If you’re standing near Sharon Weinberger, be careful. Her head may explode, after reading this post.
Despite her best efforts — including a whole freakin’ book — to explain to folks that a nuclear hand grenade violates science’s most basic principles, the idea just won’t die. The latest example: OK, OK… it’s from Maxim, not the New Republic or Foreign Policy. But still, the fact that the nuke grenade (also known as the “hafnium bomb”) survives a basic fact-check — from any magazine — says something about the imaginary weapon’s durability.
Get ready for an adrenaline-pumping international game of dodgeball. For years — and to the tune of $10 million so far — the Department of Energy has been pursuing the idea of nuclear grenades, handheld weapons that could yield kilotons of destructive power thanks to one central ingredient: superexcited elements called isomers. A golf ball holding the energy of just one halfnium 178 isomer– the element being considered for use in the weapon — would contain the equivalent of 10 tons of explosives. The moment researchers discover the best way to trigger the release of that energy…we’re all screwed!
(Big ups: JH)
I’ve been on this one for quite a while now… http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4049
I’m sure Sharon would be the first to agree that the concept is not physically impossible — isomer triggering is an accepted scientific fact — the issue is over whether the specific approach taken using Hafnium 178m2 will release enough energy in the right way. This remains the subject of heated debate.
(If the Hafnium bomb was viable, you do have to ask what measures would be taken to protect the technology and whether disinformation would figure.)
Also, I don’t think either Sharon or Carl Collins (originator of the concept) have mentioned the source of the ‘hand grenade’ tag, which Collins used as a graphic way of describing the power of the nuclear isomers. I believe it comes from an old Bob Hope enter-taining-the-troops gag, which ran roughly:
“You know what they’ve got now? An atomic hand grenade. It destroys everything for a hundred yards.
Problem is, it’s so heavy you can only throw it fifty yards.“
The gag was applied incorrectly to the Davy Crockett ‘atomic bazooka’, and in the case of the Hafnium bomb it backfired too as people immediately think it sounds like a dumb idea. In reality, nobody has ever suggested a hand grenade rather than a warhead.
I sent Noah that New Scientist article along with the Maxim article. I wonder why he didn’t mention or quote that?
When Alli Akba Kaboom gets his claws on this cute little thermo nuclear device, he won’t be throwing it.……72 virgins is pretty tempting to those who consider sheep cute in certain lighting! With help from the Rising Dragon, this note is going to become due in brimstone.
JH: I *do* give you credit, right at the bottom of the piece!
The hafnium bomb is absolute crap. None of the legitimate nuclear physics groups — not one — has been able to reproduce Collins’ shoddy work on triggered depopulation of the hafnium K isomer. There is no heated debate — only figuring out
how Collins could have gone so badly wrong and why
anyone is still taking this seriously.
Would someone care to define “not physically impossible”? Go learn something about quantum mechanics, nuclear decay channels, forbidden transitions, and then come back and tell us about “physically impossible.” As long as engineers like Tony Tether disregard knowledgable advice from groups like the JASONS, the gov’t will continue to piss millions up the rope.
Bladewriter: If something is “not physically impossible” as you put it, then according to your own logic it is possible! Hypothisis “spinning” around the further concentration of fissible diodes is evoloving into theory even as we chicken peck our backseat quarterbacking into cyberland. I’m no doomscreamer but bloodlust increased exponetially will statisticly eventually yeild a win for the odor challenged. There is huge profit in war so don’t expect the bankers to halt the flow of revenue to those who want a golf ball that can blow up Park Avenue.
Noah, I wasn’t talking about giving me some credit. I was referring to you not discussing the New Scientist article.
Gentlemen: This is no humbug–it’s a complete crock in the same league as Cold Fusion and the Puckle Gun–
After three cycles of failing to produce any reproducible results , the paradigm seems to be ’ if we had twelve orders of magnitude more ham we could make a pig’s ear. But we don’t-so lets apply for an earmarked mustard research grant.…‘
Poor Martin Stickley– he shoulda listened to JASON.
I’m intrigued that people are so absolute in condemning this, when Tantalum-180 isomer triggering is unquestioned. Nuclear isomers are here to stay.
As I said, this looks more like an academic feud than an rational debate. When terms like ‘an absolute crock’ replace reasoned discussion of results — and in a rarefied field like quantum nucleonics — then you know you have problems.
why wont this idea work? we have the science, a true hand thrown grenade that has a massive yeild.why not, if you can set it as to make a clean getaway i could see many uses for this idea>
why wont this idea work? we have the science, a true hand thrown grenade that has a massive yeild.why not, if you can set it as to make a clean getaway i could see many uses for this idea>
why wont this idea work? we have the science, a true hand thrown grenade that has a massive yeild.why not, if you can set it as to make a clean getaway i could see many uses for this idea>
looking for geff broomberg