Recent content by Hurricane93

I found something that I thing is interesting and might help here. Check this : http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=At+what+thickness+of+lead+is+200+MeV+gamma+radiation+halved+in+intensity%3F For Lead and 200 MeV incident gamma rays, you only need ~6mm to absorb half the energy of the gamma...

What about the gamma ray energy lose ? Is the attenuation or radiation length relevant here ?

I don't really know how fast charged pion move, but assuming it moves at the speed of light, with its 70 nanosecond mean lifetime, it will travel 21 meters in its lifetime. So it will surely go through the casing of the bomb for example. So if this material is say 5 cm thick of iron or lead...

Should we consider the air as "something" ? Also, what will happen if it decays before it loses its kinetic energy ? where will this energy go ?

Could you please explain a little bit more ? Like just before decaying, would the charged pion have lost all of its kinetic energy ?

Charged pions have a mean lifetime in the range of a nanosecond, so does this mean they will transfer their kinetic energy during this relatively short lifetime ?

What about the kinetic energy of the pions ? should we consider them as lost energy too ?

Ok. So to get a conclusion here, gamma rays will need something to absorb them in a little time and a little space to make a fireball. Charged pions are unlikely to form a well-shaped fireball either before or after decay. What about uncharged pions ?

Well, this is some quote I found in the link you gave me : "Does it mean that the energy of annihilation explosion can be spread out over a large volume of air, not concentrated near the original location of antimatter? Looks like that." So, if the explosion or the heat in other words is...

Would the antimatter explosion still make a fireball and thus a blast wave ? If so, then how will the fireball form in this case ? I mean, matter and antimatter annihilation produce very energetic pions, muons and gamma rays and some other particles after decaying depending of course on which...

Check the 3rd post in the link you provided, please. One last thing. It is known that gamma radiation require less shielding than neutron radiation, so in case of a "hypothetical" Antimatter reactor, would that mean that it would need less massive shielding to reduce the radiation to...

So as the link you provided states, is it safe to consider at minimum that 50% of the energy goes to the explosion ? Also, does matter and antimatter annihilation produce harmful radiation ? If a large amount of gamma rays is released, then we should consider this bomb a source of radiation...

This is a theoretical question since we haven't made enough antimatter to try it in reality of course. But I am asking about the physics part in this. Also, by "useful energy" I mean the energy we are able to use either as a heating source for something like a nuclear reactor, or as energy...

After reading every single post, I still don't have a conclusion. I just need a rough percentage. Would saying 50% be wrong ?

I read that matter-antimatter annihilation is not as useful as we thought because a large amount of energy is carried away by neutrinos. So, how much is this energy ? What is the percentage of the lost energy to the energy calculated from E=mc^2 ?