PDA

View Full Version : Nano fuels



RedBox
2005-Jan-30, 06:26 AM
Here are some interesteing new about using nanotechnology to make better explosives.

http://nanobot.blogspot.com/2005/01/nanolife-vs-nanodeath.html

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/001354.html

Maybe this can lead to a real breakthrough in space transportation?

JohnD
2005-Jan-31, 01:10 PM
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm,
Here's another link, to a New Scientist story about a non-burning explosive. The investigator is so horrified that he will not investigate bigger and better versions, but intends to work on detection systems instead.
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6925
John

tjm220
2005-Jan-31, 11:25 PM
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm,
Here's another link, to a New Scientist story about a non-burning explosive. The investigator is so horrified that he will not investigate bigger and better versions, but intends to work on detection systems instead.
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6925
John

I'm sure somebody else will investigate it now that the info has been released.

RedBox
2005-Feb-01, 05:36 PM
Interesting newscientist link tjm220!

I read some time ago about using laser (or some other form of radiation) to initiate nuclear fission in very small masses.

http://www.stormingmedia.us/50/5024/A502424.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4049
http://www.aip.org/png/html/lfission.htm


I have read that rocket technology has stalled because the chemical fuels just cant get much better than they already are.
Based on the examples above, maybe more "untraditional" fuels are possible that can give a signifcant boost to rocket technology?

Van Rijn
2005-Feb-01, 09:16 PM
Interesting newscientist link tjm220!

I read some time ago about using laser (or some other form of radiation) to initiate nuclear fission in very small masses.

http://www.stormingmedia.us/50/5024/A502424.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4049
http://www.aip.org/png/html/lfission.htm


Just to be clear, the first two articles deal with hafnium nuclear isomer reactions, not fission. See:

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

There is major controversy over the current research - if there has really been (or can be) useful triggering, the high cost of the hafnium and so forth.

skrap1r0n
2005-Feb-01, 09:43 PM
This is interesting stuff. I wonder how fast can a reaction be and not be deemed "Explosive"?

On another similar note, I was thinking about molecular or atomic foam for lack of a better phrase. basically, some substance that could increase the distance between either the atoms or subatomic particles. It kinda hit me that if it did it TOO fast, it would essentially be an explosion.

Doodler
2005-Feb-01, 10:11 PM
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm,
Here's another link, to a New Scientist story about a non-burning explosive. The investigator is so horrified that he will not investigate bigger and better versions, but intends to work on detection systems instead.
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6925
John

#-o

What's his name, so we can stick him in the idiot box next to Richard Gatling and Alfred Nobel?

tjm220
2005-Feb-01, 10:33 PM
Interesting newscientist link tjm220!

I read some time ago about using laser (or some other form of radiation) to initiate nuclear fission in very small masses.

http://www.stormingmedia.us/50/5024/A502424.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4049
http://www.aip.org/png/html/lfission.htm


I have read that rocket technology has stalled because the chemical fuels just cant get much better than they already are.
Based on the examples above, maybe more "untraditional" fuels are possible that can give a signifcant boost to rocket technology?

While I did read that article at newscientist before logging onto the BABB, you'll have to thank JohnD for posting it here.

JohnD
2005-Feb-01, 11:26 PM
Doodler,
You cruel cynic!

Gatling and Noble accumulated multimillion fortunes from their inventions before they got a concience - not that Gatling was that concerned. Would you include J.Robert "Now I am become Death, the Destroyer of Worlds" Oppenheimer? Or many others of the Manhatten project scientists, for example Maurice Wilkins, who positively refused to continue his electronics wartime work, retrained in biophysics and earned a Nobel for DNA?
I could go on with examples.
Scientists are human. They make mistakes. The ones who realise that and work to minimise their error should be admired, not vilified or held up to ridicule by lesser people.
Go and read the NS article for yourself, if you want to know that chemist's name. But before mocking him consider, he may be a better person than you. Or me.
John