I’m a Scientist is like school science lessons meet the X Factor! School students choose which scientist gets a prize of $1000 to communicate their work.
Scientists and students talk on this website. They both break down barriers, have fun and learn. But only the students get to vote.
This zone is the Boron Zone. It has a range of scientists studying all different topics. Who gets the prize? YOU decide!
With current technology it isn’t possible to contain antimatter on any significant scale. Most antimatter we can create is charged – and so has to be kept spinning around in a big circle in high vacuum. Some researchers have succeeded in making “anti-hydrogen” and slowing it down so that is at rest – but only a few atoms at a time. You’d need a lot more to use it as a fuel!
If we work out how to contain it on a large scale we could use it as a fuel and as a destructive force – but it requires *a lot* more energy to make it than you would get out of it. You’d be best to stick to nuclear fusion (same process as in the sun) – it’ll be a lot easier, and more efficient.
0
One for the physic/spaces boys.
0
I agree with Matthew on this one: the energy and effort involved in containing anti-matter is far greater than the benefits you’d get using it as fuel. Nuclear fusion has more potential and should be easier to do. However, fusion – where two atoms fuse together to form a bigger atom and release lots of energy in the process – is still a very inefficient technology. The best we have been able to achieve is “break-even” same energy in as out, and even then it has only happened a small number of times.
0
I like Matthew & Simon’s answers
0