Gamma Ray Bomb

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

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"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

The New Scientist article the Grauniad one was based on is quite interesting

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994049

Best

John

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

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.

In article ,
(John S. Shinal) wrote:

(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.

It does spontaneously release it's energy. That's what half-life is all about.
But it releases gamma rays, not particles, so there is no direct
comparison with a fission-type chain reaction.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

(Harry Andreas) wrote:

It does spontaneously release it's energy. That's what half-life is all about.

Sorry, I was unclear. I mean "without intentional triggering".
Of course you are correct here.

But it releases gamma rays, not particles, so there is no direct
comparison with a fission-type chain reaction.

I think I see what you mean - but they're saying this stuff is
(if I understand this) photon pumped - can the same radiation
mechanism that pumps it to a higher state cause a subsequent release ?



----== 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 =---

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 09:00:57 -0700, (Harry
Andreas) wrote in Message-Id:
:

In article ,
(John S. Shinal) wrote:

(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.

It does spontaneously release it's energy. That's what half-life is all about.

It would appear from the article, that the isomer's decay rate can be
modulated by varying the x-ray excitation input.

But it releases gamma rays, not particles, so there is no direct
comparison with a fission-type chain reaction.

Have you any idea how the gamma energy might be directly converted to
electrical?



--

Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
-- Larry Dighera,

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.

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