From: Eugene Leitl (Eugene.Leitl@lrz.uni-muenchen.de)
Date: Thu Feb 14 2002 - 06:46:03 MST
On Thu, 14 Feb 2002, Anders Sandberg wrote:
> As for energy production, it seems likely it would work to drop stuff
> into the hole and use radiated gamma rays. A small hole would radiate
> intense Hawking radiation, and if kept stable by adding enough matter to
Problem with small holes is that there's a tradeoff between luminosity and
blackbody wavelength. E.g. a 10 kK hole would radiate less than a 10 MK
hole, but 10 kK radiation sans attenuation would be a lot easier to use
with solid state photovoltaic devices.
It would be interesting to see whether you could use an artificial
gas/dust atmosphere around a nanohole to both feed it/attenuate the
radiation if it's a hot hole. Somebody please do the math.
> keep it from evaporating it would be a small and handy reactor. Rotating
> holes can have their angular momentum extracted using the Penrose
> process, although for this you don't need a Dyson.
> I think having small black holes inside mini-dysons is a good way of
> producing energy, and doable (in the sense "the laws of physics doesn't
> forbid it").
Assuming, we'll see singularity fireball signatures in high energy
acclerator events, how scalable would this be? Which energies could you
reach with a circumstellar device lighthours across? What would be the
average lifetime of holes produced?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 13:37:39 MST