> I think that there is a misunderstanding about what the word stability means.

In what way!?

> Mixing hydrogen and oxygen is a stable process, until a spark initiates a chemical
> reaction. Hydrogen is stable, as is oxygen.

Don, action/reaction is how all reality is programmed, so you just cannot always prevent a catalyst from entering the field and causing the action/reaction...

> In the case of matter and antimatter, they are both utterly (as best as the best
> physicists in the world can measure) stable. However, they do annihilate each other.

Since they do "annihilate" each other and we do not find any natural anti-matter, then by definition anti-matter is unstable! I am truly amazed that you are having a difficult time understanding such a basic concept?

> Since matter is easy to come by, the trick is to (a) generate antimatter, (b) keep it in
> a vacuum, removed from all matter. This could be done by putting it in a vacuum vessel
> and suspend it using electric or magnetic fields (c.f. modern particle physics beams or
> E.E. Doc Smith's anti-iron).

..and why and at what cost?

> Alternatively, one could isolate antimatter in deep space.
> Note that orbiting the sun wouldn't work, as the protons in the solar wind would
> annihilate the antiprotons in the antimatter, and the result would be an impressive
> energy source.

Maybe you have seeing too many Star War movies or Star Treck episodes! LOL

> Regarding antimatter as an energy source on earth, there are two problems. One is that
> it is exceedingly dangerous.

That is because it is unstable!

> A single gram (one paperclip) of antimatter, coming in contact with a like amount of
> matter, has an energy release comparable to the first several nuclear detonations.
> So your containment vessel must be fool-proof.

There is no such thing as "fool-proof"!!!!

> The other problem is that you have to manufacture antimatter. You can't just go and
> mine it or something. In the course of manufacturing antimatter, you use FAR,
> FAR more energy to generate it than the antimatter itself contains.

Of course, because anti-matter is very unstable...

> That energy could be used to heat houses, etc. The process of generating antimatter,
> just to use it for energy generation is dreadfully inefficient. Worse than government
> bureaucracy....

At least we can agree on this one...

> Thus antimatter has two "practical" purposes. One is extraordinary weapons.

Very sad indeed!

> The other is when energy requirements are large and space is small. This might
> be on a satellite and/or spaceship. Since nuclear and/or solar power suffices
> for most satellite purposes, probably only some hypothetical spaceship might use it.

Maybe for your Star War movies! LOL

I am sure that George Lucas would love to test some of your stuff...

> And before one goes off into science fiction, there are real technical issues
> involved in such an attempt (i.e. propulsion mass, danger of the antimatter
> touching matter, etc.) The impracticality is the extraordinary difficulty
> in procuring some. After 30 years generating "vast" quantities of antimatter,
> we have generated only enough to warm a 20 oz cup of coffee from room
> temperature to something approaching drinkable.

Trully amazing!!!

> At any rate, antimatter is stable. Dangerous as hell (in principle, not yet in
> practice), but stable.

It is obvious that your stability definition is very much different than mine!!!

-+wirelessguru1