Comments on: Antimatter and Us http://www.biofuelswatch.com/antimatter-and-us/ Biofuels, bioenergy Wed, 07 Dec 2011 19:25:35 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: S.B http://www.biofuelswatch.com/antimatter-and-us/comment-page-1/#comment-1385 S.B Mon, 24 May 2010 02:20:38 +0000 http://www.biofuelswatch.com/?p=1731#comment-1385 however, according to the law of thermodynamics, the energy of a total reaction is equal to the energy of formation of the products minus the energy of formation of the reactants and since the total energy of an annhiliation reaction is about 1000x stronger than that of any current chemical reactions, antimatter is a viable source for energy. Also, high energy kenitic collisions are not the only way to harvest antimatter particles, sepcifically positrons, seeing as the isotope 22Na frequently gives of a positron in a beta decay and is eaisly harvested, without much loss in energy, therefore creating a positive value in the delta energy thus making antimatter a viable energy source however, according to the law of thermodynamics, the energy of a total reaction is equal to the energy of formation of the products minus the energy of formation of the reactants and since the total energy of an annhiliation reaction is about 1000x stronger than that of any current chemical reactions, antimatter is a viable source for energy. Also, high energy kenitic collisions are not the only way to harvest antimatter particles, sepcifically positrons, seeing as the isotope 22Na frequently gives of a positron in a beta decay and is eaisly harvested, without much loss in energy, therefore creating a positive value in the delta energy thus making antimatter a viable energy source

]]> By: Brendan http://www.biofuelswatch.com/antimatter-and-us/comment-page-1/#comment-1266 Brendan Thu, 25 Mar 2010 07:36:35 +0000 http://www.biofuelswatch.com/?p=1731#comment-1266 Antimatter will never be an "energy source" because, according to the law of conservation of energy, energy cannot be created or destroyed. The only means of obtaining antimatter is by isolating it from an energetic collision we supply the energy to create, so the synthesis of antimatter is actually an energy SINK. Even if antimatter were created with 100% efficiency, we would only get back the same energy we put in, and, while I lack any actual statistics, I would assume through general knowledge of thermodynamics, that we invest many million fold the energy stored in a particle of antimatter to create that particle, if not much, much more. Perhaps someday antimatter will be created at very high efficiency, but it will never be anything more than form of energy storage. It's applications as a low mass fuel and possible weaponry, however, are very real indeed. Perhaps someday we could harness the raw energy of the sun to create it? Antimatter will never be an “energy source” because, according to the law of conservation of energy, energy cannot be created or destroyed. The only means of obtaining antimatter is by isolating it from an energetic collision we supply the energy to create, so the synthesis of antimatter is actually an energy SINK. Even if antimatter were created with 100% efficiency, we would only get back the same energy we put in, and, while I lack any actual statistics, I would assume through general knowledge of thermodynamics, that we invest many million fold the energy stored in a particle of antimatter to create that particle, if not much, much more. Perhaps someday antimatter will be created at very high efficiency, but it will never be anything more than form of energy storage. It’s applications as a low mass fuel and possible weaponry, however, are very real indeed. Perhaps someday we could harness the raw energy of the sun to create it?

]]> By: G.R.L. Cowan http://www.biofuelswatch.com/antimatter-and-us/comment-page-1/#comment-1235 G.R.L. Cowan Sun, 14 Mar 2010 18:22:10 +0000 http://www.biofuelswatch.com/?p=1731#comment-1235 I don't think enough antimatter to release a joule when annihilated with normal matter can be made except by spending at least a joule of energy from some actual source of energy. "At least a joule" includes, of course, the billion joules the article says are necessary today. Perhaps antimatter can usefully store energy. Some researchers whose names I have forgotten claim that proton-antiproton annihilation promptly yields charged particles that fly in all directions, and a magnetic field could bend many of their paths so they would all fly nearly in the same direction, and this could be aft on a starship, which would thus be pushed forward. After flying some distance away from the ship, they turn to radiation, but this happens after a delay that, conveniently, allows their direction to be changed in a way that the direction of hard radiation can't be. I don’t think enough antimatter to release a joule when annihilated with normal matter can be made except by spending at least a joule of energy from some actual source of energy. “At least a joule” includes, of course, the billion joules the article says are necessary today.

Perhaps antimatter can usefully store energy. Some researchers whose names I have forgotten claim that proton-antiproton annihilation promptly yields charged particles that fly in all directions, and a magnetic field could bend many of their paths so they would all fly nearly in the same direction, and this could be aft on a starship, which would thus be pushed forward. After flying some distance away from the ship, they turn to radiation, but this happens after a delay that, conveniently, allows their direction to be changed in a way that the direction of hard radiation can’t be.

]]>