What would you take?

[Teaos]

Cause they are the future and have better tech. We've seen materials that are almost industructable. Sure the Federation cant build those ones but they could probably create some really strong metal.

And it doesnt need to hol it in. It just needs to channel it.

[Captain Seafort]

Cause they are the future and have better tech. We've seen materials that are almost industructable. Sure the Federation cant build those ones but they could probably create some really strong metal.

We're talking about Federation tech being used on early 21st century Earth. That means we're restricted to current materials science.

And it doesnt need to hol it in. It just needs to channel it.

You can't channel gamma radiation - it's electromagnetic, so it moves in straight lines. Unless you've got a good-sized black hole handy.

[ultron2099]

or put more simply, take out the fusion part of the nuclear reactor and replace it with anti-matter not only do you create hotter plasma to generate the steam to drive the turbines to create electricity, but none of that annoying nuclear material left over.

The problem there is that you need some way of containing the antimatter, and if it starts to overheat you can't just scram it by dropping the control rods. From a power-production point of view you'd be better off taking the Feds fusion reactor technology - it's close enough to todays tech that it should be reverse-engineerable.

I agree. We have neither the knowledge or experience to produce or handle antimatter, and any mistake would be catastrophic.

You ready for this? You sure, because it's going to blow your mind.

We ALREADY produce anti-matter people!!! That's right, we the people of Earth of the 21st century produce anti-matter. The kicker is we do it at less then a gram a year I believe and its extremely energy inefficient. Basically we take a couple of particles put them in a cyclotron and slam them together at the speed of light creating an atom or two of anti-matter that we then contain within a magnetic bubble.

So, how do you contain an out of control reaction?? Dude, you don't have to worry about it. You feed the antimatter into the plasma chamber only when you want to, the system is regulated not by control rods, but by fuel injectors much like a car i suppose. so all you have to do is maintain the plasma at a certain temperature within a magnetic bubble or perhaps contain the superheated gasses within a heat resistant chamber which is cooled by immersing it in cold water. the water is pumped from there to steam turbines like those used in a nuclear reactor and then brough back to the reaction chamber to gather more heat. The only problem I really see is recooling the water, but heck, they have it figured out already with nuclear reactors, so i'm not too worried about it.

[Mikey]

...is maintain the plasma at a certain temperature...

Where'd the plasma come from? Superheated ionized gas doesn't just walk up and knock on the back door.

Teaos - AFAIK, EM and thermal radiation don't get "channeled" like a fluid. It would be emitted omnidirectionally in "straight lines," so to speak, through whatever walls might or might not be there.

[Aaron]

Little late perhaps but fusion. Really it would allow us to end the energy crunch and ditch fossil fuel.

[Sionnach Glic]

You mean like nuclear fusion? Maybe if the anti nuclear idiots get their heads out of their asses before its too late.

[Teaos]

There would have to be someway to channel the energy that anti matter produces.

[Aaron]

You mean like nuclear fusion? Maybe if the anti nuclear idiots get their heads out of their asses before its too late.

Yes nuclear fusion.

There would have to be someway to channel the energy that anti matter produces.

Fusion is easier to produce fuel for, there's literally an entire planet of it that we're living on. And if something goes wrong it won't blow up a city ala the design of anti-matter reactor we'd get from SF.

Besides isn't producing anti-matter a net loss?

[Mikey]

You mean like nuclear fusion? Maybe if the anti nuclear idiots get their heads out of their asses before its too late.

Even with fission, we're developing the tech (most notably at MIT) for both small-pellet reactors, which could be slotted in ANYWHERE on a power grid, AND for high-speed drop reactors, which would actually use as fuel the "waste" heavy elements from traditional or small-pellet uranium reactors. The problem is the pseudo-environmentalist nuts like the Sierra Club who bring lawsuits to halt usage of places like Yucca Mountain, based on (debunked!) arguments about stored material's half-life being 10,000 years instead of 9,500.

Besides isn't producing anti-matter a net loss?

From everything I've seen, yes.

[mlsnoopy]

Really it would allow us to end the energy crunch and ditch fossil fuel

The problems would be planes and ships.

Besides isn't producing anti-matter a net loss?

Why would changing matter into antimatter use up more energy than what you get when the antimatter is turned into energy.

[Mikey]

You'd have to ask one of the physicists here (read: Thorin) for the details, but everything I've read on the subject indicates that production of anti-matter requires enough energy input that the whole process is a net loss.

[Aaron]

The problems would be planes and ships.

You don't require aircraft. Though with the time freed up by converting the energy grid to fusion there would be sufficient oil to power aircraft until a reactor can be miniturized to fit into an aircraft. Ships shouldn't be a problem, a CVN already has enough space for two fission reactors and it's associated steam plant.

Why would changing matter into antimatter use up more energy than what you get when the antimatter is turned into energy.

From what I understand, more energy is used to create antimatter than it returns because it is produced in such small amounts. At any rate it's bloody dangerous.

[ultron2099]

My guess is the Federation produces anti-matter aboard space stations utilizing solar energy panels to power the creation of anti-matter. Since solar energy is near inexaustable at net 24% loss in efficiency is negligable in the creation process. And since it was stated that everything to go with this technology would be provided, we would have already the ability to store and transport anti-matter. All we need to is build more of them off of the specs already supplied for transportation and containment.

As for the creation of plasma, take a micro-gram of anti-matter and introduce it to a micro-gram of matter and watch the fun begin. Just don't shut down the magnetic containment system.

Again, with our present technology, we are already toying with making and containing anti-matter, this would just leap forward us about a 100 years and and nearly all of our energy problems and dependancy upon middle-east oil.

[Mikey]

As for the creation of plasma, take a micro-gram of anti-matter and introduce it to a micro-gram of matter and watch the fun begin. Just don't shut down the magnetic containment system.

That sure would release a lot of energy; but how does that change any nearby matter in the three traditional states into plasma?

[Captain Seafort]

As for the creation of plasma, take a micro-gram of anti-matter and introduce it to a micro-gram of matter and watch the fun begin. Just don't shut down the magnetic containment system.

Where exactly would the plasma come from? M/AM reactions release their energy in the form of gamma radiation.