HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: martinc@grover.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: *** Book(s) on Physics of science fiction sought ***
Date: 8 Nov 92 01:12:41 GMT
Article-I.D.: grover.MARTINC.92Nov7201241
	<ALANB.92Nov5113400@sdlhpp13.sdl.mdcbbs.com>
Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.science
Organization: UNC Department of Computer Science
In-reply-to: alanb@sdl.mdcbbs.com's message of 5 Nov 92 10:34:00 GMT

In article <ALANB.92Nov5113400@sdlhpp13.sdl.mdcbbs.com> alanb@sdl.mdcbbs.com (Alan Braggins) writes:

   >>>>> 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?

It's the canonical source for Cochrane fields and transtators.
--
		Charles R. Martin/(Charlie)/martinc@cs.unc.edu
     Dept. of Computer Science/CB #3175 UNC-CH/Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3175
	    3611 University Dr #13M/Durham, NC 27707/(919) 419 1754
     "Oh God, please help me be civil in tongue, pure in thought, and able
      to resist the temptation to laugh uncontrollably.  Amen." -- Rob T
From: martinc@hatteras.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Star Wars
Date: 10 Nov 92 02:33:27 GMT
Article-I.D.: hatteras.MARTINC.92Nov9213327
	<1992Nov9.195637.5740@iscnvx.lmsc.lockheed.com>
Organization: UNC Department of Computer Science
In-reply-to: baylor@nebula.ssd.lmsc.lockheed.com's message of 9 Nov 92 19:56:37 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.195637.5740@iscnvx.lmsc.lockheed.com> baylor@nebula.ssd.lmsc.lockheed.com writes:

   >	In addition, fighter pilots pump iron to build muscle precisely
   >because the increased muscle mass is a significant aid in resisting
   >G-induced red/black out.  
   >
   >-- Cerebus <tjm@hrt213.brooks.af.mil>

   Never heard of muscle building to improve your G tolerance. Just because
   the fighter pilots do it, doesn't mean it works, though. The last thing
   I'd heard on that was that women "naturally" had better tolerance for
   high accelerations.

I believe this one is well-supported for *lower*-body muscle mass:
bigger muscles, along with the good old passing-a-brick grunt in a high
G maneuver, tend to increase blood pressure and thereby keep the old red
cells running through the brain that much longer.

That doesn't mean that women are at a disadvantage, though -- they can
build lower-body strength quite effectively, and being short is an
advantage too.
--
		Charles R. Martin/(Charlie)/martinc@cs.unc.edu
     Dept. of Computer Science/CB #3175 UNC-CH/Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3175
	    3611 University Dr #13M/Durham, NC 27707/(919) 419 1754
     "Oh God, please help me be civil in tongue, pure in thought, and able
      to resist the temptation to laugh uncontrollably.  Amen." -- Rob T
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: kasprj@sage4a.its.rpi.edu (Jim Kasprzak)
Subject: Re: FTL
Reply-To: kasprj@rpi.edu
Organization: The Big Wedge 
Distribution: rec
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 14:26:17 GMT

In article <BxM47x.19B@cen.ex.ac.uk>, cs92mjd@cen.ex.ac.uk (M.J.Davis) writes:
|> 
|> 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.
 
 Yes, your flaw is reasonably obvious. You forgot to line your containment
system with cavorite.
From: buckland@ucs.ubc.ca (Tony Buckland)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Weapons systems?
Date: 10 Nov 1992 18:16:49 GMT
Organization: University Computing Services, UBC, Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: swiss.ucs.ubc.ca

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)

 Mines, armed with any of the above.
 
 Big wire nets, with or without solid objects at the intersections.
 
 Dispersed clouds of almost anything, if the enemy hits it with
 enough relative speed.
  
 Large mirrors capable of being focussed in a hurry.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: u894793@bruny.cc.utas.edu.au (Timothy D Little)
Subject: Re: Fighters in space (was Re: Star Wars)
Organization: University of Tasmania, Australia.
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 12:59:15 GMT

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
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: nigel@kathunk.phaedrav.on.ca (Nigel M Burnett)
Subject: Re: Power for electric cars?
Organization: as little as possible
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1992 15:53:12 GMT

Mark O. Chadwick (ncc1701@madoka.its.rpi.edu) wrote:
: buckland@ucs.ubc.ca (Tony Buckland) writes:
: 
: > Electric cars are promoted to save us from the atmospheric
: > pollution caused by burning gasoline.  But would we be ready

Wait a sec!  Where do think all this electricity is coming from.  Unless
you're in a very select part of North America where you're getting hydro-
electric power (James Bay feeds Quebec, Niagara contributes surprisingly
little), the power is coming from either coal-burning plants (ecchh!)
or safe clean enviro-friendly nuclear plants (:-)}).  So to say that
'electric cars will save us from pollution" is overly simplistic.
Ontario Hydro wants $2 billion (thousand million) just to refurbish
one nuclear plant because their untested tube design was wrong.  In
the meantime, crank up Hearn Generating Station (coal) on the shore
of Lake Ontario, a mere 50km from Niagara.

It's like the coffee cup issue.  "Don't use those awful plastic cups;
re-use your porcelain ones".  Again, not so simple.  You've got to use
the porcelain one >1800 times before the TOTAL energy/pollution
concerns are better than that of a one-time use polystyrene cup.  (Please
see Canada's/Toronto's Globe and Mail 92.11.03 for details of two studies-
one in Winnipeg, one in Sweeden).

I know that looking at the complete picture is far more difficult than
is first thought.  This group must try to consider ALL the ramifications
of any technology.  

p.s. - I like the idea of solar panels to lessen the car's demand on the
grid.  Too bad it'll never work in Toronto - sunny here about 1 day in 4.

N.



-- 
"If somebody feels really good about who they are, they don't feel                  threatened by what other people are."        Dr. M. Rubenstein
"Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."             Alan Braggins
Nigel Burnett: 78 Normandy Blvd, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M4L 3K3, 416-690-1834
Send e-mail to nigel@kathunk.phaedrav.on.ca or try uunet.ca!kink!kathunk!nigel
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: dmsilev@athena.mit.edu (Daniel M Silevitch)
Subject: Re: FTL
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: rec
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 01:13:20 GMT

In article <BxM47x.19B@cen.ex.ac.uk>, cs92mjd@cen.ex.ac.uk (M.J.Davis) writes:
|> 
|> 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
|> --

The glaring flaw in your idea is that antimatter has negative mass. It doesn't,
it has positive mass the same way normal matter does. This is an ancient idea
that has existed for sf writers ever since Dirac postulated the existance of
positrons. "Antigravity" devices have existed for even longer (read H.G. Wells)
As a demonstration that antimatter has positive mass, remember E=mc^2. If m were
to be negative, m_net of a m/am reaction would be 0, therefore no energy would be
released. I rest my case.

Daniel Silevitch                             dmsilev@athena.mit.edu
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: u894793@bruny.cc.utas.edu.au (Timothy D Little)
Subject: Re: Teleporting Things into Other Things (was Re: Star Wars)
Organization: University of Tasmania, Australia.
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 07:50:41 GMT

baylor@nebula.ssd.lmsc.lockheed.com writes:

[... some details of 'Whammo!' ...]

>Actually, it isn't fusion, as such, that you should worry about.

That's my opinion, too (with some OOM calculations to support it).

>It's all
>these electrons trying to occupy the same orbits. (The nucleii are a
>small proportion of the space in matter, but the electron orbits are large 
>and only accomadate two electrons per.[+ and -  spins]) What WOULD happen
>if you teleported electrons into the same orbit?

As a BotE calculation, all the electrons have their position-range cut in
half (the electrons being already 'packed' in a solid), so their momenta 
should roughly double.  Kinetic energy is proportional to square of momentum 
(at non-relativistic energies), so the energy should quadruple.  The kinetic 
energy of a bound electron is equal to the negative of the potential energy, 
so when the kinetic energy is multiplied by 4, the electrons should have 
sufficient energy to escape (by a factor of 3).  My guess is that the result
would be a large explosion.

A rough guide to the amount of energy released would be (if I am fairly
correct) taking the amount of energy required to strip all the electrons
off an iron atom, multiplying by 3, and then by the number of atoms present.

I do not (yet) have sufficient QM knowledge to do a proper analysis.
--
Timothy D Little   a.k.a.   u894793@bruny.cc.utas.edu.au
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg)
Subject: Re: Weapons systems?
Originator: elf@halcyon.com
Reply-To: elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg)
Organization: Pendor, UnLtd.
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 10:26:19 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.004233.23064@infodev.cam.ac.uk>
     Nov10.165701.3496@linus.mitre. writes:

>I think you have to split kinetic weapons into three:
>
>Slow (< 10km/s) massive, possibly guided, explosive and/or stealthed
>Fast (10-100 km/s) light, probably inert
>Superfast (relativistic) and extremely light

>Slow weapons can be dodged or counterattacked, but can change course
>noticeably during an attack and can home. They can be launched using
>chemical propellants at only hundreds of Gs.

   They can also intervene in the path of a much faster-moving vehicle
of given sufficient warning (i.e. sensor capability vs. weapons
capability).  We also have not discussed possible warheads that such
KKV (Kinetic Kill Vehicles) might carry.

>Fast weapons might be dodgable, or at least you could see them coming
>fast enough to get an ablative shield into place. This is where gravel
>comes in. They could gain their velocity from orbital geometries or
>from a railgun type launcher. The missile would have to survive
>thousands of Gs, so it probably won't contain any active components.

   Orbital geometries and the like wouldn't influence the internals of
such a weapon appreciably, at least not in terms of acceleration.
Given integral maneurvering, the _acceleration_ a KKV uses has little
to do with it's terminal velocity.  A bussard ramjet probably starts
out very slowly...

>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.

   A weapon's efficacy is measured by its _Mass_, its _Terminal
Velocity_, and (very important, folks), its _Ability to impart that
energy (0.5mv^2) on it's target_.  A javelin straight on punches a neat
hole in it's target, regardless of its mass.  A javelin made of wood
whirling about it's center of mass and perpendicular to the target
would disintegrate on impact with anything appreciable.  A javelin made
of depleted uranium that starts to tumble after it's penetrated the
heavy, outer sheilds of its target... now there's your weapon...

         Elf !!!
-- 
      __        | The post you have just read is real, but it could
      \/        | have been avoided.  Inbreeding is everyone's
Elf Sternberg   | problem.  Contact your local Mormon church and 
elf@halcyon.com | be sure you aren't marrying a close relative.
From: be726@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Joseph A. Ellis Jr.)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re:  Star Wars
Date: 6 Nov 1992 18:08:37 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: be726@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Joseph A. Ellis Jr.)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


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!
From: martinc@grover.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Commercial value of 3He
Date: 8 Nov 92 01:16:07 GMT
Article-I.D.: grover.MARTINC.92Nov7201607
Distribution: rec
Organization: UNC Department of Computer Science

Can someone drop me a note explaining how to get a kilowatt-hours per
gramme figure for He 3 fusion?  I'd like to calculate a dollar value of
helium 3 for a luinar colonization story.

Thanks lots

--
		Charles R. Martin/(Charlie)/martinc@cs.unc.edu
     Dept. of Computer Science/CB #3175 UNC-CH/Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3175
	    3611 University Dr #13M/Durham, NC 27707/(919) 419 1754
     "Oh God, please help me be civil in tongue, pure in thought, and able
      to resist the temptation to laugh uncontrollably.  Amen." -- Rob T
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: drenze@icaen.uiowa.edu (Douglas J Renze)
Subject: FTL Drive
Organization: Iowa Computer Aided Engineering Network, University of Iowa
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 05:03:47 GMT

WANTED:  Physicist willing to correspond with me concerning a pseudo-science
         FTL drive--Have an intellectual construct you've been toying with?
         A thought experiment?  Just want to have fun?  Please e-mail me
         directly.  I'm looking for a novel approach to the subject (if, there
         are, indeed, any left) and would love to hear your ideas/discuss
         them.

-- 
| Douglas J Renze            | "Jerry [Brown] is the equivalent of a          |
| drenze@icaen.uiowa.edu     |  drive-by shooting."                           |
| drenze@chop.isca.uiowa.edu |                                                |
| drenze@aol.com             |         * NPR's Morning Edition, 13 July 1992  |


Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: jjfink@skcla.monsanto.com
Subject: Re: Power for electric cars?
Organization: Searle, Skokie, IL
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 13:23:51 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.062016.10264@news.columbia.edu>, jml12@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Jonathan M Lennox) writes:
> 
> 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.

The biggest 'problem... for general civilian use' is that the batteries have a
limited number of recharge cycles.  I don't particularly want to trade my
brand-new battery pack in for one that's on its 9,999th charge, and get
half-way across the desert to find it won't charge again.

Also, I don't think that the battery arrays from one manufacturer to another
have anything in common in terms of form factor, volts, anything.

We ought to start writing the auto manufacturers to come up with a common
battery size and voltage, for such swaps, not just for charging, but for
exchange of batteries after that 10,00th recharge.

-- 
jjfink@skcla.monsanto.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I want peace on earth, and goodwill towards man."
"We don't do that kind of thing, we're the United States Government!"
  -- from _Sneakers_
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: pksuk@mothra.syr.EDU (Peter K. Suk)
Subject: Re: Teleporting Things into Other Things
Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.science
Summary: Read Niven
Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 92 11:19:06 EST

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

You could simply teleport an object in a gravity field, such that
it will accelerate forever.  Of course, this has many of the attributes
that a lot of other Nivenisms do.

--Peter Kwangjun Suk
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: baylor@nebula.ssd.lmsc.lockheed.com
Subject: Re: Star Wars
Reply-To: baylor@nebula.ssd.lmsc.lockheed.com
Organization: LMSC, Sunnyvale, California
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 92 19:56:37 GMT

In article <9211090026.AA10666@hrt213.brooks.af.mil>, tjm@hrt213.brooks.af.mil (Tim Miller) writes:
>On Fri, 6 Nov 92 19:52:08 GMT, baylor@nebula.ssd.lmsc.lockheed.com said:
>
> b> Now the bad news: some kind of congressional panel just backed off
> b> on the "women in fighter a/c thing".  This means lousy promotions,
> b> lack of respect & general inequality, over something that it doesn't
> b> take any particular endowment of testosterone or upper body
> b> strength to do.
>
>	Where did you hear this?  Last report I saw had the panel for
>women's role in combat recommending that women still be withheld from
>ground combat roles but be permitted to fly air combat.
>
>	In addition, fighter pilots pump iron to build muscle precisely
>because the increased muscle mass is a significant aid in resisting
>G-induced red/black out.  
>
>-- Cerebus <tjm@hrt213.brooks.af.mil>

It was approximately the day of the post (or up to 2 days before)
in the San Jose Mercury News. Front page, on top (not the big headline).
Sucks eggs for any woman with military ambitions.

Never heard of muscle building to improve your G tolerance. Just because
the fighter pilots do it, doesn't mean it works, though. The last thing
I'd heard on that was that women "naturally" had better tolerance for
high accelerations.

Disclaimer: I am not a flight surgeon, nor do I play one on TV.
All that I KNOW the truth of in this post is that the article
in the San Jose paper did appear as I described it (proximate time,
content)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: bcr@cernapo.cern.ch (Bill Riemers)
Subject: Re: FTL
Organization: CERN, European Research Center for High Energy Physics
Distribution: rec
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 11:14:43 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.180927.23164@crc.ac.uk> gwilliam@crc.ac.uk (Gary Williams x3294) writes:

>  Didn't Robert Forward produce some theory about *negative* matter? That
>  is, matter that actually has negative mass and gravity.  Your idea
>  probably still wouldn't work because nature abhores a smartass, but I
>  can't immediately see the flaw. Anyone?

If negative matter does exist, you are going to have a hard time finding
a large enough chunk of it to build your ship....  Even worse, how are
you going to accelerate it?  As soon as you apply a force, all the negative
matter will accelerate in the opposite direction as the normal matter.

                                  Bill
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: stcak@cc.newcastle.edu.au
Subject: The Philadelphia Experiment (?)
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 04:07:31 GMT

I hope this is a question to the correct newsgroup. Anyhow...
What are the facts regarding the famous Philadelphia (sp?) 
Experiment? I refer to something about a ship being the subject
of a wierd experiment around WWII. From what I have heard and read
and can remember it goes something like this : 
	The ship was pumped full of radiation (or something) and
was supposed to turn invisible. The crew later suffered horrific
after-effects and I have been told that some reports said parts of
them (eg: a leg) went invisible (or something). They were also 
very ill and most died.

	So, what is fact and what is fiction? What did they pump the
ship full of? Did these bizarre things really (possibly) happen?
If there is any fact in this, has it been tried again?

I would appreciate a response that told the story (as truly as known).
Has this phenomena ever been linked to theories of other dimensions?

Thankyou for your time,
Craig.

Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: treitel@gracie.IntelliCorp.COM (Richard Treitel)
Subject: Re: Weapons systems?
Date: 11 Nov 92 22:02:03 GMT
Organization: preferably none

In article <1992Nov11.004233.23064@infodev.cam.ac.uk>, sl25@cus.cam.ac.uk (Steve Linton) writes:
|> missile would have to survive thousands of Gs, so it probably won't contain
|> any active components.

The "Copperhead" smart artillery shell had plenty of active components, and
launching from a modern field gun involves thousands of Gs.  Durn thing was
expensive to build (so much so that guided rockets were probably a cheaper
solution) but not infeasible.
					- Richard