home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!iphasew!igor!thor!rmartin
- From: rmartin@thor.Rational.COM (Bob Martin)
- Newsgroups: sci.space
- Subject: Re: Antimatter (was propulsion questions)
- Message-ID: <rmartin.711835237@thor>
- Date: 22 Jul 92 20:00:37 GMT
- References: <1992Jul17.123315.28475@inmos.co.uk> <6y=mm0p@lynx.unm.edu> <24661@dog.ee.lbl.gov> <1992Jul17.221155.25364@bradley.bradley.edu> <Brp9H4.3GM@zoo.toronto.edu> <24725@dog.ee.lbl.gov>
- Sender: news@Rational.COM
- Distribution: na
- Lines: 29
-
- sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
-
- |In article <Brp9H4.3GM@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes...
- |>
- |>Antimatter isn't a very efficient explosive. If you dropped an anti-iron
- |>cannonball, it would just sit there and sizzle. (The radiation would make
- |>the immediate neighborhood very unhealthy, mind you.) The security needed
- |>to prevent *accidentally* dropping stuff that is worth billions of dollars
- |>a gram should mostly suffice as protection against simple forms of malice.
- |>It is, in any case, not something you can put in your pocket, because it's
- |>stable only inside a substantial piece of equipment.
-
- |This doesn't sound right. What makes you think that the energy release would
- |be so slow? The outer surface would be continuously annihilating with
- |air and whatever surface you drop it on. It's not at all clear that
- |things would be so nice as you describe.
-
- I expect that the heat generated from the initial annihilations would
- melt and then vaporize the cannonball fairly rapidly. I think the
- exposed surface area would rize at a geometric rate. So, perhaps the
- boom would be relatively quick.
-
-
-
- --
- +---Robert C. Martin---+-RRR---CCC-M-----M-| R.C.M. Consulting |
- | rmartin@rational.com |-R--R-C----M-M-M-M-| C++/C/Unix Engineering |
- | (Uncle Bob.) |-RRR--C----M--M--M-| OOA/OOD/OOP Training |
- +----------------------+-R--R--CCC-M-----M-| Product Design & Devel. |
-