Talk:Induced gamma emission/Archive 1

Introduction

Do these weapons actually exist, or are they theoretical? Do you have a reliable source that says Red Mercury is really Lithium-6? pstudier 20:25, 2005 July 10 (UTC)

Removed Lithium-6 is a component of fusion bombs that breaks into 2 tritium nuclides because it is not true. The reaction is:

n + ⁶Li → T + ⁴He

pstudier 20:32, 2005 July 10 (UTC)

I find this very speculative and totally unsourced. A google search for "ballotechnics" which restricts it to .edu and .gov sites turns up nothing related to nuclear weapons. Looks like red mercury nonsense to me. --Fastfission 23:39, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Ballotechnics, etc.

(Discussion originally at Talk:Nuclear weapon)

All of the information on "ballotechnics" added by the anon user looks pretty suspicious to me. I'd want to see a reputable source before posting nuclear weapons speculation (of which there is plenty). A search for "ballotechnic" in Google restricted to .gov and .edu sites retrieves nothing related to nuclear weapons. Not a good sign. I've never heard of the stuff, and I'm on pretty good terms with the fellows who are best known for speculating about this sort of thing. --Fastfission 23:42, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Maybe they don't think you have the right security clearance. GangofOne 02:10, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Haha, yes, do not have, and do not want! A security clearance is just another name for a gag order in my business... ;) --Fastfission 02:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not arguing for or against this ballotechnics stuff, but I did find these two links: [[1]] and [[2]], articles published by Sandia National Laboratories, which mention ballotechnics. I value my sanity and cannot try to read them at the moment ;-) The second link is a full article, the first is just an abstract (the full article is not available online). TomTheHand 03:50, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Both these papers cover chemical reactions, with no mention of nuclear. This Ballotechnics is starting to look like BS. The Ballotechnics article didn't even get the role of lithium-6 correct.

Should we move these comments to Talk:Ballotechnics? pstudier 04:03, 2005 July 11 (UTC)

It looks like Sam Cohen unreliable nonsense to me (red mercury). See, i.e., [3]. Even the more speculative amateur nuke speculators won't touch this stuff -- if it is accurate, there is nobody but the somewhat unreliable and unbelieveable Cohen who espouses it, and no other evidence for it in the public domain. It also doesn't seem terribly plausible to me, but I'm no physicist. --Fastfission 11:07, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete?

This thing smells like nonsense to me. For example, Nuclear isomer debunks using hafnium-178m as an energy source. Should we delete this? Or is labeling it Pseudoscience sufficient? pstudier 01:23, 2005 July 12 (UTC)

don't delete; just label correctly, would be best service for the readers.GangofOne 03:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Label as "hoax"? No, only the famous hoaxes deserve articles here. I think this one may be ripe for labelling as "VfD" or at best, "BJAODN". -Willmcw 11:52, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

This may be a sufficiently famous "story" to be worth keeping, I tseems to have been around for at least a decade. -Willmcw 12:16, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

If the whole thing were qualified by someone who knew what they were talking about -- could separate the speculative stuff from the real stuff mixed in with it -- it would be just fine. I'm not qualified to do that though, my knowledge of this stuff is not technical. --Fastfission 13:58, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

The NTI (Nuclear Threat Initiative) lists "Red Mercury" under a Scam category (http://www.nti.org/db/nistraff/tables/yrcharts/definiti.htm), though there is a New Scientist article from April 1995 (April 29, 1995 issue 1975) that discusses the substance (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg14619750.300). There was a time, right after the Soviet Union fell that this stuff was thought to exist and be capable of creating very small, low yeild "clean" bombs, but all indications are that this was a scam. The last article about it in Janes Defense was in 1994 ( "RED MERCURY IS THERE A PURE-FUSION BOMB FOR SALE? ") and if this stuff wasn't a scam they would be putting out a lot more stories about it than this. I don't think the article should be deleted though, a better history of it's scamminess would be helpful for people to know.

This whole article is a mess of unsupported and frankly ridiculous assertions. It should be deleted. Lamjus 05:47, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Red mercury

As said the Russian TV, red mercury is a substance developed for anti-radar stealth-like technology and has no connection with the nuclesr fusion.

Please sign your posts on talk pages, Nixer. Andrewa 20:30, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Do you have a better reference? What is it that it can be used for stealth? Is Russian TV another move in the disinformation game? GangofOne 06:08, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

There was a film that was created specially to disclose the mystery of Red Mercury. Many people gave interview and showed the pieces of the substance. Nearly all physicists and military specialists said it was developed for stealth-like technology. Only some UFOlogists did put forward other fantastic versions.--Nixer 23:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

I don't see any justification for speedy deletion at all. As for normal deletion, I have seen this discussed in other places. So even though I don't believe it, I think it merits an article and the category listing pseudoscience. pstudier 04:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

No, it's not a speedy, but the article is a mess and needs a rewrite the 'speculative tense' (as it were). DV8 2XL 04:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Article should not be deleted , even if some of the original claims are false, because if Sam Cohen is still making claims about it as recently as 2003, it is a topic of current interest; the counter view can be here put. See the recent additions. GangofOne 06:11, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

From above "but I did find these two links: http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=5978092&query_id=0 and http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/437696-qcD7AM/webviewable/437696.pdf , articles published by Sandia National Laboratories, which mention ballotechnics." Neither are currently available now. FYI. GangofOne 06:11, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Merged material from Hafnium bomb and Quantum nucleonic reactor

I merged the text from these two articles here. Three entries on such a disputable topic is not necessary. DV8 2XL 05:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

These pages should not have have been merged. Ballotechnics really has nothing do with the controversy over a hafnium bomb, and merging three disputable topics into one category doesn't help make sense of hte issue.

Collins

Carl Collins's claimed effect appears to be based on incorrect statistical analysis that seeks to pick up an extremely weak signal from a large amount of noise. I have added some appropriate disclaimers. Dave Kielpinski 05:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Adding references to some more recent results:

• Confidence for Hafnium Isomer Triggering in 2006. - The Center for Quantum Electronics, The University of Texas at Dallas.
• Reprints of articles about nuclear isomers in peer reviewed journals. - The Center for Quantum Electronics, The University of Texas at Dallas.

--Drac2000 13:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

hoax

"The authenticity of this article has been questioned. It is believed that some or all of its content might constitute a hoax" tag applied by dv8 2xl, Jan 21 06 Are you trying to highlight the idea that the subject of the article is a possible hoax, or that this wikipedia article about the subject is a hoax? I believe this is a serious article about a hoax subject, but the tag seems to say this a hoax article. Or is there some of each case in the article? Please make clear your intended meaning. GangofOne 21:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the topic is a hoax and Samuel Cohen is a fraud. If you know of a better tag for that, please feel free to replace mine. --DV8 2XL 21:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes it would seem so, that the topic is Bollocktechnics. The tag , though seems to say the article is a spoof article, and thus not really to the point. I don;t know a better tag. maybe Category:Pseudophysics ? Or if you just say in the article, "topic is a hoax and Samuel Cohen is a fraud" but that would be not-NPOV now, wouldn't it. We need to quote some reference that says just that {if we want to stick to the Wikipedia rules, anyway. I guess I think the rule is a little too tight, when you can't say something that is obvious (to the informed)). I'll leave it alone for now, pending others' input. GangofOne 21:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Pulled it. Tags are for warning users, if it's confusing it's not doing its job. --DV8 2XL 23:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd file this as a pathological science rather than a hoax, for the "hafnium bomb" material at minimum. Prof. Collins is still employed by UT:Dallas (his directory page). If he'd been proven to have knowingly falsified experiment results, he'd have been out on his tail instantly. That doesn't mean he's right; it just means this isn't a hoax. The idea of induced transition between nuclear isomers is well-known (it was the basis behind gamma ray laser proposals way back when). The controversy is over the claim that this effect can be applied in a useful way as a weapon in the manner describd by Prof. Collins and others. --Christopher Thomas 01:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Platinum-186m?

The first paragraph mentions the isotope Platinum 186m but the article on Platinum only lists isotopes from 190 to 198. Only Platinum 193, 195 and 197 are listed as being 'm' isotopes. (see Nuclear isomer) tharkun860 03:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

AD? come on

besides this being bogus, what kind of nerd put "as of 2005 AD" in there? sorry, no mean to throw insults, but do we really need to say "AD"? 68.35.201.102 00:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Book

This week's New Scientist (17 June 2006, p57)) contains a (not terribly complimentary) review of the book Imaginary Weapons : A Journey Through the Pentagon's Scientific Underworld (ISBN 1560258497) by Defense Technology International editor-in-chief Sharon Weinberger, which covers Collins, DARPA's funding of research into a Halfnium isomer bomb, and the apparent discontinuation of the project (the review says it "vanished from public view"). Jeff Hecht, the reviewer, speculates that Weinberger might be taking the claims too seriously, saying "strategists have been bluffing about their capabilities since they invented war." Those interested in this field may wish to check out the book. The New Scientist review also cites an earlier article in the same publication, a story on the 16th of August 2003 (p4). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 11:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

As with everything touching this topic, there is severe controversy. This book is no exception. In an interview the author explained her motivation:

"In that sense, the hafnium bomb is a trope for a larger story I was trying to tell about technology and national security." –Sharon Weinberger, Interview with Tim Ventura 6/19/2006

Sharon Weinberger, though claiming no technical expertise wrote a timely contribution for the contemporary US political scene. The book is replete with egregious errors and the author has repeatedly refused to explain and/or retract any of her mistakes. That book does not meet requirements for referencing sources of technical material according to the Wikipedia principles.

--Drac2000 13:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Article is Mis-titled and Mis-Defines "Ballotechnic"

(This is the first edit I've attempted on Wikipedia, so its a bit of a test.) This article gathers together several "micronuke" concepts and claims, none of which have anything to do with ballotechnics.

The article lead-in is a wildly incorrect definition of "ballotechnic".

For an authoritative citation with the real definition see: http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=5978092 (mentioned above)

It states: "There is a class of non-explosive energetic materials (``ballotechnics``), that undergo rapid shock-induced chemical reactions, but whose products contain no vapor that can cause a rapid expansion upon pressure release."

This is clearly a word formed in analogy to "pyrotechnics" - energetic materials that undergo heat induced chemical reactions. Ballotechnics are a niche area of research for people interested in solid-phase chemical reactions.

The link between "micronuke" notions and the word "ballotechnic" appears to be a bizarre article by Frank Barnaby: "Red Mercury," International Defense Review, June 1994, pp. 79-81, in which he invokes the word "ballotechnics" without explanation to account for the incredible properties being attributed to "red mercury". But ballotechnic materials do not explode, they are solid, do not expand, and thus do no work and cannot drive the claimed incredibly powerful super-shockwave needed to ignite micro-fusion or micro-fission reactions.

This topic should be retained for debunking purposes using the http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=5978092 definition as its content. The bulk of the material here should be moved to a micronuke article that links to "red mercury" and "nuclear isomer weapons". --Careysub 12:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. A googling of the term turns up two sets of definitions. One suggests is a highly energetic chemical reaction who's most interesting feature is that it releases energy primarily as heat, as opposed to a shock wave (and thus is not an explosive). This includes many references by Cohen, who appears to believe red mercury is a ballotechnic material (although this own definitions appear to vary from quote to quote), the two Sandia references noted above, and a few more I found:

http://csat.au.af.mil/2025/concepts/810007.HTM

http://www.springerlink.com/content/r67216140h278437/#search=%22ballotechnic%22

http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=JAPIAU000096000004002000000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes

A second, much smaller, set of pages claim it is what the article here claims, that it is some sort of nuclear isomer. It is worth pointing out that not a single one of these has a reference.

There is another issue, and that's the name. Does anyone know what the name itself refers to? The reason I ask is that ballotechnics, following the chemical definition, give off heat when pressure is applied. Well I can think of one obvious example of such a material, mercury fulminate, which is widely used in ballistics. Come on, SOMEONE has to have a good chemistry dictionary handy.

Of course, considering you can't even find a good definition on the 'net, one could suggest that an article here is premature, due to it being non-encyclopedic.

Maury 20:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Preferring evolution to revolution and invoking Assume Good Faith of those who have worked on this page before, I think it would be useful to retain the working definition of Ballotechnics that lies here in the first paragraph. The idea of a nuclear reaction that produces only gamma rays is a useful one. Recently it has been spotlighted in a different form also described in the first paragraph as "Induced Gamma Emission, IGE." The existing page on Nuclear isomer explores that particular example of a nuclear reaction producing only gamma emission. The suggestions to move the material here to "micronukes" or "nuclear isomer weapons" seems inappropriate because those are two hypothetical applications of examples of ballotechnics. I see the hierarchy as being Ballotechnics=> Examples=> Applications. As we define it here Ballotechnics is the class or type of reaction and it is not an empty set. Reference to Nuclear isomer shows consensus that there have been reported in the literature with citations this type of IGE reaction for the isomer Ta-180m. I am going to send this comment to one of the Editors involved earlier on a related matter and see if/how we could change the title to something like "Ballotechnics (Induced Gamma Emission)" so we have the term traditionally used here as well as one more readily recognized by contemporary users.

PS: As we discuss this, please do not forget to "sign" contributions.

--Drac2000 21:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The issue here is that Ballotechnics appears to have absolutely nothing to do with nuclear isomers. Nothing whatsoever. Period. Repeat this as required.

What's happened is that the conspiracy crowd has confused all of these topics because they have something to do with mythical mini-nuke-like devices. Basically the logic is if X can be used to build a mini-nuke, and Y can be used to make a mini-nuke, then they must be the same thing. After all, you can make a ball out of wood or rubber, so obviously wood and rubber are the same thing, right?

So I have to say I completely disagree with your statement that "I think it would be useful to retain the working definition of Ballotechnics that lies here in the first paragraph". The references statement appears completely wrong. I would have thought the lengthy discussion here, complete with references, would have made this clear.

I contacted the author of the only other reference on the 'net that claims the same thing, and he admitted that he copied his entire article from the wiki. We need to fix this and fix it fast.

Maury 12:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you on the need to fix it, and on a priority basis. Maury, I looked at your user page and was encouraged by the evidence there that you have useful experience that will help us do the job. The next concern is whether we agree about priorities and sequencing. I am hopeful that if we both Assume Good Faith we can develop a sequence of improvements that gets us to the goal.

It was very helpful to learn from you that the whole term ballotechnics was a wrong turn in the road. I liked your analogy with the ball. The question I have is can you accept the point I was advancing? I repeat that point.

There is a very useful and constructive part of the page that needs to be retitled and preserved - and not abandoned to the conspiracy crowd as you have called them. What is important to me is preserving the hierarchy (Nuclear reactions producing only gammas)=> Examples => Applications of those examples.

For me the base page of the hierarchy (Nuclear reactions producing only gammas) should be called "IGE" meaning Induced Gamma Emission. I propose to you as a first step that we retitle or move or merge (I do not know how to do any of that and to what extent it is acceptable) this ballotechnics page dropping the term "ballotechnics" and references to "Red mercury" altogether. Then we would need to find all of the references and links to this page in other pages and change them to IGE. Is there a bot or process for making such changes?

Enough for now and I will wait with interest to see upon how much of this we agree and how to do it. Regards,

--Drac2000 16:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

If I understand your proposal correctly, I agree with it completely. This page should be moved, largely as-is, to a new article called something like "Induced Gamma Emission". That is what this article is actually about. Then all references to "ballotechnics" in the resulting "new" article should be removed, because that is defintely not what this article is about. A new article on the real ballotechnics could be inserted into what became a redirect (which is what happens when you move a page). Finally, the article on Red Mercury should mention and point to both of these articles (although it doesn't really have anything to do with IGE, but that's OK).

Yes? No? Maury 20:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Yes, Yes !!! I completely agree and apologize for missing your reply to me for a while because I was down at the bottom working with Christopher Thomas. I think we are all agreed and I ask anyone that knows how to make the changes you suggested, to please do so. I am still too inexperienced to feel confident in trying to do it.

--Drac2000 22:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The content that I'd provided was originally put in Hafnium bomb (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), as this term was demonstrably used for that specific device. I suggest basing the revised article title on the terms used in refereed publications about the subject, if these exist. "Nuclear isomer weapon" would be my suggestion if the title is being pulled out of a hat. --Christopher Thomas 18:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Though in 5th place, the acronym IGE is known to the online dictionary as Induced Gamma Emission , first point. Secondly, as you perceptively pointed out above, the field of study started because of possible applications to a gamma ray laser. You can search for Induced Gamma Emission as well as anyone, but the prestigious journal Science recognized the term in an early review of the field.

My strong feeling is that "Nuclear isomer weapon" would be inappropriate because that is one potential application of one example in the field for which we are trying to find a better name than "Ballotechnics" that incidentally seems to have 100% disapproval as an appropriate name. Do you really object to "IGE" or was the point that you correctly wanted better justification for the proposal of IGE to replace Ballotechnics.

--129.110.241.121 20:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I wanted better justification. If IGE has been used in refereed literature, go ahead and retitle based on it. --Christopher Thomas 21:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Excellent point ! The abstract of this peer reviewed article in a Springer journal Hyperfine Interactions, 135, 51-70, 2001 begins:

Because of the high density of energy storage and the large cross section for its release nuclear spin isomers have attracted considerable recent interest. The triggering of induced gamma emission from them has encouraged efforts to develop intense sources of short-wavelength radiation. One of the....

I fear that the link to Springer will not show you anything unless you access it from a library with a subscription, but there is a reprint posted at the UT Dallas site. Following your logic, with which I fully agree, it would seem that we could use "Induced Gamma Emission", but that is rather long. I would perfectly agree with that longer form, if it would result in consensus. However, if others saw sufficient justification in the moderately strong recognition of the acronym IGE for Induced Gamma Emission I guess I would prefer the shorter IGE if that would not delay consensus.

What do you advise further, and can you please do the retitle? I have not the experience to try it.

--Drac2000 22:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Science Politics

Please consider that while we were working diligently to reach consensus about the name and reorganization of this page, a more fractious approach was being mounted by 71.133.205.75 who was introducing unsubstantiated opinion as fact. No talk or discussion has been offered to us here before making the changes on the page. Introduction of "most in the physics community", "deeply skeptical", "Collins continues to insist", "allegedly confirming experiments", "those affiliated with Collins" seem designed to provoke an edit war rather than to promote insight and understanding. Quantitatively those boldface terms mean nothing, but they do communicate denigration. What is the good of that?

I do not want to respond in kind, but I do not accept such unsubstantiated changes and injections of trivial opinion without discussion. Myself, I quit for the day and hope to find tomorrow that the methods we successfully employed to reach consensus about the retitling of this page will be enforced on 71.133.205.75 by someone who knows how to do such enforcement.

--Drac2000 23:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, as far as I can tell, anon's edits are right. Nobody independent of Collins has been able to produce the type of results he claims to when trying to duplicate his experiments, so most scientists have moved on. The changes bring the article more in line with WP:NPOV's guidelines on reflecting scientific views in proportion to the number of scientists that hold them. --Christopher Thomas 01:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPOV includes the statement

A different approach is to substantiate the statement, by giving factual details that back it up: "John Doe had the highest batting average in the major leagues from 2003 through 2006." Instead of using the vague word "best," this statement spells out a particular way in which Doe excels.

This is offered as my thinking about my changing one word, "most" to "some." Can you or 71.133.205.75 justify most better than some in terms of something quantative? Also, your hypothesis that "most scientists have moved on" is incorrect.

However, from this latest round we succeed only in vitiating the consensus effort to retitle this page. Why waste the time on that, if we are so far from NPOV or BPOV, which is it?

--Drac2000 14:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Good points all around, but perhaps not nearly as worrying as it seems. For one, the edits in question do seem to have some level of validity, I think we all agree with that. As Drac points out though, the wording needs a little work. The good news is that if we do just move the article, and are we all agreed on that now?', the edits will move over too and I don't think that should be a problem. Maury 16:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Bravo Maury, the community owes you a big vote of thanks!

--Drac2000 16:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)