Directed muon beam weapons

Quote from axil

see

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0906/0906.4268.pdf

axil: This one you posted a year ago: I had (at that time ..) a short communication with Shafeev about his follow-up Transmutation paper, where he made the same wrong claims, because he did not measure the spectrum very accurately. The problem is that the most important gamma line (352keV) of Pb214 is just missing, what invalidates the findings.

You should ask him whether he now has a more accurate measurement! The only value of this paper is: Something interesting is going on -- but we don't know what!

Quote

axil is one of the main reasons I view and post here, the fella is very smart

His strategy is to collect, copy and paste everything, which resembles his point at least remotely. Of course, many people may still get impressed with it, because they cannot realize, that he actually has no clue..

I do recommend Google searches from time to time for snippets of text from passages in some of these more esoteric discussions. Some people (without mentioning names) will copy several paragraphs, sometimes making minor modifications, without giving a source.

Those who follow them must already realize, that he already managed to integrate whole the existing physics into his speculations about cold fusion (tachyons, monopoles, entropic gravity, Rydberg matter, dense hydrogen, hydrino, muons, water crystals, entanglement, strange matter, axions, muons, superconductivity, surface plasmons, and recently proton decay and symmetry violation). You just shouldn't expect some coherence in these speculations. He himself tends to abandon his former speculations on behalf of new ones, which makes him diligent and persistent preconcentrator of links.

This post is typical for Axil: in few sentences he mixes together proton decay, Riemann hypothesis (most of his post, because he accidentaly read about it few days before at PhysOrg - so that he is still full of it), CP and CPT symmetry breaking (without bothering about their distinguishing), whispering gallery waves, surface plasmon polariton and axions (very briefly, because these topics are already out of his hype focus before year).

At the end of his post we can read: As we go through this string of dots, you will get a feel for why LENR theory will not be fully understood for another century.

The question is, if it is exactly, what we actually need for urgent utilization of cold fusion. I proposed straighforward coherent model, which has direct practical applications - whereas Axil promotes clueless occupation driven approach of mainstream science based on neverending research without practical applications (the analogy with room temperature superconductivity comes on mind here). If you want to delay cold fusion for another century, this is exactly the attitude where to go.

No problem - mainstream science is already full of popularizers, who gained credit and popularity for explanation of things, which they have no clue. And I even would have no problem with it, once you're enjoying it and your readers enjoy it too. But sometimes we aren't doing things just for our enjoyment - but for actual results. The prioritization of problems is what I'm missing in overcrowded science of contemporary era. We could see pretty well during nuclear weapon research during WWW II - no bullshit, but streamlined research concentrated to target and optimized for success. It seems, the civilization needs another world war for to focus to actual progress again.

If nothing else, try to distinguish the verified facts from your speculations in your posts.

Zephir,

I thought your post above this was rather considerate. This was before I started reading at the top of this page. You might consider posting more like the above and being sincere and less like a personal attack. It never hurts to be helpful and creative, it's more constructive. Just give it some thought.

Actually there is a dichotomy in priorities of research: the complex emergent phenomena like the cold fusion really have many implications for physics (monopoles, entanglement, symmetry breaking etc) which AxilAxil is implying and which will be researched for years. But these implications aren't dominant for cold fusion mechanism and they appear rather like artifacts in particular situations, following the core mechanism which is classical amplification of momentum within multiparticle lattices. Their full understanding may take way longer time than this one, which would require sufficient cold fusion reactor.

The constructors of nuclear bomb didn't know about many subtleties of nuclear physics (mesons, Yukawa interactions, quarks etc) - yet they're were able to finish their research successfully in very short time (less than six years after nuclear fission finding). No doubt that the successful construction of nuclear weapons opened the way for wide research of nuclear physics in colliders. Personally I'd have at least one practical utilization of cold fusion at market first, because the geopolitical situation is worsening fast under dire prognosis of fossil fuel supplies. The existing oil reserves remain just at the places controlled with totalitarian regimes. The spreading of cold fusion would keep these regimes down, because it would keep the oil price down - if nothing else, than just from psychological reasons.

I just don't want to repeat the scenario of WWII, which also started just after finding of principally new mechanism of energy production - nuclear fission - but without any practical applications.

Quote

It never hurts to be helpful and creative, it's more constructive

Never say never. Such an attitude can be misleading and occasionally diverging and occasionally it may be good to balance it. What I can see is, the people ignore the well proven and logically clear principles, which Piantelli, Lipinski, Storm etc. already proved relevant and we are wasting time with speculations about their wider context. OK, let the people research it later - but finish and demonstrate at least some device first. What I mean the device, which apparently and quite indisputably produces more input energy than output like the light bulb glowing without wires and place it at some public place monitored with YouTube video, so that every mainstream physicist can see, that such a things are just possible.

Zephir,

I don't know what to say- I like the new Z. Keep it up. It takes dedication to make a point without talking down to someone, it's called making sense. Please do not take this the wrong way. It always takes more work to be persuasive but its worth it.

Quote

It always takes more work to be persuasive but its worth it

Every strategy has its strong and weak aspects. The mainstream physics community isn't lazy, it just explores unknown territory in wide front like the culture of bacteria - because it has nowhere to hurry and this is attitude, which provides most of occupation. The optimized strategy doesn't bother with details and wider implications, but it follows leading principle which optimizes the effort and time exerted like the fractal roots of plants. We don't need more work, but more smart and effective work. Work smarter, not harder - without it we could research cold fusion without any practical input for another fifty years without problem. We don't have so much of time, because the people will start to fight for remaining fossil fuel reserves well before they will get finally depleted.

Regarding the muon beams, their less known military implication is, they're able to initiate nuclear fusion at distance, thus making the nuclear weapons explode at their source instead of target and to disable them in the worst way possible. If it would be proven experimentally, it could lead into nuclear disarmament. But this subject is orthogonal to cold fusion subject. Personally I consider muons an artifact of Holmlid experiments, which are presenting hot nuclear reactions, not cold fusion. You don't want to produce any energetic particles during cold fusion - it's actually one of its greatest advantages.

The nanoparticles of dust also consist of lattice - or not? In addition, these lattices are usually monocrystalline, which would eliminate scattering.

But the dust plasma utilize also accelerator trick: their particles can be charged and because they're relatively massive, they can achieve quite significant kinetic energy with compare to atoms within latices. Their fusion therefore may not be fully "cold". In this study it manifest itself with relatively high X-ray production.

Quote from Zephir_AWT

Actually there is a dichotomy in priorities of research: the complex emergent phenomena like the cold fusion really have many implications for physics (monopoles, entanglement, symmetry breaking etc) which AxilAxil is implying and which will be researched for years. But these implications aren't dominant for cold fusion mechanism and they appear rather like artifacts in particular situations, following the core mechanism which is classical amplification of momentum within multiparticle lattices. Their full understanding may take way longer time than this one, which would require sufficient cold fusion reactor.

Quote from Zephir_AWT

The nanoparticles of dust also consist of lattice - or not? In addition, these lattices are usually monocrystalline, which would eliminate scattering.

But the dust plasma utilize also accelerator trick: their particles can be charged and because they're relatively massive, they can achieve quite significant kinetic energy with compare to atoms within latices. Their fusion therefore may not be fully "cold".

Zephir_AWT : Did you spend some weeks with Mills GUT-CP? Then you will notice that sentences like symmetry braking are just an outcome of clueless math, beause of a century long usage of the wrong metric...

Regarding plasmas there are obviously two levels of structure: The nanoparticles and the plasma resonances. Astonishingly the resonances basially form the same (sub) structure as the particles! But the plasma is much more dynamic and able to absorb high energies. In a solid grid you get Q-factors of 600 and cumulated some eV. In a plsama it's 10-100 times more.

I didn't study Mills GUT-CP closely, but symmetry "braking" connection to LENR isn't complete BS, the magnetic monopoles and scalar waves (anapoles, anyons) are also closely related CP symmetry violation. During cold fusion the long line of atom nuclei collide and the energy will travel in form of charge wave along their connection line. If this connection line breaks and decay faster than the wave is spreading, some scalar wave breaking symmetry will be radiated into outside and it can be detected like anomalous curved or spiral-like track with photographic emulsion.

From this reason I do consider it rare optional artifact rather than necessary condition for LENR with limited applications in both theory, both experiments. Some activation impulses of cold fusion are close to ways, in which scalar waves get utilized in overunity devices: i.e. like the fractal trains of impulses. Such an impulses are also speculated to apply in cold fusion systems. For example it may be interesting to attempt for cold fusion with impulse from bifilar or caduceus coil wound around reactor instead of normal one. Many alleged cold fusion systems are possibly more close to overunity systems based on nuclear resonance or scalar wave

amplification effects, as predicted with Nicola Tesla and others. But currently it has no meaning to deeply speculate about it - we have way more ideas than actual experiments which could confirm or disprove it.

Axil and Zephir you are thought leaders in the LENR sphere PERIOD. I have tried to say that before but to no avail. But how someone says something 'means all the world.'

After reading you both I find you both have strong opinions and beliefs. I have questioned you both before and you have been kind enough to respond. I would request you both quit talking around things and be thoughtful before judgement of the other person. Let the past go, work together on LENR for all of us. I get that you both try to talk past me or each other (especially when I address you directly by name) but do you both not understand that both sides are critical to an argument. Tell me that I am not mumbling here, I am not sure I am clear enough. Work together build off each others ideas.

Anyway i am sure you will get this reference somewhat.

If not just ask me to clarify, I will be glad to.