[Vo]:Re: A model of the proton to describe Holmlid's results

[Mark Jurich]

... And here's a ZZ --> 4 Muons CMS [Candidate] Event:

https://cds.cern.ch/record/1378103?ln=en

-Original Message- 
From: Mark Jurich

Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 9:07 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: A model of the proton to describe Holmlid's results

http://www.atlas.ch/multimedia/4-muon-event.html

-Original Message- 
From: Mark Jurich

Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 9:05 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Re: A model of the proton to describe Holmlid's results

FYI:

Here's a movie of a Proton-Proton Collision Event, eventually resulting in 4
Muons (Actual Event, but the movie is a simulation, of course) seen in the
ATLAS Detector.  Unfortunately I could not easily find one with CMS.
Perhaps someone will and all the future Hate Mail will stop!

Mark Jurich


-Original Message- 
From: mix...@bigpond.com

Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 6:51 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A model of the proton to describe Holmlid's results

In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Mon, 5 Oct 2015 20:07:03 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]

Let me try to be more specific on this point:

Ø

Ø  Protons do not decay in a cold state, but if accelerated fast enough (as 
at CERN) – they will decay to 4 muons after a collision. This does not 
absolutely mean that protons are made of muons, but it is an indication of 
some kind of cross-identity... The reason there are 4 instead of 9 may 
relate to antimuon annihilation.




Here is a reference from CERN on the Higgs boson process in which protons 
are collided at high energy to form muons.




http://home.web.cern.ch/images/2014/01/higgs-boson-decay-four-muons


Note that according to the caption under the picture this is a simulation.
If I
understand the meaning of the word correctly, then it's a mathematical model
of
what they think would happen based on the standard model. Hence none of us
can
use it as evidence for anything.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Re: A model of the proton to describe Holmlid's results

[Mark Jurich]

http://www.atlas.ch/multimedia/4-muon-event.html

-Original Message- 
From: Mark Jurich

Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 9:05 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Re: A model of the proton to describe Holmlid's results

FYI:

Here's a movie of a Proton-Proton Collision Event, eventually resulting in 4
Muons (Actual Event, but the movie is a simulation, of course) seen in the
ATLAS Detector.  Unfortunately I could not easily find one with CMS.
Perhaps someone will and all the future Hate Mail will stop!

Mark Jurich


-Original Message- 
From: mix...@bigpond.com

Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 6:51 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A model of the proton to describe Holmlid's results

In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Mon, 5 Oct 2015 20:07:03 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]

Let me try to be more specific on this point:

Ø

Ø  Protons do not decay in a cold state, but if accelerated fast enough (as 
at CERN) – they will decay to 4 muons after a collision. This does not 
absolutely mean that protons are made of muons, but it is an indication of 
some kind of cross-identity... The reason there are 4 instead of 9 may 
relate to antimuon annihilation.




Here is a reference from CERN on the Higgs boson process in which protons 
are collided at high energy to form muons.




http://home.web.cern.ch/images/2014/01/higgs-boson-decay-four-muons


Note that according to the caption under the picture this is a simulation.
If I
understand the meaning of the word correctly, then it's a mathematical model
of
what they think would happen based on the standard model. Hence none of us
can
use it as evidence for anything.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

[Vo]:Re: A model of the proton to describe Holmlid's results

[Mark Jurich]

FYI:

Here's a movie of a Proton-Proton Collision Event, eventually resulting in 4 
Muons (Actual Event, but the movie is a simulation, of course) seen in the 
ATLAS Detector.  Unfortunately I could not easily find one with CMS. 
Perhaps someone will and all the future Hate Mail will stop!


Mark Jurich


-Original Message- 
From: mix...@bigpond.com

Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 6:51 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A model of the proton to describe Holmlid's results

In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Mon, 5 Oct 2015 20:07:03 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]

Let me try to be more specific on this point:

Ø

Ø  Protons do not decay in a cold state, but if accelerated fast enough (as 
at CERN) – they will decay to 4 muons after a collision. This does not 
absolutely mean that protons are made of muons, but it is an indication of 
some kind of cross-identity... The reason there are 4 instead of 9 may 
relate to antimuon annihilation.




Here is a reference from CERN on the Higgs boson process in which protons 
are collided at high energy to form muons.




http://home.web.cern.ch/images/2014/01/higgs-boson-decay-four-muons


Note that according to the caption under the picture this is a simulation. 
If I
understand the meaning of the word correctly, then it's a mathematical model 
of
what they think would happen based on the standard model. Hence none of us 
can

use it as evidence for anything.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:A model of the proton to describe Holmlid's results

[mixent]

In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Mon, 5 Oct 2015 20:07:03 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>Let me try to be more specific on this point:
>
>Ø 
>
>Ø  Protons do not decay in a cold state, but if accelerated fast enough (as at 
>CERN) – they will decay to 4 muons after a collision. This does not absolutely 
>mean that protons are made of muons, but it is an indication of some kind of 
>cross-identity... The reason there are 4 instead of 9 may relate to antimuon 
>annihilation.
>
> 
>
>Here is a reference from CERN on the Higgs boson process in which protons are 
>collided at high energy to form muons. 
>
> 
>
>http://home.web.cern.ch/images/2014/01/higgs-boson-decay-four-muons

Note that according to the caption under the picture this is a simulation. If I
understand the meaning of the word correctly, then it's a mathematical model of
what they think would happen based on the standard model. Hence none of us can
use it as evidence for anything.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

[Vo]:The power of soot

[Axil Axil]

http://phys.org/news/2015-10-candle-soot-power-lithium-batteries.html#nRlv

New research shows candle soot can power the lithium batteries in electric
cars

The soot from candles will repel just about any liquid. It will be used in
lithium car batteries to protect the anode from lithium corrosion.

It might be worth an experiment fo see if candle soot can protect and
preserve lithium from depletion due to combining with the materials used
inside the LENR reactor.

There was a great deal of carbon in the fuel mix in the Lagano test. Was it
soot?

Re: [Vo]:Interview with Rossi in Huffington Post

[Jed Rothwell]

This is the third article in the series, as noted. The other two are linked
in the first sentence of the article.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Interview with Rossi in Huffington Post

[Axil Axil]

The Ni62 result from Lugano might be an exception, a one in a million case
that is exceptional in the extreme.  It is best for Rossi to down play such
a surprising result.

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

> It is interesting to see Rossi distancing himself from the Ni isotopic
> fuel-to-ash shifts suggested by the Lugano experiment, and is instead
> focusing on the isotopic shift in the Li.  It could be that he knew from
> the beginning that the 62Ni in the Lugano ash analysis was either error or
> he knew it was part of the fuel.  Since in other comments he seems to be
> convinced of the value of 62Ni, the latter explanation may be  more likely.
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 10:47 AM, Jed Rothwell 
> wrote:
>
>> Oct. 6, 2015
>>
>> Interview With Andrea Rossi, LENR Energy Pioneer
>>
>> David H. Bailey, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab (retired) and University
>> of California, Davis
>>
>> Jonathan M. Borwein, Laureate Professor of Mathematics, University of
>> Newcastle, Australia
>>
>>
>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-h-bailey/interview-with-andrea-ros_b_8248624.html
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Interview with Rossi in Huffington Post

[Bob Higgins]

It is interesting to see Rossi distancing himself from the Ni isotopic
fuel-to-ash shifts suggested by the Lugano experiment, and is instead
focusing on the isotopic shift in the Li.  It could be that he knew from
the beginning that the 62Ni in the Lugano ash analysis was either error or
he knew it was part of the fuel.  Since in other comments he seems to be
convinced of the value of 62Ni, the latter explanation may be  more likely.

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 10:47 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Oct. 6, 2015
>
> Interview With Andrea Rossi, LENR Energy Pioneer
>
> David H. Bailey, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab (retired) and University
> of California, Davis
>
> Jonathan M. Borwein, Laureate Professor of Mathematics, University of
> Newcastle, Australia
>
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-h-bailey/interview-with-andrea-ros_b_8248624.html
>

[Vo]:Interview with Rossi in Huffington Post

[Jed Rothwell]

Oct. 6, 2015

Interview With Andrea Rossi, LENR Energy Pioneer

David H. Bailey, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab (retired) and University of
California, Davis

Jonathan M. Borwein, Laureate Professor of Mathematics, University of
Newcastle, Australia

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-h-bailey/interview-with-andrea-ros_b_8248624.html

RE: [Vo]:LENR theory

[Jones Beene]

From: Blaze Spinnaker 

Why is everyone getting excited?   Louis hasn't even claimed radiation or 
transmutation or significant energy density beyond something that can be 
chemically explained.  It's just an informal email with vague hints about other 
things.  The only thing that was particularly exciting was that he thinks Rossi 
is credible.

I think the Holmlid fellow is much more interesting.   

- Has a long history of published literature in credible journals
- He's claiming real energy
- He's measuring real radiation (muons, but still)


Exactamundo. I agree completely. Holmlid looks like the real-deal while the old 
version of Pd-D electrolysis is mired at the subwatt level, and will be 
repeating old disappointments. 

The future of LENR is emerging on several fronts and clearly one of them is in 
being able to take lessons which came from cold fusion but went missing from 
the mainstream, such as dense deuterium (f/H, pychno, or whatever you want to 
call it), and putting that species into the context of hot fusion – so as to 
allow hot fusion to break out of its own private hell of waste and failure.

Hot fusion will be the biggest beneficiary of cold fusion – in the end… and 
Leif Holmlid holds the key. MIT would be wise to recruit him on the spot.

OK – we all realize that Holmlid’s work is also subwatt for now, but by using 
low powered lasers, which do scale up - he ties directly and seamlessly into 
ICF… which… drumroll… is a technology which is desperately looking for just 
what he has to offer. Holmlid (suggested by Winterberg) offers the field an ICF 
target which can be irradiated with a thousand times less power, and can go 
into service and  past breakeven at 10,000 times less cost. Well… since ICF is 
in the purview of DoE for now (LLNL), better make that a hundred times less 
cost. 

That target comes from the Low Energy field, And it can turn a 50 billion 
dollar boondoggle at LLNL into the savior of the next generation of profligate 
consumers (our grandchildren) who learned to “super-size-it”… with few 
complaints from us.

Jones

[Vo]:LENR INFO FOR OCT. 7, 2015

[Peter Gluck]

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2015/10/oct-7-2015-daily-lenr-info-part-refluxed.html

-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:LENR theory

[Blaze Spinnaker]

Why is everyone getting excited?   Louis hasn't even claimed radiation or
transmutation or significant energy density beyond something that can be
chemically explained.  It's just an informal email with vague hints about
other things.  The only thing that was particularly exciting was that he
thinks Rossi is credible.

I think the Holmlid fellow is much more interesting.

- Has a long history of published literature in credible journals
- He's claiming real energy
- He's measuring real radiation (muons, but still)


On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 6:58 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> *From:* Eric Walker
>
> Ø
>
> Ø   If you provide several balanced reactions that involve mesons,
> pions and muons, I can take them as a model and attempt to generalize.
>
> For all practical purposes in LENR – we can ignore all mesons and pions
> and focus solely on the muon. See the Wiki entry for details.
>
> The lifetime of any variety of pion or meson is at least 100 times shorter
> than the muon and they are not known to catalyze fusion due to the simple
> reason that they decay too rapidly.
>
> The muon lifetime is relatively ample at that dimension, although short
> from the human perspective - and everyone in nuclear physics agrees that
> in the proper circumstances, muons can and do catalyze fusion reactions
> of deuterons in the range of a hundred or so per lifetime. This is not
> possible with pions or mesons due to either short life.
>
> Jones
>
>

RE: [Vo]:How the Rydberg matter catalysts work.

[Jones Beene]

Good find ! 

 

This is Holmlid’s first choice for densification of hydrogen, IIRC. 

 

Plus it is cheap and available.

 

From: Axil Axil 

 

I also found this article that explains how the Rydberg matter catalysts work.

  
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352214315000106

RE: [Vo]:LENR theory

[Jones Beene]

From: Eric Walker 

*   
*   If you provide several balanced reactions that involve mesons, pions 
and muons, I can take them as a model and attempt to generalize.

For all practical purposes in LENR – we can ignore all mesons and pions and 
focus solely on the muon. See the Wiki entry for details.

The lifetime of any variety of pion or meson is at least 100 times shorter than 
the muon and they are not known to catalyze fusion due to the simple reason 
that they decay too rapidly.

The muon lifetime is relatively ample at that dimension, although short from 
the human perspective - and everyone in nuclear physics agrees that in the 
proper circumstances, muons can and do catalyze fusion reactions of deuterons 
in the range of a hundred or so per lifetime. This is not possible with pions 
or mesons due to either short life.

Jones

Re: [Vo]:LENR theory

[Blaze Spinnaker]

hey isn't 1 excess joules per gram significantly less than energy
density of gas?  This could all just be chemical.  (hat tip popeye)

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 8:15 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> If LENR is producing mesons, pions, and muons, how does that effect
> reaction types?
>
> On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 10:38 PM, Eric Walker 
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 3:55 PM, a.ashfield 
>> wrote:
>>
>> For comparison, Rossi stated his current theory in a recent interview.
>>>
>>> "“My theory is that a proton from a hydrogen atom enters, by the quantum
>>> tunneling effect, into a nucleus of Li-7 (i.e., a lithium nucleus of atomic
>>> weight 7), forming a nucleus of Be-8 (i.e., a beryllium nucleus of atomic
>>> weight 8), which then decays in a few seconds into two alpha particles
>>> (helium nuclei), accompanied with the release of significant nuclear
>>> energy."
>>>
>>
>> Here are relevant reactions (I think my script is working now!):
>>
>> $ python scripts/reactions.py "H+Li"
>> d + 6Li → p + 7Li + 5027 keVn-transfer, stable
>> d + 6Li → 2·4He + 22373 keV stable, α
>> p + 7Li → 2·4He + 17346 keV stable, α
>> p + 6Li → 3He + 4He + 4020 keV  stable, α
>> d + 6Li → p + t + 4He + 2559 keVn-transfer, t, α, →β-
>> d + 6Li → t + 5Li + 593 keV n-transfer, t, →p, 
>> →β-
>> d + 7Li → 4He + 5He + 14387 keV α, →n
>> d + 6Li → 3He + 5He + 1060 keV  →n
>> d + 7Li → ɣ + 9Be + 16694 keV   stable, ɣ
>> d + 6Li → ɣ + 8Be + 22281 keV   ɣ, →α
>> p + 7Li → ɣ + 8Be + 17254 keV   ɣ, →α
>> d + 6Li → ɣ + 8Be (i) + 5655 keVɣ, →α
>> p + 6Li → ɣ + 7Be + 5607 keVɣ, →ε
>> d + 7Li → ɣ + 9Be (i) + 2304 keVɣ
>> p + 7Li → ɣ + 8Be (i) + 628 keV ɣ, →α
>> d + 7Li → n + 2·4He + 15122 keV n, α, →β-
>> d + 7Li → n + 8Be + 15030 keV   n, →α, →β-
>> d + 6Li → n + 7Be + 3382 keVn, →β-, →ε
>> d + 6Li → n + 3He + 4He + 1795 keV  n, α, →β-
>>
>>
>> Since many of these reactions are not happening, if Rossi's speculation
>> is correct, this suggests several things:
>>
>>- either the proton is masked as a neutral particle (e.g., an "Exotic
>>Neutral Particle" or hydrino, or electron screening from the lattice,
>>etc.), or there is some external force holding the proton close to the
>>lithium nucleus
>>- there is something suppressing the gamma-producing branches
>>- there is something suppressing the neutron-producing branches
>>- there is something favoring branches with stable daughters
>>
>> If Rossi's speculation is right, the challenge of a theory would be to
>> explain these bullet points.
>>
>> Eric
>>
>>
>