In reply to bobcook39...@hotmail.com's message of Thu, 21 Jun 2018 23:28:53 +0000: Hi, [snip]
Muons are leptons, and AFAIK there is no neutral variety. Did you mean neutral pions? (Which BTW have a very short half-life). >Neutral muons may act like neutrons and be absorbed to cause a reaction with >additional neutral muons and/or charged muons. >A local source of charged muons, which are known to induce D fusion and maybe >H fusion to D. > >Bob Cook >________________________________ >From: Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> >Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 12:19:18 PM >To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >Subject: RE: [Vo]:Zimmerman's piece could be scarier than we can imagine > > > >From: Axil Axil<mailto:janap...@gmail.com> > > > * I can not see how the Bose Condensation nature of ultra dense material > can support a chain reaction. The Condensate offloads its excess energy > through the production of muons not neutrons. Muons are not bad like > neutrons. Muons do not pump the Condensate, so there is no positive feedback > loop possible > >There are alternative scenarios for a feedback loop. One of the possibilities >does not involve uranium at all. Another would simply happen so rapidly that >most of the UDD is converted into helium before it can change state. Since >Holmlid does see some fusion, in addition to muons, it is likely that the >fusion part of the reaction could be optimized. > >If we accept that 105Pd is the active isotope of cold fusion - and that it is >converted into 107Ag in the main cold fusion reaction, which is one >interpretation of the recent Biberian finding (which triggered this posting to >begin with) then UDD is going to be gainful without being annihilated and >without the need of a laser. > >Also, imagine a large caliber bullet composed of fully loaded PdD. If a >spherical array of barrels is arranged around a depleted U core, what happens >when the core implodes? (given that we know that muons are preferentially >absorbed by U) > >Anyway, a hypothetical UDD explanation could combine Holmlids species with >P&Fs palladium lattice so it would be a hybrid - and is open to criticism >on that account. The underlying fusion reaction should produce at least 14 >MeV. If engineered properly there would be chain reaction of sorts (positive >feedback from pressure, for sure) which is dependent on the initial inventory >of UDD. The yield could be one fourth as much as uranium fission. > >Given how much the USA is hated in parts of the middle East, and how much >wealth there is - any of these nightmares becomes simply a matter of will and >can be countered by careful planning. We can only hope that our government is >taking the proper precautions. OTOH, a simple dirty bomb is devastating >enough and it can be argued that it will be the first thing which is tried. > >It does not help to hide ones head in the sand and opine that we should not >even discuss the possibilities. The easiest way for enemies of the US to >succeed is for experts (or even those on the fringe) not to be vocal and >aware of what technology is available and how it can be used. > >If UDD is real, then it may not be presently taken into account by those who >should be looking at all the risks. > > > > Regards, Robin van Spaandonk local asymmetry = temporary success
