Comments on: Nuke Grenade: Indestructable

By: Yael

Yael — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 18:13:13 +0000

looking for geff broomberg

By: robert chittenden

robert chittenden — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 02:32:47 +0000

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>

By: robert chittenden

robert chittenden — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 02:31:04 +0000

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>

By: robert chittenden

robert chittenden — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 02:30:35 +0000

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>

By: David Hambling

David Hambling — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 07:34:31 +0000

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.

By: Russell Seitz

Russell Seitz — Tue, 09 Jan 2007 22:33:20 +0000

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.

By: JH

JH — Tue, 09 Jan 2007 20:43:53 +0000

Noah, I wasn’t talking about giving me some credit. I was referring to you not discussing the New Scientist article.

By: Geoff Broomberg

Geoff Broomberg — Tue, 09 Jan 2007 20:07:01 +0000

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.

By: bladewriter

bladewriter — Tue, 09 Jan 2007 16:23:25 +0000

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.

By: Noah Shachtman

Noah Shachtman — Tue, 09 Jan 2007 15:48:37 +0000

JH: I *do* give you credit, right at the bottom of the piece!