Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

[Axil Axil]

 mischugnons...

I might know what they are. They have made themselves visible in the
research of Keith Fredericks that can be found here:

http://restframe.com/

I have described the  mischugnons as metalized hydrogen crystals and
how they work, how they store GeV levels of power, how they manifest a
monopole field, and how they catalyze the LENR reaction. Their
description starts with Holmlid, shows how the metallic hydrogen's
structure produces spin waves through hole superconductivity and
whispering gallery wave, how they can store massive amounts of energy,
and how that energy can be projected as monopole flux lines to
catalyzed proton and neutron weak force decay to produce mesons as
seen by Holmlid.

Keith Fredericks calls the tachyons but they are just a monopole like
quasiparticle that Holmlid and LENR reactors can created using a
catalyst.






On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 7:13 PM, Russ George  wrote:
> In many many experiments over the years the mischugnons have made their
> presence irrefutably known. It is a thrilling time just now in cold fusion
> as there are many confirmations and affirmations of the choirs existence,
> we’ve been hearing their voices for nearly 30 years and just now the
> theatrical smoke is beginning to clear just enough that we can see the
> outlines of the choir, it’s a big one. It’s not the single voices that make
> the music of the choir so wonderful it is the combination of them all.
> Perhaps it is a Gregorian harmony they are singing.
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2016 3:44 PM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons
>
>
>
> Ok.  So you've survived the stinkers and the peanut gallery and the
> charlatans, the high priests, the prelates and the faithful of physics.  In
> your own experiments you've seen muons or mischugenon.
>
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 5:32 PM, Russ George  wrote:
>
>
>
> What is interesting is that the real data has always shone most brightly
> even when the signal was incredibly poorly understood. That’s the benefit of
> longevity and dedication the real shining bits tend to agglomerate into an
> understandable thing. Such is the case it seems with Holmlid’s ‘muons’,
> there are too many coincidences coming together to ignore his contributions
> to what is becoming a choir.
>
>
>
> What are those coincidences that lead one inevitably to the conclusion that
> Holmlid is seeing muons, and that he's seeing the same thing you believe
> you've been seeing?  You speak with enough confidence to lead me to believe
> that you've read his work, are quite familiar with it and are able to
> support your position with concrete details.
>
>
>
> As for being the tutor or free simple sound-bite tour-guide sorry I have
> neither the time nor inclination to help the reluctant. There is so much to
> do and so little time to do it. As Thomas Edison so aptly put it long ago,
> “The thing I lose patience with most is the clock, its hands move too fast.”
>
>
>
> Alas it's not for my edification that you should answer these questions.
> It's for your own credibility!  You've taken on the position that Holmlid is
> seeing muons or mischugenon.  You should now give support for that position.
>
>
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

[Bob Cook]

Muons, if they osuffer the same ccur in LENR reactions will be a real problem 
for LENR+.  The technology will suffer the same issues as fission reactor 
technology minus one big disadvantage--raidioactive waste.  However, that 
relative advantage IMHO would be significant with respect to current nuclear 
power.  It would put lots of nails in the coffin of current nuclear technology.


Bob Cook



From: Axil Axil 
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2016 11:06 AM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

Unsolicited observations of identical experimental consequences lends
credence to the production of a common causative reaction. For
example, Defkalion saw not advantage in reporting a major problem that
they suffered in the testing and demonstration of their system that
later ture up in other systems. ME356 explained why his testing
instruments and sensors were malfunctioning 3 meters away from his
reaction. This is very similar to what Defkalion had reported.

Now Holmlid tells why such observations are a result of muon
production. Now, the picture becomes a little clearer, a common thread
can be drawn to the point that if ionization production is not
observed in a LENR experimental situation, then the power production
of the reaction and even its existence is rightly questioned.

On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 1:48 PM, Brian Ahern  wrote:
> Toomuch credit is being given to Me356 andDefkalion. For that matter, Mills
> also has a troublesome history. His latest announcement seems curiously like
> a 'Me too' response to .
>
> the E
>
> The discussion seems to accept the fraudulent claims and empowers them. If
> this was a legalaction we would refer to the 'alledged energy production'.
>
> 
> From: Jones Beene 
> Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2016 1:15 PM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: RE: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Axil Axil  If LENR is heavily deployed in a high density urban
> housing situation, then a dense field of general muon interference will
> produce a impossible to shield zone of electronic and electrical failure.
> 
>
> There is a well-known way to mollify this problem affordably, and provide
> extra energy at the same time. Lead itself is way too expensive.
>
> The idea is to capture muons in a thick jacket around the reactor. Very
> thick. The only way to do this cheaply is specialty concrete.
>
> 10 feet thickness of specialty concrete which is made with the addition of
> iron ore and lead ore to Portland cement will convert 90% of muons into low
> grade heat. Copper tubing can remove the heat. Not fancy, but ideal for
> places like northern China and Russia which can use lots of low grade heat.
> A dollar of lead ore is superior to $100 of lead metal.
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

[Bob Cook]

Muon decay in bodily tissue should create a source of 0.51 Mev EMR equal to 
about 103 electron-positron annihilations.  This is brobably sufficient to 
cause genetic damage, initiation of bad cancer cells, particularly in older 
folks whose immune system is not as good as it might have been in younger 
years.  As far as I know the ICRP ignores muon exposure.   (It's statistically 
a never-mind exposure.)


Bob Cook



From: Axil Axil 
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2016 9:45 AM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

More...

One thing that Holmlid, ME356, Eros, and Defkalion all have detected
is a high state of ionization as muons interacted with matter and
ionized it. There must be a huge flux of muons produced to disable
electronic equipment at meters away from the LENR reaction.

If LENR is heavily deployed in a high density urban housing situation,
then a dense field of general muon interference will produce a
impossible to shield zone of electronic and electrical failure.

On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 12:34 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
> The rule of thumb for light speed propagation is one foot per
> nanosecond. For the muon, a decay time on the average of 2.2
> microseconds implies that the field of muon decay is on the order of
> 2200 feet. muon decay can happen inside this 2200 foot sphere or far
> outside it based on the vagaries of radioactive decay.  The muon will
> not induce fusion until its energy is reduced enough to be captured by
> an atom. otherwise it will pass through less dense material without
> interaction.
>
> Because of entanglement, the fusion energy will be sent back to the
> source of the muon as a mechanism of the way LENR works so the fusion
> reaction will be hard to detect in the far field. In detail, no
> neutrons or gamma will be produced or detected.
>
> But as eros has found, if a heavy shield of lead and iron is placed in
> the flight path of the muon, the muon slows down and begins to react
> with atoms. Eros, a LENR experimenter with a functioning reactor began
> to detect nuclear reactions just outside the heavy lead and iron
> shield using a copper covered radiation counter. The dense matter is
> ionized enough to slow the muon flight quickly and produce rapid
> secondary nuclear reaction in the near field.
>
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>> For those who suspect that the Holmlid effect and the Mills effect are
>> related, no matter what the proponents of each may think, here is a further
>> thought from the fringe … about one of the possible implications. Holmlid
>> has suggested that a very high flux of muons can be produced by a subwatt
>> laser beam.
>>
>> Mills uses an electric arc and will probably offer a real demo of the
>> Suncell® at some point. No one doubts that it works but an extended demo
>> will be needed… therefore, even if everything seen thus far is little more
>> than PR fluff, we could have a worrisome situation in response to a much
>> longer demo.
>>
>> Since Mills is applying higher net power to reactants (even if Holmlid’s
>> laser provides more localized power) there is a chance that some portion of
>> the energy produced escapes the sun-cell as muons. If Holmlid gets millions
>> of muons per watt of coherent light, what will be the corresponding rate be
>> from an electric arc? If anything like this scenario turns out to be the
>> accurate, then any muons produced will decay at a predictable distance away
>> from the reactor, thus they could have been missed by BrLP in testing thus
>> far.
>>
>> The muon is an unstable fermion with a lifetime of 2.2 microseconds, which
>> is an eternity compared to most beta decays. Ignoring time dilation, this
>> would mean that muons, travelling at light speed, would be dispersing and
>> decaying in an imaginary sphere about 600 meters from the reactor. Thus, the
>> effect of radioactive decay could be significant at unexpected distance– and
>> Mills may never had imagined that this is a problem. Fortunately, humans are
>> exposed to a constant flux of muons due to cosmic rays, and the flux is
>> well-tolerated.
>>
>> Nevertheless, this detail is worth noting – and should Mills or his
>> associates start to feel a bit ill from the exposure – possibly an
>> unseasonal sun tan, then we can identify a culprit.
>>
>> The effects could be felt more in a remote office - than in the lab … which
>> is curious.

Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

[Jed Rothwell]

Russ George  wrote:

In many many experiments over the years the mischugnons have made their
> presence irrefutably known.
>

That's sorta lyrical, but I do not know what it means. This is not how
people normally describe experimental results. More technical detail and
some specifics would be appreciated.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

[Russ George]

In many many experiments over the years the mischugnons have made their 
presence irrefutably known. It is a thrilling time just now in cold fusion as 
there are many confirmations and affirmations of the choirs existence, we’ve 
been hearing their voices for nearly 30 years and just now the theatrical smoke 
is beginning to clear just enough that we can see the outlines of the choir, 
it’s a big one. It’s not the single voices that make the music of the choir so 
wonderful it is the combination of them all. Perhaps it is a Gregorian harmony 
they are singing.

 

 

From: Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2016 3:44 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

 

Ok.  So you've survived the stinkers and the peanut gallery and the charlatans, 
the high priests, the prelates and the faithful of physics.  In your own 
experiments you've seen muons or mischugenon.

 

On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 5:32 PM, Russ George  > wrote:

 

What is interesting is that the real data has always shone most brightly even 
when the signal was incredibly poorly understood. That’s the benefit of 
longevity and dedication the real shining bits tend to agglomerate into an 
understandable thing. Such is the case it seems with Holmlid’s ‘muons’, there 
are too many coincidences coming together to ignore his contributions to what 
is becoming a choir. 

 

What are those coincidences that lead one inevitably to the conclusion that 
Holmlid is seeing muons, and that he's seeing the same thing you believe you've 
been seeing?  You speak with enough confidence to lead me to believe that 
you've read his work, are quite familiar with it and are able to support your 
position with concrete details.

 

As for being the tutor or free simple sound-bite tour-guide sorry I have 
neither the time nor inclination to help the reluctant. There is so much to do 
and so little time to do it. As Thomas Edison so aptly put it long ago, “The 
thing I lose patience with most is the clock, its hands move too fast.”

 

Alas it's not for my edification that you should answer these questions.  It's 
for your own credibility!  You've taken on the position that Holmlid is seeing 
muons or mischugenon.  You should now give support for that position.

 

Eric

 

Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

[Eric Walker]

Ok.  So you've survived the stinkers and the peanut gallery and the
charlatans, the high priests, the prelates and the faithful of physics.  In
your own experiments you've seen muons or mischugenon.

On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 5:32 PM, Russ George  wrote:

What is interesting is that the real data has always shone most brightly
> even when the signal was incredibly poorly understood. That’s the benefit
> of longevity and dedication the real shining bits tend to agglomerate into
> an understandable thing. Such is the case it seems with Holmlid’s ‘muons’,
> there are too many coincidences coming together to ignore his contributions
> to what is becoming a choir.
>

What are those coincidences that lead one inevitably to the conclusion that
Holmlid is seeing muons, and that he's seeing the same thing you believe
you've been seeing?  You speak with enough confidence to lead me to believe
that you've read his work, are quite familiar with it and are able to
support your position with concrete details.


> As for being the tutor or free simple sound-bite tour-guide sorry I have
> neither the time nor inclination to help the reluctant. There is so much to
> do and so little time to do it. As Thomas Edison so aptly put it long ago,
> “The thing I lose patience with most is the clock, its hands move too fast.”
>

Alas it's not for my edification that you should answer these questions.
It's for your own credibility!  You've taken on the position that Holmlid
is seeing muons or mischugenon.  You should now give support for that
position.

Eric

RE: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

[Russ George]

It's a very long walk, I began in earnest on my lab bench the week after the
March 1989 cold fusion press conference, haven't stopped since. Some pauses
to carry on with other important bits of life but still working. Having
counted as working colleagues, defined by I or they standing side by side at
each other's experimental benches I think I can count a dozen or more of the
most successful cold fusion experimentalists amongst my cabal. Alas many are
now passed, RIP. 

 

The one constant over the decades has been the demand for clearly more than
human patience, aka lifetimes. Oh yeah also the endless cat calls from the
peanut gallery unable and unwilling to step onto the playing field, that's
also been a constant and most often unfathomable companion, aka stinkers. So
if you have most of a lifetime to dedicate to your listening there is a wide
variety of data just waiting to speak to you. The real data speaks with
unified and uniform voices and it says not 'eureka' but 'hey that's odd.'
Here's a hint 'odd emanations' are the one constant in working cold fusion
in perhaps all of its many forms. The emanations are odd enough that if you
are not especially diligent in looking outside the ordinary box you will
miss it, or only see the most fleeting hints. 

 

What the cold fusion data is saying is that our world is so much more of a
complex "atom ecology" than what the hide bound schools of physics would
teach to those obedient enough to make the grades. Of course the charlatans,
aka high priests, prelates, & faithful, of physics are sure to proclaim all
interlopers are committing sins. And surely in the cold fusion wilderness
one finds in great abundance all manner of peculiar and disreputable flim
flam spun by those who engage in arbitrage of science spinning bundles of
bullshit like a Lehman Brothers mortgage bundle where a paltry few real
values carry endless amounts of worthless bullshit. What experience conveys
to a few is the ability to see who is bundling the banal. Alas social media
has made every armchair a pulpit so it is truly a challenge, fields pissed
upon so profoundly as cold fusion are awash with distractions. 

 

What is interesting is that the real data has always shone most brightly
even when the signal was incredibly poorly understood. That's the benefit of
longevity and dedication the real shining bits tend to agglomerate into an
understandable thing. Such is the case it seems with Holmlid's 'muons',
there are too many coincidences coming together to ignore his contributions
to what is becoming a choir.  

 

As for being the tutor or free simple sound-bite tour-guide sorry I have
neither the time nor inclination to help the reluctant. There is so much to
do and so little time to do it. As Thomas Edison so aptly put it long ago,
"The thing I lose patience with most is the clock, its hands move too fast."


 

 

 

From: Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2016 2:48 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

 

On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 4:40 PM, Russ George  > wrote:

 

My comment already gave my view on what Holmlid is seeing, are they muon or
mischugenon, that is the question.

 

Your previous comments were that they are either muons or mischugenon.  You
didn't explain why you thought they weren't something else, e.g., beta
electrons.  Or electrical noise.

 

Regardless of what they are they are surely there and not one of the common
inside the box beasties. That they behave like muons is simply listening to
the data speak to us.

 

Can you elaborate on why you think they behave like muons?  How is the data
speaking to you and telling you this?  Surely you will have read Holmlid's
papers and come to this conclusion after considering other possibilities.
Walk us through the process that led you to this conclusion.

 

Eric

 

Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

[Eric Walker]

On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 4:40 PM, Russ George  wrote:

My comment already gave my view on what Holmlid is seeing, are they muon or
> mischugenon, that is the question.
>

Your previous comments were that they are either muons or mischugenon.  You
didn't explain why you thought they weren't something else, e.g., beta
electrons.  Or electrical noise.


> Regardless of what they are they are surely there and not one of the
> common inside the box beasties. That they behave like muons is simply
> listening to the data speak to us.
>

Can you elaborate on why you think they behave like muons?  How is the data
speaking to you and telling you this?  Surely you will have read Holmlid's
papers and come to this conclusion after considering other possibilities.
Walk us through the process that led you to this conclusion.

Eric

RE: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

[Russ George]

My comment already gave my view on what Holmlid is seeing, are they muon or 
mischugenon, that is the question. Regardless of what they are they are surely 
there and not one of the common inside the box beasties. That they behave like 
muons is simply listening to the data speak to us. Just listen carefully, it 
takes a long time, decades and more to hear and understand the story of the 
data that comes from deep within our atoms and ether. 

 

From: Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2016 2:01 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

 

On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 3:57 PM, Russ George  > wrote:

 

Of course some of the pundits in this swirling Vortex seem far more interested 
in making a stink than in letting the data speak, such as is common amongst 
bits found in such environments. I happen to fancy Holmlid’s ‘muon’ as a very 
good step in the right direction delivered through very valid experimentation 
and real data not mere brain farts. Let the armchair semantic stinkers twist in 
the vortex, alas if they could only be sinkers they would disappear sooner.

 

You are a man of science and of reason.  You will surely give reasons to 
support your suggestion that Holmlid is seeing muons and not something else.  
And you will respond intelligently and without ad hom to rebuttals to those 
reasons.  Please share with us your reasons for thinking that Holmlid has 
successfully ruled out other explanations.

 

Eric

 

Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

[Eric Walker]

On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 3:57 PM, Russ George  wrote:

Of course some of the pundits in this swirling Vortex seem far more
> interested in making a stink than in letting the data speak, such as is
> common amongst bits found in such environments. I happen to fancy Holmlid’s
> ‘muon’ as a very good step in the right direction delivered through very
> valid experimentation and real data not mere brain farts. Let the armchair
> semantic stinkers twist in the vortex, alas if they could only be sinkers
> they would disappear sooner.
>

You are a man of science and of reason.  You will surely give reasons to
support your suggestion that Holmlid is seeing muons and not something
else.  And you will respond intelligently and without ad hom to rebuttals
to those reasons.  Please share with us your reasons for thinking that
Holmlid has successfully ruled out other explanations.

Eric

RE: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

[Russ George]

Muons or mischugenon’s that is the question. When I presented my evidence for 
similar mysterious sub-atomic beasties to Edward Teller many years ago his 
interpretation of the data led to him naming my mysterious particles 
“mischugenon’s”, aka crazy particles. Edward and I could really not make heads 
or tails of them, but that they existed was not in question.  Of course some of 
the pundits in this swirling Vortex seem far more interested in making a stink 
than in letting the data speak, such as is common amongst bits found in such 
environments. I happen to fancy Holmlid’s ‘muon’ as a very good step in the 
right direction delivered through very valid experimentation and real data not 
mere brain farts. Let the armchair semantic stinkers twist in the vortex, alas 
if they could only be sinkers they would disappear sooner. 

 

From: Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2016 1:03 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

 

On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Jones Beene  > wrote:

Whoa, Eric. Since when does “logic” contradict experimental results? Where – 
precisely - is this fountain of logic that contradicts Holmlid’s real data? 
Isn’t every scientific breakthrough a contradiction of logic, almost by 
definition”?

I think you missed my point.  I do not deny the validity of experimental 
results, in this case Holmlid's.  I question his conclusion that they're 
explained by muons (and pions, etc.), which is an interpretation of his 
experimental results.  (It is also possible his experimental results are 
mistaken, but I do not have specific reason to doubt them at this point.)  It 
seems to me that muons can be ruled out rather easily for various reasons, in 
the same way that free neutrons can be ruled out as a mechanism in LENR.  If 
one does not believe this is true, ok, then further experiments can and should 
be done to eliminate them as a possibility, done by people other than Holmlid, 
who has invested his reputation in there being muons.

 

I did not intend to criticize you specifically, except to suggest that 
sometimes you explore possibilities without adding qualifications, which can be 
confusing for people who have not read a lot of your posts.  You also often add 
qualifications, so it's not intended as a strong criticism.  My point pertained 
to others who un-self-consciously pursue a pure engineering approach in which 
the claims of one inventor are simply chained together with those of another 
inventor to obtain some far-out result.  With you, at least you're pretty good 
about pointing out that it's just speculation.  With many people, there's no 
clear evidence that they know that they're engaging in speculation, which can 
lead to long threads whose initial premises, many emails back, were doubtful to 
begin with.

I have my doubts about the muon data, like everyone else … mostly because it is 
revolutionary, since it appears to have been done correctly in practice - but 
no one to my knowledge has contradicted by experiment or failed replication, 
the real data of Holmlid; and until then, he should be given benefit of the 
doubt …

I always give inventors and experimentalists the benefit of the doubt with 
regard to the signals that their instruments record.  I start out with great 
skepticism for the interpretations they cook up to make sense of those signals. 
 I suspect that Holmlid may be seeing something LENR-related.  But to my 
knowledge has yet to engage someone with expertise in measuring charged 
particle radiation to validate that he's seeing muons; he continues to insist 
that an oscilloscope can be used to rule out other possibilities; and he 
imagines that it's possible to come up with a new way of detecting low energy 
muons without the benefit of a calibration source of some kind to provide a 
cross check on his results.

 

Eric

 

Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

[Eric Walker]

On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> Whoa, Eric. Since when does “logic” contradict experimental results? Where
> – precisely - is this fountain of logic that contradicts Holmlid’s real
> data? Isn’t every scientific breakthrough a contradiction of logic,
> almost by definition”?
>
I think you missed my point.  I do not deny the validity of experimental
results, in this case Holmlid's.  I question his conclusion that they're
explained by muons (and pions, etc.), which is an interpretation of his
experimental results.  (It is also possible his experimental results are
mistaken, but I do not have specific reason to doubt them at this point.)
 It seems to me that muons can be ruled out rather easily for various
reasons, in the same way that free neutrons can be ruled out as a mechanism
in LENR.  If one does not believe this is true, ok, then further
experiments can and should be done to eliminate them as a possibility, done
by people other than Holmlid, who has invested his reputation in there
being muons.

I did not intend to criticize you specifically, except to suggest that
sometimes you explore possibilities without adding qualifications, which
can be confusing for people who have not read a lot of your posts.  You
also often add qualifications, so it's not intended as a strong criticism.
My point pertained to others who un-self-consciously pursue a pure
engineering approach in which the claims of one inventor are simply chained
together with those of another inventor to obtain some far-out result.
With you, at least you're pretty good about pointing out that it's just
speculation.  With many people, there's no clear evidence that they know
that they're engaging in speculation, which can lead to long threads whose
initial premises, many emails back, were doubtful to begin with.

> I have my doubts about the muon data, like everyone else … mostly because
> it is revolutionary, since it appears to have been done correctly in
> practice - but no one to my knowledge has contradicted by experiment or
> failed replication, the real data of Holmlid; and until then, he should
> be given benefit of the doubt …
>
I always give inventors and experimentalists the benefit of the doubt with
regard to the signals that their instruments record.  I start out with
great skepticism for the interpretations they cook up to make sense of
those signals.  I suspect that Holmlid may be seeing something
LENR-related.  But to my knowledge has yet to engage someone with expertise
in measuring charged particle radiation to validate that he's seeing muons;
he continues to insist that an oscilloscope can be used to rule out other
possibilities; and he imagines that it's possible to come up with a new way
of detecting low energy muons without the benefit of a calibration source
of some kind to provide a cross check on his results.

Eric

RE: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

[Jones Beene]

From: Eric Walker 

…. Claims made by … Holmlid, which are contraindicated in multiple ways by a 
simple application of logic are nonetheless incorporated into analysis as 
though they are factual.  

Whoa, Eric. Since when does “logic” contradict experimental results? Where – 
precisely - is this fountain of logic that contradicts Holmlid’s real data? 
Isn’t every scientific breakthrough a contradiction of logic, almost by 
definition”?

In the realm of subjectivity – “application of logic” can be rather low on the 
latter, down there slightly above “because I told you so” or “ that’s what I 
was taught at University”.  There are no hard and fast rules of logic other 
than when experience is verified by experiment -- and experimental data is 
exactly what Holmlid has provided. 

I have my doubts about the muon data, like everyone else … mostly because it is 
revolutionary, since it appears to have been done correctly in practice - but 
no one to my knowledge has contradicted by experiment or failed replication, 
the real data of Holmlid; and until then, he should be given benefit of the 
doubt … 

Holmlid has the proper credentials and educational background, the work 
experience, the intelligence, the University affiliation, the strong complement 
of co-authors, a long string of peer-reviewed publications, and so on. There is 
no reason not to afford him full benefit of doubt without any need of 
qualification, especially on any forum where LENR is generally tolerated.

Jones

Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

[Jed Rothwell]

Eric Walker  wrote:


> Some contributors here are in fact more reserved in their judgment about
> different claims than they appear and simply have a communication style
> that omits all of the careful qualifications one would hope to see.
>

Yup.

When there are doubts about a claim, I like to see one qualification per
message. Start off with something like:

"Assuming the claim is true . . ."

You don't need to keep repeating that. Expressing too many qualifications
or reservations gets in the way of communication.

- Jed

[Vo]:LENR SAYS NO TO DEFEATISM, YES TO MATHEMATICS?

[Peter Gluck]

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/11/nov-13-2016-lenr-says-no-to-dfeatism.html

peter
-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 12:48 PM, Brian Ahern  wrote:
>
> The discussion seems to accept the fraudulent claims and empowers them. If
> this was a legalaction we would refer to the 'alledged energy production'.
>
That is a weakness of Vortex.  Claims made by characters of various
stripes, including Holmlid, which are contraindicated in multiple ways by a
simple application of logic are nonetheless incorporated into analysis as
though they are factual.  I also see this at LENR Forum, and even more so
in the comment sections at E-Cat world, which I no longer follow closely.
Over a period of years, one learns to filter out much of what is discussed
and to focus on specific details of interest.  I am sure all of this is
disorienting to someone coming upon it fresh.

Some contributors here are in fact more reserved in their judgment about
different claims than they appear and simply have a communication style
that omits all of the careful qualifications one would hope to see.

Eric