Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

I found the LENR Forum thread where we looked in detail at several papers by Holmlid and Holmlid and Olafsson: - dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2015.06.116, "Spontaneous ejection of high-energy particles from ultra-dense deuterium D(0)", Holmlid and Olafsson -

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

Jones, On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 3:29 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > > Bob Higgins wrote: > >> A long CV doesn't make contradictory claims OK. >> > Maybe not, but the combined reputation and many long CVs of the dozens of > co-authors, overcomes many objections ... such as

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

e the consequences of polaritons in such a system? >>> >>> Think before lobbing insults. >>> >>> On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Great comment on Holmlid’s body of work by Ax

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

Bob Higgins wrote: A long CV doesn't make contradictory claims OK. Maybe not, but the combined reputation and many long CVs of the dozens of co-authors, overcomes many objections ... such as measurement error, and can at least explain why the claims are not contradictory to known physics

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

he author’s work is >>> not recapitulated in a single paper are not worthy of paying attention to. >>> Such behavior is characteristic of trolling not honest and earnest >>> productive dialog. But this is the nature of the internet which facilitates >>> spouting off from th

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 2:46 PM, Axil Axil wrote: The use of a well defied magnetic field in the experiment can delineate > both the mass and polarity of the emergent subatomic particles. > As I mentioned, I don't trust Holmlid to do this right. It's not straightforward to

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

The use of a well defied magnetic field in the experiment can delineate both the mass and polarity of the emergent subatomic particles. On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 3:42 PM, Eric Walker wrote: > On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Bob Higgins > wrote: >

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

nternet which facilitates >> spouting off from the lip/fingertip ever the bane of thoughtful exchange of >> ideas. Vortex-l often digresses into a seedy barscape too late at night. >> Ces’t la vie. >> >> >> >> *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] &

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Bob Higgins wrote: If we in Vortex want to make a useful contribution to Holmlid's reports, we > should propose and consider what other explanations are reasonable for his > data. > The thing I would like to see examined experimentally

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

gt;> productive dialog. But this is the nature of the internet which facilitates >> spouting off from the lip/fingertip ever the bane of thoughtful exchange of >> ideas. Vortex-l often digresses into a seedy barscape too late at night. >> Ces’t la vie. >> >> >>

RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

trolls live festering in the dark and damp under said bridges. From: Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 11:58 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid. It is a "troll-ism" to presume that I have NOT looked at

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

ses into a seedy barscape too late at night. > Ces’t la vie. > > > > *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Sunday, January 22, 2017 10:11 AM > *To:* vortex-l > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid. > > > > Holmlid has been writing papers o

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

In reply to Russ George's message of Sat, 21 Jan 2017 20:33:56 -0800: Hi, [snip] >Heat moves at the speed of sound in solids but is made at a far faster rate. Actually, it moves much slower. The speed of sound in steel is about 6 thousand meters/second. The length of a teaspoon is about 10 cm.

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

If Holmlid is right about prolific production of muons in LENR, then LENR will look a lot like the initial use of oil and its associated CO2 loading at the beginning of the 20th century. But as the number of LENR driven engines increase into the billions, then the weight of muons on the byways and

RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

Thanks Eric please do add me to your kill file, nothing could please me more. From: Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 10:39 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid. Hi Russ, On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 12:28 PM, Russ

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

Hi Russ, On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 12:28 PM, Russ George wrote: Great comment on Holmlid’s body of work by Axil. I concur that people who > fire critiques of others work based on the fact that they are too lazy to > do anything other than make pompous comment on materials

RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

of ideas. Vortex-l often digresses into a seedy barscape too late at night. Ces’t la vie. From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 10:11 AM To: vortex-l Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid. Holmlid has been writing papers on ultra dense hydogen since

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

Holmlid has been writing papers on ultra dense hydogen since the early 1990s. There must be 100 produce so far. It is unreasonable to expect all the details about UDH and Holmlid's research into it over all those years to be recapitulated in this latest paper. Holmlid thinking on UDH has evolved

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

Bob, You have expressed the arguments against Holmlid's interpretation being accurate quite well. Thanks for taking the time to do this. As I mentioned before, these arguments can be generally condensed into "show me more." Yet Holmlid is doing as much with small funding as can be reasonably

RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

energy neutrons and other fission debris associated with fission reactors is serendipitous but not miraculous. Bob Cook From: Axil Axil Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2017 9:18 PM To: vortex-l Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid. I seem to remember a old LENR truism that has come down over

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 9:08 AM, Bob Higgins wrote: Basically, I cannot get past the fact that Holmlid is building a huge > castle on a foundation of sand. > This is my sentiment exactly. Holmlid presents his work as experimental work, but there's such a long chain of

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

So far, as I keep reading Holmlid's latest paper, I keep coming to a statement, and I ask myself, "where's the support for this?" So I go through the string of references and find illogical hand waving or leaps of faith, but not logical support. This business of the "2.3 pm" spaced seems to

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

he speed of sound in solids but is made at a far faster rate. > Mills just might be onto something useful with his energy removal via > light. Holmlid’s experiment (being a near perfect clone of some successful > cold fusion experiments) and his mesons also offer an energy dilution >

RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

solution. From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2017 6:03 PM To: vortex-l Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid. IMHO in the Holmlid experiment, ultra dense hydrogen (UDH) is produced in the presence of hydrogen by the iron oxide/potassium

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

; >> Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for >> Windows 10 >> >> >> >> *From: *Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com> >> *Sent: *Saturday, January 21, 2017 4:00 PM >> *To: *vortex-l@eskimo.com >> *Subjec

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

om: *Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com> > *Sent: *Saturday, January 21, 2017 4:00 PM > *To: *vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Subject: *RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid. > > > > The vital question is about the rate vs. distance for the emergence of > detectable muons. Surely th

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

What is confusing you is that Holmlid has changed his mind based on further research. He now says that the energies produced at the primary point of the reaction on the collection foil produces far too much energy to be derived from fusion. Holmlid states that this energy comes from double proton

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

The significance of the theory that the Dutch theoretical physicist Erik Verlinde offers as an alternative to the dark matter particle idea has great import and application to the LENR paradigm. The basic idea behind Erik Verlinde theory is the gravity can be weakened when ambient matter in

RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

ON THE RESULTS EXPECTED FOR A MESON-PION-MUON SERIES OF EVENTS, IF I CAN FIGURE IT OUT. BOB COOK Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Russ George Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2017 4:00 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid. The vital question is about the rate vs

RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

ong with this computer it cannae do what I am asking it to do. From: Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2017 2:55 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid. I believe there are circular arguments going on here. On the one hand

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

I believe there are circular arguments going on here. On the one hand you are saying that neutral mesons are decaying into muons (charged) far from the reactor. But also there is the claim of fusion in his reactor, wherein many are supposing MCF. He is also measuring charged particles in his

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 2:47 PM, Russ George wrote: No insinuation by me I simply don’t trust anyone who stands by Huizenga! Who's standing by Huizenga? Eric

RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

. -Original Message- From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2017 12:40 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid. When you think about it - why would CERN want to test Holmlid's device ? Isn't it lose, lose, lose for them

RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

No insinuation by me I simply don’t trust anyone who stands by Huizenga! From: Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2017 11:32 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid. Hi Russ, On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 1:28 PM, Russ George

RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

imo.com> Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid. Here is an image of ATLAS. http://www.atlasexperiment.org/photos/atlas_photos/selected-photos/full-detector/0511013_02-A4-at-144-dpi.jpg The guy standing in the bottom/center gives an idea of the Scale. Heck LH doesn't

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

When you think about it - why would CERN want to test Holmlid's device ? Isn't it lose, lose, lose for them... if the test is successful? Hundreds of lucrative jobs could be lost. Prestige is a stake. Big science is at stake. Where is the silver lining for CERN? Of course, the "science"

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

Hi Russ, On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 1:28 PM, Russ George wrote: Huizenga being the lying conniving troll that he was reneged on his > commitment. Anyone who stands by Huizenga as a credible person is either a > complete fool or a disreputable troll. > Perhaps you're

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

damage. Even though I was > one flip of a switch away I never threw that switch. Ces't la vie. > > -Original Message- > From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] > Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2017 10:38 AM > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Subjec

RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

Subject: RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid. Eric--- You would think so that the high energy folks at CERN would comment, unless they are concerned about their future at CERN. I would pick others to give reputable reports on muons. I would look to the comments of retired high energy

RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

years.” I hope you are not reading from a page out of Huizinga’s debunk book. Bob Cook From: Eric Walker Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2017 10:11 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid. On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 12:00 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: Holm

RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

never threw that switch. Ces't la vie. -Original Message- From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2017 10:38 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid. Here is an image of ATLAS. http://www.atlasexperiment.org/photos

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

Here is an image of ATLAS. http://www.atlasexperiment.org/photos/atlas_photos/selected-photos/full-detector/0511013_02-A4-at-144-dpi.jpg The guy standing in the bottom/center gives an idea of the Scale. Heck LH doesn't need a miniature version - that is an unnecessary delay: the version that

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 12:00 PM, Axil Axil wrote: Holmlid et al are planning to put a miniaturized version of their > experiment inside a full scale particle detector. My guess is that that > detector will be ATLAS since Holmlid is in contact with the particle > physics at

RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

Eric-- In other words. DOA, dead on arrival… Bob Cook From: Eric Walker Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2017 9:44 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid. Has Holmlid enlisted outside help in characterizing these charged and neutral radiations in this latest paper

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

Holmlid et al are planning to put a miniaturized version of their experiment inside a full scale particle detector. My guess is that that detector will be ATLAS since Holmlid is in contact with the particle physics at CERN. Holmlid is working with Sveinn Olafsson who is a nuclear physics who

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

Has Holmlid enlisted outside help in characterizing these charged and neutral radiations in this latest paper? I've been hoping he would do so for years. To summarize what has instead been reported in papers leading up to this one: an alleged muon, pion and kaon radiation field, inferred from

RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

electron scattering experiments reported in a recent Infinite Energy edition also supports the presence of a muon-like structure in a proton. Bob Cook From: Jones Beene Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2017 7:41 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid. Bob Higgins

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

watch out for "total protonic reversal" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyKQe_i9yyo Harry

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

Bob Higgins wrote: The descriptions in 5,8) below suggests that Holmlid's reaction produces a high muon flux that would escape the reactor. A high muon flux would be very similar to a high beta flux. First of all, it would seem that a flux of charged muons would be highly absorbed in the

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

The descriptions in 5,8) below suggests that Holmlid's reaction produces a high muon flux that would escape the reactor. A high muon flux would be very similar to a high beta flux. First of all, it would seem that a flux of charged muons would be highly absorbed in the reactor walls. Those

RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

/BF02785489 Bob Cook From: Axil Axil Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2017 1:32 PM To: vortex-l Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid. I would guesstimate that 99% of the energy output of a LENR reactor comes in the form of muons that will decay into electrons. Rossi says that his QuarkX reactor

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

In reply to Russ George's message of Fri, 20 Jan 2017 17:40:12 -0800: Hi, https://phys.org/news/2015-11-discovery-enable-portable-particle.html Quote:- "This effect is known as relativistic self-focusing, and becomes more pronounced as the plasma density increases." Note that Holmlid claims

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

In reply to 's message of Thu, 19 Jan 2017 12:34:13 -0800: Hi, [snip] >If the muons are charged, they can be focused and polarized in a magnetic >field. Hence they can be made to react more readily with polarized electrons >in a lattice and their energy harvested in a

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

In reply to Russ George's message of Fri, 20 Jan 2017 17:40:12 -0800: Hi, [snip] >Might you provide a ref or few to the comment. " It is well known that when >you shine a laser through a plasma, you get a bench top GeV particle >accelerator."

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

In reply to Russ George's message of Fri, 20 Jan 2017 17:40:12 -0800: Hi, [snip] >Might you provide a ref or few to the comment. " It is well known that when >you shine a laser through a plasma, you get a bench top GeV particle >accelerator." Are the necessary conditions present in Holmlid's

RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

mailto:mix...@bigpond.com] Sent: Friday, January 20, 2017 4:40 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid. In reply to Russ George's message of Fri, 20 Jan 2017 15:29:37 -0800: Hi Russ, [snip] >The point being that either 'speed' is more than sufficient to whack >the ball out

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

In reply to Russ George's message of Fri, 20 Jan 2017 15:29:37 -0800: Hi Russ, [snip] >The point being that either 'speed' is more than sufficient to whack the >ball out of the ballpark which is a most interesting piece of the puzzle. I agree, however before I accept it, I would prefer to know

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

Einstein messed things up. Energy is some sort of scalar of some sort of a vector quantity. When you have mass [M] multiplied by some sort of velocity [v] by velocity [v] again. The velocities are vectors, so you either have vector product and scalar product from that, or you are looking at

RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid. In reply to Axil Axil's message of Fri, 20 Jan 2017 16:44:39 -0500: Hi, [snip] I was hoping someone here would show me the error of my ways, before I made a complete fool of myself in public. (yes, I know I have already done that.) :) I think I may have found

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

In reply to Axil Axil's message of Fri, 20 Jan 2017 16:44:39 -0500: Hi, [snip] I was hoping someone here would show me the error of my ways, before I made a complete fool of myself in public. (yes, I know I have already done that.) :) I think I may have found either my mistake or Einstein's. ;)

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

The is a comment section in the PLOS/1 format where a reader can submit corrections as required for evaluation by the author. Why not submit this proposed correction through this comment method. On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM, wrote: > In reply to Axil Axil's message of

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

In reply to Axil Axil's message of Thu, 19 Jan 2017 11:58:00 -0500: Hi, [snip] >http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0169895 I think Holmlid made a mistake in his velocity calculation. (Either that, or I did). He equates 500*MeV/u to 0.75 c. I think this derives

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

Russ George wrote: The devil is in the details. The presence of helium but absence of tritium if ‘muon catalyzed fusion’ is present is a puzzling. Unless the channel is potently redirected to 4He which coherent behavior might allow for. This is why I brought up Takahashi and his TSC

RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

not exhibit evidence of ‘positron annihilation’. That comment seems to be about some similar paper from a parallel universe. From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, January 20, 2017 12:43 AM To: vortex-l Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid. Regarding: 4) A laser pulse

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

Regarding: 4) A laser pulse is required to produce the annihilation event in protons - the weak force is not involved at this point. The weak force must be amplified because all radioactive isotopes produced by the reactions are instantaneously stabilized including tritium from DD fusion. On

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

In and email, Sveinn told me in part as follows:Sveinn Olafsson 11/28/16 next mid year we plan to have mobile source to go to real large detector setups so cloud chambers are then a bit antiqued ? On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 4:48 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > Nice addition. >

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

Nice addition. The main thing that worries me about Holmlid is that few experts who work in ICF and laser fusion are taking notice. Winterberg took notice, but he is just as controversial, and that paper is almost ancient history. The only intelligent criticism out there is saying

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

I would guesstimate that 99% of the energy output of a LENR reactor comes in the form of muons that will decay into electrons. Rossi says that his QuarkX reactor produces 20% of it COP as electric power (aka electrons). The QuarkX reactor must produce huge amounts of muons for all those electrons

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

The muons that penetrate the body can not be a good thing especially if the muons produce ionization inside the body. Muons from space produce 1/2 of the background radiation load. This is why I have predicted that the high powered LENR reactor will be heavily shielded, maybe placed underground,

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

This brings up the down side of LENR. LENR produce intense ionization produced by muons far from the reaction. Many experimenters have complained about this intense ionization which makes electronics useless. On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 4:01 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > > You still

RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2017 1:02 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid. You still are not making the correct and important distinctions from this paper. This may sound pedantic but "decay" is not the same thing as &qu

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

You still are not making the correct and important distinctions from this paper. This may sound pedantic but "decay" is not the same thing as "annihilation." If is important to use the correct semantics here. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_decay 1) Mesons are derived from

RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Axil Axil Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2017 12:01 PM To: vortex-l Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid. Holmlid states as follows: The state s = 1 may lead to a fast nuclear reaction. It is suggested that this involves two nucleons, probably two protons

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_decay "In particle physics , *proton decay* is a hypothetical form of radioactive decay in which the proton

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

Holmlid states as follows: The state *s* = 1 may lead to a fast nuclear reaction. It is suggested that this involves two nucleons, probably two protons. The first particles formed and observed [16 ,17

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

Axil Axil wrote: The first reaction to occur is meson production which as nothing to do with fusion: Well, that is partially true - mesons come first after the laser pulse. No one cares, since mesons have incredibly short lifetimes. The main point is that mesons very quickly into muons.

RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

debates over minutia while pioneering technologists are happy with helping hints of in what general direction one might choose to go next. From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2017 10:35 AM To: vortex-l Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid. The first

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

Jones Beene says: The (possible) reason the proton reaction is comparatively weak despite the massive decay energy of mesons is that decay occurs so far away from the reactor that the energy cannot be captured. The particles can decay hundreds of meters away on average. If the sub atomic

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

The first reaction to occure is meson production which as nothing to do with fusion: Holmlid writes: Quote The time variation of the collector signals was initially assumed to be due to time-of-flight of the ejected particles from the target to the collectors. Even the relatively low particle

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

This is an extremely important paper, even if it is incremental to earlier work. There had been an open question about the necessity of deuterium, as opposed to protium - but now that is answered. Holmlid's body of work going back a decade is by far the most advanced in LENR. This is the

RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

Holy Cow Batman, this stunning comprehensive paper reports the unambiguous observation of unusual DD fusion with both 4He a 3He pathways. The 4He path occurs with only 3Mev, the 3He with 14Mev. Further the muons are expelled at 500 Mev. The magic being ultra-dense hydrogen, both deuterium and