Community > Forum > Technology & Science > Creating materials from energy

Creating materials from energy

Posted by: Sigurd - Wed Feb 18, 2004 10:04 pm
Post new topic Reply to topic
 [ 17 posts ] 
Creating materials from energy 
Author Message
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
User avatar
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2003 8:46 pm
Posts: 1215
Location: Kapellen, Antwerp, Belgium, Europe, Planet Earth, the Milky Way Galaxy
Post Creating materials from energy   Posted on: Wed Feb 18, 2004 10:04 pm
As einstein described.. that it is possible to make from energy.. materials..
If we put it into a space context.. when we have a very good energy source, we can create materials... if we can get free energy.. we can get free materials ;)

so if fusion works.. we can get a lot of materials created from it.. atleast.. when fusion works and when the creation process of materials gets a lot better.

But this means.. we can create space ships in space.. without the need of moving tons of materials from one place to an other.. but just create them when and where it's needed.

If we can create materials.. it would include making air... making water... am I right and is this a very very good development for the far future or am I somewhere wrong ?

_________________
Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible. - Lord Kelvin, 1892


Back to top
Profile WWW
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
User avatar
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2003 9:22 pm
Posts: 843
Location: New York, NY
Post    Posted on: Thu Feb 19, 2004 12:05 am
you would be right..... but the exchange rate is the same as energy from matter, aka solve e=mc^2 for m, or in other words e/c^2=m. so basically, you need a whole lot of hydrogen to fuse to get a single proton. simply translated: not good exchange rate. the only advantage i could see would be to use such a process to make extremely rare elements stable (which may or may not be possible), and by extremely rare i don't mean francium rare (thought that may be good), i mean seaborgium rare or one of the other obscenely unstable ones.


Back to top
Profile
Spaceflight Enthusiast
Spaceflight Enthusiast
avatar
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 11:35 pm
Posts: 3
Post    Posted on: Thu Feb 19, 2004 5:40 am
Fusion is not a energy->matter conversion
It is more like a energy+matter+matter->bigger matter+energy process

Fusion does require a lot of energy to heat and compress the matter so it will fuse but it is not just energy->matter.
Here is a paragraph about energy->matter

Fusion of light elements actually releases more energy than it absorbs, which is why people are trying to use it to convert matter->energy.

I think creating matter in the middle of space using only energy is not possible. But your idea of not moving tons of materials around is useful. Not that we can create matter, but that we can convert matter using nuclear fusion/fission once we reach another planet/star.


Back to top
Profile
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
User avatar
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2003 8:46 pm
Posts: 1215
Location: Kapellen, Antwerp, Belgium, Europe, Planet Earth, the Milky Way Galaxy
Post    Posted on: Thu Feb 19, 2004 4:37 pm
I'm no expert and I was wondering how this works:

Quote:
Fusion of light elements actually releases more energy than it absorbs, which is why people are trying to use it to convert matter->energy.

When fussion reactor works.. can it kinda create unlimited energy.. or is there anything people has to keep putting into it ?
(ignoring the aging problems...)

Quote:
Also, Einstein's equation, Energy = Mass x the square of the velocity of light, tells you that it takes a huge amount of energy to create matter in this way. The big accelerator at Fermilab can be a significant drain on the electricity grid in and around the city of Chicago, and it has produced very little matter.

This creates VERY little matter.. but what if we can have a VERY LARGE energy source ?


If it's so hard to converse back... does this say... that after a very long time "all" materials will be energy ? cause reversing it seems to generate less then otherway arround....

_________________
Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible. - Lord Kelvin, 1892


Back to top
Profile WWW
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
User avatar
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2003 9:22 pm
Posts: 843
Location: New York, NY
Post    Posted on: Thu Feb 19, 2004 10:33 pm
Sigurd wrote:
If it's so hard to converse back... does this say... that after a very long time "all" materials will be energy ? cause reversing it seems to generate less then otherway arround....


that's what entropy is... eventually all matter will be converted to energy, unless we can somehow harness a perfect energy conversion (which, of course, is impossible at least in this universe), however the amount of time it will take (i think this is somewhat close to right) is at least a billion times the current age of the universe, if not more. fusion and fission both are so good because they take matter and make it into energy. the reason fusion is better than fission is because more of the matter used is made into energy. i remember reading somewhere that fission is like .01% and fusion is around 20%, but that seems a bit high, especially for the fusion one. antimatter of course has a 100% conversion rate, hence the reason it is so sought after. when converting between the two, you neither gain nor lose energy from the process itself, it is simply the fact that you can't have a perfect conversion rate, so some energy is lost to radiation. if there was some way of trapping that excess heat later then i suppose there's no real reason why you couldn't keep switching between the two infinitely, but there's no real point to that, and it'd be insanely difficult to keep it up for long. remember that, though it takes tons of energy to make matter, if you made a kg of matter and then destroyed it with antimatter, you'd get c^2 joules of energy (unless i'm mistaken and it's more): more than enough to propel a fairly large chunk of matter well past lightspeed if you ignore relativity, which obviously you can't in the real world.


Back to top
Profile
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
User avatar
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2003 8:46 pm
Posts: 1215
Location: Kapellen, Antwerp, Belgium, Europe, Planet Earth, the Milky Way Galaxy
Post    Posted on: Sun Feb 22, 2004 4:15 am
Well, atleast we don't know yet all, like dark energy and dark matter etc... (source http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/d ... 40220.html)

The universe is presently 13.7 billion years old.
Universe Has At Least 30 Billion Years Left

So that makes it to arround 43.7 years the age of what the universe may become..

Well maybe humens destroyed themself in that time ;)

It's also annoying to read that everything is moving more and more away from each other... so even if we move out to diffrent stars... humens will go more and more out of each other by time...

<<< There are two main ideas for the source of dark energy. It might percolate from empty space, as Einstein theorized, and is unchanging and of a fixed strength. The other holds that dark energy is associated with a changing energy field called "quintessence," something akin to a magnetic field. In that scenario, the field causes the current acceleration of the universe. >>>

So when the war on terror is ended ;) we should open the war on dark energy :p

<<< Another research team recently theorized that if the repulsion from dark energy gets stronger than Einstein's prediction, the universe could expand so incredibly that it would end in a Big Rip. All matter -- galaxies, then stars, then planets, and everything right down to the atomic level -- would be torn apart. >>>

:roll: Humans... what are we going to do ? :lol: hey man! we're all gonne die :p so work faster.. we need to find a cure for the universe ;)
Let's lie to bush :d and tell it's about 10 years before it happens :lol:


<<Astronomers worry, however, that if Hubble stops working by around 2007, which would be the case under NASA's current plan, they would lose their primary tool in the hunt for distant supernovas.

And with NASA's new human spaceflight plans, other useful projects are in jeopardy. Many missions under NASA's Beyond Einstein initiative, including proposed missions to study dark energy, have taken a budgetary back seat to programs that will help get humans back on the Moon and on to Mars.>>

Bush his ideas are not bad.... but I don't like the idea of the government running so fast to a new goal... when they are on the moon and mars... spending billions on the base... they will have again a few options... staying there and moving people between it... or abonden it..... if they want to move on... they have to pass it to private companies! PRIVATE COMPANIES (I guess nasa is deaf, that's why I repeat :lol: 8) )
I see this fast progress call more like a political move... my idea is a large development without large under laying support and developments... is like a water drup.. rimpling out in time... they will have to retreat in time.. until the private business follows....

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/a ... 30526.html

<<< When the universe was smaller and more dense, regular matter and dark matter (another mysterious thing) would have tended to apply the brakes to the universal propensity to grow. At some point, however, the brakes failed. >>>

Tssssss next time our kids explode a baloon...... they are destroying a total universe :oops: :lol:

<<< "Dark energy has the upper hand today," Kirshner said. "But it looks like dark matter was in fact winning the battle, this sort of cosmic tug-of-war, about 7 billion years ago.">>>

Yeah we may need to go to war :evil: but isn't it possible it will stretch and go back smaller in time... and recreate the big bang ? :idea:
Or maybe scale very large, stretch... and not go smaller smootly.. but just like imploding...

<<< Any racing fan knows that the acceleration spurred by a green flag can't last forever. Many astronomers now doubt the universe has such limits, however. >>>
:shock: :? :cry: isn't there something in beuracratie.. if the results are not nice... replace him with an other person who'll report something better ? :lol: :lol: :lol: else why do we live ? 8)
(for some people who would agree... it was sarcasme :lol: )

http://www.space.com/php/multimedia/ima ... 20universe.
Image

_________________
Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible. - Lord Kelvin, 1892


Back to top
Profile WWW
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
avatar
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 2:56 am
Posts: 1104
Location: Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA
Post    Posted on: Thu Feb 26, 2004 4:28 pm
TerraMrs wrote:

that's what entropy is... eventually all matter will be converted to energy, unless we can somehow harness a perfect energy conversion


Actually, entropy is defined as random, unapplicaple energy: think along the lines of heat. Heat is extremely hard to use to do work with -- you have to jury-rig it into kinetic energy and then transfer that to electromagnetic.

Back on topic:

First off: e=mc^2. Thus, m=e/c^2. c=186,273 miles per second. You're talking about using something on the order of the mass of the Moon in fuel to create a bicycle. It's very much a possibility, however, it's very much not a probability and is very very inefficient. You're not the first to come up with the idea, and you certainly won't be the last. However, we could as a race forget the whole concept for the next thousand years and not suffer a setback. It's gonna be a very very very very very very very very long while before we can actually make a energy-to-mass converter.

'Nuff said.

_________________
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Daniel Guggenheim School of Aerospace Engineering

In Memoriam...
Apollo I - Soyuz I - Soyuz XI - STS-51L - STS-107


Back to top
Profile
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Mon Jul 16, 2007 9:08 am
Regarding this thread I came cross again the first time since long there is a finding clarifying a bit.

Astronomers resreaching Eta Carinae and similar stars have found that such large stars - 120 to 180 times as heavy as the sun - don't leave behind a black hole because of a particular property: They produce that strong gamma-rays thatv these gamma rays materialize into matter and antimatter. This pushes all material outside which means that nothing is left later that might collapse into a black hole.

So Eta Cariane and other stars of that mass and size are examples where matter is produced out of energy a natural way - and it shows up what density of energy would be required to produce needed matter.



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Spaceflight Trainee
Spaceflight Trainee
avatar
Joined: Tue Jul 04, 2006 10:12 am
Posts: 34
Location: Vienna, Austria
Post    Posted on: Tue Jul 17, 2007 12:54 pm
The only reason to make matter from energy is for the antimatter. Which is *always* created in equal amounts. that is you can't create a single proton or electron. you must create a proton and a anti proton. this is how anti matter is produced.

In the distant future humanity *may* end up creating antimatter for interstellar travel. Its possible that the laws of physics restricts the efficiency of anti hydrogen creation to say 0.1% (note now we get about 0.000 0001% efficiency ). Then a 100km radius solar collector at 0.1AU would create just over 100 kg of anti hydrogen per year.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
avatar
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 1:25 am
Posts: 887
Post    Posted on: Sat Aug 18, 2007 6:18 pm
The only trouble is in distinguishing it from other matter--separating it, etc.
Cargo will be needed for the foreseeable future...


Back to top
Profile
Spaceflight Trainee
Spaceflight Trainee
avatar
Joined: Tue Jul 04, 2006 10:12 am
Posts: 34
Location: Vienna, Austria
Post    Posted on: Mon Nov 05, 2007 12:52 pm
distinguishing it from normal matter is easy. A anti proton has the same mass as a proton but negative charge.

Storing it is a little harder. You need to create anti hydrogen, and then store it in a magnetic field. Since liquid and solid hydrogen is paramagnetic this should not be too hard. You can also test the device with normal hydrogen. So you can be confident that it will work when you finally get round to getting some real antimatter.

In fact everything is pretty easy to do compared to making that amount of antimatter in the first place.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
User avatar
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2004 1:04 pm
Posts: 254
Location: Norway
Post    Posted on: Mon Nov 05, 2007 2:02 pm
I'm not an expert on particles, but wouldn't creating matter from energy require control over the "god particle", which only exist in theory at the moment?


Back to top
Profile ICQ
Spaceflight Trainee
Spaceflight Trainee
avatar
Joined: Tue Jul 04, 2006 10:12 am
Posts: 34
Location: Vienna, Austria
Post    Posted on: Mon Nov 05, 2007 2:42 pm
I think you mean the Higgs boson.

At any rate we make antimatter now. anti electrons are a result of beta decay and most big particle accelerators first make anti protons from proton collision and store them in a storage ring. Then they collide protons and anti protons. The LHC uses this design as does CERN's current beam line as does the respective US facilities.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
User avatar
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2004 1:04 pm
Posts: 254
Location: Norway
Post    Posted on: Mon Nov 05, 2007 3:35 pm
Yes, correct - I can never remember the real name, but the nick name is stuck in my brain :)


Back to top
Profile ICQ
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
avatar
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 1:25 am
Posts: 887
Post    Posted on: Fri Nov 09, 2007 4:19 pm
This is why locating a tiny black hole in the solar system would be useful.

Squirt tiny amounts of matter in it and you might have some useful fusion reactions at small scale--very small accretion disks and x-ray jets.


Back to top
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 17 posts ] 
 

Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests


© 2014 The International Space Fellowship, developed by Gabitasoft Interactive. All Rights Reserved.  Privacy Policy | Terms of Use