> From: Chad Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > From: Alberto Monteiro [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > 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. > > 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. Presumably an exponential curve. 1>2>4.... > 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. It is well known E-mc^2; Proven both ways. I think in some lab a few years ago they created matter from energy (they were using lasers in some way). The temperature's just right for a controlled fusion process... > So... before I go on... when you say average, do you mean a star like ours? > Nerd From Hell A star that the surface temperature / pressure is not greater than the ability of the von neuman device to withstand. Presumably some stars are to hot / have too much gravity / pressure for such a device to withstand.
