Nitrogen Energy added with Anti matter could become new Bomb??!

Source - Gordon England
A plasma is an electrically conductive gas containing charged particles. When atoms of a gas are excited to high energy levels, the atoms loose hold of some of their electrons and become ionised producing a plasma containing electrically charged particles - ions and electrons.


The plasma generated for plasma spraying usually incorporates one or a mixture of the following gases:

Argon
Helium
Nitrogen
Hydrogen

Plasma flames for thermal spraying can produce temperatures around 7,000 to 20,000K far above the melting temperature (and vapour temperature) of any known material. The extreme temperature of the plasma is not the only reason for the effective heating properties. If for example helium gas is heated to around 13,000K without a plasma forming, it would have insufficient energy for normal plasma spraying. Nitrogen on the other hand heated to 10,000K going through dissociation and ionisation forming a plasma is an effective heating media for thermal spraying, being able to supply about six times more energy than an equal volume of helium at 13,000K. The plasma is able to supply large amounts of energy due to the energy changes associated with dissociating molecular gases to atomic gases and ionisation which occur with little change in temperature.


N2 + E = 2N
Diatomic molecule of nitrogen + energy gives 2 free atoms of nitrogen
2N + E = 2N+ + 2e-
2 free atoms of nitrogen + energy gives 2 nitrogen ions and 2 electrons

The reverse process provides most of the energy for heating the spray material without a dramatic drop in temperature:


2N+ + 2e- = 2N + E
2N = N2 + E

Nitrogen and hydrogen are diatomic gases (two atoms to every molecule). These plasmas have higher energy contents for a given temperature than the atomic gases of argon and helium because of the energy associated with dissociation of molecules.


Argon and Helium are monatomic gases (the atoms don't combine to form molecules) These plasmas are relatively lower in energy content and higher in temperature than the plasmas from diatomic gases.


Nitrogen is a general purpose primary gas used alone or with hydrogen secondary gas.

Nitrogen also benefits from being the cheapest plasma gas. Nitrogen tends to be inert to most spray material except materials like titanium.


Argon is probably the most favoured primary plasma gas and is usually used with a secondary plasma gas (hydrogen, helium and nitrogen) to increase its energy. Argon is the easiest of these gases to form a plasma and tends to be less aggressive towards electrode and nozzle hardware. Most plasmas are started up using pure argon. Argon is a noble gas and is completely inert to all spray materials.


Hydrogen is mainly used as a secondary gas, it dramatically effects heat transfer properties and acts as anti-oxidant. Small amounts of hydrogen added to the other plasma gases dramatically alters the plasma characteristics and energy levels and is thus used as one control for setting plasma voltage and energy.

New Bomb at Work here? what you think??

[edit on 23-11-2004 by dbates]

I don't have a link, but the USAF has gone public with the fact that they are looking into making an anti-matter bomb

They are willing to spend millions on it, so I am SURE it can be done.

Forgive me if I am wrong, but you mention thermal spraying, but don't you have to generate heat to have a form of 'thermal' energy? The gases you mentioned are noble gases, not cable of helping oxidation because they are extremely stable. I know from welding, they primarily keep things that oxidize out of the thermal heat of a welding arc to prevent 'crap' from getting into a weld. How does Nitrogen contribute to plasma? I am either undereducated or you are, and I would like to know a little more about this if you can explain it.

[edit on 20-11-2004 by ben91069]

Mad Man
YOu said the air force has gone public that they have been interested in an anti matter bomb. Do you have the link or any more info on this?

Originally posted by Red Golem
Mad Man
YOu said the air force has gone public that they have been interested in an anti matter bomb. Do you have the link or any more info on this?

They are. I back the Mad Man on this one. Seen it on ATS a while back. Do a search you should find it.

This should help

www.sfgate.com.../c/a/2004/10/04/MNGM393GPK1.DTL

There are more out there...do a search

Jesus Christ, NetStorm. I am extremely disturbed by that article. Primarily, it says nothing of the potential for this technology other than a gigantic killing device. They say spending billions to corral this antimatter so they can build a bomb? WTF? Is this really what the best minds in politics and science have to offer is a wonderful, clinical method of killing a city without nuclear fallout? By god I hope they blow themselves up and let society take care of itself. I hope these particle accelerators are located right beneath DC and they screw up and destroy themselves. I just want a light bulb that will last more than 1000 hours.

Originally posted by ben91069
Jesus Christ, NetStorm. I am extremely disturbed by that article. Primarily, it says nothing of the potential for this technology other than a gigantic killing device. They say spending billions to corral this antimatter so they can build a bomb? WTF? Is this really what the best minds in politics and science have to offer is a wonderful, clinical method of killing a city without nuclear fallout? By god I hope they blow themselves up and let society take care of itself. I hope these particle accelerators are located right beneath DC and they screw up and destroy themselves. I just want a light bulb that will last more than 1000 hours.

Well if we learn how to build anti-matter bombs. Reactors cannot be far behind, I believe that is the primary interest, of secondary interest is that it makes an ideal power source for any intra-solar expedition.

Although I know the civil benefits of this would be realized eventually, I cannot believe that it isn't being developed first for the military. The A-bomb was built first before they ever built a reactor, wasn't it.......

Originally posted by ben91069
Although I know the civil benefits of this would be realized eventually, I cannot believe that it isn't being developed first for the military. The A-bomb was built first before they ever built a reactor, wasn't it.......

No I do not think so. I seem to remember a polish or german husband and wife team who were the ones to dicover fission in a crude reactor without any shielding. Suffice it to say they both died a short time later.

Originally posted by sardion2000
No I do not think so. I seem to remember a polish or german husband and wife team who were the ones to dicover fission in a crude reactor without any shielding. Suffice it to say they both died a short time later.

Interesting.......I did not know that. Let me rephrase what I said to mean a commercially viable reactor that makes a lot of hot water.

Im not so sure that an antimatter bomb is anywhere close to being anything but drawing board decoration at the moment. The problem with anti-matter is not creating it. We can do that now. When its created, it is a microscopic amount. The real problem is storing it. When antim-matter and matter collide, well its not pretty. You cant use anything made of matter to store anti-matter. There have been some advances in this though. Mostly involving magnetics. Ill provide some links.

A basic overview of anti-matter. This is where you will find:

Another problem is the means by which one might contain the antimatter and then capture the energy once it reacts with matter. Containing antimatter is no small feat since it must be stored in something which is not made of matter. Currently electric and magnetic fields are used, though it is not clear how one would use this sort of containment device on any more than a few atoms or particles.

www.math.toronto.edu...

This article tells of some of the advances we have made in storing the stuff. Keep in mind that we are years, even decades away from perfecting this tech.
www.space.com...

This anti-matter thing has got me thinking. I am just smart enough to build houses and fix cars, but I am no physicist. I heard a theory about electricity not actually being generated in a conventional sense by generators, but the actual energy comes from the aether or I guess from the empty space that we cannot account for. In other words, the electro-mechanical action of producing current flow in a wire is half the phenomenon - the actual energy comes from the aether and the physcial current flow is the observable part of this. Is this, if anyone knows, connected to anti-matter?

Originally posted by ben91069
This anti-matter thing has got me thinking. I am just smart enough to build houses and fix cars, but I am no physicist. I heard a theory about electricity not actually being generated in a conventional sense by generators, but the actual energy comes from the aether or I guess from the empty space that we cannot account for. In other words, the electro-mechanical action of producing current flow in a wire is half the phenomenon - the actual energy comes from the aether and the physcial current flow is the observable part of this. Is this, if anyone knows, connected to anti-matter?

No i don't think so. You thinking of the quantum fabric of spacetime, of which is theorized could be tapped for unheard of power, way more then anti-matter I believe.

Sardion says:

��I seem to remember a polish or german husband and wife team who were the ones to dicover fission in a crude reactor without any shielding. Suffice it to say they both died a short time later.�

Perhaps you�re thinking about Pierre (French) and Marie (Polish) Curie, two early researchers in radioactivity, while working on early attempts to recover and purify polonium and radium (which they�d discovered) both became ill; researchers now believe it was probably radiation sickness. They jointly won the Nobel for physics in 1903. Pierre died (in an accident, not of radiation poisoning, although he�d been sick a lot) in 1906. Marie won another Nobel (for Chemistry) in 1911, and died in 1934 of aplastic anemia which si often found in people exposed to radiation.

But they never built a reactor; the very first one was in Stagg Field at the University of Chicago, where it went on line some time in 1942.

Kidfinger says:

�The real problem is storing it.�

He�s right; it�s like the guy who discovered the universal solvent and then couldn�t find a bottle to put it in.

And I don�t understand anything about Transmission Deployment�s post. What does plasma have to do with anti-matter and building a bomb?

Gentlemen,
Thanks for the info and links on anti matter. I knew it did exist and is used regulerly in colliders, but I did not know about the research being done for a potenchel weapon. I do agree with the above posters, it is very SCARY.
I was also thinking that would it not be better to use the nutron bomb instead? Since any anti matter bomb would destroy the structer where the nutron would not.
I hope the research is fruitfull, not for the bomb, but for the uses in an engine.

this type of anti matter idea may be recieved as non peaceful.does anyone monitor the usa on building dangerous new weapons?what if this gets into other hands.there should be a worldly open progressive monitoring of this type of new weapons.the fact there not studying for peace and still making new forms of harm this is all bad.i cant wait until they or someone else creates black hole technology on earth.if it goes wrong it will suck up the world lol........i seen a tv show about that one lol....

Fluke,
YOu are right, and as several posters have said they do agree with you. Also if you read this artical

Air Force pursuing antimatter weapons / Program was touted publicly, then came official gag order

the people doing the research also agree with you.

I can't see how it can be contained.
Whatever matter the antimatter touches, it will explode. That means particles in the air surrounding "it".
Even with magnetics, there would be a need of a compartment with total vacuum. How can you create vacuum without the use of a confined area?

-That means the antimatter bomb, has to produce alot of antimatter in an instant, within a area which consist of an area of vacuum, or something.

-Big bombs today create a vacuum as they explode. How do you suppose we can create antimatter, alot, within a bomb going off, creating the vacuum, without destroying the thing that creates antimatter, fast enough?

And is a quark antimatter? They disappear before they are created, as far as i have heard. I don't know the details

Edited in a link of article out of from San Fransisco Chronicle
www.sfgate.com.../c/a/2004/10/04/MNGM393GPK1.DTL

What is the point of making a bomb that ends all? -And I mean all!
"50-millionths of a gram could generate a blast equal to the explosion (roughly 4,000 pounds of TNT, according to the FBI)"


[edit on 23-11-2004 by Ulvetann]

No a quark is a sub-atomic particle. As for your critisms about anti-matter your are pretty much bang on. Anti-Matter may be mastered one day, in a couple of centuries maybe, and it most assuredly wort be used as a weapon 200 years from now, but as a power source for fast interplanetary missions. That is if we survive.