Things that go "BOOM"

The New Scientist is reporting that a new kind of explosive is being developed by the DoD. This miracle explosive works by stimulating the release of energy from an excited isomer of Hafnium. By shooting some xrays at this highly energized form of matter, the nucleus is convinced to emit a large number of gamma rays. Early tests showed a release of energy 60 times that put in, and theoretically this could go much higher.

A shell with one gram of explosive Hafnium-178m2 (the excited, isomer of regular Hafnium) could store the energy of over 50kg of TNT. This means you could potentially have grenade sized shells with the explosive power of a WWII blockbuster bomb. Needless to say, the military has a hard on for this stuff. For the foreseeable future, making energized Hafnium will be expensive - it requires a partical accelerator and other expensive apparatus to pump regular Hafnium with the energy it needs. Costs would be thousands of dollars per kg even in full production, on the order of those for enriched Uranium.

The downside is that this reaction is a "nuclear" reaction. It doesn't involve fission or fusion, it's an isomer decay reaction; but some of the unexploded Hafnium would remain after the weapon detonates, leaving small amounts of radioactive Hafnium behind. When you combine the words "nuclear" and "radioactive" this causes certain elements to salivate. And then to scream bloody murder.

Some will fear that this will erode the barrier between conventional and nuclear weapons. The administration has already authorized studies (not production) of low yield nuclear weapons for use as bunker busters, and to attack bio and chemical stores without danger of spreading those agents by the blast. (Of course, the blast would spread fallout - which kind of defeats the purpose in my book.) The Hafnium explosives, at least from what the article states, would be exceedingly high energy with very little radioactive residue. Most of the danger from conventional nukes is from the Alpha and Beta decay, not the gamma decay which seems to be the sole form of energy that this explosive releases.

This would be useful, then, as a bunker buster. But if these weapons are developed, the potential is enormous, especially if the xray trigger could be sufficiently miniaturized, and the Hafnium residue minimized. How about conventional machine gun rounds with a quarter gram of Hafnium explosive - each bullet explodes with the force of a tank round. Imagine a soldier with a Barrett .50 cal sniper rifle, which has an extreme range of two miles. A couple grams of Hafnium explosive in the bullet would have a remarkable effect. Or imagine an Air Force plane dropping a cluster munition, like the CBU-87. Instead of 202 grenade like bomblets, each bomblet has the explosive force of a daisy cutter.

I don't know that this stuff will ever be in the hands of the individual soldier, but integrated into missiles, bombs and artillery shells, its impact would be enormous. One of the biggest problems with explosives is not accuracy but weight. They are difficult to move around. Considering how the average soldier likes to bomb the hell out of the enemy, you can go through stocks of munitions at a frightful rate. If we perfect this technology, there are a couple uses for very large hafnium bombs. But the greatest use would be to create much smaller bombs with the same spread of explosive power as the ones we have now. This would greatly ease the logistical strain of keeping the artillery, air force and navy well stocked with things that go boom. And further, storing the bombs could be significantly safer if an xray trigger is required to detonate them. Just don't put them near hospitals, I guess.

[Side note] The trend for the US Military is toward two things - ever more integrated communications and intelligence, and more and more firepower. This fits right in with that. Winds of Change's Trent Telenko has a very good article up on the communications side of that equation.

Posted by Buckethead Buckethead on   |   § 4

§ 4 Comments

1

A science question:

Is alpha radiation so dangerous in nuclear blasts because there is so much of it? I know that it is a weak form of radiation, in that it can be stopped by any solid object, whereas beta and gamma radiation take a bit more.

Since alpha radiation is a heavier particle (right??) it makes sense that if you're near a nuclear explosion you're going to get bombarded. But I always thought that gamma radiation was the big danger owing to its higher particle velocity (or something... forgive me).

M. Buckethead-- do you have a source which discusses the effects of these radiations on living tissue in the context of a small nuclear explosion? I'm very curious and don't really have time to google today.

2

If I remember correctly, Alpha and Beta decay is Ionizing radiation. They are particles that when they strike other stuff, especially living stuff, they cause mucho damage and even cause other things to become radioactive themselves.

On the other hand, Gamma radiation is just highly energized photons, like heat, ultraviolet or regular light, only a lot more so. Not that it wouldn't ruin your day, but it doesn't have all the bad effects of the other types.

So, except for the residual unexploded Hafnium, this weapon wouldn't be a dirty bomb. The gamma radiation would just produce blast/heat/shock effects. If you put some kind of gamma ray absorbing material around the bomb, it would probably increase the blast effects, because more of the energy would be transmitted as heat and shock.

3

Reminds me of a quote from E.E. [Doc] Smith's "Skylark of Space" [1937!!].

"even at 200 yards, the Mark III energized copper bullet from Seaton's .357 Magnum revolver struck within inches of the tree stump. The resulting detonation engulfed the target in a spherical paroxism of lambent atomic flame, completely volatizing everything for 20 feet. Richard Ballinger Seaton indulging in a considerable understatement, remarked, "I don't think I'll shoot a Mark VII around here."

Think of what the GAU-8 on an A-10 would do with hafnuim-tipped 30mm rounds.

North Korea's military fantasies look dumber and dumber by the minute.

4

A Skylark fan! I read those when I was twelve, and just finished reading the new edition of Skylark Three (curiously the second novel in the series.) I love Doc's language - coruscating, volatizing, the whole array of Docisms.

Now I feel bad, because the same connection had occurred to me, but I didn't mention it for fear of being too geeky. And this after I told P-Saurus it wasn't too wonky to post 20,000 words on key changes in bad pop songs. I should know better - if you can't geek out on a blog, where can you?

Some of this new stuff really does have the feel of old school space opera. The Hafnium explosives more than most - Hafnium even sounds like something that Doc would have come up with. Have to pursue that thought...

[ You're too late, comments are closed ]