HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: joel@upchrch.UUCP (Joel Upchurch  )
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Sci-Fantasy Weapons (Was: Re: Weapons systems?)
Keywords: infeasible space weapons kill KILL
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 02:44:49 EST
Organization: Upchurch Computer Consulting, Orlando FL

joel@upchrch.UUCP (Joel Upchurch  ) writes:

> max@west.darkside.com (Erik Max Francis) writes:
> 
> > Yeah, that was an interesting one.  Unfortunately, he got tidal physics a 
> > little wrong . . . if the neutronium ball had the same mass as the Moon, 
> > for instance, you wouldn't notice any difference between tides from a 
> > neutronium sphere or the Moon.  It's the gravitational mass, not the 
> > density . . .
> 
> You didn't read the story closely. The ball was orbiting 1200 miles up
> or about 200 times closer than moon is to the earth. If I recall
> correctly tides are an inverse fourth power relationship of distance.
> That means that the tides would be 1.6 billion times stronger. The
> ball had 2 times ten to the minus six times the mass of the planet, while
> the moon is 1/81 the mass of the earth. That would make it about 6000
> times the mass of the ball. That would make the tides about 250,000
> times stronger than the moon's. Actually that sounds pretty high I
> wonder if Niven made a mistake and used an inverse square relationship.
> That would still be 6 times as strong as the lunar tide.


Sorry I screwed this up. The tides vary as the inverse cube, not the
fourth power. So the tides would only be about 1300 times as powerful
as the tide from our moon. Still one heck of a tide. It is hard to
imagine an earthlike biosphere with such a tide.

(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
From: earl@cco.caltech.edu (Earl A. Hubbell)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Non-nuclear explosive
Date: 24 Nov 1992 05:26:34 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: alumni.caltech.edu
Keywords: antimatter buckyballs

pksuk@mothra.syr.EDU (Peter K. Suk) writes:

>typical net.excercise #2:                                              :)

>Take a primordial black hole.  Place it in the middle of a magnetic field
>such that any particles it emits are steered back into it.  Now, when the
>hole starts to evaporate, it will get back the same amount of mass.  To
>detonate: just turn off the field.  

Flaws:  Assuming the black hole has sufficiently high evaporation
temperature that it losing enough mass to make a significant explosion,
the velocity of the particles is large enough that the energy stored
in the magnetic field is comparable to the explosion.  In addition,
any charged particles redirected by the field will radiate away energy
in the form of photons (which won't be stopped by the field).
	There are better ways of getting a bang from black holes:
superradiant scattering, assorted methods of gaining energy from
mass falling into one, and for a really >big< bang, collide two
black holes (some simulations indicate as much as 70% of the mass
may be radiated as energy).

>	--Peter Kwangjun Suk
-- 
'You can tell I'm educated/I studied at the Sorbonne *earl@tybalt.caltech.edu
Doctorate in Mathematics/I could have been a Don     *Earl Hubbell
I can program computers/Choose the perfect Time      *Opinions solely mine.
If you've got the inclination/I've got the Crime" -Opportunities, Pet Shop Boys
From: max@west.darkside.com (Erik Max Francis)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Sci-Fantasy Weapons (Was: Re: Weapons systems?)
Keywords: infeasible space weapons kill KILL
Date: 21 Nov 92 04:27:13 GMT
Organization: The Dark Side of the Moon +1 408 245 SPAM

joel@upchrch.UUCP (Joel Upchurch  ) writes:

> You didn't read the story closely. The ball was orbiting 1200 miles up
> or about 200 times closer than moon is to the earth. If I recall
> correctly tides are an inverse fourth power relationship of distance.
> That means that the tides would be 1.6 billion times stronger. The

You're absolutely right.  When I originally read the story (I was fairly 
young), I had just assumed that the ball was in roughly the same orbit as 
our Moon; it didn't occur to me at first that the orbit could have been 
much lower and thus faster.  Therefore tides happen quicker because the 
ball is orbiting around faster.

Actually, that would make for some interesting geology . . . wouldn't 
that cause huge amounts of tidal stress in the planet, making earthquakes 
and vulcanism common (constant stretching and relaxing of the planet's 
crust).

----------
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   |
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: rdosser@UTKUX1.UTK.EDU (rdosser)
Subject: Re: Sci-Fantasy Weapons (Was: Re: Weapons systems?)
Keywords: infeasible space weapons kill KILL
Organization: University of Tennessee Computing Center
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 00:28:45 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.101945.24701@crc.ac.uk> gwilliam@crc.ac.uk (Gary Williams x3294) writes:
>
>Then, of course, there is the whole subject of accidents of history and
>sneaky tricks that can be played to sucker the enemy into destroying
>themselves - so much more satisfying!
>
>
   <stuff deleted>

>See also The Cool War. War of the Worlds etc. etc.
>-- 
>GARY WILLIAMS,  Computing Services Section,  Janet:       G.Williams@UK.AC.CRC
>MRC-CRC & Human Genome Mapping Centre,       Internet:    G.Williams@CRC.AC.UK
>Watford Rd, HARROW, Middx, HA1 3UJ, UK
>Tel 081-869 3294   Fax 081-423 1275   

Like the Niven story "There is a Tide" in which an advanced race may
have put a 10-foot sphere of neutronium in orbit around their home planet.
Anybody spotting it on deep radar investigates to see if it's a stasis
box, and once they get close....hoover!
From: joel@upchrch.UUCP (Joel Upchurch  )
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Sci-Fantasy Weapons (Was: Re: Weapons systems?)
Keywords: infeasible space weapons kill KILL
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 92 14:30:45 EST
Organization: Upchurch Computer Consulting, Orlando FL

max@west.darkside.com (Erik Max Francis) writes:

> joel@upchrch.UUCP (Joel Upchurch  ) writes:
> 
> > Sorry I screwed this up. The tides vary as the inverse cube, not the
> > fourth power. So the tides would only be about 1300 times as powerful
> > as the tide from our moon. Still one heck of a tide. It is hard to
> > imagine an earthlike biosphere with such a tide.
> 
> No problem; sorry _I_ screwed up the orbit of the ball in the first 
> place.
> 
> Out of curiosity, do you have a derivation of this inverse cube 
> relationship?  And just what do you mean by the "tides" -- do you mean 
> the height of water achieved, the stress, the strain, er what?

Actually none of my reference books mention that it's is a inverse
cube relationship, I just remembered that it wasn't an inverse
square relationship. My CD-ROM encyclopedia mentioned that the
solar tide is about 4/11ths as strong as the lunar tide. Plugging
in the values for the mass of the moon and the sun and their
distances confirmed an inverse cube relationship. I screwed up the
calculation when I did it the first time.

One interesting thing I noticed was that the solar tide on Venus would
be nearly as strong as the lunar tide on earth. It seems to me that
planet circling closer to smaller cooler star would have solar tides
just as strong as our lunar tides or stronger.

It is not clear to me how the effects of a tide from a massive
object close to earth would manifest themselves. I doubt that they
would look like the tides we are used since the effects would fall
off so rapidly with distance. Most of the tidal effects would be felt
directly under orbit of the object.

If the object is close enough it should be able exercise significant
effects without be incredibly massive or dense. It looks to me like
a nickel-iron asteroid orbiting 500 miles up would exert as much
influence under it's path as the moon. Put that sucker in a polar
orbit and I wouldn't want to be the guy in charge of maintaining
the local tide tables.

(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
From: sa121@cl.cam.ac.uk (S. Arrowsmith)
Subject: Re: Whimsical 'flat Earth' comments
Reply-To: SA121@phx.cam.ac.uk (S. Arrowsmith)
Organization: Glad to be Sad
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 19:26:09 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.142157@gracie.IntelliCorp.COM> treitel@gracie.IntelliCorp.COM (Richard Treitel) writes:
>In article <1992Nov17.200401.23463@ncsu.edu>, tsjenki@eos.ncsu.edu (TIMOTHY SCOTT JENKINS) writes:
>|> I was thinking that while a disk shaped plannet is not likely to 
>|> exist in the real world, what about a planet that is only roughly spherical?
>
>Y'guys can check out "Mission of Gravity" by Hal Clement.  Try to find the
>edition that includes the article where he explains how he got the idea.
>
You could also try Brian Herbert's "Sudanna Sudanna" which takes place
on a peanut-shaped planet.  OK, so it's not scientifically serious, but
it's a good read (dark humour) and the tidal physics look about right....

--
\S
SA121@phx.cam.ac.uk  | There's nowt |"And in this moment, I need to be needed
(and elsewhere)  ___ | so queer as  |"When my self-esteem is sinking,
                 \X/ | folk....     |"I like to be liked" -- Peter Gabriel
From: max@west.darkside.com (Erik Max Francis)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Neutronium balls
Date: 22 Nov 92 04:28:11 GMT
Organization: The Dark Side of the Moon +1 408 245 SPAM

Apologies to all about my misinterpretation of what Niven was saying.  As 
I said before, that's what I get for reading it when I was young and 
getting the wrong impression.

Can a sphere of neutronium exist of less than stellar mass?  I was under 
the impession that it could; after the neutronium forms, it's fairly 
stable.  At least, that's what I assumed . . . neutrons don't usually 
stick together by themselves (they decay too fast), but I assumed that 
once they did it would be about as stable as an atom.

What's the scoop?

----------
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   |
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: chrstie@ccu.umanitoba.ca (William John M. Christie)
Subject: Re: Weapons systems?
Keywords: space combat weapons
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 04:50:20 GMT

In <15NOV199220465973@rigel.tamu.edu> cfc6418@rigel.tamu.edu (chuck) writes:

[previous defences deleted]

>	So an intellegent defence would be a ring of Nuc Magnetic/guided 
>mines with "steath" options (in recorded orbits of cource).
>Any ship in orbit is intersepted in ohhh say 5-7 mins.  So the HQ on board
>says "This'll be a.... 'click' What the hell was...." *BOOMMM*

Ummmmm, just a wee problem with that which of course if I've misunderstood
the premise isn't a problem then and you can ignore this post.

BUT, didn't the U.S. military do a nuke test in the upper atmosphere/earth
orbit (30 to 50 km's?) which depleted a whole bunch of ozone?  I thought
this happened in the 60's and was one of the reasons that there are no
more nuclear space tests.  I'm sure that this nuke mine would be very
effective on the enemy station, but it would also have some positive
feedback in a real bad sense on earth (what was it, 'anyone without
a million sunblock is going to have a really bad day'? :-) ).

BUT, what do I know?

Will Christie
-- 
==========================================================================
  Any opinions expressed above are usually made with some thought which   
  is my own and is not intended to represent the University in any way.
==========================================================================
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: gwilliam@crc.ac.uk (Gary Williams x3294)
Subject: Re: Sci-Fantasy Weapons (Was: Re: Weapons systems?)
Keywords: infeasible space weapons kill KILL
Organization: MRC Human Genome Resource Centre
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 10:19:45 GMT


Then, of course, there is the whole subject of accidents of history and
sneaky tricks that can be played to sucker the enemy into destroying
themselves - so much more satisfying!

I'm thinking of things like (can't remember the author Clarke, Asimov?)
(can't remember many details) the short story where side number one
withdraws from a ancient half-built time-machine which side two gets
going only to discover too late that nature always rearranges history so
that the time-machine never gets to work (side two knew this but didn't
reckon on nature stopping the time-machine from being built by causing
their own sun to go nova). 

And of course the Foundation Trilogy was full of sociohistorical stuff
in which carefully arranged historical forces broke the enemy's will to
resist. 

See also The Cool War. War of the Worlds etc. etc.
-- 
GARY WILLIAMS,  Computing Services Section,  Janet:       G.Williams@UK.AC.CRC
MRC-CRC & Human Genome Mapping Centre,       Internet:    G.Williams@CRC.AC.UK
Watford Rd, HARROW, Middx, HA1 3UJ, UK
Tel 081-869 3294   Fax 081-423 1275   
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: pksuk@mothra.syr.EDU (Peter K. Suk)
Subject: Re: Space Warfare Pointless? 
Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.science
Summary: Just a re-iteration.
Keywords: space combat prisoner's dilemma
Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 92 04:46:09 EST

In article <84106@ut-emx.uucp> wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu 
(Patrick Chester) writes:

>In article <1992Nov14.124756.23296@newstand.syr.edu> 
>pksuk@mothra.syr.EDU (Peter K. Suk) writes:
>]----- treitel@gracie.IntelliCorp.COM (Richard Treitel) writes:
>]
>][Stuff about mining space being a waste of funds]
>]
>]>But *combat* is a vast waste of funds {:-)
>]
>]How about this: Space Warfare is Pointless.  (Except in newsgroups, which
>]	are, of course extremely relevant.)
>
>Are you saying we are just wasting time here? :)

_I_ didn't say *anything!*  :)

>]If we discount the possibility of meeting hostile enemy races:
>
>Not easy to discount. We don't have enough hard evidence to do so.
>

See my other long manifesto-ish post on this issue.

>]	o The resources of space are vast enough that this will never 
>]		be a point of contention.  
>
><chuckle> I doubt that...

See my other manifesto-ish post.  Actually, any species capable of expanding
its population exponentially (given enough resources) can outstrip its
resource base in any n-dimensional universe, where n is any positive integer.
If the race is smart enough, it won't.  See my other post.

>You may discount that as just piracy but I disagree. Piracy has been used 
>before in the past as a way for one nation to increase it's wealth at the
>expense of another. 
[deleted]
>This action can make the victimized nation (or corporation, or other org.)
>very unhappy w/the nation supporting piracy against them. This can lead to
>war. I'm oversimplifying but I hope you get the gist of what I'm saying. 

Again, see my other post.

>]	o The time it would take to reach an enemy with a weapon 
>]		will make it obsolete when it reaches its goal.
>]		(Pournelle?)
>
>How so?

Say your enemy is 30 light-years away.  If you send a fleet there at the
speed of light, they'll arrive having hardly aged, ready and eager to fight,
with 30-year old technology.  The only way to prevent this is to take your
civilization along with you and develop technology as you go.  Maybe even
co-exist for awhile, then stab them in the back.

>]	o Any technology which is advanced enough for interstellar
>]		travel invariably leads to the doctrine of
>]		Mutually Assured Destruction of Ecosystems.  
>
>Hmmm?

See your .sig 

>|---------------------------------------------------
>|"The earth is too fragile a basket in which to keep
>|  all your eggs." Robert A. Heinlein
>|"The meek shall inherit the Earth. The rest of us
>|  are going to the stars." Anonymous
>|----------------------------------------------------

>(Of the Sun Tzu mentality) 

Sun Tzu was a pacifist at heart, living in troubled times.  Read the last
chapter again.  

	--Peter Kwangjun Suk


Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: pksuk@mothra.syr.EDU (Peter K. Suk)
Subject: Re: Weapons systems?
Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 15:35:41 EST

In article <MARTINC.92Nov17151236@hatteras.cs.unc.edu> martinc@hatteras.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin) writes:
>Be careful about leaving this superconductor-storage gimmick lying about
>near nickel-iron asteroids.
>
>Not to mention detecting it from the cloud of iron filings surrounding it.

I think that you could avoid this by surrounding the thing with more super-
conductor.  Am I mistaken, or are magnetic field lines incapable of going
through one?  (Or is it a plasma?)

	--Peter Kwangjun Suk

[P.S.  Does anyone have any better power-storage schemes?
Would like to hear about them.]
From: warwick@cs.uq.oz.au (Warwick Allison)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Whimsical 'flat Earth' comments
Date: 19 Nov 92 23:34:52 GMT
Reply-To: warwick@cs.uq.oz.au

djb6@ellis.uchicago.edu (Dennis Brennan) writes:

>From time to time in speculative/escapist fiction of dubious
>hard-science merit authors create "flat" planets.  

>-Gravity:  Either the "world" is of infinite thickness or it is not.
>If it is infinitely thick, then wouldn't the gravity vectors resemble
>a hemisphere of infinite radius?  Ouch.  What about for a massive
>plane of finite thickness?

It's a while since I did all the maths for this sort of thing, but
intuitively [oh dear...]:

If we model our Flat Earth as a huge rectangular prism, surely there wont
BE any flat parts.  For example, a cube is just a sphere with 8 VERY large
mountains on it.  Similarly, if you attempted to "stand" on a the square
side of a huge, tile-shaped planet, you'd simply fall towards the middle of
the square.


The only FLAT earth is a sphere.

--
Warwick
--
  _-_|\      warwick@cs.uq.oz.au            /Disclaimer:
 /     * <-- Computer Science Department,  /  
 \_.-._/     University of Queensland,    /   C references are NULL && void*
      v      Brisbane, Australia.        /  
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re:  Sci-Fantasy Weapons (Was: Re: Weapons systems?)
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 17:07:47 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <alien.0187@acheron.amigans.gen.nz> alien@acheron.amigans.gen.nz (Ross Smith) writes:
>In article <1992Nov16.101945.24701@crc.ac.uk> gwilliam@crc.ac.uk (Gary Williams x3294) writes:
>>
>>Then, of course, there is the whole subject of accidents of history and
>>sneaky tricks that can be played to sucker the enemy into destroying
>>themselves - so much more satisfying!

 [lots of neat stories deleted]

>...... Ross Smith (Wanganui, NZ) ...... alien@acheron.amigans.gen.nz ......

 This isn't *quite* on the topic, but I remember a story (just the plot,
no author or title, alas) which is told as a report of a general to his
commanders as to why they lost a recent war. He concludes that it was
because of his own force's superior technology. Like the spaceship
defence that would warp space around the ships so that missiles would
take an infinite time to get to the ship. Of course, it also stressed
their radios out of alignment, so that when they came out of the effect
they couldn't communicate and were slaughtered... and other nifty things
like that.

Sincerely,

Ray Ingles                  || The above opinions are probably
                            || not those of the University of
ingles@engin.umich.edu      || Michigan. Yet.
From: max@west.darkside.com (Erik Max Francis)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Sci-Fantasy Weapons (Was: Re: Weapons systems?)
Keywords: infeasible space weapons kill KILL
Date: 21 Nov 92 04:30:37 GMT
Organization: The Dark Side of the Moon +1 408 245 SPAM

joel@upchrch.UUCP (Joel Upchurch  ) writes:

> Sorry I screwed this up. The tides vary as the inverse cube, not the
> fourth power. So the tides would only be about 1300 times as powerful
> as the tide from our moon. Still one heck of a tide. It is hard to
> imagine an earthlike biosphere with such a tide.

No problem; sorry _I_ screwed up the orbit of the ball in the first 
place.

Out of curiosity, do you have a derivation of this inverse cube 
relationship?  And just what do you mean by the "tides" -- do you mean 
the height of water achieved, the stress, the strain, er what?

----------
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   |
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: Sci-Fantasy Weapons (Was: Re: Weapons systems?)
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 92 16:33:33 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <Ef3adOu00gpIIQREkc@andrew.cmu.edu> "Andrew C. Plotkin" <ap1i+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>Excerpts from netnews.rec.arts.sf.science: 20-Nov-92 Re: Sci-Fantasy
>Weapons (Wa.. Captain Neutrino@zeus.ca (1372)

[ten foot balls of neutronium become flaming death real fast]

>changed the appearance or behavior at all.
>[not if it's enclosed in a statsis field]
>Hm, then you have to make a chunk of neutronium, build a stasis
>generator that you can drop onto it and still have function... tough.
>Probably the generator is being crushed flat, very slowly, inside its
>own field. At some point (a few million years? Tomorrow?) the field
>dies, and the sphere explodes violently enough to leave a scar on the
>planet...
>
>There's probably a story in there somewhere. Heh.
>--Z

 Didn't the Brennan-monster use this trick (neutronium in statsis)? It
would a be a little simpler since he (it) seemed to have something along
the lines of artificial gravity, or at least a 'gravity lens.'

 The 'time-bomb' effect is a neat idea, though...
 Sincerely,

 Ray Ingles
 ingles@engin.umich.edu

 "The meek can *have* the Earth. The rest of us are going to the
stars!" - Robert A. Heinlein
From: martinc@hatteras.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Weapons systems?
Date: 17 Nov 92 20:12:36 GMT
	<BxsLFw.6zG@ccu.umanitoba.ca> <1992Nov16.050140.3670@newstand.syr.edu>
Organization: UNC Department of Computer Science
In-reply-to: pksuk@mothra.syr.EDU's message of 16 Nov 92 10:01:39 GMT

Be careful about leaving this superconductor-storage gimmick lying about
near nickel-iron asteroids.

Not to mention detecting it from the cloud of iron filings surrounding it.
--
		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