Active Sheilding

The main problem with Active Shielding is the polarity of the field.
Since the radiation leaving the sun is positive a positive field will
repel the particles, but at the same time it will accelerate every
electron in the vincinity of the habitat towards it. The resulting
shower on the hull of the habitat will produce enough X-Rays to kill
anyone inside.

You can arrange a magnetic field to deflect the electrons, but I'm
wondering what the weight of the material, and the power utilization
is. All the power is heat that has to be radiated away. This means
more radiators.

How much real savings in weight is there, remembering that the passive
sheild will be waste material from industrial processes in space, and
the active sheilding material will probably be sent up from earth.

Just a Thought,

Bill

--- In spacesettlers@egroups.com, "Combs, Mike"
> From: Tom Tucker (Olympia) [mailto:tntucker@c...]
>
> From: Dr. Omni
>
> It seems that youre a proponent of Active Shielding - the use of
magnetic
> and electric fields to protect your habitat. What are the
disadvantages that
> you see with Passive Shielding - simply covering your habitat with a
layer
> of rock (or ice, depending on your location in the Solar System) a
few
> meters thick?
>
> Tom - Primarily mass, although inertia will be important.
>
> To me, this would be more of an issue for a travelling structure
than a
> stationary one.
>
> However, I believe that the lowest mass, and hence, largest volume
for
> equal costs, can be achieved using active shielding.
>
> If the shielding is made up of slag left over from your ore refining
> operation, I don't see it adding a lot to the costs, at least not
from a
> material standpoint. I don't think the construction costs would be
as high
> as for the pressure shell, as I think the construction requirements
would
> not be quite as precise as what's needed for a pressure shell.
>
> It would be much better to just turn-up the voltage a bit when a
solar
> flare is due rather than hiding in a shelter IMO.
>
> I think the advantage of the 6' thick shield is that you can just go
about
> your buisiness normally during flares.
>
> A 4 meter tube/elevator becomes a 12 meter dia tube if shielding is
added...
>
> I'd question if shielding was even needed for an elevator tube. The
4-6'
> shielding requirement is for what's safe to live in for the rest of
your
> life. Since one would only spend a short amount of time in the
elevator
> tube, shielding requirements there would probably be somewhat
relaxed.
> Given the nature of primaries/secondaries, no shielding at all may
be best.