The Lamps

[MithLuin]

No ice. It's not structurally sound enough for a project like this. Great for glaciers....not so much for mile high pillars. Let's stick to steel and stone, please. (And yes, this project really calls for some light weight, high strength composites, so, yeah, they weren't using 'stone' either - but it can look like stone ) We can perhaps watch the pillars 'grow' like spiderwebs and then fill in to imply the type of structure they have. (Think carbon fiber filaments)

I am going back and forth between straight to a needlesharp pinnacle or more of a spiral...but realistically, I don't know how to build a 500 mile high tower on a flat earth, so I can't pretend to be applying real engineering concepts here.

Will the lamps be faceted like a cut jewel, or so dazzlingly bright that you can't see their structure at all, or giant smooth globes or....?

 

[Haakon]

I'm thinking they're so bright you can't see the structure, but I imagine them to be giant smooth globes.

The pillars: I was thinking something like the Eiffel Tower or maybe like a tube shape. I agree about the use of light weight materials. Carbon fiber is interesting. Could we have something that dissolves into gas when attacked by fire demons?

 

[Haakon]

I'm thinking they're so bright you can't see the structure, but I imagine them to be giant smooth globes.

The pillars: I was thinking something like the Eiffel Tower or maybe like a tube shape. I agree about the use of light weight materials. Carbon fiber is interesting. Could we have something that dissolves into gas when attacked by fire demons?

I guess the balrogs can attack with such intense heat that the pillars just evaporate.

 

[MithLuin]

500 miles high is 100x taller than the tallest mountain on Earth (Everest). I am having a lot of difficulty coming up with even a starting point for the structure of that. Eiffel tower sounds good, but think how wide the base would have to be, and how massive the mountain anchoring this pillar would be, and wouldn't that have a huge impact on the structure of the planet?!

Mount Everest is ~5 miles tall. Mauna Kea is 6.3 miles from base to peak (but mostly under water). Olympus Mons (a volcano on Mars, and the largest mountain in the Solar System) is 16 mi tall. These are all very MASSIVE mountains. I'm okay with putting a pillar on the peak of a large mountain, but if the base were 10 miles and the pillar 20 miles on top of that...we'd be at 30 miles, not 500.

So, basically...that scale seems too large for anything that isn't a space elevator.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2000/ast07sep_1/

 

[MithLuin]

Could we have something that dissolves into gas when attacked by fire demons?

Sure! Metals can sublimate under the right conditions of temperature and pressure.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/93458?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublimation_(phase_transition)


The table at this link has lost its formatting, so I need to look into it some more.
http://archive.org/stream/philtrans06076894/06076894_djvu.txt

Melting point of iron under pressure:
http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/physics/sobel/Nucphys/phase.html

 

[Haakon]

I am, as I think you know, in favour of anchoring this discussion, this thought experiment that the idea of the Lamps forces us to go through, in science. But right now I'm inclined to think that this is the time for Fantasy, for the marvellous. We can't give these numbers to the viewers. They won't see the measurements, the 500 miles, the engineering calculations, those things. They'll see supernatural beings with godly powers build Lamps with pillars of such incredible height that they almost touch outer space. And they will go "WOW!"

 

[Haakon]

Sure! Metals can sublimate under the right conditions of temperature and pressure.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/93458?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublimation_(phase_transition)

Oh great! I forgot about sublimation - thanks for reminding me! So we can assume this happens.

 

[MithLuin]

The phase diagram of steel is...complicated, to say the least. I don't think it would be possible to sublimate it, but other metals (or the carbon) could be.

http://web.utk.edu/~prack/MSE 300/FeC.pdf

Iron can sublimate under vacuum conditions, but I don't know if that happens at atmospheric pressure....need to find the phase diagram.

In short...no. Iron is going to melt rather than 'flash' to vapor under atmospheric pressure conditions (1 bar). It could, however, melt and then boil quickly if the temperature spikes that rapidly (say to 3000°C). Then, as soon as it hit cooler air or surfaces, it would likely turn back to solid in the form of some sort of soot or residue.

If we are really committed to giant 500 mile high towers, then the fall of the Lamps could be like a meteorite impact (not unlike the impact that resulted in the extinction of the dinosaurs....), which would put Almaren (or a Lamp impact crater, anyway) in Cancun!

 

[Haakon]

Oh I mixed up the miles and kilometers... I meant that I think the Lamps should be 500 km, not miles. So, just around 300 miles then.

 

[Haakon]

Did you know by the way that the temperature at that altitude can be 1000 degrees C or around 1800 degrees F?

Right. No ice.

 

[Haakon]

Regarding pressure: "Because the thermosphere and exosphere belong to the upper atmosphere, the density of the air in addition to the atmospheric pressure is greatly reduced when compared to the atmosphere at Earth's surface. At these high altitudes, the atmospheric gases tend to sort into layers according to their molecular mass, and chemical reactions happen much faster here than near the surface of the earth." http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Thermosphere.aspx
So maybe iron actually can sublimate.

 

[MithLuin]

Well, the temperature in the thermosphere is very high, but that is due to solar wind and UV radiation...from the Sun. No sun here, just Lamps. So....

And, okay, yes, 320 miles is significantly less than 500 miles. It is still 64x as tall as Mount Everest. 300 miles is the upper limit of what the atmosphere can support; I'm now concerned with what the ground can handle.

Here are some dimensions on the Eiffel Tower, in case we wanted to 'scale up' a structure with these proportions:

If you have a 10 mile high mountain as the 'base', and then add a pillar 5x that high to it, you would have a total height of 60 miles. The base of this mountain would have to be more than 20 miles in diameter.

To get a 320 mile high tower, you would need a 53 mile tall mountain with a 115 mile diameter base. That's...really, really, realllllllly big. Probably too big.


More on the Eiffel Tower: http://www.engineering.com/Library/ArticlesPage/tabid/85/ArticleID/62/Eiffel-Tower.aspx

 

[Alex Long]

I don't mean to pry (I'm not intending to join this discussion. I'm just here to browse.) but I think, in the humblest way possible, you all may be thinking this through a little too much. The refraction of light, atmospheric temps/pressure, line of sight according to altitude, intensity of light by distance, etc. all presumes not just a round earth but celestial heavens similar to our own. And at this point in the narrative, we have none of that. No globe = no global climate = no global climate effects. In fact most of this presumes a sun, but there is no sun. Scientifically speaking, there is a huge question as to the source of heat in the world in general. The planet is not yet a planet so there's no molten core. Again, there is no sun. Also, it's implied that light does not give off heat in this world. The heat of the sun (when we get a sun) comes from Arien's fire spiritiness, not the light itself (hence why the moon and stars don't give off heat or why the ice-version lamps don't instantly melt and shrink like a wax candle.)

Don't get me wrong. I'm loving these theoretical exercises but I think it would useful to remember that Middle-Earth science is not earth science. Let's not let our story be encumbered by science. There is no science. But like I said, I'm not a part of this conversation; I'm just here for the popcorn. Feel free to ignore me and carry on.

 

[MithLuin]

True, the air pressure, as you rise through the thermosphere, decreases to near vacuum. That would effect sublimation, definitely. Those very hot temperatures, on the other hand, would have significantly less impact as there isn't much material there. The ionosphere (region of the thermosphere we are discussing) would also contain the aurora....but all the traits of this layer of atmosphere (except pressure) are based on the sun, which we do not have yet.

 

[Haakon]

I don't mean to pry (I'm not intending to join this discussion. I'm just here to browse.) but I think, in the humblest way possible, you all may be thinking this through a little too much. The refraction of light, atmospheric temps/pressure, line of sight according to altitude, intensity of light by distance, etc. all presumes not just a round earth but celestial heavens similar to our own. And at this point in the narrative, we have none of that. No globe = no global climate = no global climate effects. In fact most of this presumes a sun, but there is no sun. Scientifically speaking, there is a huge question as to the source of heat in the world in general. The planet is not yet a planet so there's no molten core. Again, there is no sun. Also, it's implied that light does not give off heat in this world. The heat of the sun (when we get a sun) comes from Arien's fire spiritiness, not the light itself (hence why the moon and stars don't give off heat or why the ice-version lamps don't instantly melt and shrink like a wax candle.)

Don't get me wrong. I'm loving these theoretical exercises but I think it would useful to remember that Middle-Earth science is not earth science. Let's not let our story be encumbered by science. There is no science. But like I said, I'm not a part of this conversation; I'm just here for the popcorn. Feel free to ignore me and carry on.

Well I was trying to express something along those lines earlier....

 

[Haakon]

I'm ready to adjust to reach a consensus. How about going down to the lower regions of the thermosphere, at about 60 miles? What do you think? (Ignoring the possible responses by the execs)

 

[MithLuin]

Me? Over think things? Never!

Okay, so, yes, I do that all the time. In this case, I am well aware of the differences between a flat Arda and our world, and I know that the physics doesn't work. So, on one level, we can do whatever we want.

But the Hosts specifically struck down the idea of very tall Lamps, asking for towers only a few hundred feet tall. So, if we are going to make the argument for taller Lamps (say, several hundred MILES tall), then we (in my opinion) have to think through some of the practical consequences so that we can still present them as 'believable' to the viewer.

In other words, I'm going through the background in order to create suspension of disbelief for the viewer, not because I think you can build these things out of anything other than 'magic'

 

[MithLuin]

I'm ready to adjust to reach a consensus. How about going down to the lower regions of the thermosphere, at about 60 miles? What do you think? (Ignoring the possible responses by the execs)

I think this is a good height for maximum impact and not straining too far beyond what you can do with mountains and earth's atmosphere. So, sure, works for me!

60 mile high Lamps on pillars with mountain bases, perhaps vaguely Eiffel Tower shaped, at an angle of 15° on the horizon, placing them 225 miles distant from Almaren. (Base of mountain only 215 miles away).

Thus, if the Northern Lamp is placed at the site of the meteor crater near Cancun, Almaren would be at Puerta Batrios, Guatemala, and the Southern Lamp would be on the Middle America Trench in the Pacific Ocean. Not exactly continental scale, but still massive.

Is that acceptable to others?

 

[Haakon]

I think that the argument that Melkor is involved and that this should lead to extreme dimensions is something that the execs might grudgingly listen to. And if we can design something that can work in some kind of theory, and in addition express how the Lamps are shown in brief shots and good angles, I think we have a chance.

 

[Haakon]

When we say Eiffel Tower, I think it is important to point out that we of course don't want the modern 19th century design (even though that is obvious).