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