Directed muon beam weapons

  • Directed muon beam weapons.


    The prospects of developing a muon beam weapon do disable enemy missiles is now certain. Muons can be formed into a tight beam and projected for many kilometers through the atmosphere with little attenuation. The muon beam will disrupt the electronics in missile guidance and control by catalyzing a zoo of other subatomic particles which are disruptive to electronic equipment,


    http://www.im2np.fr/news/artic…012_Muons_Proceedings.pdf


    Effects of Low Energy Muons on Electronics: Physical Insights and Geant4 Simulation


    The mechanism of negative muon capture and its effects on the occurrence of SEU in a 65nm SRAM circuit has been evaluated. Our simulation results show that negative muons with energies around 0.4 MeV can be stopped and captured in the vicinity of the sensitive drain region, then inducing upsets via nucleus evaporation which emits charged fragments (mainly silicon transmutation products: Al, Mg, Na ions, protons and alpha particles).




    3D distribution inside the SRAM circuit of the vertex positions

    related to the negative muon capture reactions for three different values of the

    incident muon kinetic energy: 0.1 MeV (white dots), 0.3 MeV (yellow dots)

    and 0.5 MeV (green dots).



    A very low energy damped muon beam can disable a missile in the lunch phase causing a lunch fissile. Now that muons have been produced in large quantiles, their control concentration and projection is easily accomplished via known particle beam control technologies. An array of LENR muon sources like the QuarkX could be configured to produces 10e25 muons per second. Such large volumes of muons can easily counter any atmospheric attenuation that might be encountered between the particle beam weapon and the missile.


    Muons cannot be shielded. In fact shielding results in enhanced production of neutrons, protons, alphas, and neutral particle fragments.


    Muon based weapons may already be in active use in counter missile interdiction tasks. The major world powers are on the brink of being able to easily project pure energy at their foes. Instantaneous, mostly untraceable weapons that could be fired from kilometers away will change international politics. Once that happens, the future will truly be here. Will the major world powers allow the active components of such a potent defensive weapon to be made available in the commercial market place when such a weapon will make nuclear tipped intercontinental missiles obsolete?

  • http://m.slashdot.org/story/325135 Here's a story from the LHC, purporting a new particle discovery regarding a strange quark that can decay into an up quark. Muons are involved .I'm no particle physicist but its an unexpected result. Be interesting regarding whether Mills might have predicted it with his special sauce hydrino model.


    You don't need to be an expert. you only need to think with logic.


    Mesons and muons are not something that are produced by nuclear activity; they are only produced by sub atomic particle reactions. Up until LENR, only a particle accelerator was able to produce B mesons and kaons which contain strange matter. But with LENR, Holmlid can produce kaons and B-mesons with a weak laser irradiation onto an oil industry catalyst.


    At the LHC, breaking protons apart using collisions are producing B-mesons and kaion. The process that Holmlid uses produces the same causation. Holmlid is breaking protons and neutrons apart to convert ordinary quarks into strange matter.


    A nuclear based processes like the hydrino is too coarse a mechanism to break protons apart because hydrinos work at the nuclear level, not the sub atomic particle level. Mills has never claimed that he is breaking protons apart, but in order to get B-mesons and kaons. protons must be destroyed.


    Mills might be producing kaons but not as he understands the hydrino theory to function. LENR is the mechanism that generate sub atomic particle reactions.

  • ive been reading a fair bit and revisiting some Feynman lectures to get my head round QED again. Mills interests me as his claims are quite astounding regarding how they counter qm with classical physics and hark to maxwells work. Holmid sounds interesting I just get utterly confused by the sheer range of particles and effects that are discovered. I understand the annihilation principles but get to thinking about gamma rays, positrons and the theorised highs field and my mind just melts. I take solace in Feynman's words. If you think you understand qm then you're flat wrong. What's your perspective on mills work? I don't have the maths chops to figure out if the mans fantasising or not and just plugging in numbers to sound clever. Been watching lent with interest since 1989s big reveal which was as I understand basically voted not a theory. Then we've got mills who the mainstream consider a crackpot cos of young, michio kaku et all calling him a conartist. Then I read your stuff regarding mesons or is it muons which could be a dangerous product if the work of Rossi et all. Then there's Rossi. Who' appears to be an utter cunt whether he is onto something or not! Thanks for the response and I'd love pointing in the direction of some papers or work that can educate a layman like myself as to just a basic framework if what is known ,hypothesised and proven regarding particle quantum physics so I can answer my own question of is this mills guy full of shit or not!

  • ive been reading a fair bit and revisiting some Feynman lectures to get my head round QED again. Mills interests me as his claims are quite astounding regarding how they counter qm with classical physics and hark to maxwells work. Holmid sounds interesting I just get utterly confused by the sheer range of particles and effects that are discovered. I understand the annihilation principles but get to thinking about gamma rays, positrons and the theorised highs field and my mind just melts. I take solace in Feynman's words. If you think you understand qm then you're flat wrong. What's your perspective on mills work? I don't have the maths chops to figure out if the mans fantasising or not and just plugging in numbers to sound clever. Been watching lent with interest since 1989s big reveal which was as I understand basically voted not a theory. Then we've got mills who the mainstream consider a crackpot cos of young, michio kaku et all calling him a conartist. Then I read your stuff regarding mesons or is it muons which could be a dangerous product if the work of Rossi et all. Then there's Rossi. Who' appears to be an utter cunt whether he is onto something or not! Thanks for the response and I'd love pointing in the direction of some papers or work that can educate a layman like myself as to just a basic framework if what is known ,hypothesised and proven regarding particle quantum physics so I can answer my own question of is this mills guy full of shit or not!


    Anybody which includes Mills and Rossi that embraces the nuclear origin of their reaction especially if that reaction produces ionizing radiation will not field a commercially viable product. Sooner of later, such an ionizing product will be regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Agency (NRA}.


    Rossi has not come to the realization about the regulation of his product. Mills depends of the chemical explanation to avoid regulation, but it is just a matter of time before the true nature of the LENR/hydrino reaction is realized.