HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rdosser@UTKUX1.UTK.EDU (rdosser)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Weapons systems?
Date: 10 Nov 92 20:15:13 GMT
Article-I.D.: utkux1.1992Nov10.201513.10032
Organization: University of Tennessee Computing Center

In article <1992Nov10.165701.3496@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
>In article <6yPZTB9w165w@west.darkside.com> max@west.darkside.com (Erik Max Francis) writes:
>}I've been thinking about combat in space, and am wondering if anyone has 
>}come up with any novel weapons/delivery systems.
>}
>}So far I have:
>}
>}    o laser beams
>}    o particle beams
>}    o kinetic weapons (shells)
>}    o missiles
>}    o torpedos (nuclear missiles)
>}
>}Anything else pop into mind?
>
>gravel.
>
>
To misquote a character from "Footfall":
"Hell, marshmallows would be lethal at this speed."

***********************************************************************
* Ralph Dosser   rdosser@utkux.utk.edu                                *
* The University of Tennessee Computing Center                        *
* Would I be working here if I could afford a real snake?             *
***********************************************************************
From: tjm@hrt213.brooks.af.mil (Tim Miller)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Teleporting Things into Other Things
Date: 9 Nov 92 00:33:21 GMT
	<u894793.721035464@bruny> <1992Nov7.111907.25550@newstand.syr.edu>
Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.science
Organization: AL/HRTI, Brooks AFB

On Sat, 7 Nov 92 11:19:06 EST, pksuk@mothra.syr.EDU (Peter K. Suk) said:

 P> As for extracting energy from teleportation, Larry Niven mentions an
 P> interesting device in an article in one of his collections.  (Forget
 P> which one.)

	"The Theory and Practice of Teleportaion," collected in _All the
Myriad Ways_.

	The real fun starts when the falling working mass reaches
relitavistic velocity...

-- Cerebus <tjm@hrt213.brooks.af.mil>
"I'm a Niven expert.  Is that something to be proud of?  Somehow I don't
 think so..."
From: tbmg9061@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Thomas B MacIukenas)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Non-nuclear explosive
Date: 13 Nov 92 03:23:34 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

rdosser@martha.utcc.utk.edu (rdosser) writes:

>First, take a verrrry thin disk of metallic hydrogen, that is, hydrogen
>compressed until it assumes a solid, metallic structure. Cool it damn
>near absolute zero so it doesn't want to do anything.
>Now, surround it with as perfect an insulator as you can get. The trick
>here is the insulator must (at least on one side) disintegrate in the
>presence of extreme heat.
>Put this in a chamber and wait. At the moment of truth, pump the chamber
>full of extremely high temperature plasma as fast as you can, as
>uniformly as you can. The insulation disintegrates, and the extremely
>dense solid hydrogen suddenly is superheated, (hopefully) going from
>solid to gas or even plasma in a very short period of time. This should
>lead to quite a drastic increase in volume, which I think is the name of
>the game.
>Okay, it'll never work. But why?
>Just posting out loud.

The problem is it's an awful lot of work to go through for not much
explosive power.  You'd get a lot more energy out of the hydrogen by
fusing it.  Plus, by compressing it you're putting in as much energy
as you're expecting to get out of it in the explosion, so it costs a
lot to make.  Also, keeping the weapon stable until it's time to explode
takes a lot of work, what with the magnetic field keeping the plasma
away from the the disk and the heating coils keeping the plasma hot.
-- 
___-Tom_Maciukenas_(tbmg9061@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu)______________________________

Lisa : Perhaps there *is* no moral to this story.
Homer: Exactly!  It's just a bunch of *stuff* that happened.  -The Simpsons
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: jml12@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Jonathan M Lennox)
Subject: Re: Power for electric cars?
Reply-To: jml12@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Jonathan M Lennox)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 06:20:16 GMT

In article <1992Nov2.103104.1@skcla.monsanto.com> jjfink@skcla.monsanto.com writes:
>One of the Japanese car companies (Nissan?) has a "Future Electric
>Vehicle" that will have a 15-minute 'quick-charge' cycle.  The catch?
>You need 440-volt service, and a box the size of "a cash station
>kiosk" (Chicago Tribune, 11/1). 

One proposal I saw once was to eliminate the time required for
recharging by having batteries that could be swapped out.  You drive
to the gas station-equivalent, they lift the de-charged battery pack
out of your car, and replace it with a fully-charged one, which they
then proceed to recharge in their back room.  Your vehicle is never
out of service for recharging.

Obviously there are problems with this for general civilian use, but
for a fleet of delivery vans or police cars or somesuch, it could
significantly improve the percentage of the fleet in service at any
one time without requiring special "quick-charge" batteries.

--
Jonathan Lennox
jml12@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: whelal@engr.UVic.CA (Wael  Helal)
Subject: Re:  Star Wars
Reply-To: whelal@engr.UVic.CA
Organization: University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 92 04:46:37 GMT

In article 1decb6INNge1@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu, be726@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Joseph A. Ellis Jr.) writes:
>
>In a previous article, whelal@engr.UVic.CA (Wael  Helal) says:
>
>>Canada currently has two female fighter pilots flying F-18's.
>>
>>
>
>
>The USAF has had female pilots qualified for combat aircraft (fighters and
>bombers) since WWII. They did a lot of the ferry flights to England.
>
>Women have been _training_ combat pilots in the USAF for a number of years...
>in fact, one of there best fighter pilots before the Gulf War was a woman! 
>She volunteered for combat, and was, of course, refused. However, I _believe_ 
>I remember hearing that just in the last year Congress approved putting
>female pilots in combat missions. They'll get to die along with the men 
>next time.
>
>(Ever notice that the Air Force is the only service in which the enlisted
>personnel stay behind the lines and the _officers_ go into combat? Kind of
>explains their approach to discipline, doesn't it? <<grin>> )
>
>-- 
> Joe Ellis  o/~ The Synthetic Filker o/~    |     TesserAct Studios
>     Internet:   usr6184a@tso.uc.edu        |       P.O. Box 18577
>        GEnie:   J.ELLIS22                  |     Fairfield, OH 45018
>    All filked up and no place to sing!     |   New Dimensions In Filk!


No I mean that Canada doesn't have a silly rule about not letting women fight on the front lines. Its possible to have combat pilots but if they can't fight they really aren't combat pilots are they?? 

Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: Re: Weapons systems?
Keywords: space combat weapons
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 01:58:22 GMT

In article <BxKMy3.G6u@helios.physics.utoronto.ca> neufeld@helios.physics.utoronto.ca (Christopher Neufeld) writes:
>In article <1992Nov10.175623.577@newstand.syr.edu> pksuk@mothra.syr.EDU (Peter K. Suk) writes:
>   Muons have a high penetration in matter, but not "as low a
>cross-section as a neutrino" at reasonable energies.

However, neutrinos themselves can be lethal at a high enough flux.
According to back-of-the-envelope calculations, you'd have gotten
a lethal dose of radiation from the neutrino pulse of SN1987A
at about 12 AU.  (Of course, you'd have been mortally vaporized
soon after, so the 500 REMS of neutrino exposure would be moot.)

Maybe this merits some thought.  Well, for one thing, some insanely
huge percentage of the energy released by a supernova is in the
neutrinos, with the galaxy-eclipsing flash being only a relatively
minor side effect.  A useful neutrino blaster would need an
unreasonably large power supply, like a galaxy full of Dyson spheres.

Maybe not, though.  Neutrino cross-section goes up with the energy of
the neutrino.  I've heard some speculation of the possibility of
putting a high-energy neutrino generator and detector in orbit, and
doing a CAT-scan of the Earth.  If you could generate neutrinos of
arbitrarily high energy, you could make them precisely as penetrating
or interacting as you wished.
-- 
Mike Van Pelt          | It was a typical net.exercise -- a screaming
mvp@netcom.com         | mob pounding on a greasy spot on the pavement,
mvp@hsv3.lsil.com      | where used to lie the carcass of a dead horse.
From: joel@upchrch.UUCP (Joel Upchurch  )
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Weapons systems?
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 17:20:39 EST
Organization: Upchurch Computer Consulting, Orlando FL

elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg) writes:

> In article <1992Nov11.004233.23064@infodev.cam.ac.uk>
> >Superfast missiles are almost impossible to dodge unless you see the
> >launcher aiming. On the other hand the launcher is bulky for the
> >actual energy sent. Antimatter might be available in sufficient
> >quantities (dust grain) to use that for projectiles, since the
> >launcher has to be EM.
> 
>    Using antimatter is pretty spectacular, but also pointless when
> we're talking about particulate matter.  Ballistically, microscopic
> particles are useless even at 'very fast' speeds; look how much damage
> Skylab and Soyuz absorbed from micrometeorites without ill effect.

Spectacular seems to be a pretty mild word. If I'm doing my calculations
correctly, then a single GRAM of antimatter, striking normal matter,
would yield as much energy as 7.2 kilotonnes of TNT. About as much as a
tactical nuclear weapon. I suspect the X-rays from the explosions would
fry all the human and electronics in the target. Shucks antimatter
projectiles as small as a milligram would be very hard to detect and would
take out most targets.

Just make sure the projectile is doing escape velocity in case you miss,
because you sure don't want it hanging around in earth orbit.

Or how about a proximity fused projectile, with a few milligrams of
antimatter contained in a magnetic field? When it gets close enough
to the target it switches off the magnetic field. The whole thing
could be no bigger than the bullet from a .22.


(If your mail bounces use the address below.)
Joel Upchurch/Upchurch Computer Consulting/718 Galsworthy/Orlando, FL 32809
joel@peora.ccur.com {uiucuxc,hoptoad,petsd,ucf-cs}!peora!joel (407) 859-0982
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: tjm@hrt213.brooks.af.mil (Tim Miller)
Subject: Re: Applications of time travel and teleports
Organization: AL/HRTI, Brooks AFB
	<BxFHoA.2Lx@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> <V7A=qB-@engin.umich.edu>
	<BxICL4.H0C@cen.ex.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 17:20:31 GMT

On 10 Nov 92 16:03:04 GMT, cs92mjd@cen.ex.ac.uk (M.J.Davis) said:


 D> Time travel would make breaking into buildings a breeze. Simply pop
 D> back a few years to before the building was build, walk onto the
 D> area its going to be and hop forward again. Obviously you'd have to
 D> be a bit careful to avoid ending up in a wall or anything awkward.
 D> Of course, this assumes that for some reason you can't just teleport
 D> in...

	Easier than that.  Travelling in time implies travelling in
space; when you go back a year, the earth, sun, galactic arm, and galaxy
itself have all moved in that time.  If time travel pops you back at the
same location, you're stuck in space if you move more than a few minutes
or hours forward or backward.

	Since you can shift in space as you shift in time, you now have
teleportation.  Simply move forward in time a microsecond, shifting your
position in transit.  Voila!

-- Cerebus <tjm@hrt213.brooks.af.mil>
"So much for catching thieves..."
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: singley@helix.nih.gov (Erick Singley)
Subject: Re: Power for electric cars?
Organization: (National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD)
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 21:41:22 GMT

Yes, the energy must come from power plants- however, the controls that can be
placed on several (hundred?) large power plants, for pollution that is, can
be monitored and controlled easier than several million small vehicals.  I had
some stats here a moment ago... drat...  When the air control mechanisms are
concentrated in one spot, I would guess you ahve more control over the overall
pollution you allow to escape.  What is the overall effeciencies then of:
A) digging, processing, transport of (coal/oil), burning-> electricity, transfer
over powerlines, charging of car, storage in car, running of car

compared to

B) Drilling of oil, transport of crude, processing, transport of gas, running in
engine?

[ I'm probaly missing steps, and have no answers-> just questions...]

As per the coffee cup (porc. vs. plastic) I had seen similar arguments go the
other way-> [re disposable vs cloth diapers] where the cost of water/detergent/
manpower of diaper services fairly much eaqualed that of the cost of creating
a the disposable (This in a Washington Post article)  I've seen similar
results from articles discussing glass vs plastic cup in cafeterias.  Don't
have any real number/refs to give (hard to have everything at one's fingertips)
just pointing out that there have been other conclusions on the subject.
Erick

--
singley@clinpharm.niaaa.nih.gov
From: d2jonas@dtek.chalmers.se (Jonas Olsson)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Teleporting a/m
Date: 9 Nov 92 14:43:06 GMT
Organization: Chalmers University of Technology

Article: 1262 of rec.arts.sf.science
From: dove@cats.ucsc.edu (Ray Rischpater)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Teleporting etc.
Date: 8 Nov 92 15:24:45 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: si.ucsc.edu

dove@cats.ucsc.edu (Ray Rischpater) writes:

>d2jonas@dtek.chalmers.se (Jonas Olsson) writes:

< My article removed>

>I've thought about this on and off.
>Most reasonable teleportation schemes require either mass-energy conversion
>or large amounts of energy anyway.
>Why bother keeping a/m around?  Instead, you could simply materialize the anti-
>matter in the enemy object, drawing the energy to do so straight from your
>power source.

Why bother keeping a/m around???
You'll have to, if you can't make it at the same time as you teleport it!
I guess it's pretty hard to make on-site and can't think of the problems
involved in off-site production!!

mhorning@pan.calpoly.edu (Mark Horning) writes:

<My article removed once more>

>	What are you talking about? CERN has kept positrons in their
>lepton storage ring for over 7 YEARS. Not hard to handle using magnetic
>fields in vacua.

>	Also they  have the facilitys for producing a rather large 
>(for a particle physicist anyway) number of antiprotons. 
>The whole idea the got ahold of was to get a whole bunch of anytiprotons
>and fire tem as a streem into a stream of protons. WHich
>is how they beat fermilab to some of the discoveries in HEP.

I stand corrected. I'm not really into atom science...




--
Jonas Olsson		d2jonas@dtek.chalmers.se           
                        Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden
Have a good one!
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: u894793@bruny.cc.utas.edu.au (Timothy D Little)
Subject: Re: Teleporting Things into Other Things
Organization: University of Tasmania, Australia.
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 07:37:44 GMT

jesse@uts.amdahl.com (Jesse Mundis) writes:

>>The first interesting thing is that the 2*density gas could do work.
>>The container could be a piston, with P = external pressure initially.
>>After the telemerge, the gas would exert a force PA on the piston, and
>>energy 
>>	integrate NRT/V dV from V = V0 to 2*V0
>>could be extracted.

>>The intriguing thing is that we never changed the velocity or
>>positional potential of a single atom. The first law of thermodynamics
>>(conservation of energy) is trivially obeyed, but the second is
>>formally violated by restricting the gas to half its former volume.

The First Law is only obeyed in Newtonian mechanics.  In relativistic
mechanics, conservation of energy is violated.  From a different reference
frame, energy disappears from one location, is absent for a while, then
reappears somewhere else.  (Or appears somewhere, then later some disappears)

>This "free energy" or work is (I think) just another guise of Maxwell's
>Demon.  There you create a heat differential (which can be used to do work)
>by selctively letting "faster" molecules into one side, and slower molecules
>into the other side.  With the teleportation, you (presumably) had to spend
>energy to get the gas into the other container.  I think the second law of 
>thermodynamics is safe, even from teleportation. ;-)

The 2nd Law might be safe, but the 1st isn't!  I'm about 70% sure there's 
some way to extract energy from a teleportation device, but I can't think of
one just yet.
--
Timothy D Little   a.k.a.   u894793@bruny.cc.utas.edu.au
From: max@west.darkside.com (Erik Max Francis)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Weapons systems?
Date: 11 Nov 92 21:11:33 GMT
Organization: The Dark Side of the Moon +1 408 245 SPAM

dagibbs@quantum.on.ca (David Gibbs) writes:

> So possibly a better break down of these would be:
> 
> - shells (or guns): all velocity imparted at launch
> - dumb missiles: have some kind of engine, but no guidance
> - smart missiles: have engine and steering ability -- ie
>     some form of active guidance
> 
> The question of whether or not the warhead in you munitions
> is nuclear/conventional/other is not a major distinguishing
> factor in your type of weapon, but rather is a secondary
> characteristic.

That's true.  But for my purposes the distinction between conventional 
and nuclear warheads is significant, so I divided it that way.  
Naturally there are different guidance, propulsion, and delivery systems 
. . .

----------
Erik Max Francis   Omnia quia sunt, lumina sunt.  Coming soon:  UNIVERSE _ | _
USmail:  1070 Oakmont Dr. #1 San Jose CA 95117  ICBM:  37 20 N  121 53 W _>|<_
UUCP:  ..!apple!uuwest!max   Usenet:  max@west.darkside.com   464E4F5244   |
From: cs92mjd@cen.ex.ac.uk (M.J.Davis)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: FTL
Date: 12 Nov 92 16:52:44 GMT
Distribution: rec
Organization: Computer Unit. - University of Exeter. UK


OK, here's something that occurred to me the other day. It has a reasonably
obvious (I think) flaw that I'll keep to myself for the moment, but at first
glance looks interesting.

_How to accelerate a spacecraft to c_

Build your spacecraft. Include a socking great magnetic containment system.
Fill said containment system with anti-matter, until the net mass of the 
whole contrivance is zero. It will then require zero energy to accelerate,
and will be untroubled by relativistic mass increases as it has none.

There is a *major* prize for the most humorous tearing-to-shreds of this idea
Look forward to hearing the net.scoffing...

Mike (asbestos underwear) Davis
--




"Ride and find where all the freedom has gone..."

Michael J. Davis          |   cs92mjd@ac.uk.ex.cen
Dept of Computer Science  |   cs92mjd@cen.ex.uk.ac
University of Exeter      |
UK                        |   #include<disclaimer.std>




   








--
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: *** Book(s) on Physics of science fiction sought ***
From: alanb@sdl.mdcbbs.com (Alan Braggins)
Date: 05 Nov 92 10:34:00 GMT
Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.science
Organization: Shape Data (Division of EDS), Cambridge UK
In-reply-to: johan@blade.stack.urc.tue.nl's message of 4 Nov 92 14:39:25 GMT

>>>>> On 4 Nov 92 14:39:25 GMT, johan@blade.stack.urc.tue.nl (Johan Wevers) said:

> Try the ``Star Trek The Next Generation Technical Manual''.
For information on physics? Are you joking?
--
     Alan Braggins, alanb@sdl.mdcbbs.com, abraggins@cix.compulink.co.uk
Shape Data - A division of EDS-Scicon Limited.   Cambridge, UK +44-223-316673
   "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."
 "My employer does not necessarily share my views - but I'm working on it."
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: ajmiller@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Arkayn)
Subject: Re: Teleporting Things into Other Things
Organization: Purdue University
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 03:00:08 GMT

In <k1-=+v_@engin.umich.edu> ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles) writes:

> Well, in one series, (I misremeber the author, but the series was about
>a guy who is accidentally time-traveled to 13th-century Poland and fights
>to Mongol Horde...) there was a bit of discussion about the effect of
>time travel on manufacturing. Some of if can be applied to teleportation.
Fabulous series. The Adventures of Conrad Stargard, by Leo Frankowski.
First book: The Cross-Time Engineer.

> For example, how much control of the teleportation do you have? Can you
>teleport only a *portion* of an object? How sharp can you make the boundary?
>Do you need both a receiver *and* a projector, or just one or the other?
> Imagine being able to machine a block of metal by teleporting away all
>the stuff you don't want, or vice versa. If you teleport half of a chunk
>of metal away, you have a very reactive surface that was sheilded from the
>air until an instant ago... by repeatedly teleporting it into chambers with
>various reactants, you could get some bizzare chemistry going on.
> If you don't need a receiver, assembling parts is a breeze. If you teleport
>all the air out of a chamber, you could get some heavy vaccuum going on.
>If you don't need a projector, surgery gets interesting.
> Any ideas? Design-aheads? :->

Where did you get this from?
Sounds cool.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: sdr57@cas.org ()
Subject: Re: Fighters in space (was Re: Star Wars)
Organization: Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, Ohio
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 19:26:36 GMT

In article <u894793.720968355@bruny> u894793@bruny.cc.utas.edu.au (Timothy D Little) writes:
>otten@sbpexe.enet.dec.com () writes:
>
>>In article <BwwJ50.LLB@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, griffin@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Zack Thompson) writes:
>>>  Don't forget that you can up a human's G-tolerance quite a bit by doing
>>>  something like surrounding the pilot with a gel, then filling his lungs
>>>  with some kind of really highly oxegenated liquid that he can breath
>>>  from.  This would equilize pressures a lot, allowing the craft to go
>>>  faster, accelerate harder, and turn tighter.
>
>>What happens if you drop a spanner in a submarine??
>>(To Plagiarize Joe Haldeman)
>
>It falls.  Now, what happens if you drop a spanner in a submarine full of
>mercury?  (To continue the analogy)
>--
>Timothy D Little   a.k.a.   u894793@bruny.cc.utas.edu.au

  Depending on what the spanner is made of, it may float.
Remember that mercury has a density of about 13.6, iron has
has a density of about 7.86.

  Fluid support can improve acceleration tolerance to a point by allowing
for assumption of optimum position.
It definitely improves survival (to 83 G impulse, I think). However,
the limiting factor is not being crushed, it is blood flow to
brain, at least for fighter jocks. You can retain a useful level of
blood flow up to between (+)9-10 G (on average), after which you
"grey out" because blood can't reach your brain, or to -(3-4G),
because blood can't leave and you "red out." Both these
experiences are survivable if they don't continue for too long
and if you don't fly into the ground or in front of an opponents
guns while suffering from them. If you want to significantly
enhance high G performance, you need to change the circulatory
system - fluid support doesn't help with that.

  For more details, check out books under the subject headings
aerospace medicine or aerospace physiology in your local library.
Also look into the rocket sled research done with Capt. Beading
(not Col. Stapp) at Holomann AFB during the sixties. The firing
sequence was done wrong on one of his rides, subjecting him to a
much higher acceleration than planned. (It hurt.)

******************************************************************************
Renegade academician. They're a dangerous breed when they go feral,
academics are...a chemist, too.
		    -(James P. Blaylock in "Lord Kelvin's Machine")

My organization hasn't agreed with any of my opinions so far, and
I doubt they'll start now.

Stanley "Ya nee speon" Roberts

Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science