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.

  • Molecules behaving like photons. Nyer nyer.really bends the head

    Double slit experiment results are no longer mysterious or head-bending once you realize that the interference pattern is created not by the photons or electrons or molecules or whatever is channeled through the double slit. Rather, since the baryonic matter in the wall/barrier where the slits are is itself radiating or emitting charge, the gaps (slits) in the wall create an interference pattern in the radiating charge field, which then then affects the larger particles. That's why even one molecule emitted at a time creates an interference patter. It's not interfering with its other potential selves in some kind of mysterious or mystical way! It is simply guided or funneled along by the maxima and minima of the charge field interference pattern created by the double slits. To quote from http://milesmathis.com/double.html:


    "In every analysis of this problem and this experiment to date, the analysts have over-simplified the problem. They have assumed, without even putting the assumption into words, that the experiment is taking place in a sort of void or vacuum. The only things they look at are the slits and the photons. But the slits and the photons are not the only important players in this field. Even if you ran this experiment in a vacuum, with the walls and the photons as the only objects in the vacuum chamber, you would still not have a void, since the walls are still material objects. As such, they must be emitting an E/M field. The wall, even in a vacuum, is radiating a field all the time. It is this field that the photon must move through.


    "I have proved in several previous papers that the charge field, if defined mechanically, must have mass equivalence. If it has mass equivalence, it must have materiality. In other words, the field that mediates the charge between proton and electron must be made up of discrete particles itself. What is now called the messenger photon cannot be a virtual particle with no mass or energy. It must be a real particle and create a real field. In my most recent paper on this subject I have already given this messenger photon a new name (the B-photon) and a definite radius (G times the hydrogen radius), so I feel very qualified to use this particle to explain the two slit experiment. I have not dreamed up this field as a virtual field, a summed-over field, or an ad hoc field; I have shown the physical and mathematical necessity of it, and its place in Newton’s gravitational equation.


    "This being so, we must now recognize that our central wall in the two slit experiment must be radiating this field (I am talking about the wall ... which contains the two slits). Our single photon must be moving through this field emitted by the central wall. This changes everything in regard to the experiment. The first thing to notice is that we have interference patterns set up by the slits even before the single photon is emitted. If we know that every atom in the wall is emitting this field, as a simple bombarding field, the two slits will create an interference pattern in the field without a single particle moving through the field. The interference patterns are already there! ...


    "The only problem is that we cannot “see” this field. It does not create any lines in the far wall, since B-photons are not the same size or energy as the single photon we put through the device. Our far wall is chosen because it is made of a material that reacts when the single photons (or electrons, or whatever particles we are using) hit it. But it does not react to the foundational E/M field. It does not react to B-photon radiation. This field therefore remains invisible to us. We don’t “see” the interference patterns until a large enough particle moves through the field. The motion of this particle through the field and its reaction to the far wall give us our only data. The experiment is not set up to give us any data about the B-photon field, except indirectly.


    "It is true that the B-photon field does not create exactly the same patterns as the series of single photons. If we want to be very rigorous, we can actually draw the field set up by the B-photons and the two slits, and find the interference nodes of that foundational field. Then we let the single photons go through field, and we see how they must be funneled through that field, by direct contact with the B-photons. This funneling creates a second, dependent field. Both fields will have a definite pattern, completely determined by the primary emission, but the secondary pattern will not be equivalent to the primary pattern, for what I think are obvious reasons.


    "This simple mechanical explanation not only solves the single photon problem, it also shows why different particles are affected in different ways by the same field. It is quite easy to see that an electron will be funneled by this B-photon field in a different manner than a photon, due only to the size difference. If the photon is like a baseball moving through a field of golfballs, the electron will be like a bowling ball moving through a field of golfballs. Put simply, the electron will be funneled much less efficiently. It will resist the field more successfully, and the field will be upset by its presence to a greater degree. All this will now be visualizable, predictable, and mechanically transparent, due only to the discovery of the pre-existing interference pattern and the real field that creates it."

  • that clears that up then. Feynman was very good at confusing himself it seems... Mathis is without doubt a genius. If they taught this stuff in courses then physics would advance its own field exponentially overnight. To suppose the wall and slits don't feature in the field equations is the madness. QED is still useful and partially accurate too and actually makes more logical sense with this thinking.as to why this isn't taught? I'm stumped.

    Perhaps physicists really are enamoured with the idea that their subject is more esoteric than reality.

    God ...evidently... doesn't play dice.

  • Mathis is without doubt a genius. If they taught this stuff in courses then physics would advance its own field exponentially overnight. To suppose the wall and slits don't feature in the field equations is the madness. QED is still useful and partially accurate too and actually makes more logical sense with this thinking.as to why this isn't taught? I'm stumped.

    Yes I agree. One reason it isn't taught is because mainstream, establishment science has turned into something resembling a religious cult. In the BLP update thread, Alan linked to Hotson's paper on the Dirac equation. Hotson relates how he was advised not to pursue a degree in science because he asked too many inconvenient, yet logical and straightforward questions such as "what does it mean for a particle to have intrinsic spin?" [Edit: here are some e-mails a mainstream physicist sent Mathis that reveal a similar experience.] We are now coming up on a century of scientific authorities browbeating anyone who disagrees with QM and the Copenhagen Interpretation and shouting down all dissenters who are dismissed as cranks. "Shut up and calculate!" Livelihoods and reputations depend on it. Mathis has suffered the same fate as LENR pioneers.


    You will likely find some interest in my paper speculating on how Mathis's theories can help us understand LENR (and in fact all "over-unity" power generating devices): https://goo.gl/5kgB0G


    Edit: And yes, you are right, physicists (and laypeople) are enamored with the esoteric. We are indoctrinated into it early on, told that the quantum world is mysterious and complex. People who go into physics nowadays accept that, they embrace it. They feel themselves somehow select members of a privileged priesthood who are able to understand the unfathomable. Occam's razor has been turned on its head, and now the more complex and mystical your explanation, the more likely it is to be seen as true. Straightforward, elegant solutions are viewed with scorn. Physics since the early 20th century has been a move towards idealism with ever more esoteric theories. It is a hard habit to break, a difficult addiction to give up. And it means admitting that the castle you thought you lorded over turned out to be nothing but a house of cards.

  • ill second that, axil is one of the main reasons I view and post here, the fella is very smart , is not afraid to share his ideas and perspectives and has eventually led me to discovering Mathis for which I'm very grateful. His threads refer to quite accurate and interesting science and I'm learning stuff here because of individuals like him. In contrast go and view the clusterfuck that is the Rossi vs Darren thread...250 pages of goop.

  • not afraid to share his ideas is the key to why I consider both to be intelligent contributors to physics debate. As to who is right and who is wrong? Feynman was a very smart man indeed for instance I've always considered him a fudger nonetheless. Mathis take on things is really genius but I'm not qualified in the slightest to tell you who is right or who is wrong. The value for me is in the debate here. For discoveries from the LHC and purported theories in high energy physics? He seems to have a good level of knowledge and shares it freely.

    The one consistent thing about physics from all perspectives is the abundance of giant egos.

  • I could not learn anything, but, that axil's only actions are always the same: Copy-pasting of entire articles into this forum and additionally posting the link to them and his own, completely unproven speculations, why and how is something involved in the LENR process, over and over again, filled with nothing then wishfull thinking and spamming the etire forum.