Topic: OT ~ What's bigger, a Nuke Bomb or an Anti-matter Bomb?  (Read 15648 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline KAT Chuut-Ritt

  • Vice Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 26163
  • Gender: Male
Re: OT ~ What's bigger, a Nuke Bomb or an Anti-matter Bomb?
« Reply #100 on: July 20, 2005, 12:45:37 am »
not to mention that the yield was far more than was needed to destroy any one target in the world.




Not if the target was human ignorance  ;)

Offline FPF-SCM_TraceyG_XC

  • Empress of the Empire
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2543
  • Gender: Female
Re: OT ~ What's bigger, a Nuke Bomb or an Anti-matter Bomb?
« Reply #101 on: July 20, 2005, 01:21:48 am »
Imagine if it was filled with antimatter!
Captain FPF-TraceyG, Federation Protection Fleet


SFC2.net Admin member
SFC3.net Admin member
Voting member of the DGA
Member of XenoCorp, Squadron Commodore

Offline KAT Chuut-Ritt

  • Vice Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 26163
  • Gender: Male
Re: OT ~ What's bigger, a Nuke Bomb or an Anti-matter Bomb?
« Reply #102 on: July 20, 2005, 02:40:48 am »
Somehow I think human ignorance would survive the blast even so  ::)

Offline FPF-Tobin Dax

  • D.Net VIP
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2719
  • Gender: Male
Re: OT ~ What's bigger, a Nuke Bomb or an Anti-matter Bomb?
« Reply #103 on: July 20, 2005, 04:14:24 am »
As long as any of the human race survived at all, yes you're quite right.
Suspected leader of Prime Industries, #1 Pirate Cartel

Offline CaptJosh

  • Lt.
  • *
  • Posts: 775
  • Gender: Male
Re: OT ~ What's bigger, a Nuke Bomb or an Anti-matter Bomb?
« Reply #104 on: July 20, 2005, 10:24:18 am »
Funny thing is, it's known that the USA had warheads designed for a max yield of ~200MT. There were even designs for ~500MT thermonuclear warheads, but I guess cooler heads prevailed and those were never developed. I doubt we ever tested the ~200MT warheads though...
CaptJosh

There are only 10 kinds of people in the world;
those who understand binary and those who don't.

Offline Stormbringer

  • Global Moderator
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1984
  • Gender: Male
Re: OT ~ What's bigger, a Nuke Bomb or an Anti-matter Bomb?
« Reply #105 on: July 20, 2005, 10:35:11 am »
Largely true but if i am not mistaken one of the pacific tests went somewhat out of control and the blast was many times larger than expected. it vaporized an island. that is my premis for suggesting that we have tested the 2oo or so range weapons.

but back to antimatter imagine a storage and delivery system as simple as computer memory where the charge states of magnetic domains are flipped by the millions through logic gates. by arranging these around voids for antimatter to rest in suspended by electrical charges we could do something with ease and safety that the fictional startrek scientists of the future did only with trememdous difficulty and expense of power and equipment and at great peril.

Offline CaptJosh

  • Lt.
  • *
  • Posts: 775
  • Gender: Male
Re: OT ~ What's bigger, a Nuke Bomb or an Anti-matter Bomb?
« Reply #106 on: July 20, 2005, 10:53:51 am »
Sounds like a magnetic bottle, to me.
CaptJosh

There are only 10 kinds of people in the world;
those who understand binary and those who don't.

Offline FPF-Tobin Dax

  • D.Net VIP
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2719
  • Gender: Male
Re: OT ~ What's bigger, a Nuke Bomb or an Anti-matter Bomb?
« Reply #107 on: July 20, 2005, 11:05:05 am »
Largely true but if i am not mistaken one of the pacific tests went somewhat out of control and the blast was many times larger than expected. it vaporized an island. that is my premis for suggesting that we have tested the 2oo or so range weapons.

but back to antimatter imagine a storage and delivery system as simple as computer memory where the charge states of magnetic domains are flipped by the millions through logic gates. by arranging these around voids for antimatter to rest in suspended by electrical charges we could do something with ease and safety that the fictional startrek scientists of the future did only with trememdous difficulty and expense of power and equipment and at great peril.

Hopefully this isn't run on windows software... ;)
Suspected leader of Prime Industries, #1 Pirate Cartel

Offline Stormbringer

  • Global Moderator
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1984
  • Gender: Male
Re: OT ~ What's bigger, a Nuke Bomb or an Anti-matter Bomb?
« Reply #108 on: July 20, 2005, 11:20:06 am »
Sounds like a magnetic bottle, to me.

Nah. a magnetic bottle requires huge superconducting magnets usually aranged in a torus. they cost trilions of dollars to approach the level of containment needed for ordinary plasma. antimatter would require even more leakproof bottles because of volume of antimatter that would contactthe walls in the event of a breach ofthe fields. with my scheme if a cell failed only a few particles would be compromised at a time making for a nearly undetectable event rather than a catastrophic explosion. and if a few cells failed or even a lot the remaining intact cells could still be used until the chip could be replaced.

Offline CaptJosh

  • Lt.
  • *
  • Posts: 775
  • Gender: Male
Re: OT ~ What's bigger, a Nuke Bomb or an Anti-matter Bomb?
« Reply #109 on: July 20, 2005, 11:35:25 am »
Ok. But it does still seem like there's a magnetic field of some sort involved here.
CaptJosh

There are only 10 kinds of people in the world;
those who understand binary and those who don't.

Offline Stormbringer

  • Global Moderator
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1984
  • Gender: Male
Re: OT ~ What's bigger, a Nuke Bomb or an Anti-matter Bomb?
« Reply #110 on: July 20, 2005, 11:44:57 am »
Ok. But it does still seem like there's a magnetic field of some sort involved here.

there would be to transferthe antimatter out of storage and consolidate the tiny bits into an amount needed to generate good thrust. but because the storage  fields are tiny it is not a magnetic bottle in the sense understood in the fusion community or in the tech talk of trek.  you might think of it as more of a magnetic funnel than a bottle.

Offline Braxton_RIP

  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1073
  • Gender: Male
    • Dynaverse.net
Re: OT ~ What's bigger, a Nuke Bomb or an Anti-matter Bomb?
« Reply #111 on: July 20, 2005, 12:05:55 pm »
Funny thing is, it's known that the USA had warheads designed for a max yield of ~200MT. There were even designs for ~500MT thermonuclear warheads, but I guess cooler heads prevailed and those were never developed. I doubt we ever tested the ~200MT warheads though...

If only you knew.....
Braxton,
Old Geezer

Typical Fleet:
F-DNL, F-CB, F-CLC
Braxton's Fleet:
F-CVTCR, F-BTR, F-BTL+

Offline KAT J'inn

  • CFO - Kzinti War Machine, Inc.
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2294
  • Gender: Male
Re: OT ~ What's bigger, a Nuke Bomb or an Anti-matter Bomb?
« Reply #112 on: July 20, 2005, 01:35:41 pm »
<has flash back of a red eye flight from LA>


Me . . .   J'inn the Loving . . .  gets stuck in the friggin middle seat for the whole flight between two Computer Guys.   They start up with a Linux vs. WIndows debate . . . .

Somewhere over Colorado . . .  I started to cry.


Offline Sirgod

  • Whooot Master Cattle Baron
  • Global Moderator
  • Vice Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 27844
  • Gender: Male
Re: OT ~ What's bigger, a Nuke Bomb or an Anti-matter Bomb?
« Reply #113 on: July 20, 2005, 02:05:10 pm »
Shoot you think that's bad Will, all I've determined is to keep Yellow cake out of Dizzy's hands. The man scares me.  ;)

Stephen
"You cannot exaggerate about the Marines. They are convinced to the point of arrogance, that they are the most ferocious fighters on earth - and the amusing thing about it is that they are."- Father Kevin Keaney, Chaplain, Korean War

762_XC

  • Guest
Re: OT ~ What's bigger, a Nuke Bomb or an Anti-matter Bomb?
« Reply #114 on: July 20, 2005, 05:11:55 pm »
Largely true but if i am not mistaken one of the pacific tests went somewhat out of control and the blast was many times larger than expected. it vaporized an island. that is my premis for suggesting that we have tested the 2oo or so range weapons.

It was a 15 MT test. They were expecting 6MT. This was the largest yield ever tested by the US.

That was before they figured out that lithium makes a good fusion fuel.