SciFi/Theoretical Power Sources?

[Adrian Tullberg]

How many different hypothetical and technobabble-derived power sources are there?

[Patrick Degan]

1. Fisson power —featured in many SF works from the late 40s through even parts of the 70s; using nuclear fission reactors to produce energy for general electricity and drive.

2. Fusion power —common energy source in much hard SF, being as it is based upon present-day science. Features in much genre literature from 1965-onward, Star Trek and Babylon 5.

3. Matter/antimatter annihilation —theoretically, one of the best SF energy sources as it does derive from present-day physics. Features extensively in Star Trek.

4. Captured/artificial black holes —usually quantum singularities, these fall into the realm of fringe physics; possible in principle perhaps but may never be practical. Featured in Star Trek: The Next Generation and Doctor Who.

5. Hyperspace tap —in vogue mainly during the 60s and mostly figures in genre literature.

6. ZPE —became the in-vogue "cutting edge" power source in SF during the 80s and 90s, when speculation about vacuum point energy was all the rage. Alas for ZPE, observation has revealed that the vacuum would not yield up any more than one ten-thousandth of a joule from any given point, and the whole thing has pretty much fallen into the realm of pure technobabble. Already falling from favour in the genre.

7. Various Great Machine generators —usually the artefacts of long-dead races; tapping colossal energies from unknown or unspecified sources. The movie Forbidden Planet has one of these, which in turn inspired the Great Machine in Babylon 5.

8. Various "superelemental" energy sources —hypermatter from Star Wars fits into this category; generally any source with energy densities exceeding all known natural and theoretical energy sources by entire orders of magnitude. Used in which ever works require the protagonist race to be able to accomplish feats which would be beyond any forseeable engineering capability (such as fueling planet-busting weaponry).

9. Clarke Devices —any SF technology or power source which is best described by Haldane's First Law (later adapted by Arthur C. Clarke): "any sufficently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". Not explicable by any conceivable thermodynamic or mechanical process.

[Peregrin Toker]

3. Matter/antimatter annihilation —theoretically, one of the best SF energy sources as it does derive from present-day physics. Features extensively in Star Trek.

Isn't matter/antimatter quite dangerous due to the nature of antimatter??


As a side note, I've read about something called "negative matter." It's something which has been theorised to exist, but it has never been observed and it's likely that negative matter is entirely hypothetical.

Negative matter is something which is repulsed by all normal matter as well as antimatter, and it has been suggested that if negative matter exist, it would make a good way of propelling a spaceship because the acceleration would be very fast and constant.... unfortunately, the acceleration would not be stoppable.

I seriously doubt that this "negative matter" exists (it's extremely "edgy science") but it's worth a mention nonetheless.

[monty python] AND NOW FOR SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT!! [/monty python]

Some of the weirdest sci-fi power generation ever is the "psychic electricity" in Warhammer 40K, where one of the Eldar's many weapons are the so-called "Wraithcannon."

A Wraithcannon is used by a Wraithguard, a robotic warrior piloted by a dead soul, and the Wraithcannon uses the "psychic energy" of the Wraithguard's inhabitant soul as ammo. Doesn't make sense? Not my fault.

[Arrow]

A couple of my own that I've come up with, playing with the grey areas of String theory (as presented in a couple of issues of Scientific American):

Energetic Force Reactor - initially charged by a fusion reactor, it creates a short range field that suppresses the forces that mass of atom together, allowing the majority of mass to turn into energy. Its almost as powerful as matter/antimatter device, much safer and produces radiation that is readiably usable (in my universe, at any rate).

Dimension Gravity Tap - based on the B5 hyperspace tap used by the Vorlons and Shadows. Since gravity propogates through out all dimensions, and just not spacetime, its force in spacetime is weak. DGTs are able to tap into other dimensions, were gravity is presumable stronger, and uses to generate power. Basically, its hydroelectic dam that can mounted on a ship and used to generate massive quantities of power.



On negative matter. If you didn't know, negative energy does exist, as is seen in the Casmir effect.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

3. Matter/antimatter annihilation —theoretically, one of the best SF energy sources as it does derive from present-day physics. Features extensively in Star Trek.

Isn't matter/antimatter quite dangerous due to the nature of antimatter??

Indeed. Antimatter has to be carefully contained, as the typical antiproton or antineutron, or positron does not care if the proton/neutron/electron it's annhilating belongs to the annhilation target, or the reactor walls. And matter/antimatter reactors are more of the ultimate in battery technology. It's obscenely expensive to produce antimatter. It's not like other power generation technologies, where the cost of producing the consumables is less than the energy extracted by consuming the consumables.

[Peregrin Toker]

Antimatter has to be carefully contained, as the typical antiproton or antineutron, or positron does not care if the proton/neutron/electron it's annhilating belongs to the annhilation target, or the reactor walls. And matter/antimatter reactors are more of the ultimate in battery technology. It's obscenely expensive to produce antimatter. It's not like other power generation technologies, where the cost of producing the consumables is less than the energy extracted by consuming the consumables.

So is it really worth it to use antimatter/matter?? Well, definately not in the near future. Until it becomes safe, nuclear fusion would probably do a better job.

On negative matter. If you didn't know, negative energy does exist, as is seen in the Casmir effect.

Yes, negative energy, but....

Not to sound like an idiot, but is matter the same as energy?? Or is energy a type of matter?

[SPOOFE]

So is it really worth it to use antimatter/matter??

An anti-matter reaction, if contained safely, can yield energy orders of magnitude more powerful than fusion.

However, fusion has the promise of becoming viable in the near (read: several decades, maybe, possibly) future. M/AM reactions do not.

[Arrow]

Yes, negative energy, but....

Not to sound like an idiot, but is matter the same as energy?? Or is energy a type of matter?

More study is probably needed to figure that one out. If the Higgs field (or whatever mechanism that is responsible for 'generating' mass) can be applied to negative energy particles, then yes, negative matter can exist. But on the flip side, it looks like universe tries to destroy negative energy as quick as possible, so negative mass probably does not exist.

And, by E=mc2, matter is a form of energy.

[Rye]

Also, there is the question of where the hell you get antimatter from.

[Morat]

We can already make it. I'd say its only a matter of time (perhaps a very long time) until we can produce anti-matter on an industrial scale.

[Eleas]

We can already make it. I'd say its only a matter of time (perhaps a very long time) until we can produce anti-matter on an industrial scale.

If that were possible, I'd prefer to confine its production facilities to the moon, at the very least.

[Rye]

We can already make it. I'd say its only a matter of time (perhaps a very long time) until we can produce anti-matter on an industrial scale.

If that were possible, I'd prefer to confine its production facilities to the moon, at the very least.

Be scary if enough was made to alter the moon's orbital trajectory into the earth, that sounds like a cool idea for a movie...so it's mine gaddamit hollywood! YOU HEAR ME?!

[Arrow]

We can already make it. I'd say its only a matter of time (perhaps a very long time) until we can produce anti-matter on an industrial scale.

I've heard that if took one of the accelerates that is used to make anti-matter now and use it solely for production (instead of research), you can make a lot of anti-matter fairly quickly.

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

It takes more energy to make antimatter today they you could make from the antimatter.

[The Nomad]

It takes more energy to make antimatter today they you could make from the antimatter.

But wouldn't this antimatter allow extremely energy-intensive applications ?

Besides, we've got a huge thing at the centre of our solar system radiating 90% of its output in pure loss...

[Illuminatus Primus]

It takes more energy to make antimatter today they you could make from the antimatter.

M/AM will always be a net-loss power source.

[Morat]

M/AM will always be a net-loss power source.

Why do you say that?

[Eleas]

We can already make it. I'd say its only a matter of time (perhaps a very long time) until we can produce anti-matter on an industrial scale.

If that were possible, I'd prefer to confine its production facilities to the moon, at the very least.

Be scary if enough was made to alter the moon's orbital trajectory into the earth, that sounds like a cool idea for a movie...so it's mine gaddamit hollywood! YOU HEAR ME?!

Oh. Ahem... I meant the moon of Saturn. Yeah, that's right. Saturn'd be good.

[Arrow]

M/AM will always be a net-loss power source.

Why do you say that?

Because it takes a huge amount of energy to create the antimatter in a particle accelerator in the first place. So even your ship gets lots of energy to play with by using antimatter, you've got an antimatter production station spending a lot more energy to create the antimatter.

[Morat]

Because it takes a huge amount of energy to create the antimatter in a particle accelerator in the first place.

Ah, so you're working under the assumption that we'll never find any other way to make it.

That makes sense, then.

[Arrow]

Well, if can figure out another way to produce, good. But now you need a fool proof way to store it and a way to turn gamma-rays into usable energy.

[Yogi]

In Kiddy Grade, there was a tecno-babble reactor that would convert matter directly to energy, without having to go through M/AM reactions.

[NapoleonGH]

the advantage to M/AM as an actual powersource would be if we could translate other forms of less transportable/storable energies into AM, Solar, Geothermal, Wind, Hydro, etc. You would have a net loss but it could be used the way the hydro powerplants use flywheels, basically they have really massive wheels that when there is excess production are spun via electric motor, if there is then more demand than production the momentum of these wheels is used to turn that electric motor into an electric generator. Basically they act as a battery.

Now think, you want a space ship to move, you cant take the sun with you, so you gotta transform solar energy into a storable way of holding energy, M/AM could be that way.

[kojikun]

To convert gamma rays to usable energy you'd need an incredibly dense blanket of, say, hydrogen, or some heavy inert gas maybe, like xenon or radon. The heat from the gammas would also vaporise any metal so a metal gas could also be used, but you'd need a buffer to begin with. maybe an ablative metal interior, perhaps made of lead, that will vape. also the use of very small quantities would help.

M/AM rocketry would be very similar to pulse detonation nuclear rockets, both internale and external, tho external wastes ALOT of energy.

[His Divine Shadow]

Isn't matter/antimatter quite dangerous due to the nature of antimatter??

Yes, touch antimatter with your hand and you'll be turned into a sheep.