Re: [Vo]:Zimmerman's piece could be scarier than we can imagine
In reply to Eric Walker's message of Sun, 1 Jul 2018 14:35:59 -0600: Hi Erik, [snip] >But I realize now you probably meant there are no neutral muons, rather >than that there are no neutral leptons. IIRC I just forgot about neutrinos. ;) > >On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 2:34 PM Eric Walker wrote: > >> Hi Robin, >> >> On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 2:40 PM wrote: >> >> Muons are leptons, and AFAIK there is no neutral variety. Did you mean >>> neutral >>> pions? (Which BTW have a very short half-life). >>> >> >> Neutrinos are neutral leptons. :) >> >> Eric >> >> Regards, Robin van Spaandonk local asymmetry = temporary success
Re: [Vo]:Zimmerman's piece could be scarier than we can imagine
But I realize now you probably meant there are no neutral muons, rather than that there are no neutral leptons. On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 2:34 PM Eric Walker wrote: > Hi Robin, > > On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 2:40 PM wrote: > > Muons are leptons, and AFAIK there is no neutral variety. Did you mean >> neutral >> pions? (Which BTW have a very short half-life). >> > > Neutrinos are neutral leptons. :) > > Eric > >
Re: [Vo]:Zimmerman's piece could be scarier than we can imagine
Hi Robin, On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 2:40 PM wrote: Muons are leptons, and AFAIK there is no neutral variety. Did you mean > neutral > pions? (Which BTW have a very short half-life). > Neutrinos are neutral leptons. :) Eric
Re: [Vo]:Zimmerman's piece could be scarier than we can imagine
In reply to H LV's message of Fri, 22 Jun 2018 21:59:18 -0400: Hi, [snip] >Wikipedia says the yield of the Davy Crockett bomb was between 10 and 20 >Tons of TNT. > >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device) I watched part of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiM-RzPHyGs . It seems the army at the time was quite happy to send it's troops into the mess resulting from a nuclear explosion. Obviously much more impressed by the destructive power than by the danger to their own troops. [snip] BTW out of curiosity I also looked up Californium (https://www.jackliu.technology/single-post/2017/02/11/Californium-Atomic-Bullet) where I found the following quote:- "The lightest suitcase-nuke is the M-28/29 "Davy Crockett", with only 0.19 kiloton, or 19 tons of maximum yield. It is very little in the term of nukes, but considering it's incredible light weight (around 50 pounds) and small size, the M-28/29 is actually decent." Note however that 0.19 kiloton = 190 tons, not 19 tons. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk local asymmetry = temporary success
RE: [Vo]:Zimmerman's piece could be scarier than we can imagine
Robin— I do not consider muons are leptons in the same sense that positrons and electrons are. I agree with the high energy scattering experiments evaluated by W. Stubbs showing the muons are made up of 200 plus particles about the mass of an electron. Philippe Hatt’s theory of nuclear structure supports this composition for muons, consistent with the Stubb’s conclusion IMHO. Bob Cook Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10 From: mix...@bigpond.com Sent: Friday, June 22, 2018 1:39:57 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Zimmerman's piece could be scarier than we can imagine In reply to bobcook39...@hotmail.com's message of Thu, 21 Jun 2018 23:28:53 +: Hi, [snip] Muons are leptons, and AFAIK there is no neutral variety. Did you mean neutral pions? (Which BTW have a very short half-life). >Neutral muons may act like neutrons and be absorbed to cause a reaction with >additional neutral muons and/or charged muons. >A local source of charged muons, which are known to induce D fusion and maybe >H fusion to D. > >Bob Cook > >From: Jones Beene >Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 12:19:18 PM >To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >Subject: RE: [Vo]:Zimmerman's piece could be scarier than we can imagine > > > >From: Axil Axil<mailto:janap...@gmail.com> > > > * I can not see how the Bose Condensation nature of ultra dense material > can support a chain reaction. The Condensate offloads its excess energy > through the production of muons not neutrons. Muons are not bad like > neutrons. Muons do not pump the Condensate, so there is no positive feedback > loop possible > >There are alternative scenarios for a feedback loop. One of the possibilities >does not involve uranium at all. Another would simply happen so rapidly that >most of the UDD is converted into helium before it can change state. Since >Holmlid does see some fusion, in addition to muons, it is likely that the >fusion part of the reaction could be optimized. > >If we accept that 105Pd is the active isotope of cold fusion - and that it is >converted into 107Ag in the main cold fusion reaction, which is one >interpretation of the recent Biberian finding (which triggered this posting to >begin with) then UDD is going to be gainful without being annihilated and >without the need of a laser. > >Also, imagine a large caliber bullet composed of fully loaded PdD. If a >spherical array of barrels is arranged around a depleted U core, what happens >when the core implodes? (given that we know that muons are preferentially >absorbed by U) > >Anyway, a hypothetical UDD explanation could combine Holmlid’s species with >P’s palladium lattice – so it would be a hybrid - and is open to criticism >on that account. The underlying fusion reaction should produce at least 14 >MeV. If engineered properly there would be chain reaction of sorts (positive >feedback from pressure, for sure) which is dependent on the initial inventory >of UDD. The yield could be one fourth as much as uranium fission. > >Given how much the USA is hated in parts of the middle East, and how much >wealth there is - any of these nightmares becomes simply a matter of will and >can be countered by careful planning. We can only hope that our government is >taking the proper precautions. OTOH, a simple “dirty bomb” is devastating >enough and it can be argued that it will be the first thing which is tried. > >It does not help to hide one’s head in the sand and opine that we should not >even discuss the possibilities. The easiest way for enemies of the US to >succeed is for experts (or even those on the fringe) not to be vocal and >aware of what technology is available and how it can be used. > >If UDD is real, then it may not be presently taken into account by those who >should be looking at all the risks. > > > > Regards, Robin van Spaandonk local asymmetry = temporary success
Re: [Vo]:Zimmerman's piece could be scarier than we can imagine
Wikipedia says the yield of the Davy Crockett bomb was between 10 and 20
Tons of TNT.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device)
On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 4:33 PM, wrote:
> In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Fri, 22 Jun 2018 10:08:41 -0400:
> Hi,
> [snip]
> >AM wrote:
> >
> >If all the fission energy in 20 lb. of Pu239 were released it would be
> over
> >> 175000 tons of TNT.
> >>
> >
> >I do not think it is possible to release all of the energy from the
> fission
> >explosion fuel.
> >
> >
> >
> >> If the bomb only yields 20 tons it is incredibly inefficient. I would
> >> expect
> >> more like 2 tons.
> >>
> >
> >I think that was deliberate. They did not want a big explosion because the
> >rocket only flew a few miles. Modern fusion bombs have variable yield
> >("dial-a-yield") meaning they waste fuel at the lower yields.
>
> 1) I was trying to imply that the "20 tons" may have been a typo.
> 2) You have switched from fission to fusion.
> 3) Even if the 20 tons figure was correct, and deliberate, it would leave
> nearly
> all the Pu239 intact, implying quite a radioactive mess spread around the
> environment and into the air, just 20 miles away.
>
> I wouldn't want to be downwind of that.
> >
> >- Jed
> Regards,
>
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> local asymmetry = temporary success
>
>
Re: [Vo]:Zimmerman's piece could be scarier than we can imagine
In reply to bobcook39...@hotmail.com's message of Thu, 21 Jun 2018 23:28:53 +: Hi, [snip] Muons are leptons, and AFAIK there is no neutral variety. Did you mean neutral pions? (Which BTW have a very short half-life). >Neutral muons may act like neutrons and be absorbed to cause a reaction with >additional neutral muons and/or charged muons. >A local source of charged muons, which are known to induce D fusion and maybe >H fusion to D. > >Bob Cook > >From: Jones Beene >Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 12:19:18 PM >To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >Subject: RE: [Vo]:Zimmerman's piece could be scarier than we can imagine > > > >From: Axil Axil<mailto:janap...@gmail.com> > > > * I can not see how the Bose Condensation nature of ultra dense material > can support a chain reaction. The Condensate offloads its excess energy > through the production of muons not neutrons. Muons are not bad like > neutrons. Muons do not pump the Condensate, so there is no positive feedback > loop possible > >There are alternative scenarios for a feedback loop. One of the possibilities >does not involve uranium at all. Another would simply happen so rapidly that >most of the UDD is converted into helium before it can change state. Since >Holmlid does see some fusion, in addition to muons, it is likely that the >fusion part of the reaction could be optimized. > >If we accept that 105Pd is the active isotope of cold fusion - and that it is >converted into 107Ag in the main cold fusion reaction, which is one >interpretation of the recent Biberian finding (which triggered this posting to >begin with) then UDD is going to be gainful without being annihilated and >without the need of a laser. > >Also, imagine a large caliber bullet composed of fully loaded PdD. If a >spherical array of barrels is arranged around a depleted U core, what happens >when the core implodes? (given that we know that muons are preferentially >absorbed by U) > >Anyway, a hypothetical UDD explanation could combine Holmlids species with >Ps palladium lattice so it would be a hybrid - and is open to criticism >on that account. The underlying fusion reaction should produce at least 14 >MeV. If engineered properly there would be chain reaction of sorts (positive >feedback from pressure, for sure) which is dependent on the initial inventory >of UDD. The yield could be one fourth as much as uranium fission. > >Given how much the USA is hated in parts of the middle East, and how much >wealth there is - any of these nightmares becomes simply a matter of will and >can be countered by careful planning. We can only hope that our government is >taking the proper precautions. OTOH, a simple dirty bomb is devastating >enough and it can be argued that it will be the first thing which is tried. > >It does not help to hide ones head in the sand and opine that we should not >even discuss the possibilities. The easiest way for enemies of the US to >succeed is for experts (or even those on the fringe) not to be vocal and >aware of what technology is available and how it can be used. > >If UDD is real, then it may not be presently taken into account by those who >should be looking at all the risks. > > > > Regards, Robin van Spaandonk local asymmetry = temporary success
Re: [Vo]:Zimmerman's piece could be scarier than we can imagine
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Fri, 22 Jun 2018 10:08:41 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>AM wrote:
>
>If all the fission energy in 20 lb. of Pu239 were released it would be over
>> 175000 tons of TNT.
>>
>
>I do not think it is possible to release all of the energy from the fission
>explosion fuel.
>
>
>
>> If the bomb only yields 20 tons it is incredibly inefficient. I would
>> expect
>> more like 2 tons.
>>
>
>I think that was deliberate. They did not want a big explosion because the
>rocket only flew a few miles. Modern fusion bombs have variable yield
>("dial-a-yield") meaning they waste fuel at the lower yields.
1) I was trying to imply that the "20 tons" may have been a typo.
2) You have switched from fission to fusion.
3) Even if the 20 tons figure was correct, and deliberate, it would leave nearly
all the Pu239 intact, implying quite a radioactive mess spread around the
environment and into the air, just 20 miles away.
I wouldn't want to be downwind of that.
>
>- Jed
Regards,
Robin van Spaandonk
local asymmetry = temporary success
Re: [Vo]:Zimmerman's piece could be scarier than we can imagine
AM wrote:
If all the fission energy in 20 lb. of Pu239 were released it would be over
> 175000 tons of TNT.
>
I do not think it is possible to release all of the energy from the fission
explosion fuel.
> If the bomb only yields 20 tons it is incredibly inefficient. I would
> expect
> more like 2 tons.
>
I think that was deliberate. They did not want a big explosion because the
rocket only flew a few miles. Modern fusion bombs have variable yield
("dial-a-yield") meaning they waste fuel at the lower yields.
- Jed
Re: [Vo]:Zimmerman's piece could be scarier than we can imagine
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Thu, 21 Jun 2018 16:56:04 -0400: Hi, If all the fission energy in 20 lb. of Pu239 were released it would be over 175000 tons of TNT. If the bomb only yields 20 tons it is incredibly inefficient. I would expect more like 2 tons. >H LV wrote: > >The smallest nuke was the Davy Crockett weighing 76 lbs with an explosive >> yield of 20 Tons of TNT. >> > >That's small! The critical mass of Pu is around 20 lb. 56 lbs of other >hardware. > >What an idiotic weapon. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk local asymmetry = temporary success
Re: [Vo]:Zimmerman's piece could be scarier than we can imagine
If a quantum bomb could store energy in an entangled state, it would explode by de-entanglement rather than by a chain reaction. On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 2:01 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > I can not see how the Bose Condensation nature of ultra dense material can > support a chain reaction. The Condensate offloads its excess energy through > the production of muons not neutrons. Muons are not bad like neutrons. > Muons do not pump the Condensate, so there is no positive feedback loop > possible > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 1:28 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > >> >> >> https://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.5009233 >> >> >> >> Physicist Peter Zimmerman is a long time skeptic of LENR, but he is >> extremely knowledgeable about the risk of nuclear proliferation in the age >> of well-financed terrorism. >> >> >> >> Even before P made the cover of Time, PZ had consulted on a novel by >> Nicolas Freeling, who is a second tier English author of detective >> stories. The book is named “Gadget” and true to form, it bombed (so to >> speak) … reaching an audience of a few thousand, but it is available online >> as a used book. Worth the read. >> >> >> >> The underlying appreciation of the risk of nuclear proliferation makes >> this novel way ahead of its time, and it accepts the extreme lengths that >> zealots will employ to reach their goal: the “suicide vest” mentality, >> shall we say. The title borrows the Los Alamos wartime slang for the >> ‘big one’ and conjures up that unforgettable mental image of Major Kong >> waving his cowboy hat on his way to another world… from Dr. Strangelove. >> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snTaSJk0n_Y >> >> >> >> Yikes. The detail which has changed the risk assessment in the last >> several years is the revelations about UDD – ultradense deuterium. If there >> is any reality to the species, then oops… UDD multiplies the chance of >> major catastrophe from nuclear terrorism enormously… since it negates the >> need for high enrichment and possibly even the need for fissile material at >> all. >> >> >> >> Anyway, Zimmerman- while surely he would be ostensibly denying that UDD >> is real, is probably paying close attention to progress in Sweden and may >> be operating to classify some of the results before it is too late. >> >> >> >> He has calculated the time and skill which would be needed to produce an >> “IND” or improvised nuclear device using the old fashioned way, and it is >> not that expensive to begin with. In a way, it is a miracle that it has not >> been done in a crude form. The IND is a step up from the dirty bomb, which >> is the crude form, but either one could render Manhattan uninhabitable for >> a few generations… which may be preferable to triggering WWIII but should >> never be ignored as a major threat. >> >> >> >> Since the amount of money needed for an IND is not large -ISIS makes more >> in a day or two selling drugs, which is its real business these days - then >> terrorists would ignore the high tech option and possibly opt out for a >> dirty bomg, but still… UDD may represent a paradigm shift in more arenas >> than cheap energy. >> >> >> >> Be careful what you wish for… >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >
RE: [Vo]:Zimmerman's piece could be scarier than we can imagine
Neutral muons may act like neutrons and be absorbed to cause a reaction with additional neutral muons and/or charged muons. A local source of charged muons, which are known to induce D fusion and maybe H fusion to D. Bob Cook From: Jones Beene Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 12:19:18 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Zimmerman's piece could be scarier than we can imagine From: Axil Axil<mailto:janap...@gmail.com> * I can not see how the Bose Condensation nature of ultra dense material can support a chain reaction. The Condensate offloads its excess energy through the production of muons not neutrons. Muons are not bad like neutrons. Muons do not pump the Condensate, so there is no positive feedback loop possible There are alternative scenarios for a feedback loop. One of the possibilities does not involve uranium at all. Another would simply happen so rapidly that most of the UDD is converted into helium before it can change state. Since Holmlid does see some fusion, in addition to muons, it is likely that the fusion part of the reaction could be optimized. If we accept that 105Pd is the active isotope of cold fusion - and that it is converted into 107Ag in the main cold fusion reaction, which is one interpretation of the recent Biberian finding (which triggered this posting to begin with) then UDD is going to be gainful without being annihilated and without the need of a laser. Also, imagine a large caliber bullet composed of fully loaded PdD. If a spherical array of barrels is arranged around a depleted U core, what happens when the core implodes? (given that we know that muons are preferentially absorbed by U) Anyway, a hypothetical UDD explanation could combine Holmlid’s species with P’s palladium lattice – so it would be a hybrid - and is open to criticism on that account. The underlying fusion reaction should produce at least 14 MeV. If engineered properly there would be chain reaction of sorts (positive feedback from pressure, for sure) which is dependent on the initial inventory of UDD. The yield could be one fourth as much as uranium fission. Given how much the USA is hated in parts of the middle East, and how much wealth there is - any of these nightmares becomes simply a matter of will and can be countered by careful planning. We can only hope that our government is taking the proper precautions. OTOH, a simple “dirty bomb” is devastating enough and it can be argued that it will be the first thing which is tried. It does not help to hide one’s head in the sand and opine that we should not even discuss the possibilities. The easiest way for enemies of the US to succeed is for experts (or even those on the fringe) not to be vocal and aware of what technology is available and how it can be used. If UDD is real, then it may not be presently taken into account by those who should be looking at all the risks.
Re: [Vo]:Zimmerman's piece could be scarier than we can imagine
H LV wrote: The smallest nuke was the Davy Crockett weighing 76 lbs with an explosive > yield of 20 Tons of TNT. > That's small! The critical mass of Pu is around 20 lb. 56 lbs of other hardware. What an idiotic weapon.
Re: [Vo]:Zimmerman's piece could be scarier than we can imagine
The smallest nuke was the Davy Crockett weighing 76 lbs with an explosive yield of 20 Tons of TNT. Compare with the 'conventional' MOAB bomb weighing 18,500 lbs with an explosive of yield of 11 Tons of TNT. The Davey Crockett was also more lethal due to the radiation it gave off. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWZbrwb1mLQ On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 1:28 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > > > https://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.5009233 > > > > Physicist Peter Zimmerman is a long time skeptic of LENR, but he is > extremely knowledgeable about the risk of nuclear proliferation in the age > of well-financed terrorism. > > > > Even before P made the cover of Time, PZ had consulted on a novel by > Nicolas Freeling, who is a second tier English author of detective > stories. The book is named “Gadget” and true to form, it bombed (so to > speak) … reaching an audience of a few thousand, but it is available online > as a used book. Worth the read. > > > > The underlying appreciation of the risk of nuclear proliferation makes > this novel way ahead of its time, and it accepts the extreme lengths that > zealots will employ to reach their goal: the “suicide vest” mentality, > shall we say. The title borrows the Los Alamos wartime slang for the > ‘big one’ and conjures up that unforgettable mental image of Major Kong > waving his cowboy hat on his way to another world… from Dr. Strangelove. > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snTaSJk0n_Y > > > > Yikes. The detail which has changed the risk assessment in the last > several years is the revelations about UDD – ultradense deuterium. If there > is any reality to the species, then oops… UDD multiplies the chance of > major catastrophe from nuclear terrorism enormously… since it negates the > need for high enrichment and possibly even the need for fissile material at > all. > > > > Anyway, Zimmerman- while surely he would be ostensibly denying that UDD is > real, is probably paying close attention to progress in Sweden and may be > operating to classify some of the results before it is too late. > > > > He has calculated the time and skill which would be needed to produce an > “IND” or improvised nuclear device using the old fashioned way, and it is > not that expensive to begin with. In a way, it is a miracle that it has not > been done in a crude form. The IND is a step up from the dirty bomb, which > is the crude form, but either one could render Manhattan uninhabitable for > a few generations… which may be preferable to triggering WWIII but should > never be ignored as a major threat. > > > > Since the amount of money needed for an IND is not large -ISIS makes more > in a day or two selling drugs, which is its real business these days - then > terrorists would ignore the high tech option and possibly opt out for a > dirty bomg, but still… UDD may represent a paradigm shift in more arenas > than cheap energy. > > > > Be careful what you wish for… > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: [Vo]:Zimmerman's piece could be scarier than we can imagine
LENR can produce transmutations at a distance. Urutskoev verified this when he came up with his theory of how LENR produced the chernobyl meltdown. Muons might favor U238 fission over U235 fission. This is what makes LENR dangerous. From Low-energy nuclear reactions and the leptonic monopole Georges Lochak*, Leonid Urutskoev** http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LochakGlowenergyn.pdf For us, it is important that the transformation can also take place outside the plasma channel. This is a rather “unpleasant surprise,” because, probably, within several years, when the low-temperature transmutation will be studied in more detail, it would be rather easy to devise a facile and inexpensive process to enrich uranium. In view of the growth of terrorism all over the world, this outcome seems deplorable. On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 3:19 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > > > > > *From: *Axil Axil > > > >- I can not see how the Bose Condensation nature of ultra dense >material can support a chain reaction. The Condensate offloads its excess >energy through the production of muons not neutrons. Muons are not bad like >neutrons. Muons do not pump the Condensate, so there is no positive >feedback loop possible > > > > There are alternative scenarios for a feedback loop. One of the > possibilities does not involve uranium at all. Another would simply happen > so rapidly that most of the UDD is converted into helium before it can > change state. Since Holmlid does see some fusion, in addition to muons, it > is likely that the fusion part of the reaction could be optimized. > > > > If we accept that 105Pd is the active isotope of cold fusion - and that it > is converted into 107Ag in the main cold fusion reaction, which is one > interpretation of the recent Biberian finding (which triggered this posting > to begin with) then UDD is going to be gainful without being annihilated > and without the need of a laser. > > > > Also, imagine a large caliber bullet composed of fully loaded PdD. If a > spherical array of barrels is arranged around a depleted U core, what > happens when the core implodes? (given that we know that muons are > preferentially absorbed by U) > > > > Anyway, a hypothetical UDD explanation could combine Holmlid’s species > with P’s palladium lattice – so it would be a hybrid - and is open to > criticism on that account. The underlying fusion reaction should produce at > least 14 MeV. If engineered properly there would be chain reaction of sorts > (positive feedback from pressure, for sure) which is dependent on the > initial inventory of UDD. The yield could be one fourth as much as uranium > fission. > > > > Given how much the USA is hated in parts of the middle East, and how much > wealth there is - any of these nightmares becomes simply a matter of will > and can be countered by careful planning. We can only hope that our > government is taking the proper precautions. OTOH, a simple “dirty bomb” is > devastating enough and it can be argued that it will be the first thing > which is tried. > > > > It does not help to hide one’s head in the sand and opine that we should > not even discuss the possibilities. The easiest way for enemies of the US > to succeed is for experts (or even those on the fringe) not to be vocal and > aware of what technology is available and how it can be used. > > > > If UDD is real, then it may not be presently taken into account by those > who should be looking at all the risks. > > > > > > > > > > >
RE: [Vo]:Zimmerman's piece could be scarier than we can imagine
From: Axil Axil ➢ I can not see how the Bose Condensation nature of ultra dense material can support a chain reaction. The Condensate offloads its excess energy through the production of muons not neutrons. Muons are not bad like neutrons. Muons do not pump the Condensate, so there is no positive feedback loop possible There are alternative scenarios for a feedback loop. One of the possibilities does not involve uranium at all. Another would simply happen so rapidly that most of the UDD is converted into helium before it can change state. Since Holmlid does see some fusion, in addition to muons, it is likely that the fusion part of the reaction could be optimized. If we accept that 105Pd is the active isotope of cold fusion - and that it is converted into 107Ag in the main cold fusion reaction, which is one interpretation of the recent Biberian finding (which triggered this posting to begin with) then UDD is going to be gainful without being annihilated and without the need of a laser. Also, imagine a large caliber bullet composed of fully loaded PdD. If a spherical array of barrels is arranged around a depleted U core, what happens when the core implodes? (given that we know that muons are preferentially absorbed by U) Anyway, a hypothetical UDD explanation could combine Holmlid’s species with P’s palladium lattice – so it would be a hybrid - and is open to criticism on that account. The underlying fusion reaction should produce at least 14 MeV. If engineered properly there would be chain reaction of sorts (positive feedback from pressure, for sure) which is dependent on the initial inventory of UDD. The yield could be one fourth as much as uranium fission. Given how much the USA is hated in parts of the middle East, and how much wealth there is - any of these nightmares becomes simply a matter of will and can be countered by careful planning. We can only hope that our government is taking the proper precautions. OTOH, a simple “dirty bomb” is devastating enough and it can be argued that it will be the first thing which is tried. It does not help to hide one’s head in the sand and opine that we should not even discuss the possibilities. The easiest way for enemies of the US to succeed is for experts (or even those on the fringe) not to be vocal and aware of what technology is available and how it can be used. If UDD is real, then it may not be presently taken into account by those who should be looking at all the risks.
Re: [Vo]:Zimmerman's piece could be scarier than we can imagine
I can not see how the Bose Condensation nature of ultra dense material can support a chain reaction. The Condensate offloads its excess energy through the production of muons not neutrons. Muons are not bad like neutrons. Muons do not pump the Condensate, so there is no positive feedback loop possible On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 1:28 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > > > https://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.5009233 > > > > Physicist Peter Zimmerman is a long time skeptic of LENR, but he is > extremely knowledgeable about the risk of nuclear proliferation in the age > of well-financed terrorism. > > > > Even before P made the cover of Time, PZ had consulted on a novel by > Nicolas Freeling, who is a second tier English author of detective > stories. The book is named “Gadget” and true to form, it bombed (so to > speak) … reaching an audience of a few thousand, but it is available online > as a used book. Worth the read. > > > > The underlying appreciation of the risk of nuclear proliferation makes > this novel way ahead of its time, and it accepts the extreme lengths that > zealots will employ to reach their goal: the “suicide vest” mentality, > shall we say. The title borrows the Los Alamos wartime slang for the > ‘big one’ and conjures up that unforgettable mental image of Major Kong > waving his cowboy hat on his way to another world… from Dr. Strangelove. > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snTaSJk0n_Y > > > > Yikes. The detail which has changed the risk assessment in the last > several years is the revelations about UDD – ultradense deuterium. If there > is any reality to the species, then oops… UDD multiplies the chance of > major catastrophe from nuclear terrorism enormously… since it negates the > need for high enrichment and possibly even the need for fissile material at > all. > > > > Anyway, Zimmerman- while surely he would be ostensibly denying that UDD is > real, is probably paying close attention to progress in Sweden and may be > operating to classify some of the results before it is too late. > > > > He has calculated the time and skill which would be needed to produce an > “IND” or improvised nuclear device using the old fashioned way, and it is > not that expensive to begin with. In a way, it is a miracle that it has not > been done in a crude form. The IND is a step up from the dirty bomb, which > is the crude form, but either one could render Manhattan uninhabitable for > a few generations… which may be preferable to triggering WWIII but should > never be ignored as a major threat. > > > > Since the amount of money needed for an IND is not large -ISIS makes more > in a day or two selling drugs, which is its real business these days - then > terrorists would ignore the high tech option and possibly opt out for a > dirty bomg, but still… UDD may represent a paradigm shift in more arenas > than cheap energy. > > > > Be careful what you wish for… > > > > > > > > > > > > >
[Vo]:Zimmerman's piece could be scarier than we can imagine
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.5009233 Physicist Peter Zimmerman is a long time skeptic of LENR, but he is extremely knowledgeable about the risk of nuclear proliferation in the age of well-financed terrorism. Even before P made the cover of Time, PZ had consulted on a novel by Nicolas Freeling, who is a second tier English author of detective stories. The book is named “Gadget” and true to form, it bombed (so to speak) … reaching an audience of a few thousand, but it is available online as a used book. Worth the read. The underlying appreciation of the risk of nuclear proliferation makes this novel way ahead of its time, and it accepts the extreme lengths that zealots will employ to reach their goal: the “suicide vest” mentality, shall we say. The title borrows the Los Alamos wartime slang for the ‘big one’ and conjures up that unforgettable mental image of Major Kong waving his cowboy hat on his way to another world… from Dr. Strangelove. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snTaSJk0n_Y Yikes. The detail which has changed the risk assessment in the last several years is the revelations about UDD – ultradense deuterium. If there is any reality to the species, then oops… UDD multiplies the chance of major catastrophe from nuclear terrorism enormously… since it negates the need for high enrichment and possibly even the need for fissile material at all. Anyway, Zimmerman- while surely he would be ostensibly denying that UDD is real, is probably paying close attention to progress in Sweden and may be operating to classify some of the results before it is too late. He has calculated the time and skill which would be needed to produce an “IND” or improvised nuclear device using the old fashioned way, and it is not that expensive to begin with. In a way, it is a miracle that it has not been done in a crude form. The IND is a step up from the dirty bomb, which is the crude form, but either one could render Manhattan uninhabitable for a few generations… which may be preferable to triggering WWIII but should never be ignored as a major threat. Since the amount of money needed for an IND is not large -ISIS makes more in a day or two selling drugs, which is its real business these days - then terrorists would ignore the high tech option and possibly opt out for a dirty bomg, but still… UDD may represent a paradigm shift in more arenas than cheap energy. Be careful what you wish for…
