Talk:Hafnium controversy

Conflict resolution

Recent division of the article Ballotechnics produced a new page Induced gamma emission, abbreviated IGE. The remaining ballotechnics page continues to focus upon the concerns of mini-nuclear weapons and is of no concern here. The new IGE article reviews the first (and orderly) 60 years of research into an interdisciplinary field aiming to use various types of photons to accelerate the release of the internal energies stored in nuclear isomers. If this were law instead of physics, we could say that part of IGE was settled case law by 1999. Potential applications were esoteric and comfortably far in the future.

At the turn of the millenium the situation with IGE was inverted with the publication of an experiment reporting IGE from Hf-178m2 that worked much better than "expected". Controversy has raged for 6 years, producing mostly material that does not meet the high standards of Wikipedia. Despite the unsettled state of knowledge about this particular example of IGE, there is the recurring intent to be able to say something about this more consequential focus of IGE. With Hf-178m2, storage times are conveniently long and released energies may be very large.

In order to try to develop some sort of report about this aspect of induced gamma emission everyone is invited to "work it out" on this page, as recommended by WP:SP.

• The intent is to produce a subpage for Induced gamma emission that can be moved after consensus is reached here about the development of IGE after 1999.
• Everyone is invited to contribute, but normal rules of contribution and courtesy will apply. NPOV is the goal here.
• If you do something here, please explain it on the discussion page. If you do not explain it, it will probably be reverted.
• If you want to develop a subpage of the IGE article somewhere else, please do so, but first look at WP:SP.

Forget the idea of "subpages", its not appropriate for main namespace content. Rather than inviting people here, I suggest moving the content of this article to IGE controversy (or other suitable title Hafnium bomb? Hafnium controversy?). The normal rules of courtesy in WP means that most people will be reticent in editing user subpages; basically, you won't get much traffic or interest here. If you want to invite a few specific editors, then please invite them directly by notifying them on their talk page. Otherwise, I'll say it again: this looks good enough to be moved directly to the main namespace. linas 14:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Linas, thanks ! As always you are able to inject very helpful perspective. In fact it is said at WP:SP that the subpage feature is disabled in the English main namespace. However, Hafnium bomb is a redirect to Induced gamma emission. That would leave two good suggeations, but with "controversy" in the names. I believe that does not promote consensus or even discussed revision. We have seen that the flavor of controversy in the last 6 years of the development in a field of interest distorted the previous 60 years of settled accomplishment. It seems to me that we may have consensus about those first 60 years now that they are separated from the subsequest path of events. So far-so good with Induced gamma emission.

So it seems we are left with the agreement that the developing article needs to go somewhere, but it is not clear where. Maybe it would be more nearly clear after we get a better idea of the contents to which this draft will evolve. A look at Talk:Induced gamma emission does not suggest such overwhelming inhibition caused by feelings of politeness, but rather some strong tendencies to ignore the warning at the top to discuss matters before making draconian revisions. Perhaps, the way out of the dilemma is for everyone to start again with the Wikipedia principle of assume good intentions for this try hosted here. Please try it and see if it works - or try something else. A lot of work went into this first draft and with good will all around it can be much better.

--Drac2000 16:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I think I'd lean towards Linas' suggestion here. Although IGE appears to be a part of the claims for the Hf-178m2 "bomb" effort, the opposite is not true. That does seem to suggest that the controversial portions should be moved to an article on those claims, simply linking back to IGE. Now, as to the name, well I think "Halfnium bomb" may be ok, but perhaps that focuses too much on the "far out" portions of the claims? Dunno Maury 23:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

So we all seem to agree that the solution is a second article in the main namespace that covers "overflow" from the greater interest and significance that started in 1999 when IGE from Hafnium was reported. Definitely, "bomb" expresses extremism as opposed to science. All of the science can be reconciled and not imply a bomb. I think we want to focus upon the science. That was why I used what is at the top of this page for this first draft title, Induced gamma emission:_Hafnium-178m2. Not too bad, but there can be better. The main point I am asserting is the need for an incubator for development of a consensus page from here. I do not see any need for haste. People will either start interacting here or they will not. Someone else will either start the "bomb" aspect somewhere else or not. Or constructive boredom will set in and progress will be slow but collegial. No hurry, stress is low, things are fine. We could just see what happens during a bit of incubation. Why not? --Drac2000 23:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I really think that Halfnium controversy or something similar is the correct title. The non-controversial stuff can be placed in the IGE article, whereas the whole point of this article is to document that there *is* a controversy (and to document both sides of it) -- it would be wrong to pretend that there isn't, and it would be wrong to use some mundane title. The ideal title would be a phrase which is commonly used by the press when reporting on this; alternately a phrase by which the insiders know it as, or is used in hallway talk at conferences, or lectures, or used in the political landscape, etc.

As to conflict on WP, you should notice that it has evaporated. You will occasionally get the drive-by crank, vandal, etc. but as long as an article is well written and more or less accurate, there's usually no conflict. By contrast, take a look at EmDrive and Emdrive for the latest efforts to keep the cranks at bay. linas 05:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree completely, the timing seems right. As always, thanks for you insights and guidance.

--Drac2000 14:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Starting discussions

The first approximation is installed. --Drac2000 12:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Reference detail and figure being added. --Drac2000 15:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Clean up duplication of refs. --Drac2000 16:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Add description and links to synchrotron information. --Drac2000 16:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Add link to LLNL-TR-407631 and a quote from the summary. --ephartouni 03:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Conflict resolution, Again

The introduction of unsubstantiated rumor and assertions by jjk308 violates the principles of WP:AGF and WP:CON. Such drastic and polarizing edits require discussion WP:DR before such changes are made. The article is being reverted until there is discussion. Hey, come on, let's try to talk it out ! --Drac2000 13:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

...and Again

An editor may have improved the tone and balance by adding the phrase "It has been claimed...." under the subsection "Opinions." No discussion was given for the change but it seems fair enough. However, 2 minutes later the same colleague edited his own contribution to "Collins claims....", again without discussion. Since the original opinion was referenced; use of the identity of the writer of the opinion would be better included in the citation rather than the text. For now, I reverted it back to the 2 minutes earlier version. It communicates the message that it is an opinion which we all suspected because it was placed under the subsection "Opinions". --Drac2000 23:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Conflict resolution, Yet again

The introduction of unsubstantiated rumor and assertions in the edits of 28May 2009 violates the principles of WP:AGF and WP:CON. Such drastic and polarizing edits require discussion WP:DR before such changes are made. The article is being reverted until there is discussion. Hey, come on, let's try to talk it out ! -- Drac2000 13:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

And yet again.... Let the discussion requested begin. One good way to do this is not to edit other people's comments, but only to add new text that clarifies or corrects or disputes the offending statements.

For example, the edits that were reversed 29May2009 and re-established later the same day included very specific statements. One was the estimated price of the energy that must be stored in the hafnium isomer before it can potentially be used. There is no controversy about the need to store such energy in the hafnium. If you don't know that no substance with a 31-year half-life can survive the passage of time since its creation, in some cosmic event billions of years ago, you don't understand the concept of half-life and you have no business being in this business. The famous tantalum-180 isomer is still here because its half-life is much larger than these billions of years, and radio-dating isotopes such as carbon-13 and oxygen-18 are continuously created so they exist in very small quantities. But, the hafnium isomer must be charged up, like a battery.

In a comment on an otherwise unsupported statement about 'the energy cost of hafnium energy being enormous', the offending edit pointed out that a 2007 paper called 'the Economics of Hafnium Energy' estimated exactly this cost. Under very simplifying assumptions this came out around 1 $/J. There is no controversy about this number: it can be easily recalculated by anyone smart enough to know his or her cross sections, or, even simpler, anyone with access to a scientific library can look it up and see how the estimate is derived. More recently another, seemingly similar paper written by a very respected senior statesman in nuclear physics, Sarkis Karamian, was published that may also discuss the cost of isomeric energy. I didn't refer to this paper in the offending paragraph because I didn't have the exact reference, and I couldn't find it in a reasonable time.

In objecting against my edits, a reasonable person would have commented on what was wrong with the 1 $/J estimate for storing energy in the hafnium isomer. The fact that the edit was simply reversed, without any specific comment on the substance of this edit but only invective (like 'drastic and polarizing') makes you wonder: what's the problem here? is it the TRUTH? (with thanks to Saturday Night Live's Church Lady). Why not say, translated into acceptable language of course: this 1 $/J estimate is bogus because the cross section for making the isomer is not bla-bla, and the energy loss of a charged particle on free electrons is not given by Bethe's formulas but it's 100x lower as has been recently measured by John Doe in the Journal of Irreproducible Results but not published because, if true, it would be such an important development that the US Government want first dibs at it to see if it can be weaponized (or, it's nonsense, that's also possible).

So, I'd like to see the above remain as is, not deleted, and instead I'd like to see specific comments on its veracity, in the next section of Conflict Resolution, again and again and again..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.144.240 (talk) 22:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

First, I propose that it is good to recognize that neither you nor I make the rules for evolving Wiki articles into better and richer forms. There are established rules and a good one is to start with a review of the principles of WP:AGF . We are taught to assume good faith in other's efforts. So I do that. The next problem is the need to document assertions with references and not inject personal opinion, unless it is clearly identified as such. There is a 3 revert rule which if violated triggers an Editor who is overloaded with disputes that contributors such as you and me may prove unable to resolve by proceeding according to the rules. I hope we can spare the editors.

You have injected a number of issues into this topic for which concensus WP:CON was reached several years ago. OK, good matters can always be improved and I assume that is your intent.

Step at a time works best and it seems that a priority for you may be to establish the projected cost for the m2 isomer of Hafnium. There could be a problem because Wikipedia culture generally does not like to embed matters of cost because they are usually not fixed. But I am willing to try to help you achieve that goal of adding such a concern to this article, if you proceed according to the rules and customs. One useful rule is to sign your edits so a bot will not have to do the job later.

You use statements like "do the math yourself" and "there are articles". Fine, I cannot do the math and you did not reference the cost estimate that you envision. You need to do that.

Now, I am reverting your edits once more and ask that you try a statement on this page first that you feel would correctly capture what you want to express about Hf isomer cost using only referenced facts. Hopefully we can accommodate your interests step at a time. --Drac2000 (talk) 00:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Verifiability

Wilipedia policy, WP:BURDEN requires verifiability even in a section entitled "Opinions." The following was moved to this talk page from the article because it does not conform to that requirement.

• Unfortunately, the power needed to liberate a significant amount of the energy might be prohibitively high or might require impossibly close matching of spectral bandwidths between the trigger source and the absorption spectrum of the isomer so that most of the incident power would be absorbed by material's electrons, instead of by its nuclei.
• Unfortunately, materials that consist only of nuclei don't exist (except in very special circumstances, e.g., in an Electron Beam Ion Trap, an EBIT, and then only in very low concentrations comparable to a modest vacuum), so that the strong radiation pulse needed to trigger the nuclei would have heated the electrons and blown up the material long before a substantial fraction of the nuclei could have been affected if bandwidths are not closely matched.

--Drac2000 (talk) 15:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

66.92.144.240

Our colleague 66.92.144.240, who has no home page onto which to communicate concerns, has a sparse editing history of having made minor touches to Arumer_Zwarte_Hoop and Decapitation during a single day in October, 2008 before attacking this topic in March 2009 and so precisely fits the Disruptive Editing profile. Nevertheless, let’s try a little longer WP:AGF. It is possible that he is attempting to improve this article as opposed to the more evident conclusion that he is a partisan of only one side of the controversy or worse, a practitioner of WP:DE. Hopefully, his prior experience with such topics just did not prepare him for a technical matter. Finally, after so many attempted edits, he has produced what was needed, a verifiable reference. Perhaps, we can help him learn how to function in the Wiki culture. An improvement to his last edit has been attempted.

--Drac2000 (talk) 15:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

A Simple Introduction?

I understand that you guys are hashing out a tricky subject on this sub-page and plan to reintegrate it with the main page (maybe). But it's been a while.

Could someone who understands the controversy state what that controversy is in the introduction? The page needs such a statement. The current introduction lists a bunch of statements subordinate to a "could" statement. But there is no simple "The controversy is..." statements. I would, but I'm sketchy on the details. 208.127.93.29 (talk) 06:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You have already made a substantial contribution to the clarity of this article with your lucid addition to the introductory paragraph. However, I strongly advise against attempting to reintegrate this page with the more general and well-settled article Induced gamma emission at this time. It may seem that it's been a while, but passions have increased not lessened. The new tool for counting page visits shows this Controversy page to have been visited 3144 times in 2008 and an annualized rate of 4045 currently computed for 2009. There is roughly a third more interest this year as compared to last. The same growth of interest was recorded in the more general page Induced gamma emission, 11,677 in 2008 and an annualized 14,120 for 2009. Let's not burden those readers of the settled work with eruptions from the minority interested in the controversy.

As to the nature of the controversy, it is such a tangle of arrogance, combat for research support, fear of 4th generation nuclear weapons, and the politicization of science that there would be edit wars for years over just the statement of what was the controversy. The immediately preceding sections of discussion are recent examples.

If there were place for humor, I would quote a colleague who explained such not-so-infrequent controversies as caused by the world view of those reviewing research surprises as Not true...Not new...Not YOU. Perhaps that is sufficient explanation.

--Drac2000 (talk) 15:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

"As to the nature of the controversy, it is such a tangle of arrogance, combat for research support, fear of 4th generation nuclear weapons, and the politicization of science that there would be edit wars for years over just the statement of what was the controversy."

Well, OK, filtering out the obvious frustration in there, and if that's true ... as an outsider, let me suggest there's something seriously wrong with this page, then. Outsiders need guidance on this issue, too. We need a topic statement.

208.127.93.29 (talk) 20:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Please give it a try. You made a great improvement in the first paragraph already. What do you think might be a topical statement based upon what you see of this history of discussion? Sincerely, I would imagine it would be the best way to get the ball rolling. Subsequently, everyone can edit as they wish, hopefully with some discussion here.

--Drac2000 (talk) 13:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Naw, can't fool me! :) Besides, I really *don't* know how to state the controversy exactly. Something about the possibilities of a hafnium bomb, and whether research is faulty or being suppressed by the government. But there's a lot more nuance than that, and a lot depends on how you read the research and the reputation of the researchers. Which, thank you, but no. Anyhow, no hard feelings. In fact, let me do a little more copy editing. (You guys need a copy editor!)

208.127.93.29 (talk) 06:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Teamwork! The introduction is certainly better now. BTW, I do not find any evidence that the "Hafnium bomb" terminology was ever more than hype used to politicize some interesting basic research.

--Drac2000 (talk) 14:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, see? I don't really get it.

208.127.93.29 (talk) 18:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

How?

To induce gamma radiation from small amount of this synthetic hafnium isotope various articles state that 300keV synchrotron energy is needed. 300kev synchrotron is a huge facility. Even if it would be possible to construct such tiny Hf lasers to replace existing massive NIF lasers or, let's say, replace fission compression stage of D-T device in warhead, Hf would still have to recieve 300keV or more energy to emmit gamma. This can again come only from large synchrotron facility. At least if the goal is pure fusion.. and given that current published data is not altered by agencies :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.142.80.38 (talk) 23:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Article Quality

This article seems to have significant problems with WP:V and WP:NOR. I see a couple of regular editors here; I ask that you please try to verify some of the unsubstantiated claims being made. Thanks. FellGleaming (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC).

Or possibly now it suffers from WP:VAND. This article has benefitted from about 100 edits since 2006 and so it does not seem quite reasonable to introduce so many criticisms, particularly when it proved to be so easy to fix the putative concerns such as requesting a cn for such an innocuous sentence asserting only coherent gamma rays would be interesting. A quick use of Google on the term "gamma ray laser" produced the citation now appearing as Ref #1. Why not help find the references that would improve the article as opposed to just dusting in a bunch of cn's and or's? Well one of the strengths of Wikipedia is that everyone can edit (and everyone can critique) but the former works best. Trying to rely upon WP:AGF, please consider contributing instead of denigrating generally.

Drac2000 (talk) 23:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Accusing editors of vandalism is itself a violation of WP:AGF. Cite tags exist for a reason. The article clearly suffers from numerous problems of verifiability, original research, synthesis, speculation, and possible fringe sources...and the sheer fact that a small clique of editors has contributed numerous edits does not change that. The source you added doesn't seem to discuss hafnium isomers directly, and appears to be a violation of WP:Synth.

These are valid concerns. Please work to improve the article and address them, rather than accusing people of vandalism. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FellGleaming (talk • contribs) 23:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The real issue as I see it is that the article hasn't established any "controversy" at all. Without some clear documentation that an actual, verifiable controversy exists within the scientific community, this article should probably be deleted, and any relevant information wrapped into the articles on hafnium or induced gamma emission.FellGleaming (talk) 15:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:AGF vs WP:DE. Let's stipulate at least that "These are valid concerns" as you asserted less than 24 hrs ago. Surely an article can always be improved, but it takes work as well as an overly broad critique. This article has been up 4 years and either represents consensus or disinterest. You seem quite interested, so let's try successive improvements. I am responding to the first two tagged points and removing the excess of banners and further tags. Instead of reverting the effort, please try to retain focus on the first two improvements and try to improve them further.

--Drac2000 (talk) 17:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Continuing the conversation from my talk page, do you really believe the article is wholly unsalvageable? If so, we can both nominate it for deletion. If you think it can be fixed up, I am, of course, more than willing to work towards that, but quite obviously the OR and conspiracy-slant has to go, and the article intro should be rewritten to clarify this is a widely-disputed belief. From what I can find, the only group to ever claim Hafnium triggering is Collins and his team, and I've found several other references describing it as "unscientific", or even inconsistent with basic theory. FellGleaming (talk) 14:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and I must concede that this "effort," has not been much more challenging than previous searches for consensus. I am a reasonable person so let's try, if you will kindly consider that you may not yet be sufficiently informed. As implied by working on the talk page first, work might consist of your having to consider what seem to be some deeply held beliefs not being fully substantiated. Would you like to consider that there might have been quite a few independent confirmations of Hf-isomer triggering worldwide and even theoretical bases? Please take a look at: http://www.doinasblog.com/ and remember that "Sarov" was Arzamis-16 before changing the name and consider my understanding that the article was translated at Sandia National Labs. If you are interested in investing the time I think you would find it interesting. I also wonder if you would think that such confirmation would serve any purpose. There are two issues 1) societal, 2) the many individuals worldwide that deserve better than personal denigration for "stumbling" into such significant positive results when negatives might have been better. I do not know the answer, but I wonder if it could be best solved by an analogy with ball lightening. Rare, difficult to verify, but not all reports can be dismissed. What do you think?

--Drac2000 (talk) 15:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Some important points. First, we must adhere to WP policy. We're not here to advance our own views about how the subject may benefit society, nor are we allowed to read sources, then put our own conclusions about them into the article. That is synthesis (forgive me if I sound overly pedantic). If individuals are being "denigrated" by the scientific community, we need to report that, whether or not we believe it's fair.

Secondly, the blog you gave has some issues with reliability. I can ignore that for now (though if you have the original, I'd like to see it: I can read Russian). But the English translation doesn't seem to verify Hafnium triggering; it speaks of it only in the hypothetical. Which, if I'm correct, it seems we have a rather clear burden to notify the reader that triggering has only been reported by a single group. Thanks. FellGleaming (talk) 16:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

This is going to be truly challenging because of what I would hope you would not find offense if I tag it as fast on the trigger, even while contradicting yourself. Not far above in this thread you asserted that there were problems with the positive reports (of which you have seen only a few), because they were quote: "even inconsistent with basic theory." As a benchmark for the working together, I supply you with a reference that I am certain you had not found; and you miss the point saying only that "it does not verify Hafnium triggering." Of course not but it does vitiate your introduction of the idea that positive experiments would be inconsistent with basic theory. It is not inconsistent, because there is the basic theory. As perhaps you are aware, Ulam developed 2nd gen nukes at Arzamis-16 and even though later now, it would seem normal still to credit them with some abilities in basic theory.

I was glad to learn that you can read Russian, because I cannot. Also I have another deficiency. I find it more in the spirit of working toward consensus if I am not having to do all of the work while you critique everything on ever changing bases. How about you find the original of the Arzamis article, read it in the Russian and let me know whether it does or does not provide a possible theoretical basis for Hf-isomer triggering if such a thing could be found to happen?

--Drac2000 (talk) 21:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Quote "you asserted...because they were quote: "even inconsistent with basic theory.". No, I asserted nothing. The source asserted as much. And I'm afraid you may still be missing the point. While I am personally very interested in this initial paper, my own opinion as to whether or not it provides a sound theoretical basis is meaningless. I can't put my own opinion into the article.

I've added a new intro section to the article, and deleted a little of the more questionable 'conspiracy-theory' slanted material from the article. Would you take a look please, and provide feedback? Thanks. FellGleaming (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it is much improved. However, you cherry-pick what you choose to nominate as "sources" but seem blind to the possibility that other sources might be even more credible. At least you are doing some work and the article is getting better as a result. Now, I am going to add my knowledge of sources and trust that you will remember we are supposedly aiming at WP:CON.

--Drac2000 (talk) 21:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you please keep the tone civil here? I dropped my complaint under the assumption you had reached common ground with us. Remember, two other editors in addition to myself agreed the majority of this article was pseudo-scientific conspiracy-slanted, and should be cut down drastically or even eliminated. Adding material if its in the same tone is not going to help things. Possibly I'm jumping the gun in assuming as much, but you keep repeatedly suggesting things like "I need to open my mind" and perform original-research on sources. We have to adhere to policy on this article if we want to keep it, period. FellGleaming (talk) 21:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, jumping the gun as usual. I hope you work on your communication skills because the intro was indeed much improved after your rewrite and I think it is improved even further now. In this form it is more accurate and much more professional.

Cheers --Drac2000 (talk) 22:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

There are several problems with this article: - The introduction states that the reaction is typically 10000 less energetic than a nuclear reaction. On a per nucleus basis this is wrong. A fission reaction would release 200 MeV typically, and a fusion reaction up to 18 MeV typically, so 2.5 MeV is of the same order of magnitude than a fusion reaction...

in the history section, the available report of the Jasons in 1997 does not say anyhting like "that such a thing would be impossible and should not even be tried." It says something Like "What we have been presented is "ill-defined" and does not show that it can be done even in an order of magnitude approach" in a few lines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcphys (talk • contribs) 02:03, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Result Verification

Drac, the statement that "no other group has scaled their results to compelling levels" seems both WP:VAGUE and WP:WEASEL. Have their results been verified or not? Without a WP:RS that confirms this, we need to keep it very clear in the intro that this is unconfirmed by the scientific community at large. FellGleaming (talk) 23:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Fell, it might seem that way to you, but it is the precise (and civil) statement of the issue. There is an authorative document about the situation, but you will not like it. I will recover it and mount it someplace, but it takes time. Meanwhile be thinking that proof is not a matter of voting. If a scientific measurement is "false" for whatever reason repetitions and critiques must always be negative. That is part of the problem of proving a negative. There exists a very harsh criticism of most of the positive results to date because they are perceived as displaying inadequate S/N. However, the same authors in the same document concede there is one published report that cannot be faulted because it is statistically significant. One statistically significant positive report makes for validation. It does not prove practicality or efficiency, but it should have finished with the so-called controversy. Please try patience.

--Drac2000 (talk) 23:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

If this is a source you have to "recover and mount", its not going to pass WP:RS. As for your other remarks, WP goes by firm policies. If you don't have a reliable source stating proof exists, then it does not. Period. Please remove the statement that suggests otherwise....if you later find a source that appears to pass muster, we can look at it. FellGleaming (talk) 00:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Your haste in prejudging all my efforts belies your increasingly shaky claim of WP:NPOV What possible thing can you find inappropriate in citing an LLNL Report? The responsible part of the scientific community has conducted what I think is one of the most extensive "witchhunts," (for want of a better term) with reviews of the reviews and they conclude that there is one statistically significant demonstration of Hafnium-isomer triggering. It turns out to be in a PhD thesis that was incidentally passed by the academic protocols of the University of Texas and then endorsed in an extensive study reported by LLNL. OK, you do some work and get a copy since you disallow my "recovering" one to make it easy for all of us to get on the same page. You can get a copy of LLNL reports and you will find the statement exactly as quoted.

Surely it is time for closure. I think we have reached WP:CON and if you cannot accept that fact, do what you want, but with no claim from you to WP:NPOV.

--Drac2000 (talk) 00:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Remaining Controversy?

After a great amount of effort following WP:AGF (good-faith negotiations) a consensus version was uploaded on April 1. As seen above, talk continued into April 2 suggesting that parties were content with the contents.

The Introduction finished with an accurate statement that distilled the facts of the history of the controversy and avoided the useless passions and perceptions that should have faded away over the past decade, summarizing Signal-to-noise ratios were small in those first experiments and to date no other group has scaled their results to compelling levels. One year before the first experiments some researchers had called the possibility "unscientific" and inconsistent with the laws of nuclear physics.[3] --Version of 19:24, 1 April 2010.

Though edited with the explanation See Talk there is no such talk here and a next version reverted the last of the introduction to spotlight the passions and politics of the past; opining that Signal-to-noise ratios were small in those first experiments and to date no other group has been able to verify the results, and among other researchers, the possibility has been met with "curiosity, doubt, and a great deal of ridicule".[3]. --Version of 19:06, 3 April 2010.

As worded that statement is completely false. However, having arrived so nearly to consensus, I am trying a different approach. I find no merit in the emotionally loaded terms that were common a decade ago. --Drac2000 (talk) 14:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Drac, the statement you claim is false is a direct quote from the source. You have once again reverted my changes and again reintroduced the unsourced, weasel-worded phrase that suggests that other researchers have duplicated these results. This is not only false, but against the spirit of the agreement you made a few days ago. I ask that you do the right thing and restore the text you reverted, else I will be forced to reinstitute my original complaint. FellGleaming (talk) 15:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Why is it so urgent to FellGleaming to insert such polarizing statements as ridiculous to which you assign high credibility just because it was found in a newspaper over 6 years old? One can find many intemperate terms used unwisely by people signing their own names in the most recent newspapers and to quote those as sources is hiding issues behind polemics. This might be a denigration of international collaboration because you forget that the whole idea of Triggering Hafnium isomers was evaluated at a NATO Advanced Research Workshop in 1995 populated by esteemed researchers from many nations. So, ridiculous is not only inappropriate, but denigrates international collaboration. Are international scientists to be dismissed and insulted because you like a time-worn US newspaper source better? There used to be a WP do-no-harm and it is a good precept.

The article is much improved and why not consider practicing WP:AGF in a civil fashion and at least give the current form some time to cool. --Drac2000 (talk) 16:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Drac, the "current form" is essentially back to where we began -- an article that misleads the reader as to the nature of the controversy, and intentionally hides the lack of belief the scientific community has in hafnium triggering. If you can find a source of "international scientists" who believe in it other than Collins' group, then post it. Until then, its unsupported conjecture and must go. I have been unable to find a single source to verify Collin's claims, and have found a multitude of others calling it unscientific, "ridiculous", and against the laws of nuclear physics. I ask you a final time, to replace the edits you have reverted until you have verifiable sources to the contrary. FellGleaming (talk) 16:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

FellGleaming, it was the text of Version of 19:24, 1 April 2010 upon which we had converged. You continued discussions on the talk page after that and expressed no upset with that consensus version. Then on April 3 you reverted it and added very harsh terms including ridiculous with the falsely - given explanation See talk when there was no explanation from you anywhere. It was just an ambush. Now you plead to the effect that "higher good" compelled you to make those efforts inconsistent with the Wikipedia rules in order to smear those positive results and the responsible scientists with whom you have developed such an animus.

Would you do the right thing and agree to go back to the consensus Version of 19:24, 1 April 2010? Cheers, --Drac2000 (talk) 17:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Your synoposis of our actions is incorrect. I see no version on 19:24 Apr 1. If you're referring to this version:

* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Induced_gamma_emission:_Hafnium_controversy&oldid=353424048

Then yes, I'm happy with that intro, or indeed ANY intro that doesn't intentionally mislead the reader into believing the Collins results are accepted in the wider scientific community, unless you can come up with a verifiable source to support that. FellGleaming (talk) 19:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

FellGleaming, it is inconsistent with your demonstrated mastery of the Wikipedia policies for complaint and manipulation to imagine that you were actually unaware that what you offered as the consensus version was one step prior to the consensus. The one that you have inserted is the Version 17:45, 1 April 2010 not the Version of 19:24, 1 April 2010. The real consensus version is quite easy to find, as you know. If you want to go back to that one, I agree, but let's try to remain accurate.

Though I never understood why Prof. Collins became the whipping boy for the controversy and so attracted so much invective, let me inform you of additional facts with sources. Your animus is as misplaced as it is indefensible. The review of the proposal to extend the successful results reported for the triggering of the isomer ^180mTa was conducted at a NATO Advanced Research Workshop held at Predeal in 1995 that aimed at economizing on costs of basic research by cross-pollinating promising international work upon which collaboration had been previously precluded by politics. There was peer review and the source with which you seem so obsessed is cited in Ref. 4 of the article as presently configured. The lead author was Yu. Ts. Oganessian, then Director General of the Flerov Laboratory of the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research (JINR) at Dubna, a most senior, prestigious and responsible individual. It is incorrect for you to continue to smear/ praise Collins as the founder of the research, but more accurate to use the term, The NATO-Predeal Proposal, NP for investigating the Hf-178 isomer. Yuri was the senior scientist in the Orsay (France) proof-of-principle experiment proposed in Ref. 4 which produced 50X the expected yield and sustained enthusiasm to the gamma ray laser quest. Shall we want to revise to begin smearing Director-General Oganessian or do you have a special hidden animus for Collins? Perhaps you are intensely against international collaborations. Why not dump on Carroll who was another American in the original NP-Proposal?

In summary your dodging and weaving is unwise. If you agree with reversion to the real consensus Version of 19:24, 1 April 2010 then I agree and the problem is solved. If not let's get on with concern about why the insertion of ridicule is so compelling for you.

--Drac2000 (talk) 22:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Jargon

I found this to be a interesting "niche" article, but it needs to be rewritten in layman's language with less technical emphasis. Since this is wikipedia, and not a field journal, this rewrite is very warranted. I also would encourage the main editors of this article to work toward a good consensus on format.--Novus Orator 07:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Well identified as a "niche" article, it has benefitted from 5 years of editing and suffered from an incredible level of digressions into ad hominem attacks. One needs only to reflect upon the "cycle" of April this year documented above to suspect that the present form is about as good as can be achieved at this time.

-- Drac2000 (talk) 17:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

My reasoning for removing the "globalization" banner is that it was inappropriate because the history of much of the research shows it to have been the result of broad international collaborations. The "ranking" evaluation of work to date is found in Ref. 19. As reported in the article the triggering of that Hafnium isomer by soft X-rays has been demonstrated, but also concluded to be "useless" because of the extremely high cost of the material involved.

-- Drac2000 (talk) 17:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, the banner was not ideal, I just put it there to draw editors' attention to some of the issues with the article...--Novus Orator 04:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Still seems to be too many banners. This was a very international project with results from many countries. There were NATO and non-NATO countries doing research and publishing results. So the USA banner appears too restrictive. You have a point since so much of the work was supported by military agencies, that banner is probably appropriate. However, the project had a main focus on short wavelength lasers and while explosives were considered, since that did not work out, here again it is misleading. See if you could agree with that. Otherwise it might look like overpromotion of the situation to whip up more funding without a real need.

--Drac2000 (talk) 21:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the 'jargon' tag at the end of the first paragraph under 'Background' - I don't think it's necessary. I don't have any formal training in physics but have no comprehension problems. The half of the sentence preceding the semicolon indicates qualitatively that the samples are safe to handle; the half of the sentence after the semicolon indicates the quantitative degree to which they are safe to handle. Seems apparent enough. 64.114.134.52 (talk) 20:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I second this. (I'd remove the tag myself but reading this talk page makes me nervous to touch anything, lol) BrandyLova (talk) 12:28, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hafnium controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070607000414/http://www.bipm.org/en/si/si_brochure/chapter3/prefixes.html to http://www.bipm.org/en/si/si_brochure/chapter3/prefixes.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hafnium controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051015054033/http://tls.il.proquest.com/umi/dissertations/disexpress.shtml to http://tls.il.proquest.com/umi/dissertations/disexpress.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:42, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Specific activity vs half life

There are are contradictory statements about the specific activity in the article: "1 microgram of 178m2Hf has an activity of 1.5 megabecquerels" (i.e. 1.5 TBq per gram)) and "a gram's natural radioactivity is 1.6 TBq". Both of these contradict the half life of 31 y ,which implies the specific activity is 2.40 TBq/g

(Maths: λ = ln(2)/half-life = 7.085E-10 Bq per atom. This is 7.085E-10 x 6.02214076E23 = 4.267E14 Bq per mole. 1 mole of 178M2Hf is 177.943 g so 1 g would have an activity of 4.267E14 / 177.943 = 2.40 TBq)

1.5 or 1.6 TBq per gram imply a half life of 50 or 46 years, not 31. As the 31 y half-life is well attesetd, and there are no references for the 1.5 and 1.6 TBq/g activities, I will correct the figures to 2.40 TBq/g.

Ewen (talk) 11:43, 26 May 2020 (UTC)