HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Thursday, 15 Oct 1992 16:42:47 CDT
From: <U19807@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.fandom.cons
Subject: WindyCon program request

I don't whether anybody might have this or not,but does anybody have a
preliminary copy of the programming for WindyCon,especially concerning
panels and films? Thank you.

      ** Chris Krolczyk,esq.  * DISCLAIMER: My opinions are in **
      ** Maniac-at-Large      * no way endorsed by the Univer- **
      ** U19807@UICVM.BITNET  * sity of Illinois at Chicago.   **
      ** u19807@uicvm.uic.edu * So there. Nyaah.               **
Newsgroups: alt.fandom.cons
From: krikket@meltdown.chi.il.us (D. 'krikket' Krick)
Newsgroups: alt.fandom.cons
Subject: @! Party at WindyCon
Date: 11 Oct 92 12:01:52 GMT
Organization: The Meltdown - A Team Star BBS

Is there any interest in having an @! party at WindyCon?  (Chicago area
Convention at the Woodfield Hyatt Nov. 6-8)

If so, I'm willing to volunteer a room, but I want to have some idea in advance
if it'll be worth by time and trouble to hold...

Either post or Email a responce, if this interests you.  If there is enough
interest, I'll host an @! party!

+--------------------+------------------------------+------------------------+
|Krikket             |  krikket@meltdown.chi.il.us  | USnail: 3 Danada Sq. E.!
|a.k.a Doug Krick    | NOTICE: Your milage may vary |  Suite 246             !
|Data # 708/665-9732 | E-Hugs to those who want 'em |  Wheaton, Il 60187     !
+--------------------------------------------------+-------------------------+
|                What God wants, God gets, God help us all!                  |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.fandom.cons
From: istn100@indyvax.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: @! Party at WindyCon
Organization: Purdue University, Indianapolis
Date: 15 Oct 92 14:55:27 -0500

In article <krikket.004f@meltdown.chi.il.us>, krikket@meltdown.chi.il.us (D. 'krikket' Krick) writes:
> Is there any interest in having an @! party at WindyCon?  (Chicago area
> Convention at the Woodfield Hyatt Nov. 6-8)
> 
> If so, I'm willing to volunteer a room, but I want to have some idea in advance
> if it'll be worth by time and trouble to hold...
> 
> Either post or Email a responce, if this interests you.  If there is enough
> interest, I'll host an @! party.

Party party party!  ;-)  

Well, I'm hoping to come to VISIONS (if SOMEONE will PULEEZE send me some
info on it!) and I've never been to an @! party before, so I'd be interested.
;-)  ;-)

Ellen - the Crime Doctor
ISTN100@indyvax.iupui.edu

Xref: sparky alt.fandom.cons:315 rec.arts.sf.fandom:1060
From: phydeaux@pdnfido.fidonet.org (Dave Weingart)
Newsgroups: alt.fandom.cons,rec.arts.sf.fandom
Subject: Re: Philcon @! ?
Date: 6 Oct 92 14:10:06 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Source for Source Pub Access Unix

Another, possibly simpler option, is just meeting in the (overpriced) bar
at the Adam's Mark for a drink or 12...

-- 
73 de Dave Weingart   KB2CWF   phydeaux@src4src.linet.org

PLEASE NOTE THE NEW EDDRESS, VALID 10/10/92!!!!!
Newsgroups: alt.sci.planetary
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Moving Venus to Earth orbit
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 20:51:22 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <BvrLM7.6o1@agora.rain.com> trifid@agora.rain.com (Roadster Racewerks) writes:
>This business of "igniting" Jupiter has always intrigued me. My understanding
>is that had Jupiter been somewhat larger, we would be a binary star system.
>What would happen if we crashed Saturn into Jupiter? Would this eventually
>coalesce into a small star?

No.  Jupiter is "nearly" a star only on a logarithmic scale.  You would
need many times the mass of Jupiter to get any significant fusion activity.
-- 
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.planetary
Subject: Re: Mars Observer Update - 10/09/92
Date: 13 Oct 1992 13:52:39 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Oct13.053236.3937@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, tes@nomad.uucp (Thomas E. Smith [LORAL]) writes:
>By moving relative to the sun, I think they mean speed towards, or away from
>the sun, not around the sun. So the Earth would only be slightly moving 
>relative to the sun because of its elliptical orbit. Either way, the space
>probe is still said to be moving a fraction of Earth's escape velocity.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH!  Look, escape velocity is a function of both the mass of
the object from which you're trying to escape AND the distance you are from
the center of that object.  True, the MO is moving (relative to the earth) much
slower than escape velocity FROM THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH.  However, THE MO IS
NO LONGER SITTING ON THE GROUND (you might've heard that announced here).  It's
speed relative to the Earth is comfortable above escape velocity for an object
at its current distance from the Earth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
From: tjb@NeoSoft.com (Timothy J. Bogart)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.planetary
Subject: Re: The thrust problem (was Re: Moving Venus to Earth orbit)
Keywords: thrust
Date: 8 Oct 92 00:38:05 GMT
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900

Actually, a constant force along the radius vector may not change the 
orbital energy, but it will change the orbit.  The radius will increase,
with no balancing force, right Ken?
Newsgroups: alt.sci.planetary
From: andrew@mks.com (Andrew Hamilton-Wright)
Subject: Re: Moving Venus to Earth orbit
Organization: Mortice Kern Systems Inc., Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 13:33:38 GMT

In article <BvrLM7.6o1@agora.rain.com> trifid@agora.rain.com (Roadster Racewerks) writes:
>What would happen if we crashed Saturn into Jupiter? Would this eventually
>coalesce into a small star? (Yes, I know it would be not only near-impossible,

>Suze

My only question is - would the additional mass (+ hence additional 
gravitaional force to drive the fusion process) be enough?  I remember
hearing an analogy : Take 200 marbles.  Now take one out - that is
Jupiter.  Take 1 more out - that is the mass of all other orbiting bodies
in the solar system.  The rest represent the mass of the sun.

(Is this accurate enough)?

I suppose my real question is - what is the minimum mass required to 
maintain an ongoing steller fusion reaction?

-- 
    /||  // // ,'/""\'   Andrew Hamilton-Wright  andrew@mks.com  (519)884-2251 
   / ||/// //\' `\\\     Database(Admin),        Mortice Kern Systems Inc.
  /  |/ /_//  \\___/     56 Scottsdale, Guelph,Ont.   
o/ "Everything is possible except skiing through a revolving door"
Newsgroups: alt.sci.planetary
From: nahigian@athena.mit.edu (Gabriel H Nahigian)
Subject: Re: Mars Observer Update - 10/09/92
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 16:25:02 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.105531.11992@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, tes@nomad.uucp (Thomas E. Smith [LORAL]) writes:
|> >Forwarded from:
|> >PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE
|> >JET PROPULSION LABORATORY
|> 
|> 
|> >     Today Mars Observer is about 4.5 million kilometers (2.6
|> >million miles) from Earth, traveling at a speed of about 10,800
|> >kilometers (7,600 miles per hour) with respect to Earth.  The
|> >spacecraft is traveling at a heliocentric velocity of about
|> >119,000 kilometers per hour (74,000 miles per hour).
|> 
|> 
|> Only 7,600 mph relative to Earth? Is that right? That's not even escape
|> velocity (~25,000 mph). I also can't think of a way for the craft to be
|> going 7,600 mph relative to Earth, and 74,000 mph relative to the Sun.
|> Can someone clear this up for me?
|> 
|>                                                       Tom

     Remember that the Earth is also moving pretty damn fast in relation to the
sun!!

Gabe (nahigian@athena.mit.edu)_
Newsgroups: alt.sci.planetary
From: tes@nomad.uucp (Thomas E. Smith [LORAL])
Subject: Re: Mars Observer Update - 10/09/92
Organization: Software Technology Branch - NASA/Johnson Space Center
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 10:55:31 GMT

>Forwarded from:
>PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE
>JET PROPULSION LABORATORY


>     Today Mars Observer is about 4.5 million kilometers (2.6
>million miles) from Earth, traveling at a speed of about 10,800
>kilometers (7,600 miles per hour) with respect to Earth.  The
>spacecraft is traveling at a heliocentric velocity of about
>119,000 kilometers per hour (74,000 miles per hour).


Only 7,600 mph relative to Earth? Is that right? That's not even escape
velocity (~25,000 mph). I also can't think of a way for the craft to be
going 7,600 mph relative to Earth, and 74,000 mph relative to the Sun.
Can someone clear this up for me?

                                                      Tom
Newsgroups: alt.sci.planetary
From: agc@bmdhh286.bnr.ca (Alan Carter)
Subject: Re: Mars Observer Update - 10/09/92
Organization: BNR-Europe-Limited, Maidenhead, England
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 14:55:55 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.105531.11992@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, tes@nomad.uucp (Thomas E. Smith [LORAL]) writes:
|> >Forwarded from:
|> >PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE
|> >JET PROPULSION LABORATORY
|> 
|> >     Today Mars Observer is about 4.5 million kilometers (2.6
|> >million miles) from Earth, traveling at a speed of about 10,800
|> >kilometers (7,600 miles per hour) with respect to Earth.  The
|> >spacecraft is traveling at a heliocentric velocity of about
|> >119,000 kilometers per hour (74,000 miles per hour).
|> 
|> Only 7,600 mph relative to Earth? Is that right? That's not even escape
|> velocity (~25,000 mph). I also can't think of a way for the craft to be
|> going 7,600 mph relative to Earth, and 74,000 mph relative to the Sun.
|> Can someone clear this up for me?

Objects that want to escape Earth's gravity well ballistically need a high 
initial velocity. This is lost as the Earth pulls them back, until in the 
end they just float gently away, their final velocity being just enough 
for them to carry on out where Earth's gravity is irrelevant. 

We don't launch spacecraft that way though. They might break :-)
They start slow, and burn fuel on the way up, to accelerate them up (and a 
bit along) as gravity accelerates them down. Mars Observer has ended up with
enough to get away, *plus* 7,600 mph.

For wrt think "frame of reference", not "radial". 1 AU = 9.3E7 miles. 
If that was a circle it would be 9.3E7 * 2 * pi = 5.8E8 miles around. 
Go around that in a year, 5.8E8 / 365 * 24 = 66700 mph. If Mars Observer
is cruising ahead of us, pretty much in our orbit for now, we add 7600 mph
wrt Earth to 66700 (Earth wrt Sun) and get 74300 mph (Observer wrt Sun).

Seems reasonable, Alan

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
   Maidenhead itself is too snobby to be pleasant. It is the haunt of the
   river swell and his overdressed female companion. It is the town of showy
   hotels, patronized chiefly by dudes and ballet girls. 

   Three Men In A Boat, Jerome K. Jerome, 1889
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: alt.sci.planetary
From: phfrom@nyx.uni-konstanz.de (Hartmut Frommert)
Subject: Re: Mars Observer Update - 10/09/92
Organization: Dept. of Physics, University of Constance
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 11:45:20 GMT

tes@nomad.uucp (Thomas E. Smith [LORAL]) writes:

>|>> >     Today Mars Observer is about 4.5 million kilometers (2.6
>|>> >million miles) from Earth, traveling at a speed of about 10,800
>|>> >kilometers (7,600 miles per hour) with respect to Earth.  The
>|>> >spacecraft is traveling at a heliocentric velocity of about
>|>> >119,000 kilometers per hour (74,000 miles per hour).
>|>> 
>|>> Only 7,600 mph relative to Earth? Is that right? That's not even escape

This must of course be added to the Earth's velocity (vector addition) to
get the velocity relative to the Sun, which is MO's orbital velocity. And, 
as you got in response, this is the velocity left over AFTER escaping 
Earth's gravity.

Exercise :-) : Calculate MO's velocity relative to Earth when the MO was
  leaving Earth's atmosphere/LEO [Hint: Use energy conservation] !
[Solution: 11.49 km/s = 41,350 km/h = 25,850 mph 
  at R = 6,500 km (h = 120 km) ]
(BTW: *was* MO in a parking LEO, or was it launched directly into the 
  transfer orbit ? )

--
 Hartmut Frommert                 <phfrom@nyx.uni-konstanz.de>
 Dept of Physics, Univ of Constance, P.O.Box 55 60, D-W-7750 Konstanz, Germany
                                           -- Eat whale killers, not whales --
Newsgroups: alt.sci.planetary
From: khalsa@echo.gsfc.nasa.gov (GuruTej Khalsa)
Subject: test
Organization: NASA GSFC Code 910.1, TRMM Ground Truth
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 19:09:50 GMT

this is a test
Newsgroups: alt.sci.planetary
From: trifid@agora.rain.com (Roadster Racewerks)
Subject: Re: Moving Venus to Earth orbit
Organization: Open Communications Forum
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 18:49:18 GMT



This business of "igniting" Jupiter has always intrigued me. My understanding
is that had Jupiter been somewhat larger, we would be a binary star system.
What would happen if we crashed Saturn into Jupiter? Would this eventually
coalesce into a small star? (Yes, I know it would be not only near-impossible,
but very risky... :-)

Suze

Newsgroups: alt.sci.planetary
From: tes@nomad.uucp (Thomas E. Smith [LORAL])
Subject: Re: Mars Observer Update - 10/09/92
Organization: Software Technology Branch - NASA/Johnson Space Center
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 05:32:36 GMT

|>> >Forwarded from:
|>> >PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE
|>> >JET PROPULSION LABORATORY
|>> 
|>> 
|>> >     Today Mars Observer is about 4.5 million kilometers (2.6
|>> >million miles) from Earth, traveling at a speed of about 10,800
|>> >kilometers (7,600 miles per hour) with respect to Earth.  The
|>> >spacecraft is traveling at a heliocentric velocity of about
|>> >119,000 kilometers per hour (74,000 miles per hour).
|>> 
|>> 
|>> Only 7,600 mph relative to Earth? Is that right? That's not even escape
|>> velocity (~25,000 mph). I also can't think of a way for the craft to be
|>> going 7,600 mph relative to Earth, and 74,000 mph relative to the Sun.
|>> Can someone clear this up for me?
|>> 
|>>                                                       Tom

Gabe (nahigian@athena.mit.edu) writes:

>    Remember that the Earth is also moving pretty damn fast in relation to the
> sun!!

By moving relative to the sun, I think they mean speed towards, or away from
the sun, not around the sun. So the Earth would only be slightly moving 
relative to the sun because of its elliptical orbit. Either way, the space
probe is still said to be moving a fraction of Earth's escape velocity.

                                                          Tom
Newsgroups: alt.sci.astro.aips
From: lentz@reber.astro.nwu.edu (Robert A. Lentz)
Subject: Re: XAS (15APR92) problem on xterm 
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston, IL
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 02:12:24 GMT

In article <PMURPHY.92Oct2212858@orangutan.cv.nrao.edu> pmurphy@nrao.edu
(Pat Murphy) writes:
>In article <1992Oct2.175126.12461@news.acns.nwu.edu> lentz@reber.astro.nwu.edu(Robert A. Lentz) writes: 
>
>> I am working on setting up a Macintosh as an at-home X terminal. We
>> have MacX 1.1.7 operating over a SLIP connection. I can get aips started
>> fine with a command like "START_AIPS new tv=elvex34.acns.nwu.edu:reber".
>
> I assume here that "elvex34" is the far end of the SLIP link.  Have you
> tried other X clients with DISPLAY set to this?  I've also heard some
> negative things about SLIP, usually in the context of "PPP is better" but I
> don't have any personal experience with either.

Sorry about the delay in responding...

Other X clients work just fine. PPP would be better, but SLIP is the only
option we have for dial-in access right now (and our cisco boxes do not even
support compressed headers.) I have also managed to play around with it on
Macs here on campus connected via ethernet and running A/UX 3.0, same
problem. (Though I can hear the disk hit when the connection attempt is
made.) 

Our campus Mac Networking support just got MacTCP 1.1.1 yesterday, I will
try to see if that fixes the problem.

>> The TEKSERVER window comes up okay, and the messages say that it is
>> correctly starting up XAS. However, XAS does not make it for some reason.
>> There are no error messages, it does not show up on the screen or in the
>> process list. 
>
> I'd suggest putting a temporary "set -x" at the top of XASERVERS so you can
> see what's going on.  Or you could try starting XAS by hand; all it needs is
> to have TVDEV set to "TVDEVxx" where xx is the TV number in hex (TV number
> is determined by order of appearance in the string "$TVHOSTS $XTERMS"), and
> TVDEVxx set to something like SSSIN:reber, and of course DISPLAY set
> correctly.  Either way you should get more definitive diagnostics or error
> messages.

Everything looks okay and XAS gets started alright (judging from the
following line) :

+ ./XAS -G 640x800-5+0 -Ig -10+10

I also tried it from our AIX box (so that I was trying form X11R4 instead of
X11R5) and still the same problem.

I seem to recall some utility to watch the X events, but I have not found it
yet. If I get more information I will let you know.

-Robert Lentz
r-lentz@nwu.edu
From: ap1i+@andrew.cmu.edu (Andrew C. Plotkin)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: That FREE ENERGY thing (NASA)
Date: 11 Oct 92 17:16:20 GMT
	<Bvyt25.Au0@acsu.buffalo.edu>
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Excerpts from netnews.alt.sci.physics.new-theories: 11-Oct-92 Re: That
FREE ENERGY thing .. THE IS O. ILLUSION@ubvms (816)

> 	I see why it's not free energy, but why would the dragging wire
> slow down the space station?  There would be no air resistance and
> nominal 'space debris'.  So what would cause it to slow down prop. to
> the energy created?

The wire is effectively half of the armature of a generator spinning
through the Earth's magnetic field. It slows down for the same reason
that the crank of a generator slows down; the current flowing through
the magnetic field induces a sideways force. See any introductory
electromagnetics textbook.

(The other half of the armature, BTW, is the trace of atmosphere up
there; it's very thin, but ionized. So it's conductive enough for
electrons to trickle back from the end of the wire to the space station
(or the other way, I forget.))

And since it hasn't yet been pointed out in this thread: the cool trick
is to run this backwards. Put out big solar panels (in orbit, solar
energy really is "FREE ENERGY", at least as far as humans are
concerned). Push current through the wire, thus making a motor rather
than a generator. This speeds your space station up, enabling you to
stay in orbit forever, despite trace-atmospheric friction. You can even
manuever a little.

--Z

"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
From: se_schn@pavo.concordia.ca (SCHNAAR, SHELDON E.)
Subject: Re: That FREE ENERGY thing (NASA)
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Concordia University
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 19:37:00 GMT

In article <Bvpq4E.JEE@acsu.buffalo.edu>, v128nkej@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN PAST,PRESENT AND FUTURE IS ONLY ILLUSION,HOWEVER PERSISTENT...) writes...
> 
> 
> 
> 
>	We know that it will generate electricity, just ask any high school
>physics teacher about passing a wire through a magnetic field, the question
>was: Would it be practical?
>	Does this fit into FREE ENERGY???

	Actually, this COULD be practical,but far from being free energy.  YOu
say we all know about generating electricity by passing a wire.  Well, where
do you think the energy is comming from?  The energy of momentum.  Ergo, if one
were to generate electricity by dragging a wire from a space station into the 
Earth's magnetic field, the station would start slowing down, directly 
proportional to the electricity being generated.
From: vxs8351@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: FREE-ENERGY Technology
Date: 16 Oct 92 20:43:48 GMT
Reply-To: vxs8351@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology

Why don't you send a copy of this to Scientific American? They just might 
publish it...yeah! Right! Spare us from this nonsense, & post your trash 
elsewhere. As a student I don't have time to bother even skipping past this
sort of thing. Thank you in advance.

Vasilios Salamandrakis, Imaging Science Student<vxs8351@ultb.isc.rit.edu>
From: v128nkej@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN PAST,PRESENT AND FUTURE IS ONLY ILLUSION,HOWEVER PERSISTENT...)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: That FREE ENERGY thing (NASA)
Date: 11 Oct 92 16:13:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <9OCT199214375714@pavo.concordia.ca>, se_schn@pavo.concordia.ca (SCHNAAR, SHELDON E.) writes...
>>	Does this fit into FREE ENERGY???
> 
>	Actually, this COULD be practical,but far from being free energy.  YOu
>say we all know about generating electricity by passing a wire.  Well, where
>do you think the energy is comming from?  The energy of momentum.  Ergo, if one
>were to generate electricity by dragging a wire from a space station into the 
>Earth's magnetic field, the station would start slowing down, directly 
>proportional to the electricity being generated.  


	I see why it's not free energy, but why would the dragging wire
slow down the space station?  There would be no air resistance and
nominal 'space debris'.  So what would cause it to slow down prop. to
the energy created?

			Jim
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Mcirvin)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: UN-WISE QUOTES
Date: 9 Oct 92 22:37:34 GMT
Distribution: usa

battin@venus.iucf.indiana.edu (L GENE BATTIN) writes:

>Wasn't there some recent stuff about some murdered gun designer who dreamed
>of building a gun that could orbit stuff, and didn't he once work for the
>U.S. (military? or government?) building bug guns along lines aimed at
>leading up to this?

Gerald Bull.  His last work on the subject was funded by Saddam Hussein,
who wanted a gun capable of shelling from great distances.  Bull was
murdered under mysterious circumstances in 1989 or 1990. 

There was an article in the New York Times about a week ago concerning
the work on Bull's ideas now being done in the US.  The basic idea is
that you use two huge guns with crossed barrels; the first gun contains
(if I remember correctly) a piston which is propelled by a primary
explosion, compressing and heating hydrogen gas which fills the second
barrel, containing the projectile.  I think the hydrogen is supposed
to combust at that point, and it actually propels the projectile out
of the gun.  The lightness of the hydrogen is supposed to confer
some kind of advantage.

Now that I think about it, I don't remember whether or not there
was supposed to be a piston in the first barrel.

A nuclear explosion isn't necessary.  The acceleration is far too
enormous to carry passengers Jules Verne-style, but this might be
a means of launching cargo into space.
 
-- 
Matt McIrvin, posting nonsense again 
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories