Login or register


Last status update:
Date Signed Up:12/09/2011
Last Login:11/08/2015
Content Thumbs: 2 total,  7 ,  5
Comment Thumbs: 230 total,  256 ,  26
Content Level Progress: 13.55% (8/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 0% (0/10)
Level 123 Comments: Respected Member Of Famiry → Level 124 Comments: Respected Member Of Famiry
Content Views:1482
Total Comments Made:67
FJ Points:252

Text Posts

latest user's comments

#282 - the energy is coming from the weak and strong forces being can…  [+] (1 reply) 02/04/2015 on The Government 0
User avatar
#287 - gravysponge (02/04/2015) [-]
If you had a machine that was 100% efficient, and used it to make antimatter, it would cost exactly the same amount of energy to produce as you could get from annihilating it with matter.

1 normal particle + energy --> quark gluon plasma + energy --> 1 antimatter particle

1 normal particle + 1 antimatter particle --> 2 energy

you can't get more energy than you put in

If you found the antimatter in the environment then sure you could use it, but his idea wouldn't make sense (add energy to matter to produce antimatter to react and produce energy to power something)
#279 - what he's saying is the particles already have the energy its …  [+] (3 replies) 02/04/2015 on The Government 0
User avatar
#285 - gravysponge (02/04/2015) [-]
"gasoline in a non usable state" is called exhaust, and is made of CO2 and H2O.

You could recombine these molecules, using energy, and produce gasoline again.

Just like you can turn matter into antimatter, using energy.

I understand what he's saying, but it's incorrect.

Cars that run on water actually run by burning hydrogen and oxygen to produce water, they don't burn the water itself. The reason the reaction can take place is because molecular hydrogen contains more bond energy that water, and that energy gets released as heat when the hydrogen burns, expanding the gas and forcing the piston to move. Same with gasoline engines.

Producing antimatter takes energy, just like turning water into hydrogen gas and oxygen takes energy. The amount of energy it takes to create antimatter exactly equals the output of the reaction, just like chemical bond energy, but due to inefficiencies it is impossible to make use of 100% of the energy. Therefore, creating antimatter just to annihilate it to produce energy makes no sense.
#305 - anon (02/04/2015) [-]
you and afreeti's converation could be solved with one thing
antimatter is made from a collision which requires energy
but all antimatter needs to be created is a change in the subatomic particles spin
which as far as we know could happen with out a butt load of energy but instead might require some natural law to make it happen every time
User avatar
#323 - gravysponge (02/04/2015) [-]
There's probably a faster, more effective way of producing antimatter. But no matter how you do it, to change one particle of matter to a particle of antimatter always takes the same amount of energy. The way we do it is inefficient, yes. but even at 100% efficiency production, you still could not produce more energy that you put into creating the antimatter. It is just not possible, and this is probably the 10th time i've said so.
#107 - yes 04/28/2014 on Shower +1
#85 - once to force my self to have a wet dream *because i heard it …  [+] (2 replies) 04/28/2014 on Shower +1
User avatar
#104 - earlploddington (04/28/2014) [-]
was it worth it
#107 - vindicted (04/28/2014) [-]
#32 - ironically of all the genres rhythm is the one i most wanted t…  [+] (1 reply) 03/02/2014 on App development 0
User avatar
#33 - gux (03/02/2014) [-]
i can see why it's alot of work, well i wish you the best of luck
[ 61 Total ]

user's friends