anti matter weapons

[Warp Spider]

and what proof do you have that they are interchangable?

 

you can PROVE it? and what degree do you have? astro physics? quantum mechanics? nuclear physics? what experience do you have with this subject?

What proof do you have that human beings are sentient? I'd call on you to DISprove that they are interchangeable.

and exact spec of the tokamak? a tokamak is just a chamber in which a toroidal magnetic field is set up (and this thing isn't small so i have no idea how you would make a small one to hold a pellet of anti-matter).

 

the spec does not matter as, according to you, any old magnetic field would be able to hold anti-matter.

The tokamaks currently in existence are not very small, but that doesn't mean a small one couldn't be built. A calculator could be built the size of a pin head, but noone's built one because there is no application for it. Seeing as no military (as far as I know) is currently considering using anti-matter for weapons, they have no reason to build small tokamaks. That doesn't mean it could not be done.

so now you only suspect it could? you seem to be changing your origninal statement...

I suspect there is nitrogen in the air I'm breathing. I haven't checked within the last five minutes, but I still think it's a pretty accurate suspicion.

if it were that simple, the star trek people wouldn't have to make up a material to contain their anti-matter.

Please don't tell me that your knowledge about anti-matter comes from Star Trek.

(for the record, the star trek warp speed thing doesn't work... and don't get me started on "beaming"!!!)

Teleportation has also been scientifically demonstrated before. I assure you it is quite possible.

just how will you produce your anti-matter?

 

you say that it is the potential that matters in making weapons. well, i have already told you taht it takes millions of times more energy to create a single particle/anti-particle pair. while this pair does produce more energy in annihilation that what we would normally get from them it is still millions more times less than what we put in to begin with? please tell me what sense is there for this?

Every bomb uses more energy to make than it releases. The advantage is that this energy can be expended in a safe environement and then unleashed in a less-safe location.

 

Tell me, what use is there for batteries? After all, they use a lot more energy to charge up than they can supply. Why are they useful?

[sano]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!! Hey from the ground 1990's called and Bill nye the science guy wants his material back.

[Drunken Monkey]

and once again you can only provde me with loose answers. you are making comparsions with things that cannot be compared.

 

as for the tokamak.

 

there is a limit on how small it can be. this is because part of the tokamak is a chamber that, near as much, has no intereference from any external fields because that would affect the field inside. tell me how you would make a small isolated chamber and i will tell you how it wouldn't work.

 

then there is the fact that you need x amount of coils (which takes up quite a lot of physical space) as well many other parts that aid in the control of the field. not to mention the actual power supply. unless by "tank" you meant something the size of a few houses.

 

however, going back to your original post, you seem to suggest that you could build a tokamak small enough to hold a pellet of anti-matter. this would mean that the field would have to be stronger than the effects of gravity (seeing as now we are talking about a solid piece of anti-matter and not a single particle). this seems to suggest that the tokamak would then be part of the projectile...

 

and no, you DO NOT suspect there is nitrogen in the air that you breathe. you know it to be true. it's one of them things that we learn in school. ONCE AGAIN, another stupid comparison/statement.

 

and no, my knowledge of anti-matter doesn't come from star trek, it comes form my physics tutor.

 

as for teleportation, they have kinda done it with a single particle. it is, however, a totally different matter when it comes to teleporting people which is what term "beaming" implies.

 

and the energy thing.

 

you are comparing making a SINGLE PARTICLE of anti matter to a battery? again, this is not a valid comparison.

 

what don't you get here? it takes MILLIONS of times of energy to make than is gotten through its annihilation. batteries are useful in that they are safe and portable.

 

the point of looking towards annihilation is that it produces more energy from a single particle pair than we can currently get. however, if we are spending a lot more energy to make the particles than we would get, there is no point in making the anti-matter in the first place.

 

a normal battery converts chemical energy to electrical battery. it is small, safe and portable. yes, rechargable batteries are not very efficient but then you are paying for the electricity that goes into them. the amount of power needed to make a single particle of antimatter is nothing like what you are paying to charge your batteries. we are talking about a comparison of a few dollars to a few million dollars. hopefully you can see how stupid your comparison/statement is.

[wrestlingkaratechamp]

Sano you have me in tear laughing!

[sano]

lol, i'm like the peanut butter that sticks to the roof of your mouth, i'm like the gum you just step in i'm Sano and i can not be ignored.

[Warp Spider]

and once again you can only provde me with loose answers. you are making comparsions with things that cannot be compared.

My comparison was to show you how senseless your argument is. What makes you think anti-matter is any different from regular matter? Instead of asking me to prove that it's the same, how about you prove that it's different?

as for the tokamak.

 

there is a limit on how small it can be. this is because part of the tokamak is a chamber that, near as much, has no intereference from any external fields because that would affect the field inside. tell me how you would make a small isolated chamber and i will tell you how it wouldn't work.

It doesn't have to be particularly isolated. If you have so much difficulty understanding the concept of miniaturization and scale, perhaps you could substitute the tokamak for a permanent magnet. That would work well enough to serve as a projectile.

this would mean that the field would have to be stronger than the effects of gravity (seeing as now we are talking about a solid piece of anti-matter and not a single particle). this seems to suggest that the tokamak would then be part of the projectile...

I sincerely hope you did not just catch on to that now. I felt that this was fairly self-explanatory when I said it near the very beginning of this discussion:

 

"To discharge the weapon you could fire a small, RTG powered Tokamak containing a pellet of anti-matter."

and no, you DO NOT suspect there is nitrogen in the air that you breathe. you know it to be true. it's one of them things that we learn in school. ONCE AGAIN, another stupid comparison/statement.

Really? So you can read my mind then and know what I suspect to be true and what I accept completely as being true?

and no, my knowledge of anti-matter doesn't come from star trek, it comes form my physics tutor.

Well, that would of course be far superior to the experience of someone who develops experimental weapons. Tell me, when was the last time YOU built a guided missile? For that matter, when was the last time you built even a lowly remote-controlled detonator?

as for teleportation, they have kinda done it with a single particle. it is, however, a totally different matter when it comes to teleporting people which is what term "beaming" implies.

It was much more than just a single particle. Teleporting a person may be questionable due to the philosophical question of transporting the conciousness, but teleporting matter is no great feat.

and the energy thing.

 

you are comparing making a SINGLE PARTICLE of anti matter to a battery? again, this is not a valid comparison.

 

what don't you get here? it takes MILLIONS of times of energy to make than is gotten through its annihilation. batteries are useful in that they are safe and portable.

 

the point of looking towards annihilation is that it produces more energy from a single particle pair than we can currently get. however, if we are spending a lot more energy to make the particles than we would get, there is no point in making the anti-matter in the first place.

 

a normal battery converts chemical energy to electrical battery. it is small, safe and portable. yes, rechargable batteries are not very efficient but then you are paying for the electricity that goes into them. the amount of power needed to make a single particle of antimatter is nothing like what you are paying to charge your batteries. we are talking about a comparison of a few dollars to a few million dollars. hopefully you can see how stupid your comparison/statement is.

You still don't seem to get it. Why throw a grenade when you could just run up and chuck the fragments manually? After all, that would use far less energy than building an explosive, right? The reason is because you can build a bomb/bullet/whatever over a period of time and unleash it in an instant. Why use a fighter jet? After all, that uses way more energy. It would be far better to just carry the bomb to the target manually. What's the point of cruise missiles? It would be much cheaper and more efficient to just mail the warhead to the target. Manufacture-time efficiency is nearly irrelevant when it comes to military technology.

 

If you think those are absurd examples, then tell me: how much does it cost to build a hydrogen fusion bomb, or even a plutonium fission bomb? Why do they build those if their cost vs. yield is so poor?[/i]

[Drunken Monkey]

ten million dollars for making one antimatter particle... that is for one particle. how much would it cost to manufacture and store enough to make a weapon?

 

and you DO need it to be isolated because other wise things like gravity fluctuations and external magnetic/electric fields would mess up your tokamak fields.

 

and as for the teleporting matter.

 

to teleport anything you need to know two things, it's everyday state and it's quantum state.

 

the normal state is easy but you cannot measure it's quantum state without altering it. therefore you cannot record accurate enough data to teleport anything.

 

so far they have only been able to "teleport" a single proton but only by using spooky connections and epr pairs.

 

and you develop experimental weapons? in your back yard? what has making toys in your garden got to do with quantum+nuclear physics?

 

anyway, i have said all i can say about anti-matter.

 

this tires me because it is now clear i am trying to reason with someone who has no real knowldege of this subject.

[sano]

you actually belives this guy where's his degree.

[Warp Spider]

ten million dollars for making one antimatter particle... that is for one particle. how much would it cost to manufacture and store enough to make a weapon?

Possibly a great deal.. like it matters?

and you DO need it to be isolated because other wise things like gravity fluctuations and external magnetic/electric fields would mess up your tokamak fields.

Make the field bigger than you need it to be, leaving room for error. That would be the simple solution.

so far they have only been able to "teleport" a single proton but only by using spooky connections and epr pairs.

Not true, the demonstration I was reffering to involved the teleportation of a great deal of photons.

and you develop experimental weapons? in your back yard? what has making toys in your garden got to do with quantum+nuclear physics?

Quantum physics and nuclear physics aren't particularly related to anti-matter, and I'd hardly call a device that can electrocute nearly any living creature in a split second at range a "toy." Likewise, I don't think that guided missiles are toys, nor are cannons that launch galvanized steel slugs at near relativistic velocities.

[Drunken Monkey]

and how do you make a big field?

 

the size of the field depends on the amount of coils and the amount of power you pump in.

 

both equate to having a big physical object.

 

which in turn means you cannot have a small tokamak type projectile.

 

and what is your example of teleportation?

 

let me know the details and i'll let you know mine.

 

yes, i'm sure you make them things at home...

 

it isn't hard to rig up a capacitor and a reed switch to make a super charged cattle-prod. i've fused a screwdriver to my television once doing something i shouldn't...

 

as for a cannon. well, a cannon is nothing more than a tube. you talk about near relativistic velocities... right. that's b u l l s h i t and everyone knows it. how do you know they go that fast? and where do you test this thing? how do you power it?

 

and guided missles? do you realise how ridiculous you are beginning to sound?

 

so, what job do you have that allows you to do all these amazing things?