Psionic help

 In message: [email removed] Stephen D. Smith writes:
 >
 >> 1. 1 milligram of antimatter is roughly equivalent to 10 kilos
 >>    of TNT. That ain't gonna bother the pirate much.
 >>    (approximately .01% of the mass in a fission bomb is
 >>    converted to energy, a 20 kT bomb has about 10 kilo's of
 >>    fissionables. The rest is simple calculations)
 >
 >      I was under the impression that a matter/antimatter
 >explosion was a FUSION reaction, and 100% complete energy

     Nope.  Fusion is, basically, slamming atoms together hard enough that
they "fuse" (that is, meld together to form a new, heavier atom).  For an
example, look at the Hydrogen -> Helium reaction (the one that makes
sunlight, among other things).

     A matter-antimatter reaction, on the other hand, is the *total
conversion* of mass into its equivalent quantity of energy (I'm given to
understand that this reaction produces mostly gamma radiation, but my
knowledge may be obsolete).  For a given amount of antimatter (or
contra-terrene matter) m, the reaction optimally converts a mass of 2m
(the antimatter plus an equivalent amount of normal, or terrene matter)
into energy.  The relationship is shown mathematically with the famous
equation:
                2
          E = mc                                   (1)

where E is the energy produced, m is the mass, and c is the speed of light
in a vacuum (approximately 3e8 m/s).  As you can see, even a small amount
of mass represents a *huge* (at least, in human terms) amount of energy.

     In the above example of 1 mg of antimatter, the reaction would
involve 2 mg of mass (don't forget your normal matter), so the energy is
(using cgs):

          E = (2e-3) * (3e10)
            = 6e7 ergs

     Not bad, but not catastophic, either.  Don't forget, in the example
above, this energy is applied to the *hull* of a starship.  Starship hulls
are made of the toughest materials available, since they have to endure
a very hazardous environment.

 >conversion, not .01%. I do puzzle at a ship that could take a
 >10 kilo TNT explosion on it's hull and not be bothered. (I
 >guess Megatraveller ships are a LOT tougher than I thought.)

     Bothered?  Maybe.  We *are* talking about a fairly dense gamma flux
applied to a small area of hull.  I'm sure that it (as well as the shock)
would be noticed.  But I doubt that it would do even as much damage as
a standard HE ship-to-ship missile.

 >> 2. This happened in *space*. Therefore, the hydrogen fuel is
 >>    no big deal. Hydrogen is *NOT* explosive. Hydrogen mixed
 >>    with an oxidizer is. Blow a hole in a fuel tank, and you'll
 >>    cause a small side thrust due to the escaping fuel. You'll
 >>    also make them worry about their fuel reserves.
 >
 >      If a FUSION reaction took place in a hydrogen fuel tank
 >might not SOME of the hydrogen participate in the reaction? It

     Not enough to matter.  Remember, fusion reactions are *extremely*
difficult to maintain (if it was easy, everybody'd be doing it--literally)
*If* the antimatter suddenly appeared in the fuel tank, the conversion
*might* cause some of the neighboring hydrogen to fuse, but the energy
output of this secondary fusion would be negligible in comparison to the
yield from the matter-antimatter reaction.

 >                                                         wouldn't
 >the gamma radiation mess up the ship systems, as well as the
 >biological systems?

     Probably not.  The amount of radiation produced is quite a bit
below that of a nuclear (or thermonuclear) device.  I think the hull
could take it in stride, especially at higher tech levels.


- --
     Brent

INTERNET:  [email removed]           /  [email removed]
USENET:  [email removed]
FIDONET:  [email removed]                           (from Internet)  or
          Brent Woods@1:201/40.303  (from FidoNet)
[address removed]
PHONE:  [phone removed] (voice)


All opinions and material above is the responsibility of the originator.
Submissions: [email removed], or [email removed]
Administrator: [email removed] (James Perkins)
The TML is made possible by facilities provided by Tektronix, Inc.

> ...........................  For a given amount of antimatter (or
> contra-terrene matter) m, the reaction optimally converts a mass of 2m
> (the antimatter plus an equivalent amount of normal, or terrene matter)
> into energy.  The relationship is shown mathematically with the famous
> equation:
>                 2
>           E = mc                                   (1)
>
> where E is the energy produced, m is the mass, and c is the speed of light
> in a vacuum (approximately 3e8 m/s).  As you can see, even a small amount
> of mass represents a *huge* (at least, in human terms) amount of energy.
>
>      In the above example of 1 mg of antimatter, the reaction would
> involve 2 mg of mass (don't forget your normal matter), so the energy is
> (using cgs):
>
>           E = (2e-3) * (3e10)
>             = 6e7 ergs
>
>      Not bad, but not catastophic, either.  Don't forget, in the example

The TOTAL CONVERSION statement is correct, and the formula is correct,
but the numbers plugged into it are WAY off.  The Speed-of-Light (3e8 m/s)
squared is 9e16, not 3e10 (remember, (x^y)^z = (x^z)^(y*z)).  Therefore,
using MKS units:

        E = (2e-3) * (9e16)
          = 1.8e14 joules (= 1.8e21 ergs, since 1 joule=1e7 ergs)

not 6e7 ergs.  And since that amount of energy would make plasma of a
Plankwell-class battleship, well, if that's not catastrophic, then I don't
want to be around for something that is :-).  Seriously, according to The
Encyclopaedia Britannica (15th Ed., 1987), in Vol. 16, page 520, Column 1,
the total energy (including radiation) generated by the 20-kiloton bomb
dropped on Hiroshima was about 1e13 joules (1e7 Kw-Hrs.).  If we assume
(based on that data) that there are 5e12 joules released per kiloton of
nuclear detonation (1e13/20), and that any increase is linear, then the
total conversion reaction postulated above would be roughly eqaul to a
200 kiloton nuclear detonation.

Not in MY backyard, thank you very much!

Later,

        Mark F. Cook

USMail: User Interface Technical Support
        Hewlett-Packard - Interface Technology Operation
        [address removed]

INTERNET: [email removed]
UUCP:     {cmcl2, harpo, hplabs, rice, tektronix}!hp-pcd!markc

All opinions and material above is the responsibility of the originator.
Submissions: [email removed], or [email removed]
Administrator: [email removed] (James Perkins)
The TML is made possible by facilities provided by Tektronix, Inc.

>> ...........................  For a given amount of antimatter (or
>> contra-terrene matter) m, the reaction optimally converts a mass of 2m
>> (the antimatter plus an equivalent amount of normal, or terrene matter)
>> into energy.  The relationship is shown mathematically with the famous
>> equation:
>>                 2
>>           E = mc                                   (1)
>>
>> where E is the energy produced, m is the mass, and c is the speed of light
>> in a vacuum (approximately 3e8 m/s).  As you can see, even a small amount
>> of mass represents a *huge* (at least, in human terms) amount of energy.
>>
>>      In the above example of 1 mg of antimatter, the reaction would
>> involve 2 mg of mass (don't forget your normal matter), so the energy is
>> (using cgs):
>>
>>           E = (2e-3) * (3e10)
>>             = 6e7 ergs
>>
>>      Not bad, but not catastophic, either.  Don't forget, in the example
>
>The TOTAL CONVERSION statement is correct, and the formula is correct,
>but the numbers plugged into it are WAY off.  The Speed-of-Light (3e8 m/s)
>squared is 9e16, not 3e10 (remember, (x^y)^z = (x^z)^(y*z)).  Therefore,
>using MKS units:
>
>        E = (2e-3) * (9e16)
>          = 1.8e14 joules (= 1.8e21 ergs, since 1 joule=1e7 ergs)
>
>not 6e7 ergs.  And since that amount of energy would make plasma of a
>Plankwell-class battleship, well, if that's not catastrophic, then I don't
>want to be around for something that is :-).  Seriously, according to The
>Encyclopaedia Britannica (15th Ed., 1987), in Vol. 16, page 520, Column 1,
>the total energy (including radiation) generated by the 20-kiloton bomb
>dropped on Hiroshima was about 1e13 joules (1e7 Kw-Hrs.).  If we assume
>(based on that data) that there are 5e12 joules released per kiloton of
>nuclear detonation (1e13/20), and that any increase is linear, then the
>total conversion reaction postulated above would be roughly eqaul to a
>200 kiloton nuclear detonation.

except you got the figures wrong too!

E=(2e-6)*(9e16) {it's two *milligrams*, not two *grams!!}

E= 1.8e11 joules

So we get about .36 kT using your figures  for joules/kT.

But your figures disagree with themselves. 1e13 joules = 2.7e6 kW-hr.

Since I don't have the same edition of the Brittanica, I can't check
your reference because you didn't give the name of the article!

I can't find any of my references at the moment, but I remember that
1 MT = 4.2e??? ergs. So we have a problem.

All opinions and material above is the responsibility of the originator.
Submissions: [email removed], or [email removed]
Administrator: [email removed] (James Perkins)
The TML is made possible by facilities provided by Tektronix, Inc.