Well, I was searching to see if this was already made, but the searches didn't show a thread with my idea so here it is. I am making this thread so we can have a typical tavern discussion thread for all things science! Basically, a thread for everything science! Ranging from discussions about laws and theories, scientific debate, breakthroughs, discussion about new scientific breakthroughs, certain scientists/philosophers, and all that good stuff! So go out there and let out your inner science! ;P To get us going somewhere I'll start: what do you think the future holds for technology? I think our knowledge will allow us to overcome the obstacles thrown at us in the future, I mean, we have discovered so much and have come so far!
Okay yeah I've been over the use of matter/antimatter reactions as a power source.
Though if we could produce and contain enough antimatter it would be a very effective method of producing power, with a near 100% efficiency. Nuclear power yields only about 40% efficiency. For example one gram of matter/antimatter would produce the equivalent of about 89 terajoules or 25 million kilowatt-hours of energy.
The only problem with antimatter reactors is that if you are off by a small amount mass wise, you could greatly overproduce the reaction. With a bit of extra redundancy, this can be easily safeguarded against a minor catastrophe. Basically, if we use a bit of common sense, it will be fine.
me and my friend keep arguing about how the chernobyl meltdown started. He says a computer virus. I say it was a power surge. Somebody please tell him he's wrong!
The only problem with antimatter reactors is that if you are off by a small amount mass wise, you could greatly overproduce the reaction. With a bit of extra redundancy, this can be easily safeguarded against a minor catastrophe. Basically, if we use a bit of common sense, it will be fine.
The problem with it is we can't generate enough antimatter and keep it long enough to be of any use. I'm hoping those break throughs mentions deal with that.
me and my friend keep arguing about how the chernobyl meltdown started. He says a computer virus. I say it was a power surge. Somebody please tell him he's wrong!
And wiki says...power surge.
"The disaster began during a systems test on Saturday, 26 April 1986 at reactor number four of the Chernobyl plant, which is near the city of Prypiat and within a close proximity to the administrative border with Belarus and Dnieper river. There was a sudden power output surge, and when an emergency shutdown was attempted, a more extreme spike in power output occurred, which led to a reactor vessel rupture and a series of explosions." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster
No I haven't heard of them making progress in this. Do you have any links?
Scientists at CERN have been able to contain antimatter for fifteen minutes - long enough to allow us to study its nature. Here's a source link: Antimatter contained for 1000 seconds
I can't help noticing just how close an antimatter reactor would resemble what we see in Star Trek's warp core. We have matter and antimatter, which could even be deuterium/anti-deuterium like in Star Trek. It would us magnetic fields to contain the antimatter like in Star Trek's magnetic constrictors. There would be a central chamber where the where the matter/antimatter reaction would take place and the energy would be collected, like what we see in ST. While it's unlikely we would store anti-matter for any significant length of time, we would ore likely generate the antimatter on the spot and send it of to be used. In ST ships had back-up antimatter generators. The only difference here is the generators take on a central roll rather then just being a back up system.
Here's an idea for at least a floating building. We could use superconductors and magnets. We are currently exploring the idea for us in connecting space station modules together without them touching so we can easily change the stations shape.
This could be of use in places like earthquake zones. What we do is place a series of magnets which sits flat on the ground. Then place a barrier around the base to block the magnetic field from extending out further then we want it. The underside of the building is lined with superconductors. The building is temporarily help up by normal supports over the magnets and the superconductors are super cooled. We then remove the temporary supports and we have a floating building.
By reducing the magnitude of the magnetic field. That's just of the many ways. The deciding factor, however, is the feasibility.
Then place a barrier around the base to block the magnetic field from extending out further then we want it.
There's one problem though - What kind of barrier? In order to levitate the building magnetic field could result in electromagnetic induction. That must be avoided.
There's one problem though - What kind of barrier? In order to levitate the building magnetic field could result in electromagnetic induction. That must be avoided.
Anything that will block or redirect the field away so people and electronics around the outside of the building are not effected by the strong magnetic fields required to hold up the building.
