Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #689319 > unrolled thread

Particle physics 2

Started bynumbernumber1964@gmail.com
First post2018-06-07 10:13 -0700
Last post2018-06-14 13:04 -0700
Articles 20 on this page of 184 — 13 participants

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  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 6 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 10  Next page →

#690152

Frommoroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
Date2018-06-12 01:33 +0000
Message-ID<pfn7sp$g4n$2@pcls7.std.com>
In reply to#690144
numbernumber1964@gmail.com writes:

>What's going to prevent the proton from being sucking into the sides of 
>the RF cavity?

High school physics.  F = Bqv.  If you know the charge and velocity and
magnetic field strength you know the force. From the force and the mass
you know how the protons would deflect. So just design the RF cavity so
that the protons don't fly into it.

>Since the RF cavity is not contained in super mags. I wonder if they forgot?

Forgot what? Every inch of that beamline has been engineered to death.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#690147

Fromnumbernumber1964@gmail.com
Date2018-06-11 18:12 -0700
Message-ID<27be3b99-08e6-4cb1-9d75-a5c7b0fd8e9b@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#689319
quadrupole magnets------------Ha Ha Ha.--------what a fucking joke.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#690149

Fromnumbernumber1964@gmail.com
Date2018-06-11 18:24 -0700
Message-ID<66c8ed46-a4dd-4ef0-a189-e52c781a0014@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#689319
QUad sup mag would cause the proton to drift to the sides.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#690153

Fromnumbernumber1964@gmail.com
Date2018-06-11 18:35 -0700
Message-ID<96adfbeb-7cbc-491e-a9ba-3e7f0237ceb6@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#689319
.High school physics.  F = Bqv.  If you know the charge and velocity and 
magnetic field strength you know the force.. From the force and the mass 
you know how the protons would deflect.. So just design the RF cavity so 
that the protons don't fly into it.. 


_________________________________________________________


There are no magnets in the RF cavity.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#690157

Frommoroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
Date2018-06-12 01:49 +0000
Message-ID<pfn8qc$taa$1@pcls7.std.com>
In reply to#690153
numbernumber1964@gmail.com writes:


>.High school physics.  F = Bqv.  If you know the charge and velocity and 
>magnetic field strength you know the force.. From the force and the mass 
>you know how the protons would deflect.. So just design the RF cavity so 
>that the protons don't fly into it.. 


>_________________________________________________________


>There are no magnets in the RF cavity.

OK, so where there _are_ magnets, you use them to manipulate the beam so
that you do not aim the beam at the side of the RF cavity.

Is that too hard to figure out?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#690154

Fromnumbernumber1964@gmail.com
Date2018-06-11 18:36 -0700
Message-ID<675afd90-f38e-4548-8033-f5c3fcc6322c@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#689319
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. 

_________________________________________________


How do the muons get through the steel enclosure?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#690159

Frommoroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
Date2018-06-12 01:54 +0000
Message-ID<pfn95g$taa$2@pcls7.std.com>
In reply to#690154
numbernumber1964@gmail.com writes:


>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. 

>_________________________________________________


>How do the muons get through the steel enclosure?

As already mentioned, muons are much more penetrating than electrons so
they would just laugh at a steel enclosure. Regardless, you make a solid
"window" of low-interacting material (beryllium?) to let particles in with
less interaction than steel if you need to.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#690227

Fromnumbernumber1964@gmail.com
Date2018-06-12 09:33 -0700
Message-ID<e40d654c-cdce-4931-9e5c-4eef6350cf6f@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#689319
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..

_________________________________________________________________


So do the electrons produce the holes that the muon squeeze  through?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#690235

FromEdward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com>
Date2018-06-12 10:08 -0700
Message-ID<ea2b3784-4598-4810-a385-ead889fdb91d@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#690227
On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 12:33:21 PM UTC-4, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
> 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..
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> 
> 
> So do the electrons produce the holes that the muon squeeze  through?

Are you intentionally dense?
I just told you that 999,999 electrons pass through for each one
that actually hits an atom. the difference with welding is that
there are over 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 electrons per second!

For every Muon that DOES NOT get through (that does strike an atom)
the welder causes 100,000,000,000,000 electrons to strike.

Actually it isn't that simple, but the more detailed picture would
confuse you. So maybe this analogy will help.

Which will cause more damage walking through a forest?

one elephant?
or
100 million tourists?

Hoping this helps you learn.
Ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#690230

Fromnumbernumber1964@gmail.com
Date2018-06-12 09:41 -0700
Message-ID<71f774d6-9169-4fa3-88ac-ee373180440e@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#689319
OK, so where there _are_ magnets, you use them to manipulate. the beam so 
that you do not aim the beam at the side of the RF cavity.. 

Is that too hard to figure out?. 

__________________________________________________________________


The magnetic field produced by the dipole cannot form the constancy required to keep the proton beam on it's path after 100,000 rotations. In addition, the quadrupole magnets' magnetic field cannot contain the proton beam...Look at the direction of the quadrupole fields.......Ha Ha.Ha Ha

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#690250

FromOdd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
Date2018-06-12 17:53 +0000
Message-ID<pfp1bk$1isg$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#690230
<numbernumber1964@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> OK, so where there _are_ magnets, you use them to manipulate. the beam so 
> that you do not aim the beam at the side of the RF cavity.. 
> 
> Is that too hard to figure out?. 
> 
> __________________________________________________________________
> 
> 
> The magnetic field produced by the dipole cannot form the constancy
> required to keep the proton beam on it's path after 100,000 rotations. 

What on earth makes you think a magnet can’t do that? 

> In addition, the quadrupole magnets' magnetic field cannot contain the
> proton beam...Look at the direction of the quadrupole fields.......Ha Ha.Ha Ha
> 

Yes, so? A pair of quads do in fact have a focal length. This is both
proven mathematically and in practice. Tell me why you think this is
impossible. 



-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#690252

Frommoroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
Date2018-06-12 17:55 +0000
Message-ID<pfp1dv$vh6$1@pcls7.std.com>
In reply to#690230
numbernumber1964@gmail.com writes:


>OK, so where there _are_ magnets, you use them to manipulate. the beam so
>that you do not aim the beam at the side of the RF cavity..

>Is that too hard to figure out?.

>__________________________________________________________________


>The magnetic field produced by the dipole cannot form the constancy 
>required to keep the proton beam on it's path after 100,000 rotations.

Which is why they have focusing magnets, including the quadrupole magnets.

>In addition, the quadrupole magnets' magnetic field cannot contain the 
>proton beam...

And your evidence/proof of that is...?

>Look at the direction of the quadrupole fields.......

What about it?

>Ha Ha.Ha Ha

No, I don't consider insane laughter to be the proof of anything, except
perhaps insanity.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#690233

Fromnumbernumber1964@gmail.com
Date2018-06-12 10:04 -0700
Message-ID<b77d795b-8c96-4e50-928f-83ca58916505@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#689319
As already mentioned, muons are much more penetrating than electrons. so 
they would just laugh at a steel enclosure. Regardless, you make a. solid 
"window" of low-interacting material (beryllium?) to let particles. in with 
less interaction than steel if you need to..

_____________________________________________________________


Is the beryllium a metal hard enough to sustain the pressure required to maintain the liquid hydrogen within the bubble chamber?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#690241

FromEdward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com>
Date2018-06-12 10:18 -0700
Message-ID<902c0093-992e-4864-9304-9ba55df8495f@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#690233
On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 1:04:24 PM UTC-4, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
> As already mentioned, muons are much more penetrating than electrons. so 
> they would just laugh at a steel enclosure. Regardless, you make a. solid 
> "window" of low-interacting material (beryllium?) to let particles. in with 
> less interaction than steel if you need to..
> 
> _____________________________________________________________
> 
> 
> Is the beryllium a metal hard enough to sustain the pressure
> required to maintain the liquid hydrogen within the bubble chamber?

you seem to be under the mistaken impression that
high pressures are required. It just has to be very cold.
(-253 C = 20 degrees Kelvin is the boiling point of Hydrogen.)

Enjoy,
ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#690253

Frommoroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
Date2018-06-12 17:57 +0000
Message-ID<pfp1i5$vh6$2@pcls7.std.com>
In reply to#690233
numbernumber1964@gmail.com writes:

>As already mentioned, muons are much more penetrating than electrons. so 
>they would just laugh at a steel enclosure. Regardless, you make a. solid 
>"window" of low-interacting material (beryllium?) to let particles. in with 
>less interaction than steel if you need to..

>_____________________________________________________________


>Is the beryllium a metal hard enough to sustain the pressure required to 
>maintain the liquid hydrogen within the bubble chamber? 

You do know how to use Google and Wikipedia, don't you?

BTW the pressure in bubble chambers is not extreme. The temperature
however is.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#690255

FromOdd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
Date2018-06-12 18:01 +0000
Message-ID<pfp1pp$1jo8$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#690233
<numbernumber1964@gmail.com> wrote:
> As already mentioned, muons are much more penetrating than electrons. so 
> they would just laugh at a steel enclosure. Regardless, you make a. solid 
> "window" of low-interacting material (beryllium?) to let particles. in with 
> less interaction than steel if you need to..
> 
> _____________________________________________________________
> 
> 
> Is the beryllium a metal hard enough to sustain the pressure required to
> maintain the liquid hydrogen within the bubble chamber? 
> 

Yes

-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#690234

Fromnumbernumber1964@gmail.com
Date2018-06-12 10:06 -0700
Message-ID<9077be84-e7ec-4c19-9f29-3d910fd64e24@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#689319
Doesn’t matter. Muons deposit. very little of their kinetic energy relative 
to electrons. There’s good reasons for that..

_________________________________________________________________


Does a Muon have a mass? Then how did the muon that has a mass get through the steel enclosure of the bubble chamber?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#690254

Frommoroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
Date2018-06-12 17:59 +0000
Message-ID<pfp1m8$vh6$3@pcls7.std.com>
In reply to#690234
numbernumber1964@gmail.com writes:

>Doesn't matter. Muons deposit. very little of their kinetic energy relative
>to electrons. There's good reasons for that..

>_________________________________________________________________


>Does a Muon have a mass? Then how did the muon that has a mass get through
>the steel enclosure of the bubble chamber?

Asked and answered. Atoms are mostly empty space. Try to hit a grain of
rice at the center of an Olympic stadium by firing a gun in a random 
direction from outside it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#690406

FromEdward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com>
Date2018-06-13 06:20 -0700
Message-ID<93e7128b-8de4-4fd7-a031-4df25f44c6b2@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#690254
On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 1:59:40 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> numbernumber1964@gmail.com writes:
> 
> >Doesn't matter. Muons deposit. very little of their kinetic energy relative
> >to electrons. There's good reasons for that..
> 
> >_________________________________________________________________
> 
> 
> >Does a Muon have a mass? Then how did the muon that has a mass get through
> >the steel enclosure of the bubble chamber?
> 
> Asked and answered. Atoms are mostly empty space. Try to hit a grain of
> rice at the center of an Olympic stadium by firing a gun in a random 
> direction from outside it.

And to make this analogy clearer, the gun fires grains of rice!

For the arc welder, imagine a cannon firing sacks of rice!

Ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#690240

Fromnumbernumber1964@gmail.com
Date2018-06-12 10:17 -0700
Message-ID<8697139c-e039-4481-831a-e7fd6755d114@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#689319
I just told you that 999,999. electrons pass through for each one 
that actually hits an atom.. the difference with welding is that 
there are over 100,000,000,000,000,000,000. electrons per second! 

For every Muon that DOES NOT get through .(that does strike an atom) 
the welder causes 100,000,000,000,000 .electrons to strike. 

Actually it isn't that simple, but the. more detailed picture would 
confuse you. So maybe this analogy will help.. 

____________________________________________________________


Isn't an electron a subatomic particle?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 6 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 10  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web