Ethan McKinney > I actually thought that the idea of two stabilizing fields made perfect sense for something that > was supposed to vibrate in such a crazy way, while "regular" super-materials only needed one > stabilizing fields and were fundamentally safer. I like that. It plays into the whole 'the further-out the tech, the less well understood it is 'thing. > Tim <xxxxxx@little-possums.net> > In reality, "neutronium" means a form of matter composed entirely of neutrons. > However, neutrons do not bind to each other and decay rapidly, except in extreme > conditions such as the core of a neutron star. Or the nucleus of an atom. (I am not disagreeing with you here.) As atoms get heavier, the number of neutrons in a stable atomic nucleus seems to go up at a ratio of about 1.5 neutrons per proton. The reasons for this seems to be built into the way that the universe is constructed (so it might as well be magic). In a nucleus, a neutron appears to be strong-force stabilized (protons and neutrons freely change into each other, and I speak very casually here). In a neutron star, neutrons are gravity-stabilized, and this is the effect I was trying to describe in my original posting. To bring this back to Traveller, if you can gravity-stabilize photons in a laser rifle, you can probably (give a TL or two) stabilize a thin layer of neutrons. > In a science fiction setting it could mean anything at all. Very true! Here's one for any real fundamental particle physicists out there: if you had some neutronium which was gravity-stabilized (Pauli exclusion principle and all), and you removed the gravity field, which fundamental force would apply first, and what would the results be? I had written that it would explode as the result of a strong-force interaction, but now I wonder whether the weak-force decay which causes free neutrons to decay would happen first? Anyone? (Side note: a strong-force explosion sounds *much* sexier, regardless of reality :-) ). > In an obscure Randall Garret SF novel ... Oh I do like Randall Garrett! I've only run across his Lord Darcy novels, though. I'll have to look out for the one you mentioned. I do like the description you posted, too. Not that far from my original diamond-based vibro-blades. I don't think I stole it off him, but it is possible. Potential acknowledgement freely given. And, of course, the entire concept of a vibrating blade is very like a current-day serrated blade - hard points along the length of the blade. If you add in the idea of the 'hard points' travelling along the edge of the blade (not explicit in my original posting), then you have in many ways re-invented the current-day electric serrated knife. > Anthony Jackson <xxxxxx@iii.com> > Of course, vibroblades exist in reality (though not by that name), though they're pretty > uninteresting as weapons, they're basically a specialized form of saw and/or drill. True (see above). Do you happen to have any references to drill uses? I am minimally aware of them but would appreciate a chance to increase my knowledge. > Tim <xxxxxx@little-possums.net> again: > It may also be worth noting that unless you have some way of getting the material > being cut out of the way, no simple blade is going to just "fall through" something > as hard as metal no matter how well it vibrates or how sharp it is. > A blade has a finite thickness, and most metals are highly resistant > to the compression required for it to interpose itself within the material > regardless of how sharp the edge might be. The kerf problem. Sadly, you are correct, at least for reality :-) However, for blades with atomic-radius-level blades, I suggest that these will tend to split a 'normal' material along crystalline or other molecular-level fault lines. For crystaliron, or other such materials, I think you end up comparing the various van der Walls/molecular/atomic bond strengths of the material and the blade. This is one reason I specified the neutronium blade as being sub-atomic radius. At least in my version of reality, these will end up pushing atoms aside. Yes, there is a physical force required to do so, but it will, I think, be less than that required to scrape off a layer or three of atoms, force them around the blade into the slot that you are cutting, and eject them (hope this is clear, I'm trying to describe in real-world terms what happens when you use a current-day saw blade on some material). Jeffrey Schwartz > But the idea of a [T5] "Grav Knife" just crossed my mind - the edge of the > blade is a very small multi-G grav field that yanks slivers of > whatever it touches off of the thing. Very interesting idea. I guess the question is, how deep are the slivers, and how easily can you discard the debris? Cycling grav field - attract/expel/repeat? You could probably scale this idea up to stripping off square metres of armour, but only at 1/10th millimetre at a time. I imagine a paint roller, only with a grav field built into it. Make for a great, if over-achieving, paint stripper :-) Jonathan
