
That would be sensible. It's looking at the universal back-ground
radiation at about 4 degrees absolute, and the power emitted is
proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature.
It's about 500 watts per square meter at 300 degrees absolute. At that
temperature you can use water vapour to carry the heat out to the remote
end of the radiating area, and pump the water back after it has condensed.
AI commenting on AI:
"While traditional data centers might require a few megawatts,
hyperscale AI data centers can require 1 to 5 Gigawatts (GW) of powerrCoroughly the equivalent of the total energy consumed by a massive metropolitan area"
You might want to spin the area slowly to make it easier to collect
water after it has condensed, before you pump it back to the areas where
the heat is being generated.
Running everything a bit hotter will reduce the radiating area you need,
but will increase the water vapour pressure you have to contend with in
the vapour transfer channels.
The radiating surface would have to be very hot to get rid of much
heat, far hotter than semiconductors can stand. So there would have to
be powered heat pumps between the semis and the radiators.
It ain't gonna happen, and the AI bubble will mostly pop soon too.
On Fri, 12 Jun 2026 15:44:55 +0100, Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
On 12/06/2026 13:52, Carl wrote:
On 6/12/26 3:09 AM, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 11/06/2026 20:52, john larkin wrote:
https://www.eetimes.com/There was some waffle on the news today, ahead of the SpaceX IPO, about >>>> how one of its major earners would be by putting AI data centres into
If you don't have enought content, just repeat every story four times. >>>>
space. Maybe, but how are they going to cool these things? Their energy >>>> consumption is enormous.
<https://www.socomec.co.uk/en-gb/solutions/business/data-centre/
understanding-power-consumption-data-centres>
Assuming they'll be powered by solar panels, will the side of the panel >>>> facing away from the sun be used as a giant "black body" radiative
heatsink?
That's the plan. Scott Manley on YouTube did a video a couple of weeks
ago with a back-of-the-envelope estimation to see if it was feasible,
and he concluded that it should work, barely.
I don't usually watch YouTube videos (TL/DW...), but that one at
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlQYU3m1e80> was interesting as it
tried to cover all the bases.
My original thinking was that the "dark side" of the solar panels would
have been the radiator, but I forgot about the wasted heat from the
sunlight which can only go to heat up the panels, as even the best
panels are, at present, only 30% or so efficient. So for every 1kW they
can produce, about 2.3kW is going to waste and is heating up the panel.
Well, that's unless you can add an efficient radiator to get rid of that
heat. And he didn't even mention the degradation in conversion
efficiency of solar panels over time. It all adds up.
So, as the video points out, the radiators will have to be separate and
at right-angles to the solar panels (so edge-on to the sun).
Now we've got extra weight and more cooling fluid required. Sheesh!
That's going
to take a lot of rocket power to get into space, and vast amounts of
propellants.
The Mississippi river could sink a fair amount of heat. And Louisiana
has a lot of natural gas. Good place for data centers.
On 13/06/2026 12:29 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jun 2026 20:39:04 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 12/06/2026 5:09 pm, Jeff Layman wrote:AI commenting on AI:
On 11/06/2026 20:52, john larkin wrote:
https://www.eetimes.com/There was some waffle on the news today, ahead of the SpaceX IPO, about >>>> how one of its major earners would be by putting AI data centres into
If you don't have enought content, just repeat every story four times. >>>>
space. Maybe, but how are they going to cool these things? Their energy >>>> consumption is enormous.
<https://www.socomec.co.uk/en-gb/solutions/business/data-centre/understanding-power-consumption-data-centres>
Assuming they'll be powered by solar panels, will the side of the panel >>>> facing away from the sun be used as a giant "black body" radiative
heatsink?
That would be sensible. It's looking at the universal back-ground
radiation at about 4 degrees absolute, and the power emitted is
proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature.
It's about 500 watts per square meter at 300 degrees absolute. At that
temperature you can use water vapour to carry the heat out to the remote >>> end of the radiating area, and pump the water back after it has condensed. >>
"While traditional data centers might require a few megawatts,
hyperscale AI data centers can require 1 to 5 Gigawatts (GW) of
poweruroughly the equivalent of the total energy consumed by a massive
metropolitan area"
You might want to spin the area slowly to make it easier to collect
water after it has condensed, before you pump it back to the areas where >>> the heat is being generated.
Running everything a bit hotter will reduce the radiating area you need, >>> but will increase the water vapour pressure you have to contend with in
the vapour transfer channels.
The radiating surface would have to be very hot to get rid of much
heat, far hotter than semiconductors can stand. So there would have to
be powered heat pumps between the semis and the radiators.
Radiation increases as the fourth power of temperature. You don't have
to get the radiators all that much hotter to get rid of a lot more heat.
And you keep on thinking that the data centers will use conventional >semiconductors, while everybody is trying to get quantum computers to
work. The one we've got in Sydney runs in liquid He-3 at at 0.1K.
It ain't gonna happen, and the AI bubble will mostly pop soon too.
It may not happen the way you imagine it might, but your imagination
isn't up to much.
On Sat, 13 Jun 2026 01:21:48 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 13/06/2026 12:29 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jun 2026 20:39:04 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 12/06/2026 5:09 pm, Jeff Layman wrote:AI commenting on AI:
On 11/06/2026 20:52, john larkin wrote:
https://www.eetimes.com/There was some waffle on the news today, ahead of the SpaceX IPO, about >>>>> how one of its major earners would be by putting AI data centres into >>>>> space. Maybe, but how are they going to cool these things? Their energy >>>>> consumption is enormous.
If you don't have enought content, just repeat every story four times. >>>>>
<https://www.socomec.co.uk/en-gb/solutions/business/data-centre/understanding-power-consumption-data-centres>
Assuming they'll be powered by solar panels, will the side of the panel >>>>> facing away from the sun be used as a giant "black body" radiative
heatsink?
That would be sensible. It's looking at the universal back-ground
radiation at about 4 degrees absolute, and the power emitted is
proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature.
It's about 500 watts per square meter at 300 degrees absolute. At that >>>> temperature you can use water vapour to carry the heat out to the remote >>>> end of the radiating area, and pump the water back after it has condensed. >>>
"While traditional data centers might require a few megawatts,
hyperscale AI data centers can require 1 to 5 Gigawatts (GW) of
powerrCoroughly the equivalent of the total energy consumed by a massive >>> metropolitan area"
You might want to spin the area slowly to make it easier to collect
water after it has condensed, before you pump it back to the areas where >>>> the heat is being generated.
Running everything a bit hotter will reduce the radiating area you need, >>>> but will increase the water vapour pressure you have to contend with in >>>> the vapour transfer channels.
The radiating surface would have to be very hot to get rid of much
heat, far hotter than semiconductors can stand. So there would have to
be powered heat pumps between the semis and the radiators.
Radiation increases as the fourth power of temperature. You don't have
to get the radiators all that much hotter to get rid of a lot more heat.
And you keep on thinking that the data centers will use conventional
semiconductors, while everybody is trying to get quantum computers to
work. The one we've got in Sydney runs in liquid He-3 at at 0.1K.
How many bits?
It ain't gonna happen, and the AI bubble will mostly pop soon too.
It may not happen the way you imagine it might, but your imagination
isn't up to much.
Imagine square kilometers of solar panels, and square kilometers of
cooling panels with kilometers of water pipes. The solar panels need
cooling too, obviously more watts than the computers.
And an orbiting hotel for the maintenance crew.
Now imagine maneuvering that to avoid being whacked by all the junk in
orbit.
On 13/06/2026 12:49 am, john larkin wrote:It probably worth reminding people that in 1824 Joseph Fourier worked
On Fri, 12 Jun 2026 15:44:55 +0100, Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
On 12/06/2026 13:52, Carl wrote:
On 6/12/26 3:09 AM, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 11/06/2026 20:52, john larkin wrote:
On 13/06/2026 2:55 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jun 2026 01:21:48 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 13/06/2026 12:29 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jun 2026 20:39:04 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>> wrote:
On 12/06/2026 5:09 pm, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 11/06/2026 20:52, john larkin wrote:
https://www.eetimes.com/
If you don't have enought content, just repeat every story four >>>>>>> times.
There was some waffle on the news today, ahead of the SpaceX IPO, >>>>>> about
how one of its major earners would be by putting AI data centres into >>>>>> space. Maybe, but how are they going to cool these things? Their
energy
consumption is enormous.
<https://www.socomec.co.uk/en-gb/solutions/business/data-centre/understanding-power-consumption-data-centres>
Assuming they'll be powered by solar panels, will the side of the >>>>>> panel
facing away from the sun be used as a giant "black body" radiative >>>>>> heatsink?
That would be sensible. It's looking at the universal back-ground
radiation at about 4 degrees absolute, and the power emitted is
proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature.
It's about 500 watts per square meter at 300 degrees absolute. At that >>>>> temperature you can use water vapour to carry the heat out to the
remote
end of the radiating area, and pump the water back after it has
condensed.
AI commenting on AI:
"While traditional data centers might require a few megawatts,
hyperscale AI data centers can require 1 to 5 Gigawatts (GW) of
powerrCoroughly the equivalent of the total energy consumed by a massive >>>> metropolitan area"
You might want to spin the area slowly to make it easier to collect
water after it has condensed, before you pump it back to the areas
where
the heat is being generated.
Running everything a bit hotter will reduce the radiating area you
need,
but will increase the water vapour pressure you have to contend
with in
the vapour transfer channels.
The radiating surface would have to be very hot to get rid of much
heat, far hotter than semiconductors can stand. So there would have to >>>> be powered heat pumps between the semis and the radiators.
Radiation increases as the fourth power of temperature. You don't have
to get the radiators all that much hotter to get rid of a lot more heat. >>>
And you keep on thinking that the data centers will use conventional
semiconductors, while everybody is trying to get quantum computers to
work. The one we've got in Sydney runs in liquid He-3 at at 0.1K.
How many bits?
Don't know. The academics involved have set up a development company,
and I haven't kept track of what they tell potential investors.
It ain't gonna happen, and the AI bubble will mostly pop soon too.
It may not happen the way you imagine it might, but your imagination
isn't up to much.
Imagine square kilometers of solar panels, and square kilometers of
cooling panels with kilometers of water pipes. The solar panels need
cooling too, obviously more watts than the computers.
And an orbiting hotel for the maintenance crew.
Maintenance robots don't need hotels.
Now imagine maneuvering that to avoid being whacked by all the junk in
orbit.
There's a lot of junk in low orbit. An orbiting data center isn't going
to be in a low orbit that ever puts it in the shadow of the earth, and
it is going to to whack the junk that comes close rather than dodge it.
On 6/13/26 08:05, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 13/06/2026 2:55 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jun 2026 01:21:48 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 13/06/2026 12:29 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jun 2026 20:39:04 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>> wrote:
On 12/06/2026 5:09 pm, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 11/06/2026 20:52, john larkin wrote:
https://www.eetimes.com/
If you don't have enought content, just repeat every story four >>>>>>>> times.
There was some waffle on the news today, ahead of the SpaceX IPO, >>>>>>> about
how one of its major earners would be by putting AI data centres into >>>>>>> space. Maybe, but how are they going to cool these things? Their >>>>>>> energy
consumption is enormous.
<https://www.socomec.co.uk/en-gb/solutions/business/data-centre/understanding-power-consumption-data-centres>
Assuming they'll be powered by solar panels, will the side of the >>>>>>> panel
facing away from the sun be used as a giant "black body" radiative >>>>>>> heatsink?
That would be sensible. It's looking at the universal back-ground
radiation at about 4 degrees absolute, and the power emitted is
proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature.
It's about 500 watts per square meter at 300 degrees absolute. At that >>>>>> temperature you can use water vapour to carry the heat out to the >>>>>> remote
end of the radiating area, and pump the water back after it has
condensed.
AI commenting on AI:
"While traditional data centers might require a few megawatts,
hyperscale AI data centers can require 1 to 5 Gigawatts (GW) of
poweruroughly the equivalent of the total energy consumed by a massive >>>>> metropolitan area"
You might want to spin the area slowly to make it easier to collect >>>>>> water after it has condensed, before you pump it back to the areas >>>>>> where
the heat is being generated.
Running everything a bit hotter will reduce the radiating area you >>>>>> need,
but will increase the water vapour pressure you have to contend
with in
the vapour transfer channels.
The radiating surface would have to be very hot to get rid of much
heat, far hotter than semiconductors can stand. So there would have to >>>>> be powered heat pumps between the semis and the radiators.
Radiation increases as the fourth power of temperature. You don't have >>>> to get the radiators all that much hotter to get rid of a lot more heat. >>>>
And you keep on thinking that the data centers will use conventional
semiconductors, while everybody is trying to get quantum computers to
work. The one we've got in Sydney runs in liquid He-3 at at 0.1K.
How many bits?
Don't know. The academics involved have set up a development company,
and I haven't kept track of what they tell potential investors.
It ain't gonna happen, and the AI bubble will mostly pop soon too.
It may not happen the way you imagine it might, but your imagination
isn't up to much.
Imagine square kilometers of solar panels, and square kilometers of
cooling panels with kilometers of water pipes. The solar panels need
cooling too, obviously more watts than the computers.
And an orbiting hotel for the maintenance crew.
Maintenance robots don't need hotels.
Now imagine maneuvering that to avoid being whacked by all the junk in
orbit.
There's a lot of junk in low orbit. An orbiting data center isn't going
to be in a low orbit that ever puts it in the shadow of the earth, and
it is going to to whack the junk that comes close rather than dodge it.
The problem with whacking space junk is that there's *more* of it
afterwards.
Jeroen Belleman
On 6/13/26 08:05, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 13/06/2026 2:55 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jun 2026 01:21:48 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 13/06/2026 12:29 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jun 2026 20:39:04 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>> wrote:
On 12/06/2026 5:09 pm, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 11/06/2026 20:52, john larkin wrote:
https://www.eetimes.com/
If you don't have enought content, just repeat every story four >>>>>>>> times.
There was some waffle on the news today, ahead of the SpaceX IPO, >>>>>>> about
how one of its major earners would be by putting AI data centres >>>>>>> into
space. Maybe, but how are they going to cool these things? Their >>>>>>> energy
consumption is enormous.
<https://www.socomec.co.uk/en-gb/solutions/business/data-centre/understanding-power-consumption-data-centres>
Assuming they'll be powered by solar panels, will the side of the >>>>>>> panel
facing away from the sun be used as a giant "black body" radiative >>>>>>> heatsink?
That would be sensible. It's looking at the universal back-ground
radiation at about 4 degrees absolute, and the power emitted is
proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature.
It's about 500 watts per square meter at 300 degrees absolute. At >>>>>> that
temperature you can use water vapour to carry the heat out to the >>>>>> remote
end of the radiating area, and pump the water back after it has
condensed.
AI commenting on AI:
"While traditional data centers might require a few megawatts,
hyperscale AI data centers can require 1 to 5 Gigawatts (GW) of
powerrCoroughly the equivalent of the total energy consumed by a massive >>>>> metropolitan area"
You might want to spin the area slowly to make it easier to collect >>>>>> water after it has condensed, before you pump it back to the areas >>>>>> where
the heat is being generated.
Running everything a bit hotter will reduce the radiating area you >>>>>> need,
but will increase the water vapour pressure you have to contend
with in
the vapour transfer channels.
The radiating surface would have to be very hot to get rid of much
heat, far hotter than semiconductors can stand. So there would have to >>>>> be powered heat pumps between the semis and the radiators.
Radiation increases as the fourth power of temperature. You don't have >>>> to get the radiators all that much hotter to get rid of a lot more
heat.
And you keep on thinking that the data centers will use conventional
semiconductors, while everybody is trying to get quantum computers to
work. The one we've got in Sydney runs in liquid He-3 at at 0.1K.
How many bits?
Don't know. The academics involved have set up a development company,
and I haven't kept track of what they tell potential investors.
It ain't gonna happen, and the AI bubble will mostly pop soon too.
It may not happen the way you imagine it might, but your imagination
isn't up to much.
Imagine square kilometers of solar panels, and square kilometers of
cooling panels with kilometers of water pipes. The solar panels need
cooling too, obviously more watts than the computers.
And an orbiting hotel for the maintenance crew.
Maintenance robots don't need hotels.
Now imagine maneuvering that to avoid being whacked by all the junk in
orbit.
There's a lot of junk in low orbit. An orbiting data center isn't
going to be in a low orbit that ever puts it in the shadow of the
earth, and it is going to to whack the junk that comes close rather
than dodge it.
The problem with whacking space junk is that there's *more* of it
afterwards.
On Sat, 13 Jun 2026 14:33:47 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 6/13/26 08:05, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 13/06/2026 2:55 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jun 2026 01:21:48 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>> wrote:
On 13/06/2026 12:29 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jun 2026 20:39:04 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>> wrote:
On 12/06/2026 5:09 pm, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 11/06/2026 20:52, john larkin wrote:
https://www.eetimes.com/
If you don't have enought content, just repeat every story four >>>>>>>>> times.
There was some waffle on the news today, ahead of the SpaceX IPO, >>>>>>>> about
how one of its major earners would be by putting AI data centres into >>>>>>>> space. Maybe, but how are they going to cool these things? Their >>>>>>>> energy
consumption is enormous.
<https://www.socomec.co.uk/en-gb/solutions/business/data-centre/understanding-power-consumption-data-centres>
Assuming they'll be powered by solar panels, will the side of the >>>>>>>> panel
facing away from the sun be used as a giant "black body" radiative >>>>>>>> heatsink?
That would be sensible. It's looking at the universal back-ground >>>>>>> radiation at about 4 degrees absolute, and the power emitted is
proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature.
It's about 500 watts per square meter at 300 degrees absolute. At that >>>>>>> temperature you can use water vapour to carry the heat out to the >>>>>>> remote
end of the radiating area, and pump the water back after it has
condensed.
AI commenting on AI:
"While traditional data centers might require a few megawatts,
hyperscale AI data centers can require 1 to 5 Gigawatts (GW) of
powerrCoroughly the equivalent of the total energy consumed by a massive >>>>>> metropolitan area"
You might want to spin the area slowly to make it easier to collect >>>>>>> water after it has condensed, before you pump it back to the areas >>>>>>> where
the heat is being generated.
Running everything a bit hotter will reduce the radiating area you >>>>>>> need,
but will increase the water vapour pressure you have to contend
with in
the vapour transfer channels.
The radiating surface would have to be very hot to get rid of much >>>>>> heat, far hotter than semiconductors can stand. So there would have to >>>>>> be powered heat pumps between the semis and the radiators.
Radiation increases as the fourth power of temperature. You don't have >>>>> to get the radiators all that much hotter to get rid of a lot more heat. >>>>>
And you keep on thinking that the data centers will use conventional >>>>> semiconductors, while everybody is trying to get quantum computers to >>>>> work. The one we've got in Sydney runs in liquid He-3 at at 0.1K.
How many bits?
Don't know. The academics involved have set up a development company,
and I haven't kept track of what they tell potential investors.
It ain't gonna happen, and the AI bubble will mostly pop soon too.
It may not happen the way you imagine it might, but your imagination >>>>> isn't up to much.
Imagine square kilometers of solar panels, and square kilometers of
cooling panels with kilometers of water pipes. The solar panels need
cooling too, obviously more watts than the computers.
And an orbiting hotel for the maintenance crew.
Maintenance robots don't need hotels.
Now imagine maneuvering that to avoid being whacked by all the junk in >>>> orbit.
There's a lot of junk in low orbit. An orbiting data center isn't going
to be in a low orbit that ever puts it in the shadow of the earth, and
it is going to to whack the junk that comes close rather than dodge it.
The problem with whacking space junk is that there's *more* of it
afterwards.
Square kilometers are a lot of target, even for natural meteors.
I don't think that orbiting data centers are going to happen.
It's cheap to transport stuff to Louisiana on trucks or barges.
The up/down data links are another issue.
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jun 2026 14:33:47 +0200, Jeroen Belleman<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 6/13/26 08:05, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 13/06/2026 2:55 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jun 2026 01:21:48 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>> wrote:
On 13/06/2026 12:29 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jun 2026 20:39:04 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>> wrote:
On 12/06/2026 5:09 pm, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 11/06/2026 20:52, john larkin wrote:
https://www.eetimes.com/
If you don't have enought content, just repeat every story four >>>>>>>>> times.
There was some waffle on the news today, ahead of the SpaceX IPO, >>>>>>>> about
how one of its major earners would be by putting AI data centres into >>>>>>>> space. Maybe, but how are they going to cool these things? Their >>>>>>>> energy
consumption is enormous.
<https://www.socomec.co.uk/en-gb/solutions/business/data-centre/understanding-power-consumption-data-centres>
Assuming they'll be powered by solar panels, will the side of the >>>>>>>> panel
facing away from the sun be used as a giant "black body" radiative >>>>>>>> heatsink?
That would be sensible. It's looking at the universal back-ground >>>>>>> radiation at about 4 degrees absolute, and the power emitted is
proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature.
It's about 500 watts per square meter at 300 degrees absolute. At that >>>>>>> temperature you can use water vapour to carry the heat out to the >>>>>>> remote
end of the radiating area, and pump the water back after it has >>>>>>> condensed.
AI commenting on AI:
"While traditional data centers might require a few megawatts,
hyperscale AI data centers can require 1 to 5 Gigawatts (GW) of
poweruroughly the equivalent of the total energy consumed by a massive >>>>>> metropolitan area"
You might want to spin the area slowly to make it easier to collect >>>>>>> water after it has condensed, before you pump it back to the areas >>>>>>> where
the heat is being generated.
Running everything a bit hotter will reduce the radiating area you >>>>>>> need,
but will increase the water vapour pressure you have to contend >>>>>>> with in
the vapour transfer channels.
The radiating surface would have to be very hot to get rid of much >>>>>> heat, far hotter than semiconductors can stand. So there would have to >>>>>> be powered heat pumps between the semis and the radiators.
Radiation increases as the fourth power of temperature. You don't have >>>>> to get the radiators all that much hotter to get rid of a lot more heat. >>>>>
And you keep on thinking that the data centers will use conventional >>>>> semiconductors, while everybody is trying to get quantum computers to >>>>> work. The one we've got in Sydney runs in liquid He-3 at at 0.1K.
How many bits?
Don't know. The academics involved have set up a development company,
and I haven't kept track of what they tell potential investors.
It ain't gonna happen, and the AI bubble will mostly pop soon too.
It may not happen the way you imagine it might, but your imagination >>>>> isn't up to much.
Imagine square kilometers of solar panels, and square kilometers of
cooling panels with kilometers of water pipes. The solar panels need
cooling too, obviously more watts than the computers.
And an orbiting hotel for the maintenance crew.
Maintenance robots don't need hotels.
Now imagine maneuvering that to avoid being whacked by all the junk in >>>> orbit.
There's a lot of junk in low orbit. An orbiting data center isn't going >>> to be in a low orbit that ever puts it in the shadow of the earth, and
it is going to to whack the junk that comes close rather than dodge it.
The problem with whacking space junk is that there's *more* of it >>afterwards.
Jeroen Belleman
Square kilometers are a lot of target, even for natural meteors.
I don't think that orbiting data centers are going to happen.
It's cheap to transport stuff to Louisiana on trucks or barges.
The up/down data links are another issue.
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jun 2026 14:33:47 +0200, Jeroen Belleman<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 6/13/26 08:05, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 13/06/2026 2:55 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jun 2026 01:21:48 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>> wrote:
On 13/06/2026 12:29 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jun 2026 20:39:04 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 12/06/2026 5:09 pm, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 11/06/2026 20:52, john larkin wrote:
https://www.eetimes.com/
If you don't have enought content, just repeat every story four >>>>>>>>>> times.
There was some waffle on the news today, ahead of the SpaceX IPO, >>>>>>>>> about
how one of its major earners would be by putting AI data centres into >>>>>>>>> space. Maybe, but how are they going to cool these things? Their >>>>>>>>> energy
consumption is enormous.
<https://www.socomec.co.uk/en-gb/solutions/business/data-centre/understanding-power-consumption-data-centres>
Assuming they'll be powered by solar panels, will the side of the >>>>>>>>> panel
facing away from the sun be used as a giant "black body" radiative >>>>>>>>> heatsink?
That would be sensible. It's looking at the universal back-ground >>>>>>>> radiation at about 4 degrees absolute, and the power emitted is >>>>>>>> proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature.
It's about 500 watts per square meter at 300 degrees absolute. At that >>>>>>>> temperature you can use water vapour to carry the heat out to the >>>>>>>> remote
end of the radiating area, and pump the water back after it has >>>>>>>> condensed.
AI commenting on AI:
"While traditional data centers might require a few megawatts,
hyperscale AI data centers can require 1 to 5 Gigawatts (GW) of
poweruroughly the equivalent of the total energy consumed by a massive >>>>>>> metropolitan area"
You might want to spin the area slowly to make it easier to collect >>>>>>>> water after it has condensed, before you pump it back to the areas >>>>>>>> where
the heat is being generated.
Running everything a bit hotter will reduce the radiating area you >>>>>>>> need,
but will increase the water vapour pressure you have to contend >>>>>>>> with in
the vapour transfer channels.
The radiating surface would have to be very hot to get rid of much >>>>>>> heat, far hotter than semiconductors can stand. So there would have to >>>>>>> be powered heat pumps between the semis and the radiators.
Radiation increases as the fourth power of temperature. You don't have >>>>>> to get the radiators all that much hotter to get rid of a lot more heat. >>>>>>
And you keep on thinking that the data centers will use conventional >>>>>> semiconductors, while everybody is trying to get quantum computers to >>>>>> work. The one we've got in Sydney runs in liquid He-3 at at 0.1K.
How many bits?
Don't know. The academics involved have set up a development company, >>>> and I haven't kept track of what they tell potential investors.
It ain't gonna happen, and the AI bubble will mostly pop soon too. >>>>>>It may not happen the way you imagine it might, but your imagination >>>>>> isn't up to much.
Imagine square kilometers of solar panels, and square kilometers of
cooling panels with kilometers of water pipes. The solar panels need >>>>> cooling too, obviously more watts than the computers.
And an orbiting hotel for the maintenance crew.
Maintenance robots don't need hotels.
Now imagine maneuvering that to avoid being whacked by all the junk in >>>>> orbit.
There's a lot of junk in low orbit. An orbiting data center isn't going >>>> to be in a low orbit that ever puts it in the shadow of the earth, and >>>> it is going to to whack the junk that comes close rather than dodge it. >>>>
The problem with whacking space junk is that there's *more* of it >>>afterwards.
Jeroen Belleman
Square kilometers are a lot of target, even for natural meteors.
I don't think that orbiting data centers are going to happen.
It's cheap to transport stuff to Louisiana on trucks or barges.
The up/down data links are another issue.
I was thinking the same thing
It is likely just Elon Musk trying to get more mony
Seems he has forgotton his Mars plans.
One nuclear power station on earth and ever more nano-nano faster hardware >and all that stuff fits in a small building..
Like tubes in the past versus chips these days
Or in evereybody's 'smart' phone.
Can RF ever ship petabytes per second to and from a satellite?
On Sat, 13 Jun 2026 16:56:23 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jun 2026 14:33:47 +0200, Jeroen Belleman<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 6/13/26 08:05, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 13/06/2026 2:55 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jun 2026 01:21:48 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>> wrote:
On 13/06/2026 12:29 am, john larkin wrote:How many bits?
On Fri, 12 Jun 2026 20:39:04 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 12/06/2026 5:09 pm, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 11/06/2026 20:52, john larkin wrote:
https://www.eetimes.com/
If you don't have enought content, just repeat every story four >>>>>>>>>>> times.
There was some waffle on the news today, ahead of the SpaceX IPO, >>>>>>>>>> about
how one of its major earners would be by putting AI data centres into
space. Maybe, but how are they going to cool these things? Their >>>>>>>>>> energy
consumption is enormous.
<https://www.socomec.co.uk/en-gb/solutions/business/data-centre/understanding-power-consumption-data-centres>
Assuming they'll be powered by solar panels, will the side of the >>>>>>>>>> panel
facing away from the sun be used as a giant "black body" radiative >>>>>>>>>> heatsink?
That would be sensible. It's looking at the universal back-ground >>>>>>>>> radiation at about 4 degrees absolute, and the power emitted is >>>>>>>>> proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature. >>>>>>>>>
It's about 500 watts per square meter at 300 degrees absolute. At that
temperature you can use water vapour to carry the heat out to the >>>>>>>>> remote
end of the radiating area, and pump the water back after it has >>>>>>>>> condensed.
AI commenting on AI:
"While traditional data centers might require a few megawatts, >>>>>>>> hyperscale AI data centers can require 1 to 5 Gigawatts (GW) of >>>>>>>> powerrCoroughly the equivalent of the total energy consumed by a massive
metropolitan area"
You might want to spin the area slowly to make it easier to collect >>>>>>>>> water after it has condensed, before you pump it back to the areas >>>>>>>>> where
the heat is being generated.
Running everything a bit hotter will reduce the radiating area you >>>>>>>>> need,
but will increase the water vapour pressure you have to contend >>>>>>>>> with in
the vapour transfer channels.
The radiating surface would have to be very hot to get rid of much >>>>>>>> heat, far hotter than semiconductors can stand. So there would have to >>>>>>>> be powered heat pumps between the semis and the radiators.
Radiation increases as the fourth power of temperature. You don't have >>>>>>> to get the radiators all that much hotter to get rid of a lot more heat.
And you keep on thinking that the data centers will use conventional >>>>>>> semiconductors, while everybody is trying to get quantum computers to >>>>>>> work. The one we've got in Sydney runs in liquid He-3 at at 0.1K. >>>>>>
Don't know. The academics involved have set up a development company, >>>>> and I haven't kept track of what they tell potential investors.
It ain't gonna happen, and the AI bubble will mostly pop soon too. >>>>>>>It may not happen the way you imagine it might, but your imagination >>>>>>> isn't up to much.
Imagine square kilometers of solar panels, and square kilometers of >>>>>> cooling panels with kilometers of water pipes. The solar panels need >>>>>> cooling too, obviously more watts than the computers.
And an orbiting hotel for the maintenance crew.
Maintenance robots don't need hotels.
Now imagine maneuvering that to avoid being whacked by all the junk in >>>>>> orbit.
There's a lot of junk in low orbit. An orbiting data center isn't going >>>>> to be in a low orbit that ever puts it in the shadow of the earth, and >>>>> it is going to to whack the junk that comes close rather than dodge it. >>>>>
The problem with whacking space junk is that there's *more* of it
afterwards.
Jeroen Belleman
Square kilometers are a lot of target, even for natural meteors.
I don't think that orbiting data centers are going to happen.
It's cheap to transport stuff to Louisiana on trucks or barges.
The up/down data links are another issue.
I was thinking the same thing
It is likely just Elon Musk trying to get more money
Seems he has forgotten his Mars plans.
One nuclear power station on earth and ever more nano-nano faster hardware >> and all that stuff fits in a small building..
Like tubes in the past versus chips these days
Or in everybody's 'smart' phone.
With speeds approaching a terabit per fiber, maybe the world only
needs a few dozen giant data centers, with their associated power
plants and cooling.
Speed-of-light makes relatively nearby hubs better than ones way out
in space.
Can RF ever ship petabytes per second to and from a satellite?
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>wrote:
On 14/06/2026 3:33 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jun 2026 16:56:23 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jun 2026 14:33:47 +0200, Jeroen Belleman<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 6/13/26 08:05, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 13/06/2026 2:55 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jun 2026 01:21:48 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 13/06/2026 12:29 am, john larkin wrote:How many bits?
On Fri, 12 Jun 2026 20:39:04 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 12/06/2026 5:09 pm, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 11/06/2026 20:52, john larkin wrote:
https://www.eetimes.com/
If you don't have enought content, just repeat every story four >>>>>>>>>>>> times.
There was some waffle on the news today, ahead of the SpaceX IPO, >>>>>>>>>>> about
how one of its major earners would be by putting AI data centres into
space. Maybe, but how are they going to cool these things? Their >>>>>>>>>>> energy
consumption is enormous.
<https://www.socomec.co.uk/en-gb/solutions/business/data-centre/understanding-power-consumption-data-centres>
Assuming they'll be powered by solar panels, will the side of the >>>>>>>>>>> panel
facing away from the sun be used as a giant "black body" radiative >>>>>>>>>>> heatsink?
That would be sensible. It's looking at the universal back-ground >>>>>>>>>> radiation at about 4 degrees absolute, and the power emitted is >>>>>>>>>> proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature. >>>>>>>>>>
It's about 500 watts per square meter at 300 degrees absolute. At that
temperature you can use water vapour to carry the heat out to the >>>>>>>>>> remote
end of the radiating area, and pump the water back after it has >>>>>>>>>> condensed.
AI commenting on AI:
"While traditional data centers might require a few megawatts, >>>>>>>>> hyperscale AI data centers can require 1 to 5 Gigawatts (GW) of >>>>>>>>> powerrCoroughly the equivalent of the total energy consumed by a massive
metropolitan area"
You might want to spin the area slowly to make it easier to collect >>>>>>>>>> water after it has condensed, before you pump it back to the areas >>>>>>>>>> where
the heat is being generated.
Running everything a bit hotter will reduce the radiating area you >>>>>>>>>> need,
but will increase the water vapour pressure you have to contend >>>>>>>>>> with in
the vapour transfer channels.
The radiating surface would have to be very hot to get rid of much >>>>>>>>> heat, far hotter than semiconductors can stand. So there would have to
be powered heat pumps between the semis and the radiators.
Radiation increases as the fourth power of temperature. You don't have >>>>>>>> to get the radiators all that much hotter to get rid of a lot more heat.
And you keep on thinking that the data centers will use conventional >>>>>>>> semiconductors, while everybody is trying to get quantum computers to >>>>>>>> work. The one we've got in Sydney runs in liquid He-3 at at 0.1K. >>>>>>>
Don't know. The academics involved have set up a development company, >>>>>> and I haven't kept track of what they tell potential investors.
It ain't gonna happen, and the AI bubble will mostly pop soon too. >>>>>>>>It may not happen the way you imagine it might, but your imagination >>>>>>>> isn't up to much.
Imagine square kilometers of solar panels, and square kilometers of >>>>>>> cooling panels with kilometers of water pipes. The solar panels need >>>>>>> cooling too, obviously more watts than the computers.
And an orbiting hotel for the maintenance crew.
Maintenance robots don't need hotels.
Now imagine maneuvering that to avoid being whacked by all the junk in >>>>>>> orbit.
There's a lot of junk in low orbit. An orbiting data center isn't going >>>>>> to be in a low orbit that ever puts it in the shadow of the earth, and >>>>>> it is going to to whack the junk that comes close rather than dodge it. >>>>>>
The problem with whacking space junk is that there's *more* of it
afterwards.
Jeroen Belleman
Square kilometers are a lot of target, even for natural meteors.
I don't think that orbiting data centers are going to happen.
It's cheap to transport stuff to Louisiana on trucks or barges.
The up/down data links are another issue.
I was thinking the same thing
It is likely just Elon Musk trying to get more money
Seems he has forgotten his Mars plans.
One nuclear power station on earth and ever more nano-nano faster hardware >>> and all that stuff fits in a small building..
Like tubes in the past versus chips these days
Or in everybody's 'smart' phone.
With speeds approaching a terabit per fiber, maybe the world only
needs a few dozen giant data centers, with their associated power
plants and cooling.
Speed-of-light makes relatively nearby hubs better than ones way out
in space.
A couple of hundred miles up is worse than thousands of mile across the >surface of the planet?
How widely spaced would a few dozen giant data centres have to be?
Sixty of them in a fullerene configuration would have to be 5000 miles
apart to cover the surface of the earth.
Can RF ever ship petabytes per second to and from a satellite?
Satellite TV distribution suggests that you can move quite a few
pentabytes - how fast pretty much depends on the money you are willing
to spend.
On Sat, 13 Jun 2026 10:33:05 -0700, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
wrote:
Can RF ever ship petabytes per second to and from a satellite?
Yes, but only if the various regulatory organizations allocate the
necessary bandwidth on a global scale. Like a bundle of optical
fibers, the gross total bandwidth is the sum of the bandwidths of each optical fiber.
The real problem is available bandwidth. To get petabyte per second
speeds, the system will probably use mm (millimeter) or sub-mm wave frequencies. Higher frequencies offer more bandwidth, but also offer
more headaches. For example, atmospheric attenuation absorption
requires more RF power to be usable:
"Clear air atmospheric attenuation" <https://boulderest.com/clear-air-atmospheric-attenuation/>
The frequencies ruined by oxygen, nitrogen, ozone, water vapor, rain,
fog, cloud, etc attenuation can't be used. Optical frequencies might
be usable for a LEO (low earth orbit) system.
"United States Frequency Allocation Chart" <https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/fcctable.pdf>
Currently, the highest allocated frequencies on the chart is about
38GHz (7.9 mm wavelength). I would expect a turf war circus as
multiple international agencies and governments divide the pie.
<https://www.ntia.gov/sites/default/files/2025-09/ntia-us-frequency-allocations.pdf>
Note that this only for the US. Other governments have their own (politicized) frequency allocations.
Another RF problem is the lack of a 100% reliable path. The orbital data-center will probably be launched into a LEO (low earth orbit).
That makes the satellite a moving target, which requires a tracking
antenna like the Starlink system. It also means there will be times
when there is no signal to or from any satellite. That can be fixed
by with aggressive buffering, but that makes real time data
impossible. At this time, AI does not need to be real-time. However,
I expect AI to evolve into a glorified "chat" program, which works
best in a low latency and real time environment.
However, I don't think it's going to be a bureaucratic nightmare. I
would expect the various governments to declare that optical
frequencies (colors) need not be licensed, coordinated, or sold at
auction. 2nd best would be something like internet domain name
registration, where the early adopters and domain name entrepreneurs
staked their claims on the best domain names leaving everyone else
with whatever is left. I have no idea how to deal with optical
interference problems. One should not expect order from anarchists.
Actually, I'm an optimist and suspect that all the above problems can eventually be solved. However, there's on problem with building an
orbital data-center that might kill the idea before it leaves the
ground. Space is full of very energetic particles, which do bad
things to sensitive components and circuits. On earth, we have the protection of the atmosphere and the earth's magnetic field. We have
the option of adding shielding but probably can't tolerate the added
weight. Space semiconductors are designed to minimize the effects of energetic particles, but that drives up their cost.
"Why Radiation Hardening Matters for Satellite Processors and What It
Costs" <https://hubble.com/community/comparisons/why-radiation-hardening-matters-for-satellite-processors-and-what-it-costs/>
"You just got a quote back for a processor. The commercial version
costs $35. The radiation hardened equivalent: $47,000. Same basic
function. Same logic operations. A 1,300|u price difference."
If we disassemble a working terrestrial data center computer, launch
it piecemeal, assemble the pieces in orbit, and flip the on switch, it
would dead on arrival because of radiation damage. To fix that will
likely require better semiconductors that might cost 1300 times the
cost.
If a data center in orbit is such a great idea, I believe it could be
done cheaper, easier, and more reliably by locating the data-center(s)
at the north and south poles.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far_North_Fiber>
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>wrote:
On 14/06/2026 3:33 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jun 2026 16:56:23 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jun 2026 14:33:47 +0200, Jeroen Belleman<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 6/13/26 08:05, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 13/06/2026 2:55 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jun 2026 01:21:48 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 13/06/2026 12:29 am, john larkin wrote:How many bits?
On Fri, 12 Jun 2026 20:39:04 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 12/06/2026 5:09 pm, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 11/06/2026 20:52, john larkin wrote:
https://www.eetimes.com/
If you don't have enought content, just repeat every story four >>>>>>>>>>>>> times.
There was some waffle on the news today, ahead of the SpaceX IPO, >>>>>>>>>>>> about
how one of its major earners would be by putting AI data centres into
space. Maybe, but how are they going to cool these things? Their >>>>>>>>>>>> energy
consumption is enormous.
<https://www.socomec.co.uk/en-gb/solutions/business/data-centre/understanding-power-consumption-data-centres>
Assuming they'll be powered by solar panels, will the side of the >>>>>>>>>>>> panel
facing away from the sun be used as a giant "black body" radiative >>>>>>>>>>>> heatsink?
That would be sensible. It's looking at the universal back-ground >>>>>>>>>>> radiation at about 4 degrees absolute, and the power emitted is >>>>>>>>>>> proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature. >>>>>>>>>>>
It's about 500 watts per square meter at 300 degrees absolute. At that
temperature you can use water vapour to carry the heat out to the >>>>>>>>>>> remote
end of the radiating area, and pump the water back after it has >>>>>>>>>>> condensed.
AI commenting on AI:
"While traditional data centers might require a few megawatts, >>>>>>>>>> hyperscale AI data centers can require 1 to 5 Gigawatts (GW) of >>>>>>>>>> powerrCoroughly the equivalent of the total energy consumed by a massive
metropolitan area"
You might want to spin the area slowly to make it easier to collect >>>>>>>>>>> water after it has condensed, before you pump it back to the areas >>>>>>>>>>> where
the heat is being generated.
Running everything a bit hotter will reduce the radiating area you >>>>>>>>>>> need,
but will increase the water vapour pressure you have to contend >>>>>>>>>>> with in
the vapour transfer channels.
The radiating surface would have to be very hot to get rid of much >>>>>>>>>> heat, far hotter than semiconductors can stand. So there would have to
be powered heat pumps between the semis and the radiators.
Radiation increases as the fourth power of temperature. You don't have
to get the radiators all that much hotter to get rid of a lot more heat.
And you keep on thinking that the data centers will use conventional >>>>>>>>> semiconductors, while everybody is trying to get quantum computers to >>>>>>>>> work. The one we've got in Sydney runs in liquid He-3 at at 0.1K. >>>>>>>>
Don't know. The academics involved have set up a development company, >>>>>>> and I haven't kept track of what they tell potential investors.
It ain't gonna happen, and the AI bubble will mostly pop soon too. >>>>>>>>>It may not happen the way you imagine it might, but your imagination >>>>>>>>> isn't up to much.
Imagine square kilometers of solar panels, and square kilometers of >>>>>>>> cooling panels with kilometers of water pipes. The solar panels need >>>>>>>> cooling too, obviously more watts than the computers.
And an orbiting hotel for the maintenance crew.
Maintenance robots don't need hotels.
Now imagine maneuvering that to avoid being whacked by all the junk in >>>>>>>> orbit.
There's a lot of junk in low orbit. An orbiting data center isn't going >>>>>>> to be in a low orbit that ever puts it in the shadow of the earth, and >>>>>>> it is going to to whack the junk that comes close rather than dodge it. >>>>>>>
The problem with whacking space junk is that there's *more* of it
afterwards.
Jeroen Belleman
Square kilometers are a lot of target, even for natural meteors.
I don't think that orbiting data centers are going to happen.
It's cheap to transport stuff to Louisiana on trucks or barges.
The up/down data links are another issue.
I was thinking the same thing
It is likely just Elon Musk trying to get more money
Seems he has forgotten his Mars plans.
One nuclear power station on earth and ever more nano-nano faster hardware >>>> and all that stuff fits in a small building..
Like tubes in the past versus chips these days
Or in everybody's 'smart' phone.
With speeds approaching a terabit per fiber, maybe the world only
needs a few dozen giant data centers, with their associated power
plants and cooling.
Speed-of-light makes relatively nearby hubs better than ones way out
in space.
A couple of hundred miles up is worse than thousands of mile across the >>surface of the planet?
How widely spaced would a few dozen giant data centres have to be?
Sixty of them in a fullerene configuration would have to be 5000 miles >>apart to cover the surface of the earth.
Can RF ever ship petabytes per second to and from a satellite?
Satellite TV distribution suggests that you can move quite a few >>pentabytes - how fast pretty much depends on the money you are willing
to spend.
You have no clue
TV is relayed by geo-stationary satellites
The height of a geostationary satellite is approximately 35,786 kilometers (22,236 miles) above Earth's equator
And it is a 2 way game for up-down links, huge delays
And even then each satellite covers a limited area
On Sun, 14 Jun 2026 06:50:32 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>wrote:
On 14/06/2026 3:33 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jun 2026 16:56:23 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jun 2026 14:33:47 +0200, Jeroen Belleman<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 6/13/26 08:05, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 13/06/2026 2:55 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jun 2026 01:21:48 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 13/06/2026 12:29 am, john larkin wrote:How many bits?
On Fri, 12 Jun 2026 20:39:04 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>Radiation increases as the fourth power of temperature. You don't have
wrote:
On 12/06/2026 5:09 pm, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 11/06/2026 20:52, john larkin wrote:
https://www.eetimes.com/
If you don't have enought content, just repeat every story four >>>>>>>>>>>>>> times.
There was some waffle on the news today, ahead of the SpaceX IPO, >>>>>>>>>>>>> about
how one of its major earners would be by putting AI data centres into
space. Maybe, but how are they going to cool these things? Their >>>>>>>>>>>>> energy
consumption is enormous.
<https://www.socomec.co.uk/en-gb/solutions/business/data-centre/understanding-power-consumption-data-centres>
Assuming they'll be powered by solar panels, will the side of the >>>>>>>>>>>>> panel
facing away from the sun be used as a giant "black body" radiative
heatsink?
That would be sensible. It's looking at the universal back-ground >>>>>>>>>>>> radiation at about 4 degrees absolute, and the power emitted is >>>>>>>>>>>> proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature. >>>>>>>>>>>>
It's about 500 watts per square meter at 300 degrees absolute. At that
temperature you can use water vapour to carry the heat out to the >>>>>>>>>>>> remote
end of the radiating area, and pump the water back after it has >>>>>>>>>>>> condensed.
AI commenting on AI:
"While traditional data centers might require a few megawatts, >>>>>>>>>>> hyperscale AI data centers can require 1 to 5 Gigawatts (GW) of >>>>>>>>>>> power|ore4rCYroughly the equivalent of the total energy consumed by a massive
metropolitan area"
You might want to spin the area slowly to make it easier to collect
water after it has condensed, before you pump it back to the areas >>>>>>>>>>>> where
the heat is being generated.
Running everything a bit hotter will reduce the radiating area you >>>>>>>>>>>> need,
but will increase the water vapour pressure you have to contend >>>>>>>>>>>> with in
the vapour transfer channels.
The radiating surface would have to be very hot to get rid of much >>>>>>>>>>> heat, far hotter than semiconductors can stand. So there would have to
be powered heat pumps between the semis and the radiators. >>>>>>>>>>
to get the radiators all that much hotter to get rid of a lot more heat.
And you keep on thinking that the data centers will use conventional >>>>>>>>>> semiconductors, while everybody is trying to get quantum computers to
work. The one we've got in Sydney runs in liquid He-3 at at 0.1K. >>>>>>>>>
Don't know. The academics involved have set up a development company, >>>>>>>> and I haven't kept track of what they tell potential investors. >>>>>>>>
It ain't gonna happen, and the AI bubble will mostly pop soon too. >>>>>>>>>>It may not happen the way you imagine it might, but your imagination >>>>>>>>>> isn't up to much.
Imagine square kilometers of solar panels, and square kilometers of >>>>>>>>> cooling panels with kilometers of water pipes. The solar panels need >>>>>>>>> cooling too, obviously more watts than the computers.
And an orbiting hotel for the maintenance crew.
Maintenance robots don't need hotels.
Now imagine maneuvering that to avoid being whacked by all the junk in
orbit.
There's a lot of junk in low orbit. An orbiting data center isn't going
to be in a low orbit that ever puts it in the shadow of the earth, and >>>>>>>> it is going to to whack the junk that comes close rather than dodge it.
The problem with whacking space junk is that there's *more* of it >>>>>>> afterwards.
Jeroen Belleman
Square kilometers are a lot of target, even for natural meteors.
I don't think that orbiting data centers are going to happen.
It's cheap to transport stuff to Louisiana on trucks or barges.
The up/down data links are another issue.
I was thinking the same thing
It is likely just Elon Musk trying to get more money
Seems he has forgotten his Mars plans.
One nuclear power station on earth and ever more nano-nano faster hardware
and all that stuff fits in a small building..
Like tubes in the past versus chips these days
Or in everybody's 'smart' phone.
With speeds approaching a terabit per fiber, maybe the world only
needs a few dozen giant data centers, with their associated power
plants and cooling.
Speed-of-light makes relatively nearby hubs better than ones way out
in space.
A couple of hundred miles up is worse than thousands of mile across the
surface of the planet?
How widely spaced would a few dozen giant data centres have to be?
Sixty of them in a fullerene configuration would have to be 5000 miles
apart to cover the surface of the earth.
Can RF ever ship petabytes per second to and from a satellite?
Satellite TV distribution suggests that you can move quite a few
pentabytes - how fast pretty much depends on the money you are willing
to spend.
You have no clue
TV is relayed by geo-stationary satellites
The height of a geostationary satellite is approximately 35,786 kilometers (22,236 miles) above Earth's equator
And it is a 2 way game for up-down links, huge delays
And even then each satellite covers a limited area
A data center in space would ideally never be eclipsed by Earth, and
would be geostationary, and be in a low orbit, and never be above
clouds.
The whole AI-in-space idea is silly for many reasons.
A fiber bundle the size of a pencil will carry a million times more
data than the entire usable RF spectrum DC to UV. Maybe a billion
times.
Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jun 2026 10:33:05 -0700, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
wrote:
Can RF ever ship petabytes per second to and from a satellite?
Yes, but only if the various regulatory organizations allocate the
necessary bandwidth on a global scale. Like a bundle of optical
fibers, the gross total bandwidth is the sum of the bandwidths of each
optical fiber.
The real problem is available bandwidth. To get petabyte per second
speeds, the system will probably use mm (millimeter) or sub-mm wave
frequencies. Higher frequencies offer more bandwidth, but also offer
more headaches. For example, atmospheric attenuation absorption
requires more RF power to be usable:
"Clear air atmospheric attenuation"
<https://boulderest.com/clear-air-atmospheric-attenuation/>
The frequencies ruined by oxygen, nitrogen, ozone, water vapor, rain,
fog, cloud, etc attenuation can't be used. Optical frequencies might
be usable for a LEO (low earth orbit) system.
"United States Frequency Allocation Chart"
<https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/fcctable.pdf>
Currently, the highest allocated frequencies on the chart is about
38GHz (7.9 mm wavelength). I would expect a turf war circus as
multiple international agencies and governments divide the pie.
<https://www.ntia.gov/sites/default/files/2025-09/ntia-us-frequency-allocations.pdf>
Note that this only for the US. Other governments have their own
(politicized) frequency allocations.
Another RF problem is the lack of a 100% reliable path. The orbital
data-center will probably be launched into a LEO (low earth orbit).
That makes the satellite a moving target, which requires a tracking
antenna like the Starlink system. It also means there will be times
when there is no signal to or from any satellite. That can be fixed
by with aggressive buffering, but that makes real time data
impossible. At this time, AI does not need to be real-time. However,
I expect AI to evolve into a glorified "chat" program, which works
best in a low latency and real time environment.
However, I don't think it's going to be a bureaucratic nightmare. I
would expect the various governments to declare that optical
frequencies (colors) need not be licensed, coordinated, or sold at
auction. 2nd best would be something like internet domain name
registration, where the early adopters and domain name entrepreneurs
staked their claims on the best domain names leaving everyone else
with whatever is left. I have no idea how to deal with optical
interference problems. One should not expect order from anarchists.
Actually, I'm an optimist and suspect that all the above problems can
eventually be solved. However, there's on problem with building an
orbital data-center that might kill the idea before it leaves the
ground. Space is full of very energetic particles, which do bad
things to sensitive components and circuits. On earth, we have the
protection of the atmosphere and the earth's magnetic field. We have
the option of adding shielding but probably can't tolerate the added
weight. Space semiconductors are designed to minimize the effects of
energetic particles, but that drives up their cost.
"Why Radiation Hardening Matters for Satellite Processors and What It
Costs"
<https://hubble.com/community/comparisons/why-radiation-hardening-matters-for-satellite-processors-and-what-it-costs/>
"You just got a quote back for a processor. The commercial version
costs $35. The radiation hardened equivalent: $47,000. Same basic
function. Same logic operations. A 1,300|u price difference."
If we disassemble a working terrestrial data center computer, launch
it piecemeal, assemble the pieces in orbit, and flip the on switch, it
would dead on arrival because of radiation damage. To fix that will
likely require better semiconductors that might cost 1300 times the
cost.
If a data center in orbit is such a great idea, I believe it could be
done cheaper, easier, and more reliably by locating the data-center(s)
at the north and south poles.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far_North_Fiber>
The high cost of rad-hard chips is basically due to amortization over very small volumes. ItrCOs not like you need isotopically pure silicon.
Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jun 2026 10:33:05 -0700, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
wrote:
Can RF ever ship petabytes per second to and from a satellite?
Yes, but only if the various regulatory organizations allocate the
necessary bandwidth on a global scale. Like a bundle of optical
fibers, the gross total bandwidth is the sum of the bandwidths of each
optical fiber.
The real problem is available bandwidth. To get petabyte per second
speeds, the system will probably use mm (millimeter) or sub-mm wave
frequencies. Higher frequencies offer more bandwidth, but also offer
more headaches. For example, atmospheric attenuation absorption
requires more RF power to be usable:
"Clear air atmospheric attenuation"
<https://boulderest.com/clear-air-atmospheric-attenuation/>
The frequencies ruined by oxygen, nitrogen, ozone, water vapor, rain,
fog, cloud, etc attenuation can't be used. Optical frequencies might
be usable for a LEO (low earth orbit) system.
"United States Frequency Allocation Chart"
<https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/fcctable.pdf>
Currently, the highest allocated frequencies on the chart is about
38GHz (7.9 mm wavelength). I would expect a turf war circus as
multiple international agencies and governments divide the pie.
<https://www.ntia.gov/sites/default/files/2025-09/ntia-us-frequency-allocations.pdf>
Note that this only for the US. Other governments have their own
(politicized) frequency allocations.
Another RF problem is the lack of a 100% reliable path. The orbital
data-center will probably be launched into a LEO (low earth orbit).
That makes the satellite a moving target, which requires a tracking
antenna like the Starlink system. It also means there will be times
when there is no signal to or from any satellite. That can be fixed
by with aggressive buffering, but that makes real time data
impossible. At this time, AI does not need to be real-time. However,
I expect AI to evolve into a glorified "chat" program, which works
best in a low latency and real time environment.
However, I don't think it's going to be a bureaucratic nightmare. I
would expect the various governments to declare that optical
frequencies (colors) need not be licensed, coordinated, or sold at
auction. 2nd best would be something like internet domain name
registration, where the early adopters and domain name entrepreneurs
staked their claims on the best domain names leaving everyone else
with whatever is left. I have no idea how to deal with optical
interference problems. One should not expect order from anarchists.
Actually, I'm an optimist and suspect that all the above problems can
eventually be solved. However, there's on problem with building an
orbital data-center that might kill the idea before it leaves the
ground. Space is full of very energetic particles, which do bad
things to sensitive components and circuits. On earth, we have the
protection of the atmosphere and the earth's magnetic field. We have
the option of adding shielding but probably can't tolerate the added
weight. Space semiconductors are designed to minimize the effects of
energetic particles, but that drives up their cost.
"Why Radiation Hardening Matters for Satellite Processors and What It
Costs"
<https://hubble.com/community/comparisons/why-radiation-hardening-matters-for-satellite-processors-and-what-it-costs/>
"You just got a quote back for a processor. The commercial version
costs $35. The radiation hardened equivalent: $47,000. Same basic
function. Same logic operations. A 1,300+ price difference."
If we disassemble a working terrestrial data center computer, launch
it piecemeal, assemble the pieces in orbit, and flip the on switch, it
would dead on arrival because of radiation damage. To fix that will
likely require better semiconductors that might cost 1300 times the
cost.
If a data center in orbit is such a great idea, I believe it could be
done cheaper, easier, and more reliably by locating the data-center(s)
at the north and south poles.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far_North_Fiber>
The high cost of rad-hard chips is basically due to amortization over very >small volumes. ItAs not like you need isotopically pure silicon.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
On Sun, 14 Jun 2026 11:52:34 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs ><pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jun 2026 10:33:05 -0700, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
wrote:
Can RF ever ship petabytes per second to and from a satellite?
Yes, but only if the various regulatory organizations allocate the
necessary bandwidth on a global scale. Like a bundle of optical
fibers, the gross total bandwidth is the sum of the bandwidths of each
optical fiber.
The real problem is available bandwidth. To get petabyte per second
speeds, the system will probably use mm (millimeter) or sub-mm wave
frequencies. Higher frequencies offer more bandwidth, but also offer
more headaches. For example, atmospheric attenuation absorption
requires more RF power to be usable:
"Clear air atmospheric attenuation"
<https://boulderest.com/clear-air-atmospheric-attenuation/>
The frequencies ruined by oxygen, nitrogen, ozone, water vapor, rain,
fog, cloud, etc attenuation can't be used. Optical frequencies might
be usable for a LEO (low earth orbit) system.
"United States Frequency Allocation Chart"
<https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/fcctable.pdf>
Currently, the highest allocated frequencies on the chart is about
38GHz (7.9 mm wavelength). I would expect a turf war circus as
multiple international agencies and governments divide the pie.
<https://www.ntia.gov/sites/default/files/2025-09/ntia-us-frequency-allocations.pdf>
Note that this only for the US. Other governments have their own
(politicized) frequency allocations.
Another RF problem is the lack of a 100% reliable path. The orbital
data-center will probably be launched into a LEO (low earth orbit).
That makes the satellite a moving target, which requires a tracking
antenna like the Starlink system. It also means there will be times
when there is no signal to or from any satellite. That can be fixed
by with aggressive buffering, but that makes real time data
impossible. At this time, AI does not need to be real-time. However,
I expect AI to evolve into a glorified "chat" program, which works
best in a low latency and real time environment.
However, I don't think it's going to be a bureaucratic nightmare. I
would expect the various governments to declare that optical
frequencies (colors) need not be licensed, coordinated, or sold at
auction. 2nd best would be something like internet domain name
registration, where the early adopters and domain name entrepreneurs
staked their claims on the best domain names leaving everyone else
with whatever is left. I have no idea how to deal with optical
interference problems. One should not expect order from anarchists.
Actually, I'm an optimist and suspect that all the above problems can
eventually be solved. However, there's on problem with building an
orbital data-center that might kill the idea before it leaves the
ground. Space is full of very energetic particles, which do bad
things to sensitive components and circuits. On earth, we have the
protection of the atmosphere and the earth's magnetic field. We have
the option of adding shielding but probably can't tolerate the added
weight. Space semiconductors are designed to minimize the effects of
energetic particles, but that drives up their cost.
"Why Radiation Hardening Matters for Satellite Processors and What It
Costs"
<https://hubble.com/community/comparisons/why-radiation-hardening-matters-for-satellite-processors-and-what-it-costs/>
"You just got a quote back for a processor. The commercial version
costs $35. The radiation hardened equivalent: $47,000. Same basic
function. Same logic operations. A 1,300+ price difference."
If we disassemble a working terrestrial data center computer, launch
it piecemeal, assemble the pieces in orbit, and flip the on switch, it
would dead on arrival because of radiation damage. To fix that will
likely require better semiconductors that might cost 1300 times the
cost.
If a data center in orbit is such a great idea, I believe it could be
done cheaper, easier, and more reliably by locating the data-center(s)
at the north and south poles.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far_North_Fiber>
The high cost of rad-hard chips is basically due to amortization over very >>small volumes. ItAs not like you need isotopically pure silicon.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
Agreed. Larger volume will probably reduce costs. Whether a 1300x
price drop is possible seems unlikely.
I don't know much about space hardened technology, so I did some
random online reading. I was expecting to find fairly modern versions
of common Intel and AMD CPU's. Nope. Common CPU's seem to based on
486, MIPS and PowerPC architecture. Some examples: ><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAD750> ><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongoose-V>
Most of what I'm finding have clock speeds in the 13MHz region. ><https://www.cpushack.com/space-craft-cpu.html>
Intel doesn't make any radiation hardened CPU's. They did try to make
a space grade Pentium CPU in 1998 and seems to have given up: ><https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/nasa-to-have-access-to-radiation-hardened-pentium-chip/>
AMD has PLA's but no CPU's. ><https://www.amd.com/en/solutions/aerospace-and-defense/space.html>
For RF, an orbital data center might need resurrect tunnel diodes,
which are quite resistant to ionizing radiation and therefore quite
reliable.
China might have the right idea:
"China Turns on the WorldAs First Underwater Data Center" ><https://gizmodo.com/china-turns-on-the-worlds-first-underwater-data-center-2000769502>
Note that it's only partially wind powered.
The (un)popular press keeps making stupid claims like
"According to a report published this week by the United Nations
University Institute for Water, Environment and Health, the water
consumption of data centers could reach 9.3 trillion liters by 2030,
which is the equivalent to the water needs of all of sub-Saharan
Africa."
Data centers don't use water, they just dump heat into it. And salty
or dirty water works too.
On Sun, 14 Jun 2026 10:57:51 -0700, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
wrote:
The (un)popular press keeps making stupid claims like
"According to a report published this week by the United Nations
University Institute for Water, Environment and Health, the water >>consumption of data centers could reach 9.3 trillion liters by 2030,
which is the equivalent to the water needs of all of sub-Saharan
Africa."
Data centers don't use water, they just dump heat into it. And salty
or dirty water works too.
As usual, I beg to differ. Most data centers do consume large amounts
of cooling water. Some details:
"Myths vs. Reality: Data Centers And Water Usage" ><https://www.fwpcoa.org/content.aspx?page_id=5&club_id=859275&item_id=130961>
"Evaporative cooling (open-loop): A majority of large, modern data
centers use water-based cooling for better energy efficiency. This
often involves cooling towers or evaporative chillers: warm water
absorbs heat from servers and is then cooled by evaporation in a
tower. As water evaporates into the air, it carries away heat -
dramatically cutting the electrical power needed for cooling. The
trade-off is high water consumption. Most big data centers today use
some form of evaporative cooling because itAs energy-efficient,
especially in hot climates, but it directly uses water (often drawn
from municipal supply)."
"Among the water-cooled facilities, the vast majority of large-scale
data centers use open-loop evaporative cooling meaning they evaporate
water as part of the cooling process. This has been the standard
because itAs effective and energy-saving, but it does consume water."
"Typically, 70-80% of the water in evaporative cooling is lost as
evaporation into the air. The remaining 20-30% is discharged as liquid >wastewater (which goes to a sewer or treatment plant)."
"Loudoun County, Virginia - the worldAs largest data center hub -
supplied around +/-1 billion gallons of water to data centers in 2023,
mostly relying on treated potable water because reclaimed water
capacity was insufficient."
I don't know much about space hardened technology, so I did some
random online reading. I was expecting to find fairly modern versions
of common Intel and AMD CPU's. Nope. Common CPU's seem to based on
486, MIPS and PowerPC architecture. Some examples: ><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAD750> ><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongoose-V>
Most of what I'm finding have clock speeds in the 13MHz region. ><https://www.cpushack.com/space-craft-cpu.html>
Intel doesn't make any radiation hardened CPU's. They did try to make
a space grade Pentium CPU in 1998 and seems to have given up: ><https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/nasa-to-have-access-to-radiation-hardened-pentium-chip/>
AMD has PLA's but no CPU's. ><https://www.amd.com/en/solutions/aerospace-and-defense/space.html>
For RF, an orbital data center might need resurrect tunnel diodes,
which are quite resistant to ionizing radiation and therefore quite
reliable.
China might have the right idea:
"China Turns on the WorldAs First Underwater Data Center" ><https://gizmodo.com/china-turns-on-the-worlds-first-underwater-data-center-2000769502>
Note that it's only partially wind powered.
On Sun, 14 Jun 2026 22:16:23 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>(...)
wrote:
"Loudoun County, Virginia - the worldAs largest data center hub -
supplied around +/-1 billion gallons of water to data centers in 2023, >>mostly relying on treated potable water because reclaimed water
capacity was insufficient."
Cooling towers only make sense if there is lots of clean water
available. I there isn't, don't do it.
Google AI tells me that if one were to dump a gigawatt of heat into
the Mississippi river, the water temp would go up 20 microkelvins.
On Mon, 15 Jun 2026 08:00:45 -0700, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jun 2026 22:16:23 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>wrote:(...)
"Loudoun County, Virginia - the worldAs largest data center hub - >>>supplied around +/-1 billion gallons of water to data centers in 2023, >>>mostly relying on treated potable water because reclaimed water
capacity was insufficient."
Cooling towers only make sense if there is lots of clean water
available. I there isn't, don't do it.
I thought you wanted to use reclaimed water? Reclaimed water is
hardly "clean" as it's usually full of dissolved minerals. If the
cooling tower vents water to improve heat extraction, there's going to
be some messy maintenance removing limescale and biofilm. Perhaps
de-ionized or distilled water? If it's a closed system, that might
work.
Google AI tells me that if one were to dump a gigawatt of heat into
the Mississippi river, the water temp would go up 20 microkelvins.
Your model assumes uniform hot water dispersion. It takes a while for
the heated water to circulate and settle to a uniform temperature.
Fast moving water is probably best.
Dumping gigawatts of heat into a river ecosystem is likely to produce
dead fish and attract protesters, media attention and attorneys.
Looking at drone photos of data centers, very few are near rivers. ><https://www.google.com/search?q=data%20center%20building&udm=2>
Nuclear reactor design had the same problem and solved it with cooling >towers:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=reactor%20cooling%20towers&udm=2>
I suspect that will produce the same public reaction as dumping the
heat in a river.
Maybe the recently minted data center billionaires could be convinced
to provide the city with free hot water? Just turn the tap, and you
have hot water. No need for a water heater or solar panels. It could
also be used for hydronic winter wall and floor heating.
On Mon, 15 Jun 2026 09:51:55 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jun 2026 08:00:45 -0700, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jun 2026 22:16:23 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>(...)
wrote:
"Loudoun County, Virginia - the worldrCOs largest data center hub -
supplied around +/-1 billion gallons of water to data centers in 2023, >>>> mostly relying on treated potable water because reclaimed water
capacity was insufficient."
Cooling towers only make sense if there is lots of clean water
available. I there isn't, don't do it.
I thought you wanted to use reclaimed water? Reclaimed water is
hardly "clean" as it's usually full of dissolved minerals. If the
cooling tower vents water to improve heat extraction, there's going to
be some messy maintenance removing limescale and biofilm. Perhaps
de-ionized or distilled water? If it's a closed system, that might
work.
Google AI tells me that if one were to dump a gigawatt of heat into
the Mississippi river, the water temp would go up 20 microkelvins.
Your model assumes uniform hot water dispersion. It takes a while for
the heated water to circulate and settle to a uniform temperature.
Fast moving water is probably best.
Dumping gigawatts of heat into a river ecosystem is likely to produce
dead fish and attract protesters, media attention and attorneys.
I guess 20 uK terrifies some people.
John Larkin
Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center
Lunatic Fringe Electronics
On 6/15/26 23:00, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jun 2026 09:51:55 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>[...]
wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jun 2026 08:00:45 -0700, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jun 2026 22:16:23 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>>> wrote:(...)
"Loudoun County, Virginia - the worldrCOs largest data center hub -
supplied around +/-1 billion gallons of water to data centers in 2023, >>>>> mostly relying on treated potable water because reclaimed water
capacity was insufficient."
Cooling towers only make sense if there is lots of clean water
available. I there isn't, don't do it.
I thought you wanted to use reclaimed water? Reclaimed water is
hardly "clean" as it's usually full of dissolved minerals. If the
cooling tower vents water to improve heat extraction, there's going to
be some messy maintenance removing limescale and biofilm. Perhaps
de-ionized or distilled water? If it's a closed system, that might
work.
Google AI tells me that if one were to dump a gigawatt of heat into
the Mississippi river, the water temp would go up 20 microkelvins.
Your model assumes uniform hot water dispersion. It takes a while for
the heated water to circulate and settle to a uniform temperature.
Fast moving water is probably best.
Dumping gigawatts of heat into a river ecosystem is likely to produce
dead fish and attract protesters, media attention and attorneys.
I guess 20 uK terrifies some people.
John Larkin
Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center
Lunatic Fringe Electronics
I guess not everyone has a Mississippi to dump it into.
By the way, the Mississippi river has an average flow rate
of 340 m^3/s. Dumping 1 GW into that should raise the
temperature by 700 mK, not 20 uK.
Jeroen Belleman
Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 6/15/26 23:00, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jun 2026 09:51:55 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>[...]
wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jun 2026 08:00:45 -0700, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jun 2026 22:16:23 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>>>> wrote:(...)
"Loudoun County, Virginia - the worldAs largest data center hub -
supplied around +/-1 billion gallons of water to data centers in 2023, >>>>>> mostly relying on treated potable water because reclaimed water
capacity was insufficient."
Cooling towers only make sense if there is lots of clean water
available. I there isn't, don't do it.
I thought you wanted to use reclaimed water? Reclaimed water is
hardly "clean" as it's usually full of dissolved minerals. If the
cooling tower vents water to improve heat extraction, there's going to >>>> be some messy maintenance removing limescale and biofilm. Perhaps
de-ionized or distilled water? If it's a closed system, that might
work.
Google AI tells me that if one were to dump a gigawatt of heat into
the Mississippi river, the water temp would go up 20 microkelvins.
Your model assumes uniform hot water dispersion. It takes a while for >>>> the heated water to circulate and settle to a uniform temperature.
Fast moving water is probably best.
Dumping gigawatts of heat into a river ecosystem is likely to produce
dead fish and attract protesters, media attention and attorneys.
I guess 20 uK terrifies some people.
John Larkin
Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center
Lunatic Fringe Electronics
I guess not everyone has a Mississippi to dump it into.
By the way, the Mississippi river has an average flow rate
of 340 m^3/s. Dumping 1 GW into that should raise the
temperature by 700 mK, not 20 uK.
Jeroen Belleman
ThatAs an absurd underestimate.
According to
<https://snoflo.org/river-levels/mississippi-river>,
todayAs aggregate flow is
3,162,325 cfs, about 100,000 m**3/s. You must have been confusing it with >the Rhine. ;)
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
On Mon, 15 Jun 2026 08:00:45 -0700, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jun 2026 22:16:23 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
Maybe the recently minted data center billionaires could be convinced
to provide the city with free hot water? Just turn the tap, and you
have hot water. No need for a water heater or solar panels. It could
also be used for hydronic winter wall and floor heating.
On Mon, 15 Jun 2026 09:51:55 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jun 2026 08:00:45 -0700, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jun 2026 22:16:23 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>(...)
wrote:
"Loudoun County, Virginia - the worldrCOs largest data center hub -
supplied around +/-1 billion gallons of water to data centers in 2023, >>>> mostly relying on treated potable water because reclaimed water
capacity was insufficient."
Cooling towers only make sense if there is lots of clean water
available. I there isn't, don't do it.
I thought you wanted to use reclaimed water? Reclaimed water is
hardly "clean" as it's usually full of dissolved minerals. If the
cooling tower vents water to improve heat extraction, there's going to
be some messy maintenance removing limescale and biofilm. Perhaps
de-ionized or distilled water? If it's a closed system, that might
work.
Google AI tells me that if one were to dump a gigawatt of heat into
the Mississippi river, the water temp would go up 20 microkelvins.
Your model assumes uniform hot water dispersion. It takes a while for
the heated water to circulate and settle to a uniform temperature.
Fast moving water is probably best.
Dumping gigawatts of heat into a river ecosystem is likely to produce
dead fish and attract protesters, media attention and attorneys.
I guess 20 uK terrifies some people.
Looking at drone photos of data centers, very few are near rivers.
<https://www.google.com/search?q=data%20center%20building&udm=2>
Nuclear reactor design had the same problem and solved it with cooling
towers:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=reactor%20cooling%20towers&udm=2>
I suspect that will produce the same public reaction as dumping the
heat in a river.
Maybe the recently minted data center billionaires could be convinced
to provide the city with free hot water? Just turn the tap, and you
have hot water. No need for a water heater or solar panels. It could
also be used for hydronic winter wall and floor heating.
Moscow has central hot water. I helped them install the flowmeters on
a big hotel.
Most is unmetered. When people get too hot, they open a window.
On Mon, 15 Jun 2026 22:12:25 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:That the answer google gave to me: --------------------------------------------------
Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
By the way, the Mississippi river has an average flow rate
of 340 m^3/s. Dumping 1 GW into that should raise the
temperature by 700 mK, not 20 uK.
Jeroen Belleman
ThatrCOs an absurd underestimate.
According to
<https://snoflo.org/river-levels/mississippi-river>,
todayrCOs aggregate flow is
3,162,325 cfs, about 100,000 m**3/s. You must have been confusing it with >> the Rhine. ;)
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
At New Orleans, it's a mile wide and runs FAST.
Google AI gave me the 20 uK value.
Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 6/15/26 23:00, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jun 2026 09:51:55 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>[...]
wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jun 2026 08:00:45 -0700, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jun 2026 22:16:23 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>>>> wrote:(...)
"Loudoun County, Virginia - the worldrCOs largest data center hub - >>>>>> supplied around +/-1 billion gallons of water to data centers in 2023, >>>>>> mostly relying on treated potable water because reclaimed water
capacity was insufficient."
Cooling towers only make sense if there is lots of clean water
available. I there isn't, don't do it.
I thought you wanted to use reclaimed water? Reclaimed water is
hardly "clean" as it's usually full of dissolved minerals. If the
cooling tower vents water to improve heat extraction, there's going to >>>> be some messy maintenance removing limescale and biofilm. Perhaps
de-ionized or distilled water? If it's a closed system, that might
work.
Google AI tells me that if one were to dump a gigawatt of heat into
the Mississippi river, the water temp would go up 20 microkelvins.
Your model assumes uniform hot water dispersion. It takes a while for >>>> the heated water to circulate and settle to a uniform temperature.
Fast moving water is probably best.
Dumping gigawatts of heat into a river ecosystem is likely to produce
dead fish and attract protesters, media attention and attorneys.
I guess 20 uK terrifies some people.
John Larkin
Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center
Lunatic Fringe Electronics
I guess not everyone has a Mississippi to dump it into.
By the way, the Mississippi river has an average flow rate
of 340 m^3/s. Dumping 1 GW into that should raise the
temperature by 700 mK, not 20 uK.
Jeroen Belleman
ThatrCOs an absurd underestimate.
According to
<https://snoflo.org/river-levels/mississippi-river>,
todayrCOs aggregate flow is
3,162,325 cfs, about 100,000 m**3/s. You must have been confusing it with the Rhine. ;)
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
On 6/16/26 00:12, Phil Hobbs wrote:
Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 6/15/26 23:00, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jun 2026 09:51:55 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>>> wrote:[...]
On Mon, 15 Jun 2026 08:00:45 -0700, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> >>>>> wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jun 2026 22:16:23 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>>>>> wrote:(...)
"Loudoun County, Virginia - the worldrCOs largest data center hub - >>>>>>> supplied around +/-1 billion gallons of water to data centers in 2023, >>>>>>> mostly relying on treated potable water because reclaimed water
capacity was insufficient."
Cooling towers only make sense if there is lots of clean water
available. I there isn't, don't do it.
I thought you wanted to use reclaimed water? Reclaimed water is
hardly "clean" as it's usually full of dissolved minerals. If the
cooling tower vents water to improve heat extraction, there's going to >>>>> be some messy maintenance removing limescale and biofilm. Perhaps
de-ionized or distilled water? If it's a closed system, that might
work.
Google AI tells me that if one were to dump a gigawatt of heat into >>>>>> the Mississippi river, the water temp would go up 20 microkelvins.
Your model assumes uniform hot water dispersion. It takes a while for >>>>> the heated water to circulate and settle to a uniform temperature.
Fast moving water is probably best.
Dumping gigawatts of heat into a river ecosystem is likely to produce >>>>> dead fish and attract protesters, media attention and attorneys.
I guess 20 uK terrifies some people.
John Larkin
Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center
Lunatic Fringe Electronics
I guess not everyone has a Mississippi to dump it into.
By the way, the Mississippi river has an average flow rate
of 340 m^3/s. Dumping 1 GW into that should raise the
temperature by 700 mK, not 20 uK.
Jeroen Belleman
ThatrCOs an absurd underestimate.
According to
<https://snoflo.org/river-levels/mississippi-river>,
todayrCOs aggregate flow is
3,162,325 cfs, about 100,000 m**3/s. You must have been confusing it with >> the Rhine. ;)
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
I got this from some AI that DuckDuckGo puts up. Granted, I should have double-checked that. Wikipedia says the yearly average varies from 6000
to 20000 m^3/s. Dumping 1 GW into a river with a flow rate of 6000 m^3/s begets a temperature rise of 40 mK.
It's always possible to choose the numbers depending on the point one
wants to make.
Jeroen Belleman
Am 16.06.26 um 02:37 schrieb john larkin:
On Mon, 15 Jun 2026 22:12:25 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
That the answer google gave to me: >--------------------------------------------------By the way, the Mississippi river has an average flow rate
of 340 m^3/s. Dumping 1 GW into that should raise the
temperature by 700 mK, not 20 uK.
Jeroen Belleman
ThatAs an absurd underestimate.
According to
<https://snoflo.org/river-levels/mississippi-river>,
todayAs aggregate flow is
3,162,325 cfs, about 100,000 m**3/s. You must have been confusing it with >>> the Rhine. ;)
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
At New Orleans, it's a mile wide and runs FAST.
Google AI gave me the 20 uK value.
The Mississippi River discharges an annual average of about 593,000
cubic feet per second (16,800 m|/s) into the Gulf of Mexico. However,
the flow rate varies drastically depending on the location along its >2,300-mile journey and seasonal weather conditions.Here is how the
average flow rate breaks down at different key points:Source (Lake
Itasca, MN): ~ 6 cubic feet per secondMinneapolis, MN (Upper St. Anthony >Falls): ~ 12,000 cubic feet per secondMemphis, TN: ~ 335,000 cubic feet
per secondNew Orleans, LA / Gulf of Mexico: ~ 600,000 cubic feet per
second (or 4.5 million gallons per second) >--------------------------------------------------
But then, at N.Orl., you could just as well use the Gulf of Mexico,
if it still does exist. I heard the Mississippi was burning already
in the 60s.
Gerhard
On 16/06/2026 7:00 am, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jun 2026 09:51:55 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jun 2026 08:00:45 -0700, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jun 2026 22:16:23 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>>> wrote:(...)
"Loudoun County, Virginia - the worldAs largest data center hub -
supplied around +/-1 billion gallons of water to data centers in 2023, >>>>> mostly relying on treated potable water because reclaimed water
capacity was insufficient."
Cooling towers only make sense if there is lots of clean water
available. I there isn't, don't do it.
I thought you wanted to use reclaimed water? Reclaimed water is
hardly "clean" as it's usually full of dissolved minerals. If the
cooling tower vents water to improve heat extraction, there's going to
be some messy maintenance removing limescale and biofilm. Perhaps
de-ionized or distilled water? If it's a closed system, that might
work.
Google AI tells me that if one were to dump a gigawatt of heat into
the Mississippi river, the water temp would go up 20 microkelvins.
Your model assumes uniform hot water dispersion. It takes a while for
the heated water to circulate and settle to a uniform temperature.
Fast moving water is probably best.
Dumping gigawatts of heat into a river ecosystem is likely to produce
dead fish and attract protesters, media attention and attorneys.
I guess 20 uK terrifies some people.
It's 20uK after the heat has gotten distributed across the whole river.
It's the local hot spots in the distribution process that create the >problems.
Looking at drone photos of data centers, very few are near rivers.
<https://www.google.com/search?q=data%20center%20building&udm=2>
Nuclear reactor design had the same problem and solved it with cooling
towers:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=reactor%20cooling%20towers&udm=2>
I suspect that will produce the same public reaction as dumping the
heat in a river.
Maybe the recently minted data center billionaires could be convinced
to provide the city with free hot water? Just turn the tap, and you
have hot water. No need for a water heater or solar panels. It could
also be used for hydronic winter wall and floor heating.
Moscow has central hot water. I helped them install the flowmeters on
a big hotel.
Most is unmetered. When people get too hot, they open a window.
The Russians didn't invest a lot in their public services. They hadn't
got a lot of money to invest.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_heating
does go into how richer societies exploit the idea.
On Tue, 16 Jun 2026 15:10:54 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 16/06/2026 7:00 am, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jun 2026 09:51:55 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jun 2026 08:00:45 -0700, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jun 2026 22:16:23 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>>>> wrote:(...)
"Loudoun County, Virginia - the worldrCOs largest data center hub - >>>>>> supplied around +/-1 billion gallons of water to data centers in 2023, >>>>>> mostly relying on treated potable water because reclaimed water
capacity was insufficient."
Cooling towers only make sense if there is lots of clean water
available. I there isn't, don't do it.
I thought you wanted to use reclaimed water? Reclaimed water is
hardly "clean" as it's usually full of dissolved minerals. If the
cooling tower vents water to improve heat extraction, there's going to >>>> be some messy maintenance removing limescale and biofilm. Perhaps
de-ionized or distilled water? If it's a closed system, that might
work.
Google AI tells me that if one were to dump a gigawatt of heat into
the Mississippi river, the water temp would go up 20 microkelvins.
Your model assumes uniform hot water dispersion. It takes a while for >>>> the heated water to circulate and settle to a uniform temperature.
Fast moving water is probably best.
Dumping gigawatts of heat into a river ecosystem is likely to produce
dead fish and attract protesters, media attention and attorneys.
I guess 20 uK terrifies some people.
It's 20uK after the heat has gotten distributed across the whole river.
It's the local hot spots in the distribution process that create the
problems.
What problems would a bit of lukewarm water cause? It will mix rapidly
in the turbulent river.
Obviously the big heater of the Mississippi river is sunlight. A
gigawatt extra is trivial.
Looking at drone photos of data centers, very few are near rivers.
<https://www.google.com/search?q=data%20center%20building&udm=2>
Nuclear reactor design had the same problem and solved it with cooling >>>> towers:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=reactor%20cooling%20towers&udm=2>
I suspect that will produce the same public reaction as dumping the
heat in a river.
Maybe the recently minted data center billionaires could be convinced
to provide the city with free hot water? Just turn the tap, and you
have hot water. No need for a water heater or solar panels. It could >>>> also be used for hydronic winter wall and floor heating.
Moscow has central hot water. I helped them install the flowmeters on
a big hotel.
Most is unmetered. When people get too hot, they open a window.
The Russians didn't invest a lot in their public services. They hadn't
got a lot of money to invest.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_heating
does go into how richer societies exploit the idea.
Am 16.06.26 um 02:37 schrieb john larkin:
On Mon, 15 Jun 2026 22:12:25 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
That the answer google gave to me: --------------------------------------------------By the way, the Mississippi river has an average flow rate
of 340 m^3/s. Dumping 1 GW into that should raise the
temperature by 700 mK, not 20 uK.
Jeroen Belleman
ThatrCOs an absurd underestimate.
According to
<https://snoflo.org/river-levels/mississippi-river>,
todayrCOs aggregate flow is
3,162,325 cfs, about 100,000 m**3/s. You must have been confusing it with >>> the Rhine. ;)
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
At New Orleans, it's a mile wide and runs FAST.
Google AI gave me the 20 uK value.
The Mississippi River discharges an annual average of about 593,000
cubic feet per second (16,800 m-|/s) into the Gulf of Mexico. However,
the flow rate varies drastically depending on the location along its 2,300-mile journey and seasonal weather conditions.Here is how the
average flow rate breaks down at different key points:Source (Lake
Itasca, MN): ~ 6 cubic feet per secondMinneapolis, MN (Upper St. Anthony Falls): ~ 12,000 cubic feet per secondMemphis, TN: ~ 335,000 cubic feet
per secondNew Orleans, LA / Gulf of Mexico: ~ 600,000 cubic feet per
second (or 4.5 million gallons per second) --------------------------------------------------
But then, at N.Orl., you could just as well use the Gulf of Mexico,
if it still does exist. I heard the Mississippi was burning already
in the 60s.
Gerhard
Gerhard Hoffmann <dk4xp@arcor.de> wrote:
But then, at N.Orl., you could just as well use the Gulf of Mexico,
if it still does exist. I heard the Mississippi was burning already
in the 60s.
Gerhard
If you followed the progress of your compatriot Freddy the traveling soccer fan, yourCOd know that herCOs been blown away by the general amazingness of the
southern US, both places and people.
The river that caught fire was the Cuyahoga, in Cleveland, Ohio, which incidentally is a longer drive from NOLA than Berlin is from Moscow.
What burned was mostly accumulated animal fat from the meatpackers. Not
too nice, to be sure, but 100% biodegradable.
On 17/06/2026 12:13 am, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jun 2026 15:10:54 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 16/06/2026 7:00 am, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jun 2026 09:51:55 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>>> wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jun 2026 08:00:45 -0700, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> >>>>> wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jun 2026 22:16:23 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>>>>> wrote:(...)
"Loudoun County, Virginia - the worldAs largest data center hub - >>>>>>> supplied around +/-1 billion gallons of water to data centers in 2023, >>>>>>> mostly relying on treated potable water because reclaimed water
capacity was insufficient."
Cooling towers only make sense if there is lots of clean water
available. I there isn't, don't do it.
I thought you wanted to use reclaimed water? Reclaimed water is
hardly "clean" as it's usually full of dissolved minerals. If the
cooling tower vents water to improve heat extraction, there's going to >>>>> be some messy maintenance removing limescale and biofilm. Perhaps
de-ionized or distilled water? If it's a closed system, that might
work.
Google AI tells me that if one were to dump a gigawatt of heat into >>>>>> the Mississippi river, the water temp would go up 20 microkelvins.
Your model assumes uniform hot water dispersion. It takes a while for >>>>> the heated water to circulate and settle to a uniform temperature.
Fast moving water is probably best.
Dumping gigawatts of heat into a river ecosystem is likely to produce >>>>> dead fish and attract protesters, media attention and attorneys.
I guess 20 uK terrifies some people.
It's 20uK after the heat has gotten distributed across the whole river.
It's the local hot spots in the distribution process that create the
problems.
What problems would a bit of lukewarm water cause? It will mix rapidly
in the turbulent river.
But kills fish and plants first.
Obviously the big heater of the Mississippi river is sunlight. A
gigawatt extra is trivial.
And a warmer river generates more fog, and reflects some of that
sunlight back out into space. Feckless optimists will rely on this.
Looking at drone photos of data centers, very few are near rivers.
<https://www.google.com/search?q=data%20center%20building&udm=2>
Nuclear reactor design had the same problem and solved it with cooling >>>>> towers:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=reactor%20cooling%20towers&udm=2>
I suspect that will produce the same public reaction as dumping the
heat in a river.
Maybe the recently minted data center billionaires could be convinced >>>>> to provide the city with free hot water? Just turn the tap, and you >>>>> have hot water. No need for a water heater or solar panels. It could >>>>> also be used for hydronic winter wall and floor heating.
Moscow has central hot water. I helped them install the flowmeters on
a big hotel.
Most is unmetered. When people get too hot, they open a window.
The Russians didn't invest a lot in their public services. They hadn't
got a lot of money to invest.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_heating
does go into how richer societies exploit the idea.
Not that John Larkin wants to think about that. The US is going the way
of the Soviet Union, with all the money sticking to the people at the
top of the tree. At the moment the US does have more money to spread
around, but gross income inequality cuts the productivity of society as
a whole.
Gerhard Hoffmann <dk4xp@arcor.de> wrote:
Am 16.06.26 um 02:37 schrieb john larkin:
On Mon, 15 Jun 2026 22:12:25 -0000 (UTC), Phil HobbsThat the answer google gave to me:
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
By the way, the Mississippi river has an average flow rate
of 340 m^3/s. Dumping 1 GW into that should raise the
temperature by 700 mK, not 20 uK.
Jeroen Belleman
ThatAs an absurd underestimate.
According to
<https://snoflo.org/river-levels/mississippi-river>,
todayAs aggregate flow is
3,162,325 cfs, about 100,000 m**3/s. You must have been confusing it with
the Rhine. ;)
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
At New Orleans, it's a mile wide and runs FAST.
Google AI gave me the 20 uK value.
--------------------------------------------------
The Mississippi River discharges an annual average of about 593,000
cubic feet per second (16,800 m|/s) into the Gulf of Mexico. However,
the flow rate varies drastically depending on the location along its
2,300-mile journey and seasonal weather conditions.Here is how the
average flow rate breaks down at different key points:Source (Lake
Itasca, MN): ~ 6 cubic feet per secondMinneapolis, MN (Upper St. Anthony
Falls): ~ 12,000 cubic feet per secondMemphis, TN: ~ 335,000 cubic feet
per secondNew Orleans, LA / Gulf of Mexico: ~ 600,000 cubic feet per
second (or 4.5 million gallons per second)
--------------------------------------------------
But then, at N.Orl., you could just as well use the Gulf of Mexico,
if it still does exist. I heard the Mississippi was burning already
in the 60s.
Gerhard
If you followed the progress of your compatriot Freddy the traveling soccer >fan, youAd know that heAs been blown away by the general amazingness of the >southern US, both places and people.
The river that caught fire was the Cuyahoga, in Cleveland, Ohio, which >incidentally is a longer drive from NOLA than Berlin is from Moscow.
What burned was mostly accumulated animal fat from the meatpackers. Not
too nice, to be sure, but 100% biodegradable.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
On Wed, 17 Jun 2026 01:10:19 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 17/06/2026 12:13 am, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jun 2026 15:10:54 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 16/06/2026 7:00 am, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jun 2026 09:51:55 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>>>> wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jun 2026 08:00:45 -0700, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> >>>>>> wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jun 2026 22:16:23 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>>>>>> wrote:(...)
"Loudoun County, Virginia - the worldrCOs largest data center hub - >>>>>>>> supplied around +/-1 billion gallons of water to data centers in 2023, >>>>>>>> mostly relying on treated potable water because reclaimed water >>>>>>>> capacity was insufficient."
Cooling towers only make sense if there is lots of clean water
available. I there isn't, don't do it.
I thought you wanted to use reclaimed water? Reclaimed water is
hardly "clean" as it's usually full of dissolved minerals. If the >>>>>> cooling tower vents water to improve heat extraction, there's going to >>>>>> be some messy maintenance removing limescale and biofilm. Perhaps >>>>>> de-ionized or distilled water? If it's a closed system, that might >>>>>> work.
Google AI tells me that if one were to dump a gigawatt of heat into >>>>>>> the Mississippi river, the water temp would go up 20 microkelvins. >>>>>>Your model assumes uniform hot water dispersion. It takes a while for >>>>>> the heated water to circulate and settle to a uniform temperature. >>>>>> Fast moving water is probably best.
Dumping gigawatts of heat into a river ecosystem is likely to produce >>>>>> dead fish and attract protesters, media attention and attorneys.
I guess 20 uK terrifies some people.
It's 20uK after the heat has gotten distributed across the whole river. >>>> It's the local hot spots in the distribution process that create the
problems.
What problems would a bit of lukewarm water cause? It will mix rapidly
in the turbulent river.
But kills fish and plants first.
Catfish are tough, and there aren't a lot of plants in the Mississippi
River.
Besides, discharge water would necessarily be just warm. ICs like to
run cool.
Obviously the big heater of the Mississippi river is sunlight. A
gigawatt extra is trivial.
And a warmer river generates more fog, and reflects some of that
sunlight back out into space. Feckless optimists will rely on this.
You have impressive talents for finding reasons for not doing things.
Looking at drone photos of data centers, very few are near rivers. >>>>>> <https://www.google.com/search?q=data%20center%20building&udm=2>
Nuclear reactor design had the same problem and solved it with cooling >>>>>> towers:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=reactor%20cooling%20towers&udm=2> >>>>>> I suspect that will produce the same public reaction as dumping the >>>>>> heat in a river.
Maybe the recently minted data center billionaires could be convinced >>>>>> to provide the city with free hot water? Just turn the tap, and you >>>>>> have hot water. No need for a water heater or solar panels. It could >>>>>> also be used for hydronic winter wall and floor heating.
Moscow has central hot water. I helped them install the flowmeters on >>>>> a big hotel.
Most is unmetered. When people get too hot, they open a window.
The Russians didn't invest a lot in their public services. They hadn't >>>> got a lot of money to invest.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_heating
does go into how richer societies exploit the idea.
Not that John Larkin wants to think about that. The US is going the way
of the Soviet Union, with all the money sticking to the people at the
top of the tree. At the moment the US does have more money to spread
around, but gross income inequality cuts the productivity of society as
a whole.
I don't see that here. The big income inequality is from immigration
and drugs.
Elon Musk's trillion dollars of stock shares don't hurt working-class
people. Shares are just bits on a hard drive somewhere. He doesn't eat
as much as a million people, and he doesn't have 10,000 houses.
We do have too many lawyers.
Am 16.06.26 um 17:47 schrieb Phil Hobbs:
Gerhard Hoffmann <dk4xp@arcor.de> wrote:
But then, at N.Orl., you could just as well use the Gulf of Mexico,
if it still does exist. I heard the Mississippi was burning already
in the 60s.
Gerhard
If you followed the progress of your compatriot Freddy the traveling
soccer
fan, yourCOd know that herCOs been blown away by the general amazingness
of the
southern US, both places and people.
The river that caught fire was the Cuyahoga, in Cleveland, Ohio, which
incidentally is a longer drive from NOLA than Berlin is from Moscow.
What burned was mostly accumulated animal fat from the meatpackers.-a Not
too nice, to be sure, but 100%-a biodegradable.
Mississippi Burning is a movie.
On Tue, 16 Jun 2026 15:47:04 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
Gerhard Hoffmann <dk4xp@arcor.de> wrote:
Am 16.06.26 um 02:37 schrieb john larkin:
On Mon, 15 Jun 2026 22:12:25 -0000 (UTC), Phil HobbsThat the answer google gave to me:
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
By the way, the Mississippi river has an average flow rate
of 340 m^3/s. Dumping 1 GW into that should raise the
temperature by 700 mK, not 20 uK.
Jeroen Belleman
ThatrCOs an absurd underestimate.
According to
<https://snoflo.org/river-levels/mississippi-river>,
todayrCOs aggregate flow is
3,162,325 cfs, about 100,000 m**3/s. You must have been confusing it with
the Rhine. ;)
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
At New Orleans, it's a mile wide and runs FAST.
Google AI gave me the 20 uK value.
--------------------------------------------------
The Mississippi River discharges an annual average of about 593,000
cubic feet per second (16,800 m-|/s) into the Gulf of Mexico. However,
the flow rate varies drastically depending on the location along its
2,300-mile journey and seasonal weather conditions.Here is how the
average flow rate breaks down at different key points:Source (Lake
Itasca, MN): ~ 6 cubic feet per secondMinneapolis, MN (Upper St. Anthony >>> Falls): ~ 12,000 cubic feet per secondMemphis, TN: ~ 335,000 cubic feet
per secondNew Orleans, LA / Gulf of Mexico: ~ 600,000 cubic feet per
second (or 4.5 million gallons per second)
--------------------------------------------------
But then, at N.Orl., you could just as well use the Gulf of Mexico,
if it still does exist. I heard the Mississippi was burning already
in the 60s.
Gerhard
If you followed the progress of your compatriot Freddy the traveling soccer >> fan, yourCOd know that herCOs been blown away by the general amazingness of the
southern US, both places and people.
The river that caught fire was the Cuyahoga, in Cleveland, Ohio, which
incidentally is a longer drive from NOLA than Berlin is from Moscow.
What burned was mostly accumulated animal fat from the meatpackers. Not
too nice, to be sure, but 100% biodegradable.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
I think a lot of the US's economic future is in the south. It has
land, energy, water, transport, great food, low taxes, and people
with common sense.
There's not enough fat to set the Mississippi River on fire. You've
seen it. It's gigantic.
On Tue, 16 Jun 2026 15:47:04 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
Gerhard Hoffmann <dk4xp@arcor.de> wrote:
Am 16.06.26 um 02:37 schrieb john larkin:
On Mon, 15 Jun 2026 22:12:25 -0000 (UTC), Phil HobbsThat the answer google gave to me:
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
By the way, the Mississippi river has an average flow rate
of 340 m^3/s. Dumping 1 GW into that should raise the
temperature by 700 mK, not 20 uK.
Jeroen Belleman
ThatrCOs an absurd underestimate.
According to
<https://snoflo.org/river-levels/mississippi-river>,
todayrCOs aggregate flow is
3,162,325 cfs, about 100,000 m**3/s. You must have been confusing it with
the Rhine. ;)
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
At New Orleans, it's a mile wide and runs FAST.
Google AI gave me the 20 uK value.
--------------------------------------------------
The Mississippi River discharges an annual average of about 593,000
cubic feet per second (16,800 m-|/s) into the Gulf of Mexico. However,
the flow rate varies drastically depending on the location along its
2,300-mile journey and seasonal weather conditions.Here is how the
average flow rate breaks down at different key points:Source (Lake
Itasca, MN): ~ 6 cubic feet per secondMinneapolis, MN (Upper St. Anthony >>> Falls): ~ 12,000 cubic feet per secondMemphis, TN: ~ 335,000 cubic feet
per secondNew Orleans, LA / Gulf of Mexico: ~ 600,000 cubic feet per
second (or 4.5 million gallons per second)
--------------------------------------------------
But then, at N.Orl., you could just as well use the Gulf of Mexico,
if it still does exist. I heard the Mississippi was burning already
in the 60s.
Gerhard
If you followed the progress of your compatriot Freddy the traveling soccer >> fan, yourCOd know that herCOs been blown away by the general amazingness of the
southern US, both places and people.
The river that caught fire was the Cuyahoga, in Cleveland, Ohio, which
incidentally is a longer drive from NOLA than Berlin is from Moscow.
What burned was mostly accumulated animal fat from the meatpackers. Not
too nice, to be sure, but 100% biodegradable.
I think a lot of the US's economic future is in the south. It has
land, energy, water, transport, great food, low taxes, and people
with common sense.
There's not enough fat to set the Mississippi River on fire. You've
seen it. It's gigantic.
On 17/06/2026 2:19 am, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jun 2026 15:47:04 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
Gerhard Hoffmann <dk4xp@arcor.de> wrote:
Am 16.06.26 um 02:37 schrieb john larkin:
On Mon, 15 Jun 2026 22:12:25 -0000 (UTC), Phil HobbsThat the answer google gave to me:
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
By the way, the Mississippi river has an average flow rate
of 340 m^3/s. Dumping 1 GW into that should raise the
temperature by 700 mK, not 20 uK.
Jeroen Belleman
ThatAs an absurd underestimate.
According to
<https://snoflo.org/river-levels/mississippi-river>,
todayAs aggregate flow is
3,162,325 cfs, about 100,000 m**3/s. You must have been confusing it with
the Rhine. ;)
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
At New Orleans, it's a mile wide and runs FAST.
Google AI gave me the 20 uK value.
--------------------------------------------------
The Mississippi River discharges an annual average of about 593,000
cubic feet per second (16,800 m|/s) into the Gulf of Mexico. However,
the flow rate varies drastically depending on the location along its
2,300-mile journey and seasonal weather conditions.Here is how the
average flow rate breaks down at different key points:Source (Lake
Itasca, MN): ~ 6 cubic feet per secondMinneapolis, MN (Upper St. Anthony >>>> Falls): ~ 12,000 cubic feet per secondMemphis, TN: ~ 335,000 cubic feet >>>> per secondNew Orleans, LA / Gulf of Mexico: ~ 600,000 cubic feet per
second (or 4.5 million gallons per second)
--------------------------------------------------
But then, at N.Orl., you could just as well use the Gulf of Mexico,
if it still does exist. I heard the Mississippi was burning already
in the 60s.
Gerhard
If you followed the progress of your compatriot Freddy the traveling soccer >>> fan, youAd know that heAs been blown away by the general amazingness of the >>> southern US, both places and people.
The river that caught fire was the Cuyahoga, in Cleveland, Ohio, which
incidentally is a longer drive from NOLA than Berlin is from Moscow.
What burned was mostly accumulated animal fat from the meatpackers. Not >>> too nice, to be sure, but 100% biodegradable.
I think a lot of the US's economic future is in the south. It has
land, energy, water, transport, great food, low taxes, and people
with common sense.
John Larkin thinks that Donald J. Trump has "common sense".
There's not enough fat to set the Mississippi River on fire. You've
seen it. It's gigantic.
The Mississipi is a long river, and it gets bigger as it gets closer to
the ocean, where John Larkin may have seen it.
On Wed, 17 Jun 2026 15:48:45 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 17/06/2026 2:19 am, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jun 2026 15:47:04 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
Gerhard Hoffmann <dk4xp@arcor.de> wrote:
Am 16.06.26 um 02:37 schrieb john larkin:
On Mon, 15 Jun 2026 22:12:25 -0000 (UTC), Phil HobbsThat the answer google gave to me:
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
By the way, the Mississippi river has an average flow rate
of 340 m^3/s. Dumping 1 GW into that should raise the
temperature by 700 mK, not 20 uK.
Jeroen Belleman
ThatrCOs an absurd underestimate.
According to
<https://snoflo.org/river-levels/mississippi-river>,
todayrCOs aggregate flow is
3,162,325 cfs, about 100,000 m**3/s. You must have been confusing it with
the Rhine. ;)
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
At New Orleans, it's a mile wide and runs FAST.
Google AI gave me the 20 uK value.
--------------------------------------------------
The Mississippi River discharges an annual average of about 593,000
cubic feet per second (16,800 m-|/s) into the Gulf of Mexico. However, >>>>> the flow rate varies drastically depending on the location along its >>>>> 2,300-mile journey and seasonal weather conditions.Here is how the
average flow rate breaks down at different key points:Source (Lake
Itasca, MN): ~ 6 cubic feet per secondMinneapolis, MN (Upper St. Anthony >>>>> Falls): ~ 12,000 cubic feet per secondMemphis, TN: ~ 335,000 cubic feet >>>>> per secondNew Orleans, LA / Gulf of Mexico: ~ 600,000 cubic feet per >>>>> second (or 4.5 million gallons per second)
--------------------------------------------------
But then, at N.Orl., you could just as well use the Gulf of Mexico,
if it still does exist. I heard the Mississippi was burning already
in the 60s.
Gerhard
If you followed the progress of your compatriot Freddy the traveling soccer
fan, yourCOd know that herCOs been blown away by the general amazingness of the
southern US, both places and people.
The river that caught fire was the Cuyahoga, in Cleveland, Ohio, which >>>> incidentally is a longer drive from NOLA than Berlin is from Moscow.
What burned was mostly accumulated animal fat from the meatpackers. Not >>>> too nice, to be sure, but 100% biodegradable.
I think a lot of the US's economic future is in the south. It has
land, energy, water, transport, great food, low taxes, and people
with common sense.
John Larkin thinks that Donald J. Trump has "common sense".
There's not enough fat to set the Mississippi River on fire. You've
seen it. It's gigantic.
The Mississipi is a long river, and it gets bigger as it gets closer to
the ocean, where John Larkin may have seen it.
I grew up a few blocks from the river, at 318 Broadway in New Orleans.
We used to look UP at ships on the river.
My first real job was at an outfit upstairs from The River Rondevous
bar, a few steps from the river levee. They paid me $400 a month, a
fortune for a student at the time. One could get a nice lunch with ice
cream dessert for 85 cents.
I was arrested once for riding my motorcycle on the levee at 2AM.
On 2026-06-17 07:53, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jun 2026 15:48:45 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 17/06/2026 2:19 am, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jun 2026 15:47:04 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
Gerhard Hoffmann <dk4xp@arcor.de> wrote:
Am 16.06.26 um 02:37 schrieb john larkin:
On Mon, 15 Jun 2026 22:12:25 -0000 (UTC), Phil HobbsThat the answer google gave to me:
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
By the way, the Mississippi river has an average flow rate
of 340 m^3/s. Dumping 1 GW into that should raise the
temperature by 700 mK, not 20 uK.
Jeroen Belleman
ThatAs an absurd underestimate.
According to
<https://snoflo.org/river-levels/mississippi-river>,
todayAs aggregate flow is
3,162,325 cfs, about 100,000 m**3/s. You must have been confusing it with
the Rhine. ;)
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
At New Orleans, it's a mile wide and runs FAST.
Google AI gave me the 20 uK value.
--------------------------------------------------
The Mississippi River discharges an annual average of about 593,000 >>>>>> cubic feet per second (16,800 m|/s) into the Gulf of Mexico. However, >>>>>> the flow rate varies drastically depending on the location along its >>>>>> 2,300-mile journey and seasonal weather conditions.Here is how the >>>>>> average flow rate breaks down at different key points:Source (Lake >>>>>> Itasca, MN): ~ 6 cubic feet per secondMinneapolis, MN (Upper St. Anthony >>>>>> Falls): ~ 12,000 cubic feet per secondMemphis, TN: ~ 335,000 cubic feet >>>>>> per secondNew Orleans, LA / Gulf of Mexico: ~ 600,000 cubic feet per >>>>>> second (or 4.5 million gallons per second)
--------------------------------------------------
But then, at N.Orl., you could just as well use the Gulf of Mexico, >>>>>> if it still does exist. I heard the Mississippi was burning already >>>>>> in the 60s.
Gerhard
If you followed the progress of your compatriot Freddy the traveling soccer
fan, youAd know that heAs been blown away by the general amazingness of the
southern US, both places and people.
The river that caught fire was the Cuyahoga, in Cleveland, Ohio, which >>>>> incidentally is a longer drive from NOLA than Berlin is from Moscow. >>>>>
What burned was mostly accumulated animal fat from the meatpackers. Not >>>>> too nice, to be sure, but 100% biodegradable.
I think a lot of the US's economic future is in the south. It has
land, energy, water, transport, great food, low taxes, and people
with common sense.
John Larkin thinks that Donald J. Trump has "common sense".
There's not enough fat to set the Mississippi River on fire. You've
seen it. It's gigantic.
The Mississipi is a long river, and it gets bigger as it gets closer to
the ocean, where John Larkin may have seen it.
I grew up a few blocks from the river, at 318 Broadway in New Orleans.
We used to look UP at ships on the river.
My first real job was at an outfit upstairs from The River Rondevous
bar, a few steps from the river levee. They paid me $400 a month, a
fortune for a student at the time. One could get a nice lunch with ice
cream dessert for 85 cents.
I was arrested once for riding my motorcycle on the levee at 2AM.
Scofflaw. There are certain standards, even if they're somewhat less >certain in NOLA. ;)
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
On 2026-06-17 07:53, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jun 2026 15:48:45 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
I was arrested once for riding my motorcycle on the levee at 2AM.
Scofflaw.-a There are certain standards, even if they're somewhat less certain in NOLA. ;)
Am 17.06.26 um 16:20 schrieb Phil Hobbs:
On 2026-06-17 07:53, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jun 2026 15:48:45 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
I was arrested once for riding my motorcycle on the levee at 2AM.
Scofflaw.a There are certain standards, even if they're somewhat less
certain in NOLA. ;)
In Iceland, they have a 80 Km/h speed limit everywhere, but
nobody cares. I got hunted by 40 ton lorries on dirt/gravel
roads with the motorcycle. Nobody cares.
I have seen kiddies driving their father's 4X4 monster trucks.
Nobody cares.
But if you drive into the wild with the bike, they will
get you from the helicopter. Tickets are simply shocking.
Your trace will wash out when it rains and after 20 years
you will have created a new canyon.
I could imagine that a levee is sensitive, too.
Gerhard
Icelandic interpretation on the theme "motorcycle":
< >https://www.flickr.com/photos/137684711@N07/36408939714/in/album-72157688304045365/lightbox/
>
On Wed, 17 Jun 2026 19:33:37 +0200, Gerhard Hoffmann <dk4xp@arcor.de>
wrote:
Am 17.06.26 um 16:20 schrieb Phil Hobbs:
On 2026-06-17 07:53, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jun 2026 15:48:45 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
I was arrested once for riding my motorcycle on the levee at 2AM.
Scofflaw.-a There are certain standards, even if they're somewhat less
certain in NOLA. ;)
In Iceland, they have a 80 Km/h speed limit everywhere, but
nobody cares. I got hunted by 40 ton lorries on dirt/gravel
roads with the motorcycle. Nobody cares.
I have seen kiddies driving their father's 4X4 monster trucks.
Nobody cares.
But if you drive into the wild with the bike, they will
get you from the helicopter. Tickets are simply shocking.
Your trace will wash out when it rains and after 20 years
you will have created a new canyon.
I could imagine that a levee is sensitive, too.
Gerhard
Icelandic interpretation on the theme "motorcycle":
<
https://www.flickr.com/photos/137684711@N07/36408939714/in/album-72157688304045365/lightbox/
>
There is a great book about the great river floods of 1927
https://www.amazon.com/Rising-Tide-Mississippi-Changed-America/dp/0684840022
Randy Newman did a song about it, "Louisiana 1927"
John Larkin wrote:
|----------------------------------------|
|"nice, except for the [. . .] humidity."| |----------------------------------------|
Be careful about humidity. Cf. HTTP://Gloucester.Insomnia247.NL/humidity/Opening_windows_or_closing_them_might_be_good_advice_against_humidity.HTM
(S. HTTP://Gloucester.Insomnia247.NL/ fuer Kontaktdaten!)
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 70 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 37:38:15 |
| Calls: | 948 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 1,325 |
| Messages: | 280,462 |