Author Topic: Antimatter  (Read 19243 times)

Offline DonPMitchell

  • The Right Stuff
  • Moonwalker
  • ****
  • Posts: 1200
  • Gender: Male
    • Mental Landscape
Antimatter
« on: May 26, 2009, 04:41:09 PM »
I talked with the director of Fermilab's antiproton source.  This is the most efficient facility in the world for the production of antimatter.  So, can we manufacture anti hydrogen in bulk, to fuel spacecrafts?

The total annual world production of electric power is 19 trillion kilowatt hours.  If that energy could be converted into antimatter with perfect efficiency, m = E/c**2, it would yield 760 kilograms.

Unfortunately, antimatter is made by slamming protons into a metal target at 120 GeV.  For every million protons, only about 8 antiprotons are produced among many other random particles, radiation and heat.  The accelerator itself is not a very efficient machine.  Consumming several megawatts of electricity, it yields an antiproton beam current of 80 milliwatts.

If the total world electrical output was used in this way, it would yield about 20 milligrams of antimatter per year.

Never send a human to do a machine's job.
  - Agent Smith

Offline jdbenner

  • The Right Stuff
  • Apollo CMP
  • ****
  • Posts: 381
  • Gender: Male
Re: Antimatter
« Reply #1 on: May 29, 2009, 07:26:35 PM »
I doubt that Antimatter could ever compete with beamed power.  But the production efficacy could be improved by several orders of magnitude.

First, the current production facilities are designed for minim facilities cost, rather than maximum energy efficiency.  This is because of the purpose for which these facilities were constructed.
Joshua D. Benner Associate in Arts and Sciences in General Science

Offline DonPMitchell

  • The Right Stuff
  • Moonwalker
  • ****
  • Posts: 1200
  • Gender: Male
    • Mental Landscape
Re: Antimatter
« Reply #2 on: May 29, 2009, 07:40:55 PM »
Between antimatter and beamed power, I'm not sure which is the whackiest.
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
  - Agent Smith

Offline jdbenner

  • The Right Stuff
  • Apollo CMP
  • ****
  • Posts: 381
  • Gender: Male
Re: Antimatter
« Reply #3 on: May 29, 2009, 07:59:02 PM »
Well, the conversion efficiency of energy to antimatter, is extremely low.  Lasers or radios are more energy efficient.  Also if radiation pressure is used, reflected light would provide up to twice the momentum per unit of energy as generating the light would.

But antimatter would offer more operational flexibility.

I do not expect antimatter to ever be used for much, except research or medical imaging, with the possible exception of a trigger for sub critical fission/fusion weapons.
Joshua D. Benner Associate in Arts and Sciences in General Science