Re: ASTRONOMY: Engineered Galaxy?

From: CurtAdams@aol.com
Date: Mon Sep 09 2002 - 11:16:27 MDT


In a message dated 9/9/02 3:43:26, eugen@leitl.org writes:

>The microwave beam propelling you will both
>vaporise dust and clean the path, minimizing the speck hazard.

You're proposing focusing a microwave beam over interstellar distances?
No way.

>A redundant dry system doesn't suffer damage by diffusible radicals. The
>damage path is linear, and well defined

The damage is also more restricted in area, which considerably increases
the effect. Detection of alterations in mechanical systems is also very
difficult.

> limited to tracks (with the notable effect of high-energy
>secondaries), and the rate of lattice defects is tolerable, given that
>we're not sticking a petri dish into a cyclotron beam but a handful of
>bucytronics.

The high-energy secondaries are the problem in any system.

>Which brings us to an experiment: stick said handful of buckies into a
>beam of appropriate energy and luminosity, and irradiate for a day. Remove
>the target, and estimate the amount of broken bonds. Do the same with
>heavy shielding (1000 mm of tungsten), etc.

Yes, experiments are the way to go. But the probable issue is not so
much damage to the buckyball/buckytube itself as to the stuff outside
the creates interactions and specificities.



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:52 MST