From: tkoenig@netcologne.de   
      
   Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)  schrieb:   
   > On 2/17/18 9:58 AM, Thomas Koenig wrote:   
   >> Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha  schrieb:   
   >>> Thomas Koenig  wrote in news:p67d2b$n5h$1   
   >>> @newsreader4.netcologne.de:   
   >>>   
   >>>> Damien Valentine  schrieb:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> Also, because everybody's moving around at kilometers-per-second   
   >>>>> speeds, your ammunition doesn't actually need to be all that   
   >>>>> heavy.  See the Atomic Rockets website, where -- I believe on   
   >>>>> the "conventional weapons" page -- the author proposes using   
   >>>>> kitty-litter as ammunition.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> That has to be a joke.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> In order to be useful as a ballistic weapon, and unless your enemy   
   >>>> obliges you by not dodging, you'll have to accelerate your   
   >>>> "bullets", probably with a fairly high acceleration.  Kitty   
   >>>> litter doesn't have the mechanical strength for this.   
   >>>>   
   >>> Even if it disintegrated into a gas, I don't think I'd want to fly   
   >>> into it at relativistic speeds.   
   >>   
   >> How would you acclerate kitty litter to relativistic speeds?   
   >   
   > 	Put it in a capsule. Accelerate capsule to speed. Have capsule detonate   
   > (mildly) scattering kitty litter across an ever-widening area, like a   
   > relativistic shotgun blast.   
      
   So, basically, shrapnel.   
      
   The only issue I have with kitty litter is that it can't withstand high   
   acceleration, so it is probably less use in a tactical situation than,   
   for example, ceramic, steel or diamond pellets.   
      
   If you go for the shrapnel idea, you'll want to have a well-defined   
   size of your individual "bullets" to maximize your hit probability   
   while ensuring that a reasonable number of hits on your target   
   will actually disable it.  Make your particles too small, they won't   
   disable the target; make them too big and your chance of missing the   
   target will be too large.   
      
   Kitty litter, which is made up of agglomerates which will change   
   particle size (i.e. break down) depending on the stress you put   
   on it, does not sound like a reasonable choice.   
      
   Of course, bringing up anything in the range of grams to   
   relativistic speeds is going to take a _long_ time and a _huge_   
   amount of energy, unless you use David Weber's drives (which _are_   
   silly - why does he bother with warheads at all?)   
      
   Discussing weapons without any idea about what sort of targets   
   there are, what sort of energy constraints etc is a bit pointless -   
   it feels a bit like discussing the merits of 14 inch vs. 16 inch   
   guns for battleships if you have not decided if gunpowder has been   
   invented yet.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)