Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Durandal7

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Feb 24, 2001
3,153
0
n 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.

The explosive works by stimulating the release of energy from the nuclei of certain elements but does not involve nuclear fission or fusion. The energy, emitted as gamma radiation, is thousands of times greater than that from conventional chemical explosives.

The technology has already been included in the Department of Defense's Militarily Critical Technologies List, which says: "Such extraordinary energy density has the potential to revolutionise all aspects of warfare."

Scientists have known for many years that the nuclei of some elements, such as hafnium, can exist in a high-energy state, or nuclear isomer, that slowly decays to a low-energy state by emitting gamma rays. For example, hafnium-178m2, the excited, isomeric form of hafnium-178, has a half-life of 31 years.

The possibility that this process could be explosive was discovered when Carl Collins and colleagues at the University of Texas at Dallas demonstrated that they could artificially trigger the decay of the hafnium isomer by bombarding it with low-energy X-rays (New Scientist print edition, 3 July 1999). The experiment released 60 times as much energy as was put in, and in theory a much greater energy release could be achieved.
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994049

Makes you wonder about a repeat of the Cold War arms race, only this time with China over Gamma weaponry instead of the USSR over nukes.
 

hvfsl

macrumors 68000
Jul 9, 2001
1,867
185
London, UK
Does the radiation disappear quickly or does it stay around for hundreds of years like conventional nuclear based weapons?

Anyway I don't think it will create a new arms race since Russia no longer has the money to do it and China does not have the technical knowledge, a lot (if not all) of China's weapons are based on Russian designs. To create a arms race a totally new tech would have to be created, like weapons of mass destruction (the explosive kind) that don't leave radition behind after the explosion.
 

big

macrumors 65816
Feb 20, 2002
1,074
0
60% of the energy you put into it? seems like we shoul be researching this for domestic energy, and public/individual transportation
 

patrick0brien

macrumors 68040
Oct 24, 2002
3,246
9
The West Loop
Originally posted by hvfsl
Does the radiation disappear quickly or does it stay around for hundreds of years like conventional nuclear based weapons?

-hvfsl

Thankfully no. Gamma rays are a form of light in the electromagnetic spectrum - like X-Rays, Microwaves, Radio, etc. As a result, it's not pervasive.

Don't forget the term "radiation" is a generic one that simply describes energetic particls "radiating" from a source. This refers to any particle.

The word "radiation" has become associated with the Alpha and Beta particles from a fissing unstable heavy atom like Uranium 239 or Plutonium 235. Radioactivity and radiation are not at all the same thing - though slang has blurred that.

The key difference is that fission radiation is a particle - a packet of protons and neutons that broke away - through the weak force - or decay, from the original heavy unstable element. These particles often become entangled in substances they run into, thus we get contamination.

Gamma rays, are light, and therefore fleeting. However, unlike alpha and beta particles, they are not stopped by substanced they run into. Meaning that there is no place to hide - not even lead.

How's that for a nuclear physics lesson! :D
 

Cubeboy

macrumors regular
Mar 25, 2003
249
0
Bridgewater NJ
Hmm, interesting, I never knew conventional chemical explosives emitted Gamma rays, how does this (EMP?) bomb compare with nuclear weapons in terms of the amount of gamma radiation emitted? Several magnitudes greater I'd imagine?
 

Fukui

macrumors 68000
Jul 19, 2002
1,630
18
Humans have got to be the only species that I know of that constantly and purposefully comes up with new ways to kill themselves...
 

4409723

Suspended
Jun 22, 2001
2,221
0
Originally posted by patrick0brien
-hvfsl

Thankfully no. Gamma rays are a form of light in the electromagnetic spectrum - like X-Rays, Microwaves, Radio, etc. As a result, it's not pervasive.

Don't forget the term "radiation" is a generic one that simply describes energetic particls "radiating" from a source. This refers to any particle.

The word "radiation" has become associated with the Alpha and Beta particles from a fissing unstable heavy atom like Uranium 239 or Plutonium 235. Radioactivity and radiation are not at all the same thing - though slang has blurred that.

The key difference is that fission radiation is a particle - a packet of protons and neutons that broke away - through the weak force - or decay, from the original heavy unstable element. These particles often become entangled in substances they run into, thus we get contamination.

Gamma rays, are light, and therefore fleeting. However, unlike alpha and beta particles, they are not stopped by substanced they run into. Meaning that there is no place to hide - not even lead.

How's that for a nuclear physics lesson! :D


Hmm I had learned at school that 5 Cm's of lead could halve the amount of gamma passing through.

What we learnt was:

Alpha: Piece of paper can stop it
Form: Electron
Beta: Piece of alumium
Form: 1 Proton 1 Neutron (Like Helium atom nucleus)
Gamma: 5 Cm's lead halves it.
Ray: No form taken.
 

MacBandit

macrumors 604
Originally posted by Wes
Hmm I had learned at school that 5 Cm's of lead could halve the amount of gamma passing through.

What we learnt was:

Alpha: Piece of paper can stop it
Form: Electron
Beta: Piece of alumium
Form: 1 Proton 1 Neutron (Like Helium atom nucleus)
Gamma: 5 Cm's lead halves it.
Ray: No form taken.

2 inches of lead is a lot of lead.
 

patrick0brien

macrumors 68040
Oct 24, 2002
3,246
9
The West Loop
Originally posted by Wes
Hmm I had learned at school that 5 Cm's of lead could halve the amount of gamma passing through.

-Wes

I stand corrected. Perhaps I should have said that even lead cannot stop it - there will always be penetration through lead, even if it is a single photon at the Gamma freq that emerges from the other side.
 

hvfsl

macrumors 68000
Jul 9, 2001
1,867
185
London, UK
I just realised a use for this weapon, orbital weapons platforms. They would be very useful against Islamic terrorists where the US only wants to destroy a building or cave with them in it. In the long run it would be cheaper than using bombs, and more accurate too. Of cource that is the use that would most scare the Russians and China since there is no defense against it. Maybe the US will use the weapons as part of the new star wars system.
 

bobindashadows

macrumors 6502
Mar 16, 2002
419
0
Originally posted by hvfsl
I just realised a use for this weapon, orbital weapons platforms. They would be very useful against Islamic terrorists where the US only wants to destroy a building or cave with them in it. In the long run it would be cheaper than using bombs, and more accurate too. Of cource that is the use that would most scare the Russians and China since there is no defense against it. Maybe the US will use the weapons as part of the new star wars system.
Well, there's no defense that i can see at the moment, but they could always send a guided missile up and knock out the orbital weapons platform, which I would classify as an offensive strike in the name of defense. And it would be cool if they implemented it in SDI, but I'd like to see them work on the current implementation and get the success rate above like 33% (thats what I heard, correct me if I'm wrong). Granted, they could just send out 10 of the SDI missiles and that would pretty much ensure the incoming missile's destruction, but the less used the better.

It is a very controversial topic, because we hope that the money spent never actually get used, because that would mean a very serious war. However, not spending the money would result in being unprepared should such a war arrive... I personally feel that a war with another superpower will eventually come. Whether that war's technology has outgrown this SDI technology is another story.
 

MacBandit

macrumors 604
Originally posted by bobindashadows
Well, there's no defense that i can see at the moment, but they could always send a guided missile up and knock out the orbital weapons platform.........

Please tell me how they would do that? How are they going to send a missile up and knock out a satellite? China just finally achieved the ability to launch missiles into orbit and that was just because they happened to get some help from us. It's not easy to send something into orbit.
 

hvfsl

macrumors 68000
Jul 9, 2001
1,867
185
London, UK
Originally posted by MacBandit
Please tell me how they would do that? How are they going to send a missile up and knock out a satellite? China just finally achieved the ability to launch missiles into orbit and that was just because they happened to get some help from us. It's not easy to send something into orbit.

I don't know about other countries but the US has missiles that are specially designed to knock out satelites in orbit. They are launched from planes high up in the atmosphere. They were designed to be used against Russian satelites, for example taking out a spy satelite or if the Russians had their own orbital weapons platforms. There are some that say the USSR built some satelites with nukes on them.
 

Mr. Anderson

Moderator emeritus
Nov 1, 2001
22,568
6
VA
1/3 of all the objects Norad is tracking in space today are from a single test of a Russian anti-satellite weapon system.

Basically they launched a missile at a satellite and blew it up in close proximity - creating 10,000s of pieces of shrapnel which now a good portion of remain in orbit and will eventually burn up in the atmosphere over the next couple decades.

If there ever is a war in space, no one will be able to leave the planet without making sure their spaceship is armored :D

D
 

mvc

macrumors 6502a
Jul 11, 2003
760
0
Outer-Roa
Originally posted by Mr. Anderson
If there ever is a war in space, no one will be able to leave the planet without making sure their spaceship is armored :D

If there is ever a war in space, noone will be left on the planet. :(
 

elfin buddy

macrumors 6502a
Sep 16, 2001
608
0
Tuttlingen, Germany
Originally posted by Wes
Hmm I had learned at school that 5 Cm's of lead could halve the amount of gamma passing through.

What we learnt was:

Alpha: Piece of paper can stop it
Form: Electron
Beta: Piece of alumium
Form: 1 Proton 1 Neutron (Like Helium atom nucleus)
Gamma: 5 Cm's lead halves it.
Ray: No form taken.

I think that you've got your alpha and beta particles mixed up. Alpha particles are a Helium nucleus, that's two protons and two neutrons. Beta particles are electrons, that are emmitted along with a corresponding anti e-neutrino (very difficult to detect, but possible). But yeah, you know what you're talking about :)
 

4409723

Suspended
Jun 22, 2001
2,221
0
Originally posted by elfin buddy
I think that you've got your alpha and beta particles mixed up. Alpha particles are a Helium nucleus, that's two protons and two neutrons. Beta particles are electrons, that are emmitted along with a corresponding anti e-neutrino (very difficult to detect, but possible). But yeah, you know what you're talking about :)


Yup sounds like you cracked it, been about 4 months since I studied this stuff.
 

Squire

macrumors 68000
Jan 8, 2003
1,563
0
Canada
Originally posted by Mr. Anderson
1/3 of all the objects Norad is tracking in space today are from a single test of a Russian anti-satellite weapon system.

Basically they launched a missile at a satellite and blew it up in close proximity - creating 10,000s of pieces of shrapnel which now a good portion of remain in orbit and will eventually burn up in the atmosphere over the next couple decades.

If there ever is a war in space, no one will be able to leave the planet without making sure their spaceship is armored :D

D

An interesting reading:

"Today, there are about 8,000 bodies in orbit being monitored from Earth. Out of all those, only around 3 to 400 are active and useful. There are also probably half a million pieces of debris too tiny to be monitored."

The article goes on to say that the largest pieces (i.e. booster rockets) are not necessarily the most dangerous because they are easy to monitor and, therefore, avoid. And the smallest pieces just cause some damage to the surface of a ship. "However, a particle an eight of an inch in diameter-say about the size of an aspirin- could puncture the hull of a spacecraft or space station and cause de-pressurization...These small objects are so dangerous, of course, because of their tremendous speed."

Gotta clean that place (space) up a bit.

Squire

Edit: I almost forgot this one. Perhaps some of you remember reading an article about this massive conventional bomb knows as MOAB and nicknamed the "mother of all bombs." Here's the link to the CNN article.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/11/sprj.irq.moab/
 

MacBandit

macrumors 604
Originally posted by hvfsl
I don't know about other countries but the US has missiles that are specially designed to knock out satelites in orbit. They are launched from planes high up in the atmosphere. They were designed to be used against Russian satelites, for example taking out a spy satelite or if the Russians had their own orbital weapons platforms. There are some that say the USSR built some satelites with nukes on them.

That's true but unless China has bought the equipment to do this or made great strides in recent years then they don't have the ability to knock satellites down yet.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.