It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The article i linked to at the beginning of this tangent was about a breakthrough in antimatter production that increases it several orders of magnitude with the promise of even greater increases in production using higher excitation states of positronium. The increased yield on the face of it seems to be enough for the ICAN or AIMSTAR engine.
originally posted by: dragonridr
originally posted by: stormbringer1701
Did you read about the AIMSTAR and ICAN II propulsion studies at Penn State?
originally posted by: dragonridr
originally posted by: stormbringer1701
originally posted by: dragonridr
Did you read about the AIMSTAR and ICAN II propulsion studies at Penn State?
originally posted by: stormbringer1701
order of magnitude: en.wikipedia.org...
1 X 10^-9th. thats a nanogram. and Several means "more than 2 but not many."
so three to maybe five orders of magnitude is what we are looking for...
they differ by a factor of 1000 or more.
does that mean 1000 nanograms?
All of the antiprotons created at Fermilab’s Tevatron particle accelerator add up to only 15 nanograms. Those made at CERN amount to about 1 nanogram. At DESY in Germany, approximately 2 nanograms of positrons have been produced to date.
If all the antimatter ever made by humans were annihilated at once, the energy produced wouldn’t even be enough to boil a cup of tea. Now the longest we have been able to hold it as far as I know is 30 min before it comes in contact with something and that was at Cern.
The article that caused this discussion says they have upped the production rate possible by several orders of magnitude. (apparently that is from the nanogram base line)
That means to me that they can make the quantities necessary to do some minimal forms of antimatter involved propulsion such as antimatter catalyzed fission and antimatter catalyzed microfusion. These forms of propulsion use tiny amounts of antimatter to keep a fission or fusion reaction going. they only need a few nanograms to do either mission. and thats to the outer solar system and to the 10K AU point.
it may not be enough to boil a cup of coffee but it is enough to kickstart fission and fusion that can plasmify that coffee etc.
No can't even power a light bulb remember were talking the energy used to create them far outweighs the energy they produce. Now the reason we can't do fusion is pressure we can't maintain the pressures needed.
So let's say we used antimatter to kick off a fusion reaction. What we would get is a neutron bomb as the pressure would be to low to hold them. If we can get and maintain the pressure we don't need anti matter we can just start a fusion reaction. So what I'm telling you is simply if we could create the conditions necessary to use anti matter to start a fusion reaction we wouldn't need the antimatter.
Yes I have and it uses antimatter to create a fission reaction using deuterium and helium-3 along with a small amount of uranium. Again same problem 1 blast uses a billion or so of anti protons. These anti protons create a nuclear explosion. Do this over and over and you have trust. But at a billion protons per blast we haven't even made enoought to do it once much less the thousands it would take to get up to speed.
The reason for this was simple carrying enough fuel to get to another star would be huge with this it would fit in 1 truck. It was not a break thru in propulsion it was chosen because it basically has the lowest fuel consumption for creating multiple nuclear blasts I'm quick succession. And to be honest its survivability is questionable. Most likely work a couple of times and be to damaged and blow up.
originally posted by: Bedlam
No, u!
What does Mr LCD tell you? Have you heard it yet?
originally posted by: Bedlam
originally posted by: ImaFungi
Please, oh great one, tell me how your knowledge of LCD, proves that you know all a human can possibly know about light.
How does an LCD work?
originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: dragonridr
LOL.
All those different things placed in between the light source and the eye; and you think this is you showing me evidence that you know what light is fundamentally?
You would conclude that none of them are very smart because they won't tell you what you want to hear. If you really want to make a contribution to physics, get a PhD in physics by writing your PhD thesis about something close to mainstream. Then once you have your PhD, publish your advances in the field even if they aren't mainstream.
originally posted by: ImaFungi
If I were able to speak with a very smart and passionate one in front of a black board for 5 hours, we would make progress in physics guaranteed.
The first thing I notice about physicists is that they tend to say "I don't know" a lot, especially when asked a question outside their particular specialty. The reason is that they recognize that another physicist who specializes in the branch of physics dealing with the topic of the question may know more about the topic than they do. It's kind of ironic to hear the people who know the most saying "I don't know" and the people who know the least say "I know and I'm right and everybody else is wrong", kind of like the graph GetHyped posted.
I am right, you are wrong.
originally posted by: Bedlam
And right off the bat, it tells you something about there not being an aether that EM propagates in. Right there, in one handy demo.
originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: ImaFungi
I'll take "Dunning-Kruger" for $500, Alex.
Your threads on physicsforums.com follow exactly the same pattern. You ask a question, you get an answer, you cannot reconcile that answer with your philosophical expectations so emphatically state that the answer is wrong. You are steered towards reading the necessary precursory material, you refuse to do so, your thread gets locked. Rinse and repeat.
When everyone else appears to be the problem, the problem is usually closer to home.