[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Re: Summary A

> >> Let do a quick calculation about the acceleration needed:
> >> v=x*t  a=v*t --> a=v^2/x = 1E16/100 = 1E14 m/s^2
> >
>>Ouch, 10 trillion G's!!!!

> Don't worry, you aren't in these containers. What may 
> be a problem though, is that the containers cannot 
> resist such forces and thus will break down
> during acceleration (Imagine several kilograms of debris 
> breaking up while moving 1/3 c in a very narrow tube).

I'ld rather not thank you.  ;)

> >A complex issue.  Can you tollerate electronics no better than 10 year old
> >ones?  Thats a 100 fold decrease in capacity?

> The capacity will come to an end, and if not, how fast 
> should processors be?
> We can savely assume that in 20 years every one will 
> have a supercomputer of today with several Gbytes of 
> memory. 

Well history of home computers would suggest that.  And we are talking about
a major research project here.

> But do we need that much? I know I'm on a hot issue 
> here, 20 years ago no one did see the need for computers 
> either.
> But now that we know what we can do with computers 
> we can make a better estimation of what we need as a 
> minimum. I've read that the Space Shuttle has less than
> 1 Mb of memory (256 Kb?) so that would give us a idea 
> of what we need and what we want.

Actually the shuttles data limits were a constant problem, even safty

> >Actually not is the plant is designed well.  Here in the U.S. we had a
> >plant called three mile Island (bet you heard of it) where the operators
> >runing it at full power with ot coolant, they even overroad all the
> >anti-melt down system as they tried to engage.  The plant was designed so
> >well it showed no effects of its melt down.  The operators didn't even
> >it happening!  Without laboratory equipment you couldn't even detect an
> >effect outside the are. No significat radiation increasde (I.e. it always
> >radiated less than a runing coal plant).  Of course the reactor core was
> >ruined  (anyone for 4 billion $'s worth of radioative slag welded to the
> >insdide of a reactor case imbeddxed in 10 feet of concrete?).

>I didn't know they where thAt save, nice to know though.
> Here in Holland we have some guy who is turning an old 
> nuclear reactor plant in a recreation palace.

??  I never thought they were that interesting.


>You probably meen fusion.  Maybe eventually, but in the present political
>climate not a chance.  Renewable  produces to little power and has too many
>health and safty problems.  Utilities here are figuring on natural gas
>fuel cells as the next big wave in power plants.  Probably the basic power
>for the next 40 years or more.

Yes, I meant fusion. What kind of health problems does renewable energy
have? Are solar-panels also dangerous?
I've an idea and wonder if I'm the first one to think of it: Make a deep
hole (several kilometres) and use the heat difference between down there and
up here to make some energy.