On Tue, Jul 17, 2001 at 12:46:31PM -0400, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> Anders Sandberg wrote:
> >
> > I would go for 10^12 kg holes instead, keeping them critical inside a
> > mini-Dyson but blasting enough mass into them to keep them stable. OK, hard
> > engineering, but you likely get a better mass-energy conversion efficiency
> > than a fully grown black hole. The efficiency ought to be very high,
> > although overheads might be big too.
>
> Okay, now imagine a Matrioshka Brain that owns a number of these. Is
> there any limit to how many one brain could posess? Add them up along
> with the surrounding brain, and you've got a significant mass able to do
> microlensing.
Collectible black holes? Gotta collect them all: the mighty
Schwartzschild, the Kerr with its spin attacks and the electric
Reissner-Nordstrom! Just make sure to keep them bottled up in their shells
when not in use.
Seriously, I expect that the amount of matter needed for a mini-Dyson
around a mini-black hole is rather negliglible compared to an ordinary
Dyson; it is all a light-weight system (perhaps massing like a terrestrial
planet at most, hole included). The biggest problem is how you make them:
that likely requires some cleverness to focus enough energy into a small
volume to punch them (and then some quick feeding of matter to prevent
immediate evaporation) - looking for the black hole factories might be
easier than looking for the holes.
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Anders Sandberg Towards Ascension! asa@nada.kth.se http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa/ GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:49 MDT