Muons or mischugenon’s that is the question. When I presented my evidence for similar mysterious sub-atomic beasties to Edward Teller many years ago his interpretation of the data led to him naming my mysterious particles “mischugenon’s”, aka crazy particles. Edward and I could really not make heads or tails of them, but that they existed was not in question. Of course some of the pundits in this swirling Vortex seem far more interested in making a stink than in letting the data speak, such as is common amongst bits found in such environments. I happen to fancy Holmlid’s ‘muon’ as a very good step in the right direction delivered through very valid experimentation and real data not mere brain farts. Let the armchair semantic stinkers twist in the vortex, alas if they could only be sinkers they would disappear sooner.
From: Eric Walker [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2016 1:03 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Jones Beene <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: Whoa, Eric. Since when does “logic” contradict experimental results? Where – precisely - is this fountain of logic that contradicts Holmlid’s real data? Isn’t every scientific breakthrough a contradiction of logic, almost by definition”? I think you missed my point. I do not deny the validity of experimental results, in this case Holmlid's. I question his conclusion that they're explained by muons (and pions, etc.), which is an interpretation of his experimental results. (It is also possible his experimental results are mistaken, but I do not have specific reason to doubt them at this point.) It seems to me that muons can be ruled out rather easily for various reasons, in the same way that free neutrons can be ruled out as a mechanism in LENR. If one does not believe this is true, ok, then further experiments can and should be done to eliminate them as a possibility, done by people other than Holmlid, who has invested his reputation in there being muons. I did not intend to criticize you specifically, except to suggest that sometimes you explore possibilities without adding qualifications, which can be confusing for people who have not read a lot of your posts. You also often add qualifications, so it's not intended as a strong criticism. My point pertained to others who un-self-consciously pursue a pure engineering approach in which the claims of one inventor are simply chained together with those of another inventor to obtain some far-out result. With you, at least you're pretty good about pointing out that it's just speculation. With many people, there's no clear evidence that they know that they're engaging in speculation, which can lead to long threads whose initial premises, many emails back, were doubtful to begin with. I have my doubts about the muon data, like everyone else … mostly because it is revolutionary, since it appears to have been done correctly in practice - but no one to my knowledge has contradicted by experiment or failed replication, the real data of Holmlid; and until then, he should be given benefit of the doubt … I always give inventors and experimentalists the benefit of the doubt with regard to the signals that their instruments record. I start out with great skepticism for the interpretations they cook up to make sense of those signals. I suspect that Holmlid may be seeing something LENR-related. But to my knowledge has yet to engage someone with expertise in measuring charged particle radiation to validate that he's seeing muons; he continues to insist that an oscilloscope can be used to rule out other possibilities; and he imagines that it's possible to come up with a new way of detecting low energy muons without the benefit of a calibration source of some kind to provide a cross check on his results. Eric
