XPost: sci.electronics.design   
   From: bill.sloman@ieee.org   
      
   On 21/02/2026 5:06 pm, Jeremiah Jones wrote:   
   > Bill Sloman  wrote:   
   >> On 20/02/2026 8:04 pm, Jeremiah Jones wrote:   
   >>> Bill Sloman  wrote:   
   >>>> On 20/02/2026 4:04 pm, Jeremiah Jones wrote:   
   >>>>> Bill Sloman  wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 19/02/2026 7:25 pm, Jeremiah Jones wrote:   
   >>>>>>> Thomas Heger  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> Am Sonntag000015, 15.02.2026 um 22:30 schrieb J. J. Lodder:   
   >>>>>>>>> Thomas Heger  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> Well: actually 'cold fusion' would be an option.   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> But this would require a beam of strange particles (afair 'muons').   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> But as a strange coincidence, one of the very few sources of such   
   beams   
   >>>>>>>>>> in existence was not that far away:   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>        Brookhaven National Lab.   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> Now building WTC7 showed a very strange pattern of the smoke it had   
   >>>>>>>>>> emitted, which pointed directly away from the direction, in which   
   BNL   
   >>>>>>>>>> was located.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> Getting better all the time !   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> So actually those criminals at BNL   
   >>>>>>>>> (you know, scientists, what do you expect)   
   >>>>>>>>> destroyed the WTC by cold muon catalysed fusion.   
   >>>>>>>>> (just after the planes hit)   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> Keep it up !   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Well, that was just an IDEA!   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> The idea was, that a facility was used inside a building at the BNL   
   >>>>>>>> site, which had the name '911' (still has!).   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Only problem with this theory:   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> BNL is about 95 km away (roughly east) and is located near Montauk in   
   >>>>>>>> the Hamptons.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Could have been a little too far away for muons.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Butbutbut... muons can go right through solid earth like it's not   
   there.   
   >>>>>>> They come streaming from the sun.  95 miles is just a cakewalk.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> They'd have about as much chance of getting through sold earth as an   
   >>>>>> electron beam.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Nope, electron beams can march right through solid earth, in single   
   >>>>> file, and come out the other end. Its called conduction.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> That does depend on electronic conduction. The centre of the earth is   
   >>>> metallic - mostly iron. The inner core is solid (and very hot) and   
   >>>> there's a shell of liquid iron about that, but you have to get through   
   >>>> the earth's crust to get there, and that isn't all that conductive.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> An electron beam won't make it down to the (mostly) iron core.   
   >>>   
   >>> The electrons don't have to go to the center of the earth.  They are   
   >>> only going to the WTC 95 miles away, just below the bulge of the earth.   
   >>> And earth's crust is a fine conductor.  Don't you know what a "ground   
   >>> rod" is for?   
   >>   
   >> Sure I do, but it wouldn't carry an electron beam.   
   >   
   > You "carry" an electron beam?  Did you put it in a stroller on a nice   
   > day?   
      
   Steel beams differ from electron beams. You could point an electron beam   
   at ground rod, and the electrons would vanish into the rod, but they   
   wouldn't come out the other side looking anything like a beam.   
      
   >> implies that the electrons or muons would keep on going in the same   
   >> direction after they hit the dirt and rocks. They don't keep on going   
   >> very far at all - way less than 95 miles. Think inches.   
   >   
   > Electrons follow the path of least resistance to the WTC.   
      
   Conspiracy theory fans follow the path of least cognition to the   
   conclusion they want.   
      
   >> I worked on electron microscopes for nine years (1982 to 1991) and I do   
   >> know a bit about electron beams. You clearly know nothing.   
   >   
   > Nothing is more than you know, cuz everything you think you know is   
   > wrong.   
      
   A sweeping judgement, which does happen to be wrong.   
      
   >>> Did you get your degree from Trump U, or what.   
   >>   
   >> University of Melbourne. It's been there since 1853, and is currently   
   >> the top-ranked university in Australia, and 19th in the world (at least   
   >   
   > Wooohoooo!!!  Honey, put on yer party dress.   
   >   
   > Have you tried asking nicely for a refund?   
      
   They don't even refund money to people to people who don't finish their   
   courses - which is to say to people whom they shouldn't have accepted as   
   students. I came out with an M.Sc. and a Ph.D. and they'd probably claim   
   that I'd got value for money.   
      
   >> on one list, not that that means much). Trump University got shut down   
   >> as a fraud shortly after it was set up. It didn't last long enough for   
   >> me to have been able to get any kind of degree from it, and I'm not   
   >> gullible enough to have been in their target demographic. Not being   
   >> American put me even father out of reach. As insults go this isn't   
   >> plausible enough to be worth making.   
   >   
   > Yet you had to comment on it at length.   
      
   Never miss a chance to show up the twit you are responding to.   
      
   >>>>> Muons can do it too.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Except that they can't and don't. Their 2.2usec lifetime mean that they   
   >>>> decay - to two neutrinos and and electron (or a positron for positively   
   >>>> charged muon) long before they get anywhere.   
   >>>   
   >>> Muons beam through the earth just like electrons, but faster.   
   >>   
   >> Which is to say, not very far and not all that fast (though they do get   
   >> farther than electrons).   
   >>   
   >>> They use   
   >>> Extenze lotion for maximum endurance.  No 2.2 sec whambam.  They can go   
   >>> for weeks.   
   >>   
   >> One of the tales you tell your girl-friends. Try lying to them about   
   >> muon beams - it will take longer for them to find out that you are lying.   
   >   
   > My women don't want to hear about muons.   
      
   They'd need to be functionally illiterate to put up with you.   
      
   > Is that what you tried to talk to girls about?  Are you still an incel?   
      
   My wife would have found that an odd question.   
      
   >>> I can't believe I have to explain all this to a newbie.   
   >>   
   >> I've been posting to sci.electronics.design since 1996, and my first   
   >> comment got published in the Review of Scientific Instruments in 1972.   
   >> Only a very dim newbie would make that kind of mistake.   
   >   
   > Ok... you first posted here in 1996 and then your post was published 24   
   > years EARLIER.  Did they teach you some time travel at TU?  Or just the   
   > part about how to shamelessly spin whoppers?   
      
   Phil Hobbs found a cite of my 1972 comment in Volume 6 of "Experimental   
   Physics". It was about photomultiplier non-linearity, which doesn't come   
   up here often. Your reading skills aren't great. A post here is a   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)