RE: starship-design: RE: debate

["L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>]

On Tuesday, December 09, 1997 3:48 PM, Ken Wharton 
[SMTP:wharton@physics.ucla.edu] wrote:
> The key difference, though, is that the "small fusion bombs" aren't bombs
> at all (well, not really...)  They're Confined fusion reactions, and
> would
> (theoretically) allow much more efficienct engines than any concept that
> had to rely on unconfined fusion explosions.  An important distinction, I
> think, between different propulsion mechanisms.

Umm, well, yes and no. If you define a confined reaction as one that exists 
more or less continuously in one place, they aren't. They implode, react, 
and die. Then another micropellet takes the first one's place and it begins 
again. Byt this light it is a bomb. But then we do this several times a 
second so that there is a seemingly continuous reaction, so its sort of a 
confined reaction...

Lee

                                                      (o o)
--------------------------------------------------oOO--(_)--OOo---------

Atom n. Smallest bit of matter that can still be subdivided, ad infinitum.

Byte n. Word comprehensible only to a computer.

Data n.pl. Numbers that sink theories.

Serendipity n. Crucial element of the scientific method.