HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: baylor@NEBULA.SSD.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Fusion Output
Date: 26 Jan 93 21:56:19 GMT
Article-I.D.: iscnvx.1993Jan26.215619.22290
Reply-To: baylor@NEBULA.SSD.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Distribution: usa
Organization: LMSC, Sunnyvale, California

In article <81795@hydra.gatech.EDU>, gt1759c@prism.gatech.EDU (Don Morris) writes:
>
>Unless you're talking on a COSMIC level, here.... As far as Man-made fusion 
>power plants, bombs, whatever - nothing higher than oxygen would EVER be made
>in any circumstances. Period. Nada. No plutonium, no uranium, no lead, no
>IRON for crissakes. Helium, yes. Deuterium, yes. Tritium, yes. Probably some
>lithium. Anything higher than that and you're talking ridiculously _low_ 
>probabilities. (After all, anything's possible in Quantum Mechanics.)

Theoretically, couldn't you get as far as iron? I seem to remember
(I'm a chemist, be kind!) from some college class or another that
fusing smaller atoms into iron would produce more energy than
it would have to consume, and that this is the heaviest element
produced in stars BEFORE a supernova. (After a supernova, there
is so much energy around, heavier elements can form). I don't 
imagine an iron-fusion reactor would be practical, but as long
as it liberates more energy than it consumes, it would be
possible.
From: sdr57@cas.org
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Invading planets
Date: 26 Jan 93 15:23:39 GMT
Article-I.D.: cas.1993Jan26.152339.4364
Organization: Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, Ohio

In article <RqFwXB18w165w@west.darkside.com> max@west.darkside.com (Erik Max Francis) writes:
>bp652@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Gil W. Lau) writes:
>
>> All right, all right!  I'm a Star Trek fan!  So sue me!  But if you
>> can stun a city block, you can stun a planet.  Maybe not all at
>> once, granted, but it's possible.
>
>It's possible, but how useful is it?  In Star Trek, you only stay
>unconscious or stunned for a few hours.  That's not an awful lot of time
>to get a lot done on a planetary scale.
>
>Besides . . . it's probably not a wise thing to bring up Star Trek in any
>technological discussion of the realities of space.
>
>
>Erik Max Francis  -)(-  ..!apple!uuwest!max  -)(-  max@west.darkside.com   __
>USMail: 1070 Oakmont Dr. #1; San Jose, CA  95117  ICBM: 37 20 N 121 53 W  /  \
>Like strategic games of interstellar conquest? . . . Ask about UNIVERSE!  \__/
>-)(- Omnia quia sunt, lumina sunt; all things that are, are lights. -)(-

Does it have to be stun beams? I seem to recall a story from long
ago (The Sleeping Planet?) in which an alien invasion was preceded
by the dispersal of a plant-based toxin which put the population
asleep for an extended period. The dispersal was carried out with
the cover of nuisance raids - the Terran Federation (or whatever)
was at war with the aliens - and the sleeping population was held
as hostages in an attempt to force a peace. I find the idea of a
biological-derived neuroactive agent quite acceptable - the open press
has suggested that the Blue X agent used in Afghanistan was a product
of the Soviet research in mycotoxins, for instance, and its reported
effects were similar to thos of a stun beam. If you could set up a hidden
base in the target planet's system, you could even grow your agent
in place, eliminating the need to ship too much.

(BTW, for those who worry - the humans emerged victorious as a result
of some individuals who were immune as a result of prior exposure to
the planet - they worked with robots to convince the aliens that the
planet was haunted - it was a better book than it sounds like.)
******************************************************************************
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 Roberts
From: wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Nobody of Importance)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Invading planets
Date: 23 Jan 1993 22:29:20 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: huey.cc.utexas.edu

In article <1jqijdINN8c7@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bp652@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Gil W. Lau) writes:
]
]Okay, okay, all this talk about how to destroy a planet is interesting,
]but what if you wanted to take it over?  After all, a planet has lots
]to offer besides the metal you'd be extracting from its bits and pieces
]if you decided to bust it up.  Now the question is how to take over
]an inhabited planet.

I presume you mean a high population world with 100 million+ people? 
A world with a tiny colony would be very easy to take.
 
]If you take the analogy of invading a planet to invading a hostile nation,
]I'd suppose you'd strike military targets from space, then when they're
]weak, send down an invading force.

I'd make sure the local navy was blown out of space or otherwise unable to
interfere with landing ops. THEN I'd send strike teams down.

]But now think of the *SCALE* of
]such an operation!  We're talking millions upon millions of troops
]here!  Or if you had Star Trek technology I suppose you could
]stun everyone from orbit using your phasers.

Millions of troops or a lot of mecha. ;) 

Stunning one city block is a bit different than a whole planet. If we 
want to use Star Trek tech as an example here.
 
]So...how's this going to work in the future?

About as nasty as present day warfare.... if not more.
 
]  -- Gil
]

Subject: Patrick Chester            |Words to live by:
Age: NOYB                           |"Military action is important to the     
Address: A place                    |nation--it is the ground of death and     
Email:wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu    |life, the path of survival and destruction
Political Views: Somewhere in orbit |so it is important to examine it."-Sun Tzu
Blackmarks: Politically Incorrect   |Famous Last Words:                        
(hobbies)   Anime Otaku/Trekker     |--If you cut me down, I will only become
            Technocentric           |more powerful...  
            Netrekker (claypigeon)  |--Shhh!! There it is again....           
            Whole bunch of -isms    |--Use the bazooka to open the door...
     Won't remove Sun Tzu quote to  |--I cut the red wire...
     make the Greens happy ;)       |--I have a *very* bad feeling about this
-- 
<***** INSERT LAWSUIT DEFLECTION TEXT*****> 

I speak (type actually) for myself only. Even if I did decide to 
speak for UT, no one would listen. 

Flame away, I don't bleedin' care...
From: earl@cco.caltech.edu (Earl A. Hubbell)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Invading planets
Date: 25 Jan 1993 07:31:06 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: alumni.caltech.edu

dpn2@po.CWRU.Edu (Damien P. Neil) writes:

>In article <1993Jan24.190517.13137@uumeme.chi.il.us> drac@uumeme.chi.il.us (Bruce Maynard) writes:
>>Seems to me that, in order to accomplish a successful planetary takeover,

>This reminds me of a short story -- _Basic Right_, I think was the name. I 
>don't remember the author. In it was an alien race that subjugates other 
>races by coming in system and offering a "surrender or die" ultimatum. They 
>use a planet-smasher on a nearby worthless moon to prove that they have 
>the means to genocide the race they are invading. If the invaded species 
>does not immediately and unconditionally surrender, they are destroyed. The 
>deaths of any invaders are punished by killing several hundred subjects for 
>each dead invader.

>A direct and brutal method. I wonder if it would work?

_Basic Right_ was (I think) by Eric Frank Russell.  Note that the important
point of the story was that these invaders >LOST<, despite their big
technological advantage...

One of the other posters on this thread brought up the point of multiple
governments on the planet being invaded as making it more difficult to
conquer - no one with the authority to surrender.  It seems more likely
that the invader could exploit this by setting up one of the gov'ts as
the new elite, backed by the invaders forces added to their own.  Gives
you a beachhead for your invasion, makes at least one group on the
planet 'happy'...

>An excellent story, BTW.

Agreed.

>Damien Neil   dpn2@po.cwru.edu    "Until somebody debugs reality, the best
-- 
"Have you never wanted to look beyond the clouds and *earl@alumni.caltech.edu
the stars?  Or to know what causes the trees to bud, *Earl Hubbell
or what changes a darkness into light?  But if you   *Opinions solely mine.
talk like that, people call you crazy." --Frankenstein
From: lizi@soda.berkeley.edu (Cosma Shalizi)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Industrial feudalism?
Date: 26 Jan 1993 07:00:19 GMT
Organization: Campus Crusade for Cthulhu (Berkeley Tentacle)
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu

In article <1993Jan25.071010.22650@Princeton.EDU> jdunning@chagall.Princeton.EDU (John Alan Dunning) writes:
>For comparison, how did previous empires, such as the British or
>Roman, deal with the communication lag?  How were the Roman senators
>elected/appointed/born into their positions?  How accountable were
>they to the people they represented?
    Roman Senators were (basically) born into their positions, though when the
patrician families started dying off you could get promoted into the Senate
if the Censor (later the Emperor) like you. They were not accountable at all,
since they didn't represent anyone. The governors of Roman provinces were
appointed by the Senate for short terms - I think one year - which were mostly
used to extract as much from the province as possible, short of causing
outright rebellion. These funds were often used to finance bids to become one
of the elected magistrates, like the Consuls. (The Roman system of popular
elections did not suffer from excessive honesty or simplicity. Colleen
McCullough's surprisingly readable _The Grass Crown_ explains it fairly
lucidly.) There really wasn't much enforcable accountability until the
coming of the Imperators. Then everyone was accountable to him, and he was
accountable to the legions.
	Does anyone know of any sf with an interstellar empire on the Chinese
(i.e. bureaucratic) model? (_Chung Kuo_ doesn't count, since it's Earth-bound.)
I can't think of any, which seems surprising, since the Chinese faced all the
problems of distance and communications which European empires and feudalities
did, and seem to have solved them much better.
	Cosma Rohilla Shalizi
	In Real Life: lizi@soda.berkeley.edu
	somewhere in Vol. 4 of _Science and Civilisation in China_
-- 
"I'd love to hold you/ I'd love to kiss you/ I ain't got time for that now."
-Talking Heads, "Life During Wartime"
"Death needs Time for what it kills to grow in."
-William S. Burroughs, "Ah Pook is Here"
From: ig25@fg70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (Thomas Koenig)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Invading planets
Date: 23 Jan 93 21:11:26 GMT
Organization: University of Karlsruhe, Germany
NNTP-Posting-Host: fg70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de

mgcbo@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Charles B. Owen) writes:

>I think we should think in terms of scale.  A war between two planets
>may seem like a huge undertaking too impracticle to consider.  And, yes
>it would require many millions of ground troops.  However, it is not, in
>any way, different from a war between two countrys.  It is _just_ a
>matter of scale.  It would not require any special hardware that we do
>not have now, other than a intersteller and orbital travel mechanism.

Modern warfare requires a prodigal amount of resupply per man and day.
Equipment wears out, ammumition is fired off, vehicles break down and
need to be repaired, soldiers need food, etc.  Any campaign that cannot
be won with what the invading forces have brought with them on dropping
down is likely to be outsupplied by their ground-based enemies.

To take a recent example, the allied forces could not have done anything
in Iraq without the six-month period of stocking up material.
[...]
>Remember, though, that to drop that asteroid so that it can destroy a
>city, it must have enough kinetic energy to destroy a city and that
>energy has to come from somewhere.
[...]
>The energy required to do so will be
>simular to that expended by the rock reentry.  So, you are not
>accomplishing much.

The energy released will be concentrated in both time and space.  This
is, in principle, not much different from using oil or coal to make
TNT...
-- 
Thomas Koenig, ig25@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de, ig25@dkauni2.bitnet
The joy of engineering is to find a straight line on a double logarithmic
diagram.
From: martinc@grover.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Invading planets
Date: 24 Jan 93 15:29:29 GMT
	<1993Jan24.052930.21921@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>
Organization: UNC Department of Computer Science
NNTP-Posting-Host: grover.cs.unc.edu
In-reply-to: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu's message of Sun, 24 Jan 1993 05:29:30 GMT

In article <1993Jan24.052930.21921@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:

   In article <MARTINC.93Jan23122100@grover.cs.unc.edu> martinc@grover.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin) writes:
   >Sun Tzu said something to the effect of the ultimate in conquest is when
   >the conquered gives in to the conqueror without a battle.  Finding a way
   >to bring a population to it knees on a planetwide basis sounds like a
   >*big* job -- but what if you can convince them it is too risky to fight
   >at all.
   >Maybe we should have tried that on the Godless Evil Red Martians.

   We did.  It worked, too.

Gee, I must not have been watching CNN that day.
--
		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: higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Neutrino Communication (was Re: Anybody? Anybody? Class?)
Date: 26 Jan 93 13:49:03 -0600
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
NNTP-Posting-Host: fnalf.fnal.gov

In article <1k1sg9INNj6n@shelley.u.washington.edu>, dayne@byron.u.washington.edu (Dayne Miller) writes:
> Can anyone help with the following questions?

[long list of "could the Monster from the Id break down a door made of
Ringworld floor material?"-type questions deleted]

You've really been saving them up, haven't you, Dayne?

> 3) Years ago I heard about some U.S. Navy/DARPA feasability study concerning
> the possibility of using neutrinos to provide communication with submarines.
> Whatever became of that?

It's really impractical, but not *quite* as impractical as other
posters seemed to think.  Neutrinos are hard to stop, but above an
energy of 1 GeV they get easier to stop linearly as the energy goes
up.  Also, you can make them in beams and shine quite a lot on the
approximate location of your submarine.


I don't have time to look it up and explain in detail, but I took a
moment to fish around in our libary's on-line catalog.  There is a
paper on neutrino communications in the following book.  Someone with
real enthusiasm can go read it and report back!

        CALL NUMBER: QC794 .N399 1978

             AUTHOR: International Conference on Neutrino Physics and
                      Astrophysics (8th : 1978 : Purdue University)

              TITLE: Neutrinos--1978 : conference proceedings : Purdue
                      University, April 28-May 2, 1978 / edited by
                      Earle C. Fowler.

        PUBLICATION: [West Lafayette, Ind. : Purdue University], 1978.
        DESCRIPTION: 1333 p. in various pagings : ill. ; 23 cm.


-- 
     O~~*           /_) ' / /   /_/ '  ,   ,  ' ,_  _           \|/
   - ~ -~~~~~~~~~~~/_) / / /   / / / (_) (_) / / / _\~~~~~~~~~~~zap!
 /       \                          (_) (_)                    / | \
 |       |     Bill Higgins   Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
 \       /     Bitnet:     HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET
   -   -       Internet:  HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV
     ~         SPAN/Hepnet:      43011::HIGGINS
From: mgcbo@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Charles B. Owen)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Invading planets
Date: 24 Jan 1993 22:19:52 -0600
Organization: Educational Computing Network
NNTP-Posting-Host: uxa.ecn.bgu.edu

In article <1993Jan24.190517.13137@uumeme.chi.il.us> drac@uumeme.chi.il.us (Bruce Maynard) writes:
>Seems to me that, in order to accomplish a successful planetary takeover,
>one would first hammer down all detectable military capacity from orbit
>(assuming, of course, that any orbital defenses had already been neutralized),
>then inform the inhabitants that they had a choice: surrender & be cool about
>it or be subjected to a generalized bombardment (probably nuclear). Note that
>it would be quite desirabvle to present terms that the locals could probably
>live with... elsewise, one *could* gain a rep for genocide, and become a target
>by other spacefaring cultures. If handled well enuff, seems to me a takeover
>could be accomplished (and *maybe* even held) with minimal troops... say,
>between 1/2 mil & 2 mil...

There is a real tendency in science fiction to always think of planets
as single entities, when our own planet does not bear this out.  If you
invaded Earth, who would you tell to surrender?  It is safe to assume
that other worlds will have hundreds, if not thousands, of governments.
I can't see how 1/2 mil to 2 mil troops could hope to handle them all.
You would have to take them one at a time and probably obliterate a few
holdouts.
-- 
| Charles B. Owen                            Internet: mgcbo@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu |
| Western Illinois University                            Phone: 309-837-4292 |
| 1002 E. Murray                                                             |
| Macomb, IL  61455                                                          |
From: dayne@byron.u.washington.edu (Dayne Miller)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Anybody? Anybody? Class?
Date: 25 Jan 1993 23:18:33 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
NNTP-Posting-Host: byron.u.washington.edu

Can anyone help with the following questions?

1) What is the theoretical maximum density for information storage? In other
words, using nanotech/quantum effects/whatever, could we get as dense as one
bit per atom/molecule of the storage medium? More dense? Less? And how would 
the info be stored; magnetically, holographically, or otherwise?

2) Is there an approximate value for the tensile/compressional/torsional
strengths of General Products monomolecular hull material (from Niven's Known
Space) other than "effectively infinite"?

3) Years ago I heard about some U.S. Navy/DARPA feasability study concerning
the possibility of using neutrinos to provide communication with submarines.
Whatever became of that?

4) In Dan Simmons' _Fall of Hyperion_, he makes reference to "coherent
electron beams" ("CEBs", or "CEEBs", or something like that). Is this a
weapon grounded in anything we have or are developing today?

5) Again from Niven: What *is* the theoretical minimum tensile strength of
scrith (Ringworld foundation material)?

6) More Niven yet: Is there any theoretical way in which to "temporarily
neutralize the charge of the electron" in a manner similar to that of the
Slaver disintegrator (and the proton as well, as in the Wunderland
Treatymaker)? Maybe some aspect of superstring theory of which I am unaware?
(Yes, that covers a *LOT* of territory.)

7) Lasers consist of coherent, parallel quanta of energy emission. How perfect
is the parallelism? In other words, how much spread will occur over, say, one
light year in a perfect vaccuum? Or perhaps more importantly, how much spread
(and scatter) can be expected over a given distance (AU, light year, light 
minute, solar radius, whatever) given the mean density of solar and/or inter-
stellar medium?

8) How feasible is David Brin's idea of using "refrigerator lasers" to cool
objects in space? Is the idea dependant upon high-temperature superconductors
(of heat, not necessarily electricity)? Or would any highly-efficient heat pump
work?

Any help anyone could give me on these would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks-

     -Dayne Miller
        dayne@byron.u.washington.edu
From: fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: 20000 decibel
Date: 21 Jan 1993 20:00:48 GMT
Organization: Sun
NNTP-Posting-Host: concertina

In article <1993Jan19.213738.18114@iscnvx.lmsc.lockheed.com> baylor@NEBULA.SSD.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:
>In article <1993Jan19.174611.18067@gn.ecn.purdue.edu>, seanodon@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Aragorn) writes:
>>BTW 20,000 Hz is at the very edge of human hearing for the
>>average person.
>Average pre-civilization young person, maybe. 

Some fairly civilized not-so-young people, too.

>Certainly not the
>average rock-music listener, who has trashed his/her high frequency 
>response. 

You got it right there.

>In my experience, most people I know can't hear the 15 kHz
>"squeal" of the average CRT.

I used to hear up around 25kHz easily, and a bit higher.

Now it's down to about 21kHz...but I'm only 43 this year.

The monitors would be a lot more irritating than they are,
if the fans and disk drives in related equipment didn't drown them
out.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------
| Some things are too important not to give away      |
| to everybody else and have none left for yourself.  |
|------------------------ Dieter the car salesman-----|
From: daveh@Auspex.COM (David Higgen)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: 20000 decibel
Date: 22 Jan 93 07:10:36 GMT

In article <llu07gINNeq9@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM>, fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix) writes:
> 
> I used to hear up around 25kHz easily, and a bit higher.
> 
> Now it's down to about 21kHz...but I'm only 43 this year.

Would you care to detail the test procedure you use to obtain that observation?

No doubt there is a bell-shaped curve here, & I've no idea of the standard
deviation... (wonder if anyone *has* done any studies of this)?

But that sounds like a few sigmas on the high side...

			
			daveh
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
From: tfish@world.std.com (Tex Fish)
Subject: Re: Invading planets
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 20:40:58 GMT

In article <1k2mn9$hic@agate.berkeley.edu> lizi@soda.berkeley.edu (Cosma Shalizi) writes:
>    It does _reduce_ the dust - remember you're throwing the thing AT a
>planetary crust, which is mostly rock waiting to be pulverized to dust - but
>you've forgotten a detail. When these huge ice chunks come to a dead stop,
>a fair part of their kinetic energy will be turned into heat, giving us lots
>of water vapor. This could either aid greenhouse effects and warm the planet,
>or provide cloud cover to raise the albedo and cool it; or perhaps both.
>(Incidentally, I don't think you'll find many ice chunks in the asteroid
>belt - definitely not if comets show tails by that close in. Look to the
>Oort, or Saturn's rings.)
>	Cosma Rohilla Shalizi
>	In Real Life: lizi@soda.berkeley.edu
>	larval physicist
>-- 
>"I'd love to hold you/ I'd love to kiss you/ I ain't got time for that now."
>-Talking Heads, "Life During Wartime"
>"Death needs Time for what it kills to grow in."
>-William S. Burroughs, "Ah Pook is Here"

	So ice from Saturn's rings would be more appropriate.  On the
othyer hand, the collateral damage from a rock hit might not be so bad for
the invading force: it woud take out a city, raise the ocean level if it
were an ice meteor, wiping out coastal cities, and cause a nuclear winter
for a while.  If your timetable could accomodate waiting a few years fro
the dust to settle, it might be a nice way to get a "clean slate", as they
say.  Almost as nice as a biotoxin (as somebody suggested)

-- 
---->Tweety Fish		"I bought that chair, young lady,
---->tfish@world.std.com	 and you're gonna use it!"-MST 3K
---->These opinions are those of GO-FORCE and nobody else. Screw..		

Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science