posted
Simply put, no matter what your technology, you CAN NOT get more energy out of a system than was already there to begin with. This is an immutable law of nature. The Borg can't do it, the Vorlons can't do it, the Galactic Empire can't do it. The only reason we have power sources at all is because they're concentrated forms of energy that are already in existence. You know, like the sun?
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
MIB
Ex-Member
posted
I see. uhhhhhh. Anti-matter doesn't produce energy in the same fashion as something like oil, Omega.
Oil releases already-stored energy via a chemical reaction
Anti-matter produces energy via turning itself and an equal amount of normal matter into pure energy. No chemical reactions or any of that crap is nesseccary. No matter is left. The only by-product is energy and radiation. It's all about the simple E=MC2 stuff and such.
Besides, Anti-matter is only half of what is needed. The other half, normal matter, obviously doesn't need to be created. You can get it anywhere. Take all your garbage and use that.
Take a manufactured fuel. (anti-matter) By itself it can't produce more energy than was used to create it. However, if you mix in another fuel (normal-matter) that you do not have to spend energy to get, then you'll be getting somewhere.
posted
I don't think you quite get what they're saying, MIB. The trouble with antimatter is that there isn't any around. To get it, we would have to make it, and to make it would require more energy than we'd get back out of it.
Creating antimatter isn't easy. You're certainly right to argue that it is possible that it will get easier. But it won't ever get that easy, because nothing can.
Having said that, let's keep in mind that this doesn't mean antimatter is useless. Far from it. It makes an ideal replacement for rocket fuel. Just not for kerosene. You see?
posted
No. I don't think THEY quite get what I'M saying.
Antimatter will NOT be working alone. Once created, an X amount of antimatter will be mixed in with an equal amount of normal matter. Both the antimatter AND the normal matter will then be generating a huge amount of energy as they are destroying each other. The anti-matter will not be the sole producer of energy in the reaction.
Both begin to destroy each other. In essence, the matter and anti-matter are being converted into pure energy and radiation.
The energy that has been made from the anti-matter will go back to your anti-matter factory.
The energy made from the normal matter will go into our homes and our computers, and allow us to fight with each other over whether or not power via anti-matter is feasable.
The amount of power generated would be much greater than the amount power that can be generated by any nuclear fission or fusion power plant sense 100% of all the matter involved is transformed into energy where as only a tiny bit of mass is transformed into energy during fusion and fission reactions.
OK, we have to have a pre-existing source of stored energy to get any use out of it, right? Well, matter IS a pre-existing source of stored energy. You just need anti-matter to utilize it. So say you take a chunk of matter with a mass of two kilos, and convert half of it to anti-matter. You've expended the energy it takes to convert one kilo, but you can get TWO kilo-equivalents of energy out of it. So if you could get the efficiency of the conversion process so that it cost less than 200% of the energy equivalency of a given mass to convert that mass to anti-matter, you COULD get a gain out of it.
Now, the question is, how does one go about switching the polarity of matter, and is it physically possible to get the process that efficient?
[ November 17, 2001: Message edited by: Omega ]
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Anti-matter exists in the upper-atmosphere? Doesn't it react violently when it comes into contact with matter? And isn't there matter in the upper atmosphere?
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I think it goes something like this (numbers invented for the sake of simplicity):
Use 100 units of energy to make 10 units of antimatter. Annihiliate the 10 units of antimatter w/ 10 units of matter and get 20 units of energy, for a net loss of 80 units of energy.
I believe that's what people ment by saying that it would take more energy to create the antimatter than what we would get out of it.
posted
With current production methods. Omega has seemed to grasp what I was trying to convey. GOOD SHOW, OMEGA! You have learned well, grasshopper.
IP: Logged
posted
Yes, except that the answer to Omega's second question is, and will always be, NO.
The energy required to CHANGE a particle from matter to antimatter will ALWAYS be more than is produced by the annihilation of that particle, so the net result will ALWAYS be a loss.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
posted
Even when you annhilate the pre-existing anti-particle as well?
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
