Author: Catharsis (---.ethz.ch)
Date: 06-08-2004 08:32
I'll have to disagree slightly on the one point made about power plants and fuel cells. The explicit technical description of future tech requires you to be a) very well informed about cutting-edge technology and b) talking about the near future, since far-future tech is likely to be beyond description with contemporary terms.
For a story set 100 years in the future, a fusion reactor would be more plausible than a fission reactor, although there's no telling what a 22nd century fusion reactor would look like... the more detail you describe, the more sensible those details must be. Thus, it might be best to be less explicit. Calling it a second-generation Vernod-Hildberg stellarator still sounds spiffy, doesn't betray our current understanding of science, doesn't require having studied reactor physics, and won't sound all too benighted 10-20 years later. =P
|
|
