From: root@mauve.demon.co.uk   
      
   Carey Sublette  wrote:   
   >   
   > "Mike Miller"  wrote in message   
   > news:5dcb47db.0312300621.14d9d8de@posting.google.com...   
   >> Jonathan Griffitts  wrote in message   
   > news:...   
   >>   
   >> > I recall reading that a matter/antimatter annihilation reaction would   
   >> > NOT be a catastrophic explosion, because the reaction cross section is   
      
   >> However, when larger quantities of anti-matter are released in a   
   >> matter-rich environment (where the mass of matter is >> than the mass   
   >> of anti-matter), the first matter/anti-matter reactions are going to   
   >> heat up the anti-matter and "vigorously" disperse the remaining   
   >> antimatter...   
   >>   
   >> Right into further (high velocity) contact with matter.   
      
   > Nuclear weapons release most of their energy in a time scale of under 100   
   > nanoseconds, so this will be slower. But the outside world does not interact   
   > with a nuclear explosion in this timescale, instead the outside world   
   > doesn't "see" much of the energy until hundreds of microseconds have passed,   
   > so based on the energy release rate their would be little appaarent   
   > difference.   
      
   Most of the energy isn't seen till tens or even hundreds of milliseconds   
   due to the highly compressed air in front of the fireball obscuring it.   
      
   I can't find (despite some half an hour websearch) how far 10.6GeV gammas will   
   go in the atmosphere.   
   I suspect that the initial fireball will be lots bigger.   
   If it's large enough, you may not get the normal "double flash" that   
   normal bombs exhibit.   
   I suspect EMP will be much, much worse.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)