Prev: Re: Fuel, Ramjets, and the Darwin Awards (was Re: in 'defense' of FT missiles... ;-) ) Next: Re: Missile Defense for stations

Re: Sand

From: Mike Miserendino <phddms1@c...>
Date: Wed, 14 May 1997 11:32:21 -0400
Subject: Re: Sand

Phillip Pournelle wrote:
>>Nope.  The magnetic field would keep the screen where it was needed.
>>Remember as well, the particles have little to no mass.  It would take
very
>>little energy to keep them in place.
>
>	 The Assumption regarding the mass is incorrect in this case. 
In
>order to have any significant effect in intercepting photons in a
coherent
>laser and still have enough mass left over to continue an effective
screen
>over the large volume of space that we are talking about, would require
a
>reasonably significant mass.  Therefore, it would take quite a bit of
energy
>to keep this mass of swirling crystals to stay with the orginating
craft.
>	 Phil P.

No, the energy requirements are still minor.  The field affects each
particle individually, not as a whole.	The particles are not treated as
a
single mass.  The force of the ship accelerating would need to exceed
the
force applied to each individual particle.  Since each particle has next
to
no mass, there is very little inertia per particle to overcome.  If the
particles had greater mass, and thus a larger inertia at rest state, the
particles would require stronger energy fields to keep them in station.
However, I would think travel in FTL would negate the field effects for
one
reason or another.

Mike Miserendino

Prev: Re: Fuel, Ramjets, and the Darwin Awards (was Re: in 'defense' of FT missiles... ;-) ) Next: Re: Missile Defense for stations