Then we are in agreement.

There many factors to be considered to make real engineering happen. 1) costs, 2) technological feasibility & 3) safety. And at least these three must be present before proceeding.

Right now 1) & 2) are the main reason for debunking anitmatter engines, because costs are on the order of $1E20, and per John Eades real world experience working with antimatter at CERN
http://lifeboat.com/blog/2012/08/new-findings-on-the-antimatter-drive
this is considered impossible for now.

Yes, we could do something in 200 years but that is not relveant for today, tomorrow or within the next few decades.

I cannot stress the importance of distinguishing between real world engineering feasibility and ‘theoretical’ engineering. One way is to ask the question, if you had a few millions dollars can you demonstrate experimental feasibility as a propulsion devices, in the next few years? If the answer is not yes, then we are dealing with ‘theoretical’ engineering, which looks really good on paper, gives you a really great feeling of achievement, but out of touch with reality.

Therefore debunked.

Most of the energy produced by antimatter is the form of neutrinos and gamma rays that are almost useless for energy generation and propulsion. On the other hand, most of the energy produced by aneutronic fusion is mainly in form of charged alpha particles that can be easily deflected/shielded by electric/magnetic fields and directly used for electricity generation and propulsion. Furthermore, antimatter is much harder to be obtained/produced and stored. In short, helium-3 and p-B11 are far cheaper and safer without the disadvantages of antimatter.

The usage is per reported by the various authors. You need to click on the links and do your own research, if you are really interested in finding out more.

I’m doing quick and dirty calculation per NASA’s and others’ costs estimates. Antimatter engine fuel costs are on the order of $1E20. That is if you reduce the costs of antimater drives by a factor of a billion, the costs would still be on the order of $1E11, to make it comparable to the unrealistic costs of conventional rocket propulsion.

The primary objective of this exercuse is to determine whether anyone I would employ (should that day come) should waste their time, effort and talent exploring these engine designs. Obviously not.

At some point we have to draw the line between academic exercises (useful for understanding a theory or passing a test) and real world engineering feasible solutions.

That is why I term these types of explorations as ‘theoretical engineering’, they are fun to do, gives you a sense of accomplishment but out of touch with reality.

i wanna know much about antimatter engine.
please give me whatever knowledge you have about antimatter propulsion