Considering running LHC at full power running 24/7y will yield 1 picogram of antimatter. And at full power, the machine is consuming 1000 GW/h. Assuming Power consumption costs .27 USD kW/h , and it is running 24 hours a day, for 365 days, we get the equation .27*10^9*24*365 (it's 10^9 due to cost ruled at kw); it would cost 2365200000000 USD [B]a year[/B] to keep the machine running. And that's not including employee payments and maintenance costs. Let alone the research of preventing antimaterial decay is still in its infancy.
Power consumption rates provided by the LHC outreach site.
[URL]http://lhc-machine-outreach.web.cern.ch/lhc-machine-outreach/faq/lhc-energy-consumption.htm[/URL]
[QUOTE=Firefox42;21681759]well, we wouldn't need much of it. just a gram or so would be more than enough.[/QUOTE]
Well a Valkyrie with 100 tonnes of cargo requires 1100 tonnes of antimatter (And the same amount of matter).
Well shit.
[QUOTE=Eudoxia;21681834]Well a Valkyrie with 100 tonnes of cargo requires 1100 tonnes of antimatter (And the same amount of matter).
Well shit.[/QUOTE]
wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong
etc
[QUOTE=Quo Vadi;21682945]i am wikipedia, i don't need a citation[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]although another calculation suggests that to reach a speed of .92 c and decelerate afterward Valkyrie would require a mass ratio of 22 (or 2200 tons of fuel for a 100 ton spacecraft).[1][/QUOTE]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Valkyrie#Engines[/url]
[QUOTE]ed note: If I am reading this correctly, this is a mass ratio of 1.5, which I find a little difficult to believe. The equations above seem to say that accelerating up to 92%c and back down to zero will require a mass ratio around 22.
Later ed note: Adam Crowl got in touch with Mr. Pellegrino on this matter. As it turns out, the mass ratio of 1.5 only applies to a Valkyrie capable of approaching ten percent lightspeed.
Mr. Pellegrino's response to Adam Crowl:
On Valkyrie, the lower mass of material you were quoting was for up to 10%c - much lower than the mass for giants like Daedalus, and other such nonsense. The mass of propellant is kept low because up to about 10% c you can go with the lower exhaust velocities of antiproton-triggered fusion. (As an aside, during a bowling game with Engineer Ed Bishop and my kids, last winter, I suddenly got a warning alarm screaming up from my subconscious - in 3-D with the berilium windows failing terribly. That's all I could think of as I bowled [I'm usually lousey at the game], and I have still not adequately solved the problem - - but for the only time in my life, and with my mind not at all in the game, I hit series of perfect strikes after series of perfect strikes.
In any case, the antiproton triggered fusion system, scaled down to Valkyrie Mark II, is wonderfully practical for getting around the solar system at a mere 750 km/sec. (this velocity would eventually be practical for Project Spaceguard: the kinetic force of merely ten Toyota masses impacting a comet or asteroid at this velocity (diameter 1/4 mile) would completely "dust" the object.
In answer to original question, for a true, Valkyrie Mark III (requiring direct proton-antiproton annihilation after 15%c), interstellar crewed mission, the propellant mass would of course exceed the ship mass. After 92%c, the excess becomes too extreme - which is a main reason that, although we could deal with particle collisions (dust) at 95%c (halving apparent travel time at this cruise velocity), that 92% becomes close to being a pretty solid speed limit. The time dialation effect gain is simply not worth the mass-energy cost.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3aj.html#valkyrie[/url]
[QUOTE]Hi Dr. Pellegrino
Your website's discussion of the "Valkyrie" starship is fascinating, though I am a bit puzzled by the amount of propellant required to reach the cruising speed of 0.92 c. Your text seems to indicate a mass ratio of slightly less than 2, but according to the relativistic rocket equation for a pure photon rocket to reach 0.92 c (then deccelerate) the mass ratio is 24. That's 11.5 times the empty mass in pure antimatter, somewhat more because the "Valkyrie" is a "pion drive" and probably has an exhaust velocity of ~ 0.943 c at most.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.ibdof.com/viewtopic.php?f=60&t=117478&sid=385a6c7133a7a2bcf62eed6cab174130[/url]
:colbert:
oh
wikipedia lied to me
What if you eat antimatter?
[QUOTE=playelite;21684600]What if you eat antimatter?[/QUOTE]
Death.
[QUOTE=Eudoxia;21691140]Death.[/QUOTE]
Of course, but I mean. What would happen step by step? What would it feel like?
[QUOTE=playelite;21691160]Of course, but I mean. What would happen step by step? What would it feel like?[/QUOTE]
You probably wouldn't feel anything. Once the antimatter touches the matter in your mouth, both annihilate.
The photons are the equivalent of a thousand titanic lasers, and the gamma rays will just fry you. It will melt your brain and the rest of you before you even feel it. Your eyes will register the light, but you won't feel it.
[QUOTE=Eudoxia;21691208]You probably wouldn't feel anything. Once the antimatter touches the matter in your mouth, both annihilate.
The photons are the equivalent of a thousand titanic lasers, and the gamma rays will just fry you. It will melt your brain and the rest of you before you even feel it. Your eyes will register the light, but you won't feel it.[/QUOTE]
Wow.
Sounds like a hell of a way to go.
How much of this antimatter would it take to do this to you?
[QUOTE=playelite;21691648]Wow.
Sounds like a hell of a way to go.
How much of this antimatter would it take to do this to you?[/QUOTE]
A gram can destroy New York City so... I'd say a microgram is more than enough to take you and others in the same room.
[QUOTE=esalaka;21631166]Why use goddamn fission when you could use fusion?!?[/QUOTE]
Don't you need 50,000,000 degrees Celsius / intensely high pressures for fusion to occur or something?
Wait if antimatter destroys matter (converts, rather), couldn't we use it as a shield if we're going really fast in space, so we don't hit little rocks?
[QUOTE=Redcow;21695860]Wait if antimatter destroys matter (converts, rather), couldn't we use it as a shield if we're going really fast in space, so we don't hit little rocks?[/QUOTE]
The vast amount of released energy by that "shield" due to annihilation would destroy the ship.
all the antimatter left the universe in the first second of the universe, sorry!
[QUOTE=playelite;21691160]Of course, but I mean. What would happen step by step? What would it feel like?[/QUOTE]
Like your insides just exploded.
Because they have.
[editline]08:15PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Redcow;21695860]Wait if antimatter destroys matter (converts, rather), couldn't we use it as a shield if we're going really fast in space, so we don't hit little rocks?[/QUOTE]
The shield proposed for the Valkyrie is perfect, so that's what we will use.
You effectively use a sheet of liquid metal to protect the ship in flight.
[QUOTE=rieda1589;21657365]I was at a lecture with some CERN guys the other day and they said it'd take about 1.5 million years to harvest a single gram of antimatter from the LHC working 24/7[/QUOTE]
well the thing is that right now our only method of creating antimatter is as a byproduct of particle accelerator experiments - that is, we haven't specifically designed anything to actively produce antimatter. If we did then we could cut that number down quite a bit (though with currently feasible designs it would still take a ridiculously long time by our everyday standards of time)
[QUOTE=playelite;21691160]Of course, but I mean. What would happen step by step? What would it feel like?[/QUOTE]
Like getting hit in the face by a nuclear bomb.
[QUOTE=Robber;21698541]Like getting hit in the face by a nuclear bomb.[/QUOTE]
I wonder how that would feel like.
Not that I would notice.
I don't really get what's the different between matter and anti matter.
they are total opposites of each other.
So opposite if they touch they obliterate each other.
[QUOTE=ohadeEyY;21699027]I don't really get what's the different between matter and anti matter.[/QUOTE]
[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter[/URL]
That's the simplest explanation I could find. Basically, antiparticles have the same mass (and therefore the same energy) but a different charge (+1e 1/2 for the positron and -1e 1/2 for the electron). Such as a electron and a positron, e- and e+ respectively. And when they meet, the result is a release of energy, following the equation e- + e+ = y + y. Where y is the energy realeased, which is equal to the mass of the pair of particles.
[QUOTE=ohadeEyY;21699027]I don't really get what's the different between matter and anti matter.[/QUOTE]
they are the same thing but with opposite charges.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
