RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

[Roarty, Francis X]

Bob , didn’t mean Casimir cavity per se but was trying to suggest the 
fractional hydrogen plasma loading deeper and deeper into the lattice powder 
inside the reactor expands into a larger area of Casimir like suppression that 
opposes the dilation direction of the muon. My rabbit hole was your initial 
post wrt to an office worker some distance from the reactor getting sunburned 
without explanation while techs and engineers working on the reactor remain 
unaffected. I was looking for some relativistic wormhole that might explain. In 
my initial investigation into similarity between skeletal cats of Mills and 
nano powders of Rossi I theorized the Casimir cavities and suppression geometry 
of Ni nano powders are inverses of the other and are equivalent but I prefer to 
take a neo Casimir perspective.  When a muon with SR delayed radioactive decay 
intersects my proposed Casimir like plasma it is suddenly inside an inertial 
frame that now accelerates the decay rate in opposition to the SR velocity of 
the muon. As always time doesn’t change from a local perspective but there is 
suddenly more distance available for the muon to continue forward inside the 
reactor from a local perspective while the plasma seems to keep shrinking away. 
I think we have an odd relativistic situation where SR dilation by virtue of 
the muons velocity slows time AND the vacuum suppression of the reactor 
accelerates time COMBINE to give the muon a strange temporal vector, if this 
was simple polar coordinate addition the opposing temporal additions would 
simply cancel and spatial location remains fixed but SR is a Pythagorean 
relationship between velocity thru space and time while suppression is only 
based on geometry of the surrounding environment the particle is passing thru. 
There is also a distinct difference in the type of Lorentzian contraction to be 
considered, SR has a single axis of contraction while suppression seems to be 
symmetrical. My point is that this might allow for your odd prediction of a 
safe spatial zone immediately surrounding the reactor and muons returning from 
a “temporal long way round” vector to poison the remote office worker?  Ok, 
after re-reading this is even a long shot for me but will still send so you 
don’t think I was suggesting the muon was traveling thru a few Casimir cavities 
–obviously we would have measured an anomalous decay rate a long time ago if it 
were that easy to deal with radioactive waste.


From: Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2016 8:09 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

Hi Fran,
I am unable to imagine how something special would happen in that case.  A muon 
in slow motion may have a greater chance of interaction if its energy is near 
the ionization energy of the atoms upon which it is incident - but this is only 
a small energy - less than 10eV.  At higher energy, it is probably more likely 
that the muon is going to ionize the atom and then scatter at lower energy.  
The distances are so small in condensed matter that the scattering will happen 
rapidly and will reduce the muon to the sweet spot wherein it can interact with 
the chemical (electronic) structure of the next atom it meets.

How would a brief passage though a Casimir geometry alter these behaviors?

On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Roarty, Francis X 
<francis.x.roa...@lmco.com<mailto:francis.x.roa...@lmco.com>> wrote:
Bob, what if the “muon” doesn’t have to achieve light speed but rather becomes 
so “suppressed” think traveling thru a tiny Casimir cavity that the muons 
actual speed inside the cavity where vacuum wavelengths are dilate by 
suppression appears to achieve negative  light speed relative to observers 
outside the cavity where vacuum wavelengths are not suppressed.. IMHO catlitic 
action is a weak cousin to Casimir action and the longer wavelengths we 
consider suppressed are actually still present from the perspective of a local 
observer in the cavity.. the calculations of decay and distance traveled are 
then complicated by their Pythagorean relationship to the spacetime inside 
these cavities traveling distances we instwead perceive as dilation… but not 
just the dilation from their spatial displacement, rather the cavities push 
this dilation in the opposite direction and to some extent cancel?
Always out on a limb,
Fran

RE: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

[Russ George]

Suspension of disbelief is the norm. Hey the world refused to believe that
Bernie Madoff could possibly have concocted a Ponzi scheme as vast as the
one he ran for years. In almost all cold fusion and lenr work there is a
mysterious absence of the incredibly available work to identify the nuclear
ash. Doing so is "good, fast, and cheap" and in this world that is a miracle
alone as one usually only gets to choose two or those three elements.
Mostly/likely what has happened is that claimed lenr/cold fusion is of such
minimal consequence that such nuclear ash detective work has been done,
failed, and been kept secret. Alas the other side of the story is that so
many male scientists have so much ego engaged in their work that they cannot
ask for help from others, that's why Mars is so cold. ;) 

 

From: Brian Ahern [mailto:ahern_br...@msn.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 5:04 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; John Wallace
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

 

The Holmlid discussion seems like the Emperor's New Clothes. We are
speculating wildly about an effect with little or no proof. This allows for
imagining a wild array of particles for which there is no independent data.
We cannot even agree on hon Muons are detected as a function of energy

 

The same can be said for:

 

Rossi's E-CAT

Mills' Sun Cell

Brilliuon's device

 

All four require a suspension of disbelief and invites umbrage from the
gullable audience.

 

  _  

From: Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com <mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com> >
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2016 8:56 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons 

 

Keep in mind as well that Holmlid adduces not only muons, but kaons and
pions as well.  Once we introduce (negative) kaons, we have the following
decays to deal with:

 



 

The neutral pion assures us that there will either be penetrating gammas or
positrons, which lead to 511 keV annihilation photons, a signature that is
easy to pick up and that will pass through thin shielding.  The energy
balance for kaons does not make sense to me; but, then again, neither does
that for pions or muons.

 

If we go along with Holmlid and allow negative kaons, we must either also
allow positive and neutral kaons, or we must come up with a reason for why
they don't occur.  But it doesn't matter; negative kaons are no doubt not
being detected in the first place.  They are a merely means to an end,
explaining, however tenuously, where the muons come from.

 

Eric

 

Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

[Brian Ahern]

The Holmlid discussion seems like the Emperor's New Clothes. We are speculating 
wildly about an effect with little or no proof. This allows for imagining a 
wild array of particles for which there is no independent data. We cannot even 
agree on hon Muons are detected as a function of energy


The same can be said for:


Rossi's E-CAT

Mills' Sun Cell

Brilliuon's device


All four require a suspension of disbelief and invites umbrage from the 
gullable audience.



From: Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2016 8:56 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

Keep in mind as well that Holmlid adduces not only muons, but kaons and pions 
as well.  Once we introduce (negative) kaons, we have the following decays to 
deal with:

[Inline image 1]

The neutral pion assures us that there will either be penetrating gammas or 
positrons, which lead to 511 keV annihilation photons, a signature that is easy 
to pick up and that will pass through thin shielding.  The energy balance for 
kaons does not make sense to me; but, then again, neither does that for pions 
or muons.

If we go along with Holmlid and allow negative kaons, we must either also allow 
positive and neutral kaons, or we must come up with a reason for why they don't 
occur.  But it doesn't matter; negative kaons are no doubt not being detected 
in the first place.  They are a merely means to an end, explaining, however 
tenuously, where the muons come from.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

[Eric Walker]

Keep in mind as well that Holmlid adduces not only muons, but kaons and
pions as well.  Once we introduce (negative) kaons, we have the following
decays to deal with:

[image: Inline image 1]


The neutral pion assures us that there will either be penetrating gammas or
positrons, which lead to 511 keV annihilation photons, a signature that is
easy to pick up and that will pass through thin shielding.  The energy
balance for kaons does not make sense to me; but, then again, neither does
that for pions or muons.

If we go along with Holmlid and allow negative kaons, we must either also
allow positive and neutral kaons, or we must come up with a reason for why
they don't occur.  But it doesn't matter; negative kaons are no doubt not
being detected in the first place.  They are a merely means to an end,
explaining, however tenuously, where the muons come from.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

[Bob Higgins]

I believe that when the muon decays, if it is a negative muon, it decays
into an electron and a pair of neutrinos.  If it is a positive muon, it
decays into a positron and 2 neutrinos.  Before it decays, if it enters the
electronic structure of an atom (likely in condensed matter), then it
quickly descends into the innermost orbital, giving off soft x-rays in the
process.  The resulting muonic atom has a greater chance of internal
conversion (I think).  If the muon enters a molecule, like a D2 or a D-T in
particular, muon catalyzed fusion is highly likely with different products.

I am still in study mode for the muon interaction with matter.

On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 3:40 PM, Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> What is the mode of "decay" of free muons and, separately, in condensed
> matter?
>
> They seem not to produce any high energy EM nor radioactive products.   If
> they did, I would assume this would have been reported unless it was
> intended to remain a secret.
>
> I consider based on reported muon models of Hatt and Stubbs and deep
> elastic electron scattering experiments with muons and protons, electons
> and positrons should be observed during muon decay, if high energy gammas
> do not show up.
>
> Regarding these ideas, I question the designation of a muon as a lepton
> (primary) particle.  The scattering experiments suggest a different type of
> particle--more akin to a proton or a neutron.
>
> Bob Cook
> --
> *From:* Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, November 14, 2016 9:57 AM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* RE: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons
>
>
> The idea that the muons are interacting in solid matter with the electrons
> not the nuclei of atoms is very compelling to me. Indeed this may well
> explain two mysteries of my cold fusion muon/mischegunons, that is that
> very few are escaping the experiment cells. That what I have detected is
> the dwindling remains of the reaction is very compelling and as well
> explains why so few cold fusion experiments have detected any such
> emanations. The time dilation effect that effectively increases the
> cross-section of materials just works very well indeed.
>
>
>
> This speaks to the growing revelations on silver being a valuable
> constituent in a range of experiments. Silver of course has a very complete
> electron cloud, as such it might well be the best material for engaging
> with the muon/mischugenon nuclear ash. This would help me a lot in
> understanding why it just happens that I have found silver so useful (as
> has Mills) it is not the neutron cross section of silver it is the muon
> cross-section!
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, November 14, 2016 8:38 AM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons
>
>
>
> In this discussion, Jones presumes muons to be traveling at light speed:
>
> The muon is an unstable fermion with a lifetime of 2.2 microseconds,
> which is an eternity compared to most beta decays. Ignoring time
> dilation, this would mean that muons, travelling at light speed, would be 
> dispersing
> and decaying in an imaginary sphere about 600 meters from the reactor.
>
>
>
> There are a number of things wrong with this.  First, most commonly
> encountered muons are cosmogenic and have 100MeV-GeV energies.  At these
> energies, the muon is traveling at a significant fraction of the speed of
> light (but not at the speed of light) and as such experiences time dilation
> in its decay.  Because of time dilation, the stationary observer sees the
> cosmogenic muon decay to be much longer than 2.2 microseconds.  This is why
> cosmogenic muons can travel 50-100 miles to the Earth's surface without
> having decayed.
>
> What Holmlid has reported is "10MeV/u" as a measurement for his muons -
> this is a measure of velocity squared.  One u (atomic mass unit) is 931
> MeV/c^2.  In Holmlid's units of measure (MeV/u), call the amount measured
> X, then the velocity of the particle is sqrt(X/931)*c.  For Holmlid's
> report of a measure of 10 MeV/u, one gets sqrt(10/931)*c = 0.104c.  This is
> only an approximation for small velocity compared to c; as the velocity
> increases special relativity must be invoked in the solution.  Special
> relativity would reduce the velocity from this equation as it started
> approaching c, so the actual velocity will be somewhat less than 0.1c for
> Holmlid's particles, and a slight time dilation would be experienced.
>
> So, if Holmlid's particles were muons, and if Mills was creating the same
> at a v^2 of 10MeV/u, then the range in a vacuum would be on the order of 60
>

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

[Bob Higgins]

Hi Fran,

I am unable to imagine how something special would happen in that case.  A
muon in slow motion may have a greater chance of interaction if its energy
is near the ionization energy of the atoms upon which it is incident - but
this is only a small energy - less than 10eV.  At higher energy, it is
probably more likely that the muon is going to ionize the atom and then
scatter at lower energy.  The distances are so small in condensed matter
that the scattering will happen rapidly and will reduce the muon to the
sweet spot wherein it can interact with the chemical (electronic) structure
of the next atom it meets.

How would a brief passage though a Casimir geometry alter these behaviors?

On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Roarty, Francis X <
francis.x.roa...@lmco.com> wrote:

> Bob, what if the “muon” doesn’t have to achieve light speed but rather
> becomes so “suppressed” think traveling thru a tiny Casimir cavity that the
> muons actual speed inside the cavity where vacuum wavelengths are dilate by
> suppression appears to achieve negative  light speed relative to observers
> outside the cavity where vacuum wavelengths are not suppressed.. IMHO
> catlitic action is a weak cousin to Casimir action and the longer
> wavelengths we consider suppressed are actually still present from the
> perspective of a local observer in the cavity.. the calculations of decay
> and distance traveled are then complicated by their Pythagorean
> relationship to the spacetime inside these cavities traveling distances we
> instwead perceive as dilation… but not just the dilation from their spatial
> displacement, rather the cavities push this dilation in the opposite
> direction and to some extent cancel?
>
> Always out on a limb,
>
> Fran
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

[Bob Cook]

What is the mode of "decay" of free muons and, separately, in condensed matter?

They seem not to produce any high energy EM nor radioactive products.   If they 
did, I would assume this would have been reported unless it was intended to 
remain a secret.


I consider based on reported muon models of Hatt and Stubbs and deep elastic 
electron scattering experiments with muons and protons, electons and positrons 
should be observed during muon decay, if high energy gammas do not show up.


Regarding these ideas, I question the designation of a muon as a lepton 
(primary) particle.  The scattering experiments suggest a different type of 
particle--more akin to a proton or a neutron.


Bob Cook




From: Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2016 9:57 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons


The idea that the muons are interacting in solid matter with the electrons not 
the nuclei of atoms is very compelling to me. Indeed this may well explain two 
mysteries of my cold fusion muon/mischegunons, that is that very few are 
escaping the experiment cells. That what I have detected is the dwindling 
remains of the reaction is very compelling and as well explains why so few cold 
fusion experiments have detected any such emanations. The time dilation effect 
that effectively increases the cross-section of materials just works very well 
indeed.



This speaks to the growing revelations on silver being a valuable constituent 
in a range of experiments. Silver of course has a very complete electron cloud, 
as such it might well be the best material for engaging with the 
muon/mischugenon nuclear ash. This would help me a lot in understanding why it 
just happens that I have found silver so useful (as has Mills) it is not the 
neutron cross section of silver it is the muon cross-section!





From: Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2016 8:38 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons



In this discussion, Jones presumes muons to be traveling at light speed:

The muon is an unstable fermion with a lifetime of 2.2 microseconds, which is 
an eternity compared to most beta decays. Ignoring time dilation, this would 
mean that muons, travelling at light speed, would be dispersing and decaying in 
an imaginary sphere about 600 meters from the reactor.



There are a number of things wrong with this.  First, most commonly encountered 
muons are cosmogenic and have 100MeV-GeV energies.  At these energies, the muon 
is traveling at a significant fraction of the speed of light (but not at the 
speed of light) and as such experiences time dilation in its decay.  Because of 
time dilation, the stationary observer sees the cosmogenic muon decay to be 
much longer than 2.2 microseconds.  This is why cosmogenic muons can travel 
50-100 miles to the Earth's surface without having decayed.

What Holmlid has reported is "10MeV/u" as a measurement for his muons - this is 
a measure of velocity squared.  One u (atomic mass unit) is 931 MeV/c^2.  In 
Holmlid's units of measure (MeV/u), call the amount measured X, then the 
velocity of the particle is sqrt(X/931)*c.  For Holmlid's report of a measure 
of 10 MeV/u, one gets sqrt(10/931)*c = 0.104c.  This is only an approximation 
for small velocity compared to c; as the velocity increases special relativity 
must be invoked in the solution.  Special relativity would reduce the velocity 
from this equation as it started approaching c, so the actual velocity will be 
somewhat less than 0.1c for Holmlid's particles, and a slight time dilation 
would be experienced.

So, if Holmlid's particles were muons, and if Mills was creating the same at a 
v^2 of 10MeV/u, then the range in a vacuum would be on the order of 60 meters.  
However, muons being charged, are well stopped in condensed matter because the 
particle doesn't have to run into a nucleus to be scattered, just run into the 
dense electronic orbitals.  The more dense the condensed matter, the greater 
the stopping power for the muon.

If muons were being generated with a v^2 of 10MeV/u, I doubt any would escape 
Mills' reactor vessel.





On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 9:23 AM, Jones Beene 
<jone...@pacbell.net<mailto:jone...@pacbell.net>> wrote:

For those who suspect that the Holmlid effect and the Mills effect are related, 
no matter what the proponents of each may think, here is a further thought from 
the fringe ... about one of the possible implications. Holmlid has suggested 
that a very high flux of muons can be produced by a subwatt laser beam.

Mills uses an electric arc and will probably offer a real demo of the Suncell® 
at some point. No one doubts that it works but an extended demo will be 
needed... therefore, even if everything seen thus far is little more than PR 
fluff, we could have a worrisome situation in response to a much lo

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

[Stefan Israelsson Tampe]

Axil's post is one interpretation of QM, other could be that the QM fields
represents real fields e.g. no particles in space. This means that you can
view QM as billiard with fields in stead of balls and things get to be much
less mystic. Also Mills is starting to get real evidences of over unity
now. With that comes his theory that after all have guided him to success,
which means that when the suncell, if it works, start to get noticed, then
Mills theory might as well become the standard way of interpretting
physics. His theory have non of the mysteries in QM and can be viewed as
billiard with fields in stead of balls using classical thinking. I myself
are pretty certain that the theory are the best way to view the world but
it is difficult to come to this conclusion. His book is hard to see through.

On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 10:40 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote:

> We are talking Quantum Mechanics here, not billards. In QM,
> superposition means that the muon can be in many places at once while
> it is in the entangled state. Distance does not matter. Where the muon
>  ends up is based on decoherence of what has entangled the muon with
> the LENR reaction. It is all random and not predictable.
>
> A fundamental difference between classical physics and quantum theory
> is the fact that, in the quantum world, certain predictions can only
> be made in terms of probabilities
>
> A travelling particle
>
> As an example, take the question whether or not a particle that starts
> at the time tA at the location A will reach location B at the later
> time tB.
>
> Classical physics can give a definite answer. Depending on the
> particle's initial velocity and the forces acting on it, the answer is
> either yes or no. In quantum theory, it is merely possible to give the
> probability that the particle in question can be detected at location
> B at time tB.
>
> The path integral formalism, which was invented by the US physicist
> Richard Feynman, is a tool for calculating such quantum mechanical
> probabilities. Feynman's recipe, applied to a particle travelling from
> A to B, is the following.
>
> Step 1: Consider all possibilities for the particle travelling from A
> to B. Not only the boring straight-line approach, but also the
> possibility of the particle turning loopings and making diverse
> detours.
>
> There exists  an infinity of possibilities.  The particle can visit
> New York, Ulan Bator, or even the moon or the Andromeda Galaxy before
> arriving at its destination. Last but not least, it does not contain
> information about velocities. The first part of the particle's
> trajectory may be travelled at break-neck speed and the final
> millimetres at a snail's pace - or the other way around, or completely
> different; another infinity of possibilities. In short, for the first
> step, take into account all ways of travelling from A to B, however
> outlandish they may seem.
>
> The second step is to associate a number with each of these
> possibilities (not quite the kind of number we're used to from school,
> but we will not bother with the difference here). Finally, the numbers
> associated with all possibilities are added up - some parts of the sum
> canceling each other, others adding up. The resulting sum tells us the
> probability of detecting the particle that started out at A at the
> location B at the specified time. Physicists call such a sum over all
> possibilities a path integral or sum over histories.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 4:12 PM, Roarty, Francis X
> <francis.x.roa...@lmco.com> wrote:
> > Bob, what if the “muon” doesn’t have to achieve light speed but rather
> > becomes so “suppressed” think traveling thru a tiny Casimir cavity that
> the
> > muons actual speed inside the cavity where vacuum wavelengths are dilate
> by
> > suppression appears to achieve negative  light speed relative to
> observers
> > outside the cavity where vacuum wavelengths are not suppressed.. IMHO
> > catlitic action is a weak cousin to Casimir action and the longer
> > wavelengths we consider suppressed are actually still present from the
> > perspective of a local observer in the cavity.. the calculations of decay
> > and distance traveled are then complicated by their Pythagorean
> relationship
> > to the spacetime inside these cavities traveling distances we instwead
> > perceive as dilation… but not just the dilation from their spatial
> > displacement, rather the cavities push this dilation in the opposite
> > direction and to some extent cancel?
> >
> > Always out on a limb,
> >
> > Fran
> >
> > From: Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com]
> > Sent: 

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

[Axil Axil]

We are talking Quantum Mechanics here, not billards. In QM,
superposition means that the muon can be in many places at once while
it is in the entangled state. Distance does not matter. Where the muon
 ends up is based on decoherence of what has entangled the muon with
the LENR reaction. It is all random and not predictable.

A fundamental difference between classical physics and quantum theory
is the fact that, in the quantum world, certain predictions can only
be made in terms of probabilities

A travelling particle

As an example, take the question whether or not a particle that starts
at the time tA at the location A will reach location B at the later
time tB.

Classical physics can give a definite answer. Depending on the
particle's initial velocity and the forces acting on it, the answer is
either yes or no. In quantum theory, it is merely possible to give the
probability that the particle in question can be detected at location
B at time tB.

The path integral formalism, which was invented by the US physicist
Richard Feynman, is a tool for calculating such quantum mechanical
probabilities. Feynman's recipe, applied to a particle travelling from
A to B, is the following.

Step 1: Consider all possibilities for the particle travelling from A
to B. Not only the boring straight-line approach, but also the
possibility of the particle turning loopings and making diverse
detours.

There exists  an infinity of possibilities.  The particle can visit
New York, Ulan Bator, or even the moon or the Andromeda Galaxy before
arriving at its destination. Last but not least, it does not contain
information about velocities. The first part of the particle's
trajectory may be travelled at break-neck speed and the final
millimetres at a snail's pace - or the other way around, or completely
different; another infinity of possibilities. In short, for the first
step, take into account all ways of travelling from A to B, however
outlandish they may seem.

The second step is to associate a number with each of these
possibilities (not quite the kind of number we're used to from school,
but we will not bother with the difference here). Finally, the numbers
associated with all possibilities are added up - some parts of the sum
canceling each other, others adding up. The resulting sum tells us the
probability of detecting the particle that started out at A at the
location B at the specified time. Physicists call such a sum over all
possibilities a path integral or sum over histories.









On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 4:12 PM, Roarty, Francis X
<francis.x.roa...@lmco.com> wrote:
> Bob, what if the “muon” doesn’t have to achieve light speed but rather
> becomes so “suppressed” think traveling thru a tiny Casimir cavity that the
> muons actual speed inside the cavity where vacuum wavelengths are dilate by
> suppression appears to achieve negative  light speed relative to observers
> outside the cavity where vacuum wavelengths are not suppressed.. IMHO
> catlitic action is a weak cousin to Casimir action and the longer
> wavelengths we consider suppressed are actually still present from the
> perspective of a local observer in the cavity.. the calculations of decay
> and distance traveled are then complicated by their Pythagorean relationship
> to the spacetime inside these cavities traveling distances we instwead
> perceive as dilation… but not just the dilation from their spatial
> displacement, rather the cavities push this dilation in the opposite
> direction and to some extent cancel?
>
> Always out on a limb,
>
> Fran
>
> From: Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 14, 2016 11:38 AM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons
>
>
>
> In this discussion, Jones presumes muons to be traveling at light speed:
>
> The muon is an unstable fermion with a lifetime of 2.2 microseconds, which
> is an eternity compared to most beta decays. Ignoring time dilation, this
> would mean that muons, travelling at light speed, would be dispersing and
> decaying in an imaginary sphere about 600 meters from the reactor.
>
>
>
> There are a number of things wrong with this.  First, most commonly
> encountered muons are cosmogenic and have 100MeV-GeV energies.  At these
> energies, the muon is traveling at a significant fraction of the speed of
> light (but not at the speed of light) and as such experiences time dilation
> in its decay.  Because of time dilation, the stationary observer sees the
> cosmogenic muon decay to be much longer than 2.2 microseconds.  This is why
> cosmogenic muons can travel 50-100 miles to the Earth's surface without
> having decayed.
>
> What Holmlid has reported is "10MeV/u" as a measurement for his muons - this
> is a measure of velocity squared.  One u (atomic mass unit) is 931 MeV/c^2.
> In Ho

RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

[Roarty, Francis X]

Bob, what if the “muon” doesn’t have to achieve light speed but rather becomes 
so “suppressed” think traveling thru a tiny Casimir cavity that the muons 
actual speed inside the cavity where vacuum wavelengths are dilate by 
suppression appears to achieve negative  light speed relative to observers 
outside the cavity where vacuum wavelengths are not suppressed.. IMHO catlitic 
action is a weak cousin to Casimir action and the longer wavelengths we 
consider suppressed are actually still present from the perspective of a local 
observer in the cavity.. the calculations of decay and distance traveled are 
then complicated by their Pythagorean relationship to the spacetime inside 
these cavities traveling distances we instwead perceive as dilation… but not 
just the dilation from their spatial displacement, rather the cavities push 
this dilation in the opposite direction and to some extent cancel?
Always out on a limb,
Fran
From: Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2016 11:38 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

In this discussion, Jones presumes muons to be traveling at light speed:
The muon is an unstable fermion with a lifetime of 2.2 microseconds, which is 
an eternity compared to most beta decays. Ignoring time dilation, this would 
mean that muons, travelling at light speed, would be dispersing and decaying in 
an imaginary sphere about 600 meters from the reactor.

There are a number of things wrong with this.  First, most commonly encountered 
muons are cosmogenic and have 100MeV-GeV energies.  At these energies, the muon 
is traveling at a significant fraction of the speed of light (but not at the 
speed of light) and as such experiences time dilation in its decay.  Because of 
time dilation, the stationary observer sees the cosmogenic muon decay to be 
much longer than 2.2 microseconds.  This is why cosmogenic muons can travel 
50-100 miles to the Earth's surface without having decayed.
What Holmlid has reported is "10MeV/u" as a measurement for his muons - this is 
a measure of velocity squared.  One u (atomic mass unit) is 931 MeV/c^2.  In 
Holmlid's units of measure (MeV/u), call the amount measured X, then the 
velocity of the particle is sqrt(X/931)*c.  For Holmlid's report of a measure 
of 10 MeV/u, one gets sqrt(10/931)*c = 0.104c.  This is only an approximation 
for small velocity compared to c; as the velocity increases special relativity 
must be invoked in the solution.  Special relativity would reduce the velocity 
from this equation as it started approaching c, so the actual velocity will be 
somewhat less than 0.1c for Holmlid's particles, and a slight time dilation 
would be experienced.
So, if Holmlid's particles were muons, and if Mills was creating the same at a 
v^2 of 10MeV/u, then the range in a vacuum would be on the order of 60 meters.  
However, muons being charged, are well stopped in condensed matter because the 
particle doesn't have to run into a nucleus to be scattered, just run into the 
dense electronic orbitals.  The more dense the condensed matter, the greater 
the stopping power for the muon.
If muons were being generated with a v^2 of 10MeV/u, I doubt any would escape 
Mills' reactor vessel.


On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 9:23 AM, Jones Beene 
<jone...@pacbell.net<mailto:jone...@pacbell.net>> wrote:

For those who suspect that the Holmlid effect and the Mills effect are related, 
no matter what the proponents of each may think, here is a further thought from 
the fringe … about one of the possible implications. Holmlid has suggested that 
a very high flux of muons can be produced by a subwatt laser beam.

Mills uses an electric arc and will probably offer a real demo of the Suncell® 
at some point. No one doubts that it works but an extended demo will be needed… 
therefore, even if everything seen thus far is little more than PR fluff, we 
could have a worrisome situation in response to a much longer demo.

Since Mills is applying higher net power to reactants (even if Holmlid’s laser 
provides more localized power) there is a chance that some portion of the 
energy produced escapes the sun-cell as muons. If Holmlid gets millions of 
muons per watt of coherent light, what will be the corresponding rate be from 
an electric arc? If anything like this scenario turns out to be the accurate, 
then any muons produced will decay at a predictable distance away from the 
reactor, thus they could have been missed by BrLP in testing thus far.

The muon is an unstable fermion with a lifetime of 2.2 microseconds, which is 
an eternity compared to most beta decays. Ignoring time dilation, this would 
mean that muons, travelling at light speed, would be dispersing and decaying in 
an imaginary sphere about 600 meters from the reactor. Thus, the effect of 
radioactive decay could be significant at unexpected distance– and Mills may 
never had imagined that this is a pr

RE: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

[Russ George]

The idea that the muons are interacting in solid matter with the electrons not 
the nuclei of atoms is very compelling to me. Indeed this may well explain two 
mysteries of my cold fusion muon/mischegunons, that is that very few are 
escaping the experiment cells. That what I have detected is the dwindling 
remains of the reaction is very compelling and as well explains why so few cold 
fusion experiments have detected any such emanations. The time dilation effect 
that effectively increases the cross-section of materials just works very well 
indeed. 

 

This speaks to the growing revelations on silver being a valuable constituent 
in a range of experiments. Silver of course has a very complete electron cloud, 
as such it might well be the best material for engaging with the 
muon/mischugenon nuclear ash. This would help me a lot in understanding why it 
just happens that I have found silver so useful (as has Mills) it is not the 
neutron cross section of silver it is the muon cross-section!

 

 

From: Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2016 8:38 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

 

In this discussion, Jones presumes muons to be traveling at light speed:

The muon is an unstable fermion with a lifetime of 2.2 microseconds, which is 
an eternity compared to most beta decays. Ignoring time dilation, this would 
mean that muons, travelling at light speed, would be dispersing and decaying in 
an imaginary sphere about 600 meters from the reactor.

 

There are a number of things wrong with this.  First, most commonly encountered 
muons are cosmogenic and have 100MeV-GeV energies.  At these energies, the muon 
is traveling at a significant fraction of the speed of light (but not at the 
speed of light) and as such experiences time dilation in its decay.  Because of 
time dilation, the stationary observer sees the cosmogenic muon decay to be 
much longer than 2.2 microseconds.  This is why cosmogenic muons can travel 
50-100 miles to the Earth's surface without having decayed.

What Holmlid has reported is "10MeV/u" as a measurement for his muons - this is 
a measure of velocity squared.  One u (atomic mass unit) is 931 MeV/c^2.  In 
Holmlid's units of measure (MeV/u), call the amount measured X, then the 
velocity of the particle is sqrt(X/931)*c.  For Holmlid's report of a measure 
of 10 MeV/u, one gets sqrt(10/931)*c = 0.104c.  This is only an approximation 
for small velocity compared to c; as the velocity increases special relativity 
must be invoked in the solution.  Special relativity would reduce the velocity 
from this equation as it started approaching c, so the actual velocity will be 
somewhat less than 0.1c for Holmlid's particles, and a slight time dilation 
would be experienced.

So, if Holmlid's particles were muons, and if Mills was creating the same at a 
v^2 of 10MeV/u, then the range in a vacuum would be on the order of 60 meters.  
However, muons being charged, are well stopped in condensed matter because the 
particle doesn't have to run into a nucleus to be scattered, just run into the 
dense electronic orbitals.  The more dense the condensed matter, the greater 
the stopping power for the muon.

If muons were being generated with a v^2 of 10MeV/u, I doubt any would escape 
Mills' reactor vessel.

 

 

On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 9:23 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net 
<mailto:jone...@pacbell.net> > wrote:

For those who suspect that the Holmlid effect and the Mills effect are related, 
no matter what the proponents of each may think, here is a further thought from 
the fringe … about one of the possible implications. Holmlid has suggested that 
a very high flux of muons can be produced by a subwatt laser beam.

Mills uses an electric arc and will probably offer a real demo of the Suncell® 
at some point. No one doubts that it works but an extended demo will be needed… 
therefore, even if everything seen thus far is little more than PR fluff, we 
could have a worrisome situation in response to a much longer demo. 

Since Mills is applying higher net power to reactants (even if Holmlid’s laser 
provides more localized power) there is a chance that some portion of the 
energy produced escapes the sun-cell as muons. If Holmlid gets millions of 
muons per watt of coherent light, what will be the corresponding rate be from 
an electric arc? If anything like this scenario turns out to be the accurate, 
then any muons produced will decay at a predictable distance away from the 
reactor, thus they could have been missed by BrLP in testing thus far. 

The muon is an unstable fermion with a lifetime of 2.2 microseconds, which is 
an eternity compared to most beta decays. Ignoring time dilation, this would 
mean that muons, travelling at light speed, would be dispersing and decaying in 
an imaginary sphere about 600 meters from the reactor. Thus, the effect of 
radioactive decay could be signific

RE: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

[Jones Beene]

Bob,

 

You are conflating two or more different Holmlid papers…

 

He is unambiguous. The 10MeV particles are clearly stated to be “mainly protons 
from the fusion process and deuterons ejected by proton collisions” (see the 
abstract from the paper).

 

The muon observations are from other papers, not this one…

 

Jones

 

The 10 MeV paper is here:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1302.2781

From: Bob Higgins 

 

What Holmlid has reported is "10MeV/u" as a measurement for his muons - this is 
a measure of velocity squared.  One u (atomic mass unit) is 931 MeV/c^2.  In 
Holmlid's units of measure (MeV/u), call the amount measured X, then the 
velocity of the particle is sqrt(X/931)*c.  For Holmlid's report of a measure 
of 10 MeV/u, one gets sqrt(10/931)*c = 0.104c.  This is only an approximation 
for small velocity compared to c; as the velocity increases special relativity 
must be invoked in the solution.  Special relativity would reduce the velocity 
from this equation as it started approaching c, so the actual velocity will be 
somewhat less than 0.1c for Holmlid's particles, and a slight time dilation 
would be experienced.

So, if Holmlid's particles were muons, and if Mills was creating the same at a 
v^2 of 10MeV/u, then the range in a vacuum would be on the order of 60 meters.  
However, muons being charged, are well stopped in condensed matter because the 
particle doesn't have to run into a nucleus to be scattered, just run into the 
dense electronic orbitals.  The more dense the condensed matter, the greater 
the stopping power for the muon.

If muons were being generated with a v^2 of 10MeV/u, I doubt any would escape 
Mills' reactor vessel.

 

 

On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 9:23 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

For those who suspect that the Holmlid effect and the Mills effect are related, 
no matter what the proponents of each may think, here is a further thought from 
the fringe … about one of the possible implications. Holmlid has suggested that 
a very high flux of muons can be produced by a subwatt laser beam.

Mills uses an electric arc and will probably offer a real demo of the Suncell® 
at some point. No one doubts that it works but an extended demo will be needed… 
therefore, even if everything seen thus far is little more than PR fluff, we 
could have a worrisome situation in response to a much longer demo. 

Since Mills is applying higher net power to reactants (even if Holmlid’s laser 
provides more localized power) there is a chance that some portion of the 
energy produced escapes the sun-cell as muons. If Holmlid gets millions of 
muons per watt of coherent light, what will be the corresponding rate be from 
an electric arc? If anything like this scenario turns out to be the accurate, 
then any muons produced will decay at a predictable distance away from the 
reactor, thus they could have been missed by BrLP in testing thus far. 

The muon is an unstable fermion with a lifetime of 2.2 microseconds, which is 
an eternity compared to most beta decays. Ignoring time dilation, this would 
mean that muons, travelling at light speed, would be dispersing and decaying in 
an imaginary sphere about 600 meters from the reactor. Thus, the effect of 
radioactive decay could be significant at unexpected distance– and Mills may 
never had imagined that this is a problem. Fortunately, humans are exposed to a 
constant flux of muons due to cosmic rays, and the flux is well-tolerated.

Nevertheless, this detail is worth noting – and should Mills or his associates 
start to feel a bit ill from the exposure – possibly an unseasonal sun tan, 
then we can identify a culprit. 

The effects could be felt more in a remote office - than in the lab … which is 
curious.

 

RE: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

[Jones Beene]

 

 

From: Bob Higgins 

 

In this discussion, Jones presumes muons to be traveling at light speed…

That is an oversight. It should read “a large fraction of light speed”…

 

.

 

Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

[Bob Higgins]

In this discussion, Jones presumes muons to be traveling at light speed:

The muon is an unstable fermion with a lifetime of 2.2 microseconds, which
is an eternity compared to most beta decays. Ignoring time dilation, this
would mean that muons, travelling at light speed, would be dispersing and
decaying in an imaginary sphere about 600 meters from the reactor.

There are a number of things wrong with this.  First, most commonly
encountered muons are cosmogenic and have 100MeV-GeV energies.  At these
energies, the muon is traveling at a significant fraction of the speed of
light (but not at the speed of light) and as such experiences time dilation
in its decay.  Because of time dilation, the stationary observer sees the
cosmogenic muon decay to be much longer than 2.2 microseconds.  This is why
cosmogenic muons can travel 50-100 miles to the Earth's surface without
having decayed.

What Holmlid has reported is "10MeV/u" as a measurement for his muons -
this is a measure of velocity squared.  One u (atomic mass unit) is 931
MeV/c^2.  In Holmlid's units of measure (MeV/u), call the amount measured
X, then the velocity of the particle is sqrt(X/931)*c.  For Holmlid's
report of a measure of 10 MeV/u, one gets sqrt(10/931)*c = 0.104c.  This is
only an approximation for small velocity compared to c; as the velocity
increases special relativity must be invoked in the solution.  Special
relativity would reduce the velocity from this equation as it started
approaching c, so the actual velocity will be somewhat less than 0.1c for
Holmlid's particles, and a slight time dilation would be experienced.

So, if Holmlid's particles were muons, and if Mills was creating the same
at a v^2 of 10MeV/u, then the range in a vacuum would be on the order of 60
meters.  However, muons being charged, are well stopped in condensed matter
because the particle doesn't have to run into a nucleus to be scattered,
just run into the dense electronic orbitals.  The more dense the condensed
matter, the greater the stopping power for the muon.

If muons were being generated with a v^2 of 10MeV/u, I doubt any would
escape Mills' reactor vessel.


On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 9:23 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> For those who suspect that the Holmlid effect and the Mills effect are
> related, no matter what the proponents of each may think, here is a further
> thought from the fringe … about one of the possible implications. Holmlid
> has suggested that a very high flux of muons can be produced by a subwatt
> laser beam.
>
> Mills uses an electric arc and will probably offer a real demo of the S
> uncell® at some point. No one doubts that it works but an extended demo
> will be needed… therefore, even if everything seen thus far is little
> more than PR fluff, we could have a worrisome situation in response to a
> much longer demo.
>
> Since Mills is applying higher net power to reactants (even if Holmlid’s
> laser provides more localized power) there is a chance that some portion of
> the energy produced escapes the sun-cell as muons. If Holmlid gets
> millions of muons per watt of coherent light, what will be the
> corresponding rate be from an electric arc? If anything like this scenario 
> turns
> out to be the accurate, then any muons produced will decay at a
> predictable distance away from the reactor, thus they could have been
> missed by BrLP in testing thus far.
>
> The muon is an unstable fermion with a lifetime of 2.2 microseconds,
> which is an eternity compared to most beta decays. Ignoring time
> dilation, this would mean that muons, travelling at light speed, would be
> dispersing and decaying in an imaginary sphere about 600 meters from the
> reactor. Thus, the effect of radioactive decay could be significant at
> unexpected distance– and Mills may never had imagined that this is a
> problem. Fortunately, humans are exposed to a constant flux of muons due
> to cosmic rays, and the flux is well-tolerated.
>
> Nevertheless, this detail is worth noting – and should Mills or his
> associates start to feel a bit ill from the exposure – possibly an
> unseasonal sun tan, then we can identify a culprit.
>
> The effects could be felt more in a remote office - than in the lab …
> which is curious.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

[Ian Walker]

lmlid 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
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

[Ian Walker]

Hi all

By the way the density of the incidents has to be distributed across a
sphere that is approximately 144,000,000 π (pi) meters squared.

Then you have to plug in the distribution curve to get cubed meters for
area.

The numbers are very big

Hence why I think the density will be very small.

It is also why I think putting dense shielding round such a source may
increase the reaction density in a smaller sphere making the effect more
measurable but why I think putting shielding round such a source may be
more dangerous than letting the such a source propagate out to a safe
dispersal range. If LENR works in the way suggested it may be that rules
about no lead tungsten within x meters might apply. Unless we go for Axil's
10ft dense walls option.

Have to so the math.

Kind Regards walker

On 14 November 2016 at 12:49, Ian Walker <walker...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 survive

Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

[Ian Walker]

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 deta

Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

[Axil Axil]

 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
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

[Bob Cook]

Muons, if they osuffer the same ccur in LENR reactions will be a real problem 
for LENR+.  The technology will suffer the same issues as fission reactor 
technology minus one big disadvantage--raidioactive waste.  However, that 
relative advantage IMHO would be significant with respect to current nuclear 
power.  It would put lots of nails in the coffin of current nuclear technology.


Bob Cook



From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2016 11:06 AM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

Unsolicited observations of identical experimental consequences lends
credence to the production of a common causative reaction. For
example, Defkalion saw not advantage in reporting a major problem that
they suffered in the testing and demonstration of their system that
later ture up in other systems. ME356 explained why his testing
instruments and sensors were malfunctioning 3 meters away from his
reaction. This is very similar to what Defkalion had reported.

Now Holmlid tells why such observations are a result of muon
production. Now, the picture becomes a little clearer, a common thread
can be drawn to the point that if ionization production is not
observed in a LENR experimental situation, then the power production
of the reaction and even its existence is rightly questioned.

On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 1:48 PM, Brian Ahern <ahern_br...@msn.com> wrote:
> Toomuch credit is being given to Me356 andDefkalion. For that matter, Mills
> also has a troublesome history. His latest announcement seems curiously like
> a 'Me too' response to .
>
> the E
>
> The discussion seems to accept the fraudulent claims and empowers them. If
> this was a legalaction we would refer to the 'alledged energy production'.
>
> 
> From: Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net>
> Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2016 1:15 PM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: RE: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Axil Axil  If LENR is heavily deployed in a high density urban
> housing situation, then a dense field of general muon interference will
> produce a impossible to shield zone of electronic and electrical failure.
> 
>
> There is a well-known way to mollify this problem affordably, and provide
> extra energy at the same time. Lead itself is way too expensive.
>
> The idea is to capture muons in a thick jacket around the reactor. Very
> thick. The only way to do this cheaply is specialty concrete.
>
> 10 feet thickness of specialty concrete which is made with the addition of
> iron ore and lead ore to Portland cement will convert 90% of muons into low
> grade heat. Copper tubing can remove the heat. Not fancy, but ideal for
> places like northern China and Russia which can use lots of low grade heat.
> A dollar of lead ore is superior to $100 of lead metal.
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

[Bob Cook]

Muon decay in bodily tissue should create a source of 0.51 Mev EMR equal to 
about 103 electron-positron annihilations.  This is brobably sufficient to 
cause genetic damage, initiation of bad cancer cells, particularly in older 
folks whose immune system is not as good as it might have been in younger 
years.  As far as I know the ICRP ignores muon exposure.   (It's statistically 
a never-mind exposure.)


Bob Cook



From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2016 9:45 AM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

More...

One thing that Holmlid, ME356, Eros, and Defkalion all have detected
is a high state of ionization as muons interacted with matter and
ionized it. There must be a huge flux of muons produced to disable
electronic equipment at meters away from the LENR reaction.

If LENR is heavily deployed in a high density urban housing situation,
then a dense field of general muon interference will produce a
impossible to shield zone of electronic and electrical failure.

On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 12:34 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The rule of thumb for light speed propagation is one foot per
> nanosecond. For the muon, a decay time on the average of 2.2
> microseconds implies that the field of muon decay is on the order of
> 2200 feet. muon decay can happen inside this 2200 foot sphere or far
> outside it based on the vagaries of radioactive decay.  The muon will
> not induce fusion until its energy is reduced enough to be captured by
> an atom. otherwise it will pass through less dense material without
> interaction.
>
> Because of entanglement, the fusion energy will be sent back to the
> source of the muon as a mechanism of the way LENR works so the fusion
> reaction will be hard to detect in the far field. In detail, no
> neutrons or gamma will be produced or detected.
>
> But as eros has found, if a heavy shield of lead and iron is placed in
> the flight path of the muon, the muon slows down and begins to react
> with atoms. Eros, a LENR experimenter with a functioning reactor began
> to detect nuclear reactions just outside the heavy lead and iron
> shield using a copper covered radiation counter. The dense matter is
> ionized enough to slow the muon flight quickly and produce rapid
> secondary nuclear reaction in the near field.
>
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> For those who suspect that the Holmlid effect and the Mills effect are
>> related, no matter what the proponents of each may think, here is a further
>> thought from the fringe … about one of the possible implications. Holmlid
>> has suggested that a very high flux of muons can be produced by a subwatt
>> laser beam.
>>
>> Mills uses an electric arc and will probably offer a real demo of the
>> Suncell® at some point. No one doubts that it works but an extended demo
>> will be needed… therefore, even if everything seen thus far is little more
>> than PR fluff, we could have a worrisome situation in response to a much
>> longer demo.
>>
>> Since Mills is applying higher net power to reactants (even if Holmlid’s
>> laser provides more localized power) there is a chance that some portion of
>> the energy produced escapes the sun-cell as muons. If Holmlid gets millions
>> of muons per watt of coherent light, what will be the corresponding rate be
>> from an electric arc? If anything like this scenario turns out to be the
>> accurate, then any muons produced will decay at a predictable distance away
>> from the reactor, thus they could have been missed by BrLP in testing thus
>> far.
>>
>> The muon is an unstable fermion with a lifetime of 2.2 microseconds, which
>> is an eternity compared to most beta decays. Ignoring time dilation, this
>> would mean that muons, travelling at light speed, would be dispersing and
>> decaying in an imaginary sphere about 600 meters from the reactor. Thus, the
>> effect of radioactive decay could be significant at unexpected distance– and
>> Mills may never had imagined that this is a problem. Fortunately, humans are
>> exposed to a constant flux of muons due to cosmic rays, and the flux is
>> well-tolerated.
>>
>> Nevertheless, this detail is worth noting – and should Mills or his
>> associates start to feel a bit ill from the exposure – possibly an
>> unseasonal sun tan, then we can identify a culprit.
>>
>> The effects could be felt more in a remote office - than in the lab … which
>> is curious.

Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

[Jed Rothwell]

Russ George  wrote:

In many many experiments over the years the mischugnons have made their
> presence irrefutably known.
>

That's sorta lyrical, but I do not know what it means. This is not how
people normally describe experimental results. More technical detail and
some specifics would be appreciated.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

[Russ George]

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 
<mailto: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

 

Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

[Eric Walker]

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  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

RE: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

[Russ George]

It's a very long walk, I began in earnest on my lab bench the week after the
March 1989 cold fusion press conference, haven't stopped since. Some pauses
to carry on with other important bits of life but still working. Having
counted as working colleagues, defined by I or they standing side by side at
each other's experimental benches I think I can count a dozen or more of the
most successful cold fusion experimentalists amongst my cabal. Alas many are
now passed, RIP. 

 

The one constant over the decades has been the demand for clearly more than
human patience, aka lifetimes. Oh yeah also the endless cat calls from the
peanut gallery unable and unwilling to step onto the playing field, that's
also been a constant and most often unfathomable companion, aka stinkers. So
if you have most of a lifetime to dedicate to your listening there is a wide
variety of data just waiting to speak to you. The real data speaks with
unified and uniform voices and it says not 'eureka' but 'hey that's odd.'
Here's a hint 'odd emanations' are the one constant in working cold fusion
in perhaps all of its many forms. The emanations are odd enough that if you
are not especially diligent in looking outside the ordinary box you will
miss it, or only see the most fleeting hints. 

 

What the cold fusion data is saying is that our world is so much more of a
complex "atom ecology" than what the hide bound schools of physics would
teach to those obedient enough to make the grades. Of course the charlatans,
aka high priests, prelates, & faithful, of physics are sure to proclaim all
interlopers are committing sins. And surely in the cold fusion wilderness
one finds in great abundance all manner of peculiar and disreputable flim
flam spun by those who engage in arbitrage of science spinning bundles of
bullshit like a Lehman Brothers mortgage bundle where a paltry few real
values carry endless amounts of worthless bullshit. What experience conveys
to a few is the ability to see who is bundling the banal. Alas social media
has made every armchair a pulpit so it is truly a challenge, fields pissed
upon so profoundly as cold fusion are awash with distractions. 

 

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.  

 

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."


 

 

 

From: Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2016 2:48 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

 

On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 4:40 PM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com
<mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote:

 

My comment already gave my view on what Holmlid is seeing, are they muon or
mischugenon, that is the question.

 

Your previous comments were that they are either muons or mischugenon.  You
didn't explain why you thought they weren't something else, e.g., beta
electrons.  Or electrical noise.

 

Regardless of what they are they are surely there and not one of the common
inside the box beasties. That they behave like muons is simply listening to
the data speak to us.

 

Can you elaborate on why you think they behave like muons?  How is the data
speaking to you and telling you this?  Surely you will have read Holmlid's
papers and come to this conclusion after considering other possibilities.
Walk us through the process that led you to this conclusion.

 

Eric

 

Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

[Eric Walker]

On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 4:40 PM, Russ George  wrote:

My comment already gave my view on what Holmlid is seeing, are they muon or
> mischugenon, that is the question.
>

Your previous comments were that they are either muons or mischugenon.  You
didn't explain why you thought they weren't something else, e.g., beta
electrons.  Or electrical noise.


> Regardless of what they are they are surely there and not one of the
> common inside the box beasties. That they behave like muons is simply
> listening to the data speak to us.
>

Can you elaborate on why you think they behave like muons?  How is the data
speaking to you and telling you this?  Surely you will have read Holmlid's
papers and come to this conclusion after considering other possibilities.
Walk us through the process that led you to this conclusion.

Eric

RE: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

[Russ George]

My comment already gave my view on what Holmlid is seeing, are they muon or 
mischugenon, that is the question. Regardless of what they are they are surely 
there and not one of the common inside the box beasties. That they behave like 
muons is simply listening to the data speak to us. Just listen carefully, it 
takes a long time, decades and more to hear and understand the story of the 
data that comes from deep within our atoms and ether. 

 

From: Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2016 2:01 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

 

On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 3:57 PM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com 
<mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote:

 

Of course some of the pundits in this swirling Vortex seem far more interested 
in making a stink than in letting the data speak, such as is common amongst 
bits found in such environments. I happen to fancy Holmlid’s ‘muon’ as a very 
good step in the right direction delivered through very valid experimentation 
and real data not mere brain farts. Let the armchair semantic stinkers twist in 
the vortex, alas if they could only be sinkers they would disappear sooner.

 

You are a man of science and of reason.  You will surely give reasons to 
support your suggestion that Holmlid is seeing muons and not something else.  
And you will respond intelligently and without ad hom to rebuttals to those 
reasons.  Please share with us your reasons for thinking that Holmlid has 
successfully ruled out other explanations.

 

Eric

 

Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

[Eric Walker]

On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 3:57 PM, Russ George  wrote:

Of course some of the pundits in this swirling Vortex seem far more
> interested in making a stink than in letting the data speak, such as is
> common amongst bits found in such environments. I happen to fancy Holmlid’s
> ‘muon’ as a very good step in the right direction delivered through very
> valid experimentation and real data not mere brain farts. Let the armchair
> semantic stinkers twist in the vortex, alas if they could only be sinkers
> they would disappear sooner.
>

You are a man of science and of reason.  You will surely give reasons to
support your suggestion that Holmlid is seeing muons and not something
else.  And you will respond intelligently and without ad hom to rebuttals
to those reasons.  Please share with us your reasons for thinking that
Holmlid has successfully ruled out other explanations.

Eric

RE: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

[Russ George]

Muons or mischugenon’s that is the question. When I presented my evidence for 
similar mysterious sub-atomic beasties to Edward Teller many years ago his 
interpretation of the data led to him naming my mysterious particles 
“mischugenon’s”, aka crazy particles. Edward and I could really not make heads 
or tails of them, but that they existed was not in question.  Of course some of 
the pundits in this swirling Vortex seem far more interested in making a stink 
than in letting the data speak, such as is common amongst bits found in such 
environments. I happen to fancy Holmlid’s ‘muon’ as a very good step in the 
right direction delivered through very valid experimentation and real data not 
mere brain farts. Let the armchair semantic stinkers twist in the vortex, alas 
if they could only be sinkers they would disappear sooner. 

 

From: Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2016 1:03 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

 

On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net 
<mailto:jone...@pacbell.net> > wrote:

Whoa, Eric. Since when does “logic” contradict experimental results? Where – 
precisely - is this fountain of logic that contradicts Holmlid’s real data? 
Isn’t every scientific breakthrough a contradiction of logic, almost by 
definition”?

I think you missed my point.  I do not deny the validity of experimental 
results, in this case Holmlid's.  I question his conclusion that they're 
explained by muons (and pions, etc.), which is an interpretation of his 
experimental results.  (It is also possible his experimental results are 
mistaken, but I do not have specific reason to doubt them at this point.)  It 
seems to me that muons can be ruled out rather easily for various reasons, in 
the same way that free neutrons can be ruled out as a mechanism in LENR.  If 
one does not believe this is true, ok, then further experiments can and should 
be done to eliminate them as a possibility, done by people other than Holmlid, 
who has invested his reputation in there being muons.

 

I did not intend to criticize you specifically, except to suggest that 
sometimes you explore possibilities without adding qualifications, which can be 
confusing for people who have not read a lot of your posts.  You also often add 
qualifications, so it's not intended as a strong criticism.  My point pertained 
to others who un-self-consciously pursue a pure engineering approach in which 
the claims of one inventor are simply chained together with those of another 
inventor to obtain some far-out result.  With you, at least you're pretty good 
about pointing out that it's just speculation.  With many people, there's no 
clear evidence that they know that they're engaging in speculation, which can 
lead to long threads whose initial premises, many emails back, were doubtful to 
begin with.

I have my doubts about the muon data, like everyone else … mostly because it is 
revolutionary, since it appears to have been done correctly in practice - but 
no one to my knowledge has contradicted by experiment or failed replication, 
the real data of Holmlid; and until then, he should be given benefit of the 
doubt …

I always give inventors and experimentalists the benefit of the doubt with 
regard to the signals that their instruments record.  I start out with great 
skepticism for the interpretations they cook up to make sense of those signals. 
 I suspect that Holmlid may be seeing something LENR-related.  But to my 
knowledge has yet to engage someone with expertise in measuring charged 
particle radiation to validate that he's seeing muons; he continues to insist 
that an oscilloscope can be used to rule out other possibilities; and he 
imagines that it's possible to come up with a new way of detecting low energy 
muons without the benefit of a calibration source of some kind to provide a 
cross check on his results.

 

Eric

 

Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

[Eric Walker]

On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> Whoa, Eric. Since when does “logic” contradict experimental results? Where
> – precisely - is this fountain of logic that contradicts Holmlid’s real
> data? Isn’t every scientific breakthrough a contradiction of logic,
> almost by definition”?
>
I think you missed my point.  I do not deny the validity of experimental
results, in this case Holmlid's.  I question his conclusion that they're
explained by muons (and pions, etc.), which is an interpretation of his
experimental results.  (It is also possible his experimental results are
mistaken, but I do not have specific reason to doubt them at this point.)
 It seems to me that muons can be ruled out rather easily for various
reasons, in the same way that free neutrons can be ruled out as a mechanism
in LENR.  If one does not believe this is true, ok, then further
experiments can and should be done to eliminate them as a possibility, done
by people other than Holmlid, who has invested his reputation in there
being muons.

I did not intend to criticize you specifically, except to suggest that
sometimes you explore possibilities without adding qualifications, which
can be confusing for people who have not read a lot of your posts.  You
also often add qualifications, so it's not intended as a strong criticism.
My point pertained to others who un-self-consciously pursue a pure
engineering approach in which the claims of one inventor are simply chained
together with those of another inventor to obtain some far-out result.
With you, at least you're pretty good about pointing out that it's just
speculation.  With many people, there's no clear evidence that they know
that they're engaging in speculation, which can lead to long threads whose
initial premises, many emails back, were doubtful to begin with.

> I have my doubts about the muon data, like everyone else … mostly because
> it is revolutionary, since it appears to have been done correctly in
> practice - but no one to my knowledge has contradicted by experiment or
> failed replication, the real data of Holmlid; and until then, he should
> be given benefit of the doubt …
>
I always give inventors and experimentalists the benefit of the doubt with
regard to the signals that their instruments record.  I start out with
great skepticism for the interpretations they cook up to make sense of
those signals.  I suspect that Holmlid may be seeing something
LENR-related.  But to my knowledge has yet to engage someone with expertise
in measuring charged particle radiation to validate that he's seeing muons;
he continues to insist that an oscilloscope can be used to rule out other
possibilities; and he imagines that it's possible to come up with a new way
of detecting low energy muons without the benefit of a calibration source
of some kind to provide a cross check on his results.

Eric

RE: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

[Jones Beene]

From: Eric Walker 

…. Claims made by … Holmlid, which are contraindicated in multiple ways by a 
simple application of logic are nonetheless incorporated into analysis as 
though they are factual.  

Whoa, Eric. Since when does “logic” contradict experimental results? Where – 
precisely - is this fountain of logic that contradicts Holmlid’s real data? 
Isn’t every scientific breakthrough a contradiction of logic, almost by 
definition”?

In the realm of subjectivity – “application of logic” can be rather low on the 
latter, down there slightly above “because I told you so” or “ that’s what I 
was taught at University”.  There are no hard and fast rules of logic other 
than when experience is verified by experiment -- and experimental data is 
exactly what Holmlid has provided. 

I have my doubts about the muon data, like everyone else … mostly because it is 
revolutionary, since it appears to have been done correctly in practice - but 
no one to my knowledge has contradicted by experiment or failed replication, 
the real data of Holmlid; and until then, he should be given benefit of the 
doubt … 

Holmlid has the proper credentials and educational background, the work 
experience, the intelligence, the University affiliation, the strong complement 
of co-authors, a long string of peer-reviewed publications, and so on. There is 
no reason not to afford him full benefit of doubt without any need of 
qualification, especially on any forum where LENR is generally tolerated.

Jones

Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

[Jed Rothwell]

Eric Walker  wrote:


> Some contributors here are in fact more reserved in their judgment about
> different claims than they appear and simply have a communication style
> that omits all of the careful qualifications one would hope to see.
>

Yup.

When there are doubts about a claim, I like to see one qualification per
message. Start off with something like:

"Assuming the claim is true . . ."

You don't need to keep repeating that. Expressing too many qualifications
or reservations gets in the way of communication.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 12:48 PM, Brian Ahern  wrote:
>
> The discussion seems to accept the fraudulent claims and empowers them. If
> this was a legalaction we would refer to the 'alledged energy production'.
>
That is a weakness of Vortex.  Claims made by characters of various
stripes, including Holmlid, which are contraindicated in multiple ways by a
simple application of logic are nonetheless incorporated into analysis as
though they are factual.  I also see this at LENR Forum, and even more so
in the comment sections at E-Cat world, which I no longer follow closely.
Over a period of years, one learns to filter out much of what is discussed
and to focus on specific details of interest.  I am sure all of this is
disorienting to someone coming upon it fresh.

Some contributors here are in fact more reserved in their judgment about
different claims than they appear and simply have a communication style
that omits all of the careful qualifications one would hope to see.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

[Axil Axil]

THE ELECTROSCOPE

I built an Electroscope in fourth grade. Its easy to build and use.
This device can detect muon ionization in the same way that it can
detect beta radiation.


Electrostatics at Home

https://mysite.du.edu/~jcalvert/phys/elechome.htm

My electroscope used two gold leaf strips that separated when a charge
was applied to the electrode.

Movement of the strips will show a change in the ionization level
around the reactor. Aren't you experimenters ashamed of such a
horrendous lack of attention to such an important aspect of LENR when
its detection is so easy and cheap?






On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:
> For those who suspect that the Holmlid effect and the Mills effect are
> related, no matter what the proponents of each may think, here is a further
> thought from the fringe … about one of the possible implications. Holmlid
> has suggested that a very high flux of muons can be produced by a subwatt
> laser beam.
>
> Mills uses an electric arc and will probably offer a real demo of the
> Suncell® at some point. No one doubts that it works but an extended demo
> will be needed… therefore, even if everything seen thus far is little more
> than PR fluff, we could have a worrisome situation in response to a much
> longer demo.
>
> Since Mills is applying higher net power to reactants (even if Holmlid’s
> laser provides more localized power) there is a chance that some portion of
> the energy produced escapes the sun-cell as muons. If Holmlid gets millions
> of muons per watt of coherent light, what will be the corresponding rate be
> from an electric arc? If anything like this scenario turns out to be the
> accurate, then any muons produced will decay at a predictable distance away
> from the reactor, thus they could have been missed by BrLP in testing thus
> far.
>
> The muon is an unstable fermion with a lifetime of 2.2 microseconds, which
> is an eternity compared to most beta decays. Ignoring time dilation, this
> would mean that muons, travelling at light speed, would be dispersing and
> decaying in an imaginary sphere about 600 meters from the reactor. Thus, the
> effect of radioactive decay could be significant at unexpected distance– and
> Mills may never had imagined that this is a problem. Fortunately, humans are
> exposed to a constant flux of muons due to cosmic rays, and the flux is
> well-tolerated.
>
> Nevertheless, this detail is worth noting – and should Mills or his
> associates start to feel a bit ill from the exposure – possibly an
> unseasonal sun tan, then we can identify a culprit.
>
> The effects could be felt more in a remote office - than in the lab … which
> is curious.

Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

[Teslaalset]

How about deflecting muon paths by strong magnetic fields.
I found this info
<https://www.i2u2.org/elab/cosmic/posters/display.jsp?name=muon_bending.data>
.


On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 8:06 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Unsolicited observations of identical experimental consequences lends
> credence to the production of a common causative reaction. For
> example, Defkalion saw not advantage in reporting a major problem that
> they suffered in the testing and demonstration of their system that
> later ture up in other systems. ME356 explained why his testing
> instruments and sensors were malfunctioning 3 meters away from his
> reaction. This is very similar to what Defkalion had reported.
>
> Now Holmlid tells why such observations are a result of muon
> production. Now, the picture becomes a little clearer, a common thread
> can be drawn to the point that if ionization production is not
> observed in a LENR experimental situation, then the power production
> of the reaction and even its existence is rightly questioned.
>
> On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 1:48 PM, Brian Ahern <ahern_br...@msn.com> wrote:
> > Toomuch credit is being given to Me356 andDefkalion. For that matter,
> Mills
> > also has a troublesome history. His latest announcement seems curiously
> like
> > a 'Me too' response to .
> >
> > the E
> >
> > The discussion seems to accept the fraudulent claims and empowers them.
> If
> > this was a legalaction we would refer to the 'alledged energy
> production'.
> >
> > 
> > From: Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net>
> > Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2016 1:15 PM
> > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> > Subject: RE: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Axil Axil  If LENR is heavily deployed in a high density urban
> > housing situation, then a dense field of general muon interference will
> > produce a impossible to shield zone of electronic and electrical failure.
> > 
> >
> > There is a well-known way to mollify this problem affordably, and provide
> > extra energy at the same time. Lead itself is way too expensive.
> >
> > The idea is to capture muons in a thick jacket around the reactor. Very
> > thick. The only way to do this cheaply is specialty concrete.
> >
> > 10 feet thickness of specialty concrete which is made with the addition
> of
> > iron ore and lead ore to Portland cement will convert 90% of muons into
> low
> > grade heat. Copper tubing can remove the heat. Not fancy, but ideal for
> > places like northern China and Russia which can use lots of low grade
> heat.
> > A dollar of lead ore is superior to $100 of lead metal.
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

[Axil Axil]

Unsolicited observations of identical experimental consequences lends
credence to the production of a common causative reaction. For
example, Defkalion saw not advantage in reporting a major problem that
they suffered in the testing and demonstration of their system that
later ture up in other systems. ME356 explained why his testing
instruments and sensors were malfunctioning 3 meters away from his
reaction. This is very similar to what Defkalion had reported.

Now Holmlid tells why such observations are a result of muon
production. Now, the picture becomes a little clearer, a common thread
can be drawn to the point that if ionization production is not
observed in a LENR experimental situation, then the power production
of the reaction and even its existence is rightly questioned.

On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 1:48 PM, Brian Ahern <ahern_br...@msn.com> wrote:
> Toomuch credit is being given to Me356 andDefkalion. For that matter, Mills
> also has a troublesome history. His latest announcement seems curiously like
> a 'Me too' response to .
>
> the E
>
> The discussion seems to accept the fraudulent claims and empowers them. If
> this was a legalaction we would refer to the 'alledged energy production'.
>
> 
> From: Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net>
> Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2016 1:15 PM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: RE: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Axil Axil  If LENR is heavily deployed in a high density urban
> housing situation, then a dense field of general muon interference will
> produce a impossible to shield zone of electronic and electrical failure.
> 
>
> There is a well-known way to mollify this problem affordably, and provide
> extra energy at the same time. Lead itself is way too expensive.
>
> The idea is to capture muons in a thick jacket around the reactor. Very
> thick. The only way to do this cheaply is specialty concrete.
>
> 10 feet thickness of specialty concrete which is made with the addition of
> iron ore and lead ore to Portland cement will convert 90% of muons into low
> grade heat. Copper tubing can remove the heat. Not fancy, but ideal for
> places like northern China and Russia which can use lots of low grade heat.
> A dollar of lead ore is superior to $100 of lead metal.
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

[Brian Ahern]

Toomuch credit is being given to Me356 andDefkalion. For that matter, Mills 
also has a troublesome history. His latest announcement seems curiously like a 
'Me too' response to .

the E

The discussion seems to accept the fraudulent claims and empowers them. If this 
was a legalaction we would refer to the 'alledged energy production'.


From: Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net>
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2016 1:15 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil  If LENR is heavily deployed in a high density urban 
housing situation, then a dense field of general muon interference will produce 
a impossible to shield zone of electronic and electrical failure.


There is a well-known way to mollify this problem affordably, and provide extra 
energy at the same time. Lead itself is way too expensive.

The idea is to capture muons in a thick jacket around the reactor. Very thick. 
The only way to do this cheaply is specialty concrete.

10 feet thickness of specialty concrete which is made with the addition of iron 
ore and lead ore to Portland cement will convert 90% of muons into low grade 
heat. Copper tubing can remove the heat. Not fancy, but ideal for places like 
northern China and Russia which can use lots of low grade heat. A dollar of 
lead ore is superior to $100 of lead metal.

RE: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

[Jones Beene]

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil  If LENR is heavily deployed in a high density urban 
housing situation, then a dense field of general muon interference will produce 
a impossible to shield zone of electronic and electrical failure.


There is a well-known way to mollify this problem affordably, and provide extra 
energy at the same time. Lead itself is way too expensive.

The idea is to capture muons in a thick jacket around the reactor. Very thick. 
The only way to do this cheaply is specialty concrete.

10 feet thickness of specialty concrete which is made with the addition of iron 
ore and lead ore to Portland cement will convert 90% of muons into low grade 
heat. Copper tubing can remove the heat. Not fancy, but ideal for places like 
northern China and Russia which can use lots of low grade heat. A dollar of 
lead ore is superior to $100 of lead metal.

Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

[Axil Axil]

My posts revised and extended as follows:

The rule of thumb for light speed signal propagation is one foot per
nanosecond. For the muon, a decay time on the average of 2.2
microseconds implies that the field of muon decay is on the order of
2,200 feet. muon decay can happen inside this 2,200 foot sphere or far
outside it based on the vagaries of radioactive decay. The muon will
not induce fusion until its energy is reduced enough to be captured by
an atom. otherwise it will pass through less dense material without
interaction.

Because of entanglement, the fusion energy will be sent back to the
source of the muon as a mechanism of the way LENR works so the fusion
reaction will be hard to detect in the far field. In detail, no
neutrons or gamma will be produced or detected.

But as eros has found, if a heavy shield of lead and iron is placed in
the flight path of the muon, the muon slows down and begins to react
with atoms. Eros, a LENR experimenter with a functioning reactor began
to detect nuclear reactions just outside the heavy lead and iron
shield using a copper covered radiation counter. The dense matter is
ionized enough to slow the muon flight quickly and produce rapid
secondary nuclear reaction in the near field.

One thing that Holmlid, ME356, Eros, and Defkalion all have detected
is a high state of ionization as muons interact with matter and
ionize it. There must be a truly huge flux of muons produced by LENR
to disable electronic equipment at meters away from the LENR reaction.

If LENR is heavily deployed in a high density urban housing situation,
then a dense field of general muon interference will produce a
impossible to shield zone of electronic and electrical failure.

Ionization of tissue inside of the human body will also occur. How this
ionization will affect the activity of nerves and the function of the brain
is yet not known.

On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 12:45 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
> More...
>
> One thing that Holmlid, ME356, Eros, and Defkalion all have detected
> is a high state of ionization as muons interacted with matter and
> ionized it. There must be a huge flux of muons produced to disable
> electronic equipment at meters away from the LENR reaction.
>
> If LENR is heavily deployed in a high density urban housing situation,
> then a dense field of general muon interference will produce a
> impossible to shield zone of electronic and electrical failure.
>
> On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 12:34 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>> The rule of thumb for light speed propagation is one foot per
>> nanosecond. For the muon, a decay time on the average of 2.2
>> microseconds implies that the field of muon decay is on the order of
>> 2200 feet. muon decay can happen inside this 2200 foot sphere or far
>> outside it based on the vagaries of radioactive decay.  The muon will
>> not induce fusion until its energy is reduced enough to be captured by
>> an atom. otherwise it will pass through less dense material without
>> interaction.
>>
>> Because of entanglement, the fusion energy will be sent back to the
>> source of the muon as a mechanism of the way LENR works so the fusion
>> reaction will be hard to detect in the far field. In detail, no
>> neutrons or gamma will be produced or detected.
>>
>> But as eros has found, if a heavy shield of lead and iron is placed in
>> the flight path of the muon, the muon slows down and begins to react
>> with atoms. Eros, a LENR experimenter with a functioning reactor began
>> to detect nuclear reactions just outside the heavy lead and iron
>> shield using a copper covered radiation counter. The dense matter is
>> ionized enough to slow the muon flight quickly and produce rapid
>> secondary nuclear reaction in the near field.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>>> For those who suspect that the Holmlid effect and the Mills effect are
>>> related, no matter what the proponents of each may think, here is a further
>>> thought from the fringe … about one of the possible implications. Holmlid
>>> has suggested that a very high flux of muons can be produced by a subwatt
>>> laser beam.
>>>
>>> Mills uses an electric arc and will probably offer a real demo of the
>>> Suncell® at some point. No one doubts that it works but an extended demo
>>> will be needed… therefore, even if everything seen thus far is little more
>>> than PR fluff, we could have a worrisome situation in response to a much
>>> longer demo.
>>>
>>> Since Mills is applying higher net power to reactants (even if Holmlid’s
>>> laser provides more localized power) there is a chance that some portion of
>>> the energy produced escapes the sun-cell as muons. If Holmlid gets millions
>>> of muons per watt of coherent light, what will be the corresponding rate be
>>> from an electric arc? If anything like this scenario turns out to be the
>>> accurate, then any muons produced will decay at a predictable distance away
>>> 

Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

[Axil Axil]

More...

One thing that Holmlid, ME356, Eros, and Defkalion all have detected
is a high state of ionization as muons interacted with matter and
ionized it. There must be a huge flux of muons produced to disable
electronic equipment at meters away from the LENR reaction.

If LENR is heavily deployed in a high density urban housing situation,
then a dense field of general muon interference will produce a
impossible to shield zone of electronic and electrical failure.

On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 12:34 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
> The rule of thumb for light speed propagation is one foot per
> nanosecond. For the muon, a decay time on the average of 2.2
> microseconds implies that the field of muon decay is on the order of
> 2200 feet. muon decay can happen inside this 2200 foot sphere or far
> outside it based on the vagaries of radioactive decay.  The muon will
> not induce fusion until its energy is reduced enough to be captured by
> an atom. otherwise it will pass through less dense material without
> interaction.
>
> Because of entanglement, the fusion energy will be sent back to the
> source of the muon as a mechanism of the way LENR works so the fusion
> reaction will be hard to detect in the far field. In detail, no
> neutrons or gamma will be produced or detected.
>
> But as eros has found, if a heavy shield of lead and iron is placed in
> the flight path of the muon, the muon slows down and begins to react
> with atoms. Eros, a LENR experimenter with a functioning reactor began
> to detect nuclear reactions just outside the heavy lead and iron
> shield using a copper covered radiation counter. The dense matter is
> ionized enough to slow the muon flight quickly and produce rapid
> secondary nuclear reaction in the near field.
>
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>> For those who suspect that the Holmlid effect and the Mills effect are
>> related, no matter what the proponents of each may think, here is a further
>> thought from the fringe … about one of the possible implications. Holmlid
>> has suggested that a very high flux of muons can be produced by a subwatt
>> laser beam.
>>
>> Mills uses an electric arc and will probably offer a real demo of the
>> Suncell® at some point. No one doubts that it works but an extended demo
>> will be needed… therefore, even if everything seen thus far is little more
>> than PR fluff, we could have a worrisome situation in response to a much
>> longer demo.
>>
>> Since Mills is applying higher net power to reactants (even if Holmlid’s
>> laser provides more localized power) there is a chance that some portion of
>> the energy produced escapes the sun-cell as muons. If Holmlid gets millions
>> of muons per watt of coherent light, what will be the corresponding rate be
>> from an electric arc? If anything like this scenario turns out to be the
>> accurate, then any muons produced will decay at a predictable distance away
>> from the reactor, thus they could have been missed by BrLP in testing thus
>> far.
>>
>> The muon is an unstable fermion with a lifetime of 2.2 microseconds, which
>> is an eternity compared to most beta decays. Ignoring time dilation, this
>> would mean that muons, travelling at light speed, would be dispersing and
>> decaying in an imaginary sphere about 600 meters from the reactor. Thus, the
>> effect of radioactive decay could be significant at unexpected distance– and
>> Mills may never had imagined that this is a problem. Fortunately, humans are
>> exposed to a constant flux of muons due to cosmic rays, and the flux is
>> well-tolerated.
>>
>> Nevertheless, this detail is worth noting – and should Mills or his
>> associates start to feel a bit ill from the exposure – possibly an
>> unseasonal sun tan, then we can identify a culprit.
>>
>> The effects could be felt more in a remote office - than in the lab … which
>> is curious.

Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

[Axil Axil]

The rule of thumb for light speed propagation is one foot per
nanosecond. For the muon, a decay time on the average of 2.2
microseconds implies that the field of muon decay is on the order of
2200 feet. muon decay can happen inside this 2200 foot sphere or far
outside it based on the vagaries of radioactive decay.  The muon will
not induce fusion until its energy is reduced enough to be captured by
an atom. otherwise it will pass through less dense material without
interaction.

Because of entanglement, the fusion energy will be sent back to the
source of the muon as a mechanism of the way LENR works so the fusion
reaction will be hard to detect in the far field. In detail, no
neutrons or gamma will be produced or detected.

But as eros has found, if a heavy shield of lead and iron is placed in
the flight path of the muon, the muon slows down and begins to react
with atoms. Eros, a LENR experimenter with a functioning reactor began
to detect nuclear reactions just outside the heavy lead and iron
shield using a copper covered radiation counter. The dense matter is
ionized enough to slow the muon flight quickly and produce rapid
secondary nuclear reaction in the near field.



On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:
> For those who suspect that the Holmlid effect and the Mills effect are
> related, no matter what the proponents of each may think, here is a further
> thought from the fringe … about one of the possible implications. Holmlid
> has suggested that a very high flux of muons can be produced by a subwatt
> laser beam.
>
> Mills uses an electric arc and will probably offer a real demo of the
> Suncell® at some point. No one doubts that it works but an extended demo
> will be needed… therefore, even if everything seen thus far is little more
> than PR fluff, we could have a worrisome situation in response to a much
> longer demo.
>
> Since Mills is applying higher net power to reactants (even if Holmlid’s
> laser provides more localized power) there is a chance that some portion of
> the energy produced escapes the sun-cell as muons. If Holmlid gets millions
> of muons per watt of coherent light, what will be the corresponding rate be
> from an electric arc? If anything like this scenario turns out to be the
> accurate, then any muons produced will decay at a predictable distance away
> from the reactor, thus they could have been missed by BrLP in testing thus
> far.
>
> The muon is an unstable fermion with a lifetime of 2.2 microseconds, which
> is an eternity compared to most beta decays. Ignoring time dilation, this
> would mean that muons, travelling at light speed, would be dispersing and
> decaying in an imaginary sphere about 600 meters from the reactor. Thus, the
> effect of radioactive decay could be significant at unexpected distance– and
> Mills may never had imagined that this is a problem. Fortunately, humans are
> exposed to a constant flux of muons due to cosmic rays, and the flux is
> well-tolerated.
>
> Nevertheless, this detail is worth noting – and should Mills or his
> associates start to feel a bit ill from the exposure – possibly an
> unseasonal sun tan, then we can identify a culprit.
>
> The effects could be felt more in a remote office - than in the lab … which
> is curious.

RE: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

[Jones Beene]

Bob,

 

Mills, as we know - avoids deuterium like the plague and does not want to see 
anything nuclear … matter of fact, it would not surprise me if he used 
deuterium-depleted water, and took other extreme steps to completely avoid any 
sign of fusion. For instance, Mills may use silver, instead of zinc, as the 
preferred catalyst - to avoid 65Zn, which would be expected if zinc was used 
(and Zn is preferred otherwise, having a better Rydberg fit at low ionization.)

 

As for Holmlid, since he uses deuterium and his reaction occurs in a small spot 
– which is the focal point of the laser beam, there is not much chance for a 
secondary reaction to provide muon catalyzed fusion, since the muons do not 
form instantaneously. Otherwise neutrons should be seen, as you say. 

 

For Holmlid, the muons are forming following pion decay, by which time they are 
dispersed from the reactor by a significant distance. 

 

What we would like to see (from the theoretical perspective) is the SunCell 
being run on heavy water. 

 

But… catch-22… that could cost Mills billions of dollars – if neutrons were 
observed, thus negating his IP.

 

 

From: Bob Higgins 

 

If large quantities of muons are being produced, would you not expect to see 
the normal branches for muon catalyzed fusion to occur around it?  These would 
be clearly detectable as 2.45 MeV neutrons for D2 gas or high energy 14 MeV 
neutron emission if the muons were to impact on a D-T gas mix.  Note that D-T 
gas has a very high probability of muon catalyzed fusion.  An ampule of D-T gas 
might actually be the quintessential muon detector - look for neutrons coming 
from the muon catalyzed fusion of D-T.

 

Jones Beene wrote:

For those who suspect that the Holmlid effect and the Mills effect are related, 
no matter what the proponents of each may think, here is a further thought from 
the fringe … about one of the possible implications. Holmlid has suggested that 
a very high flux of muons can be produced by a subwatt laser beam.

Mills uses an electric arc and will probably offer a real demo of the Suncell® 
at some point. No one doubts that it works but an extended demo will be needed… 
therefore, even if everything seen thus far is little more than PR fluff, we 
could have a worrisome situation in response to a much longer demo. 

Since Mills is applying higher net power to reactants (even if Holmlid’s laser 
provides more localized power) there is a chance that some portion of the 
energy produced escapes the sun-cell as muons. If Holmlid gets millions of 
muons per watt of coherent light, what will be the corresponding rate be from 
an electric arc? If anything like this scenario turns out to be the accurate, 
then any muons produced will decay at a predictable distance away from the 
reactor, thus they could have been missed by BrLP in testing thus far. 

The muon is an unstable fermion with a lifetime of 2.2 microseconds, which is 
an eternity compared to most beta decays. Ignoring time dilation, this would 
mean that muons, travelling at light speed, would be dispersing and decaying in 
an imaginary sphere about 600 meters from the reactor. Thus, the effect of 
radioactive decay could be significant at unexpected distance– and Mills may 
never had imagined that this is a problem. Fortunately, humans are exposed to a 
constant flux of muons due to cosmic rays, and the flux is well-tolerated.

Nevertheless, this detail is worth noting – and should Mills or his associates 
start to feel a bit ill from the exposure – possibly an unseasonal sun tan, 
then we can identify a culprit. 

The effects could be felt more in a remote office - than in the lab … which is 
curious.

 

Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

[Bob Higgins]

If large quantities of muons are being produced, would you not expect to
see the normal branches for muon catalyzed fusion to occur around it?
These would be clearly detectable as 2.45 MeV neutrons for D2 gas or high
energy 14 MeV neutron emission if the muons were to impact on a D-T gas
mix.  Note that D-T gas has a very high probability of muon catalyzed
fusion.  An ampule of D-T gas might actually be the quintessential muon
detector - look for neutrons coming from the muon catalyzed fusion of D-T.

On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 9:23 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> For those who suspect that the Holmlid effect and the Mills effect are
> related, no matter what the proponents of each may think, here is a further
> thought from the fringe … about one of the possible implications. Holmlid
> has suggested that a very high flux of muons can be produced by a subwatt
> laser beam.
>
> Mills uses an electric arc and will probably offer a real demo of the S
> uncell® at some point. No one doubts that it works but an extended demo
> will be needed… therefore, even if everything seen thus far is little
> more than PR fluff, we could have a worrisome situation in response to a
> much longer demo.
>
> Since Mills is applying higher net power to reactants (even if Holmlid’s
> laser provides more localized power) there is a chance that some portion of
> the energy produced escapes the sun-cell as muons. If Holmlid gets
> millions of muons per watt of coherent light, what will be the
> corresponding rate be from an electric arc? If anything like this scenario 
> turns
> out to be the accurate, then any muons produced will decay at a
> predictable distance away from the reactor, thus they could have been
> missed by BrLP in testing thus far.
>
> The muon is an unstable fermion with a lifetime of 2.2 microseconds,
> which is an eternity compared to most beta decays. Ignoring time
> dilation, this would mean that muons, travelling at light speed, would be
> dispersing and decaying in an imaginary sphere about 600 meters from the
> reactor. Thus, the effect of radioactive decay could be significant at
> unexpected distance– and Mills may never had imagined that this is a
> problem. Fortunately, humans are exposed to a constant flux of muons due
> to cosmic rays, and the flux is well-tolerated.
>
> Nevertheless, this detail is worth noting – and should Mills or his
> associates start to feel a bit ill from the exposure – possibly an
> unseasonal sun tan, then we can identify a culprit.
>
> The effects could be felt more in a remote office - than in the lab …
> which is curious.
>
>

[Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

[Jones Beene]

For those who suspect that the Holmlid effect and the Mills effect are
related, no matter what the proponents of each may think, here is a further
thought from the fringe . about one of the possible implications. Holmlid
has suggested that a very high flux of muons can be produced by a subwatt
laser beam.

Mills uses an electric arc and will probably offer a real demo of the
SuncellR at some point. No one doubts that it works but an extended demo
will be needed. therefore, even if everything seen thus far is little more
than PR fluff, we could have a worrisome situation in response to a much
longer demo. 

Since Mills is applying higher net power to reactants (even if Holmlid's
laser provides more localized power) there is a chance that some portion of
the energy produced escapes the sun-cell as muons. If Holmlid gets millions
of muons per watt of coherent light, what will be the corresponding rate be
from an electric arc? If anything like this scenario turns out to be the
accurate, then any muons produced will decay at a predictable distance away
from the reactor, thus they could have been missed by BrLP in testing thus
far. 

The muon is an unstable fermion with a lifetime of 2.2 microseconds, which
is an eternity compared to most beta decays. Ignoring time dilation, this
would mean that muons, travelling at light speed, would be dispersing and
decaying in an imaginary sphere about 600 meters from the reactor. Thus, the
effect of radioactive decay could be significant at unexpected distance- and
Mills may never had imagined that this is a problem. Fortunately, humans are
exposed to a constant flux of muons due to cosmic rays, and the flux is
well-tolerated.

Nevertheless, this detail is worth noting - and should Mills or his
associates start to feel a bit ill from the exposure - possibly an
unseasonal sun tan, then we can identify a culprit. 

The effects could be felt more in a remote office - than in the lab . which
is curious.