Re: Active vs Passive

One problem with EMCON, though--don't fusion piles produce neutrinos? 
(I
seem to remember something of the sort from a physics --or was that
astronomy?--class years ago.)

Which means nothing but low-tech power sources (or VERY high tech ones).
And that could make maneuver kind of difficult (if you are assuming
anti-grav drives or high-power ion or plasma jets or something like
that).
Hmm--it does suggest a cool scenario with some special house rules
though:

A low-tech force using chemical rockets for propulsion (advanced ones,
of
course, but still limited thrust duration due to fuel requirements)
facing
off against a super-high-tech force (which, having been trained in
fighting
other super-high-tech forces doesn't recognize the threat in time) using
fusion piles for power and some high-tech propulsion.  Result?	Some
very
stealthy ships that are easy to destroy but very hard to find fighting
very
fast, hard to destroy ships that stand out like strobelights in a dark
room.
Might be fun...

Rob

----- Original Message -----
From: <Popeyesays@aol.com>
To: <gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2000 3:50 PM
Subject: Re: Active vs Passive

snip

>
> The point is do you radiate any heat at all into space - space hasno
air
to
> heat byradiation. At best to a sensor youwould be a pinprick - a hot
one
> determined only if you can read the surface temprature of the hull -
the
> waste heat would be read perhaps in em emiissions but would be a lot
less
> noticeable than neutrino or particle emission, sensor or communicator
> emission - running under EMCON you would just be a lump of metallic
> composition indistinguishable from a planetoid - until you add thrust
and
> start to maneuver THEN you stand out like a sore thumb from delta-vee
> analysis and perhaps a drive plume.
>