Neutronium sword

Seggybop · Post by **Seggybop** » 2003-02-08 11:30pm

If you were in zero-g, would you be able to use such a thing, and would there be any point to it in any case?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-02-08 11:35pm

Seggybop wrote:If you were in zero-g, would you be able to use such a thing, and would there be any point to it in any case?

Since the neutronium would immediately form itself into a sphere, it would make a spectacularly bad sword.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-02-08 11:37pm

Ah-ha! A neutronium mace!

Raxmei · Post by **Raxmei** » 2003-02-08 11:46pm

Such an object would have a much greater mass than the user. You'd end up swinging yourself around and barely shifting your weapon.

GrandMasterTerwynn · Post by **GrandMasterTerwynn** » 2003-02-08 11:55pm

Seggybop wrote:If you were in zero-g, would you be able to use such a thing, and would there be any point to it in any case?

As Darth Wong said, the neutronium would immediately collapse into a sphere, rendering it useless as a sword. Furthermore, a sword-sized mass of neutronium will mass more than some mountain ranges. Compared to the one wielding it, who will optimistically mass about a hundred kilos. Which means you can't wield the thing, period. In fact, you'll probably be drawn to it very slowly, as it will mass as much as an asteroid.

jaeger115 · Post by **jaeger115** » 2003-02-08 11:58pm

Since the neutronium would immediately form itself into a sphere, it would make a spectacularly bad sword.

Crap! Does that mean we can't use it for armor?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-02-09 12:17am

jaeger115 wrote:
Since the neutronium would immediately form itself into a sphere, it would make a spectacularly bad sword.
Crap! Does that mean we can't use it for armor?

You could use it as an alloying agent. Carbon atoms in steel are spherical inclusions in the matrix. But forming solid plates of fluid neutronium is ridiculous.

Post by **weemadando** » 2003-02-09 12:24am

Darth Wong wrote:
Seggybop wrote:If you were in zero-g, would you be able to use such a thing, and would there be any point to it in any case?
Since the neutronium would immediately form itself into a sphere, it would make a spectacularly bad sword.

Woo! Neutronium mace-head!

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-02-09 12:52am

OK, let's do some math: let's say the sword is three feet long, three inches wide, and half an inch thick (averaged across its width). Its volume would be 54 cubic inches, or 884 cc (8.8E-4 cubic metres).

The nuclear density is roughly 2.8E17 kg/m^3, so if we assume this to be the density of neutronium, we're looking at about 250 billion tons.

Needless to say, it would be rather difficult for you to swing this thing around. Worse yet, it would form a sphere of roughly 6 cm radius. At its surface, the gravitational acceleration would be nearly half a million G's. Even 10 metres away, its gravitational acceleration would be more than 15 G's.

And people think an Iconian structure sitting on a planet's surface could have thick walls of pure neutronium

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-02-09 12:54am

PS. It should be noted that neutronium is more of a sci-fi term than a real scientific term. Neutron stars are not 100% neutron degenerate matter. The matter found at the surface of a neutron star is ordinary matter, with discrete nuclei, electrons, etc.

jaeger115 · Post by **jaeger115** » 2003-02-09 12:55am

OK, let's do some math: let's say the sword is three feet long, three inches wide, and half an inch thick (averaged across its width). Its volume would be 54 cubic inches, or 884 cc (8.8E-4 cubic metres).

The nuclear density is roughly 2.8E17 kg/m^3, so if we assume this to be the density of neutronium, we're looking at about 250 billion tons.

Needless to say, it would be rather difficult for you to swing this thing around. Worse yet, it would form a sphere of roughly 6 cm radius. At its surface, the gravitational acceleration would be nearly half a million G's. Even 10 metres away, its gravitational acceleration would be more than 15 G's.

And people think an Iconian structure sitting on a planet's surface could have thick walls of pure neutronium

Uh-oh. Does that mean that if we put just a bit of neutronium under each of a starship's decks, it would give every one of them artificial gravity?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-02-09 01:00am

jaeger115 wrote:Uh-oh. Does that mean that if we put just a bit of neutronium under each of a starship's decks, it would give every one of them artificial gravity?

With a huge large force gradient as you move away from the deck (not to mention the engineering problems of such a massive structure). The gravity at your feet would be ten times the gravity at your knees, etc.

Post by **Beowulf** » 2003-02-09 01:02am

jaeger115 wrote: Uh-oh. Does that mean that if we put just a bit of neutronium under each of a starship's decks, it would give every one of them artificial gravity?

if you wanted to have a ship with only one deck...

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2003-02-09 01:30am

Beowulf wrote:
jaeger115 wrote: Uh-oh. Does that mean that if we put just a bit of neutronium under each of a starship's decks, it would give every one of them artificial gravity?
if you wanted to have a ship with only one deck...

I believe as Darth Wong said, the gravity at your feet would be ten times the gravity at your knees. And I'm pretty sure it would mess up landings as well.

jaeger115 · Post by **jaeger115** » 2003-02-09 01:34am

I believe as Darth Wong said, the gravity at your feet would be ten times the gravity at your knees. And I'm pretty sure it would mess up landings as well.

*pictures people literally melting on the deck due to the incredibly heavy gravity and shuttlecrafts crumbling into large hemispheres on the dock*

Marcus · Post by **Marcus** » 2003-02-09 01:36am

~nods~ point sources of insanely high mass generate really, really unplesant tidal effects...

which, now that I think about it, suggests certain weapon potentials...

jaeger115 · Post by **jaeger115** » 2003-02-09 01:39am

which, now that I think about it, suggests certain weapon potentials...

Don't even think about it. The very act of firing would collapse the barrel.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-02-09 01:42am

Recoil would be another non-trivial problem.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2003-02-09 01:44am

GrandMasterTerwynn wrote:
Seggybop wrote:If you were in zero-g, would you be able to use such a thing, and would there be any point to it in any case?
As Darth Wong said, the neutronium would immediately collapse into a sphere, rendering it useless as a sword. Furthermore, a sword-sized mass of neutronium will mass more than some mountain ranges. Compared to the one wielding it, who will optimistically mass about a hundred kilos. Which means you can't wield the thing, period. In fact, you'll probably be drawn to it very slowly, as it will mass as much as an asteroid.

I assume you mean a sword-sized VOLUME of Neutronium.

GrandMasterTerwynn · Post by **GrandMasterTerwynn** » 2003-02-09 02:54am

Master of Ossus wrote:
GrandMasterTerwynn wrote:
Seggybop wrote:If you were in zero-g, would you be able to use such a thing, and would there be any point to it in any case?
As Darth Wong said, the neutronium would immediately collapse into a sphere, rendering it useless as a sword. Furthermore, a sword-sized mass of neutronium will mass more than some mountain ranges. Compared to the one wielding it, who will optimistically mass about a hundred kilos. Which means you can't wield the thing, period. In fact, you'll probably be drawn to it very slowly, as it will mass as much as an asteroid.
I assume you mean a sword-sized VOLUME of Neutronium.

Yes, yes, yes, that's what I meant.

jaeger115 · Post by **jaeger115** » 2003-02-09 02:59am

Speaking of Neutronium, how can we hold it together if the individual subatomic particles have no charges? Neutronium has only neutrons in it, right?

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2003-02-09 03:02am

jaeger115 wrote:Speaking of Neutronium, how can we hold it together if the individual subatomic particles have no charges? Neutronium has only neutrons in it, right?

The strong nuclear force is charge-independent. In fact, the charge of protons acts to push nuclei APART, not hold them together (that's why nuclear fusion requires such high energy).

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-02-09 04:12am

This exact question was posted on ASVS by "erincss," who has an immense hard-on for nanotechnology. My comments were as follows:

Please explain how you would weild a sword with roughly the same mass as a small planet.

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2003-02-09 04:47am

Durandal wrote:This exact question was posted on ASVS by "erincss," who has an immense hard-on for nanotechnology. My comments were as follows:

Please explain how you would weild a sword with roughly the same mass as a small planet.

with the Force

Besides which, I'm sure that somewhere in sci-fi the concept of a "Neutronium sword" has appeared. Probably in an KJA or Brin novel.

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2003-02-09 04:49am

Darth Wong wrote:
jaeger115 wrote:
Since the neutronium would immediately form itself into a sphere, it would make a spectacularly bad sword.
Crap! Does that mean we can't use it for armor?
You could use it as an alloying agent. Carbon atoms in steel are spherical inclusions in the matrix. But forming solid plates of fluid neutronium is ridiculous.

Wouldn't that have some nasty side effects for the crew were it used in the hull of a starship?

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Neutronium sword

Neutronium sword

Re: Neutronium sword

Re: Neutronium sword

Re: Neutronium sword

Re: Neutronium sword

Re: Neutronium sword