From:	Ereskanti@***.com Ereskanti@***.com
Subject:	Ruthenium (Re: Questions of great importance)
Date:	Thu, 2 Sep 1999 16:08:29 EDT

In a message dated 9/2/1999 9:54:33 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
cyberraven@********.net writes:

> >How about PolyPOV Ruthenium? Considering what the team would be doing and
> >where they are going, this is entirely possible.
>
> Hadn't actually thought of that. And rigid armour would make sense (light
> to medium security) for special operations forces.
> Whats the refresh rate on Ruthenium?

FAST!!! And something tells me its' going to be even FASTER in upcoming
materials down the road (we've advanced the SR SOTA Curve, this only makes
sense)... I also have a strange question concerning "Ruthenium" in general.
It's stated as a "woven" material. Why is it going to be impeded greatly if
it's part of garb/clothing?

For instance, I'm not an expert, but the last thing I knew was that "armor
jackets" (as an example) are actually jackets with various kevlar weaves
underneath the surface coat of material, with heavier plates in certain
areas. WHY is Ruthenium going to have a reducing effect upon *ANY* kind of
armor. If anything, I see armor that has been hit (especially by HE rounds,
Acid, etc...) as having *ITS* effectiveness reduced.

On a car I can see problems, yes as you have to either coat the car with a
"sheathe" of ruthenium, or polybond the material to it somehow. Sheathing
IMO wouldn't effect the body of a car while polybonding would (think of
putting Ruthenium into the "blower" for fiberglass car bodies for instance).

I just don't like the way they've pointed the rules out as they stand here.
Its' used for flexible screens/trids, etc...I don't understand the problem.

-K (okay, I'm confused, I admit it)