> Ron Kean wrote:
> > I think that a matter-antimatter bomb would exhibit the same efficiency
> > (energy per unit mass) regardless of size....
>
> Billy Brown wrote: So far as energy production is concerned that is
> correct...
extropians, after pondering the concept of nanonukes i think i made an error even larger than saying fusion when i meant fission. we all did. the concept of nuclear reactions at a nano scale is unreasonable because it is so totally unnecessary, at least as far as a power source for nanoscale machines. let us consider non-weapons here, since the use of nuclear material for weapons use has already been sufficiently worked out. {8-[
think for a minute of the square cube law. in aircraft it explains why 747s look the way they do: as the linear scale increases, the wing area goes up as the square but the mass goes up as the cube. chemical power sources are not sufficient to carry planes a whole lot larger than the 47.
ok now go back down the scale. we are accustomed to getting power from violent chemical reactions such as octane and air, but a plant can get all the energy it needs from photosynthesis. plants on our scale generally need a lot of leaves, but single celled plants have so little chlorophyll they sometimes dont even look green, and yet they seem wildly active under a microscope. chlorophyll creates sugars, which break down in a much gentler reaction than oxygen combustion.