Good answer. >From what I understand of Astronomy, it is wholly dependent upon the type of star. An average star would most likely be a red dwarf, since there are so many many more that sol-type stars. Red dwarfs have the properties of when they lose mass, they get bigger and less dense. Therefore, a machine would have to work harder and harder over time, and would be less productive over time. If the machine built other machines that consume suns, then this should compensate, but that is dependent upon your build rate to consume rate. There would also be little if any elements other than H or He (I think).They are just not very 'hot'. Red dwarfs are extremely stable, and burn very slowly. They can last trillions of years, as opposed to our sun which is doomed in a measly 5 billion more.
So... before I go on... when you say average, do you mean a star like ours? Nerd From Hell > -----Original Message----- > From: Alberto Monteiro [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 5:28 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: sun > > > Adam C. Lipscomb wrote: > > > > I would immediately send the governments of the world an > > ultimatum - they pay me ONE MILLION DOLLARS, or I DESTROY > > THE SUN! BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA! > > > Non sequitur. If there is nanotech, then one million dollars > is irrelevant. And so is the Sun. > > Alberto Monteiro > >
