Sciencemadness Discussion Board - Ballotechnics

Ballotechnics

goblin - 12-8-2007 at 08:08

I am sure all of you heard of red mercury or Hg2Sb2O7...whether or not it exists is left to conjecture for the moment. But are there not other materials that have a ballotechnic nature?
Ballotechnics as some of you may or may not know is a material that when subjected to shock (usualy heat or shockwave) emits ridiculously massive amounts of energy, most of it being heat. I do know of some isotopes that are ballotechnic in nature. Those being: ,osmium-187m, platinum-186m. These nuclear isomers will exhibit ballotechnic properties under certain circumstances.
Now we all understand there properties in enhancing nuclear reactions but could they not also be used to enhance the output on a conventional explosive. Since the power of an explosive is based primarily on v.o.d. and heat produced. Ballotechnic material radiates intense heat possibly way way more than a thermite reaction, I assume they would also accelerate the v.o.d. Under the definition of a ballotechnic material wouldn’t thermite also be considered one too?

Does anyone know of any synth for ballotechnic material?
I have read some for cinnibar but like I said red mercury seems to be a farse as of now.

[Edited on by goblin]

[Edited on by goblin]

Sauron - 12-8-2007 at 08:48

Those are not "nuclear isomers" but nuclides, isotopes, and the m stands for metastable. I have not looked up the half lives but I would expect them to be brief.

Never heard of your mercury antimony oxide. Nor of ballotechnic materials. So cannot comment.

oh yes

goblin - 12-8-2007 at 08:55

yes my mistake...
will correct post

franklyn - 12-8-2007 at 10:17

Mr. Wizard posted this item
http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=2148&a...

There continues to be investigation into developing a GRASER gamma wavelength
emission lasing device. This of course will have to work with atomic nuclei analogous
to the way light emitting lasers work with electron shells , for controlled nuclear decay
of an engineered material ( isotope ). Actually not much different from controlled fission
except that if reactor fission is like a lightbulb then a GRASER is like a laser.
This methodology differs from coupling the radiance from a nuclear blast to channel
it as coherent x-rays. Its comparable to cold chemiluminesence and more like slow
burning an explosive as a rocket propellant.

.

interesting

goblin - 12-8-2007 at 11:22

Thats very interesting. So ballotechnic material can be used to boost energy weapons as well?!

should have figured as much.

I suppose as I read, material like that could help us to experiment with controled fusion.

Sauron - 12-8-2007 at 12:37

The post franklyn quted said nothing about ballotechnics, and nothing about the isotopes you mentioned.

Graser = gamma ray amplification by stimulated emission of radiation.

Such a device does not exist and is rather far from existing, what I have read about it is centered on a metastable Hafnium isotope, that does not exist in sufficient quantities to produce a practicable graser, no one has managed so far to get anything to grase. This is regarded as the holy grail of high energy physics, a lofty yet remote goal.

Whoever succeeds will not only have an incredible energy weapon but also and perhaps more importantly, the key to next-generation chipmaking, at resolutions neither light nor x-rays can achieve, but coherent gamma rays could.

So the stakes are high. Just don't expect this real soon.

vulture - 12-8-2007 at 13:17

Quote:

Whoever succeeds will not only have an incredible energy weapon but also and perhaps more importantly, the key to next-generation chipmaking, at resolutions neither light nor x-rays can achieve, but coherent gamma rays could.

You're so funny. So if you invented a graser, you'd compute your enemies to death instead of vaporizing them with a nasty gamma ray pulse?

Seriously, where does this "ballotechnics"come from? Is it conjecture or do you have some references?

conjecture

goblin - 12-8-2007 at 14:33

well ballotechnics are a real field of study and is recently being expanded. But as far as the "Red Mercury" that is left to conjecture as to that material existing....
here is a link describing red mercury and its uses ....perhaps some of you will give your input as to if this is real,govt farse, are there chemicals that come close to that description:

on red mercury- http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=red%20mercury

on ballotechnics- http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1730561

Sauron - 12-8-2007 at 20:05

Here are the references cited in that extremely dodgy and dubious page on alleged ballotechnic materials.

I don't see Science, Nature, DOE Abstracts, or any of the peer reviewed physics journals.

We are told that Hg2Sb2O7 is irradiated in a nuclear reactor, and afterwards has a density that is "very high, especially for an oxide." 20,000 Kg/m3 sounds like 20 g/cm3 to me. Why talk about a cubic meter? This is supposed to be Reference 3.

We are not nuclear physicists, we are chemists, so let's ask ourselves a few chemical questions.

Does this mixed oxide exist? If so what is its density prior to supposed irradiation?

Frankly, all this sounds, on its face, like an Internet hoax. Let's get to the bottom of this. If a hoax, this thread belongs in DETRITUS.

Further: according to the dubious .pl page goblin posted, the sole proponent of the existance of these materials is Sam Cohen, described as "father of the neutron bomb" while Edward Teller, father of the hydrogen bomb and ead of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, supposedly dismissed these as "nonsense."

It is clear from the same document that there is NO peer reviewed journal attention being paid to this subject, at all.

End of story.

DETRITUS

Note: a neutron bomb, properly called an enhanced radiation warhead, usually in a large caliber artilley shell, is simply the first two stages of a thermonuclear weapon without the enshrouding fissionable jacket. Thus it has minimal blast (relatively speaking) but produces a lot of hard radiation (esp neutrons) which are highly penetrating and the goal of such weapons was to kill tank crews without doing major damage to western Europe (it was a Cold War concept designed to counter Soviet numerical superiority in armor.)

Anyway this topic is nonsensical.

[Edited on 13-8-2007 by Sauron]

not_important - 12-8-2007 at 21:22

Ballotechnics is real, however it's not about magic nuclear death rays, but rather ordinary chemical reactions in solids or liquids that are triggered or driven by shock waves. Generally does not concern itself with detonations, you see it in regards to specialised alloys and ceramics.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/r67216140h278437

http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=n...

Quote:

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.^The present paper presents a thermochemical model describing such reactions in terms analogous to detonation.^By contrast, however, the chemical energy in ballotechnics is converted mostly to heat rather than work by the shock wave, and an unsupported reaction wave will decay.^In the absence of volatiles, there are no large increases in pressure, specific volume, or particle velocity associated with ballotechnic reactions.^Thus, experimental methods normally applied to high explosives are insensitive, and time-resolved temperature measurements are the most appropriate.^The pressure-volume-velocity relationships are strongly dependent on small amounts of volatiles (such as water) when present, but the shock temperature is not.^Thermochemically, the possibility of a true detonation in a volatile-bearing ballotechnic powder cannot be precluded.^By the same arguments, geochemical detonations in volatile-saturated, supercooled magmas are possible.

http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_...

[Edited on 13-8-2007 by not_important]

Sauron - 12-8-2007 at 22:06

So the term is real but what it describes is nothing of the sort described in goblin's citation.

And Red Mercury sounds as likely as Red Kryptonite.

not_important - 12-8-2007 at 22:34

Red mercury, and later osmium-187m, platinum-186m, and similar isotopes, were popular materials to offer for sale back in the 1990s, if you were Russian or could fake it. RIpe-off scams to separate shady characters from their money, it's still not clear how much of the trade was simple flim-flam men and how much was various governments undercover agents out to investigate and possible capture people and groups interested in making nuclear weapons. After 2000, it's not as likely to have been US agents, as the anti-proliferation program was wound down.

Red mercury transformed from being some sort of wonder explosive and/or nuke trigger, into being something used in "stealth paint" or other defense related tech magic. This was likely due to the radiodecay of the red mercury into a new isotope, I mean, to people figuring out that the claims didn't match established science or to all the marks having been scammed.

Sauron - 13-8-2007 at 03:46

Hah! My gut instinct was correct.

thought so

goblin - 13-8-2007 at 05:36

yeah I thought the Red Mercury was a farse, but perhaps it was just a overshot on the expectations of ballotechnics?

franklyn - 13-8-2007 at 06:51

Now I am confused , as to what is a Ballotechnic. How does this differ from explosive compaction ?
Does the cap primed detonation of Copper oxide and Aluminum meet the definition ?
http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=127&am...
Alternatively , would a solid state chemical laser ? ( I don't recall the halogen compound )

.

ballotechnic

goblin - 13-8-2007 at 13:35

ballotechnic material will not explode when subjected to shock, but rather emit massive amounts of heat in a short span of time... much like un-confined flash powder.
The material does rapid burning but with way more heat output.
If you can imagine the heat of thermate with the quick burn time of flash powder.

[Edited on by goblin]

Ozone - 13-8-2007 at 16:06

I have a hard time believing that this "alloy" will have a density of 20g/cc (which is in the realm of tungsten and, for that matter, plutonium). That part certainly sounds like bullshit.

But, I have, at least an an off-hand-oblique way heard of this, viz. absurd kinetics in shockwaves. This has been manifest in light, heat, and, I think, electricity. I remember years ago when (in a class) we made tetrabutylammonium octachlorodirhenate, a compound with a true 4th order bond. The point of this was to ship it to Sandia to blow it up and see what happened (familiar?).

I do know that ultrasonic caviation of bubbles can provide not only light (sonoluminescence), but extremely high temperatures (thousands of K). Recently, some interesting chemistry has (putatively) been observed under these conditions (some stuff which is decidedly forbidden by MO theory). Maybe there is some similarity?

Oh yes, Edward Teller was involved in the cold war projects, amongst which (brilliant pebbles, etc.) was an X-ray laser powered by a nuke. I do believe that they at least tested one of these things (maybe no results, but a test is enough to insure funding--particularly when the "lasing medium" is so impressive in its own right).

I thought neutron weapons involved transduction (via conservation of mass and energy)of nuclear blast shockwaves from 90% conventional (in air) to 90% radiation (vacuum), which might be strategically above the target so as to make best use of the 5% or so of the 2pi avialable geometry for intense neutron flux (say, 10^24 n/cm2-s). This would require one hell of a big "one".

New ground for me, pure speculation,

Cheers,

O3

I actually found it! The year this was published makes it very likely that my batch was used in this (1000T B field, WOOT!):

Some aspects of data processing for an optical absorption experiment in a pulsed 1000-Tesla magnet
Leslie G. Butler 1 *, Andrew W. Maverick 1, Cenobio H. Gallegos 2, Jeffrey D. Goettee 3, Bruce R. Marshall 4, C. Maxwell Fowler 3, Dwight G. Rickel 3, Joseph M. Gonzales 3, Leonard J. Tabaka 3
1Department of Chemistry, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803-1804
2Bechtel-Nevada, Los Alamos, New Mexico 87544
3National High Magnetic Field Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545
4Special Technologies Laboratory, Bechtel-Nevada, Santa Barbara, California 93111

*Correspondence to Leslie G. Butler, Department of Chemistry, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803-1804

Keywords
pulsed magnetic field • Zeeman effect • quadruple metal bonds • octachlorodirhenate

Abstract
A procedure is given for the analysis of optical absorption data acquired in the hostile environment of a pulsed 1000-Tesla magnet. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Int J Quant Chem 70: 797-804, 1998

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received: 30 March 1998; Accepted: 21 May 1998
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

10.1002/(SICI)1097-461X(1998)70:4/5<797::AID-QUA26>3.0.CO;2-Y About DOI

[Edited on 13-8-2007 by Ozone]

hmm

goblin - 13-8-2007 at 16:46

very interesting. I did not know about all that.

Sauron - 13-8-2007 at 18:57

The scalability of a H-weapon is a function of how much fissionable material you wrap around the two stage internal device. You can't scale A-weapons like that. There are limits imposed by criticality issues and other engineering factors.

So if you you omit the tertiary fissile sheath, you achieve that conversion you were talking about, 2H or 3H to get fusion, you need 6Li, which does not grow on trees.

Anyone who wants to look up any isotope can do so via Isotope Explorer software available free from LBL (Lawrence Berkeley Labs) or the Univ. od Lund, Sweden. You can have their databases locally on your HDD or you can access them via the Net. Gammas and references, parent and daughter decay chains, etc. Custom GUI shows the nuclide universe in the strangest periodic chart you will ever see.

I used this to puncture the proposition that the London murder was done with a thallium isotope that would be quickly undetectable doe to short half life. Short half life yes but the decay daughters are also unnatural isotopes and easily detected (isotopes of Hg IIRC)

One of my friends is a nuclear physicist here who I helped out with some gamma spectroscopy software development a few years ago. Next time I see him we will have a laugh about Red Mercury.

Gold Kryptonite, anyone?

And it takes more t

Ozone - 13-8-2007 at 19:24

Which, translating, is the classic triple F, fission-fusion-fission device. 6Li, which is lightweight, also packs the proper neutron configuration for activation (and very rapid decay) into fusion fuel (ideally tritium, which is not used for obvious reasons, but is made in-situ). The standard A-bomb serves to provide both the temperatures and pressures required for both activation and fusion of the fuel. The fuze is limited in yield, the package is not (the bigger the package the bigger the yield). Huge neutron fluxes activate the casing, usally 238U (depleted) for (yet) extra yield.

And yes, my Chemist friends, the Chart of the Nuclides is you friend! It effectively adds the third dimension to the periodic table. Since 2H (D2O) ice cubes sink (just a small example of how a small difference can be quite significant), there is obviously some (see isotope effect and kinetics) serious ramifications toward chemical properties and reactivity (more so).
GeLi, SiLi or Na/Cs/I/Tl?

Was your friend on-board with the EG&G (via NIST) database? Before this, I remember getting raw G-specs (with a fricking DEC) and having to look them all up in the handbook. Yarg!

And, IIRC, cinnabar or "red Hg" is simple HgS (occasionally native with globules of Hg°).

Teller and Sakharov really should have gone bowling,

O3

@Sauron, shall we touch on neutron configuration and the "island of stability"? This one really gets the goat.

[Edited on 13-8-2007 by Ozone]

Sauron - 13-8-2007 at 20:36

I just want some eka-gold.

Cinnibar is indeed red, but "red mercury" is supposedly not cinnibar. If it exists at all, which is doubtful IMO. I think not-important nailed it. These are scams.

In the classic 3F device there is a guide tube between the fission trigger and the 6Li, this is an X-ray guide. Don't ask me how and why, I am not a nuke designer.

Also IIRC it is standard practice to replenish tritium in stockpiled fusion weapons, the tritium is there to boost yield, and since tritium is not very long lived, it has to be replenished over time. If you consider the age of a lot of these devices, you will see why.

JohnWW - 14-8-2007 at 01:58

Yes; cinnabar, or vermilion, HgS, mercuric sulfide, is referred to also as "red mercury". Deposits of it are commonly found embedded in amorphous silica in old hydrothermal vents. There is a largely worked-out deposit of it only a few miles from where I am. As well as a mercury ore, it is also used as a paint pigment, although not so much in recent years because of its being poisonous.

As for "eka-gold", that must refer to the chemical homolog of Au, element 111, or roentgenium. However, the isotopes of it that have been synthesized (by e.g. high-velocity bombardment of Bi-209 with Ni-64) so far are all very neutron-deficient and short-lived (longest half-life of it synthesized is mass no.280, half-life 3.6 seconds, the heaviest isotope), so much so that it is unlikely that it will ever be isolated in visible bulk form as the metal. If it could be isolated, it would probably have a lustrous orange-red color, high electrical conductivity, density at least 25 gm/cc, be very soft and malleable, and although very corrosion-resistant it would be capable of forming a range of compounds with oxidation states of at least +6. See also: http://books.google.com/books?id=0xcAM5BzS-wC&pg=PA184&a...
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Eka-gold
http://www.chemlin.net/chemical-elements/roentgenium.htm and references therein.

Sauron - 14-8-2007 at 02:17

I was making a joke, which is pretty much what I think of this entire topic.

Cinnibar most certainly is not Hg2Sb2O7, nor does it have a d of 20 g/cc before or after irradiation. By no definition, nor stretch of the imagination is it ballotechnic. Why goblin injected cinnibar into this thread is beyond me, but then so is why he started this nonsensical waste of Polverone's electrons.

But thanks for the aside on HgS.

goblin - 14-8-2007 at 19:17

ballotechnics is not a joke....its as legit as pyrotechnics, cryogenics or particle physics.
I never said red mercury WAS cinnibar.....that’s just one of the possibilities.

what’s eating S?

[Edited on by goblin]

Sauron - 14-8-2007 at 20:28

Ballotechnics as described by you and your "references" is a fraud.

Come up with one shred of peer reviewed scientific journal coverage of Hg2Sb2O7 irradiated and with a density of 20 g/cc exhibiting the properties you describe. Likewise with the two isotopes you mentioned.

THERE ARE NONE.

At best the delusion of an eccentric old weapons designer (Sam Cohen) that has been ridiculed by every other scientist, inclusing notably Edward Teller who called Cohen's postulated nonsense.

The real field of ballotechnics has nothing to do with nuclear weapons or any other kind of weapons.

The three materials you specified were commonly offered by con men from the former Soviet Union or posing as being from there, in the 1990s to anyone gullible enough to fall for such horseshit.

Which does not include anyone on this forum except maybe you.

Your thread has as much to do with science as a Nigerian scam email.

You'll get more hard science out of a DC and Marvel comics collection.

[Edited on 15-8-2007 by Sauron]

Sauron - 14-8-2007 at 23:44

http://www.nti.org/e_research/e3_42a.html

This is Reference Three on goblin's own citation for Ballotechnics

It's an article on NUCLEAR SCAMS AND HOAXES

Sauron - 15-8-2007 at 04:10

Osmium 187 is a stable naturally occuring isotope of osmium with a relative abdundance of 1.4% It is NON radioactive. There is no isotope or nuclide Os187m
Pt186 is a synthetic isotope of platinum with a half life of 2.2 hours. Do the aithmetic, goblin. How much is left after 24 hours?

0.02% that's how much.

There is no Pt186m

goblin - 15-8-2007 at 04:28

true
but putting the hoax of red mercury aside and radioactivity, there is no doubt ballotechnic material will enhance a explosive.
The performance of an explosive is measured in several catagorys, one of them being heat produced. Since all ballotechnics produce a great ammount of energy when shocked most of it being excess heat there is no doubt in my mind it will boost the V.O.D.

Sauron - 15-8-2007 at 04:41

There is no doubt?

Why should anyone believe anything you say?

You are a bs artist.

Document your claims from the peer reviewed scientific literature.

Or shut up.

So far you have done nothing but waste this forum's time and space.

Quote:

Originally posted by goblin
true
but putting the hoax of red mercury aside and radioactivity, there is no doubt ballotechnic material will enhance a explosive.
The performance of an explosive is measured in several catagorys, one of them being heat produced. Since all ballotechnics produce a great ammount of energy when shocked most of it being excess heat there is no doubt in my mind it will boost the V.O.D.

quicksilver - 15-8-2007 at 05:37

@-goblin: The 1st post of this whole thread is questionable. "Roasted" cinnabar (it's proper spelling) is the standard industrial method of isolating Hg. What are you talking about?

Sauron - 15-8-2007 at 05:43

Don't waste your breath. He's some kid having us all on, talking through his ass.

not_important - 15-8-2007 at 05:45

Ballotechnics mostly deals with processes that do not create much change in volume, while explosives are greatly interested in changes in volume. Ballotechnics is more in the arena of materials science than of explosives, although the propagation of explosions may involve the same region of shockwave interaction with solids or liquids.

The field of research having to do with metastable nuclear isomers and induced gamma emission is also real. However it has little to do with ballotechnics, as the triggering events are high energy photons, not shock waves. If IGE can be made to happen in a self-propagating mode and the nuclear isomer produced in sufficient concentration, it would enter into the realm of explosives; the energy densities are very roughly 5 orders of magnitude greater than in chemical explosives. And if those conditions can be met, then the issue of non-fission pumped fusion bombs does arise. But it should be noted that creating the nuclear isomers takes some rather large, high power equipment.

Sauron - 15-8-2007 at 06:35

Large and heavy equipment is an understatement.

A more accurate statement would be massive and highly costly accelerators and research reactors of the fast flux type that are overseen by national nuclear authorities and the IAEA.

The term nuclear istmers is erroneous. You doubtless mean isotopes or nuclides. Isomers are variations in chemical structure not nuclear structure.

Something familiar , something peculiar

franklyn - 15-8-2007 at 07:17

A funny thing happened on the way to the forum

On Grasers
http://unintentional-irony.blogspot.com/2007/01/gamma-laser....

Thread on intermetallic reactions
http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=2202
http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=2202&a...
Cited by Polverone post 23-3-2005
http://groups.google.ca/group/rec.pyrotechnics/msg/ab744abee...

.

halogen - 15-8-2007 at 07:20

You're out of yer element Sauron. (Pun not intended) There are nuclear isomers. Isotopes are variations on neutron number, likewise Isomers are variations on energy. An atom that is in a higher energy state is excited, "metastable" is the term. THIS is nuclear isomerism. A quick search on google yields this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta_state
A nuclear isomer is denoted by a lower case (miniscule) m. Different states of excitation are denoted by 1 or 2 after the m, if needed. Hence Os187m and Pt186m. Of course though there is no Pt186m that I can find, there are various metastable (Or nuclear isomers of) isotopes of platinum. These can be found here, at a seemingly reputable site: http://ie.lbl.gov/education/parent/Pt_iso.htm
Also, for Osmium, http://ie.lbl.gov/education/parent/Os_iso.htm Though I can find no 187m, there are of course other nuclear isomers.

[edit] Isomers not isotopes. Silly me[edit]

[Edited on 15-8-2007 by halogen]

Sauron - 15-8-2007 at 07:51

Of course there are, just not the ones that goblin floated here, which are EXACTLY the nonexistant ones that were involved in dozens if not hundreds of attempted nuclear scams and hoaxes according to the NTI webpage I cited - which was a reference on the site goblin cited although he apparently never bothered to read it.

I have Table of Isotopes, Isotope Explorer, and its databases local to my PC, and there are no Os187m and Pt186m.

As I said above, Os187 is a stable natural isotope of low abundance, while Pt186 is synthetic with a short half life that makes it useless, it disappears into decay daughter(s) within 24 hours. t1/2 = 140 minutes. Metastable forms of either of these are not known, LBL's Isotopes Lab keeps those databases current.

If goblin was so interested in this subject why didn't he look this up himself? It is available free on the Net. And not only from the US, the University of Lund, Sweden is LBL's partner on Isotope Explorer. The hardback edition of ToI with CD ROM is published by Wiley. There are no secret isotopes or nuclides or "nuclear isomers" And no matter what Wilkepedia says: the term nuclear isomer is not used in the literature of nuclear science, that I have ever seen, metastable isotopes are metastable isotopes. There are many of them including the Hf one that is the prime candidate for gamma excitation. There just isn't much of it in existence yet.

Sauron - 15-8-2007 at 08:09

The isotope does not occur in nature and is the product of an accelerator, which makes it hugely expensive. The idea of making a weapon out of it is ludicrous.

That quote is from your first citation, franklyn. It refers to the Hafnium isotope in a UT experiment that may or may not have worked in 1999. My point is that the author seems to have overlooked the fact that if his logic is applied to plutonium-239, we might all be speaking Japanese.

While U235 does occur naturally, Pu239 was made synthetically and yes it was and is hugely expensive (the pit for Fat Man was about a billion 1945 dollars.) Was that ludicrous?

So at that point I quit reading. RPI is not a first rate institution. Bear in mind that there is also always competition for research money and this is not a zero sum game. Nevertheless the cause of science is never advanced by belittling an entire field of research. The effort to induce gamma excitation is a lot more broadly based than DARPA or US academia.

halogen - 15-8-2007 at 09:46

My apologies for the misunderstanding. Though if ballotechnic technology (likely the hafnium substance aforementioned) can provide a gamma ray laser... That would be an absolutely devastating weapon. Now of course because one cannot reflect yrays, a continuous ray must be used instead of pulsed, which would be more powerful

. Hmm. How could a y-ray laser be constructed? Most materials are transparent!

Sauron - 15-8-2007 at 10:40

Who said anything about Hf176m being ballotechnic?

Certainly not me.

I doubt there has ever been enough of it on hand to find out. I have never heard any such claim advanced. The IGE at UT Austin in 1999 has been disputed, there was no control and not even the same group could replicate the result. Their input device was a dental x-ray, how droll. Hence my remark, mabe/maybe not. The result is in an indeterminate state like Schrodinger's cat.

As far as I can see ballotechnics is a real field of thermodynamics of solids and liquids in shock waves but it has little directly to do with either conventional, much less nuclear explosives, or radioactive materials.

By the way I saw something about a claim that "red mercury" was allegedly really Li6. This is preposterous. The fictitious red mercury is supposed to have a d 20 g/cc, while Li, even its heavier isotope Li6 is one of the lightest elements. I do not know the exact density of Li6 but look, it is just Li with 4 extra neutrons so how frigging dense can it be? Certainly a far far cry from something in the same class as Os or W.

[Edited on 16-8-2007 by Sauron]

not_important - 15-8-2007 at 11:02

Quote:

The term nuclear istmers is erroneous. You doubtless mean isotopes or nuclides. Isomers are variations in chemical structure not nuclear structure.

No, I meant nuclear isomers

180Ta half life 8 hours
180mTa 0.012% of natural tantalum, half life > 1.2 x 10^13 years. Decays to 180Ta with a release of 75 keV gammas

Same number of protons and neutrons, different properties, therefore isomers

242mAm looks interesting, not that much of it could be made.

http://www.orau.org/ria/ria05/lectures/Grzywacz_1.pdf
http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v1/n2/full/nphys150.html
http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-th/0511035
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v442/n7105/full/nature0...
http://www.nd.edu/~cgs12/abstract/Yang_Sun/YangSun.pdf
http://www.llnl.gov/str/JulAug05/pdfs/07_05.4.pdf

The astrophysics guys are interested in them, as isomers can affect supernova behavior.

As for 'grasers', there are lasers that work without mirrors, such as superfluorescent nitrogen lasers http://technology.niagarac.on.ca/people/mcsele/lasers/Lasers...

Grasers are SFAIK still theory, or weaponry in simulation gaming. I think there's been soft X-ray laser action observed. Much of the hard x-ray and gamma laser interest came out the military, particularly Reagan's SDI boondoggle. What's actually been accomplished might not be known, being wrapped up in military secrecy. It's also a bit hard to fully test devices that are intended to be pumped by a nuclear explosion.

Ni and AL

goblin - 15-8-2007 at 19:07

here is one simple compound that is ballotechnic.

I am a bit disturbed by sarons posts. I did not mean to claim anything. I simply did not know how real or fake Red Mercury was. I thought perhaps I would be enlightened ..now I know. I hope I did not come across as a preacher of farce material, that’s not what I wanted. Saron and I seem to be on a diffrent page, I do not care too much about Red Mercury; just ballotechnics in general. I understand now Red Mercury is fake. Lets move on
I did however hope to share a new topic .

Here is a short article on ballotechnic compound of Ni and Al.
Would oxides of these metals have any effect on the reaction?!...I will find out tomorrow

http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=n...

[Edited on by goblin]

gregxy - 16-8-2007 at 16:19

Well

I could not read the full article but I did not see any mention of ballotecnics. You could probably mix lots of things togeather and get them to react if you apply a strong enough shock. What difference does it make if no gas is released? I don't see what the point is unless you want to use the process to synthesize some interesting crystaline solid, for example trying to grow diamond but using explosives to compress graphite.

The earlier confusion came about from confusing nuclear with chemical reactions.

Sauron - 16-8-2007 at 18:07

The earlier confusion came from confusing fantasy with reality.

Red mercury does not exist in the form and with the properties stated

Osmium 187m does not exist.

Platinum 186m does not exist.

All three imaginary materials are well documented scams and hoaxes of the 1980s and 1990s.

Since they do not exist, they have nothing to do with ballotechnics.

You might as well start a thread on phlogiston. At least it would have some historical basis in the canon of scientific errors.

halogen - 16-8-2007 at 21:19

Well... Technically phlogiston theory is still workable. It just has a few bits that are not as easy to believe as other theories. Basically, it all works out if you accept that Phlogiston has negative mass.
Sauron, you are an arrogant smart ass as Mr. Xenoid so colourfully has put. Please stop pushing the fact that Red mercury etc. are not real. It has been established.

Thanks.

Sauron - 16-8-2007 at 21:53

"Arrogant is as arrogant does" - Forrest Gump

I will damn well say whatever I feel like, sirrah, and I'd appreciate a little more courtesy from you or anyone else.

goblin did his best to foist a fraud off on this forum, and has been called for it. Someone characterize that as confusion between nuclear vs chemical reactions. Bullshit! I responded and for that you call me an arrogant smart ass. If you were foolish enough to say that to my face you would need some dental work and perhaps some attention from an orthopedist.

It has also been well established that ballotechnics has little if anything to do with explosives, nothing at all to do with nuclear weapons, and zero to do with terrorism. It is a rather obscure branch of materials science.

Meanwhile Lavoisier is laughing at your optinion that the phlogiston theory is still workable.

[Edited on 17-8-2007 by Sauron]

Xenoid - 17-8-2007 at 04:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Sauron

goblin did his best to foist a fraud off on this forum, and has been called for it.

[Edited on 17-8-2007 by Sauron]

Oh! For God's sake! How pompous!

This is a forum for "home" chemists and amateur experimenters.

Goblin started an interesting thread about a little known topic (one which you clearly knew little about) and you come down on him like a "tonne" of bricks!

Clearly the tropical heat is getting to you.....

Xenoid

Sauron - 17-8-2007 at 04:21

No. Goblin started a hogwash thread about bogus, nonexistant weapons of mass destruction materials having NOTHING to do with home chemistry or amateur science.

However, ANYONE with an ounce of common sense and the ability to crack a reference book, could see right through the complete nonsense of everything he put forward.

We are left to conclude that either goblin is a gullible fool or he took us all to be gullible fools.

Do you think imaginary isotopes and phony red mercury are "interesting"?

This is not a nuclear weapons forum and nuclear weapons are not amateur science or home chemistry - David Hahn to the contrary.

goblin - 17-8-2007 at 07:10

Ballotechnics is not hogwash....I am not going to argue anyfurther as it has no place here. But I do want to say, being I did not know Red Mercury was fake I thought I would start out the ballotechnic topic with that. But now that I have looked more into it I am trying to divert the thread away from that material and tword more reasonable material.

Sorry

halogen - 17-8-2007 at 07:37

Quote:

goblin did his best to foist a fraud off on this forum, and has been called for it.

goblin didn't know enough about what he was talking about. Or perhaps he was the victim of bad resources and information. Here is the first post:

Quote:

I am sure all of you heard of red mercury or Hg2Sb2O7...whether or not it exists is left to conjecture for the moment. But are there not other materials that have a ballotechnic nature?
Ballotechnics as some of you may or may not know is a material that when subjected to shock (usualy heat or shockwave) emits ridiculously massive amounts of energy, most of it being heat. I do know of some isotopes that are ballotechnic in nature. Those being: ,osmium-187m, platinum-186m. These nuclear isomers will exhibit ballotechnic properties under certain circumstances.
Now we all understand there properties in enhancing nuclear reactions but could they not also be used to enhance the output on a conventional explosive. Since the power of an explosive is based primarily on v.o.d. and heat produced. Ballotechnic material radiates intense heat possibly way way more than a thermite reaction, I assume they would also accelerate the v.o.d. Under the definition of a ballotechnic material wouldn’t thermite also be considered one too?
Does anyone know of any synth for ballotechnic material?
I have read some for cinnibar but like I said red mercury seems to be a farse as of now.

This sounds like someone who just didn't know what they were talking about, or very little. Certainly it was not malicious intent as you blindly accuse, which is in anycase for the mods to decide, and thankfully not you.
Ballotechnics, contrary to your objections, is a real and interesting field that is related (in some way or another albeit) to that mentioned in goblin's post. Though the three materials originally brought up have been shown to be nonexistant, which you have "mentioned" numerous times, other ballotechnic materials (nuclear or chemical) do exist, and are worthy of discussion. And though the original premise was shown to be bullshit, it did stir up some very interesting topics in their own right, as well as bring up ballotechnics itself. Which is real, need I remind you.

Quote:

I will damn well say whatever I feel like, sirrah, and I'd appreciate a little more courtesy from you or anyone else.

And you have a perfect right to spout whatever accusations and such. I just happen to disagree. Its like that quote that everyone thinks is from voltaire but isn't... "I disagree with what you say, but I would fighgt to the death for your right to say it"

Quote:

Meanwhile Lavoisier is laughing at your optinion that the phlogiston theory is still workable.

The essence of scientific theories is that they can compete, so that people can gain better understanding of things for what they truly are. If you are so biased that you wouldn't even hear out a simple little theory... What use would science as opposed to belief be to you anyway?
"Do you think imaginary isotopes and phony red mercury are "interesting"?"
Not necessarily, but the topics that are thusly brought forth certainly are. Though on a side note, Einstein did say "Imagination is more important than knowledge".
"If you were foolish enough to say that to my face you would need some dental work and perhaps some attention from an orthopedist."
I appreciate the physical threat; it lets me know that you think you're serious.

But seriously. Isn't that a little over the top? Couldn't you just give me the evil eye instead, "Sauron"?

Come on, lighten up. "To each his own" remember?

EDIT: Damn, I really botched those quote boxes... Thats why I prefer " and "...

[Edited on 17-8-2007 by halogen]

Sauron - 17-8-2007 at 11:04

We can agree that goblin may be clueless anyway.

Goblin, ballotechnics is not hogwash, just ballotechnics in every detail as you misrepresented it.

No, thermite is NOT a ballotechnic material as thermite is NOT initiated by shock waves, it is initiated by a significant amount of heat input

Enough! Time! Wasted!

As to competing theories, phlogiston as theory has been deader than a dodo for something more than a century and a half. I do not see phlogiston in the Periodic Table, I can buy a tank of compressed oxygen but not compressed phlogiston, no one teached the phlogiston theory except perhaps as an example of error, and I daresay that oxygen is no longer a competing theory but a tangible FACT which leaves no room for phlogiston the theory to linger in any form.

Or perhaps you regard the theory that the sun revolves around the earth as viable, as well? Or that the earth is flat?

At some point the body of evidence supporting one "theory" achieves criticality and the theory becomes law. Competing theories then fade into well deserved obscurity.

[Edited on 18-8-2007 by Sauron]

12AX7 - 17-8-2007 at 14:36

I can slap CuO + Al with a hammer and get a bang. Axt has video of such a charge being fired upon, producing an impressive sparking explosion. It probably also goes off by shock waves (pressure or friction merely being an easier way to generate a similar effect). Is it, therefore, a "ballotechnic" thermite?

Fe2O3 + Al probably doesn't ignite under such "simple" conditions though, so "thermite" (unqualified, unlike specifically copper thermite or others) wouldn't be such.

Tim

P.S. Liquified phlogistion is quite easy to come by, better known as CO2. It isn't the negative-mass type, though.

franklyn - 17-8-2007 at 14:50

Phlogiston is the " fifth " element after earth , water , air , and fire.
These represent the four common states of matter , soild , liquid ,
gas , and plasma. Being the alchemical transforming element ,
one could regard phlogiston as energy. Clearly a cup of photons
has no mass.

.

halogen - 17-8-2007 at 15:16

@Sauron:

Quote:

I do not see phlogiston in the Periodic Table, I can buy a tank of compressed oxygen but not compressed phlogiston...

Technically speaking, all phlogiston is is the opposite of our ordinary conception of oxygen. Sort of like "un-oxygen" or "anti-oxygen" (Of course the latter not being antimatter which is different) Hence phlogiston theory being plausible if you can wrap your head around negative mass. And plus Newtons theories thought to be laws were overturned by Einstein. Einstein's theories (though quite beautiful) now thought to be law might so be overturned by someone else. The point is, you never know. This is a basic understanding in science.
Seeing as there is no universal reference in the universe, and thus everything being relative, it would make some sense in a way to describe the sun as moving around the earth. It all comes down to perspective much in the same way you could describe oxygen (or fluorine, or other such materials) as the opposite of phlogiston. (Hence making it a workable theory)
As for the flat earth, there is a place for people that cling to familar notions and refuses to acknowledge alternative perspectives. Sauron, this looks like it may become your new home: www.theflatearthsociety.org

@12AX7
Unfortunately, the pressures usually required by ballotechnic materials are quite high, but technically (I seem to use that word quite often!) it would be admissible. However, the key criterion (or is it criteria???) would be change in volume. Do you have any data on that specific? And CO2 Phlogiston,

Funny.

@franklyn
classically, Phlogiston was the substance that was released to explain fire, so the existence of Phlogiston and Fire as separate elements wopuld seem to be a very fine if at all existant one. Though it is an interesting parallel.

And now, back to Ballotechnics. Which is even more interesting than Phlogiston theory!

[Edited on 18-8-2007 by halogen]

12AX7 - 17-8-2007 at 16:26

Where was your post?

What's so hard to people about sorting through these quote tags, anyway? You put "quote"'s around what you want quoted!

Edit: and if you want an example, you can hit "quote" on that post and get its entire contents, bbcode and all, in your edit window to view. Which also works for seeing how to do images or links (not that those are any different in syntax).

Tim

[Edited on 8-17-2007 by 12AX7]

Sauron - 17-8-2007 at 21:07

Sorry. Theory that remains unshakeable over time and against all challenges is something more than theory.

Until a better theory comes along.

Phlogiston is bullshit. Fifth element my ass. Alchemy schmalchemy. This is science not mysticism. Science progresses, it does not regress.

If you think otherwise perhaps you should apply to be potionsmaster at Hogwarts. I hear there's a vacancy.

Sauron - 17-8-2007 at 21:43

@12AX7, is that hitting of CuO and Al with a hammer, ignition by shock, or perhaps by friction?

I am not at all convinced that what you are describing is a ballotechnic process. Sounds to me like a very conventional thermite reaction.

O3 and not_important did their best early on in this thread to get goblin on the track of what ballotechnics is, rather than what ir is NOT. But he was reluctant, and needed harsher convincing. Sometimes it takes a pounding, like your copper oxide and aluminum powder.

Nickel and aluminum, not nickel oxide, now that is not a thermite reaction. If that is induced by shock absent friction, spark, flame, etc. then perhaps it quaifies.

I'd still like to see some hard lit. on this topic.

interesting

goblin - 18-8-2007 at 05:45

It seems that these can be used in air breathing units for underwater activity.

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

advancements in innovation has been made already with these types of materials

Sauron - 18-8-2007 at 05:57

Read the thing, "submittal by the general public" - it's an anonymous posting.

Red mercury stabilized by buckballs! BALLS!

Stop wasting this forum's time with whatever kitty litter you can drag in from the underbelly of cyberspace.

Furthermore, do you really think a HYPERSONIC AIR BREATHER refers to an underwater system? It refers to a ramjet,. But never mind since it is total bunkum anyway.

[Edited on 18-8-2007 by Sauron]

yep

goblin - 18-8-2007 at 06:04

you know s I would be more apt to respond to you in a proper manner if you did not make such childish statements like "kitty litter of cyberspace??"

anyway there is realy nothing about that article that is not worthy of at least pondering.

As of right now the only critique I wil take note from is mods not your tom foolery...there one for your vocab bud.

Sauron - 18-8-2007 at 06:19

You want to hear from a moderator?

You can have it your own way.

Meanwhile here is yet another page of debunking of your magical miracle mercury

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_mercury

Meanwhile let me summarize why I object to this thread and to you.

1. You started this thread with spouting off about red mercury, making wild claims about its properties and utility in weapons making. And you asked for help in a synth of similar materials.

I and others questioned the more absurd claims, and your definition of ballotechnics, and eventually, the very existance of your three examples (red mercury Hg2Sb2O7, Osmium-187m and Platinum-186m). And while you failed to produce a shred of evidence for your position, and in fact some of your own references impeached your position, some of us began amassing more and more evidence of the non-existance of these substances and their long history of use in hoaxes and frauds.

2. All this about nuclear weapons has NOTHING to do with amateur science, which is the subject of this forum.

3. Briefly you relented and said you just wated to talk about real ballotechnic materials like Ni/Al

But now you have come up with a spurious web page in an attempt to reintroduce the bogus red mercury.

STOP insulting the intelligence of the members of this forum with all this malarky.

This is not a science fiction forum.

Hg density 13.6
Sb density 6.69

but your Hg2Sb2O7 is supposed to have a density of 20

Must be some very heavy oxygen!

I would expect an alloy of equal proportions of Hg and Sb on a gram-atom basis to have a density of about 10, and any oxide of such an alloy to have a lower density.

SO GET REAL!

Oh, I forgot, it's IRRADIATED. Must be really chock full o'neutrons, to get to d = 20.

Who do you think you are kidding?

There is no such material

There is no Os187m

There is no Pt186m

[Edited on 18-8-2007 by Sauron]

interesting

goblin - 18-8-2007 at 13:06

nice

Isotope Explorer software - free

Sauron - 18-8-2007 at 18:04

The Table of Isotopes (ToI) compiled by the Isotope Lab at UC Berkeley and published by Wiley, is the definitive reference on all known isotopes and nuclides.

http://ie.lbl.gov/education/isotopes.htm

You will NOT find your phony metastable Os and Pt in there.

Because they do not exist.

You will find them mentioned prominently in several accounts of numerous nuclear hoaxes and frauds or scams. And that is the only place you will find them.

The same goes for "red mercury". LANL (Los Alamos Natl Lab.) did a study on "red mercury" with the same result. HOGWASH.

Stop shovelling this rubbish around here. If you want to discuss ballotechnics, come up with some bona fide ballotechnic materials to discuss and some peer reviewed journal references to support your claims.

Absent that I'd rather watch reruns of Gilligan's Island than read your posts, and I hate Gilligan's Island.

Here is link to home page of the excellent Isotope Explorer software available for FREE download.

http://ie.lbl.gov/isoexpl/isoexpl.htm

Optionally you can download the ENDSF database (Encapsulated Nuclear Data Structure Files) and the References database. Or you can skip this quarter-Gb download and simply access these databases anytime via the web.

A great antidote for nuclear blarney.

Here's the manual for Isotope Explorer. When I first used this it was still DOS and called VuENSDF.

[Edited on 19-8-2007 by Sauron]

Attachment: man.pdf (653kB)
This file has been downloaded 1061 times