Re: [Vo]:Holmlid paper retraction
BTW - George Miley is a name well-known to LENR researchers. Over two decades ago, Miley developed a commercial fusor (Farnsworth Fusor) which "warm fusion" design was was later sold to Daimler Aerospace. This product was not suitable for well-logging - due to size constraint of fitting in a borehole. The design was based on the original Farnsworth invention and used electrostatic confinement. It was at least 5 orders of magnitude below breakeven in terms of output. Fortunately, this basic design can not only be shrunk in size but also increased in yield by the relatively simple expedient of adding a laser driven muon generator. Muon catalyzed fusion is somewhat of a miracle in itself, especially when bootstrapped with a portable source of muons - never before possible. There are those who have followed LENR who bemoan the fact that this application is not exactly energy related, but it provides a toe-hold. Once there is cash flow, in the best capitalist tradition - other applications will be pursued including perhaps drone aircraft which can stay aloft indefinitely, and other high-value end-uses for portable power. The expected design - consisting of a Holmlid laser driven muon generator coupled to a Fusor - is especially adaptable to aerospace. All that is needed is a direct conversion scheme to provide electricity without a steam cycle. The direct conversion application has been studied preliminarily too so none of this is unexpected. In short the good professor seems to have all the bases covered. There can be little doubt that Leif Holmlid is a man on a mission who is not going to let a few editors of a second-tier journal get in his way. --- The retraction by the Plos editor is regrettable, even stupid. We can only wait to see if it will be an total embarrassment for them. In the end, the burden of proof is going to be met with a commercial product, or not at all. Based on everything in the record, we could see something like a commercial neutron generator as an initial product. These neutron generators are used for such tasks as petroleum well-logging. Normally the neutron well logger requires tritium - very expensive. Holmlid indicates that his device will not require tritium. The World-wide market for these is actually quite large and no one else uses muon catalyzed deuterium fusion as the source of neutrons. Norront is well positioned to become a prime supplier, if they can avoid the need for tritium - especially given Norway's petro industry would be an initial buyer. Here is a Russian product with lots of details - which is what the present competition looks like. The Russians would be smart to take a license from Norront. VNIIA - Neutron generators - Well-logging
Re: [Vo]:Holmlid paper retraction
The retraction by the Plos editor is regrettable, even stupid. We can only wait to see if it will be an total embarrassment for them. In the end, the burden of proof is going to be met with a commercial product, or not at all. Based on everything in the record, we could see something like a commercial neutron generator as an initial product. These neutron generators are used for such tasks as petroleum well-logging. Normally the neutron well logger requires tritium - very expensive. Holmlid indicates that his device will not require tritium. The World-wide market for these is actually quite large and no one else uses muon catalyzed deuterium fusion as the source of neutrons. Norront is well positioned to become a prime supplier, if they can avoid the need for tritium - especially given Norway's petro industry would be an initial buyer. Here is a Russian product with lots of details - which is what the present competition looks like. The Russians would be smart to take a license from Norront. VNIIA - Neutron generators - Well-logging | | | | | | | | | | | VNIIA - Neutron generators - Well-logging | | |
RE: [Vo]:Holmlid paper retraction
SO WHAT’S NEW WITH SCIENCE JOURNALISM? DOGMA FETCHES A GOODLY SUM AND KEEPS
GOOD PRACTIONERS WALKING IN EVER TALLER COTTEN!!!
Bob Cook
Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10
From: Axil Axil
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2019 1:40:55 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Holmlid paper retraction
Retraction opposed by me
Posted by lholmlid on 23 Feb 2019 at 14:24 GMT
The action by Plos One on my paper which was retracted by the journal on
19-02-23 is astonishing. The retraction procedure did not involve a scientific
evaluation. I have informed the journal that the experimental results on the
time constants are correct. Such results have been published by me in several
other papers, both prior to and after the Plos One publication. They have also
been repeated by other groups. There is thus no problem with the experimental
results. The suggested problem with "amplified electronics placed in the
vicinity of intense laser irradiation experiments" is easily disproved by the
results given in the paper. Three different decay time constants are measured,
which agree with the well-known meson decay time constants. The time constants
are different at the inner and the outer collector just moving the cable with
the laser and the oscilloscope unchanged. The decay time constants are also
different with different collector bias. Some types of signals do not even have
a long decay time constant. See for example table 1 with data from figs. 12 and
11. The suggested problem with the electronics clearly does not exist. The
laser used is also quite weak, at < 0.2 J pulse energy, in 5 ns long pulses not
really giving "an intense laser irradiation experiment" whatever that means
with so much stronger lasers used in many laboratories today.
The main content of this Plos One paper is further not the decay time
constants, which had been published previously elsewhere, but the main content
concerns deflection of the relativistic particles with velocity up to 0.75c in
magnetic fields. These results are not influenced by any decay time constant
measurements, and they show very clearly that the relativistic particles are
lighter than baryons, with masses like mesons or muons. This is the main result
of the paper and it cannot be discarded as due to laser created artifacts, but
this result has been overlooked or not understood by the reviewers.
Of course, I do not yet know the exact process creating the mesons, but it is
expected of me as author that I should propose some mechanism for this. Such a
process is suggested on p. 5 in the paper. It has been interpreted by other
scientists as implying that the number of baryons is not conserved, which is
not in agreement with the so-called baryon law. Of course, it is just an
empirical rule. Time will show if this is a case where the baryon number is
truly not conserved, of if another process is responsible for the meson
generation. Of course, the few lines on p. 5 giving a model for the meson
generation could be removed or weakened, but Plos One has instead retracted the
entire paper with its large number of advanced experiments. This not a
scientific and unbiased treatment.
On Sat, Feb 23, 2019 at 4:23 PM Axil Axil
mailto:janap...@gmail.com>> wrote:
"baryon number conservation" does not apply in proton decay which in simple
terms is what Holmlid is producing through the action of ultra dense hydrogen.
Generally, in one of the major activities in LENR, there is charge-parity
non-conservation ("CP violation")<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CP_violation>
occurring. LENR is also a process in which
baryogenesis<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryogenesis> is occurring. One of
the central mechanisms that underpins the LENR reaction is chiral particle
polarization. This mechanism is what produces CP violations as well as
radioactive isotope stabilization through the amplification of the weak force.
Ultra dense hydrogen produces two chiral spin polarized vortex flux tubes, a
right handed vortex tube(south) and a left handed vortex tube(north). Within
these tubes is where matter disintegration and reformation (transmutation)
occurs. These details in the way that the transmutation mechanism works can be
seen in the LION reactor meltdown ash analysis.
It was bound to happen sooner or later, Holmlid has run up against the LENR
stigma.
On Sat, Feb 23, 2019 at 9:32 AM Jones Beene
mailto:jone...@pacbell.net>> wrote:
Posted on LENR-forum by Can
PLOS ONE editors retract one of Holmlid's papers.
https://journals.plos.org/plos…69895#pone.0212979.ref001<https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0169895#pone.0212979.ref001>
https://journals.plos.org/plos…1371/journal.pone.0212979
Apparently the problem is "baryon number conservation" and the absence of
Re: [Vo]:Holmlid paper retraction
Retraction opposed by mePosted by lholmlid on *23 Feb 2019 at 14:24 GMT*
The action by Plos One on my paper which was retracted by the journal on
19-02-23 is astonishing. The retraction procedure did not involve a
scientific evaluation. I have informed the journal that the experimental
results on the time constants are correct. Such results have been published
by me in several other papers, both prior to and after the Plos One
publication. They have also been repeated by other groups. There is thus no
problem with the experimental results. The suggested problem with
"amplified electronics placed in the vicinity of intense laser irradiation
experiments" is easily disproved by the results given in the paper. Three
different decay time constants are measured, which agree with the
well-known meson decay time constants. The time constants are different at
the inner and the outer collector just moving the cable with the laser and
the oscilloscope unchanged. The decay time constants are also different
with different collector bias. Some types of signals do not even have a
long decay time constant. See for example table 1 with data from figs. 12
and 11. The suggested problem with the electronics clearly does not exist.
The laser used is also quite weak, at < 0.2 J pulse energy, in 5 ns long
pulses not really giving "an intense laser irradiation experiment" whatever
that means with so much stronger lasers used in many laboratories today.
The main content of this Plos One paper is further not the decay time
constants, which had been published previously elsewhere, but the main
content concerns deflection of the relativistic particles with velocity up
to 0.75c in magnetic fields. These results are not influenced by any decay
time constant measurements, and they show very clearly that the
relativistic particles are lighter than baryons, with masses like mesons or
muons. This is the main result of the paper and it cannot be discarded as
due to laser created artifacts, but this result has been overlooked or not
understood by the reviewers.
Of course, I do not yet know the exact process creating the mesons, but it
is expected of me as author that I should propose some mechanism for this.
Such a process is suggested on p. 5 in the paper. It has been interpreted
by other scientists as implying that the number of baryons is not
conserved, which is not in agreement with the so-called baryon law. Of
course, it is just an empirical rule. Time will show if this is a case
where the baryon number is truly not conserved, of if another process is
responsible for the meson generation. Of course, the few lines on p. 5
giving a model for the meson generation could be removed or weakened, but
Plos One has instead retracted the entire paper with its large number of
advanced experiments. This not a scientific and unbiased treatment.
On Sat, Feb 23, 2019 at 4:23 PM Axil Axil wrote:
> "baryon number conservation" does not apply in proton decay which in
> simple terms is what Holmlid is producing through the action of ultra
> dense hydrogen. Generally, in one of the major activities in LENR, there
> is charge-parity non-conservation ("CP violation")
> occurring. LENR is also a
> process in which baryogenesis
> is occurring. One of the
> central mechanisms that underpins the LENR reaction is chiral particle
> polarization. This mechanism is what produces CP violations as well as
> radioactive isotope stabilization through the amplification of the weak
> force.
>
> Ultra dense hydrogen produces two chiral spin polarized vortex flux tubes,
> a right handed vortex tube(south) and a left handed vortex tube(north).
> Within these tubes is where matter disintegration and reformation
> (transmutation) occurs. These details in the way that the transmutation
> mechanism works can be seen in the LION reactor meltdown ash analysis.
>
> It was bound to happen sooner or later, Holmlid has run up against the
> LENR stigma.
>
> On Sat, Feb 23, 2019 at 9:32 AM Jones Beene wrote:
>
>> Posted on LENR-forum by Can
>>
>> PLOS ONE editors retract one of Holmlid's papers.
>>
>> https://journals.plos.org/plos…69895#pone.0212979.ref001
>>
>>
>> https://journals.plos.org/plos…1371/journal.pone.0212979
>>
>> Apparently the problem is "baryon number conservation" and the absence
>> of sufficiently strong evidence to support the claims made...
>>
>> Looks like the editors caved to mainstream objections.
>>
>> Plus (or Plos) there are billions of dollars in funding at stake here...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
Re: [Vo]:Holmlid paper retraction
"baryon number conservation" does not apply in proton decay which in
simple terms is what Holmlid is producing through the action of ultra
dense hydrogen. Generally, in one of the major activities in LENR, there
is charge-parity non-conservation ("CP violation")
occurring. LENR is also a
process in which baryogenesis is
occurring. One of the central mechanisms that underpins the LENR reaction
is chiral particle polarization. This mechanism is what produces CP
violations as well as radioactive isotope stabilization through the
amplification of the weak force.
Ultra dense hydrogen produces two chiral spin polarized vortex flux tubes,
a right handed vortex tube(south) and a left handed vortex tube(north).
Within these tubes is where matter disintegration and reformation
(transmutation) occurs. These details in the way that the transmutation
mechanism works can be seen in the LION reactor meltdown ash analysis.
It was bound to happen sooner or later, Holmlid has run up against the LENR
stigma.
On Sat, Feb 23, 2019 at 9:32 AM Jones Beene wrote:
> Posted on LENR-forum by Can
>
> PLOS ONE editors retract one of Holmlid's papers.
>
> https://journals.plos.org/plos…69895#pone.0212979.ref001
>
>
> https://journals.plos.org/plos…1371/journal.pone.0212979
>
> Apparently the problem is "baryon number conservation" and the absence
> of sufficiently strong evidence to support the claims made...
>
> Looks like the editors caved to mainstream objections.
>
> Plus (or Plos) there are billions of dollars in funding at stake here...
>
>
>
>
>
>
