Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site denelcor.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!akgua!mcnc!decvax!harpo!seismo!hao!denelcor!lmc
From: lmc@denelcor.UUCP (Lyle McElhaney)
Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers
Subject: Re: Death Star weapon.
Message-ID: <436@denelcor.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 13-May-84 20:15:52 EDT
Article-I.D.: denelcor.436
Posted: Sun May 13 20:15:52 1984
Date-Received: Mon, 14-May-84 07:14:42 EDT
References: <12537@sri-arpa.UUCP>, <1514@dartvax.UUCP>
Organization: Denelcor, Aurora, CO
Lines: 23


       Anyone care to speculate on the plausibility of this weapon?
    It seems like it should work.  My only question was -- how about
    the strong nuclear force in the atom?  I thought that this force
    was much stronger than the electromagnetic force at distances
    on the order of an nuclear radius.

The strong nuclear force does indeed hold the nucleus together. There seems
to be confusion between the nucleus and the atom itself. The weapon
neutralizes the charges on the electrons, which become something very
like small-mass neutrinos, and they leave the scene to the unshielded
nuclei. These disperse due to their mutual magnetic repulsion. They do
not themselves disintegrate, presumably because the weapon does not affect
their magnetic repulsion/strong force attraction balance. The radius of
effect of the strong force is on the order of the size of the nucleus; the
size of an atom (its electron shells) is several orders of magnitude greater
and the strong force has no role in keeping the electrons with the nucleus.

The plausibility is the same as for FTL, thiotimoline, and the radio in
Galileo's day - impossibly small *at this time*. Later on, who knows?
-- 
		Lyle McElhaney
		(hao,brl-bmd,nbires,csu-cs,scgvaxd)!denelcor!lmc