[radon]

We *could* use it for power if we had enough of it, but I'm going to be very surprised if it doesn't take way more power to make than you'd ever get out of it.

From the article:

Further into the future, Kaku believes we may be able to use antimatter as the "ultimate rocket fuel," since it's 100 percent efficient – all of the mass is converted to energy. By contrast, thermonuclear bombs only use about 1 percent.

When an anti-matter particle collides with a matter particle, they emit a photon and disappear - the process know as annihilation. A single photon carries energy of circa 1 quintillionth Joules http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061014185218AAWxqel For reference to the names of large numbers view http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_large_numbers.

In order to keep your 40 watt spot lamp lit for a tenth of second (the time that the anti-particles were managed to be held stable), you will need a quintillion packs of 40 (or 38 for that matter) photons, or a quintillion Large Hadron Colliders working simultaneously. This is assuming that we are able to harness the photons' energy without losses.

The area of the Collider is about 230 km2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Location_Large_Hadron_Collider.PNG. The total land area of the Earth is 150 m km2. The entire land surface will thus be able to accommodate about 650 thousand Colliders - let's say a million for simplicity.

This means that we will need about a TRILLION Earths covered by Colliders in order to keep light in a 40 watt bulb for a tenth of a second at the current level of the technology development. You need to invest energy in building these Colliders, maintaining them, generating the anti-particles, harnessing the photons' energy. To get a 40 watt light flash. This gives the idea about the potential energy efficiency of the process at the current stage.

No need to produce all those numbers though. The entire argument by reference to the "100% efficiency" in the article is logically flawed from the outset. The energy input into synthesizing the fuel (anti-matter) is in no way dependent on the efficiency of the output process. Moreover, the input energy may not be lower than the output energy, as otherwise we would have created a perpetuum mobile and declining entropy. If this was the case it would be easier then to synthesize petroleum and use it to drive our contemporary oil-dependent economy, instead of drilling holes in the ground in searches for more oil. This contradicts the laws of thermodynamics as they stand at the moment - a topic discussed on this forum on numerous occasions.

In light of this the only way to practically address the energy starvation issue is to try to find storages of the anti-matter that the universe might have already created for us over the course of its billion-years evolution. Those similar to the oil fields beneath the ground. For some reasons, unknown to the scientists yet, the anti-matter is far less common in nature than the matter, and is anyway difficult to store as it annihilates instantly when contacted with the matter. So it is more a science fiction at the moment than any practical prospect to address our energy needs.

[radon]

This is so stupid. I expect better then this from peakoil.com



Magic space travel?
This is the stupid part. Antimatter is not any magic key to star ships or space flight. This won't magically levitate a spacecraft. And this isn't even a good way to store energy.

This is not stupid at all. EU showed above that the photon's engine is hypothetically able to propel a spaceship to 10% of c (30 000 km per second) within 10m seconds, and Plantagenet calculated that this is a 45 mins travel to Mars. A qualifier is that 10m secs is about 116 days. But nevertheless, the modern spaceship engines propel spacecrafts to no more than several km per second. Due to the supreme efficiency of the fuel-to-energy conversion process, the photon engine is the best potential technology, currently known, for the spacecraft propulsion.

Also as EU wrote above, the 10% of c speed would be achieved when the mass of spacecraft is m0/e. Proton's rocket mass is about 700 tones, and it is able to bring to the orbit 20 tones at a speed of a few km per second. A 700-tone photon rocket would propel 260 tones of the spacecraft to 10% of c. So using anti-matter looks potentially like a very efficient way to store energy.

The subject's article does not address the world's energy scarcity issues. It addresses the potential for creation of highly efficient/effective engines for space-vehicles and alike. These are absolutely different problems that OF2 seems to have failed to discern, and that led to a general confusion.

The modern space rockets (or even airplanes) use extremely energy-efficient fuels. Meaning, the ratio of the emitted energy to their mass is very high. Nevertheless, these fuels are not used in car vehicles or in electricity generation. Because the amounts of energy inputs required to produce these fuels are very significant. The EROEI of these fuels should be appallingly low. (Besides, the space liquid fuels are very toxic). However, these does not prevent them from being very energy efficient in performing their ultimate task of bringing the spacecraft to the orbit. It all seems like a question of definitions and terminology.

Regarding this as a weapon or for producing energy?
You put in x amount of energy creating your antimatter. At most you might get 2X in energy reacting with matter. However this isn't likely since you have likely spent an aircraft carrier in momentum to create your first atom. On reaction your atom makes a little pop. Ultimately it is more efficient to throw aircraft carriers at enemies with catapults. Regarding using this in a reactor, it's got a long way to go to get a positive EROEI.

Yes, as long as you use the Large Hadron Collider to produce the anti-matter. You may similarly employ the Large Hadron Collider or alike device to synthesize petroleum. You will get a similar result. But instead, you may drill a hole in the ground and get the oil from there at EROEI of 10:1.

Again, as discussed above, these are two distinct issues:

1. Maximizing EROEI from the available resources - this one is that po.com seems to focus on.
2. Maximizing energy concentration at an arbitrary EROEI cost - the primary concern of the scientists in the article.

But what if antimatter could be produced efficiently and this had a positive EROEI?
Then it would not be used for space travel.

1. First it would be orders of magnitude less safe as an energy source then a nuclear reactor strapped to a tank of liquid hydrogen propellant.

So what? Liquid space fuels are extremely toxic and unsafe, but they are nevertheless used to propel rockets. Nuclear plants are potentially very dangerous but nevertheless used to generate energy.

2. The only way antimatter could be useful for space travel is if the antimatter could be produced on the fly and reacted with matter ..

Not necessarily. An alternative would be a search for the anti-matter containment mechanism to store it. Similarly to the attempts to find containment for plasma used in fusion reactors, but perhaps far more difficult than that.

3. If it was possible to produce antimatter for less energy then was consumed in the production, then it is likely countries could use this produce nuclear bombs without having to refine uranium or other isotopes. An antimatter nuclear bomb alternative would be very dangerous for the world. Such an energy source might be used to send people into space; with mushroom clouds. If antimatter production was easy and efficient, it would not be a good thing. Luckily we live in a universe where it is neither easy or efficient to produce.

Does not seem to be relevant to the point in bolds above that you are trying substantiate with this argument.

What is good about this research?
Understanding different forms of energy will help our understanding of the universe we live in. Being able to observe this energy form for a full "one tenth of a second" will probably make possible many new and interesting physics tests for understanding energy.

Agree.

[steam_cannon]

Everything you have been ranting about is wild speculation and nothing more.

This is not stupid at all. EU showed above that the photon's engine is hypothetically...

...An alternative would be a search for the anti-matter containment mechanism to store it...

That's right, as it said in the article there presently is no good way to store antimatter.

For space travel:
* Reality: A reactor and a tank of hydrogen would work quite well for a mission to mars. Though it would be dangerous as reactors in orbit are frowned apon because space accidents happen. But this technology works.

* Science Fiction: Antimater propulsion has no way to work using modern technology or current scientific research. It is by definition pure science fiction.

Antimatter will probably not be useful for anything in the next 100 years or anytime. Unless the laws of physics change, it's a useless thought experiment. We can't produce any useful amount of antimatter and we cannot store it for a useful amount of time. A tenth of a second is not a useful amount of time.

This is not a debate, those are the facts. This is not a great advance for space travel, physics or anything more then a sensationalized news article that got you whipped up.

[radon]

..Everything you have been ranting about is wild speculation and nothing more..

This is not a debate, those are the facts. This is not a great advance for space travel, physics or anything more then a sensationalized news article that got you whipped up.

Thank you for your comments.

This article did not get me whipped up. I read about the potential use of anti-matter engines for space travel in a popular science book a long ago, when I was a schoolboy. Mr. Kaku, the scientist in the article, did not say anything new. Essentially, he cited that old book that I mentioned. And I appreciate that use of anti-matter is a far remoter possibility than creation of a fusion reactor, the latter being "always forty years away" as many say.

In fact, I picked up this thread, and specifically - your post, not because I am very obsessed with the anti-matter (though I do find it intellectually entertaining), but because it illustrates the issues of interaction of scientific teams with non-scientific people, including the managers of these teams, and the society at large.

The importance of these issues are difficult to overestimate as the scientists are those who are now at the forefront of the search for the practical solutions to our energy problems, or at least their mitigation. Yet those issues don't seem to have attracted lots of attention on this forum, despite many discussions on the technicalities of the relevant research fields (alternatives, fusion, climate change etc.)

* Science Fiction: Antimater propulsion has no way to work using modern technology or current scientific research. It is by definition pure science fiction.

But this is not some sort of magic. Mr. Kaku, the Japanese scientist from the article, is not a Harry Porter who promises to create miracles with a wave of magic wand. He experiments and achieves certain results which is he able to explain and reproduce. This is how the scientific advancement has always worked. The results are all around us - TVs, airplanes etc. After all, had not someone discovered an oil field in the first place, our oil age would not be possible.

Lets view this in person:

Mr. Kaku: the scientist. He and his team have just managed to obtain 38 anti-particles and retain them stable for a tenth of a second. He thinks: "Geez, we have just produced vast amount of anti-matter and managed to keep it for a huge period of time - a tenth of a second is almost eternity in particles' physics. After all, by this time electrons have already long formed after the Bing Bang. But how am I going to explain this to the people? They do not understand the quantum mechanics. They will say: 'We can't produce any useful amount of antimatter and we cannot store it for a useful amount of time. A tenth of a second is not a useful amount of time.' But we want to have our work appreciated to its merit, and also need to provide justifications for our next year budget... I need to write something impressive that is easy to understand for a casual reader." So he retrieves the old forgotten story about space travel.

Mr. OilFinder: the reporter. Comes across as a very positive and optimistic person. Posts links to various stories on which, for whatever reasons, he always puts positive spin. Notices Mr. Kaku's story and posts it as a story showing that all our concerns regarding cost of energy will soon be gone. Does not notice, or does not really care, that the story addresses an absolutely different issue.

Mr. steam_cannon: the judge. Exercises judgment. Often in an position to exercise judgment to a lasting effect. He reads the linked article and holds: "We can't produce any useful amount of antimatter and we cannot store it for a useful amount of time. A tenth of a second is not a useful amount of time."

The scientific teams are incredibly difficult to manage. If you run a small business, than you may more or less easily sense if an employee of yours is slacking, because what you are normally doing is common sense day-to-day things. Now imagine that you have a subordinate whose work may be comprehended by only a few people on the planet, and you are not one of these people (this will always be the case at some point in the organizational hierarchy). Or indeed a single of his kind. He tells you that what he is doing will take ages, and that you would need this and that equipment and so many terrawatts and so on. You calculate the costs and ask yourself: "is he fooling me? why does it take so much time? Finally moved to us from his Dumbikistan and now going to be slacking or what? what am I going to say to the bosses in order to finance our next year?"

Or now look at it from the subordinate's perspective: "Why is he asking all these questions? Looks like he is suspicious of something.. If we want to achieve the objectives set, then we need to do what I said. But he does not look like being very fond of what I am saying.. OK, I will tell him what he wants to hear. After all, I am an emigre, I want my salary, all perks and staff of which I dreamed in Dumbikistan. Why rock the boat."

And they go on doing something that no one able to understand, mostly shuffling papers aimlessly, printing articles from time about a "breakthrough in ten years time", enjoying perks and finance that their bosses extend to them after an annual review where they exercise judgment. The readers of the articles also exercise judgment..

Is it entirely appropriate to judge flatly, with no benefit of doubt given, on subjects in which you are not totally competent? Mr.Orlov's recent post pertinently discusses virtues of incompetence. I would not support his bias downplaying Americans though, even as he is trying to substantiate it with some research.

Maybe, if the slack and incompetence in the scientific areas related to energy were got rid of, then the fusion's "always forty years away" could be reduced to, say, "always thirty years away" at some point?

[steam_cannon]

the search for the practical solutions to our energy problems, or at least their mitigation. Yet those issues don't seem to have attracted lots of attention on this forum

Here you are insulting the forums. Big woopdedoo. Dising the forum will not make your argument true. And really, energy issues and "real" discoveries get a lot of attention here. THAI for example. But you probably expect to see more popular "discoveries" which unfortunately are usually nothing but hot air and hot air don't get much attention here. Look back at the last 50 years of popular mechanics magazine, very entertaining "discoveries" but mostly hot air pushed for entertainment reasons. This website doesn't deal in hot air, we deal with chunks of coal and other real things you can hold in your hand. This is not a flaw.

Mr. steam_cannon: the judge... Is it entirely appropriate to judge flatly, with no benefit of doubt given, on subjects in which you are not totally competent?

Now you're insulting my qualifications and using a straw-man argument. I'm unimpressed. We often see trolls here attack other posters qualifications. Its an amusing tactic and really quite comical sometime because they often will outright ask to see scanned in degrees and drivers licenses and other ridiculousness. It's little more then a last resort of someone who has no basis for their argument.

I think you are arguing so you feel validated, but I am only concerned with the facts and as they stand this research is nothing more then hot air. It's fine research, but it is hot air because it has no importance to what we discuss on this website, you know like stuff related our current energy needs or our economic problems.

It would be a straw-man argument to suggest I am their judge deciding if they can continue their day to day job. Their job is not my concern, my concern is if this will have an impact on our energy problems and keep in mind, "Lead to Starships" implies this is a technology that will also solve our energy problems. That's implied. So this is what you should ask yourself.

Also IMO it is not significant step compared to previous antimatter physics research, at best it is a continuation of normal collider related research. Partial physics exists to better our understanding of the universe. This research accomplishes that goal. But it has little relevance to peak oil, energy problems or economic conditions.

[cipi604]

My technocopia meter is jittering toward the max!

LINK

Antimatter Breakthrough Could Lead to Starships, Says Scientist
By: Peter Pachal
11.18.2010

Scientists at CERN, the research facility that's home to the Large Hadron Collider, claim to have successfully created and stored antimatter in greater quantities and for longer times than ever before.

Researchers created 38 atoms of antihydrogen – more than ever has been produced at one time before and were able to keep the atoms stable enough to last one tenth of a second before they annihilated themselves (antimatter and matter destroy each other the moment they come into contact with each other). Since those first experiments, the team claims to have held antiatoms for even longer, though they weren't specific of the duration.

While scientists have been able to create particles of antimatter for decades, they had previously only been able to produce a few particles that would almost instantly destroy themselves.

"This is the first major step in a long journey," Michio Kaku, physicist and author of Physics of the Impossible, told PCMag. "Eventually, we may go to the stars."

[...]

OF2 sorry to break your party but there are a few things that you are clueless about. First of all, the transformation is totally net energy loser. Second , we do not have on this planet perfect vacuum, therefor your a-particles vanish very fast in an electro-magnetic recipient. In consequence of this, they could only save the anti-hidrogen atoms for just a few micro-seconds. That is a lot less than a blink of an eye.
It happens that I have some connections to LHC and Fermi and this experiment was long time talked about, very doable on paper and reality. The fact that we finally grabbed a few a-H for some micro-seconds... boring stuff, old news.

You'll see nuclear fission/fusion micro-detonation rockets before a-matter rockets.
Hit the books, learn more physics. And PREPARE FOR PEAK OIL!

[radon]

the search for the practical solutions to our energy problems, or at least their mitigation. Yet those issues don't seem to have attracted lots of attention on this forum

Here you are insulting the forums. Big woopdedoo. Dising the forum will not make your argument true. And really, energy issues and "real" discoveries get a lot of attention here. THAI for example. But you probably expect to see more popular "discoveries" which unfortunately are usually nothing but hot air and hot air don't get much attention here. Look back at the last 50 years of popular mechanics magazine, very entertaining "discoveries" but mostly hot air pushed for entertainment reasons. This website doesn't deal in hot air, we deal with chunks of coal and other real things you can hold in your hand. This is not a flaw.

You did not read what I wrote and your response misses the point. Once more in a condensed form:

...the issues of interaction of scientific teams with non-scientific people, including the managers of these teams, and the society at large... don't seem to have attracted lots of attention on this forum, despite many discussions on the technicalities of the relevant research fields.

The link that you provided discusses technical problems rather than the human dimension and just validates my point. There are indeed many such technical discussions on this forum, as I wrote above. But little seems to have been said about why some research may have been dragged down because of human/management issues.

I think I have only once seen a relevant story posted on this or another similar forum, about a researcher working for a western defense company and having to workplaces in two separate office buildings. He would say to the boss in the first office that he would go to the second, and to the boss in the second that he would go to the first. And in reality he would stay at home and relax.

Here you are insulting the forums.

Why you think you are in position to speak on behalf of the forums?

Mr. steam_cannon: the judge... Is it entirely appropriate to judge flatly, with no benefit of doubt given, on subjects in which you are not totally competent?

Now you're insulting my qualifications and using a straw-man argument.

I do not intend to downplay your qualifications. I am not saying, for example, that your qualifications are poorer than mine. What I am saying is that we should exercise care with flat dismissals (or flat excitement) regarding subjects that only few on the whole planet understand in their entirety.

[EnergyUnlimited]

Helpful but not very impressive...

A spaceship travelling at 1/10th the speed of light could travel from Earth to Mars in about 45 minutes ..... that seems pretty impressive to me.

Main problem is that it would take 10 millions seconds (119 days) to accelerate at 1 g and 119 days to decellerate while approaching, unless you want to smash it against Mars at 10% of c.

Lets say that astronauts can take for long periods of time 2 g (I know that they can handle 5 g but only for minutes).

This would still result in 4 months journey (there and back).
Not very impressive.
With current technology you can aim at 2 years.

Such propulsion would only make sense in interstellar travel and would allow you to get to nearest stars within lifetime of astronaut.

However I must agree with steamcannon on accounts that we have no resources or expertise whatsoever to produce useful amounts of antimatter, it would take truly fantastic amounts of energy (which we are not going to have) to produce such useful amounts, say few kg or preferably few thousands of tonnes, which would come handy for interstellar travel.

One should also note that products of annihilation of protons/antiprotons are rather pions, not photons, so efficiency of propulsion would be lower than theoretical, however there is a beneficial part of it - pions produced in such process are charged particles, so some designs of magnetic nozzle could be used in the rocket.
Storing of electrically neutral antimatter would also be problematic albeit hydrogen and also antihydrogen gas would be diamagnetic and therefore storable in magnetic bottles under substantial magnetic fields.

[vision-master]

I've been hearing the 'Red Planet' of Mars and the pictures we all look @ have been altered in color by Nasa.

The atmosphere of Mars is really B-L-U-E.



Amateur astronomists with today's tech, do NOT see a 'Red Planet'.

[Tanada]

Main problem is that it would take 10 millions seconds (119 days) to accelerate at 1 g and 119 days to decellerate while approaching, unless you want to smash it against Mars at 10% of c.

Lets say that astronauts can take for long periods of time 2 g (I know that they can handle 5 g but only for minutes).

This would still result in 4 months journey (there and back).
Not very impressive.
With current technology you can aim at 2 years.

Uhhhm, NO!

Travel time from Earth to Mars at 1 g of acceleration is 198288 seconds assuming a distance of 4.827 E7 km from Earth parking orbit to Mars parking orbit and flipping from acceleration to deceleration at midpoint of the journey. 198288/3600=55.08 Hours=2 days, 7 hours, 4 minutes, 48 seconds. Or something close to that I might have goofed something minor in calculating but it is under 3 days no matter how you slice it.

You never get close to 10% of light speed because Mars is way way to close of a target, as you pointed out it takes nearly four months to get going that fast at 1g of acceleration.

[vision-master]

You all r thinking 3D

[EnergyUnlimited]

Uhhhm, NO!

Travel time from Earth to Mars at 1 g of acceleration is 198288 seconds assuming a distance of 4.827 E7 km from Earth parking orbit to Mars parking orbit and flipping from acceleration to deceleration at midpoint of the journey. 198288/3600=55.08 Hours=2 days, 7 hours, 4 minutes, 48 seconds. Or something close to that I might have goofed something minor in calculating but it is under 3 days no matter how you slice it.

You never get close to 10% of light speed because Mars is way way to close of a target, as you pointed out it takes nearly four months to get going that fast at 1g of acceleration.

You are correct.
I overlooked fact that Mars is too near for that to work.
Basic mistake, I suppose.

However hey, that could qualify me to become designer of Martian probe
Few of them, notably Martian Polar Lander, have crashed against the planet due to distance miscalculation (here we had imperial/metric error).

[anador]

I've been hearing the 'Red Planet' of Mars and the pictures we all look @ have been altered in color by Nasa.

The atmosphere of Mars is really B-L-U-E.



Amateur astronomists with today's tech, do NOT see a 'Red Planet'.

You know thats just b/c the older rovers had weak signaling and it was difficult to reconstruct the images in true color..... right?

NASA didnt intentionally alter them

we only now have true color images since the stronger signals from spirit and oppurtuity
http://mars.spherix.com/spie2003/SPIE_2003_Color_Paper.htm