glenn@vlsi.ll.mit.edu (Glenn Chapman) (03/24/89)
A very astounding breakthrough just may have been made in nuclear
fusion. According to both the Financial Times (Mar 23, pg. 1, 26, and 22)
and the Wall Street Journal (Mar. 23, b1 & b8) two scientist will announce
indications of room temperature fusion of heavy hydrogen (deuterium) inside
a solid material today at the University of Utah. These are not off the
wall guys - the FT points out that both are experimental experts in
electrochemistry (Dr. Martin Fleischmann of Southampton University UK,
Dr. Stan Pons of University of Utah). Fleischmann is also a fellow of
the Royal Society in London. I will summarize the articles but suggest
that you get hold of the FT one (the WSJ was written by someone who really
does not know the details). I have added some physics info to make it
more understandable.
The process they are using consists of the following. Consider an
electrochemical cell (like a battery) with a platinum electrode, a heated
palladium electrode in a bath of heavy water (deuterium oxide). Flow current
from the palladium (negative electrode) to the platinum electrode (positive
one). At some current the deuterium flow into the palladium, combined with
the effect of the material itself, causes the deuterium nuclei to come
together and fuse into helium 3 plus a neutron (with 3.27 MeV of energy)
or tritium plus hydrogen (with 4.03 MeV, 1 MeV = 1.6E-13 Joules of energy).
(My speculation the fusion processes here are not certain).
To show the real strangeness here note that the repulsive forces from the
positive charges on the two nuclei normally require temperatures
of 50 - 100 Million degrees to overcome (high temp. mean the atoms are
travelling very fast and so when they collide they overcome the repulsion
to get close enough together to have fusion occur). This room temp.
result is obviously very unusual. What really indicates that fusion has
occurred is that the FT article states they saw fusion products, gamma
rays, tritium and neutrons, none of which are generated by chemical processes.
It is especially the neutrons that are important - that shows that fusion
occurred. People at the UK Atomic Energy Authority say they know of the
work and are treating it seriously. The article has been submitted to the
British science journal Nature. Just my own speculation but one
thing that may agree with this is that there is a material called Zeolite
which stores hydrogen at densities higher than that of liquid hydrogen.
This shows that solids can force hydrogen atoms closer together than they
normally would be.
There is a news conference that will be held today at U of Utah. If
there is anyone who can get more information on this please send it to me.
Glenn Chapman
MIT Lincoln Lab
glenn@ll-vlsi.arpa
glenn@vlsi.ll.mit.edubugboy@Portia.Stanford.EDU (Michael Frank) (03/24/89)
I'm wathing an interview with the discoverers right now on MacNeil-Lehrer. You know, it just sounds too good to be true. Maybe these guys are pulling an elaborate April Fools' joke. Either that, or it's going to be bigger than the high-temperature superconductors. Guaranteed Nobel prizes. But anyway, these guys say they've had bottles producing heat continuously for hundreds of hours in experiments over the last year, and that their experiments could essentially be duplicated using the resources of a high school chemistry classroom. It's just too good to be true. Anyone see "Back to the Future?" remember the "Mr. Fusion" blender-sized device? That's basically what these guys have developed. You put heavy water in, you get gobs of energy out. Just think, governments have spent $billions upon billions on nuclear fusion research using Tokomaks and high-powered lasers, and here these chemists do it at room temperature in their kitchen. Anyway, I'm anxiously waiting to see whether this can be duplicated. -- ,-------M-i-c-h-a-e-l---F-r-a-n-k------------------------------------------. | AI Stanford Microsoft philosophy Alas,Babylon Chattanooga,TN | | Amiga swimming Star Trek Pink Floyd nanotechnology Gainesville,FL | `-----------b-u-g-b-o-y-@-p-o-r-t-i-a-.-s-t-a-n-f-o-r-d-.-e-d-u------------'
sarrett@harlie.ics.uci.edu (Wendy Sarrett) (03/24/89)
To follow up - I heard them interviewed on McNeil/Learer tonight and they stated that the results will be published in May. Wendy Sarrett (sarrett@ics.uci.edu) Department of Information and Computer Science University of California, Irvine
nmm@apss.ab.ca (Neil McCulloch) (03/24/89)
In article <1098@Portia.Stanford.EDU>, bugboy@Portia.Stanford.EDU (Michael Frank) writes: > I'm wathing an interview with the discoverers right now on MacNeil-Lehrer. > You know, it just sounds too good to be true. Maybe these guys are pulling > an elaborate April Fools' joke. Either that, or it's going to be > bigger than the high-temperature superconductors. Guaranteed Nobel prizes. Yes sounds very much like an April Fools' joke. Especially since there's an international connection. But darn it, if it is, it's not fair since April Fools' jokes should be confined to the first of April on pain of death! However, I am reminded of when I first read in the New Scientist of the plutonium release from Windscale decades ago, complete with diagrams of leukemia rates and so on. It was so dramatic and being in their April 1 issue, I didn't believe it. It was only several years later that I realised it was a true report based on fact. Or was it... neil
koontz@oregon (03/24/89)
In article <1098@Portia.Stanford.EDU>, bugboy@Portia.Stanford.EDU (Michael Frank) writes: > I'm wathing an interview with the discoverers right now on MacNeil-Lehrer. > But anyway, these guys say they've had bottles producing heat > continuously for hundreds of hours in experiments over the last year, and > that their experiments could essentially be duplicated using the resources > of a high school chemistry classroom. Yes, but can someone comeup with a nuetron reflector which can be engaged in microseconds?
tee@mtuxo.att.com (54317-T.EBERSOLE) (03/25/89)
In article <290@vlsi.ll.mit.edu>, glenn@vlsi.ll.mit.edu (Glenn Chapman) writes: > > A very astounding breakthrough just may have been made in nuclear > fusion. According to both the Financial Times (Mar 23, pg. 1, 26, and 22) -----Stuff deleted---- > The process they are using consists of the following. Consider an > electrochemical cell (like a battery) with a platinum electrode, a heated > palladium electrode in a bath of heavy water (deuterium oxide). Flow current I read somewhere not very authoritative (I can't remember, but I don't read autoritative magazines much) that "cold," or muon-catalyzed, fusion would be expected to occur at about 900 C or so. I can hardly wait for real news on how this "Pd-Pt catalyzed" fusion can be sustained with essentially no rise in temperature. Any speculations available? My trusty dictionary indicates Palladium is used as a catalyst in hydrogenation processes, so there is some justification for why it might be useful in a process involving Deuterium. However, this reaction is not all that interesting to me since it produces nasty fast neutrons. I know there are reactions which eject fast-moving ions (electrons, etc.) with no gamma rays or neutrons; I seem to recall these involve carbon as one of the "reactants." Anyone know what these particular fusion reactions are, or have a reference I could look this up in? Perhaps this fusion-catalyzing process will turn out to be more general once it's understood. (I like to leap before I look.) I'd even accept a process which had to occcur at 100 C, if it was clean in a non-gamma ray, non-neutron producing sort of way. If I had any choice in the matter. =============== -- Tim Ebersole ...!att!mtuxo!tee or {allegra,ulysses,mtune,...}!mtuxo!tee
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (03/25/89)
In article <4380@mtuxo.att.com> tee@mtuxo.att.com (54317-T.EBERSOLE) writes: >...there are reactions which eject fast-moving ions (electrons, etc.) with >no gamma rays or neutrons; I seem to recall these involve carbon as one >of the "reactants." Anyone know what these particular fusion reactions >are, or have a reference I could look this up in? ... The major ones are deuterium plus helium-3 yielding helium-4 plus proton (unfortunately there is also some tendency for the deuterium to react with itself, so neutron emission isn't zero; also, helium-3 is rare and extremely expensive) and boron-11 plus proton yielding helium-4 (works fine but rather harder to ignite). -- Welcome to Mars! Your | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology passport and visa, comrade? | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (03/25/89)
In article <1989Mar25.041342.25786@utzoo.uucp> I wrote: >>...there are reactions which eject fast-moving ions (electrons, etc.) with >>no gamma rays or neutrons... > >The major ones are deuterium plus helium-3 yielding helium-4 plus proton... >... and boron-11 plus proton yielding helium-4 ... Oops, I should amend that: those are the major reactions that don't yield neutrons. If you're after a reaction that doesn't yield gamma rays, you may be looking for a long time. Almost any nuclear process yields gamma rays to some extent. -- Welcome to Mars! Your | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology passport and visa, comrade? | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
bob@etive.ed.ac.uk (Bob Gray) (03/27/89)
In article <290@vlsi.ll.mit.edu> glenn@vlsi.ll.mit.edu (Glenn Chapman) writes: >occurred. People at the UK Atomic Energy Authority say they know of the >work and are treating it seriously. The article has been submitted to the I don't want to dampen people's hopes too much, but the TV news programmes here carried the reports and made it clear in their reports that people at Draesbury laboratory, one of the UK research labs, had been trying to replicate the experiment for the last fortnight without any success. The only safe prediction that can be made at the moment, is that the anti-nuclear people are already thinking up campaigns to prevent the use of this technique if it works. Hydrogen and platinum? That causes explosions! Ban it now!!! Bob.
pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) (03/27/89)
In article <1989Mar25.041342.25786@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <4380@mtuxo.att.com> tee@mtuxo.att.com (54317-T.EBERSOLE) writes: >>...there are reactions which eject fast-moving ions (electrons, etc.) with >>no gamma rays or neutrons; I seem to recall these involve carbon as one >>of the "reactants." > .. . . . boron-11 plus proton yielding helium-4 (works >fine but rather harder to ignite). The protium-boron (isotope 11 -- the common one) is the reaction that forms a carbon (isotope 12) which then immediately fissions to three helium isotope-four atoms and 8.7 MeV of energy, if I recall. This fission, incidentally, does not come under the proscription 'What G-- has joined, let no man put asunder'. >Welcome to Mars! Your | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology >passport and visa, comrade? | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu WHAT? - Russians will use PLASMAK(tm) p-B11 propulsion engines, first? In the relatively near future, the Room Temperature Fusion fusion technology, should be able to provide the "fusion battery" to cold start more powerful forms of thermonuclear fusion such as PLASMAK(tm) aneutronic devices. +-------------------------------------------------------************ | Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075 ** FUSION ** | Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222 *** this *** | mimsy!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP ** decade ** +-------------------------------------------------------************ Made it!!! -- with months to spare. --------
keithm@wicat.UUCP (Keith McQueen) (03/28/89)
Just a thought... What are the implications of this for terrorist activities? Will this make cheap available nuclear weapons possible? Shudder! I hope not! - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - | Keith McQueen, N7HMF Organization: Wicat Systems, Inc. | | 1116 Graff Circle Work (801)224-6605x422 | | Orem, Utah 84058 Packet: N7HMF @ NV7V | | Home (801)224-9460 Voice: 147.340 MHz or 449.675 MHz | | =====> My opinions are all mine... <===== | - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
jkl@csli.STANFORD.EDU (John Kallen) (03/28/89)
I've been reading the postings about R.T. fusion with interest, and I am wondering: why are neutrons so undesirable in a nuclear reaction? Aren't protons and neutrons of the same energies just as bad? Or does the Coulomb repulsion of a proton by the nucleus play a role here? [I've forgotten all my nuclear physics :-) ] _______________________________________________________________________________ | | | | |\ | | /|\ | John Kallen | |\ \|/ \| * |/ | |/| | | PoBox 11215 "Life. Don't talk to me | |\ /|\ |\ * |\ | | | | Stanford CA 94309 about life." _|_|___|___|____|_\|___|__|__|_jkl@csli.stanford.edu___________________________
leech@zeta.cs.unc.edu (Jonathan Leech) (03/28/89)
In article <7739@pyr.gatech.EDU> ccoprmd@pyr.UUCP (Matthew T. DeLuca) writes: >measured in the hundreds of thousands of tons, if not millions. Of course, >since the object of the mission is to get asteriod ores (not fuel, by the way), >the fuel for the return trip must be carried on board, and this fuel must be >sufficient to accelerate and decelerate the loaded ship. Probably not, since we suspect many asteroids of being volatile-rich. Fuel and reaction mass, all in one. I was unable to find any information on D/H ratios in a quick glance through my copy of _Asteroids_, but the Phobos mission may provide info in short order, if their mass spectrometer determines D abundance. This is aside from there being no need to accelerate at 1G in either direction for other reasons. -- Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu) __@/ "Totally bounded: A set that can be patrolled by a finite number of arbitrarily near-sighted policemen." A. Wilonsky, 1978
dsm@prism.gatech.EDU (Daniel McGurl) (03/28/89)
In article <7739@pyr.gatech.EDU> ccoprmd@pyr.UUCP (Matthew T. DeLuca) writes: > A few problems here... [lines deleted] >the fuel for the return trip must be carried on board, and this fuel must be >sufficient to accelerate and decelerate the loaded ship. WE're looking at >fuel requirements in the tens of millions of tons. I don't see this kind >of capability with forseeable technology anytime in the next thirty years. >Matthew DeLuca >Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 >uucp: ...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!ccoprmd >ARPA: ccoprmd@pyr.gatech.edu Ah, but you miss a critical point, the only fuel required is to get out to the Asteroid belt. Getting the asteriods back involves just giving them a push of sorts (unless you are in a hurry-- sure this may take a few years for them to get back to earth orbit). Also, the space ship could probably slow in a way similar to the shuttles when it returns to Earth, just use the atmosphere as a speed brake. -- Daniel Sean McGurl "He's got to make his own mistakes, Office of Computing Services and learn to mend the mess he makes." Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 ARPA: dsm@prism.gatech.edu
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (03/28/89)
In article <8299@csli.STANFORD.EDU> jkl@csli.stanford.edu (John Kallen) writes: >I've been reading the postings about R.T. fusion with interest, and I >am wondering: why are neutrons so undesirable in a nuclear reaction? >Aren't protons and neutrons of the same energies just as bad? Or does >the Coulomb repulsion of a proton by the nucleus play a role here? Uncharged particles in general are much more penetrating, because they interact more weakly with matter. This has several implications, including the need for massive shielding for personnel and electronics. For really high-power applications like fusion rocketry, everything near the engine gets hot, instead of just the engine, due to neutron heating. Neutrons also tend to make the shielding (etc.) radioactive, which adds a nasty waste-disposal problem. Finally, protons can be controlled and bullied around with magnetic fields, which neutrons ignore. -- Welcome to Mars! Your | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology passport and visa, comrade? | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
chiaravi@silver.bacs.indiana.edu (Lucius Chiaraviglio) (03/28/89)
In article <8299@csli.STANFORD.EDU> jkl@csli.stanford.edu (John Kallen) writes: >I've been reading the postings about R.T. fusion with interest, and I >am wondering: why are neutrons so undesirable in a nuclear reaction? >Aren't protons and neutrons of the same energies just as bad? Or does >the Coulomb repulsion of a proton by the nucleus play a role here? >[I've forgotten all my nuclear physics :-) ] The neutrons aren't necessarily bad for the reaction, but they aren't good for your health. Protons would also be bad if they got into you, but being charged, they will lose energy rapidly upon passing through any matter and are therefore easily stopped, whereas neutrons, having no charge, only lose energy slowly (generally by crashing into a nucleus, which is not necessary for stopping protons) and therefore require considerably more shielding to stop, and make the shielding radioactive besides. Yes, Coulomb repulsion of a proton by a nucleus does play a role -- the higher the atomic number of the nucleus, the faster the proton has to be moving to react with it instead of being deflected by it. This means that protons moving at the minimal speeds needed for fusion of light elements (up to boron) will not be able to make shielding radioactive, provided that the shielding is made of something at least as heavy as carbon (preferably a little heavier than that, just to provide a little safety margin). On the other hand, even very slow neutrons can react with nuclei and thus have the potential to make things radioactive. Thermal neutrons (that is, neutrons moving at speeds expected for room temperature) have been successfully used as a mutagen (source of information: _Genetic Mutations of Drosophila melanogaster_) (although this may be partly due to the fact that the neutrons themselves are radioactive). -- | Lucius Chiaraviglio | ARPA: chiaravi@silver.bacs.indiana.edu BITNET: chiaravi@IUBACS.BITNET (IUBACS hoses From: fields; INCLUDE RET ADDR) ARPA-gatewayed BITNET: chiaravi%IUBACS.BITNET@vm.cc.purdue.edu Alt ARPA-gatewayed BITNET: chiaravi%IUBACS.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu
davidsen@steinmetz.ge.com (Wm. E. Davidsen Jr) (03/28/89)
In article <296@v7fs1.UUCP> mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) writes: | We *really* need access to the asteriods, which have plenty of platinum- | group metals. I'm not disagreeing, but what's the source of that info. Some meteoriods have been found to contain pgroup metals in iron-nickel mixes, but has someone done a reasonable analysis somehow of what's in the belt? ================================================================ New mailing address: wedu@crd.ge.com We are no longer ge-crd.arpa and mail will stop working to that address in the *very* near future. Note: flames and hate mail may still use the old address ;-{ ================================================================ We now return you to our regularly scheduled signature... -- bill davidsen (wedu@crd.GE.COM) {uunet | philabs}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
davidsen@steinmetz.ge.com (Wm. E. Davidsen Jr) (03/29/89)
In article <5849@pdn.nm.paradyne.com> alan@rnms1.UUCP (0000-Alan Lovejoy) writes: | Then we also need either very advanced AI, very advanced biotechnology, | or artificial gravity: It appears that low gravity fields shut down the | human immune system in a way similar to the AIDS virus. Humans will NOT | be spending any appreciable percentage of their lives in space until we | can fix our immune systems so that they tolerate low gravity, or until | we can provide gravity artificially. As things stand, a career as an | asteroid miner would not last long... What are the parameters on this? I know the Russians had people in orbit for almost a year (didn't they?) and didn't seem to have problems. They were visited by other cosmonauts during the time so they weren't in a sterile atmosphere. I want to make a hypothesis: we won't go the the belt in any short time unless we actually get room temperature fusion working. Given that a fusion powered ship seems a certainty. Can I assume a hydrogen ram jet? I will guess that the distance is 61 million miles. If you assume that the constant acceleration is 1 fps^2 I think it takes about 13.1 days for the trip. At 1/10G it would take 7.3 days. If I didn't drop a deciaml place we are taking about a short journey here... even assuming 0.1 fps^2 I get 41.5 days. This sounds too good to be true, and if you extrapolate to 4.5 lightyears it still looks like space flight is possible. ________________________________________________________________ Since this sounds too good to be true, here's what I did: 1) S = at^2 / 2 2) t = sqrt(2S / a) if we assume that we accellerate half way and decellerate half way 3) t = 2 * sqrt(S / a) S = 65e6 * 5280 (feet) a sec days ==================== .1 3589317 41.5 0.1 1135041 13.1 3.2 634507 7.3 If I didn't make a silly mistake in the equasions, which seems likely given the results, or if I have overestimated the power of a fusion powered hydrogen ram jet, please let me know. Also if someone has info on such a jet as far as implementation or power it would help quantify the discussion. -- bill davidsen (wedu@crd.GE.COM) {uunet | philabs}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (03/29/89)
In article <24998@amdcad.AMD.COM> prem@crackle.amd.com (Prem Sobel) writes: >Unless I have slipped a decimal point. It is under 1.6*10^9 miles round >trip to/from the asetroid belt... >which if one went at 1g until half way then at 1g to slow down would take: > t=sqrt(5280*10^8) ~= 73*10^4 sec ~=200 hours ~= 9 days Accelerating at 1G (9.81 m/s/s, the Imperial units are useless garbage when it comes to calculations like this) for 200 hours is a total delta-V of about 7e6 m/s (7000 kps). If we assume a mass ratio of 10, which means the ship is mostly fuel but still manageable for a single stage, exhaust velocity is 7e6/ln(10), about 3000 kps. Assuming a 100-ton (metric) ship (fully fueled), we "burn" 0.125 kg/s. (We will ignore the change in thrust needed to maintain a constant 1G, and assume constant thrust for the moment.) Accelerating that mass flow to 3000 kps requires 0.5*0.125*(3e6*3e6) == 560e9 watts of power, assuming no losses. Building a half-terawatt power plant that weighs only a few tons is going to be, um, a challenge. I don't think we're going to see 1G missions to the asteroids right away. -- Welcome to Mars! Your | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology passport and visa, comrade? | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (03/29/89)
In article <369@hydra.gatech.EDU> dsm@prism.gatech.EDU (Daniel McGurl) writes: >Ah, but you miss a critical point, the only fuel required is to get out to the >Asteroid belt. Getting the asteriods back involves just giving them a push >of sorts (unless you are in a hurry... Pushing even a small asteroid -- say a mere million tons -- into an orbit that crosses Earth's is going to require more than a little bit of fuel. >... Also, the space ship could probably slow in a >way similar to the shuttles when it returns to Earth, just use the atmosphere >as a speed brake. At the kinds of velocities we've been talking about, no it can't. Aerobraking works fine at a few kilometers per second. At thousands of kps, it doesn't work at all: you have your choice of vaporizing, slamming into the ground and making a large crater, or zipping off into space after losing only a small fraction of your speed. There is no way you are going to lose hundreds or thousands of kps of speed in a distance of a few thousand kilometers without vaporizing. (Not to mention the small problem that this involves decelerations of many thousands of Gs.) -- Welcome to Mars! Your | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology passport and visa, comrade? | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
blackje@sunspot.steinmetz (Emmett Black) (03/29/89)
A colleague here at GE Research met the news with the typical "pooh-pooh; April fool" reaction -- until he found out who the two scientists involved were.... He said he has known those guys for 25 years; and they are "rock solid." I'm inclined to believe them, too. What REALLY upset me was that the local TV station covered it VERY briefly on Friday; in their "Your Money" segment! They moaned and groaned and complained that this might "put thousands of people out of work;" they were more concerned with maintaining the "status quo" than about freezing in the dark. ---- techno-illiterates! I guess I'll switch to PBS. --Emmett J.E.Black; GE Research/K1-3C26; Schenectady, NY 12345 blackje@crd.ge.com; ...!uunet!steinmetz!crd!blackje --Emmett blackje@crd.ge.com ...uunet!steinmetz!crd!blackje GE Research; K1-3C26 Schenectady, NY 12345
mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) (03/29/89)
In article <13467@steinmetz.ge.com> davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes: >In article <296@v7fs1.UUCP> mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) writes: >| We *really* need access to the asteriods, which have plenty of platinum- >| group metals. > > I'm not disagreeing, but what's the source of that info. Some >meteoriods have been found to contain pgroup metals in iron-nickel >mixes, but has someone done a reasonable analysis somehow of what's in >the belt? Well, we haven't actually gone out there and assayed any asteroids, of course, but the nickel-iron meteorites found on Earth have all contained a significant percentage of Pt-group. The Sudbury deposit in Canada is the remains of an ancient asteroid strike, and it supplies Pt/Pd/Ir and such as a byproduct. And the iridium in the K-T boundary layer is considered pretty convincing evidence for the Alvarez theory that a major asteriod strike is responsible for the massive wave of extinctions at the end of the Cretaceous. So platinum group metals being available from asteroids seems a pretty good bet. If we can get out there. And especially, if we can find any that don't have Soviet claims already staked, which may be a considerable problem by the time Our Congress finally gets off their backsides. -- "Ain't nothin' in the middle Mike Van Pelt o' the road, 'cept a yellow Video 7 line and dead 'possums." ...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp
alan@rnms1.paradyne.com (0000-Alan Lovejoy(0000)) (03/29/89)
In article <13468@steinmetz.ge.com> davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes: >In article <5849@pdn.nm.paradyne.com> alan@rnms1.UUCP (0000-Alan Lovejoy) writes: > >| Then we also need either very advanced AI, very advanced biotechnology, >| or artificial gravity: It appears that low gravity fields shut down the >| human immune system in a way similar to the AIDS virus. Humans will NOT >| be spending any appreciable percentage of their lives in space until we >| can fix our immune systems so that they tolerate low gravity, or until >| we can provide gravity artificially. As things stand, a career as an >| asteroid miner would not last long... > > What are the parameters on this? I know the Russians had people in >orbit for almost a year (didn't they?) and didn't seem to have problems. >They were visited by other cosmonauts during the time so they weren't in >a sterile atmosphere. Since several people have asked, here is a bibliography on this issue: References: Effects of Hypogravity on the Human Immune System 1. "Microorganisms in the Space Environment," Horneck et al., Science, July 1984, pg. 226 2. "Humoral Immunity at Zero G," Voss et al., Science, July 1984, pg. 214 3. "Effect of Hypogravity on Human Lymphocyte Activation," Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine, Jan., 1980, pg. 30 4. "Effects of Simulated Weightlessness on IFN Production," Sommerfield et al., Journal Of IF Research, 1982, pg. 462 5. "Influence of Spaceflight on RBC," Talbot et al., FASEB Proceedings, Aug 1985, vol. 45 No. 9 6. "Results Of Space Experiment Program Interferon," Talas et al., Acta Microbiologia Hungarica, 1983, vol. 30 7. "The Immune System and Effect of Hyper- and Hypogravity," Caren et al., Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine, Nov. 1984, pg. 1063 8. "The Effect of Space Flight on Immunocompetence," Cogoli et al., Immunology Today, 1985, vol. No. 6, pg. 1 9. "The Effects of Space Flight on Immunocompetence," Immunology Today, Vol. 8, No. 7, 1987, pg 197 10. Biomedical Research Program, NASA ================================= Chief, Space Medicine Branch/EB Life Sciences Division NASA Headquarters, Washington D.C. 20546 USA I am not a biologist or medical doctor, so please don't ask me for any professional opinions on this stuff! Hope this helps. Alan Lovejoy; alan@pdn; 813-530-2211; AT&T Paradyne: 8550 Ulmerton, Largo, FL. Disclaimer: I do not speak for AT&T Paradyne. They do not speak for me. __American Investment Deficiency Syndrome => No resistance to foreign invasion. Motto: If nanomachines will be able to reconstruct you, YOU AREN'T DEAD YET.
sawant@nunki.usc.edu (Abhay Sawant) (03/29/89)
>>Unless I have slipped a decimal point. It is under 1.6*10^9 miles round
AAAARGH!!!!! Why so many people here using fps? I thought higher
education in the US used SI only.varvel@cs.utexas.edu (Donald A. Varvel) (03/30/89)
In article <392@wicat.UUCP> keithm@wicat.UUCP (Keith McQueen) writes: >Just a thought... > >What are the implications of this for terrorist activities? >Will this make cheap available nuclear weapons possible? > > >Shudder! I hope not! > I don't think so. There are reasons terrorists have never stooped to mass destruction, even beyond the technical difficulties. There are dams that if destroyed at the proper moment would kill on the order of hundreds of thousands of people. Why hasn't that happened? Terrorism is political. It thrives on publicity and the natural sympathy most people have for the underdog. Using simple, home-made weapons to embarass major powers is perfect. Underdog-lovers send money, and certain nations protect them. Destroy a city and there's nowhere to hide. What's the point? This doesn't rule out the insane, of course. -- Don Varvel ({tektronix,gatech}!cs.utexas.edu!varvel)
ccoprmd@pyr.gatech.EDU (Matthew T. DeLuca) (03/30/89)
In article <3276@nunki.usc.edu> sawant@nunki.usc.edu (Abhay Sawant) writes: >AAAARGH!!!!! Why so many people here using fps? I thought higher >education in the US used SI only. Nope. My aerospace engineering courses use FPS routinely. I hate it. -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Matthew DeLuca : Georgia Institute of Technology : Remember, wherever you go, there you are. ARPA: ccoprmd@pyr.gatech.edu :
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (03/30/89)
In article <301@v7fs1.UUCP> mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) writes: >... The Sudbury deposit >in Canada is the remains of an ancient asteroid strike, and it supplies >Pt/Pd/Ir and such as a byproduct... Last I heard, the geologists were still split on whether the Sudbury ore body is the asteroid itself or magma brought up from deep deposits by the heat of the strike. One should be cautious about using this as evidence. -- Welcome to Mars! Your | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology passport and visa, comrade? | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) (03/30/89)
In article <1989Mar29.210238.4205@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
<Last I heard, the geologists were still split on whether the Sudbury ore
<body is the asteroid itself or magma brought up from deep deposits by
<the heat of the strike. One should be cautious about using this as
<evidence.
Now that's fascinating. Perhaps if you dig deep enough anywhere,
you'll hit platinum-rich material. (Hopefully the mantle would be
deep enough!) Maybe we should have continued the Mohole project.
--
Mike Van Pelt Here lies a Technophobe,
Video 7 No whimper, no blast.
...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp His life's goal accomplished,
Zero risk at last.leonard@bucket.UUCP (Leonard Erickson) (03/30/89)
In article <5849@pdn.nm.paradyne.com> alan@rnms1.UUCP (0000-Alan Lovejoy) writes:
<There is also a device called the "fusion torch," which can transmute
<elements (platinum from mud, if you like). Of course, this requires
<very advanced controlled-fusion reactors...
Actually at *much* lower temperatures, *all* molecules break down and
*any* material fed into the torch will be "totally" ionized. Feed
anything in, run the plasma thru a *giant* mass spectrograph and get
ISOTOPICALLY PURE elements out. (He3 and H3 have diufferent masses
as do all the other "same weight" isotopes)
Room te,p superconductors would help, but aren't *neccessary*. I like
this gizmo because it solves a lot of waste problems. Any chemical waste
is no problem, and nuclear wastes can be concentrated to pure elements
which can either be used in isotope generators or buried somewhere safe.
(after all, what percentage of most radioactive waste is *really*
radioactive? Most is just "contaminated".)
Even if this sort of thing required a plant so large that we could only
have one per state it would still be useful. It isn't practical now due
to energy costs. But if cold fusion is practical.... wow!
--
Leonard Erickson ...!tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard
CIS: [70465,203]
"I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools.
Let's start with typewriters." -- Solomon Shortrwa@aurora.AthabascaU.CA (Ross Alexander) (03/31/89)
In article <1989Mar26.003753.11770@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > Nonsense. Supplying artificial gravity using centrifugal force is no big > deal, although getting the radius long enough to avoid inner-ear problems > is certainly a nuisance. [...] > You've also forgotten at least two other ways out of the problem: better > space propulsion to cut down the lengths of the missions, or just being As a matter of fact, if your propulsion technology is good enough, it will supply artificial gravity all by itself - one gravity constant boost is artificial gravity by any reasonable definition of the term. :-) Ross
jcbst3@cisunx.UUCP (James C. Benz) (04/04/89)
In article <296@v7fs1.UUCP> mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) writes: >Both of these countries could become the super-OPEC of the 21'st century. >One of them is the Soviet Union. The other is South Africa. >We *really* need access to the asteriods, which have plenty of platinum- >group metals. With cheap fusion, should be no problem to get there. Strap a couple of ion thrusters to a mass driver, program it to clamp itself onto a suitable asteroid, and start throwing rocks. Sounds like a great idea for a startup company and it just may be the impetus the space program needs to make all our Star Trek dreams come true. People at NASA keep griping about needing industrial applications for space. Hell, it might even be possible to build colonies on Ganymede - with cheap power, you could melt gigantic underground caverns in solid rock with glass sides capable of pressurization. And why even bother with planets at all, just build free-flying self-contained colonies in solar orbit. Turn Earth into a big nature preserve - no humans allowed without a permit and a guide. Giant leap for mankind indeed. Let's get out of this womb and see what's really out there. -- Jim Benz jcbst3@unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu If a modem University of Pittsburgh answers, UCIR (412) 648-5930 hang up!
jcbst3@cisunx.UUCP (James C. Benz) (04/04/89)
In article <1989Mar26.003753.11770@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >Nonsense. Supplying artificial gravity using centrifugal force is no big >deal, although getting the radius long enough to avoid inner-ear problems >is certainly a nuisance. People have designed current-technology Mars >missions which have artificial gravity. Well, if you are going to assume *lots* of relatively free fusion energy, why not just accelerate at 1G or some appreciable fraction thereof, until you are halfway there, then turn around and decelerate at the same rate? Voila. Artificial gravity with no inner ear problems. And no coriolis. Just a brief period of 0G at turnaround. An old Sci-Fi trick that still works. If going to the outer planets or the asteroid belt, trip times of a few weeks or months sound about right. -- Jim Benz jcbst3@unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu If a modem University of Pittsburgh answers, UCIR (412) 648-5930 hang up!
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (04/06/89)
In article <17272@cisunx.UUCP> jcbst3@unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu (James C. Benz) writes: >Well, if you are going to assume *lots* of relatively free fusion energy, >why not just accelerate at 1G or some appreciable fraction thereof, until >you are halfway there, then turn around and decelerate at the same rate? Because the power requirements are not merely high, but staggering, if the fuel consumption is to be kept sane. I did the calculation in sci.space a week or two ago; it was way up in the terawatts, as I recall, given some reasonable assumptions. Never mind generating it; merely handling that much power is a horrendous problem. 1% inefficiency means you have to dissipate gigawatts of heat. Someday; not today. -- Welcome to Mars! Your | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology passport and visa, comrade? | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu