Re: Nuclear_Dampers
In reply to #2091 Nuclear_Dampers by Carl Fago
> This is a little weak in the "explanation" area. It requires "two transmitted > broadcasts" but of what? The answer to that can be as simple as 'we don't know yet; Terra @ 1991 is only TL8 (or is it 7?)'. It isn't necessary to explain every little detail of how something like this works; if we knew we'd have invented it here on this planet... > Also, the logic of "shedding neutrons" is faulted > from the standpoint that neutrons is what is _required_ to initiate a fission > reaction. If the anti-node is strong enough to shed lots of neutrons faster > than it takes the fission reaction to occer, then I say you already have your > disintegrator weapon. Yes, but the key words were 'low engery'. The decrease in nuclear force means that the neutrons don't need alot of energy to escape; presumably their energy is low enough that they don't cause fission reactions. > Also, if you had to aim the nodes (as it seems), wouldn't it be easier to have > a laser point defense system??? Who said that the nodes were small? Maybe the 'transmissions' are at a very low frequency, and so have a large wavelength? It is quite possible to have an anti-node kilometers or even hundreds of kilometers across; this makes them easy to aim. Sure wish we have nuclear dampers in 2300AD; those detonation lasers sure are deadly! - - -- C. Harald Koch VE3TLA Alias Research, Inc., Toronto ON Canada [email removed] [email removed] [email removed] "I think you curdled my Pepsi!"-Gerry Smit, in response to sickening cuteness