Dynaverse.net
Off Topic => Ten Forward => Topic started by: Death_Merchant on October 04, 2004, 02:05:42 pm
-
No way? Way!
"The U.S. Air Force is quietly spending millions of dollars investigating ways to use a radical power source -- antimatter, the eerie 'mirror' of ordinary matter -- in future weapons," the San Francisco Chronicle reports.http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/10/04/MNGM393GPK1.DTL
Unlike regular nuclear bombs, positron bombs wouldn't eject plumes of radioactive debris. When large numbers of positrons and antielectrons collide, the primary product is an invisible but extremely dangerous burst of gamma radiation. Thus, in principle, a positron bomb could be a step toward one of the military's dreams from the early Cold War: a so-called "clean" superbomb that could kill large numbers of soldiers without ejecting radioactive contaminants over the countryside.
Don't wet your pants yet kiddies.....
Even assuming the weapon could be made, it would cost $6B to extract 100-billionths of a gram of antimatter using current techniques.
To put that in perspective, 50-millionths of a gram in a working positron bomb would equal what Timothy McVey did with fertilizer, ammonia, and a truck.
-
Hehe, I can just imagine USAF jets with photons ;D :lol:
Makes ya wander why the Enterprise NX-01 didn't have antimatter nukes to start off with ;)
-
yeah, they should find a better, cheaper way to extract antimatter. But more importantly, why can't they concetrate more on making it a power source, rather than a weapon.
-
Interesting question, I suppose humankind has usually harnessed new technology for defense uses before it becomes available to the civilian world.
-
They didn't make the Atom bomb for household appliances first, you know.
-
Didn't, or shouldn't have?
-
They didn't make the Atom bomb for household appliances first, you know.
Ahhhh, but the microwave oven was originally designed as a weapon:
Engineers at Litton conceived of the "microwave bomb" in early 1941.
A prototypical magnatron and waveguide were to be directed towards the large egg from a genetically engineered "Super chicken".
The resulting explosion was to send hyper-velocity scrambled egg over 1/4 mile.
Enemy forces would be decimated, and the remaining egg would allow our troops to carry less food into the combat zone.
As with most discoveries, chance intervened:
A Litton engineer by the name of Larry "The Stomach" Bingham misdirected the waveguide towards his ham and swiss sandwich..
and found it was tasty!
Later, Dr. Bingham was unable to focus on the weapon aspects, and instead developed and patented the "popcorn setting".
-
Thanks, I just spit chili all-over the minitor. ;D
-
yeah, they should find a better, cheaper way to extract antimatter. But more importantly, why can't they concetrate more on making it a power source, rather than a weapon.
because its esyer to make a weapon then it to make a powerplant in any case it would give the boys back home to work out the bugs from the new technology before realising it to the public if such a thing is possible at all
-
Didn't they try this with Neutron bombs way back in the cold war?
-
Well, to be precise, a neutron bomb wasn't exactly the planned end result. It is essentially a failed atomic bomb, releasing many neutrons from the fisson of many nuclei, but not enough for a sustained chain reaction. But some sharp dude realized that though it wouldn't yield the megatons to level structures, the neutron flux would kill many living things nearby the detonation.
An antimatter bomb (photon torpedo) is a totally different matter. Here, I think that if one could collect enough antimatter (which at this point is not [yet] a possibility), and somehow contain it with electric or magnetic forces so that it won't touch normal matter unti you wanted it to, it would not have the possibility of failing like an atomic device, for I don't believe there's any critical mass threshold to be achieved before being able have annihilation to release the energy.
-
*History Channel*
And on next weeks episode of 'Tactical to Practical'...
*/History Channel*
:o ;D :o
-
Well, to be precise, a neutron bomb wasn't exactly the planned end result. It is essentially a failed atomic bomb, releasing many neutrons from the fisson of many nuclei, but not enough for a sustained chain reaction. But some sharp dude realized that though it wouldn't yield the megatons to level structures, the neutron flux would kill many living things nearby the detonation.
An antimatter bomb (photon torpedo) is a totally different matter. Here, I think that if one could collect enough antimatter (which at this point is not [yet] a possibility), and somehow contain it with electric or magnetic forces so that it won't touch normal matter unti you wanted it to, it would not have the possibility of failing like an atomic device, for I don't believe there's any critical mass threshold to be achieved before being able have annihilation to release the energy.
So? Why spend billions of dollars building a device that does the same job as a dirt cheap neutron bomb would already do? From Merchant's blurb up on top, it *seems* they want to build a device to deliver a massive amount of lethal radiation. But we aready *have* a device to do that, this being the neutron bomb. Perhaps it would be more efficient(probably) or perhaps smaller(probably not), but both storage problems for a live antimatter device and the cost to produce antimatter make me leery compared to the realitively simple process of making an ordinary neutron bomb, if that can be called ordinary, anyway.
Granted, Europe wasn't terribly pleased at the idea when the US wanted to deploy them way back when, but that political climate is all but disintegrated in today's current situation, in addition to the fact that I don't see how using antimatter in place of atomics removes any of the problems for deploying such a device, except for the additional cost to store yet another esoteric weapon.
I do not see a clear advantage for an antimatter-based radiation device. It might have the reliablity you suggest, but the flipside of that is you can't disable an antimatter device the way you can with an atomic device. Storage would be more hazardous than pretty much anything else in our arsenals, and as such could end up posing more a threat to the people building them than the people they want to use them on. Yield is clearly an advantage, but since radiation devices are, from my reading, generally considered to be used as tactical, not strategic, weapons, why would you need really high yields?
-
Good points, Holocat, but one thing, though: an antimatter bomb shouldn't be like a neutron bomb. It would probably release enough heat to be maybe even more totally destructive than an atomic bomb. I think it would be quite a bit like the "photon torpedoes" seen on the various Star Trek series; i.e., pack quite a punch in a small package.
-
Well, to be precise, a neutron bomb wasn't exactly the planned end result. It is essentially a failed atomic bomb, releasing many neutrons from the fisson of many nuclei, but not enough for a sustained chain reaction. But some sharp dude realized that though it wouldn't yield the megatons to level structures, the neutron flux would kill many living things nearby the detonation.
An antimatter bomb (photon torpedo) is a totally different matter. Here, I think that if one could collect enough antimatter (which at this point is not [yet] a possibility), and somehow contain it with electric or magnetic forces so that it won't touch normal matter unti you wanted it to, it would not have the possibility of failing like an atomic device, for I don't believe there's any critical mass threshold to be achieved before being able have annihilation to release the energy.
So? Why spend billions of dollars building a device that does the same job as a dirt cheap neutron bomb would already do? From Merchant's blurb up on top, it *seems* they want to build a device to deliver a massive amount of lethal radiation. But we aready *have* a device to do that, this being the neutron bomb. Perhaps it would be more efficient(probably) or perhaps smaller(probably not), but both storage problems for a live antimatter device and the cost to produce antimatter make me leery compared to the realitively simple process of making an ordinary neutron bomb, if that can be called ordinary, anyway.
Granted, Europe wasn't terribly pleased at the idea when the US wanted to deploy them way back when, but that political climate is all but disintegrated in today's current situation, in addition to the fact that I don't see how using antimatter in place of atomics removes any of the problems for deploying such a device, except for the additional cost to store yet another esoteric weapon.
I do not see a clear advantage for an antimatter-based radiation device. It might have the reliablity you suggest, but the flipside of that is you can't disable an antimatter device the way you can with an atomic device. Storage would be more hazardous than pretty much anything else in our arsenals, and as such could end up posing more a threat to the people building them than the people they want to use them on. Yield is clearly an advantage, but since radiation devices are, from my reading, generally considered to be used as tactical, not strategic, weapons, why would you need really high yields?
Dammit shut up man! Sheesh, it's getting to the point to where us weapons profiteers can't even make a decent living.
-
Heh - just like you Foolish Humans to try a make a weapon out of technologies you do not yet fully understand!
It would be wise if you learn to live together first...
This time we will not intervene - you are on your own.
Goodbye and Good Luck!