www.ditl.org

Thorin wrote:If it requries more then neither would be any good - you'd have to have a continious supply of deuterium.

Which is why you'd need to sit in a nebula, where you would have a continuous supply, while you restocked the AM supply.

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.

The fusion reactors would only eat into the deuterium supply, which is readily replaceable, whereas the MARA would also eat into the antimatter supply, which is what you're trying to replenish.

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.

You're looking at it purely in terms of mass-energy, which doesn't take into account the much greater availability of normal matter.

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.

It's certainly impractical in most circumstances, but in circumstances such as Voyager's, on a very long range exploration mission, it could easily be the only option available.

Captain Seafort wrote:Which is why you'd need to sit in a nebula, where you would have a continuous supply, while you restocked the AM supply.

The fusion reactors would only eat into the deuterium supply, which is readily replaceable, whereas the MARA would also eat into the antimatter supply, which is what you're trying to replenish.

You're looking at it purely in terms of mass-energy, which doesn't take into account the much greater availability of normal matter.

It's certainly impractical in most circumstances, but in circumstances such as Voyager's, on a very long range exploration mission, it could easily be the only option available.

I knew there was something I was missing - you're completely correct, I had somehow made things too complex and forgot that the fusion reactors didn't eat into the anti-matter supplies.
Bet that's the first time I've admitted I was wrong to you
Though my original point stands, that it's just as feasible that the converter requires less energy than the mass-energy available, in which case the warp core would be more suitable.

Really, as we can never know how much energy this conversion process requires, we can't know if the warp core or the fusion reactors would be used - it's completely arbitrary. But I think we are both agreed (*BOOM* - universe explodes) that anti-deuterium is almost certainly created onboard ships from deuterium.

Also on that general topic, I wonder just how much that the reactants would be compressed, I'd hazard a guess at quite a lot, considering the pathetic amount of storage space given to fuel, which probably make up a considerable fraction of the mass of today's ships.

Thorin wrote:I knew there was something I was missing - you're completely correct, I had somehow made things too complex and forgot that the fusion reactors didn't eat into the anti-matter supplies.
Bet that's the first time I've admitted I was wrong to you

I think this is the first debate we've had that hasn't dissolved into effing and blinding at each other.

Though my original point stands, that it's just as feasible that the converter requires less energy than the mass-energy available, in which case the warp core would be more suitable.

Absolutely - but all possibilities need to be considered.

Really, as we can never know how much energy this conversion process requires, we can't know if the warp core or the fusion reactors would be used - it's completely arbitrary. But I think we are both agreed (*BOOM* - universe explodes) that anti-deuterium is almost certainly created onboard ships from deuterium.

I wouldn't say is created, in the sense that on-board generation is their primary source, but it's without question that they have the capability to do so.

Personally I see no reason to assume it isn't their primary method. If they've got the ability to do it when it's needed, why would they need to make it more complicated - like collecting it from starbases, planets, etc. It's like having food replicators on a ship, but whenever you want replicated food, you go to a starbase/planet. Voyager certainly had no problems. As hydrogen would be much more abundant than anti-matter making starbases in any region of space, it would be far more effective to having hydrogen 'on tap', as opposed to been required to visit a starbase everytime you want some.

And, as I've mentioned and am still waiting for Thorin's more learned confirmation, I suspect "naturally-occurring" anti-matter would be too short-lived to harvest at a decent rate.

Did three people here just agree?

Holy crap, I also agree! What's happening here!?

Mikey wrote:And, as I've mentioned and am still waiting for Thorin's more learned confirmation, I suspect "naturally-occurring" anti-matter would be too short-lived to harvest at a decent rate.

There are certain areas where anti-matter does naturally occur - I think there is some in Jupiter's belts, but it's such minute quantities that we're probably makingmore world wide today. As I said - it immediately annihilates other matter and so pops out of existance. There are certain theories that nebulae or clouds of anti-matter exist, but they're just that - theories - and little proven at that, and are so sparse that they would effectively have no bearing on interstellar craft.

Mikey wrote: Did three people here just agree?

That explains the could shiver in my soul...

Tsukiyumi wrote:Holy crap, I also agree! What's happening here!?

Must be a bug in the new forum template.

Dont worry I'm sure Rochey disagrees with you.

Thorin wrote:Personally I see no reason to assume it isn't their primary method. If they've got the ability to do it when it's needed, why would they need to make it more complicated - like collecting it from starbases, planets, etc. It's like having food replicators on a ship, but whenever you want replicated food, you go to a starbase/planet. Voyager certainly had no problems. As hydrogen would be much more abundant than anti-matter making starbases in any region of space, it would be far more effective to having hydrogen 'on tap', as opposed to been required to visit a starbase everytime you want some.

They're probably producing antimatter at a slow rate continuously, as Worf's quote shows. The problem is that in the normal course of their travels they wouldn't have time to sit around in a nebula long enough to replenish their supplies. Therefore, rather than diverting to a starbase when they're running low, they probably top up their fuel supply (matter and antimatter) as part of the routine whenever they visit any starbase.

Ddamnit people! I go away for a fez weeks andd yu lot all start agreeing with eah other!

*shuffles feet*

We're sorry Mr Rochey...

Good. Now go to your rooms and think abou what youu didd!

Oh, man, this keyboard sucks!.

Captain Seafort wrote:They're probably producing antimatter at a slow rate continuously, as Worf's quote shows. The problem is that in the normal course of their travels they wouldn't have time to sit around in a nebula long enough to replenish their supplies. Therefore, rather than diverting to a starbase when they're running low, they probably top up their fuel supply (matter and antimatter) as part of the routine whenever they visit any starbase.

While I agree that's possible just as an 'added extra', I certainly wouldn't presume that to be their primary method. I don't see how Worf's quote gives any quantitive tangible data either, I wouldn't presume it be particularly slow, and we know that there is a cap on the maximum input the converter would require (today's energy input for the creation of anti-matter would be the future cap). And that's only if the energy requirement is above the mass-energy of the warp core.