Re: Exotic Propulsion ?
From: william mook (william.mook_at_mokindustries.com)
Date: 08/23/04
- Next message: Russell Wallace: "O'Neill habitat spin axis"
- Previous message: Allen Meece: "Re: Brute force re-entry"
- In reply to: David Given: "Re: Exotic Propulsion ?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
To: sci-space-tech@moderators.isc.org Date: 23 Aug 2004 05:27:25 -0700
David Given <dg@cowlark.com> wrote in message news:<wa2Vc.123$ll5.54@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net>...
> william mook wrote:
> [...]
> > Consider that by bombarding Oxygen 18 - which is stable and has an
> > abundance of 1/5th percent - with a neutron makes it into Oxygen 19.
> > This is unstable and in a few seconds decays into Flourine and an
> > ANTI-NEUTRON.
>
> Unfortunately, this seems not to be the case --- when oxygen-19 decays into
> flourine-19, it emits an electron and an anti-*neutrino*. Which, alas, is a
> quite different thing to an anti-neutron.
>
> http://education.jlab.org/itselemental/iso008.html
>
> [...]
> > Also, if this works we might have a very controllable and safe source
> > of energy. Implemented as a micro rocket array (neutron source,
> > neutron/anti-neutron conversion process, energetic particle stream -
> > all built tiny and occurring as a huge array across a propulsive skin)
> > it would be sci-fi style space vehicles would be possible!
>
> It would be nice if it worked. The net effect would be that you feed
> oxygen-19 into a reaction chamber, bombard it with neutrons, and you get
> really hot flourine-19 that can be used as your exhaust. Stable and
> efficient... it's a pity that the universe doesn't seem to like that sort
> of thing. AFAIK the only way of producing antiparticles is to pump stonking
> great quantities of energy into a particle accelerator and hope that when
> your particles collide, antiparticles are created.
Yep. I eloquently responded to this two weeks ago.
[/RANT] Why the hell hasn't it been posted yet. Yet, this stuff
hangs out here. Meanwhile, my responses get buried in a load of crap
almost as fast as I post them. What's up with that? Its as if
someone were waiting to figure out a negative response to what I'm
saying before they let it post - if it gets posted at all! :( [/RANT]
Okay, now that I've got that off my chest, let me attempt to repeat
what I've said earlier - though, likely not with the same eloquence!
:)
There was an .edu site that had a typo, they wrote anti-neutron
instead of anti-neutrino - and that led to my confusion.
http://www.hbcumi.cau.edu/tqp/451/451%20Module%20I/451-02/451-02.html
Notwithstanding this confusion the question still remains, is there a
reaction train in the massive transformation matrix given here;
http://ie.lbl.gov/isoexpl/isoexpl.htm
that allows the production of an anti-neutron?
If so, we have a way to produce a lot of anti-matter very cheaply.
And since fusion and fission operate by mass differences smaller than
1 amu and any reaction that produces 1 anti-neutron would cause a 2
amu conversion of matter to energy - we obviously have a massive new
energy source - if such a transformation can take place.
If its neutron mediated -that is by adding a neutron to an ultra-heavy
nucleus - then it should look a lot like fission engineering wise,
except being more powerful than fusion and having nicer reaction
products (perhaps).
A bomb might be possible, some sort of neutron pulse from a fission
device that floods the hypothetical anti-matter producing material to
dramatically increase device yeild, reduce device mass, or both.
If such a process existed would anyone classify it?
- Next message: Russell Wallace: "O'Neill habitat spin axis"
- Previous message: Allen Meece: "Re: Brute force re-entry"
- In reply to: David Given: "Re: Exotic Propulsion ?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
