Gamma Ray Bomb

So - "Four years ago scientists at U/Texas showed how to trigger a
change in half-life." Funny we never read about it in Science, Science
News, Nature or Scientific American nor has the Nobel Committee acted
on this. Nothing (other than the journalists' citation) has been
bruited about on this. Personally, my idea is that the wishful
thinkers are kicking about the old matter-antimatter reaction. Only
two problems - 1) making a significant quantity of antimatter and 2)
keeping it from reacting with ordinary matter. Solve those two
problems and you have a gamma ray bomb plus any size weapon you want.
Meanwhile I'll be searching UT to see what they actually did four
years ago.
Walt BJ

So - "Four years ago scientists at U/Texas showed how to trigger a
change in half-life." Funny we never read about it in Science, Science
News, Nature or Scientific American nor has the Nobel Committee acted
on this. Nothing (other than the

Scientists of Institute for Transuran in Karsruhe Germany reduced the decay
period of Jod128 from million years to a couple of minutes using laser
pulses,but they did not get any nobel prize either.

In article ,
"Keith Willshaw" wrote:

"Eric Moore" wrote in message
om...
Work is being done on a Gamma Ray Bomb. See:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/...018361,00.html

How would a weapon like this compare to the current generation of
nukes?
Just curious.

It sounds bogus to me.

I'm no physicist but a claim like

"Just one gram of the explosive would store more energy than
50kg of conventional TNT"

Needs a lot of evidence and thus far I have seen none

An anti-matter bomb would fit the description, and most
of its energy yield would be gamma rays.

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 19:58:42 -0700, Steve Hix
wrote:

In article ,
"Keith Willshaw" wrote:

"Eric Moore" wrote in message
om...
Work is being done on a Gamma Ray Bomb. See:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/...018361,00.html

How would a weapon like this compare to the current generation of
nukes?
Just curious.

It sounds bogus to me.

I'm no physicist but a claim like

"Just one gram of the explosive would store more energy than
50kg of conventional TNT"

Needs a lot of evidence and thus far I have seen none

An anti-matter bomb would fit the description, and most
of its energy yield would be gamma rays.


That's what I thought too but they're not talking about anitmatter.
It does seem to have the same disadvantage though of having to "charge
the battery" so to speak. With a fission or fusion bomb you just
have to refine the materials and shape them properly and you get tons
of energy out of it. This one, like antimatter, doesn't exist
naturally for all practical purposes so you have to MAKE it. So while
it might be useful for specialized roles (a big bunker buster with
fewer ramifications than a nuke) it will never be cheap.

On 13 Aug 2003 19:45:06 -0700, (Eric Moore)
wrote:

Work is being done on a Gamma Ray Bomb. See:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/...018361,00.html

How would a weapon like this compare to the current generation of
nukes?
Just curious.

Well, according to Stan Lee and the late Jack Kirby a gamma-ray bomb
won't necessarily kill you; sometimes it just turns you into a big,
green, angry creature that wants to smash things. At least that was
what happened in the comics back in the 1960s; the story's been
revised a few times since then.

___
Walter Luffman Medina, TN USA
Amateur curmudgeon, equal-opportunity annoyer

Checked out the 'newscientist' link. Two points come to mind. First
the target has to be 'pumped up' to the higher energy state.
Sincenothing's free, you have to use more energy in the process than
you're going to recover. Gigawatt hours, most likely. Second, the
comment about spontaneous decay bothers me. Sounds like research on a
full-size weapon ought to be done someplace very remote, like
Kerguelen Island. Or the Moon's Farside. Also, what effect would a
cosmic ray have, impacting a charged nucleus? Remeber, you can't
screen against them . .
Walt BJ