N2's
Ramandu
nuclear blasts, and they're more powerful than anything conventional. And why
are they called mines when they're dropped from aircraft?
--R--
James M
Ramandu <ramandu3atNOJUNKyahoodotcom> wrote in message
news:a79fce01b1feadeba57806d06cf71695@TeraNews...
the
DVD footnotes. General thinking is they can't be nukes as we know them since
nobody seems worried about radiation.
[DFC]cOwMoO
"Ramandu" <ramandu3atNOJUNKyahoodotcom> wrote in message
news:a79fce01b1feadeba57806d06cf71695@TeraNews...
N2 does stand for non-nuclear, and in the time of EVA these are the most
powerful non-nuclear weapons available.
The blast just look cool ^_^.
And they aren't always dropped from planes.
cOwMoO
Daniel Fawcett
news:a79fce01b1feadeba57806d06cf71695@TeraNews...
> blasts look like nuclear blasts, and they're more powerful than
> anything conventional.
You mean the whole mushroom cloud effect? most explosions produce
clouds like that, they're just associated with nuclear weapons because
nothing else can produce a blast *on that level*.
Clearly they're not nuclear weapons, because of the way they're often
deployed in close proximity to cities, no politician would be stupid
enough to allow that ;-)
So Non-Nuclear probably is correct, they're hella powerful yet also
non-nuclear, and also a double meaning - maybe N^2 as in N2, which
is better than N ;)
> And why are they called mines when they're dropped from aircraft?
>
Presumably they're manufactured as mines, rather than missiles or
warheads. Or maybe it's just a catchier name ^_^
--
she's not coming home
turn out the stars
unhook the phone
she's not coming home
np: foo fighters - the colour and the shape
Josef 'Jupp' Schugt
Daniel Fawcett <western.ba...@virgin.net> wrote:
> You mean the whole mushroom cloud effect? most explosions produce
> clouds like that, they're just associated with nuclear weapons
> because nothing else can produce a blast *on that level*.
Nothing nonnuclear made by humans perhaps. Vulcanoes and impacts of
meteors have enough energy for that, also. Matter-Antimatter
reactions? Maybe, untested at that scale.
> Clearly they're not nuclear weapons, because of the way they're
> often deployed in close proximity to cities, no politician would be
> stupid enough to allow that ;-)
I always thought Semipalatinsk was a city.
Josef 'Jupp' Schugt
Allan Matthews
> On Sat, 24 May 2003 13:25:42 +0100,
> Daniel Fawcett <western.ba...@virgin.net> wrote:
>
> > You mean the whole mushroom cloud effect? most explosions produce
> > clouds like that, they're just associated with nuclear weapons
> > because nothing else can produce a blast *on that level*.
>
> Nothing nonnuclear made by humans perhaps. Vulcanoes and impacts of
> meteors have enough energy for that, also. Matter-Antimatter
> reactions? Maybe, untested at that scale.
Matter-antimatter reactions would release lots of gamma radiation.
allan
--
allan_matthews[at]bigfoot[dot]com
=========================================
"And the real lesson of the story?
Don't leave things in the fridge."
=========================================
http://allan.matthews.name
Jonathan Ford
port in Texas. When it blew up, it had roughly the same power of a small
nuclear weapon, and did create a mushroom cloud like a normal nuclear
weapon. The N2 mines which are used are actually pretty big, my best guess
is that they filled them with the same type of explosives that are used to
initiate a normal nuclear bomb. These explosives are extremely powerful, and
a Semi trailer filled to the brim with that stuff would deffinately cause a
big crater and a nice mushroom cloud, all without the radiation.
"Daniel Fawcett" <western.ba...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:banoc6$1mfhh$1...@ID-69946.news.dfncis.de...
tiago_simoes
> > >
> >
> > Presumably they're manufactured as mines, rather than missiles or
> > warheads. Or maybe it's just a catchier name ^_^
There are lots of different N2 devices: N2 mines (located on the
ground, like in Ep. 1), N2 depth charges (mentioned in Ep. 10), N2 air
bombs (Ep. 12), etc.
They are obviously not nuclear; nuclear stuff not only blows
everything up in a large radius, but also burns everything in a larger
radius, and contaminates everything in a yet larger radius (Shinji and
Misato would have been burned away right in Ep. 1, or died from
radiation sickness in one of the earliest episodes).
They must be a kind of chemical explosives, like TNT, Nitroglycerin,
fertilizers and such. Anything more powerful, like nuclear reactions
or antimatter, would be way too much of a mess, with radiations and
exotic particles floating around.
In fact, that particle beam thing in the 5th Angel would never have
worked, because particle beams dissipate easily in the air, producing
vast amounts of radiation in the process. And a circular particle
accelerator could only fire in a tangent line to the circle, that is,
the Angel could never shoot that out of a vertex.
While I'm at it, the famous "sea of Dirac" is just an analogy for the
way our Universe works. It was originally an idea by Paul A. M. Dirac,
a french mathematician that got the Nobel prize of Physics; it has
nothing to do with stuff being absorbed into another dimension or
something like that.
Of course, turning a few billion people into a single, liquid
super-being in just a few minutes is also not very realistic, but I
belive you can do whatever you want with the laws of Physics, provided
you don't actually want to look realistic.
Dont get me wrong: with a few exceptions (the sea of Dirac, manually
throwing a lance out of Earth's gravity, lifting a delicate particle
accelerator out of the ground with a giant robot robot, a single woman
outtyping a super-computer), Evangelion has one of the best scripts
I've seen in the last decade.
Jonathan Ford
particles themselves produced a rotational magnetic field that would contain
them? The effect should be similar to a plasma gun, but getting the
particles moving together to form the correct type of magnetic field would
be rather hard.
"tiago_simoes" <tiago_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:17bad758.03061...@posting.google.com...
Vaughn L.Porter
"Jonathan Ford" <dwb...@tin.it> wrote in message
news:rtEHa.102363$pR3.2...@news1.tin.it...
> About the particle beams. Would it be possible to produce them if the
> particles themselves produced a rotational magnetic field that would
contain
> them? The effect should be similar to a plasma gun, but getting the
> particles moving together to form the correct type of magnetic field would
> be rather hard.
>
> "tiago_simoes" <tiago_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:17bad758.03061...@posting.google.com...
> > > > > And why are they called mines when they're dropped from aircraft?
> > > > >
> >
<snip>
> > In fact, that particle beam thing in the 5th Angel would never have
> > worked, because particle beams dissipate easily in the air, producing
> > vast amounts of radiation in the process. And a circular particle
> > accelerator could only fire in a tangent line to the circle, that is,
> > the Angel could never shoot that out of a vertex.
> >
Couldn't you also use a high-power laser to vaporize the air in front of the
particle beam? That might explain the fact you can see the beams from both
the rifle and the Angel.
Vaughn L.Porter
Not that you'd see the laser anyway...
tgif
i think the real problem is "air", as air is made of molecules (oxygen
hydrogen) that always dissipate the beam...
"Jonathan Ford" <dwb...@tin.it> a écrit dans le message de news:
rtEHa.102363$pR3.2...@news1.tin.it...
tiago_simoes
> particles themselves produced a rotational magnetic field that would contain
> them? The effect should be similar to a plasma gun, but getting the
> particles moving together to form the correct type of magnetic field would
> be rather hard.
>
You know, that's how an electromagnetic wave propagates (visible
light, radio, X-rays, etc.): a linear electric field generates a
circular magnetic field, wich generates another linear electric field,
and so on. But it doesn't work to transport things with mass, that is,
any thing except photons. Don't ask me why, I'm only getting to that
part in the next semester.
Actually, I've heard somewhere that MASERs have already been produced
(the M stands for matter, as opposed to the L that stands for light in
LASERs), but I belive the "self-containment" of the beam was assured
by some property of pairs of electrons that had to do with spin, or
something like that.
Anyway, particle beams are produced every day around the world, so
that's not the point. The point is, they can't survive for long in the
open air. They collide with the air molecules and release their
energy. That's why we could see them from the sides: they dissipate
their energy heating up the air to incandescence, the same way
lightnings do. LASERs don't interact the same way with air; they don't
carry enough energy to kick atoms apart, so we can't see them (there's
a bit more to it than that, but this isn't a Physics group).
Tiago Simões,
happy to see someone actually thinking for once! :)
tiago_simoes
> particle beam? That might explain the fact you can see the beams from both
> the rifle and the Angel.
>
> Vaughn L.Porter
> Not that you'd see the laser anyway...
I don't think it's possible to vaporize a gas... It's already
vaporized, you know... :)
A laser cuts things by heating them so much they evaporate. That's
what happens with metal, skin and whatever you put in front of it. But
if you heat up a bunch of air, the best it can do is expand a bit.
There's no way to make it disappear, because it keeps coming back.
It's kind of hard to explain the important points without giving a
lecture on Physics, so here goes:
Light, lasers, X-rays, gamma rays, radio waves, microwaves - they're
all carried about by photons. Photons are closed packets of
electromagnetic waves.
Each photon carries a certain amount of energy.
A laser has a very large number of photons concentrated in a very
small area, but the energy of each individual photon is small, most
times not even enough to ionize anything. That's why it's not too
dangerous to be close to a laser. The only thing it can do is heat up
stuff.
Why can you see through air and not through a brick wall? Because
air, unlike most solid objects, is almost 100% transparent to photons.
So the laser just goes through, almost not heating up the air at all.
Particle beams are altogether different. Each one of the particles
has a very high energy (because the particles have mass, and E=mc^2).
So, when one of the particles hits a molecule, it can tear it
completely apart and produce a shower of smaller particles in all
directions.
The air is transparent to photons, but not to all particles. For
example, you don't get hurt by electricity unless you actually touch a
conductor, wich means air is not transparent for electrons.*
Besides, for reasons somewhat obscure at this point (cross-sections
and things like that), it's much more likely for a massive particle to
hit an atom than for a photon, so a particle beam hits molecules much
more easily than a light beam.
Resuming: you can't use a laser to get the air out of the way, and you
can't use a particle beam unless you get the air out of the way.
Hope you didn't fall asleep...
Tiago Simões
*Lightnings occur when the amount of electricity is enough to create a
stable electric current through the air, but this only happens because
"air" is not the only thing in the atmosphere. There's water vapor,
conductive dust particles, etc.
James M
explosive decompression along the disired path for laser defense systems and
for high quality telescope photos. The super heated air expands and becomes
very low density without return circulation, for a few milli-secs. This was
intended to reduce the distorion of "normal" air for the important
shot.Early SDI work had a lot of problems with "thermal blooming" along a
high power lasers path. Not sure how much it'd help with particle beams.
Either way the second shot would probly occure before it could register on
your eye as a seperate event.