looking for geff broomberg

Posted by: Yael at June 15, 2008 01:13 PM

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>

Posted by: robert chittenden at January 19, 2008 09:32 PM

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>

Posted by: robert chittenden at January 19, 2008 09:31 PM

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>

Posted by: robert chittenden at January 19, 2008 09:30 PM

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.

Posted by: David Hambling at January 10, 2007 02:34 AM

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.

Posted by: Russell Seitz at January 9, 2007 05:33 PM

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

Posted by: JH at January 9, 2007 03:43 PM

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.

Posted by: Geoff Broomberg at January 9, 2007 03:07 PM

"bladewriter" - I do know a little about those topics, and also a little about the various attempts to replicate Collins' work around the world.

The affair has all the appearance of a typical academic feud. Of course, that doesn't mean Collins is right - but it doesn't mean he's automatically wrong.

The key issue is not the disputed Hafnium 178m2 transition, but whether isomer triggering may provide a useful way of releasing stored energy. And I don't think we can afford to ignore that avenue because the physics is sound.

And as to whether this represents a significant waste of Pentagon money compared to the billions spent on some better-known items - well, you must be seeing different budget documents to me.

Posted by: David Hambling at January 9, 2007 02:47 PM

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.

Posted by: bladewriter at January 9, 2007 11:23 AM

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

Posted by: Noah Shachtman at January 9, 2007 10:48 AM

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.

Posted by: Geoff Broomberg at January 9, 2007 07:29 AM

I sent Noah that New Scientist article along with the Maxim article. I wonder why he didn't mention or quote that?

Posted by: JH at January 9, 2007 03:25 AM

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.

Posted by: David Hambling at January 9, 2007 02:50 AM