FIND in
<--prev V209 next-->
From: "Andy Robertson" 
Subject: Re: (urth) Chem power
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 05:38:26 +0100

But::  Fusion would create a neutron flux which would turn many of the
ordinary elements the generator was composed of into radioactive isotopes.
Particularly if the generator had been running for hundreds of years.

Another reason why I doubt Hyacinth was a chem or a chem with a bio shell -
the radiation would be bad for living flesh acually in contact with the
chem, though it is short range and would not hurt people in the same room


----- Original Message ----- eutron flux
From: "Bratt Ian" 
To: "urth" 
Sent: Monday, September 09, 2002 4:15 AM
Subject: Re: (urth) Chem power

> On Sun, 8 Sep 2002, Roy C. Lackey wrote:
> >     "Five chains away, the blade of the azoth wrecked a fusion
> > and the soldier whose heart it had been died." (LS3, 9)
> >
> > But, but . . . that's just another good reason to shoot those fool
> > who designed them! If chems were subject to exploding and raining
> > radioactive material all around when they died, then they were a hazard
> > every bio around them, including their fellow human troopers. Dumb. But
> > then, Typhon didn't care about people, did he?
> >
> > -Roy
> A quick technical point:  Roy, you seem to be confusing fission and
> fusion.  Fission, what powers modern power plants, is the process of
> massive nuclei breaking apart and releasing energy.  Radioactivity is a
> natural byproduct of this process.  Fusion, however, is the process of
> lighter nuclei fusing together to make a more massive nuclei.  Large
> amounts of energy are released during fusion, but with significantly less
> radioactive emissions (on order of 10^9 less than fission).
> http://wwwofe.er.doe.gov/More_HTML/Comparison_w_fission.GIF
> Unfortunately for society, commercially available fusion generators are
> still science fiction.  I don't think those "fool engineers" would
> appreciate you being so trigger happy :)
> Cheers,
> Ian
> --


<--prev V209 next-->