Hi Jones, What you describe is certainly an interesting and scary proposition - that protons could be sheared or broken apart. However, it is hard to imagine a number of thing in this hypothesis and that of Olafssen/Holmlid. First of all, where did the potential energy come from to put two hydrogen nuclei in 2.3pm proximity? If they are able to release this potential suddenly, then it had to have been established in the first place. Second, SPP is an electron resonance at a metal/dielectric interface, but the electrons themselves are in the metal (AFIK). How would these electrons that are in the metal (resonant in SPP or not) be complicit in a UDD/UDH breakup? Thirdly, why would UDD/UDH be stable?
Thanks for posting the link to the Olafsson presentation. I captured it in .PDF to be able to access offline. On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 9:33 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > fri·a·ble is an adjective meaning “brittle” or easily broken - having > little to do with applied heating, as would be expected of “fry-able” if > it were a word. Actually “friable” can have something to do with lack of > heat, in practice. > > A few of the toughest steels become friable at low temperature and > resilient rubber from tires will become friable – such that it can be reduced > to powder at the temperature of liquid air. These are good metaphors for > the proposition that there is a narrow quantum state where the proton > becomes friable. To further the metaphor, there is common industrial tool for > steel called a “cold shear”- meaning the steel must be cold to be sheared > cleanly. Is the Holmlid effect analogous to cold shearing of metallic > hydrogen ? > > A friable proton, neutron or both would partly explain the Holmlid effect. > That is to say, a nucleon could have a physical state of extreme density - > in which it becomes friable at ambient temperature, and if subject to a > shearing force (from SPP) it would tend to disintegrate instead of fuse. > The result would be the so-called kaon chain of Holmlid, with the most > visible species being the muon (with half-life several hundred times > longer than the other particles in the chain). > > The end result (of protons being sheared into muons) and dispersing at > lightspeed - is undetectable neutrinos, which can be ignored. Fortunately > there are detectable positrons. The signature of muon decay is 511 keV > from positron annihilation. Unfortunately, so far at least – there does > not appear to be overwhelming evidence of this signature from Holmlid’s > papers, but the signal is hard to detect since muons live long enough to > travel hundreds of meters before disintegrating - and do not bunch at the > reactor. The detector must be mobile to a decent job – sampling a bubble, > so to speak. > > That cold-shear (friable) state of hydrogen could be the one which is > predicated on vastly increased proximity to other like particles – which > is pretty much the definition of the ultra-dense state. Gravity could be > involved, or electro-gravity. But from the massive amount of hydrogen in > stars, we can be pretty sure that lots of heat and pressure, combined, does > not make a proton friable. > > As for natural evidence looked at in retrospect, about 5 years ago the > Fermi gamma telescope found indisputable evidence of positrons in > hurricanes. Not many, but they were totally unexpected. > > As an explanation for this, consider that we have UDH forming in the > solar corona, where it cannot shear since it is not friable there, but it > is dispersed and arrives in the solar wind, and is collected in the > oceans. When caught up in hurricanes – the UDH can be sheared. That may > be too much of stretch for you, but the point of this piece is that it is > absolutely necessary – to prove the Holmlid effect – to look for a special > radiation signature at 511 keV. > > It is special since it will appear over a large physical area, instead of > at a reactor - which corresponds to the decay bubble of muons - and it > will be weak at any one spot, so the accumulated space must be sampled. > This can be done, but it is certainly out of the ordinary. >
