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

*To*: "L. Clayton Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>*Subject*: Re: starship-design: Anti-antimatter*From*: Steve VanDevender <stevev@efn.org>*Date*: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 16:17:00 -0800*Cc*: "Ken Wharton" <wharton@physics.ucla.edu>, <starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu>*In-Reply-To*: <199702060004.SAA19615@hurricane.gnt.net>*References*: <199702060004.SAA19615@hurricane.gnt.net>*Reply-To*: Steve VanDevender <stevev@efn.org>*Sender*: owner-starship-design

L. Clayton Parker writes: > > The first is probably the most easily shot down: power the ship > > from an enormous relativistic or near-relativistic flywheel. There's a > > Hmm, you mean like a rotating black hole? I think Robert Forward has > already proposed this one. Check out a few of his books. Bear in mind that > now you have to accelerate the mass of the black hole also...and anything > spinning at relativistic speeds is going to have the same mass moments as a > black hole anyway... I remember reading that a black hole can have up to 29% of its energy tied up in angular momentum. Unfortunately to get the energy back out you have to throw more mass into it in such a way that some of the mass is given to the black hole and the rest spews out carrying away some of the rotational energy. Of course, with a quantum black hole you can do partial conversion of mass to energy by feeding it at the same rate that it emits mass/energy due to quantum evaporation. If you run out of fuel you have to be able to toss the black hole away before it blows up due to runaway evaporation; the rate of evaporation is inversely related to the mass of the black hole.

**References**:**Re: starship-design: Anti-antimatter***From:*"L. Clayton Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>

- Prev by Date:
**Re: starship-design: Anti-antimatter** - Next by Date:
**Re: starship-design: Anti-antimatter** - Prev by thread:
**Re: starship-design: Anti-antimatter** - Next by thread:
**Re: starship-design: my $0.02 (finally)** - Index(es):