What's new
Star Army

Star ArmyⓇ is a landmark of forum roleplaying. Opened in 2002, Star Army is like an internet clubhouse for people who love roleplaying, art, and worldbuilding. Anyone 18 or older may join for free. New members are welcome! Use the "Register" button below.

Note: This is a play-by-post RPG site. If you're looking for the tabletop miniatures wargame "5150: Star Army" instead, see Two Hour Wargames.

  • If you were supposed to get an email from the forum but didn't (e.g. to verify your account for registration), email Wes at [email protected] or talk to me on Discord for help. Sometimes the server hits our limit of emails we can send per hour.
  • Get in our Discord chat! Discord.gg/stararmy
  • 📅 July 2024 is YE 46.5 in the RP.

Antimatter Just for Weapons?

P

phacon

Inactive Member
Hey guys, I was been working with Jimmy on making an antimatter containment field becuase I was
looking at Gallant's
https://wiki.stararmy.com/doku.php?id=stararmy:basic_engineering_manual
and later at:
https://wiki.stararmy.com/doku.php?id=occhestan_republic:technology:mam_power
https://wiki.stararmy.com/doku.php?id=antimatter_production
and I was wondering if people could use a guide for antimatter?

So I was wonder... Does anyone else beside Yamatains use antimatter for something beside weapons? Would a guide for antimatter useful?

If so, I was thinking of adding this to the Engineering Guide:


  1. Fun Facts about Antimatter
  2. Antimatter is matter made up of antiparticles and is an extension of the antiparticle concept. In turn Antiparticles are particles with the same mass but opposite electric charge as a normal particle.
  3. In the Particle Physics, only fermions and other particles with a nonzero charge have antiparticles. With the exception of W bosons, most bosons have 0 charge; therefor bosons and are considered to be their own antiparticle. In other words, an antiparticle of a photon is a photon. If you think about it this makes sense because 0 * -1 = 0.
  4. In science fiction, some antimatter reactors and antimatter engines are actually be based on one of two different properties:
    • The positron, the antimatter particle for the electron, can be used as a catalyst in most nuclear fusion reactions especially the highest energy producing reactions. Thus, antimatter can be used to enhance a nuclear fusion reactor or propulsion system.
    • When a particle and antiparticle collide, they annihilate each other produce light typically in the Gamma and X-ray spectrum. This light is of energy 2 that of any normal nuclear reaction. In turn antimatter power is very similar nuclear power, except that the water/fluid is indirectly heated by a heavy element such as Xenon or Lead, which absorbs the X-ray and gamma radiation. As one would expect this water/fluid is then use to either turn generators or provide propulsion
  5. Antimatter can be stored by either using a Penning Trap (see Jimmy's picture below) or containment field descendant of the Penning Trap. Since Penning Traps will contain the antimatter as long as their is enough power, most denotations of antimatter weapons involve a loss of power or a device that simply cuts power to the containment field
  6. A few antimatter-reactions can be used in medical technology that require nucleotides such as PET scans.

Here is the picture Jimmy did for me for a diagram of Penning Trap aka antimatter containment device aka what stores the antimatter:
http://i665.photobucket.com/albums/vv19/Grumps_McGurt/Anti-mattercontainmentdiagram.jpg
Jimmy working on doing some color of it right now. I think he did such a great job I wanted to know is their anything or anyone else that could use a picture/model of a realistic antimatter containment device?

What do you guys think?
Would it be beneficial to provide links citing #3 or the last point?
Is their anything else I forgotten?
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
In my experience, many different people - including myself - have differing ways to interpret how a matter/anti-matter fuel-based power source would be like.

I don't think there's harm in creating a wiki article going over very broad brushstrokes of the concept, but I don't recommend going so far as to say "this is exactly how anti-matter should work".
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Fred said:
In my experience, many different people - including myself - have differing ways to interpret how a matter/anti-matter fuel-based power source would be like.

I don't think there's harm in creating a wiki article going over very broad brushstrokes of the concept, but I don't recommend going so far as to say "this is exactly how anti-matter should work".
Click to expand...
Well, I guess I am try to give the more common sense things about antimatter that antimatter remains a
Minovsky Particle Trope
on SARP like nuclear power is.

However, I get what you talking about in the article should be a guide to antimatter rather than a list of rules/regulations on how to use it. I am however worried that the way I worded 3 and 5 is maybe restrictive. What do you think Fred?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Personally, I'd leave it alone.

SARPwiki's job is to describe things that are indigenous of the SARPverse. It's Wikipedia's job to act as an encyclopedia for the rest of the internet. Any person sufficiently motivated to design anything around matter/anti-matter reaction is probably resourceful enough to look these things up on wikipedia and then discuss it with their peers here.

If SARPwiki does list an entry for anti-matter, I'd see the description being something like...

Anti-Matter

Anti-Matter use sometimes crop up in the technologies of SARPverse's starfaring races. The material is volatile and less popular than aether, but it does find uses for ordonnance (directed energy, cannon shells, torpedo warheads) and matter/anti-matter reaction power reactors.

See the following links for more information on anti-matter:
Stuff: [link]
More stuff: [link]
Somewhat related stuff: [link]
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I can't say I'm thrilled about the present article pertaining to Anti-Matter.

I find - seeing how it came out of Phacon's hand - that it basically shoves the author's point of view of what anti-matter is in the face of everyone else. Perhaps my point of view is biased with me not really agreeing to most of the interpretation as written - it's not neutral enough and too "Well, me and my buddy researched anti-matter and this is how the rest of you guys should see it". It's just too... personalized.

That would be fine if Phacon and Jimmy were designing their own version of an anti-matter device... but we're talking about a much broader article which is going to touch on all anti-matter-related tech in the setting.

Different races, factions, companies are going to have their own way of applying the anti-matter. Because of that, I sincerely believe the articles in question need to be broader and neutral to allow for more creative/thematic flavor latitude.

I also notice the newer entries in Gallant's engineering 'book' and saw how I was pretty much quoted word-for-word. I must point out that what I wrote was not what I considered a polished example of any broad definition of anti-matter.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Considering that there are SARP ships that can produce enough anti-matter to destroy planets, it isn't a good idea to let people just 'do what they want' with anti-matter.

I'd love to see a guide on how anti-matter works for SARP (perhaps along with other SARP-tech guides so people can better understand how setting elements work and perhaps give engineers something more to work with.). It would help cut down on some of the absurdities going on with anti-matter in the plot. Anyone can read the Wikipedia entry for anti-matter but understanding practical things like containment, creation, and usage is something a lot of people don't seem to know.

I mean after all, we don't want people handling anti-matter with their bare hands because of some GM's 'thematic concerns'. That'd just be silly.

Edit: About the tech articles
The same could/should be done for things like traveling at high fractions of the speed of light too. The site's ship speeds are capped at .4c which is absurdly high! Mass Effect 2 explains it better than I (Serviceman Chung of course is a reference to atomic rockets, Bioware is a fan of the site too). When you consider a small weight the size of your hand has the blast power of an a-bomb when traveling at .01c, you can extrapolate to seeing how a large ship traveling at .4c is going to be a planet-ending event.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
That's not the way I read it considering how Phacon/Dusk had expressed it over IRC. Sorry Jimmy.

As for Uso - well, Uso thinks what Uso thinks. I made my point already and I don't care to repeat it to win some argument out of endurance.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Jimmy said:
Fred said:
...That would be fine if Phacon and Jimmy...
Click to expand...

Don't look at me, I just took an art request! D:
Click to expand...
Yeah I though everyone knew that by Jimmy was working on the this with me, I meant that he just took an art request XD. Sorry for the confusion. ><;

____________________________
I took some of your suggestions, and I made a separate article in addition to the Engineering Manual as shown below:

https://wiki.stararmy.com/doku.php?id=guide:antimatter
https://wiki.stararmy.com/doku.php?id=stararmy:basic_engineering_manual
Props go to Jimmy for doing the UV mapping and wireframe on the Penning Trap. I really think he did a great job ^_^.

What do you guys think? In terms of antimatter technology, is their anything else I should add to either article? Like links for weapons or is that too much information?

___________________________________________________________
Fred in the Engineer's Guide, I did quote you word-for-word because I thought it was simple and got to point of how antimatter is used. After reading what you mentioned about polishing things, I did re-word it a little bit. What do you think?

Also, Fred thanks for pointing out the thing about Star Trek's Warp Cores use of antimatter. I honestly didn't know about this and orginally thought Star Trek's reactors used fusion technology. As I mentioned before, the only thing I saw that was wrong with Star Trek's use of antimatter was in Matter-antimatter reaction assembly the official Star Trek writers should have changed the line from "within dilithum crystals" to "near dilithum crystals". Other than that the concept itself is still ok.

As a compromise though, I did add the following like to the article to cover the technological case Star Trek raises, so can people can still have substances in SARP like dilithium crystals if they want to.
Sometimes in science fiction, antimatter power involves a fictional substance that converts the radiation into usable power
Click to expand...
______________________________
Also Uso, I kind of have already mentioned some of the things you are referring to in your links. ^_^ .
In fact, the second bullet in #3 directly comes from Wikipedia's article on antimatter rockets. The first bullet directly comes from Antimatter catalyzed Nuclear Pulse Propulsion except I choose to talk about positrons instead of anti-protons. I though that people honestly would be more comfortable with positrons instead because positrons are involved in Stellar Nuclear Fusion especially the Sun's P-P Chain Nuclear Fusion Reaction.

I did avoid directly mentioning some of these links, since I didn't want to limit people to just rocket-shaped antimatter propulsion systems among other things. Still if you guys feel its relevant I could add those links. Would you like me to add to the antimatter guide some of the Uso's links as an additional resource?
If you guys think it would be useful I could mention something about anti-protons so that people don't feel limited by just positrons when enhancing their nuclear systems. Should I?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
No it isn't really necessary Soresu.

I’ve been thinking about something related to this issue for some time. It all started with me hearing more then one member state that the wiki is bloated.

A way could be used to resolve this bloat by condensing technological applications on the forum period.

For example, you could have a wiki article detailing Anti-matter’s applications, with the races who use it linked up to it. That away the Wiki is universal, and thus condensed.

I mean it will probably never happen, but foundation style technologies such as fusion reactors, types of computers could be broadened up in order ease the bloat of the forum.

Part of the problem is the specific nature of the technology on the wiki. Just a suggestion.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Soresu said:
Is this all necessary?
Click to expand...
Interesting point Soresu. In fact, this same question was the second question I asked in my first post.
So I was wonder... Does anyone else beside Yamatains use antimatter for something beside weapons? Would a guide for antimatter useful?
Click to expand...
However since you guys brought it up. So what exactly do you specifically think is not useful or not necessary? How should articles be changed?

Ira said:
No it isn't really necessary Soresu.

For example, you could have a wiki article detailing Anti-matter’s applications, with the races who use it linked up to it. That away the Wiki is universal, and thus condensed.
Click to expand...

Well honestly, Ira condesing thing on SARP I something and. This article really more about being a guide to antimatter applications. I mean I am kind of asking some of the questions I asked in my last post in order to figure out how people want to condense things.

  • What do you guys think? In terms of antimatter technology, is their anything else I should add to either article? Like links for weapons or is that too much information?
  • Still if you guys feel its relevant I could add those links. Would you like me to add to the antimatter guide some of the Uso's links as an additional resource?
  • If you guys think it would be useful I could mention something about anti-protons so that people don't feel limited by just positrons when enhancing their nuclear systems. Should I?
Click to expand...
I guess I can also add:
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Let me rephrase what I was asking.

"Why do you think it necessary to create these pages? Do you believe they are required?" Honestly, I don't feel it is needed. We seemed to have been fine before. But that is just my personal opinion. Others may object, or agree. It's just a matter of taste, necessity and 'need'. right now I guess.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Hmm, you bring a good point Sore, however some would argue that pretty graphics aren't needed, and we can play computer games with ASCII charact-oh, wait...

But yeah, while not absoloutly neccesary, I see no harm in someone putting time in writing an article on the applications and theories of antimatter in SARP. A middle ground can probably be reached simply by having a draft copy on a Google Document, that way changes can be made and the article refined until we can all agree it should be wikified. This may end up as one of the foundation tech pages for the setting, it should have nothing less than perfection (no pressure, Phacon ;) ).
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I thought we already knew the applications of antimatter on here. :? Theories are all well and good. But a page had already been made explaining a few ways of manufacturing it on here. So wouldn't this make it redundant?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Well, maybe it's just me, but I have no real idea at all on anti-matter, all I really understand is that when a hydrogen and an anti-hydrogen atom meet, stuff gets messed up (this what I get for opting out of higher science :( ). If the article was written in an explanitory manner, rather than a hard and fast rule manner, it would not be constraint on creativity, but a step up. Of course, Wikipedia will always be the source of five-minute-diplomas in subjects like this, but if Phacon feels it's worth his while, who am I to stop him.^^
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
RPG-D RPGfix
Back
Top