(Pentagon) Superbomb ignites science dispute

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/09/28/SUPERBOMB.TMP

The Pentagon's pursuit of a new kind of nonnuclear super-weapon has sparked a behind-the-scenes revolt among its elite scientific advisers, some of whom reject the scheme as pseudoscience.

The military's goal is to develop a bomb that might be far more powerful than existing conventional weapons of the same size. Precisely targeted, such a weapon could take out targets -- such as underground caverns that conceal weapons of mass destruction -- without posing the severe political risks of using nuclear bombs.

The key to the concept is a little known element called hafnium. By figuring out how to unleash the abundant energy from a hafnium isotope, called hafnium-178, the military hopes to develop a new generation of weapons. According to a Defense Department Web site, such a weapon might "revolutionize all aspects of warfare."

The Pentagon is now quietly investigating ways to mass produce the isotope. Late last year, it created the 12-member Hafnium Isomer Production Panel (HIPP). Its purpose: to assess ways to mass-produce the isotope for military uses ranging from bombs to advanced forms of propulsion.

Yet some of the nation's most distinguished scientists and military advisers say that such futuristic dreams of tomorrow's battlefields are premature at best and nonsense at worst

[BloodyWilliam]

1. "The nuke's too politically hot, so let's make a new superweapon

with an even less predictable isotope!"

Sweet Jesus, someone get me out of here...

[Minstrel Boy]

2. Er, I'm not an atomic scientist, but

"figuring out how to unleash the abundant energy from a hafnium isotope" hardly sounds like a "conventional" weapon. Is this a new breed of atomic weapon which dares not speak its name?

[Gman]

6. Anything that will destroy the nucleus of the atom

will release subatomic particles otherwise known as radiation. The name of the element is not uranium or plutonium so they'll try to fly this under the radar.

[punpirate]

10. But, this process doesn't resemble either...

... fission or fusion. It doesn't destroy the nucleus. A nuclear isomer has one or more nuclear particles in an excited state which is known as metastable (stays excited for measurable periods of time, rather than immediately going to a lower energy state by an energy emission as an electron does).

In a sense, this is an isotope that acts like a storage battery. The controversy is in finding some means of releasing the stored energy all at once. Because the energy storage density is so high, the speculation is that hugely destructive weapons could be made very small.

If the energy release is in the form of gamma rays, such energy has a very small effective distance in air--they give off energy within a short distance from the source, become high-energy x-rays, those decay to become low-energy x-rays, and so forth.

The likely effect of this release of energy would be to heat the surrounding air to the point that a fireball would be created. Any destructive potential would be in that, rather than the lethal effects of gamma rays.

That said, could a light, portable gamma ray laser be made from such a material? I think that use will ultimately be more likely than a large-scale explosive weapon.

But, in theory, this device would not produce large amounts of radioactive particles in the form of fallout. The energy given off would likely cause the isotope to decay to a diffent isotope of the same element, rather than produce large amounts of daughter products that were highly radioactive. Nevertheless, while hafnium has a low order of chemical toxicity, hafnium-178m2 is a radioactive emitter, and spreading that around in the environment in very minute particle sizes is akin to what's happening today with depleted uranium.

Cheers.

[Mikimouse]

13. Are you sure about this?

"If the energy release is in the form of gamma rays, such energy has a very small effective distance in air--they give off energy within a short distance from the source, become high-energy x-rays, those decay to become low-energy x-rays, and so forth."
Gamma photons are not particulate and as such travel quite well in air. The issue with radiation is always the same, time, distance and shielding. Now, if you are talking about alpha or beta emissions (alpha=helium nucleus and a beta particle=electron), then you do have very limited range in air. A one MeV alpha particle has a range of about 8 cm in room air, and can generate x-rays through collisions. A beta particle has a longer range and can generate x-rays as well, but even a one MeV beta particle can be effectively shielded by plastic (See Phosphorous 32). Shielding high energy gamma emissions is much more difficult.:hippie:

[punpirate]

16. Umm, reasonably sure...

It's not about whether they are particles or not--it's about dissipation of energy--the first burst out of a nuclear weapon is mostly gamma, but its energy rapidly decreases due to interaction with particles (same would be true with a gamma emitter such as hafnium). That interaction with particles is what is causing the dissipation of energy in air, or in a plasma. It's just a matter of conservation of energy.

Gamma radiation typically interacts with electrons--producing low energy gamma rays, and then x-rays and an electron (if one considers Compton scattering). In free space, it's another matter. No particle interaction, no dissipation of energy. That's why we can detect the faint gamma emissions from distant stars.

This is well-known in fission/fusion theory, I believe. Remember that a bomb or similar device is not a constantly emitting source of unlimited energy. The first emission from such a device is gamma, which rapidly loses energy by interaction with particles in the plasma and becomes high-energy x-ray, then further degrades to low-energy x-ray (this is presupposed to be the reason why there are physical limits on the size of fission-initiated fusion weapons--high-energy x-rays initiate the fusion).

There are some naturally-occurring gamma emitters and they are in rock, everywhere. And yet, the _yearly_ dose from those is about 40 mRem. One single low-energy x-ray at close range is about 22 mRem.

At least, so thinks the amateur physicist. The professional physicists are free to kick my ass. *smile*

Cheers.

[Mikimouse]

18. I was not trying to correct you

however, the range of gamma photons is considerably greater than that of any type of particulate emission. Yes, you are correct in stating that the energy decreases with each collision, but distance from the source is generally the biggest factor. In other words, think of the emission being a point source with 3 dimensional emanations, the further you are from the source, the smaller the probability of being exposed (exactly as you say, in terms of what you said about the stars and radiation coming from them. You are however, incorrect in stating that gamma photons have a very small range in room air. As an example: If one places a Tc99m source (140keV), with a solid scintillation counter in the next room directed at the source, and then walks between the two, the 'flux' will be attenuated to some extent, but many of those photons will lose so little energy passing through the body that they will still fall into a range set into the spectrometer. I was an occupationally exposed radiation worker in my former life, and I based my statements on my experiences. It really is very interesting stuff

[NashVegas]

14. Sounds Like Something Out of Dune

Like the Stone Cutter bombs.

[carpetbagger]

3. Strangelove spinning.

You pump up an atomic nucleus and it gives off gamma rays.

This isn't a nuke?

[lfairban]

7. Sorry, no.

Many elements are transitioned into radioactive isotopes by bombarding them with neutrons. They don't explode, they don't produce a lot of energy, they just make your giger counter click.

If by Nuke you mean a nuclear weapon, you are talking about fission, the splitting of the nucleus, or fusion, the combining of light nuclei to make a heaver one. Most fusion weapons require a fission device to get them started.

What is happening with this hafnium creature, I have no idea. It is too heavy for fusion and too light for fission.

I for one, don't believe it. But you are right that it doesn't sound like a conventional weapon either.

[Bozita]

4. Is this Dumbya's idea of alternative energy research?

Sounds like it might be.

[truthisfreedom]

5. here's an article that says it's not looking too good for hafnium

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2001-08/llnl-pcr081301.php

<snip>
"We were trying for a verification of their (the previous scientists’) claims," Becker said. "Because the previous findings were so significant, our team felt the experiment deserved to be repeated and verified. Instead, we vigorously disagree with earlier results through direct experimental measurement. The earlier reports were also very unlikely, in any case, on very general physics arguments."
<snip>

[punpirate]

8. Here's another article that...

... does a pretty good job of explaining the physics of nuclear isomers:

http://physicsweb.org/article/world/12/5/3

Cheers.

[lfairban]

9. OK, now I am catching on.

Ment to respond to post #5, my bad.

It is not exactly nuclear or conventional.

Radiation can be used as a power source. The Russians did this with cesium. This type of power source doesn't have much output, but it goes on for a very long time. It is also very dangerous.

The claim is that this group found a way with a dental X-ray machine to accelerate the radioactive decay that produces the radiation.

The other group who tried to verify it with more powerful equipment, ended up disputing the claim.

Get out of Dodge, can you say, "Cold Fusion"?

[punpirate]

11. Maybe...

... except that there's some suggestion in the last few years that the light energy necessary to, in effect, overload the energy storage of the excited nuclear particles is frequency-dependent. ???

Cheers.

[shockingelk]

12. has the potential to revolutionize all aspects of warfare

OK, so this hafnium stuff has an "extraordinary energy density has the potential to revolutionize all aspects of warfare"

How about a President with "extraordinary lucidity and equanimity that has the potential to revolutionize all aspects of diplomacy"?

[Dudley_DUright]

15. Well said shockingelk

Brings to mind what was said by a wise man the last time a "superbomb" was invented.

The release of atom power has changed everything except our way of thinking...the solution to this problem lies in the heart of mankind. If only I had known, I should have become a watchmaker. -- Albert Einstein

[bobthedrummer]

17. Then there is the Space weapons empire we run

as well as the mind control
http://www.raven1.net/govptron.htm

which only Dennis Kucinich began to address and even then the text was lost on exotic weaponry in HR2977/Space Preservation Act of 2001.