[Vo]:Fw: [teslafy] Facebook Post;Aug 11,2012,(3 yrs ago)
Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/ On Wednesday, August 12, 2015 11:14 AM, harv...@yahoo.com [teslafy] tesl...@yahoogroups.com wrote: Here a puzzling reference is made which will need clarification. It is in regard to a seemingly mysterious impossible circuit. In this circuit a capacitor is connected (from one side only) to its line input of the delta 3 phase alternator voltage source. Since the circuit is not closed but open, a voltage meter across the reactance will read zero volts. But if we put a voltage meter across the remaining endings of this zero volt source we will read the source voltage? How can a voltage be procured across delivery lines reading zero volts. This puzzled me at first and is encountered in this circumstance of having three generations of voltage meters recording the phenomenon. First we have voltage meters across the source of voltage from the 3 phase source itself. Since the loads are series resonant they produce an internal voltage rise and we have a second set of voltage meters recording this voltage rise. And lastly to determine the acting phase angle between the resonant phasings themselves a third generation of voltage meters is used: placed between the voltage rises of each phase. At the beginning of the video an 11 volt 3 phase source is shown, and the resonant internal voltage rise meters show zero volts, because the circuits have been disconnected at the middle of the LC series circuit, where the amperage meter for that phase completes the circuit. And to make a correction here also near the end of the video; YOU CANNOT ASSUME TIME DISTORTION on the basis of forming phase angles by the triangle formed from comparing stator line amperages to individual phase amperages: for the simple fact that this assumption discounts whether the circuit is experiencing a resonant rise of amperage within the phase itself. So it was a mistake to assume that the evidence shows an expanded time referencing of some 400 degrees in the time circle by the information contained in the amperage triangulations. However the same argument should not be valid in the cases where where relative voltage rises between resonant phasings DO show a time distortion. It is not so easy to sweep that phenomenon under the rug. In most cases a compressed time circle is present, not an expanded one. And apparently another argument may be used to indicate why that might not be unusual. In any case yesterday face book sent me a notice about something I posted three years ago, so here it is...In the following video two aspects of time distortion are shown. The first is the making of a voltage system where the whole is greater then the sum of its parts. Here it is shown that 13+43.3=69.2, where the numbers express the vector addition of voltages created in time. The second portion is the showing of a system that reflects voltage back to its source so that when the third element or phase is added, the source of voltage actually increases, rather then decreasing, which is the normal function of the alternator when a resistive load is added. I now understand that when this occurs, a loss of amperage from the operation of the system on that phase does occur. First of all to show people what I am talking about I shut everything down, and then reconnect the three phases of off timed energy inputs in order, one at a time. By the time the third phase is added, the loads then start charging up their source of voltage, and about 60% more voltage appears from the sender source then should logically be present. Logic even dictates that if I put another load there on that phase giving out extra energy, the source of voltage would again be reduced to the amount shown at startup, but in the meantime this extra load has been powered for free! So when people ask me what my wireless tesla coil is good for, I tell them that it converts time into energy! Since this occurs we might call that kind of load a negative resistance, since it does the opposite from what an ordinary resistance will do. At the beginning of the video I open all the loads at their middle connection, so that the capacitors all read zero volts, and the coils all read zero amps. What has caused me to initially laugh about this situation is that even though zero current and zero voltage are being read across the capacitors, we can still determine the separation of timed impulses in time across those capacitors connected by only one delivery wire, in that if we take the remaining endings removed from their source, and measure the voltage between them they will read the source voltage! So essentially we have three voltage meters in series where the outside voltage meters read zero, but the inside one shows the voltage that will exist once we connect the circuits! It might seem like we have measured a voltage seemingly from
Re: [Vo]:Program and Abstracts of the All Russian Symposium
The story of why his invention was not carried forward is a bit alarming and sounds like a broken record... http://autoweek.com/article/car-news/strange-life-and-stranger-death-paul-brown-case-another-smart-guy-doing-dumb-thing On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 9:28 AM, Chris Zell chrisz...@wetmtv.com wrote: Brown’s Resonant Battery would have been a wonderful invention, if it was true. I get the impression that no one ever replicated his results. *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Tuesday, August 11, 2015 4:52 PM *To:* vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Program and Abstracts of the All Russian Symposium http://www.rexresearch.com/nucell/nucell.htm The Paul Brown Resonant Nuclear Battery is an ideal EMF harvester design to take advantage the magnetic beams produced by the SPPs. The beta decays usually used to produce the EMF need not be present since SPPs produce magnetic power directly and act as ideal generators of EMF motive force. Anyone who is interested in LENR should look into the theory and engineering related to the Paul Brown Resonant Nuclear Battery. This technology will still support the Cat and Mouse drive concept. Rossi is realty something, How he thinks of these things is amazing. On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 1:14 PM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Dear Friends, 3 minutes after I have sent you the daily issue of EGO OUT this was published http://lenr.seplm.ru/konferentsii/opublikovana-programma-i-tezisy-rkkhtyaishm-22-kotoraya-sostoitsya-v-dagomyse-s-2709-po-04102015 It's the ICCF 19.5 Symposium. YOU CAN READ THE ABSTRACTS IN ENGLISH! Enjoy! Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
RE: [Vo]:Muons, SPP, DDL RPF
This is the reason that many physicists are skeptical of Holmlid. The problem is that plasmons have no real mass, yet can couple with a photon to create the quasiparticle we call the plasma polariton or SPP, which also has no rest mass. If SPP have enough energy, perhaps they can convert to muons, but that requires so much energy that it seems unlikely. By process of elimination, I am wondering if Holmlid’s version of dense hydrogen H(0), which I prefer to call DDL, is converted – despite its opposite charge. Is it time to muddy the water with degenerate matter? From: Axil Axil The Muon comes from the SPP. In the Holmlid paper, the muons increased when the lights in the lab were turned on. In order to minimize muon production, the Rydberg matter had to be covered to exclude light. The sources give a slowly decaying muon signal for several hours and days after being used for producing H(0). They can be triggered to increase the muon production by laser irradiation inside the chambers or sometimes even by turning on the fluorescent lamps in the laboratory for a short time. Light is being converted to a form of energy that can produce muons. I say that that form of energy conversion is light to magnetic energy powerful enough to produce muons. In the Rossi reactor, the form of light is infrared. Deal with it.
Re: [Vo]:Muons, SPP, DDL RPF
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 9:45 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: Perhaps more to the point, where does the energy come from to create the muon in the first place? I didn't want to be a downer and ask the obvious question as to where the energy was coming to create muons and pions. ;) Eric
Re: [Vo]:Muons, SPP, DDL RPF
The Muon comes from the SPP. In the Holmlid paper, the muons increased when the lights in the lab were turned on. In order to minimize muon production, the Rydberg matter had to be covered to exclude light. The sources give a slowly decaying muon signal for several hours and days after being used for producing H(0). They can be triggered to increase the muon production by laser irradiation inside the chambers or sometimes even by turning on the fluorescent lamps in the laboratory for a short time. Light is being converted to a form of energy that can produce muons. I say that that form of energy conversion is light to magnetic energy powerful enough to produce muons. In the Rossi reactor, the form of light is infrared. Deal with it.
RE: [Vo]:Muons, SPP, DDL RPF
-Original Message- From: mixent@bigpond Perhaps more to the point, where does the energy come from to create the muon in the first place? A muon has a mass of 105.7 MeV. The only nuclear reaction that can produce that sort of energy in one go is a heavy element fission reaction. Even if the first one is a cosmic-ray muon, where do the rest come from? One muon can catalyze multiple fusion reactions, but these occur sequentially, and none of them release enough energy individually to produce a new muon. Robin, The idea is that during the energy exchange of catalysis, the lifetime of the muon is extended by the energy which would go into gamma radiation. This would be instead of creation of a new muon. However, I am starting to agree with your skepticism, and Eric's, that this could happen routinely. That is the value of a forum where weak ideas are challenged.
Re: [Vo]:Muons, SPP, DDL RPF
The SPP can gather energy from two possible sources, the vacuum and fusion. What proportion of energy can be extracted from each of those sources is not yet knowable, but that energy could be enough to produce muons. On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 1:04 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: From the Holmlid paper as follows: This means a total intensity of 1.5 × 109 s−1 sr−1. That intensity of muon production is too high for the source of muons to be coming from space.. On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 12:52 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: From the Holmlid paper as follows: With the source turned off at the end of the experiments, the count was 1.6 × 105 thus a certain change due to the source. In another experiment, the count was 1.08 × 105 at another source, sinking to 0.91 × 105 2 m away. The standard deviation is around 300 while the difference is 17 000, thus 50 times larger. Thus, a clear shift with detector position is found. The high-energy tail in these experiments (which is due to the particles giving photons in the PS, not electrons in the beta distribution) was close to 7000, thus with a standard deviation σ = 80. With water and lead shielding, the count was 7300 while without the shielding, the count was 8300, thus a difference 12 times larger than σ. A position close to one source which was not operating gave a count of 6915, while directly moving the detector a 3 m long distance from that position gave a count of 7873, thus a change 12 times larger than σ. A higher signal far from the source indicates a decay of the emitted particles. It is concluded that a signal due to decaying particles and* muons exists in the laboratory.* This shows that the source of the muons is located in the lab because muons decay when the detected is moved futher from the sourse. This decay would not happen is the sourse was from space. On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 12:16 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Let me backtrack… If we follow the credo that “experiment rules” and that Holmlid appears to be “making” muons, then the scenario which makes the most sense could be that SPP are indeed extending the life of cosmic muons, which then accumulate – giving the appearance that they are being made. In effect, we do not need to “make” them so much as keep them from decaying. Is the glow stick all about …(drum roll)… zombie muons ? -- This is the reason that many physicists are skeptical of Holmlid. The problem is that plasmons have no real mass, yet can couple with a photon to create the quasiparticle we call the plasma polariton or SPP, which also has no rest mass. If SPP have enough energy, perhaps they can convert to muons, but that requires so much energy that it seems unlikely. By process of elimination, I am wondering if Holmlid’s version of dense hydrogen H(0), which I prefer to call DDL, is converted – despite its opposite charge. Is it time to muddy the water with degenerate matter? *From:* Axil Axil The Muon comes from the SPP. In the Holmlid paper, the muons increased when the lights in the lab were turned on. In order to minimize muon production, the Rydberg matter had to be covered to exclude light. The sources give a slowly decaying muon signal for several hours and days after being used for producing H(0). They can be triggered to increase the muon production by laser irradiation inside the chambers or sometimes even by turning on the fluorescent lamps in the laboratory for a short time. Light is being converted to a form of energy that can produce muons. I say that that form of energy conversion is light to magnetic energy powerful enough to produce muons. In the Rossi reactor, the form of light is infrared. Deal with it.
Re: [Vo]:Re: The appearance of muons are explained by SPP theory.
On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Here is the problem. The muon lifetime is only 2 microseconds, so even travelling at C, the free path before complete decay is less than a kilometer. I wonder if relativistic time dilation extends the half-life of the muon in our frame of reference. Eric
[Vo]:Re: Muons, SPP, DDL RPF
Eric-- Note my comment to Jones before I read your questions. Bob From: Eric Walker Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2015 7:18 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Muons, SPP, DDL RPF On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 9:05 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: D+D + muon → helium-4 + muon (instead of gamma) … where the fist muon can be a cosmic muon which can catalyze a reaction and then be rejuvenated, renewed or replaced by the same fusion reaction that it catalyzes. The muon is a “heavy electron” with a short life, but now we can surmise that it can have its lifetime greatly extended as part of the catalysis. The probability for this to occur is larger than zero, but how large? … “Maybe it’s pretty high” says Byrnes. Can it explain the lack of gamma, as well? Probably. But now, as we are learning – this rebirth effect will be more robust with SPP and fractional hydrogen. A muon could possibly carry away as kinetic energy the energy that would otherwise go to a gamma. But if we're talking about a single muon, how do you propose that the spin of the missing photon is conserved? Eric
Re: [Vo]:A 21st Century Case for Gold: A New Information Theory of Money.
On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 2:11 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I know little about economics, but limiting the amount of money based on the amount gold we have -- or the number of bitcoins -- seems like utter lunacy to me. It never worked in the past. There are two reasons: 1. The money supply has to increase when there is more economic activity and more people, or you get severe deflation. This happened in the U.S. and other countries on the gold standard. Severe deflation is a bad thing. This is the reason I've never understood the appeal of gold or bitcoin. The urge to take the control of the amount of money in circulation out of the hands of central banks seems to disregard the danger of deflation. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Muons, SPP, DDL RPF
Muons, SPP, DDL RPFMuon decay rate is not a constant but is influenced by various parameters. Spin and angular momentum vectors respectively, associated with the muon and electron or positron resulting from the decay, respectively, are coupled in the decay process. In this regard a magnetic field in so far as it effects the polarization of the muon and the angular momentum vector of the electron may increase or decrease the probability of the decay rate. If the muon decay is modified by a magnetic field, then the mass loss of the muon may be given up to orbital spin energy of the local SPP or the local lattice electrons without the production of neutrinos needed to conserve linear momentum in a decay process unassisted or made possible in a coherent coupled QM system. The muon decay is described in some complexity in the link that follows: http://pdg.lbl.gov/2011/reviews/rpp2011-rev-muon-decay-params.pdf In summary IMHO the details of the decay mechanism are not very understandable based on the cited paper. Bob Cook From: Jones Beene Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2015 7:05 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Muons, SPP, DDL RPF Its acronym time again. LENR is nothing if not full of acronyms. All of this set of letters seems to work together. Here is a website from Steve Byrnes – and it is quite well done. Even if you disagree with the conclusions (and by now, most of us have our own opinions on the details) it is well-researched, but a little dated - including the piece on muons: http://sjbyrnes.com/cf/?p=744 If the Holmlid disclosure about finding muons (heavy electrons) in the context of ultra-dense hydrogen (also known as DDL or deep Dirac level) and especially when irradiated by laser is correct, then there is a good possibility that this will lead to an improved understanding of one mechanism for LENR gain using plasmons to make heavy electrons (there are other mechanisms besides SPP). If Byrnes had realized that there could be a connection between an incandescent glow-reactor and SPP, and subsequently - between SPP and DDL and muons, his conclusion might look more cutting edge. But he has the brilliant insight to suggest a new possibility for muon-catalyzed fusion of deuterium, starting with a “spectator muon” which is renewed or replaced sequentially by the reaction itself, to wit: D+D + muon → helium-4 + muon (instead of gamma) … where the fist muon can be a cosmic muon which can catalyze a reaction and then be rejuvenated, renewed or replaced by the same fusion reaction that it catalyzes. The muon is a “heavy electron” with a short life, but now we can surmise that it can have its lifetime greatly extended as part of the catalysis. The probability for this to occur is larger than zero, but how large? … “Maybe it’s pretty high” says Byrnes. Can it explain the lack of gamma, as well? Probably. But now, as we are learning – this rebirth effect will be more robust with SPP and fractional hydrogen. There is one further detail which can be added in the glowing ferment: the enhanced diproton reaction, which is being labeled as RPF or “reversible proton fusion.” This avenue can explain most actual SPP results better than one-way fusion. This pathway works cleanly with the muon catalyst, more so than does Storm’s hydrotron, for instance. Surface plasmons typically do not occur or participate in electrolytic fusion (such as the PF reaction) unless a laser is added (Letts/Cravens effect). SPP production requires semi-coherent photons which are typically IR or visible in wavelength, and which a laser can supply. A magnetic field helps. There is little doubt that the Letts/Cravens effect is a simple implementation of SPP. However, deuteron fusion using SPP would produce gammas UNLESS the replacement muon carries away the gamma energy – which is the real beauty of having the muon modality in the first place. It explains the lack of gammas elegantly at the same time it explains an extended lifetime for the heavy electron. The better scenario for finding a good fit in muon catalysis, assuming that we can combine Holmlid’s and Byrnes insight - happens with protons instead of deuterons. This is the reversible diproton reaction, such as occurs on the sun with astounding frequency. There is little transmutation in the end, but instead we have a plethora of catalyzed inelastic collisions which do not proceed to permanent fusion – only soft x-rays. Consequently the reaction is called “reversible” (due to Pauli). P+P + muon → Helium-2 → P+P + muon + excess energy Helium-2 (diproton) has a shorter half-life than the muon. The excess energy which is seen in RPF would appear as soft x-rays or UV and happen in nanoseconds. The energy derives either from QCD and Helium-2 mass as it decays - or from muon mass-energy when that species finally decays, having being renewed several times. Since the muon “lives” for a few
Re: [Vo]:A 21st Century Case for Gold: A New Information Theory of Money.
Eric and Jed, Why do we need someone to control the amount of money in circulation? Why do we need to split it up in pieces? I guess it is good for China they can now fix their economy by letting others pay for it. This nationalistic way of solving problems will go away. Just let it go natural. I do not think we need a financial nurse checking out for us. Freedom is a god thing liberalism does stand for that from the beginning but now it has become to mean socialism. Is that why everybody like to have more nursing? Cannot distinguish between liberalism and socialism:) Big difference. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 7:01 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 2:11 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I know little about economics, but limiting the amount of money based on the amount gold we have -- or the number of bitcoins -- seems like utter lunacy to me. It never worked in the past. There are two reasons: 1. The money supply has to increase when there is more economic activity and more people, or you get severe deflation. This happened in the U.S. and other countries on the gold standard. Severe deflation is a bad thing. This is the reason I've never understood the appeal of gold or bitcoin. The urge to take the control of the amount of money in circulation out of the hands of central banks seems to disregard the danger of deflation. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's 1 MW Thermal LENR plant trial. What's the current consensus?
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 5:27 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: Wikipedia uses a lot of poor, dated references in Cold Fusion and the editor this could be forgiven, but given more recent reference to mainstream article (like il corriere della serra, or justice) they refuse to update. Coming from a practical standpoint, that merely places a limit on the usefulness of Wikipedia; many articles are good, and you can expect ones on controversial topics to be biased and stuck fifteen years in the past. If you understand these limits, Wikipedia is a very useful reference. I'm personally surprised that, as a volunteer effort, it is as good as it is. I will intentionally go to it first to find out about a person or company, rather than relying on their own website or an article in a for-pay encyclopedia like Britannica. But I do not go there to find out about the latest on cold fusion. Eric
RE: [Vo]:Muons, SPP, DDL RPF
Let me backtrack… If we follow the credo that “experiment rules” and that Holmlid appears to be “making” muons, then the scenario which makes the most sense could be that SPP are indeed extending the life of cosmic muons, which then accumulate – giving the appearance that they are being made. In effect, we do not need to “make” them so much as keep them from decaying. Is the glow stick all about …(drum roll)… zombie muons ? -- This is the reason that many physicists are skeptical of Holmlid. The problem is that plasmons have no real mass, yet can couple with a photon to create the quasiparticle we call the plasma polariton or SPP, which also has no rest mass. If SPP have enough energy, perhaps they can convert to muons, but that requires so much energy that it seems unlikely. By process of elimination, I am wondering if Holmlid’s version of dense hydrogen H(0), which I prefer to call DDL, is converted – despite its opposite charge. Is it time to muddy the water with degenerate matter? From: Axil Axil The Muon comes from the SPP. In the Holmlid paper, the muons increased when the lights in the lab were turned on. In order to minimize muon production, the Rydberg matter had to be covered to exclude light. The sources give a slowly decaying muon signal for several hours and days after being used for producing H(0). They can be triggered to increase the muon production by laser irradiation inside the chambers or sometimes even by turning on the fluorescent lamps in the laboratory for a short time. Light is being converted to a form of energy that can produce muons. I say that that form of energy conversion is light to magnetic energy powerful enough to produce muons. In the Rossi reactor, the form of light is infrared. Deal with it.
Re: [Vo]:Muons, SPP, DDL RPF
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 9:05 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: D+D + muon → helium-4 + muon (instead of gamma) … where the fist muon can be a cosmic muon which can catalyze a reaction and then be rejuvenated, renewed or replaced by the same fusion reaction that it catalyzes. The muon is a “heavy electron” with a short life, but now we can surmise that it can have its lifetime greatly extended as part of the catalysis. The probability for this to occur is larger than zero, but how large? … “Maybe it’s pretty high” says Byrnes. Can it explain the lack of gamma, as well? Probably. But now, as we are learning – this rebirth effect will be more robust with SPP and fractional hydrogen. A muon could possibly carry away as kinetic energy the energy that would otherwise go to a gamma. But if we're talking about a single muon, how do you propose that the spin of the missing photon is conserved? Eric
Re: [Vo]:Muons, SPP, DDL RPF
In reply to Eric Walker's message of Wed, 12 Aug 2015 21:18:24 -0500: Hi, Perhaps more to the point, where does the energy come from to create the muon in the first place? A muon has a mass of 105.7 MeV. The only nuclear reaction that can produce that sort of energy in one go is a heavy element fission reaction. Even if the first one is a cosmic-ray muon, where do the rest come from? One muon can catalyze multiple fusion reactions, but these occur sequentially, and none of them release enough energy individually to produce a new muon. On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 9:05 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: D+D + muon ? helium-4 + muon (instead of gamma) where the fist muon can be a cosmic muon which can catalyze a reaction and then be rejuvenated, renewed or replaced by the same fusion reaction that it catalyzes. The muon is a heavy electron with a short life, but now we can surmise that it can have its lifetime greatly extended as part of the catalysis. The probability for this to occur is larger than zero, but how large? Maybe its pretty high says Byrnes. Can it explain the lack of gamma, as well? Probably. But now, as we are learning this rebirth effect will be more robust with SPP and fractional hydrogen. A muon could possibly carry away as kinetic energy the energy that would otherwise go to a gamma. But if we're talking about a single muon, how do you propose that the spin of the missing photon is conserved? Eric Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Muons, SPP, DDL RPF
From the Holmlid paper as follows: This means a total intensity of 1.5 × 109 s−1 sr−1. That intensity of muon production is too high for the source of muons to be coming from space.. On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 12:52 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: From the Holmlid paper as follows: With the source turned off at the end of the experiments, the count was 1.6 × 105 thus a certain change due to the source. In another experiment, the count was 1.08 × 105 at another source, sinking to 0.91 × 105 2 m away. The standard deviation is around 300 while the difference is 17 000, thus 50 times larger. Thus, a clear shift with detector position is found. The high-energy tail in these experiments (which is due to the particles giving photons in the PS, not electrons in the beta distribution) was close to 7000, thus with a standard deviation σ = 80. With water and lead shielding, the count was 7300 while without the shielding, the count was 8300, thus a difference 12 times larger than σ. A position close to one source which was not operating gave a count of 6915, while directly moving the detector a 3 m long distance from that position gave a count of 7873, thus a change 12 times larger than σ. A higher signal far from the source indicates a decay of the emitted particles. It is concluded that a signal due to decaying particles and* muons exists in the laboratory.* This shows that the source of the muons is located in the lab because muons decay when the detected is moved futher from the sourse. This decay would not happen is the sourse was from space. On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 12:16 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Let me backtrack… If we follow the credo that “experiment rules” and that Holmlid appears to be “making” muons, then the scenario which makes the most sense could be that SPP are indeed extending the life of cosmic muons, which then accumulate – giving the appearance that they are being made. In effect, we do not need to “make” them so much as keep them from decaying. Is the glow stick all about …(drum roll)… zombie muons ? -- This is the reason that many physicists are skeptical of Holmlid. The problem is that plasmons have no real mass, yet can couple with a photon to create the quasiparticle we call the plasma polariton or SPP, which also has no rest mass. If SPP have enough energy, perhaps they can convert to muons, but that requires so much energy that it seems unlikely. By process of elimination, I am wondering if Holmlid’s version of dense hydrogen H(0), which I prefer to call DDL, is converted – despite its opposite charge. Is it time to muddy the water with degenerate matter? *From:* Axil Axil The Muon comes from the SPP. In the Holmlid paper, the muons increased when the lights in the lab were turned on. In order to minimize muon production, the Rydberg matter had to be covered to exclude light. The sources give a slowly decaying muon signal for several hours and days after being used for producing H(0). They can be triggered to increase the muon production by laser irradiation inside the chambers or sometimes even by turning on the fluorescent lamps in the laboratory for a short time. Light is being converted to a form of energy that can produce muons. I say that that form of energy conversion is light to magnetic energy powerful enough to produce muons. In the Rossi reactor, the form of light is infrared. Deal with it.
[Vo]:preview of Russian LENR symposium
I have published this: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2015/08/subjective-preview-of-22st-russian.html Have no idea if something interesting will still appear today Surprises are not predictable this makes them surprises. Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
[Vo]:Muons, SPP, DDL RPF
Its acronym time again. LENR is nothing if not full of acronyms. All of this set of letters seems to work together. Here is a website from Steve Byrnes - and it is quite well done. Even if you disagree with the conclusions (and by now, most of us have our own opinions on the details) it is well-researched, but a little dated - including the piece on muons: http://sjbyrnes.com/cf/?p=744 If the Holmlid disclosure about finding muons (heavy electrons) in the context of ultra-dense hydrogen (also known as DDL or deep Dirac level) and especially when irradiated by laser is correct, then there is a good possibility that this will lead to an improved understanding of one mechanism for LENR gain using plasmons to make heavy electrons (there are other mechanisms besides SPP). If Byrnes had realized that there could be a connection between an incandescent glow-reactor and SPP, and subsequently - between SPP and DDL and muons, his conclusion might look more cutting edge. But he has the brilliant insight to suggest a new possibility for muon-catalyzed fusion of deuterium, starting with a “spectator muon” which is renewed or replaced sequentially by the reaction itself, to wit: D+D + muon → helium-4 + muon (instead of gamma) … where the fist muon can be a cosmic muon which can catalyze a reaction and then be rejuvenated, renewed or replaced by the same fusion reaction that it catalyzes. The muon is a “heavy electron” with a short life, but now we can surmise that it can have its lifetime greatly extended as part of the catalysis. The probability for this to occur is larger than zero, but how large? … “Maybe it’s pretty high” says Byrnes. Can it explain the lack of gamma, as well? Probably. But now, as we are learning - this rebirth effect will be more robust with SPP and fractional hydrogen. There is one further detail which can be added in the glowing ferment: the enhanced diproton reaction, which is being labeled as RPF or “reversible proton fusion.” This avenue can explain most actual SPP results better than one-way fusion. This pathway works cleanly with the muon catalyst, more so than does Storm’s hydrotron, for instance. Surface plasmons typically do not occur or participate in electrolytic fusion (such as the PF reaction) unless a laser is added (Letts/Cravens effect). SPP production requires semi-coherent photons which are typically IR or visible in wavelength, and which a laser can supply. A magnetic field helps. There is little doubt that the Letts/Cravens effect is a simple implementation of SPP. However, deuteron fusion using SPP would produce gammas UNLESS the replacement muon carries away the gamma energy - which is the real beauty of having the muon modality in the first place. It explains the lack of gammas elegantly at the same time it explains an extended lifetime for the heavy electron. The better scenario for finding a good fit in muon catalysis, assuming that we can combine Holmlid’s and Byrnes insight - happens with protons instead of deuterons. This is the reversible diproton reaction, such as occurs on the sun with astounding frequency. There is little transmutation in the end, but instead we have a plethora of catalyzed inelastic collisions which do not proceed to permanent fusion - only soft x-rays. Consequently the reaction is called “reversible” (due to Pauli). P+P + muon → Helium-2 → P+P + muon + excess energy Helium-2 (diproton) has a shorter half-life than the muon. The excess energy which is seen in RPF would appear as soft x-rays or UV and happen in nanoseconds. The energy derives either from QCD and Helium-2 mass as it decays - or from muon mass-energy when that species finally decays, having being renewed several times. Since the muon “lives” for a few microseconds, it can catalyzes only few reversible fusion reactions, but if the reaction itself effectively adds extra microseconds to the muon life (or alternatively) emits a new muon and we have positive feedback and continuity of the reaction. It appears to be a chain reaction. When muons are renewed via QCD in the RPF reaction, some level of incidental transmutation should be seen - which is consistent with Piantelli’s reported slight amount of transmutation. But in the end, with RPF there are few gamma rays (far from commensurate with heat), little transmutation (incidental levels only), but lots of UV, soft x-rays and most importantly, muon continuity … Many pieces of the puzzle could fall together - to the extent that the SPP, Muon, DDL RPF interconnection is viable. Is it? Did I miss an acronym? Jones
RE: [Vo]:Program and Abstracts of the All Russian Symposium
Brown’s Resonant Battery would have been a wonderful invention, if it was true. I get the impression that no one ever replicated his results. From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 4:52 PM To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Program and Abstracts of the All Russian Symposium http://www.rexresearch.com/nucell/nucell.htm The Paul Brown Resonant Nuclear Battery is an ideal EMF harvester design to take advantage the magnetic beams produced by the SPPs. The beta decays usually used to produce the EMF need not be present since SPPs produce magnetic power directly and act as ideal generators of EMF motive force. Anyone who is interested in LENR should look into the theory and engineering related to the Paul Brown Resonant Nuclear Battery. This technology will still support the Cat and Mouse drive concept. Rossi is realty something, How he thinks of these things is amazing. On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 1:14 PM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.commailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Dear Friends, 3 minutes after I have sent you the daily issue of EGO OUT this was published http://lenr.seplm.ru/konferentsii/opublikovana-programma-i-tezisy-rkkhtyaishm-22-kotoraya-sostoitsya-v-dagomyse-s-2709-po-04102015 It's the ICCF 19.5 Symposium. YOU CAN READ THE ABSTRACTS IN ENGLISH! Enjoy! Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Muons, SPP, DDL RPF
Muons forms from decay of pions. There are different pions and ways of decays but some without gamma, for example Pi+=U`+ neutrino. The Pions are involved in nuklear reactions as proton neutron exchange. _https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pion_ The Muons in Holmlids measurements may come from Pion decay. And the Muons must be an essential part in the LENR reactions. I had Holmlid as lecturer in physical chemistry and thermodynamics long time ago.
Re: [Vo]:Muons, SPP, DDL RPF
The muon or maybe its father the pion is the connection between physics and chemistry that typifies LENR. If there is a swarm of pions in and around the nucleus, nuclear reactions are sure to occur. Pions may be more pernicious then neutrons in terms of nuclear disruption. On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 1:17 PM, torulf.gr...@bredband.net wrote: Muons forms from decay of pions. There are different pions and ways of decays but some without gamma, for example Pi+=U`+ neutrino. The Pions are involved in nuklear reactions as proton neutron exchange. *https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pion* The Muons in Holmlids measurements may come from Pion decay. And the Muons must be an essential part in the LENR reactions. I had Holmlid as lecturer in physical chemistry and thermodynamics long time ago.
