Merging Holmlid and HeffnerRuss and Jones-- Steve Jones had a method for catching negative muons in hydrogen to effect a muon catalyzed fusion reaction. That fusion reaction would produce a good signature to suggest the presence of muons. I think a batch of liquid hydrogen behind a high density electron shield like lead or metallic U may work. Slowing down a negatively charged muon can be accomplished by a fog of electrons in the same way those electrons slow any negatively charged particle, for example fast relativistic electrons.
If the muon that is emitted is not a negatively charged one, slowing it down involves different shielding. Its final signature would not be that expected from H fusion like S. Jones made popular in the 1990’s. The above is based on old understanding of shielding mechanisms. I may have it wrong. Bob From: Jones Beene Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2016 12:19 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [Vo]:Merging Holmlid and Heffner The deflation hypothesis of Horace Heffner is still of significant interest - but seldom discussed. Here is the paper http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/DeflationFusion2.pdf There is a new twist which is possible to consider on this hypothesis since it was last updated. (The following suggestion is independent of Horace but borrows his concept relating to collapse of the wave function of an electron). That deflated electron in question is now to be identified as the electron of UDD (Rydberg matter) after irradiation by a laser and SPP compression. In the context of Holmlid, then - it is possible to reconsider the collapsing wave function as something other than part of a helium fusion event. The alternative event is simpler and would involving the electron collapsing into the proton (of a deuteron) which has been triggered by laser interaction with the electron. The interaction of three particles in the nucleus (neutron, proton and deflated electron) has the surprising QCD result of nucleon disintegration (as opposed to fusion). The observable outcome, as documented by Holmlid - would be muons, which are detected when they decay elsewhere than the reactor (as they are weakly interacting and decay meters away). Far greater initial excess energy is involved - but it dissipates mostly as neutrinos, so less local energy is seen in the reactor. The details remain to be worked out but we would not expect to see massive excess-heat locally. Instead we should see a spatial signal which is evident some distance away from the reactor – which is muon decay into neutrinos and electrons. This muon decay signature is easily detectable but prior to Holmlid, no one thought to look for it. Jones
