www.ditl.org

Thorin wrote:That is why the conversion process must require less energy than the amount of energy available as the mass-energy of the anti-matter.

Not necessarily - they could be using the fusion reactors to power the converter, in which case they could simply park themselves in a nebula or some such, and have an effectively limitless source of energy while they top up their antimatter supply. Since they wouldn't be eating into that supply as it was created, they wouldn't have to worry about any inefficiencies in the process.

Captain Seafort wrote:Not necessarily - they could be using the fusion reactors to power the converter, in which case they could simply park themselves in a nebula or some such, and have an effectively limitless source of energy while they top up their antimatter supply. Since they wouldn't be eating into that supply as it was created, they wouldn't have to worry about any inefficiencies in the process.

As deuterium powers both the fusion reactors and the warp core, then it is pretty necessary - if the converter required more energy than the mass-energy of the anti-matter itself (ie more than the output of the warp core), then there would be a downward spiral - it was just happen much, much quicker if the fusion reactors were used because their output is several orders of magnitude less than the warp core. So they would be eating to that supply as it was creasted.

My point is that the argument that 'they must be done on planets' because of a downward spiral is completely and categorically wrong. Knowing that it can be made on ships suggests that it is made on ships due to my point already provided - if they made a big deal of collecting deuterium, why not anti-deuterium?

Perhaps they were more worried about getting dueturium because it was used up faster than the antimatter (just a guess).

stitch626 wrote:Perhaps they were more worried about getting dueturium because it was used up faster than the antimatter (just a guess).

That would hold true in any event - AFAIK, deuterium is used both for warp core fuel (and producing anti-deuterium for same) and for fusion fuel.

Then obviously ships do not require much if any need to store anti-matter. If its so energy effective to create it aboard ship, then all they need is a very small supply for their photon torpedoes and the rest including what they use for their main energizers can apparently easily be created on the fly eliminating the actually need for storing much of it. So if they had 1000 cubic feet of storage, likely only 10-15% at the most would be set asside for the anti-matter as it seems the argument has been made that deutrium is the only weak link in the power supply chain.

Thorin wrote:Think of it this way -

If it only takes 1J to create 1KG of anti-matter, then only 1 joule of mass-energy is used to convert it...
So the mass-energy going into the warp core IS enough to convert more anti-matter,
- which in turn is enough to supply the warp core with more mass-energy,
- which in turn is enough to create more anti-matter,
- which in turn is enough to supply the warp core with more mass-energy,
- which in turn is enough to create more anti-matter,
(ad infinitum)

This, for example, is an upward spiral - but energy isn't coming out of nowhere, you must still supply it initially with deuterium.

If it takes 10^17J (or more) - the mass-energy of 1KG of anti-matter - then more energy than the amount of mass-energy of the anti-matter is used to conver it.
So the mass-energy going into the warp core is not enough to convert enough anti-matter,
- which in turn is not enough to supply the warp core with enough mass-energy
- which in turn is not enough to create enough anti-matter
- which in turn is not enough to supply the warp core with enough mass-energy
- which in turn is not enough to create enough anti-matter
(ad infinitum)

This, for example, takes your downward spiral.

That is why the conversion process must require less energy than the amount of energy available as the mass-energy of the anti-matter.

Really, if I haven't made it clear enough now then you're a lost cause.

Well hell, I feel like a complete fool and idiot for missing that manufacturing notice in all those starship blueprints officially sent out. hey, help all of us out, link us up with a couple of those online blueprints you've found that show were the manufacturing of anti-matter takes place aboard starships.

much appreciate it.

Unless I miss my guess, doesn't all this rest on the TM's somewhat vague lines on the subject?

Liasons wrote:WORF
The Engineering sections encompass
twelve decks of the secondary
hull. Deck forty-two contains the
antimatter storage facility. Deck
thirty-six houses the --

BYLETH
(cuts in)
What is the mass flow rate of the
antimatter replenishment stream to
the containment pods?

Worf looks at him, thrown off by the detailed technical
nature of the question.

WORF
Excuse me?

BYLETH
The antimatter replenishment rate.
What is it?

WORF
I am... not certain of the exact
rate.

If antimatter were not being generated aboard ship then Worf's answer would be "we don't produce antimatter on board" not "I don't know".

ultron2099 wrote:Then obviously ships do not require much if any need to store anti-matter. If its so energy effective to create it aboard ship, then all they need is a very small supply for their photon torpedoes and the rest including what they use for their main energizers can apparently easily be created on the fly eliminating the actually need for storing much of it. So if they had 1000 cubic feet of storage, likely only 10-15% at the most would be set asside for the anti-matter as it seems the argument has been made that deutrium is the only weak link in the power supply chain.

I'm not saying it's hugely energy effective, I'm saying it requires less energy to power the converter than the mass-energy of the anti-matter itself. It may be 99%, it may be 50%, it may be 1%. It doesn't matter which. You are now backpedalling, however, you have completely changed your argument from a downward spiral, which I thought I had proved more than effectively a good few posts back, which you now seem to have conceded, and are now complaining about the 'suitability' of converting anti-matter on a ship on the basis that they wouldn't need to store any. Well, yes they would - if they convert all the anti-matter while they are in a nebula, then they can then refill back the used deuterium (which had some mass-energy used to create the anti-matter). If they did it as they went, then they would be using deuterium on converting it, and wouldn't have the ability to get it back. Why not convert it all at once when you have the ability to get it back?

And you're second post is utter tripe, I won't even dignify it with a response.

I still maintain that the mass-energy used to "flip" the charge and spin of the particles is irrelevent if the fusion reactors are used. Even if there is a downwards spiral, hydrogen is so common that it doesn't really matter - you just keep refilling the tanks.

Captain Seafort wrote:I still maintain that the mass-energy used to "flip" the charge and spin of the particles is irrelevent if the fusion reactors are used. Even if there is a downwards spiral, hydrogen is so common that it doesn't really matter - you just keep refilling the tanks.

Not really viable for two reasons; there is not enough hydrogen/deuterium in space dust to keep going, and for the 0.001% or whatever fusion power gives off compared to 100% mass-energy, it would require such stupid amounts of deuterium to be converted into deuterium - you'd have to be in a nebula all the time, and you'd never be able to use the fusion reactors - you wouldn't be able to use the impulse engines. Even if the converter required less energy than the mass-energy, the fusion reactor would still act as a downward spiral, because it's output is considerably less than the total mass-energy of the particles (ie the warp core's output), unless, of course, the converter requires less power than the fusion reactor, which may be possible, but personally I doubt it, as the fusion reactor has such a comparitively tiny output compared to the overall mass-energy available.

Regardless, it is possible for anti-matter to be converted on ships using their own reactors. If it is possible, it suggests, in this case, it actually is, because of a noticable lack of mention of the collection of anti-matter.

Yes, you'd need to stay put for a while to top up the AM supply, and I'm not disputing that it would be a downward spiral in terms of the total mass of fuel. However, since we don't know what the relationship between the energy required to convert a given mass of matter to antimatter and the mass-energy of that antimatter is, we can't say for certain that the process isn't a downward spiral.

In any event, while the energy required for conversion in my scenario may me greater than the mass-energy of the antimatter generated, the power that antimatter could produce when anihilated with normal matter would be far greater, which could compensate for the net energy loss of the conversion process.

Captain Seafort wrote:Yes, you'd need to stay put for a while to top up the AM supply, and I'm not disputing that it would be a downward spiral in terms of the total mass of fuel. However, since we don't know what the relationship between the energy required to convert a given mass of matter to antimatter and the mass-energy of that antimatter is, we can't say for certain that the process isn't a downward spiral.

We do know the mass-energy of the anti-matter, but you're correct about the second part - we don't know whether it would be a downward spiral, but considering the relatively tiny output of the fusion reactors I'd be surprised if it were anything other than downward spiral.

In any event, while the energy required for conversion in my scenario may me greater than the mass-energy of the antimatter generated, the power that antimatter could produce when anihilated with normal matter would be far greater, which could compensate for the net energy loss of the conversion process.

The power could be greater, yes, but to be honest the power isn't really an issue, that's just how quickly the anti-matter is annihilated. Think of it this way...

It takes 1kg of deuterium's mass-energy to convert 10kg of deuterium into anti-deuterium.
In the warp core, it would still take 1kg of reactant to convert 10kg of deuterium into anti-deuterium
In the fusion reactors, it may take 1000kg of reactant to convert 10kg of deuterium into anti-deuterium

The fusion reactors can only convert so much energy over any amount of time - I don't think it could possibly have enough of an output to convert enough deuterium without running all the time with a continious supply of deuterium - that is to say, no use of the impulse engines and being in a nebula all the time! Alternatively, your theory would work if we say, instead;

It takes 1kg of deuterium's mass-energy to convert 1000kg of deuterium into anti-deuterium
In the warp core, it would take 1kg of reactant to convert 1000kg of deuterium into anti-deuterium
In the fusion reactorsm it may take 1kg of reactant to convert 10kg of deuterium into anti-deuterium

If the above were the case, yes, you'd be correct, but I'd be awfully impressed if only 0.1% of the mass-energy of the reactant was used to convert deuterium into anti-deuterium.

I think it's much simpler to say the warp core powers the 'conversion machine', which requires energy less than the output of the warp core, but not orders of magnitude less (which the fusion reactors would realistically need).

We know that, at the very least, the fusion reactors can produce a significant fraction of the power of the warp core from BoBW - if the MARA were orders of magnitude more powerful there'd be no point in even considering their output.

In terms of conversion, we simply don't know how much energy is needed to convert 1kg of antimatter into 1kg of matter. If it's less than 9E16 J, then I agree that the MARA would be the better power source - it's faster. If, however, it requires more than 9E16 J, then it would be better to use the fusion reactors as using the MARA would, obviously, result in a net reduction of the antimatter supply.

Captain Seafort wrote:We know that, at the very least, the fusion reactors can produce a significant fraction of the power of the warp core from BoBW - if the MARA were orders of magnitude more powerful there'd be no point in even considering their output.

I was under the impression that episode rather was talking about the simple availability and uses of more impulse engines than raw energy output.

In terms of conversion, we simply don't know how much energy is needed to convert 1kg of antimatter into 1kg of matter. If it's less than 9E16 J, then I agree that the MARA would be the better power source - it's faster. If, however, it requires more than 9E16 J, then it would be better to use the fusion reactors as using the MARA would, obviously, result in a net reduction of the antimatter supply.

If it requries more then neither would be any good - you'd have to have a continious supply of deuterium. But both the fusion and warp core eat into deuterium, just for the same output, or the same effect, or, in this case, the same amount of conversions, the fusion reactors would eat up the deuterium a hell of a lot faster than the warp core. I completely and utterly faill to see how the fusion reactors would work, when the warp core wouldn't. If the energy for the conversion was greater than the anti-matter's mass-energy, then in both cases all supplies would reduce, just the fusion reactors would reduce it quicker. In short, if the energy for the converter was greater than the output of the warp core/mass-energy of the particles, a shipboard converter would be hugely impractical.