|  Author | Topic: DARPArama III (Read 14,392 times) |
Big Bunny
Admin
member is offline
![[avatar]](http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/7415/eye4xn4.jpg)
Joined: Apr 2003
Gender: Male 
Posts: 38,138
Location: Sydney, Australia
|  | Re: DARPArama III
« Reply #45 on Aug 14, 2008, 3:14am » | |
Uncle Sam Wants Your Brain
By Brandon Keim August 13, 2008 | 3:16:08 PM
![[image]](http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/3139/soldiers0831267fk6.jpg)
Drugs that make soldiers want to fight. Robots linked directly to their controllers' brains. Lie-detecting scans administered to terrorist suspects as they cross U.S. borders.
These are just a few of the military uses imagined for cognitive science -- and if it's not yet certain whether the technologies will work, the military is certainly taking them very seriously.
"It's way too early to know which -- if any -- of these technologies is going to be practical," said Jonathan Moreno, a Center for American Progress bioethicist and author of Mind Wars: Brain Research and National Defense. "But it's important for us to get ahead of the curve. Soldiers are always on the cutting edge of new technologies."
Moreno is part of a National Research Council committee convened by the Department of Defense to evaluate the military potential of brain science. Their report, "Emerging Cognitive Neuroscience and Related Technologies," was released today. It charts a range of cognitive technologies that are potentially powerful -- and, perhaps, powerfully troubling.
Here are the report's main areas of focus:
* Mind reading. The development of psychological models and neurological imaging has made it possible to see what people are thinking and whether they're lying. The science is, however, still in its infancy: Challenges remain in accounting for variations between individual brains, and the tendency of our brains to change over time.
One important application is lie detection -- though one hopes that the lesson of traditional lie detectors, predicated on the now-disproven idea that the physiological basis of lying can be separated from processes such as anxiety, has been learned.
Mind readers could be used to interrogate captured enemies, as well as "terrorist suspects" passing through customs. But does this mean, for example, that travelers placed on the bloated, mistake-laden watchlist would have their minds scanned, just as their computers will be?
The report notes that "In situations where it is important to win the hearts and minds of the local populace, it would be useful to know if they understand the information being given them."
* Cognitive enhancement. Arguably the most developed area of cognitive neuroscience, with drugs already allowing soldiers to stay awake and alert for days at a time, and brain-altering drugs in widespread use among civilians diagnosed with mental and behavioral problems.
Improved drug delivery systems and improved neurological understanding could make today's drugs seem rudimentary, giving soldiers a superhuman strength and awareness -- but if a drug can be designed to increase an ability, a drug can also be designed to destroy it.
"It's also important to develop antidotes and protective agents against various classes of drugs," says the report. This echoes the motivation of much federal biodefense research, in which designing defenses against potential bioterror agents requires those agents to be made -- and that raises the possibility of our own weapons being turned against us, as with the post-9/11 anthrax attacks, which used a military developed strain.
* Mind control. Largely pharmaceutical, for the moment, and a natural outgrowth of cognitive enhancement approaches and mind-reading insight: If we can alter the brain, why not control it?
One potential use involves making soldiers want to fight. Conversely, "How can we disrupt the enemy’s motivation to fight? [...] How can we make people trust us more? What if we could help the brain to remove fear or pain? Is there a way to make the enemy obey our commands?"
* Brain-Machine Interfaces. The report focuses on direct brain-to-machine systems (rather than, for example, systems that are controlled by visual movements, which are already in limited use by paraplegics.) Among these are robotic prostheses that replace or extend body parts; cognitive and sensory prostheses, which make it possible to think and to perceive in entirely new ways; and robotic or software assistants, which would do the same thing, but from a distance.
Many questions surrounding the safety of current brain-machine interfaces: The union of metal and flesh only lasts so long before things break down. But assuming those can be overcome, questions of plasticity arise: What happens when a soldier leaves the service? How might their brains be reshaped by their experience?
Like Moreno said, it's too early to say what will work. The report documents in great detail the practical obstacles to these aims -- not least the failure of reductionist neuroscientific models, in which a few firing neurons can be easily mapped to a psychological state, and brains can be analyzed in one-map-fits-all fashion.
But given the rapid progress of cognitive science, it's foolish to assume that obstacles won't be overcome. Hugh Gusterson, a George Mason University anthropologist and critic of the military's sponsorship of social science research, says their attempt to crack the cultural code is unlikely to work -- "but my sense with neuroscience," he said, "is a far more realistic ambition."
Gusterson is deeply pessimistic about military neuroscience, which will not be limited to the United States.
"I think most reasonable people, if they imagine a world in which all sides have figured out how to control brains, they'd rather not go there," he said. "Most rational human beings would believe that if we could have a world where nobody does military neuroscience, we'll all be better off. But for some people in the Pentagon, it's too delicious to ignore."
Emerging Cognitive Neuroscience and Related Technologies [National Academies Press]
Note: The NRC committee is formally known as the Committee on Military and Intelligence Methodology for Emergent Neurophysiological and Cognitive/Neural Science Research in the Next Two Decades. In the future, cognitive technologies will apparently obviate the need for snappy, easily-acronymed titles.
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/08/uncle-sam-wants.html
|
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident."
Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860
"In the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet, breathe the same air, and we all cherish our children’s future."
John F. Kennedy |
|
Big Bunny
Admin
member is offline
Joined: Apr 2003
Gender: Male
Posts: 38,138
Location: Sydney, Australia
| | Re: DARPArama III
« Reply #46 on Aug 15, 2008, 11:48pm » | |
Light Metals Against Bombs And Grenades
![[image]](http://img93.imageshack.us/img93/7422/080813110800large192414tv2.jpg)
The aluminium shape seen from above. The projectile has gone through the outer wall from the left and has passed through two layers of aluminium, but was stopped by the third – even though there was no sand or other substance in the form. (Credit: SIMLab/NTNU)
ScienceDaily (Aug. 13, 2008) — A cheap and simple structure made of aluminium can mean the difference between life and death the day the bombs go off.
A soldier in a war lives a life exposed to danger – both inside the compound fence and on assignment on the outside. If the container he lives in is struck by a direct hit, it can be transformed into a clump of twisted metal in a matter of seconds. If he drives over a land mine, he and his vehicle can be blown sky high.
War is never safe. Nevertheless, it’s possible to protect soldiers from at least some of the dangers. Tank steel and armoured concrete provide good protection, but structures made from steel or concrete are quite heavy, and can be difficult to move. Aluminium, on the other hand, is a light product -- in a number of different ways.
One of the Norwegian University of Science and Technology’s three Centres for Research-based Innovation is called SIMLab (Structural Impact Laboratory). Here, researchers are working with aluminium structures for protection against impacts, metal-piercing projectiles and explosions from everything from small stones to bombs -- in war or in peace.
“We have developed a light, cheap and flexible solution to protect fences, buildings, ammunition dumps and containers”, says the lab’s leader, Magnus Langseth.
Stands against most
The solution has grown out of a close co-operative effort between the Norwegian Defence Estates Agency (NDEA), a branch of the Norwegian Defence Ministry, and NTNU. NDEA is responsible for the Norwegian camps and compounds that are involved in international operations, and has over a number of years financed the centre’s research on protective structures for both military and civilian use.
The structure is made from a type of double panel filled with a heavy substance found on site, such as dirt, sand, gravel or small stones. The panels are pieced together from aluminium shapes that have cavities in them, which are shaped out of internal division walls. These aluminium shapes are easy to produce by extruding them through a kind of mouthpiece that gives them the desired cross-section. They are also easy to move, and are pieced together using a click-together system. A panel is placed in a lifting device and is mounted on a container wall, for example. Afterwards it can be filled from the top with weight, which then can be drained out of the bottom when the panel needs to be unmounted and moved to another area.
Two men can completely secure a container in this manner in the course of a morning.
“These filled aluminium shapes can stand against projectiles and explosives” explains Tore Børvik, who works with NDEA and is an adjunct lecturer at NTNU, with a position at SIMLab.
Survived the test
The system was tested in a full-scale explosion and demonstrated its effectiveness: the panelled container received just minor damage from an explosion that was equivalent to 4 tonnes of TNT detonated from 120 metres away. Without the light metal protection, the container would have been blown to smithereens. But there remain a few details that have to be improved, so the system isn’t on the market yet. Nevertheless, a number of NATO countries have already shown interest in it.
“We at NTNU aren’t in the business of producing these things”, Langseth says. “Our job is to develop work tools that product developers need. We make computer models for design, and experiment with alloys, dimensions and construction. The tools for this type of protection need just a little more work before they’re ready.”
On dangerous roads
Only a few of the vehicles used for peacekeeping forces are protected from land mines. Tank steel is expensive, but first and foremost it’s heavy – and many places are inaccessible to a four-wheel drive that’s been armoured with tank steel. A vehicle needs lightweight protection.
Aluminium is a light metal. But a gravel-filled panel is quite heavy, and isn’t suited as either a bottom plate or as a canopy. So SIMLab’s researchers are working to develop light plates made from aluminium foam that in time may be used to solve the dilemma.
“This is an extremely complex problem”, Langseth emphasises. “When a landmine explodes, the combination of sand and air pressure tosses the vehicle and the driver up in the air. We have to find a method to absorb the pressure, something that is lightweight and doesn’t take up much space. We don’t yet have the technology, but we’re working with the design tools that we have already developed.”
SIMLab has now been invited to join an international co-operative effort comprised of the world’s leading researchers in mechanics and materials where the theme is protection of vehicles in war zones.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080813110800.htm
|
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident."
Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860
"In the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet, breathe the same air, and we all cherish our children’s future."
John F. Kennedy |
|
Big Bunny
Admin
member is offline
Joined: Apr 2003
Gender: Male
Posts: 38,138
Location: Sydney, Australia
| | Re: DARPArama III
« Reply #47 on Aug 16, 2008, 4:10am » | |
Robot wars helping British troops
![[image]](http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/1999/44921891spybotwide22677me6.jpg)
Some of the robots being tested on Salisbury Plain A competition to design new technology for the military is being held in a mocked-up wartime village on Salisbury Plain. The BBC's Alison Harper has been to see it.
You can feel the tension in the air. The team's eyes darting from rooftop to ground looking for threats.
Around the next corner, is there an ambush waiting?
Or are they already targets in a sniper's range?
The answer could be right beside them. This is no battlefield, but a competition to discover the latest technology to locate and identify threats to our troops.
Copehill Down Village is a purpose built training facility in the heart of Salisbury Plain. It's based on an Eastern European town complete with a church, hotel, school and bar.
The concrete facade could be hiding marksmen and the roadside could be littered with improvised explosive devices.
But here for today's contest there is a mix of bizarre looking robots and flying machines all capable of spying on the enemy.
This may be a mocked-up wartime scenario, but the technology is very real and could be developed for use by our military.
Thermal imaging
The Moon Buggy wouldn't look out of place in a James Bond film.
Built by Surrey-based company Silicon Valley, there are two versions - a large diesel one which has stretchers attached to its sides, and a mini electric-powered version which can go at quite a pace over mixed terrain.
One has a 360-degree camera on board, the other thermal imaging. The latter's antenna reaches high, and is able to gather images, beaming them back to a computer where they can be analysed for risk without anyone's life being put in any danger.
The Silicon Valley group has a background in technology and research and says this robot has needed last-minute tweaking to improve its communications before the competition.
Team member Norman Gregory said: "It is close to getting to where we expect it, [but] we need more time to perfect it, because a key part is software for image recognition and threat assessment which has been developed by the University of Reading and Kingston University, and the maturity level of the software is improving as we speak.
"The system is designed to detect people who are stationary with weapons. It's designed to pick up people images and vehicle images and process them.
"We're going out to search for a certain type of target. If we know what we're looking for we can probably find it."
One step ahead
There is a demand for this new robotic technology.
With troops on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan facing daily dangers from, among others, improvised explosive devices (IEDs), the Ministry of Defence is keen to find innovative, autonomous systems which can be used to identify the risks without putting lives on the line.
"We're trying to help our armed forces, who are doing a very dangerous job, do that job more effectively," says Professor Phil Sutton, the director general of science and technology strategy at the MoD.
"I don't think the things we're seeing now are ready to go for operational use, clearly we would need to do a bit more work to get them rugged.
"We now have an adversary that is very determined, very imaginative so it's critical that our armed forces can be one step ahead of them. We need to be innovative, creative, agile and that's really what this is all about, achieving that."
The winners of the competition will take home the RJ Mitchell Trophy, named after the man known as the father of the iconic Spitfire.
It is cast from metal recovered from one of the planes flown in World War II. The winners will be announced on 19 August.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/7560300.stm
Published: 2008/08/14 10:49:01 GMT
|
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident."
Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860
"In the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet, breathe the same air, and we all cherish our children’s future."
John F. Kennedy |
|
Big Bunny
Admin
member is offline
Joined: Apr 2003
Gender: Male
Posts: 38,138
Location: Sydney, Australia
| | Re: DARPArama III
« Reply #48 on Aug 24, 2008, 9:33pm » | |
Death Rays, Hovercars in 'Battleground 2000'
By Noah Shachtman August 15, 2008 | 2:31:00 AM
Back in '79, Usborne Publishing took its readers on a illustrated trip to the far-off world of the year 2000 -- and beyond! And what a cool future it is: filled with orbital factories, floating pyramid cities, and laser-powered replicators that can build any object imaginable.
But DANGER ROOM readers will get a particular kick out of "Battlegound 2000," the book's look at the future of war.
![[image]](http://img54.imageshack.us/img54/6365/page250950965zm6.jpg)
Some of the predictions aren't too far off; take off the laser cannon and the mini-wings in front, and the fighter plane, designed for "dogfighting in the 1990's," is reminiscent of today's F-22. It's even got "robot missiles" that "home in on the target by themselves."
Other prognostications didn't pan out, alas. "Armed hovercars" haven't replaced Humvees. 100-kph hydrofoil patrol boats" didn't make it to "most, if not all, world navies" by "the 1990's." And troops aren't climbing into "giant rocket transport[s]" to "quell an uprising in a state halfway around the world." They're still stuck with old-fashioned jets to do the job. Sigh.
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/08/death-rays-arme.html
|
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident."
Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860
"In the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet, breathe the same air, and we all cherish our children’s future."
John F. Kennedy |
|
Big Bunny
Admin
member is offline
Joined: Apr 2003
Gender: Male
Posts: 38,138
Location: Sydney, Australia
| | Re: DARPArama III
« Reply #49 on Aug 24, 2008, 9:36pm » | |
Defense Spooks: Let's Control Enemy Minds
By Nick Thompson August 16, 2008 | 9:03:00 AM
![[image]](http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/8876/mindcontrol41687041dz7.jpg)
Forget performance-enhancing drugs for soldiers, the next frontier is performance-degrading drugs for our enemies. Rick Weiss at the Science Progress blog has just written a nice post about a just-released 150-page report from the National Research Council and the Defense Intelligence Agency that argues that the military needs to do a better job keeping up with neuroscience: in part so it can learn how to make our enemies stupider.
“Although conflict has many aspects, one that warfighters and policy makers often talk about is the motivation to fight, which undoubtedly has its origins in the brain and is reflected in peripheral neurophysiological processes," quotes Weiss from the report. “So one question would be, ‘How can we disrupt the enemy’s motivation to fight?’ Other questions raised by controlling the mind: ‘How can we make people trust us more?’ ‘What if we could help the brain to remove fear or pain?’ ‘Is there a way to make the enemy obey our commands?’… As cognitive neuroscience and related technologies become more pervasive, using technology for nefarious purposes becomes easier.”
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/08/the-dia-looks-i.html
|
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident."
Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860
"In the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet, breathe the same air, and we all cherish our children’s future."
John F. Kennedy |
|
Big Bunny
Admin
member is offline
Joined: Apr 2003
Gender: Male
Posts: 38,138
Location: Sydney, Australia
| | Re: DARPArama III
« Reply #50 on Aug 24, 2008, 9:39pm » | |
Army Funds 'Synthetic Telepathy' Research
By Noah Shachtman August 18, 2008 | 2:28:00 PM
![[image]](http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/2513/charlesxavier1816409fo0.jpg)
The Army has given a team of University of California researchers a $4 million grant to study the foundations of "synthetic telepathy." But unlike old-school mind-melds, this seemingly psychic communication would be computer-mediated. The University of California, Irvine explains:
The brain-computer interface would use a noninvasive brain imaging technology like electroencephalography to let people communicate thoughts to each other. For example, a soldier would "think" a message to be transmitted and a computer-based speech recognition system would decode the EEG signals. The decoded thoughts, in essence translated brain waves, are transmitted using a system that points in the direction of the intended target.
All across the military, there's interest in translating thoughts into computer code, and vice versa. Darpa-funded researchers have taught monkeys how to control robotic limbs with their thoughts. Defense contractor Northrop Grumman is building binoculars that tap the unconscious mind. Honeywell has built a system that monitors pre-conscious nueral firings, to help pick out targets in satellite imagery. The JASONs, the Pentagon's premiere scientific advisory board, has warned of the dangers of enemies implanted with brain-computer interfaces. And the Defense Intelligence Agency just released a report, saying the military needs to spend more on neuroscience - up to and including "mak[ing] the enemy obey our commands."
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/08/army-funds-synt.html
|
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident."
Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860
"In the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet, breathe the same air, and we all cherish our children’s future."
John F. Kennedy |
|
Big Bunny
Admin
member is offline
Joined: Apr 2003
Gender: Male
Posts: 38,138
Location: Sydney, Australia
| | Re: DARPArama III
« Reply #51 on Aug 24, 2008, 9:52pm » | |
Army Moves Ahead With Mobile Laser Cannon
By Noah Shachtman August 19, 2008 | 12:06:07 PM
![[image]](http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/5205/heltdbeam2626907vg9.jpg)
The Army is moving ahead with plans to mount a laser cannon on a massive, 35-ton-plus truck.
The service just handed Boeing a $36 million contract to "continue developing a truck-mounted, high-energy laser weapon system that will destroy rockets, artillery shells and mortar rounds," according to a company statement.
Under the High Energy Laser Technology Demonstrator (HEL TD) Phase II contract, awarded Aug. 15, Boeing will complete the design of, then build, test and evaluate, a rugged beam control system on a Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck. Boeing also will develop the system-engineering requirements for the entire HEL TD laser weapon system.
Low power demonstrations are scheduled for 2010, with battlefield-strength laser tests to follow in 2013.
About a year ago, the Army asked Boeing and Northrop Grumman to work up preliminary designs for the HEL beam control system -- and promised to choose a winning model by 2009. So the program appears to be on track. And it's one of a number of energy weapon projects that have been picking up steam, after decades of unfulfilled promise. Relatively easy-to-deploy electric lasers have just about worked their way up to weapons-grade. Boeing recently test-fired the real-life ray gun on its Advanced Tactical Laser -- a blaster-equipped gunship. Raytheon has worked up a prototype of its Phalanx mortar-shooter that uses fiber lasers, instead of traditional ammo, to knock down targets. Even the eternally-delayed Airborne Laser -- a modified 747, designed to zap ballistic missiles -- may finally get a long-awaited flight test.
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/08/army-moves-ahea.html
|
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident."
Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860
"In the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet, breathe the same air, and we all cherish our children’s future."
John F. Kennedy |
|
Big Bunny
Admin
member is offline
Joined: Apr 2003
Gender: Male
Posts: 38,138
Location: Sydney, Australia
| | Re: DARPArama III
« Reply #52 on Aug 24, 2008, 10:14pm » | |
Poor Planning Doomed Russian Warplanes
By David Axe August 20, 2008 | 3:22:07 PM
![[image]](http://img356.imageshack.us/img356/2097/9a39m1224043858ad9.jpg)
Georgian air defenses managed to shoot down as many as 10 Russian warplanes during the fighting over South Ossetia, including several Su-25 close-air-support planes, an Su-24 medium bomber (maybe) and a large Tu-22M "Backfire" bomber. This despite "Georgian command and control ... [breaking] down almost immediately after the initial foray into South Ossetia," according to Dave Fulghum's new piece over at Ares: see below.
Fulghum crunches comments from several Russian military sources. It's a good read. The highlights:
* Russia had not prepared a plan in advance of the air campaign.
* Perhaps as a result, Russia made little attempt to take out Georgian air defenses, including SA-11 missiles (pictured), before the main attack.
* "Russian intelligence failed to analyze the numbers, locations and capabilities of the Georgian air defenses."
* The Russians never used radar-homing missiles against Georgian radars. Indeed, the Russian air force used very few long-range guided missiles at all.
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/08/poor-planning-d.html
Russian Pilots Flew into Combat Expecting No Opposition
Posted by David A. Fulghum at 8/20/2008 2:10 PM CDT
Senior Russian official are adding to the chorus about its military’s early failures in Georgia which include air defense suppression, intelligence analysis and warnings, air attack planning and speed of response.
These opinions -- coming from current and recently retired senior military commanders and appearing in Russia’s Independent Military Review, other defense related publications, and Russian news agencies -- have caught the attention of U.S. government officials and analysts who have been pouring over open-source literature to gather operational and technological clues to events in the Georgia-Russia conflict.
Lack of preparation infected the Russian air force, said its former commander-in-chief, Gen. Peter Deinekin, who accused the service of handing the initiative to the Georgian air force. Like the Russian artillery units, he excoriated the air force for not immediately launching an air attack to blind Georgia’s radar and reconnaissance capability and then shatter command and control. Deinekin proposed the model of the initial attack on Grosni, Chechnya in 1994 when the country’s air force of 250 aircraft was destroyed on the ground.
Here there seems to be a curious disconnect with what actually happened. U.S. analysts said that the Georgian command and control of its forces broke down almost immediately after the initial foray into South Ossetia.
Former Russian Defense Minister Gen. Paul Grachev cast blame on all the Russian intelligence services for lack of warning and commanders of the North Caucasus Military District for not having a detailed contingency plan in case of an attack by Georgia.
Gen. Mahmut Gareyev, president of the Academy of Military Sciences, also blamed military intelligence for the classic failure of miscalculating Georgia’s intentions. The resulting confusion in Russia’s command and control was pointed to as the reason that Russia’s air force took so many losses including a number of Su-25 Frogfoot close attack aircraft, possibly an Su-24 and a front-line, high-performance Tu-22M aircraft which may have been either a bombing or reconnaissance variant operated by the Black Sea Fleet.
![[image]](http://img380.imageshack.us/img380/8963/5b17b35a156d4295bcdfa4cms4.jpg)
More precisely, Russian intelligence failed to analyze the numbers, locations and capabilities of the Georgian air defenses, said former air force commander and chief, Gen. Anatoly Kornukov. As a result, Russian pilots went into combat expecting no resistance. Secondly, there was no campaign to eliminate the Georgia air defense or air force. Thirdly, there was no reason to use a strategic bomber like the Tu-22, he says.
Radar killing missiles were not used on the Georgian air defenses, despite their availability, which meant that Russian aircrews could not use their precision stand-off weapons without being in range of Georgia’s SA-11 air defenses. Some observers pointed to the unavailability of Russian precision, long-range, standoff weaponry.
Other Russian analysts contend the Russians made little or no use of its space-based surveillance and that the rough terrain and heavy vegetation of Georgia foiled the long-range use of laser-guided weapons.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/def....f-6c2f00 d9ac54
|
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident."
Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860
"In the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet, breathe the same air, and we all cherish our children’s future."
John F. Kennedy |
|
Big Bunny
Admin
member is offline
Joined: Apr 2003
Gender: Male
Posts: 38,138
Location: Sydney, Australia
| | Re: DARPArama III
« Reply #53 on Aug 24, 2008, 10:42pm » | |
WALL-E Look-a-Like Wins British Robot Showdown
By David Hambling August 20, 2008 | 9:30:00 AM
![[image]](http://img364.imageshack.us/img364/4086/grandchallenge195519613qc4.jpg)
Over the past week, Copehill Down Village, the British Army's urban combat training facility, saw its oddest contest ever -- one that involved flying saucers, swarming robots, remote-control buggies, and inventors from all over the country. This was the Ministry of Defence's Grand Challenge, to develop new technology for urban reconnaissance.
Yesterday, they announced the winners. Robot-makers from Southampton's Stellar Research Services snagged the top prize. Stellar's approach, called SATURN, involved three separate machines: a high-level flying robotic aircraft, a low-level drone, and a tracked vehicle (pictured) that looks like a relative of WALL-E.
The mechanical trio had to navigate a mock village, crawling with threats: hidden snipers, armed "militia" in the open, and roadside bombs. Of the eleven teams competing, Team Stellar scored the highest points in identifying and locating the targets, using cameras and radar and thermal sensors.
Stellar Team Leader Julia Richardson afterwards said: “I am extremely pleased, we are thrilled, we worked very hard and it is a fantastic result.”
Team Swarm was rated the “most innovative idea,” with an entry based on a swarm eight small "Owl" quadrotor helicopters, equipped with high-resolution video cameras. (Pedantry note: the collective term for owls is a "Parliament", or, perhaps more appropriately in this case, a "Stare.")
Stephen Crampton, CEO of Swarm Systems Ltd, told me he was very pleased with what the company has achieved in just twelve months:
"The UK now has the world's most advanced quadrotor technology -- it can fly in 18 knot gusty winds, which is unheard of for a quadrotor. We believe it is the best approach for taking to the front line - backpackable, quiet, light, fast, robust, and you can stack a hundred of them on a standard pallet."
As expected, the outcome of the Grand Challenge was seen as a chance to evaluate new unmanned technologies, according to the official press release:
The MoD is now carefully considering if technologies demonstrated in the final can be incorporated into future frontline kit for the Armed Forces. It is possible that the winning team will have invented a product that can be developed rapidly for the front line; it is also possible that no single system will offer the perfect solution to the problems faced in theatre today. Therefore, MoD may consider elements of a number of systems if it is believed they could offer rapid technical solutions for the front line.
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/08/british-robot-s.html
|
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident."
Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860
"In the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet, breathe the same air, and we all cherish our children’s future."
John F. Kennedy |
|
Big Bunny
Admin
member is offline
Joined: Apr 2003
Gender: Male
Posts: 38,138
Location: Sydney, Australia
| | Re: DARPArama III
« Reply #54 on Aug 24, 2008, 10:50pm » | |
Army Eyes Invisibility Cloak
By David Axe August 20, 2008 | 2:01:00 AM
![[image]](http://img368.imageshack.us/img368/9798/hollowman6120325bn3.jpg)
After two years of rapid scientific progress, the U.S. Army is getting closer to mastering man-made "meta-materials" that can bend light around an object, according to one military researcher.
That's right: flip-of-the-switch invisibility is around the corner. Which means insane, invisible, rampaging scientists, a la Kevin Bacon in Hollow Man (pictured), can't be far behind.
Okay, seriously. According to Dr. Richard Hammond from the Army Research Office, the military is two or three years away from being able to manufacture devices using meta-materials that allow "unprecedented extreme control over the flow of light." And not just that: in theory the materials could deflect radar and other sensors, too.
Now, a practical, affordable, full-spectrum invisibility coating for soldiers, tanks and airplanes is still highly, highly impractical. It's just the basic physics that Hammond has proved. And even when there are solid designs in place using these meta-materials, invisibility coatings could turn out to be extremely expensive.
But there are loads of short-term benefits to pursuing invisibility, Hammond said Tuesday during a Pentagon teleconference. First off, you can build lenses out of meta-materials that can zoom to the micron level, making it possible to spot germs, chemical agents and even DNA using basically a pair of binoculars. Similar lenses could focus even a tiny amount of ambient light and use it as a power source. Hammond calls that his "anti-cloak."
This so-called "super-lens" is already in development by Purdue University and private partners. Hammond said an early version could be ready in two or three years. But combat cloaking, he said, is still "many years down the road."
Thank God. Have you ever seen that Hollow Man flick? It's awful!
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/08/army-eyes-invis.html
|
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident."
Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860
"In the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet, breathe the same air, and we all cherish our children’s future."
John F. Kennedy |
|
Big Bunny
Admin
member is offline
Joined: Apr 2003
Gender: Male
Posts: 38,138
Location: Sydney, Australia
| | Re: DARPArama III
« Reply #55 on Aug 24, 2008, 11:20pm » | |
Spy vs. Spy
By Sally Adee
![[image]](http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/6568/stegano017871275mt0.jpg)
DO YOU WANNA KNOW A SECRET?
: Altered with the proper steganography algorithm, this innocuous picture of a cat could be a carrier for corporate espionage.
PHOTO: iStockphoto
Earlier this year, someone at the United States Department of Justice smuggled sensitive financial data out of the agency by embedding the data in several image files. Defeating this exfiltration method, called steganography, has proved particularly tricky, but one engineering student has come up with a way to make espionage work against itself.
Keith Bertolino, founder of digital forensics start-up E.R. Forensics, based in West Nyack, N.Y., developed a new way of disrupting steganography last year while finishing his electrical engineering degree at Northeastern University, in Boston.
Steganography uses innocuous documents, usually an image file, as carriers for secret messages. Unlike encryption, steganography encodes the message while at the same time concealing the fact that a message is being sent at all. The Greek-derived name means “covered writing.” The earliest steganographers were said to be Greek generals who tattooed sensitive information onto the shaved heads of messengers. Once the hair grew back, the messenger could travel without suspicion to the intended recipient, who “decrypted” the secret message by shaving the messenger’s head again. In its current incarnation, steganography often makes use of e-mail, an ideal carrier for any corporate spy, disgruntled employee, or terrorist.
Steganography algorithms vary widely—digital forensics firm WetStone Technologies Inc., of Ithaca, N.Y., lists 622 applications—but they work on basically the same principle. To embed a message in an innocuous image of a cat, for example, a commonly used steganography algorithm called LSB takes advantage of the way computers digitally encode color. The algorithm hides the fugitive file inside the so-called noncritical bits of color pixels. Noncritical bits are just what they sound like—the least important information in a pixel. A gray pixel in the cat’s uniformly gray fur, for example, is coded as a number that looks something like 00 10 01 00. By changing the least significant bits—the last two—you introduce one-millionth of a color change, an absurdly subtle alteration that no human eye could detect.
The steganography application folds the secret message’s bits into the image’s least significant bits, but it typically leaves the image file unaltered in size or any other variable that would provide clues to infiltration. Compression does not affect the integrity of the stowaway data—the algorithms work just as well for lossy compression (for example, in a JPEG format) as they do for lossless compression methods. When the message reaches its intended recipient, an unlocking algorithm locates the stowaway bits in the cat image pixels and uses them to reconstruct the secret message.
Bertolino’s method turns this technology on itself. The key to jamming steganography, he says, is using steganography—what he calls “double-stegging.” Double-stegging adds some noise, scrambling some of the image’s least-significant bits. “As long as you’re damaging at least some part of the file,” Bertolino explains, the hidden file becomes garbled and cannot be deciphered. If the cat in the picture is just a cat, the file comes to no harm. But a hidden file, once processed by the double-stegging algorithm, will yield only gibberish. “Our results are simple,” Bertolino says. “An extremely high percentage of the hidden files were destroyed.” Though the jamming techniques were tested only on image file carriers, Bertolino is confident that his method can be extended to other file formats, like audio and video files, which can also carry hidden messages. Digital steganography relies on the same basic principles to hide data for any digital carrier. In January, Bertolino will present his research at the Defense Department’s annual digital forensics conference, the Cyber Crime Conference.
According to Bertolino, the steganography-jamming application would be made available to organizations as part of a software package and would work at the e-mail server level to scour all outgoing communication of nefarious content. Filtering e-mail automatically through an algorithm could give an organization peace of mind without chewing up a lot of billable hours. (Steganography can be detected by trained examiners if the images are passed through a variety of filters to reveal visual indicators, but that requires hours of manpower.)
One major disadvantage, Bertolino concedes, is that his method does nothing to alert authorities to the presence of the mole. However, despite well-funded research, the bottom line remains that it is easier to jam steganography than it is to detect its presence. “Is it better to know who is doing the attacking or to stop the attack from happening?” Bertolino asks. “Sometimes catching an intruder is less important than preventing the potential damage caused by releasing that information.”
WetStone CEO Chet Hosmer says Bertolino’s research is founded on legitimate principles. In fact, what Bertolino calls double-stegging is similar to a server-level technology called stego stomping that WetStone sells to companies to filter outgoing e-mail.
The main advantage of such an approach, says Northeastern University computer science professor Ravi Sundaram, under whose guidance Bertolino pursued his research, is that it mitigates a major problem of the espionage “arms race.” As soon as security personnel figure out how to circumvent one algorithm, 10 more are invented to take its place. Double-stegging could provide a stopgap. No matter how sophisticated steganography methods become, those technology advances could be used against the malefactors. By attacking the applications using the applications themselves, the algorithms become their own worst enemy.
Bertolino thinks his method would be most useful when used alongside detection methods like those being developed at WetStone and Backbone Security, another cybercrime-detection firm, headquartered in Fairmont, W.Va. These firms specialize in detection. Letting Bertolino’s double-stegging application run quietly on an e-mail server means that an examiner could take his time sussing out the intruder while remaining confident that no outgoing e-mails are exporting hidden files.
Thwarting steganography that makes use of static carriers like JPEG or MP3 files is important, says Hosmer. However, steganography is a moving target. Now exfiltrators are beginning to make use of streaming data technologies like voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP). Disrupting or even detecting hidden transmissions inside real-time phone calls is the next hurdle for digital forensics companies, and Hosmer says it poses a significantly more challenging problem.
http://spectrum.ieee.org/aug08/6593
|
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident."
Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860
"In the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet, breathe the same air, and we all cherish our children’s future."
John F. Kennedy |
|
Big Bunny
Admin
member is offline
Joined: Apr 2003
Gender: Male
Posts: 38,138
Location: Sydney, Australia
| | Re: DARPArama III
« Reply #56 on Aug 24, 2008, 11:22pm » | |
Fighter Jet Hits Mach 2 on Synth-Fuel Blend
By Noah Shachtman August 21, 2008 | 8:51:00 AM
![[image]](http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/6329/f15ocean8040794kn7.jpg)
An Air Force F-15 Eagle flew twice the speed of sound this week, using a synthetic fuel blend.
The service has already flown some of its bigger, heavier aircraft -- like the C-17 cargo plane and B-52 bomber -- on the 50-50 blend of synthetics and standard JP-8 jet fuel. A B-1 even broke the sound barrier, using the mixture. But this is the first time a maneuverable, high-performance fighter has been powered by the stuff.
First came a 50-minute ground test "that pushed the aircraft's engines from military power to full afterburner," according to the Macon Telegraph. Then the plane took off for a 55-minute flight, reaching speeds of Mach 2.2.
The test is part of a larger military investigation into an eighty year-old process for converting coal or natural gas into liquid fuel called Fischer-Tropsch. It's what helped the German Army make 124,000 barrels of fuel per day during World War II. The fuel isn't necessarily any better for the environment than standard stuff; but it can be made domestically, reducing the need for foreign oil.
The Air Force is looking for certify all of its aircraft on the synth-fuel blend. Up next week: the country's newest, best-performing jet, the F-22 Raptor.
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/08/fighter-jet-hit.html
|
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident."
Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860
"In the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet, breathe the same air, and we all cherish our children’s future."
John F. Kennedy |
|
Big Bunny
Admin
member is offline
Joined: Apr 2003
Gender: Male
Posts: 38,138
Location: Sydney, Australia
| | Re: DARPArama III
« Reply #57 on Aug 24, 2008, 11:31pm » | |
Somebody's Watching You
Posted by Bettina Chavanne at 8/20/2008 3:01 PM CDT
Imagine being followed down the street by a small unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV). When you move, it flies above you. When you stop, it perches like a bird on a wire and stares at you until you decide to make a move again. And then the UAV picks itself up and flies alongside you again.
Creepy. But also really, really cool.
AeroVironment (AV) just announced it has received $4.6 million in funding from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to develop a UAV with "hover/perch and stare” capabilities. It will be based on AV’s Wasp UAV, a one-pound, battery-powered air vehicle with a 29-inch wingspan.
![[image]](http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/1598/14209d1224c4484ca41be0fbs1.jpg)
Photo courtesy of AeroVironment
The goal of the so-called Stealthy, Persistent Perch and Stare (SP2S) UAV program is to develop the technology to enable an entirely new generation of perch-and-stare micro air vehicles capable of flying to difficult targets, landing and securing a “perch” position, conducting sustained, perch-and-stare surveillance missions and then re-launching from the perch and returning to home base. It will act, quite literally, like a bird. A bird who tracks and reports on the whereabouts and activities of “persons of interest.”
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/def....7-128646 92df43
|
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident."
Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860
"In the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet, breathe the same air, and we all cherish our children’s future."
John F. Kennedy |
|
Big Bunny
Admin
member is offline
Joined: Apr 2003
Gender: Male
Posts: 38,138
Location: Sydney, Australia
| | Re: DARPArama III
« Reply #58 on Aug 29, 2008, 7:51am » | |
Explosives Go 'Green' ... And Get More Precise
![[image]](http://www.sciencedaily.com/images/2008/08/080828135903-large.jpg)
Fluoride ionic liquid as a novel super-efficient solvent can lead to high-quality single crystals of technologically important materials. The molecules in red, white, blue and gray are the explosive, TATB. The green balls (fluoride anions) and the gray and blue sticks (cations), act as the solvent. The rocks in the background are TATB crystals. (Credit: Image courtesy of DOE/Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory)
ScienceDaily (Aug. 29, 2008) — Certain explosives may soon get a little greener and a little more precise. LLNL researchers added unique green solvents (ionic liquids) to an explosive called TATB (1,3,5-triamino-2,4,6-trinitrobenzene) and improved the crystal quality and chemical purity of the material.
This work, supported under the Transformational Materials Initiative (TMI) Laboratory Research and Development project, appears on the cover of the Sept. 1 issue of the journal Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics.
“Improving crystal quality and purity leads to explosive materials that are safer (less likely to react violently) when subjected to mechanical impact or heat,” said Larry Fried, the project’s principal investigator and a co-author of the paper.
Most explosives belong to a general class of materials called molecular crystals, which have become important building blocks in a number of other applications ranging from drugs, pigments, agrochemicals, dyes and optoelectronics. Many of these materials, including TATB, are bound together by a strong network of hydrogen-bonds. This extended network often makes these materials nearly insoluble in common organic solvents, leading to poor quality and limited size crystals, which in turn hinders progress in many technological applications.
So the TMI team looked for a suitable alternative, which happened to be ionic liquids – a special type of molten salt that becomes liquid under the boiling point of water (100 degrees Celsius). Chemists recently became interested in ionic liquids because they are solvents with almost no vapor pressure, and do not evaporate, even under high temperature conditions. They also provide researchers an endless number of choices due to the large combinations of positive and negative ions involved.
To narrow the choices down, lead author Amitesh Maiti used state-of-the-art quantum mechanical simulations to identify a special class of ionic liquids containing fluoride anions that are highly effective in dissolving hydrogen-bonded materials such as TATB. (An anion is an atom with a net negative charge, i.e., more electrons than protons.)
“The design of custom solvents through first principles modeling opens up new possibilities for the dissolution of materials that are hard to dissolve,” Maiti said.
The next step involved an experimental team, led by Phil Pagoria, who was successful not only in dissolving TATB in such solvents, but also in growing large defect-free crystallites (more than 97 percent pure TATB), which will lead to a better formulated material for explosive applications.
The solvents and the dissolution process developed by the TMI team have applications in other fields as well, such as the production of polymers (plastics) or molecular solids (pharmaceuticals, paints, propellants, explosives). For instance, the team found that fluoride ionic liquids are highly effective in dissolving cellulose (plant fiber), a versatile bio-renewable polymeric material with many applications.
However, the immediate goal is to find a cost-effective way to improve the quality of low purity TATB. TATB is an extremely safe explosive that is used by the Department of Energy, the Department of Defense and the mining industry.
Other Livermore researchers include: Alex Gash, Yong Han, Christine Orme and Richard Gee.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080828135903.htm
|
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident."
Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860
"In the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet, breathe the same air, and we all cherish our children’s future."
John F. Kennedy |
|
Big Bunny
Admin
member is offline
Joined: Apr 2003
Gender: Male
Posts: 38,138
Location: Sydney, Australia
| | Re: DARPArama III
« Reply #59 on Aug 29, 2008, 10:57am » | |
Controversial Nuke Research Quietly Returns...
By David Hambling August 25, 2008 | 1:20:53 PM
![[image]](http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/3351/hafniumgrenade1181948gm3.jpg)
Nuclear isomers are back. The controversial field of exploiting excited nuclei, to release atomic energy on demand, was brought low a years back, after some controversial experiments – and some loose talk of creating an "nuclear hand grenade." Now, the field is beginning to thrive once again, as I report in the Guardian. But mindful of earlier controversies, the researchers are keeping a low profile.
It's hard to overstate just how divisive the topic is. Critics have consistently poured scorn on Carl Collins' claims that he had successfully got a sample of the Hafnium 178m2 isomer to release an enormous amount of gamma radiation -- despite only putting a relative small bit of energy in. Skeptics say his work lacks a sound theoretical basis, and only groups associated with Collins have replicated his results, not indepedent researchers. As a result, research in this area has faced some very determined and organized opposition, which forced the cancellation of Darpa's original program. New Scientist rated the Hafnium Bomb as Darpa's #1 failure (ahead of psychic spying and the Orion nuclear-bomb-powered spacecraft). In fellow DANGER ROOM blogger Sharon's book, Imaginary Weapons, isomer research became the poster child for bad military science. [Many Pentagon bigwigs keep a copy of the book on their desks, as a reference for what to avoid when backing a new research program -- ed.]
The issue turns on metastable nuclear isomers. In the nucleus of a normal atom, the particles are in the lowest energy state. In a metastable isomer they have absorbed energy and are in an excited state. Normally (as with other nuclear decay), the atoms will release the energy randomly after a period of time; the question is whether, given the correct stimulation (from an x-ray, say), they can be prompted to release their energy on demand. The process is known as "triggering." Collins says he showed it could be done, and that his colleagues pulled it off, too. Critics demanded that the triggering experiments be replicated independently -- a bedrock principle of the scientific method. Collins never could. And, for a while, it appeared as if the American government might get out of the isomer-triggering game.
To this day, researchers working on isomers remain skittish about talking to the press; nobody wants to be the next bad science poster boy. However, it turns out that there are quite a few military isomer programs going on at present; the US Army, Navy and DTRA all have their own. There has been work at the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment here in Britain. Scientists at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory are continuing their long-standing work in this field; not long ago, they were among the loudest critics of Collins' claims.
Most researchers are careful to distance themselves from the earlier research. Specifically, they're either looking at different materials or different transitions. The idea now is very much geared towards eventually, someday using nuclear isomers as super-batteries -- rather than as bombs. This is new isomer triggering, and nothing like the old isomer triggering. The concern is that attitudes to their work will be tainted by the similarities.
“One should differentiate between an ‘isomer program’ and what might be called the ‘hafnium program’” warns James Carroll, a Pentagon-funded researcher at Youngstown State University.
“The former… has added significantly to the body of science, as documented by many peer-reviewed and published results that have achieved acceptance in the nuclear physics community. The ‘hafnium program’ was focused, to my knowledge, on proving a specific claimed effect that has even now not been successfully observed by any independent and skeptical group. It would be a shame to throw the baby out with the bath water by equating these two overlapping, yet distinct programs with quite different aims and outcomes.”
The Army research program, known as On-Demand High Energy Density Materials, seeks to develop a nuclear battery that can be turned on an off at will. That opens up the prospect of being able to store a hundred thousand times as much energy as conventional batteries in a "deployable micro-reactor," or as long-lasting power sources for remote sensors:
This paper discusses our selection of the isomer that seems most promising, estimates of the energy cost compared to the alternatives, and the radiation measurements made to date. This approach differs dramatically from suggestions for use of isomeric materials in explosives applications.
However, the Army team have also done some work on the economics involved. By their estimate, isomer power is going to be expensive and only suitable for low-energy applications. Electric cars with isomer power sources are not going to be filling the roads any time soon. They mights, however, increase the endurance of dragonfly-sized micro air vehicles from minutes to days.
Even Collins' critics at Lawrence Livermore are pushing ahead with their ongoing isomer research. Back in 2001, they announced "new results that strongly contradict recent reports claiming an accelerated emission of gamma rays from the nuclear isomer 31-yr Hafnium." By last year, they were declaring that they were ready to demonstrate isomer triggering in Thorium-229.
But this is not a road-to-Damascus conversion. Researchers at Livermore have been working on isomer triggering for years. They have never said that isomer triggering was impossible, just that they did not believe Collins' claims. One of the lead researchers is John Becker, who was part of the team that critiqued the 1999 results. Speaking of their own work, one scientist says:
“This would then be the first time human control would be exerted over nuclear levels,” said Peter Beiersdorfer, an LLNL physicist and co-author of a paper that appears in the April 6 issue of Physical Review Letters.
Looks like Lawrence Livermore is intent on claiming this world first for themselves. However, not everyone dismisses the earlier results or the possibility of an isomer bomb, as we will see in Part 2.
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/08/from-pseudoscie.html
PART 2:
...As Crucial Test Remains Under Wraps
By David Hambling August 25, 2008 | 1:19:00 PM
![[image]](http://img50.imageshack.us/img50/1348/dallasscientist2b522784nr7.jpg)
In 1999, Pentagon-funded researcher Carl Collins claimed that he was able to get a nuclear isomer of Hafnium 178m2 to release an enormous amount of gamma radiation -- despite only putting a relative small bit of energy in. The controversial experiments were met with ridicule from many in the scientific establishment. So Darpa, the Defense Department's premiere research arm, decided to carry out a test, to show once and for all whether the sort of triggering Collins described was possible.
The Triggering Isomer Proof (TRIP) test was carried out at Brookhaven National Laboratory. But, in spite of its high profile, the results were never published. Because of other failures to replicate Collins results, many assumed that the TRIP results were negative, and that was the end of it. However, Peter Zimmerman -- a former scientific advisor to the State Department, and staunch isomer skeptic -- noted in an article for the American Physical Society that there were those claiming the TRIP experiment had actually panned out. He quotes Ehsan Khan of the Department of Energy, who asserts that:
TRIP had been so successful that an Independent Evaluation Board had recommended further "exploratory research,” which he defined as “high risk/high payoff” with only the “most seasoned and outstanding individuals”... allowed to be engaged.
(Khan, a long-time enthusiast for the isomer triggering program, declined to comment on the TRIP report or further research in this area.)
Although the TRIP report has been released to a number of interested parties within the scientific community, it is still restricted. And it certainly has not undergone peer-reviewed publication, the gold standard for scientific papers, so it has no status as scientific proof.
Carl Collins remains bullish, stating on his website that the TRIP result statistics show a hundred billion times greater confidence than the previous negative results at Argonne used to attack his work.
Zimmerman remains skeptical about future prospects, and says that even if TRIP achieved positive results an isomer bomb would still not be feasible: on the results quoted, it still takes too much energy input to get triggering. My colleague Sharon Weinberger -- who literally wrote the book on nuclear isomer resarch -- is similarly dubious.
That doesn't mean the military -- or the scientific community -- has given up on isomers. The Army and others are convinced that isomer triggering can achieve better than break-even making it a possible means of energy storage. (Unfortunately, you have to put the energy into your isomer to start with. So this is only energy storage and not energy production, like nuclear fission and fusion).
And even in the unclassified world, not everyone has given up on isomer bombs - once the long-range goal of the now-defunct Darpa effort. A presentation last year by Ruth M. Doherty of the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Indian Head Division on developments in explosives concentrated on new high-nitrogen compounds and nanoparticulates. But on Page 23 she discusses "non-chemistry concepts" which can be thousands of times more powerful than chemical explosives. One possibility lies in "Low Energy Nuclear Reactions," and the Navy's surprising and controversial successes in "cold fusion" research. The second approach is to use nuclear isomers, though Doherty notes that control of triggering, availability of suitable isomer material and coupling of energy (i.e. how much damage you can do with gamma rays alone) are still issues. I asked whether Doherty was serious about an isomer warhead, and received this reply.
"Naval Surface Warfare Center Indian Head Division does not perform research on or related to nuclear isomers and therefore cannot comment on nuclear isomer developments."
This is because isomer research is carried out far in the Naval Research Laboratory – and they're not in the business of making warheads, just doing basic isomer research. (But equally, one has to wonder why the Defense Threat Reduction Agency are funding isomer triggering work, unless they see some weapons potential -- it's hard to see why they would be interested if atomic batteries are the only possible application.)
Without openly published scientific papers to support high-energy isomer triggering, an isomer bomb lacks solid credibility. There is no concrete evidence that it can work. But on the other hand, it may have been decided not to publish some work in this area secret for national security reasons. It would make sense to strictly restrict anything that would give outsiders a clue that an isomer bomb might work.
I am reminded of a famous comment by another Navy man, Admiral Leahy, who reportedly told President Harry S Truman:
"This is the biggest fool thing we have ever done. The (atom) bomb will never go off, and I speak as an expert in explosives."
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/08/isomer-bombs-re.html
Russia's Isomer Bomb, Funded by Your Taxes
By David Hambling August 27, 2008 | 2:05:00 AM
![[image]](http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/1843/curranposter45716256nz9.jpg)
The research that could, perhaps, lead to nuclear isomer bombs one day remains contentious in America; the weight of the physics establishment says the science is unproven, even unlikely. But what is the rest of the world doing? In particular, what about the Russians, who carried out some of the earliest work in this area?And what about the Chinese?
Shortly after first writing about the potential for an isomer bomb, I came across an article in the Russian paper Nezavisimaya Gazeta. This was on 12th August 2003; for the 50th anniversary of the first Soviet hydrogen bomb, they interviewed Viktor Mikhailov, scientific director of the Federal Nuclear Center. (The original is in Russian, translation thanks to Babelfish.)
Q: But what still are the possibilities in principle of using the nuclear effects?
A: We have the also very large field of work with the nuclear energy. Besides the isotopes of fissionable elements there are the so-called isomers. Isotopes differ from each other only in terms of number of neutrons in the nucleus. But isomers have the same number of electrons, and protons, and neutrons. The entire difference is in the fact that the isomer is in an excited state, but can convert to stable state. And this also releases nuclear energy. Any transition from one state to another occurs with the release of energy. The fission energy of nuclei exceeds chemical energy 10 million times. But who says that a weapon this powerful is necessary these days? But the transition of isomers gives off thousands of times more energy than chemical reactions.
Q: This is way to the creation of a new generation of nuclear weapons?
A: It is difficult to say, developments are still under way today. I simply want to emphasize that nuclear energy is not only fission energy or fusion, but can be, for example, the transition energy of separate nucleons.
So the Russians also have a theoretical interest, at least, in isomer weapons.
In America, the most controversial research has involved trying to "trigger" -- get energy out of -- a Hafnium isomer. In Russia, there has been plenty of controversy over Hafnium, as well. A 2005 paper on induced decay of the nuclear isomer 178m2Hf and the 'isomeric bomb' written by E. V. Tkalya, is deeply skeptical of the physics involved.
However, I came across a more recent scientific paper, which puts a different light on hafnium triggering. The work was carried out by a team of Russian and Chinese physicists in the area of "resonance conversion" as an efficient triggering technique and was published in the journal Chinese Physics Letters.
Much of the argument about triggering energy release from Hafnium is about the size of the target. Imagine the Hafnium atom is a bomb, which you are trying to detonate by firing bullets at it. One school of thought says the critical area you need to hit is tiny; controversial, Darpa-funded researcher Carl Collins and his colleagues say that (according to his disputed results) it’s a billion times bigger.
The Russian and Chinese paper attempts to bridge the gap between these two, explaining how a resonance effect might make the target area tens of thousands of times larger than you would otherwise expect. It doesn’t fully account for the difference, and it relies on some assumptions which have yet to be proven.
It would be potentially alarming if the Russians and Chinese cracked the secret of isomer triggering and plunged while the scientific community dismissed it as physically impossible. But the paper on resonance conversion had a surprising footnote:
Supported by the DTRA [the US Defense Threat Reduction Agency] under contract No DTRA 01-02-M-0534
DTRA is one of the U.S. military agencies pursuing isomer research. In these international times, it is not so easy telling who is on which side.
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/08/the-red-isomer.html
|
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident."
Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860
"In the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet, breathe the same air, and we all cherish our children’s future."
John F. Kennedy |
| |
|
![[Search This Thread]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/search2.gif)
![[Send Topic To Friend]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/sendtopic.gif)
![[Print]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif)
Logged