[Fallen Angel]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door patrickve

Lulkoek, he. Om die kernen in een meta-stabiele toestand te krijgen, moet je ze dus al bestralen met de juiste gamma-straling en ga je evenveel energie kunnen recupereren als gamma-straling dan je er al hebt ingestopt. Behalve in het geval van hypothetische gestimuleerde emissie (gamma-laser) gaat de decay time natuurlijk trager zijn dan de opbouw tijd (anders kan je je spul niet opbouwen!).

Dit zegt genoeg:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced...um_controversy

A proposal to test the efficacy for "triggering" 178m2Hf was approved by a NATO-Advanced Research Workshop(NATO-ARW) held in Predeal in 1995[1]. Although the proposal was to use incident protons to bombard the target, α-particles were available when the first experiment was scheduled. It was done by a French, Russian, Romanian and American team that was largely unsupported financially. Results were said to be extraordinary, but clearances from controlling agencies were not obtained. The results were not published. Only fragments of the data can be found at the present time (some at the above URL). The one-of-a-kind 178m2Hf target concentrated to 4% isomer content was also lost. Nevertheless, 178m2Hf was implied to be of special importance to potential applications of IGE. It was almost the optimal situation to excite a major controversy; and such a controversy quickly erupted.

..............................................

The negative perception of the "earmarking" of Congressional appropriations for "pet projects" is well-known. The reverse process of "inverse earmarking" is less well-known. It is used effectively to stop projects opposed by "pet interests". Forward progress toward the resolution of the scientific conflict within the US over IGE from 178m2Hf by normal scientific discourse was stopped in 2005 by such inverse earmarking