I finally managed to take some time to respond on the particle beam topic, as multiple claims have been taken out of context so far, others are false, spreading completely wrong information on the topic.
First of all I understand the confusion about the scientists mentioned, because if I put a name, the first result due to the search algorithm will undoubtedly be the most known and/or searched result, which was just the result of an error having only looked at the first search results. Since both scientific minds like
Anthony Jackson or the books published by
Bahman Zohuri that I used in previous publications among others, are not the product of a boxer or a musician but of people specialized in their respective fields and this in no way discredits the work that they presented.
For now, I will leave Mike Griffin's statement almost until the end as it is certainly something very important to consider.
To try to avoid the error that the names produce as it happened before, in this case I will use as a reference the publication of someone better known, which is
Philip Nielsen who was involved in the investigation of different direct energy weapons within U.S. Air Force
"First of all, that's not the difference between a normal Practice Beam and a Neutral Particle Beam weapon, but rather the difference between a standard Particle Beam (Which is essentially a glorified electrical arc gun but steroids. ) while the other is the Neutral Particle Beam which is what was theorized to mess with molecules, so once again that's misinformation on your end."
Literally no proper context is provided, what I can infer is that they refer to the difference of what constitutes
a charged particle beam (CPB) and a neutral particle beam (NPB) to what I can say is correct, but incorrect information is being given without any evidence by saying that the difference between a CPB and an NPB is that they work differently when thestatements clearly state otherwise, since despite the difference in composition that the particle beams have,
they manage to affect the target in the same way.
The clear difference between the particle beams is undoubtedly their composition since a CPB is composed of electrically charged particles and an NPB is composed of neutrally charged particles and it is due to this difference in the compositions that both particle beams can be
affected of differently depending on where they are, but the effects they cause towards their targets remain the same (such as kinetic energy, ionizing radiation, etc.) as there are many things that work within the particle beam, after all, what The only thing that works is not just kinetic energy
although that is another topic that is not relevant at the moment.
"Firstly, Neutral Particle beams are the ones that ionize, not normal Particle Beams."
Now showing that a CPB and an NPB work the same way with their target, let's move on to the part where they interact with molecules and/or atoms as this is due to
ionizing radiation as shown in the comments above. This is where there is also ionization caused by a beam from a particle weapon coming into contact with the atmosphere.
Ionization is present in both a CPB and an NPB, because an NPB is not even ionized as falsely indicated, since this only occurs when it comes into contact with the atmosphere, colliding with the molecules that are in it causing them to particles shoot in different directions,
this is where the beam begins to ionize and we already know what happens when we shoot an NPB into the atmosphere (literally the analogy of the pellet shot in a room full of dynamite). While a CPB is already ionized, it will only begin to ionize everything around the beam itself without having the problems that an NPB presents within the atmosphere.
According to DefenseOne, U.S. Undersecretary of Defense for Research and Engineering Mike Griffin recently told a gathering of defense reporters, “We are deferring work on neutral particle beams, indefinitely. It’s just not near-term enough.” Griffin emphasized however that the Pentagon was still forging ahead with research into lasers and microwave weapons, for use by ground forces, air forces, and in space.
Now, moving on to the particle beam acceptance issue, there are a lot of things that have been taken out of context regarding Mike Griffin's statements.
For starters, Griffin made it clear that particle beam work is being deferring, even if it's indefinitely, it doesn't mean it's been abandoned (this is something I'll supplement later). There is a semantic difference between something being deferred and something being abandoned, as there is no statement where Mike Griffin says particle beam work is abandoned, even he himself declares that they are putting it off because it is not a job that can be achieved in the short term, which is different from abandoning it completely.
"The man himself who's most definitely a lot more knowledgeable than any pseudo intellectual on this thread by a long shot, openly admitted that the Particle Beam Weapons affects have yet to ever be proven, and they have no idea on what it actually does."
Here we can see that a completely bogus test is being given by not providing the proper context for what Mike Griffin was talking about at the time.
But Griffin added that the Pentagon is still pursuing directed energy research in lasers and microwave energy, aiming eventually to deploy them on combat aircraft, with ground units, and aboard satellites.
“My own opinion is we need to get systems built and put onto platforms so we can see what they do how they do it,” he said, meaning how the weapons interact with their platform(s) and environment. “We need to understand the lethality of those systems, things like beam control. We need to know how to scale them up in practical ways. If you have 250 kilowatts of, say, laser, and you are operating at best at 50-percent efficiency, you have to figure out what to do with the other kilowatts of heat.
We clearly see that Griffin changes the subject to refer to laser and microwave weapons. And we even see that he use a LAZER weapon as an example and not that of a particle weapon, since even when he refer to the beam, he mean the laser beam itself, which is a
terminology that is not only used for particle beams , because it is also used to refer to a beam from a laser weapon.
And this is combined with the final statement of Michael Griffin.
“So there are a lot of practical problems with real-world weapons systems,” he said. “We are spending money on it.”
where Michael Griffin refers to directed energy weapons in general, since all of them always present adverse problems such as the loss of energy from the beam for various reasons, especially the
"atmosphere" that surrounds the weapon, since we can see a statement to the respect in Nielsen's book where he mentions this loss of energy that even Michael Griffin refers to in laser weapons and that they are trying to solve by looking for a way to empower them as seen in
the first paragraphs of the publication.
We can also witness a final statement from Philip Nielsen in his book on building a particle beam weapon.
Which indicates that the hypothesis of how a particle beam weapon works is completely clear, and I repeat, only its CONSTRUCTION is what represents a problem for multiple mishaps, since if a particle beam weapon were created it would be very rudimentary plus the costs and problems that it would cause, so it would be considered
unfeasible for its military application. That is why technological advances are still expected and this is something that goes hand in hand with Michael Griffin's statement that tells us that the creation of a particle beam is something that cannot be carried out in the short term by postponing the project of indefinitely. That's why I mentioned in a previous comment that if it were possible to create a portable-sized accelerator, this would be one of the biggest advancements in building the much desired
particle beam, as of the 4 directed energy weapons, it is the particle beam the one that shows the best efficiency.
Literally, multiple tests of the effects of a particle beam weapon have already been provided, the difference between CPB and NPB and how they work in the same way with their objective, their interaction with matter, the multiple statements that test the hypothesis, etc. I don't want to sound offensive or condescending (and I apologize if anyone ever felt this way) as this is for informational purposes only. But I'd really appreciate if they could provide clear evidence backed by some scientific association to show that the hypothesis behind a particle beam weapon is completely wrong, as there are multiple essays on this topic backed by scientific minds saying otherwise. Since so far they have only given incorrect statements and the only evidence that was provided does not even support a rebuttal to the particle beam problem as it was completely taken out of context.
