Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Eric Walker]

I found the LENR Forum thread where we looked in detail at several papers
by Holmlid and Holmlid and Olafsson:

   - dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2015.06.116, "Spontaneous ejection of
   high-energy particles from ultra-dense deuterium D(0)", Holmlid and Olafsson
   - dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4928109, "Muon detection studied by pulse-height
   energy analysis: Novel converter arrangements", Holmlid and Olafsson
   - dx.doi.org/10.1142/S0218301315500809, "Nuclear particle decay in a
   multi-MeV beam ejected by pulsed-laser impact on ultra-dense hydrogen
   H(0)", Holmlid

https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/3728-can-we-talk-about-holmlid/

Here is the mainstream physics view on ultra-dense deuterium, which, even
though it might be blinkered, is good at least to be aware of:

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/36064/is-ultradense-deuterium-real

Eric

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Bob Higgins]

Jones,

On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 3:29 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

>
> Bob Higgins wrote:
>
>>  A long CV doesn't make contradictory claims OK.
>>
> Maybe not, but the combined reputation and many long CVs of the dozens of
> co-authors, overcomes many objections ... such as measurement error,  and
> can at least explain why the claims are not contradictory to known physics
> in the first place. There is an impressive list of co-authors and it is a
> mistake to gloss over the sum of their experience.
>

If they have an explanation of why it is not a contradiction, why haven't
they published a better theory or explain how an H(0) has simultaneously
tremendous Coulomb potential energy but is lower total energy than H2?

>
> If you have a reasonable explanation for the contradiction of the notion
>> of "Coulombic explosion" and the H(0) having a lower Hamiltonian than H2, I
>> want to hear it.
>>
>

> OK, no problem. There is no contradiction at all here, and in fact, the
> opposite correlation appears to be operative.
>
> The Hamiltonians of H(O) when considered as individual particles in not
> important to the outcome, since the ability of a combined system of many
> particles as a stationary target benefits from lower energy of particles -
> at least in the context of a chirped laser pulse operating on system where
> the lowest net energy at the target stage, not the highest, presents the
> opportunity for an annihilation event.
>
> The Hamiltonian for a large system of discrete UDH particles is a function
> of their combined coordinates and momenta, and for a target you want it to
> be minimized. In fact, the animation on Wiki's entry for "Coulomb
> explosion" can be read to explain exactly why lower Hamiltonian for the
> quantum dot (as a a target) prior to irradiation allow more coupling - not
> less.
>
> Holmlid shows an energy diagram for the coupled systems (molecules, Figure
1, page 4 in his latest paper).  In this chart, H2 is shown with an energy
minimum at 74 pm, and H(1)=RM with an energy minimum at 150 pm.  The energy
minimum for the H(1)=RM is higher than that for H2, which is as it should
be.  RM is a metastable state and in the presence of an energy disturbance,
the RM will spontaneously re-assemble into the lower energy state of H2.
In this same chart, Holmlid is showing a hypothetical H(0) with a 2.3 pm
bond distance having a lower minimum energy than H2.  This means that with
an energy disturbance, the H2 would spontaneously reassemble into H(0).
Barrett (*Structure and Bonding*) states that the H2 form is the lowest
energy and that any form of hydrogen molecules with a greater number of
hydrogen atoms is less stable than H2.  So, how can an individual particle,
imbued with such tremendous Coulomb potential energy, have an energy
minimum lower than that of H2?  As far as we know, it can't exist.  Holmlid
has provided nothing to show how this can be so.

Holmlid talks about the H(0) as a particle with tremendous Coulomb
potential energy in its molecular binding due to its 2.3 pm bond length.
Getting it into such a high potential molecular binding energy state would
require tremendous pressures like that inside the core of Jupiter.  This is
not something that can come from catalysis.  Catalysis is only going to
exchange a tiny amount of energy (endothermic or exothermic) like the
difference between ortho- and para-hydrogen.

When you talk about multiple particles, the distance between the separate
particles cannot be 2.3 pm or they would not be able to *be* separate
particles.  The multiple particles will have at minimum the total energy of
the individual particles + whatever kinetic energies they have in sum.  So,
if the individual particles have more energy than H2, then the sum of the
collection of particles would have more energy than the sum of H2
molecules.  If the collection of particles were in some form of condensate,
the minimum energy they would have is still the sum of the individual
energies plus whatever is their collective kinetic energy - still more than
H2.

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Axil Axil]

sts on the absurd Coulombic explosion
>>> explanation for the energy in the particles he measures and how close two
>>> protons would have to be to release such energy (2.3 pm) by his
>>> calculation.  Coulombic energy would have to be a potential energy (like a
>>> compressed spring) that would have to be ADDED to get that much energy in
>>> an H(0) 2.3pm state compared to a much greater spaced H2 (74 pm).  Yet, in
>>> all of his energy diagrams he shows H(0) as being a lower Hamiltonian
>>> energy than H2.  These claims are in direct contradiction.  The foundation
>>> for H(0) is not there - not in any of his papers.  Only a ridiculous,
>>> contradictory case has been made for it.
>>>
>>> Could there have been superfluid states on the surface of the metal?
>>> That is entirely plausible as rivers and islands of atom-thick RM form on
>>> the surface of the metal.  It has absolutely nothing to do with an H(0)
>>> state.
>>>
>>> If we in Vortex want to make a useful contribution to Holmlid's reports,
>>> we should propose and consider what other explanations are reasonable for
>>> his data.  Start with the possible superfluid/superconducting atom-thick
>>> layer of RM on the metal's surface.  How would this be affected by a
>>> laser?  How would plasmons form in layered structure comprised of
>>> dielectric, atom-thick superconductive film, and normally conductive
>>> metal?  What would be the consequences of polaritons in such a system?
>>>
>>> Think before lobbing insults.
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Great comment on Holmlid’s body of work by Axil. I concur that people
>>>> who fire critiques of others work based on the fact that they are too lazy
>>>> to do anything other than make pompous comment on materials based on their
>>>> confusion stemming from the fact that everything in the author’s work is
>>>> not recapitulated in a single paper are not worthy of paying attention to.
>>>> Such behavior is characteristic of trolling not honest and earnest
>>>> productive dialog. But this is the nature of the internet which facilitates
>>>> spouting off from the lip/fingertip ever the bane of thoughtful exchange of
>>>> ideas. Vortex-l often digresses into a seedy barscape too late at night.
>>>> Ces’t la vie.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com]
>>>> *Sent:* Sunday, January 22, 2017 10:11 AM
>>>> *To:* vortex-l
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Holmlid has been writing papers on ultra dense hydogen since the early
>>>> 1990s. There must be 100 produce so far. It is unreasonable to expect all
>>>> the details about UDH and Holmlid's research into it over all those years
>>>> to be recapitulated in this latest paper.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Holmlid thinking on UDH has evolved as his experimentation has
>>>> advanced. This makes reading through all those papers confusing with
>>>> seeming contradiction between some of his works.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Even in his new paper, there is an cut and pasted reiteration of some
>>>> old stuff from previous research which suggests that fusion was the cause
>>>> of some reaction characteristics, but latter in the conclusions Holmlid
>>>> states a different case.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Furthermore, Holmlid's thinking has been greatly influenced by the
>>>> works and theories put forth by  J.E. Hirsch and his school of
>>>> followers.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In the introduction in his new paper, Holmlid states:
>>>>
>>>> .
>>>>
>>>> "They may all be characterized as spin-based Rydberg Matter (RM) [2
>>>> <http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0169895#pone.0169895.ref002>].
>>>> This model is based on a theoretical description by J.E. Hirsch [7
>>>> <http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0169895#pone.0169895.ref007>
>>>> ]."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  J.E. Hirsch has developed a theory for type 2 superconductivity that
>>>> contradicts existing dogma

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Jones Beene]

Bob Higgins wrote:

 A long CV doesn't make contradictory claims OK.
Maybe not, but the combined reputation and many long CVs of the dozens 
of co-authors, overcomes many objections ... such as measurement error,  
and can at least explain why the claims are not contradictory to known 
physics in the first place. There is an impressive list of co-authors 
and it is a mistake to gloss over the sum of their experience.


If you have a reasonable explanation for the contradiction of the 
notion of "Coulombic explosion" and the H(0) having a lower 
Hamiltonian than H2, I want to hear it.
OK, no problem. There is no contradiction at all here, and in fact, the 
opposite correlation appears to be operative.


The Hamiltonians of H(O) when considered as individual particles in not 
important to the outcome, since the ability of a combined system of many 
particles as a stationary target benefits from lower energy of particles 
- at least in the context of a chirped laser pulse operating on system 
where the lowest net energy at the target stage, not the highest, 
presents the opportunity for an annihilation event.


The Hamiltonian for a large system of discrete UDH particles is a 
function of their combined coordinates and momenta, and for a target you 
want it to be minimized. In fact, the animation on Wiki's entry for 
"Coulomb explosion" can be read to explain exactly why lower Hamiltonian 
for the quantum dot (as a a target) prior to irradiation allow more 
coupling - not less.



Otherwise, you've got nothing.

You are going to have to do far better than that ...

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Bob Higgins]

een superfluid states on the surface of the metal?
>> That is entirely plausible as rivers and islands of atom-thick RM form on
>> the surface of the metal.  It has absolutely nothing to do with an H(0)
>> state.
>>
>> If we in Vortex want to make a useful contribution to Holmlid's reports,
>> we should propose and consider what other explanations are reasonable for
>> his data.  Start with the possible superfluid/superconducting atom-thick
>> layer of RM on the metal's surface.  How would this be affected by a
>> laser?  How would plasmons form in layered structure comprised of
>> dielectric, atom-thick superconductive film, and normally conductive
>> metal?  What would be the consequences of polaritons in such a system?
>>
>> Think before lobbing insults.
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Great comment on Holmlid’s body of work by Axil. I concur that people
>>> who fire critiques of others work based on the fact that they are too lazy
>>> to do anything other than make pompous comment on materials based on their
>>> confusion stemming from the fact that everything in the author’s work is
>>> not recapitulated in a single paper are not worthy of paying attention to.
>>> Such behavior is characteristic of trolling not honest and earnest
>>> productive dialog. But this is the nature of the internet which facilitates
>>> spouting off from the lip/fingertip ever the bane of thoughtful exchange of
>>> ideas. Vortex-l often digresses into a seedy barscape too late at night.
>>> Ces’t la vie.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com]
>>> *Sent:* Sunday, January 22, 2017 10:11 AM
>>> *To:* vortex-l
>>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Holmlid has been writing papers on ultra dense hydogen since the early
>>> 1990s. There must be 100 produce so far. It is unreasonable to expect all
>>> the details about UDH and Holmlid's research into it over all those years
>>> to be recapitulated in this latest paper.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Holmlid thinking on UDH has evolved as his experimentation has advanced.
>>> This makes reading through all those papers confusing with seeming
>>> contradiction between some of his works.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Even in his new paper, there is an cut and pasted reiteration of some
>>> old stuff from previous research which suggests that fusion was the cause
>>> of some reaction characteristics, but latter in the conclusions Holmlid
>>> states a different case.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Furthermore, Holmlid's thinking has been greatly influenced by the works
>>> and theories put forth by  J.E. Hirsch and his school of followers.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In the introduction in his new paper, Holmlid states:
>>>
>>> .
>>>
>>> "They may all be characterized as spin-based Rydberg Matter (RM) [2
>>> <http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0169895#pone.0169895.ref002>].
>>> This model is based on a theoretical description by J.E. Hirsch [7
>>> <http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0169895#pone.0169895.ref007>
>>> ]."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  J.E. Hirsch has developed a theory for type 2 superconductivity that
>>> contradicts existing dogma called "Hole superconductivity".
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> There are another 200 papers on this subject to be found here:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  http://physics.ucsd.edu/~jorge/hole.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You can not really understand UDH unless you understand spin based Hole
>>> superconductivity,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> IMHO, following Holmlid's theory is like following R.Mills
>>> alternative science. It is not easy and it takes a lot of convection and
>>> effort. With all its complexity and revolutionary dogma, LENR is not easy
>>> to take on. Holmlid needs more validation before people will feel
>>> sanguine in investing the time and effort to take his science seriously.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> So far, as I keep rea

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Eric Walker]

On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 2:46 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

The use of a well defied magnetic field in the experiment can delineate
> both the mass and polarity of the emergent subatomic particles.
>

As I mentioned, I don't trust Holmlid to do this right.  It's not
straightforward to differentiate muons from energetic electrons.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Axil Axil]

The use of a well defied magnetic field in the experiment can delineate
both the mass and polarity of the emergent subatomic particles.

On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 3:42 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Bob Higgins 
> wrote:
>
> If we in Vortex want to make a useful contribution to Holmlid's reports,
>> we should propose and consider what other explanations are reasonable for
>> his data.
>>
>
> The thing I would like to see examined experimentally is whether those
> charged particles are energetic betas.  I think they've been ruled out
> prematurely.
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Axil Axil]

system?
>
> Think before lobbing insults.
>
> On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Great comment on Holmlid’s body of work by Axil. I concur that people who
>> fire critiques of others work based on the fact that they are too lazy to
>> do anything other than make pompous comment on materials based on their
>> confusion stemming from the fact that everything in the author’s work is
>> not recapitulated in a single paper are not worthy of paying attention to.
>> Such behavior is characteristic of trolling not honest and earnest
>> productive dialog. But this is the nature of the internet which facilitates
>> spouting off from the lip/fingertip ever the bane of thoughtful exchange of
>> ideas. Vortex-l often digresses into a seedy barscape too late at night.
>> Ces’t la vie.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com]
>> *Sent:* Sunday, January 22, 2017 10:11 AM
>> *To:* vortex-l
>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.
>>
>>
>>
>> Holmlid has been writing papers on ultra dense hydogen since the early
>> 1990s. There must be 100 produce so far. It is unreasonable to expect all
>> the details about UDH and Holmlid's research into it over all those years
>> to be recapitulated in this latest paper.
>>
>>
>>
>> Holmlid thinking on UDH has evolved as his experimentation has advanced.
>> This makes reading through all those papers confusing with seeming
>> contradiction between some of his works.
>>
>>
>>
>> Even in his new paper, there is an cut and pasted reiteration of some old
>> stuff from previous research which suggests that fusion was the cause of
>> some reaction characteristics, but latter in the conclusions Holmlid states
>> a different case.
>>
>>
>>
>> Furthermore, Holmlid's thinking has been greatly influenced by the works
>> and theories put forth by  J.E. Hirsch and his school of followers.
>>
>>
>>
>> In the introduction in his new paper, Holmlid states:
>>
>> .
>>
>> "They may all be characterized as spin-based Rydberg Matter (RM) [2
>> <http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0169895#pone.0169895.ref002>].
>> This model is based on a theoretical description by J.E. Hirsch [7
>> <http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0169895#pone.0169895.ref007>
>> ]."
>>
>>
>>
>>  J.E. Hirsch has developed a theory for type 2 superconductivity that
>> contradicts existing dogma called "Hole superconductivity".
>>
>>
>>
>> There are another 200 papers on this subject to be found here:
>>
>>
>>
>>  http://physics.ucsd.edu/~jorge/hole.html
>>
>>
>>
>> You can not really understand UDH unless you understand spin based Hole
>> superconductivity,
>>
>>
>>
>> IMHO, following Holmlid's theory is like following R.Mills
>> alternative science. It is not easy and it takes a lot of convection and
>> effort. With all its complexity and revolutionary dogma, LENR is not easy
>> to take on. Holmlid needs more validation before people will feel
>> sanguine in investing the time and effort to take his science seriously.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> So far, as I keep reading Holmlid's latest paper, I keep coming to a
>> statement, and I ask myself, "where's the support for this?"  So I go
>> through the string of references and find illogical hand waving or leaps of
>> faith, but not logical support.  This business of the "2.3 pm" spaced seems
>> to still rely entirely on the particle velocities whose measured energy has
>> come entirely from an improbable conjecture of "Coulombic explosion".
>> Coloumbic potential energy would have to be stored in the system - I.E.
>> placed there by some process of squeezing the atoms into some metastable
>> state.  Yet, the H(0) or D(0) state is being portrayed as having lower
>> Hamiltonian (total energy) than H2.  Thus, one would expect ordinary H2 gas
>> as having tremendous Coulombic potential energy - even more than H(0) since
>> H2's total energy is higher than H(0) according to Holmlid (see his figure
>> in the latest paper which is reproduced from his other works).
>>
>> Holmlid's background is in the study of hydrogen Rydberg matter.  These
>> condensed matter particles

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Eric Walker]

On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

If we in Vortex want to make a useful contribution to Holmlid's reports, we
> should propose and consider what other explanations are reasonable for his
> data.
>

The thing I would like to see examined experimentally is whether those
charged particles are energetic betas.  I think they've been ruled out
prematurely.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Axil Axil]

Holmlid is a worker in a science called metalic hydrogen. There a many
fellow researchers in this field with some mentioned here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallic_hydrogen

Quote:

"Shahriar Badiei and Leif Holmlid from the University of Gothenburg have
shown in 2004 that condensed metallic states made of excited hydrogen atoms
(Rydberg matter) are effective promoters to metallic hydrogen.[20]"

A hot topic in metallic hydrogen is related to the state of hydrogen inside
planets
and the Sun.

Much work and experimentation is associated with and allied field of study:
High pressure physics where elements and compounds are compressed in a
diamond anvil. There is also a field of superconductivity related to
Holmlid's work call high pressure superconductivity.

On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 2:58 PM, Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> It is a "troll-ism" to presume that I have NOT looked at Holmlid's
> previous publications.  In fact, as I mentioned (and apparently you didn't
> consider), I have been trying to trace the foundation for H(0)/D(0) back
> through his papers to find the crux.  I have over 40 of his papers, going
> back to the more solidly based work on RM.  I am not questioning his
> experimental data, just his interpretation of it.  In his later papers, he
> presumes that a solid case for the existence of H(0) has already been
> made.
>
> For those of you so committedly supporting the suppositions of Holmlid
> regarding H(0)/D(0), have YOU read his papers?  Do you understand his
> fundamental evidence for H(0)/D(0)?  There is no underlying quantum or
> Millsian classical physics prediction for H(0) - not even a solution after
> the fact.  His entire supposition rests on the absurd Coulombic explosion
> explanation for the energy in the particles he measures and how close two
> protons would have to be to release such energy (2.3 pm) by his
> calculation.  Coulombic energy would have to be a potential energy (like a
> compressed spring) that would have to be ADDED to get that much energy in
> an H(0) 2.3pm state compared to a much greater spaced H2 (74 pm).  Yet, in
> all of his energy diagrams he shows H(0) as being a lower Hamiltonian
> energy than H2.  These claims are in direct contradiction.  The foundation
> for H(0) is not there - not in any of his papers.  Only a ridiculous,
> contradictory case has been made for it.
>
> Could there have been superfluid states on the surface of the metal?  That
> is entirely plausible as rivers and islands of atom-thick RM form on the
> surface of the metal.  It has absolutely nothing to do with an H(0) state.
>
> If we in Vortex want to make a useful contribution to Holmlid's reports,
> we should propose and consider what other explanations are reasonable for
> his data.  Start with the possible superfluid/superconducting atom-thick
> layer of RM on the metal's surface.  How would this be affected by a
> laser?  How would plasmons form in layered structure comprised of
> dielectric, atom-thick superconductive film, and normally conductive
> metal?  What would be the consequences of polaritons in such a system?
>
> Think before lobbing insults.
>
> On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Great comment on Holmlid’s body of work by Axil. I concur that people who
>> fire critiques of others work based on the fact that they are too lazy to
>> do anything other than make pompous comment on materials based on their
>> confusion stemming from the fact that everything in the author’s work is
>> not recapitulated in a single paper are not worthy of paying attention to.
>> Such behavior is characteristic of trolling not honest and earnest
>> productive dialog. But this is the nature of the internet which facilitates
>> spouting off from the lip/fingertip ever the bane of thoughtful exchange of
>> ideas. Vortex-l often digresses into a seedy barscape too late at night.
>> Ces’t la vie.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com]
>> *Sent:* Sunday, January 22, 2017 10:11 AM
>> *To:* vortex-l
>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.
>>
>>
>>
>> Holmlid has been writing papers on ultra dense hydogen since the early
>> 1990s. There must be 100 produce so far. It is unreasonable to expect all
>> the details about UDH and Holmlid's research into it over all those years
>> to be recapitulated in this latest paper.
>>
>>
>>
>> Holmlid thinking on UDH has evolved as his experimentation has advanced.
>> This makes reading through all those papers confusing with seeming
>> contradiction between some of his works.
>>
>>
>>
>> Even in his new paper, th

RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Russ George]

While I was ‘lobbing insults’ you were not the target. I have found your ideas 
and criticisms well thought out. Some others n Vortex-l not so. 

 

There is still the issue of Holmlid’s work being so very similar to some of the 
cold fusion work in terms of experimental design and operation. That he has 
some hits with similar data is intriguing and very suggestive. I for one read 
Holmlid’s papers with an eye for serendipity not profound independent proof. I 
forgive most for putting forth their ideas as to ‘theory’ especially when such 
ideas come from experimentalists. I have much less regard, often verging on 
utter disregard, for the theories of the armchair crowd though I do read such 
ideas. 

 

It is ‘troll-ism’ to hold single papers in a person’s decades of work to 
scathing critiques most especially when bathed in semantics. As Thomas 
Jefferson once said, “ I have no respect for a man who can spell a word only 
one way.” The same is even more true with scientific semantics. 

 

Progress in made more by active explorers following what seem to be good leads 
and not by those shooting down poor leads. This is why pioneers cross many 
bridges in the light of day and why trolls live festering in the dark and damp 
under said bridges. 

 

From: Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 11:58 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

 

It is a "troll-ism" to presume that I have NOT looked at Holmlid's previous 
publications.  In fact, as I mentioned (and apparently you didn't consider), I 
have been trying to trace the foundation for H(0)/D(0) back through his papers 
to find the crux.  I have over 40 of his papers, going back to the more solidly 
based work on RM.  I am not questioning his experimental data, just his 
interpretation of it.  In his later papers, he presumes that a solid case for 
the existence of H(0) has already been made.   

For those of you so committedly supporting the suppositions of Holmlid 
regarding H(0)/D(0), have YOU read his papers?  Do you understand his 
fundamental evidence for H(0)/D(0)?  There is no underlying quantum or Millsian 
classical physics prediction for H(0) - not even a solution after the fact.  
His entire supposition rests on the absurd Coulombic explosion explanation for 
the energy in the particles he measures and how close two protons would have to 
be to release such energy (2.3 pm) by his calculation.  Coulombic energy would 
have to be a potential energy (like a compressed spring) that would have to be 
ADDED to get that much energy in an H(0) 2.3pm state compared to a much greater 
spaced H2 (74 pm).  Yet, in all of his energy diagrams he shows H(0) as being a 
lower Hamiltonian energy than H2.  These claims are in direct contradiction.  
The foundation for H(0) is not there - not in any of his papers.  Only a 
ridiculous, contradictory case has been made for it.

 

Could there have been superfluid states on the surface of the metal?  That is 
entirely plausible as rivers and islands of atom-thick RM form on the surface 
of the metal.  It has absolutely nothing to do with an H(0) state.

If we in Vortex want to make a useful contribution to Holmlid's reports, we 
should propose and consider what other explanations are reasonable for his 
data.  Start with the possible superfluid/superconducting atom-thick layer of 
RM on the metal's surface.  How would this be affected by a laser?  How would 
plasmons form in layered structure comprised of dielectric, atom-thick 
superconductive film, and normally conductive metal?  What would be the 
consequences of polaritons in such a system?

Think before lobbing insults.

 

On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com 
<mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Great comment on Holmlid’s body of work by Axil. I concur that people who fire 
critiques of others work based on the fact that they are too lazy to do 
anything other than make pompous comment on materials based on their confusion 
stemming from the fact that everything in the author’s work is not 
recapitulated in a single paper are not worthy of paying attention to. Such 
behavior is characteristic of trolling not honest and earnest productive 
dialog. But this is the nature of the internet which facilitates spouting off 
from the lip/fingertip ever the bane of thoughtful exchange of ideas. Vortex-l 
often digresses into a seedy barscape too late at night. Ces’t la vie.  

 

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com <mailto:janap...@gmail.com> ] 
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 10:11 AM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

 

Holmlid has been writing papers on ultra dense hydogen since the early 1990s. 
There must be 100 produce so far. It is unreasonable to expect all the details 
about UDH and Holmlid's research into it over all those years to be 
recapitulated in this latest paper.

 

Holmlid thinki

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Bob Higgins]

It is a "troll-ism" to presume that I have NOT looked at Holmlid's previous
publications.  In fact, as I mentioned (and apparently you didn't
consider), I have been trying to trace the foundation for H(0)/D(0) back
through his papers to find the crux.  I have over 40 of his papers, going
back to the more solidly based work on RM.  I am not questioning his
experimental data, just his interpretation of it.  In his later papers, he
presumes that a solid case for the existence of H(0) has already been
made.

For those of you so committedly supporting the suppositions of Holmlid
regarding H(0)/D(0), have YOU read his papers?  Do you understand his
fundamental evidence for H(0)/D(0)?  There is no underlying quantum or
Millsian classical physics prediction for H(0) - not even a solution after
the fact.  His entire supposition rests on the absurd Coulombic explosion
explanation for the energy in the particles he measures and how close two
protons would have to be to release such energy (2.3 pm) by his
calculation.  Coulombic energy would have to be a potential energy (like a
compressed spring) that would have to be ADDED to get that much energy in
an H(0) 2.3pm state compared to a much greater spaced H2 (74 pm).  Yet, in
all of his energy diagrams he shows H(0) as being a lower Hamiltonian
energy than H2.  These claims are in direct contradiction.  The foundation
for H(0) is not there - not in any of his papers.  Only a ridiculous,
contradictory case has been made for it.

Could there have been superfluid states on the surface of the metal?  That
is entirely plausible as rivers and islands of atom-thick RM form on the
surface of the metal.  It has absolutely nothing to do with an H(0) state.

If we in Vortex want to make a useful contribution to Holmlid's reports, we
should propose and consider what other explanations are reasonable for his
data.  Start with the possible superfluid/superconducting atom-thick layer
of RM on the metal's surface.  How would this be affected by a laser?  How
would plasmons form in layered structure comprised of dielectric,
atom-thick superconductive film, and normally conductive metal?  What would
be the consequences of polaritons in such a system?

Think before lobbing insults.

On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Great comment on Holmlid’s body of work by Axil. I concur that people who
> fire critiques of others work based on the fact that they are too lazy to
> do anything other than make pompous comment on materials based on their
> confusion stemming from the fact that everything in the author’s work is
> not recapitulated in a single paper are not worthy of paying attention to.
> Such behavior is characteristic of trolling not honest and earnest
> productive dialog. But this is the nature of the internet which facilitates
> spouting off from the lip/fingertip ever the bane of thoughtful exchange of
> ideas. Vortex-l often digresses into a seedy barscape too late at night.
> Ces’t la vie.
>
>
>
> *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Sunday, January 22, 2017 10:11 AM
> *To:* vortex-l
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.
>
>
>
> Holmlid has been writing papers on ultra dense hydogen since the early
> 1990s. There must be 100 produce so far. It is unreasonable to expect all
> the details about UDH and Holmlid's research into it over all those years
> to be recapitulated in this latest paper.
>
>
>
> Holmlid thinking on UDH has evolved as his experimentation has advanced.
> This makes reading through all those papers confusing with seeming
> contradiction between some of his works.
>
>
>
> Even in his new paper, there is an cut and pasted reiteration of some old
> stuff from previous research which suggests that fusion was the cause of
> some reaction characteristics, but latter in the conclusions Holmlid states
> a different case.
>
>
>
> Furthermore, Holmlid's thinking has been greatly influenced by the works
> and theories put forth by  J.E. Hirsch and his school of followers.
>
>
>
> In the introduction in his new paper, Holmlid states:
>
> .
>
> "They may all be characterized as spin-based Rydberg Matter (RM) [2
> <http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0169895#pone.0169895.ref002>].
> This model is based on a theoretical description by J.E. Hirsch [7
> <http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0169895#pone.0169895.ref007>
> ]."
>
>
>
>  J.E. Hirsch has developed a theory for type 2 superconductivity that
> contradicts existing dogma called "Hole superconductivity".
>
>
>
> There are another 200 papers on this subject to be found here:
>
>
>
>  http://physics.ucsd.edu/~jorge/hole.html
>
>
>
> You can

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[mixent]

In reply to  Russ George's message of Sat, 21 Jan 2017 20:33:56 -0800:
Hi,
[snip]
>Heat moves at the speed of sound in solids but is made at a far faster rate. 

Actually, it moves much slower. The speed of sound in steel is about 6 thousand
meters/second. The length of a teaspoon is about 10 cm. At 6000 m/s, it would
take would take about 17 microseconds for you to burn your fingers when you stir
your coffee.


> 
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Axil Axil]

If Holmlid is right about prolific production of muons in LENR, then LENR
will look a lot like the initial use of oil and its associated CO2 loading
at the beginning of the 20th century. But as the number of LENR driven
engines increase into the billions, then the weight of muons on the byways
and highways will grow so thick in the production of muon fog it could
become dense enough to be walked upon.

Like oil, any production of a toxic material by the use of its progenitor
material is insignificant on the experimental level but under mass
production, highly injurious if its usage is taken to an extreme.

Is is why it is incumbent on LENR researchers to verify Holmlid's
observations about muon production to protect future  generations from its
toxic consequences at this earliest juncture.

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 11:58 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0169895
>
> Mesons from Laser-Induced Processes in Ultra-Dense Hydrogen H(0)
>
> A new paper from Holmlid where he now deduces that LENR cannot be a fusion
> based reaction because the energy of the mesons produced are far to great.
> I respect a man that can change his mind under the weight of experimental
> evidence.
>
> The hydrogen nanoparticle that produces the mesons are 3 to 6 planes long.
>

RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Russ George]

Thanks Eric please do add me to your kill file, nothing could please me more.

 

From: Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 10:39 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

 

Hi Russ,

 

On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 12:28 PM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com 
<mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote:

 

Great comment on Holmlid’s body of work by Axil. I concur that people who fire 
critiques of others work based on the fact that they are too lazy to do 
anything other than make pompous comment on materials based on their confusion 
stemming from the fact that everything in the author’s work is not 
recapitulated in a single paper are not worthy of paying attention to.

 

There have been long threads on LENR Forum, where we've taken a detailed and 
close-up look at various claims in several of Holmlid's papers.  Unfortunately 
the content from the old site is unindexed in Google and hard to call up.

 

Such behavior is characteristic of trolling not honest and earnest productive 
dialog.

 

Here are two definitions of trolling; readers will be the judge of who here 
they might apply to:

 

1b. Noun 

A person who, on a message forum of some type, attacks and flames other members 
of the forum for any of a number of reasons such as rank, previous 
disagreements, sex, status, ect. 

A troll usually flames threads without staying on topic, unlike a "Flamer" who 
flames a thread because he/she disagrees with the content of the thread. 

 

1c. Noun 

A member of an internet forum who continually harangues and harasses others. 
Someone with nothing worthwhile to add to a certain conversation, but rather 
continually threadjacks or changes the subject, as well as thinks every member 
of the forum is talking about them and only them. Trolls often go by multiple 
names to circumvent getting banned. 

 

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=troll

 

But this is the nature of the internet which facilitates spouting off from the 
lip/fingertip ever the bane of thoughtful exchange of ideas. Vortex-l often 
digresses into a seedy barscape too late at night. Ces’t la vie.  

 

I've found such a low signal to noise ratio in your posts that I'm going to add 
you to my killfile.  If I do not respond to further posts of yours, it is only 
to keep the mood here light enough to focus on matters of substance, rather 
than being detained in addressing further ad hominem attacks.

 

All the best,

Eric

 

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Eric Walker]

Hi Russ,

On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 12:28 PM, Russ George  wrote:

Great comment on Holmlid’s body of work by Axil. I concur that people who
> fire critiques of others work based on the fact that they are too lazy to
> do anything other than make pompous comment on materials based on their
> confusion stemming from the fact that everything in the author’s work is
> not recapitulated in a single paper are not worthy of paying attention to.
>

There have been long threads on LENR Forum, where we've taken a detailed
and close-up look at various claims in several of Holmlid's papers.
Unfortunately the content from the old site is unindexed in Google and hard
to call up.


> Such behavior is characteristic of trolling not honest and earnest
> productive dialog.
>

Here are two definitions of trolling; readers will be the judge of who here
they might apply to:

1b. Noun
A person who, on a message forum of some type, attacks and flames other
members of the forum for any of a number of reasons such as rank, previous
disagreements, sex, status, ect.
A troll usually flames threads without staying on topic, unlike a "Flamer"
who flames a thread because he/she disagrees with the content of the
thread.

1c. Noun
A member of an internet forum who continually harangues and harasses
others. Someone with nothing worthwhile to add to a certain conversation,
but rather continually threadjacks or changes the subject, as well as
thinks every member of the forum is talking about them and only them.
Trolls often go by multiple names to circumvent getting banned.


http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=troll


> But this is the nature of the internet which facilitates spouting off from
> the lip/fingertip ever the bane of thoughtful exchange of ideas. Vortex-l
> often digresses into a seedy barscape too late at night. Ces’t la vie.
>

I've found such a low signal to noise ratio in your posts that I'm going to
add you to my killfile.  If I do not respond to further posts of yours, it
is only to keep the mood here light enough to focus on matters of
substance, rather than being detained in addressing further ad hominem
attacks.

All the best,
Eric

RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Russ George]

Great comment on Holmlid’s body of work by Axil. I concur that people who fire 
critiques of others work based on the fact that they are too lazy to do 
anything other than make pompous comment on materials based on their confusion 
stemming from the fact that everything in the author’s work is not 
recapitulated in a single paper are not worthy of paying attention to. Such 
behavior is characteristic of trolling not honest and earnest productive 
dialog. But this is the nature of the internet which facilitates spouting off 
from the lip/fingertip ever the bane of thoughtful exchange of ideas. Vortex-l 
often digresses into a seedy barscape too late at night. Ces’t la vie.  

 

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 10:11 AM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

 

Holmlid has been writing papers on ultra dense hydogen since the early 1990s. 
There must be 100 produce so far. It is unreasonable to expect all the details 
about UDH and Holmlid's research into it over all those years to be 
recapitulated in this latest paper.

 

Holmlid thinking on UDH has evolved as his experimentation has advanced. This 
makes reading through all those papers confusing with seeming contradiction 
between some of his works.

 

Even in his new paper, there is an cut and pasted reiteration of some old stuff 
from previous research which suggests that fusion was the cause of some 
reaction characteristics, but latter in the conclusions Holmlid states a 
different case.

 

Furthermore, Holmlid's thinking has been greatly influenced by the works and 
theories put forth by  J.E. Hirsch and his school of followers.

 

In the introduction in his new paper, Holmlid states:

.

"They may all be characterized as spin-based Rydberg Matter (RM) [ 
<http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0169895#pone.0169895.ref002>
 2]. This model is based on a theoretical description by J.E. Hirsch [ 
<http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0169895#pone.0169895.ref007>
 7]."

 

 J.E. Hirsch has developed a theory for type 2 superconductivity that 
contradicts existing dogma called "Hole superconductivity".

 

There are another 200 papers on this subject to be found here:

 

 http://physics.ucsd.edu/~jorge/hole.html

 

You can not really understand UDH unless you understand spin based Hole 
superconductivity,

 

IMHO, following Holmlid's theory is like following R.Mills alternative science. 
It is not easy and it takes a lot of convection and effort. With all its 
complexity and revolutionary dogma, LENR is not easy to take on. Holmlid needs 
more validation before people will feel sanguine in investing the time and 
effort to take his science seriously.

 

 

 

On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com 
<mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com> > wrote:

So far, as I keep reading Holmlid's latest paper, I keep coming to a statement, 
and I ask myself, "where's the support for this?"  So I go through the string 
of references and find illogical hand waving or leaps of faith, but not logical 
support.  This business of the "2.3 pm" spaced seems to still rely entirely on 
the particle velocities whose measured energy has come entirely from an 
improbable conjecture of "Coulombic explosion".  Coloumbic potential energy 
would have to be stored in the system - I.E. placed there by some process of 
squeezing the atoms into some metastable state.  Yet, the H(0) or D(0) state is 
being portrayed as having lower Hamiltonian (total energy) than H2.  Thus, one 
would expect ordinary H2 gas as having tremendous Coulombic potential energy - 
even more than H(0) since H2's total energy is higher than H(0) according to 
Holmlid (see his figure in the latest paper which is reproduced from his other 
works).

Holmlid's background is in the study of hydrogen Rydberg matter.  These 
condensed matter particles have a good basis in science, and have been 
thoroughly characterized.  Hydrogen Rydberg particles are not dense - just the 
opposite.  The atomic spacing in RM particles is twice that of H2, making the 
local molecular density of H2 much greater than that for RM.  There have been 
molecular RM models created and the rotational spectra computed and matched to 
observed spectra.  The basis and characterization of RM is very strong.  
Holmlid seems to be trying to transfer that strong basis for RM onto his 
conjecture for H(0) and D(0) with what appears to be only hand-waving - and 
hand-waving with contradictory claims.

H(0) and/or D(0) are supposed to be the lowest energy state of hydrogen 
condensed matter.  Such a low energy state cannot be planar like RM - though 
Holmlid is claiming that RM is a precursor to H(0).  In Holmlid's description 
of coupled D-D pairs, he describes coupled pairs at right angles which form a 
tetrahedron string havin

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Axil Axil]

Holmlid has been writing papers on ultra dense hydogen since the early
1990s. There must be 100 produce so far. It is unreasonable to expect all
the details about UDH and Holmlid's research into it over all those years
to be recapitulated in this latest paper.

Holmlid thinking on UDH has evolved as his experimentation has advanced.
This makes reading through all those papers confusing with seeming
contradiction between some of his works.

Even in his new paper, there is an cut and pasted reiteration of some old
stuff from previous research which suggests that fusion was the cause of
some reaction characteristics, but latter in the conclusions Holmlid states
a different case.

Furthermore, Holmlid's thinking has been greatly influenced by the works
and theories put forth by  J.E. Hirsch and his school of followers.

In the introduction in his new paper, Holmlid states:
.
"They may all be characterized as spin-based Rydberg Matter (RM) [2
].
This model is based on a theoretical description by J.E. Hirsch [7

]."

 J.E. Hirsch has developed a theory for type 2 superconductivity that
contradicts existing dogma called "Hole superconductivity".

There are another 200 papers on this subject to be found here:

 http://physics.ucsd.edu/~jorge/hole.html

You can not really understand UDH unless you understand spin based Hole
superconductivity,

IMHO, following Holmlid's theory is like following R.Mills
alternative science. It is not easy and it takes a lot of convection and
effort. With all its complexity and revolutionary dogma, LENR is not easy
to take on. Holmlid needs more validation before people will feel
sanguine in investing the time and effort to take his science seriously.



On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

> So far, as I keep reading Holmlid's latest paper, I keep coming to a
> statement, and I ask myself, "where's the support for this?"  So I go
> through the string of references and find illogical hand waving or leaps of
> faith, but not logical support.  This business of the "2.3 pm" spaced seems
> to still rely entirely on the particle velocities whose measured energy has
> come entirely from an improbable conjecture of "Coulombic explosion".
> Coloumbic potential energy would have to be stored in the system - I.E.
> placed there by some process of squeezing the atoms into some metastable
> state.  Yet, the H(0) or D(0) state is being portrayed as having lower
> Hamiltonian (total energy) than H2.  Thus, one would expect ordinary H2 gas
> as having tremendous Coulombic potential energy - even more than H(0) since
> H2's total energy is higher than H(0) according to Holmlid (see his figure
> in the latest paper which is reproduced from his other works).
>
> Holmlid's background is in the study of hydrogen Rydberg matter.  These
> condensed matter particles have a good basis in science, and have been
> thoroughly characterized.  Hydrogen Rydberg particles are not dense - just
> the opposite.  The atomic spacing in RM particles is twice that of H2,
> making the local molecular density of H2 much greater than that for RM.
> There have been molecular RM models created and the rotational spectra
> computed and matched to observed spectra.  The basis and characterization
> of RM is very strong.  Holmlid seems to be trying to transfer that strong
> basis for RM onto his conjecture for H(0) and D(0) with what appears to be
> only hand-waving - and hand-waving with contradictory claims.
>
> H(0) and/or D(0) are supposed to be the lowest energy state of hydrogen
> condensed matter.  Such a low energy state cannot be planar like RM -
> though Holmlid is claiming that RM is a precursor to H(0).  In Holmlid's
> description of coupled D-D pairs, he describes coupled pairs at right
> angles which form a tetrahedron string having an atomic spacing of 5 pm.
> Evidence is claimed for matching rotational spectroscopy (2016, "Emission
> spectroscopy of IR laser-induced processes in ultra-dense deuterium").  To
> calculate the rotational spectrum, you have to have a model for the entire
> molecule.  The spectrum will result from an eigensolution of the quantum
> fomulation for rotational states.  With some hand waving, some modeling was
> done and some matching was found in his 2016 paper, but this is not
> convincing like the work to determine the structure of the RM particles.
>
> Basically, I cannot get past the fact that Holmlid is building a huge
> castle on a foundation of sand.  He has not produced a sound basis for
> H(0)/D(0) that underlies all of his conjecture.  His arguments of
> "Coulombic explosion" don't pass the common sense test as a similar CE of
> H2 should result in more energy release than H(0).   How can what is being
> proposed on the basis of H(0)/D(0) be taken 

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Jones Beene]

Bob,

You have expressed the arguments against Holmlid's interpretation being 
accurate quite well. Thanks for taking the time to do this. As I 
mentioned before, these arguments can be generally condensed into "show 
me more." Yet Holmlid is doing as much with small funding as can be 
reasonably expected. Curiously, no one has taken the obvious approach of 
reporting a failed replication. If there was a failed replication, then 
deep skepticism would be more relevant.


Bottom line - in the big picture, Holmlid has presented a case for a 
breakthrough which is well beyond incremental. It would be a profound 
paradigm shift if accurate - of greater importance than the entire opus 
of CERN with the $20 billion spent there. Even if the chances of his 
results and interpretation being accurate are low, the payoff is so high 
that it is mind blowing.


The DoD/DoE has invested an obscene amount of money in ICF at LLNL. It 
makes no sense for them not to try to replicated.



 Bob Higgins wrote:
So far, as I keep reading Holmlid's latest paper, I keep coming to a 
statement, and I ask myself, "where's the support for this?"  So I go 
through the string of references and find illogical hand waving or 
leaps of faith, but not logical support.  This business of the "2.3 
pm" spaced seems to still rely entirely on the particle velocities 
whose measured energy has come entirely from an improbable conjecture 
of "Coulombic explosion".  Coloumbic potential energy would have to be 
stored in the system - I.E. placed there by some process of squeezing 
the atoms into some metastable state.  Yet, the H(0) or D(0) state is 
being portrayed as having lower Hamiltonian (total energy) than H2.  
Thus, one would expect ordinary H2 gas as having tremendous Coulombic 
potential energy - even more than H(0) since H2's total energy is 
higher than H(0) according to Holmlid (see his figure in the latest 
paper which is reproduced from his other works).


Holmlid's background is in the study of hydrogen Rydberg matter.  
These condensed matter particles have a good basis in science, and 
have been thoroughly characterized. Hydrogen Rydberg particles are not 
dense - just the opposite.  The atomic spacing in RM particles is 
twice that of H2, making the local molecular density of H2 much 
greater than that for RM.  There have been molecular RM models created 
and the rotational spectra computed and matched to observed spectra.  
The basis and characterization of RM is very strong.  Holmlid seems to 
be trying to transfer that strong basis for RM onto his conjecture for 
H(0) and D(0) with what appears to be only hand-waving - and 
hand-waving with contradictory claims.


H(0) and/or D(0) are supposed to be the lowest energy state of 
hydrogen condensed matter.  Such a low energy state cannot be planar 
like RM - though Holmlid is claiming that RM is a precursor to H(0).  
In Holmlid's description of coupled D-D pairs, he describes coupled 
pairs at right angles which form a tetrahedron string having an atomic 
spacing of 5 pm.  Evidence is claimed for matching rotational 
spectroscopy (2016, "Emission spectroscopy of IR laser-induced 
processes in ultra-dense deuterium").  To calculate the rotational 
spectrum, you have to have a model for the entire molecule. The 
spectrum will result from an eigensolution of the quantum fomulation 
for rotational states.  With some hand waving, some modeling was done 
and some matching was found in his 2016 paper, but this is not 
convincing like the work to determine the structure of the RM particles.


Basically, I cannot get past the fact that Holmlid is building a huge 
castle on a foundation of sand.  He has not produced a sound basis for 
H(0)/D(0) that underlies all of his conjecture. His arguments of 
"Coulombic explosion" don't pass the common sense test as a similar CE 
of H2 should result in more energy release than H(0).   How can what 
is being proposed on the basis of H(0)/D(0) be taken seriously without 
reasonable proof of the existence of the fundamentals?



 Bob Higginswrote:

I believe there are circular arguments going on here.  On the one
hand you are saying that neutral mesons are decaying into muons
(charged) far from the reactor.  But also there is the claim of
fusion in his reactor, wherein many are supposing MCF.  He is also
measuring charged particles in his reactor. The decay "times" are
statistical means and there will be some probability of a decay
from t = zero to infinity.  That's why it is possible to see
mesons -> muons in the reactor, more outside the reactor, and more
further away from the reactor.

So, I am saying that there are meson decays going on all along the
path from the reactor. Muons should be easy to detect because they
are charged and likely to interact with the scintillator
crystal/liquid/plastic or by exciting photoelectron cascades in
the GM tube. The fact that the corresponding muons are 

RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[bobcook39923]

I agree with Axil’s comments about micro and nano domains.  However I would add 
that the domains are what I call coherent QM systems that can  initiate the 
change of nuclear potential energy/angular momentum to phonic lattice 
vibrations (thermal energy) of the coherent QM system with minor modifications 
to the system, such that it remains a single coherent system subject to other 
similar reactions.

The key to getting the reaction to occur in any given coherent system is 
matching resonant conditions that allow coupling between the potential energy 
of the nuclear species sub-system and the chemical electronic bonds of the 
lattice making up the coherent system.  

Any ambient conditions (electric field, magnetic field, temperature, lattice 
dimensions, ferro-magnetic and ati-magnetic tramp atoms,  etc)  that changes 
the energy states of the system and the corresponding resonances can effect a 
change of the potential energy to kinetic thermal energy of the system.  

Controlling the various ambient conditions is how the release of nuclear 
potential energy is controlled.  The physical size of the coherent system is 
another.  Thus, the importance of micro vs nano domains.  

Magnetic fields focus the dimensional parameters such that the coherent 
system’s effective resonant conditions encompass a larger range of reactive 
resonances, making an actual reaction more likely.  The system becomes a 
two-dimensional system at large B fields.  SPP’s as Axil suggests would help to 
create such a 2-D system.  In addition various magnetic tramp elements may also 
be important in the establishment of local energy states and resonant 
conditions.  The hysteresis of the magnetic tramps may be important in 
achieving good control of the resonant conditions.

A coherent system as is suggested does not include any particles with 
significant linear momentum and corresponding kinetic energy.  Thus, there is 
no likely option available for creating a particles with linear momentum.   A 
“soft” transition which conserves angular momentum is the easy way out for the 
coherent system to react. 

 If a reaction were possible in the coherent system that were to produce 
back--to—back energetic daughter particles, each with significant linear 
momentum adding up to zero, the elimination of the bad actors in the  
composition of the fuel would effectively control the potential of nasty 
energetic daughter particles.

Many of the design ideas for a coherent system in a LENR reactor have 
similarities to the concepts used in the physics design of fission reactors.   
The main difference if the concept of macroscopic coherent systems.  In the 
fission reactor physics two or three body reactions are dominate.  Resonance 
associated with neutron reactions with the various materials is all important 
in control, and temperature significantly 
affects the resonances, much like it seems to affect LENR control.  

 The “soft” nature of LENR without those nasty high energy neutrons and other 
fission debris associated with fission reactors is serendipitous but not 
miraculous.

Bob Cook

From: Axil Axil
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2017 9:18 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

I seem to remember a old LENR truism that has come down over the years which 
remarks about how a shock is required before the LENR reaction starts. When I 
first began my studies of the LENR reaction so very long ago, I may have read 
this in regards to the work from perhaps the most famous Japanese cold fusion 
researcher: Yoshiaki Arata, from Osaka University, who claimed in a 
demonstration to produce excess heat when deuterium gas was introduced into a 
cell containing a mixture of palladium and zirconium oxide. But the LENR 
reaction did not begin unless the cell was shocked in any number of ways.

Also from Brian S. Ahern patent (Amplification of energetic reactions 
US 20110233061 A1)

quote:

"Useful energy production can be obtained when deuterated/hydrated 
nanoparticles suspended in a dielectric medium are positioned interior to 
collapsing bubbles or dielectric discharges and their attendant shock waves. 
Highly self-focused shock waves have a sufficiently high energy density to 
induce a range of energetic reactions."

This leads me to the conclusion that Ultra-dense hydrogen right out of the 
nanocavity is not LENR capable until it is initially charged with any variety 
of EMF energy. Once the SPP has been charged up and it has acquired enough 
magnetic power to initiate the positive feedback loop between the nucleons 
within it range of interaction does the LENR reaction begin. The Spp just needs 
a slight push to get the process going. Oftentimes a spark is enough to get the 
LENR reaction off the ground. But unless that energy spike is provided with 
enough power to get going, that UDH justs sits there and waits.

And that energy need not be provided in a one time spike. In the famous F 
meltdown where the

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Eric Walker]

On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 9:08 AM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

Basically, I cannot get past the fact that Holmlid is building a huge
> castle on a foundation of sand.
>

This is my sentiment exactly.  Holmlid presents his work as experimental
work, but there's such a long chain of tenuous theoretical assumptions
woven into the reports that it make it difficult to follow him to his
conclusions.  There's something pathological about that.  That's a pity,
because he might actually be observing something anomalous and interesting,
whatever it is.  I am not surprised that mainstream scientists, from what I
can tell, are wary of Holmlid's body of work.  We should make an effort to
distinguish between good science that has been unfairly neglected and
discredited (e.g., some of the LENR studies) from tendentious science that
has further work to do to support its conclusions.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Bob Higgins]

So far, as I keep reading Holmlid's latest paper, I keep coming to a
statement, and I ask myself, "where's the support for this?"  So I go
through the string of references and find illogical hand waving or leaps of
faith, but not logical support.  This business of the "2.3 pm" spaced seems
to still rely entirely on the particle velocities whose measured energy has
come entirely from an improbable conjecture of "Coulombic explosion".
Coloumbic potential energy would have to be stored in the system - I.E.
placed there by some process of squeezing the atoms into some metastable
state.  Yet, the H(0) or D(0) state is being portrayed as having lower
Hamiltonian (total energy) than H2.  Thus, one would expect ordinary H2 gas
as having tremendous Coulombic potential energy - even more than H(0) since
H2's total energy is higher than H(0) according to Holmlid (see his figure
in the latest paper which is reproduced from his other works).

Holmlid's background is in the study of hydrogen Rydberg matter.  These
condensed matter particles have a good basis in science, and have been
thoroughly characterized.  Hydrogen Rydberg particles are not dense - just
the opposite.  The atomic spacing in RM particles is twice that of H2,
making the local molecular density of H2 much greater than that for RM.
There have been molecular RM models created and the rotational spectra
computed and matched to observed spectra.  The basis and characterization
of RM is very strong.  Holmlid seems to be trying to transfer that strong
basis for RM onto his conjecture for H(0) and D(0) with what appears to be
only hand-waving - and hand-waving with contradictory claims.

H(0) and/or D(0) are supposed to be the lowest energy state of hydrogen
condensed matter.  Such a low energy state cannot be planar like RM -
though Holmlid is claiming that RM is a precursor to H(0).  In Holmlid's
description of coupled D-D pairs, he describes coupled pairs at right
angles which form a tetrahedron string having an atomic spacing of 5 pm.
Evidence is claimed for matching rotational spectroscopy (2016, "Emission
spectroscopy of IR laser-induced processes in ultra-dense deuterium").  To
calculate the rotational spectrum, you have to have a model for the entire
molecule.  The spectrum will result from an eigensolution of the quantum
fomulation for rotational states.  With some hand waving, some modeling was
done and some matching was found in his 2016 paper, but this is not
convincing like the work to determine the structure of the RM particles.

Basically, I cannot get past the fact that Holmlid is building a huge
castle on a foundation of sand.  He has not produced a sound basis for
H(0)/D(0) that underlies all of his conjecture.  His arguments of
"Coulombic explosion" don't pass the common sense test as a similar CE of
H2 should result in more energy release than H(0).   How can what is being
proposed on the basis of H(0)/D(0) be taken seriously without reasonable
proof of the existence of the fundamentals?

On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 3:55 PM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

> I believe there are circular arguments going on here.  On the one hand you
> are saying that neutral mesons are decaying into muons (charged) far from
> the reactor.  But also there is the claim of fusion in his reactor, wherein
> many are supposing MCF.  He is also measuring charged particles in his
> reactor.  The decay "times" are statistical means and there will be some
> probability of a decay from t = zero to infinity.  That's why it is
> possible to see mesons -> muons in the reactor, more outside the reactor,
> and more further away from the reactor.
>
> So, I am saying that there are meson decays going on all along the path
> from the reactor.  Muons should be easy to detect because they are charged
> and likely to interact with the scintillator crystal/liquid/plastic or by
> exciting photoelectron cascades in the GM tube. The fact that the
> corresponding muons are not detected in ordinary LENR with GM tubes and
> scintillators basically means that, in LENR, mesons are not produced.  They
> may not be produced in Holmlid's reaction ... but I have to finish reading
> the paper to understand the case he is claiming.
>
> On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 8:40 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>> Bob Higgins wrote:
>>
>> The descriptions in 5,8) below suggests that Holmlid's reaction produces
>> a high muon flux that would escape the reactor.  A high muon flux would be
>> very similar to a high beta flux.  First of all, it would seem that a flux
>> of charged muons would be highly absorbed in the reactor walls.
>>
>>
>> Bob - Yes, this has been the obvious criticism in the past, but it has
>> been addressed.
>>
>> As I understand it, the muons which are detected* do not exist* until
>> the meson, which is the progenitor particle, is many meters away. This
>> makes the lack of containment of muons very simple to understand.
>>
>> At one time muons were thought to 

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Axil Axil]

aritons’ form is speculation that is beyond any data that I know
> of, I am ok with it being a placeholder for a mysterious piece of the
> puzzle.
>
>
>
> It may be that any coherency works to beget more coherency as in the
> presence of emerging 4He. The evidence is clear to me that some infectious
> coherency often leads to large numbers of adjacent cold fusions, certainly
> rising to millions of effectively simultaneous neighbouring events. The
> relative number of such cold fusion events governs the reactor by
> delivering sufficient energy to modify or even obliterate the reactive
> domain. This is one reason nano particles are useful as they are
> sufficiently small to limit the adjacent reactions. Of course the other
> utility of nano is that there can be so damn many of such sized domains and
> one luck increases with larger numbers of cold fusion lottery tickets.
> Vaporize a nano-scopic volume of metal and it condenses right back into a
> new nanoparticle, that helps.
>
>
>
> The greatest technological challenge remains for those able to produce
> large output is how to move the resulting nuclear heat away before it
> concentrates and results in destruction of the reactive ecosystem. Heat
> moves at the speed of sound in solids but is made at a far faster rate.
> Mills just might be onto something useful with his energy removal via
> light. Holmlid’s experiment (being a near perfect clone of some successful
> cold fusion experiments) and his mesons also offer an energy dilution
> solution.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Saturday, January 21, 2017 6:03 PM
> *To:* vortex-l
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.
>
>
>
> IMHO in the Holmlid experiment, ultra dense hydrogen (UDH) is produced in
> the presence of hydrogen by the iron oxide/potassium catalyst and falls
> onto the collection foil. That foil is made of a noble metal: iridium,
> palladium, or platinum. ​What this metal is made of is important because
> that collection foil metal has a special optical property: it reflect high
> frequency laser light. The green laser light bounces between the collection
> foil and the hydrogen gas. This generates Surface Plasmon Polaritons, a
> boson,  that are the entangled combination of the electrons on the surface
> of the ultra dense hydrogen spin wave and the photons from the laser light.
> These polaritons store the huge amounts of energy that the ultra dense
> hydrogen extracts from proton decay. This energy protects the UDH from
> temperature disruption because it functions as a magnetic shield. This
> enables the metastable existence(or shelf life) of the UDH that Holmlid has
> found in his experiments. Based on its energy content, the SPP covering on
> the UDH can last for weeks or months even if it is not recharge with more
> nuclear energy.
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 8:19 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Proton proton involves the creation of charmed and strange quarks(the
> D-meson?). When you figure out how those guys work, explain it simply so
> that both me and your grandmother can understand it.
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 7:40 PM, <bobcook39...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I would question why a neutral Kaon can not decay into 2 neutral muons?
> If the data on normal Kaon decay is from high energy 2-body reactions, then
> resonant stimulation of D and p by EM may result in entirely different
> results statistically—i.e., 2 neutral kaons instead of a + and – pair being
> likely.
>
>
>
> Again, whatever the nature of the neutral particles, how they get their
> kinetic energy/momentum is a key question for Holmild.
>
>
>
> Another question involves the balancing of quarks available and whether
> the standard theory is at risk?  I’ll take a look at this issue myself and
> report back on the results expected for a meson-pion-muon series of events,
> if I can figure it out.
>
>
>
> Bob Cook
>
>
>
> Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for
> Windows 10
>
>
>
> *From: *Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com>
> *Sent: *Saturday, January 21, 2017 4:00 PM
> *To: *vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject: *RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.
>
>
>
> The vital question is about the rate vs. distance for the emergence of
> detectable muons. Surely there is a distribution bell curve regarding which
> we cold fusioneers are most interested in the nearest limb of that
> distribution. This then speaks to the reaction rate producing the meson
> beasties which presumably is directly related to the anomalous nuclear
> reaction rate, aka cold fusion as that’s been the moniker for

RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Russ George]

Ultra dense hydrogen is a natural state of hydrogen when it is absorbed into 
metal lattices. It is just that simple, Martin Fleischmann spoke endlessly of 
this from the very beginning. Almost all who have been successful have clearly 
followed similar paths to making ‘sweet spots’ in their materials. The density 
of the hydrogen/deuterium varies greatly on a lattice domain by domain basis 
but it is certainly not uncommonly reaching stellar core densities. That’s just 
the basics of the lattice/atom-ecology. The more hydrogen loving a metal is the 
more ultra dense domains come to be. It seems that the electronic character of 
the metal is also a key characteristic as the closer to having the electron 
shells filled the more reactive the material becomes. This is at odds with 
hydrogen loading so it is a dynamic problem the hydrogen faces. This is why 
Mills and a few of us have seen silver to be such a fantastically reactive 
material to work with, albeit very demanding. 

 

When the forces that provide for the diffusion of hydrogen into the metal 
lattice are sufficient then the nuclear reactivity rises to a useful level. 
Fleischmann’s mastery of the art of electrochemical loading of palladium 
enabled him to achieve his terrific success, very few were or are his equal in 
that ‘artistry.’ Those not so skilled in the art as Fleischmann could and have 
resorted to nano-domain management to get their cold fusion art ‘on canvas’. 
There are some tricks that are useful in getting more hydrogen/deuterium past 
the surface that also are productive. There is still no report/claim of anyone 
ever using pure protium in a successful experiment hence I consider all results 
to be deuterium based as it is ubiquitous and behaves in an apt manner to place 
itself in the right place and form.

The key to creating the right environment for ‘cold fusion’ is micro-domains as 
there is never more than a micro-domain in a metal lattice, indeed it is likely 
the key is nano-domains that are most useful. Going nano is a very simple 
technology issue the more nano-domains one can toss into the ‘test tube’ the 
more likely the reaction rate will be higher. As for the utility of laser 
stimulation I happen to think it is merely a matter of coherency begets 
coherency and the more coherent the ultra dense hydrogen become the more 
entangled and reactive it is. Whether ‘surface plasmon polaritons’ form is 
speculation that is beyond any data that I know of, I am ok with it being a 
placeholder for a mysterious piece of the puzzle.  

 

It may be that any coherency works to beget more coherency as in the presence 
of emerging 4He. The evidence is clear to me that some infectious coherency 
often leads to large numbers of adjacent cold fusions, certainly rising to 
millions of effectively simultaneous neighbouring events. The relative number 
of such cold fusion events governs the reactor by delivering sufficient energy 
to modify or even obliterate the reactive domain. This is one reason nano 
particles are useful as they are sufficiently small to limit the adjacent 
reactions. Of course the other utility of nano is that there can be so damn 
many of such sized domains and one luck increases with larger numbers of cold 
fusion lottery tickets. Vaporize a nano-scopic volume of metal and it condenses 
right back into a new nanoparticle, that helps. 

 

The greatest technological challenge remains for those able to produce large 
output is how to move the resulting nuclear heat away before it concentrates 
and results in destruction of the reactive ecosystem. Heat moves at the speed 
of sound in solids but is made at a far faster rate. Mills just might be onto 
something useful with his energy removal via light. Holmlid’s experiment (being 
a near perfect clone of some successful cold fusion experiments) and his mesons 
also offer an energy dilution solution. 

 

 

 

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2017 6:03 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

 

IMHO in the Holmlid experiment, ultra dense hydrogen (UDH) is produced in the 
presence of hydrogen by the iron oxide/potassium catalyst and falls onto the 
collection foil. That foil is made of a noble metal: iridium, palladium, or 
platinum. ​What this metal is made of is important because that collection foil 
metal has a special optical property: it reflect high frequency laser light. 
The green laser light bounces between the collection foil and the hydrogen gas. 
This generates Surface Plasmon Polaritons, a boson,  that are the entangled 
combination of the electrons on the surface of the ultra dense hydrogen spin 
wave and the photons from the laser light. These polaritons store the huge 
amounts of energy that the ultra dense hydrogen extracts from proton decay. 
This energy protects the UDH from temperature disruption because it functions 
as a magnetic shield. This enables the metastable existence(or shelf

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Axil Axil]

IMHO in the Holmlid experiment, ultra dense hydrogen (UDH) is produced in
the presence of hydrogen by the iron oxide/potassium catalyst and falls
onto the collection foil. That foil is made of a noble metal: iridium,
palladium, or platinum. ​What this metal is made of is important because
that collection foil metal has a special optical property: it reflect high
frequency laser light. The green laser light bounces between the collection
foil and the hydrogen gas. This generates Surface Plasmon Polaritons, a
boson,  that are the entangled combination of the electrons on the surface
of the ultra dense hydrogen spin wave and the photons from the laser light.
These polaritons store the huge amounts of energy that the ultra dense
hydrogen extracts from proton decay. This energy protects the UDH from
temperature disruption because it functions as a magnetic shield. This
enables the metastable existence(or shelf life) of the UDH that Holmlid has
found in his experiments. Based on its energy content, the SPP covering on
the UDH can last for weeks or months even if it is not recharge with more
nuclear energy.

On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 8:19 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Proton proton involves the creation of charmed and strange quarks(the
> D-meson?). When you figure out how those guys work, explain it simply so
> that both me and your grandmother can understand it.
>
> On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 7:40 PM, <bobcook39...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I would question why a neutral Kaon can not decay into 2 neutral muons?
>> If the data on normal Kaon decay is from high energy 2-body reactions, then
>> resonant stimulation of D and p by EM may result in entirely different
>> results statistically—i.e., 2 neutral kaons instead of a + and – pair being
>> likely.
>>
>>
>>
>> Again, whatever the nature of the neutral particles, how they get their
>> kinetic energy/momentum is a key question for Holmild.
>>
>>
>>
>> Another question involves the balancing of quarks available and whether
>> the standard theory is at risk?  I’ll take a look at this issue myself and
>> report back on the results expected for a meson-pion-muon series of events,
>> if I can figure it out.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bob Cook
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for
>> Windows 10
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com>
>> *Sent: *Saturday, January 21, 2017 4:00 PM
>> *To: *vortex-l@eskimo.com
>> *Subject: *RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.
>>
>>
>>
>> The vital question is about the rate vs. distance for the emergence of
>> detectable muons. Surely there is a distribution bell curve regarding which
>> we cold fusioneers are most interested in the nearest limb of that
>> distribution. This then speaks to the reaction rate producing the meson
>> beasties which presumably is directly related to the anomalous nuclear
>> reaction rate, aka cold fusion as that’s been the moniker for good or for
>> worse. For the capture of crazy meson/muons and resulting in detection it
>> seems a combined intercepting/converting metal foil coupled to
>> scintillation detector, aka GMT, works just fine provided the reaction rate
>> is sufficient, aka > joules/sec …  more is better remember we are out on a
>> limb here. Any ideas about what might ‘reflect’ a meson, perhaps beryllium
>> as it is the best neutron reflector. Such reflectors might improve the
>> containment and hence time the meson/muon beasties stay close enough for
>> detection.
>>
>>
>>
>> Just for fun maybe it’s worth building a beryllium frustrum and thus have
>> our di-lithium crystal warp drive. Computer draw me the wee specs for a
>> transparent beryllium frustrum. Computer. Computer…. I dunna know what’s
>> wrong with this computer it cannae do what I am asking it to do.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com]
>> *Sent:* Saturday, January 21, 2017 2:55 PM
>> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.
>>
>>
>>
>> I believe there are circular arguments going on here.  On the one hand
>> you are saying that neutral mesons are decaying into muons (charged) far
>> from the reactor.  But also there is the claim of fusion in his reactor,
>> wherein many are supposing MCF.  He is also measuring charged particles in
>> his reactor.  The decay "times" are statistical means and there will be
>> some probability of a decay from t = zero to infinity.  That's why it is
>> possible to see mesons -> muons in the reactor

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Axil Axil]

Proton proton involves the creation of charmed and strange quarks(the
D-meson?). When you figure out how those guys work, explain it simply so
that both me and your grandmother can understand it.

On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 7:40 PM, <bobcook39...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I would question why a neutral Kaon can not decay into 2 neutral muons?
> If the data on normal Kaon decay is from high energy 2-body reactions, then
> resonant stimulation of D and p by EM may result in entirely different
> results statistically—i.e., 2 neutral kaons instead of a + and – pair being
> likely.
>
>
>
> Again, whatever the nature of the neutral particles, how they get their
> kinetic energy/momentum is a key question for Holmild.
>
>
>
> Another question involves the balancing of quarks available and whether
> the standard theory is at risk?  I’ll take a look at this issue myself and
> report back on the results expected for a meson-pion-muon series of events,
> if I can figure it out.
>
>
>
> Bob Cook
>
>
>
> Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for
> Windows 10
>
>
>
> *From: *Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com>
> *Sent: *Saturday, January 21, 2017 4:00 PM
> *To: *vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject: *RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.
>
>
>
> The vital question is about the rate vs. distance for the emergence of
> detectable muons. Surely there is a distribution bell curve regarding which
> we cold fusioneers are most interested in the nearest limb of that
> distribution. This then speaks to the reaction rate producing the meson
> beasties which presumably is directly related to the anomalous nuclear
> reaction rate, aka cold fusion as that’s been the moniker for good or for
> worse. For the capture of crazy meson/muons and resulting in detection it
> seems a combined intercepting/converting metal foil coupled to
> scintillation detector, aka GMT, works just fine provided the reaction rate
> is sufficient, aka > joules/sec …  more is better remember we are out on a
> limb here. Any ideas about what might ‘reflect’ a meson, perhaps beryllium
> as it is the best neutron reflector. Such reflectors might improve the
> containment and hence time the meson/muon beasties stay close enough for
> detection.
>
>
>
> Just for fun maybe it’s worth building a beryllium frustrum and thus have
> our di-lithium crystal warp drive. Computer draw me the wee specs for a
> transparent beryllium frustrum. Computer. Computer…. I dunna know what’s
> wrong with this computer it cannae do what I am asking it to do.
>
>
>
> *From:* Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Saturday, January 21, 2017 2:55 PM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.
>
>
>
> I believe there are circular arguments going on here.  On the one hand you
> are saying that neutral mesons are decaying into muons (charged) far from
> the reactor.  But also there is the claim of fusion in his reactor, wherein
> many are supposing MCF.  He is also measuring charged particles in his
> reactor.  The decay "times" are statistical means and there will be some
> probability of a decay from t = zero to infinity.  That's why it is
> possible to see mesons -> muons in the reactor, more outside the reactor,
> and more further away from the reactor.
>
> So, I am saying that there are meson decays going on all along the path
> from the reactor.  Muons should be easy to detect because they are charged
> and likely to interact with the scintillator crystal/liquid/plastic or by
> exciting photoelectron cascades in the GM tube. The fact that the
> corresponding muons are not detected in ordinary LENR with GM tubes and
> scintillators basically means that, in LENR, mesons are not produced.  They
> may not be produced in Holmlid's reaction ... but I have to finish reading
> the paper to understand the case he is claiming.
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 8:40 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> Bob Higgins wrote:
>
> The descriptions in 5,8) below suggests that Holmlid's reaction produces a
> high muon flux that would escape the reactor.  A high muon flux would be
> very similar to a high beta flux.  First of all, it would seem that a flux
> of charged muons would be highly absorbed in the reactor walls.
>
>
> Bob - Yes, this has been the obvious criticism in the past, but it has
> been addressed.
>
> As I understand it, the muons which are detected* do not exist* until the
> meson, which is the progenitor particle, is many meters away. This makes
> the lack of containment of muons very simple to understand.
>
> At one time muons were thought to exist as neutral instead of c

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Axil Axil]

What is confusing you is that Holmlid has changed his mind based on further
research. He now says that the energies produced at the primary point of
the reaction on the collection foil produces far too much energy to be
derived from fusion. Holmlid states that this energy comes from double
proton anilization.

On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 5:55 PM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

> I believe there are circular arguments going on here.  On the one hand you
> are saying that neutral mesons are decaying into muons (charged) far from
> the reactor.  But also there is the claim of fusion in his reactor, wherein
> many are supposing MCF.  He is also measuring charged particles in his
> reactor.  The decay "times" are statistical means and there will be some
> probability of a decay from t = zero to infinity.  That's why it is
> possible to see mesons -> muons in the reactor, more outside the reactor,
> and more further away from the reactor.
>
> So, I am saying that there are meson decays going on all along the path
> from the reactor.  Muons should be easy to detect because they are charged
> and likely to interact with the scintillator crystal/liquid/plastic or by
> exciting photoelectron cascades in the GM tube. The fact that the
> corresponding muons are not detected in ordinary LENR with GM tubes and
> scintillators basically means that, in LENR, mesons are not produced.  They
> may not be produced in Holmlid's reaction ... but I have to finish reading
> the paper to understand the case he is claiming.
>
> On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 8:40 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>> Bob Higgins wrote:
>>
>> The descriptions in 5,8) below suggests that Holmlid's reaction produces
>> a high muon flux that would escape the reactor.  A high muon flux would be
>> very similar to a high beta flux.  First of all, it would seem that a flux
>> of charged muons would be highly absorbed in the reactor walls.
>>
>>
>> Bob - Yes, this has been the obvious criticism in the past, but it has
>> been addressed.
>>
>> As I understand it, the muons which are detected* do not exist* until
>> the meson, which is the progenitor particle, is many meters away. This
>> makes the lack of containment of muons very simple to understand.
>>
>> At one time muons were thought to exist as neutral instead of charged
>> (see the reference Bob Cook sent, from 1957) but in fact, the observers at
>> that time, due to poor instrumentation - were seeing neutral mesons, not
>> muons.
>>
>> As an example, a neutral Kaon decays to two muons one negative and one
>> positive. However, the lifetime of the Kaon which is much shorter than the
>> muon but still about ~10^-8 seconds means that on average 99+% of the
>> particles are tens to hundreds of meters away before they decay to muons.
>> Thus the reactor is transparent to the progenitor particle.
>>
>> This is why Holmlid places a muon detector some distance away and then
>> calculates the decay time. Thus he claims an extraordinarily high flux of
>> muons which assumes that the detector is mapping out a small space on a
>> large sphere. However, they are not usable any more than neutrinos are
>> usable, since they start out as a neutral meson.
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Axil Axil]

The significance of the theory that the Dutch theoretical physicist Erik
Verlinde offers as an alternative to the dark matter particle idea has
great import and application to the LENR paradigm.

The basic idea behind Erik Verlinde theory is the gravity can be weakened
when ambient matter in galaxies disrupts the entanglement that holds space
time together. Impacting LENR, This Verlinde idea might well be extended to
include the other fundamental forces.

This ability for entanglement to affect the basic forces of nature is
disruptive to the current science theories such as supersymmetry and
general relativity. Science currently considers that the four fundamental
forces only change in strength if substantial energy is added to those
forces.

In a nutshell, Erik Verlinde idea implies that when entanglement is added
to space time, the forces of nature weaken, and when entanglement is
increased, the fundamental forces are strengthened.

The new theories of science attempting to unify general relativity to
quantum mechanics develop the idea that entanglement is the basic mechanism
in which space/time is built.

http://www.nature.com/news/the-quantum-source-of-space-time-1.18797
quote:
“Among the enthusiasts was Van Raamsdonk, who started his sabbatical by
pondering one of the central unsolved questions posed by Maldacena’s
discovery: exactly how does a quantum field on the boundary produce gravity
in the bulk? There had already been hints that the answer might involve
some sort of relation between geometry and entanglement”.

>From the standpoint of engineering, Superconductivity/Bose condensation
enforces a state of maximum entanglement and when this state of
Superconductivity is disrupted, then entanglement is reduced.

A possible consequence for LENR engineering of this idea is that the strong
force can be weakened if the superconductive state inside the proton and
neutron is disrupted. Most everybody knows that magnetism and
superconductivity do not mix. The mechanism can disrupt this condensed
state in the space/time inside the nucleon is substantive magnetism. As the
experiments of Holmlid shows, when the proton falls apart, energy and sub
atomic particle creation will result. The laser light excited ultra-dense
hydrogen that Holmlid creates is a concentrator of highly focused atomic
level anisotropic magnetism that can enter the nucleon and rip it apart.


On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 11:58 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0169895
>
> Mesons from Laser-Induced Processes in Ultra-Dense Hydrogen H(0)
>
> A new paper from Holmlid where he now deduces that LENR cannot be a fusion
> based reaction because the energy of the mesons produced are far to great.
> I respect a man that can change his mind under the weight of experimental
> evidence.
>
> The hydrogen nanoparticle that produces the mesons are 3 to 6 planes long.
>

RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[bobcook39923]

I would question why a neutral KAON CAN NOT DECAY INTO 2 NEUTRAL MUONS?  IF THE 
DATA ON NORMAL KAON DECAY IS FROM HIGH ENERGY 2-BODY REACTIONS, THEN RESONANT 
STIMULATION OF D AND P BY EM MAY RESULT IN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT RESULTS 
STATISTICALLY—I.E., 2 NEUTRAL KAONS INSTEAD OF A + AND – PAIR BEING LIKELY.

AGAIN, WHATEVER THE NATURE OF THE NEUTRAL PARTICLES, HOW THEY GET THEIR KINETIC 
ENERGY/MOMENTUM IS A KEY QUESTION FOR HOLMILD.

ANOTHER QUESTION INVOLVES THE BALANCING OF QUARKS AVAILABLE AND WHETHER THE 
STANDARD THEORY IS AT RISK?  I’LL TAKE A LOOK AT THIS ISSUE MYSELF AND REPORT 
BACK ON THE RESULTS EXPECTED FOR A MESON-PION-MUON SERIES OF EVENTS, IF I CAN 
FIGURE IT OUT. 

BOB COOK

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Russ George
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2017 4:00 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

The vital question is about the rate vs. distance for the emergence of 
detectable muons. Surely there is a distribution bell curve regarding which we 
cold fusioneers are most interested in the nearest limb of that distribution. 
This then speaks to the reaction rate producing the meson beasties which 
presumably is directly related to the anomalous nuclear reaction rate, aka cold 
fusion as that’s been the moniker for good or for worse. For the capture of 
crazy meson/muons and resulting in detection it seems a combined 
intercepting/converting metal foil coupled to scintillation detector, aka GMT, 
works just fine provided the reaction rate is sufficient, aka > joules/sec …  
more is better remember we are out on a limb here. Any ideas about what might 
‘reflect’ a meson, perhaps beryllium as it is the best neutron reflector. Such 
reflectors might improve the containment and hence time the meson/muon beasties 
stay close enough for detection. 

Just for fun maybe it’s worth building a beryllium frustrum and thus have our 
di-lithium crystal warp drive. Computer draw me the wee specs for a transparent 
beryllium frustrum. Computer. Computer…. I dunna know what’s wrong with this 
computer it cannae do what I am asking it to do.

From: Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2017 2:55 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

I believe there are circular arguments going on here.  On the one hand you are 
saying that neutral mesons are decaying into muons (charged) far from the 
reactor.  But also there is the claim of fusion in his reactor, wherein many 
are supposing MCF.  He is also measuring charged particles in his reactor.  The 
decay "times" are statistical means and there will be some probability of a 
decay from t = zero to infinity.  That's why it is possible to see mesons -> 
muons in the reactor, more outside the reactor, and more further away from the 
reactor.
So, I am saying that there are meson decays going on all along the path from 
the reactor.  Muons should be easy to detect because they are charged and 
likely to interact with the scintillator crystal/liquid/plastic or by exciting 
photoelectron cascades in the GM tube. The fact that the corresponding muons 
are not detected in ordinary LENR with GM tubes and scintillators basically 
means that, in LENR, mesons are not produced.  They may not be produced in 
Holmlid's reaction ... but I have to finish reading the paper to understand the 
case he is claiming.

On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 8:40 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:
Bob Higgins wrote:
The descriptions in 5,8) below suggests that Holmlid's reaction produces a high 
muon flux that would escape the reactor.  A high muon flux would be very 
similar to a high beta flux.  First of all, it would seem that a flux of 
charged muons would be highly absorbed in the reactor walls. 

Bob - Yes, this has been the obvious criticism in the past, but it has been 
addressed. 

As I understand it, the muons which are detected do not exist until the meson, 
which is the progenitor particle, is many meters away. This makes the lack of 
containment of muons very simple to understand. 

At one time muons were thought to exist as neutral instead of charged (see the 
reference Bob Cook sent, from 1957) but in fact, the observers at that time, 
due to poor instrumentation - were seeing neutral mesons, not muons.

As an example, a neutral Kaon decays to two muons one negative and one 
positive. However, the lifetime of the Kaon which is much shorter than the muon 
but still about ~10^-8 seconds means that on average 99+% of the particles are 
tens to hundreds of meters away before they decay to muons. Thus the reactor is 
transparent to the progenitor particle.

This is why Holmlid places a muon detector some distance away and then 
calculates the decay time. Thus he claims an extraordinarily high flux of muons 
which assumes that the detector is mapping out a small space on a large sphere. 
However, they are not usable any more than neutrinos are usable, since they 

RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Russ George]

The vital question is about the rate vs. distance for the emergence of 
detectable muons. Surely there is a distribution bell curve regarding which we 
cold fusioneers are most interested in the nearest limb of that distribution. 
This then speaks to the reaction rate producing the meson beasties which 
presumably is directly related to the anomalous nuclear reaction rate, aka cold 
fusion as that’s been the moniker for good or for worse. For the capture of 
crazy meson/muons and resulting in detection it seems a combined 
intercepting/converting metal foil coupled to scintillation detector, aka GMT, 
works just fine provided the reaction rate is sufficient, aka > joules/sec …  
more is better remember we are out on a limb here. Any ideas about what might 
‘reflect’ a meson, perhaps beryllium as it is the best neutron reflector. Such 
reflectors might improve the containment and hence time the meson/muon beasties 
stay close enough for detection. 

 

Just for fun maybe it’s worth building a beryllium frustrum and thus have our 
di-lithium crystal warp drive. Computer draw me the wee specs for a transparent 
beryllium frustrum. Computer. Computer…. I dunna know what’s wrong with this 
computer it cannae do what I am asking it to do.

 

From: Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2017 2:55 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

 

I believe there are circular arguments going on here.  On the one hand you are 
saying that neutral mesons are decaying into muons (charged) far from the 
reactor.  But also there is the claim of fusion in his reactor, wherein many 
are supposing MCF.  He is also measuring charged particles in his reactor.  The 
decay "times" are statistical means and there will be some probability of a 
decay from t = zero to infinity.  That's why it is possible to see mesons -> 
muons in the reactor, more outside the reactor, and more further away from the 
reactor.

So, I am saying that there are meson decays going on all along the path from 
the reactor.  Muons should be easy to detect because they are charged and 
likely to interact with the scintillator crystal/liquid/plastic or by exciting 
photoelectron cascades in the GM tube. The fact that the corresponding muons 
are not detected in ordinary LENR with GM tubes and scintillators basically 
means that, in LENR, mesons are not produced.  They may not be produced in 
Holmlid's reaction ... but I have to finish reading the paper to understand the 
case he is claiming.

 

On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 8:40 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net 
<mailto:jone...@pacbell.net> > wrote:

Bob Higgins wrote:

The descriptions in 5,8) below suggests that Holmlid's reaction produces a high 
muon flux that would escape the reactor.  A high muon flux would be very 
similar to a high beta flux.  First of all, it would seem that a flux of 
charged muons would be highly absorbed in the reactor walls. 


Bob - Yes, this has been the obvious criticism in the past, but it has been 
addressed. 

As I understand it, the muons which are detected do not exist until the meson, 
which is the progenitor particle, is many meters away. This makes the lack of 
containment of muons very simple to understand. 

At one time muons were thought to exist as neutral instead of charged (see the 
reference Bob Cook sent, from 1957) but in fact, the observers at that time, 
due to poor instrumentation - were seeing neutral mesons, not muons.

As an example, a neutral Kaon decays to two muons one negative and one 
positive. However, the lifetime of the Kaon which is much shorter than the muon 
but still about ~10^-8 seconds means that on average 99+% of the particles are 
tens to hundreds of meters away before they decay to muons. Thus the reactor is 
transparent to the progenitor particle.

This is why Holmlid places a muon detector some distance away and then 
calculates the decay time. Thus he claims an extraordinarily high flux of muons 
which assumes that the detector is mapping out a small space on a large sphere. 
However, they are not usable any more than neutrinos are usable, since they 
start out as a neutral meson.

 

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Bob Higgins]

I believe there are circular arguments going on here.  On the one hand you
are saying that neutral mesons are decaying into muons (charged) far from
the reactor.  But also there is the claim of fusion in his reactor, wherein
many are supposing MCF.  He is also measuring charged particles in his
reactor.  The decay "times" are statistical means and there will be some
probability of a decay from t = zero to infinity.  That's why it is
possible to see mesons -> muons in the reactor, more outside the reactor,
and more further away from the reactor.

So, I am saying that there are meson decays going on all along the path
from the reactor.  Muons should be easy to detect because they are charged
and likely to interact with the scintillator crystal/liquid/plastic or by
exciting photoelectron cascades in the GM tube. The fact that the
corresponding muons are not detected in ordinary LENR with GM tubes and
scintillators basically means that, in LENR, mesons are not produced.  They
may not be produced in Holmlid's reaction ... but I have to finish reading
the paper to understand the case he is claiming.

On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 8:40 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> Bob Higgins wrote:
>
> The descriptions in 5,8) below suggests that Holmlid's reaction produces a
> high muon flux that would escape the reactor.  A high muon flux would be
> very similar to a high beta flux.  First of all, it would seem that a flux
> of charged muons would be highly absorbed in the reactor walls.
>
>
> Bob - Yes, this has been the obvious criticism in the past, but it has
> been addressed.
>
> As I understand it, the muons which are detected* do not exist* until the
> meson, which is the progenitor particle, is many meters away. This makes
> the lack of containment of muons very simple to understand.
>
> At one time muons were thought to exist as neutral instead of charged (see
> the reference Bob Cook sent, from 1957) but in fact, the observers at that
> time, due to poor instrumentation - were seeing neutral mesons, not muons.
>
> As an example, a neutral Kaon decays to two muons one negative and one
> positive. However, the lifetime of the Kaon which is much shorter than the
> muon but still about ~10^-8 seconds means that on average 99+% of the
> particles are tens to hundreds of meters away before they decay to muons.
> Thus the reactor is transparent to the progenitor particle.
>
> This is why Holmlid places a muon detector some distance away and then
> calculates the decay time. Thus he claims an extraordinarily high flux of
> muons which assumes that the detector is mapping out a small space on a
> large sphere. However, they are not usable any more than neutrinos are
> usable, since they start out as a neutral meson.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 2:47 PM, Russ George  wrote:

No insinuation by me I simply don’t trust anyone who stands by Huizenga!


Who's standing by Huizenga?

Eric

RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Russ George]

Amongst the thousands of scientists who work with CERN most are still driven by 
true scientific curiosity, the holiest of holy's. Alas many are simply 
avaricious testosterone mutants, those sorts of personalities all to often 
float to the top where they are noticeable by all three senses.

-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2017 12:40 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

When you think about it - why would CERN want to test Holmlid's device ?

Isn't it lose, lose, lose for them... if the test is successful? 
Hundreds of lucrative jobs could be lost. Prestige is a stake. Big science is 
at stake. Where is the silver lining for CERN?

Of course, the "science" alone should be the main concern of all scientists, 
but it seldom is.

Mel Brooks tells it like it pretty much like it is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTmfwklFM-M

RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Russ George]

No insinuation by me I simply don’t trust anyone who stands by Huizenga!

 

From: Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2017 11:32 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

 

Hi Russ,

 

On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 1:28 PM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com 
<mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote:

 

Huizenga being the lying conniving troll that he was reneged on his commitment. 
Anyone who stands by Huizenga as a credible person is either a complete fool or 
a disreputable troll.

 

Perhaps you're insinuating something that wasn't suggested or intended?

 

Eric

 

RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Russ George]

That’s good to hear that Holmlid is using bubble detectors, they are superb for 
this sort of measurement. It’s of course all about how many activations might 
take place.

 

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2017 11:30 AM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

 

Holmlid uses bubble detectors to check for neutrons and no bubbles have ever 
been seen.

 

The production of quack soup through heavy element ion collisions that they do 
at CERN have to produce some neutrons.

 

On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com 
<mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Not so fast! It's hardly so simple as just putting an unknown physics 
experiment next to a valuable detector. No one would be foolish enough to risk 
the trying to catch the unknown in such a rare net of the known without some 
preliminary tests. I once was lent a very sophisticated detector to study my 
mischugenon producing technology which is very very similar to Holmlid's tech. 
But minutes before testing I had second thoughts. Instead of forging ahead I 
spent some hours talking over the test and possibilities once again with the 
builders of the instrument who had been so gracious as to loan it to me. We 
collectively decided that if indeed what my data had shown in previous 
instruments were repeated it was very likely it would cause instantaneous 
irreparable damage to the instrument as clearly the 'mischugenon's' behaved 
somewhat like neutrons which if even a trace were present might produce neutron 
activation. Even the slightest creation of activated species would give a 
signal for the history books but forever ruin the detector. Alas my budget was 
many orders of magnitude away from being able to pay for such damage. Even 
though I was one flip of a switch away I never threw that switch. Ces't la vie.

-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net <mailto:jone...@pacbell.net> ]
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2017 10:38 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

Here is an image of ATLAS.

http://www.atlasexperiment.org/photos/atlas_photos/selected-photos/full-detector/0511013_02-A4-at-144-dpi.jpg

The guy standing in the bottom/center gives an idea of the Scale.

Heck LH doesn't need a miniature version - that is an unnecessary delay:
the version that is known to work should be shipped trucked down there at 
once...


Axil Axil wrote:
> Holmlid et al are planning to put a miniaturized version of their
> experiment inside a full scale particle detector. My guess is that
> that detector will be ATLAS since Holmlid is in contact with the
> particle physics at CERN.



 

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Jones Beene]

When you think about it - why would CERN want to test Holmlid's device ?

Isn't it lose, lose, lose for them... if the test is successful? 
Hundreds of lucrative jobs could be lost. Prestige is a stake. Big 
science is at stake. Where is the silver lining for CERN?


Of course, the "science" alone should be the main concern of all 
scientists, but it seldom is.


Mel Brooks tells it like it pretty much like it is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTmfwklFM-M

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Eric Walker]

Hi Russ,

On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 1:28 PM, Russ George  wrote:

Huizenga being the lying conniving troll that he was reneged on his
> commitment. Anyone who stands by Huizenga as a credible person is either a
> complete fool or a disreputable troll.
>

Perhaps you're insinuating something that wasn't suggested or intended?

Eric

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Axil Axil]

Holmlid uses bubble detectors to check for neutrons and no bubbles have
ever been seen.

The production of quack soup through heavy element ion collisions that they
do at CERN have to produce some neutrons.

On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Not so fast! It's hardly so simple as just putting an unknown physics
> experiment next to a valuable detector. No one would be foolish enough to
> risk the trying to catch the unknown in such a rare net of the known
> without some preliminary tests. I once was lent a very sophisticated
> detector to study my mischugenon producing technology which is very very
> similar to Holmlid's tech. But minutes before testing I had second
> thoughts. Instead of forging ahead I spent some hours talking over the test
> and possibilities once again with the builders of the instrument who had
> been so gracious as to loan it to me. We collectively decided that if
> indeed what my data had shown in previous instruments were repeated it was
> very likely it would cause instantaneous irreparable damage to the
> instrument as clearly the 'mischugenon's' behaved somewhat like neutrons
> which if even a trace were present might produce neutron activation. Even
> the slightest creation of activated species would give a signal for the
> history books but forever ruin the detector. Alas my budget was many orders
> of magnitude away from being able to pay for such damage. Even though I was
> one flip of a switch away I never threw that switch. Ces't la vie.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net]
> Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2017 10:38 AM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.
>
> Here is an image of ATLAS.
>
> http://www.atlasexperiment.org/photos/atlas_photos/
> selected-photos/full-detector/0511013_02-A4-at-144-dpi.jpg
>
> The guy standing in the bottom/center gives an idea of the Scale.
>
> Heck LH doesn't need a miniature version - that is an unnecessary delay:
> the version that is known to work should be shipped trucked down there at
> once...
>
>
> Axil Axil wrote:
> > Holmlid et al are planning to put a miniaturized version of their
> > experiment inside a full scale particle detector. My guess is that
> > that detector will be ATLAS since Holmlid is in contact with the
> > particle physics at CERN.
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Russ George]

Some of us in the cold fusion experimentalist world offered in public in front 
of witnesses to demonstrate cold fusion to Huizenga, who agreed though insisted 
he’d do so only in a lab of his choosing, the lab agreed, independent 
scientists volunteered to witness. Huizenga being the lying conniving troll 
that he was reneged on his commitment. Anyone who stands by Huizenga as a 
credible person is either a complete fool or a disreputable troll. 

 

From: bobcook39...@gmail.com [mailto:bobcook39...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2017 11:02 AM
To: Eric Walker; vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

 

Eric---

 

You would think so that the high energy folks at CERN would comment, unless 
they are concerned about their future at CERN.

 

I would pick others to give reputable reports on muons.  

 

I would look to the comments of retired high energy physicists that worked on 
the super collider in Texas or at the Standard Linear Accelerator.   Better 
yet, someone not affiliated with big time physics experiments and/or 
development such as CERN AND  ITER. 

 

   “It’s as dead as ever,” Dr.  
<http://partners.nytimes.com/library/national/science/032399sci-cold-fusion.html>
 Huizenga told The New York Times in an interview. “It’s quite unbelievable 
that the thing has gone on for 10 years.”

 

I hope you are not reading from a page out of Huizinga’s debunk book. 

 

Bob Cook

From: Eric Walker <mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com> 
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2017 10:11 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

 

On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 12:00 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com 
<mailto:janap...@gmail.com> > wrote:

 

Holmlid et al are planning to put a miniaturized version of their experiment 
inside a full scale particle detector. My guess is that that detector will be 
ATLAS since Holmlid is in contact with the particle physics at CERN.

 

Good to know.  It will be interesting to hear what the particle physicists at 
CERN report (in contrast to another report from Holmlid or Holmlid and 
Olafsson).

 

Eric

 

 

RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[bobcook39923]

Eric---

You would think so that the high energy folks at CERN would comment, unless 
they are concerned about their future at CERN.

I would pick others to give reputable reports on muons.  

I would look to the comments of retired high energy physicists that worked on 
the super collider in Texas or at the Standard Linear Accelerator.   Better 
yet, someone not affiliated with big time physics experiments and/or 
development such as CERN AND  ITER. 

   “It’s as dead as ever,” Dr. Huizenga told The New York Times in an 
interview. “It’s quite unbelievable that the thing has gone on for 10 years.”

I hope you are not reading from a page out of Huizinga’s debunk book. 

Bob Cook
From: Eric Walker
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2017 10:11 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 12:00 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote:

Holmlid et al are planning to put a miniaturized version of their experiment 
inside a full scale particle detector. My guess is that that detector will be 
ATLAS since Holmlid is in contact with the particle physics at CERN.

Good to know.  It will be interesting to hear what the particle physicists at 
CERN report (in contrast to another report from Holmlid or Holmlid and 
Olafsson).

Eric

RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Russ George]

Not so fast! It's hardly so simple as just putting an unknown physics 
experiment next to a valuable detector. No one would be foolish enough to risk 
the trying to catch the unknown in such a rare net of the known without some 
preliminary tests. I once was lent a very sophisticated detector to study my 
mischugenon producing technology which is very very similar to Holmlid's tech. 
But minutes before testing I had second thoughts. Instead of forging ahead I 
spent some hours talking over the test and possibilities once again with the 
builders of the instrument who had been so gracious as to loan it to me. We 
collectively decided that if indeed what my data had shown in previous 
instruments were repeated it was very likely it would cause instantaneous 
irreparable damage to the instrument as clearly the 'mischugenon's' behaved 
somewhat like neutrons which if even a trace were present might produce neutron 
activation. Even the slightest creation of activated species would give a 
signal for the history books but forever ruin the detector. Alas my budget was 
many orders of magnitude away from being able to pay for such damage. Even 
though I was one flip of a switch away I never threw that switch. Ces't la vie.

-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2017 10:38 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

Here is an image of ATLAS.

http://www.atlasexperiment.org/photos/atlas_photos/selected-photos/full-detector/0511013_02-A4-at-144-dpi.jpg

The guy standing in the bottom/center gives an idea of the Scale.

Heck LH doesn't need a miniature version - that is an unnecessary delay: 
the version that is known to work should be shipped trucked down there at 
once...


Axil Axil wrote:
> Holmlid et al are planning to put a miniaturized version of their 
> experiment inside a full scale particle detector. My guess is that 
> that detector will be ATLAS since Holmlid is in contact with the 
> particle physics at CERN.

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Jones Beene]

Here is an image of ATLAS.

http://www.atlasexperiment.org/photos/atlas_photos/selected-photos/full-detector/0511013_02-A4-at-144-dpi.jpg

The guy standing in the bottom/center gives an idea of the Scale.

Heck LH doesn't need a miniature version - that is an unnecessary delay: 
the version that is known to work should be shipped trucked down there 
at once...



Axil Axil wrote:
Holmlid et al are planning to put a miniaturized version of their 
experiment inside a full scale particle detector. My guess is that 
that detector will be ATLAS since Holmlid is in contact with the 
particle physics at CERN.

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 12:00 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

Holmlid et al are planning to put a miniaturized version of their
> experiment inside a full scale particle detector. My guess is that that
> detector will be ATLAS since Holmlid is in contact with the particle
> physics at CERN.
>

Good to know.  It will be interesting to hear what the particle physicists
at CERN report (in contrast to another report from Holmlid or Holmlid and
Olafsson).

Eric

RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[bobcook39923]

Eric--

In other words. DOA, dead on arrival…

Bob Cook

From: Eric Walker
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2017 9:44 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

Has Holmlid enlisted outside help in characterizing these charged and neutral 
radiations in this latest paper?  I've been hoping he would do so for years.  
To summarize what has instead been reported in papers leading up to this one:  
an alleged muon, pion and kaon radiation field, inferred from the timings of 
signals seen in a self-built muon detector and oscilloscope by a researcher 
with no prior experience detecting muons and without the benefit of 
calibrations against a known muon flux, all reported in papers that thoroughly 
mix together theoretical constructs (ultra-dense deuterium, etc.) with 
low-level experimental observations.

I have zero trust in Holmlid to accurately report muons, let alone kaons or 
pions.  I will not consider a conclusions of muons to be credible until a 
reputable third party with established expertise in characterizing charged 
particle radiations signs off on this.  I continue to take interest in whatever 
experimental phenomenon Holmlid is investigating, however.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Axil Axil]

Holmlid et al are planning to put a miniaturized version of their
experiment inside a full scale particle detector. My guess is that that
detector will be ATLAS since Holmlid is in contact with the particle
physics at CERN.


Holmlid is working with Sveinn Olafsson who is a nuclear physics who builds
his experimental equipment.


On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 12:44 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> Has Holmlid enlisted outside help in characterizing these charged and
> neutral radiations in this latest paper?  I've been hoping he would do so
> for years.  To summarize what has instead been reported in papers leading
> up to this one:  an alleged muon, pion and kaon radiation field, inferred
> from the timings of signals seen in a self-built muon detector and
> oscilloscope by a researcher with no prior experience detecting muons and
> without the benefit of calibrations against a known muon flux, all reported
> in papers that thoroughly mix together theoretical constructs (ultra-dense
> deuterium, etc.) with low-level experimental observations.
>
> I have zero trust in Holmlid to accurately report muons, let alone kaons
> or pions.  I will not consider a conclusions of muons to be credible until
> a reputable third party with established expertise in characterizing
> charged particle radiations signs off on this.  I continue to take interest
> in whatever experimental phenomenon Holmlid is investigating, however.
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Eric Walker]

Has Holmlid enlisted outside help in characterizing these charged and
neutral radiations in this latest paper?  I've been hoping he would do so
for years.  To summarize what has instead been reported in papers leading
up to this one:  an alleged muon, pion and kaon radiation field, inferred
from the timings of signals seen in a self-built muon detector and
oscilloscope by a researcher with no prior experience detecting muons and
without the benefit of calibrations against a known muon flux, all reported
in papers that thoroughly mix together theoretical constructs (ultra-dense
deuterium, etc.) with low-level experimental observations.

I have zero trust in Holmlid to accurately report muons, let alone kaons or
pions.  I will not consider a conclusions of muons to be credible until a
reputable third party with established expertise in characterizing charged
particle radiations signs off on this.  I continue to take interest in
whatever experimental phenomenon Holmlid is investigating, however.

Eric

RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[bobcook39923]

IMHO the Holmild reactiom is not LENR—LOW energy nuclear reaction nor a LATTICE 
assisted nuclear reaction.  The high energy particles belie LENR.  

The key question is: “HOW DO ALL THE NEUTRAL PARTICLES GET THEIR SIGNIFICANT 
ENERGY”.  

It seems from Holmild’s description of the experiment that the LASER pulse-- a 
fairly specific EM oscillating  field-- disrupts the forces (potential energy) 
that make the p(0) and D(0) denser than normal  material.  I imagine that the 
dense p(0) may be Cooper pairs of protium--the binding energy is magnetic in 
nature.  The D(0) may also be a Cooper pair of sorts with magnetic binding 
creating a low-dense,  alpha type particle. 

The LASER pulse, given the correct resonant  frequency,  causes the disruption 
of the respective dense entities by changing their magnetic binding forces, 
allowing the electric field to do its job to separate the positive charges. 

 As Russ has indicated,  this seems to be new physics or maybe “ignored 
physics”..  

 It may even a new quark soup (rather thin) that the good high energy physics 
boys only think they understand. (: ) 

 I think it is more likely a disruption of the positron/electron pairs making 
up the neutrons and protons per Phlippe Hatt’s theory that  I have referenced 
in various threads in the past.  The presence of muons seems to be 
possible/likely given the accuracy of Hatt’s theory in prediction of muon mass, 
charges and magnetic moments.  

William Stubbs analysis of high energy electron scattering experiments reported 
in a recent Infinite  Energy edition also supports the presence of a muon-like 
structure in a proton.

Bob Cook







From: Jones Beene
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2017 7:41 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

Bob Higgins wrote:
The descriptions in 5,8) below suggests that Holmlid's reaction produces a high 
muon flux that would escape the reactor.  A high muon flux would be very 
similar to a high beta flux.  First of all, it would seem that a flux of 
charged muons would be highly absorbed in the reactor walls. 

Bob - Yes, this has been the obvious criticism in the past, but it has been 
addressed. 

As I understand it, the muons which are detected do not exist until the meson, 
which is the progenitor particle, is many meters away. This makes the lack of 
containment of muons very simple to understand. 

At one time muons were thought to exist as neutral instead of charged (see the 
reference Bob Cook sent, from 1957) but in fact, the observers at that time, 
due to poor instrumentation - were seeing neutral mesons, not muons.

As an example, a neutral Kaon decays to two muons one negative and one 
positive. However, the lifetime of the Kaon which is much shorter than the muon 
but still about ~10^-8 seconds means that on average 99+% of the particles are 
tens to hundreds of meters away before they decay to muons. Thus the reactor is 
transparent to the progenitor particle.

This is why Holmlid places a muon detector some distance away and then 
calculates the decay time. Thus he claims an extraordinarily high flux of muons 
which assumes that the detector is mapping out a small space on a large sphere. 
However, they are not usable any more than neutrinos are usable, since they 
start out as a neutral meson.

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[H LV]

watch out for "total protonic reversal"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyKQe_i9yyo

Harry

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Jones Beene]

Bob Higgins wrote:

The descriptions in 5,8) below suggests that Holmlid's reaction 
produces a high muon flux that would escape the reactor.  A high muon 
flux would be very similar to a high beta flux.  First of all, it 
would seem that a flux of charged muons would be highly absorbed in 
the reactor walls.


Bob - Yes, this has been the obvious criticism in the past, but it has 
been addressed.


As I understand it, the muons which are detected*do not exist* until the 
meson, which is the progenitor particle, is many meters away. This makes 
the lack of containment of muons very simple to understand.


At one time muons were thought to exist as neutral instead of charged 
(see the reference Bob Cook sent, from 1957) but in fact, the observers 
at that time, due to poor instrumentation - were seeing neutral mesons, 
not muons.


As an example, a neutral Kaon decays to two muons one negative and one 
positive. However, the lifetime of the Kaon which is much shorter than 
the muon but still about ~10^-8 seconds means that on average 99+% of 
the particles are tens to hundreds of meters away before they decay to 
muons. Thus the reactor is transparent to the progenitor particle.


This is why Holmlid places a muon detector some distance away and then 
calculates the decay time. Thus he claims an extraordinarily high flux 
of muons which assumes that the detector is mapping out a small space on 
a large sphere. However, they are not usable any more than neutrinos are 
usable, since they start out as a neutral meson.

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Bob Higgins]

The descriptions in 5,8) below suggests that Holmlid's reaction produces a
high muon flux that would escape the reactor.  A high muon flux would be
very similar to a high beta flux.  First of all, it would seem that a flux
of charged muons would be highly absorbed in the reactor walls.  Those
muons escaping would drive detectors crazy (I think).  The result would be
an easy detection of radiation by almost any radiation detectors (GM or
scintillator) outside the reactor if a muon flux of significance were
escaping.  Since this is generally not seen in LENR (MFMP "signal"
excepted), it is unlikely a high energy muon flux is associated with LENR.

Does Holmlid report detection of radiations penetrating the walls of his
reactor? [I admit I am only part way through his paper.]

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

>
> You still are not making the correct and  important distinctions from this
> paper.
>
> This may sound pedantic but "decay" is not the same thing as
> "annihilation." If is important to use the correct semantics here.
>
> See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_decay
>
> 1) Mesons are derived from annihilation of the proton, NOT decay of
> protons.
>
> 2) Mesons decay to muons. Muons decay to lighter leptons.
>
> 3) Protons do not decay. At least not in 10^29 years - far longer than the
> age of the Universe
>
> 4) A laser pulse is required to produce the annihilation event in protons
> - the weak force is not involved at this point.
>
> 4) A huge amount of energy is produced from annihilation, much more than
> any decay event.
>
> 5) This energy is generally NOT USABLE as the muons disperse far from the
> reactor.
>
> 6) To obtain usable energy, then actual fusion must be incorporated into
> the system.
>
> 7) Fusion of deuterons is a secondary effect of muons, which catalyze
> deuterons.
>
> 8) Without fusion the energy of the muon decay is essentially lost
> hundreds of meters away.
>
> 7) Because deuterium fusion in this case produces charged particles of >3
> MeV - that energy can be captured and not lost. There are few gammas.
>
> Thus we have a catch-22 scenario. The extreme energy of proton
> annihilation to mesons and muons is difficult to capture, and thus
> breakeven or net gain requires a secondary reaction - fusion - using
> deuterium. As of now, Holmlid has not shown a way to reach breakeven
> without deuterium fusion being the primary source of USABLE energy.
>
> On 1/19/2017 12:00 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
>
> Holmlid states as follows:
>
> The state *s* = 1 may lead to a fast nuclear reaction. It is suggested
> that this involves two nucleons, probably two protons. The first particles
> formed and observed [16
> 
> ,17
> ]
> are kaons, both neutral and charged, and also pions. From the six quarks in
> the two protons, three kaons can be formed in the interaction. Two protons
> correspond to a mass of 1.88 GeV while three kaons correspond to 1.49 GeV.
> Thus, the transition 2 p → 3 K is downhill in internal energy and releases
> 390 MeV. If pions are formed directly, the energy release may be even
> larger. The kaons formed decay normally in various processes to charged
> pions and muons. In the present experiments, the decay of kaons and pions
> is observed directly normally through their decay to muons, while the muons
> leave the chamber before they decay due to their easier penetration and
> much longer lifetime.
>
> Holmlid recognized that the DECAY of protons is where the mesons come
> from. This decay is a weak force reaction in which a huge amount of energy
> is produced...(1.88 GeV while three kaons correspond to 1.49 GeV).
>
> Deuterium has nothing to do with proton decay. The protium
> nanoparticle can produce proton decay just as well as deuterium. The
> protium nanoparticle will still produce the 1,88 GeV as well as the
> deuterium nanoparticle.
>
> Fusion is just as secondary side issue.
>
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 2:29 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>>  Axil Axil wrote:
>>
>> The first reaction to occur is meson production which as nothing to do
>> with fusion:
>>
>>
>> Well, that is partially true - mesons come first after the laser pulse.
>> No one cares, since mesons have incredibly short lifetimes.
>>
>> The main point is that mesons very quickly into muons. *Muons catalyze
>> fusion in deuterium.*
>>
>> Muon catalyzed fusion has been known for 75 years. It would be next to
>> impossible to avoid fusion when muons and deuterons are both present.
>>
>> The bottom line is this: if there is to be net gain, deuterium must be
>> used because fusion provides the usable gain - not mesons or muons which
>> decay too far away to provide gain.
>>
>> Jones
>>
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[bobcook39923]

Does anyone understand how 75% of the particles produced are neutral with 
significant kinetic energy?  It would seem that the neutral particles must come 
from decay of another particle with significant kinetic energy to start with, 
and that the neutral particle shares some of that energy and momentum  upon 
decay. 

Fast neutrons are produced in a fission reaction, however, I am not sure about 
the mechanism involved.
It may be that the Holmild reaction is similar to a fission reaction.  

Neutral muons may also be the neutral particles. See:

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02785489


Bob Cook

From: Axil Axil
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2017 1:32 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

I would guesstimate that 99% of the energy output of a LENR reactor comes in 
the form of muons that will decay into electrons. Rossi says that his QuarkX 
reactor produces 20% of it COP as electric power (aka electrons).

The QuarkX reactor must produce huge amounts of muons for all those electrons 
to form so close to the meson shower.

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 4:25 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote:
The muons that penetrate the body can not be a good thing especially if the 
muons produce ionization inside the body. Muons from space produce 1/2 of the 
background radiation load. This is why I have predicted that the high powered 
LENR reactor will be heavily shielded, maybe placed underground, maybe shielded 
with iron ore to keep the radiation loading down.

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote:
This brings up the down side of LENR. LENR produce intense ionization produced 
by muons far from the reaction. Many experimenters have complained about this 
intense ionization which makes electronics useless.

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 4:01 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:

You still are not making the correct and  important distinctions from this 
paper. 
This may sound pedantic but "decay" is not the same thing as "annihilation." If 
is important to use the correct semantics here.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_decay
1) Mesons are derived from annihilation of the proton, NOT decay of protons. 
2) Mesons decay to muons. Muons decay to lighter leptons.
3) Protons do not decay. At least not in 10^29 years - far longer than the age 
of the Universe
4) A laser pulse is required to produce the annihilation event in protons - the 
weak force is not involved at this point.
4) A huge amount of energy is produced from annihilation, much more than any 
decay event. 
5) This energy is generally NOT USABLE as the muons disperse far from the 
reactor.
6) To obtain usable energy, then actual fusion must be incorporated into the 
system.
7) Fusion of deuterons is a secondary effect of muons, which catalyze deuterons.
8) Without fusion the energy of the muon decay is essentially lost hundreds of 
meters away.
7) Because deuterium fusion in this case produces charged particles of >3 MeV - 
that energy can be captured and not lost. There are few gammas.
Thus we have a catch-22 scenario. The extreme energy of proton annihilation to 
mesons and muons is difficult to capture, and thus breakeven or net gain 
requires a secondary reaction - fusion - using deuterium. As of now, Holmlid 
has not shown a way to reach breakeven without deuterium fusion being the 
primary source of USABLE energy.

On 1/19/2017 12:00 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
Holmlid states as follows: 

The state s = 1 may lead to a fast nuclear reaction. It is suggested that this 
involves two nucleons, probably two protons. The first particles formed and 
observed [16,17] are kaons, both neutral and charged, and also pions. From the 
six quarks in the two protons, three kaons can be formed in the interaction. 
Two protons correspond to a mass of 1.88 GeV while three kaons correspond to 
1.49 GeV. Thus, the transition 2 p → 3 K is downhill in internal energy and 
releases 390 MeV. If pions are formed directly, the energy release may be even 
larger. The kaons formed decay normally in various processes to charged pions 
and muons. In the present experiments, the decay of kaons and pions is observed 
directly normally through their decay to muons, while the muons leave the 
chamber before they decay due to their easier penetration and much longer 
lifetime.

Holmlid recognized that the DECAY of protons is where the mesons come from. 
This decay is a weak force reaction in which a huge amount of energy is 
produced...(1.88 GeV while three kaons correspond to 1.49 GeV).

Deuterium has nothing to do with proton decay. The protium nanoparticle can 
produce proton decay just as well as deuterium. The protium nanoparticle will 
still produce the 1,88 GeV as well as the deuterium nanoparticle.

Fusion is just as secondary side issue.

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 2:29 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:
 Axil Axil wrote:
The first reaction to o

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[mixent]

In reply to  Russ George's message of Fri, 20 Jan 2017 17:40:12 -0800:
Hi,

https://phys.org/news/2015-11-discovery-enable-portable-particle.html

Quote:-

"This effect is known as relativistic self-focusing, and becomes more pronounced
as the plasma density increases."

Note that Holmlid claims an extremely dense plasma, so one would expect the
self-focusing to also be extreme, presumably resulting in a very short path
required to accelerate particles to high energy.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[mixent]

In reply to  's message of Thu, 19 Jan 2017 12:34:13
-0800:
Hi,
[snip]
>If the muons are charged, they can be focused and polarized in a magnetic 
>field.  Hence they can be made to react more readily with polarized electrons 
>in a lattice and their energy harvested in a cylindrical catching device.   
>
>
>ARE THE MUONS NEUTRAL OR CHARGED that Holmlid claims?  

Muons are leptons and AFAIK there is no such thing as a neutral muon.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[mixent]

In reply to  Russ George's message of Fri, 20 Jan 2017 17:40:12 -0800:
Hi,
[snip]
>Might you provide a ref or few to the comment. " It is well known that when
>you shine a laser through a plasma, you get a bench top GeV particle
>accelerator." 

https://www2.physics.ox.ac.uk/research/laser-plasma-accelerators
http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v4/n6/full/nphys966.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_acceleration

> Are the necessary conditions present in Holmlid's experiment?

He does shine a laser through a plasma, so the conditions would appear to be at
least somewhat present at the instant the laser is turned on.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[mixent]

In reply to  Russ George's message of Fri, 20 Jan 2017 17:40:12 -0800:
Hi,
[snip]
>Might you provide a ref or few to the comment. " It is well known that when
>you shine a laser through a plasma, you get a bench top GeV particle
>accelerator."  Are the necessary conditions present in Holmlid's experiment?

See also 

https://phys.org/news/2015-11-discovery-enable-portable-particle.html
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Russ George]

Might you provide a ref or few to the comment. " It is well known that when
you shine a laser through a plasma, you get a bench top GeV particle
accelerator."  Are the necessary conditions present in Holmlid's experiment?


-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com [mailto:mix...@bigpond.com] 
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2017 4:40 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

In reply to  Russ George's message of Fri, 20 Jan 2017 15:29:37 -0800:
Hi Russ,
[snip]
>The point being that either 'speed' is more than sufficient to whack 
>the ball out of the ballpark which is a most interesting piece of the
puzzle.

I agree, however before I accept it, I would prefer to know exactly how the
speed measurements were done. I have a feeling (and it's nothing more than
that), that the response times of the electronics may not properly have been
taken into consideration.

The other point that I would make is to repeat something I said back in 2015
when we first looked at Holmlid. 

It is well known that when you shine a laser through a plasma, you get a
bench top GeV particle accelerator.
So it wouldn't surprise me in the least if Holmlid's energetic particles
were the result of such a process. In short "mundane", not extraordinary,
and not indicative of new physics.
Nevertheless, if such a process turns out to be a very efficient means of
creating muons, then it might form the basis of a useful energy source
anyway.
(Through D-D fusion).

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[mixent]

In reply to  Russ George's message of Fri, 20 Jan 2017 15:29:37 -0800:
Hi Russ,
[snip]
>The point being that either 'speed' is more than sufficient to whack the
>ball out of the ballpark which is a most interesting piece of the puzzle.

I agree, however before I accept it, I would prefer to know exactly how the
speed measurements were done. I have a feeling (and it's nothing more than
that), that the response times of the electronics may not properly have been
taken into consideration.

The other point that I would make is to repeat something I said back in 2015
when we first looked at Holmlid. 

It is well known that when you shine a laser through a plasma, you get a bench
top GeV particle accelerator.
So it wouldn't surprise me in the least if Holmlid's energetic particles were
the result of such a process. In short "mundane", not extraordinary, and not
indicative of new physics.
Nevertheless, if such a process turns out to be a very efficient means of
creating muons, then it might form the basis of a useful energy source anyway.
(Through D-D fusion).

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Einstein messed things up. 
Energy is some sort of scalar of some sort of a vector quantity. When you have 
mass [M] multiplied by some sort of velocity [v] by velocity [v] again. The 
velocities are vectors, so you either have vector product and scalar product 
from that, or you are looking at some sort of quaternion being multiplied by 
another quaternion etc. None of this was ever sorted out properly by Einstein, 
then he was off on quest for unified field theory.
I studied the unified field theory research. Unified field theory was presented 
in 18th century by Catholic priest Fr Boscovich prompted by problem Galileo 
caused them, and forming basis of modern physics on doctrine of Atomism; 
physical reality created from point-particles. 

Forms basis for tradition for much of Unified field theory talks at: 
http://unifiedfieldtheory.co.uk/


Einstein was no good at maths, and I present some of the maths mistakes they 
now teach physics students as part of their dogma at such videos as:
Maths contradiction in Einstein's relativity with its connection to Newton

  
|  
|   
|   
|   ||

   |

  |
|  
||  
Maths contradiction in Einstein's relativity with its connection to Newton
 Just concentrating on the maths of how Newton is connected to Einstein, and 
showing the contradiction in the mat...  |   |

  |

  |

 


 

On Friday, 20 January 2017, 23:08, "mix...@bigpond.com" 
 wrote:
 

 In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Fri, 20 Jan 2017 16:44:39 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]

I was hoping someone here would show me the error of my ways, before I made a
complete fool of myself in public. (yes, I know I have already done that.) :)

I think I may have found either my mistake or Einstein's. ;)

Looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy%E2%80%93momentum_relation

it looks like the Pythagorean relationship, which would seem to imply that we
are looking at perpendicular vectors. However both energy and energy squared are
scalars, so something is wrong. Note also that all the terms have the dimension
of energy squared, implying that the "vectors" have the dimension of energy.

Note that if Einstein is correct, then Ek is not p*c, which would be where I
made my mistake here below (in my previous email). 

Consider this:-

Et = Ek + Ep (where Et is total energy, Ek is kinetic energy, Ep is potential
energy)

=> Et^2 = (Ek + Ep)^2 = Ek^2 + 2EpEk + Ep^2

Now compare this to 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy%E2%80%93momentum_relation

It looks very similar except that the term "2EpEk" is missing. That missing term
is exactly what would happen if Ep and Ek were perpendicular vectors, forming
the sides of a right triangle, and Et was the hypotenuse. In which case
according to Pythagoras we get Et^2 = Ek^2 + Ep^2. Now this looks just like

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy%E2%80%93momentum_relation

The only problem is that Ek & Ep are not vectors, they are scalarsunless
there is some dimension I am ignoring in which energy is the magnitude of a
vector quantity??


>The is a comment section in the PLOS/1 format where a reader can submit
>corrections as required for evaluation by the author. Why not submit this
>proposed correction through this comment method.
>
>On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM,  wrote:
>
>> In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Thu, 19 Jan 2017 11:58:00 -0500:
>> Hi,
>> [snip]
>> >http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0169895
>>
>> I think Holmlid made a mistake in his velocity calculation. (Either that,
>> or I
>> did).
>>
>> He equates 500*MeV/u to 0.75 c.
>>
>> I think this derives from the formula:-
>>
>> (sqrt(500*MeV/u))/c = 0.733 which is close to 0.75 C.
>>
>> where u is the standard atomic mass unit. (i.e. mass of Carbon12 / 12).
>>
>> However I think the formula is incorrect, see the following derivation.
>>
>> From Einstein we get:-
>>
>> Kinetic energy (Ek) = p*c (where p is the momentum).
>>
>> p = m * v where m is relativistic mass, and v is the velocity.
>>
>> => Ek = m*v*c
>> => Ek/m = v*c
>> => Ek/(mc) = v
>>
>> 500 Mev /amu has the dimension of energy/unit mass, i.e. Ek/m,
>>
>> So
>>
>> 500 MeV / u = Ek/m = v*c
>>
>> => v = 500 MeV / (u*c) = 1.609E8 m/s or, as a fraction of c,
>>
>> 500 MeV / (u*c^2) = 0.537 (not 0.733)
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Robin van Spaandonk
>>
>> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>>
>>
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html


   

RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Russ George]

The point being that either 'speed' is more than sufficient to whack the
ball out of the ballpark which is a most interesting piece of the puzzle.

-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com [mailto:mix...@bigpond.com] 
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2017 3:04 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Fri, 20 Jan 2017 16:44:39 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]

I was hoping someone here would show me the error of my ways, before I made
a complete fool of myself in public. (yes, I know I have already done that.)
:)

I think I may have found either my mistake or Einstein's. ;)

Looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy%E2%80%93momentum_relation

it looks like the Pythagorean relationship, which would seem to imply that
we are looking at perpendicular vectors. However both energy and energy
squared are scalars, so something is wrong. Note also that all the terms
have the dimension of energy squared, implying that the "vectors" have the
dimension of energy.

Note that if Einstein is correct, then Ek is not p*c, which would be where I
made my mistake here below (in my previous email). 

Consider this:-

Et = Ek + Ep (where Et is total energy, Ek is kinetic energy, Ep is
potential
energy)

=> Et^2 = (Ek + Ep)^2 = Ek^2 + 2EpEk + Ep^2

Now compare this to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy%E2%80%93momentum_relation

It looks very similar except that the term "2EpEk" is missing. That missing
term is exactly what would happen if Ep and Ek were perpendicular vectors,
forming the sides of a right triangle, and Et was the hypotenuse. In which
case according to Pythagoras we get Et^2 = Ek^2 + Ep^2. Now this looks just
like

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy%E2%80%93momentum_relation

The only problem is that Ek & Ep are not vectors, they are scalarsunless
there is some dimension I am ignoring in which energy is the magnitude of a
vector quantity??


>The is a comment section in the PLOS/1 format where a reader can submit 
>corrections as required for evaluation by the author. Why not submit 
>this proposed correction through this comment method.
>
>On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, <mix...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>> In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Thu, 19 Jan 2017 11:58:00 -0500:
>> Hi,
>> [snip]
>> >http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.016
>> >9895
>>
>> I think Holmlid made a mistake in his velocity calculation. (Either 
>> that, or I did).
>>
>> He equates 500*MeV/u to 0.75 c.
>>
>> I think this derives from the formula:-
>>
>> (sqrt(500*MeV/u))/c = 0.733 which is close to 0.75 C.
>>
>> where u is the standard atomic mass unit. (i.e. mass of Carbon12 / 12).
>>
>> However I think the formula is incorrect, see the following derivation.
>>
>> From Einstein we get:-
>>
>> Kinetic energy (Ek) = p*c (where p is the momentum).
>>
>> p = m * v where m is relativistic mass, and v is the velocity.
>>
>> => Ek = m*v*c
>> => Ek/m = v*c
>> => Ek/(mc) = v
>>
>> 500 Mev /amu has the dimension of energy/unit mass, i.e. Ek/m,
>>
>> So
>>
>> 500 MeV / u = Ek/m = v*c
>>
>> => v = 500 MeV / (u*c) = 1.609E8 m/s or, as a fraction of c,
>>
>> 500 MeV / (u*c^2) = 0.537 (not 0.733)
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Robin van Spaandonk
>>
>> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>>
>>
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[mixent]

In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Fri, 20 Jan 2017 16:44:39 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]

I was hoping someone here would show me the error of my ways, before I made a
complete fool of myself in public. (yes, I know I have already done that.) :)

I think I may have found either my mistake or Einstein's. ;)

Looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy%E2%80%93momentum_relation

it looks like the Pythagorean relationship, which would seem to imply that we
are looking at perpendicular vectors. However both energy and energy squared are
scalars, so something is wrong. Note also that all the terms have the dimension
of energy squared, implying that the "vectors" have the dimension of energy.

Note that if Einstein is correct, then Ek is not p*c, which would be where I
made my mistake here below (in my previous email). 

Consider this:-

Et = Ek + Ep (where Et is total energy, Ek is kinetic energy, Ep is potential
energy)

=> Et^2 = (Ek + Ep)^2 = Ek^2 + 2EpEk + Ep^2

Now compare this to 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy%E2%80%93momentum_relation

It looks very similar except that the term "2EpEk" is missing. That missing term
is exactly what would happen if Ep and Ek were perpendicular vectors, forming
the sides of a right triangle, and Et was the hypotenuse. In which case
according to Pythagoras we get Et^2 = Ek^2 + Ep^2. Now this looks just like

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy%E2%80%93momentum_relation

The only problem is that Ek & Ep are not vectors, they are scalarsunless
there is some dimension I am ignoring in which energy is the magnitude of a
vector quantity??


>The is a comment section in the PLOS/1 format where a reader can submit
>corrections as required for evaluation by the author. Why not submit this
>proposed correction through this comment method.
>
>On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM,  wrote:
>
>> In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Thu, 19 Jan 2017 11:58:00 -0500:
>> Hi,
>> [snip]
>> >http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0169895
>>
>> I think Holmlid made a mistake in his velocity calculation. (Either that,
>> or I
>> did).
>>
>> He equates 500*MeV/u to 0.75 c.
>>
>> I think this derives from the formula:-
>>
>> (sqrt(500*MeV/u))/c = 0.733 which is close to 0.75 C.
>>
>> where u is the standard atomic mass unit. (i.e. mass of Carbon12 / 12).
>>
>> However I think the formula is incorrect, see the following derivation.
>>
>> From Einstein we get:-
>>
>> Kinetic energy (Ek) = p*c (where p is the momentum).
>>
>> p = m * v where m is relativistic mass, and v is the velocity.
>>
>> => Ek = m*v*c
>> => Ek/m = v*c
>> => Ek/(mc) = v
>>
>> 500 Mev /amu has the dimension of energy/unit mass, i.e. Ek/m,
>>
>> So
>>
>> 500 MeV / u = Ek/m = v*c
>>
>> => v = 500 MeV / (u*c) = 1.609E8 m/s or, as a fraction of c,
>>
>> 500 MeV / (u*c^2) = 0.537 (not 0.733)
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Robin van Spaandonk
>>
>> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>>
>>
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Axil Axil]

The is a comment section in the PLOS/1 format where a reader can submit
corrections as required for evaluation by the author. Why not submit this
proposed correction through this comment method.

On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM,  wrote:

> In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Thu, 19 Jan 2017 11:58:00 -0500:
> Hi,
> [snip]
> >http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0169895
>
> I think Holmlid made a mistake in his velocity calculation. (Either that,
> or I
> did).
>
> He equates 500*MeV/u to 0.75 c.
>
> I think this derives from the formula:-
>
> (sqrt(500*MeV/u))/c = 0.733 which is close to 0.75 C.
>
> where u is the standard atomic mass unit. (i.e. mass of Carbon12 / 12).
>
> However I think the formula is incorrect, see the following derivation.
>
> From Einstein we get:-
>
> Kinetic energy (Ek) = p*c (where p is the momentum).
>
> p = m * v where m is relativistic mass, and v is the velocity.
>
> => Ek = m*v*c
> => Ek/m = v*c
> => Ek/(mc) = v
>
> 500 Mev /amu has the dimension of energy/unit mass, i.e. Ek/m,
>
> So
>
> 500 MeV / u = Ek/m = v*c
>
> => v = 500 MeV / (u*c) = 1.609E8 m/s or, as a fraction of c,
>
> 500 MeV / (u*c^2) = 0.537 (not 0.733)
>
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>
>

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[mixent]

In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Thu, 19 Jan 2017 11:58:00 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
>http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0169895

I think Holmlid made a mistake in his velocity calculation. (Either that, or I
did).

He equates 500*MeV/u to 0.75 c.

I think this derives from the formula:-

(sqrt(500*MeV/u))/c = 0.733 which is close to 0.75 C.

where u is the standard atomic mass unit. (i.e. mass of Carbon12 / 12).

However I think the formula is incorrect, see the following derivation.

From Einstein we get:-

Kinetic energy (Ek) = p*c (where p is the momentum).

p = m * v where m is relativistic mass, and v is the velocity.

=> Ek = m*v*c
=> Ek/m = v*c
=> Ek/(mc) = v

500 Mev /amu has the dimension of energy/unit mass, i.e. Ek/m,

So 

500 MeV / u = Ek/m = v*c

=> v = 500 MeV / (u*c) = 1.609E8 m/s or, as a fraction of c,

500 MeV / (u*c^2) = 0.537 (not 0.733)

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Jones Beene]

Russ George wrote:


The devil is in the details. The presence of helium but absence of 
tritium if ‘muon catalyzed fusion’ is present is a puzzling. Unless 
the channel is potently redirected to 4He which coherent behavior 
might allow for.





This is why I brought up Takahashi and his TSC (Tetrahedral Symmetric 
Condensate) theory. It provides an alternative viewpoint for fusion in 
non-plasma conditions -  which can be modified to fit the Holmlid results.


Takahashi has actually written a paper on the different branching 
hdelium ratio which is expected from the multi-body reaction and the 
lack of tritium. The main problem of course is that he is not dealing 
with the dense deuterium isomer, which (if Holmlid is correct) has its 
own unique branching ratio. However, it can be expected that a version 
of TSC could be adapted to explain this. That paper is here:


http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/TakahashiAheheproduc.pdf

RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Russ George]

The devil is in the details. The presence of helium but absence of tritium
if ‘muon catalyzed fusion’ is present is a puzzling. Unless the channel is
potently redirected to 4He which coherent behavior might allow for.



As for “proton annihilation” Holmlid only says that the experiment does
not exhibit evidence of ‘positron annihilation’. That comment seems to be
about some similar paper from a parallel universe.



From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2017 12:43 AM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.



Regarding:



4) A laser pulse is required to produce the annihilation event in protons -
the weak force is not involved at this point.



The weak force must be amplified because all radioactive isotopes produced
by the reactions are instantaneously stabilized including tritium from DD
fusion.



On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 4:01 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net
<mailto:jone...@pacbell.net> > wrote:



You still are not making the correct and  important distinctions from this
paper.

This may sound pedantic but "decay" is not the same thing as "annihilation."
If is important to use the correct semantics here.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_decay

1) Mesons are derived from annihilation of the proton, NOT decay of protons.


2) Mesons decay to muons. Muons decay to lighter leptons.

3) Protons do not decay. At least not in 10^29 years - far longer than the
age of the Universe

4) A laser pulse is required to produce the annihilation event in protons -
the weak force is not involved at this point.

4) A huge amount of energy is produced from annihilation, much more than any
decay event.

5) This energy is generally NOT USABLE as the muons disperse far from the
reactor.

6) To obtain usable energy, then actual fusion must be incorporated into the
system.

7) Fusion of deuterons is a secondary effect of muons, which catalyze
deuterons.

8) Without fusion the energy of the muon decay is essentially lost hundreds
of meters away.

7) Because deuterium fusion in this case produces charged particles of >3
MeV - that energy can be captured and not lost. There are few gammas.

Thus we have a catch-22 scenario. The extreme energy of proton annihilation
to mesons and muons is difficult to capture, and thus breakeven or net gain
requires a secondary reaction - fusion - using deuterium. As of now, Holmlid
has not shown a way to reach breakeven without deuterium fusion being the
primary source of USABLE energy.



On 1/19/2017 12:00 PM, Axil Axil wrote:

Holmlid states as follows:



The state s = 1 may lead to a fast nuclear reaction. It is suggested that
this involves two nucleons, probably two protons. The first particles formed
and observed [ <http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.
pone.0169895#pone.0169895.ref016> 16,
<http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0169895#po
ne.0169895.ref017> 17] are kaons, both neutral and charged, and also pions.
>From the six quarks in the two protons, three kaons can be formed in the
interaction. Two protons correspond to a mass of 1.88 GeV while three kaons
correspond to 1.49 GeV. Thus, the transition 2 p → 3 K is downhill in
internal energy and releases 390 MeV. If pions are formed directly, the
energy release may be even larger. The kaons formed decay normally in
various processes to charged pions and muons. In the present experiments,
the decay of kaons and pions is observed directly normally through their
decay to muons, while the muons leave the chamber before they decay due to
their easier penetration and much longer lifetime.



Holmlid recognized that the DECAY of protons is where the mesons come from.
This decay is a weak force reaction in which a huge amount of energy is
produced...(1.88 GeV while three kaons correspond to 1.49 GeV).



Deuterium has nothing to do with proton decay. The protium nanoparticle can
produce proton decay just as well as deuterium. The protium nanoparticle
will still produce the 1,88 GeV as well as the deuterium nanoparticle.



Fusion is just as secondary side issue.



On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 2:29 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net
<mailto:jone...@pacbell.net> > wrote:

 Axil Axil wrote:

The first reaction to occur is meson production which as nothing to do with
fusion:


Well, that is partially true - mesons come first after the laser pulse. No
one cares, since mesons have incredibly short lifetimes.

The main point is that mesons very quickly into muons. Muons catalyze fusion
in deuterium.

Muon catalyzed fusion has been known for 75 years. It would be next to
impossible to avoid fusion when muons and deuterons are both present.

The bottom line is this: if there is to be net gain, deuterium must be used
because fusion provides the usable gain - not mesons or muons which decay
too far away to provide gain.

Jones

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Axil Axil]

Regarding:

4) A laser pulse is required to produce the annihilation event in protons -
the weak force is not involved at this point.

The weak force must be amplified because all radioactive isotopes produced
by the reactions are instantaneously stabilized including tritium from DD
fusion.

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 4:01 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

>
> You still are not making the correct and  important distinctions from this
> paper.
>
> This may sound pedantic but "decay" is not the same thing as
> "annihilation." If is important to use the correct semantics here.
>
> See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_decay
>
> 1) Mesons are derived from annihilation of the proton, NOT decay of
> protons.
>
> 2) Mesons decay to muons. Muons decay to lighter leptons.
>
> 3) Protons do not decay. At least not in 10^29 years - far longer than the
> age of the Universe
>
> 4) A laser pulse is required to produce the annihilation event in protons
> - the weak force is not involved at this point.
>
> 4) A huge amount of energy is produced from annihilation, much more than
> any decay event.
>
> 5) This energy is generally NOT USABLE as the muons disperse far from the
> reactor.
>
> 6) To obtain usable energy, then actual fusion must be incorporated into
> the system.
>
> 7) Fusion of deuterons is a secondary effect of muons, which catalyze
> deuterons.
>
> 8) Without fusion the energy of the muon decay is essentially lost
> hundreds of meters away.
>
> 7) Because deuterium fusion in this case produces charged particles of >3
> MeV - that energy can be captured and not lost. There are few gammas.
>
> Thus we have a catch-22 scenario. The extreme energy of proton
> annihilation to mesons and muons is difficult to capture, and thus
> breakeven or net gain requires a secondary reaction - fusion - using
> deuterium. As of now, Holmlid has not shown a way to reach breakeven
> without deuterium fusion being the primary source of USABLE energy.
>
> On 1/19/2017 12:00 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
>
> Holmlid states as follows:
>
> The state *s* = 1 may lead to a fast nuclear reaction. It is suggested
> that this involves two nucleons, probably two protons. The first particles
> formed and observed [16
> 
> ,17
> ]
> are kaons, both neutral and charged, and also pions. From the six quarks in
> the two protons, three kaons can be formed in the interaction. Two protons
> correspond to a mass of 1.88 GeV while three kaons correspond to 1.49 GeV.
> Thus, the transition 2 p → 3 K is downhill in internal energy and releases
> 390 MeV. If pions are formed directly, the energy release may be even
> larger. The kaons formed decay normally in various processes to charged
> pions and muons. In the present experiments, the decay of kaons and pions
> is observed directly normally through their decay to muons, while the muons
> leave the chamber before they decay due to their easier penetration and
> much longer lifetime.
>
> Holmlid recognized that the DECAY of protons is where the mesons come
> from. This decay is a weak force reaction in which a huge amount of energy
> is produced...(1.88 GeV while three kaons correspond to 1.49 GeV).
>
> Deuterium has nothing to do with proton decay. The protium
> nanoparticle can produce proton decay just as well as deuterium. The
> protium nanoparticle will still produce the 1,88 GeV as well as the
> deuterium nanoparticle.
>
> Fusion is just as secondary side issue.
>
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 2:29 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>>  Axil Axil wrote:
>>
>> The first reaction to occur is meson production which as nothing to do
>> with fusion:
>>
>>
>> Well, that is partially true - mesons come first after the laser pulse.
>> No one cares, since mesons have incredibly short lifetimes.
>>
>> The main point is that mesons very quickly into muons. *Muons catalyze
>> fusion in deuterium.*
>>
>> Muon catalyzed fusion has been known for 75 years. It would be next to
>> impossible to avoid fusion when muons and deuterons are both present.
>>
>> The bottom line is this: if there is to be net gain, deuterium must be
>> used because fusion provides the usable gain - not mesons or muons which
>> decay too far away to provide gain.
>>
>> Jones
>>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Axil Axil]

In and email, Sveinn told me in part as follows:Sveinn Olafsson
11/28/16


next mid  year we plan to  have mobile source to go to real large detector
setups so cloud chambers are then a bit antiqued ?



On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 4:48 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> Nice addition.
>
> The main thing that worries me about Holmlid is that few experts who work
> in ICF and laser fusion are taking notice.
>
> Winterberg took notice, but he is just as controversial, and that paper is
> almost ancient history. The only intelligent criticism out there is saying
> essentially something like "show me". Common sense would indicate that this
> kind of work cannot rationally be ignored, but it is...
>
> from 2010: http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2010/01/winterberg-on-
> ultradense-deuterium.html
>
>
> Russ George wrote:
>
> I think we can agree on one thing about Holmlid’s paper, that is that it
> is a Magnum Opus in the field of nuclear science, aka atom-ecology… Here’s
> my historical point of view http://atom-ecology.russgeorge.net/2017/01/19/
> ultra-dense-fusion-physicsenergy-magnum-opus/
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Jones Beene]

Nice addition.

The main thing that worries me about Holmlid is that few experts who 
work in ICF and laser fusion are taking notice.


Winterberg took notice, but he is just as controversial, and that paper 
is almost ancient history. The only intelligent criticism out there is 
saying essentially something like "show me". Common sense would indicate 
that this kind of work cannot rationally be ignored, but it is...


from 2010: 
http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2010/01/winterberg-on-ultradense-deuterium.html



Russ George wrote:


I think we can agree on one thing about Holmlid’s paper, that is that 
it is a Magnum Opus in the field of nuclear science, aka atom-ecology… 
Here’s my historical point of view 
http://atom-ecology.russgeorge.net/2017/01/19/ultra-dense-fusion-physicsenergy-magnum-opus/ 

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Axil Axil]

I would guesstimate that 99% of the energy output of a LENR reactor comes
in the form of muons that will decay into electrons. Rossi says that his
QuarkX reactor produces 20% of it COP as electric power (aka electrons).

The QuarkX reactor must produce huge amounts of muons for all those
electrons to form so close to the meson shower.

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 4:25 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> The muons that penetrate the body can not be a good thing especially if
> the muons produce ionization inside the body. Muons from space produce 1/2
> of the background radiation load. This is why I have predicted that the
> high powered LENR reactor will be heavily shielded, maybe placed
> underground, maybe shielded with iron ore to keep the radiation loading
> down.
>
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> This brings up the down side of LENR. LENR produce intense ionization
>> produced by muons far from the reaction. Many experimenters have complained
>> about this intense ionization which makes electronics useless.
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 4:01 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> You still are not making the correct and  important distinctions from
>>> this paper.
>>>
>>> This may sound pedantic but "decay" is not the same thing as
>>> "annihilation." If is important to use the correct semantics here.
>>>
>>> See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_decay
>>>
>>> 1) Mesons are derived from annihilation of the proton, NOT decay of
>>> protons.
>>>
>>> 2) Mesons decay to muons. Muons decay to lighter leptons.
>>>
>>> 3) Protons do not decay. At least not in 10^29 years - far longer than
>>> the age of the Universe
>>>
>>> 4) A laser pulse is required to produce the annihilation event in
>>> protons - the weak force is not involved at this point.
>>>
>>> 4) A huge amount of energy is produced from annihilation, much more than
>>> any decay event.
>>>
>>> 5) This energy is generally NOT USABLE as the muons disperse far from
>>> the reactor.
>>>
>>> 6) To obtain usable energy, then actual fusion must be incorporated into
>>> the system.
>>>
>>> 7) Fusion of deuterons is a secondary effect of muons, which catalyze
>>> deuterons.
>>>
>>> 8) Without fusion the energy of the muon decay is essentially lost
>>> hundreds of meters away.
>>>
>>> 7) Because deuterium fusion in this case produces charged particles of
>>> >3 MeV - that energy can be captured and not lost. There are few gammas.
>>>
>>> Thus we have a catch-22 scenario. The extreme energy of proton
>>> annihilation to mesons and muons is difficult to capture, and thus
>>> breakeven or net gain requires a secondary reaction - fusion - using
>>> deuterium. As of now, Holmlid has not shown a way to reach breakeven
>>> without deuterium fusion being the primary source of USABLE energy.
>>>
>>> On 1/19/2017 12:00 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
>>>
>>> Holmlid states as follows:
>>>
>>> The state *s* = 1 may lead to a fast nuclear reaction. It is suggested
>>> that this involves two nucleons, probably two protons. The first particles
>>> formed and observed [16
>>> 
>>> ,17
>>> ]
>>> are kaons, both neutral and charged, and also pions. From the six quarks in
>>> the two protons, three kaons can be formed in the interaction. Two protons
>>> correspond to a mass of 1.88 GeV while three kaons correspond to 1.49 GeV.
>>> Thus, the transition 2 p → 3 K is downhill in internal energy and releases
>>> 390 MeV. If pions are formed directly, the energy release may be even
>>> larger. The kaons formed decay normally in various processes to charged
>>> pions and muons. In the present experiments, the decay of kaons and pions
>>> is observed directly normally through their decay to muons, while the muons
>>> leave the chamber before they decay due to their easier penetration and
>>> much longer lifetime.
>>>
>>> Holmlid recognized that the DECAY of protons is where the mesons come
>>> from. This decay is a weak force reaction in which a huge amount of energy
>>> is produced...(1.88 GeV while three kaons correspond to 1.49 GeV).
>>>
>>> Deuterium has nothing to do with proton decay. The protium
>>> nanoparticle can produce proton decay just as well as deuterium. The
>>> protium nanoparticle will still produce the 1,88 GeV as well as the
>>> deuterium nanoparticle.
>>>
>>> Fusion is just as secondary side issue.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 2:29 PM, Jones Beene 
>>> wrote:
>>>
  Axil Axil wrote:

 The first reaction to occur is meson production which as nothing to do
 with fusion:


 Well, that is partially true - mesons come first after the laser pulse.
 No one cares, since mesons have incredibly short lifetimes.

 The main point is that mesons very quickly into 

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Axil Axil]

The muons that penetrate the body can not be a good thing especially if the
muons produce ionization inside the body. Muons from space produce 1/2 of
the background radiation load. This is why I have predicted that the high
powered LENR reactor will be heavily shielded, maybe placed underground,
maybe shielded with iron ore to keep the radiation loading down.

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> This brings up the down side of LENR. LENR produce intense ionization
> produced by muons far from the reaction. Many experimenters have complained
> about this intense ionization which makes electronics useless.
>
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 4:01 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>>
>> You still are not making the correct and  important distinctions from
>> this paper.
>>
>> This may sound pedantic but "decay" is not the same thing as
>> "annihilation." If is important to use the correct semantics here.
>>
>> See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_decay
>>
>> 1) Mesons are derived from annihilation of the proton, NOT decay of
>> protons.
>>
>> 2) Mesons decay to muons. Muons decay to lighter leptons.
>>
>> 3) Protons do not decay. At least not in 10^29 years - far longer than
>> the age of the Universe
>>
>> 4) A laser pulse is required to produce the annihilation event in protons
>> - the weak force is not involved at this point.
>>
>> 4) A huge amount of energy is produced from annihilation, much more than
>> any decay event.
>>
>> 5) This energy is generally NOT USABLE as the muons disperse far from the
>> reactor.
>>
>> 6) To obtain usable energy, then actual fusion must be incorporated into
>> the system.
>>
>> 7) Fusion of deuterons is a secondary effect of muons, which catalyze
>> deuterons.
>>
>> 8) Without fusion the energy of the muon decay is essentially lost
>> hundreds of meters away.
>>
>> 7) Because deuterium fusion in this case produces charged particles of >3
>> MeV - that energy can be captured and not lost. There are few gammas.
>>
>> Thus we have a catch-22 scenario. The extreme energy of proton
>> annihilation to mesons and muons is difficult to capture, and thus
>> breakeven or net gain requires a secondary reaction - fusion - using
>> deuterium. As of now, Holmlid has not shown a way to reach breakeven
>> without deuterium fusion being the primary source of USABLE energy.
>>
>> On 1/19/2017 12:00 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
>>
>> Holmlid states as follows:
>>
>> The state *s* = 1 may lead to a fast nuclear reaction. It is suggested
>> that this involves two nucleons, probably two protons. The first particles
>> formed and observed [16
>> 
>> ,17
>> ]
>> are kaons, both neutral and charged, and also pions. From the six quarks in
>> the two protons, three kaons can be formed in the interaction. Two protons
>> correspond to a mass of 1.88 GeV while three kaons correspond to 1.49 GeV.
>> Thus, the transition 2 p → 3 K is downhill in internal energy and releases
>> 390 MeV. If pions are formed directly, the energy release may be even
>> larger. The kaons formed decay normally in various processes to charged
>> pions and muons. In the present experiments, the decay of kaons and pions
>> is observed directly normally through their decay to muons, while the muons
>> leave the chamber before they decay due to their easier penetration and
>> much longer lifetime.
>>
>> Holmlid recognized that the DECAY of protons is where the mesons come
>> from. This decay is a weak force reaction in which a huge amount of energy
>> is produced...(1.88 GeV while three kaons correspond to 1.49 GeV).
>>
>> Deuterium has nothing to do with proton decay. The protium
>> nanoparticle can produce proton decay just as well as deuterium. The
>> protium nanoparticle will still produce the 1,88 GeV as well as the
>> deuterium nanoparticle.
>>
>> Fusion is just as secondary side issue.
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 2:29 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>>
>>>  Axil Axil wrote:
>>>
>>> The first reaction to occur is meson production which as nothing to do
>>> with fusion:
>>>
>>>
>>> Well, that is partially true - mesons come first after the laser pulse.
>>> No one cares, since mesons have incredibly short lifetimes.
>>>
>>> The main point is that mesons very quickly into muons. *Muons catalyze
>>> fusion in deuterium.*
>>>
>>> Muon catalyzed fusion has been known for 75 years. It would be next to
>>> impossible to avoid fusion when muons and deuterons are both present.
>>>
>>> The bottom line is this: if there is to be net gain, deuterium must be
>>> used because fusion provides the usable gain - not mesons or muons which
>>> decay too far away to provide gain.
>>>
>>> Jones
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Axil Axil]

This brings up the down side of LENR. LENR produce intense ionization
produced by muons far from the reaction. Many experimenters have complained
about this intense ionization which makes electronics useless.

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 4:01 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

>
> You still are not making the correct and  important distinctions from this
> paper.
>
> This may sound pedantic but "decay" is not the same thing as
> "annihilation." If is important to use the correct semantics here.
>
> See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_decay
>
> 1) Mesons are derived from annihilation of the proton, NOT decay of
> protons.
>
> 2) Mesons decay to muons. Muons decay to lighter leptons.
>
> 3) Protons do not decay. At least not in 10^29 years - far longer than the
> age of the Universe
>
> 4) A laser pulse is required to produce the annihilation event in protons
> - the weak force is not involved at this point.
>
> 4) A huge amount of energy is produced from annihilation, much more than
> any decay event.
>
> 5) This energy is generally NOT USABLE as the muons disperse far from the
> reactor.
>
> 6) To obtain usable energy, then actual fusion must be incorporated into
> the system.
>
> 7) Fusion of deuterons is a secondary effect of muons, which catalyze
> deuterons.
>
> 8) Without fusion the energy of the muon decay is essentially lost
> hundreds of meters away.
>
> 7) Because deuterium fusion in this case produces charged particles of >3
> MeV - that energy can be captured and not lost. There are few gammas.
>
> Thus we have a catch-22 scenario. The extreme energy of proton
> annihilation to mesons and muons is difficult to capture, and thus
> breakeven or net gain requires a secondary reaction - fusion - using
> deuterium. As of now, Holmlid has not shown a way to reach breakeven
> without deuterium fusion being the primary source of USABLE energy.
>
> On 1/19/2017 12:00 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
>
> Holmlid states as follows:
>
> The state *s* = 1 may lead to a fast nuclear reaction. It is suggested
> that this involves two nucleons, probably two protons. The first particles
> formed and observed [16
> 
> ,17
> ]
> are kaons, both neutral and charged, and also pions. From the six quarks in
> the two protons, three kaons can be formed in the interaction. Two protons
> correspond to a mass of 1.88 GeV while three kaons correspond to 1.49 GeV.
> Thus, the transition 2 p → 3 K is downhill in internal energy and releases
> 390 MeV. If pions are formed directly, the energy release may be even
> larger. The kaons formed decay normally in various processes to charged
> pions and muons. In the present experiments, the decay of kaons and pions
> is observed directly normally through their decay to muons, while the muons
> leave the chamber before they decay due to their easier penetration and
> much longer lifetime.
>
> Holmlid recognized that the DECAY of protons is where the mesons come
> from. This decay is a weak force reaction in which a huge amount of energy
> is produced...(1.88 GeV while three kaons correspond to 1.49 GeV).
>
> Deuterium has nothing to do with proton decay. The protium
> nanoparticle can produce proton decay just as well as deuterium. The
> protium nanoparticle will still produce the 1,88 GeV as well as the
> deuterium nanoparticle.
>
> Fusion is just as secondary side issue.
>
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 2:29 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>>  Axil Axil wrote:
>>
>> The first reaction to occur is meson production which as nothing to do
>> with fusion:
>>
>>
>> Well, that is partially true - mesons come first after the laser pulse.
>> No one cares, since mesons have incredibly short lifetimes.
>>
>> The main point is that mesons very quickly into muons. *Muons catalyze
>> fusion in deuterium.*
>>
>> Muon catalyzed fusion has been known for 75 years. It would be next to
>> impossible to avoid fusion when muons and deuterons are both present.
>>
>> The bottom line is this: if there is to be net gain, deuterium must be
>> used because fusion provides the usable gain - not mesons or muons which
>> decay too far away to provide gain.
>>
>> Jones
>>
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Russ George]

I think we can agree on one thing about Holmlid’s paper, that is that it is a 
Magnum Opus in the field of nuclear science, aka atom-ecology… Here’s my 
historical point of view 
http://atom-ecology.russgeorge.net/2017/01/19/ultra-dense-fusion-physicsenergy-magnum-opus/
 

 

From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2017 1:02 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

 

 

You still are not making the correct and  important distinctions from this 
paper. 

This may sound pedantic but "decay" is not the same thing as "annihilation." If 
is important to use the correct semantics here.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_decay

1) Mesons are derived from annihilation of the proton, NOT decay of protons. 

2) Mesons decay to muons. Muons decay to lighter leptons.

3) Protons do not decay. At least not in 10^29 years - far longer than the age 
of the Universe

4) A laser pulse is required to produce the annihilation event in protons - the 
weak force is not involved at this point.

4) A huge amount of energy is produced from annihilation, much more than any 
decay event. 

5) This energy is generally NOT USABLE as the muons disperse far from the 
reactor.

6) To obtain usable energy, then actual fusion must be incorporated into the 
system.

7) Fusion of deuterons is a secondary effect of muons, which catalyze deuterons.

8) Without fusion the energy of the muon decay is essentially lost hundreds of 
meters away.

7) Because deuterium fusion in this case produces charged particles of >3 MeV - 
that energy can be captured and not lost. There are few gammas.

Thus we have a catch-22 scenario. The extreme energy of proton annihilation to 
mesons and muons is difficult to capture, and thus breakeven or net gain 
requires a secondary reaction - fusion - using deuterium. As of now, Holmlid 
has not shown a way to reach breakeven without deuterium fusion being the 
primary source of USABLE energy.

 

On 1/19/2017 12:00 PM, Axil Axil wrote:

Holmlid states as follows: 

 

The state s = 1 may lead to a fast nuclear reaction. It is suggested that this 
involves two nucleons, probably two protons. The first particles formed and 
observed [ 
<http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0169895#pone.0169895.ref016>
 16, 
<http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0169895#pone.0169895.ref017>
 17] are kaons, both neutral and charged, and also pions. From the six quarks 
in the two protons, three kaons can be formed in the interaction. Two protons 
correspond to a mass of 1.88 GeV while three kaons correspond to 1.49 GeV. 
Thus, the transition 2 p → 3 K is downhill in internal energy and releases 390 
MeV. If pions are formed directly, the energy release may be even larger. The 
kaons formed decay normally in various processes to charged pions and muons. In 
the present experiments, the decay of kaons and pions is observed directly 
normally through their decay to muons, while the muons leave the chamber before 
they decay due to their easier penetration and much longer lifetime.

 

Holmlid recognized that the DECAY of protons is where the mesons come from. 
This decay is a weak force reaction in which a huge amount of energy is 
produced...(1.88 GeV while three kaons correspond to 1.49 GeV).

 

Deuterium has nothing to do with proton decay. The protium nanoparticle can 
produce proton decay just as well as deuterium. The protium nanoparticle will 
still produce the 1,88 GeV as well as the deuterium nanoparticle.

 

Fusion is just as secondary side issue.

 

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 2:29 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net 
<mailto:jone...@pacbell.net> > wrote:

 Axil Axil wrote:

The first reaction to occur is meson production which as nothing to do with 
fusion:


Well, that is partially true - mesons come first after the laser pulse. No one 
cares, since mesons have incredibly short lifetimes.

The main point is that mesons very quickly into muons. Muons catalyze fusion in 
deuterium.

Muon catalyzed fusion has been known for 75 years. It would be next to 
impossible to avoid fusion when muons and deuterons are both present.

The bottom line is this: if there is to be net gain, deuterium must be used 
because fusion provides the usable gain - not mesons or muons which decay too 
far away to provide gain.

Jones

 

 

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Jones Beene]

You still are not making the correct and  important distinctions from 
this paper.


This may sound pedantic but "decay" is not the same thing as 
"annihilation." If is important to use the correct semantics here.


See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_decay

1) Mesons are derived from annihilation of the proton, NOT decay of 
protons.


2) Mesons decay to muons. Muons decay to lighter leptons.

3) Protons do not decay. At least not in 10^29 years - far longer than 
the age of the Universe


4) A laser pulse is required to produce the annihilation event in 
protons - the weak force is not involved at this point.


4) A huge amount of energy is produced from annihilation, much more than 
any decay event.


5) This energy is generally NOT USABLE as the muons disperse far from 
the reactor.


6) To obtain usable energy, then actual fusion must be incorporated into 
the system.


7) Fusion of deuterons is a secondary effect of muons, which catalyze 
deuterons.


8) Without fusion the energy of the muon decay is essentially lost 
hundreds of meters away.


7) Because deuterium fusion in this case produces charged particles of 
>3 MeV - that energy can be captured and not lost. There are few gammas.


Thus we have a catch-22 scenario. The extreme energy of proton 
annihilation to mesons and muons is difficult to capture, and thus 
breakeven or net gain requires a secondary reaction - fusion - using 
deuterium. As of now, Holmlid has not shown a way to reach breakeven 
without deuterium fusion being the primary source of USABLE energy.



On 1/19/2017 12:00 PM, Axil Axil wrote:

Holmlid states as follows:

The state /s/ = 1 may lead to a fast nuclear reaction. It is suggested 
that this involves two nucleons, probably two protons. The first 
particles formed and observed [16 
,17 
] 
are kaons, both neutral and charged, and also pions. From the six 
quarks in the two protons, three kaons can be formed in the 
interaction. Two protons correspond to a mass of 1.88 GeV while three 
kaons correspond to 1.49 GeV. Thus, the transition 2 p → 3 K is 
downhill in internal energy and releases 390 MeV. If pions are formed 
directly, the energy release may be even larger. The kaons formed 
decay normally in various processes to charged pions and muons. In the 
present experiments, the decay of kaons and pions is observed directly 
normally through their decay to muons, while the muons leave the 
chamber before they decay due to their easier penetration and much 
longer lifetime.


Holmlid recognized that the DECAY of protons is where the mesons come 
from. This decay is a weak force reaction in which a huge amount of 
energy is produced...(1.88 GeV while three kaons correspond to 1.49 GeV).


Deuterium has nothing to do with proton decay. The protium 
nanoparticle can produce proton decay just as well as deuterium. The 
protium nanoparticle will still produce the 1,88 GeV as well as the 
deuterium nanoparticle.


Fusion is just as secondary side issue.

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 2:29 PM, Jones Beene > wrote:


 Axil Axil wrote:


The first reaction to occur is meson production which as nothing
to do with fusion:


Well, that is partially true - mesons come first after the laser
pulse. No one cares, since mesons have incredibly short lifetimes.

The main point is that mesons very quickly into muons. *Muons
catalyze fusion in deuterium.*

Muon catalyzed fusion has been known for 75 years. It would be
next to impossible to avoid fusion when muons and deuterons are
both present.

The bottom line is this: if there is to be net gain, deuterium
must be used because fusion provides the usable gain - not mesons
or muons which decay too far away to provide gain.

Jones

RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[bobcook39923]

If the muons are charged, they can be focused and polarized in a magnetic 
field.  Hence they can be made to react more readily with polarized electrons 
in a lattice and their energy harvested in a cylindrical catching device.   


ARE THE MUONS NEUTRAL OR CHARGED that Holmlid claims?  

Bob Cook

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Axil Axil
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2017 12:01 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

Holmlid states as follows:

The state s = 1 may lead to a fast nuclear reaction. It is suggested that this 
involves two nucleons, probably two protons. The first particles formed and 
observed [16,17] are kaons, both neutral and charged, and also pions. From the 
six quarks in the two protons, three kaons can be formed in the interaction. 
Two protons correspond to a mass of 1.88 GeV while three kaons correspond to 
1.49 GeV. Thus, the transition 2 p → 3 K is downhill in internal energy and 
releases 390 MeV. If pions are formed directly, the energy release may be even 
larger. The kaons formed decay normally in various processes to charged pions 
and muons. In the present experiments, the decay of kaons and pions is observed 
directly normally through their decay to muons, while the muons leave the 
chamber before they decay due to their easier penetration and much longer 
lifetime.

Holmlid recognized that the DECAY of protons is where the mesons come from. 
This decay is a weak force reaction in which a huge amount of energy is 
produced...(1.88 GeV while three kaons correspond to 1.49 GeV).

Deuterium has nothing to do with proton decay. The protium nanoparticle can 
produce proton decay just as well as deuterium. The protium nanoparticle will 
still produce the 1,88 GeV as well as the deuterium nanoparticle.

Fusion is just as secondary side issue.

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 2:29 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:
 Axil Axil wrote:
The first reaction to occur is meson production which as nothing to do with 
fusion:

Well, that is partially true - mesons come first after the laser pulse. No one 
cares, since mesons have incredibly short lifetimes.

The main point is that mesons very quickly into muons. Muons catalyze fusion in 
deuterium.

Muon catalyzed fusion has been known for 75 years. It would be next to 
impossible to avoid fusion when muons and deuterons are both present.

The bottom line is this: if there is to be net gain, deuterium must be used 
because fusion provides the usable gain - not mesons or muons which decay too 
far away to provide gain.

Jones

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Axil Axil]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_decay

"In particle physics , *proton
decay* is a hypothetical 
form of radioactive
decay  in which the proton
 decays into lighter subatomic
particles , such as a
neutral pion  and a positron
.[1]
 There is currently
no experimental evidence that proton decay occurs.

According to the Standard Model
, protons, a type of baryon
, are stable because baryon number
 (quark number
) is conserved
 (under normal
circumstances; see chiral anomaly
 for exception). Therefore,
protons will not decay into other particles on their own, because they are
the lightest (and therefore least energetic) baryon.


Some beyond-the-Standard Model grand unified theories
 (GUTs) explicitly
break the baryon number symmetry, allowing protons to decay via the Higgs
particle , magnetic monopoles
 or new X bosons
 with a half-life of 1031 to 1036 years.
To date, all attempts to observe new phenomena predicted by GUTs (like
proton decay or the existence of magnetic monopoles) have failed."


The ultra dense hydrogen nanoparticle acts as a monopole quasiparticle
which capitalizes proton decay. The structure of this nanoparticle focuses
the spin from polaritons that forms on it surface to project forward in a
tight SPIN beam to zap protons. The photons come from the laser beam that
the UDH absorbs on it surface to form polaritons. There is a superradiant
based cause that also is in play to greatly amplify the magnetic power of
the beam. The UHD BEC forms from many coherent UHD particles that
multiplies the strength of the SPIN monopole beam.

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 3:00 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> Holmlid states as follows:
>
> The state *s* = 1 may lead to a fast nuclear reaction. It is suggested
> that this involves two nucleons, probably two protons. The first particles
> formed and observed [16
> 
> ,17
> ]
> are kaons, both neutral and charged, and also pions. From the six quarks in
> the two protons, three kaons can be formed in the interaction. Two protons
> correspond to a mass of 1.88 GeV while three kaons correspond to 1.49 GeV.
> Thus, the transition 2 p → 3 K is downhill in internal energy and releases
> 390 MeV. If pions are formed directly, the energy release may be even
> larger. The kaons formed decay normally in various processes to charged
> pions and muons. In the present experiments, the decay of kaons and pions
> is observed directly normally through their decay to muons, while the muons
> leave the chamber before they decay due to their easier penetration and
> much longer lifetime.
>
> Holmlid recognized that the DECAY of protons is where the mesons come
> from. This decay is a weak force reaction in which a huge amount of energy
> is produced...(1.88 GeV while three kaons correspond to 1.49 GeV).
>
> Deuterium has nothing to do with proton decay. The protium
> nanoparticle can produce proton decay just as well as deuterium. The
> protium nanoparticle will still produce the 1,88 GeV as well as the
> deuterium nanoparticle.
>
> Fusion is just as secondary side issue.
>
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 2:29 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>>  Axil Axil wrote:
>>
>> The first reaction to occur is meson production which as nothing to do
>> with fusion:
>>
>>
>> Well, that is partially true - mesons come first after the laser pulse.
>> No one cares, since mesons have incredibly short lifetimes.
>>
>> The main point is that mesons very quickly into muons. *Muons catalyze
>> fusion in deuterium.*
>>
>> Muon catalyzed fusion has been known for 75 years. It would be next to
>> impossible to avoid fusion when muons and deuterons are both present.
>>
>> The bottom line is this: if there is to be net gain, deuterium must be
>> used because fusion provides the usable gain - not mesons or muons which
>> decay too far away to provide gain.
>>
>> Jones
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Axil Axil]

Holmlid states as follows:

The state *s* = 1 may lead to a fast nuclear reaction. It is suggested that
this involves two nucleons, probably two protons. The first particles
formed and observed [16

,17
]
are kaons, both neutral and charged, and also pions. From the six quarks in
the two protons, three kaons can be formed in the interaction. Two protons
correspond to a mass of 1.88 GeV while three kaons correspond to 1.49 GeV.
Thus, the transition 2 p → 3 K is downhill in internal energy and releases
390 MeV. If pions are formed directly, the energy release may be even
larger. The kaons formed decay normally in various processes to charged
pions and muons. In the present experiments, the decay of kaons and pions
is observed directly normally through their decay to muons, while the muons
leave the chamber before they decay due to their easier penetration and
much longer lifetime.

Holmlid recognized that the DECAY of protons is where the mesons come from.
This decay is a weak force reaction in which a huge amount of energy is
produced...(1.88 GeV while three kaons correspond to 1.49 GeV).

Deuterium has nothing to do with proton decay. The protium nanoparticle can
produce proton decay just as well as deuterium. The protium nanoparticle
will still produce the 1,88 GeV as well as the deuterium nanoparticle.

Fusion is just as secondary side issue.

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 2:29 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

>  Axil Axil wrote:
>
> The first reaction to occur is meson production which as nothing to do
> with fusion:
>
>
> Well, that is partially true - mesons come first after the laser pulse. No
> one cares, since mesons have incredibly short lifetimes.
>
> The main point is that mesons very quickly into muons. *Muons catalyze
> fusion in deuterium.*
>
> Muon catalyzed fusion has been known for 75 years. It would be next to
> impossible to avoid fusion when muons and deuterons are both present.
>
> The bottom line is this: if there is to be net gain, deuterium must be
> used because fusion provides the usable gain - not mesons or muons which
> decay too far away to provide gain.
>
> Jones
>

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Jones Beene]

 Axil Axil wrote:

The first reaction to occur is meson production which as nothing to do 
with fusion:


Well, that is partially true - mesons come first after the laser pulse. 
No one cares, since mesons have incredibly short lifetimes.


The main point is that mesons very quickly into muons. *Muons catalyze 
fusion in deuterium.*


Muon catalyzed fusion has been known for 75 years. It would be next to 
impossible to avoid fusion when muons and deuterons are both present.


The bottom line is this: if there is to be net gain, deuterium must be 
used because fusion provides the usable gain - not mesons or muons which 
decay too far away to provide gain.


Jones

RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Russ George]

Let the semantics of the theorists begin…. Arrgggh. That in this complex 
environment the atom ecology and resulting behaviours including fusion is more 
complex than can be semantically dumbed down to one moniker is what is 
described in this paper. Theorists will always look for brain numbing debates 
over minutia while pioneering technologists are happy with helping hints of in 
what general direction one might choose to go next.  

 

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2017 10:35 AM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

 

The first reaction to occure is meson production which as nothing to do with 
fusion:

 

Holmlid writes:

 

Quote

The time variation of the collector signals was initially assumed to be due to 
time-of-flight of the ejected particles from the target to the collectors. Even 
the relatively low particle velocity of 10–20 MeV u-1 found with this 
assumption [ 
<http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0169895#pone.0169895.ref021>
 21– 
<http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0169895#pone.0169895.ref023>
 23] is not explainable as originating in ordinary nuclear fusion. The highest 
energy particles from normal D+D fusion are neutrons with 14.1 MeV and protons 
with 14.7 MeV [ 
<http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0169895#pone.0169895.ref057>
 57]. The high-energy protons are only formed by the D + 3He reaction step, 
which is relatively unlikely and for example not observed in our laser-induced 
D+D fusion study in D(0) [ 
<http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0169895#pone.0169895.ref014>
 14]. Any high-energy neutrons would not be observed in the present 
experiments. Thus, ordinary fusion D+D cannot give the observed particle 
velocities. Further, similar particle velocities are obtained also from the 
laser-induced processes in p(0) as seen in Figs  
<http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0169895#pone-0169895-g004>
 4,  
<http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0169895#pone-0169895-g006>
 6 and  
<http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0169895#pone-0169895-g007>
 7 etc, where no ordinary fusion process can take place. Thus, it is apparent 
that the particle energy observed is derived from other nuclear processes than 
ordinary fusion.

 

Like any good scientist, Holmlid has gotten over his preconception of fusion as 
the energy source for these sub atomic particles. In other words, the primary 
reaction of LENR has nothing to do with fusion or neutrons. Kaon production 
points to a amplified weak force decay process working to decay protons and 
neutrons providing a initial energy potential of a giga electron volts per 
reaction as all the mass of these nucleons are converted to mesons. There is a 
huge amount of energy consumed in meson production, and a trifling amount to 
heat.

 

As a secondary reaction produced by sub atomic particles, muon and pion fusion 
occurs away from the primary weak force decay reaction.

 

 

 

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 1:02 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net 
<mailto:jone...@pacbell.net> > wrote:

 

This is an extremely important paper, even if it is incremental to earlier 
work. There had been an open question about the necessity of deuterium, as 
opposed to protium - but now that is answered.

Holmlid's body of work going back a decade is by far the most advanced in LENR. 
This is the future of the field, and it looks very much like a merger of ICF 
hot fusion with cold fusion.

However, we must recognize that Holmlid does show both hot fusion and 
meson/muon production processes with Deuterium - so essentially only the 
proton-based reactions are non-fusion. By implication the net energy with 
protons is far less - and he only claims net gain with deuterium.

Here is the relevant quote for that: "MeV particles are ejected by 
laser-induced processes in both D(0) and p(0). Also, normal D+D fusion 
processes giving 4He and 3He ions were shown to be initiated by a relatively 
weak pulsed laser [using deuterium fuel]. Laser-induced nuclear fusion in D(0) 
gives heat above break-even, as reported in Ref. [15 
<http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0169895#pone.0169895.ref015>
 ]. END = note that Holmlid does NOT say that protium does not give heat above 
breakeven, only that deuterium does provide it -- but the lack with protium is 
implied.

Thus we can summarize by saying that in both cases mesons/muons are seen. But 
with deuterium there is also hot fusion, in addition to the mesons, and this 
provides the excess heat, which is not the case with protons. The 24 MeV gamma 
is replaced by a particle flux in the range of 20 MeV indicating that 4 
deuterons fuse into 2 alphas. Sound familiar? That is reminiscent 

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Axil Axil]

Jones Beene says:

The (possible) reason the proton reaction is comparatively weak despite the
massive decay energy of mesons is that decay occurs so far away from the
reactor that the energy cannot be captured. The particles can decay
hundreds of meters away on average.

If the sub atomic particles(muons) are still entangled in the LENR reaction
 condensate then distance away from that condinsate does not matter because
entanglement is not affected by distance. The muon catalyzed fusion will
still be shared by the condinsate that produced the sub atomic particle
shower. This entanglement with the BEC is why there is no gammas produced
 by the muon and pion fusion. This fusion energy is shared over kilometers
with the BEC through super-absorption.


On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 1:34 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> The first reaction to occure is meson production which as nothing to do
> with fusion:
>
> Holmlid writes:
>
> Quote
>
> The time variation of the collector signals was initially assumed to be
> due to time-of-flight of the ejected particles from the target to the
> collectors. Even the relatively low particle velocity of 10–20 MeV u-1 found
> with this assumption [21
> 
> –23
> ]
> is not explainable as originating in ordinary nuclear fusion. The highest
> energy particles from normal D+D fusion are neutrons with 14.1 MeV and
> protons with 14.7 MeV [57
> ].
> The high-energy protons are only formed by the D + 3He reaction step,
> which is relatively unlikely and for example not observed in our
> laser-induced D+D fusion study in D(0) [14
> ].
> Any high-energy neutrons would not be observed in the present experiments.
> Thus, ordinary fusion D+D cannot give the observed particle velocities.
> Further, similar particle velocities are obtained also from the
> laser-induced processes in p(0) as seen in Figs 4
> 
> , 6
> 
>  and 7
> 
>  etc,
> where no ordinary fusion process can take place. *Thus, it is apparent
> that the particle energy observed is derived from other nuclear processes
> than ordinary fusion.*
>
>
> Like any good scientist, Holmlid has gotten over his preconception of
> fusion as the energy source for these sub atomic particles. In other words,
> the primary reaction of LENR has nothing to do with fusion or neutrons.
> Kaon production points to a amplified weak force decay process working to
> decay protons and neutrons providing a initial energy potential of a giga
> electron volts per reaction as all the mass of these nucleons are converted
> to mesons. There is a huge amount of energy consumed in meson production,
> and a trifling amount to heat.
>
>
> As a secondary reaction produced by sub atomic particles, muon and pion
> fusion occurs away from the primary weak force decay reaction.
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 1:02 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>>
>> This is an extremely important paper, even if it is incremental to
>> earlier work. There had been an open question about the necessity of
>> deuterium, as opposed to protium - but now that is answered.
>>
>> Holmlid's body of work going back a decade is by far the most advanced in
>> LENR. This is the future of the field, and it looks very much like a merger
>> of ICF hot fusion with cold fusion.
>>
>> However, we must recognize that Holmlid does show both hot fusion and
>> meson/muon production processes with Deuterium - so essentially only the
>> proton-based reactions are non-fusion. By implication the net energy with
>> protons is far less - and he only claims net gain with deuterium.
>>
>> Here is the relevant quote for that: "MeV particles are ejected by
>> laser-induced processes in both D(0) and p(0). Also, normal D+D fusion
>> processes giving 4He and 3He ions were shown to be initiated by a
>> relatively weak pulsed laser [using deuterium fuel]. Laser-induced nuclear
>> fusion in D(0) gives heat above break-even, as reported in Ref. [15
>> ].
>> END = note that Holmlid does NOT say that protium does not give heat above
>> breakeven, only that deuterium does provide it -- but the lack with protium
>> is implied.
>>
>> Thus we can summarize by saying that in both cases mesons/muons are seen.
>> But with deuterium there is also hot fusion, in addition to 

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Axil Axil]

The first reaction to occure is meson production which as nothing to do
with fusion:

Holmlid writes:

Quote

The time variation of the collector signals was initially assumed to be due
to time-of-flight of the ejected particles from the target to the
collectors. Even the relatively low particle velocity of 10–20 MeV u-1 found
with this assumption [21

–23
]
is not explainable as originating in ordinary nuclear fusion. The highest
energy particles from normal D+D fusion are neutrons with 14.1 MeV and
protons with 14.7 MeV [57
].
The high-energy protons are only formed by the D + 3He reaction step, which
is relatively unlikely and for example not observed in our laser-induced
D+D fusion study in D(0) [14
].
Any high-energy neutrons would not be observed in the present experiments.
Thus, ordinary fusion D+D cannot give the observed particle velocities.
Further, similar particle velocities are obtained also from the
laser-induced processes in p(0) as seen in Figs 4

, 6

 and 7

etc,
where no ordinary fusion process can take place. *Thus, it is apparent that
the particle energy observed is derived from other nuclear processes than
ordinary fusion.*


Like any good scientist, Holmlid has gotten over his preconception of
fusion as the energy source for these sub atomic particles. In other words,
the primary reaction of LENR has nothing to do with fusion or neutrons.
Kaon production points to a amplified weak force decay process working to
decay protons and neutrons providing a initial energy potential of a giga
electron volts per reaction as all the mass of these nucleons are converted
to mesons. There is a huge amount of energy consumed in meson production,
and a trifling amount to heat.


As a secondary reaction produced by sub atomic particles, muon and pion
fusion occurs away from the primary weak force decay reaction.




On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 1:02 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

>
> This is an extremely important paper, even if it is incremental to earlier
> work. There had been an open question about the necessity of deuterium, as
> opposed to protium - but now that is answered.
>
> Holmlid's body of work going back a decade is by far the most advanced in
> LENR. This is the future of the field, and it looks very much like a merger
> of ICF hot fusion with cold fusion.
>
> However, we must recognize that Holmlid does show both hot fusion and
> meson/muon production processes with Deuterium - so essentially only the
> proton-based reactions are non-fusion. By implication the net energy with
> protons is far less - and he only claims net gain with deuterium.
>
> Here is the relevant quote for that: "MeV particles are ejected by
> laser-induced processes in both D(0) and p(0). Also, normal D+D fusion
> processes giving 4He and 3He ions were shown to be initiated by a
> relatively weak pulsed laser [using deuterium fuel]. Laser-induced nuclear
> fusion in D(0) gives heat above break-even, as reported in Ref. [15
> ].
> END = note that Holmlid does NOT say that protium does not give heat above
> breakeven, only that deuterium does provide it -- but the lack with protium
> is implied.
>
> Thus we can summarize by saying that in both cases mesons/muons are seen.
> But with deuterium there is also hot fusion, in addition to the mesons, and
> this provides the excess heat, which is not the case with protons. The 24
> MeV gamma is replaced by a particle flux in the range of 20 MeV indicating
> that 4 deuterons fuse into 2 alphas. Sound familiar? That is reminiscent of
> Takahasi's tetrahedral theory.
>
> However, ordinary D+D fusion reactions only give an energy up to 3.0 MeV
> in the first reaction step, and up to 14.7 MeV in the second step of the
> reactions and this apparently avoids the 24 MeV gamma. Thus, nuclear
> processes take place with deuterium which are indeed a new version of hot
> fusion --with a new kind of multi-particle branching where gammas do not
> occur.
>
> The (possible) reason the proton reaction is comparatively weak despite
> the massive decay energy of mesons is that decay occurs so far away from
> the reactor that the energy cannot be captured. The particles can decay
> hundreds of meters away on average.
>
> Jones
> Axil Axil wrote:
>
> 

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Jones Beene]

This is an extremely important paper, even if it is incremental to 
earlier work. There had been an open question about the necessity of 
deuterium, as opposed to protium - but now that is answered.


Holmlid's body of work going back a decade is by far the most advanced 
in LENR. This is the future of the field, and it looks very much like a 
merger of ICF hot fusion with cold fusion.


However, we must recognize that Holmlid does show both hot fusion and 
meson/muon production processes with Deuterium - so essentially only the 
proton-based reactions are non-fusion. By implication the net energy 
with protons is far less - and he only claims net gain with deuterium.


Here is the relevant quote for that: "MeV particles are ejected by 
laser-induced processes in both D(0) and p(0). Also, normal D+D fusion 
processes giving ^4 He and ^3 He ions were shown to be initiated by a 
relatively weak pulsed laser [using deuterium fuel]. Laser-induced 
nuclear fusion in D(0) gives heat above break-even, as reported in Ref. 
[15 
]. 
END = note that Holmlid does NOT say that protium does not give heat 
above breakeven, only that deuterium does provide it -- but the lack 
with protium is implied.


Thus we can summarize by saying that in both cases mesons/muons are 
seen. But with deuterium there is also hot fusion, in addition to the 
mesons, and this provides the excess heat, which is not the case with 
protons. The 24 MeV gamma is replaced by a particle flux in the range of 
20 MeV indicating that 4 deuterons fuse into 2 alphas. Sound familiar? 
That is reminiscent of Takahasi's tetrahedral theory.


However, ordinary D+D fusion reactions only give an energy up to 3.0 MeV 
in the first reaction step, and up to 14.7 MeV in the second step of the 
reactions and this apparently avoids the 24 MeV gamma. Thus, nuclear 
processes take place with deuterium which are indeed a new version of 
hot fusion --with a new kind of multi-particle branching where gammas do 
not occur.


The (possible) reason the proton reaction is comparatively weak despite 
the massive decay energy of mesons is that decay occurs so far away from 
the reactor that the energy cannot be captured. The particles can decay 
hundreds of meters away on average.


Jones

Axil Axil wrote:

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0169895


  Mesons from Laser-Induced Processes in Ultra-Dense Hydrogen H(0)


A new paper from Holmlid where he now deduces that LENR cannot be a 
fusion based reaction because the energy of the mesons produced are 
far to great. I respect a man that can change his mind under the 
weight of experimental evidence.


The hydrogen nanoparticle that produces the mesons are 3 to 6 planes long.

RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Russ George]

Holy Cow Batman, this stunning comprehensive paper reports the unambiguous
observation of unusual DD fusion with both 4He a 3He pathways. The 4He path
occurs with only 3Mev, the 3He with 14Mev. Further the muons are expelled at
500 Mev. The magic being ultra-dense hydrogen, both deuterium and protium,
which forms in a hydrogen loaded metal which is the laser target. 75% of the
particles emitted are of a mysterious neutral character which the author
muses might be a 'quasi-neutron', clearly such unusual neutron-like particle
are behaving in what some might describe as a 'crazy' manner, aka a
mischugenon as Edward Teller once referred. The energy balance is indeed
interesting with a COP of 450 (this groups vernacular) inferred from the
very high quality measurements. The paper surely offers some practical
guidance to a few of us working on 'cold fusion' technologies, now where did
I put my ray gun. 

 

 

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2017 8:58 AM
To: vortex-l
Subject: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

 

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0169895

 


Mesons from Laser-Induced Processes in Ultra-Dense Hydrogen H(0)


 

A new paper from Holmlid where he now deduces that LENR cannot be a fusion
based reaction because the energy of the mesons produced are far to great. I
respect a man that can change his mind under the weight of experimental
evidence.

 

The hydrogen nanoparticle that produces the mesons are 3 to 6 planes long.