Talk-Polywell.org

To change a bit the usual General Forum subjects, which are always about US politics...

How far away do you think we are from being able to produce enough anti-matter to be able to use it as spaceship fuel?

somethings to consider:

- anti-matter high price and extremelly low production are probably more a result that it´s produced as a byproduct of scientific experiments at particle accelerators. There is no real production facility with the sole aim of producing anti-matter.

- it were anti-hidrogens, not the easily produced positrons, but CERN was able to hold 300 anti-hydrogen atoms for more than 1000 seconds, and possibly could have held them for MUCH longer. They held them for exactly 1000 seconds because the experiment´s aim was to be able to hold anti-matter enough time for it to be studied. 1000 seconds was enough. AND they could only know if they had held anti-matter, by turning off the magnetic field, so when it collided with the container walls, they could count the particles trapped. So they waited 1000 seconds, turned off the magnetic field, and that was it.

- it seems some novel methods consisting of fireing lasers at gold plates produce big amounts of anti-matter per shot... unfortunatelly, I did not find info about how much time the laser shot consisted... if it was short enough, and could be repeated fast enough, maybe we could produce vast amounts (like a milligram lol) of anti-matter per day. Now... those were POSITRONS that were generated. I am not sure how difficult they are to entrap compared to anti-hydrogen, nor how useful they would be to propulsion methods.

Unless we see lots of more development with the idea, anti-matter is not likely to ever be a useful source of power for a starship.

People tend to talk about the energy density of a fuel and separate this from the requirements of an entire system. Fusion is more efficient than fission, and pollutes less, but for propulsion is not likely to every be as energy dense as fission. Fusion rockets are probably worse than fission rockets, and fission rockets are no good for launching compared to chemicals.

What we need to do is get away from the rocket mentality entirely because it cannot ever yield something that is "safe, quick, convenient an economical."

While it would be interesting to look at the theoretical energy density of the stuff locked in and including a Penning Trap, I think once you look at the hardware needed to make use of that stuff you're not looking at something that could take us to the stars. If people were willing to spend billions on going interstellar, fission and chemical could have given us a launch decades ago.

GIThruster wrote:What we need to do is get away from the rocket mentality entirely because it cannot ever yield something that is "safe, quick, convenient an economical."

ok, but I suppose what you are talking about here is Mach Effect Thrusters, right?

yes, obviously, they would be ideal.

But let´s suppose Woodward is not able to scale it up above a few micronewtons, or that we find some problem and it´s really just noise. (I don´t think it is and I hope it´s not, but suppose it is)

What would be your "safe, quick, convenient and economical" solution? Space Elevators? SSTO Planes like Skylon?

Even so, those are made to get to orbit, not to travel between planets.

So, to travel among planets, without propellantless thrusters, what would be your solution?

GIThruster wrote:Unless we see lots of more development with the idea, anti-matter is not likely to ever be a useful source of power for a starship.

People tend to talk about the energy density of a fuel and separate this from the requirements of an entire system. Fusion is more efficient than fission, and pollutes less, but for propulsion is not likely to every be as energy dense as fission. Fusion rockets are probably worse than fission rockets, and fission rockets are no good for launching compared to chemicals.

ok GiThruster, but you are not explaining why anti-matter would not be a useful source of power for a starship. There are calculations out there of only 10mg for a Mars Mission ( http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/new ... eship.html ) and ICAN-II design would need only a few nanograms of anti-matter (but quite some fissionable material)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICAN-II
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIMStar

Maybe you can elaborate on the requirements of the entire anti-matter system. You can trap anti-matter with a good enough magnetic trap just like you can do with normal matter.

Ok, the system to CREATE anti-matter is massive. But we are assuming anti-matter would be created ON EARTH, and loaded as fuel on ships.

While it would be interesting to look at the theoretical energy density of the stuff locked in and including a Penning Trap, I think once you look at the hardware needed to make use of that stuff

what hardware to make use of that stuff? I suppose we only need SERIOUS hardware to create that stuff on Earth?

AcesHigh wrote:

GIThruster wrote:Unless we see lots of more development with the idea, anti-matter is not likely to ever be a useful source of power for a starship.

People tend to talk about the energy density of a fuel and separate this from the requirements of an entire system. Fusion is more efficient than fission, and pollutes less, but for propulsion is not likely to every be as energy dense as fission. Fusion rockets are probably worse than fission rockets, and fission rockets are no good for launching compared to chemicals.

ok GiThruster, but you are not explaining why anti-matter would not be a useful source of power for a starship. There are calculations out there of only 10mg for a Mars Mission ( http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/new ... eship.html ) and ICAN-II design would need only a few nanograms of anti-matter (but quite some fissionable material)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICAN-II
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIMStar

Maybe you can elaborate on the requirements of the entire anti-matter system. You can trap anti-matter with a good enough magnetic trap just like you can do with normal matter.

Ok, the system to CREATE anti-matter is massive. But we are assuming anti-matter would be created ON EARTH, and loaded as fuel on ships.

While it would be interesting to look at the theoretical energy density of the stuff locked in and including a Penning Trap, I think once you look at the hardware needed to make use of that stuff

what hardware to make use of that stuff? I suppose we only need SERIOUS hardware to create that stuff on Earth?

In the examples you link to the antimatter is being used to initiate a fission or fusion burn; (they say "catalyst" but that is inappropriate terminology, since the antimatter is definitely consumed). The ICAN II is a variation on a nuclear pulse rocket, using a series of explosive charges; as such the fusion is more energy dense than fission, unlike say a reactor driven rocket which may or may not be. The antimatter is used to ignite sub critical masses of fissionable Uranium, and then in some applications the Uranium is used to ignite a larger fusion charge. With sufficient antimatter available you can directly ignite the fusion fuel without any fission intermediary. Think what GIT is saying is that even if the antimatter were free, (it isn't) when you factor into the mass of storage facility, (how many tons of penning trap does it take to store grams of antimatter?); on a rocket vs insanely cheaper Boron 11, which could be stored in 55 gallon drums. The effective energy density is probably far lower; antimatter is after all only a few hundred times more of Energy per unit reactant is released vs fusion.

Think what GIT is saying is that even if the antimatter were free, (it isn't) when you factor into the mass of storage facility, (how many tons of penning trap does it take to store grams of antimatter?)

well, obviously it isn´t free. That´s why you must create it on Earth. Creating it INSIDE the spaceship would certainly waste MUCH, MUCH more energy than it would create.

the whole thing about anti-matter is exactly that you would be able to store it in a much smaller space AND use it without the need for complex reactors.

Therefore, I don´t know why you think you would need TONS of penning trap to store grams of antimatter. Well, I don´t know much about penning traps, so I hope you don´t mind telling me a few stats about penning traps used to store normal matter.

I hope someone here knows how many grams of a gas can be stored in a small penning trap?

http://www.engr.psu.edu/antimatter/introduction2.html

The AIM engine requires just 5x10^8 antiprotons per reaction; this amount can be readily obtained from Fermilab and CERN. Experimentation with such an engine can take place after methods of storing and transporting antimatter have been realized. One of the Antimatter group's chief projects in the past decade has been the design, fabrication, and testing of a portable antiproton trap (Penning trap) named "Mark I", which can store 10^10 antiprotons for one week.

so, the penning traps are actually PORTABLE and the size of a penning trap required to store a few grams of anti-matter hardly would be too big, and would probably be lightweight, most vacuum on the inside.

AcesHigh wrote:

Think what GIT is saying is that even if the antimatter were free, (it isn't) when you factor into the mass of storage facility, (how many tons of penning trap does it take to store grams of antimatter?)

well, obviously it isn´t free. That´s why you must create it on Earth. Creating it INSIDE the spaceship would certainly waste MUCH, MUCH more energy than it would create.

the whole thing about anti-matter is exactly that you would be able to store it in a much smaller space AND use it without the need for complex reactors.

Therefore, I don´t know why you think you would need TONS of penning trap to store grams of antimatter. Well, I don´t know much about penning traps, so I hope you don´t mind telling me a few stats about penning traps used to store normal matter.

I hope someone here knows how many grams of a gas can be stored in a small penning trap?

http://www.engr.psu.edu/antimatter/introduction2.html

The AIM engine requires just 5x10^8 antiprotons per reaction; this amount can be readily obtained from Fermilab and CERN. Experimentation with such an engine can take place after methods of storing and transporting antimatter have been realized. One of the Antimatter group's chief projects in the past decade has been the design, fabrication, and testing of a portable antiproton trap (Penning trap) named "Mark I", which can store 10^10 antiprotons for one week.

so, the penning traps are actually PORTABLE and the size of a penning trap required to store a few grams of anti-matter hardly would be too big, and would probably be lightweight, most vacuum on the inside.

Uhh...a mole of let's say hydrogen H2 per Avogadro no. is 6.02 X10^23 molecules, twice the no. of atoms (protons); approx. 2 grams. 10^10 antiprotons is 13 orders of magnitude less than that.

AcesHigh wrote:So, to travel among planets, without propellantless thrusters, what would be your solution?

There are no propellant based solutions. If we can't find a propellantless solution, there will under no conditions ever be a golden age of human spaceflight, where the average man or woman can afford to fly in space.

The skies are full of evidence that propellantless solutions exist and anyone who looks at the evidence with an open mind is convinced of this. If you don't look at the evidence, then you are stuck looking at rockets.

And I will remind that I myself, even a philosopher with a science background and space interest from a very early age, NEVER looked at the eveidence until a friend who happens to be a senior officer at CIA challenged me to do so. he was right. the evidence is completely convincing. All you have to do is look.

Obviously, propellantless propulsion is possible because it exists.

GIThruster wrote:

AcesHigh wrote:So, to travel among planets, without propellantless thrusters, what would be your solution?

There are no propellant based solutions. If we can't find a propellantless solution, there will under no conditions ever be a golden age of human spaceflight, where the average man or woman can afford to fly in space.

The skies are full of evidence that propellantless solutions exist and anyone who looks at the evidence with an open mind is convinced of this. If you don't look at the evidence, then you are stuck looking at rockets.

And I will remind that I myself, even a philosopher with a science background and space interest from a very early age, NEVER looked at the eveidence until a friend who happens to be a senior officer at CIA challenged me to do so. he was right. the evidence is completely convincing. All you have to do is look.

Obviously, propellantless propulsion is possible because it exists.

ok, if you want to look that path of thinking and refuse anything in contrary, let´s play the game. The extraterrestrials refuse to let humans use propellantless tech. They say "you must use common tech for 1 million years before you are allowed by the 5 Galaxies Civ to draw from the Inertial Source".

So we are stuck with "common" tech. Would you prefer humans to wither away and go extinct or to use our ingenuity to somehow use the available techs the best way it´s possible?

williatw wrote:

AcesHigh wrote:

Think what GIT is saying is that even if the antimatter were free, (it isn't) when you factor into the mass of storage facility, (how many tons of penning trap does it take to store grams of antimatter?)

well, obviously it isn´t free. That´s why you must create it on Earth. Creating it INSIDE the spaceship would certainly waste MUCH, MUCH more energy than it would create.

the whole thing about anti-matter is exactly that you would be able to store it in a much smaller space AND use it without the need for complex reactors.

Therefore, I don´t know why you think you would need TONS of penning trap to store grams of antimatter. Well, I don´t know much about penning traps, so I hope you don´t mind telling me a few stats about penning traps used to store normal matter.

I hope someone here knows how many grams of a gas can be stored in a small penning trap?

http://www.engr.psu.edu/antimatter/introduction2.html

The AIM engine requires just 5x10^8 antiprotons per reaction; this amount can be readily obtained from Fermilab and CERN. Experimentation with such an engine can take place after methods of storing and transporting antimatter have been realized. One of the Antimatter group's chief projects in the past decade has been the design, fabrication, and testing of a portable antiproton trap (Penning trap) named "Mark I", which can store 10^10 antiprotons for one week.

so, the penning traps are actually PORTABLE and the size of a penning trap required to store a few grams of anti-matter hardly would be too big, and would probably be lightweight, most vacuum on the inside.

Uhh...a mole of let's say hydrogen H2 per Avogadro no. is 6.02 X10^23 molecules, twice the no. of atoms (protons); approx. 2 grams. 10^10 antiprotons is 14 orders of magnitude less than that.

you are sidestepping my real question: how much mass of normal matter (in a not much energetic state) can a penning trap hold and how large must it be?

AcesHigh wrote:you are sidestepping my real question: how much mass of normal matter (in a not much energetic state) can a penning trap hold and how large must it be?

I will leave that question as an exercise for the student....but if our best effort so far is 10^10 protons, we are a long way from using it "neat" as a method of propulsion, it works far better as an initiator (i.e. blasting cap) for a fission or fusion charge. My understanding though is that since the "trap" has to supply the repulsive field stronger than the charged protons exert, the power requirements for storage would increase astronomically with the number of protons trapped. You would probably be better off developing a different storage technology all together. I assume that you mean neutral antimatter not matter; a penning trap I don't believe would work on say anti-hydrogen atoms/molecule.

GIThruster wrote:

AcesHigh wrote:And I will remind that I myself, even a philosopher with a science background and space interest from a very early age, NEVER looked at the eveidence until a friend who happens to be a senior officer at CIA challenged me to do so. he was right. the evidence is completely convincing. All you have to do is look.

Obviously, propellantless propulsion is possible because it exists.

And what did you CIA friend tell you about UFO's? He hint he knows they are for real or what? If so how is the reverse engineering of crashed/shot down (Roswell allegedly others incidents) UFO's going? Don't see why Paul March (or Sonny White) have to struggle from scratch if we have had examples of the developed tech to work with from ET's for decades.

The truely trivial amount of mass represented by 100 anti protons, or even anti hydrogen has been pointed out.

There are two problems with antimatter- producing it and storing it. To produce the antimatter requires much more energy than it releases upon annihilation with normal matter. This is because of inneficiencies that occurs in the accelerators. And to produce antimatter in molar quantities (grams) would require billions upon billions fold increases in current Accelerator capacity. Multiply the cost of the Large Hadron Collider by a bllion or more gives some scope of the problem. Antimater as a trigger for fusion and/ or fusion may be less imtimidating but I suspect World accelerator capacity would still need to be increased many million fold.

Storing antimater with magnetic fields such as in a Penning trap is straight forward. What you do not appreciate is that a few hundred antimater charged particles in a Penning trap volume of perhaps a few cc represents a density of ~ 10^-10 particles per cubic meter. [EDIT- what the heck am I talking abounut, this number is nonsense, it was late at night (that is my excuse. A appropiate number for extrapolating 100 particles / ~ cc to per meter cubed would be ~ 100 million or 10^8 anti particles . That would represent a gas pressure equivalent to ~ 10^-15 atmospheres. That is what I was trying to say but I still got it wrong]. That is a very good vacuum and is considered a non collisional plasma. This means that the inter particle collisions are so rare (the MFP is so great) that the Coulomb collisions do not cause much ExB drift of the particles through the magnetic fields. ExB drift is an absolutely unavoidable consequence of magnetic confinement. At densities similar to fusion reactors there are ~ 10^19 to 10^22 particles per cubic meter. That is still less than a thousandth of an atmosphere or perhaps ~ 0.05 grams per cubic meter. The magnetic fields nessisary and the volume nessisary to store any significant amount of plasma (antimater or otherwise) for for a few hundred seconds (like in ITER) is tremendous. The Polywell cheats on this somewhat, but even with the advantage of electron magnetic confinement, with subsequent electrostatic ion confinement, at useful densities, the ion confinement is well below one second. At equivalent densities to a Tokamak the Polywell ion confinement is perhaps ~ 1 to 10 seconds (provided ion collisional upscattering does not contribute, which at greater times like seconds it most certainly would).
Consider an ITER like Tokamak. It might contain 10^20 particles per cubic meter for 1000 seconds. With a guestimated volume of perhaps 10,000 cubic meters the amount of anti protons might be ~ 0.0002 moles / m^3 *10,000 M^3 or ~ 5 moles. That is about 5 grams of anti protons. To be useful you would need to increase this amount by thousands or more, and you would need to increase confinement times by thousands or more. These mumbers fight against each other. A Tokamak the size of the Moon with very, very strong magnetic fields might serve. Not very useful for a space ship.

While a warp field or inertialess thrust rocket would be nice, but I do not think it is necessary for most applications except for interstellar travel. Even then, something like the Bussard ram scoop might be useful.
For intra solar system travel something along the lines Of a Polywell may suffice. Bussard extrapolated that interplanetary thrust could be near 1 million ISP. That would get you around the solar system (at least out to Jupiter) very well and quickly. Here the question is not ISP so much as it is how many pounds of thrust you can get. High efficiency is not worth much if it takes you 10 years to build up to cruising speed.
Even a Vasmir rocket at a specific impulse (ISP) of 10,000 would be extremely useful, provided you can power it with a high density power source like a Polywell, DPF, or FRC reactor.

Then there is the Solar plasma sail which I find interesting. It is like a Solar sail except it can be built to avoid the fall off in thrust available as you get further away from the Sun. Again you would need a good power source to power the magnetic fields.

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

Dan Tibbets

AcesHigh wrote:you are sidestepping my real question: how much mass of normal matter (in a not much energetic state) can a penning trap hold and how large must it be?

You want to look at the Penning Trap data from Penn State and the Antimatter Working Group there surrounding ICAN-II.

The less technical but more obvious trouble with antimatter is that for moving spacecraft, you are inevitably talking about huge amounts of energy, and storing that inside anything where it can get out, in fact WANTS to get out; is never going to be safe in any way. Imagine all the energy needed to fly a large ship to Mars, all released in the twinkling of an eye by a micrometeoroid. Space travel is dangerous enough that we don't need to go hauling the universe's most dangerous cargo about simply to go from point a to point b.

williatw wrote:And what did you CIA friend tell you about UFO's? He hint he knows they are for real or what?

No. Kit Green like his buddy Hal Puthoff both believe they're real but according to Kit if we have one, we've never been able to reverse engineer it. That would not be surprising to me if we did not understand the underlying physics behind it. There is also a story told me once but not by Kit, that Hal has actually seen a captured saucer. I've no idea if that's true, but I know for fact both Hal and Kit are senior officers and completely convinced. I should note too, Kit never did more than tell me to research it.

People who dismiss this stuff without ever having looked at the voluminous evidence really have no idea what they're talking about. It's completely convincing. Just the affidavits alone, from all the folks who have had their contact with Roswell declassified by Clinton, are enough to convince any sane person.

really, it surprises me that americans are better able to hide their airplanes, which are also less prone to crash, than these alien flying saucers who travelled several light years just to crash on Earth, or be hit by puny chemical propellant missiles...