It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


US Patent #7709819 "Apparatus and Method for Long-Term Storage of Antimatter"

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on May, 7 2010 @ 10:29 PM

Originally posted by Aresh Troxit

Originally posted by Fractured.Facade
Ah, so they can store it and we know they can create it... But one question that remains unanswered is..

If you drop antimatter will it fall up or down?

Here's a link to an article that may help answer your question ...

Does antimatter fall up or down ?

In theory, antimatter dropped over the surface of the Earth should fall down. However, the issue has never been successfully experimentally tested. The theoretical grounds for expecting antimatter to fall down are very strong, so virtually all physicists expect antimatter to fall down; however, some physicists believe that antimatter might fall down with a different acceleration than that of ordinary matter. Since this has never been experimentally tested, it's important to keep an open mind.
What should we expect theoretically?
Based on what we currently know, we would expect that the only significant force acting on a piece of falling antimatter is gravity; by the equivalence principle, this should make antimatter fall with the same acceleration as ordinary matter. However, some theories predict new, as yet unseen forces: these forces would make antimatter fall differently than matter. But in these theories, antimatter always falls slightly faster than matter; antimatter never falls up. This is because the only force that would treat matter and antimatter differently would be a vector force (mediated by the hypothetical gravivector boson). Vector forces (like electromagnetism) repel likes and attract opposites, so a gravivector force would pull antimatter down toward the matter-dominated Earth, while giving matter a slight upward push.

posted on May, 8 2010 @ 01:36 AM
reply to post by Gools

Well i knew we had antimatter circling particle accelerators, it seems logical that someone would come up with an idea for storage. Forgive me but i don't know why this is such a shock to anyone.

posted on May, 8 2010 @ 02:59 AM
Well it was only a matter of time we had a more public view of what is going on with antimatter. I think they are exaggerating the prices though (at least I believe the US would lie about the prices).

I'm sure they have ways of creating it with their own particle accelerators which are more than likely underground and are hidden from the public eye. So in reality the quantity that is being made is probably much more than is actually known by the masses. Not to mention we all know there are others ways to get antimatter so who knows if they've figured out how to capture it naturally as well.

I just can't wait to see the public use of antimatter and its capabilities, that will be the day!

posted on May, 8 2010 @ 03:11 AM
reply to post by Gools

For the obvious fact, antimatter could easily be produced by precisely lined up lead ions and matter collisions. This would be hard, but not impossible.

Also, I can't help but recall those videos of supposed "alien fusion devises" from UFOs. Man, if they use that, they are not more advanced than us.

Antimatter is the key to efficient bombs, warp engines, and supremacy in the universe.

Also, for those of you who are tesla freaks. It's totally possible to use electrical and resonance wave devices to turn normal matter into antimatter. This would be the easiest way.

posted on May, 8 2010 @ 03:27 AM

Originally posted by Chonx

If you drop antimatter will it fall up or down?

I laughed when i first saw that remark but actually, wait a minute. Would antimatter be affected by gravity in same way as ordinary matter or would it act as a repulsive force? Do we know?

It will fall down. The basic "building blocks" of matter (quarks) are the same as anti matter just in different combinations.

posted on May, 8 2010 @ 04:00 AM
I don't like patents. They should be illegal.

This just makes you think what is going on behind the public areana and for how many decades.

posted on May, 8 2010 @ 04:07 AM
reply to post by JohnySeagull

Patents are the cornerstone of innovation and progress. Your idea is protected. I will agree today it is not so well managed though, for it is easy to buy out ideas and screw the middle man.

posted on May, 8 2010 @ 04:09 AM
reply to post by Gools

IT seems the future is already here:

Thanks to the OP for finding this:

Most self-respecting starships in science fiction stories use antimatter as fuel for a good reason – it’s the most potent fuel known. While tons of chemical fuel are needed to propel a human mission to Mars, just tens of milligrams of antimatter will do (a milligram is about one-thousandth the weight of a piece of the original M&M candy).

The down side:

However, in reality this power comes with a price. Some antimatter reactions produce blasts of high energy gamma rays. Gamma rays are like X-rays on steroids. They penetrate matter and break apart molecules in cells, so they are not healthy to be around. High-energy gamma rays can also make the engines radioactive by fragmenting atoms of the engine material.

There you go, the truth comes out:

One technical challenge to making a positron spacecraft a reality is the cost to produce the positrons. Because of its spectacular effect on normal matter, there is not a lot of antimatter sitting around. In space, it is created in collisions of high-speed particles called cosmic rays. On Earth, it has to be created in particle accelerators, immense machines that smash atoms together. The machines are normally used to discover how the universe works on a deep, fundamental level, but they can be harnessed as antimatter factories.

CERN is an anti-matter factory lol, I can't believe they didn't tell us that..

Why else would they spend so much money on it, if they didn't have anything to gain, but knowledge.. That is the alternative to crude oil..

Those bastards..

Edit to add source:

[edit on 8-5-2010 by oozyism]

posted on May, 8 2010 @ 04:24 AM

This one also made me go "hmm", and it's even invented by a
danish guy, like me! y=PN%2F4867939

posted on May, 8 2010 @ 04:33 AM

Originally posted by bluemooone2
One heck of a lot of work went into this , thats for sure. So apparently anti-matter is real. Cool find) it says it will fill the container with Positronium in a matter of seconds. hmmm.......

antimatter had been real and known about for a very long time now...

posted on May, 8 2010 @ 05:49 AM
Actually I have heard a scientist from CERN talk about this exact thing. earlier this year.

He was comparing Dan Browns new Movie, with actual science they do at CERN.

He confirmed that they have been making antimatter for some time now. and storing it in a vessel that works almost exactly the same as the one in the movie.

But he also said they havnt even made a thousandth of a gram. in all the years it has been made.

posted on May, 8 2010 @ 06:05 AM
Ok so if this patent is "proof it exists" which I have my doubts, but IF it is proof.

Than this means "chem trails" are proven since there are multiple patents showing exactly that.

So why are so many people on ATS constantly "debunking chem trails?"

So on one hand, a patent is proof of existence, where as on another issue, it is not proof at all.

Hmmm call me confused.

Anyone want to set me straight, be my guest.

posted on May, 8 2010 @ 06:07 AM
Wow. Just got through reading Angels and Demons. Sounds like something we could all use to destroy the planet.

posted on May, 8 2010 @ 06:10 AM
But if its "Anti-matter" then it really "doesn't" matter - Yeah that was bad. Back to the scientists. Sorry guys couldn't resist, but should have tried.

posted on May, 8 2010 @ 06:12 AM
reply to post by bittersylence

doubt it.

At the moment it would probably take 20 years to make enough for a decent explosion (/implosion?)

on the other hand we have enough nucluear bombs to destroy the planet.

[edit on 8-5-2010 by MR BOB]

posted on May, 8 2010 @ 06:30 AM
Maybe much earlier you think. Fermalab is doing this already for over several years. The AD (Antiproton Decelerato) at Cern which was built at the 70s, they already made anti-matter for over ages at verry low quantities. With the new builded LHC things will really speed up. Fermalab isnt nothing compared with the LHC at Geneve.

In 1986 a second ring, the Antiproton Collector (AC), was built around the existing AA in order to improve the antiproton production rate by a factor of 10.

Imagine what the LHC could produce.

[edit on 8-5-2010 by Oxize]

posted on May, 8 2010 @ 06:42 AM
reply to post by MAC269

I believe the device as proposed has the capability to be attatched to a back up battery for its power source, this would likely leave ample time for alternative energy provision arrangements to be made in the event of a catastrophic local power failiure, and is more than likely the only reason to make the device battery adaptable.

posted on May, 8 2010 @ 07:32 AM
reply to post by Gools

I don't get it... We know that CERN is trying to create anti-matter and NASA is trying to find it in space. Why does this patent surprise you? When you go fishing, you take a container to bring the fish home… why wouldn’t we take a container to bring anti-matter home?

Design flaw in the Alpha Magnetic spectrometer may impact NASA launch. Big Bang project may delay space shuttle's final flight

At issue is a van-sized device called the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer, which scientists hope will tell them more about the universe and its beginnings. The AMS is scheduled to fly aboard Endeavour in July to be installed aboard the International Space Station, but a potential design flaw has forced NASA to consider postponing the mission.

NASA Delays Final Space Shuttle Mission to November

The spectrometer will be installed on the exterior of the space station to study high-energy cosmic rays in the hunt for elusive antimatter and dark matter.

posted on May, 8 2010 @ 07:42 AM
I don't know, I am kind of a see it to believe it type.
I tend to doubt things I cannot see, especially when humans are the source lol.

So maybe this is just a big waste of $$$, rather than some actual working device.

Sure you can say anti-matter this and anti-matter that, but until some form of explosion occurs(or whatever?) that will be noticeable, I am just skeptical.I don't tend to trust it as the ultimate truth of the Universe yet.

There has got to be some sort of misunderstanding here, I wonder.

I feel the same way about most anything to do with particle accelerator techs.

I won't say "I don't believe in this", that might be too harsh; but I will say " I don't think you guys are articulating this subject correctly OR/AND you don't even understand it yourselves."

And I don't aim this at ATSers really I am referring to the articles written by particle physicists that you can find all over the place.

Same goes for "mini-black holes". I honestly don't think anyone knows wtf they are talking about on these subjects.

I am not saying I know either, I don't. I just tend to think no one else does.

Look from this perspective. This is just 2010. We are of the information/technological level of Newtonian Physics here compared to what people will be saying about this subject in a few hundred years from now.

Compare Newton to Modern physics. We are Newton.

And when someone says "Oh but Muzzle we DO know" to me that is like the ultimate proof they don't.
Well unless, they care to articulate a reason why, that is legible and easy to understand for everyone interested. In depth from start to finish. lol

On the "metaphor technology/information time scale" where I correspond us to Newton. Consider this, we haven't even invented the light bulb yet.

[edit on 8-5-2010 by muzzleflash]

posted on May, 8 2010 @ 07:45 AM
Antimatter is only of scientific value, it will never become an energy source.

Despite what Mr bob Lizar stated UFO don't use antimatter, they use dark energy.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in