From: teeks99stuff@yahoo.com   
      
   henry@spsystems.net (Henry Spencer) wrote in news:IBGEL3.J8s@spsystems.net:   
      
   > In article ,   
   > Rick Jones   wrote:   
   >>> Considering that regular ozone is not used as an oxidizer because it   
   >>> is a powerful and touchy explosive, I don't even want to *think*   
   >>> about a version packing twice as much energy...   
   >>   
   >>A peanut gallery question - would it be more touchy than antimatter?   
   >   
   > Antimatter is not touchy at all, provided you keep it confined properly.   
   > It's dangerous, yes, but in a predictable way that can be dealt with by   
   > careful engineering.  The problem with sensitive explosives, like liquid   
   > ozone, is that they're so unpredictable -- they don't give you any way to   
   > improve the situation.   
      
      
   All the antimatter I've ever heard of has been created through high energy   
   physics.  I'm assuming that this "High Energy" is still around when the   
   antimatter is finished being created.....like its a plasma or something.   
      
   If this is a case, you could more accurately compare containing antimatter   
   to safely containing a massive explosion that has already happened.   
   Although in the case on antimatter if this containment that is sutiable to   
   contain a massive explosion fails....then you'll have even more energy   
   being output.   
      
   Basically if you could put ozone in your antimatter container, you wouldn't   
   have to worry about it exploding, because the container would be plenty   
   enough to handle that...it just wouldn't be usable afterwards.   
      
   Tom   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)