Hi all With that size of sphere, 6000m radius, I am guessing, from experience the density of interactions will be only a little above natural background. You need to know the surface area of the sphere. Then the distribution curve for the straight line from the source; then calculate peak and the nominal width of the curve, probably a narrow bell curve.
I did some work on ballistics, including terminal ballistics, looking at shrapnel density and effective radius of devices, chance of a hit at a certain range from the explosion. These reduce to a near statistically zero probability on a logarithmic curve as you progress further from the point source. You alter the force of the terminal explosive to produce shrapnel that is still travelling at killing speed at a density of one hit per person size. Having the shrapnel still moving at killing speed beyond this range, is a waste of explosive charge and increase the risk of collateral damage (killing those you had not intended) so you set the charge fit for purpose. The effect we are looking at is similar. But the key thing is that the sphere will describe a circle round the source, varying due to density of objects like walls in the path that is centred on the source. This would be the experiment to do. As I said spread across such a large sphere the density will be very low. Slowing down the particles with dense shielding materials would decrease the size of the sphere at that direction and increase the density of the radiation at the calculable distance from the source. This would give proof of the particle nature. Kind Regards walker On 14 November 2016 at 04:12, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > mischugnons... > > I might know what they are. They have made themselves visible in the > research of Keith Fredericks that can be found here: > > http://restframe.com/ > > I have described the mischugnons as metalized hydrogen crystals and > how they work, how they store GeV levels of power, how they manifest a > monopole field, and how they catalyze the LENR reaction. Their > description starts with Holmlid, shows how the metallic hydrogen's > structure produces spin waves through hole superconductivity and > whispering gallery wave, how they can store massive amounts of energy, > and how that energy can be projected as monopole flux lines to > catalyzed proton and neutron weak force decay to produce mesons as > seen by Holmlid. > > Keith Fredericks calls the tachyons but they are just a monopole like > quasiparticle that Holmlid and LENR reactors can created using a > catalyst. > > > > > > > On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 7:13 PM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > In many many experiments over the years the mischugnons have made their > > presence irrefutably known. It is a thrilling time just now in cold > fusion > > as there are many confirmations and affirmations of the choirs existence, > > we’ve been hearing their voices for nearly 30 years and just now the > > theatrical smoke is beginning to clear just enough that we can see the > > outlines of the choir, it’s a big one. It’s not the single voices that > make > > the music of the choir so wonderful it is the combination of them all. > > Perhaps it is a Gregorian harmony they are singing. > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com] > > Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2016 3:44 PM > > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons > > > > > > > > Ok. So you've survived the stinkers and the peanut gallery and the > > charlatans, the high priests, the prelates and the faithful of physics. > In > > your own experiments you've seen muons or mischugenon. > > > > > > > > On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 5:32 PM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > What is interesting is that the real data has always shone most brightly > > even when the signal was incredibly poorly understood. That’s the > benefit of > > longevity and dedication the real shining bits tend to agglomerate into > an > > understandable thing. Such is the case it seems with Holmlid’s ‘muons’, > > there are too many coincidences coming together to ignore his > contributions > > to what is becoming a choir. > > > > > > > > What are those coincidences that lead one inevitably to the conclusion > that > > Holmlid is seeing muons, and that he's seeing the same thing you believe > > you've been seeing? You speak with enough confidence to lead me to > believe > > that you've read his work, are quite familiar with it and are able to > > support your position with concrete details. > > > > > > > > As for being the tutor or free simple sound-bite tour-guide sorry I have > > neither the time nor inclination to help the reluctant. There is so much > to > > do and so little time to do it. As Thomas Edison so aptly put it long > ago, > > “The thing I lose patience with most is the clock, its hands move too > fast.” > > > > > > > > Alas it's not for my edification that you should answer these questions. > > It's for your own credibility! You've taken on the position that > Holmlid is > > seeing muons or mischugenon. You should now give support for that > position. > > > > > > > > Eric > > > > > >
