Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #689319 > unrolled thread
| Started by | numbernumber1964@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-06-07 10:13 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-06-14 13:04 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 184 — 13 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-07 10:13 -0700
Particle physics 2 john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-06-07 10:17 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-08 15:02 -0500
Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-07 17:39 +0000
Re: Particle physics 2 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-08 14:58 -0500
Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-08 20:43 +0000
Re: Particle physics 2 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-08 19:13 -0400
Re: Particle physics 2 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-08 18:48 -0500
Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-07 12:25 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-07 20:38 +0000
Re: Particle physics 2 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-06-07 22:44 +0200
Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-07 12:26 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-07 12:27 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-06-07 23:06 +0200
Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-07 21:47 +0000
Re: Particle physics 2 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-06-08 04:16 +0200
Re: Particle physics 2 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-06-07 22:38 +0200
Re: Particle physics 2 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-08 15:07 -0500
Re: Particle physics 2 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-08 09:57 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-08 17:48 +0000
Re: Particle physics 2 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-08 10:05 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-08 17:48 +0000
Re: Particle physics 2 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-08 14:53 -0500
Re: Particle physics 2 Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-08 12:54 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-08 18:57 -0400
Re: Particle physics 2 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-08 12:26 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-08 20:43 +0000
Re: Particle physics 2 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-08 12:27 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-08 20:43 +0000
Re: Particle physics 2 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-08 19:10 -0400
Re: Particle physics 2 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-09 19:03 -0500
Re: Particle physics 2 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-09 22:50 -0400
Re: Particle physics 2 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-10 21:11 -0500
Re: Particle physics 2 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-11 11:58 -0400
Re: Particle physics 2 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 08:09 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-12 18:05 -0400
Re: Particle physics 2 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 06:48 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 09:30 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 16:43 +0000
Re: Particle physics 2 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 09:31 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 09:36 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 16:46 +0000
Re: Particle physics 2 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-11 14:07 -0500
Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 19:27 +0000
Re: Particle physics 2 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 09:39 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 16:56 +0000
Re: Particle physics 2 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-11 14:06 -0500
Re: Particle physics 2 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-11 17:24 -0400
Re: Particle physics 2 poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 22:46 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 05:31 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-12 09:09 -0500
Re: Particle physics 2 john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 08:31 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-12 17:34 -0400
Re: Particle physics 2 poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-06-12 17:00 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-12 17:15 -0400
Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 22:06 +0000
Re: Particle physics 2 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 09:43 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 12:27 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 19:53 +0000
Re: Particle physics 2 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 12:32 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 19:59 +0000
Re: Particle physics 2 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-11 17:29 -0400
Re: Particle physics 2 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 08:20 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 12:48 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 20:45 +0000
Re: Particle physics 2 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-11 17:34 -0400
Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 12:52 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 08:25 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 12:53 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 08:42 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-12 18:12 -0400
Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 00:50 +0000
Re: Particle physics 2 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-12 22:29 -0400
Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 12:21 +0000
Re: Particle physics 2 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-13 11:36 -0400
Re: Particle physics 2 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-13 13:03 -0500
Re: Particle physics 2 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-13 14:38 -0400
Re: Particle physics 2 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 06:50 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 14:33 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 22:30 +0000
Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 14:36 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 22:31 +0000
Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 14:39 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 14:52 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 15:05 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 15:07 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 15:55 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-06-12 00:02 +0000
Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 12:27 +0000
Re: Particle physics 2 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-12 09:10 -0500
Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 14:36 +0000
Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 17:21 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-06-12 01:28 +0000
Re: Particle physics 2 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 09:02 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 17:51 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 12:27 +0000
Re: Particle physics 2 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-12 09:16 -0500
Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 14:36 +0000
Re: Particle physics 2 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-12 09:54 -0500
Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 17:55 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-06-12 01:33 +0000
Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 18:12 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 18:24 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 18:35 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-06-12 01:49 +0000
Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 18:36 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-06-12 01:54 +0000
Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-12 09:33 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 10:08 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-12 09:41 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 17:53 +0000
Re: Particle physics 2 moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-06-12 17:55 +0000
Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-12 10:04 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 10:18 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-06-12 17:57 +0000
Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 18:01 +0000
Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-12 10:06 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-06-12 17:59 +0000
Re: Particle physics 2 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 06:20 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-12 10:17 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-12 10:21 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-06-12 18:05 +0000
Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 18:35 +0000
Re: Particle physics 2 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-12 10:24 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-12 13:59 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 22:06 +0000
Re: Particle physics 2 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 06:22 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-13 15:48 -0500
Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-12 14:02 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-12 14:04 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-12 14:09 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 22:06 +0000
Re: Particle physics 2 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 06:37 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-12 14:13 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 22:06 +0000
Re: Particle physics 2 Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-13 01:26 -0400
Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 08:04 -0500
Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-12 15:39 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 00:50 +0000
Re: Particle physics 2 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-12 22:33 -0400
Re: Particle physics 2 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-12 15:45 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 00:50 +0000
Re: Particle physics 2 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-13 15:46 -0500
Re: Particle physics 2 Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-13 01:31 -0400
Re: Particle physics 2 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-12 15:50 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 00:50 +0000
Re: Particle physics 2 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-12 22:36 -0400
Re: Particle physics 2 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 07:28 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-13 11:13 -0400
Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-12 18:14 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-06-12 22:15 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-13 01:34 -0400
Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 08:05 -0500
Re: Particle physics 2 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 07:25 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-13 11:14 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-14 07:53 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 earle Jones <earle.jones@comcast.net> - 2018-06-14 11:38 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-13 11:17 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-13 11:20 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 18:40 +0000
Re: Particle physics 2 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-13 15:50 -0500
Re: Particle physics 2 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-13 11:24 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-13 14:43 -0400
Re: Particle physics 2 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-13 15:52 -0500
Re: Particle physics 2 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-13 11:25 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-14 07:57 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-13 12:31 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 20:30 +0000
Re: Particle physics 2 Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-13 16:42 -0400
Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-13 13:55 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-14 08:06 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-14 12:42 -0400
Re: Particle physics 2 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-14 11:52 -0500
Re: Particle physics 2 Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-14 13:04 -0400
Re: Particle physics 2 Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-06-14 13:08 -0400
Re: Particle physics 2 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-14 12:40 -0500
Re: Particle physics 2 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-14 16:01 -0400
Re: Particle physics 2 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-15 05:39 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-13 13:58 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-13 14:01 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-13 20:41 -0400
Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-14 11:15 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 furthermore7990662@gmail.com - 2018-06-14 11:57 -0700
Re: Particle physics 2 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-14 13:04 -0700
Page 5 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 10 Next page →
| From | numbernumber1964@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-11 14:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <38584da9-a869-4ff0-a02d-7117432c1a0c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #689319 |
Muons can penetrate 8 feet of steel,. no problem, and the deposit of energy in the steel is barely 2 MeV/(gm/cm^2), nowhere near enough to burn a hole.. ____________________________________________________________________ A muon is 500 times more massive than an electron that electron beam of a 2000 W arc welder can cut and weld steel. So wouldn't a muon beam produce a hole in steel?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-11 22:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pfmt74$17g$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #690099 |
<numbernumber1964@gmail.com> wrote: > Muons can penetrate 8 feet of steel,. no problem, and the deposit of energy > in the steel is barely 2 MeV/(gm/cm^2), nowhere near enough to burn a hole.. > > ____________________________________________________________________ > > > A muon is 500 times more massive than an electron that electron beam of a > 2000 W arc welder can cut and weld steel. So wouldn't a muon beam produce a hole in steel? > No. Just the opposite. Electrons deposit energy faster than muons. Don’t you think you should look up stuff like this rather than just guess? -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | numbernumber1964@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-11 14:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5104a434-789d-4a41-bc7f-aafc08ce1fd8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #689319 |
In these "pyramid building". projects it is always politically expedient to waste the maximum amount. of public funds. That is a given. ___________________________________________________________________ Please don't say that because you are going to make me cry. My eyes drip with tears. My walls, the walls that hold me up, make me strong just... collapse. Moment by moment, they fall. Salty drops fall from my chin, drenching my shirt. Perhaps these tears will help wash the blood out. I press my head against the wall... baby blue, so innocent... I am anything but innocent. I'm trembling. I can't-can't stop. Even as I press my hand against the wall it shakes, it trembles. It's raw, everything, raw tears, raw emotions. I can't stop... I can't stop. Why can I not stop crying?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | numbernumber1964@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-11 14:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4f13cc47-9676-4a0f-bc41-497279bfe97a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #689319 |
When running at the current energy record of 6.5 TeV per proton,[39] once or twice a day, as the protons are accelerated from 450 GeV to 6.5 TeV, the field of the superconducting dipole magnets will be increased from 0.54 to 7.7 teslas (T). GeV-------1 x 10^6 TeV--------1 x 10^9 ___________________________________________
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | numbernumber1964@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-11 15:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fc63faa3-0b11-43b7-bc6f-4ef122573e19@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #689319 |
.When running at the current energy record of 6.5 TeV per proton,[39] once .or twice a day, as the protons are accelerated from 450 GeV to 6.5 TeV, the .field of the superconducting dipole magnets will be increased from 0.54 to 7.7 teslas (T). .GeV-------1 x 10^6 --------------4.5 x 10^8 .TeV--------1 x 10^9 ---------------------6.5 x 10^9 ___________________________________________
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | numbernumber1964@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-11 15:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e735c8e2-9935-47c1-8d52-f71138ed164c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #689319 |
.The purpose of the 27 km ring is to bring the protons back around to same .RF cavity 100,000 times. This is better than making a linear accelerator .with 100,000 times the number of RF cavities. _________________________________________________________________ This does not explain how a muon that is 500 time more massive than an electron can propagate through the steel container of the bubble chamber.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | furthermore7990662@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-11 15:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <143dbe40-d8a7-4060-a20f-dbb345c4f0f5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #689319 |
No.. Just the opposite. Electrons deposit energy faster than muons. Don’t you think you should look up stuff like this rather than just guess?. _____________________________________________________________ A Muon has a mass 500 times larger than an electron which result in an increased kinetic energy which would result in the muons producing holes in the steel enclosure of the bubble chamber. Do you know what the kinetic energy is?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-12 00:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pfn2ii$2hq$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #690125 |
furthermore7990662@gmail.com writes: >No.. Just the opposite. Electrons deposit energy faster than muons. Don't >you think you should look up stuff like this rather than just guess?. >_____________________________________________________________ >A Muon has a mass 500 times larger than an electron 207 times. >which result in an increased kinetic energy which would result in the >muons producing holes in the steel enclosure of the bubble chamber. Do >you know what the kinetic energy is? The kinetic energy depends on how it was formed. Someone (forget who, sorry) explained to me that the muon is more penetrating precisely because it is heavier. The muon is deflected less by charges it passes, therefore it produces less bremsstrahlung radiation than the electron does, (remember, accelerating charges radiate, and deflection is an acceleration!) so the electron gives up its energy more quickly for a given energy. The muon is very small (theoretically zero diameter) so there is no reason for it to "blast holes" other than an actual interaction.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-12 12:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pfoe6u$dtn$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #690125 |
<furthermore7990662@gmail.com> wrote: > No.. Just the opposite. Electrons deposit energy faster than muons. Don’t > you think you should look up stuff like this rather than just guess?. > > _____________________________________________________________ > > > A Muon has a mass 500 times larger than an electron which result in an > increased kinetic energy which would result in the muons producing holes > in the steel enclosure of the bubble chamber. Do you know what the kinetic energy is? > Doesn’t matter. Muons deposit very little of their kinetic energy relative to electrons. There’s good reasons for that. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-12 09:10 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pfok8o$pak$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #690188 |
On 6/12/2018 7:27 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > <furthermore7990662@gmail.com> wrote: >> No.. Just the opposite. Electrons deposit energy faster than muons. Don’t >> you think you should look up stuff like this rather than just guess?. >> >> _____________________________________________________________ >> >> >> A Muon has a mass 500 times larger than an electron which result in an >> increased kinetic energy which would result in the muons producing holes >> in the steel enclosure of the bubble chamber. Do you know what the kinetic energy is? >> > > Doesn’t matter. Muons deposit very little of their kinetic energy relative > to electrons. There’s good reasons for that. > which is...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-12 14:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pfolq7$skj$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #690200 |
Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: > On 6/12/2018 7:27 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> <furthermore7990662@gmail.com> wrote: >>> No.. Just the opposite. Electrons deposit energy faster than muons. Don’t >>> you think you should look up stuff like this rather than just guess?. >>> >>> _____________________________________________________________ >>> >>> >>> A Muon has a mass 500 times larger than an electron which result in an >>> increased kinetic energy which would result in the muons producing holes >>> in the steel enclosure of the bubble chamber. Do you know what the kinetic energy is? >>> >> >> Doesn’t matter. Muons deposit very little of their kinetic energy relative >> to electrons. There’s good reasons for that. >> > > which is... > First of all charged particles don’t deposit their energy all at once, so a charged particle gradually loses energy as it passes through matter. Secondly, there are different processes that contribute. One notable factor is the so-called relativistic rise in the energy loss, which is proportional to gamma. At the same energy, gamma is over 200 times larger for electrons than for muons. This is actually exploited in particle detectors, separating muons from electrons by ranging the electrons out, the survivors being muons. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | numbernumber1964@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-11 17:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b71d048b-2868-4f82-b8be-9e28190a3a26@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #689319 |
The muon is very small (theoretically zero diameter) so there is no reason for it to "blast holes" other than an actual interaction. _________________________________________________________________________ A muon is 200 time more massive than an electron where the electrons of a 2000 W arc welder can cut and weld steel.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-12 01:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pfn7j6$g4n$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #690140 |
numbernumber1964@gmail.com writes: >The muon is very small (theoretically zero diameter) so there is no >reason for it to "blast holes" other than an actual interaction. >_________________________________________________________________________ >A muon is 200 time more massive than an electron where the electrons of >a 2000 W arc welder can cut and weld steel. And how many electrons per second does your arc welder produce? (What its its amperage? Remember, each electron has a charge of 1.602 × 10-19 coulombs) Also the hole blasting power is a function of the energy (as heat) all those electrons give up. And a bubble chamber would use maybe a couple dozen particles at a time, through a solid "window" that allows easier passage? The electrons are much more likely to give up their energy than muons, being lighter. Anyone who invents a muon 'arc welder' probably won't get rich doing so.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-12 09:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6cc4c3d2-f1f2-4785-89be-134fd587d3f6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #690140 |
On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 8:22:02 PM UTC-4, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote: > The muon is very small (theoretically zero diameter) so there is no > reason for it to "blast holes" other than an actual interaction. > > _________________________________________________________________________ > > > A muon is 200 time more massive than an electron where > the electrons of a 2000 W arc welder can cut and weld steel. You are giving yourself the answer. Colliders produce muons and other particles in fairly small numbers, lets be generous and say 1,000 muons. Compare that to an 80 ampere arc welder. Each ampere is a current of about 6*10^18 electrons. So 207 electron masses per muon gives 2*10^5 electron mass total versus the arc welder generates 80 amps or about 5*10^20 electron mass total. Even is only 1 in a million particles strike, then ONE muon strike in the collider's detectors, but 10^14 electrons strike in the metal being welded. PS that ignores the significant electric field carried by the electrons. HTH, Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | numbernumber1964@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-11 17:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bf7a6184-398b-45bf-aa35-da941fbd25de@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #689319 |
To produce the magnetic field to contain the proton beam requires an constant magnetic field but the Cern super magnets do not look like it could produce a constant perpendicular magnetic fields.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-12 12:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pfoe6v$dtn$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #690143 |
<numbernumber1964@gmail.com> wrote: > To produce the magnetic field to contain the proton beam requires an > constant magnetic field but the Cern super magnets do not look like it > could produce a constant perpendicular magnetic fields. > “Does not look like”? What do you think magnets that can produce a precise magnetic field should look like? Why are you making things up? -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-12 09:16 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pfokkb$qf8$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #690189 |
On 6/12/2018 7:27 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > <numbernumber1964@gmail.com> wrote: >> To produce the magnetic field to contain the proton beam requires an >> constant magnetic field but the Cern super magnets do not look like it >> could produce a constant perpendicular magnetic fields. >> > > “Does not look like”? What do you think magnets that can produce a precise > magnetic field should look like? Why are you making things up? > the magnets are huge and very complicated, and hard to adjust, and cost millions. https://phys.org/news/2015-11-racetrack-dipole-magnet-tesla-field.html https://home.cern/about/accelerators/super-proton-synchrotron https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDCGX3thpa0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3rEGlyZwAc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViT6bSmMY6A
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-12 14:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pfolq8$skj$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #690201 |
Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: > On 6/12/2018 7:27 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> <numbernumber1964@gmail.com> wrote: >>> To produce the magnetic field to contain the proton beam requires an >>> constant magnetic field but the Cern super magnets do not look like it >>> could produce a constant perpendicular magnetic fields. >>> >> >> “Does not look like”? What do you think magnets that can produce a precise >> magnetic field should look like? Why are you making things up? >> > > the magnets are huge and very complicated, and hard to adjust, and cost > millions. Yes, so? They are also very precise. Are you thinking that the cheaper and simpler something is, the more precise it is? > > > https://phys.org/news/2015-11-racetrack-dipole-magnet-tesla-field.html > > https://home.cern/about/accelerators/super-proton-synchrotron > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDCGX3thpa0 > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3rEGlyZwAc > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViT6bSmMY6A > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-12 09:54 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pfomru$upc$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #690206 |
On 6/12/2018 9:36 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>> On 6/12/2018 7:27 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> <numbernumber1964@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> To produce the magnetic field to contain the proton beam requires an
>>>> constant magnetic field but the Cern super magnets do not look like it
>>>> could produce a constant perpendicular magnetic fields.
>>>>
>>>
>>> “Does not look like”? What do you think magnets that can produce a precise
>>> magnetic field should look like? Why are you making things up?
>>>
>>
>> the magnets are huge and very complicated, and hard to adjust, and cost
>> millions.
>
> Yes, so? They are also very precise.
>
> Are you thinking that the cheaper and simpler something is, the more
> precise it is?
>
that is your conjecture, not mine.
I am stating fact.
what was cause of the LHC failure?
hint: look under Quench incident in
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider
under Upgrade find;
"Due to the slow progress with "training" the superconducting magnets,
it was decided to start the second run with a lower energy of 6.5 TeV
per beam, corresponding to a current of 11,000 amperes. The first of the
main LHC magnets were reported to have been successfully trained by 9
December 2014, while training the other magnet sectors was finished in
March 2015."
>>
>>
>> https://phys.org/news/2015-11-racetrack-dipole-magnet-tesla-field.html
>>
>> https://home.cern/about/accelerators/super-proton-synchrotron
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDCGX3thpa0
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3rEGlyZwAc
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViT6bSmMY6A
>>
>
>
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | numbernumber1964@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-11 17:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1460e8b6-10d9-43ce-be77-0fe610603cc3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #689319 |
What's going to prevent the proton from being sucking into the sides of the RF cavity? Since the RF cavity is not contained in super mags. I wonder if they forgot?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web