From: root@mauve.demon.co.uk
Gordon D. Pusch wrote:
> Ian Stirling writes:
>
>> Gordon D. Pusch wrote:
>>> Ian Stirling writes:
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>> Nuclear weapons release most of their energy in a time scale of
>>>>> under 100 nanoseconds, so this will be slower. But the outside world
>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Where the heck are you getting "10.6 GeV gammas" from ?! The majority of
>>
>> Apparently pulling them out my ass.
>> For some reason I thought that the primary output was gamma, with some
>> neutrinos.
>
> Even if that _were_ the case, given that the total annihilation energy
> is only a mere 2 GeV or so per baryon pair, there would still be the
> small problem of satisfying the conservation of energy... :-/
Well, yes.
It was a 'fact' that somehow got embedded in memory before I learnt
enough about the subject to question it, and I diddn't check it
later.
Unfortunately, my memory doesn't contain footnotes, or I might have
caught it.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
