Subject: | Re: - From Hamburg to Munich and Back -
| Date: | Tue, 22 Jul 2003 22:42:19 GMT
| From: | =^.^= <=^.^=@duh.buh>
| Newsgroups: | seattle.general,alt.philosophy,sci.physics
|
On 22 Jul 2003 10:09:51 GMT, Jeff Relf <____Jeff-Relf@NCPlus.NET>
wrote:
>Hi =^.^= , you say that antihydrogen is un-stable .
not out-n-out in yer face. the implication may be there
>You're quite right . But I had many of my facts wrong .
>Antihydrogen can be " Stored " ,
> but it's Extremely Extremely wasteful to produce
> and store it .
>" All known coal , oil , gas resources
> would result in a number of antiprotons which
> would be equivalent to the energy needed to
> drive 10 small cars
> from Hamburg to Munich and back . "
better to use fusion heat to crack water, then store
the hydrogen as a hydride...or develop a polymer
of suficient tensile strength that liquid hydrogen
can be stored at domestic temperatures, like petrol
>No antihydrogen At Rest exists yet .
you could likely supercool a few atoms of it
but, why?
>Also , it's currently impossible to utilize
> the energy from the desired annihilation .
a materials technology thang. fixable, given time, & motive
>Antihydrogen - a new energy source ? The answer is: NO !
>StarTreks warp engine may be a clever idea ,
> but in real life it wouldn't work .
if you are going to warp space, why use a ship?
>Anyhow, the overall efficiency would be
> smaller than 0.000 000 000 1 % !!!
get bottle rockets
>So, it's better to use the available energy ' directly ' ,
> even an old steam engine has an efficiency of 10 % .
yeah. kinda-like the Trident steam U-boat
|