Ideal Weapon: Can Hafnium Bombs Replace Nuclear Bombs?

[@romado59]

Hafnium Bombs is clickbait. There is a book about this. The conclusion the book comes to is that the Hafnium is not viable since there is not chain reaction mechanism to continue the reaction to criticality.

[@TerraPhysica]

in fact we don't need chain reaction. We can just multiply the energy on initial pulse by factor of, like, 10000, and we'll get what we need

[@Paranoidtimes]

How old is said book?

[@vauhner81]

Books are great but it doesn't mean you know the truth. Certainly think critically, but also open your mind to the possibilities. There are thousands of way something doesn't work, but you only need to find 1. Cheers mate.

[@ΑΣΔΦΓΗΞΚΛ]

​@@TerraPhysicaand this is a perfect weapon? Look up Toon, Bardeen, Robock et al Science Advances 2018 (or 2019, 18 could be a preprint) If your bomb works it will cause nuclear winter by itself sufficient to kill crop yields globally Mutually Assured Destruction by starvation, radiation isn't necessary, just enough heat to throw the particulates high enough

[@ΑΣΔΦΓΗΞΚΛ]

@@TerraPhysica gosh you removed my comment? There's follow up in Nature too, but links aren't allowed here Much like scientific accuracy it seems

[@gamewizard1760]

This would be terrible. It is the radioactive fallout that largely prevents a nuclear war. Build a bomb with more destructive power, without the threat of fallout, and there will be a bigger incentive to use them.

[@carriersignal]

And that very incentive, in itself, would be a deterrent.

[@brendanbennett6395]

Is it the fallout or the mutual assured destruction that is the deterrent?

[@Stevie-J]

"Nuclear winter" is fake and war planners have always known that it's fake, so no, the threat of fallout does not prevent war. A group of scientists banded together for specific political reasons, then they created a model to "prove" nuclear winter. They continually updated the input data AND updated the model itself until they got the result they wanted. It was politics and nonsense, not science

[@dwwolf4636]

Both.

[@jerrywatt6813]

Oho it would have verry long lasting fallout only 6% of the isomers would be used in the explosion the remainder would be fallout !😊

[@Ed-quadF]

"How about a hafnium grenade with power of 100's of kilos of TNT." The nuance, how far can you throw?

[@guytech7310]

Grenade launcher: Hold my beer!

[@tomarmadiyer2698]

*desires to learn more*

[@Ozymandias-r2v]

@@guytech7310 Be sure to count to 3, not 4 and not 2 unless you then proceed to 3...

[@guytech7310]

@@Ozymandias-r2v Alex: How many licks to the center of a tootsie roll pop? LOL!

[@Ozymandias-r2v]

@@guytech7310 you missed it. probably not old enough.

[@FrickFrack]

Meh, I'm holding out for antimatter bombs. Once you have antimatter, nothing else matters.

[@icecold9511]

Antimatter bombs will never be a thing. Simply storing the fuel would be dangerous to the owner. It is more dangerous to possess one, that to be a potential target of one.

[@jamesgoddard8375]

​@@icecold9511 I'm fairly sure they were making a joke

[@jorgdahn3736]

Well, Metallica does matter.

[@HSamee]

Don't you mean nothing else matter. Badum tss.

[@turbo32coupe]

Thank you for the video,. A Hf bomb would yield stable isotopes, but all the nearby matter would become radioactive as the gamma radiation would produce a neutron flux. It's never clean.

[@MichaelLeeOne]

Alas, I spent most of my youth in the excited state

[@BuddyLee23]

Current state: flaccid 🥀

[@fraMOON635]

what did the release looked like ? 😂😂

[@rrd1975]

@@BuddyLee23 At 67, much more difficult to reach excited state.

[@Telephonebill51]

Hey, we ALL dreamed of Jeannie...

[@mumziam]

Made me laugh!

[@creeib]

I am concerned about people who praise bombs.

[@gary-pietz4147]

What you don't like Bombs I thought everybody liked bombs big bombs little bombs

[@Emanuel-t5e]

In Germany this is what we call a "Lumpenpazifist", a scallywag-pacifist

[@billberg1264]

Learn to stop worrying and love the bomb.

[@malcolmrowe5031]

Imagine what could be achieved if all these smart people created stuff to better humanity rather than destroy it

[@Roylamx]

Imagine!

[@matttrafton2725]

What'd be the point of that?

[@TheGoldenWildcat]

Like outfit hafnium to replace nuclear power plant with hafnium power plant?

[@StarLink149]

Well, they talked about the possibility of making hafnium batteries... is that not creating stuff to better humanity? It just so happens that making a device that violently releases energy is a lot more easy than attempting to control a reaction to make something more creatively useful.

[@steelnail1917]

Nuclear weapons are against alien invasion

[@Godwh1sperer]

You promsed us skittles and rootbeer and all we got was half a soggy flapjack.

[@dmathmothtutinean8950]

???

[@daleshelden8394]

Promised

[@baomao7243]

I think you mean Haf a soggy flapjack.

[@P-G-77]

And it's not in the treaties, if I'm not mistaken. Of course it would be NOW it would be THE SWINGING POINT. BUT... The Hafnium Bomb remains, for now, a theory in the field of nuclear physics with no demonstrated practical applications. The idea, while scientifically fascinating, is fraught with technical challenges and unsolved problems that keep it in the realm of speculation rather than concrete reality.

[@mrhassell]

The energy release from hafnium-178m2 is significant, with one gram potentially storing more energy than 50 kilograms of TNT. This energy release is still two orders of magnitude less than a nuclear fission reaction. There are substantial practical obstacles to creating such a bomb. These include the difficulty in producing and isolating the isomer, the challenge of efficiently triggering the energy release, and the absorption of triggering radiation by surrounding materials. Many scientists are skeptical about the feasibility of weaponizing hafnium isomers. Experiments have shown mixed results, and no other group has been able to replicate the initial claims of successful energy release. the concept of a hafnium isomer bomb is intriguing, it remains largely theoretical and faces significant scientific and practical hurdles. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafnium_controversy

[@Tribecasoothsayer]

Thanks for the link

[@jcriley7695]

Einstein said orchestrating the atom was impossible as well and he was completely wrong. Anything is possible.

[@dad-ms8mz]

As if there were no hurdles in nukes ytr​@@Tribecasoothsayer

[@edgfwevwefedvreafv4974]

​@@jcriley7695I don't mean to be rude but the statement "anything is possible" is just so stupid. The vast majority of things are impossible, and saying we don't know do not make the impossible possible.

[@DunnickFayuro]

The main reason we're not using nuclear weapons is precisely the lasting radiations they leave behind in most cases. I think we're not ready for radiation-less bombs more powerfull than classic nuclear bombs...

[@Lucyhehe_]

Wrong

[@TrustInTheShepherd]

Main reason why nukes are not used is mutual assured destruction, USA killed millions in Iraq, Afghanistan with no regard for civilians. Russia killed hundred thousands of innocent people in Ukraine. These people don't care about civilians, they don't care about polution either even if it kills people.

[@Ryytikki]

no, its because of the untold millions who would die in the immediate strike because these are, and i cannot emphasize this enough, bombs that can take out *ENTIRE CITIES* and we have thousands of them

[@joemerino3243]

I doubt the psychopaths operating the strategic levers in most countries care a lot about lasting radiation. Nuclear weapon use is precluded primarily by MAD, and secondarily by the economic interdependence of all nations. In other words, nations don't nuke each other because they'll get nuked in turn, and because their enemies' capitols are very useful to them, both economically and politically.

[@gary-pietz4147]

I wonder when they're gonna go on sale I like to keep one for a collector's item

[@bmenrigh]

I first learned about metastable nuclear isomers when I had a Technetium-99m medical scan. I love that KZbin recommended this video to me. Very well done, you have a criminally low view count for the quality.

[@Justin.Franks]

@@IIIAnchani No, isomers. A nuclear isomer is metastable.

[@ObsceneSuperMatt]

@@IIIAnchani For some reason, Isomer (chemical) and Nuclear Isomers are two different things that have the same name. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_isomer

[@IIIAnchani]

@@Justin.Franks true, my bad. I learned a different wording in my native language due to exactly that issue. Thanks for pointing it out. Never thought scientific nomenclature could be that confusing in English.

[@PMA65537]

They might have used a bad-tempered gamma camera.

[@patrickharte4773]

@TerraPhysica Please pin a comment to the top informing smugly ignorant commenters that nuclear ISOMERS are different from ISOTOPES and from chemical isomers. Nice video btw

[@haameisanaei6481]

There is no such a thing as "nuclear isomer"

[@macoson]

​@@haameisanaei6481there is such thing and it is quite well explain in this video. Just watch if first before dropping ignorant comment. Nuclear isomers like Tc99m are being used everyday in most big hospitals

[@haameisanaei6481]

I couldn't listen to her voice, I looked it up instead. Apparently physicists have a different definition for an isomer than a chemist does. Also, it's "well explained not " well explain", I hope you don't work in a hospital!

[@macoson]

@@haameisanaei6481 pathetic

[@ixsantos]

@@haameisanaei6481nuclear isomers are most certainly real.

[@burnttoast0402]

isomers are NOT the same as isotopes, isomers are for chemicals and isotopes are for atoms

[@BretShooter]

Isomers are equivalent electrical states with varying entry levels. No difference in particle count, just the change in energy levels as particles (electrons for chemical isomers, and protons/neutrons for nuclear isomers) Isotopes have different numbers of neutrons but the same number of protons. Isotopes can also have multiple isomers, or energy states. Isotopes

[@burnttoast0402]

@@BretShooter oh alright I didn’t know

[@danielculver2209]

@@burnttoast0402 No worries! Isomer isn't my favorite descriptor; I think excited state most closely matches reality i.e. molecular oxygen has several excited states, and the same can be true for protons and neutrons in their nuclear orbitals. It's an interesting concept for a material to react with itself, without really changing its structure, and the process can still release energy. It makes you wonder if the universe has other tricks up its sleeve that will be orders of magnitude more difficult to discover!

[@jorgebarba4500]

Chemistry and Physics have different meaning for ISOMERS

[@iancormie9916]

​. appatently, physicists got their nickers in a twist when Ponds and Fleishman coined the term Cold Fusion and Chemists can now school the physicists on the terms isomer and isomization.

[@obtrunco]

Awesome. Let's make them for project Orion.

[@kieranmilner4208]

Ooo not a bad idea if it’s possible why not

[@obtrunco]

@@kieranmilner4208 👏👏👏

[@justinbailey6515]

Part of the terror of nukes is thier radioactivity. To eliminate that would encourage the use of those weapons.

[@yodaz101]

BINGO

[@RWZiggy]

air bursts don't make local fallout anyway. Keep your nuclear fireballs off the ground and use all you want. I'm sure the weapon of this video would spray good percent of unreacted radioactive halfnium all over the place anyway

[@afriedrich1452]

Our new ICBMs are going to use to Hafnium. That way, when Russia makes the US radioactive, the US moves from its underground bunkers to take over Russia. It makes a first strike unnecessary.

[@afriedrich1452]

Our new somethings are going to use to half nums. That way, when R makes the U radioactive, the U moves from its underground bunkers to take over R. It makes a first strike unnecessary.

[@dorianlindberg1662]

That is the real problem.

[@don63]

Im so excited, And i just cant hide it

[@patrickharte4773]

I'm about to relax to the ground state by the emission of hard gamma rays And I think I like it

[@drsira7248]

Using your explainiation, Hafnium bombs are both practically and theoretically impossible. You need a 2446keV source to charge it up and a 2446keV source to trigger it. So charging it will automatically also result in a decharge. Further, since it has a half life, it also has a criticall mass. At some point you have so many hafnium 178m2 atoms in a compact state that even a single discharge can trigger a chain reaction.

[@debrainwasher]

Your objection is completely correct in the general case. However, since mass equals to energy divided by c², excited hafnium 178m2 nuclei are heavier than 178 and can be removed from the reaction chamber with the 2.446 MeV excitation light source by well known technical means of isotopic separation. Therefore, the only problem is the price for the hafnium and the light source. However, the light source problem has been already solved. Controlled and tuned nuclear Bremsstrahlung can do the job (see my post above). The more developed aneutronic nuclear device is based on the aneutronic p-B fusion reaction. It delivers about 8.7 MeV and can be ignited by an EPFCG (Details see Wikipedia). While this reactions takes the temperature of a supernova (about 6GK) by thermal ignition, we have already developed a concept, that works with a very highly pressurized shock wave pulse created by magnetic means (we have termed this concept as high pressure pulse plasma fusion) - as a more developed version of Sandia's ordinary pulse plasma fusion scheme, that uses Lorentz force only. A further beneficial side effect of the new concept of introducing the reluctance force in a special manner is the removal of about 95% of all electrons from the Hohlraum by the same principle as a magnetron works. This boosts the yield Q>>1. Unfortunately, my government did not want to release this development into the public domain. Not even as a power plant. Therefore, our institute in Basel (University of Basel, Switzerland have been closed down, our laboratory journals have been seized, and all scientists and engineers are charged with official technology transfer restrictions.

[@drsira7248]

@@debrainwasher Nice to know. But what about the criticallity problem? Any kind of fissile / unstable matter has a critical point at which storage becomes impossible. And since the photons have such a high energy level, shielding smaller portions of hafnium seems impractical, especially when you still want to be able to artificially start the conversion of hf178m2 back to hf178

[@davidhimmelsbach557]

@@drsira7248 But what of Cosmic rays? Oops!

[@henryptung]

@@debrainwasher > excited hafnium 178m2 nuclei are heavier than 178 and can be removed from the reaction chamber with the 2.446 MeV excitation light source by well known technical means of isotopic separation. U-235 and U-238 differ in mass by about 1.2%, and separating them is difficult enough that it's considered the boundary to developing viable nuclear weapons. By comparison, the mass delta coming from the extra energy in 178m2 is about 0.0015%. I think you're overestimating the capabilities of these "well known technical means".

[@Bobby-fj8mk]

@@debrainwasher - you made all of that up - nice story - "charged with official technology transfer restrictions." - LOL

[@jimwalshonline9346]

We do have the means to at least reduce the long-distance contamination. The Tsar Bomb, for its fearsome size, was said to be a relatively "clean" device.

[@Vindictus67]

That is because it's a thermonuclear (fusion) device, which are generally cleaner than fission weapons, and the one test of the Tsar was detonated at over 3,000 feet above the ground, sucking up less debris from ground level, to irradiate as fallout...

[@jimwalshonline9346]

​@@Vindictus67 Correct

[@JaredKlatt]

@@Vindictus67most every airburst nuke is detonated about a mile up. That’s average for the most efficient use of the blast to damage a large area. The tsar bomb was 97% fusion but that still means 1.5 Mt of fission. Clean for total yield but anything but clean from an absolute perspective. It also wasn’t because of the altitude that it was detonated at, it’s because of the primary and secondary shockwaves reflected off of the ground before the under-pressure or vacuum sucked up much debris.

[@bernardkealey6449]

I’d be emphasising the “relatively” rather than “clean” Had the original design been used for 100MT that “relativity of cleanliness” (as a ratio to yield of explosive force) would have been inverted…

[@jimwalshonline9346]

@@bernardkealey6449 Indeed. "Relatively clean" is still incredibly horrible.

[@jim22387]

I remember a popular science article from the 90’s that said if a certain isotope of hafnium , if hit with an,,x-ray, would emit 60 times more gamma, I haven’t ever been able to find that article anywhere online? Sure would be cool if they can pull it off 😊

[@edgfwevwefedvreafv4974]

That claim sound extremely dubious. I'm going to guess that it was retracted.

[@mennovanlavieren3885]

The wiki page Hafnium_controversy is an article about the controversial research mentioned in the video. Is is from the 90's that not the same research?

[@albertorasa6220]

I appreciate the theoretical idea of using gamma-ray emission to propel a futuristic spaceship, however you probably forgot to tell us how such an engine could avoid self-destruction after a few instants because of the same emitted gamma-rays absorption 😊

[@pkittler8751]

So wonderfully done. Is this the same as what they used to call a "neutron" bomb back in the 70's. When I was a kid, I remember the idea of a nuclear bomb that left no radioactive mess, but the same"killing force" of a nuclear bomb. This sounds exactly like that"Neutron" bomb.

[@moors710]

The neutron bomb does not leave no radioactive mess just less than a standard nuclear bomb. Neutron radiation is about 20x as deadly as gamma radiation,but high neutron flux produces a large amount of radioactive material Do not worry about oxygen, carbon or hydrogen, but iron has considerable radioactive residual with high neutron exposure.

[@Eimost]

You've got it completely the wrong way around. Neutron bombs were desgned to release MORE radiation but be less physically destructive.

[@moors710]

Neutron bombs are about radioactive contamination not blast effects. Neutron radiation makes everything more radioactive. Photon radiation does not increase radioactivity. A theater nuclear weapon will have the same blast effect no matter if it is radiation enhanced or not. Theater nuclear weapons will still have roughly the same fallout whether radiation enhanced or not. Enhancement will increase the local residual radioactivity without any more fallout.

[@AmericanWanderers]

Very interesting. Just a note Naval reactors may use Hf control rods.

[@markharder3676]

Yes. Hf is an excellent absorber of neutrons . Hf is found in the same ores as zirconium. Zr is used to make the tubes that contain the fuel in nuclear reactors because it is the opposite of Hf. It is transparent to neutrons. Since Zr is mined and refined, the hafnium in the ore might as well be put to use as well.

[@whirledpeaz5758]

Hf has 6 consecutive stable isotopes that all have large Neutron absorption cross sections, making very effective as control rods in PWRs.

[@Zircon10]

Not typically used in PWRs which use B4C as their control element. Hf is used in BWRs as the control element.

[@whirledpeaz5758]

@@Zircon10 US Navy operates 79 of the 300 PWRs in the world. When I served, NNPS taught that Hf is used by USN. So, more than 25% would make "typical" a valid statement.

[@Zircon10]

@@whirledpeaz5758 I should have indicated in commercial nuclear electric power.

[@glynnec2008]

I read about this several years ago. I haven't seen any videos on the topic until now. Very well done.

[@omsingharjit]

Antimatter bomb is king of All The maximum energy possibly release from any mass

[@phanngocyen7358]

178m2Hf isomer is difficult to make and virtually impossible to separate from the Hf ground state, the absorption of lower-energy triggering x-rays by the bound electrons around the Hf nucleus, and the minute probability to recreate the trigger-capable x-ray starting with the triggered x-ray itself by multiple random scattering

[@cymacymulacra2301]

There is laser enrichment, you know. A gaseous stream of atoms is beamed with the required laser energy, and the absorbed photons either reduce the neutron number (isotope) or the isomeric state (depending on the beam energy), with the absorbed momentum kicking the atom out of the stream, ionized--no doubt, for electrical collection as a concentrated sample.

[@glennllewellyn7369]

I changed the oil on my lawnmower yesterday. I went with a lighter 5 weight oil as it’s still winter.

[@henryptung]

@@cymacymulacra2301 ...where are you going to find a 2.45MeV laser?

[@cymacymulacra2301]

@@henryptung my amateur research says there is hardly any upper limit, and fiber lasers make this relatively easy. #nationalignitionfacility

[@henryptung]

@@cymacymulacra2301 You're conflating two different notions of "high energy laser" here. The NIF uses laser pulses in the MJ range for extreme power, yes - but that's not the same as a laser of extremely high _frequency_ where individual _photons_ have high energy. Gamma rays can't even be reflected properly, let alone setting up a proper resonant cavity for a laser - and that's before considering how to efficiently generate photons of such high and specific energy. Optics work completely differently for such high-frequency EM radiation, and frankly we don't even have things that approach "optics" for manipulating, reflecting, and focusing gamma rays. If you need a practical example, just look at the extreme lengths TSMC goes to just to produce and manage EM radiation in the 100eV (EUV) energy range - and we're talking about photons with 24000 times more energy. The technology simply doesn't exist yet, and may never exist.

[@tonyfield2360]

Outstanding video. I wish my physics lecturers had been as clear.

[@THE-X-Force]

The number of Dunning-Kruger internet scientists in this comment section is more staggering (and concerning) than any nuclear device.

[@nekad2000]

I don't know, I can see both sides. People calling out BS doesn't make them inept. It's just the opposite. People using appeal to authority as an argument are just as dunning Kruger.

[@Inquisitor6321]

@@nekad2000 100%

[@JeroenvanGutsem-u7e]

From here to eternity in 0.60 attoseconds.

[@savagesarethebest7251]

Isomers instead of isotopes? 🤔

[@mikemondano3624]

You mean the highly competent and knowledgeable people who tend to underestimate their brilliance? Yes, I'm one of those.

[@ljprep6250]

That was good food for thought. We'll see if anyone has better luck than the gov't at developing it. Your voice is perfect for narration. There are too many vids out there with shrill, grating voices narrating, so yours was a breath of fresh air. I'll have to check out more of your channel.

[@ThePaulv12]

We've already got something sort of like this - it's called a tactical nuclear weapon. Apart from low yield, TACs can also be configured to maximize ionizing radiation, then they're called called a neutron bomb, neutron weapon or enhanced radiation bomb. OK so it's radioactive but not for long nor far from the point of detonation. It's designed to kill anything living, then when the radioactivity subsides the enemy can apparently move in but probably not in reality. Well shielded tanks and other equipment, damp soil and thick concrete shield humans from the radiation effects so it's thought that they are of limited use. The explosive effects are still useful, but the idea of using them to move in afterwards isn't practical since it also destroys reinforced concrete structures but not the water filled human body that is shielded behind thick armor, concrete or wet soil. Since they've never been used in anger it's unclear of their usefulness. Then there's the problem of escalation from tactical to strategic nuclear weapons - the law of unintended consequences coming into play. Wikipedia Tactical nuclear weapon, and Wikipedia Neutron Bomb.

[@cow_tools_]

This is incredibly fascinating. Thank you so much. It's almost jaw dropping. Speaking as a laser physicist myself, I have wondered that there should exist an identical coherent process achievable with nuclear state transitions. Every time I googled it though, people said that it isn't a thing. But it is a thing! Thank you so much for an interesting presentation. Ignore all the dumb comments.

[@imikem222]

This video is misleading. When an atom or a nuclei emits a photon, it suffers a recoil due to momentum conservation. In atoms this happens, however as the energy involved is relatively low, the recoil has low velocity and itself low energy. Essentially the emited photon has les energy than the transition energy due to this fact. As already said, in atomic or chemical reactions this dfference is not significative and therefore the emited photon is able to produce the induced emission mentioned in the video. But ina nuclear reactions, where the energy involved is 1000 times higher, the energy shift is proportionally higher and the induced emission is not anymore possible. This is the main reason for the impossibility of gamma laser as well "Hafnium bombs".

[@mennovanlavieren3885]

Very interesting, didn't think of that.

[@kdrichardson5261]

178M2 can turn stainless steel into gold due to changes in chrome molybdenum in the blends. Certain people are more interested in this than propulsion.

[@user-yp5ko8us9j]

Ok so can we not make weapons that cause the end of the world for like five minutes?

[@TheAlchaemist]

Something that has not been mentioned, is that spontaneous emission will still exist, and such emission itself could randomly trigger the simulated emission. So I would not put too much of that excited mass together no matter how big the half life is.

[@teresashinkansen9402]

Exactly, not only that but even a particle shower from a cosmic ray could trigger such device. Its like having a super critical mass all the time expecting it wont go off.

[@davidhimmelsbach557]

And then there is Cosmic radiation to worry about. Heh.

[@rhabdob3895]

Oh yeah! Make the world’s nukes obsolete? Sell all to arsenals to every country? Hell yeah says Raytheon

[@dorianlindberg1662]

Ugh, I am not certain that Raytheon would even be that evil...

[@rhabdob3895]

@@dorianlindberg1662 then you are living in a dream village.

[@JosephKeenanisme]

Okay, super interesting introduction to your channel :). Science nerd so had to watch and sub.

[@caribbeanchannel]

Yes, more nuclear physics please 😊

[@lmwlmw4468]

Damn, what a perfect idea....!!!! Humanity never ceases to amaze me, and the only thing that stands between us and destruction made so much easier now, is a mere gamma laser ....!!!! Outstanding....!!!

[@debrainwasher]

I don't want be impolite, but there is already a mean to create photons of any imaginable energy (aka frequency, since E=hf). It is termed gravitoelectromagnetism (GEM) and the US-DOD (vulgo Pentagon) is currently going to all lengths, to lay this technology at ET's door, by financing ATIP and even History Channel TV-shows with one of its senior engineers Dr. Travis Taylor. The principle is quite simple: There is a quantum effect, that allows creation of a dipolar spacetime curvature (dipolar means, one face attractive, the other repulsive) without the presence of masses. This force interacts with gravitation and masses in accordance with Newton's law F=GMm/r². This is also true for electrons and even nuclei. Since accelerated charges creates photons (also known as electronic or nuclear Bremsstrahlung), every frequency of the electromagnetic spectrum can be created with a quite high efficiency. This technology can be used in military application as an EMP weapon, that creates an EMP-pulse directly from every piece of metal within the target. It doesn't take much fantasy to see, the US Government does not want to see these things in the hands of China, Russia, Iran or North Korea.

[@donaldmackerer9032]

Even if they would be able to make Hafium bombs, that amount of explosive energy would wreak havoc on the environment if used by a large enough quantity of bombs.

[@CSkwirl]

Wait, 1kg can store 1 million kWh and it's enough to power a private home for at least a year..... w3f size home used 1M kWh per year? More like 100 years, yeah that's "at least a year" but really c'mon

[@pontram]

Even with electric heating and a hard winter here in Austria, I don't have a bill for more than 15000 kWh, or 15 MWh, per year. So, it would be 70 years for me. There you have the credibility of this video.

[@kdrichardson5261]

I had so much fun doing blue cold fusion reactions with halfnium. Messing with nucleons is exciting. Void reactions have possibilities. It will almost always be hard to capture or harness energy due to the instantaneous behaviors of the void. 180m TA rocks.

[@nickbroughton928]

What amazes me is how willing all of you are to make yet another horrible weapon the world could do without. To say nothing about the people a new bomb would kill. I mean the lack of humility and humanity is ASTONISHING.....

[@Ilamarea]

It's more astonishing how unaware emotional idiots usually are.

[@gerrits_machinations]

One massive flaw in this plan is the hafnium needed for this is expensive and the materiel cost for a singular hafnium warhead is over 52 billion dollars. The minimum number of warheads needed to maintain mutual assured destruction would cost about the same as the total US government's expenditure for the last 3 years.

[@TheSuperedogg]

How many bombs is that? 400? Or 4000

[@knightmarethe1st]

Like that's ever stopped us... So some people starve, big deal, we need weapons.

[@bernardkealey6449]

Only costs that the first time… look at the economies of scale in nuke production that were achieved post Manhattan era. We’re just over 80 years since the first 500mg of Pu came out of the X-10 reactor. Yes, there is a significant difference in the perceived need for weaponising hafnium vs uranium 80ish years ago, but what seem like technically or financially impossible obstacles can be overcome if you add enough time to solve them. I’m sure as hell not advocating for this “problem” to be “solved”…

[@ManiacRacing]

Yeah. Nuclear hand grenades. That sounds like a fantastic idea!

[@thomasciarlariello]

Dr. Mitchell Swartz of MIT says I should pursue x-rays on hafnium due to toxicology of beryllium alloys since without nuclear atomic energy we are stuck on one planet.

[@bartroberts1514]

Not really enough Hafnium or Iridium in the world for such use, even if it were feasible. Which remains dubious.

[@puncheex2]

Uhhh, be it known that the same situation existed for plutonium in 1944.

[@bartroberts1514]

@@puncheex2 No. Plutonium is readily synthesized. Good luck doing that for Hafnium and Iridium in amounts suitable to this theoretical technology. Let's pretend we don't care about Hafnium. (Because with processing you can only get seven orders of magnitude less Hafnium 178m2 than input, so a 500 gram grenade would take three times the world's known Hafnium reserves.) There's enough Iridium recoverable on Earth for four hundred years use at current rates, or forty years if enough nuclear reactors to power global electricity demand were built. Since Iridium's used in containment, you'll still be able to run reactors after that time, just not contain their wastes efficiently. Using it for this scheme as well, even if it were workable? Since Iridium can make CPUs run 10,000 times more efficiently, you have a choice of computer power, power, or weapons.

@@bartroberts1514 maybe on the Moon??

[@bartroberts1514]

So.. your plan is Moon mining to make nuclear hand grenades when even if there were enough reserve on Earth it would cost $6,000,000,000 each just for materials?

[@steelnail1917]

Like what said in the video Hafnium 178m2 could be any size just a 3500kev laser to trigger it the stimulated isometric transition. And hafnium 178 could be irradiated in a neutron reactor like for neptunium 239 to be turned into plutonium 239 but the problem comes out sorting the irradiated hafnium atoms as not all of the atoms are going captured a neutron. This is easily sorted when irradiating neptunium 239 because they go through a centrifuge. But hafnium 178m2 is the same property as regular 178 and if one gamma ray exposure comes in contact with the hafnium 178m2 it could accidentally trigger a stimulated isometric transition. Also what do you mean that a 500 gram grenade would use three times the hafnium metal available on earth

[@thelasticonoclast9467]

A well timed, brutally honest comment, delivered with thinly veiled sarcasm is all the weapon I need.

[@AndreasPeters-r3e]

I wonder, whether these gamma rays of 2446 keV are random or alined (aligned? sorry, english is not my native language). The whole concept reminded me of a amplified stimulated emission of radiation - a gamma laser. I may be wrong though. I neither understand Hafnium bombs nor lasers good enough to judge whether this remminescence means that it´s somehow related.

[@DrDeuteron]

it's is exactly a gamma laser. This channel makes the common mistake regarding stimulated emission, by just saying an existing photon stimulates another emission. If it were 1->1-> 1->...nothing would happen since the emission is random. It describes it like a fission chain reaction. Lasers a coherent quantum thingies: If there are "N" coherent photons, then the atom is about N-times more likely to emit a coherent photon than a random one, and this is how lazing starts. N is huge, and all the atoms pick the exact same state to radiate.

[@ROBLOXTHANOS]

Speaking of your profile picture, Terra Physica, you must have seen what I saw in the evening sky. I don’t know what is causing the trails.

[@Yyff6f6f]

Make peace, not war.

[@tanknick22]

Peace through superior firepower

[@kenibnanak5554]

I would prefer a weapon that changes the color or direction of quarks in the vicinity of the weapon discharge. Making all of the quarks in a given distance blue or down(for instance) at the same time should pretty much eliminate anything in that area. Also good is a weapon that disrupts the Walls bond between molecules.

[@thefalselemon579]

What a horrific and terrible idea. Didn't we learn our lesson the first time????

[@AniMageNeBy]

This is weird. This directly contradicts what is said on "Hafnium Isomer: The Atomic Pandora's Box?" here on YT, namely that it would be far LESS efficient and powerful than a nuke on, say, plutonium.

[@ZionistWorldOrder]

environment friendly nukes?

[@drtidrow]

Hafnium is an interesting element - chemically similar to zirconium and often mixed with it as a result, it needs to be removed from zirconium used in reactors because many of its isotopes has a large neutron capture cross section, enough that it's sometimes used in control rods. Not sure if the Hf-178m2 isomer has a lower cross section due to being in an excited state, but if not it's likely to change to Hf-179 fairly quickly in a reactor's neutron flux.

[@TheCaptainLulz]

I dont see why it matters if the bomb is radioactive or not. The main killer, aside from the bombs thamselves, will be the nuclear winter from all of the dust and ash kicked into the upper atmosphere. The fallout and subsequent radiation isnt the main hazard. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are densely populated cities, and they where nuked.

[@djopdam199]

The lack of radiation fall out makes it much more usable for strategic warfare. If you can produce mortar Davy Crockett's without fall out the King of Warfare ( artillery ) is placed in the hands of a lieutenant with the power of Demi Gods. It's about miniaturization not MAD.

[@geodkyt]

You don't get nearly the same levels of dust and ash kicked up when you do an airburst... which is the most efficient and effective way to use a large explosion *anyway* - use the energy release to destroy with overpressure and the heat flash, without wasting it by pushing tons of dirt into the atmosphere. The nuclear winter fear is driven by assumptions that megatonnes of weapons will be detonated at ground level... which isn't even how we used Fat Man and Little Boy in the only two military deployments of nuclear weapons. Of course, the folks who have *always* waved the "nuclear winter will kill us all!" flags have generally had similar characteristics: 1. They aren't ordnance specialists (nuclear or conventional) and don't really understand how weapons are actually *used* . 2. They're generally pacifists who oppose almost any use of military force. 3. They are *definately* opposed to any military application for nuclear weapons- even when they are used as a deterrent in being to *prevent* the use of nuclear weapons by adversaries. For example, Dr. Carl Sagan, the guy who apparently coined the term "nuclear winter". Brilliant planetary astronomer and astrophysicist. But... his only real exposure to nuclear weapons was as a grad student in 1958, assisting with a white paper study on the feasibility of detonating a nuke on the surface of the Moon as a propaganda stunt. I'm not aware of a single military program he actually approved of. Note that even Teller, who was anti-nuclear weapons at the time and *highly* interested in further studies into nuclear twilight and the potential nuclear winter, broke off collaboration with Sagan, writing, "A propagandist is one who uses incomplete information to produce maximum persuasion. I can compliment you on being, indeed, an excellent propagandist, remembering that a propagandist is the better the less he appears to be one." (And even biographers *favorably inclined* towards Sagan note his obsession with nuclear winter represented a nadir of his scientific work.

[@patrickharte4773]

The nuclear winter theory has been widely criticized since it was first published forty years ago. The modern consensus seems to be that there would be an atmospheric cooling effect from widespread use of nuclear weapons but not nearly as large of an effect as the original study claimed. It might well put a strain on agriculture but probably wouldn't cause billions of deaths from famine

[@melgross]

@@geodkytteller himself has been accused by more than a few scientists about lying about his importance in the program. His isn’t the more reliable voice.

[@melgross]

@@patrickharte4773it probably would. Most all production of anything would be ended. The modern world is a web of dependencies. If one strand of the web breaks, many strands are affected. If a lot of them are broken, the web collapses. That’s what we’re looking at.

[@otrotland5377]

listened for 30 minutes and my brain melted. Thanks though. I like things that go boom.

[@markkettlewell7441]

Hm. The narrator doesn’t know the difference between an isomer and an isotope. Very shoddy.

[@dannydetonator]

I think in this case it's you, not the "narrator" (aka content creator). He mentions isotopes in the right context, and isomers described here have nothing to do with molecular isomers. What's described here is nuclear, single atom isomers, irrelevant what isotope they are. A relatively new and obscure concept explained here very well, which i guess could do with renaming. Maybe watch again.

[@markkettlewell7441]

@@dannydetonator Isomers : Molecules which have same molecular formula but different structural formula are called as isomers and the phenomenon is known as isomerism. Isotopes : Species which have same atomic number but different mass numbers are called as isotopes. Sorry mate it might have been a mistake of the voice bot. But the two definitions are used the same by chemists and physicists. As a chemist I know the difference. Isomers are structurally different molecules with the same empirical formulae. It is mainly used in organic chemistry. For example, two enantiomers may exist in an organic mixture. Certain drugs are on therapeutic in one or the other form. For atoms a number of atoms exist as isotopes of each other if there are a variable number of neutrons. It is the atomic number(e.g., number of protons that determines the atom). Carbon has three isotopes, C12, C13 and C14. We use the relative quantities of C13/C12 to date carbonate rocks. Carbon 13 is created by living organic matter, but over large timescales C13 decays to C12. So C13 compared to C12 in a rock sample helps us to work out ages.

[@lyth1um]

this is an ai generwted video

[@Z-Ack]

Your ai generwted..

[@lyth1um]

@@Z-Ack sorry was writing with my phone. but srly, there is a ton of ai generated stuff on yt nowdays.

[@AdolphusOfBlood]

This sounds more like the ideal man portable laser gun's ammo.

[@whimpypatrol5503]

I use to speculate last century that a quantum computer could be used to solve computationaly complex optimization equations and uncover how to build a gamma lazer. There are, however, other methodologies able to find countless approximate solutions to such complex problems. You would think such new array of algorithms would attract interest. I suspect the fact that lazer optics is such a difficult field, nobody in the physics community could put the mental manpower and technological resources together to try and do such. You would think Uncle Sam would see it as a better way to risk money than social programs that see no results. The same underprivileged people whom the government hands out welfare checks to could be trained and employed to work on such a project on a mass scale as the British who built the first useable vacuum tube circuit digital computer and decode the German message encryption system and bring the WWII to it's end.

[@jamieking3062]

The true level of war technologies will only be open in the public domain when in that exact moment brains no longer exists.

[@TheNewPhysics]

Propulsion by light is always a bad idea. Photons don't carry that much momentum.

[@jamieking3062]

I love the energy of your channel. Comment to. This is my group of people yo!

[@leonkane8240]

What about asking better questions? I have a poor working understanding of physics & such things. But it is you smart people that do & have a tremendous capacity to contribute great things in the world. Rather than making devices to destroy, what can be created with hafnium that is to the benefit of all?

[@michaelperrone3867]

Almost right - except once the gammas are emitted they barely interact with normal matter so they wouldn't actually cause an explosion. Good for making coherent gammas though

[@cianmoriarty7345]

2:09 you simply don't know what you are talking about. You have conflated presence and absence of electrons with specific energy levels. An electron, even the electron in atomic hydrogen, can exist at one of many different and particular levels, all the way from ground to escape of the electron from the atom. The transition of electrons between these very particular energy levels gives rise to the phenomenon of spectral lines, and in hydrogen there's an equation called the Balmer equation that predicts spectral lines with a high degree of accuracy.

[@jasonmorello1374]

In the isomer use cases, if the quantity of isomer is too pure, it would discharge much like a capacitor very likely. Since what one of them emits is the trigger for the others, if they are suitably refined, that would likely cascade across the material. it could likely be useful, but the better you can make the purity, the more explosive it would be. I think this could make for a good start for a fusion pellet or starter pellet tho.

[@dewdew2706]

Instead of physical destruction use a neutron bomb which just kills people with super gamma neutrons, and other radiation

[@NathanaelNewton]

This sounds like an absolutely excellent futuristic spacecraft power source 😮

[@ModestyGladstone]

Fear of failure is one attitude that will keep you at the same point in your life.

[@skylineuk1485]

Hafnium isn’t going to happen for numerous practical and other reasons. We already try to prevent the use of tactical nukes to avoid escalation in a conflict, hafnium just makes this more likely. The hafnium isomer is very expensive to produce, magnitudes more than a neutron nuke would cost. The gamma ray output is still going to give some fallout issues.

[@Schwarzvogel1]

I'd say the technological hurdles to weaponizing hafnium are the far bigger obstacle than any political concerns. The very fact that a Hafnium-based warhead would _not_ require highly enriched uranium or plutonium is part of what makes the concept so alarming. Membership in the nuclear club is limited largely by the challenges of enriching weapons-grade isotopes. With Hafnium, sure, it would be difficult to overcome the initial hurdles to weaponizing it, but once someone else has done all the skull sweat parts, following their procedure seems like it would be much easier in terms of infrastructure and resources than enriching U-235 to weapons-grade levels. Uranium enrichment, to my knowledge, requires extensive facilities with highly specialised equipment and is pretty hard to conceal.

[@PerpetualMan22]

We need to explore the idea of having two Hafnium reflectors pointed at each other so that each reflector transmits a ray that bounces back and forth between the two ...like an energy device...

[@timothyvincent7371]

Trouble is as soon as the gamma photons begin to interact with the electron cloud they will begin to lose energy and will be "out of tune" before they have a chance to hit a nucleus. It can't work.

[@AJ-qv9yo]

Fantastic explanation and idea that sounds like from a scientific novel but based on physics.

[@gc2696]

Everyone knows the Death Star is the second most feared weapon in the galaxy. The most powerful is, of course, a Jedi Zoom call from Luke Skywalker.

[@N0B0DY_SP3C14L]

Did I gather correctly that halfnium 178 could essentially be recharged to its M2 state after its photonic discharge? Fascinating.

[@djj949]

Interesting, I enjoyed this

[@bernardedwards8461]

How does the cost of a useful hafnium isomer compare to the cost of an equal quantity of weapons grade uranium?

[@FrankHarwald]

From a civil engineering pov, it's promising that Hafnium doesn't release any radioactive byproducts on when returning into its nuclear ground state, because this means that unlike Plutonium or Uranium it might actually be used to efficiently perform mining without contaminating the environment. Having no critical mass is another nice bonus because it means it could be dosed & directed better.

[@postiemania]

At 10:00 the video starts talking about Hafnium batteries. Charging via Masers seems to be applicable. I am very interested in this case.

[@PRACTICALKABBALAH101]

A Gama laser exists, it is used in medicine - gama knife.

[@rolandmeyer3729]

What's the progress on bombs that tear the fabric of space-time, suck the target into the rip, and finally, seal itself?

[@wwlb4970]

It's really not about radioactive fallout. This can be addressed, and planet would be mostly livable. With increased cancer rates, but manageable. Burning cities, unstoppable firestorms as a result of mass destruction is something that will cause planet-wide winter, starvation and extinction. Radioactive fallout is the least of the problems.

[@stevendeamon]

A yes, finally, a decent weapon to surpass the aging nukes. We gotta keep up with the times.

[@WilliamTaylor-h4r]

You just build a tertiary color pyramid. It's like setting up multicolor vapes, green yellow, purple pink, it goes in loops, if it's endo-thermic, a series of membrane break keeping the weapon frozen until your vaped out of your mind, gotta run away anyway.

[@guillermoizquierdomanzaner9426]

Hafnium motor for interstellar ships is dope

[@simonwadsworth9240]

This is fascinating

[@mikeharrington878]

We currently theorize that the nuclear forces are not electrical, but it will be shown that Nature doesn't fix what isn't broken. I, and some others, believe it is more likely that those subnuclear particles are held together by the same conditions of differential electrical charges but within that lower dimension. On a side note, it can be considered that we have known about the 'Fourth Dimension' for a very long time, actually. Not Marvel Cinematic Universe dimensions or branes or whatever else is trending, but rather in addition to the actual dimensions of length, width, and height, there is the dimension of *scale.* If looked at from this perspective, it makes absolute sense that-if electrical forces are supreme in our own dimension-then they should rule at ALL dimensions. Food for thought, eh? ☮

[@zaneenaz4962]

Maybe this would replace the steam cycle as a means of energy conversion, but with near 50% conversion efficiency much more work and ingenuity will be necessary. mankind seems to be too busy offing each other.

[@KyuubiChupachaotica]

What if you were to pass ions and protons (using a diode core made of an extremely conductive and durable material) through a Hafnium pipe or sleeve, and refeed those ions and protons back into it several times and then collect the energy from that or use it directly in an ion engine? Or make a fusion reactor where the energy from forced fusion collects in the center of that Hafnium pipe/sleeve or nozzle with refeeding matrices? Would it supercharge the Hafnium?

[@5675492]

will sanity ever replace nuclear weapons is a better question imo .

[@GeoffryGifari]

Whats the difficulty of using 178m2Hf AS gamma laser gain medium?

[@zotriczaoh7098]

Would the gamma burst cause surrounding material to become radioactive? It might not be significant. Just asking.

[@markrichardson5673]

I'd be more interested in knowing if no bombs could replace plutonium/uranium/hydrogen ones.

[@mikesrandomchannel]

Alien 1: Ooh, look here, this is a *very* serious voiceover! Alien 2: Yeah, they’re discussing stuff about theoretical weapons Alien 1: Oh! But hold on… these are those planet-bound human dudes, right? Alien 2: Yeah, they’re discussing using highly destructive weapons against.. Alien 1: THEMSELVES!! Alien 2: …ON THEIR OWN PLANET!! Both aliens nearly have multiple system failures due to uncontrollable laughter 😂

[@Vagolyk]

Tantalum 180 is preparing for the biggest sneeze yet.

[@lajoswinkler]

Who is the creator behind this channel? It created a lot of high production quality videos in a very short time. Voice is nearly certainly synthetic. Imdb says USA, but this caught my eye: 06:02. - electronvolt unit written in Cyrillic, against SI rules, which is typical of Russia which has a disregard for those rules. Considering the "river of lies" and hybrid war Russia has been waging against the West for many, many decades, and the recent horror it created in Ukraine, this feels suspicious.

[@aewcac]

It sounds more like an Electromagnetic Pulse than a bomb. If the "atom with an electron [or electrons] in a higher level [i.e.] an excited state.". "If a photon identical to the one the atom is about to emit passes nearby it triggers the atom to emit a photon... [Hafnium]", and 'the nucleus transitions to a ground state, where is the energy coming from to seamlessly and repeatedly transition it back to a higher level [i.e.] an excited state."?