Re: antihydrogen atoms

From: Technotranscendence (
Date: Sat Feb 23 2002 - 21:32:48 MST

On Saturday, February 23, 2002 5:15 PM wrote:
> Yes, and it would also greatly, increase the cost. As we all have
learned for
> big projects, money is the mantra.


> Underground facilities might be a project killer,

I'm not sure about that. I don't think it would be much more expensive
than an exotic location on Earth, such as the Antarctic.

> plus environmental impact statements, plus the NOMC mentality (not on
> my continent).
> *What if a penning trap (with ah) was stolen?

That would be a problem, but that would be a problem for aboveground
storage as well -- and it might be much easier to guard one entrance and
exit to a facility located several hundred feet undergound than multiple
ones to a facility located aboveground. One might even detonate anti-H
underground safely if someone breaches security.

> *What if a demi-gram of antihydrogen turns up missing?

Again, this can happen aboveground or even in space. It might be much
harder in space, given that it takes a lot of cash and effort to get to
GEO -- certainly much more than to invade a mine shaft.

> *What if the technology is stolen and used to generate antihydrogen in
> "peaceful" antihydrogen research facility?

It depends on who steals it and what for. I imagine you're thinking of
terrorists getting a hold of it and doing some serious mischief. It
would certainly be easier to use as a weapon. One only need release
containment and the damage is done. That's probably even less
technically diffcult than stealing a nuke and detonating it.

> Perhaps in L-5 of even geosynchronous orbit is the proper place for a
> propulsion fuel production facility?

If that's what it's being used for -- i.e., space travel -- yes.
However, if the stuff goes off in GEO, I imagine it would destroy or
disrupt a lot of satellites.

If it's not to be used for space flight, then putting it up there is
much more costly than underground, no?

> Lots of solar energy for acres of pv
> cells, far enough away from an explosion, so that if it occured it
> merely be a spectacular industrial accident.

I'm not sure about the hazards to satellites and humans in space.
Certainly at L-5, the damage would probably be nil, but closer to
Earth... Someone here would have to crunch the numbers and make some

> I was only half-joking about the
> lunar surface. It would be an excellent place, unless one generated
> over a 1/5th of a kilogram--then watch-out.

Ah, the need for space colonies again!


Daniel Ust

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 13:37:40 MST