Slashdot Mirror
Stimulated Gamma Decay Weapons
ExRex writes "New Scientist is reporting on a USDOD project to produce super explosives. 'An exotic kind of nuclear explosive being developed by the US Department of Defense could blur the critical distinction between conventional and nuclear weapons. The work has also raised fears that weapons based on this technology could trigger the next arms race.'"
This research cannot by allowed to go forward. We all know what happens when gamma rays are used in weapons!
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
What could happens if the robots get a hold of these weapons?
What country is going to be able to stop the might of a vast army of Hulks once they get this gamma-process down pat?
The only challenge is to get them to stop smashing any tank they see.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Gosh...
That'll be a hard name to pull by the committees. GASERS or Gamma ray Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation (I may have those last two wrong).
So we're building gamma-ray shooting guns... Like lasers, but higher energy, and thus, with more chances of cell mutation & general badness. I'll call 'em nuclear weapons for now, and maybe later, only inhumane.
I assert that my comment is only my opinion, not that of any employer, past, present or future.
could blur the critical distinction between conventional and nuclear weapons
Because you know, it's not how many people died, it's the weapons used!
Gosh.
I'm not the devil.. just his advocate.
Hulk Smash puny scientists and the DOD!!
Arrgh!! Hulk hate gamma decay makes hulk look old and grey!
ACK
That's just great, now we can destroy our world *another* 1,000,000 times over!
Dr. Evil not available for comment.
However, this will soon be appearing in an online marketplace near you: http://www.villainsupply.com/superweapons.html
My basic question concerning this is two-fold, is this realy needed, and if it is created will we be able to control the techology. With world events the way they are now it seems like one of the last things that we end is a small high yeild weapon that can fall into the worng hands. At least with nuclear weapons there are some means of detecting their presence, but it seems that these weapons will not have the same signature.
I repeat: Oh shit.
Why did this have to be invented with W in office? He's the first post cold-war president to actually be interested in nuclear weapons development.
Is a gun that makes people poo themselves too much to ask? Radiation is always the go-to weapon, nothing says I don't like you like feces...
birds and snakes, an aeroplane...
um...
gamma weapons blow us away?
Everybody sing: "It's the end of the world as we know it..."
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion.
While I don't condone weapons research, I think this is certainly interesting. If the RPGs flaunted around today were capable of Tomakawk-size destruction, i think we'd simple see skirmishes ending faster, in a "disease-burnout" kind of way. I'd hate to see this effect be used as weaponry by anyone, but if people are going to fight, the faster its over the better, in my mind. Maybe I'm mistaken?
"Such extraordinary energy density has the potential to revolutionise all aspects of warfare."
This interesting technology could potentially lead to some better new-age energy sources. I'm not sure why we always focus on warfare, when there are other ways to use the explosive power of new military technology.
...so somebody get on MapQuest and find the SCO offices.
Web Design & Software Development
who cares? we are all just a bunch of idiots who pretend we are better than the rest of the animal kingdom because we can blow each other up. I am embarrased to be human when I read things like this.
New warfare technology has ALWAYS triggered a new "arms race", starting with the first human being who ever beat another to death with a rock.
Imagine their terror when the first knives, attlatls, and later bows & arrows started to be used in combat?
This is simply the latest iteration of an age-old phenomenon.
There's a Mercedes gap too. I want one and can't afford one, but it's not government's job to do anything about it.
This is actually a few years old in concept and the impetus behind a lot of supercomputer projects funded by the DOE and DOD to study explosions and high energy phenomena. There has been a move to miniaturize nuclear weapons for some time now for a couple of reasons 1) easier to transport and carry and 2) extremely low yeild small tactical nukes can be very effective and potentially tuneable. (General only wants damage limited to 5 sq miles and nothing beyond.) The other advantage that these folks are talking about with gamma ray based weapons is that the infrastructure is relatively spared (and why the Communists wanted these things allowing them to move into cities after an explosion and co-opt the infrastructure. However radioactive it may be).
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
'One gram of fully charged hafnium isomer could store more energy than 50 kilograms of TNT.'
That's just scary. Way scary.
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts...for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang
I can just picture the next headline at The Onion:
Iran Sends Weapons Inspectors to US to Search for Weapons of Mass Destruction
It really scares me that when a new way to release massive amounts of energy is discovered, it's first implementation is to end human lives.
The decay thing is a stroke of genius. If you set the half-life right, the mighty Hulks will march out, smash puny enemy army, and by the time they are about to turn around and smash puny you, they rot into a pile of goo.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
If you blur the line, noone will cry if you use a bomb "just a little larger". you can always say its a very deep bunker or a big stockpile of WMD ect.
Btw:
Anyone still asking where you really have to search if you want to find WMD? Small hint: not in the middle east...
HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
An arms race? With who?
What is this country so fucking afraid of?
- A.P.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
I'm suprised that the potential for batteries wasn't discussed. What if this technique allowed better energy storage than we have now? What if we could store electricity when and where we produce it, and move it to where and when we want to use it? I guess what I'm asking is: when can I run my laptop off of one, and will it cause "flipper-babies?"
Especially among nerds, isn't it possible to just discusss, coldly and clinically, the technology, without regards to ethics or morals?
-Libertarian secular transhumanist
"What is this country so fucking afraid of?"
Losing to the likes of Red China, which is still imperialist, or a re-started Soviet Empire (which is just one bad election in Moscow away).
i know that i am repeating, but that means that 1kg of stuff + ~5 kg of storage box (the stuff that makes reaction to start) = 50 KILOTONN blast.
Ouch...
Who took my tinfoil hat?
This sounds great, could be a great source of energy for space exploration without worrying about radioactivity/fallout problems of using nuclear power for propultion.
This technology also sounds like it could be the breakthrough for electrical storage, think laptops and electric vehicles! It could kill the whole 'hydrogen economy' stuff that was a bad idea to begin with.
-- Greg
Slashdot, would a spell-checker for posting be too much to ask? It's not rocket science!
A weapon so small that a suicide bomber can use it to wipe out significant parts of city centres. So "we" have to have more and better of them first in case someone else develops them. How much security is going to be needed to make sure none of these interesting munitions escape into the wild? How much civil liberty will we have to give up so we can enjoy increased protection? I'm beginning to think what the world really needs is a development program for a weapon that destroys military installations and leaves people standing.
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
talk about a 4th of july treat, set off a few small nucular explosions in yer back yard. that would impress the neighbors for sure.
The effect of a nuclear-isomer explosion would be to release high-energy gamma rays capable of killing any living thing in the immediate area. It would cause little fallout compared to a fission explosion, but any undetonated isomer would be dispersed as small radioactive particles, making it a somewhat "dirty" bomb. This material could cause long-term health problems for anybody who breathed it in.
I'm wondering how big a problem this "dirty bomb characteristics" issue is. How much of the isomer really doesn't detonate (and why?) Is this a 1% of the substance doesn't detonate (decay suddenly when hit with an X-ray) problem or a 50% doesn't detonate? And if the amount of the material is small enough (e.g. a gram), perhaps this falls below injurious-in-practice threshholds? I.e. how close to conventional low-yield nuclear really is it?
--LP
They were called neutron bombs. Although not the same thing, I suspect the same fate. There are too many people out there that want to see nukes go, there is no way a new weapon is going to make it in this world.
i cant seem to come up with a sig.
They mentioned it can be dirty. Doesn't have to be nuclear fission for me to call it Nuclear. I am sure the NORTH KOREANS are reading the same website as well as the USA's favorite job producer China.
Arms race between who?
Its not like Russia has any plans of global domination(c),
and the terrorists hardly have any funds of building MiniNukes.
Buying REAL nukes from corrupt russian warehaoused00dz, that is another story.
Cue the Soviet Russia jokes!
You cant fight in here, its a war room!
From the article - "many countries which will not have access to these weapons will produce nuclear weapons as a deterrent"
Great I dont suppose that the Gov't figured this new weapon and the reasearch into it would spark other nations to adopt nuclear weapons as a recourse to these weapons.
Remember "red mercury"? While it was never established exactly what the stuff was, or even if it existed at all, one of the guesses was that it was exactly what this article talks about.
The energy density of these nuclear isomers is just about halfway, on a logorithmic scale, between chemical and nuclear processes. 1000 times more power than chemicals, 1000 times less powerful than fission/fusion. Approximately.
The really interesting possibility is what happens if you form some of the stuff into a rod and then start the emission at one end. Does it cascade out the other end like a gamma-ray laser? In theory, it ought to.
Bigger and better weapons? Does anyone really have to have the worst bad weapon out there? At the rate we're going, we might as well just wire the entire planet up with explosives and when one country disagrees with another, one country can send the other into orbit.
SecondPageMedia - Wha
Riight... Like the U.S. would let anyone else even participate in a race. Any country going in that direction will first be nudged lightly with reminders of economic sanctions, and if that doesn't stop them, nudged lightly with a sledgehammer.
The race is over, the U.S. won, but they seem to go on racing on their own. (No poetry intended)I shall go and tell the indestructible man that someone plans to murder him.
And this is legal under international laws and multilateral agreements, just how? Even the MOAB is disputable, due to its chemical base, and this will almost certainly be disputed?
Regards,
--
*Art
That is scary because it is real.
Who checks so that the USA does not handle their MWDs in the wrong way?
You cant fight in here, its a war room!
Maybe they weren't used in the way they were designed to be, but they were indeed used. The only thing deterring the Soviet Union was the understanding that if they went to war with the U.S., they would be utterly destroyed. I would submit that our nuclear stockpiling is the sole reason why the Soviets didn't take over the world.
There's a Mercedes gap too. I want one and can't afford one, but it's not government's job to do anything about it.
This is the best part of the article: "The hafnium explosive could be extremely powerful. One gram of fully charged hafnium isomer could store more energy than 50 kilograms of TNT. Miniature missiles could be made with warheads that are far more powerful than existing conventional weapons, giving massively enhanced firepower to the armed forces using them."
In fifty years, we'll be defending our right to bare hafnium tipped bullets. God Bless America.
A programmer is a machine for converting coffee into code.
What I don't get is, why make a weapon that will not only 'hurt' the country it is being dropped on - but the whole world?
Of course it isn't a good idea. Inventing new ways to kill others (and therefore to be killed, yourself) has always been a human fallacy. Scientists always do such research and make such discoveries strictly in the name of science. Those guys in Texas (who observed this effect) were likely not trying to pioneer new warfare (they were working towards super-batteries), but the militant and the paranoid ones immediately took over.
The thing that needs to happen (in order for the human race to become truly enlightened) is for science to exist apart from military and warfare. If we can use science to better our lives, and solve our disputes like the animals do (butting heads, or with tooth and nail) then I think we'd get along better. Oh, and get rid of all the lawyers, too. But that's obviously an over-idealized world.
It is true, and frightening, that such a discovery (and the very limited distribution of the technology) could put pressure on less-developed countries to get nuclear weapons (and other lethal alternatives) as a threat against our Gamma weapons. We wouldn't want every country without Gamma weapons to turn into an Iraq, now would we?
Well, at least we've now got the robot Air Force.
Just how do you propose keeping those Hulks chained to those treadmills powering the turbines?
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
New Scientist is reporting on a USDOD project to produce super explosives.
But what does that have to do with SCO?
and means of detonation, this isn't much different than neutron bombs. You could produce a small yield neutron bomb and do the same thing and be less dirty with the radioactive material.
As a military member myself, I cannot say that this weapon is "attractive" to me. As a commander, I wouldn't want to use it as a matter of course any more than I would want to use a nuke. I WOULD use a nuke or this weapon, however, in a dire emergency, which appears to be precisely what this weapon is NOT intended for. It is seen as something with general use potential...to some in DOD halls where everything is clean theory but not to me, a line guy.
As far as I am concerned, use of such a weapon would barely be a step up from use of a dirty bomb, which would rightly be seen as illegal and an act of terror. Not me, no thanks.
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
If I hear one more hulk joke, I'm going to get very angry. You wouldn't like me when I'm angry.
On a purely scientific level, it IS pretty fascinating.
Given that there are hoards of people that would love to use this to hurt, maim, and kill others is just plain scary.
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts...for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang
Yes. Don't get your connection tho, unless it's blind, unreasoning panic.
If you do something right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.
According to this Wiki article, "One kilogram of pure Hf-178-2m contains approximately 900 gigajoules of energy, or about a quarter of a kiloton."
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
The question should be whether this is a relatively stable means of generating energy? What would be the resulting waste and can every house have its own power plant? That could be pivotal to the nations energy usage.
Does anyone know the answers to these questions? I know its difficult to manufacture now, so don't flame me on that. Anyone know anything about the containment of hafnium?
The answer to technology is more technology. What are ways to defend against this? What are ways to fight back (detecting stockpiles or such)?
-Libertarian secular transhumanist
My basic question concerning this is two-fold, is this realy needed, and if it is created will we be able to control the techology. With world events the way they are now it seems like one of the last things that we end is a small high yeild weapon that can fall into the worng hands. At least with nuclear weapons there are some means of detecting their presence, but it seems that these weapons will not have the same signature.
The metastable isomers used for this type of weapon decay naturally - the new discovery is just a way to accelerate this decay so that it happens all at once. You can still detect the source material from its gamma ray glow (in much the same manner as you'd detect fissile material).
and if it is created will we be able to control the techology
Now that it's know to be feasible, whether the US develops it or not is irrelevant. Joe Random Terrorist State could look up the papers published on use of the effect for a power source tomorrow, and start their own bomb program.
Control, if required, is accomplished by making sure the states your concerned about don't build the equipment needed to produce the weapons (large and expensive equipment for all methods of producing the explosives, including charging by gamma excitation).
Why aren't Gamma Reactor Power Plants going up all over the country?
One gram of fully charged hafnium isomer could store more energy than 50 kilograms of TNT.
So, we can assume that this info will never be sold to the next round of freedom fighters, eh (anybody remember Bin Ladin in the 80's)? And it will never be the next technique to be used against the western world? Until active bombardbment it will be hard to detect. After the bombardment, it will be primed and read to go. I am waiting for when we start selling Laser technology and then act surprised that our aircraft are being shot down by a minuture sub laying off shore or by a small model aircraft.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
defense is 20-25%, and interest on debt is 30%. With a lot less of the former over the last 20 years, you wouldn't have the latter and the federal spending would be half what it is now.
Repeal the DMCA!
Voltaire commented that if a person is murdered, we prosecute the guilty, unless a truly huge number of people are killed, accompanied by the sound of trumpets...
Oh well, what the hell...
I am tired of all these people whining about nuclear weapons, or this weapons system. A weapons system is only good if the enemy believes in their heart of hearts that there is a point at which you would use the. For instance during the first Gulf War when saddam had chemical warheads beyond a shaddow of a doubt, dont you think the implied threat of two or three f-111 with tactical nuke deterred his using of the chemical weapons. I for one would rather be the possesor of the technology, rather than Jahad johnny who thinks he is going to get 72 virgins by blowing himself up. Like it or not they guy who refused to develop the gun, and fight with knife is was the one who died first.
With a little work, these nuclear isomers could be worked into a chewing gum that could give you icy-fresh breath and lightening bolts that shoot out of your mouth. The ravers would eat up!
You'd think that would be the ultimate weapon for suicide bombers, but actually the stuff would be too expensive aqnd easy to detect from a distance with a geiger counter unless it had a few inches of lead casing surrounding it (not somehing you can hide under a jacket).
Repeal the DMCA!
Pump in solar energy, extract it up to 15 years later :)
GPL Deconstructed
Why not combine this gamma producing technogy with the nuclear reactor waste processing technology (which conveniently requires gamma rays) and everyone can be happy? http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns999 94056> waste processing
Unmanned Air Vehicles: I'm an aerospace engineer and UAV's are the next big thing. I shudder to think of swarms of semi-autonomous 6 inch UAV's buzzing along carrying a couple of grams of this stuff.
nohup rm -rf ~/. >& zen &
Any species that looks at a 100-megaton nuclear explosion and thinks "yeah, that's nice, but it's NOT QUIT BIG ENOUGH" probably doesn't deserve to exist.
I love the documentary I watched a few weeks ago on the development of the atomic bomb and the tit-for-tat between the U.S. and Soviet Union for a couple of decades. I was actually laughing. To paraphrase:
"The United States today detonated a 10 kiloton nuclear weapon. The Soviet Union replied by saying 'that's nice, here's a 25 kiliton blast for ya'. Not being deterrred, the U.S. test-fires the first one megaton nuclear weapon. The U.S.S.R., not especially impressed, replied by detonating a 10 megaton weapon. The U.S., thinking it wasn't quite big enough, shot a 25-megaton weapon off. The U.S.S.R. snidly commented that they could do better, and moments later detonated a 50 megaton bomb. The U.S., not to be outdone, popped off the first 100 megaton blast".
And no one looked at one of the first three and said "yeah, that'll do just fine"?!? No, let's keep kicking it up a notch, until we can eliminate an entire continent with one blow.
Yeah, WE deserve to exist.
If a pion (n-) collides with a proton in the woods & noone is there to hear it, does lamdba decay into the source pa
How long could one of these weapons stay viable?
They said that the Halfnium component has a 31 year half life. I bet the weapon becomes non-viable long before that.
In one sense that is good. Proliferation of this weapon might not be as much of a long term threat. When the support infrastructure is removed, the weapon might decay rapidly enough to mitigate proliferation issues when compared to Plutonium and Uranium.
"And the idea that if Vietnam fell into Communist hands the entire Asia/Australian region would go under (The Domino Theory) proved worthless."
This theory was quite valid. After South Vietnam was conquered, Laos and Cambodia fell next. Burma remains a socialist hellhole to this day. Thailand was endangered, but it was protected partially due to the awareness of what the Domino Theory was.
The Domino Theory was nothing more than a realization of the reality of Soviet imperialism, announced when Lenin said his empire would take over the world (at which point he conqured a dozen nations outside of Russia's borders).
Just because every domino did not fall does not mean that the theory is invalid.
" But don't believe the old ideas that the Soviets were a barbarian horde frothing at the mouth to take over every inch of land. (Stalin was frothing at the mouth but he was insane)"
Lenin frequently announced his intent of total global empire. He and each of his successors conquered and added new nations to the empire.
New warfare technology has ALWAYS triggered a new "arms race", starting with the first human being who ever beat another to death with a rock.
"Chief Ogg! The Tribe-Across-The-River has a powerful new weapon! They use these things called 'stones' and carry them with them into warfare and strike our men in the head! Not a single broken finger!"
"Put our top scientists on it right away, Urk! Dispatch spies to find out how the Tribe-Across-The-River is making these weapons -- we can't afford to be outmatched now! We must manufacture our own 'stones' before it's too late! Civilization depends on it!"
"Er, we're not civilized yet, Chief Ogg. We haven't even discovered fire yet."
"Don't interrupt me when I'm on a roll, Urk."
"Sorry, Chief."
"The effect of a nuclear-isomer explosion would be to release high-energy gamma rays capable of killing any living thing in the immediate area." They call this an explosion, and they use tons of TNT as the benchmark. Is it really an explosion? The primary killing force in this device seems to be gamma radiation. I believe when they say "energy" in this article, they mean gamma radiation, and not explosive force, but I can't confirm it.
If 1g hafnium > 50 kg TNT, wouldn't this make an excellent fuel for a spacecraft's propulsion system? How does the energy density stack up against conventional/current experimental rocket systems? As I understand it one of the difficulties in sending a probe to Pluto is not getting there, but carrying sufficient fuel to be able to slow and enter orbit once it arrives.
Yes the US, NATO countries and the former soviet republics have WMD's, but they have never invaded a neighbor for oil
*cough*
Watch any news lately?
*cough* USA invades Iraq TWICE in 12 years *cough*
No, we'd never do so for oil. No, never!
[/sarcasm]
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
I've noticed that there is a considerable amount of overlap with various web sites, and you can usually tell which ones they are by how much/how little they have in common story wise.
Is there a sizeable overlap in readership of HardOCP and Slashdot? Probably enough to make sure all the interesting stories there end up here. I see a lot of things that are picked up by Plastic and Metafilter after appearing here, and often the other way around.
So it's not an uncommon occurence at all... you could probably use story/topic overlap as a guide to how much of a readership overlap there is.
"You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."
Congress on the other hand is the one who is signing money over to pay for it all.
Don't worry, they're both already run by criminals...
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
"The Department of Defense notes that there are serious technical issues to be overcome and that useful applications may be decades away."
Damnit, and here I thought we might be able to retire weapons like these in a few "decades."
Apple free since 1990!
You are paying for the development of this type of weapon because somebody else is also paying for them. How many countries started developing nuclear weapons once it was clear that the technology was feasible? If the Manhanttan project didn't happen do you not think there would be nuclear weapons today?
I shudder to think about the social and political implications of 500 gram weapons with the explosive power of 5 tons of TNT but stopping research will only enhance their attractiveness to our potential adversaries. The right thing to do, which is hard, is to learn as much as we could about it and proceed forward in an informed manner with due diligence.
Let me introduce you to the 20th century. Terrorists have these things called "cars" which are strong enough to carry lead cannisters.
As far as I understand it, conventional weapons rely on a chemical reaction to liberate the explosive engrgy.
.. how are they not breaking that law?
From what I've read; this relies on the radioactive decay of a nuclear isotope. The article stated that the US has laws against developing a nuclear warhead with a yield less than 5 kilotonnes
Could this be used for the next rocket fuel? Controlled explosion of high density hafnium-178m2. The research doesn't necessarily have to create the next bomb. Could this be the way we reach Mars?
Now I hope and pray that I will But today I am still, just a bill
This technology also sounds like it could be the breakthrough for electrical storage, think laptops and electric vehicles!
Do you *REALLY* want a gamma ray emitter on your LAP? Not to mention it has to be stimulated by X-rays. Maybe you'll irradiate yourself and we can give you a Darwin award.
-molo
Using your sig line to advertise for friends is lame.
The Russians. Because when the USA sent a copy of the microsoft spreadsheet over that the USA uses to keep track of weapons grade materials (asking the russians to use it too), the russians spotted errors in the processing which meant that the numbers didn't tally up correctly.
> Arms race between who?
Well...apparently the Brits ARE upping their nuclear warfare technology, and especially showing interest in this...
CowsAnonymous: We're here to help moo.
The more aggressive U.S. posture has little to do with the guy in the White House. It is a result of 9/11. Democrat or Republican, after an event like 9/11, the war will be taken to the enemy, and their support infrastructure, and fought on someone else's territory.
One gram of fully charged hafnium isomer could store more energy than 50 kilograms of TNT.
I don't know what to say other than, "Oh fuck."
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
With such energy density, I wonder if this could be made into rocket fuel. Has anyone heard any news along those lines?
And please no emotional bullshit, yes? Let's just admire the craftsmanship, for crying out loud.
Wars end lots faster than they used to; it used to take 6-12 months *minimum* to raise an army of 50,000 men that consisted primarily of poorly equipped hand-to-hand infantry. But once the hacking and slashing finished a year or so later, everybody was done for good long while.
Now it seems that we (at least the US) can put an armored force of 200,000 anywhere it wants within a couple of months and win the war in 90 days..but the low-grade fighting just doesn't stop. The Israelis took the west bank in '67 (or was it '73? I forget), but have been essentially fighting the Palestinians for control since.
It's the same way everywhere; we don't fight wars for a few years anymore; we fight them in 2-3 months and then switch to low-grade guerilla tactics for the next year.
Who would have thought that Rambo's bow and arrow would have been prophetic about future weapons technology?
Nuclear hand grenades for all!
who are those slashdot people? they swept over like Mongol-Tartars.
Well, thank god we killed over six thousand Iraqi civilians and tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers to keep... hmm... actually yes, we upped the death rate. And as far as Afghanistan... I supported that war and was pissed that we stopped before we were finished, just so we could go to a more politically expedient war. The Taliban has control of southern afghanistan, and al queda wasn't stopped Stop watching fox news and think, maybe you'll realize that you've been played.
http://physicsweb.org/article/world/12/5/3Taken in isolation, one would not want to bet a lot of money on being able to exploit these gamma-rays. However, Collins and co-workers show some rather convincing gamma-ray spectra, and it should be relatively easy to generate a more powerful X-ray beam in future experiments. Collins is careful not to overstate the general significance of the measurement, but his team includes rocket scientists who would like to capitalize on the huge energy density of nuclear isomers. Such isomers may have the potential to provide new ways of propelling spacecraft on interplanetary voyages. Isomers could also form the basis of a gamma-ray laser. The energy inversion that is essential to all laser operation occurs naturally in nuclear isomers, although the route to an actual gamma-ray laser has yet to be mapped out.
Thats what are leaders are afraid of. If we don't find giant expensive projects to spend money on and employ people and the resulting trickle-down, its game over for the country.
http://www.livejournal.com/users/cixel
So the US government's policy is to fear "military commanders". With the way Iraq I & II and Afghanistan were handled, I didn't get this impression at all. Either propoganda kept the skpeticism between gov and mil away from the public, or the administration at large does not subscribe to this policy... not suprisingly, both possibilities scare me.
My conspiracy theory is that Lawrence Livermore or Area 51 or some such government run hush hush spot may have a weapon based on this on the drawing board, or even in development. When the dudes published the idea in 2000, Lawrence livermore published fake negative results to keep the other countries of the world from working on the idea, and then secretly have been working on it ever since. Now that mini-nukes are back in style since 9/11, they can even say they're working on it in public and don't have to hide their research.
Eat at Joe's.
The experiment released 60 times as much energy as was put in, and in theory a much greater energy release could be achieved.
Is this counting the energy put into "loading" the isotope? Whith the kind of energy they are talking about, this could be huge for us. Think "Nuclear Fusion" without the Nuclear part!! cleaner power, and no hippy anti-nuke types protesting.. I'm trying to remember my old science classes here, aren't the "Gama" radiation bits realitively easy to block?.. A room with lead walls, a bit of this chemical, and X-ray generator, and a large vat of water to make steam... How many years have we spent trying to get Nuclear Fusion to produce more power than went in to making the reaction?! and this is 60 times the engery with a few x-rays!! Why does science always have to deal with weapons first? can't we just pretend that our planet as a whole is growing up and thinking about peace?
What are we going to do tonight Brain?
The weapon is pointless: In an actual conflict, we'd bomb the enemy and they'd become a devastated nation of revenge-seeking hulk partisans. It's a textbook example of mutually assured destruction.
"Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." -Jesus Christ The Lord's Prayer
...about technology like this (and for that matter, most technology in general) is that discussion of its merrit and worth is almost pointless. If someone thinks it's a good idea, there's almost no stopping it's development, for good or for ill. At least that's they way technology seems to work - does someone want it? If yes, then it's built. Doesn't matter if it was a stupid idea to do it or not.
http://physicsweb.org/article/world/12/5/3
Taken in isolation, one would not want to bet a lot of money on being able to exploit these gamma-rays. However, Collins and co-workers show some rather convincing gamma-ray spectra, and it should be relatively easy to generate a more powerful X-ray beam in future experiments. Collins is careful not to overstate the general significance of the measurement, but his team includes rocket scientists who would like to capitalize on the huge energy density of nuclear isomers. Such isomers may have the potential to provide new ways of propelling spacecraft on interplanetary voyages. Isomers could also form the basis of a gamma-ray laser. The energy inversion that is essential to all laser operation occurs naturally in nuclear isomers, although the route to an actual gamma-ray laser has yet to be mapped out.
This new explosive seems like it would be great for making better rockets of the project Orion type. Cleaner than nuclear fission but still with energy density 1000 times higher than chemical. Scalable to smaller explosions (So a smaller scale rocket could be taken up to orbit). Seems like a very finely controlled hafnium injection system could be made with X-Ray ignition.
If somebody develops a bigger gun someone else is developing a stronger armor. That's the way technology *moves forward*.
True, but it has also refused to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty - one of the most important treaties that would prevent new nuclear powers emerging.
Best wishes,
Mike.
to stop Russian Satan and Topol ballistic missiles. So far there's no way. This means there's at least one country in the world that can fuck up the US any minute if they need to. It only takes about 9 minutes for those missiles to deliver their multiple-payload warheads over here. I've also heard they've developed some pretty bizarre schemes to cause maximum destruction, like creating a giant tsunami-like wave in Missisipi river by detonating warheads one after another upstream or something like that.
So the point is, arms race is not won and it will never be.
The slogal "war for oil!" was made up by extremists to appeal to simpletons and for them to put on the signs that they wave.
True. Because "No Blood for Extension of American Neo-Colonial Hegemony!" was both difficult to chant and explain. Handing out annotated copies of 1984 was also prohibitive.
However, once you aim even a whiff of intellectual penetration at it, the "it is a war for oil" claims vanish in a puff of illogic.
Of course. It is just the simplest explanation once you've eliminated the also baseless "Iraq is an immediate threat" claim. Obviously the reasons for the war were much larger than just some silly oil fields. The portions of the adminstration with brains think much bigger and longer term than that. Though it may seem as though Cheney's energy plan was designed under the assumption that we'd have access to all that friendly Iraqi oil, and it could be argued this suggests oil was the motivation for war, I just figure that the decision to go to war with Iraq had already been made, and he was just making plans based on that knowledge. Call it a happy side effect, which I'm sure is what everyone with crude-oil-colored dollar signs in their eyes is calling it. Which just happens to be a bunch of the adminstration's friends, but I'm serious, that's really just a happy coincidence.
The enemies of Democracy are
Pumping the nuclei? Stimulated emission? Are we talking about a gamma ray bomb here, or are they really contemplating a gamma ray laser? Are there any mirrors that can reflect gamma rays?
Who would the US be racing then?
Well, it shouldn't matter anyway; these weapons aren't true grasers, though the principle is oddly symmetric.
A graser, like any "?aser" device works by stimulating energized electrons to transition to a lower shell immediately (instead of at a random time) by smacking another photon into it, causing the atom emit a photon (always of a certain frequency) in the same direction that the original photon was moving. The gamma decay device works by stimulating the nucleus is a very similar way with X-rays until it raises the chances that the nucleus will randomly decay.
It's kind of like a graser, but with the nucleus instead of the electron shells. That and once an atom has served its purpose once, it's no longer useable for the same trick thanks to having decayed. Though it technically fits each letter in the acronym GRASER, the gamma decay weapon deserves another name entirely.
My inner evil marketroid recommends Gradec.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
None of them used stolen American material - just ideas that had been circulating.in the scientific press, seeded with the results of espionage.
Say what?
You forget the key lynchpin to tie the WMD lie to swift action: Iraqi ties to Al Queda and, by extension, that Saddam would give WMD of whatever type to his "buds" in Al Queda. He did a double lie: imminent threat from use and dispersion of massive amounts of WMD including nukes (that mushroom cloud fear-raker statement) and ties to the much-hated Al Queda.
We Americans wanted payback, we wanted the bastards that did 9/11 and Bush flat-out LIED to make people believe that Saddam and the 9/11 perps were in bed together so attacking the former was tantamount to a continued attack on the latter. LIE! Not a mistake. Not a simple difference in how one interprets intel - there was NO valid intel to support either lie. There was no valid intel justifying the claim of an "imminent threat".
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
Feh! Home Despot employs mostly part-time henchmen and won't accept government contracts (and don't let anyone tell you otherwise). Plus, their web site is little more than a home page with links to blank pages, and worst of all, they don't have a favicon.ico! How can you take a site seriously without a favicon?
But seriously, folks... I did *not* expect villainsupply.com to be a real link! Too cool... in an evil sort of way, that is. Wonder if Amazon.com knows about their "Evil Amazon.com" link?
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
Imagine a 3gram payload in an explosive 0.50 round.
You could equipe your air drop ranger with an anti-material rifle with a distruction force compareable to a maverick missile, plus having HUGE anti personal effect (a 3 mile shot could knock out a whole camp of soldiers via radiation damage)
HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
Sounds just like one of the weapons used in Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle's science fiction book Footfall (1985, ISBN 0-7221-6339-8) against the alien invaders by the crew of the Project Orion type spaceship built to fight the invaders... it used simple nuclear bombs to trigger gamma ray lasers.
One wonders just where this "device" will get it's X-Rays from to do the pumping and if the two authors can claim copyright on the idea.
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
I have no idea what they were up to, and haven't heard from them again.
-cp-
The article says they're planning to make this isomer in gram quantities by shooting gamma rays into a sample of ground-state 178Hf, which is the reverse of the decay process. The problem is that the cross-section is going to be very low, for exactly the same reason: it's hard to get a photon to carry many units of angular momentum into or out of a nucleus. People have discussed making small (microgram) quantities of it for use as a high-spin target in reactor experiments, but nobody could figure out any reasonable way to do it.
You also have to realize that although the half-life of 31 years is long compared to most isomeric states, it's still relatively short compared to, say, 235U, which lives for gazillions of years. The relatively short half-life means that even if you could get a gram of this stuff, it'd be virtually impossible to handle safely. It would be much more radioactive than a subcritical mass of weapons-grade fissionables.
There's a long history of impractical ideas like this, going back to the Reagan-era idea of a gamma-ray laser. Luckily we're still only faced with the same basic bomb threats that've been around since the Kennedy administration, but that's bad enough. The real thing to worry about, IMO, is the nuclear cauldron that's shaping up in Asia: Iran, Afghanistan, India, and North Korea.
OT: Are other people finding Slashdot extremely slow and unresonsive recently? I can hardle even access it anymore.
Find free books.
One point that most seem to be missing is the consequence of *not* pursuing this technology. Consider, for example, what would happen if a country such as Russia or China came to possess weapons based on nuclear isomer technology. Or, God forbid, a country such as Iran or North Korea came to possess them. In that case, doesn't the U.S. Government have the responsibility to its citizens to possess the means to deter an aggressive move by such a country? With the exception of Iran, each of these countries has demonstrated an aggressive desire to dominate and enslave its neighbors at one point or another in the last 50 years. (Russia may be an exception here - there seems to be a genuine change taking place in Russia that is quite promising. I suppose time will tell whether they have truly turned the corner.) This nation, on the other hand, has demonstrated its commitment to protecting, where strategically feasible, the victims of such aggression.
Its naive to believe that other countries aren't pursuing nuclear isomer weapons. Just prior to and during WWII, several countries (Germany, the United States, Great Britian, and later the USSR) recognized the weapon potential inherent in emerging atomic theory. Does anybody think that the same thing is not happening now? I suppose we should count on these countries to abstain from such research out of their profound respect for the peace and prosperty of mankind!
Granted, this country has the economic resources that few other countries have, and those resources give it an advantage in the pursuit of new technologies. But, contrary to the cries of the radical left, that is a good thing! While we may stumble from time to time, the goodwill of the people of this country, the desire to protect the values of freedom and self-determination is unrivaled in history.
Simply ignoring this beast, or any other, won't make it go away. Rather, we must master it so that our children don't live under the thumb of those whose only desire is to conquer and destroy.
-k
242-Americum has a metastable isomer with 141 years halflife, and there are probably more nuclei with a long-lived isomer.
Also, from what i can find out aboutt this weapon, it is not required to achieve population-inversion, which is different from LASERS and MASERS. Radiation is stimulated by photons diffrent in wavelength than the output wavelength.
I this case, a weapon would loose half of its effect in 31 years, but would probably not become totally ineffective due decaying below a certain 'critical point' (50% in true *ASERS).
With those factors combined, I'm not so sure a its impossible to create a durable weapon with this technology.
{gets can opener out...)
Um, I have always had trouble wrappin' my brain around issues as simple as full-metal-jacket ammunition being more ethical than other ammo, I've also seen what an apache's gun does at 100 rounds/sec, and so I would appreciate it if you could tell me,
(pierces can... mmm, smell them nightcrawlers!)
How exactly does one prioritize ethical levels in war? I mean, I understand that a dirty bomb is more lethal and less swift in killing. Are there other nuances? Because to me, blasting a nuke would be pretty much an act of terror no matter how clean or how 'deserved'.
(... opens, then dumps can of worms all over desk)
I'm not trying to troll. I didn't take the bonuses, I'm not AC'ing. I mean, the closest I come to understanding is a hunting lesson my dad taught me: 'once you decide to kill, do it as swiftly and mercifully as possible'. You're apparently not a diplomat (the other area I'd expect to have expertise here), but you seem to be thinking this thru after having had a military education so I thought you'd maybe have some insights. Really: what nuances matter in wartime? Phosphorus, depleted-uranium, chem/bio agents, dum-dums, mines, napalm, and deceptive acts all come to mind as I run into this and my nonmilitary education didn't give me the tools.
A 2nd question I have: how do these ethical equations fit into a battle between a superpower (a dozen safe/remote attack mechanisms available) and an ill-armed 3rd world combatant?
Is there a physicist in the house?
I'm trying to figure out how you stimulate the nucleus, and then have it decay, without fissioning, and how this can be anything BUT nuclear. Perhaps nuclear has shifted meaning to denote precisely chain fission reaction.
anyways. Are we sure they don't just mean that hafnium atoms are more stable than others at keeping electrons in exited states, and that the device is pumped by priming all of them to a high energy and then causing them all to collapse simultaneously? That I could easily fit into my phy-100 framework.
Otherwise, if the energy is stored in the nucleus... where does it go? Are there different nucleus configurations (protons/neutrons packed differently), or do we change isotopes, losing a neutron?
Lastly, how likely is it that the high energy density during the explosion causes som fission, thereby dirtying the bomb? (the article talks about dispersing excited halfnium: not the same thing).
TIA
If anything goes wrong with this, this appears even more destructive to the users than to the targets, and this looks to me like something that makes an ordinary atomic bomb look like a monument of stability.
Imagine being next to an ammo depot full of these things and having one of these warheards go off.
Tech Public Policy stuff
It is not always the biggest weapons that makes the victor, rather the way the way the are used. Potentially something could go wrong and we would have a worldwide disaster on our hands. We do not need bigger and better weapons, we need rational thought and collective agreements.
----- Friends, l33tists, l4m3z0rs! Lend me thy keyboards.
The article claims that the AF supplier, SRS Technologies, said that technology to provide the materials needed in "gram quantities" would be about five years away (he say they "would exist within five years").
;).
Certainly, for a project such as this, it is completely unbelievable that one of the key entities in the weapon development would give anyone and everyone a remotely precise estimate as to when larger scale production (and real weapon production) could possibly begin.
The true timeline must be years away from that. In one of the two directions possible... Which poses an interesting question: are real weapons based on this technology available today already, and did they agree to participate in the story simply to "prepare" the general public for real-world testing which will happen in the following year or two? Or do they know that others are working on this technology as well, and therefore need to tell their nation that "they're right on it", when some other country launches their tests within the next year or two?
That's speculation. Time will show.
What will be interesting to see, too, is how the real testing will commence. Currently they are working on three possibly viable materials. Most likely they will have different characteristics, and their exact effects in a real-world scenario will be impossible to simulate.
In 1945, there were two materials available for fission weapons - uranium and plutonium. One bomb was made with each, and the two bombs were dropped on each their civilian target. Hiroshima got Uranium, Nagasaki got Plutonium.
Which three cities will this new weapon be tested on? And to raise the bar, which city will get Hafnium, which one will get Thorium, and which one will get Niobium?
Oh, and don't tell me war has gone soft and that the weapon would not be tested on civilian targets this time... A gamma discharge weapon has many of the properties of a neutron weapon - it is extremely useful mostly against people (and electronics - it will kill you *and* your Aibo, oh the wonders of modern civilization
On a second note... Did anyone notice how there is no longer anything called a "neutron bomb"? It is, today, called a "low yield" bomb. In the media at least. Because it's blast and heat isn't as great as "real" fusion weapons. Neutron weapons are now almost politically correct - at least, the public wouldn't raise an eye if they were told a low-yield bomb was dropped to stop riots in some third-world city.
Now, to go find lead coating for my tinfoil hat.
While we're on that subject (Since I'm gonna get modded down now anyway) did anyone read between the lines with the recent Liberia situation? I could just see Bush talking about how we were considering sending troops (Translation: "I asked for an oil report on the country, and if it looks good I might do my good friends at Hallow-Burton a favor.") Then it got bad and he couldn't wiggle out of sending a couple of marines over. Did anyone else read it that way? That's sure how it looked to me.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Why can't we focus more energies towards improving the quality of human life? Why do they insist on spending so much time and money finding new ways to kill people?
Furry cows moo and decompress.
are we talking about here?
1. The alleged terror network that was funded by the CIA until more recently.
2. The country in the Middle East, who's dictator was supposed to own huge stockpiles of WMD (provided by the US), which accidently can't momentarily be located even though the war is over and the country is at this very moment in the process of becoming a democracy.
3. The US people, whose rights and freedoms are abused, and furthermore have to cope with a government that is trying their best to keep them paranoid.
4. The "Coalition of the Unwilling", ie. the vast majority of the world's population who is increasingly frightened by a unilaterally acting US government that is very successful at pissing everybody else off.
If the "guy in the White House" and his bunch truly don't matter that much, and if a Democrat or Liberal government wouldn't have acted differently, then shouldn't the US people do something about their politcal system to provide measures to control these representatives? If the US really is a model democracy and therefore its government represents the populations will, then is it any wonder that many people are pissed off with Americans in general?
Disclaimer: I have close friends in the US and know many people to be as reasonable as the next European, Asian, African or Australian, but I am beginning to understand some of the Anti-American sentiment and reasoning. I don't accept these generalizations though.
I feel so sig.
There is a research proposal on this and other interesting things. While I abhor the military focus, there may be useful scientific or civilian uses of this technology (e.g. energy storage for space propulsion systems).
It's called an electromagnetic pulse. Can be generated by different means, such as a nuke, an "e-bomb", or a HERF gun. Any of which destroy unhardened electronic systems, and play havoc with electromagnetic communications.
We've been through all this before.
...
The only question is whether the Bush administration is as moral as the Carter administration was.
Oh crap. I crack me up.
That's what water baloon launchers are for. Basically, a three maned oversized slingshot.
Life is not for the lazy.
And as far as Afghanistan... I supported that war and was pissed that we stopped before we were finished
Yup, the best ones are always planned.
It seems perhaps you are hung up on the term decay. Nuclear decay can be several things. Alpha decay, beta decay, gamma decay, fission decay. Chemical reactions also decay at a set rate. Many are just much higher order than the first order nuclear reactions. Pick up a chemical kinetics textbook sometime and read it. :)
Project Steve
not hung up at all on decay. I am hung up on nucleus tho. Is the energy stored in the nucleus somehow, or in the electron shells? The latter I could understand, but that isn't the nucleus...
Well, actually, the principle has held true. Perhaps not for chemical and biological weapons, nor bombers and battleships, but certainly nukes.
:-P
The last time nuclear bombs were used during warfare occurred over 50 years ago. Though they have been developed by at least 9 nations* so far, not one has used them since each has realized that the ensuing devastation would outweigh whatever they were fighting for. So no, actually nukes did achieve what that ever-elusive state. Of course, now we just agree to go to war without using nuclear weapons.
*my count is USA, Russia, Britain, France, China, India, Pakistan, Isreal, and South Africa (disarmed). Did I miss any?
Beyond the obvious Hulk jokes, did anyone follow the link in the articles? This story describes how this technology is slated to be used in powering UAVs that could stay aloft over a combat zone for months at a time. IMHO, channelling and controlling the energy in a useful way such as this is much cooler than being able to build a straight energy-release bomb.
I've been working on a science fiction novel that featured nuclear isomer-powered weapons of various sorts. Grumble.
The story also involves parallel universes. Any bets on how long it is before the DoD pre-empts that concept as well?
I have a physics degree, but it is over 20 years old so bear with me here if this is out of date.
I will speculate a lot based on what I know and the article.
The material works like a battery. It is possible to blast the nucleus with gamma rays and pump the nucleus up to a semi stable state. (the nucleus has energy levels just like electrons but they are not effected by the surronding atoms like electons are.) the math for these levels was concidered extremely difficult if not impossible when I was in school many years ago.
They stay excited until they randomly decay through quantum effects or until additional gamma radiation allows a down state transition which releases the stored energy.
now a little wild unjustified speculation:
I would not be too surpized if they could find a nucleus which was stable in the higher energy state. It might also be possible that gamma rays needed to cause the state transition could be of higher energy than the rays emmited by the atom naturally.
this could be a very nice battery (except for being radioactive when in use!)
I would like to see this looked as a possible source of energy for satellites
Now to get really wild.
If an element has truely stable excited states, you would expect to find excited atoms in the wild. It might be possible to bombard the atoms with gamma rays of the correct energy level and get fossil energy from them. This would be very wonderfull as the energy would be free and the total long term radation levels would be reduced. (long term in this case meaning 1/1000 of a second)
Could these weapons be used as a new form of triggers for thermonuclear weapons and if so would it decrease the amount of radioactive material that they produce?
...as to the viability of the plasma-yield weapons described in Dale Brown's novel 'Battle Born' {official site; Amazon.com entry). Basically, these weapons consume everything within a hard radius of ground zero with pretty much no blast/overpressure effects, and negligible residual radiation.
Even better, in 'Wings of Fire' (Amazon.com entry) the same effect is harnessed to pump a ten-million-wall airborne laser...
- White Knight of the Order of Mihoshi Enthusiasts
Looks damn good on paper, and you can bet that certain quarters in DOD are slavering over it, but the Radiation Problem is not going to go away. People just HATE radiation and there's nothing that anybody can do about it. Any gain that extremely long loiter might give would surely be offset by worldwide outcry over the fact that the thing was spewing radiation (and it really doesn't matter how little might be actually spewed) the whole time, and could concievably dump a serious load of the stuff on somebody's head if it was to fall out of the sky in a nonscheduled way.
Is it fascism yet?
As they were the aggressor and had no legitimate stance in the matter, they had no right to apply "conditions". They should have never attacked in the first place. They should have given up any of the hundreds of days after. They had plenty of time to do the reasonable thing.
You are absolutely correct. But we were speaking of saving lives. Accepting their surrender would have saved two hundred thousand. If saving lives and ending the war were truly the rationales for dropping the bomb, then it seems "accept the enemy's offer to surrender" would have been a far more reasonable choice.
The enemies of Democracy are
This sounds a lot like a weapon of mass destrution. Good thing it's in th right hands!
This is scary, think of how long it would take a spy that is in the DoD, or a developement lab to bring this information back to (in thick accent, of your choice) "home country" and make one of their own.
It's just a matter of how long it will take for someone to get a copy of the mini harddrive it's plans are stored on...
The problem with this kind of blase argument is that it does not take into account the fact that the latest generation of weaponry has the capacity to kill / maim / sicken for generations after it is used, inflicting its awful energies on people who may not have been even remotely party to the original dispute.
My using an atlatl today is not going to kill your unborn grandchildren.
--------
If I can own an idea, does that mean I can legally claim some portion of your soul once I tell you that idea? Or even if you just come up with it on your own? Heck, who needs contracts written in blood...
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
I just collected 100+ old microwave ovens, I am in the process of building a private army
of Pissed-off Old People (POP) and arming them
with the secret auto-thumper HERF ray guns.
We'll patrol the streets in Lincoln Town cars and Buick Roadmasters listening for offenders of the "Too damn loud law".
When an offender is spotted they will be sumarily HERFed and possibly cooked (just a little).
Now I suppose that there is a better and more effective way to shut down these noisy little bastards with their loud music and baggy pants half off their asses.
Maybe with the new ray guns we can drive by and do pre-emptive strikes by HERFing automotive stereo stores and melting the inventory before it hits the streets. Or better yet, melt it in the containers, right on the ship before it hits the dock.
Sooner or later POP will put a stop to these annoying, loud punks..
Saw this movie tonight on DVD. Change around the movie pseudoscience mumbo jumbo and it is the same thing.
The ones that don't trip over their rifles and kill themselves (there are some) end up better-off for the experience, sure. They come back with the will and discipline to, I don't know, manage a Taco Bell or something. I guess that's better than having them spend four years committing crimes back in the states. That I really don't care about.
Meanwhile, though, anyone who's smart enough *not* to join the imperial guard gets put into 'weapons design'. That's what pisses me off. We have more advanced weaponry than anyone on the face of the earth, yet not enough manufacturing capacity or energy reserves to last more than a couple of years, and all of our research capacity goes towards designing new weapons. We leave the energy production to the Middle East and the manufacturing to the Far East and resign ourselves to being the world's policemen. News flash: real wars aren't won without steel and oil.
If the US were cut off from the rest of the world economically, we would all just stand around with our 'rail guns' in our hands wondering what to do with them. That's not a good thing. That means that, like it or not, we sit atop an 'empire' that keeps us dependent upon the fruits of the entire world's labor and resources. In the coming decades, we will be forced to maintain that empire at all costs or give up the lifestyle that it provides and to which we have become accustomed.
Maybe a few hundred thousand dollars gets thrown into subsidies for solar panels or research into some new windmill technology that would be absolutely *crushed* by cheap oil prices if it ever made it to market. Meanwhile, billions of dollars goes into design of weapons that we couldn't even use without the oil provided by those we point them at.
I mean, what does the US produce other than power, or at least the perception of it? Of course, that's the reason terrorism is such a threat. That's why bin Laden spends all his time calling the US a 'paper tiger' and goading Arab leaders into fighting with the US instead of cooperating with it. He's betting that we're simultaneously stupid enough to try to fight the entire world and too lazy to give up our position as the recipients of the world's productive capacity.
Seriously, let's say you could give a damn about the environment or who we have to bribe, threaten, or kill to get cheap gas prices and want nothing more than to drive your SUV and buy cheap electronics and fill your house with little plastic trinkets 'till you die. Terrorism should make you wet yourself. History has shown that armies do not defeat terrorists. Even if we bugged the entire planet and tracked people 24/7, the cost would be much more than a simple, sane policy of self-sufficiency.
If we really set out to do so, we could have the entire country automated and isolated in sight of a decade. I'm talking robots mowing yards and growing crops and stamping out cheaply-made crap powered by sustainable, renewable energy and everyone sitting around on sofas surfing for porn eating soy-burgers (it's all going to be soy pretty soon anyways). That's really the goal we should be setting for ourselves; not "to be the world's target for terrorism".
After that's done, maybe we can go about trying to clean up the rest of the world. That would be a noble way to spend our time if we didn't have alterior motives for controlling every politico from here to Bangkok. Besides, everybody knows that the whole 'information economy' thing is a load of shit. Any self-respecting towel-head isn't going to pay for a legitimate copy of The Matrix or Windows Me anyways. We need to give up the whole "look at us, we're productive" myth and stop playing GI-Joe long enough to accept the facts and get to fixing things.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
Well, looking at the current relationship between USA and great britain, i see no risks of warheads being pointed at anyone.
But as another poster pointed out, every new step in weapons tech triggers an arms race in some form.
You cant fight in here, its a war room!
"Stoke the Atomic Furnace! Fire Atomic Engine! Blast Off!"
...and he grinned, like a fox eating shit out of a wire brush.
You, sir, are a clever, clever man.
Thanks for the reply. However, you (and the previous poster) both STATE that which I want explained:
>the nucleus has energy levels just like electrons but they are not effected by the surronding atoms like electons are.
How? In electron shells, the energy is stored in the potential energy of the shell, which is due to the charge attraction between the electron and the nucleus. We can thus model('cause it's actually a wavefunction...) the electron's potential energy as a small orbital system, with s/gravity/charge attraction/g.
Now, if a nucleus has energy levels these need to be stored somehow. Possible candidates are: 1) E=mcc, using a neutron for storage. Quite a large quanta... 2) different configurations of the nucleus, as different arragements of protons and neutrons (think particle buckyballs) will have different potential energies of the strong force, or 3) something completely different.
Any thoughts?
Ups, just when I though we have enough weapons ...
... (not even they care as long as they obtain it) ... (your opinion?)
(The text below might belong to another issue, but somewhat is related to this one so I'll post it).
Oh and by the way who is our enemy?
I might be superficial but I think those who:
- make profit on weapons
- leaders that shift control by this (and enjoy it). Of course all in the name of
etc
I might be superficial but the solutions as I see it:
1. communication (understanding the problems)
2. better technology which solves real problems not creates them
I might be wrong so your opinion is?
please
Yes, a hoax. Or so they say. But the description of this is strongly reminiscent of that infamous ``red mercury'' that supposedly Russians had created.
Alas, this one, at least, is real. More technological horrors from Usans' pathological fear.
``L'imagination au povoir.''
Just what we need more new weapons. Isn't the US army powerfull enough. Nothing can stop them at the moment. Never in history has one army had such a command over the others. Stick to conventional weapons. We don't need toxic stuff lying around for thousands of years. And again this isn't going to stop terrorists.
-- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
I'm thinking that an ultra high velocity explosion (in a contained environment) could create a very POWERFUL replacement for the combustion engine.
Neat possibilites.
Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has.
turns out it's no. 2. Interestingly, this strong-force potential is what gives us fission. It turns out that when a Uranium atom decays to two smaller atoms (call them X and Y), the potential energy in X and Y doesn't add up to the potential energy of Uranium. The difference in energy in released as kinetic energy, temperature, and gamma rays.
I knew that UTD did Star Wars research and that it was gamma-related, so UTD has been into military research for a long time.
I've lived around the UTD area for over 25 years, it's strange to think of it as the birthplace of a new power source/weapons system.
________________________________________ History Must Not Fall Into The Wrong Hands ___________________________________
Great ! Lets bring up WWII. Because, really Saddam was obviously bent on world conquest and genocide. His forces had already rolled over most of the middle east and were encroaching on Russia and Europe as we speak.
If we were to take a leaf from the US populace of that time, we should have waited until Saddams allies had bombed US soil before getting involved.
You can't have it both ways.
I meant the election of gwb.
Thats the one who put the idiots in power
HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
We didn't get Texas that way, you Eurotrash idiot. Texas defeated Mexico and became its own country. Then Texans voted in favor of annexation some years later and President Polk annexed Texas.
Look it up, jackass.
This guy is way out there
it's noon and i just woke up,i'm about to go take a long nap after i write this,ooo-look at me i'm so worried,,everyone says things are getting too fast now days,thats cause you are all impatent,,how many of you own a microwave or have ever used one?how many of you own a new(er) computer,ie. over 500mhz?yeah,u like those special efx in the movies dont ya?! as for this making a good power sorce,,get off your lazy butt and figure out how to do this..i'm all for screwing the power company.like "hal" (home automated living)-btw,you should reopen the forum on that-just about everone ignores the good things it can do,like ASSIST THE ELDERLY--think about it,u WILL get old,think about that when you grab your walker and try to turn on the lights or close your shades!and remember enstine(pardon the missspelling of a great man) he opened our world perspective to wonderfull things and new ideas that have helped many-even though he had that little boo-boo,he did great things,,,WAKE UP PEOPLE AND PUT DOWN YOUR CRACK PIPES!!!! thats all for now,i'm going to bed,,wake me up when you have something improtant to say...nighty nite! DOWN WITH STUPID PEOPLE !!!
it's noon and i just woke up,i'm about to go take a long nap after i write this,ooo-look at me i'm so worried,,everyone says things are getting too fast now days,thats cause you are all impatent,,how many of you own a microwave or have ever used one?how many of you own a new(er) computer,ie. over 500mhz?yeah,u like those special efx in the movies dont ya?! as for this making a good power sorce,,get off your lazy butt and figure out how to do this.if it's possible.i'm all for screwing the power company.like "hal" (home automated living)-btw,you should reopen the forum on that-just about everone ignores the good things it can do,like ASSIST THE ELDERLY--think about it,u WILL get old,think about that when you grab your walker and try to turn on the lights or close your shades!and remember einstine(pardon the missspelling of a great man) he opened our world perspective to wonderfull things and new ideas that have helped many-even though he had that little boo-boo,he did great things,,,WAKE UP PEOPLE AND PUT DOWN YOUR CRACK PIPES!!!! thats all for now,i'm going to bed,,wake me up when you have something improtant to say...nighty nite! DOWN WITH STUPID PEOPLE !!!
I find it interesting that this material has such a high energy density...I wonder how much research has been done into making this material the trigger for a nuclear weapon? If you have read anything about fission-fusion weapons, you know that it takes a "primary" fission weapon to compress the fuel capsule of the "secondary"...which makes the big bang. The Tsar Bomba used a three-stage design...wherin a primary ignited a secondary which ignited a tertiary. Normally, high-explosives are used to start the fission reaction. If these could be eliminated, we could have a single-stage fusion weapon, which would be much smaller, and, due to the fact that fusion is usually a complete process irrespective of ignition velocity, just as powerful. There is the potential for multi-megaton weapons that would be vastly more compact...and not necessarily used for war, but perhaps asteroid defense.
Sorry it took so long to reply to this. I got busy
Electrons are not really charged particles moving in orbit around the nucleus. If there were moving electrical charges, magnetic waves would be generated and the loss of energy would cause things to decay. It is just an easy model to explain things. energy shells are a better model, however still not what is really going on.
electrons shells are potential energy situation, however the orbit model breaks down here
This is also some sort of potential energy situation involing the strong and/or weak forces. My knowledge is somewhat out of date.
I do not think that there really is a true physical description of what is happening at these quantun effects levels. You just use math to describe stuff and predict results.
the other reply I see here is informative as well