Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!think!ames!lll-tis!lll-lcc!pyramid!weitek!sci!daver
From: daver@sci.UUCP (Dave Rickel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.research,sci.misc,misc.misc
Subject: Re: Einstein's relativity and daily life
Message-ID: <9665@sci.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 2-Oct-87 16:23:17 EDT
Article-I.D.: sci.9665
Posted: Fri Oct  2 16:23:17 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 7-Oct-87 00:45:40 EDT
References: <391@nikhefh.UUCP> <695@cfa.cfa.harvard.EDU>
Organization: Silicon Compilers Systems Corp. San Jose, Ca
Lines: 29
Keywords: science for the people
Xref: mnetor sci.physics:2366 sci.philosophy.tech:506 sci.research:244 sci.misc:527 misc.misc:1924

In article <695@cfa.cfa.harvard.EDU>, willner@cfa.harvard.EDU (Steve Willner) writes:
> In article <391@nikhefh.UUCP>, jona@nikhefh.UUCP (Jona Oberski) writes:
> > Question: Which things - common instruments, consumergoods, etc. - would not
> > exist if we would not have Einstein's Theory of Relativity: "ETR"?
> 
> Certainly no particle accelerators of any sort.  Particle
> accelerators are now being used for medical treatment.  And aren't
> synchrotron light sources used to make masks for VLSI circuits?

Umm.  If i remember rightly (which is a big if), cyclotrons stop working
because of relativistic effects; so cyclotrons, anyway, would still be
around.

I doubt that synchroton radiation is used in any commercial mask
manufacturing step, so nobody would miss it (yet).

> 
> No nuclear reactors (suggested in the original posting) is almost
> certainly right.  (Though they might conceivably be developed
> entirely empirically.)  If so, no radioisotopes.

How do they get the Americium that is used in ionic fire detectors?
Time for the old CRC...it says something about Americium being produced
by intense neutron bombardment of Plutonium.  So, fire detectors, by
kind of a circuitous route.


david rickel
decwrl!sci!daver