A magnetized iron shield is highly promising for bending muons away from working areas. This method of shielding would be very effective for low kinetic energy muons that can be easily diverted magnetically.
On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 3:22 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > https://www.quora.com/How-is-muon-radiation-measured > > [quote]Any radiation detector that works on the principle of sensing the > charge liberated in matter is going to detect muons directly. Geiger > counters, ion chambers, scintillators, toy cloud chambers, and pocket > dosimeters all work on this principle, and all respond to muons. In fact, > all these detectors are very sensitive to muons: if a muon passes through > or is absorbed in the detector, there is a very high probability that the > signal it creates will be "counted" by the instrument. The question from a > dosimetry standpoint is how to interpret this signal in terms of human > health impact and that is what I will get to in Parts 2-3 below. Continuing > briefly on the issues of muon detection, although the common types of > electronic radiation detectors are sensitive to muons, they are not > selective toward them. To selectively detect muons against a background > that also contains alpha / beta / gamma radiations from terrestrial > radioactive decay, one exploits facts such as the exceptional penetrating > power of energetic muons (which barrel through with a mean energy at the > Earth's surface of ~2-4 GeV, if we are talking about cosmogenic muons), or > the particle's characteristic half-life (1.5 microseconds). One approach to > detecting muons and only muons is to look for coincident signals in two or > more detectors that are separated by shielding, a flight path of some > length, or both. In large, dense detectors, there is a reasonable chance of > stopping the muon and detecting subsequent decay in accordance with the > 1.5-microsecond half life. Finally, neutron detectors also respond to > cosmogenic muons. This is because the muon and its daughter radiations have > enough energy to tear apart stable nuclei in spallation and photonuclear > reactions with the liberation of neutrons. If you stack lead bricks around > a neutron detector, the count rate rises rather substantially. Muon > interactions in the lead are responsible for the secondary neutrons being > generated. (This effect is generally a nuisance, a source of irregular > background in low-level neutron counting work.) > > 2. Dosimetry of muons > > Muons can kill. In principle, they--like all ionizing radiation--can rip > apart the chemical bonds in the DNA in your cells, causing malignant cells > to form and multiply, with the result that you die of cancer. (And in large > enough doses, they could kill you by deterministic effects like acute > radiation syndrome.) Radiation dosimetry is concerned with calculating the > risk of such outcomes. Typically, radiation detectors used for dosimetry > measure the electric charge released in the detector material by the > radiation. This measurement then must be used to calculate a dosimetric > quantity of interest. Sometimes we are concerned simply with absorbed dose, > which is the amount of energy the radiation is depositing in our bodies on > a mass basis, and energy released in matter is related to charge released > in matter in an uncomplicated way. However, the risk of death by cancer is > related to a concept called effective dose--the deposited-energy-per-mass > dose weighted by a biological factor that accounts for how the particular > radiation interacts in the body. The weighting factor depends on the type > of radiation, its energy spectrum, and how densely it ionizes material in > its path. Muons are interesting in this regard, because they are like > little explosive-tipped artillery shells. They cause some damage passing > through your meat, but they do more damage if they are stopped within your > meat and "explode" (undergo decay, usually to an electron that carries off > a substantial fraction of the rest mass energy of the muon as its own > kinetic energy.) What this means for effective dose calculation is that the > biological weighting factor is HIGH for slower muons that are more likely > to stop in your meat, but not too different from the weighting factor for > radioactive decay gamma rays at the high energies that we normally > experience in the cosmogenic muon flux at Earth's surface. Dosimetric > instruments that are designed to measure dose from gamma rays are therefore > ballpark-accurate in measuring dose from muons. A well-made, calibrated, > properly-used dosimeter that reads in effective dose units like rem or > Sievert has some quantitative credibility when measuring cosmogenic muon > radiation. > > 3. Your risk of being killed by muons (muicide) > > Let's consider an average person living at sea level. Googling "muon flux > at sea level" returns a number of reasonably-authoritative sources putting > this quantity at 1/(cm^2 min) = 0.017/(cm^2 s) = 170/(m^2 s). The mean > energy is in the range of 2-4 GeV; this is important because I am about to > make an assumption that there are few muons below 0.1 GeV in this spectrum. > (Muons of <0.1 GeV energy, as mentioned above, tend to decay within your > body and cause more damage, so their weighting factor is higher.) The other > piece of information we need is a flux-to-equivalent-dose conversion for > muons in the energy environs of one GeV. This datum can also be found > trivially using teh Google, on p. 55 of The Dosimetry of Ionizing > Radiation, Vol. 3 by Gerard Meurant: 40 fSv m^2. Multiplying the flux by > the the conversion factor, we get an effective dose rate at sea level due > to muons: 40*170 = 6800 fSv/s = 0.21 mSv/year. A dose of 1 Sv confers a 5% > excesschance of fatal cancer. Multiplying 0.21 mSv by 5% gives us a 0.001% > excess chance of fatal cancer per year due to muons in the environment. > Generally, your chance of kicking the bucket due to cancer as opposed to > some other cause is about 25%, so the 0.001% excess is an absolute chance > of 2.7E-6, and there is our answer: about one person in 370,000 will bite > the big one due to muon exposure received in the course of one year. This > is broadly about as risky as driving 100 miles. But, unless you want to > live your life under a glacier, in a mine shaft, or in a submarine, there > is nowhere to run and nowhere to hide from these little extraterrestrial > bullets. All you can do is sit back and bewail your unfortunate lot in > life, destined to die some day--perhaps done in by the flying remains of > some ancient supernova. > [/quote] > > On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 3:12 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> How do we know that what is coming out of the Rossi XCat are electrons >> and not muons? >> >> On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 3:04 PM, John Berry <berry.joh...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Mats, are Muons hard to detect? Or just hard to distinguish from >>> electrons? >>> >>> On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 10:59 PM, Mats Lewan <m...@matslewan.se> wrote: >>> >>>> Yes Axil, >>>> >>>> I spoke to Holmlid, and one thing that he underlined was possible large >>>> amounts of muons from the reaction, and that muons were hard to detect. He >>>> said that that he suspected that also LENR reactions could have this >>>> effect, without LENR experimenters knowing it. >>>> >>>> Mats >>>> >>>> 4 mars 2016 kl. 18:32 skrev Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com>: >>>> >>>> I don't understand yet what is happening in the Holmlid experiments. >>>> There are shiploads of subatomic particles produced in the Holmlid reactor >>>> and Holmlid says that hot fusion is happening (which I doubt) and yet there >>>> is no gamma radiation coming out of all that chaos. Would the powers that >>>> be at CERN let their personal walk around the ATLAS detector when it was in >>>> operation producing Kaons. I don't think so. Does muons catalyze fusion >>>> inside the body if muons are injected? What happens to decaying Kaons >>>> inside the lungs. Should LENR experiments be done inside a Hot Cell just in >>>> case? >>>> >>>> On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 11:55 AM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> If speaking of conventional known radiations this comment about dose >>>>> and detection is true however in ‘cold fusion’ clearly the unknown is >>>>> afoot. One of those unknowns is what is it that can be there but not, or >>>>> poorly, be seen. For example what might be seen as a nominal presence near >>>>> background that can suddenly be made ‘visible’ to detectors where millirem >>>>> signals turn into kilorem! (micro-Sieverts to Sieverts if you prefer) >>>>> Fortunately the human body is more akin to our normal detectors than our >>>>> enhanced cold fusion mischegunon detectors so the harming dose equivalent >>>>> of those massive cold fusion radiations remains for us in health physics >>>>> terms as low doses. Still the better cold fusion cooks are sure to see the >>>>> most exposure and the nature of this new and still very poorly observed to >>>>> say nothing of described radiations is far from clear. More than a few >>>>> cold >>>>> fusion scientists have succumbed already. As is said in ancient texts ‘one >>>>> does not catch the unknown in a net of the known.’ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *From:* alain.coetm...@gmail.com [mailto:alain.coetm...@gmail.com] *On >>>>> Behalf Of *Alain Sepeda >>>>> *Sent:* Friday, March 4, 2016 12:13 AM >>>>> *To:* Vortex List >>>>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Is Rossi sick? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> the dose, and the speed of dose to make someone sick is huge and canbe >>>>> detected. >>>>> >>>>> This is what people name "deterministic effect" in radioprotection. >>>>> >>>>> This is above 700mSv as fast dose >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> there is also undeterministic effect, typically cancer, whose severity >>>>> is independent of the dose, but which are trigger for adult above >>>>> 100-200mSv as fast dose. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> modern biology taught that a cell can endure a given number of genetic >>>>> destruction without any short or long term problem. >>>>> >>>>> above a given rate, there is undeterministic effect (risk of caner of >>>>> any gravity) >>>>> >>>>> and then above a high rate deterministic effect from sickness to death. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> there is much unfounded fear, especially for fulbody scan , foetal >>>>> irradiation, positron imaging... >>>>> >>>>> the threshold today are well known, and the linear dose no treshold >>>>> scarmongering is definitively dead, escept in the media... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> this article in french is a good reference >>>>> >>>>> http://www.pseudo-sciences.org/spip.php?article1789 >>>>> >>>>> translated: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=fr&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pseudo-sciences.org%2Fspip.php%3Farticle1789&sandbox=1 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> for those doubting on it, it refers to element of biology that I've >>>>> seen few decade ago described for cancer inception , linked to HSP (heat >>>>> shock protein, which as said in the article don't work only for radiation >>>>> but for any aggression, mostly oxidative stress caused by respiration, the >>>>> worst aggression for DNA) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> there is a video in french which is very clear and interesting fro >>>>> some details not written >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5L9rrD3t3FY >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> for example there is reference to the number of damage that a cell can >>>>> endure without problem, and above whoch there is non deterministic risks. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> reference also to many myth propagated by scaremongers. >>>>> >>>>> I don't expect to convince as the propaganda is too strong to be >>>>> opposed by data. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> A phenomenon we observe in LENR domain. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2016-03-04 6:57 GMT+01:00 Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com>: >>>>> >>>>> Rossi is complaining about a 'failure to thrive' condition such as >>>>> losing weight without reason. We might consider that a primary symptom of >>>>> chronic radiation exposure is unexplained weight loss. >>>>> >>>>> Andrea Rossi >>>>> March 3, 2016 at 9:07 PM >>>>> Jed Orwell: >>>>> I continue to lose weight and we do not understand why. I am going to >>>>> make a lot of “scopies” you name one, I scope it, but I feel well and work >>>>> my 12 hours per day on my E-Cats; today another important loophole with >>>>> the >>>>> E-Cat X. >>>>> Anyway: yes, I am ready to pass to my Team all the skills necessary to >>>>> make without me, just in case. But I never in my life worked as well as I >>>>> am doing during these days. Obviously, the faster we go, the better. Until >>>>> the horse is good, better ride him. >>>>> F9. >>>>> Warm Regards, >>>>> A.R. >>>>> >>>>> LENR could be producing a form of stealth radiation; radiation that >>>>> damages structure and tissue but does not produce a reading on a radiation >>>>> meter. >>>>> >>>>> John Fisher has detected 1.5 MeV alpha particles radiating from a >>>>> central point of causation. Yet a gamma is not detected that should be >>>>> there when that alpha particle hits the CR-39. >>>>> >>>>> It is well known in many LENR experiments that helium is detected >>>>> without the generation of gamma radiation. This implies that alpha >>>>> particles are produced without the generation of the gammas that usually >>>>> accompany the alphas. >>>>> >>>>> How could this be possible, that alpha radiation can exist without the >>>>> detection of gamma radiation? It could be that a general state of multi >>>>> particle entanglement between the alpha particles and their center of >>>>> causation... let us call that cause an exotic neutral particle (ENP)... >>>>> transfers all gamma radiation through a quantum mechanical pathway to the >>>>> ENP. >>>>> >>>>> However, the damage that the alpha particle produces through kinetic >>>>> impact still occurs. Also, there is evidence that the ENP and float in the >>>>> air. If this is in fact true, this particle can be taken into the body >>>>> where it can catalyze nuclear reactions in tissue... and here too the >>>>> gamma >>>>> radiation is hidden. >>>>> >>>>> This possibility entered my mind when Mark LeClair claimed that he and >>>>> his research partner were sickened and entered the hospital after a >>>>> experiment with a cavitation based LENR system. Could LeClair have taken >>>>> into his body a large number of these ENPs. >>>>> >>>>> It is important to understand how ENPs work if they exist to protect >>>>> the thousands of replicators that will be getting into the science of >>>>> LENR. >>>>> >>>>> Like Marie Curie, Rossi might have sacrificed his health to the >>>>> unknown dangers that one must face in the LENR science. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
