Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Darren New wrote:
>>> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>>> unlike a true lightsaber you would have a solid core, 
>>>
>>> I wasn't aware we knew enough about how lightsabers work to know 
>>> there isn't a solid core (or at least a wire) under the plasma.
>>>
>> Kidding me?
> 
> No.
> 
> You could very easily[1] build something like a lightsabre with a loop 
> of wire at the tip attached to a wire that runs down the middle, with 
> magnetic fields keeping the wire stable. It wouldn't be "solid" core, 
> but just a wire held in place by very strong magnetic fields.
> 
> The wire could easily be thin enough to break if it actually touched 
> something.
> 
> Heck, you've got FTL travel. Why not make a wire out of exotic material 
> with negative energy, and build a plasma field around that?
> 
>> Its way more practical to make a saw than a sword, for *multiple* 
>> reasons, using that sort of plasma.
> 
> I wasn't aware we knew what kind of plasma was used in a lightsaber.  
> I'm just highly amused that you're sure enough of how a lightsaber works 
> that you're telling me I'm wrong about there being anything supporting 
> the blade.
> 
> [1] At least as easily as any other of the star wars tech.
> 
Sigh.. I am talking "practical means to replicate". If you want to get 
silly about it (and I am pretty sure no wire is involved, and its 
explained as such some place anyway), then why not ask what sort of 
"crystals" we need to use in them, or batteries?

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Sigh.. I am talking "practical means to replicate". 

I agree there is no practical means to replicate it. :-) That's my point.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook wrote:
> Speaking of Unobtanium, the other day I came across this article,
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Element_115 ...'ununpentium'.  Using the
> naming scheme that they are for elements that haven't been assigned a
> 'proper' name yet will clearly lead to one thing and one thing only:
> eventually, we will create unobtanium.

What element number would that be?

115 is ununpentium because 'un' = 1 and 'pent' = 5.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systematic_element_name

Post a reply to this message