Where did superdense materials go?
robocon@xxxxxx
(07 May 2014 01:53 UTC)
|
RE: [TML] Where did superdense materials go?
Anthony Jackson
(07 May 2014 16:16 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Where did superdensematerialsgo?
Rob O'Connor
(08 May 2014 06:09 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Where did superdensematerialsgo?
Kelly St. Clair
(08 May 2014 07:03 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Where did superdensematerialsgo?
Ian Whitchurch
(08 May 2014 08:10 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Where did superdensematerialsgo?
William Ewing
(08 May 2014 16:44 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Where did superdensematerialsgo? Tim (09 May 2014 04:12 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Where didsuperdensematerialsgo?
Rob O'Connor
(10 May 2014 08:45 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Where didsuperdensematerialsgo?
Tim
(10 May 2014 13:21 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Where didsuperdensematerialsgo?
Richard Aiken
(11 May 2014 06:35 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Wheredidsuperdensematerialsgo?
Rob O'Connor
(12 May 2014 08:48 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Wheredidsuperdensematerialsgo?
Tim
(12 May 2014 10:08 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Where did superdensematerialsgo?
Bruce Johnson
(08 May 2014 17:26 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Where did superdensematerialsgo?
Jeffrey Schwartz
(08 May 2014 17:30 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Where did superdensematerialsgo?
Greg Nokes
(08 May 2014 18:10 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Where did superdensematerialsgo?
William Ewing
(08 May 2014 18:26 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Where did superdensematerialsgo?
Postmark
(08 May 2014 18:35 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Where did superdensematerialsgo?
David Shaw
(08 May 2014 18:37 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Where did superdensematerialsgo?
Timothy Collinson
(08 May 2014 19:30 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Where did superdensematerialsgo?
Richard Aiken
(09 May 2014 04:19 UTC)
|
On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 09:44:30AM -0700, William Ewing (via tml list) wrote: > This email was sent from yahoo.com which does not allow forwarding of emails via email lists. Therefore the sender's email address (xxxxxx@yahoo.com) has been replaced with a dummy one. The original message follows: > > It seemed to me that MT implied that iron was the start point, first for crystaliron, then for superdense and bonded superdense. > > Some ideas I've tossed around: > 1. Superdense means a hair-sized skeleton of near-collapsium inside > a foamed metal beam / plate / etc. One setting I've seen uses the idea of stable muons(*) to form muonic matter. It would behave much like ordinary electron-based atoms, but about 1/200th the radius and with bonds 200 times stronger. The net effect would be a material about ten million times denser, but capable of supporting stresses about a billion times greater. If a microscopic fraction of muons are replaced with electrons, it will also interact with ordinary matter(**). In Traveller TL terms: At the first TLs where it appears, it may only be possible to produce filaments of the material, which can be embedded into ordinary matter to strengthen it. Later technology allows constructing aerogel-like structures where the filaments are bonded together, giving additional stiffness and strength independent of the surrounding ordinary matter. Further developments allow controlled growth of regular lattices of the material, along with a whole range of tailored properties becoming possible. (*) In the setting, the nuclei are actually strange matter. That is, each nucleus has at least one strange quark in it. The handwaving is that a previously unknown type of weak force interaction between the muons and strange quarks keeps both from decaying. How convenient! (**) Purely muonic atoms would not interact significantly with electrons. The main force preventing them from freely passing through each other would be electrical repulsion when their nuclei approached very closely. In fact, they would be close enough for nuclear reactions to occur at a signficant rate. To avoid such nuclear interactions, it would be safest to make muonic matter from the most stable isotope of nickel or iron. These are the most inert in nuclear terms. - Tim