For Questions That Don't Merit Their Own Thread

[StrandedonEarth]

On 11/4/2018 at 5:32 AM, Lisias said:

I'm looking for an add on that allows me to execute an action on all same parts on the vessel (i.e., if I turn off a LV-02 Lending gear light, all LV-02 lights are also turned off). [while flying the craft]

I had read about it recently, bur forgot where (probably here), and I don't managed to find it again by keywords - I don't remember the name, and I didn't managed to find the right keywords to find it on search.

Can anyone help me on this?

I think what you’re after  is “All y’all” , but it works on all parts of the same type (solar panels, radiators, etc) but not exact parts (eg all solar panels, not just Gigantors.)

I find it incredibly useful. 

Edited November 6, 2018 by StrandedonEarth

[ARS]

Is it possible to hide a submarine from passive/active sonar by cling it to another submarine/ ship (essentially piggybacking the submarine underneath another vessel with the engine turned off) to make it as if there's only 1 sonar contact? Does an active sonar able to distinguish that there's another ship that's being attached on detected ship when compared with passive sonar? It doesn't matter if the "carrier sub/ship" being detected, the main objective is to make the enemy unable to know that there's a submarine being attached on "carrier sub/ ship"

[kerbiloid]

12 hours ago, ARS said:

So does it means the wheels on the bottom (not the toothed wheel) cannot move the vehicle by itself without a track?

Unless it's a specially designed hybrid tank.

https://translate.google.com.tr/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=ru&ie=UTF-8&u=https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Колёсно-гусеничные_танки&edit-text=

[0111narwhalz]

3 hours ago, ARS said:

Is it possible to hide a submarine from passive/active sonar by cling it to another submarine/ ship (essentially piggybacking the submarine underneath another vessel with the engine turned off) to make it as if there's only 1 sonar contact? Does an active sonar able to distinguish that there's another ship that's being attached on detected ship when compared with passive sonar? It doesn't matter if the "carrier sub/ship" being detected, the main objective is to make the enemy unable to know that there's a submarine being attached on "carrier sub/ ship"

Modern sonar is pretty precise. Unless there's careful participation from the submarine, you'll see either a change in passive profile from an extra ship duct taped to the hull or a change in the passive profile from a dummy mass duct taped to the hull. Actives will probably see it immediately, though I can't be sure; submarines are shaped differently than the hulls of surface ships and one taped to the other will cause strange returns. Now, if you envelop the sub in the surface ship, you might get somewhere, but I imagine it would be possible to tell the difference between an empty sub bay and a full one from the way they resonante, like how you can tell the difference between a hollow melon and a solid one by tapping on it.

Edited November 6, 2018 by 0111narwhalz

[Diche Bach]

Life itself is, in some sense, a defiance of "physics and chemistry." What happens to a dead body? It decays. So why are none of us decaying yet? Because we are alive.

Senescence itself is an adaptation, and it does not reflect, as some of you seem to think a simple manifestation of 'wear-and-tear' or 'expenditure of supplies.' It does involve trade-offs in somatic versus reproductive effort and various other forms of life-history allocation, and to be sure all of those relations (as well as the very existence of life itself) adhere strictly to the natural constraints of reality which are so coarsely described in our "natural sciences."

I believe it was in the Blind Watchmaker or else the Selfish Gene that Richard Dawkins planted these notions in my head.  

[YNM]

7 hours ago, Diche Bach said:

Life itself is, in some sense, a defiance of "physics and chemistry."

Until you consider the amount of stuff you have to break down to ensure you keep alive. After all, you still go to the kitchen then the bathroom.

Compare and constrast with celestial bodies. For all reason and purposes they almost need nothing at all, and they're definitely dead from day one.

Edited November 6, 2018 by YNM
wrong letter

[Green Baron]

39 minutes ago, Diche Bach said:

... So why are none of us decaying yet? Because we are alive. ...

Hi :-)

But we are constantly and inevitably decaying. And in order for this process to be temporarily delayed we must transform energy in our metabolism.

Life is much less mysterious and by no means defying anything if you see it as a more or less complex metabolism, an exchange of matter and energy in a specific organism-dependent combination with the surrounding. Once the combination is wrong or polluted or the exchange partly disrupted by internal or external factors, the organism stops to work properly.

An adaptation can only occur within the physical limits of the material and the processes that take place. There is a maximum size for a frame of bones, a maximum theoretical age for a tree or a mammal, a minimum size of a population to stay healthy, and so on.

You can see the process of aging only as an adaption if the environment exerts a pressure on an organism, that longevity gives it a reproductive advantage. This is clearly not the case in small mammals for example, they produce so many descendants that some species have actually developed an intraspecies aggressiveness (which they can loose during a generation under population control, example tamed and household animals). Aging plays no role in those and thus the wild individuals e.g. of small rodents sometimes just survive the term between birth and reproduction (if they get the chance).

Deferred aging does play a role in humans, and there is quite some work on the necessity or usefulness of grandparents for example. But this is a strong observer bias, if i may say so :-) And anyway, there are vertebrates that may get as old or (a little) older than humans, without the hypothetical usefulness of grandparents ...

Edit: ninja'd :-)

Edited November 6, 2018 by Green Baron

[p1t1o]

53 minutes ago, Diche Bach said:

Life itself is, in some sense, a defiance of "physics and chemistry." What happens to a dead body? It decays. So why are none of us decaying yet? Because we are alive.

Not even slightly, every facet of nature and biology fits exactly with the principles of chemistry and physics. Its just extremely complex is all, hundreds-if-not-thousands of co-interacting reactions, processes and cycles. In a drop of blood or a gram of tissue, there can easily be 1000s of distinct chemical species, but they all obey the laws of physics.

"Because we're alive" might seem like a mystical, romantic answer full of mystery and intrigue, but those words express a specific set of chemical/biological circumstances that exactly describe why the body decays.

Now, it might take me several pages and hours of writing to properly describe why a body decays, but that is because its complex, not because it is not understood.

That is not to say there arent things we know less about, in the life sciences, but in all cases the usual scientific method works perfectly well.

 

[Green Baron]

Adding to this, one can actually work with the different aging and replacement rates of different cells and cell types.

Example: Tooth enamel is built once as a child and not replaced, while the material in bones is replaced every seven to ten years because bones do modify during an individuals lifetime, reflecting strength, muscle buildup, etc. Stable isotopes thus reflect the material composition of the area the individual lived in during its lifetime. Knowing this, one can tell if somebody actually spent the last years of her/his life in the same place where he/she was raised. Nice for archaeologists :-)

(Search spell: stable strontium isotopy)

Edited November 6, 2018 by Green Baron

[DerekL1963]

13 hours ago, ARS said:

Is it possible to hide a submarine from passive/active sonar by cling it to another submarine/ ship (essentially piggybacking the submarine underneath another vessel with the engine turned off) to make it as if there's only 1 sonar contact?

Yes...  and no.  Yes, because they will appear as a single contact to both active and passive.  Possibly no depending on how well the sonar characteristics of the mothership are known to the opposing vessel.  Flow noise is an issue here, as well as "hotel" noise (air conditioning, the electrical system, etc... etc...).  Engines aren't the only source of noise and there are...  let's just say passive sonar uses some pretty sophisticated analysis methods.  As far as active goes, I don't know enough to be certain.  (Not only has it been thirty years since I last sat a sonar console, the active system I'm familiar with was ancient and obsolescent even then.)


 

 

[Gargamel]

21 hours ago, ARS said:

Is it possible to hide a submarine from passive/active sonar by cling it to another submarine/ ship (essentially piggybacking the submarine underneath another vessel with the engine turned off) to make it as if there's only 1 sonar contact? Does an active sonar able to distinguish that there's another ship that's being attached on detected ship when compared with passive sonar? It doesn't matter if the "carrier sub/ship" being detected, the main objective is to make the enemy unable to know that there's a submarine being attached on "carrier sub/ ship"

Well..... They did something similar in Down Periscope!

Passive Sonar would not be able to see the docked sub at all.   But, they would know the blade rate for the carrier ship for given speeds.  The docked sub would cause a lot of drag to the carrier ship, making it go slower than the blade rate would indicate.  It would take a bit of time, but the sonar operators would see that something was amiss eventually.   It wouldn't say what was happening, but they would know something was slowing the carrier ship.

There are different types of active sonar.  The classic one that sends out a single ping for weapons targeting would probably not be able to tell the difference.   There is a chance, that if they know the exact class of vessel they are pinging, and the aspect of that vessel (the angle the target is presenting to the sonar), there may be a database of expected sonar returns vs distance.  I highly doubt this exists, unless they are actively searching for a type of vessel that is carrying something big underwater.   But then, if they know a type of vessel is suspected of this, they will just use the blade rate vs speed analysis to locate the offending one, so they can skip the active sonar pings that also reveal their own location.  

There is high frequency active sonar though.  It is of very short range, less than 1 km or less, though.  It's high frequency system gives a very high resolution.  It can be viewed on a screen almost like a very grainy TV picture.  It is often used in mine detection and location.    I know the ACTUV system (Sea Hunter) was going to possibly carry a system for identification of targets it was tracking (I'm unsure if they actually included that or not, I'm pretty sure that's classified).    So if a sub were to pull up along side the larger carrier vessel and scan it with the HF sonar, the docked sun would probably stick out like a sore thumb.   I could imagine some sort of sea lane checkpoint if there was a concern about this in some fictitious setting. 

 

7 hours ago, DerekL1963 said:

Flow noise is an issue here, as well as "hotel" noise (air conditioning, the electrical system, etc... etc...).  Engines aren't the only source of noise and there are...  let's just say passive sonar uses some pretty sophisticated analysis methods. 

My assumption is that any transients or other noises would be near impossible to write off as not coming from the carrier ship.  Unless there was some very specific noises that only come from that type of sub, torp doors opening, etc. 

 

So in short, assuming this is some action movie sub smuggling scenario...  If the 'authorities' are actively looking for a vessel that might be carrying a sub docked underneath, then it would be pretty hard to hide it for very long.  But if there is not an active search for it, it should go undetected for quite a while.   Sonar systems might note something odd about a certain ship, but there wouldn't be too many red flags to alert people. 

[Gargamel]

8 hours ago, DerekL1963 said:

Flow noise

At what range would flow noise be a usable data source?

[ARS]

26 minutes ago, Gargamel said:

unless they are actively searching for a type of vessel that is carrying something big underwater

The scenario is there's a submarine attempting to break through a channel, but there's a heavy cruiser patrolling the area with an explicit order to sink any non-allied ship/ submarine attempting to pass through. However, due to the limited sonar capability of the heavy cruiser, it needs support from recon submarine to detect any submarine underwater, but since the recon sub is highly vulnerable and have very little armament, it stands no chance if the recon sub is being detected first (since it's constantly sends out sonar pings), therefore it needs to be hidden from enemy submarine while still able to use passive/active sonar. The soulution is to simply duct tape the entire sub underneath the heavy cruiser to make it as if there's only 1 ship out there. Note that the information that's available for submarine crew is just "A heavy cruiser with ASW capability is patrolling the area". The submarine cannot send any sonar ping since it'll reveal their position, but they knew that enemy heavy cruiser is constantly sending out sonar pings to detect the submarine and they can't get too close or risk being detected and the passive sonar only indicate that there's only 1 sonar contact: the heavy cruiser itself

[Gargamel]

38 minutes ago, ARS said:

(since it's constantly sends out sonar pings)

A sub constantly using it's active sonar is like saying you are trying to hide an active light house in the dark.     The best scenario for this would be for the recon sub to stay passive, and just listen to everything that goes by.   It could even set it self down on the ocean floor and nobody would ever "see" it.  Let the cruiser fire off it's active sonar, and the sub can listen for returns from that too. 

But your point to it being vulnerable is absolutely right.  Subs hate shallow water, which is what a channel usually is.   And not only are channels shallow, they're narrow, so finding a sub in a channel is almost literally shooting fish in a barrel.  Look up what the German Uboats had to go through to transfer from the Atlantic to the Med through Gibraltar during WWII. 

I'm not sure if this is a scenario you are creating, or one you have encountered, but duct taping a sub to a cruiser is probably the worst way to go about it.   

Let me roll a bit with this scenario.   We have a Heavy cruiser patrolling a channel.  Heavy cruisers are not known for their ASW capabilities, they're more of shore bombardment and surface warfare ships.  They are usually not nimble enough for ASW maneuvers, and they are too valuable to be going directly against a sub alone.  They are usually escorted by smaller ASW capable vessels, like destroyers or even light cruisers.   But even a heavy cruiser might have helicopters on board, specifically used for ASW.   Even if they don't, we're in a channel, which means we most likely have a friendly naval air station in the region, so we can get ASW air assets from that.   These air assets carry sonobuoys, buoys that actively give off active sonar, and report their results back to a controlling source, the cruiser or helicopter in this instance.    Since were patrolling a channel, the are we have to search is very small, and a tight constellation of buoys can be laid out.   So you basically end up with a temporary version of a SOSUS line.   Upon finding a sub contact, the air assets could prosecute it at will.   In my scenario, our recon sub wouldn't even be in the area, or it's location would be well known to friendlies, to eliminate the chances of friendly fire. 

Another option is something like an ACTUV system, which I linked above.   It is quite feasible for a heavy carrier to actually carry a couple of these on board if they were intending to 'blockade' a channel to enemy vessels.  These are autonomous sub hunting drone ships, which once locked onto a target are nearly impossible to lose, since they use mainly active system to constantly hound a target.  These fit your recon sub idea better, as they are small and light weight (relatively speaking), and are expendable if it comes to that.    If one of the drones suddenly blows up, then you have a pretty good idea where your enemy sub is.  

But I think my point is, subs are not your best option for blockading a shallow water passage.  A surface vessel with proper ASW assets is the best way to go about it.   Even subs designed for littoral warfare would not want to be in this scenario.    The sub trying to get through, though, doesn't seem to have a choice, so it has to make it's way through. 

Now, duct taping the attacking sub to the bottom of a large merchant vessel, is a "viable" option, hypothetically speaking.    The scenario in Periscope Down! is tempting, but a good passive sonar system would be able to pick up the differences in blades and power plants, as @DerekL1963  said.   But if you physically attached the sub to the underside of an oil tanker let's say, and shut it down almost completely, it would be hard for them to detect it.  But that takes a lot of time and planning to pull off, and a heavy dry dock refit for the tanker, and your scenario may not have that option. 

Edit:  There are ships, like the Glomar Explorer, which are designed to pick up and carry a sub.  Actually GE maybe the only one, but if you happened to have one handy and nearby, it would work perfectly for this scenario.

 

Edited November 7, 2018 by Gargamel

[kerbiloid]

Can they hear the submarine crew speaking outside of it?

Edited November 7, 2018 by kerbiloid

[DerekL1963]

2 hours ago, Gargamel said:

These air assets carry sonobuoys, buoys that actively give off active sonar,

Sonobouys can be active or passive...  And active buoys have the same disadvantage that any other active sonar does - they cue the listener that somebody is looking, and they mark *where* they're looking.

Other than that, you're spot on.  Nobody is going to close a channel with a heavy cruiser, they'll use tin cans and air assets if they're available.  And if they'll have subs of their own, they use them at the entrances and exits to the strait.  Depending on the scenario, defensive minefields might not be out of the question as well.

And no offense to the OP, but the "recon sub" is a ridiculous idea...  With no "teeth", there's no point in deploying it.  Use it close to home instead, and there's no sense in not equipping it with a full battery of weapons because that frees up other assets.  And that's not even getting into the difficulty (read: damn near impossible in a tactical time frame) of the recon sub communicating with other units in order to cue them in.  And Gargamel is correct, no sub is going to use active sonar unless it has absolutely no other choice.  Thanks to the inverse square law, the submarine's active pings can be heard considerably further than they can provide useful returns.

It sounds like you're trying to bend reality to create a specific scenario...  and that's rarely a good idea.

[ARS]

To be fair, the channel is located on enemy-controlled territory, so they basically occupied the area recently and haven't build any permanent bases

No airbase available around the channel since it's isolated area, but since there's a passage into inland bodies of water inside the country, a ship was assigned to guard it

The closest ship available is a patrolling heavy cruiser, which is assigned as a temporary solution to guard the channel before dedicated coastal defense fleet arrived

The heavy cruiser has ASW helicopter and large number of antisub depth charge mortars. Normally it relies on "recon" sub (it's designated as such, it's like an enlarged midget sub with 10-15 crew) in passive sonar to spot the enemy sub, but since the sub has an engine damage from prior fighting, it's maneuverability is hampered and in no condition for fighting, but it still needs to follow the heavy cruiser during patrol

Then someone got an idea to duct tape the entire sub underneath the heavy cruiser (to fool enemy that there's only 1 sonar contact, thereby making it as if there's no submarine, only heavy cruiser) to allow the heavy cruiser use the submarine's active sonar while carrying it along to mitigate the lack of sub's maneuverability (they figured that since they are in a channel, with relatively shallow water, an active sonar would cover much larger detection area than simply listening with passive sonar, thus, more efficient in covering the entire channel)

[Green Baron]

3 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Can they hear the submarine crew speaking outside of it?

Spoiler

I doubt submarine crews speak outside of a submarine ...

 

[p1t1o]

5 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Can they hear the submarine crew speaking outside of it?

I have heard anecdotally, that the hull of a submarine (being about 2 inches of steel - and on top of that, various other noise reduction measures, like those rubber tiles) is quite soundproof to normal noises like talking or walking, but that submarines that are trying to hide will still have "run silent" procedures that involve keeping any internal noise to a minimum (eg: no running, no shouting, stow things like tools or other loose objects, turn off the dishwasher etc.).

[kerbiloid]

1 hour ago, p1t1o said:

I have heard anecdotally, that the hull of a submarine (being about 2 inches of steel - and on top of that, various other noise reduction measures, like those rubber tiles) is quite soundproof to normal noises like talking or walking, but that submarines that are trying to hide will still have "run silent" procedures that involve keeping any internal noise to a minimum (eg: no running, no shouting, stow things like tools or other loose objects, turn off the dishwasher etc.).

That's what confuses me in submarine movies. They whisper like somebody is listening what they talk about.

[p1t1o]

1 hour ago, kerbiloid said:

That's what confuses me in submarine movies. They whisper like somebody is listening what they talk about.

I think it might almost be automatic. I think I'd whisper if someone told me a mahcine with the most sophisticated listening equipment in the world was looking for me to kill me, I'd whisper no matter where I was!

Its like, on the TV, you always see people duck when entering a helicopter, like their heads might get caught by the blades. But the blades of an average helicopter are like 8-10 feet off the ground, minimum, right? So why duck?

I've been lucky enough to have a few rides in a heli, and by damn, with a 500hp gas turbine spinning 10 foot blades above your head, you freaking DUCK!

[Gargamel]

19 hours ago, ARS said:

To be fair, the channel is located on enemy-controlled territory, so they basically occupied the area recently and haven't build any permanent bases

No airbase available around the channel since it's isolated area, but since there's a passage into inland bodies of water inside the country, a ship was assigned to guard it

The closest ship available is a patrolling heavy cruiser, which is assigned as a temporary solution to guard the channel before dedicated coastal defense fleet arrived 

I'm really confused now.    Who's doing what?

A heavy cruiser, inland, in a channel, in enemy territory, is a sitting duck.   Even land based artillery would have a field day with it, not too much long range Air, think Tirpitz here.    There's no way command would drop such a valuable asset into such a poor situation.   It would do much better to drop off a few observers/spotters on shore, and then back way the heck off, and bombard the area if it needs too.  It would have room to maneuver then, and not get pinned down.   Still vulnerable to air, but they'd have too look for it.   A heavy cruiser is not a littoral vessel, it's really a small battleship. 

19 hours ago, ARS said:

The heavy cruiser has ASW helicopter and large number of antisub depth charge mortars. Normally it relies on "recon" sub (it's designated as such, it's like an enlarged midget sub with 10-15 crew) in passive sonar to spot the enemy sub, but since the sub has an engine damage from prior fighting, it's maneuverability is hampered and in no condition for fighting, but it still needs to follow the heavy cruiser during patrol

All sorts of Nope! right there.

A heavy cruiser would not carry depth charges.  They are too big, slow and lack the maneuverability to conduct ASW DC runs.   Any sub worth it's salt would tear up a lone heavy cruiser. 

And like Derek said, recon subs like you are trying to create here, just do not exist.  There are similarly sized subs for utility and rescue work, but they would just be way too small for any type of combat use.  They would have no longevity, not enough weapons, and not have a very good sonar system.  Subs are the smallest they can be for what they have to carry.  Torpedoes are BIG,  Sonar systems are BIG, diesel engines are BIG, banks of batteries are BIG.    If you want a sub to have one or two of these capabilities, then I can see a mini sub maybe having a decent sonar system and an electric motor, but would need to be recharged by the cruiser.   But to have a bit of all of these, each system pretty much has a minimum size that allows for a usable system, and if you have all of them on a sub, then you have a minimum size for a sub...

 

19 hours ago, ARS said:

Then someone got an idea to duct tape the entire sub underneath the heavy cruiser (to fool enemy that there's only 1 sonar contact, thereby making it as if there's no submarine, only heavy cruiser) to allow the heavy cruiser use the submarine's active sonar while carrying it along to mitigate the lack of sub's maneuverability (they figured that since they are in a channel, with relatively shallow water, an active sonar would cover much larger detection area than simply listening with passive sonar, thus, more efficient in covering the entire channel)

If your cruiser has ASW capabilities on board, then it must have been designed with sonar.   It's not a complicated structure to design into the hull of a ship:

That little dome (and this is on a Arleigh-Burke class Destroyer, so a heavy cruiser should be about 2-3 times this size, plenty to handle that little dome) is really all the sonar capability a ship needs, if they have ASW helo's on board too.  

[p1t1o]

On 11/7/2018 at 6:03 AM, ARS said:

To be fair, the channel is located on enemy-controlled territory, so they basically occupied the area recently and haven't build any permanent bases

No airbase available around the channel since it's isolated area, but since there's a passage into inland bodies of water inside the country, a ship was assigned to guard it

The closest ship available is a patrolling heavy cruiser, which is assigned as a temporary solution to guard the channel before dedicated coastal defense fleet arrived

The heavy cruiser has ASW helicopter and large number of antisub depth charge mortars. Normally it relies on "recon" sub (it's designated as such, it's like an enlarged midget sub with 10-15 crew) in passive sonar to spot the enemy sub, but since the sub has an engine damage from prior fighting, it's maneuverability is hampered and in no condition for fighting, but it still needs to follow the heavy cruiser during patrol

Then someone got an idea to duct tape the entire sub underneath the heavy cruiser (to fool enemy that there's only 1 sonar contact, thereby making it as if there's no submarine, only heavy cruiser) to allow the heavy cruiser use the submarine's active sonar while carrying it along to mitigate the lack of sub's maneuverability (they figured that since they are in a channel, with relatively shallow water, an active sonar would cover much larger detection area than simply listening with passive sonar, thus, more efficient in covering the entire channel)

Im going to unashamedly fanboy on something.

It sounds ike you would get a kick out of playing "Command: Modern Air/Naval Combat" ["CMANO"].

Its a hardcore military strategic/tactical sim and can model all of the things you are talking about here in as-close-to-hyperrealism-that-unclassified-data-can-get-you detail.

Graphics are bare bones but utilitarian, but its the unit database which is the goldmine. I'll leave you to follow that rabbithole, but suffice to say, you can wargame all of these scenarios with real world (and some hypothetical/experimental) units. 

It tries as hard as it can, with the data available to civilians, to model every piece of equipment as closely as possible. A warship, for example, will have all its sensors and weapons modelled - in addition to multiple radars, sonars, IR cameras, VLS missile banks and heavy guns, down to the .50cal anti-speedboat guns and a guy on the bridge with binoculars.

 

It is accurate enough to give you a pretty good broad-strokes idea of how various conflicts would play out in the real world. It has its limitations like every  - but its the best, most accurate one on the market (and yes, they do provide a "special" version to military customers)

Oh and yes, it has midget subs.

You can do fun things like install railguns on battleships.

It models everything from an infantryman with an AT missile to ICBMs and ASATs.

It tries its hardest to include every unit from every country from 1940 to about 2040. And it does quite well.

[MaverickSawyer]

Had a bit of a crazy idea last night while driving home from class...

We're all pretty familiar with the energetic nature of antimatter, correct? It's hard to find something with more bang per unit of mass. This, however, raises some interesting questions...

-I am familiar with the anti-hydrogen atom (one antiproton, one positron), and that would react violently with, well, anything. Does anti-deuterium have a regular neutron, or an antineutron?

-If it's an antineutron, does it also mutually annihilate when it contacts a "regular" neutron?

-If the answer to the above is "yes", then does that make antideuterium a better choice for use as a reactant in antimatter reactions, density wise?

[Gargamel]

5 hours ago, MaverickSawyer said:

We're all pretty familiar with the energetic nature of antimatter, correct? It's hard to find something with more bang per unit of mass. This, however, raises some interesting questions...

Antimatter is no more energetic than regular matter.   It is only when it interacts with matter does the pair become energetic.   A toaster made of anti matter can exist quietly on it's own for a very long time, quite stable just like your regular toaster at home.  But once you put a slice of regular bread into, will you instantly burn your toast.