Re: [Vo]:Muons, SPP, DDL RPF
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Wed, 12 Aug 2015 21:16:36 -0700: Hi, [snip] Let me backtrack If we follow the credo that experiment rules and that Holmlid appears to be making muons, then the scenario which makes the most sense could be that SPP are indeed extending the life of cosmic muons, which then accumulate giving the appearance that they are being made. In effect, we do not need to make them so much as keep them from decaying. Is the glow stick all about (drum roll) zombie muons ? Unfortunately, the lifetime of the muon is not the only problem. They tend to get stuck orbiting heavier nuclei, and are thus removed from the fusion chain. So even if their lifetime were severely extended, they probably wouldn't catalyze all that many reactions each anyway. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
RE: [Vo]:Muons, SPP, DDL RPF
This is the reason that many physicists are skeptical of Holmlid. The problem is that plasmons have no real mass, yet can couple with a photon to create the quasiparticle we call the plasma polariton or SPP, which also has no rest mass. If SPP have enough energy, perhaps they can convert to muons, but that requires so much energy that it seems unlikely. By process of elimination, I am wondering if Holmlid’s version of dense hydrogen H(0), which I prefer to call DDL, is converted – despite its opposite charge. Is it time to muddy the water with degenerate matter? From: Axil Axil The Muon comes from the SPP. In the Holmlid paper, the muons increased when the lights in the lab were turned on. In order to minimize muon production, the Rydberg matter had to be covered to exclude light. The sources give a slowly decaying muon signal for several hours and days after being used for producing H(0). They can be triggered to increase the muon production by laser irradiation inside the chambers or sometimes even by turning on the fluorescent lamps in the laboratory for a short time. Light is being converted to a form of energy that can produce muons. I say that that form of energy conversion is light to magnetic energy powerful enough to produce muons. In the Rossi reactor, the form of light is infrared. Deal with it.
Re: [Vo]:Muons, SPP, DDL RPF
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 9:45 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: Perhaps more to the point, where does the energy come from to create the muon in the first place? I didn't want to be a downer and ask the obvious question as to where the energy was coming to create muons and pions. ;) Eric
Re: [Vo]:Muons, SPP, DDL RPF
The Muon comes from the SPP. In the Holmlid paper, the muons increased when the lights in the lab were turned on. In order to minimize muon production, the Rydberg matter had to be covered to exclude light. The sources give a slowly decaying muon signal for several hours and days after being used for producing H(0). They can be triggered to increase the muon production by laser irradiation inside the chambers or sometimes even by turning on the fluorescent lamps in the laboratory for a short time. Light is being converted to a form of energy that can produce muons. I say that that form of energy conversion is light to magnetic energy powerful enough to produce muons. In the Rossi reactor, the form of light is infrared. Deal with it.
RE: [Vo]:Muons, SPP, DDL RPF
-Original Message- From: mixent@bigpond Perhaps more to the point, where does the energy come from to create the muon in the first place? A muon has a mass of 105.7 MeV. The only nuclear reaction that can produce that sort of energy in one go is a heavy element fission reaction. Even if the first one is a cosmic-ray muon, where do the rest come from? One muon can catalyze multiple fusion reactions, but these occur sequentially, and none of them release enough energy individually to produce a new muon. Robin, The idea is that during the energy exchange of catalysis, the lifetime of the muon is extended by the energy which would go into gamma radiation. This would be instead of creation of a new muon. However, I am starting to agree with your skepticism, and Eric's, that this could happen routinely. That is the value of a forum where weak ideas are challenged.
Re: [Vo]:Muons, SPP, DDL RPF
The SPP can gather energy from two possible sources, the vacuum and fusion. What proportion of energy can be extracted from each of those sources is not yet knowable, but that energy could be enough to produce muons. On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 1:04 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: From the Holmlid paper as follows: This means a total intensity of 1.5 × 109 s−1 sr−1. That intensity of muon production is too high for the source of muons to be coming from space.. On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 12:52 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: From the Holmlid paper as follows: With the source turned off at the end of the experiments, the count was 1.6 × 105 thus a certain change due to the source. In another experiment, the count was 1.08 × 105 at another source, sinking to 0.91 × 105 2 m away. The standard deviation is around 300 while the difference is 17 000, thus 50 times larger. Thus, a clear shift with detector position is found. The high-energy tail in these experiments (which is due to the particles giving photons in the PS, not electrons in the beta distribution) was close to 7000, thus with a standard deviation σ = 80. With water and lead shielding, the count was 7300 while without the shielding, the count was 8300, thus a difference 12 times larger than σ. A position close to one source which was not operating gave a count of 6915, while directly moving the detector a 3 m long distance from that position gave a count of 7873, thus a change 12 times larger than σ. A higher signal far from the source indicates a decay of the emitted particles. It is concluded that a signal due to decaying particles and* muons exists in the laboratory.* This shows that the source of the muons is located in the lab because muons decay when the detected is moved futher from the sourse. This decay would not happen is the sourse was from space. On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 12:16 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Let me backtrack… If we follow the credo that “experiment rules” and that Holmlid appears to be “making” muons, then the scenario which makes the most sense could be that SPP are indeed extending the life of cosmic muons, which then accumulate – giving the appearance that they are being made. In effect, we do not need to “make” them so much as keep them from decaying. Is the glow stick all about …(drum roll)… zombie muons ? -- This is the reason that many physicists are skeptical of Holmlid. The problem is that plasmons have no real mass, yet can couple with a photon to create the quasiparticle we call the plasma polariton or SPP, which also has no rest mass. If SPP have enough energy, perhaps they can convert to muons, but that requires so much energy that it seems unlikely. By process of elimination, I am wondering if Holmlid’s version of dense hydrogen H(0), which I prefer to call DDL, is converted – despite its opposite charge. Is it time to muddy the water with degenerate matter? *From:* Axil Axil The Muon comes from the SPP. In the Holmlid paper, the muons increased when the lights in the lab were turned on. In order to minimize muon production, the Rydberg matter had to be covered to exclude light. The sources give a slowly decaying muon signal for several hours and days after being used for producing H(0). They can be triggered to increase the muon production by laser irradiation inside the chambers or sometimes even by turning on the fluorescent lamps in the laboratory for a short time. Light is being converted to a form of energy that can produce muons. I say that that form of energy conversion is light to magnetic energy powerful enough to produce muons. In the Rossi reactor, the form of light is infrared. Deal with it.
Re: [Vo]:Muons, SPP, DDL RPF
Muons, SPP, DDL RPFMuon decay rate is not a constant but is influenced by various parameters. Spin and angular momentum vectors respectively, associated with the muon and electron or positron resulting from the decay, respectively, are coupled in the decay process. In this regard a magnetic field in so far as it effects the polarization of the muon and the angular momentum vector of the electron may increase or decrease the probability of the decay rate. If the muon decay is modified by a magnetic field, then the mass loss of the muon may be given up to orbital spin energy of the local SPP or the local lattice electrons without the production of neutrinos needed to conserve linear momentum in a decay process unassisted or made possible in a coherent coupled QM system. The muon decay is described in some complexity in the link that follows: http://pdg.lbl.gov/2011/reviews/rpp2011-rev-muon-decay-params.pdf In summary IMHO the details of the decay mechanism are not very understandable based on the cited paper. Bob Cook From: Jones Beene Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2015 7:05 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Muons, SPP, DDL RPF Its acronym time again. LENR is nothing if not full of acronyms. All of this set of letters seems to work together. Here is a website from Steve Byrnes – and it is quite well done. Even if you disagree with the conclusions (and by now, most of us have our own opinions on the details) it is well-researched, but a little dated - including the piece on muons: http://sjbyrnes.com/cf/?p=744 If the Holmlid disclosure about finding muons (heavy electrons) in the context of ultra-dense hydrogen (also known as DDL or deep Dirac level) and especially when irradiated by laser is correct, then there is a good possibility that this will lead to an improved understanding of one mechanism for LENR gain using plasmons to make heavy electrons (there are other mechanisms besides SPP). If Byrnes had realized that there could be a connection between an incandescent glow-reactor and SPP, and subsequently - between SPP and DDL and muons, his conclusion might look more cutting edge. But he has the brilliant insight to suggest a new possibility for muon-catalyzed fusion of deuterium, starting with a “spectator muon” which is renewed or replaced sequentially by the reaction itself, to wit: D+D + muon → helium-4 + muon (instead of gamma) … where the fist muon can be a cosmic muon which can catalyze a reaction and then be rejuvenated, renewed or replaced by the same fusion reaction that it catalyzes. The muon is a “heavy electron” with a short life, but now we can surmise that it can have its lifetime greatly extended as part of the catalysis. The probability for this to occur is larger than zero, but how large? … “Maybe it’s pretty high” says Byrnes. Can it explain the lack of gamma, as well? Probably. But now, as we are learning – this rebirth effect will be more robust with SPP and fractional hydrogen. There is one further detail which can be added in the glowing ferment: the enhanced diproton reaction, which is being labeled as RPF or “reversible proton fusion.” This avenue can explain most actual SPP results better than one-way fusion. This pathway works cleanly with the muon catalyst, more so than does Storm’s hydrotron, for instance. Surface plasmons typically do not occur or participate in electrolytic fusion (such as the PF reaction) unless a laser is added (Letts/Cravens effect). SPP production requires semi-coherent photons which are typically IR or visible in wavelength, and which a laser can supply. A magnetic field helps. There is little doubt that the Letts/Cravens effect is a simple implementation of SPP. However, deuteron fusion using SPP would produce gammas UNLESS the replacement muon carries away the gamma energy – which is the real beauty of having the muon modality in the first place. It explains the lack of gammas elegantly at the same time it explains an extended lifetime for the heavy electron. The better scenario for finding a good fit in muon catalysis, assuming that we can combine Holmlid’s and Byrnes insight - happens with protons instead of deuterons. This is the reversible diproton reaction, such as occurs on the sun with astounding frequency. There is little transmutation in the end, but instead we have a plethora of catalyzed inelastic collisions which do not proceed to permanent fusion – only soft x-rays. Consequently the reaction is called “reversible” (due to Pauli). P+P + muon → Helium-2 → P+P + muon + excess energy Helium-2 (diproton) has a shorter half-life than the muon. The excess energy which is seen in RPF would appear as soft x-rays or UV and happen in nanoseconds. The energy derives either from QCD and Helium-2 mass as it decays - or from muon mass-energy when that species finally decays, having being renewed several times. Since the muon “lives” for a few
RE: [Vo]:Muons, SPP, DDL RPF
Let me backtrack… If we follow the credo that “experiment rules” and that Holmlid appears to be “making” muons, then the scenario which makes the most sense could be that SPP are indeed extending the life of cosmic muons, which then accumulate – giving the appearance that they are being made. In effect, we do not need to “make” them so much as keep them from decaying. Is the glow stick all about …(drum roll)… zombie muons ? -- This is the reason that many physicists are skeptical of Holmlid. The problem is that plasmons have no real mass, yet can couple with a photon to create the quasiparticle we call the plasma polariton or SPP, which also has no rest mass. If SPP have enough energy, perhaps they can convert to muons, but that requires so much energy that it seems unlikely. By process of elimination, I am wondering if Holmlid’s version of dense hydrogen H(0), which I prefer to call DDL, is converted – despite its opposite charge. Is it time to muddy the water with degenerate matter? From: Axil Axil The Muon comes from the SPP. In the Holmlid paper, the muons increased when the lights in the lab were turned on. In order to minimize muon production, the Rydberg matter had to be covered to exclude light. The sources give a slowly decaying muon signal for several hours and days after being used for producing H(0). They can be triggered to increase the muon production by laser irradiation inside the chambers or sometimes even by turning on the fluorescent lamps in the laboratory for a short time. Light is being converted to a form of energy that can produce muons. I say that that form of energy conversion is light to magnetic energy powerful enough to produce muons. In the Rossi reactor, the form of light is infrared. Deal with it.
Re: [Vo]:Muons, SPP, DDL RPF
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 9:05 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: D+D + muon → helium-4 + muon (instead of gamma) … where the fist muon can be a cosmic muon which can catalyze a reaction and then be rejuvenated, renewed or replaced by the same fusion reaction that it catalyzes. The muon is a “heavy electron” with a short life, but now we can surmise that it can have its lifetime greatly extended as part of the catalysis. The probability for this to occur is larger than zero, but how large? … “Maybe it’s pretty high” says Byrnes. Can it explain the lack of gamma, as well? Probably. But now, as we are learning – this rebirth effect will be more robust with SPP and fractional hydrogen. A muon could possibly carry away as kinetic energy the energy that would otherwise go to a gamma. But if we're talking about a single muon, how do you propose that the spin of the missing photon is conserved? Eric
Re: [Vo]:Muons, SPP, DDL RPF
In reply to Eric Walker's message of Wed, 12 Aug 2015 21:18:24 -0500: Hi, Perhaps more to the point, where does the energy come from to create the muon in the first place? A muon has a mass of 105.7 MeV. The only nuclear reaction that can produce that sort of energy in one go is a heavy element fission reaction. Even if the first one is a cosmic-ray muon, where do the rest come from? One muon can catalyze multiple fusion reactions, but these occur sequentially, and none of them release enough energy individually to produce a new muon. On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 9:05 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: D+D + muon ? helium-4 + muon (instead of gamma) where the fist muon can be a cosmic muon which can catalyze a reaction and then be rejuvenated, renewed or replaced by the same fusion reaction that it catalyzes. The muon is a heavy electron with a short life, but now we can surmise that it can have its lifetime greatly extended as part of the catalysis. The probability for this to occur is larger than zero, but how large? Maybe its pretty high says Byrnes. Can it explain the lack of gamma, as well? Probably. But now, as we are learning this rebirth effect will be more robust with SPP and fractional hydrogen. A muon could possibly carry away as kinetic energy the energy that would otherwise go to a gamma. But if we're talking about a single muon, how do you propose that the spin of the missing photon is conserved? Eric Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Muons, SPP, DDL RPF
From the Holmlid paper as follows: This means a total intensity of 1.5 × 109 s−1 sr−1. That intensity of muon production is too high for the source of muons to be coming from space.. On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 12:52 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: From the Holmlid paper as follows: With the source turned off at the end of the experiments, the count was 1.6 × 105 thus a certain change due to the source. In another experiment, the count was 1.08 × 105 at another source, sinking to 0.91 × 105 2 m away. The standard deviation is around 300 while the difference is 17 000, thus 50 times larger. Thus, a clear shift with detector position is found. The high-energy tail in these experiments (which is due to the particles giving photons in the PS, not electrons in the beta distribution) was close to 7000, thus with a standard deviation σ = 80. With water and lead shielding, the count was 7300 while without the shielding, the count was 8300, thus a difference 12 times larger than σ. A position close to one source which was not operating gave a count of 6915, while directly moving the detector a 3 m long distance from that position gave a count of 7873, thus a change 12 times larger than σ. A higher signal far from the source indicates a decay of the emitted particles. It is concluded that a signal due to decaying particles and* muons exists in the laboratory.* This shows that the source of the muons is located in the lab because muons decay when the detected is moved futher from the sourse. This decay would not happen is the sourse was from space. On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 12:16 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Let me backtrack… If we follow the credo that “experiment rules” and that Holmlid appears to be “making” muons, then the scenario which makes the most sense could be that SPP are indeed extending the life of cosmic muons, which then accumulate – giving the appearance that they are being made. In effect, we do not need to “make” them so much as keep them from decaying. Is the glow stick all about …(drum roll)… zombie muons ? -- This is the reason that many physicists are skeptical of Holmlid. The problem is that plasmons have no real mass, yet can couple with a photon to create the quasiparticle we call the plasma polariton or SPP, which also has no rest mass. If SPP have enough energy, perhaps they can convert to muons, but that requires so much energy that it seems unlikely. By process of elimination, I am wondering if Holmlid’s version of dense hydrogen H(0), which I prefer to call DDL, is converted – despite its opposite charge. Is it time to muddy the water with degenerate matter? *From:* Axil Axil The Muon comes from the SPP. In the Holmlid paper, the muons increased when the lights in the lab were turned on. In order to minimize muon production, the Rydberg matter had to be covered to exclude light. The sources give a slowly decaying muon signal for several hours and days after being used for producing H(0). They can be triggered to increase the muon production by laser irradiation inside the chambers or sometimes even by turning on the fluorescent lamps in the laboratory for a short time. Light is being converted to a form of energy that can produce muons. I say that that form of energy conversion is light to magnetic energy powerful enough to produce muons. In the Rossi reactor, the form of light is infrared. Deal with it.
[Vo]:Muons, SPP, DDL RPF
Its acronym time again. LENR is nothing if not full of acronyms. All of this set of letters seems to work together. Here is a website from Steve Byrnes - and it is quite well done. Even if you disagree with the conclusions (and by now, most of us have our own opinions on the details) it is well-researched, but a little dated - including the piece on muons: http://sjbyrnes.com/cf/?p=744 If the Holmlid disclosure about finding muons (heavy electrons) in the context of ultra-dense hydrogen (also known as DDL or deep Dirac level) and especially when irradiated by laser is correct, then there is a good possibility that this will lead to an improved understanding of one mechanism for LENR gain using plasmons to make heavy electrons (there are other mechanisms besides SPP). If Byrnes had realized that there could be a connection between an incandescent glow-reactor and SPP, and subsequently - between SPP and DDL and muons, his conclusion might look more cutting edge. But he has the brilliant insight to suggest a new possibility for muon-catalyzed fusion of deuterium, starting with a “spectator muon” which is renewed or replaced sequentially by the reaction itself, to wit: D+D + muon → helium-4 + muon (instead of gamma) … where the fist muon can be a cosmic muon which can catalyze a reaction and then be rejuvenated, renewed or replaced by the same fusion reaction that it catalyzes. The muon is a “heavy electron” with a short life, but now we can surmise that it can have its lifetime greatly extended as part of the catalysis. The probability for this to occur is larger than zero, but how large? … “Maybe it’s pretty high” says Byrnes. Can it explain the lack of gamma, as well? Probably. But now, as we are learning - this rebirth effect will be more robust with SPP and fractional hydrogen. There is one further detail which can be added in the glowing ferment: the enhanced diproton reaction, which is being labeled as RPF or “reversible proton fusion.” This avenue can explain most actual SPP results better than one-way fusion. This pathway works cleanly with the muon catalyst, more so than does Storm’s hydrotron, for instance. Surface plasmons typically do not occur or participate in electrolytic fusion (such as the PF reaction) unless a laser is added (Letts/Cravens effect). SPP production requires semi-coherent photons which are typically IR or visible in wavelength, and which a laser can supply. A magnetic field helps. There is little doubt that the Letts/Cravens effect is a simple implementation of SPP. However, deuteron fusion using SPP would produce gammas UNLESS the replacement muon carries away the gamma energy - which is the real beauty of having the muon modality in the first place. It explains the lack of gammas elegantly at the same time it explains an extended lifetime for the heavy electron. The better scenario for finding a good fit in muon catalysis, assuming that we can combine Holmlid’s and Byrnes insight - happens with protons instead of deuterons. This is the reversible diproton reaction, such as occurs on the sun with astounding frequency. There is little transmutation in the end, but instead we have a plethora of catalyzed inelastic collisions which do not proceed to permanent fusion - only soft x-rays. Consequently the reaction is called “reversible” (due to Pauli). P+P + muon → Helium-2 → P+P + muon + excess energy Helium-2 (diproton) has a shorter half-life than the muon. The excess energy which is seen in RPF would appear as soft x-rays or UV and happen in nanoseconds. The energy derives either from QCD and Helium-2 mass as it decays - or from muon mass-energy when that species finally decays, having being renewed several times. Since the muon “lives” for a few microseconds, it can catalyzes only few reversible fusion reactions, but if the reaction itself effectively adds extra microseconds to the muon life (or alternatively) emits a new muon and we have positive feedback and continuity of the reaction. It appears to be a chain reaction. When muons are renewed via QCD in the RPF reaction, some level of incidental transmutation should be seen - which is consistent with Piantelli’s reported slight amount of transmutation. But in the end, with RPF there are few gamma rays (far from commensurate with heat), little transmutation (incidental levels only), but lots of UV, soft x-rays and most importantly, muon continuity … Many pieces of the puzzle could fall together - to the extent that the SPP, Muon, DDL RPF interconnection is viable. Is it? Did I miss an acronym? Jones
Re: [Vo]:Muons, SPP, DDL RPF
Muons forms from decay of pions. There are different pions and ways of decays but some without gamma, for example Pi+=U`+ neutrino. The Pions are involved in nuklear reactions as proton neutron exchange. _https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pion_ The Muons in Holmlids measurements may come from Pion decay. And the Muons must be an essential part in the LENR reactions. I had Holmlid as lecturer in physical chemistry and thermodynamics long time ago.
Re: [Vo]:Muons, SPP, DDL RPF
The muon or maybe its father the pion is the connection between physics and chemistry that typifies LENR. If there is a swarm of pions in and around the nucleus, nuclear reactions are sure to occur. Pions may be more pernicious then neutrons in terms of nuclear disruption. On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 1:17 PM, torulf.gr...@bredband.net wrote: Muons forms from decay of pions. There are different pions and ways of decays but some without gamma, for example Pi+=U`+ neutrino. The Pions are involved in nuklear reactions as proton neutron exchange. *https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pion* The Muons in Holmlids measurements may come from Pion decay. And the Muons must be an essential part in the LENR reactions. I had Holmlid as lecturer in physical chemistry and thermodynamics long time ago.
