The Earth's three highest mountains - by three definitions

[lpetrich]

In 1916, the submarine  USS F-4 sank in 93 meters of water, and divers succeeded in salvaging it by attaching cables to it for lifting it up to the surface. The submarine itself was designed for about 60 m depth.

Around then were some early armored diving suits:  Atmospheric diving suit - 1715: 18 m, 1914: 65 m, 1922: 170 m, 1976: 276 m. Some recent ones can go down to 700 m. This kind of suit is designed for sea-level pressure inside of it.

 Bathysphere - in 1928, British biologist William Beebe wanted to study deep-sea life from near a research station in Bermuda. He concluded that dredging and diving were inadequate, so he decided on a metal sphere with sea-level pressure inside of it, something like an unpropelled submarine. It was hung on a cable from its ship, and lowered into the ocean. Engineer Otis Barton learned of WB's proposals, and he decided to build one. The two got together and built their bathysphere.

In initial test in 1930, it went down to 14 m, and a few weeks later WB and OB went down to 245 m in it. He noticed the ocean getting darker and more bluish. Near their lowest depth, only about 1% of arriving sunlight remained.

In 1932, the two explorers reached 670 m, and in 1934, 770 m, then 923 m. At their lowest depth, nearly no sunlight got through, and the only light was from bioluminescent organisms.

 

[lpetrich]

Over World War II, now-familiar forms of diver air supply got their present form, best-known for an acronym that became an ordinary word: SCUBA: "self-contained underwater breathing apparatus" in a 1952 patent. Essentially some breathing-gas tanks, a gas regulator, and a mouthpiece for breathing in that gas.

For scuba diving, one can wear anything from swimsuit to a full-length diving suit, and scuba divers typically wear diving masks, essentially a kind of goggles, and swim fins, a sort of fin shoe.

Scuba divers usually don't go down very deep.  Scuba diving mentions depths of as much as 120 m, though most divers don't go nearly as deep, with recommended limits for recreational divers of 40 - 50 m.  Deep diving mentions divers who went down to 534 m.


Increased pressure produces hazards. Lower than 30 m, one risks nitrogen narcosis, and lower than 60 m, one risks oxygen toxicity at "normal" oxygen concentration. Below that depth, one must use hypoxic or low-oxygen breathing gases, like hydrox (H2 + O2) or trimix (He + N2 + O2).

 

[none]

....

Sea level is at approximately constant geopotential, because any higher-geopotential bit of ocean would try to flow into some lower-geopotential bit of ocean. The same is true of the atmosphere, and its density and pressure are thus approximate functions of the geopotential. Higher geopotential is thus another measure of climbing difficulty, because air gets very thin at high altitudes.

there earth is not a sphere... just curious... about the differential....per se the geographical poles versus the equatorial diameters... just curious..

 

[lpetrich]

there earth is not a sphere... just curious... about the differential....per se the geographical poles versus the equatorial diameters... just curious..

That is true. The Earth's equatorial radius is about 6378 km, and its polar radius 6357 km.

 

[none]

so let's say the peak in ecuador is 30% of 20km and the everest is 25% of that 20km.... hmm.... that is a differential of about 2km...

 

[lpetrich]

After WWII, Otis Barton built a greater-depth version of his bathysphere, his  Benthoscope In 1949, it went down to 1400 m, still the world record for a cable-suspended submersible.

 Bathyscaphe - a kind of deep-sea submersible invented by Auguste Piccard in the late 1940's. It used a big bathysphere as a crew compartment, and big tanks that were filled with aviation gasoline for buoyancy. In 1960, the bathyscaphe Trieste reached the bottom of the Challenger Deep, the greatest-known depth.

Several-other deep-sea submarines have been developed and used since then.

Here are some first visits to some notable shipwrecks:

• RMS Lusitania, ocean liner - sank 1915 from a torpedo attack - depth 100 m - reached in 1935 by divers -  Diving suit
• USS Thresher, nuclear submarine - sank 1963 from a leak that led to loss of power - depth 2600 m - reached in 1964 by deep-sea submersible
• USS Scorpion, nuclear submarine - sank 1968 from any of several possible causes - depth 3000 m - reached in 1968 by deep-sea submersible
• RMS Titanic, ocean liner - sank 1912 from collision with an iceberg - depth 3800 m - reached in 1985 by deep-sea submersible

 

[lpetrich]

 Earth ellipsoid
IERS (2003) - Equatorial Radius: 6,378,136.6 m - Polar Radius: 6,356,751.9 m - Reciprocal of Flattening: 298.25642
Source:
The International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service

 Gravity of Earth
Equatorial: 9.780327 m/s^2 - Polar: 9.832186 m/s^2
At the poles, it is 0.5% larger than at the equator.

 

[none]

hmm... gravity in magnitudes of largeness... interesting...

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The other Seven Summits are Mt. Kilimanjaro in Tanzania at 5895 m, Mt. Elbrus in the Caucasus in Russia at 5642 m, the Vinson Massif in Antarctica at 4892 m, Puncak Jaya in New Guinea at 4884 m, Mt. Blanc in the Alps in France and Italy at 4810 m, and Mt. Kosciuszko in Australia at 2228 m, though Wikipedia's list is of nine mountains.

There are multiple definitions for which mountain is highest, based on how you define the area.

Exactly what is Europe vs Asia causes issues, and what is Indonesia part of? It's got a peak a lot higher than Australia.

Sounds like Mauna Kea would be the hardest to hike from base to summit.

Yes, but because of the start point. Every atmospheric gas is toxic at those pressures. Perhaps it would be possible to flood the lungs with a liquid and provide oxygen and carbon dioxide removal by other means, but nothing else would work. No, the sci-fi idea of breathing liquid doesn't work--while there are liquids capable of dissolving enough oxygen and carbon dioxide the lungs aren't strong enough to move enough. While I wouldn't rule out flooding them it would simply be to protect them from being crushed.

Removing the water doesn't even help. The temperature would be lethal and I think ordinary air at that depth is also long-term dangerous--slow oxygen poisoning.

Besides, it's not the climb that matters. I have climbed nearly a mile in a day--and it was the altitude that mattered a lot more than the distance. 10km total climb isn't that big a deal, assuming a decent slope it's within range of an unsupported trek by a sufficiently capable individual. Everest, though, the idea of doing it unsupported is ludicrous and even supported it's extremely difficult and dangerous.

Mauna Kea's summit is within the range that someone who handles altitude well can venture to with no acclimatization time. People in sufficiently good shape do Mt. Whitney as a one-day hike--and that's substantially higher than Mauna Kea.

 

[Shadowy Man]

The other Seven Summits are Mt. Kilimanjaro in Tanzania at 5895 m, Mt. Elbrus in the Caucasus in Russia at 5642 m, the Vinson Massif in Antarctica at 4892 m, Puncak Jaya in New Guinea at 4884 m, Mt. Blanc in the Alps in France and Italy at 4810 m, and Mt. Kosciuszko in Australia at 2228 m, though Wikipedia's list is of nine mountains.

There are multiple definitions for which mountain is highest, based on how you define the area.

Exactly what is Europe vs Asia causes issues, and what is Indonesia part of? It's got a peak a lot higher than Australia.

Sounds like Mauna Kea would be the hardest to hike from base to summit.

Yes, but because of the start point.

Yes. That was my point and why I specified the “base”.

 

[none]

Sounds like Mauna Kea would be the hardest to hike from base to summit.

Yes, but because of the start point. Every atmospheric gas is toxic at those pressures. Perhaps it would be possible to flood the lungs with a liquid and provide oxygen and carbon dioxide removal by other means, but nothing else would work. No, the sci-fi idea of breathing liquid doesn't work--while there are liquids capable of dissolving enough oxygen and carbon dioxide the lungs aren't strong enough to move enough. While I wouldn't rule out flooding them it would simply be to protect them from being crushed.

Removing the water doesn't even help. The temperature would be lethal and I think ordinary air at that depth is also long-term dangerous--slow oxygen poisoning.

Besides, it's not the climb that matters. I have climbed nearly a mile in a day--and it was the altitude that mattered a lot more than the distance. 10km total climb isn't that big a deal, assuming a decent slope it's within range of an unsupported trek by a sufficiently capable individual. Everest, though, the idea of doing it unsupported is ludicrous and even supported it's extremely difficult and dangerous.

Mauna Kea's summit is within the range that someone who handles altitude well can venture to with no acclimatization time. People in sufficiently good shape do Mt. Whitney as a one-day hike--and that's substantially higher than Mauna Kea.

aqualung yeah I wouldn't do it, a heart pump yeah that is a thing...
now a vein through a little itty bitty oxygen separator , i mean itty bitty, device implanted... let's say eco freindly.
yeah I'd go for that, if it is salient enough to be non toxic at depth given the environmental resources... below and above the water line...
unfortunately, it would take the breath out of me...

 

[lpetrich]

Now I get to this:
 List of tallest mountains in the Solar System and  Canyon

For the heights, I will calculate an Earth equivalent, scaling to what Earth height produces that height's gravitational-potential difference. Strictly speaking, it's gravitational + centrifugal potential, but I'll leave aside that detail.

\( \displaystyle{ h_E = \frac{g}{g_E} h } \)

 Gravitational acceleration - for the Earth, an "average" figure is 9.80665 m/s^2.

All heights and depths (negative heights) are relative to the local surroundings unless indicated otherwise.

Planet	What	Kind	Height	Earth-Relative
Mercury	Caloris Montes	Impact	3 km	1 km
Venus	Maxwell Montes	Tectonic	6.4 km	5.8 km
	(rel. to surf. avg.)		11 km	10 km
Earth	Mauna Kea	Volcanic	10.2 km	10.2 km
	Mt. Everest (rel. to SL)	Tectonic	8.848 km	8.848 km
	Mariana Trench	Tectonic	- 5 km	- 5 km
	(rel. to SL)		-10.2 km	-10.2 km
Moon	Mt. Huygens	Impact	5.5 km	0.9 km
Mars	Olympus Mons	Volcanic	21.9 km	8.5 km
	Valles Marineris	?	- 7 km	- 3 km
Vesta	Rheasilvia ctrl pk	Impact	20 - 25 km	0.5 - 0.6 km
Ceres	Ahuna Mons	Cryovolcanic	4 km	0.1 km
Io	Boösaule Montes	Tectonic	17.5 - 18.2 km	3.2 - 3.3 km
Mimas	Herschel ctrl pk	Impact	7 km	0.05 km
Dione	Janiculum Dorsa	Tectonic	1.5 km	0.03 km
Titan	Mithrim Montes	Tectonic	3.3 km	0.46 km
	Vid Flumina	Erosion	- 0.57 km	- 0.079 km
Iapetus	equatorial ridge	?	20 km	0.5 km
Oberon	(limb mountain)	?	11 km	0.4 km
Pluto	Tenzing Montes T2	?	6.2 km	0.39 km
Charon	Butler Mons	?	4.5 km	0.13 km

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Sounds like Mauna Kea would be the hardest to hike from base to summit.

Yes, but because of the start point.

Yes. That was my point and why I specified the “base”.

I thought you were talking about the 10km of climb.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Sounds like Mauna Kea would be the hardest to hike from base to summit.

Yes, but because of the start point.

Yes. That was my point and why I specified the “base”.

I thought you were talking about the 10km of climb.

If it weren’t under 20000 feet of water it wouldn’t be as hard.

 

[none]

Sounds like Mauna Kea would be the hardest to hike from base to summit.

Yes, but because of the start point.

Yes. That was my point and why I specified the “base”.

I thought you were talking about the 10km of climb.

If it weren’t under 20000 feet of water it wouldn’t be as hard.

damn that's well beyond auditory hallucinations... "on the road to damascus".....
I'm going, entertain my "whale slime".....

 

[lpetrich]

I'd searched for depth records for diving, and human divers cannot dive very deep without protection from the ocean pressure, maybe around 120 meters.

What was the maximum depth a WWI submarine could dive to and how does that compare to submarines of WWII and modern submarines? - Quora

WWI German submarines: test depth 60 m, some survived 90 m

WWII German submarines, Type VII: test depth 230 m, one survived 340 m

Present-day US military submarines: classified, but at least 240 m (800 ft)

So military submarines can't go very far down.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'd searched for depth records for diving, and human divers cannot dive very deep without protection from the ocean pressure, maybe around 120 meters.

What was the maximum depth a WWI submarine could dive to and how does that compare to submarines of WWII and modern submarines? - Quora

WWI German submarines: test depth 60 m, some survived 90 m

WWII German submarines, Type VII: test depth 230 m, one survived 340 m

Present-day US military submarines: classified, but at least 240 m (800 ft)

So military submarines can't go very far down.

There are subs that have gone all the way to the bottom.

 

[lpetrich]

WWI German submarines: test depth 60 m, some survived 90 m

WWII German submarines, Type VII: test depth 230 m, one survived 340 m

Present-day US military submarines: classified, but at least 240 m (800 ft)

So military submarines can't go very far down.

There are subs that have gone all the way to the bottom.

Which ones? How deep?

 Continental shelf - the continental shelves go down to 140 meters, and much of the continental shelves is accessible to most military submarines. The average ocean depth is, however, 3700 m. Is there any military submarine that has survived that depth? Or anything close to that depth?

 List of specifications of submarines of World War II - "Diving Depth"

• France: 600 series: 25 m, Redoubtable: 35 m
• Germany: VII: 220 m, IX: 230 m, XXI: 260 m
• Japan: I-15: 100 m, Kaiten: ?, Kohyoteki: 30 m
• Netherlands: O21: 115 m
• UK: T-class: 90 - 105 m, U-class: 90 m
• US: Gato: 90 - 120 m

 

[lpetrich]

The  USS Thresher (SSN-593) likely imploded at 730 meters, and the  USS Scorpion (SSN-589) broke in two at 470 meters.

 List of submarine classes of the United States Navy
Attack subs - test depths:

• Gato class (1940 - 44): 90 m
• Balao class (1942 - 48), Tench class (1944 - 51), Barracuda class (1949 - 51): 120 m
• Tang class (1949 - 52), Grayback class (1954 - 58), Darter (1954), Barbel class (1956 - 59), Skate class (1955 - 59), Skipjack class (1959 - 61): 210 m
• Thresher / Permit class (1958 - 67), Sturgeon class (1963 - 75), Glenard P. Lipscomb (1973): 400 m
• Los Angeles class (1972 - 96): 290 m (operating depth 200 m)
• Seawolf class (1989 - 2005): 490 m

Missile subs - test depths:

• George Washington class (1958 - 61): 210 m
• Ethan Allen class (1959 - 63), Lafayette class (1961 - 64), James Madison class (1962 - 64), Benjamin Franklin class (1963 - 67): 400 m
• Ohio class (1976 - 97): 240 m

I looked through  List of Soviet and Russian submarine classes and the Typhoon class can go down to 900 m, and the K-278 Komsomolets to 1000 m. Most others go down to about 200 - 600 m, however.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

WWI German submarines: test depth 60 m, some survived 90 m

WWII German submarines, Type VII: test depth 230 m, one survived 340 m

Present-day US military submarines: classified, but at least 240 m (800 ft)

So military submarines can't go very far down.

There are subs that have gone all the way to the bottom.

Which ones? How deep?

 Continental shelf - the continental shelves go down to 140 meters, and much of the continental shelves is accessible to most military submarines. The average ocean depth is, however, 3700 m. Is there any military submarine that has survived that depth? Or anything close to that depth?

 List of specifications of submarines of World War II - "Diving Depth"

• France: 600 series: 25 m, Redoubtable: 35 m
• Germany: VII: 220 m, IX: 230 m, XXI: 260 m
• Japan: I-15: 100 m, Kaiten: ?, Kohyoteki: 30 m
• Netherlands: O21: 115 m
• UK: T-class: 90 - 105 m, U-class: 90 m
• US: Gato: 90 - 120 m

Off the top of my head, the Trieste. Research vessels, not combat vessels.