http://www.gizmag.com/physicist-smartphones-pocket-cosmic-ray-detectors/34121/
App turns a smartphone into a pocket-sized cosmic ray detector We talked about this many times. On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 5:27 PM, Bob Cook <[email protected]> wrote: > Russ 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 <[email protected]> > *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* > <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 >
