--------------D4733DCF9CA4C390B0C7DF42 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > spike jones wrote: thought experiment: imagine scaling > a fusion weapon all the way down to two atoms of plutonium 238.... if one> decays, the other one will most probably not be impressed. > nanotech will not have nuclear as an option for power. spike
the thought was incorrect too: there may be other more radioactive isotopes more suitable for tiny reactors than plutonium. i didnt think it thru carefully enough. i guess thats what the concept of nanotech does to one: opens ones mind a bit. {8-]
but now all my distant descendants will smirk with derision whenever they read the original post. {8-[ well, ill fix them! i wont *have* any distant descendants! ha! take that, all you unborn disrepectful distant descendants! {8^D spike
--------------D4733DCF9CA4C390B0C7DF42 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
spike jones wrote: thought experiment: imagine scalingarrrrg! i meant fission! not fusion. i do know the difference. {8-[
a fusion weapon all the way down to two atoms of plutonium 238.... if one decays, the other one will most probably not be impressed.
nanotech will not have nuclear as an option for power. spike
the thought was incorrect too: there may be other more radioactive
isotopes more suitable for tiny reactors than plutonium. i didnt
think
it thru carefully enough. i guess thats what the concept of nanotech
does to one: opens ones mind a bit. {8-]
but now all my distant descendants will smirk with derision whenever
they read the original post. {8-[ well, ill fix them!
i wont *have* any
distant descendants! ha! take that, all you unborn
disrepectful distant
descendants! {8^D spike
--------------D4733DCF9CA4C390B0C7DF42--