In a message dated 10/8/2000 8:40:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
butler@comp-lib.org writes:
<< How's this for full sentences:
I was trying to figure out the blast and radiation effects of a
hypothetical 10-20t yield 2kg (total mass, not pit mass) Californium
baby nuke just the other day, and I found out that the published
official software models poop out at 0.1 kiloton. What a pity. I wonder
if I should file a FOIA request on the Davy Crockett effects
information--they must have test shot info on at least one of those
puppies, since they were actually fielded for a while. That ought to get
me on *somebody's* list, if I'm not already. :) I nosed around a bunch
on the 'net, too.
*Why* was I doing this? I was trying to figure out just how dead some
characters in the movie version of _Starship Troopers_ ought to be. We
hard-SF readers are a funny bunch.
Btw, for any who didn't know, SSBN is also the designation for the US
Navy's fleet ballistic missile submarines.
Go Echelon! Beat Constitution!
Mike >>
My guess is you left out the phrase anthrax--a teriffic rock group. Also
bio-engineered Botulinus Clostridium. I was remembering that there is the
explosive effects of Californium, but I can't remember whether its
Californium-54, 94, or 254?
Dr. Freeh has a bad haircut! Can we use Californium to make better fission
reactors?
Is Californium a safer fuel to use? Is it potent enuf -perhaps thermionic
conversion?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:15 MDT