Gamma Ray Bomb

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.

"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

Keith

Keith Willshaw wrote:
"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

In theory that's correct. There is a simple formula to work it out.

Cheers
David

Keith Willshaw wrote:


It sounds bogus to me.


It does indeed sound very strange, but at least it doesn't immediately
appear to violate any basic law of physics (as opposed to some other
claims of "superweapons" ;-) ).

The whole concept sounds a bit like a laser, except that the "decay"
happens in the nucleus and not the electron shell.

Andreas

do you have any web site about gamma ray bomb???

David Bromage wrote:

Keith Willshaw wrote:
"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

In theory that's correct. There is a simple formula to work it out.

Cheers
David

Andreas Parsch wrote in message ...
Keith Willshaw wrote:


It sounds bogus to me.


It does indeed sound very strange, but at least it doesn't immediately
appear to violate any basic law of physics (as opposed to some other
claims of "superweapons" ;-) ).

The whole concept sounds a bit like a laser, except that the "decay"
happens in the nucleus and not the electron shell.

Gamma rays, hmm. Hulk smash?

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ...
"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.

So do most of your replies!

I'm no physicist but a claim like

And no scientist, bioengineer, intelligence operative, representative
of any Govt., and no aviation expert either...

"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

Keith

What do you want the US Govt. to do... Fed-Ex one to your doorstep
when its completed?

Rob

p.s. Who needs a troll when you have a resident egomaniac like Keith
Wilshaw at RAM?

(Eric Moore) wrote:

This article goes into more detail on the topic:
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994049

Hmm. Not as crackpot as I first assumed.

I have to wonder how you keep this stuff from spontaneously
releasing the energy. There could easily be a cascade effect if a few
atoms release in a half-life style decay sequence.

"Here, try this new hand grenade. I'll be watching from the
lead bunker back at 10,000 South."

:-/




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

It does indeed sound very strange, but at least it doesn't immediately
appear to violate any basic law of physics (as opposed to some other
claims of "superweapons" ;-) ).

Every "superweapon" of 20th century violated basic laws of physics that were
prevailing before Dec 14,1900.
Next generation of superweapons will also surely violate basic laws of physics
that we learned in 20th century.
Orthodoxy in science was always a major problem.


The whole concept sounds a bit like a laser, except that the "decay"
happens in the nucleus and not the electron shell.

Thats correct,but much more interestingly you can achive similar interactions
if you place materia in a very intense EM field,which makes nuclear wepons very
dangerous to store anywhere if you your opponent has EM weapons capable of
recovering initial energy anywhere they want to.
BTW new physics is accepts the non locality and zero point energy which
apparently extremely well understood by pre 1945 German scientists.
Besides of Penrose and Zeilingers works you may also want to check out works of
Haisch,Puthoff and Rueda for more info.

"robert arndt" wrote in message
om...
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...
"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.

So do most of your replies!

I'm no physicist but a claim like

And no scientist, bioengineer, intelligence operative, representative
of any Govt., and no aviation expert either...

Correct


"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

Keith

What do you want the US Govt. to do... Fed-Ex one to your doorstep
when its completed?


No I want more factual information from the people who wrote
the article

Rob

p.s. Who needs a troll when you have a resident egomaniac like Keith
Wilshaw at RAM?

Pot Kettle etc

Keith