From: Spike Jones (spike66@ibm.net)
Date: Wed Jan 27 1999 - 22:17:07 MST
> 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.
so, if the lesson of nature is not misleading, we dont need nanonukes,
or even nanoscale combustion. the square cube law would suggest
that nanobots should be able to create all the energy they need using
chlorophyll and the fusion reactor nature has already generously
provided: the sun. right? spike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:02:57 MST