Anti Matter - our future energy source

[anush]

QUOTE(djbob @ Jul 3 2008, 10:59 AM) 36739[/snapback]

 

QUOTE(Kyougi @ Jan 26 2008, 05:53 AM) 33671[/snapback]

Nuclear fusion has nothing to do with anti-matter. Currently, nuclear fusion is impossible because we have no way of containing the massive amount of heat generated by the process. We can't contain anti-matter because it destroys any matter it touches. Completely different.Actually, the soon-to-be-constructed ITER will be capable of a sustained nuclear fusion reaction with a net energy gain.

 

You guys ought to get your facts straight...

 

You quoted me from half a year ago. As dated as the statement is, that fact is still straight as it is still currently impossible because the ITER has not been constructed yet.

 

in nuclear fusion the matter will be in plasma state. Till now after a thousand or mill year after human existence no one has found a container that can contain the plasma for the fusion to take place.

 

anti matter is some thing which can be seen only for fraction of a second with currently available technology, and it is predicted by many scientist and other philosophers that the appropriate technology for harvesting energy from anti matter will be available in future , if not us may be our next or the subsequent generation may be able to see what it is.

 

 

thank you helio members for the valuable post and comments i got a lot of knowledge from this post for quiz program conducted in my school and banged the first price.

 

i found out some facts about antimatter and nuclear fusion ans fission in my preparation from the quiz conducted by IIT and KVS .That is what i gave there thinking it will be useful for some else like i did for me.

 

Thank you a lot.

Helionet you people can even start a university in future i think if not in computer may be in physics.

[xwinuser]

Thank Doctor Who.

[2bigpigs]

in nuclear fusion the matter will be in plasma state. Till now after a thousand or mill year after human existence no one has found a container that can contain the plasma for the fusion to take place.

Russians are not humans: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokamak

anti matter is some thing which can be seen only for fraction of a second with currently available technologyp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter

On April 26, 2011, ALPHA announced that they had trapped 309 antihydrogen atoms, some for as long as 1,000 seconds (about 17 minutes). This was longer than neutral antimatter had ever been trapped before.

And that's about neutral antimatter. (1 antiproton + 1 positron ).

 

Antimatter anhilates any matter it touches (Or rather the corresponding pieces of matter)... So you just keep it from touching anything and that's what the scientists do.

 

It's a lot easier to store charged antimatter. Just keep it going around in a ring till you feel like using it (In Proton-Antiproton collissions, For example).

 

and it is predicted by many scientist and other philosophers that the appropriate technology for harvesting energy from anti matter will be available in future , if not us may be our next or the subsequent generation may be able to see what it is.

You don't need a philospher to tell me what the humans are going to do. We're such a funny species.

 

 

Okay now finally my view on the topic:

Why should we go invest MILLIONS AND BILLIONS in technology that isn't likely to help us any time soon and would still be rather scary. ( Anti-matter Bombs ).

 

I'd rather throw in a bit more in renewable energy (Like wind or solar or even tides) for domestic needs and something like fusion or anti-matter for industrial needs (when it becomes available)

 

My state gets roughly 60% of it's power from hydro-electric plants. (Homework from years ago, I remember it being 70%). We have a lot of rivers so it's rather practical.

Just did some research: 85% of the state's electricity generation is from renewable sources. I'm not sure we're 100% self-reliant though and we do have power-cuts during summer

 

Photo-Voltaic technology: It's clean, And becomes cheaper and more efficient as time passes. Yes, It'll takes a lot of space for the output it gives but it won't need anyone to look after it and doesn't need fuel. Winter will suck but it's great for where i am

 

Wind technology great too. But not every-place is windy

 

Tides: Not all countries have a coastline or a big difference in tides. But if you do, You may as well use it

 

Waves: I live in a coastal city. We have MILES of coastline with enough waves lashing the beaches to power our whole city. (Medium sized, We're still a developing country)

 

It'll never be enough to satisfy all our energy needs but That's why i said i'd use fusion or something for industrial needs.

Also, The situation shouldn't be:

'Global population is rising- Energy needs rise - We must produce more.'

 

You can always cut down on consumption- Make more efficient devices, More efficient machines.

Recycle more - It saves a lot of energy.

 

You can't keep increasing the energy output forever. We'll eventually have to cut down a lot and reach a level where our energy needs don't grow.

 

That's why i'm not enthusiastic about anti-matter as an energy source.

'm not enthusiastic about anti-matter as an energy source.

[anush]

Thank Doctor Who.

 

Yes boss my team won with a large marginal difference between the runner up.

[pag]

but we cant use ani-matter...

if we want to use antimatter enrgy we must crash it to a matter and then it pulls all the earth in.

[Guest xaav]

I wasn't aware that we had a large supply of antimatter. According to the conservation of energy, you can't create any more energy than you put in. In other words, whatever energy you gain from crashing matter with antimatter will be lost when you make more antimatter.

[2bigpigs]

No, You gain twice what you put into creating the anti-matter (atleast, You should).

In the ideal case, You have to put in E energy to get E /c² amount of antimatter by mass.

When you annihilate it with normal matter, This mass+an equivalent mass of real matter disappear completely giving you

{(E/c²)+E/c²}*c²= 2*E of energy.

You put half of that back into making more antimatter and the other half you use ( Assuming 100% efficiency which is impossible.)

[erroneum]

Honestly, I cannot see us using anti-matter as an economical power source any time in the foreseeable future. It is true that we are able to create it, although it is difficult, but we need to input all of the energy to make it that we get from it, plus all of the energy lost due to inefficiencies of the process. Even if we could reduce the wasted energy to something negligible, and discovered a process which allowed fairly rapid creation of it, it still takes an enormous amount of energy to produce even a small amount; it would take 8.988*10^13 J or 24.97 million kilowatt hours, which is about the amount of chemical energy in 682115 gallons of gasoline, for one gram. Add into this the risk that it could be the most volatile explosive in existence if misused, and I cannot imagine that many companies would be willing to invest their time, money, and effort into making it practical.

[VishalRamki]

I am not sure. There's really isn't that much anti matter left in the universe. You usually find anti matter near dark matter, which is found in groups found on dying stars or gas clouds. Even if you manage to get anti matter, it would just cancel out with the matter. It will give you alot of energy but I can't say for certain if you would even get enough of anti matter to really make any true difference. Besides its rather unstable. As it reacts the milli second it gets a chance.

 

The best bet for future energy would be cold fusion or nuclear fusion. We don't need a container for nuclear fusion if we build the reactor in space. It would merely be a man-made star. Cold fusion cannot be sustained because we have no materials which can withstand the molten form the energy takes in cold fusion.

[Shinryuu]

I'd rather throw in a bit more in renewable energy (Like wind or solar or even tides) for domestic needs and something like fusion or anti-matter for industrial needs (when it becomes available)

 

If you don't intend to spend money how do you expect the technology to become available? Technology doesn't spring up on it's own, money is spent on research grants so that scientists can innovate the technology.

 

My state gets roughly 60% of it's power from hydro-electric plants. (Homework from years ago, I remember it being 70%). We have a lot of rivers so it's rather practical.

 

While damming rivers is practical, if you actually stop and think of other states, you'll realize that your state is screwing everyone downriver out of their water supply. The Colorado River which carved the Grand Canyon is mostly a trickle of water by the time it reaches the Gulf of California the majority of the year.

[spscwork]

I don't think that we will ever use anti-matter, because I think that, if we ever do find any anti-matter, the chances of it being deemed stable are next to none. Furthermore, even if we do, I find it incomprehensible to think that we will find a means of enhancing our lives with it before some military decides to construct a weapon with it.

[Shinryuu]

I don't think that we will ever use anti-matter, because I think that, if we ever do find any anti-matter, the chances of it being deemed stable are next to none. Furthermore, even if we do, I find it incomprehensible to think that we will find a means of enhancing our lives with it before some military decides to construct a weapon with it.

 

We are making it quite easily, the issue is capture but we're getting reasonably better. Because of the instability it's likely we'll use anti-matter for energy before we weaponize it, in an energy plant it's easier to keep it controlled than on a vehicle or in soldier's hands, imagine a canister of anti-matter self-destructing prematurely and destroying an expensive aircraft or tank, not favourable.