05-03-2018, 10:21 AM
It might also be useful to add that any particle beam with decent range would have to incorporate an opposite-charge injector very near the main output; probably, in most cases, electrons being mixed with a positive-particle beam. Why? Because otherwise there would also be electrostatic mutual repulsion between beam particles to contend with, causing extremely severe beam spreading.
At any reasonable range from the device's output, the beam itself would probably have become a beam of atoms or molecules.
One more thing: Diffraction becomes less severe as the mass of the beam particles goes up. This might be thought to indicate that a beam of lead might be best, but on the other hand momentum transfer might be inhibited then as the spacecraft structure would likely be made of light elements. (Momentum transfer is most efficient when the particles colliding are of equal mass.)
For a spacecraft made of diamondoid, graphene and/or buckyfibres, this means a beam of carbon atoms - or maybe a beam of methane would be easier to deal with at the emitter. (Methane is easier to handle than gaseous carbon.)
At any reasonable range from the device's output, the beam itself would probably have become a beam of atoms or molecules.
One more thing: Diffraction becomes less severe as the mass of the beam particles goes up. This might be thought to indicate that a beam of lead might be best, but on the other hand momentum transfer might be inhibited then as the spacecraft structure would likely be made of light elements. (Momentum transfer is most efficient when the particles colliding are of equal mass.)
For a spacecraft made of diamondoid, graphene and/or buckyfibres, this means a beam of carbon atoms - or maybe a beam of methane would be easier to deal with at the emitter. (Methane is easier to handle than gaseous carbon.)