Nathan Le (
Sun, 3 Dec 2000 22:14:48 -0800 (PST)

comments at questions
--- Lim Jyue <> wrote:
> At 23:29 11/30/2000 -0800, Nathan Le wrote:
> >i'm new to the list so please don't pick on me
> Hohoho. Another Minovsky particle post,
> right so soon after we
> finished one. Mark, care to chip in? =)
> >1 - how can Minovsky particles still exist and not
> >annihilate each other as anti-particles should?
> Minovsky particles are not anti-particles.
> They are simply particles
> with different electrical charges on them. As such,
> even if they meet each
> other, they won't annihilate each other.
> >what stopped them from colliding together in an i
> field?
> An I-field is a lattice structure, where
> positive and negative
> Minovsky particles alternate in position. Thus,
> mutual repulsion will
> prevent the Minovsky particles from colliding.
> This is of course assuming that there is
> sufficient particles to
> form I-fields. A few particles on their own probably
> won't form a very
> stable I-field, as they will attract each other but
> probably gets repel at
> very small distances. Hence, these free particles
> won't actually meet, but
> eventually dissipate their electrical charge.
what if we had one positive and one negative?

> >2 - How can Minovsky particles block radar
> signatures
> >without hindering normal human eyesights?
> No no no. Minovsky particles block long
> wavelengths -- in terms of
> wavelength, the chart goes like this:
> Short Long
> Gamma/X-ray/UV/Visible/IR/Radio waves.
> Hence, Minovsky particles block long
> wavelengths somewhat below
> visible range, which means radio waves (which Radar
> depends on) is blocked
> totally, whereas IR is somewhat blocked, but not
> totally.

You mean Minovsky Particles interfere using
electro-magnetic properties, like a vibration or
something that blocks long wavelength?

currently we do have a particle like thing that blocks
radar, and it's chaff, and it clearly interferes with
visible light.

> As for laser communications, it is my
> understanding that it is
> actively used in areas of high Minovsky particles
> concentration, but as it's
> a highly precise communications tool, it's use is
> limited.

I meant laser for detection purposes. It's doable

> >3 - The heavy Hydrogen-helium-3 fusion reaction is
> not
> >enough energy to give that kind of output and
> create
> >Minovsky particles at the same time. why does it
> seem
> >probable?

I thought that Minovsky Particles had NEAR zero rest
mass, so ...
> >4 - how does Minovsky Drive work? like ion drive in
> >real life? why does one not try to use it as a
> cutting
> >weapons while flying?
> Depends which Minovsky Drive you are
> refering to. Do you refer to
> the Minovsky Craft, developed as early as OYW, or
> the Minovsky Drive, which
> is developed only in V Gundam?
> V Gundam's Minovsky Drive is, according to
> Mark, similar to a
> standard ion drive, and it has been used as a
> cutting weapon.
> If you are refering to the early Minovsky
> Craft system.. sigh, I'm
> not really in the mood to repeat the entire posting,
> and the ML will
> probably char-boil me with a beam saber if I do so.
> I suggest you look up
> the recent thread regarding Minovsky Physics in the
> archives.

Yes i was referring to Minovsky DRIVE. but isn't that
a sort of beam saber too? is the output from beam
saber not enough to propel a Gundam?

> -------------
> Lim Jyue
> ICQ: 24737555
> I am careful not to confuse excellence with
> perfection.
> Excellence I can reach for; perfection is God's
> business.
great quote!!!
> -
> Gundam Mailing List Archives are available at

Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.

Gundam Mailing List Archives are available at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Mon Dec 04 2000 - 14:57:31 JST