One point worth adding to this discussion is the most amazing claim of Holmlid for lots of muons produced from UDD irradiation.
There is an almost mundane explanation for this. Actually it may involve space-time as well, but surprisingly – the muons seen could originate in Space, instead of as a product of nucleon disintegration. Holmlid could be seeing several weeks of muon accumulation in a few minutes. In short, it is not ruled out that the initial muons seen by Holmlid are of cosmological origin and have been accumulating slowly in the UDD material during a formative stage, and are then released quickly during a brief phase of increased radiation from the laser. They then multiply, but the main point is that Electron Degenerate Matter EDG is a common occurrence in cosmology, and a number of experts in this field think that “Fermi suppression” would be the operative mechanism for muon stability in EDG, due to an oddity of quantum mechanics. If this were true, then we have another piece of the Holmlid puzzle. Here is the argument: 1) There are a number of cosmologists specializing in collapsed stars, who claim that muons “should be stable” in electron-degenerate matter. They offer mathematical proof that is beyond my pay grade. 2) Creation of UDD may involve degenerate-electron accumulation, which has a secondary side effect of stabilizing muons. 3) There is a constant flux of muons on the earth’s surface which usually decay quickly, but if they can first interact with degenerate electrons, they could stabilize before decay and the population will grow 4) Holmlid has stated that it can take weeks of low power operation before the muon effect is seen. Once accumulated muons are released, they could produce a secondary stream via interaction with UDD. Speaking of high current loops… (at the nanoscale, which is to say: nanomagnetics). High current loops have been associated with SPP. There is a tendency to toss around the term SPP or “plasmonics” as if it was synonymous with an intense magnetic field, but this not always true. SPP are surface photon waves along a metal-dielectric interface which will occur without a strong magnetic field if high current loops are absent. Lossless current loops are required to concentrate wave energy in a perpendicular vortex. Is it coincidental that hexagonal structure in the dielectric of an SPP almost always creates an intense magnetic field? The key to understanding this phenomenon could be “ring current,” in the context of hexagonal nanostructure. The first notice of this phenomenon goes back to the study of benzene structures in NMR, where “aromatic ring current” is an effect observed in six carbon compounds which are otherwise nonconductive. If a magnetic field is applied perpendicular to the plane of the aromatic, as in NMR - ring current is induced non-conductors. Ring current appears as localized current which flows around the 6 iron atoms in the hematite ring, normally a dielectric. Ring current is ironically much more intense than vectored current – resulting in a near-field of hundreds or even thousands of T. when the field is amplified by SPP. An intuitive operative theory for the “glow” type of LENR can be based this intense kilo-T field of SPP being sufficient to collapse hydrogen orbitals down to a few picometers. The result is not Rydberg matter per se, but an inverted version. Possibly, the electrons become degenerate instead of displaced, and thus become non-interacting. Degenerate electrons are non-interacting. Best of all, removal of degeneracy can provide the gain seen in LENR in a non-nuclear fashion. The intense magnetic field of ring current is a direct consequence of Ampère's law since electrons are free to circulate in a lossless loop almost as if superconductive. Ring electrons could be paired as well. Ironically, if ring current serves to produce electron degeneracy, you end up with the inverted state - in contrast to normal Rydberg matter. And the two types of electrons, relativistic and degenerate – are in close proximity, setting the stage for gain. From: Roarty, Francis X Hi Jack, I have been following this also and even the proposed use of large superconducting magnets in a collider are only expected to produce miniscule variations but just proving the correlation is a very important step and I think LENR will benefit enormously. Jones’ focus on a correlation between magnetic fields and LENR may turn out to be an understatement if, as I suspect, there is synergy between the suppression of a lattice NAE and the size of the magnetic field needed to redirect gravity. Fran From: Jack Cole Saw this posted to the Google+ LENR group. Seems interesting and has at least been accepted for publication in Physical Review D <http://journals.aps.org/prd/accepted/9c071Y13Qf01b540790037d706f539446ab0764e8> . The full paper is available on Arxiv <http://arxiv.org/pdf/1504.00333v3.pdf> . They do propose a method of producing gravity through electromagnetism and detecting the effects. There does not seem to be any new physics proposed. Although the effect would be minuscule and likely of no practical value in the immediate future, they note: "Such a detection of the space-time curvature generated by a magnetic field in laboratory would constitute a major step in physics: the ability to produce, detect, and ultimately control artificial gravitational fields. And would this technology be developed, it could lead to amazing applications like the controlled emission of gravitational waves with large alternative electric currents. Gravity would then cease to be the last of the four fundamental forces not under control by human beings." Jack
