Slashdot Mirror


NASA Researching Antimatter Engines

dbolger writes: "CNN has a story about how scientists at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama are researching ways to use antimatter to fuel missions to Mars and beyond within the next 50 years. It very light on technical details, but does give an interesting look at current and future potential uses of antimatter."

385 comments

  1. Star Trek by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't that what they use in Star Trek or is it some other scifi thing?

  2. There Something Wrong With This picture! by msolnik · · Score: 5, Funny

    There is something definately wrong with the picture on cnn.com. This picture looks very wrong someone must have been thinking bad thoughts at the time.

    1. Re:There Something Wrong With This picture! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, its just shooting off into reentry.

    2. Re:There Something Wrong With This picture! by cliffy2000 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Looks like the Ambiguously Gay Duo's spaceship...

    3. Re:There Something Wrong With This picture! by SocietyoftheFist · · Score: 1, Funny

      Could've been worse, the anti-matter storage tanks could've been round at the base ala Austin Powers.

    4. Re:There Something Wrong With This picture! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's clearly the Lexx, the most powerful weapon of destruction in the two universes.

      Does this mean that Dubya is His Divine Shadow?

    5. Re:There Something Wrong With This picture! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Worse yet, it's blasting off right into a black hole!

    6. Re:There Something Wrong With This picture! by dkoyanagi · · Score: 5, Funny

      "to boldly go where no man has gone before..."

    7. Re:There Something Wrong With This picture! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why, it's a shuttle to Uranus!

    8. Re:There Something Wrong With This picture! by isorox · · Score: 1

      On a voyage to goatse.cx!

    9. Re:There Something Wrong With This picture! by Zhenya · · Score: 1

      We're looking at a bumpy re-entry...

      --
      Politics is derived from two words - poly, meaning many, and tics, meaning small blood-sucking insects.
    10. Re:There Something Wrong With This picture! by gorilla · · Score: 2

      It reminds me very much of Discovery 1. It would be interesting to know if the designers were thinking of this, or if it's simply a case of the same reasoning forcing the same design.

  3. Can you? by xfs · · Score: 1
    "We have an equivalent amount of energy in just one gram or about a raisin-size worth of antimatter," said George Schmidt, a scientist at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama.

    You can weigh antimatter?

    (i seriously don't know, im asking...)

    1. Re:Can you? by hogsback · · Score: 2, Insightful

      yes you can.

      Anti-protons (say) are just as real as protons and weigh the same. It's just that you have to be really careful because if an anti-proton meets a proton .... bang!

    2. Re:Can you? by paulydavis · · Score: 2, Informative

      im pretty sure it means measure of mass since the wieght depends on the gravity. And antimatter has mass.

    3. Re:Can you? by AnalogBoy · · Score: 2

      I'm assuming (and only that) that 1g of antimatter would be inversely identical (?!) to 1g of matter.

    4. Re:Can you? by LadyLucky · · Score: 3, Informative
      You can weigh antimatter?

      Yes, antimatter has mass just like normal matter. Indeed, this is one of the things that distinguishes gravity from say electric charges. Gravity is always attractive, mass is always positive. With electric charge, positive and negative, and repulsive and attractive forces are possible and seen daily.

      One can see this from the fact that matter has energy. E = mc^2 and all that. Antimatter has energy also, meaning you cant 'borrow' energy from the universe by creating some antimatter with negative energy. The flip side of this is that when you bring antimatter and matter together, they annihilate each other, liberating all their energy stored as mass into a burst of radioactivity. This presumably is the source of energy for the engines (or whatever) discussed in the article.

      --
      dominionrd.blogspot.com - Restaurants on
    5. Re:Can you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a very math and physics heavy answer here:

      http://www.stillmoving.com/physics/usenetFAQ.php ?m ode=1&faqID=31

    6. Re:Can you? by KILNA · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, but you need to be careful to only weigh it with scale made of antimatter. Or at least indifferentmatter.

      --
      Error: PANTS NOT FOUND. Press <F1> to continue.
    7. Re:Can you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't have 'negative energy' it just has an opposite charge.

      There is nothing magical about anti-electrons (say) they're identical to 'normal' electrons except they have a +ve charge instead of a -ve one.

    8. Re:Can you? by nyteroot · · Score: 0, Redundant

      actually, that does bring up a valid point:
      NASA built a portable trap to store antimatter. It hopes to use the device to someday transport the volatile material to a rocket launch site.
      as an armchair physicist knowing that if matter and antimatter collide, there'll be a massive exploision (understatement), i gotta wonder .. how the fuck are they storing antimatter? magnetics? is antimatter affected by magnetism?

      --
      Ratio of replies to old sig content : replies to actual post content > 0.5. Sig changed.
    9. Re:Can you? by Dwonis · · Score: 2

      I don't know if you can weigh antimatter in the traditional sense, but since mass is proportional to the amount of force required to accelerate a body a given amount (or something like that), I would say that if you can move antimatter, you can figure out its mass.

    10. Re:Can you? by bryan1945 · · Score: 2

      Yes, magnetic fields. Anti-matter is affected by magnetism. You just need to make sure that your storage chamber has a very hard vacuum, unless you want a stray dust molecule running into a bit of antimatter.

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
    11. Re:Can you? by Z4rd0Z · · Score: 2

      So how do you keep the protons and the anti-protons from meeting?

      --
      You had me at "dicks fuck assholes".
    12. Re:Can you? by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      Magnetic containment fields. that way nothing ever meets :) u suspend the AM within a magnetic field, and if u get it right, it stays there.

    13. Re:Can you? by keiferb · · Score: 1

      If it's anything like those middle school dances, all it takes is an old fart with a flashlight.

    14. Re:Can you? by Zhenya · · Score: 1

      Weeeeell, the mass is the same as the matter but wouldn't it be minus-mass? like -1g?

      --
      Politics is derived from two words - poly, meaning many, and tics, meaning small blood-sucking insects.
    15. Re:Can you? by flumps · · Score: 1

      No, it wouldnt have a negative mass. Its only opposite in charge (and possibly spin i think) but not in its properties like mass.

      --
      "So there he is, risen from the dead. Like that fella, E. T." - Father Ted Crilly
    16. Re:Can you? by Fatman--a · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If you ever followed the research of Richard P Feynman and his like it's interesting to note that a matter/antimatter annihilation could simply be viewed as ordinary matter travelling normally one way, emitting huge amounts of energy, then travelling back the other way but backwards in time. It is well established that subatomic particles pay no attention to time whatsoever. We know matter contains lots of energy anyway. [E=mc^2, where c is lightspeed. Lightspeed squared = lots and lots of energy.]

  4. Old Story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I read this on CNN early this week.

    "News for Nerds" that aren't in a hurry and don't read CNN.

  5. antimatter manufacture implications by crystalplague · · Score: 1

    is anyone else concerned about mass manufacture of antimatter? they could potentially induce a teraton size explosion if the kinds of amounts they are talking about come into contact with matter.

    1. Re:antimatter manufacture implications by S-prime · · Score: 1

      Well, according to the article... "The production process is difficult and expensive. The world's largest maker of antimatter, the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia, Illinois, makes only one billionth of a gram a year at a cost of $80 million. At that rate, it would take one million years and $80 quadrillion (80,000 trillion) to produce one gram. Unfortunately, a spacecraft would need several pounds, not grams, to travel to the nearest star." Hopefully, we won't have to worry about explosions for a while.

      --
      -- Your local friendly mad scientist-in-training
    2. Re:antimatter manufacture implications by hogsback · · Score: 1

      And, hopefully, by the time we're making enough to power spaceships, we'll be making it in space - not only is it safer, it will probably easier since there's a lot less matter around to cause problems.

    3. Re:antimatter manufacture implications by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Antimatter doesnt exist, you silly boy, except in the vivid imagination of physicists, who have become indistinguishable from metaphysicists calculating the number of angels on the head of a pin.

      I cannot believe anyone is falling for this crap.

    4. Re:antimatter manufacture implications by mentin · · Score: 1

      I doubt this. To make antimatter you need energy, and where do you get it in space?

      Basically the only benefit of antimatter for space travel is that you can store large amount of energy (taken from Earth) in compact form.

      If you already have an energy in space, why use it to create antimatter and then burn antimatter, when you can burn your original form of energy without losing it in the process of making antimatter?

      --
      MSDOS: 20+ years without remote hole in the default install
    5. Re:antimatter manufacture implications by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think they store itlike plasma, in an electromagnetic field shaped like a donut, as it has no edges.

    6. Re:antimatter manufacture implications by justinstreufert · · Score: 1

      Energy in space? Solar energy is better in space than anywhere else. And you could store it in antimatter for use where such energy is not so plentiful. Or if you need to burn energy faster than you can store it.

      This all seems terribly impractical to me, though. For the next 100 years, anyway.

      Justin

      --
      "Why would God give us a waist if we wasn't supposed to rest our pants on it?" - Rev. Roy McDaniels
    7. Re:antimatter manufacture implications by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can already see the big mushroom at NASA.:~(

    8. Re:antimatter manufacture implications by Captain_Jackass · · Score: 1

      I doubt this. To make antimatter you need energy, and where do you get it in space?

      The same place we get it (mostly indirectly) on Earth. The Sun.

    9. Re:antimatter manufacture implications by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well...

      When matter and antimatter collide nothing "blows up" per say. It simply releases gamma rays. I'm not saying that I'd like to be near such a collision, as you would get a pretty hefty dose of radiation, but even so most of the energy would just go through you (and everything else)...

    10. Re:antimatter manufacture implications by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The destruction caused by nuclear weapons has as much to do with their intesnity as their total energy. This comes from the chain reaction of a mass of material undergoing a simultaneous reaction. In a fission bomb, the conventional explosive that sets it off much be very powerful to prevent the beginning of the nuclear explosion from separating the critical mass.

      Anti-matter would react with matter along the periphery that it comes into contact with matter. A simultaneous reaction would be impossible. You would not get the same intensity of explosion, it would be more of a flair-up.

    11. Re:antimatter manufacture implications by qorkfiend · · Score: 1

      antimatter does exist, actually. it's like a monopole - its existence cannot be proven, but it must exist for the universe to work.

      when it reacts with matter, both masses are annihilated and pure energy is released. what we have to do to develop antimatter engines is to:
      a) invent an efficient and cheap process for producing antimatter
      b) figure out a way to harness the energy that is released when matter and antimatter come into contact

      once we have those two things, antimatter engines will be practical.

    12. Re:antimatter manufacture implications by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can see the muppets show now:
      "cyclotrons in space".

      Or better yet, my personal
      favorite, pocket cyclotrons...
      it would be just like the
      miniturization of computers!

  6. ummmmmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is old news.
    Hasn't Micro$oft been SELLING antimatter for a couple decades now??

    1. Re:ummmmmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hahahahahhahahhahaha

      good one! ouch, now my sides hurt :{

  7. Not First Post! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is not the first post so you may ignore it.

    1. Re:Not First Post! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      I will make certain to do so.

  8. How to contain it? by Mnemia · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I've never understood exactly how you would contain antimatter until it is used...Is it contained in some kind of electromagnetic field, or is this all still theoretical? I thought that antimatter was immediatly annilihated due to its inherently volatile nature when it is produced.

    Anyone know any more details on how one would actually build up a gram of isolated antimatter?

    1. Re:How to contain it? by AtomicSushi · · Score: 1

      Sure..magnetic fields...
      More or less the same way plasma is contained in a tokamak reactor.

    2. Re:How to contain it? by hogsback · · Score: 1

      Apparently you something call a penning trap which does indeed use electromagnetic fields.

    3. Re:How to contain it? by LadyLucky · · Score: 1
      Anti matter is no more volatile than matter. Indeed, how do you know we arent anti matter and we are trying to create matter?

      It is contained in magnetic fields, and yes, this is done.

      No idea how you make lots of it. I dont think anyone does.

      --
      dominionrd.blogspot.com - Restaurants on
    4. Re:How to contain it? by AnalogBoy · · Score: 5, Informative

      When antimatter is made in the lab, it is stored in something called a "Penning Trap". Indeed, it is a type of magnetic confinement.

      More info, here

    5. Re:How to contain it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, fuckwit, you are the only one. Please delete your stupid as shit sig.

    6. Re:How to contain it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Indeed, how do you know we arent anti matter and we are trying to create matter? "

      Circular logic needs to die.

    7. Re:How to contain it? by LadyLucky · · Score: 1

      twit

      --
      dominionrd.blogspot.com - Restaurants on
    8. Re:How to contain it? by Kirkoff · · Score: 2

      bahh! We don't need no fancy "peanut traps." All you have to do is put it in a vacuum tube and then put a fan below it blowing up to keep it from falling!

      Peanut traps... next they'll be telling me that 1000:1 compression is impossilbe!

      --
      There are exactly 42,935,718 letter sized sheets in a square mile.
  9. Re:Help Me! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apply antimatter to the sore.

  10. From nasa by hogsback · · Score: 5, Informative

    There's an older (1999) article on nasa's site with a bit more technical detail.

  11. heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    sweet 8)

  12. HOW ABOUT A BEOWULF OF... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ANTI-MATTER ENGINES!!!!

  13. They do lots of propusion research here. by xeeno · · Score: 1

    I go to school at UA in Huntsville. There's lots of research in propulsion here - from the linear accelerators posted earlier to launching lasers, ion drives, and this stuff. I just want to know when they start playing around with large quantities so that I can move. The last thing I need to live next to is a very large bomb.

  14. Re:French Tost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Klerk has brought slashdot some of the most creative crapflooding i've seen in a long time.

    some of you other trolls and crapflooders haven't come up with any original material in years.

  15. Yes, but ... by J.D.+Hogg · · Score: 5, Funny

    I thought you needed a reactor core with dilithium crystal to make a matter-antimatter reaction possible. Can NASA produce dilithium crystals yet ? and visors for the reactor core technicians ?

    1. Re:Yes, but ... by Bender+Unit+22 · · Score: 1

      You watch too much TV..

      wait..zzz.zzzzz...zzzzz... there, the lameness filter will now accept this post

    2. Re:Yes, but ... by Jerf · · Score: 2, Funny

      >You watch too much TV..
      >wait..zzz.zzzzz...zzzzz... there, the lameness filter will now accept this post

      Pity you didn't take it's advice.

    3. Re:Yes, but ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I remember correctly, the dilithium crystal is used to split the antimatter stream to the nacelles.

    4. Re:Yes, but ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh god, another Star Trek joke. oh wait, this one's different. its from the movie generations! sheesh

    5. Re:Yes, but ... by Captain_Jackass · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't it just be easier to find a scottish engineer?

    6. Re:Yes, but ... by dpilot · · Score: 1

      Take a break and read something else.

      It's impossible in the US, if not the world, to talk about space and antimatter propulsion, and not come up with a Star Trek reference or two. The surprising thing here is that we had only a dilithium crystal and a Scotty reference.

      No references to:

      Warp core breach imminent, and ejection is offline!

      Captain! She canna take any more of this!

      He's dead, Jim.

      Let alone the polysyllabic technobabble of Voyageur.

      I wonder how many people would have the foggiest idea of what antimatter is without Star Trek. Sure foggy is about as close as it gets, but at least everyone knows it releases a LOT of energy and is touchier than all get-out.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    7. Re:Yes, but ... by oliverk · · Score: 1

      Yeah, whatever... We got those plans, and the transparent aluminum, all from that craft that took the whales away.

      Don't you read the newspaper?

      --
      ---- Please be nice in case my Slashdot karma ~= my real life karma.
  16. That's why we would set up labs in space... by silentbozo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    All the more reason to get our asses into space, so we can set up automated plants to manufacture anti-matter far away from inhabited areas...

    Besides, free power (solar), free reaction mass (with sufficient heat, we can liberate volitiles from moon rock, asteroids, etc), and we're already outside of the gravity well... lots of advantages to doing space-related research, while actually in space. We just have to make like we want to stay there, instead of making very expensive vists all the time.

  17. Stephen King, author, dead at 55 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    I just heard some sad news on talk radio - Horror/Sci Fi writer Stephen King was found dead in his Maine home this morning. There weren't any more details. I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will miss him - even if you didn't enjoy his work, there's no denying his contributions to popular culture. Truly an American icon.

    1. Re:Stephen King, author, dead at 55 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Finally.

  18. It's not as cool as it sounds by anonymous+loser · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I was at MSFC on a business trip a while back, and talked to the guys working on Gen2, Gen3 and later RLV design. Basically what the lead engineer told me they do is "assume we have really cool technology that meets certain specifications" and work backward from there to figure out how the rest of the vehicle be designed.

    While I'm sure there might be one or two people actually doing research into antimatter, most of the work they do is just assuming *someone* will come up with the necessary technology by the time they have to build something.

    1. Re:It's not as cool as it sounds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MSFC - Microsoft Fusion Consultant?

    2. Re:It's not as cool as it sounds by rtaylor · · Score: 2

      Yeah, well.. When I write code I assume there will be a database that meats spec, an interface that meats spec, a server that meats spec, etc. I write the libs to my spec which is compatible with everything else.

      If I were to do it all (including building the transistors on the chips through installing the OS through everything else) it would take me a couple of lifetimes.

      It's called building a component. Sure it's a little easier when you have the actuals to work with, but thats why you make test jigs and other stuff to try out what you've done without relying on anything else.

      --
      Rod Taylor
    3. Re:It's not as cool as it sounds by rtaylor · · Score: 2

      lol.. Sorry about all the misuse of meat.

      Cooking steak for lunch and I guess I must be more hungry than I thought.

      --
      Rod Taylor
    4. Re:It's not as cool as it sounds by anonymous+loser · · Score: 3, Informative
      That is true, but I don't think you quite get my point, which is that there really isn't anyone at NASA actively developing an engine according to the "specifications" they are using.

      Basically they just say "hmm...let's just assume it weighs X, delivers power Y, and has lifetime Z" and see what vehicle design is possible.

      The folks I talked to basically flat-out said they (NASA) don't do much research into that kind of stuff, and they mostly leave it up to the universities and private industry to come up with the technology. Of course, NASA does shell out mucho $$$ every year to fund research, but they don't participate directly.

      If you're interested in what kind of research NASA and other government agencies are funding, you can head over to FirstGov and do a search on SBIR. That doesn't cover ALL of the research or development projects, but there are plenty of cool ones in there (stuff like using mech-like tech to enhance human capabilities).

    5. Re:It's not as cool as it sounds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    6. Re:It's not as cool as it sounds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, that someone is the Glenn Research Center in Cleveland, OH. They are (and have been) doing a lot of the advanced propulsion research in NASA. Unfortunately, the administration up there is pathetic, and actively squashes promotional efforts. MSFC has good public relations, and loves to get their name out to the people.

  19. Sounds familiar... by Tetrad69 · · Score: 1

    When a matter particle comes into contact with an antimatter particle, they annihilate each other and produce kinetic energy.

    Why bother with antimatter? I had the same effect with my last marriage.

  20. Gene Roddenberry by Sivar · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Cell phones = communicators
    Babelfish = universal translator
    Taser(tm) = Phaser on stun
    2-way videophone = Screen on the bridge
    PC = Enterprise computer terminal

    Now antimatter propulsion.

    Was this guy good or what?

    --
    Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes. --E. W. Dijkstra
    1. Re:Gene Roddenberry by Cyberop5 · · Score: 1

      I think that instead of rodenberry being so good, we've moved to meet his dream. The first shuttle was the Enterprise in honor of star trek, the old flip fones were designed to look like old communicators, etc. But indead, he was revolutionary.

      --
      Urgo: "I want to live. I want to experience the universe and I want to eat pie!"
      Jack: "Who doesn't??"
    2. Re:Gene Roddenberry by nzhavok · · Score: 1

      Yes but at 80 quadrillion dollars per pound it seems a bit expensive at the moment, however perhaps we should also be looking for the dilitium crystals to control the reaction otherwise how can we mix them?

      --

      He who defends everything, defends nothing. -- Fredrick The Great
    3. Re:Gene Roddenberry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is not surprizing given that the engineers who invented these products are the same ones who grew up watching Star Trek.

    4. Re:Gene Roddenberry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny


      > Was this guy good or what?

      What.

      Aliens = humans with lumps of rubber glued to their heads. (More recently evolved species sometimes have patterns of tatooing as well.)

      Spaceship = flying palace with hallways wide enough to make the owners of a luxury liner jealous, but no spares for parts on critical pathways. Also, lots of ways for enemies to take over some vital system and lock out access by the crew, rather than vice versa.

      Tactical Doctrine = if the air is breathable then send down the captain, the first officer, the science officer, the ship's doctor, a helmsman, the security chief, and one expendable crewman, to see what destroyed the colony and left no survivors.

      Plot = an intelligent * takes over the * because it wants *, and the crew would have all *ed if * hadn't figured out that * would make it go away without killing anyone.

    5. Re:Gene Roddenberry by ttys00 · · Score: 1

      The Babelfish was a Douglas Adams creation, not Gene Roddenberry. It is a fish that goes in your ear, read up on it.

    6. Re:Gene Roddenberry by Jerf · · Score: 1

      Wrong binding; babelfish (probably) === babelfish.altavista.com

    7. Re:Gene Roddenberry by mmontour · · Score: 1

      Wrong binding; babelfish (probably) === babelfish.altavista.com

      So you're saying that Altavista could send a description of their site back through a time warp and successfully sue Douglas Adams for trademark infringement?

    8. Re:Gene Roddenberry by SonCorn · · Score: 1

      The first shuttle was the Columbia, there is no shuttle enterprise. Learn the facts. Look through the NASA launch schedule and tell me if you see an Enterprise. Maybe you meant the Aircraft carrier. Oh wait the first aricraft carrier was not Enterprise and was certainly well before Star Trek.

      --
      What good is a used up world, and how could it be worth having? --Sting
    9. Re:Gene Roddenberry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately the world is not yet ready for his fashion predictions to come true. Guess I'll just have to flip through my vidcaps of Yeoman Rand till then...

    10. Re:Gene Roddenberry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I think I'll get on the Trekkie pulpit for this one...

      However, the technologies that you describe are far different than Roddenberry's versions. Cell phones have a five mile radius to the next cell; Roddenberry's communicators had to do far, FAR more, using a radio technology not even conceived yet (subspace, for those who wonder). The babelfish is still in it's preliminary stages for being truly useful, and it's doubtful it can learn new languages and such. Tasers and phasers work on entirely different principles (I'd much rather have a phaser!). I'll give you the video phone, though... and to a point, the Enterprise computer terminal, though the Enterprise's computers are MUCH more sophisticated, since speech recognition is still in it's relative infancy, not to mention the artificial intelligence neccessary to make a computer work like the Enterprise's.

      The most glaring difference, however, is that, although I haven't looked at the proposed antimatter ship article, I seriously doubt it will be capable of FTL speeds, which makes it somewhat worthless in the long run (although it may get us to Mars just fine, contrary to popular "hard" sci-fi belief, people aren't going to fall over themselves to be frozen for a few thousand years to colonize a planet that might not even exist by the time they get there).

      OK, Trekkie pulpit/cynicism off. :)

    11. Re:Gene Roddenberry by JimPooley · · Score: 2

      The first shuttle that went into space was the Columbia, yes, but the first shuttle built was called Enterprise. It never actually went into space, it just got dropped off a 747 to test the shuttle's landing abilities.

      I suggest you check YOUR facts matey boy!

      --

      "Information wants to be paid"
    12. Re:Gene Roddenberry by Electrum · · Score: 3, Informative

      The first shuttle was the Columbia, there is no shuttle enterprise. Learn the facts. Look through the NASA launch schedule and tell me if you see an Enterprise. Maybe you meant the Aircraft carrier. Oh wait the first aricraft carrier was not Enterprise and was certainly well before Star Trek.

      The first shuttle to be launched into space was the Columbia, but the first shuttle actually was the Enterprise. The shuttle was used for research prior to the first real launch, and was flown by being attached to the top of a 747.

    13. Re:Gene Roddenberry by alistairg · · Score: 1

      The shuttle used in glide testing was called
      the Enterprise. It was never launched into space.

      The name was probably a sop to rabid ST fanbois though.

    14. Re:Gene Roddenberry by peccary · · Score: 2

      The name was probably a sop to rabid ST fanbois though

      Duh!

      Who do you think built the thing?

    15. Re:Gene Roddenberry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish he'd been right with the uniforms to.

    16. Re:Gene Roddenberry by tim_maroney · · Score: 2

      Cell phones = communicators

      Try walkie-talkies. I used to play with them back when the original series was on.

      Babelfish = universal translator

      Which, I think, must show that you have never actually tried to use Babelfish to translate a web page.

      Taser(tm) = Phaser on stun

      Very true, except that it isn't that at all. It's not a ray gun, it has a short range, and it often doesn't work.

      2-way videophone = Screen on the bridge

      Two-way videophone prototypes were being built back in the 1960's. We had one in our science museum in Columbus, Ohio.

      PC = Enterprise computer terminal

      Computers in Star Trek have always been comtemporary with the computer technology at the time of production. In the 1960's, they were room-sized or refrigerator-sized. Later they became portable, achieving a laptop form factor during TNG, and a palm form factor in the 1990's. There's no prediction there at all.

      Now antimatter propulsion.

      Now, not. NASA is not saying this could come on line in less than about a century, and nobody is talking about using it for space warps. Yeah, it may be useful for jetting around the solar system in 2100, maybe even an unmanned long-haul star probe or two around 2150 or so, or maybe not, but it's nothing at all like warp drive.

      Was this guy good or what?

      Not.

      Tim

  21. Cost insane! by BlackGriffen · · Score: 1

    There are two problems with anti-matter as fuel:

    1 - the cost of production is insane! One raisin worth may be enough, but that raisin could cost as much as the space shuttle to produce and concentrate.

    2 - storage. You let this stuff touch anything and boom! You'll need to use some sort of electromagnetic containment field that will likely take energy to produce and be a complicated aparatus that may offset antimatter's one benefit: it is extremely compact.

    The sad thing is that these hurdles probably won't be bridged until we have some sort of major war and the military finds some burning need to be able to destroy the world with one bomb instead of thousands.

    I say, good luck to NASA, but don't hold your breath.

    BlackGriffen

    1. Re:Cost insane! by kawaichan · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but speed is everything, if you can travel faster than rockets than it might be a worthwhile thing for special usage at the beginning and as always, technology improves over time things will get resolved eventually.

      --

      kawai
    2. Re:Cost insane! by Dyolf+Knip · · Score: 2
      You know, there's a power source in between chemical rockets and total annihilation. Nuclear pulsedrives are an extremely simple, perfectly workable means of propulsion with efficiencies far in advance of any rocket. The Orion design is decades old. Just don't use them too close to a planet with unshielded electronics.

      There's other types of nuclear propulsion systems, but this is the simplest.

      I'm wondering what the 'Anything Nuclear = Bad' crowd would think about antimatter. Too deep for them to comprehend, much less complain about?

      --
      Dyolf Knip
    3. Re:Cost insane! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ....or....maybe Bob Lazar is right and element 115 (ununpentium sp?) actually produces anti-matter upon decay. Supposably, a lab in Germany actually proved the element can be created, and did so (a search on google should verify this). It only had a half-life of a few milliseconds, however. If this is indeed possible, then perhaps in the future, anti-matter could be produced economically.

  22. I'm still curious about some of these claims by edgarde · · Score: 2, Funny
    for instance ...

    Is antimatter really being used for medical imaging? Considering the trouble it is to make, it seems like antimatter wouldn't be cost effective for this kind of use, and would be overkill for the cancer treatment proposed in this article. I could use a reference link here if anyone knows of one.

    I can see the advantage in propulsion since so much of the weight of our current rockets is fuel, and most of that fuel is spent lifting other fuel.

    However, if we have to create our own antimatter from scratch, the amount of fuel needed to travel to the nearest star (a common goal for which anti-matter is often considered a solution) would probably overtax our planet's energy resources. (This is presuming we don't just find a huge supply of antimatter hiding behind Saturn or something -- which isn't likely from what we think we know about the universe.)

    So antimatter, like wormholes, would probably become just a plaything for the rich. I predict it will be used for the ultimate in opulent jewelry.

    1. Re:I'm still curious about some of these claims by hogsback · · Score: 3, Informative

      Is antimatter really being used for medical imaging?

      Absolutely. Positron Emission Tomography (a positron is an anti-electron)

    2. Re:I'm still curious about some of these claims by abolith · · Score: 1

      which isn't likely from what we think we know about the universe


      that is the point. everyday we (scientists) are finding out new things about the universe as well as discarding old views and theroms. Just look at some of the newest things such as a brown dwarf being found so close to a primary. we thought that couldn't happen....until we found one. there very well could be some massive stash of antimatter laying around out there, or at least a simpler way or making it....you never really know what you might find out there....

      --
      if you want "No More Hiroshimas" then I say "You First. No More Pearl Harbors."
    3. Re:I'm still curious about some of these claims by isaac_akira · · Score: 2
      From that page:
      Through surgical removal of this area of the brain, the patient is rendered "seizure-free".

      Yikes! =)
    4. Re:I'm still curious about some of these claims by whereiswaldo · · Score: 1

      "Yeah, we'll just remove part of your brain." What kind of cave-man medicine is this? We're certainly a loooong ways off from the technology of Star Trek, hehe... even if we find some way to use antimatter for propulsion cost effectively. Come to think of it, cost isn't an issue in the future.. ok we're even further behind what could be considered the "ideal" in ST.

    5. Re:I'm still curious about some of these claims by whereiswaldo · · Score: 1

      One, big, giant, Tickle Trunk. That's what we got here.

    6. Re:I'm still curious about some of these claims by AnalogBoy · · Score: 2

      Relatively common. Some brain malfunctions are only repairable, by our medical knowledge, by removal of parts of the brain. Just the other day on DHC, they were showing a little girl having a hemispherectomy to rid her of seizures. Being so young, they estimated the impact on her life would be minimal, compared to a life of seizures. At that age, the brain has a remarkable ability to rewire itself, to an extent, lost mostly by the teenage years.

      IANADJADHCA
      [I am not a doctor, just a Discovery Health Channel addict.]

  23. Cost (in energy) to produce by jdavidb · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Am I the only one thinking antimatter costs more energy to produce than you get out of it?

    1. Re:Cost (in energy) to produce by ShavenYak · · Score: 1

      Am I the only one thinking antimatter costs more energy to produce than you get out of it?

      Currently it does; maybe some day that won't be the case. Even if it is, it's still the only viable answer for long-distance space travel because of the energy density.

      Just for fun, figure the energy released by ten pounds of antimatter; then, calculate how much conventional rocket fuel you'd need for the same amount of energy. Now, you'll have to recalculate your energy needs because your spaceship is weighed down by millions of tons of fuel.

      --

      Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
    2. Re:Cost (in energy) to produce by RevRigel · · Score: 5, Informative

      You don't understand thermodynamics. Of course it takes more energy to produce than we get out of it. 2nd law of thermo. For spacecraft, small and light is better. Antimatter, per joule, is the smallest and lightest allowable by the laws of physics as we currently understand them.
      The idea is that we can use wind power, solar power, or crude oil generated power to make the antimatter here on Earth, and then take antimatter into space with us. None of those other types of power exist in space (except solar, which doesn't exist for any practical purposes if you start using antimatter propulsion to go to other stars..which is entirely possible when you have an exhaust velocity equal to the speed of light..well, almost, since matter and antimatter produce neutral and charged pi-mesons when they annihilate. the neutral pi-mesons decay into gamma rays that spray in random directions very quickly, but the charged pi mesons don't. so the idea is to shape the exhaust flow by moving the charged pi mesons when an electrostatic or electromagnetic field before they decay).

      You're a victim of the same mistaken thinking that the comments about the hydrogen power generation story a few days ago were saturated with.

    3. Re:Cost (in energy) to produce by gunner800 · · Score: 1
      Am I the only one thinking antimatter costs more energy to produce than you get out of it?

      That's OK. The goal is fuel that is efficient for space travel, not for powering civilization in general. A spaceship can't usually produce much energy on its own (some solar / solar wind energy, not enough to sustain a mission), but we on firm ground can go pick up some coal to burn.

    4. Re:Cost (in energy) to produce by LadyLucky · · Score: 1
      Of course it takes more energy to produce than we get out of it.

      This is true yes, but that doesnt mean that it would take more energy to "produce" antimatter than what you get out of it. The key lies in what it means to produce antimatter. If you mean produce as in out of thin air (E=mc^2), then yes, that is completely correct. If however there exists a mechanism for conversion somehow from matter to anti matter (there is no fundamental reason why not, is there? (really, i dont know), even if it goes via some exotic scheme) then the source of your energy becomes other matter. You simply have a VAST supply of irreplenishible energy, and you consume it in the process. But in terms of energy consumed to produce the matter coming from human-made power supplies, then no, there is no fundamental reason why this must require more energy than would be stored in the antimatter.

      Think of this as analogous to fission, or indeed fusion. You just have the most efficient possible method of extracting energy from matter.

      The other point is that you get energy from both the matter and antimatter (they annihilate each other), meaning that even if you were constructing antimatter out of thin air, so long as you could do better than 50% efficiency over the whole process, you still come out on top.

      --
      dominionrd.blogspot.com - Restaurants on
    5. Re:Cost (in energy) to produce by Oroborus · · Score: 1

      That's fine if it costs a huge amount more to produce than it generates, we're not looking to build a power plant here.

      If you could produce antimatter at 1:1,000 ratio to the energy required, we could easily generate that much on earth. It's the ability to store huge amounts of energy in a small form that's important for space travel. :)

    6. Re:Cost (in energy) to produce by zenyu · · Score: 1

      The fuels currently for rockets take more energy to produce than they give out. The point here is energy density, power/space and power/mass. Most of what the space shuttle and other rockets lift off the ground is fuel. If you had 10% efficiency at converting the oil to antimatter it would take less energy to launch the thing, it would cost less.

      What most people are really interested in though is deep space travel, where chemical fuel just won't work at all. Even without gravity you still have inertia, and all that fuel has a lot of mass. And since there is very little friction in space you have to carry a bunch of fuel to slow down when you get there.

    7. Re:Cost (in energy) to produce by spauldo · · Score: 1
      IANAP, but one would think that thermodynamics (having to do with chemical and macro-scale physical energy) doesn't really apply so much to something like this. This is the realm of quantum physics, not classical theory.

      Now, as for what quantum physics says about it, I can't say... but if it were possible (and I don't really know) to convert protons to antiprotons (just a difference in quarks, isn't it?) then likely it would be possible to spend much less energy on creating antimatter than we would get out of a matter<->antimatter reaction.

      The hydrogen generators have to convert water to hydrogen via a chemical means. If you're just going to burn the hydrogen, you get less energy out of it that what you put in, due to energy lost to entropy. But if you're going to take that hydrogen and use it in fusion, you get much more energy out of it than what you put in. Different reaction type, so thermodynamics doesn't apply. Depending on how they make antimatter in the future, it could be the same thing here.

      --
      Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
    8. Re:Cost (in energy) to produce by josh+crawley · · Score: 1

      Some of the thinks I've questioned have been on this topic, but nobody ever answers these (guess they're too tough).

      First, I believe the major difference between matter/anti-matter is that they are 'different sides of the same coin'. A theory about that statement I make is that there is an equal amount of matter as there is anti-matter. My premise is that only matter can annihilate anti-matter (and the reverse). I can explain this line of thought deeper if you wish (only if you request). I'd rather not bore you.

      Secondly, building upon the first theory, is that 'turning' matter to antimatter would require a total reversal of every charge in the molecule/atom. We know there is a anti-proton and an anti-electron. Did you know there is an anti-neutron (you'll probably doubt me since the neutron is neutral)? Consider this: What is the sub-structures of a neutron? Doesn't it weigh a 'tiny' bit more than a proton? It does, exactly 1 electon and a neutrino 'bit more' but the neutrino is in energy form. What I'm saying is Neutron = (+Proton) + (-electron) + energy(neutrino) . Like charges do repel and different charges attract, right? The problem is that an Electron is so far known as a 'basic' particle: it cannot be broken into smaller pieces. The proton can be broken, however, so the process of making a anti-neutron cannot be done just by switching charges with each other.

      The last sentance, I must quote you on:

      The other point is that you get energy from both the matter and antimatter (they annihilate each other), meaning that even if you were constructing antimatter out of thin air, so long as you could do better than 50% efficiency over the whole process, you still come out on top.

      "The other point is that you get energy from both the matter and antimatter (they annihilate each other), meaning that even if you were constructing antimatter out of thin air, so long as you could do better than 50% efficiency over the whole process, you still come out on top."

      Now think of that, 'If its better than 50%'. I'm assuming you're using either Air or energy as your source, pair-antipair creation would limit you to a MAXIMUM of 50% energy capture assuming you had perfect capturing 'tanks'. By the way, to correct one of your statements, This is pair annhilation, not Fission (no bonds 'only' are being broke, everything is), and not fusion (nothing's being created that has more mass, such as H+H+H+H=He)

      Josh Crawley

    9. Re:Cost (in energy) to produce by LadyLucky · · Score: 1
      Thanks for the comments.

      I know very little about the practicalities of anti-matter creation. The only real assumption I was taking is that energy is convertable into either matter or antimatter.

      I dont believe that your premise that only anti-matter can annihilate matter is correct. Fission annihilates matter into energy without using antimatter.

      It was my understanding that anti-everythings exist, so you can have an electron, positron, anti-electron, and anti-positron, all with positive mass.

      The premise about amount of matter and antimatter, is as you say, too tough. I dont think anyone *knows* why it seems there is an imbalance in the universe.

      I guess the question i am most curious about is "Is it possible to "create" anti matter from anything other than pure energy in some form?", or do you have to (as your example) use pair-antipair creation?

      cheers

      --
      dominionrd.blogspot.com - Restaurants on
    10. Re:Cost (in energy) to produce by Aglassis · · Score: 1

      It depends on how efficiently you can produce it. Since when anti-matter and matter anhillate, both of their masses convert to energy in the form of gamma radiation; therefore, if you can achieve an efficiency of producing it of greater than 50%, you are producing more energy in the anhillation than it took to create the antimatter.

      --
      Suddenly, the hairy finger of a familiar monkey tapped me on the shoulder. It was time.--G. T.
    11. Re:Cost (in energy) to produce by josh+crawley · · Score: 1

      I'm more than glad to have a decent conversation about particle physics :-) Well, lets get on with the 'meat of the matter'...

      "I dont think anyone *knows* why it seems there is an imbalance in the universe."

      I'm not quite sure that is true either. My thoery of matter/anti-matter has to do with the big bang and placement of mass.

      The old thoery went something like this: Picture a Sphere with jets out of the top and bottom. Those were the Tachyon region (particles faster than light itself). On one side of the sphere (sort of like the east side), matter was in excess there, and annihilated most all antimatter. On the 'other side', there was in excess of anti-matter and it annhilated most all the matter on that side.

      Now be aware, I don't quite buy the Tachyion part of it, but the M/A-M makes sense. But I figured that if there was equal matter on each side, placement was the same (so there is an anti-Earth, anti Sun, anti-everything). Essentially, so that everything would balance out, the universe we see is 1/2 of the whole universe, a universe including antimatter.

      Josh Crawley

    12. Re:Cost (in energy) to produce by mmontour · · Score: 2

      I know very little about the practicalities of anti-matter creation. The only real assumption I was taking is that energy is convertable into either matter or antimatter.

      Energy is converted into both matter and antimatter. You don't get to pick one or the other; there are conservation laws (some more absolute than others) that say you can't change the net amount of certain quantities. If you start with 0 electrons, you have to end up with 0 electrons (1 + (-1) = 0).

      It was my understanding that anti-everythings exist, so you can have an electron, positron, anti-electron, and anti-positron, all with positive mass.

      This is basically correct, but a "positron" is an "anti-electron" - two names for the same critter. However there are antiprotons and antineutrons, with positive mass.

      Many particles don't exist in normal matter, but can be created in both positive and negative varieties. One is the "anti-" of the other, but the standard notation is just to indicate the particle and its charge (e.g. mu+ for a positive muon).

      The premise about amount of matter and antimatter, is as you say, too tough. I dont think anyone *knows* why it seems there is an imbalance in the universe.

      The sci.physics FAQ discusses this, but doesn't have a conclusive answer.

      I guess the question i am most curious about is "Is it possible to "create" anti matter from anything other than pure energy in some form?", or do you have to (as your example) use pair-antipair creation?

      The various conservation laws (e.g. electric charge) make it very difficult to do anything other than balanced pair production. Maybe you could feed normal matter into a microscopic black hole and get a 50/50 mix of particles and antiparticles back through Hawking radiation...

    13. Re:Cost (in energy) to produce by LadyLucky · · Score: 1
      Perhaps I should have said I sure as hell dont know what causes the apparent imbalance :-)

      On one side of the sphere

      But doesnt that beg the question....
      why did one side get more than the other? or rather, what caused the symmetry to break?

      If there really were some other part of the universe made of anti-matter, wouldnt we expect some kind of "boundary region" with lots of energy being liberated?

      --
      dominionrd.blogspot.com - Restaurants on
    14. Re:Cost (in energy) to produce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, we haul antimatter found in the wild using anti-gravity beams. The cost is negligible. The insight you are missing is that anti-matter doesnt need to be created when it already exists; for every gram, somewhere in the universe there exists an anti-gram.

      I thought you geeks were smart.

    15. Re:Cost (in energy) to produce by Kierthos · · Score: 1

      Am I the only one thinking antimatter costs more energy to produce than you get out of it?

      Currently it does; maybe some day that won't be the case.


      Be sure and let the rest of know when you manage to get around the Laws of Thermodynamics. Remember, you can't win, you can't break even, and you can't get out of the game.

      Kierthos

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    16. Re:Cost (in energy) to produce by cheezehead · · Score: 1

      Ah, no, you're not the only one. It should be rather obvious. The whole point is that antimatter is only useful as energy storage. So, you would have to have a cheap energy source, a somewhat efficient way of storing the energy in antimatter, plus a safe and practical way of storing the antimatter (quite a challenge). Unless you could harvest hydrogen in outer space and convert it to anti-hydrogen....

      --

      MSN 8: Now Microsoft even has bugs in their ad campaigns.

    17. Re:Cost (in energy) to produce by cheezehead · · Score: 1

      A theory about that statement I make is that there is an equal amount of matter as there is anti-matter.

      Ah, but no, that's one of the great conundrums in cosmology.

      Current theories are that after the Big Bang there were equal amounts of matter and anti-matter, but not quite. For some unknown reason, there was a very tiny fraction more matter than antimatter. The antimatter annihilated the matter, except for the the tiny fraction of matter. And that tiny fraction makes up the known universe...

      If there were exactly the same amounts of matter and antimatter, they would annihilate given enough time.

      So, it's very unlikely that there is antimatter "out there".

      --

      MSN 8: Now Microsoft even has bugs in their ad campaigns.

    18. Re:Cost (in energy) to produce by guybarr · · Score: 1

      " The idea is that we can use wind power, solar power, or crude oil generated power to make the antimatter here on Earth "

      or use solar power to produce it in orbit around earth (easier and safer.)

      --
      Working for necessity's mother.
    19. Re:Cost (in energy) to produce by dragons_flight · · Score: 2

      It's well established that in the right kinds of accelerator experiments you can encounter a consistent "large" (~1%) difference in the amount of matter vs antimatter created. This is known as charge conjugation asymmetry (aka C-symmetry violation), and we don't really know why it happens but we are confident that it does happen. It's hard to extrapolate based on something we don't really understand, but most people guess that the universe slows a favoritism for matter in all or most high energy to mass conversions, though typically to a far lower degree than 1%.

      Hence the answer in vogue at the moment is that the universe is matter dominated because the universe likes to create a little more matter than anti-matter and so there is some matter left over after anti-matter annihilates everything it can. Why the universe behaves this way, no one really knows.

    20. Re:Cost (in energy) to produce by 1/137 · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately this is impossible.

      You are arguing that conservation of mass-energy forbids you from creating a mass, m, of anti-matter using less than mc^2 of energy. But, you say, this is no problem, because when you combine it with its anti-particle, also of mass m, which is likely freely available you will liberate 2mc^2 of energy. So as long as you use less than 2mc^2 of energy to produce a anti-particle of mass, m, you are ahead.

      But fundamental particles are always produced as matter anti-matter pairs. So you will find when you try to make your anti-particle of mass m you can't do it without making a particle of mass m at the same time.

      Fortunately, coming out on top is not the point of a fuel source anyway, as many others have pointed out.

      --
      My handle breaks slashcode, what does your handle do?
    21. Re:Cost (in energy) to produce by gsliepen · · Score: 1

      Most people forget the fact that total impulse is conserved. Given a matter and antimatter particle in rest, when they annihilate each other the two high energy photons that will be emitted will leave in exactly opposite directions. Those photons will not propel you forward. If you happen to get some pi-mesons out of the reaction, then yes you can use those fields, but then the amount of propulsion you get is equal to the energy you have to put in those fields, so you won't be any more efficient than that ion drive they used. The only way you could get instant propulsion if you could make a barrier that blocked all the photons going into the direction of travel. The photons would then transfer their impulse to that barrier. However, you'd need lots of concrete or lead for a barrier effective against the enormous amounts of energy that are released due to annihilation.

    22. Re:Cost (in energy) to produce by josh+crawley · · Score: 1

      It doesn't quite have to be liberated... Perhaps some sort of a super-massive black hole. Still, my belif is that that half of the 'Universe' is matter and the other half is anti-matter.

    23. Re:Cost (in energy) to produce by Bootsy+Collins · · Score: 1
      If however there exists a mechanism for conversion somehow from matter to anti matter (there is no fundamental reason why not, is there? (really, i dont know), even if it goes via some exotic scheme) then the source of your energy becomes other matter. You simply have a VAST supply of irreplenishible energy, and you consume it in the process.

      Unfortunately, you can't make antimatter that way.

      It's true that somehow switching a proton into an antiproton would not violate the requirement of conservation of mass-energy, so on first pass you might think you'd be OK with E=mc^2. But mass-energy isn't the only conserved quantity in the Universe. Another conserved quantity, for instance, is electric charge. I can't directly create an antiproton out of a proton because conservation of electric charge is violated thereby -- the system went from +1 to -1, for a net change of -2 electric charge in the Universe. Yet another conserved quantity is called "baryon number", which basically counts the number of quarks (+1) and antiquarks (-1). A proton (three quarks) simply somehow "switching" to an antiproton (three antiquarks) would violate conservation of baryon number.

      In fact, what this tells you is that not only can't you get antiprotons in a 1-1 exchange for the energy you put in, but it's actually much worse than that, since you need energy to create other particles that will keep the books balanced as far as electric charge, baryon number, etc., are concerned. Typically, in order to produce an antiproton, you've gotta also produce a new proton with it. This means that not only am I not getting in antimatter mass all the energy I'm putting in, I'm actually getting somewhat less than half. The antiproton production at Fermilab described in the article, for instance, bombards nuclei with high energy protons. Antiprotons come off of this, but so do protons and muons and antineutrinos and lots of other crap. The incident protons ("incident" = "coming in and whacking something else") have to have enough kinetic energy to create not only the mass of the antiproton, but the mass of another proton as well, to conserve all the conserved quantum numbers like electric charge, baryon number, etc.

      This sounds pretty grim as far as using antimatter as an energy source, but that's only because we commonly have a misconception of antimatter as some "miracle energy source." It wouldn't be. What it would be is portable and convenient,

    24. Re:Cost (in energy) to produce by herulach · · Score: 1

      If you were going to use pair creation then i belive there is a theory that you get this sort of thing on the fringes of black holes. (May or not be true, read in Brief History of Time). As they are trying to build a particle accelerator that can make black holes, hey presto, instant antimatter. Just watch the black holes decay then catch it. This kind of thing is the reason why small black holes are so short lived, they shrink as they create the pair.

    25. Re:Cost (in energy) to produce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no but the law of thermodynamics allows you to bend the rules. you can use solar power (hey we have a giant fusion engine in the sky pumping out power 24/7) to contruct anitmatter in space. then you can use the resulting e=mc2 conversion to pump your spacecraft up to speed.

    26. Re:Cost (in energy) to produce by scd · · Score: 1

      Everything we use costs more energy to produce than we can possible get out of it. Oil: construction of large platforms in bodies of water, or drilling into the earth, etc.

      Even sources that are free to us (solar, for example), have a net loss of energy overall (fusion-powered sun).

    27. Re:Cost (in energy) to produce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, antimatter is not an opposite of regular matter - it just has it's electric charges turned around. That means, anti-gravity (if such thing existed) wouldn't attract it.

      Not to mention those all anti-grams exist somewhere on the universe where there is no regular matter. You need quite a few of those manufactured anti-matter atoms to get those bazillion light years, and when there, you DON'T want to be hit by an antimatter dust particle.

      I knew you (we?) ac's weren't smart.

    28. Re:Cost (in energy) to produce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just wait until the pocket cyclotron
      comes with an AC wall adapter.

    29. Re:Cost (in energy) to produce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only way you could get instant propulsion if you could make a barrier that blocked all the photons going into the direction of travel.

      You mean like a mirror? Sounds easy enough to me...

    30. Re:Cost (in energy) to produce by jdavidb · · Score: 2

      Nonsense, Marty! In the future we don't need AC adaptors! (Drops bananna peel into Mr. Fusion, hits power button.)

  24. Nice book if this interests you by gewalker · · Score: 1

    Physicist Robert L Forward wrote a popular science style book, Indistinguishable From Magic

    The first chapter is titled Antimatter, discussed what antimatter is, how we storeit, produce it, how we could produce it econmonically, how to use it more space travel and more mundance applictions.

    He also write science fiction, I remember enjoying Rocheworld and Camelot 30K

    1. Re:Nice book if this interests you by tim_maroney · · Score: 2

      Physicist Robert L Forward wrote a popular science style book, Indistinguishable From Magic. The first chapter is titled Antimatter, discussed what antimatter is, how we storeit, produce it, how we could produce it econmonically, how to use it more space travel and more mundance applictions.

      He also wrote a book specifically on antimatter, which he renamed "Mirror Matter." It's an utterly ridiculous book that has us all jetting to the moon for weekend vacations in our antimatter-fueled cars by 2005. Yes, that's right, three years from now. Mind you, the book was not science fiction -- it purported to be hard-headed prediction. Among other fascinating revelations: There is actually no possibility of dangerous radiation from antimatter propulsion, because it would only produce harmless pions. (And what do the pions turn into, Bob?) We could reach the nearest star in only forty years with a few hundred kilograms of antimatter, but even though one gram of antimatter is equivalent to a Hiroshima bomb, we don't need to worry about weapons proliferation, because while it could obviously be economically feasible to produce antimatter by the kilogram, it never could be feasible to produce it by the gram! Etc., etc. The sheer idiocy of the book is staggering, and only more so because it seems as if the writer must have known better.

      Tim

  25. Living with a bomb by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 2

    That's the least of your worries. Live anywhere near a gas storage facility? Toxic dump? Or even a gas filling station? How about within several states of a nuclear power facility?

    The slightest thing going wrong with the containment at any of these places and you can kiss your ass goodbye.

    Now we all know that these things don't blow up every day but - broadly speaking, scientists in a lab type environment take far more sensible precautions over the storage, use and containment of potentially hazardous materials than people in the real world.

    That's because the scientist's priority will invariably be safe, repeatable research carried out in baby steps whereas the real world corporations will always weigh risk against profit.

    And, personally speaking, I don't think that a bean counter focused on the fiscal bottom line is the best person to trust when it comes to safety.

    --

    "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
    1. Re:Living with a bomb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Live anywhere near a gas storage facility? Toxic dump?

      Of course. Dude, it's freakin' Alabama. The place is like a third world country. They eat BOILED peanuts. I once saw a Fireworks sign on a Doctors Office there.

      That's what makes Huntsville so damn strange. There are more engineers there per capita than about anywhere else on earth.

    2. Re:Living with a bomb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Alabama a third world country? Have you BEEN to a third world country? You don't know how good we have it here in the US, including Alabama.

    3. Re:Living with a bomb by mmontour · · Score: 1

      That's the least of your worries. Live anywhere near a gas storage facility? Toxic dump? Or even a gas filling station? How about within several states of a nuclear power facility?

      The slightest thing going wrong with the containment at any of these places and you can kiss your ass goodbye.


      How about Tooele, Utah (about 40 miles from Salt Lake City), home of a somewhat leaky nerve-gas storage and incineration facility? It's quite high on my list of places to avoid.

  26. Re:French Tost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    La primera contestación al primer mensaje!

  27. grammar by cvd6262 · · Score: 1
    It very light on technical details

    And we very light on verbs.

    --

    I'd rather have someone respond than be modded up.

    1. Re:grammar by cheezehead · · Score: 1

      Well, here's your response. And somebody please mod this up as Funny!

      --

      MSN 8: Now Microsoft even has bugs in their ad campaigns.

    2. Re:grammar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmmm, Kemosabe!

  28. No Worry, Huntsville will be budget victim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All that science stuff is very nice. But
    unfortunately, the Huntsville facility won't
    make it through the year. The ISS is $5e9
    over budget! Huntsville will be the one to
    lay down it's life so that ISS may be fully
    staffed at 7 astronauts.

    It really sucks but dont worry because George
    W. is giving enough of a tax cut to the richest
    corporations to insure they will be creating jobs
    to employ all of those soon to be layed off
    scientists, engineers, and support staff.

  29. antimatter versus antiatoms; containment by bcrowell · · Score: 5, Interesting
    The article doesn't distinguish between antimatter and antiatoms. Antimatter is easy to produce, and even occurs naturally in cosmic ray events and the decay of natural radioactive substances. Antiatoms are a different story. The simplest antiatom is an antiproton plus an antielectron, which makes an antihydrogen. Last I heard, only about 10 antihydrogen atoms had ever been made. The article refers to antimatter being made in microgram quantities; if so, then this is a /major/ advance over the state of the art ~5 years ago.

    Containment depends on what form it's in. Slashdotters have been referring to Penning traps here. Well, a Penning trap only works for charged particles, not neutral atoms, and it only traps one sign of charge -- you can't trap both + and - particles in the same Penning trap. Therefore, I don't think a Penning trap would be suitable for storing even microgram quantities of bulk matter; if you have matter or antimatter in bulk quantities, it has to be electrically neutral. I think the posters were confused between containment of plasma and containment of antimatter.

    Containing antimatter, if you had it in bulk quantities, would be much easier than containing a plasma, since it doesn't have to be superhot like a plasma. You have to have an extremely good vacuum, however, because any matter that finds its way in will annihilate with the antimatter. I doubt that even the vacuum of interplanetary space would be good enough.

    1. Re:antimatter versus antiatoms; containment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What in the hell are you talking about?

      I've been watching Discovery channel too, and I didn't here them say any of this.

    2. Re:antimatter versus antiatoms; containment by Zog · · Score: 1
      Containing antimatter, if you had it in bulk quantities, would be much easier than containing a plasma, since it doesn't have to be superhot like a plasma.


      I don't mean to pick at stuff or anything, but I can go down the street (maybe 300 yards?) and hang out with a bunch of the other physics nerds and play with plasmas under the eye of Dr. Thomas (Auburn) pretty much whenever.

      That's not to say it's like 'poof!' and there's a plasma, it does take a bit of tweaking the pressure, using the right gas, a vacuum chamber, etc, but they aren't so difficult to create (they're only a fourth state of matter, rather than being the opposite thereof)
    3. Re:antimatter versus antiatoms; containment by renard · · Score: 3, Interesting
      The article doesn't distinguish between antimatter and antiatoms.

      You're right. An older NASA article mentioned by an early poster (above) gives more details. Basically they are talking about using antiprotons as rocket fuel. These are stored in a fairly gargantuan Penning trap (active volume one millimeter in size... well these things are relative, don't you know!).

      Antiatoms are discussed in the article as well; easier to store but much, much harder to make than plain old antiprotons.

      You have to have an extremely good vacuum, however

      When you're dealing with antimatter of any sort you have to have a very good vacuum regardless. Happily, this is not very hard, we can make the best vacuums in the known universe right here on Earth, much less in space...

      -Renard

    4. Re:antimatter versus antiatoms; containment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, if you think about it, just having antimatter in the vacuum chamber would cause it to slowly purify itself. Any particles of normal matter still floating around would annihilate themselves in contact with the antiparticles, gradually purifying the chamber. That's not the problem, the problem is finding an efficient way to rapidly make this stuff.

      By the way, a few grams of this stuff could pack as much energy as a hydrogen bomb. Maybe the robots of the future as they fight wars will use "antimatter bullets", each one capable of obliterating anything it hits and leaving a 100meter crater. The robots could be the size of a small bird or so, and be capable of eliminating any target.

    5. Re:antimatter versus antiatoms; containment by dupper · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't work as propulsion fuel at all if it was a mere one anti-proton and one positron. You also need a neutron.

    6. Re:antimatter versus antiatoms; containment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, Penning traps are used in experiments with very small amounts of cold matter or (very rarely) antimatter. Most antimatter in use today is kept in circulating rings for collider physics.

    7. Re:antimatter versus antiatoms; containment by bcrowell · · Score: 2
      From the article you referred to:
      • A trillion antiprotons is the maximum that can be stored under those conditions. More could be held if they were turned into anti-hydrogen, anti-protons plus positrons.
      A trillion antiprotons is about 10^12 GeV=10^21 eV=100 J, which is less than the calories in a bowl of cheeries.
    8. Re:antimatter versus antiatoms; containment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Happily, this is not very hard, we can make the best vacuums in the known universe right here on Earth, much less in space...

      I doubt this very much. What is your vacuum pressure/particle density in numbers ? Remember, intergalactic space has something less than one hydrogen atom per cm^3.

    9. Re:antimatter versus antiatoms; containment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, if you think about it, just having antimatter in the vacuum chamber would cause it to slowly purify itself. Any particles of normal matter still floating around would annihilate themselves in contact with the antiparticles, gradually purifying the chamber.

      The vacuum in a typical vacuum chamber is limited by the release of trapped gas from the chambers walls, in case of a stainless steel wall it's hydrogen diffusing from the steel volume to the surface.

      If the walls weren't the problem you would get better and better vacuum if you keep pumping the chamber, but the experience shows that once you reach a certain vacuum level (approx 10^-11 mbar for a baked out room temperature chamber), the pressure stops falling. The reason is that at this point you are pumping away the molecules from the chamber at the same speed as new ones emerge from the chamber walls.

  30. Re:French Tost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Puedes chingar el WIPO Troll! Y puedes chupar mi gran verga!

  31. If I could have a $ for every NASA research.... by Teancum · · Score: 4, Flamebait

    I would be rich... (this abused phrase notwithstanding).

    Seriously, there are so many futuristic NASA research projects (most of them in the $10,000 to $100,000 range). They cover everything from anti-gravity to blowing bubbles (liquid soap bubbles).

    I personally think this is what NASA does best, and the results from these research grants are quite interesting. It is also very unlikely that NASA will ever do anything with most of these research projects.

    {Rant Mode On}
    Just for an example, there hasn't been a new propulsion technology for manned spaceflight since the 1970's (mainly due to politics... including internal NASA stuff too), and even the robotic probe missions are using what most geeks (and /. readers) would consider archaic. I mean, 16 bit processors are finally being used for many missions and 8 bit processors are still common.

    I would consider myself to be a major NASA supporter, and I do vote for congressmen that are supportive of the space industry. I would also say, however, that I think the days of NASA are numbered and I wouldn't mind the complete dismantling of the entire agency. They are too stuck in the past (reliving the glory days of Apollo), and are actually doing more harm than good now for giving me or my children the opportunity to work and live in space.

    As a percentage of the US Federal budget, NASA is now totally inconsequential. During the 1960's NASA was second only to the Department of Defense. Now, NASA doesn't even show up except on a list of miscellaneous agencies, and even the Department of Defense now comes in third of fourth (it is grouped with the Department of Veteran Affairs and the State Department to show it as a bigger piece of the federal budget in the 2001 tax booklet from the IRS).

    I'm not advocating a renewal of NASA funding to 1960's funding levels (which was about 10% of the Federal Budget), but I am suggesting that it certainly is no longer a national priority, as defined by the United States Congress and the President of the United States.

    Unfortunately, with much of the space infrastructure in Texas and strong Republican states (like Alabama, Utah, or swing states like Florida and California), I highly doubt that it could be cut with the current administration either.
    {Rant Mode Off}

    1. Re:If I could have a $ for every NASA research.... by kawaichan · · Score: 1

      there hasn't been a new propulsion technology for manned spaceflight since the 1970's

      Dude, what about the ion engine, that was new.

      --

      kawai
    2. Re:If I could have a $ for every NASA research.... by Dwonis · · Score: 2
      I mean, 16 bit processors are finally being used for many missions and 8 bit processors are still common.

      It's very costly to mathematically prove that a program has zero errors (which is presumably what NASA does -- the data they input is another story). Once you've proven a given program works perfectly, there's no reason to "upgrade" it. Besides, most things would be simple physics calculations (trajectories, fuel consumption, etc), which don't change very much over time, so, again, there would be no need to re-invent the wheel.

    3. Re:If I could have a $ for every NASA research.... by Rombuu · · Score: 2

      I mean, 16 bit processors are finally being used for many missions and 8 bit processors are still common.

      Yes, but a) they are cheap, b) they are known to be reliable, and c) they are plentiful and easy to get radiation hardened versions of.

      Most embedded processors don't need to be more complex than that... it just adds unneeded complexity.

      --

      DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
    4. Re:If I could have a $ for every NASA research.... by chihowa · · Score: 1

      Exactly... There isn't really any need at all for big, fast, power-hungry processors that would spend most of their lives idling and millions of dollars being readied for 'the horrors of space'.

      A poor analogy is that I'm not going to spend a bunch of time and money and gas replacing the engine in my car to a big muscle engine to drive in stop-and-go traffic every day.

      Ugh, I should have stopped a while ago...

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    5. Re:If I could have a $ for every NASA research.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, what about the ion engine, that was new.

      Uhhh... no manned mission has used this.

    6. Re:If I could have a $ for every NASA research.... by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 5, Funny
      ...and even the robotic probe missions are using what most geeks (and /. readers) would consider archaic. I mean, 16 bit processors are finally being used for many missions and 8 bit processors are still common.
      You don't want 256 bit, billion gate gamma-ray lithographied GaAs processors in space.

      You'd rather have something reliable whose traces will not be overwhelmed by particle bombardment in Space.

      That's why NASA uses prehistoric microprocessors (when it uses any).

      And commercial Clarke-Orbit communication satellite are even more "primitive": no microprocessors at all. Just discrete wired logic.

      Because it's a fucking long way to press the "reset" button if the processor hangs...

    7. Re:If I could have a $ for every NASA research.... by Dyolf+Knip · · Score: 1
      I don't have a problem with NASA using old computers. Programming extremely good code is hard enough without having to redo it every time there's a new chip. They don't need the latest processors anyway.

      My problem is that NASA doomed the space industry in this country by trying to be the only ones in it. A bigger budget would be great but I say kill off all their projects except for developing cheaper launch technologies. Get us up there, we'll do the rest.

      It's like NASA's trying to build the computer, the operating system, and all the applications for it. It all works great, but it's usefulness is so limited we might as well not have it. They should just make the hardware and let everyone else make it useful.

      Tell your congressman that there is an absolute shitload of money (what would you give for a week in space?) to be made in space and with NASA in charge of it nobody'll see a dime. Maybe some other country'll get there, which is great, but economically and militarily speaking it is very bad to be on the bottom of the gravity well with no way up.

      --
      Dyolf Knip
    8. Re:If I could have a $ for every NASA research.... by PlaysWithMatches · · Score: 1

      True, it is kinda sad, but whatever the future of space exploration is, I just don't see NASA as being a part of it. They're too slow and lumbering, too political (duh, government agency), and it doesn't help that their budget does keep getting cut.

      I see the future of space travel going either (or both, maybe) of two directions: a bunch of private companies that do space 'tourism' and commercialism, and/or a multinational organization where space projects are funded (and manned) by multiple countries.

      I'm not sure which I'd rather have - a bunch of commercialistic companies at each others' throats for my business, or a bunch of goverments bickering about who pays for this mission's supply of $10,000 space screw drivers. :)

      Although, with the commercialized space future, there's the possibility of Microspace having a monopoly on interstellar travel. With the exception of Linus Torvalds' home-made shuttles of course. ;)

      --

      Mozilla's a nice operating system, but it needs a better browser.
    9. Re:If I could have a $ for every NASA research.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you will buy a Land Rover that already has said engine and you will proceed to sit in traffic.

    10. Re:If I could have a $ for every NASA research.... by cheezehead · · Score: 1

      It is also very unlikely that NASA will ever do anything with most of these research projects.


      I think you're absolutely right, however, the one or two research projects that do lead to something useful might actually be very useful. To state the obvious, this is the very nature of scientific research. Look at drug companies: out of a thousand compounds they test, maybe one or two will lead to a marketable drug. However, the one or two might just be the cure for cancer or AIDS, or whatever. If you look at the history of scientific research, you'll find that most revolutionary things came from fundamental research, that never promised to result in anything useful in the beginning. A few examples: low temperature research (superconductors), research into the structure of the atom (nuclear energy, nuclear medicine, and -unfortunately- nuclear weapons), mathematical group theory (error-correcting codes), solid stae physics (transistor->microprocessor->computers->I nternet), etc.

      Although I generally agree with you, consider this:

      This type of research is very long-term, i.e., you and I will probably never reap the benefits. However, our great-grandchildren might be thankful. We would never have today's technology if our ancestors had not had the courage to dream of great things, and act on their dreams.

      --

      MSN 8: Now Microsoft even has bugs in their ad campaigns.

    11. Re:If I could have a $ for every NASA research.... by cheezehead · · Score: 1

      It's very costly to mathematically prove that a program has zero errors ...

      Here I go in pedantic mode again. It's actually impossible to mathematically prove that a program is correct. It has been mathematically proven that a correctness proof does not exist (meta-proof...).
      Notwithstanding all the research on formal correctness assurance methods, when you go to a low enough level (i.e. machine instructions), the methods all fail. As a friend of mine once said: "at least you can prove it's not your fault" , but that's about as far as it goes.

      Having said that, NASA's methods are extremely thorough (specify, specify, specify, test, test, test, ad nauseam), and the Space Shuttle's software is probably by far the most reliable in the world.

      --

      MSN 8: Now Microsoft even has bugs in their ad campaigns.

    12. Re:If I could have a $ for every NASA research.... by kEnder242 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It is impossible to tell if a program will stop (i'm assuming you are revering to the Church-Turing hypothesis), but it is not impossible to to prove that a program does its job (e.g. a loop for multiplication). If you take into consideration a machine with fewer states than a Turning machine (something finate, like a z80 with its 16 registers and a few k of ram) it is much simpler to prove program correctness.

      Go take descrete structures again.

      --
      my associative arrays can kick your hash - TCL
    13. Re:If I could have a $ for every NASA research.... by cheezehead · · Score: 1

      No, I wasn't referring to the Church-Turing hypothesis. You'll have to forgive me for not having a reference immediately, but I distinctly recall a mathematical proof that you cannot prove program correctness. It's a fundamental problem, it doesn't have anything to do with the size of the processor or the number of registers. I'll have to look it up, I'm afraid. If I can find a reference, I'll post it.

      --

      MSN 8: Now Microsoft even has bugs in their ad campaigns.

    14. Re:If I could have a $ for every NASA research.... by Peyna · · Score: 2
      You are pretty much right, as is the other guy, (he has the right proof, I believe, and you have the right concept.)

      This proof states that there is no algorithm that can tell you if a certain program will halt (yield successful output), given a certain input, thus you cannot prove program correctness.

      I also remember another proof regarding this same issue, but from what I can tell, this one is basically the same idea.

      The proof (by contradiction, is as follows:

      Unsolvability of the Halting Problem


      Dale Roberts


      Statement of the halting problem (loosely speaking):


      The halting problem is a decision problem. It asks if an algorithm exists to decide, given an arbitrary program P and arbitrary input data D, whether P started on D eventually halts. Prove that the halting problem cannot be solved.


      Proof by contradiction:


      Assume that the halting problem is solvable. Then an algorithm solving the halting problem exists and according to the Church-Turing thesis a program X can be written to act on any program P with data D and yield a decision as to whether P started on D eventually halts. Now add instructions to X to create a new program Y. Y modifies X's behavior so that whenever X halts with a decision that P started on D halts, Y goes into an infinite loop. If X halts with a decision that P started on D does not halt, then Y halts. Finally, create a new program Z with input P. Z is defined so that it invokes Y on program P with input P. (That is, the input data for Z is actually a program, which is just data.)


      Consider what happens when we run Z on Z. There are two possibilities.


      1. Z started on input Z halts. If Z started on Z halts, then Y started on Z with input Z halts. If Y started on Z with input Z halts, then X decided that Z started on Z does not halt!


      Therefore,


      Z started on input Z halts implies that Z started on input Z does not halt. (contradiction)


      2. Z started on input Z does not halt. If Z started on Z does not halt, then Y started on Z with input Z does not halt. If Y started on Z with input Z does not halt, then X decided that Z started on Z halts!


      Therefore,


      Z started on input Z does not halt implies that Z started on input Z halts. (contradiction)


      Either alternative yields a contradiction, so our assumption that the halting problem is solvable must be incorrect.


      Significance


      The idea of unsolvability is important because it indicates that relatively simple problems exist, that are intuitively reasonable, but no matter how clever, insightful, intelligent, perseverant, creative or resourceful you are, you cannot solve it.

      --
      What?
    15. Re:If I could have a $ for every NASA research.... by crawling_chaos · · Score: 2
      Now my Computing Theory class was a long time ago, but I thought the Halting Problem proved that no program P existed that could take as input any program X and determine whether or not X halted on every possible input.

      This is a long way from saying that no program can be proven to halt on every input! I offer the following assembly language program as a counterexample:

      HALT

      Okay, so I'm being a wise-ass here, but the point is you can prove programs correct, but it's a hell of a lot of work, and you can't automate the general case.

      --
      You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
      -- Colonel Adolphus Busch
    16. Re:If I could have a $ for every NASA research.... by whereiswaldo · · Score: 1

      How many people are in the US again? 270 million or so?
      So, let's figure 1 in 50 people might be willing to donate to NASA on a monthly basis. That's 5.4 million people.
      Each person is willing to give a measly 10 bucks a month. That's 54 million dollars. A month.
      648 million dollars a year.
      So, maybe NASA's answer is to ask the public? Since the government doesn't seem to be appropriating the funds the way some of us would like... cut out the "middleman" (no disrespect intended) :)

    17. Re:If I could have a $ for every NASA research.... by AnalogBoy · · Score: 2

      I've always liked the idea of specifying where some of your tax dollars are spent. For instance, the "Would you like to donate $3.00 to the presidential campagin fund?" Question. I'm not saying allow people to specify where *ALL* their tax money is spent, but i'd rather give $10 a month to the expansion of human knowledge, or cancer research, or something else.. than to paying for a BMW that some congressman needs to go back and forth to kroger. Fill in your gripe about the appropriation of tax dollars where my example is used above.

  32. HELP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i have two computers, but only one set of speakers. i have a kvm for those pieces of h/w. but i need something cheap that would mix the two audio sources. suggestions? (note: a Y adapter does not work in reverse, so dont go there)

    1. Re:HELP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dude, you can buy a cheap switch to do that at Rat Shack. Now go away, we're getting high and discussing antimater...

  33. A nuclear engine seems more practical for now by Zergwyn · · Score: 5, Insightful
    When evaluating the usefulness of a potential fuel, one of the most important things is how efficiently that fuel can be converted to energy, and in engines the heat differential between the coldest and hottest parts of the system. Matter-Antimatter is very efficient, as there is direct mass->energy conversion. Combustion is very inefficient(a lot of burned fuel, not much energy).

    Nuclear efficiency is in between. While there is not complete conversion, there is some mass going to energy, unlike in chemical rockets. However, nuclear physics is practical and well understood. A system would probably not work just as a bunch of bombs going off(though research was done on that, see The Binding Curve of Energy), instead liquid fuel, possibly liquid hydrogen or ammonia, would be sent through a nuclear core, then expelled. This would allow radiation release to be kept in check pretty easily, and a highly efficient super-heated plasma would propel the ship. In addition, unlike normal rockets the plasma could be controlled with magnetic fields.

    While nuclear certainly holds a great stigma to many people, and is not as sexy as advanced antimatter/space warp/whatever systems, it is here and could be turned into a drive with minimal fuss. I could see a single nation/group(of sufficient economic strength, aka US, EU, possibly Japan) or coalition of nations getting behind this and making a ship to do it. The others will be needed, and research should continue, but if we want to go to other planets in the next couple of decades, this is probably the technology to do it with.

    1. Re:A nuclear engine seems more practical for now by kawaichan · · Score: 1

      Russian actually had a crazy idea of dnoate a nike behind a vessel so the ship can go foward probably at an insane speed.

      That of course, never flew (no pun intended)

      --

      kawai
    2. Re:A nuclear engine seems more practical for now by hogsback · · Score: 1


      You really want a slow, controlled release of energy give a nice low controlled acceleration. The human body isn't up to being accelerated by a nuclear explosion. Squish!

    3. Re:A nuclear engine seems more practical for now by RevRigel · · Score: 1

      The US considered this as well, during Project Orion. They even did some tests with high explosives and small scale devices.

    4. Re:A nuclear engine seems more practical for now by RevRigel · · Score: 1

      I agree that nuclear's been shelved for way too long by eco-freaks. There are existing designs for a rocket of this type that were worked out decades ago, and are just waiting to be used. The materials and the processes to make them have only gotten cheaper.

      What'd I'd really like to see is a hybrid air breathing nuclear engine. i.e. the hydrogen is pumped through the reactor core, superheated to several thousand K, and then combined with air sucked in through a ramscoop from the atmosphere for an extra boost to help in getting out of Earth's gravity well. This would allow for smaller engines, and still allow single stage to orbit. And it would be incredibly bad ass.

    5. Re:A nuclear engine seems more practical for now by LadyLucky · · Score: 1

      Roger Ramjet he's our man the hero of our nation... da dee da dee da dee da da da da da dee daa daaaaaaaaaa!

      --
      dominionrd.blogspot.com - Restaurants on
    6. Re:A nuclear engine seems more practical for now by inerte · · Score: 1

      In a couple of decades we will be able to probaly rearrange molecules. It's scince fiction to predict anything too technical like this to happen.

      What will matter distance when our imagination come throught? Nothing at all.

      Couple of decades is a long, long time nowdays my friend...

    7. Re:A nuclear engine seems more practical for now by Dyolf+Knip · · Score: 2

      Yes, so did we. It's called a pulsedrive, and do explain why it's crazy. There's no shock wave in space, just radiant energy. You can build the ship so that the acceleration is absorbed by the crew module at a controlled pace. It gives enormous speeds and efficiencies compared to chemical rockets. Yes, there's an EMP, so you don't use it too close to Earth.

      --
      Dyolf Knip
    8. Re:A nuclear engine seems more practical for now by cheezehead · · Score: 2, Informative

      Nuclear efficiency is in between. While there is not complete conversion, there is some mass going to energy, unlike in chemical rockets.

      Err, no, that is wrong. Chemical reactions transform mass into energy just as nuclear reactions do. It's just that chemical reactions transform a far smaller percentage of mass into energy. So, as you correctly point out, it's an efficiency thing. The reason is that chemical reactions work on the binding energy between electrons, whereas nuclear reactions act on the
      atom's nucleus, where energies are magnitudes higher.

      It's all rather confusing, since the number and type of particles are the same before and after the reactions, both for chemical and nuclear reactions. However, the assembly of particles have different masses before and after reactions. So where did the mass that was converted come from? Well, just as mass is equivalent to energy, so is energy equivalent to mass. The binding energy in atoms is mass, obeying E=mc^2. And that is the energy/mass that is freed during a reaction, be it a chemical or nuclear reaction.

      Hope that didn't confuse things any further...

      --

      MSN 8: Now Microsoft even has bugs in their ad campaigns.

    9. Re:A nuclear engine seems more practical for now by phlegmofdiscontent · · Score: 1

      I remember reading an article about a year ago about the possible uses for nuclear propulsion. NASA had been thinking of using it for a manned Mars mission. I agree that this could be a viable solution, much more viable in the near future than anti-matter. Instead of the closed loop used in a nuclear reactor, you just shoot the coolant (ammonia, hydrogen, or even water) out the back. You'll still have to have a lot of reaction mass, but that mass is far less than in a chemical rocket. Unfortunately, there's that whole "nuclear is bad" shtick that is thrown around by ignorami who think it's pronounced "nookyuler".
      Several years ago, people protested when NASA launched Galileo, and again when NASA launched Cassini. They were afraid the probes would hit Earth when they used it for the gravitational slingshot effect. We all know how that turned out. One has made several important discoveries and the other could do the same in a few years. I for one would like to see NASA go ahead and develop a good nuclear propulsion system despite the outcries from hysterical luddites. It could be cheap if based on some of the new nuclear technologies I've seen lately. It's clean since the fissile material doesn't go anywhere. It would be safer for the astronauts who would be able to travel to Mars in much less time than with chemical rockets. And, most importantly, nuclear propulsion just sounds cool.

    10. Re:A nuclear engine seems more practical for now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Antimatter at loose is far more dangerous than any fission or fusion propelled rocket might ever be, if ecofreaks are yelling about nuclear propulsion, they CERTAINLY would yell about someone trying to send antimatter into orbit.

      So the "stigma factor" is certainly not bigger problem with nuclear than antimatter.

    11. Re:A nuclear engine seems more practical for now by psavo · · Score: 1

      As nobody seems to really understand wha is wrong with nuclear engine approach..

      problem is with insane amount of energy needed at inter-planet/stellar manned mission. You just can't go without _decent_ amount of energy source. Now, that means that amount of uranium should be pretty big aboard. Now comes the bad part.
      Imagine this big thing exploding in stratosphere / failing last stage and dropping back on Earth. That means lot's of radioactive dust spreading through the air.
      now if you remember that Kursk alone is almost causing big problems with environment, you can imagine the amount of uranium needed for spacetrip being problem..

      --
      fucktard is a tenderhearted description
    12. Re:A nuclear engine seems more practical for now by Psiren · · Score: 2

      So send it up in tough durable containers in small parts on several different launches. Then collect it all when the vehicle is in orbit. Piece of cake. I'm sure they have a locker in the ISS they can bung a few containers of uranium in ;-)

    13. Re:A nuclear engine seems more practical for now by derobert · · Score: 1

      The Kursk is many times larger than any spacecraft. The Kursk goes through water, which has a lot more drag than space. So, no, without some hard facts I don't see why the amount of uranium needed for space travel would be a problem.

      How many mrem per person per year per kilogram of uranium released in the stratosphere are we even talking about? Does it compare to the 10mrem you can easily get from taking a trip on a jet?

    14. Re:A nuclear engine seems more practical for now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People would freak out at the thought of launching a nuclear reactor into space.

      Launching antimatter into space doesn't
      seem any safer. You don't see anybody
      complaining about that though, hmm....

  34. How do you Transport the stuff? by reddawnman · · Score: 1

    First off, I think this is a project and think it'd be great to hear about a 2 week mars mission in my lifetime... but I must play devils advocate

    OK, so assume that NASA gets a containment vessel built, presumably with an electromagnetic field, and they make enough antimatter to conceivably power a test vehicle or something. How do you transport the thing? I can see politicians and reactionaries screaming NIMBY when they attach it to a test vehicle. Even assuming that the test vehicle fails in say, a nice safe place like outer space, how do you convince the intelligent citizens of Florida (Motto: "Where's my Medicare Card?") that the transport of the container into outer space will be safe?

    1. Re:How do you Transport the stuff? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you would bother to read the other comments you would find that your questions is already answered above

    2. Re:How do you Transport the stuff? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I must play devils advocate

      *gasp!* Grandma was right! This internet whatchamacallit is a tool of Satan!

  35. The Entire Plan by fireboy1919 · · Score: 1, Troll

    The ultimate goal is to send an automated craft to the sun and convert heat energy into order, stored as crystalline structure. The crystals can then be broken down to generate massive amounts of energy, stored in a magnetically based containment system as heat and light. This reaction can be used to initiate a form of hyper-fusion reaction with electrodes to separate matter from antimatter within the byproduct.

    This will spontaneously generate tons of matter in a very small space. Some of this matter and antimatter will be expelled in order to produce locomotion, while the rest is simply to compress the space surrounding the vehicle. After this, the matter-antimatter will be recombined, to once again, expand space. The operation of expanding/shrinking space will be repeated continuously in order to allow faster than light travel without breaking the laws of relativity. NASA has deemed this mode of transport "Warp travel," since space is warped in the locomotion process. Since this is the major breakthrough that allows for extra-solar exploration, it is theorized that it may attract the attention and diplomatic relations of any nearby space-traveling civilizations.
    Well...maybe its just to have a source of energy that is extremely easy to use and very portable.

    But we can always dream, can't we?

    --
    Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
    1. Re:The Entire Plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You been reading the fucking TNG tech manual.

    2. Re:The Entire Plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who's ass are you talking out of? That much complete bullshit couldn't possibly have been pulled out of your ass alone.

    3. Re:The Entire Plan by fireboy1919 · · Score: 2

      Actually, only some of it is crap.

      That thing about the "crystalline structures" thing is how I would say dilithium crystals work (from Star Trek), if they actually did work. Totally my theory.

      As far as the warp theory idea, its a natural (and probable) consequence of the theory of curved space. Its all dependant upon the what-if: "What if I could spontaneously create and destroy massive amounts of matter at will?"

      And the last bit was from the movie "First Contact."

      --
      Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
    4. Re:The Entire Plan by carbon1 · · Score: 1

      Hmm, the part about continous rexpulsion, doesn't that seem a bit like 100% efficiency? And, if I remember correctly, isn't that _impossible_? Assimilate this. (also from First Contact). :-)

    5. Re:The Entire Plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is all crap. Not a single thing you said can be backed up by anything other than science FICTION. Prove me wrong.

    6. Re:The Entire Plan by Murphy(c) · · Score: 1

      It is all crap. Not a single thing you said can be backed up by anything other than science FICTION. Prove me wrong

      I'm betting 100$ that someone came up to Jules Verne, and said exactly the same thing.

      Verne didn't invent the submarine, the corporation nor did he invent video-conferencing. It was just how he saw things, and well some (most) of it turned out to be true.

      Murphy.
      Maybe we have a little Jules in each of us...

    7. Re:The Entire Plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw81.html

  36. Antimatter in a nutshell: by Nindalf · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Every known matter particle has an antiparticle which has identical mass, but opposite charges (for every kind of charge, including electrical). We don't know why, they just do. There doesn't seem to be much antimatter out there; again, for reasons unknown.

    Antiparticles still have positive mass, like every other known particle, and are not repelled by gravity.

    When a particle meets its antiparticle, they are converted into their combined mass worth of energy in accord with: E=mc^2 (where E is the energy, m is the combined mass, and c^2 is a ludicrously large number). Hence, antimatter is the most compact form of energy storage theoretically possible.

    In other words, pretty good rocket fuel. Antimatter bombs would be rather unpleasant, and any contained antimatter is a potential bomb (there's nothing "potential" about uncontained antimatter for very long).

    There is no reliable, efficient way of making antimatter, and no place to just pick it up for free. However, if you smash protons together hard enough with huge particle accelerators, they occasionally spit out highly energetic photons that decay into matched matter/antimatter particle pairs. With luck, you can catch a few in a magnetic field and hold them for a little while. This is about as cost-effective as it sounds.

    If you ever meet your anti-self, and he hasn't exploded yet, either he or you will before you have a chance to shake his hand, so don't worry about it.

    Despite this title, and the potential benefits of effective antimatter storage, antimatter can not be contained by a nutshell. Don't try.

  37. okay it's called a PET scan by edgarde · · Score: 1
    I shoulda looked this up before posting. A PET scan uses positrons, which are a by-product of radioactive decay. I didn't know positrons were so easy to come by.

    Now I'm wondering if there's anti-matter in between my sofa cushions.

  38. here's what they're talking about by supernova87a · · Score: 1

    Maybe some background information would be helpful here. Antimatter is matter, but with the opposite charge. So, an anti-electron has the same mass as an electron, but with a positive charge. An anti-proton has the same mass as a proton, but with a negative charge.

    Scientists have been able to create antiprotons for some time now, I believe several years. For example, they generate antiprotons at CERN in Switzerland, and can store them, as others have mentioned here, in Penning traps. Basically, this is a magnetic confinement trap, where the charge of the antiprotons (negative) is used to keep them in a very cool (like 2 Kelvin) container, away from the walls, and away from matter. The antiprotons are pulled off from the main accelerator loop, and in the center of the Penning trap, a bath of cold electrons slow them down (because they were traveling at v approx c, remember). Like a bowling ball being slowed down by a bath of ping-pong balls, the antiproton eventually loses enough energy and sits still in the middle of the trap.

    Now, these antiprotons can be carried around in the trap just like anything else. They just have to be kept cold, and in the magnetic field. In fact, antiprotons were delivered from Switzerland to Stanford (their linear accelerator) this way.

    The next big puzzle is to create anti*matter*. So far, it's been just antiprotons, which you recall, are charged. If they could combine antiprotons with antielectrons, to generate anti-hydrogen, this would be very exciting.

    Certainly it takes a whole lot of energy to create antimatter, but the great benefit from the perspective of space travel, for example, is that you can get orders of more energy out of the same mass, and you don't have to waste fuel sending so much fuel mass up into space.

    Hope this helps!

    1. Re:here's what they're talking about by Captain_Jackass · · Score: 1

      The next big puzzle is to create anti*matter*.

      Antiprotons/positrons are antimatter. Remember matter is anything that has mass and takes up space (volume). Antiprotons/positrons do both of that.

    2. Re:here's what they're talking about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes but the challenge here is to create anti-atoms which are combinations of anti electrons anti protons and anti-neutrons.

    3. Re:here's what they're talking about by supernova87a · · Score: 1

      what I mean by anti*matter* is stable, non-subatomic antimatter attoms or molecules A lazy terminology, I apologize.

  39. To get an idea.... by Restil · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Of the amount of energy created by matter/animatter annialation, consider the amount of energy that goes into creating the antimatter in the first place. The size of the accellerators and all the energy it takes to operate, just to produce a single particle of antimatter.

    What you get out of this, is the energy potential equivalent of accellerating a single particle to near the speed of light. Thats a LOT of energy and it can be stored within two particles. Its no wonder that we need a very small amount of it to accomplish great things.

    However, its extremely costly and time consuming to create, and without drastically improving the effiency of the creation process, this is not going to change anytime in the near future.

    Also, don't forget about the potential arms race here. Antimatter doesn't occur naturally in nature like nuclear elements (such as uranium) do (at least not in a form that can be collected easily). Right now nobody has the capability of creating enough antimatter to do any significant damage. But if we are able to create enough to be useful, a few grams of antimatter could be used to make a weapon that is significantly more powerful than a nuclear weapon. And although tactical nukes come in briefcases, imagine a bomb of equal power that fits inside a watch.

    Another issue to consider is that antimatter needs to be stored. If a chemical fuel tank leaks, no big deal. If a nuclear fuel tank leaks, you might get radiation poisoning, but the effect will be limited. If a gram of antimatter gets loose. WATCH OUT.

    Still, if we plan to travel great distances, its a necessary step.

    -Restil

    --
    Play with my webcams and lights here
  40. Another use for antimatter by redcliffe · · Score: 1

    We could use it to deflect asteroids. All you need is a small spacecraft carrying a particle accelerator. The craft would fly into space, to within range of the asteroid, then fire up it's particle accelerator. The particle accelerator would create a beam of high speed high energy antimatter aimed at the surface of the asteroid. The resultant explosion would be equivilant to a very large thermonuclear explosion and would deflect the asteroid.

    I would recommend the spacecraft be manned and have enough computer capabilities to be able to simulate the motion of the asteroid itself and determine the best location to hit. It should be able to orbit at any distance from the earth between LEO and the moon. It would also need an VASMIR drive to allow it to easily change it's orbit.

    Shields against such a weapon would be simple. Just detect the charge of the beam being fired at you and produce a large electric field of the same charge. This system would be ideal for defending earth from asteroids and the borg. :-P

    1. Re:Another use for antimatter by PhuCknuT · · Score: 1

      First of all, wouldn't it be easier to send an actual nuke than a particle accelerator? Do you have any idea how big they are?

      Secondly, the amount of antimatter generated by a particle accelerator would NOT be equivilant to a large nuke, it would at most slightly warm up a spot on the asteroid. To equal a large nuke, you would need to hit the asteroid with a kilogram of antimatter at least, not the nanograms that particle accelerators put out.

    2. Re:Another use for antimatter by spauldo · · Score: 1
      You forgot to mention the ability for the ship to instantly warp to a random location. Perhaps this functionality would be best triggered by the spacebar...

      --
      Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
    3. Re:Another use for antimatter by Karl+Cocknozzle · · Score: 2
      I would recommend the spacecraft be manned and have enough computer capabilities to be able to simulate the motion of the asteroid itself and determine the best location to hit.
      Better shield the ship and crew so they're not annihilated in the process. Also, particle accelerators are the sorts of things that are so large as to be impractical to transport. (They grow 'em big, 1 mile in diameter or more.)

      Or were you thinking it was like Ghostbusters where they were about as big as a backpack?
      --
      Who did what now?
    4. Re:Another use for antimatter by redcliffe · · Score: 2

      No, I do know how big a typical particle accelerator is. I was personally thinking a cyclotron would be better. They don't have to be 1 mile in diameter, they just use that for really energetic stuff. To produce antimatter AFIAK you only need a cyclotron around 50 metres in diameter. IIRC some universities have small units for this purpose.

    5. Re:Another use for antimatter by mmontour · · Score: 2

      I was personally thinking a cyclotron would be better. They don't have to be 1 mile in diameter, they just use that for really energetic stuff. To produce antimatter AFIAK you only need a cyclotron around 50 metres in diameter.

      The thing about a cyclotron is that it's a solid device (magnets, vacuum chamber, etc) so one that's "only" 50 metres in diameter would still be a helluva lot of material to haul around. TRIUMF's magnet is 18m in diameter, and it's the world's largest.

      You also have to specify what type of antimatter you want to create. TRIUMF has a beam energy of about 500 MeV, so it cannot create antiprotons (which have a mass of 938 MeV, but which according to this page need 6 times that much energy to satisfy the necessary conservation laws when creating them). However TRIUMF has no problem creating positive muons or positrons (which still qualify as "antimatter").

      A local company, Ebco Technologies, sells small cyclotrons for the production of medical PET radioisotopes. These aren't quite backpack sized, but they would easily fit into an apartment (provided the floor was strong enough and you had 80kW of electrical power available).

    6. Re:Another use for antimatter by redcliffe · · Score: 2

      Wouldn't it be possible to make it go around the main loop several thousand times before going out? I'd imagine a beam of antiprotons would be needed to do anything useful. It's gunna take a heck of a lot of power though.

    7. Re:Another use for antimatter by mmontour · · Score: 2

      Wouldn't it be possible to make it go around the main loop several thousand times before going out?

      It already does that. The way a cyclotron works is that charged particles in a magnetic field move in circles. It turns out that the radius of the circle increases as the particle's energy increases, but the time for one period remains constant. A cyclotron injects charged particles near the center, and they start moving in circles. Every time they cross the mid-line of the device, an AC field gives them an energy boost and moves them to a slightly greater radius (the field reverses polarity every half-orbit, so the field is always pushing the particles along their direction of travel). When the particles have gained enough energy to reach the outer edge of the device, they are extracted and sent down the beamline.

      Cyclotrons are good at producing a very high number of particles per second (so they're great for isotope production), but they don't easily scale to the energy levels needed to create antiprotons.

      howstuffworks.com has a bit more information.

    8. Re:Another use for antimatter by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      I would recommend the spacecraft be manned

      This also has advantages later, when it's time to make movies about the historic event.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    9. Re:Another use for antimatter by redcliffe · · Score: 2

      The key advantage is that it allows problems to be fixed a lot easier.

    10. Re:Another use for antimatter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Linux is the best. I like Linux. Everyone should use Linux. It is good.

  41. dammit jim by llamalicious · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    dammit jim, I'm a doctor, not a rocket scientist.

  42. a great fuel, an even better bomb. by limber · · Score: 1

    "The energy you get from the anti-particle particle annihilation is about ten billion times that of chemical combustion," Schmidt said.

    You definitely wouldn't like to see a terrorist organization get control of this stuff. With a kilo of anti-matter, you might take out NYC, never mind the WTC. Of course I'm sure the explosive applications (as this technology developed) would be thoroughly explored by the major military powers long before it could trickle down to that level. So before anti-matter could be used on a widespread basis, we will need to develop methods of ensuring that uncontrolled explosions can't occur by chance or by design.

    Side note: one of the more offbeat theories about the Tunguska explosion was that it was a chunk of antimatter, not an asteroid.

    Side note 2: It was in 1928 that British mathematician and physicist Paul Dirac suggested the existence of antimatter.

    1. Re:a great fuel, an even better bomb. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, it would take a very long time produce enough anti-matter to make an explosion with technology the way it is right now.

      I don't think we have to worry about terrorists and antimatter for a long time. But I do agree that this will surely be the next step in explosives. And it may even replace nukes.

      Anti-matter does not leave any after effects so replacing nuclear bombs with antimatter bombs may even be a good idea. But I know not having any weapons at all would be best.

    2. Re:a great fuel, an even better bomb. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, we don't have to worry about terrorists getting a hold of antimatter.

      But what about the tri-lithium resin? Hmmm?

    3. Re:a great fuel, an even better bomb. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anti-matter does not leave any after effects

      Except an enormous radioactive hole in the ground.

    4. Re:a great fuel, an even better bomb. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A kilogram of plutonium would take out all of NYC. A kilo of antimatter would also take out a big chunk of the surrounding states.

      What is the explosive force of antimatter, exactly?

    5. Re:a great fuel, an even better bomb. by hogsback · · Score: 1

      About 1000 times more than nuclear.

      And you would need just 42 milligrams of antimatter to give the same chemical energy that's in the space shuttle's fuel tanks.

    6. Re:a great fuel, an even better bomb. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you sure?

    7. Re:a great fuel, an even better bomb. by cheezehead · · Score: 1

      Side note: one of the more offbeat theories about the Tunguska explosion was that it was a chunk of antimatter, not an asteroid.

      Offbeat indeed. Occam's razor: "the simplest explanation is usually the right one"

      You don't need antimatter to explain the Tunguska explosion. Even a modest asteroid packs an enormous amount of (kinetic) energy, with the average speed of about 50 km/sec.

      To quote The Pragmatic Programmer, by Andrew Hunt and David Thomas: "when you see hoofprints, think horses, not zebras"

      --

      MSN 8: Now Microsoft even has bugs in their ad campaigns.

    8. Re:a great fuel, an even better bomb. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless you're in Africa.

  43. Devil is in the details by StefanJ · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Antimatter is a very efficient way of storing energy, but using that energy to power a rocket won't be easy.

    The job of a rocket is to create a stream of really fast particles moving in a particular direction. The faster, the better. Newton's Third Law and all that.

    Those particles could be gas, accelerated with good old heat, ions accellerated with an electric field, or plasma.

    Here's the rub: matter-antimatter reactions produce really energetic particles. Gamma rays, like. They kind a whiz right through the fuel you want to heat up. And the "combustion chamber." And the crew, and . . .

    I read up on antimatter and fusion propulsion at grad school. (There's a suprising amount of good material out there; do not rely solely on the word of popularizers like Robert Forward!) The most-fully-realized antimatter rocket was kind of clunky. In the middle of the "combustion" chamber would be a cylinder of dense tungsten alloy full of tubules. A slow but steady stream of antiparticles are shot into the cylinder, which heats up. Hydrogen in pumped into the tubules; it heats up and "whoosh."

    The disappointed bit: The specific impulse would "only" be about 5,000 seconds. This is about ten times what a liquid-fueled motor is capable of, and about 50% better than the little ion motor tested out on Deep Space One, but it's not amazing.

    The most promising use for animatter: Using it as part of a fusion drive. A antimatter-catalyzed fusion drive described in the text I read was predicted to have a total impulse of something like 130,000 seconds. THAT is impressive. The thrust wouldn't be high, but you could keep it up for months and months.

    What we might see are ships that use the direct-thermal sort of antimatter motor for getting a ship going (e.g., reaching escape velocity out of the Earth / moon system), then the fusion drive would be used to provide constant acceleration to speed up the trip.

    Stefan

    1. Re:Devil is in the details by guybarr · · Score: 1

      "Using it as part of a fusion drive"

      fusion or A.M. catalyzed fission ? the products of the fission reaction can be the only ejected mass, with incredible velocities, therefore giving high specific impulse, I do not understand how you can obtain the same S.I. with A.M. catalyzed fusion (or how exactly do you intend to use A.M. for fusion, for that matter)

      --
      Working for necessity's mother.
    2. Re:Devil is in the details by wsloand · · Score: 1

      A antimatter-catalyzed fusion drive described in the text I read was predicted to have a total impulse of something like 130,000 seconds. THAT is impressive. The thrust wouldn't be high, but you could keep it up for months and months.

      I may just be confused here, but 130,000 seconds is only a day and a half. What is impulse measured in seconds?

    3. Re:Devil is in the details by spike+hay · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Specific impulse of a rocket engine is measured in seconds. It means how many second a pound of fuel could produce a pound of thrust. The shuttles fuel gets about 450 seconds, that is, a lb. of hydorgen and O2 will produce one pound of thrust for 450 sec. The ICANN concept he described would be a few hundred times more effiecient than the shuttle's engine, meaning it would allow travel to another star system.
      By the way, Anti-Matter Catylzed Fusion is being heavily researched by NASA. It is probably in the shorter term than pure antimatter or pure fusion. It uses quatities of antimatter that can be easily produced in about 20 years. The rest of the tecnology for this concept already exists.
      If you ask me, I think the best way to have intersteller travel is with a Fission Fragment Sail. This is something that could be built today, if NASA had some money to blow. All that it is is a regular solar sail maybe 100 meters wide, and made of that new ultra-light gossamer carbon fiber material that NASA has developed for solar sails. On this sail is a highly fissionable element such as Californium. Since this synthetic element has a much lower critical mass than Plutonium or Uranium, it can fission when formed into a foil. When the Californium fissions, it sends high-speed fission fragments out. These fragments are normally stopped in a reactor pretty quick, but since this is a foil, the fragments escape. The fragments either propel by hitting the carbon fiber and pushing it forward, or they just travel out back and propel it forward. THIS WOULD ALLOW AN IMPULSE OF ONE MILLION SECONDS. This would easily allow a craft to reach a third of the speed of light.
      The only problem is that Californium costs about 10 million dollars a kilo. This cost would be greatly reduced to less than a million if we reprocessed nuclear waste. But anyway, you wold need around 25 kg. of it to propel a 1 kg. payload to a third of the speed of light. Yes, especialy with advances in lasers, CMOS electronic eyes, and thin photovoltaic cells, we could get a usefull payload down to a Kilogram.
      Such an intersteller probe would use CMOS electonic eyes to see stuff. It would use thin PV cells to get it's power as it neared the target star. It would communicate back by sending microwaves via MASERS. A maser is a microwave laser. If you had a 2 watt maser, its signal could be detected 4 light-years away at Alpha Centauri by a large radiotelescope, like Arecibo.
      Such a mission would only cost 1 or 2 billion dollars and it could be launched tomorrow.

      --
      If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
    4. Re:Devil is in the details by alfredw · · Score: 1

      Indeed - being able to maintain a constant impulse for months is of great benefit to manned spaceflight.

      Consider a manned spacecraft equipped with one of these antimatter-catalysed fusion engines. Let's say it produces enough thrust to give 1g of acceleration, and can keep this up for, say, a year.

      You want to go to Mars. How do you do it? Heinlein-style: constant thrust. You don't need anything clunky like rotating wheels to keep the crew in the comfort of Earth-normal "gravity." You fire your engine CONSTANTLY, and, according to the equivalence principle, your crew gets pushed against the floor at 1g - just like on Earth. Furthermore, this lets you build up a tremendous speed after several months (after 6mo, for instance, you're going at 1.55 * 10^8 m/s aka half the speed of light (relative to your departure point, of course)). This makes transit times fast, to say the least!

      At the halfway point, you flip your spacecraft around (your crew enjoys a few minutes of zero-gee playtime) and you start firing at 1g again. This time, you're decelerating relative to your destination.

      Makes for a nice, fast, comfortable trip!

      --
      In Soviet Russia, sig types you!
    5. Re:Devil is in the details by StefanJ · · Score: 2

      Your argument is right out of an old Heinlein essay.

      My faith in RAH dropped like a rock after I learned the Rocket Equation. If he hung out with real rocket scientists, he would have known that:

      "Let's say it produces enough thrust to give 1g of acceleration, and can keep this up for, say, a year."

      . . . is utter fantasy. But he wrote something like that, and a generation of editors didn't challenge him on it, and guys like Niven picked it up as gospel.

      Um, well, I'm not in the mood to write out the rocket equation right here. We'll get out there, but it's not going to be quick or easy.

    6. Re:Devil is in the details by stmfreak · · Score: 1

      Regardless, we're still throwing mass away to get somewhere. Until we find a way to either:

      a. not do this, or
      b. replenish that mass, a-la-ram-scoop

      we're not going far or fast.

      --
      These opinions guaranteed or your money back.
    7. Re:Devil is in the details by spike+hay · · Score: 1

      The ICANN-2 antimatter-fusion engine is pulsed. It gives a large amount of thrust for a short period of time. It would not be a comfy ride. The ship would constantly be jolted by the fusion pellet explosions at the craft's rear. This engine would only run at most for an hour or two during a mission. The rest of the time it would be coasting. Also, I recently found out that the ICANN is limited to about 11,000 seconds.
      I think a better engine for interplanetary travel is the VASIMR plasma drive. It uses extremely hot plasma accelerated by magnetic fields to provide an ISP of 30,000 seconds. That's enough for slow manned intersteller missions. Its more efficient, and it gives a slow steady thrust to provide a tad bit of gravity. Plus the fuel would be cheaper: Just plain hydrogen, not ultra-expensive enriched uranium, tritium and deuterium.
      The second concept I mentioned before, the fission sail, would give very very very low thrust over a period of a couple years to reach an ungodly velocity. It's not suitable for manned interplanetary travel or manned intersteller travel because you'd just need to damned much Californium.

      --
      If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
    8. Re:Devil is in the details by esonik · · Score: 2
      One option would e.g. be to shoot a mass from moon at the vehicle (or a Laser beam, but let's stick with the mass as it has another advantage).
      When the vehicle catches the mass, it is accelerated in to direction that the mass was flying. Of course you need to aim very accurately and you can only accelerate in the direction moon-vehicle. However, once the vehicle has capured the mass, it can eject it in a arbitrary direction, i.e. accelerate in a arbitrary direction.
      That way you can circumvent the rocket equation, i.e. you accelerate a constant mass mainly consisting of payload and catcher (no fuel). If you want to re-eject the captured mass you need an adequate energy source, of course.

      For the decelerating part of the mission you need either a second mass driver at the destination or conventional means to brake.

      advantages of this scheme:
      • circumvents rocket equation
      • you can convert the kinetic energy of the incoming masses into electrical energy onboard the vehicle


      disadvantages:
      • need a huge gun that can be aimed very well in the desired directions (huge because you need very high mass velocities: v_mass >> v_vehicle ~ several km/s)
      • need a decelrating "gun" that can catch the masses reliably
      • acceleration only in direction massdriver->vehicle, unless you have a second gun at vehicle
      • alters moon orbit (no problem if vehicle small compared to moon or missions average out in all directions)


      Of course you can also shoot particles at the vehicle (think ion drive exhaust aimed at the vehicle rather than machine gun).
  44. Re:French Tost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1/2 way down my cock

    So it is 1 inch down the side of your cock?

  45. Not ready for prime time. by KILNA · · Score: 1, Funny

    I really doubt this is is something we'll see any time soon. I mean, we don't have inertial dampeners. Or structural integrity fields. What about the ODN lines or EPS taps? Can NASA vent drive plasma yet? I don't want anything leaving the ground until we can reroute warp power through the main deflector, recalibrate the phase discriminator, and backflush the bussard collectors. Do we have deuterium purge vents, final stage magnatomic flux contrictors, impulse syncrotron units, impulse-deflection crystals, isolinear chips, Jeffries tubes, LCARS displays, matter/antimatter mix chambers, navigational deflector grids, power transfer conduits, RCS thrusters, tractor beam emitters, biomatter resequencers, duotronics, interphase generators, isomagnetic disintegrators, replicators, or SELF SEALING STEM BOLTS? My god, how could we get by without the SELF SEALING STEM BOLTS? Do we have doppler and heisenberg compensators or pattern enhancers and buffers? Do we have phaserbanks or photorps do defend ourselves? Do we have ablative armor or regenerative and metaphasic shielding? If we had shielding, could we rotate the frequency? Do we have PADDs, tricorders, hyperspanners, hyposprays and multispatial probes as tools? NO! We are NOT ready for this.

    --
    Error: PANTS NOT FOUND. Press <F1> to continue.
    1. Re:Not ready for prime time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have to start somewhere...

      Oh, you forgot Quantum Torpedoes. Oh and trans-phasic torpedoes...

    2. Re:Not ready for prime time. by caffeinated_bunsen · · Score: 2
      Well, we have plenty of RCS thrusters and ablative armor, and we don't need all the other stuff. Remember, the ultimate solution to any Star Trek problem is something we already know how to do: reverse the polarity!

      Backflushing the bussard collectors messed up your phase discriminator calibration? Reverse the polarity! Pattern buffer's isolinear chips not working with the biomatter resequencer? Reverse the polarity! Isomagnetic disintegrator fried the power transfer conduit to the main deflector, making it impossible to reroute warp power to the tractor beam emitters? Reverse the polarity!

      But if your self-sealing stem bolts break, you're completely screwed.

      --

      Bugrit! Millenium hand and shrimp!
    3. Re:Not ready for prime time. by KILNA · · Score: 1

      Oh, yes! Reversing the phase of the field coils wouldn't hurt, either.

      --
      Error: PANTS NOT FOUND. Press <F1> to continue.
    4. Re:Not ready for prime time. by alainsane · · Score: 1

      You forgot the exploding EPS conduits!

      --
      1+1=10
    5. Re:Not ready for prime time. by savage_panda · · Score: 1

      If we're going by the current Enterprise episode standards, we just need rockets as torpedos, and plungers to pull up shuttles from asteroids. And also we need to crew it with lots of bad actors.

    6. Re:Not ready for prime time. by KILNA · · Score: 1

      And when the consoles explode because of the EPS conduits, why does it look like it was full of rocks? You know why? Because they only used standard stem bolts, not the self-sealing variety.

      --
      Error: PANTS NOT FOUND. Press <F1> to continue.
    7. Re:Not ready for prime time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, you really need a girlfriend :-)

    8. Re:Not ready for prime time. by KILNA · · Score: 1

      A girlfriend would be great, but I think my wife would object.

      --
      Error: PANTS NOT FOUND. Press <F1> to continue.
  46. Regardless... by Nindalf · · Score: 2

    I'd rather only have to pack a kilogram of antimatter on my space ship than a moderately sized inland sea's worth of chemical fuel.

  47. Nuclear Combustion Engines by Alien54 · · Score: 3, Interesting
    It basically sounds similar to the old atomic rockets they were speculating about some years ago. Big fat nuclear explosion pushing the ship forward.

    You could probably engineer something like a constant inflow of anti-matter to make for continous thrust. The only problem is the back flow on the fuel lines. this would be a lot easier than having a continous atomic fission explosion for thrust.

    Strangely enough, this also works as a method fo moving asteroids around, since you could have atomic fuel lines running to a convenient crater. A trickle feed would create a continous nuclear reaction that would push the asteroid to a new course.

    Alot of this stuff would need to be NOT engineered in low earth orbit, for obvious reasons.

    --
    "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
    1. Re:Nuclear Combustion Engines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suspect that it might be difficult to find a perfectly shaped crater, which could create propulsion in only the required direction. Might be fun to try, though. Maybe all those games of asteroids have been leading us to this -- our collective destiny ! ;)

  48. Energy is only part of the problem. by KFury · · Score: 3, Insightful
    The article, as written, is pretty shoddy, and looks similar to articles written 70 years ago touting how everyone would eat pills for food and fly personal jetpacks.

    The problem that's not addressed in the article is that sure, antimatter is small, light, and excellent for storing energy with little mass, but what does that energy get you? Every spacecraft we've ever designed uses a reaction drive (and yes, solar sails are reaction drives too. They just use external sources as propellant.). The article doesn't address how we tackle the problem that for reaction drives to work we need to have something to throw behind us at high speed.


    Not to say NASA isn't working on it. I'm sure they're looking at Bussard Ramjets or some other mechanism for using this tremendous energy to snare interstellar particles and throw them behind the ship. In fact, NASA has a few projects on the books for exploring exactly where the barriers between stellar and interstellar wind lay, and what the particle densities are really like. I guess this sort of detail is just too much for the average CNN reader.

    The article, as is, doesn't provide any reason for being written now, other than a 'gee whiz the future's out there' fluff piece.

    Hey, at least it's not about Afghanistan or weapons development.

    1. Re:Energy is only part of the problem. by Orangedog_on_crack · · Score: 1
      looks similar to articles written 70 years ago touting how everyone would eat pills for food and fly personal jetpacks.

      I agree but whenever I hear someone say that something is 70 or 80 years away, I remember a quote that I heard a long time ago from around the year 1901:

      "The secret of powered flight will not be discovered within our lifetime."-Orvil Wright, two years before the first powered flight at Kittyhawk.

    2. Re:Energy is only part of the problem. by KFury · · Score: 1

      Wow. You're older than you look!

  49. Medical uses of Antimatter by Visoblast · · Score: 1
    In addition to what was mentioned in the article, anitmatter also can be applied to create radioactive isotopes for use in hospitals that lack expensive equipment to produce the isotopes. The idea is that not all hospitals can afford or place the equipment to make isotopes that may have half lives of only a few minutes, but hospitals that can't can still afford the scanning equipment to track the isotope's trip through the body, and may already have the equipment for other uses. Antimatter could be transported to such hospitals and used on site to make the short lived isotopes.

    I saw a presentation about this use of antimatter at Dragon Con in 2000. I wish I had a URL to go with it.

    --
    "Luncheon meats make the sawdust in your stomach explode."
    • -- Crow T. Robot
    1. Re:Medical uses of Antimatter by mbstone · · Score: 1

      Fortunately, we don't need a ballot initiative to be able to use Medical Antimatter. While not yet covered by most insurance plans, the US government is on record as supporting the Antidrug. Just snort some, you'll really blow your mind!

  50. Looks like ... by geckoFeet · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... it gives a whole new meaning to the term "vaporware."

  51. A good place for info... by Graff · · Score: 3, Informative

    Robert L. Forward covers the topic of antimatter and some of its uses in his book Indistinguishable From Magic. You can find some information online about him and get some links to his ideas at his website.

    1. Re:A good place for info... by Graff · · Score: 1

      I had a bit of time and found that there are a bunch of PDF files in the site, you can find them here: Antimatter Propulsion and Antiproton Annihilation Propulsion

  52. Two obstacles by beefstu01 · · Score: 1

    Um, how the hell are they going to store all the antimatter (It needs to be standing still, not being slung around a particle accelerator), and how the hell do they make all the antimatter that will power these spacecraft?

    E=MC^2 : that's a very commonly known formula, and it means that even if a very tiny amount of matter was turned into energy, there would be a whole lot of that energy made. For example- if .5 grams of antimatter met up w/ .5 grams of normal matter, then you'll end up with 8.99 x 10^13 J (lots and lots of power). However, this also kinda means that to get .5 grams of antimatter, you have to put in a slew of energy, because there has to be a conservation of energy. How NASA scientists will get around this will be interesting to see.

    1. Re:Two obstacles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RTFA!

  53. offtopic - but whatever ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just take a regular microJack type cord and line-in it to the other computer.

  54. Re:From nasa (Physics nitpicking) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From the article:
    The gamma rays from a perfect reaction would escape immediately, unless the ship had thick shielding, and serve no purpose.

    This is a glaring error in an otherwise good page. If the reaction chamber had a hemisphere of a high-Z material, like uranium, the gamma photons from a matter/antimatter reaction could be reflected (assuming the gamma rays are not of sufficient energy to cause fission of the material). Now, it might not seem like it, but this can produce thrust, in much the same way that a solar sail would.

    This is one of the consequences of relativistic momentum - changing the momentum of a large number of high-energy, low-mass particles can change the momentum of a high-mass, low-energy particle (your spacecraft). In my physics class, we had to calculate the thrust one could expect from a solar sail. It's not much, but like ion drives it is constant. And, it requires no fuel whatsoever, so from an efficiency standpoint, it's excellent. Matter/antimatter drives could conceivably operate on a similar principle - but we'd have to be careful not to point the "prop wash" at the Earth!

  55. It's not about cost to produce... by volpe · · Score: 2


    Am I the only one thinking antimatter costs more energy to produce than you get out of it?

    It's not about cost to produce. It's about how much usable energy you get per pound of fuel that you have to carry with you. It's worth it to spend the energy up front in order to make the trip through space feasable.

  56. in the same vein... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.somethingawful.com/features/scificovers / those wacky forum goons are up to it again, this time with old scifi covers...

  57. That i did not know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cmdrtaco sucks more dick than usual on friday night.

    1. Re:That i did not know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      don't we all.

  58. Re:From nasa (Physics nitpicking) by renard · · Score: 2
    If the reaction chamber had a hemisphere of a high-Z material, like uranium, the gamma photons from a matter/antimatter reaction could be reflected (assuming the gamma rays are not of sufficient energy to cause fission of the material)

    On the contrary, the gamma-rays (even when they are not energetic enough to cause fission) will merely be absorbed by the high-Z nuclei, knocking them loose to rattle around the spacecraft (kinetic energy), or alternatively raising them to an excited state, after which they will relax by emission of one or several gamma-rays in random directions (isotropic distribution). Since you will have absorbed the momentum of a gamma-ray that was going in the wrong direction, you will end up with a net loss.

    If it were that easy to "reflect" gamma-rays, believe me, gamma-ray astronomers would have been doing it a long time ago...

    -Renard

  59. Re:PALESTINIANS ARE BLOODTHIRSTY KILLERS by carbon1 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Hmmm.... this is indeed offtopic, but I'm curious about one thing: is this intended to be ironic or is it just you being an idiot? To summarize the above message : "Peace-loving people will only be safe when we've killed all the peoples of country x, y, and z." Anyone else seeing a contradiction?

  60. Re:French Tost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't forget the BOFH Troll as it was recently killed.

  61. BOFH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When the PFY and I are on top of things, running the network is simple. But then the boss attempts to do his job and it all goes pear-shaped...
    "Who's this Charles Omputer?" He asks, eyeing a set of timesheets suspiciously.

    "Never heard of him."

    "You must have, you've signed his bloody timesheet."

    "Charles Omputer?... Oh, you mean Chazzer. He's a part time cable monkey we got to replace the telephone cabling that got burnt out when some idiot had his PC jammed against the circuit breaker on his desk."

    "You know very well the circuit breaker was faulty. Anyway, I don't know how my PC got pushed back that far."

    The PFY couldn't look more innocent if he tried.

    "And it shouldn't have affected the phone cabling," the boss continued.

    "It wouldn't have if someone hadn't decided to 'cut costs' by running the extra office power through the data ducting..."

    The boss shuffles his feet. "Anyway, Mr Omputer - he's been putting in the overtime, hasn't he?"

    "Yes, although it's not really our fault because you made us let Frank Irmware go last week because he crashed the server."

    "We can't allow mistakes," the boss says, taking the hard line. "We have to be vigilant. Can we get a replacement?"

    "Well, we've got a CV for a Roger Amchip."

    "What's he like?"

    "He's been in computers for years," the PFY pipes up.

    "We seem to be hiring a lot of foreigners," the boss comments, "and how come I never meet any of them?"

    "Well, you know the sort, green and keen, can't wait to get into the thick of it."

    "I see. Well, give this Amchip guy a call and organise a meeting with him tomorrow. Sort out any potential overtime disputes!"

    Bugger.

    "How's 'Omputer's cable replacement' going?" I ask the PFY.

    "Should be done by tomorrow..."

    "And we're still keeping up appearances?"

    "Judging by the unhappiness in the tea-room, apparently so..."

    If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times, it's the small things that count. You can't just unplug 50 telephone cables, super glue a circuit breaker shut then claim a cabling disaster has destroyed the telecommunications hub of the floor - requiring two weeks overtime to 'recable'. No, you have to give the appearance of work being done while you replug the cables back in at the comms room, five per night.

    Which is why the PFY and I leave wire offcuts and insulation on office floors right next to a knocked-over plant, which is supposed to disguise a hammer hole in the wall. And there's nothing like the theft of small change from a user's desktop organiser and a cigarette butt in their coffee mug to allay any suspicion that there were was no cabling job and certainly no cabling professional.

    With a little extra effort, all suspicions are avoided.

    Which leaves us with the problem of Roger Amchip...

    The boss trolls into work in time to find a set of legs sticking out from under his desk. Being a total wimp, he sends me in to take a look. I flip the boss's desktop circuit breaker to off and grope around a bit.

    "No pulse," I cry.

    The boss screams and then power-unloads last night's biriani.

    "I'll get an ambulance."

    "No point, he's stone cold - feel his leg."

    The boss squeamishly touches the leg. "Oh God. Who?" he asks quietly.

    "Amchip. He was keen to get to work last night. Must have been electrocuted from the mains in the phone and data ducting."

    "We'll have to call the police."

    "You're right, and if I may say so, it's very brave of you."

    "What?"

    "To face the music like this. A lot of people would just pay Amchip's widow off to pretend he'd run off, rather than face a manslaughter by professional negligence charge."

    "Manslaughter!"

    "Well, it wasn't premeditated was it? Although you are known to have a problem with anyone claiming overtime... Poor Mrs Amchip."

    "Do you think she'd accept money?"

    "Well, these are tough times. I think she'd probably come up with a reasonable excuse for ten grand. They weren't that close apparently."

    The boss whips out his cheque book in record time...

    "Who should I make it out to?"

    "Charlotte Amchip. No. That would look suspicious... Make it out to her non-profit business - Charlotte Amchip's Schizophrenics Hospice."

    "How do you spell Schizophrenics?"

    "Oh, just put the initials."

    An hour later the boss is having a drink to calm his nerves, the PFY and I are having a drink to celebrate our recent bonus, and the head of safety is having a lie down after finding the lost CPR mannequin.

    Amazing how things work out for the best isn't it?

    1. Re:BOFH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh yeah! You the fucken man!

  62. Weapon Application by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will this tech go into orbitting satellites containing magnetic bottles of anti-matter ready for mixing? This would be bad.

  63. Re:Fourth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Medal of Honor Allied Assault(tm) Demo Version 1.0
    Read Me File
    November 28, 2001
    \
    Thank you for obtaining the Medal of Honor Allied Assault demo.
    This readme file contains information that will help you fully
    enjoy this demo.

    Installation Instructions

    1) Browse to the MOHAA folder on the Demo CD.
    2) Double mouse-click "Setup.exe".
    3) Follow the instructions that appear to install the demo.

    Uninstalling Medal of Honor Allied Assault Demo

    Windows 95,98, and ME
    To uninstall the Medal of Honor Allied Assault demo:
    1) Bring up your Start Menu.
    2) Choose "Settings".
    3) Choose "Control Panel".
    4) Choose "Add/Remove Programs"
    5) Highlight "Medal of Honor Allied Assault Demo" and click the
    "Add/Remove..." button in the lower right.
    6) Follow the instructions that appear, to uninstall the demo.

    Windows XP: Home Edition and Professional
    To uninstall the Medal of Honor Allied Assault demo:
    1) Bring up your Start Menu.
    2) Choose "Settings".
    3) Choose "Control Panel".
    4) Choose "Add/Remove Programs"
    5) Highlight "Medal of Honor Allied Assault Demo" and click the
    "Remove" button below its name.
    6) Follow the instructions that appear, to uninstall the demo.

    All controls are available and customizable from the "Controls"
    Menu accessible from the Main Menu. Here is a breakdown of the
    default controls.

    FUNCTION: KEY/MOUSE USED
    Primary Attack: Left mouse button
    Secondary Attack: Right mouse button
    Reload: r
    Move Forward: w
    Move Backward: s
    Strafe Left: a
    Strafe Right: d
    Use: e
    Jump/Stand Up: Space
    Crouch: Left Ctrl
    Turn Left: Move mouse left
    Turn Right: Move mouse right
    Look Up: Move mouse up
    Look Down: Move mouse down
    Run/Walk: Left Shift
    Next Weapon: Mouse Wheel Up
    Previous Weapon: Mouse Wheel Down
    Holster Weapon: q
    Pistol (Colt 45): 1
    Rifle (Springfield): 2
    SMG (Thompson): 3
    MG (BAR): 4
    Grenade: 5
    Heavy (Panzerschreck): 6
    Binoculars: 7
    Mission Objectives: Tab
    QuickSave: F5
    QuickLoad: F9

    Important Notes:

    -Health Packs and Canteens
    Make sure to either walk into or center your view on and
    activate the "use" key on these items when in need of
    health. Health packs are rectangles with a red cross and
    restore a large amount of health. Canteens also have a
    red cross on them and restore a small amount of health
    and can often be found atop eliminated Germans.
    -Mounted Machine Guns
    There are several mounted machine guns that you can walk
    up to an activate with the "use" key. To stop using the
    mounted gun, type the "use" key again.
    -QuickSave
    QuickSave is an important feature that allows you to save
    a game by hitting the "F5" key on you keyboard. After
    dying you will restart at the point of your last
    QuickSave (or AutoSave). This will help the player save
    their progress, especially after any tough part of the
    demo.
    -AutoSave
    At various points in the demo level the game will
    AutoSave. This prevents the player from having to start
    all the way back at the beginning of the level or at the
    spot of their last save game.
    -Secondary Attack
    Two weapons use the secondary attack. Sniper Rifle zooms
    with Secondary Attack. Grenades are thrown a much shorter
    distance with Secondary attack.
    -Binoculars
    In some situations, the Binoculars can be used to call
    in an Air Strike in the event you run out of Panzerschreck
    shells. Simply bring up the Binoculars and put the target
    in your sights, then hit the Primary Attack button. Within
    a short amount of time, an Allied plane will destroy the
    target.

    Minimum:
    450 MHz CPU
    64 MB of RAM
    16 MB 3D accelerator video card with OpenGL support
    200 MB of free hard drive space
    CD-ROM/DVD-ROM
    DirectX 8 Compatible Sound Card

    Required Operating Systems:
    Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows ME and Windows XP: Home
    Edition and Professional. Note that Windows NT 3.x, 4.0,
    and 2000 are not supported.

    The following 16MB or greater 3D accelerators are fully
    supported and should work properly with the game:

    -Nvidia GeForce3 Titanium 500
    -Nvidia GeForce3
    -Nvidia GeForce3 Titanium 200
    -Nvidia GeForce2 Ultra
    -Nvidia GeForce2 Titanium
    -Nvidia GeForce2 GTS/Pro
    -Nvidia GeForce2 MX
    -Nvidia GeForce 256
    -Nvidia TNT 2
    -Nvidia nForce IGP (Integrate Graphics Processor)
    -Matrox Millennium G550
    -ATI Radeon 8500
    -ATI Radeon 7500
    -ATI Radeon
    -ST Kyro II
    -ST Kyro

    The following 16MB or greater 3D accelerators are not fully
    supported and do not work properly with the game:

    -3Dfx Voodoo 4 and 5
    The main menu is corrupted. No intro movies play.
    Explosions and muzzle flashes have gray boxes that appear
    around them. Various textures are corrupted. See the 3Dfx
    portion of the Troubleshooting section below to fix the
    main menu.
    -3Dfx Voodoo 3
    The main menu is corrupted. See Troubleshooting section to
    see how to get the menu to work. No intro movies play.
    Briefing Screens are too blurry to read. Explosions and
    muzzle flashes have gray boxes that appear around them.
    Various textures are corrupted. See the 3Dfx portion of
    the Troubleshooting section below to fix the main menu.
    -3Dfx Voodoo Banshee cards
    -Kyro II cards
    Gray squares can be seen surrounding explosions and vehicle
    headlights. This is a problem with the Kyro II video driver
    mishandling mipmapping of alpha textures.
    -Matrox G400 and G450
    Textures on most levels are badly corrupted.
    -Nvidia TNT and Vanta
    These older cards yield poor frame rates.
    -PowerVR NEON 250 cards:
    Video Logic PowerVR Neon 250
    -S3 Savage 2000 cards:
    Diamond Viper II
    -S3 Savage 4 cards:
    Diamond Stealth III S540
    Diamond Stealth III S540 Extreme
    -SiS 300 cards

    The following sound card is not supported:
    -Ensoniq SoundScape PNP

    The following sound cards have known problems:
    -Diamond Monster Sound MX 400
    Requires turning off "DirectSound Acceleration" in the
    driver. See the detailed explanation under
    "Troubleshooting."
    -Creative Labs Audigy
    Currently hardware acceleration for this card does not
    work correctly.

    If you declined to install DirectX 8.0 when initially installing
    Medal of Honor Allied Assault, you can directly run
    "dxsetup.exe", located in the DirectX directory on the install
    CDROM. This is found on demo disc under the "redist\directx8"
    folder. Just double-click on "dxsetup.exe".

    Some machines will benefit from experimenting with your
    video/sound options:

    - From the Main Menu choose the "Options" menu signified
    by some electronic equipment towards the left side on
    the table. Then select the "Video" menu, select "Texture
    Detail" and choose "LOW". This is particularly useful
    for computers with less than 128 MB of RAM.

    - Also from the "Video" menu, uncheck the "WALL DECALS"
    check box. This will prevent the game from creating
    bullet marks on walls and should improve performance.

    - Try reducing your video resolution to 640x480 or even
    512x384 in your "Video" menu. The lower the resolution,
    the easier it is for your computer to run the game.

    - From the "Video" menu you can try lowering your color
    depth from 32 to 16 bit.

    - Video cards with less than 64MB Video memory cannot set
    texture detail to high and texture color depth to 32 bit
    simultaneously. These cards can get very poor
    performance at times, so lower your texture detail
    and/or lower your texture depth to 16 bit.

    - From the "Advanced" menu under the "Options" menu try
    turning the "SHADOWS" down to "simple" or "none".

    - In Advanced Video Options you can change your View
    Model. This allows one to choose how much of their own
    player model is shown.
    NONE means player's arm and weapon will not appear.
    GUN ONLY means the gun and not the arms of Powell will
    appear.
    FULL means that you will see both Lt. Powell's hands
    and the weapon he is holding during gameplay. The less
    of Lt. Powell that is showing, the faster the game
    should run.

    de

    Safe mode can be accessed from the "MOHAA Safe Mode" link in
    your "Start" menu. It is provided as a means of isolating the
    cause of problems you may have with sound or video card drivers.
    When launching with safe mode, you can disable 3D video
    accelerator support or hardware support for sound cards in its
    menu.

    DirectX 8.0

    It is highly recommended that you install DirectX 8.0 during
    Medal of Honor Allied Assault install, as DirectX 8.0 is
    known to resolve a number of video card and other issues. Previous
    versions of DirectX are not fully supported.

    Video Card Drivers

    Some video card drivers do not support OpenGL correctly. Typical
    problems that may occur with these drivers include:

    - Crashing on starting up
    - Crashing when changing video resolutions
    - Corrupted textures
    - Artifacts on screen
    - Unexpected bright flashing on screen
    - Unusually slow performance.

    The solution is to go to your video card manufacturer's website
    and download updated drivers for your card. It is highly
    recommended that, given an option, you download and install
    Microsoft-certified (WHQL) drivers.

    3Dfx Menu fix:
    Go into the Options menu from the main menu. Then choose the
    "Advanced" menu. Check the "3DFX MENU FIX" checkbox and click
    the "Apply" button. This will fix the problem of the menu being
    corrupted when running with a 3Dfx Voodoo3, 4 or 5 card.

    Video Resolution of 1600x1200:
    A resolution of 1600 x 1200 pixels is not fully supported and has
    been found to have problems with various video cards. If the game
    crashes you can run in safe mode and adjust your resolution back
    to a stable and desirable setting.

    Sound Card Drivers

    Diamond Monster Sound MX 400
    How to fix the MX 400 for use by Medal of Honor Allied Assault:
    1) Exit from MoHAA if you are running Medal of Honor
    Allied Assault.
    2) Open up the "Diamond Monster Sound" utility from
    the toolbar; this is a small red and white icon
    near the clock.
    3) Make sure the "Enable DirectSound Acceleration"
    checkbox is off.
    4) Click on the "Apply And Exit" button. You should
    be able to run MoHAA without a problem.

    Keyboard Controls:

    Some PC keyboards cannot recognize certain combinations of 3 or
    more simultaneously pressed keys. This is an inherent problem
    unrelated to Medal of Honor Allied Assault.

    Advanced Console Commands from the Advanced Options menu:

    By default the advanced console will not be available
    unless the option is checked in the "Options" menu. From this
    console you will be able to make advanced console commands. The
    normal console is active by default.

    Texture Compression from Video menu:

    Texture compression has been disabled for the demo but is in the
    full version of the game. In the demo it appears on the Video menu
    but is missing a checkbox.

    http://windowsupdate.microsoft.com
    Keep your Windows installation up to date.

    http://mohaa.ea.com
    The official Medal of Honor Allied Assault website.

    http://www.cmohs.org
    The official site of the Congressional Medal of Honor Society.

    THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED AS IS WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND,
    WHETHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING WARRANTIES OF
    MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE WHICH ARE
    HEREBY DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT WILL ELECTRONIC ARTS BE LIABLE FOR
    ANY SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES RESULTING FROM
    POSSESSION, USE, OR MALFUNCTION OF THIS ELECTRONIC ARTS SOFTWARE
    PRODUCT.

    SOME STATES DO NOT ALLOW LIMITATIONS AS TO HOW LONG AN IMPLIED
    WARRANTY LASTS AND/OR EXCLUSIONS OR LIMITATIONS OF
    INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES SO THE ABOVE LIMITATIONS
    AND/OR EXCLUSIONS OF LIABILITY MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU. THIS WARRANTY
    GIVES YOU SPECIFIC RIGHTS, AND YOU MAY ALSO HAVE OTHER RIGHTS
    WHICH VARY FROM STATE TO STATE.

    ELECTRONIC ARTS RESERVES THE RIGHT TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS IN THIS
    FILE AND TO THE SOFTWARE AT ANY TIME AND WITHOUT NOTICE.

    THIS FILE AND THE SOFTWARE HEREWITH IS COPYRIGHTED. ALL RIGHTS ARE
    RESERVED. NO PART OF THIS FILE OR THE SOFTWARE MAY BE COPIED,
    REPRODUCED, TRANSLATED, OR REDUCED TO ANY ELECTRONIC MEDIUM OR
    MACHINE-READABLE FORM WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF
    ELECTRONIC ARTS, P.O. BOX 9025, REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA
    94063-9025, ATTN: CUSTOMER SUPPORT.

    Software and Documentation Copyright © 2002 Electronic Arts Is gaync.

    ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

  64. Antimatter storage by CrackersnSoup · · Score: 1

    If you make anti-hydrogen you are able to store it in normal gas storage cyclinders. Same goes for any anti-atom. anti-matter only annihilate's when if touch's its couterpart. Simply(in theory) keep them apart. If true full scale production was to happen, it would logicly be done in space, on a asteroid or the moon. Not that logic means that it WILL happen there. Im looking for the discover mag article i read on this but it must be in storage. Crackers`n`Soup

    1. Re:Antimatter storage by mmontour · · Score: 2

      If you make anti-hydrogen you are able to store it in normal gas storage cyclinders.

      No, you are not able to store anti-hydrogen in a (normal matter) gas storage cylinder. Kaboom, unless you have some way to prevent it from coming in contact with the cylinder walls (and electromagnetic fields won't work well on neutral atoms).

      Same goes for any anti-atom. anti-matter only annihilate's when if touch's its couterpart. Simply(in theory) keep them apart.

      Are you under the impression that an anti-hydrogen atom will annihilate with an atom of normal hydrogen, but not (e.g.) a normal iron atom? If so this is wrong; the annihilation takes place at the level of individual electrons and protons.

  65. Re:French Tost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shut up ass, klerk is a gay.

    Medal of Honor Allied Assault(tm) Demo Version 1.0
    Read Me File
    November 28, 2001
    \
    Thank you for obtaining the Medal of Honor Allied Assault demo.
    This readme file contains information that will help you fully
    enjoy this demo.

    Installation Instructions

    1) Browse to the MOHAA folder on the Demo CD.
    2) Double mouse-click "Setup.exe".
    3) Follow the instructions that appear to install the demo.

    Uninstalling Medal of Honor Allied Assault Demo

    Windows 95,98, and ME
    To uninstall the Medal of Honor Allied Assault demo:
    1) Bring up your Start Menu.
    2) Choose "Settings".
    3) Choose "Control Panel".
    4) Choose "Add/Remove Programs"
    5) Highlight "Medal of Honor Allied Assault Demo" and click the
    "Add/Remove..." button in the lower right.
    6) Follow the instructions that appear, to uninstall the demo.

    Windows XP: Home Edition and Professional
    To uninstall the Medal of Honor Allied Assault demo:
    1) Bring up your Start Menu.
    2) Choose "Settings".
    3) Choose "Control Panel".
    4) Choose "Add/Remove Programs"
    5) Highlight "Medal of Honor Allied Assault Demo" and click the
    "Remove" button below its name.
    6) Follow the instructions that appear, to uninstall the demo.

    All controls are available and customizable from the "Controls"
    Menu accessible from the Main Menu. Here is a breakdown of the
    default controls.

    FUNCTION: KEY/MOUSE USED
    Primary Attack: Left mouse button
    Secondary Attack: Right mouse button
    Reload: r
    Move Forward: w
    Move Backward: s
    Strafe Left: a
    Strafe Right: d
    Use: e
    Jump/Stand Up: Space
    Crouch: Left Ctrl
    Turn Left: Move mouse left
    Turn Right: Move mouse right
    Look Up: Move mouse up
    Look Down: Move mouse down
    Run/Walk: Left Shift
    Next Weapon: Mouse Wheel Up
    Previous Weapon: Mouse Wheel Down
    Holster Weapon: q
    Pistol (Colt 45): 1
    Rifle (Springfield): 2
    SMG (Thompson): 3
    MG (BAR): 4
    Grenade: 5
    Heavy (Panzerschreck): 6
    Binoculars: 7
    Mission Objectives: Tab
    QuickSave: F5
    QuickLoad: F9

    Important Notes:

    -Health Packs and Canteens
    Make sure to either walk into or center your view on and
    activate the "use" key on these items when in need of
    health. Health packs are rectangles with a red cross and
    restore a large amount of health. Canteens also have a
    red cross on them and restore a small amount of health
    and can often be found atop eliminated Germans.
    -Mounted Machine Guns
    There are several mounted machine guns that you can walk
    up to an activate with the "use" key. To stop using the
    mounted gun, type the "use" key again.
    -QuickSave
    QuickSave is an important feature that allows you to save
    a game by hitting the "F5" key on you keyboard. After
    dying you will restart at the point of your last
    QuickSave (or AutoSave). This will help the player save
    their progress, especially after any tough part of the
    demo.
    -AutoSave
    At various points in the demo level the game will
    AutoSave. This prevents the player from having to start
    all the way back at the beginning of the level or at the
    spot of their last save game.
    -Secondary Attack
    Two weapons use the secondary attack. Sniper Rifle zooms
    with Secondary Attack. Grenades are thrown a much shorter
    distance with Secondary attack.
    -Binoculars
    In some situations, the Binoculars can be used to call
    in an Air Strike in the event you run out of Panzerschreck
    shells. Simply bring up the Binoculars and put the target
    in your sights, then hit the Primary Attack button. Within
    a short amount of time, an Allied plane will destroy the
    target.

    Minimum:
    450 MHz CPU
    64 MB of RAM
    16 MB 3D accelerator video card with OpenGL support
    200 MB of free hard drive space
    CD-ROM/DVD-ROM
    DirectX 8 Compatible Sound Card

    Required Operating Systems:
    Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows ME and Windows XP: Home
    Edition and Professional. Note that Windows NT 3.x, 4.0,
    and 2000 are not supported.

    The following 16MB or greater 3D accelerators are fully
    supported and should work properly with the game:

    -Nvidia GeForce3 Titanium 500
    -Nvidia GeForce3
    -Nvidia GeForce3 Titanium 200
    -Nvidia GeForce2 Ultra
    -Nvidia GeForce2 Titanium
    -Nvidia GeForce2 GTS/Pro
    -Nvidia GeForce2 MX
    -Nvidia GeForce 256
    -Nvidia TNT 2
    -Nvidia nForce IGP (Integrate Graphics Processor)
    -Matrox Millennium G550
    -ATI Radeon 8500
    -ATI Radeon 7500
    -ATI Radeon
    -ST Kyro II
    -ST Kyro

    The following 16MB or greater 3D accelerators are not fully
    supported and do not work properly with the game:

    -3Dfx Voodoo 4 and 5
    The main menu is corrupted. No intro movies play.
    Explosions and muzzle flashes have gray boxes that appear
    around them. Various textures are corrupted. See the 3Dfx
    portion of the Troubleshooting section below to fix the
    main menu.
    -3Dfx Voodoo 3
    The main menu is corrupted. See Troubleshooting section to
    see how to get the menu to work. No intro movies play.
    Briefing Screens are too blurry to read. Explosions and
    muzzle flashes have gray boxes that appear around them.
    Various textures are corrupted. See the 3Dfx portion of
    the Troubleshooting section below to fix the main menu.
    -3Dfx Voodoo Banshee cards
    -Kyro II cards
    Gray squares can be seen surrounding explosions and vehicle
    headlights. This is a problem with the Kyro II video driver
    mishandling mipmapping of alpha textures.
    -Matrox G400 and G450
    Textures on most levels are badly corrupted.
    -Nvidia TNT and Vanta
    These older cards yield poor frame rates.
    -PowerVR NEON 250 cards:
    Video Logic PowerVR Neon 250
    -S3 Savage 2000 cards:
    Diamond Viper II
    -S3 Savage 4 cards:
    Diamond Stealth III S540
    Diamond Stealth III S540 Extreme
    -SiS 300 cards

    The following sound card is not supported:
    -Ensoniq SoundScape PNP

    The following sound cards have known problems:
    -Diamond Monster Sound MX 400
    Requires turning off "DirectSound Acceleration" in the
    driver. See the detailed explanation under
    "Troubleshooting."
    -Creative Labs Audigy
    Currently hardware acceleration for this card does not
    work correctly.

    If you declined to install DirectX 8.0 when initially installing
    Medal of Honor Allied Assault, you can directly run
    "dxsetup.exe", located in the DirectX directory on the install
    CDROM. This is found on demo disc under the "redist\directx8"
    folder. Just double-click on "dxsetup.exe".

    Some machines will benefit from experimenting with your
    video/sound options:

    - From the Main Menu choose the "Options" menu signified
    by some electronic equipment towards the left side on
    the table. Then select the "Video" menu, select "Texture
    Detail" and choose "LOW". This is particularly useful
    for computers with less than 128 MB of RAM.

    - Also from the "Video" menu, uncheck the "WALL DECALS"
    check box. This will prevent the game from creating
    bullet marks on walls and should improve performance.

    - Try reducing your video resolution to 640x480 or even
    512x384 in your "Video" menu. The lower the resolution,
    the easier it is for your computer to run the game.

    - From the "Video" menu you can try lowering your color
    depth from 32 to 16 bit.

    - Video cards with less than 64MB Video memory cannot set
    texture detail to high and texture color depth to 32 bit
    simultaneously. These cards can get very poor
    performance at times, so lower your texture detail
    and/or lower your texture depth to 16 bit.

    - From the "Advanced" menu under the "Options" menu try
    turning the "SHADOWS" down to "simple" or "none".

    - In Advanced Video Options you can change your View
    Model. This allows one to choose how much of their own
    player model is shown.
    NONE means player's arm and weapon will not appear.
    GUN ONLY means the gun and not the arms of Powell will
    appear.
    FULL means that you will see both Lt. Powell's hands
    and the weapon he is holding during gameplay. The less
    of Lt. Powell that is showing, the faster the game
    should run.

    de

    Safe mode can be accessed from the "MOHAA Safe Mode" link in
    your "Start" menu. It is provided as a means of isolating the
    cause of problems you may have with sound or video card drivers.
    When launching with safe mode, you can disable 3D video
    accelerator support or hardware support for sound cards in its
    menu.

    DirectX 8.0

    It is highly recommended that you install DirectX 8.0 during
    Medal of Honor Allied Assault install, as DirectX 8.0 is
    known to resolve a number of video card and other issues. Previous
    versions of DirectX are not fully supported.

    Video Card Drivers

    Some video card drivers do not support OpenGL correctly. Typical
    problems that may occur with these drivers include:

    - Crashing on starting up
    - Crashing when changing video resolutions
    - Corrupted textures
    - Artifacts on screen
    - Unexpected bright flashing on screen
    - Unusually slow performance.

    The solution is to go to your video card manufacturer's website
    and download updated drivers for your card. It is highly
    recommended that, given an option, you download and install
    Microsoft-certified (WHQL) drivers.

    3Dfx Menu fix:
    Go into the Options menu from the main menu. Then choose the
    "Advanced" menu. Check the "3DFX MENU FIX" checkbox and click
    the "Apply" button. This will fix the problem of the menu being
    corrupted when running with a 3Dfx Voodoo3, 4 or 5 card.

    Video Resolution of 1600x1200:
    A resolution of 1600 x 1200 pixels is not fully supported and has
    been found to have problems with various video cards. If the game
    crashes you can run in safe mode and adjust your resolution back
    to a stable and desirable setting.

    Sound Card Drivers

    Diamond Monster Sound MX 400
    How to fix the MX 400 for use by Medal of Honor Allied Assault:
    1) Exit from MoHAA if you are running Medal of Honor
    Allied Assault.
    2) Open up the "Diamond Monster Sound" utility from
    the toolbar; this is a small red and white icon
    near the clock.
    3) Make sure the "Enable DirectSound Acceleration"
    checkbox is off.
    4) Click on the "Apply And Exit" button. You should
    be able to run MoHAA without a problem.

    Keyboard Controls:

    Some PC keyboards cannot recognize certain combinations of 3 or
    more simultaneously pressed keys. This is an inherent problem
    unrelated to Medal of Honor Allied Assault.

    Advanced Console Commands from the Advanced Options menu:

    By default the advanced console will not be available
    unless the option is checked in the "Options" menu. From this
    console you will be able to make advanced console commands. The
    normal console is active by default.

    Texture Compression from Video menu:

    Texture compression has been disabled for the demo but is in the
    full version of the game. In the demo it appears on the Video menu
    but is missing a checkbox.

    http://windowsupdate.microsoft.com
    Keep your Windows installation up to date.

    http://mohaa.ea.com
    The official Medal of Honor Allied Assault website.

    http://www.cmohs.org
    The official site of the Congressional Medal of Honor Society.

    THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED AS IS WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND,
    WHETHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING WARRANTIES OF
    MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE WHICH ARE
    HEREBY DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT WILL ELECTRONIC ARTS BE LIABLE FOR
    ANY SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES RESULTING FROM
    POSSESSION, USE, OR MALFUNCTION OF THIS ELECTRONIC ARTS SOFTWARE
    PRODUCT.

    SOME STATES DO NOT ALLOW LIMITATIONS AS TO HOW LONG AN IMPLIED
    WARRANTY LASTS AND/OR EXCLUSIONS OR LIMITATIONS OF
    INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES SO THE ABOVE LIMITATIONS
    AND/OR EXCLUSIONS OF LIABILITY MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU. THIS WARRANTY
    GIVES YOU SPECIFIC RIGHTS, AND YOU MAY ALSO HAVE OTHER RIGHTS
    WHICH VARY FROM STATE TO STATE.

    ELECTRONIC ARTS RESERVES THE RIGHT TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS IN THIS
    FILE AND TO THE SOFTWARE AT ANY TIME AND WITHOUT NOTICE.

    THIS FILE AND THE SOFTWARE HEREWITH IS COPYRIGHTED. ALL RIGHTS ARE
    RESERVED. NO PART OF THIS FILE OR THE SOFTWARE MAY BE COPIED,
    REPRODUCED, TRANSLATED, OR REDUCED TO ANY ELECTRONIC MEDIUM OR
    MACHINE-READABLE FORM WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF
    ELECTRONIC ARTS, P.O. BOX 9025, REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA
    94063-9025, ATTN: CUSTOMER SUPPORT.

    Software and Documentation Copyright © 2002 Electronic Arts Is gaync.

    ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

    Medal of Honor Allied Assault(tm) Demo Version 1.0
    Read Me File
    November 28, 2001
    \
    Thank you for obtaining the Medal of Honor Allied Assault demo.
    This readme file contains information that will help you fully
    enjoy this demo.

    Installation Instructions

    1) Browse to the MOHAA folder on the Demo CD.
    2) Double mouse-click "Setup.exe".
    3) Follow the instructions that appear to install the demo.

    Uninstalling Medal of Honor Allied Assault Demo

    Windows 95,98, and ME
    To uninstall the Medal of Honor Allied Assault demo:
    1) Bring up your Start Menu.
    2) Choose "Settings".
    3) Choose "Control Panel".
    4) Choose "Add/Remove Programs"
    5) Highlight "Medal of Honor Allied Assault Demo" and click the
    "Add/Remove..." button in the lower right.
    6) Follow the instructions that appear, to uninstall the demo.

    Windows XP: Home Edition and Professional
    To uninstall the Medal of Honor Allied Assault demo:
    1) Bring up your Start Menu.
    2) Choose "Settings".
    3) Choose "Control Panel".
    4) Choose "Add/Remove Programs"
    5) Highlight "Medal of Honor Allied Assault Demo" and click the
    "Remove" button below its name.
    6) Follow the instructions that appear, to uninstall the demo.

    All controls are available and customizable from the "Controls"
    Menu accessible from the Main Menu. Here is a breakdown of the
    default controls.

    FUNCTION: KEY/MOUSE USED
    Primary Attack: Left mouse button
    Secondary Attack: Right mouse button
    Reload: r
    Move Forward: w
    Move Backward: s
    Strafe Left: a
    Strafe Right: d
    Use: e
    Jump/Stand Up: Space
    Crouch: Left Ctrl
    Turn Left: Move mouse left
    Turn Right: Move mouse right
    Look Up: Move mouse up
    Look Down: Move mouse down
    Run/Walk: Left Shift
    Next Weapon: Mouse Wheel Up
    Previous Weapon: Mouse Wheel Down
    Holster Weapon: q
    Pistol (Colt 45): 1
    Rifle (Springfield): 2
    SMG (Thompson): 3
    MG (BAR): 4
    Grenade: 5
    Heavy (Panzerschreck): 6
    Binoculars: 7
    Mission Objectives: Tab
    QuickSave: F5
    QuickLoad: F9

    Important Notes:

    -Health Packs and Canteens
    Make sure to either walk into or center your view on and
    activate the "use" key on these items when in need of
    health. Health packs are rectangles with a red cross and
    restore a large amount of health. Canteens also have a
    red cross on them and restore a small amount of health
    and can often be found atop eliminated Germans.
    -Mounted Machine Guns
    There are several mounted machine guns that you can walk
    up to an activate with the "use" key. To stop using the
    mounted gun, type the "use" key again.
    -QuickSave
    QuickSave is an important feature that allows you to save
    a game by hitting the "F5" key on you keyboard. After
    dying you will restart at the point of your last
    QuickSave (or AutoSave). This will help the player save
    their progress, especially after any tough part of the
    demo.
    -AutoSave
    At various points in the demo level the game will
    AutoSave. This prevents the player from having to start
    all the way back at the beginning of the level or at the
    spot of their last save game.
    -Secondary Attack
    Two weapons use the secondary attack. Sniper Rifle zooms
    with Secondary Attack. Grenades are thrown a much shorter
    distance with Secondary attack.
    -Binoculars
    In some situations, the Binoculars can be used to call
    in an Air Strike in the event you run out of Panzerschreck
    shells. Simply bring up the Binoculars and put the target
    in your sights, then hit the Primary Attack button. Within
    a short amount of time, an Allied plane will destroy the
    target.

    Minimum:
    450 MHz CPU
    64 MB of RAM
    16 MB 3D accelerator video card with OpenGL support
    200 MB of free hard drive space
    CD-ROM/DVD-ROM
    DirectX 8 Compatible Sound Card

    Required Operating Systems:
    Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows ME and Windows XP: Home
    Edition and Professional. Note that Windows NT 3.x, 4.0,
    and 2000 are not supported.

    The following 16MB or greater 3D accelerators are fully
    supported and should work properly with the game:

    -Nvidia GeForce3 Titanium 500
    -Nvidia GeForce3
    -Nvidia GeForce3 Titanium 200
    -Nvidia GeForce2 Ultra
    -Nvidia GeForce2 Titanium
    -Nvidia GeForce2 GTS/Pro
    -Nvidia GeForce2 MX
    -Nvidia GeForce 256
    -Nvidia TNT 2
    -Nvidia nForce IGP (Integrate Graphics Processor)
    -Matrox Millennium G550
    -ATI Radeon 8500
    -ATI Radeon 7500
    -ATI Radeon
    -ST Kyro II
    -ST Kyro

    The following 16MB or greater 3D accelerators are not fully
    supported and do not work properly with the game:

    -3Dfx Voodoo 4 and 5
    The main menu is corrupted. No intro movies play.
    Explosions and muzzle flashes have gray boxes that appear
    around them. Various textures are corrupted. See the 3Dfx
    portion of the Troubleshooting section below to fix the
    main menu.
    -3Dfx Voodoo 3
    The main menu is corrupted. See Troubleshooting section to
    see how to get the menu to work. No intro movies play.
    Briefing Screens are too blurry to read. Explosions and
    muzzle flashes have gray boxes that appear around them.
    Various textures are corrupted. See the 3Dfx portion of
    the Troubleshooting section below to fix the main menu.
    -3Dfx Voodoo Banshee cards
    -Kyro II cards
    Gray squares can be seen surrounding explosions and vehicle
    headlights. This is a problem with the Kyro II video driver
    mishandling mipmapping of alpha textures.
    -Matrox G400 and G450
    Textures on most levels are badly corrupted.
    -Nvidia TNT and Vanta
    These older cards yield poor frame rates.
    -PowerVR NEON 250 cards:
    Video Logic PowerVR Neon 250
    -S3 Savage 2000 cards:
    Diamond Viper II
    -S3 Savage 4 cards:
    Diamond Stealth III S540
    Diamond Stealth III S540 Extreme
    -SiS 300 cards

    The following sound card is not supported:
    -Ensoniq SoundScape PNP

    The following sound cards have known problems:
    -Diamond Monster Sound MX 400
    Requires turning off "DirectSound Acceleration" in the
    driver. See the detailed explanation under
    "Troubleshooting."
    -Creative Labs Audigy
    Currently hardware acceleration for this card does not
    work correctly.

    If you declined to install DirectX 8.0 when initially installing
    Medal of Honor Allied Assault, you can directly run
    "dxsetup.exe", located in the DirectX directory on the install
    CDROM. This is found on demo disc under the "redist\directx8"
    folder. Just double-click on "dxsetup.exe".

    Some machines will benefit from experimenting with your
    video/sound options:

    - From the Main Menu choose the "Options" menu signified
    by some electronic equipment towards the left side on
    the table. Then select the "Video" menu, select "Texture
    Detail" and choose "LOW". This is particularly useful
    for computers with less than 128 MB of RAM.

    - Also from the "Video" menu, uncheck the "WALL DECALS"
    check box. This will prevent the game from creating
    bullet marks on walls and should improve performance.

    - Try reducing your video resolution to 640x480 or even
    512x384 in your "Video" menu. The lower the resolution,
    the easier it is for your computer to run the game.

    - From the "Video" menu you can try lowering your color
    depth from 32 to 16 bit.

    - Video cards with less than 64MB Video memory cannot set
    texture detail to high and texture color depth to 32 bit
    simultaneously. These cards can get very poor
    performance at times, so lower your texture detail
    and/or lower your texture depth to 16 bit.

    - From the "Advanced" menu under the "Options" menu try
    turning the "SHADOWS" down to "simple" or "none".

    - In Advanced Video Options you can change your View
    Model. This allows one to choose how much of their own
    player model is shown.
    NONE means player's arm and weapon will not appear.
    GUN ONLY means the gun and not the arms of Powell will
    appear.
    FULL means that you will see both Lt. Powell's hands
    and the weapon he is holding during gameplay. The less
    of Lt. Powell that is showing, the faster the game
    should run.

    de

    Safe mode can be accessed from the "MOHAA Safe Mode" link in
    your "Start" menu. It is provided as a means of isolating the
    cause of problems you may have with sound or video card drivers.
    When launching with safe mode, you can disable 3D video
    accelerator support or hardware support for sound cards in its
    menu.

    DirectX 8.0

    It is highly recommended that you install DirectX 8.0 during
    Medal of Honor Allied Assault install, as DirectX 8.0 is
    known to resolve a number of video card and other issues. Previous
    versions of DirectX are not fully supported.

    Video Card Drivers

    Some video card drivers do not support OpenGL correctly. Typical
    problems that may occur with these drivers include:

    - Crashing on starting up
    - Crashing when changing video resolutions
    - Corrupted textures
    - Artifacts on screen
    - Unexpected bright flashing on screen
    - Unusually slow performance.

    The solution is to go to your video card manufacturer's website
    and download updated drivers for your card. It is highly
    recommended that, given an option, you download and install
    Microsoft-certified (WHQL) drivers.

    3Dfx Menu fix:
    Go into the Options menu from the main menu. Then choose the
    "Advanced" menu. Check the "3DFX MENU FIX" checkbox and click
    the "Apply" button. This will fix the problem of the menu being
    corrupted when running with a 3Dfx Voodoo3, 4 or 5 card.

    Video Resolution of 1600x1200:
    A resolution of 1600 x 1200 pixels is not fully supported and has
    been found to have problems with various video cards. If the game
    crashes you can run in safe mode and adjust your resolution back
    to a stable and desirable setting.

    Sound Card Drivers

    Diamond Monster Sound MX 400
    How to fix the MX 400 for use by Medal of Honor Allied Assault:
    1) Exit from MoHAA if you are running Medal of Honor
    Allied Assault.
    2) Open up the "Diamond Monster Sound" utility from
    the toolbar; this is a small red and white icon
    near the clock.
    3) Make sure the "Enable DirectSound Acceleration"
    checkbox is off.
    4) Click on the "Apply And Exit" button. You should
    be able to run MoHAA without a problem.

    Keyboard Controls:

    Some PC keyboards cannot recognize certain combinations of 3 or
    more simultaneously pressed keys. This is an inherent problem
    unrelated to Medal of Honor Allied Assault.

    Advanced Console Commands from the Advanced Options menu:

    By default the advanced console will not be available
    unless the option is checked in the "Options" menu. From this
    console you will be able to make advanced console commands. The
    normal console is active by default.

    Texture Compression from Video menu:

    Texture compression has been disabled for the demo but is in the
    full version of the game. In the demo it appears on the Video menu
    but is missing a checkbox.

    http://windowsupdate.microsoft.com
    Keep your Windows installation up to date.

    http://mohaa.ea.com
    The official Medal of Honor Allied Assault website.

    http://www.cmohs.org
    The official site of the Congressional Medal of Honor Society.

    THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED AS IS WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND,
    WHETHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING WARRANTIES OF
    MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE WHICH ARE
    HEREBY DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT WILL ELECTRONIC ARTS BE LIABLE FOR
    ANY SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES RESULTING FROM
    POSSESSION, USE, OR MALFUNCTION OF THIS ELECTRONIC ARTS SOFTWARE
    PRODUCT.

    SOME STATES DO NOT ALLOW LIMITATIONS AS TO HOW LONG AN IMPLIED
    WARRANTY LASTS AND/OR EXCLUSIONS OR LIMITATIONS OF
    INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES SO THE ABOVE LIMITATIONS
    AND/OR EXCLUSIONS OF LIABILITY MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU. THIS WARRANTY
    GIVES YOU SPECIFIC RIGHTS, AND YOU MAY ALSO HAVE OTHER RIGHTS
    WHICH VARY FROM STATE TO STATE.

    ELECTRONIC ARTS RESERVES THE RIGHT TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS IN THIS
    FILE AND TO THE SOFTWARE AT ANY TIME AND WITHOUT NOTICE.

    THIS FILE AND THE SOFTWARE HEREWITH IS COPYRIGHTED. ALL RIGHTS ARE
    RESERVED. NO PART OF THIS FILE OR THE SOFTWARE MAY BE COPIED,
    REPRODUCED, TRANSLATED, OR REDUCED TO ANY ELECTRONIC MEDIUM OR
    MACHINE-READABLE FORM WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF
    ELECTRONIC ARTS, P.O. BOX 9025, REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA
    94063-9025, ATTN: CUSTOMER SUPPORT.

    Software and Documentation Copyright © 2002 Electronic Arts Is gaync.
    Now you do wha they told ya.
    ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

  66. Negative mass by rjh · · Score: 2

    I'm unaware of any principle of physics which says that mass must always be positive. Look at either Newton's or Einstein's laws of motion, for instance--in F=ma, you can plug in negative numbers for mass just as easily as positive numbers. You get answers which are self-consistent (if sometimes counterintuitive) and which maintain the beauty of the mathematical system. These are tantalizing hints--and that's all they are, hints--that negative mass is permitted by the universe.

    We have no idea how to make it, but we know what it would look like, how it would interact with positive mass, and how forces would act upon it. :)

    1. Re:Negative mass by Kierthos · · Score: 1

      Sure you can plug in negative numbers. But you know what, the negative number doesn't mean that you automatically have a negative mass. It's a mathematical equation, therefore, you could just shift the negative sign over to the "a" in the equation and have negative acceleration, also known as deceleration. The resultant force would then also be negative, stating the force that needs to be applied in the opposite vector of the original acceleration in order to produce the decelaration on that mass.

      Kierthos

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    2. Re:Negative mass by rjh · · Score: 2

      No, but if you plug in a negative value for M, the cosmos doesn't turn into a pumpkin. Yes, you can get negative results in any of dozens of ways--but one of the ways the cosmos seems prepared to accept is to put in a negative mass.

    3. Re:Negative mass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um...that's very poor reasoning on your part.

      F=ma is just one equation. Just because it still works out doesn't mean that any equation will. There are many reasons why negative mass simply wouldn't work.

      For instance, try E=mc^2. Negative mass would imply the existence of negative energy...

      Getting a bit more advanced, I'm not even sure what negative mass would mean in terms of the curvature of space time. That's a rather messy subject there...

    4. Re:Negative mass by rjh · · Score: 2

      And why can't negative energy exist? Remember, these are all numerical values. That's all they are. Look at the rest mass of some of the subatomic particles, which have imaginary rest mass (their measured mass-squared is a negative number). If we've already measured imaginary mass, who are you to say negative mass is impossible, or even implausible? :)

      Sure, negative mass implies negative energy. This is well-known. That's why, theoretically speaking, negative mass could be generated at arbitrarily close to zero cost--just generate conventional mass along with it, you offset the energy investment required, your only loss being to thermodynamic inefficiency in your equipment. (Note that we have no idea how to do this, not even a theoretical basis for how to do it. That doesn't mean it's silly to think about the possibilities.)

      Insofar as what negative mass would mean in terms of spacetime curvature, that's another very interesting question which has very interesting, but nonintuitive, answers. Self-consistent with the rest of the cosmos, mind you.

      I'm not saying that negative mass exists. I'm not saying we'll ever find it. I'm saying that the cosmos is absolutely not required to be in accordance with your, mine, or anyone else's, suspicions about how it ought to operate, and that it pays to keep an open mind to the possibilities.

      If we've already measured imaginary mass, then I think trying to say "no, no, negative mass is impossible" is being a little presumptuous, since I'd imagine the square root of negative mass is even more counterintuitive than negative mass itself.

    5. Re:Negative mass by flumps · · Score: 1

      Negative energy cannot exist because by definition energy is the measurement of how quickly a force can change the motion, physical composition or temperature of an object. No change = no energy. -ve change = +energy because its still changing at a measurable rate.

      Mass is mass is a physical "constant of proportionality" relating force and acceleration. Positive mass, positive accelaration and positive force. Negative mass (inverted accelaration) = positive force and positive accelaration because you can still measure its rate of change.

      It helps to understand what you are measuring before you do your calculations :)

      --
      "So there he is, risen from the dead. Like that fella, E. T." - Father Ted Crilly
    6. Re:Negative mass by rjh · · Score: 2

      Sure it can. What, can an electromotive force of -60V not exist? Sure it can. It's at -60 relative to ground. Exact same thing with energy. Energy measurements are not absolute; they always measure in comparison to something. It's a coordinate system like any other.

      Yes, it does help to understand what you're measuring before you do your calculations. It also helps to take quantum mechanics in college, where you have a very stark choice: you can totally disregard everything your intuition tells you about the cosmos and start over from scratch, with a clean slate and willing to believe things which are totally impossible except for the fact that the numbers work... or else you can fail the class.

      If the numbers work, it's permitted. If the numbers don't work, it's verboten. Not everything that's permitted will turn out to be true, of course.

      But everything that's permitted is certainly worth thinking about.

    7. Re:Negative mass by flumps · · Score: 1

      Thanks for pointing out my own point to me :)

      However, just because a object reacts in the opposite "direction" on your measurement scales doesn't mean that work is not being done, its just being done in a contrary direction. -60v is not a measurement of the energy in the system, its a measure of the direction of the flow of energy in the system. If you told me you could have -60 joules I might listen to you, although not for very long.

      When you talk of negative mass/energy it is an obserdity. In order to have mass something must be able to be measured as effecting a change (accelaration) over a measurable time but not necessarily in a measurable direction (-vely or +vely compared to something else). Your measurement of direction relative to something else has no meaning to the objects accelaration/momentum, it doesnt care what "scales" you are using.

      Write this down : Mass is not determined by direction (ie its a scalar quantity), however it is determind by momentum. Therefore you cannot have negative mass.
      You cannot have negative energy because energy is a measurement of the amount of WORK a system is doing and not a measurement of how this work is being done or where it is going, ie Energy is ALSO a scalar quantity.

      Sure, you can plug negative numbers into the equations, but we'll all just laugh at you when you submit your results :)

      PS this has nothing to do with quantum mechanics. I doubt very much that even a physics undergrad would dispute that mass/energy, or that these definitions change much when applied to quantum theories.

      --
      "So there he is, risen from the dead. Like that fella, E. T." - Father Ted Crilly
    8. Re:Negative mass by rjh · · Score: 2

      -60v is not a measurement of the energy in the system, its a measure of the direction of the flow of energy in the system.

      Well, actually, it's an assessment of electromotive force, not energy. The salient fact is that it is a relative measurement, not an absolute measurement. Energy is a relative state, not an absolute one, and as such, negative energies make every bit as much sense as positive ones. Tell me, if someone throws a baseball while traveling on a spacecraft moving at a relativistic speed, how much energy is involved? Answer: it depends on your frame of reference.

      In one frame of reference, you can very easily have negative energies. In another frame of reference, that same negative may be a positive. Negative energy is not a problem except if your mind is too brittle to accept different frames of reference, some of them leading to things you may find paradoxical.

      Insofar as mass being determined by momentum, you set up a really nasty circular argument. What's mass? Something with momentum. What's momentum? Mass times velocity. You can't have it both ways--you can't define something with a trait derived from your definition.

      You can have negative energy. It's just numbers. For instance, it takes energy to split water apart into hydrogen and oxygen, and energy is liberated when hydrogen and oxygen combine to form water. In one direction, say it takes ten joules of energy to do something... reversed, it takes negative ten joules of energy to do something. I.e., you get energy back.

      This is real Physics I stuff here. It's not rocket science.

      And yes, it does have bearing on QMech. Frankly, we don't know what causes mass at all. We think it has something to do with an exotic energy field. That field has solutions for negative mass, just like positive mass.

      That doesn't mean negative masses exist.

      That does mean that our current understanding of QMech explicitly permits it.

    9. Re:Negative mass by flumps · · Score: 1

      I'm not disagreeing with you on these issues. From a perspective of energy in a contained system, it cannot be created or destroyed yes? So therefore it is always some positive value somewhere in the system right?

      My arguement is that "negative" energy, as you put it, would have the same effect within the universe as positive "energy" (or mass) because although its observable behaviour would be opposite, the effects on spacetime curvature or whatever would be exactly the same as positive mass - because its only a relative point of view as to how the mass/energy is behaving. Does that make sense? Because you are only looking at relative movements/behaviour of mass or energy when you apply "positive" and "negative", this does change the outcome of the overall system. "Negative" Mass and energy would still warp spacetime, and not necessarily in the opposite direction to "positive" mass/energy.

      Erm. I just confused myself. :0)

      Its been good debating this with you. I'm just an amatuer who reads too many books, but I have a few theories of my own which I like to thrash about. I hope I haven't annoyed you too much here :)

      --
      "So there he is, risen from the dead. Like that fella, E. T." - Father Ted Crilly
  67. Non, your are all wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anti-matter + matter != energy, = nada, nothing.
    True anti-matter can only exist in the absence of all matter, ie a vacuum.

    It would take a 5th dimensional actor to harness discrepancies between our 3rd dimentional matters and antimatters. This is not something we can do in this lifetime.

    1. Re:Non, your are all wrong by ParamonKreel · · Score: 1

      sorry to reply to an AC, but antimatter isn't really !matter. it takes the form of anti-protons and the like, ie protons with a negative charge (really big protons) that when they combine with a proton they cancel out, kind of like you and your computer, you cancel out, leaving the rest of us free to actually breed and better humankind.

  68. Acceleration? by Boiling_point_ · · Score: 1
    From the article:
    "Compared to conventional chemical propulsion systems, antimatter energy would slash the travel time to Mars and back from roughly two years to a few weeks. "

    Since I am the only geek I know to have failed high school maths, I ask this in all seriousness.

    Given that the minimum distance between the Earth and Mars is 54.5 x 10^6 kilometres, are the acceleration pressures (G's) that humans would be subjected to in such a quick trip going to make us black out and/or die before we get there? Do we need to develop some kind of technology -- I hesitate to use the Trek term 'inertial dampeners' ;) -- before it can be of practical use, except for automated probes?

    --
    "If you create user accounts, by default, they will have an account type of Administrator with no password." KB Q293834
    1. Re:Acceleration? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please, manual probing is uncomfortable enough!

    2. Re:Acceleration? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe for you, but some of us actually enjoy it.

    3. Re:Acceleration? by cheezehead · · Score: 3, Informative

      Surprisingly enough, no, this is not a problem.

      Let's make a few assumptions:

      The distance to Mars would be 55*10^6 km = 55*10^9 m.

      We use a 1 g accelleration all the way. That's the same as on earth. We turn the ship when we're halfway there and start braking with 1 g, so we can actually stop and do some sightseeing on Mars.

      Now, assuming we start with a velocity of zero, the equation relating distance and accelleration is:

      s(t) = 0.5*a*(t^2),

      Where s = the distance in meters, t is time in seconds, and a is accelleration in m/s^2.
      One g is approximately 10 m/s^2. s(t) is our halfway distance, or ~ 27.5*10^9 m. Substituting all that results in:

      t^2 = 55*10^8, so t ~ 74000 seconds ~ 20.5 hours. That's for the trip halfway, so the total travel time would be around 41 hours = less than 2 days!

      The top speed would be an impressive 740 km/s, which is high, but not nearly high enough to get in trouble with Einstein's relativity laws.

      So, a few weeks doesn't seem that unreasonable. It's more the anti-matter thing that seems to be the problem.

      Btw., let me know if I miscalculated anything....

      --

      MSN 8: Now Microsoft even has bugs in their ad campaigns.

  69. wait wait wait by kavonjon · · Score: 1

    i really have no knowledge of all this, but the first thing that comes to mind after reading the only the main article is: what ever happened to the theory of matter never being created or destroyed??? the word annihilation hits me as destructive....

    1. Re:wait wait wait by cheezehead · · Score: 2, Informative

      The law of conservation of matter has been merged with the law of conservation of energy, and the two are now the law of conservation of matter-energy. All Einstein's fault. It's the famous E=mc^2 equation, that tells us that the conversion ratio between matter and energy equals c^2 [m^2/s^2]. That's a rather high number (~ 9*10^16 m^2/s^2), so we don't really notice the disappearing matter in real life. In other words, yes, matter is annihilated (destroyed), but we rarely notice. Note that this does not just apply to matter/anti-matter reactions, "ordinary" nuclear and chemical reactions obey the same law.

      It has been demonstated in lab experiments that the opposite also holds. Given the right conditions and the right amount of energy, you can actually make particle/anti-particle pairs pop up out of nowhere!

      --

      MSN 8: Now Microsoft even has bugs in their ad campaigns.

    2. Re:wait wait wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess the theory became obsolete. A lot of people still know no more than Newtonian physics (well, most know less, unfortunatly). What is really happening here (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that matter is being *converted* into energy: a lot of energy; more energy than can be extracted from that matter by any other means. Since we are doing this with subatomic paticles right now, there is no energy to be taken from bonds or by splitting a nuculus. The amount of energy is equal to the mass multiplied by the speed of light, squared: E=MC^2

      The advantage to antimatter/matter annihilation as a source of power is that relativly little energy has to be put in to get a lot out. Some energy is used to convert matter into antimatter, but the key is that the energy is not being put into the matter as done when making most fuels.

    3. Re:wait wait wait by Rocky · · Score: 1

      Now, now.

      Matter and energy are governed by the same conservation law and are different forms of the same thing. E=mc^2, right?

      So when you "annihilate" matter using antimatter, you're not removing it from the universe, you're turning into pure energy, which is just another of its forms. The system is closed; nothing is lost.

      As for spontaneous particle-anti-particle pairs, that's more to do with zero-point fluctuation and things like Hawking radiation.

      --
      "I'm an old-fashioned type of guy. I worship the Sun and Moon as gods. And fear them."
    4. Re:wait wait wait by cheezehead · · Score: 1

      Matter and energy are governed by the same conservation law and are different forms of the same thing. E=mc^2, right?

      So when you "annihilate" matter using antimatter, you're not removing it from the universe, you're turning into pure energy, which is just another of its forms. The system is closed; nothing is lost.


      Correct.

      As for spontaneous particle-anti-particle pairs, that's more to do with zero-point fluctuation and things like Hawking radiation.

      I was not referring to spontaneous pairs (I think you're right about that), but rather to controlled lab experiments, where the idea is to create matter out of energy. The point was that it's not a one-way process, you can also transform energy into matter.

      --

      MSN 8: Now Microsoft even has bugs in their ad campaigns.

  70. LMAO by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 0

    "You know, there's a power source in between chemical rockets and total annihilation."

    Hahahahhah. Thats the funniest thing I've heard all day.

    --
    Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
  71. Welcome to /. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Enjoy your stay.

  72. Remind Me: Who's News Is The Stuff That Matters? by dupper · · Score: 1

    Going through the replies to this article, I noticed quite a disturbing trend: nearly all responses referencing Star Trek or its technologies have been modded 0 and off topic, and have been otherwise ignored (i.e. left without reply). Why?! This site is a self-admitted purveyor of "News for Nerds". And, one of the cornerstones of obsessive worship of various things, one of the most common of these being Star Trek. Are the readers of Slashdot too ashamed of their true natures, too terrified of fitting the nerd (arche/stereo)type to show even the slightest amusement or appreciation of those few who are either brave enough to break or ignorant of the almost taboo status of being a trekkie, and their attempts at humourous (whether successful or not) comments?! For shame, for shame.

  73. Re:PALESTINIANS ARE BLOODTHIRSTY KILLERS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And you responded to a fucking troll, you ponce. You fucking twat!

    Shit man, contradiction indeed. Blow it out your ass you bloody wanker!

  74. Yes on pr. unit, no in total by Kjella · · Score: 2

    The clue here is efficency. Here on earth energy exists in massive amounts compared to in space, the problem is bringing it up there.

    Lets say anti-matter has a 1:10 efficency (with engines and all, just as an example). Say you want to send 1 ton of payload into space. This takes 100kg of fuel. But in order to make room for those 100kg, and fuel to put that up there, you need another 10kg. And to put those up there you need even more room and fuel, say 1kg and so on, a total of 1111,11... kg. Only 1/9th of the payload.

    Now take a conventional rocket at 9:10 efficency, still 1 ton payload. But now you need 900kg fuel to get it up there. And to make room and bring fuel for those 900kg fuel you need another 810kg. To make room and bring fuel for those 810kg you need 729kg more and so on. In total, you need to send up a rocket weighing in at 10 tons, 90% of which is fuel, fuel tanks, engines and other costly but not value-adding components. All together it's 9 times the payload.

    So a 9:1 improvement in efficency is a 81:1 improvement in size of the non-valueadding parts. Parts of it will be fuel, part fuel tanks, part engines, none of which are cheap and that all take a lot of energy to produce and use.

    Kjella

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  75. How's it going to work? by Aglassis · · Score: 1

    Does anyone have any ideas about how it will be designed?

    As far as I know, when matter and anti-matter anhillate, it produces two gammas going in opposite directions. So this engine will have to have some type of water tank or other shielding in order for those gammas to ionize atoms and create heat, and then some type of engine to transfer that heat to the fuel to be exhausted. It seems to me that it isn't going to be as easy as tossing some antimatter into the engine and holding on for the ride.

    --
    Suddenly, the hairy finger of a familiar monkey tapped me on the shoulder. It was time.--G. T.
    1. Re:How's it going to work? by ParamonKreel · · Score: 1

      drop it out the back, all those little particles explode and hit the ship, pushes the ship forward. newton's nth law and whatnot.

    2. Re:How's it going to work? by Jhan · · Score: 1

      As far as I know, when matter and anti-matter anhillate, it produces two gammas going in opposite directions

      That's true for electon/positron annihilation. Proton annihilation produces mesons, I believe... And if you're annihilating whole chunks of antimatter at once, the energy levels are going to be so high that you'll get most any particle you can imagine (and some you might not!)

      --

      I choose to remain celibate, like my father and his father before him.

  76. You don't use 1:1 ratio by coyote-san · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Star Fleet entrance exams may say this is a "trick question," but you really don't want to use a 1:1 matter/antimatter mixture.

    The core issue is that energy, per se, is irrelevant in spacecraft propulsion. What matters is momentum transfer.

    Kinetic energy scales as mv^2/2. Momentum scales as mv. So the "ideal" system would make a lot of mass move slowly... but that would require you carry around a lot of mass so you can throw it overboard.

    Matter/antimatter is on the other extreme. Lots of energy, very little momentum transfer. If it were a sports car, the driver would be spinning his wheels and burning rubber, but barely moving because the tires aren't gripping the road.

    I vaguely recall ideal matter/antimatter ratios being something like 10:1 to 20:1. If you assume the amount of junk thrown out goes up by a factor of 16 or so, the velocity will drop by a factor of 4. However the momentum transfer will be bumped by a factor of 4. You have to carry more reaction mass, but if you're talking about a less than an ounce of antimatter, a 16:1 ratio means a whopping pound of reaction mass.

    A more advanced version of this gives you variable thrust engines. If you're in a deep gravity well, you toss in more mass so you burn more consumables but have better momentum transfer where it's critical. When you're in deep space, you use less reaction mass for the same amount of fuel.

    --
    For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
    1. Re:You don't use 1:1 ratio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Starfleet's talking about antimatter reactors, not antimatter rockets. They don't want any leftover mass, just pure energy (say, as photons). Thus, 1:1 is correct for them.

  77. Not quite by lucius · · Score: 1
    It doesn't have 'negative energy' it just has an opposite charge.

    It's funny you say that, because antimatter was predicted to exist solely on the force of negative energy solutions of the Dirac equation (the Dirac equaction is the relativistically correct "version" of the Schroedinger equation).

    Essentially what you say is correct though, in that resolving the negative energy problem forced a change in the sign of the charge.

    There is nothing magical about anti-electrons (say) they're identical to 'normal' electrons

    Along with the charge sign change, there is also a change in a quantity known as "lepton number" (for a given system the lepton number is, surprisingly, the number of leptons;-). Basically, the lepton number of a system is invariant, so when you make an electron and a positron (both of which are leptons) the positive and negative lepton numbers cancel [1+(-1)], so there is no change in the lepton number of the system.

    So it isn't really accurate to say that they are identical.

  78. better bombs? by athagon · · Score: 1

    "We have an equivalent amount of energy in just one gram or about a raisin-size worth of antimatter,". Whenever I read an article about a new/improved form of power, the first question that lends itself to mind is always: "what devastating weapon could the government create from this?". Proportionally, if you consider the possibilities:

    With current technology, we are able to wipe out massive amounts of land with, say, a hydrogen bomb. The weight of a hydrogen bomb is, however, massive. But, with our current fighter-bomber jets, this is no issue.

    However, (provided antimatter could be used for weapons of mass destruction), a anti/matter-bomb of the _same weight_ would have a massively greater impact. To such a degree, that it would probably be unthinkable for us to use one of that size/weight. So, most likely, we would compress them into a smaller size, but of equal power. The reasoning for this? Consider: if one fighter-bomber can carry 2 hydrogen bombs being a total of 50 tons, then - similarly - you could carry a greater number of anti/matter-bombs (total of 50 tons), each being as powerful as one hydrogen bomb. The result? Blanket bombing just got a lot more devastating. I'm not looking forward to that day.

    --
    I think, therefore, I'm smarter than our president.
    1. Re:better bombs? by ParamonKreel · · Score: 1

      cause anyone is thinking of carpet bombing with weapons of mass distruction.

      with somthing like that you don't really need to carpet bomb. I mean waht's the point. make sure you hit that city. well we better use 2 antimatter bombs on it.

    2. Re:better bombs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no a matter-antimatter bomb with 50 tons of matter/antimatter contained within it would be sufficient to take out the whole planet or at least most of it. the resulting gamma rays would destroy any organic life within reasonable distances of the solar system. so no, you cant carpet bomb with it. dont worry.

  79. Re:Negative mass is impossible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are laws which state that mass must be positive, for instance having a WEYL curvature=0 is impossible.
    On a classical scale it would appear to be an object in "fast forward". On a quantum scale it would break the second law of thermodynamics.

  80. Hmmm.. antimatter drives.... by Misao · · Score: 1

    Funny coincidence, that.

    Felt kind of nostalgic and was just watching Nadia again this afternoon.

    mis

  81. mechanism of penning trap; not very strong vacuum by guybarr · · Score: 1

    "You have to have an extremely good vacuum, however"

    no, that's what's surprizing about penning traps, you don't have to have a VERY strong vacuum, only that you will not have many exposed neucleons.

    IIRC the thing that keeps the anti-protons and the protons in outside matter to anihilate are the orbiting electrons in the atoms. the vacuum is needed for the electromagnetic traps to keep the anti-protons from escaping.

    BTW, why shouldn't you INJECT the trap with negatively charged ions (say Cl-)? these will balance your electrostatic charge. until you'll turn the matter to plasma (or inject it with protons) you will have practically no anihilations ?

    --
    Working for necessity's mother.
  82. Star travel too expensive - even with anti-matter by zytheran · · Score: 1

    What is below is a post from about 5 years ago I made to the sci.space.tech newsgroup. After 5 years of development it is still relevent as we don't have free (or even cheap enough) consumer energy. Of course humanity might still make it, but I wouldn't bet on taking all of your "flesh and blood" with you.
    --article starts--

    Many moons ago ('bout 200) Ares magazine had an article title "The 1
    Billion dollar bottle of wine" or something similiar. Ares is/was(?) a
    gaming magazine. The article aimed to show the ridiculous cost of
    interplanetary space travel and why humans might have trouble leaving
    the solar system, even if we want to. The article is lost in the shed
    but from memory what follows is the rough jist of it. I read this
    article before I did Uni physics so didn't question it's truth that
    much.

    Question is: How close to the mark is it?

    Please, please this is not super-serious!!!
    Please excuse any slight math rounding and total disregard for
    relativistic effects , I have similiarly misplaced Einsteins
    equations. If necessary we'll assume the ship gets up to 10% speed of
    light and then coasts if need be. :)

    Argument goes like such.
    Energy to accelate ship is 0.5*m*((ato)^2 - (ati)^2)
    m is mass, say 10 ton
    a is acceleration, assume constant 1g
    to,ti time

    with to - ti = 1 second above simplifies down to

    Power = 0.5 ma^2
    = 500kW (to accelerate 10 tonne ship at 10m/s^2)

    Now assume it uses 100% efficient matter/ antimatter drive :-)
    (ok,ok this is a mighty big assume)

    Power costs roughly $0.12 per kW/hr in Oz
    This will be the cost in electricity of generating anti-matter
    (ignores rather severe capital investment and assumes 100% efficient
    process, this is even bigger assume)
    So cost for power is 3.3e-5 $/kWHr per second of
    manufacture/consumption in drive
    Seems cheap so far! :-)

    But at 500kW this turns out to be $15/second.

    So if we accelerate for one year turn around for one year
    decaccelerating, also at 1 gee.(someone else work out distance
    travelled? aiming for 4.7 light year )

    Total cost to make anti-matter we used is very roughly (at best!)
    $15 * (60*60*24*365) * 2 = $1000 Million

    Summary: I don't know how much useful "stuff" one could send to
    nearest star but I wouldn't mind betting 10 tonne doesn't supply much
    life support system! Which led to the reference of a bottle of wine
    once drives and controls are taken into account.

  83. With friends like these... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I would consider myself to be a major NASA supporter... I wouldn't mind the complete dismantling of the entire agency

    ... who needs enemies?

  84. Not quite what most people think. by bertok · · Score: 1

    The idea is not to produce kilograms of antimatter and use it directly. That is far beyond our present production capacity (picograms a year!), impossible to store, and very difficult to use. The idea is to use very, very tiny amounts of antimatter as a trigger device for fission, fusion, or both.

    A large particle accelerator would be used to generate a few nanograms for storage on the spacecraft. (Note that this quantity is quite safe) The spacecraft would spit out tiny pellets of fissionable materials, possibly with a deuterium core, and "ignite" it using a small fraction of the stored antimatter. The result is a small explosion, and hence, thrust. The system is easily controlled, safe, and very efficient. Most importantly, it can be done using present technology, and with a modest budget.

  85. Seconds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know nothing. Why are the units of "thrust" (energy?) in "seconds" (time?)?

  86. (simplified) reason for existance of antimatter by guybarr · · Score: 1

    " ..We don't know why, they just do ..."

    wrong, see any elementary quantum field theory book, the reason is because charge is a result of your fields being complex, and your measured quantities being real (C-symmetry).
    there are real-field (=> neutral) particles , they don't have anti-particles.

    (actually C-symmetry may sometime be broken but thats another story.)

    --
    Working for necessity's mother.
  87. Huh?! by nusuth · · Score: 2
    Just(!) a gram of antimatter required to get to Mars? Anti-neutron and "corresponding anti particle for all particles"? With a gram of antimatter I can get you to Alpha, fire those Nasa engineers who can only get you to Mars and hire me. But don't give me a gram of those anti-neutrons, I can't even get you to grocery store with those.

    I wonder what cnn reporters smoke.

    --

    Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the War Room!

  88. GoDdamn! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not a word if there is any danger of the dilithium crystals fusing.

  89. Re:PALESTINIANS ARE BLOODTHIRSTY KILLERS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Anyone else seeing a contradiction?"

    Yes. He missed a couple letters of the alphabet.

  90. Bad math in the article by iaamoac · · Score: 1
    From the article ...

    "... makes only one billionth of a gram a year at a cost of $80 million.

    At that rate, it would take one million years and $80 quadrillion (80,000 trillion) to produce one gram."

    Seems to me it would take a thousand times longer than 1 million years to produce 1 gram. And yet, they were able to get the price right. You would think that a "reputable" news source would do some sort proof reading.

    Any mistakes in the above post are my own. I am not reputable.

  91. Re:antihydrogen by CyberDruid · · Score: 1

    Antihydrogen would be completely useless as fuel anyway. Unlike the hydrogen atom, antihydrogen is _very_ unstable. Your space trip would have to last for fractions of a second, before all fuel breaks up into positrons and antiprotons ;) (those particles could, of course, be used anyway, but what would the point be of the antihydrogen?).

    --

    Opinions stated are mine and do not reflect those of the Illuminati

  92. Only NASA by AA0 · · Score: 1

    Only NASA would try to invent something as incredible as a anti matter engine and still use it in the worst, inefficient way possible, as a rocket. The rocket concept is too simple, and must be abandoned if you really want to go fast, it just has too many limits on it to achieve what we want.

    Haven't we learned enough by how horrible cars are? Why do we have to go copy them?

  93. Exotic matter? by RKloti · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What about the theoretical exotic matter?

    Antimatter is matter with a reversed charged.
    When matter meets antimatter, both are annihilated and energy is released (a lot of it, based on E=mc^2).

    Exotic matter, which isn't generally considered possible under Newtonian physics but which might be possible under quantumn physics, is matter that has a negative mass, and negative energy density. It has the opposite gravitational effect in relation to normal matter. A body of exotic matter would repel other bodies of both exotic and normal matter, AFAIK. Exotic matter, if it could really exist, would probably spread out equally across space, since it repels, rather than attracts other matter. If it came in contact with normal matter, it would annihilate it, but, unlike antimatter, it would release no energy whatsoever.

    In general, the idea of exotic matter is very appealing, because it allows:

    1.) The stabilisation of Einstein-Rosen gates, allowing an effective portal to another universe, should one exist. An Einstein-Rosen gate can be created by a spinning black hole, but is extremely unstable, to a point where even a boson would cause it's collapse.

    2.) Construction of wormholes. (You need a great deal of exotic matter for this one, probably more than is practically attainable, even with very advanced technology)
    One design suggests a wormhole that creates it's own exotic matter, eliminating the need for it's production.

    3.) Construction of 'warp drives'. Alcuberre's warp drive (do a search on Google if you want to know what that is) violates certain conditions of quantumn physics and required an absurdly large quantity of energy. However, Chris van den Broeck, suggested an alteration of the design, whereby the 'warp bubble' would be extremely small (smaller than a proton) and the starship/object to be warped would be in another bubble which a larger internal volume than it's external volume. In principle possible, perhaps, but it's not known if the idea would work in reality, especially since the author of the paper has since published another paper listing problems with his proposal.

    Still, the idea is kind of interesting.
    Nobody knows if exotic matter is possible at all, let alone whether it's mass production is feasible.

  94. Warp Drive by anwyn · · Score: 1

    Everyone knows you can't make a warp drive work until you have mastered the structural integerity field!

  95. What happens chemically? by alainsane · · Score: 1

    From the article and comments, I have deduced that AM is the same thing as matter, except with charges reversed.
    Does that mean that there is an AM counterpart to hydrogen, oxygen, etc?
    If so, what would happen if hydrogen AM mixed with helium matter?
    H(am)+He= [E+H] or [E+He(fragments)]?
    I realize that the above reaction is not possible with conventional chemistry.

    --
    1+1=10
  96. Penn State Physicist by mycr0ft · · Score: 1

    NASA Marshall is funding the work of Prof. Gerry Smith, formerly of the PSU Physics Dept. (where I got my Ph.D. a while back) and who has gone to NASA MSFC

    This was posted previously on /. here.

    You can seen the PSU antimatter propulsion page here.
    He also has tried to sell folks on anti-matter assisted fusion energy at the NASA fusion propulsion workshop that was held in 2000.

    I haven't the slightest idea how far any of this will get under the current NASA budget woes.

    -- Mycr0ft

    --

    Me physicist. Me make rockets.
  97. Again and again by Niscenus · · Score: 1

    Don't you hate the fact that slashdot is usually second in the line of whatever the discussion is?

    Well, now it's third.

    Here's the original:
    http://science.msfc.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines// ms ad12nov97_1.htm

    I know because I'm there.

    --
    "Yeah...it was the numbers that were irrational, not the murderous cult of vegetarians...." -- Hippasus of Metapontum
  98. Let's do some math... by Komodo · · Score: 2

    Antimatter is the most efficient energy storage possible. 'E = mc^2' tells us that annihalating it with an equal mass of matter produces 9*10e16 joules of energy for every kilogram of mass thus reacted.

    That's the instantaneous production of 90,000 terajoules - on the order of the amount of energy expended by all the world's industry in a day. Impressive? Certainly.

    However... to accelerate a mass to the near-light speed necessary to take advantage or relativity (very useful in an interstellar voyage if you want to get there in a reasonable fraction of a human lifetime), you need... E = mc^2!

    That means that to get to near-light speed with a 100%-efficient antimatter engine, you need to have almost as much matter/antimatter fuel as the 'dry weight' of the vessel, including storage tanks. The dry weight of the Space Shuttle orbiter is about 80 tons... so to get a shuttle to those kinds of speeds would take 40 tons of antimatter and 40 tons of ordinary matter.

    AND... you have to slow down again at the other end. So you have to take the 160 tons of your decel mass, and get THAT up to light speed with another 160 tons of fuel (again, half matter, half antimatter). So the launch breakdown on your itty bitty 80-ton eight-person spacecraft is: 80 tons spacecraft, 120 tons matter, 120 tons antimatter - 320 tons!

    It's just like rockets and gravity. Most of your launch mass is wasted on fuel. And we can't beat these numbers with our current physics.

    None of this would be a problem if we could make a LOT of antimatter... like a ton a day. But that has its own problems. Like, where to put it.

    Let's assume that breakthroughs in nanotech and fusion physics allow us to build reactors that are one millimeter across and turn hydrogen into antiprotons at the rate of 1 particle per microsecond. To produce just 120 tons of antimatter per year, the factory would form a cube 200 meters on a side (Borg, Anybody?). I don't know what such a thing would be made of, but an equivalent volume of water would weigh 8 million tons.

    The 4H2 -> He2 fusion reaction releases approximately 1/140th the mass-energy of the original hydrogen as a side-affect of the fusion reaction (go ahead, look up the relative masses of H and He on your periodic table and plug it into E = MC^2, you'll see what I mean). That means that a 100% efficient 'factory' would burn 140 times the mass of hydrogen to produce one unit of antimatter... or 16,800 tons of hydrogen per year.

    So is it impossible?

    No.

    IF we had the fusion physics and the nanotech, we could put a self-assembling factory into orbit in the upper atmosphere of a gas giant. Feed it a large iron asteroid for raw materials, and allow it to grow slowly, adding a 1mm layer of fuel reactors at a time. The size of the thing would grow at cubic rates (since it grows in three dimensions) and even though the initial fuel output of the thing would be trivial, it would quickly grow to a size where it was producing tons of fuel a year.

    And THEN we can start sending people to the stars on a regular basis. First a dozen, then hundreds, then thousands, at a rate that grows as fast as we can produce the fuel.

    Like JFK said... We choose to do these things 'not because they are easy, but because they are hard.'

  99. CNN attempts science... by Merk · · Score: 2
    When a matter particle comes into contact with an antimatter particle, they annihilate each other and produce kinetic energy.

    Actually no. Kinetic energy is an abstraction related to momentum. When matter and anti-matter collide they produce photons, gamma particles, according to the formula E=MC^2.

    But because no one knows where to find the antimatter, it has to be created.

    It's not that it's lost and nobody knows where to find it. Anti-matter is pretty uncommon, at least in our pocket of the Universe. Anti-matter in tiny quantities is always being produced by nuclear decay, but since it's surrounded by regular matter, it annihilates very quickly producing gamma rays.

    I know it's CNN, but c'mon -- if you're doing a piece on antimatter, at least have a scientist look it over before you publish it.

  100. *Yawn* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NASA needs to stop watching startrek and head back to working on there toy rockets and fire crackers.

  101. great, this is right on the ball by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    ANTI-matter from the folks who have proven to be ANTI-progress. Perhaps they could restrict all research even remotely related to antimatter thus crippling true innovation (not MS's def.)

    Yaaaay! I can see the headlines now. April, 2087, after several months of delays, the second Lunar visitation mission has now launched on a spectacular crowd of gathered masses. If we look back to 1969, we will see just how vastly important such a mission is, even though this is only serving as an R&D effort to see if a Mars mission is indeed possible within the next 20 years. Meanwhile, Galacta-corp, an open-spec supporting company just released the open source version of their Rueferd FTL system. While still valued greatly in many small markets, especially in small low funded xeno study groups, it is believed that more nostalgia than anything holds to this antiquated, 50 year old drive, which is not much different than the original prototype that launched the rational peoples of Earth into space, for the first time actually creating the Space Age, that so many foolish reporter and unthinking talking monkey in the NASA circles had coined (and used repeatedly) since a monkey was shot into space over 130 years ago.

    The logical people of Earth (along with our many extra-terran friends) are grateful for the private groups of people who stepped outside the stupidity and bureaucracy of governmental agencies like NASA to actually desire RESULTS instead of a string of self promoting paperwork and failed attempt after failed attempt to do what could have been done in the early 70's and late 60's even.

    We all wish Nasa well, however, as experts have estimated that NASA will only crash 589 more probes until they finally figure out how to find their ass with at least one hand.

  102. Antiparticles versus antimatter by fm6 · · Score: 2
    I think we have to distinguish between antiparticles and antimatter, just as we distinguish between particles and matter.

    As I write this, an electron gun is spewing streams of electrons directly at my face. Yet I don't feel the slightest urge to duck. Nor do I hear little clicking sounds as the electrons impact on my monitor screen. I don't expect any of the things that happen when matter is about, because electrons aren't matter. They're a constituent of matter.

    The anti-electrons used in PET scans are the same, only more so. Nothing remarkable about having them around, but they're extremely transient entities. So accumulating them in large quantities is a lot harder than this article, in the gee-wiz style NASA PR bozos are so fond of, suggests.

    1. Re:Antiparticles versus antimatter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      just as we distinguish between particles and matter.

      We don't. Particles are matter. Period.

    2. Re:Antiparticles versus antimatter by FastT · · Score: 2
      ...distinguish between particles and matter...
      As far as I know, this is not the case. Given your statement, hydrogen ions (say, in a plasma) would not be matter because they would be naked protons. I don't think anyone would agree with this.

      Yet I don't feel the slightest urge to duck. Nor do I hear little clicking sounds as the electrons impact on my monitor screen.
      Well, of course you don't. Electrons are smaller than visible light wavelengths, so you can't see them--hence scanning electron tunneling microscopes. You also don't hear the occasional proton or neutron that races down from the heavens and through your body, but that doesn't mean anything either. The total energy of these particles is too small to cause the gross physical movement that we would perceive as sound.

      I have never understood there to be a quantitative distinction between particles and matter. I can certainly see a qualitative distinction--we are used to defining "matter" as the stuff we directly interact with day to day.

      But, barring a more formal definition (the existence of which I admit I am ignorant), it seems that "matter" is adequately defined as an entity with rest mass, and electrons have rest mass, albeit small. Admittedly, it's not intuitive to think of the current from the battery running my laptop as "matter", or as a "matter" flow, but this doesn't dissuade me from using that definition.

      --

      The only certainty is entropy.
  103. The True Plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The ultimate goal is to send an automated craft to the sun and convert heat energy into order

    You got off to such a great start. Then you started spewing bullshit.

    You capture the heat energy and start building antimatter. Then you shoot the antimatter back at the sun, where it annihilates. This increases the heat energy given off, increasing your antimatter production, letting you shoot back more, in a runaway cascade effect.

    Mr. Burns had it right: Since the dawn of time, man has wanted to destroy the sun. With antimatter technology, now we can.

  104. Umm... dude... by Nindalf · · Score: 1

    That's a circular argument. "All particles have antiparticles with all charges opposite" is the essense of C-symmetry. Adding more twists and terms (and math) to a circular argument doesn't make it less circular. Actually, stating the more precise form of C-symmetry (which would claim that the particle is identical except for the opposite form) introduces an innaccuracy, since, as you say, C-symmetry is broken in some situations, and a larger symmetry is actually followed (antiparticles should behave identically in a mirror image universe with time going backwards, IIRC; what was it called... CPT-symmetry?).

    Who was it who said, "Do not express yourself more clearly than you think."?

    My point was that the existance of antiparticles is inseperable from a fundamental principle, which doesn't have a mechanism of simpler components to explain it.

  105. What is NASA thinking!!??? by masterkool · · Score: 1

    I wonder if NASA has even began to consider how they will contain the reactions? Nuclear particles (electrons, protons, muons, positrons ect.) are a defined entity. An electron of an iron atom is no different that one from a water atom. This means that particles from the hull of the ship and the nickel that they plan to annihilate have equal probability of colliding with an antimatter particle. When one collision between an anti and true particle take place, the resulting energy could send trillions upon trillions more particles into similar collisions. The entire ship could be converted into pure energy.

    --
    I once shot a man who posted too many, "Imagine a beowulf cluster of these"
    1. Re:What is NASA thinking!!??? by mazor · · Score: 1
      >> The entire ship could be converted into pure energy.
      Well, that would make lightspeed much more convenient, now wouldn't it?


      -mazor

    2. Re:What is NASA thinking!!??? by masterkool · · Score: 1

      This would not be convienient unless we could find a way to convert energy back to matter and into the same origional configuration. Science just does not have the capability of understanding such a concept.

      --
      I once shot a man who posted too many, "Imagine a beowulf cluster of these"
  106. Yes, but the Borg... by Guru2Newbie · · Score: 0

    Shields against such a weapon would be simple. Just detect the charge of the beam being fired at you and produce a large electric field of the same charge. This system would be ideal for defending earth from asteroids and the borg.

    ...cycle their shield frequency, so who's to say they wouldn't cycle their weapon frequency as well?
    1. Re:Yes, but the Borg... by redcliffe · · Score: 2

      Yes but you use the antimatter beam to destroy their ship. The shields would be impractical to protect the entire earth, they only protect the ship.... :-P

  107. unit usage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is it the article insists on talking about grams of the stuff, then goes on to use pounds? Can't they stay on one system?

  108. On topic post by datawar · · Score: 1

    This is an on-topic post.

  109. Sorry, you're just wrong. by RobertFisher · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I would also say, however, that I think the days of NASA are numbered and I wouldn't mind the complete dismantling of the entire agency. They are too stuck in the past (reliving the glory days of Apollo), and are actually doing more harm than good now for giving me or my children the opportunity to work and live in space.


    First, you seem to have the misconception that NASA is entirely devoted to the manned exploration of space, and that moreover, they haven't done anything new since Apollo.


    You are simply misinformed. You're just plain wrong.


    Take a look at some of the projects that NASA has been up to recently, and then see if you can still claim they are "living in the past" :



    Space Observatories
    Chandra X-Ray Observatory

    Hubble Space Telescope
    Earth Observatories
    Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer"
    Solar System Missions
    Mars Rovers
    Astrophysics Research
    Origins Program
    And a sampling of the slate for future missions :

    The Terrestrial Planet Finder

    Deep Impact Comet Mission

    Dawn Asteroid Flyby"

    As you can see, NASA is not just about flying shuttle missions. They are actively sponsoring research in the space sciences and astrophysics across the board... from the study of our own planet, to the solar system, other stars and galaxies, and the cosmos as a whole. Their missions support the development of new technologies (which, unlike the previous poster seems to believe, are not limited to propulsion technologies, but include a wide array of telescopes and detectors across the entire spectrum). And NASA also actively supports scientists at all levels -- from graduate students through postdocs and faculty.


    I think we live in a unique time where we as a species are really beginning to understand what makes up the universe, and how it works. I'm quite
    confident that when the history of science of the 20th and 21st centuries is written, NASA will have played an enormously significant role in that process of discovery.



    Bob

    --
    Science, like Nature, must also be tamed, with a view turned towards its preservation.
  110. Try the Jewish version by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    They voted down the extra asteroid sheilding at the front.

  111. guess how they pay for it by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Antimoney

    -----------------
    Chance of joke already thot of: 68%

    Change of being funny: 32%

    Change of being modded down: 62.5%

  112. chance of mispelling by Tablizer · · Score: 1


    one-hundred

  113. Drop tests by coyote-san · · Score: 2

    It was also used in the drop tests. The very first flights were on top of the 747 to test basic aerodynamics, later tests used explosive bolts to separate from the 747 and simulate the final stages of reentry.

    Remember - up until this time every spacecraft went "splat" when it landed. Americans landed in the water, Soviets landed in farm land... and according to the standards boards Yuri Gagarin was *not* the first man to pilot a spacecraft in orbit since he bailed before the capsule even got back to earth. (The standards require the pilot remain with the craft from stationary start on ground to stationary stop on ground.)

    --
    For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
  114. Try imaginary mass... by coyote-san · · Score: 2

    I haven't been following it closely, but apparently some early experimental work has shown some exotic particles with imaginary mass!

    You find yourself in this rather unusual state of affairs because the mass isn't measured directly. What you can measure works out to m^2 and it's always been a positive number. Until recently, when the number works out as a negative number. Hence negative numbers.

    This would mean that gravity is repulsive between two objects of the same imaginary mass. But what's the attraction/repulsion between normal mass and imaginary mass?

    Newton's laws get even weirder. Negative mass is annoying - if I push on it, it doesn't push back. It actually pulls me towards it. Push on imaginary mass and you get... what? Maybe it only responds to imaginary accelerations... and that answers the questions about gravitational attraction as well.

    This is probably some subtle experimental error, even if the results have been verified at several sites. More data will show positive m^2. Or a subtle error in the design of the instrumentation.

    Yet....

    --
    For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
    1. Re:Try imaginary mass... by Kite · · Score: 1

      Can you givemore information on these experiments? Particles with imagenary mass would be very interesting, because according to relativity theory they would always travel faster than light (much as `normal' always moves slower than light). Discovery of tachyons would be something to see.

      Also, remember that Newton's laws only apply at low speeds compared to c. This makes it difficult to use them to predict anything about tachyons.

      --
      - Kite

      `But gravity always wins.'
      - Radiohead
  115. 15 y.o. USAF Study by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hughes Aircraft used to have it's research scientists give short presentations to employees on whatever might be interesting among the unclassified projects they had going. A Ph.D from the Malibu research lab gave us yokels in the Valley a lecture on his USAF-funded investigations on anti-matter propulsion back in 1985. He included quite a bit of material regarding the steps to working up to large-scale fuel production and storage.

    The step-by-step process was made more interesting as he would mention that this or that step "...would make a good graduate project", and he's laying it out for you on a silver platter.

    Hughes used to be a really fantastic engineering company, thanks to all of the cash they poured into R&D. To bad Howard was too far gone in the '60's and '70's to make sure that his heirs didn't tear it all down for cash in the '80's.

  116. How much energy does it take to make anti matter? by asddfsd · · Score: 1

    If you liberate H2 from H2O, you spend more energy than you get back by burning H2 and O to make water. If you convert a Proton, for example into an Anti Proton, and then introduce it to another Proton, then since you are Converting the 2 Protons from matter to energy, the energy out is not just the energy that was used to convert the Proton to an Anti Proton. Does converting a Proton to an Anti Proton take more energy than you get when you anilhate a Proton with an Anti Proton ? If so Anti matter is a good very dense storage medium for energy. If not matter (converted to antimatter) becomes a source of energy. Think about the possibility of turning matter into energy. Energy Crisis ? What energy crisis. Also as the earth looses mass, we start to orbit further and further out from the sun, so the greenhouse effect of the 20th C. is mitigated ;-)

  117. Breaking News! by Hard_Code · · Score: 2

    NASA has also revealed that it is researching ways to use magic as the next generation spacecraft propulsion. One scientist was quoted as saying: "With magic we could, for example, twitch our noses and *wish* the spacecraft to be at it's destination" "However," he cautioned, "magic is not known to exist. Nor may it ever". NASA has reportedly employed a young new scientist by the name of Harry Potter to aid in its newest research project.

    --

    It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
  118. on symmetry and antiparticles by guybarr · · Score: 1


    first, please lets not make this personal or impolite (regarding the "Umm... Dude.." title).

    regarding cyclicity:
    "All particles have antiparticles with all charges opposite is the essense of C-symmetry"

    only if you accept QFT axioms; among them symmetry (C, P, T , whatever your lagrangian holds), locality and lorentz invariance (which , IIRC implies CPT )

    the existance of anti-particles IN SOME FORM does not have to be inseperable from the above principles , i.e. there may be (I doubt anyone proved otherwize) other models (with no regard to experimental evidence) with some kinds of anti-particles without the theoretical base of QFT and above axioms.

    this is what I mean by an explanation of some phenomenon:
    there exists a model which is more "basic", i.e. applicable to and implies a wider class of phenomena then the "explained" observation, within which the phenomenon fits.

    e.g. "all apples fall to the ground" is explained by Newton's model of gravity. It is not inseperable from newton's model or a different way of expressing it (hence this is not a cyclical argument).

    correct me if I'm wrong ...

    --
    Working for necessity's mother.
  119. AntiHydrogen by zenray · · Score: 1

    Just this weekend I've finished reading The Engeneer' series of books by James Doohan - aka Scottie of Star Trek (co-auther S.M. Sterling).
    They use antihydrogen as the fuel for their star ships. In fact they are fighting a war over control of the antihydrigen fields and the fuel run their entire society.

    --
    zenray
  120. This is hillarious... by Sebastopol · · Score: 2

    from the article:

    The world's largest maker of antimatter...

    I never thought I'd read this sentence in my lifetime!

    --
    https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
  121. A trillion tons of TNT. by n9hmg · · Score: 1

    That's what you'd need to do a teraton blast in TNT (by definition). We've got bombs in the megatons - what, maybe 5 megatons?
    200,000 of those together would generate a teraton blast.
    Unless we find an "antimatter mine", antimatter is a storage medium, NOT an energy source.

    I don't have the numbers, but i'm guessing we'd have to build an elliptical Dyson sphere, polished on the inside, orbiting so as to hold the sun at one focus, collecting the energy at the other one.
    For this purpose, though, if we can get the conversion efficiency up to where the weight advantage beats the conversion loss, we might have something. We'd still have to take along some reaction mass, though.

  122. Okay, now that we've got this figured out... by rjh · · Score: 2

    My apologies; I thought you were arguing that negative energy cannot exist, which is what I was taking exception with. :)

    So therefore it is always some positive value somewhere in the system right?

    Not necessarily. The system is allowed to be at a zero-energy state. A lot of people believe that, from whatever point within the cosmos that you observe the cosmos, the net energy of the cosmos is zero. I'm not certain I buy this, but not because the idea is bad--just because I haven't seen evidence to directly suggest this.

    My arguement is that "negative" energy, as you put it, would have the same effect within the universe as positive "energy" ... because although its observable behaviour would be opposite, the effects on spacetime curvature would be exactly the same as positive mass

    You seem to be conflating mass and energy here. An equivalency exists between the two, but they're not strictly speaking identical to each other. A photon, for instance, has no mass--but due to its energy level, it can be treated as if it possessed mass. Discussing this more would quickly get extremely arcane, but a good astrophysics text should explain it much better than I can. :)

    First, in many instances you're right. Whenever you see an energy-squared term, the cosmos doesn't care whether the sign is negative or positive--the squaring means the result is always positive.

    But that doesn't mean in all instances you're right. As a very quick and primitive example, look at E = mc**2. Let's say you're watching a spacecraft zoom by at relativistic speeds. Its energy content is equal to its mass times the square of c.

    Now let's say you slow down that spacecraft somehow. You reduce its kinetic energy content by applying an acceleration opposite to its direction. You're diminishing the energy--or, not to be too mathematical about it, applying negative energy to the system. You apply so much energy that you bring the spacecraft to a crashing halt. Before, it had E energy, and now you've applied -E energy.

    Well, how do you get -E energy? -m times c**2, of course. So as you apply negative energy, you also confer a negative mass... so as the spacecraft slows down, its relativistic mass vanishes (negative mass applied) and it returns to its conventional rest mass.

    Professional physicists will undoubtedly want to crucify me for this example. :) Keep in mind that it's a first approximation meant to illustrate the point, nothing more.

    Short version: negative energy levels are known to exist. Negative masses are necessary in order to make some of the equasions work out properly, but we don't know whether (a) negative masses can exist on their own, or (b) whether it's just an illusion created by the mathematics we use to describe the system.

    As an illustration of (b), imagine a square-shaped yard that's a hundred square meters. How long is each side? Well, ten meters, of course. But the square root also means negative ten meters would give us the same answer. In this instance, the negative result is discarded as an illusion of the mathematics. The same basic principle might apply to negative mass--necessary to make equasions work, but doesn't really exist.

    I suspect the answer is (b), but I'm not willing to make any wagers on it. The cosmos can be a really weird place.

    1. Re:Okay, now that we've got this figured out... by flumps · · Score: 1

      You seem to be conflating mass and energy here. An equivalency exists between the two, but they're not strictly speaking identical to each other. Hmm. I was under the impression that they were pretty identical - energy as afaik from what I understand even has gravitational effects! Thats a pretty strong equivalence... and as we've seen the only difference is that its travelling at x speed in (yes, i know) a direction. Interesting: If you could slow a photon down, reduce its energy, what would you get? Erm scratch that cause I also think you'd need to change its spin to turn it from a fermion into a boson, so we could actually do that. Hmm.

      You're diminishing the energy--or, not to be too mathematical about it, applying negative energy to the system. You apply so much energy that you bring the spacecraft to a crashing halt. Before, it had E energy, and now you've applied -E energy.

      Yes, that is true. However, from the standpoint of a person observing, there is no difference in you applying -E and something hitting the spacecraft with +E coming in the opposite direction (if it were invisible) :) Theres still E as you say but its just how its applied that differs. Therefore, +E and -E cancel out, you get heat and quite abit of light probably which dissapates into the cosmos, making the temperature higher than it was before. The sum total of E in the cosmos is the same as it was before the rockets collided. Now if the rocket then fell into a black hole.... but thats another story.

      It is fascinating all this stuff. I wish I had kept it up, but I'm crap at maths :(

      To further your cause though, I was reading this book Hawking wrote yesterday and he mentioned that there is probably -energy in the universe. Its called vacuum energy and causes things to fly apart in the universe, a bit like a cosmological constant. So I'll concede the negative energy argument, but not -mass, just to be fickle. :)

      The cosmos can be a really weird place. Beetroot.

      --
      "So there he is, risen from the dead. Like that fella, E. T." - Father Ted Crilly
    2. Re:Okay, now that we've got this figured out... by rjh · · Score: 2

      energy as afaik from what I understand even has gravitational effects

      It does. Spacetime is warped by energy just as much as by mass. That doesn't mean the two are the same thing; they're not. To put it in a C idiom, there's an equivalence which can be drawn between a char* and a char[] , but pop onto comp.lang.c and try and say "arrays and pointers are the same". You'll get mocked. :)

      Theres still E as you say but its just how its applied that differs

      No. Read a college physics textbook. It's not "how it's applied that differs". The math must always, always, always be consistent; if the math's not consistent, it's not science. Saying that "well, it's not really negative" makes the numbers inconsistent. That negative sign in front doesn't mean "in a different direction". It means "-1 times the quantity".

      If something goes three feet forwards and then three feet back, it's fair to say "it goes three feet forwards and then three feet backwards". It goes the quantity of three, the measurement unit of feet, and a direction. But it is equally fair to say "it goes positive three feet and then another negative three feet".

      What's the difference? In the first, you're assigning real absolute distances along different vectors. In the second, you're assigning real nonabsolute values along a single vector. Minimizing coordinate system abuse is something physicists really like to do, because it makes their lives easier. So it's not a matter of "negative distances, negative energies, etc., are just a notational convenience". It's all about coordinate systems, and within that coordinate system, those are real negative values. They aren't pretenders. They aren't poseurs.

      It is fascinating all this stuff. I wish I had kept it up, but I'm crap at maths :(

      I mean no offense here, but I can tell. :)

      Pretty much without exception, every time we've correctly assessed what the rules of the cosmos are, we've found that everything permitted by mathematics within those rules happens. When Einstein was formulating relativity, he dismissed black holes as an illusion of the mathematics. Well, turns out those illusions are likely pretty darn real. The same happened in the birth of quantum mechanics--things that were believed to be nonsensical artifacts of the mathematical process turned out to be astonishingly real.

      It is a critical mistake to dismiss negative quantities as "artifacts" (which is what you're doing) because it contradicts our intuition about the cosmos. All of us have an intuition about the cosmos, and this intuition is usually plumb wrong.

      For thousands of years, we had only rational numbers. Everyone knew that all numbers were defined as integers or integer fractions of other integers. Anything else was inconceivable.

      For thousands of years, we had no transcendental numbers. Numbers which aren't merely irrational, but add all sorts of weirdness on top of it? Don't be absurd.

      For thousands of years we had no number zero. After all, how could you have a number to denote something that wasn't there?

      We had no negative numbers. You could conceive of ten apples, five apples--heck, you could even conceive of no apples. But negative numbers were nonsensical, right?

      We had no imaginary numbers. The square root of a negative number? Don't be absurd. Of course, you're using imaginary numbers right now--they're used in AC circuits, like the wall outlet powering your PC.

      We had no complex numbers. How could you add an imaginary to a real?

      We had no Hamiltonians (quaternions). Oh, man, don't even get me started on quaternion theory; it's beautiful and deranged all at once.

      ... Do you see what I'm getting at here? You're saying that "well, the negative value is just an illusion we can handwave away--all distances, all energies, all masses, etc., are absolute values, and the plus or minus sign is just an indicator of direction." It doesn't work that way. When people insist that it must work that way, it usually shows someone who's not very comfortable with mathematics or the notion that the universe might be a lot stranger than they give it credit for.

    3. Re:Okay, now that we've got this figured out... by flumps · · Score: 1

      Well you've given me something to think about. I thought you might like to read this article I found about negative mass tachyons... interesting stuff, and I think its genuine.

      What caught my eye, apart from the negative mass, was the fact he was using MeV to measure mass, which can definately be negative. So I concede, even if a little reluctantly ;0)

      --
      "So there he is, risen from the dead. Like that fella, E. T." - Father Ted Crilly
  123. Hello by Tom7 · · Score: 2

    poo poo hello