I believe that when the muon decays, if it is a negative muon, it decays into an electron and a pair of neutrinos. If it is a positive muon, it decays into a positron and 2 neutrinos. Before it decays, if it enters the electronic structure of an atom (likely in condensed matter), then it quickly descends into the innermost orbital, giving off soft x-rays in the process. The resulting muonic atom has a greater chance of internal conversion (I think). If the muon enters a molecule, like a D2 or a D-T in particular, muon catalyzed fusion is highly likely with different products.
I am still in study mode for the muon interaction with matter. On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 3:40 PM, Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com> wrote: > What is the mode of "decay" of free muons and, separately, in condensed > matter? > > They seem not to produce any high energy EM nor radioactive products. If > they did, I would assume this would have been reported unless it was > intended to remain a secret. > > I consider based on reported muon models of Hatt and Stubbs and deep > elastic electron scattering experiments with muons and protons, electons > and positrons should be observed during muon decay, if high energy gammas > do not show up. > > Regarding these ideas, I question the designation of a muon as a lepton > (primary) particle. The scattering experiments suggest a different type of > particle--more akin to a proton or a neutron. > > Bob Cook > ------------------------------ > *From:* Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com> > *Sent:* Monday, November 14, 2016 9:57 AM > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Subject:* RE: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons > > > The idea that the muons are interacting in solid matter with the electrons > not the nuclei of atoms is very compelling to me. Indeed this may well > explain two mysteries of my cold fusion muon/mischegunons, that is that > very few are escaping the experiment cells. That what I have detected is > the dwindling remains of the reaction is very compelling and as well > explains why so few cold fusion experiments have detected any such > emanations. The time dilation effect that effectively increases the > cross-section of materials just works very well indeed. > > > > This speaks to the growing revelations on silver being a valuable > constituent in a range of experiments. Silver of course has a very complete > electron cloud, as such it might well be the best material for engaging > with the muon/mischugenon nuclear ash. This would help me a lot in > understanding why it just happens that I have found silver so useful (as > has Mills) it is not the neutron cross section of silver it is the muon > cross-section! > > > > > > *From:* Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Monday, November 14, 2016 8:38 AM > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons > > > > In this discussion, Jones presumes muons to be traveling at light speed: > > The muon is an unstable fermion with a lifetime of 2.2 microseconds, > which is an eternity compared to most beta decays. Ignoring time > dilation, this would mean that muons, travelling at light speed, would be > dispersing > and decaying in an imaginary sphere about 600 meters from the reactor. > > > > There are a number of things wrong with this. First, most commonly > encountered muons are cosmogenic and have 100MeV-GeV energies. At these > energies, the muon is traveling at a significant fraction of the speed of > light (but not at the speed of light) and as such experiences time dilation > in its decay. Because of time dilation, the stationary observer sees the > cosmogenic muon decay to be much longer than 2.2 microseconds. This is why > cosmogenic muons can travel 50-100 miles to the Earth's surface without > having decayed. > > What Holmlid has reported is "10MeV/u" as a measurement for his muons - > this is a measure of velocity squared. One u (atomic mass unit) is 931 > MeV/c^2. In Holmlid's units of measure (MeV/u), call the amount measured > X, then the velocity of the particle is sqrt(X/931)*c. For Holmlid's > report of a measure of 10 MeV/u, one gets sqrt(10/931)*c = 0.104c. This is > only an approximation for small velocity compared to c; as the velocity > increases special relativity must be invoked in the solution. Special > relativity would reduce the velocity from this equation as it started > approaching c, so the actual velocity will be somewhat less than 0.1c for > Holmlid's particles, and a slight time dilation would be experienced. > > So, if Holmlid's particles were muons, and if Mills was creating the same > at a v^2 of 10MeV/u, then the range in a vacuum would be on the order of 60 > meters. However, muons being charged, are well stopped in condensed matter > because the particle doesn't have to run into a nucleus to be scattered, > just run into the dense electronic orbitals. The more dense the condensed > matter, the greater the stopping power for the muon. > > If muons were being generated with a v^2 of 10MeV/u, I doubt any would > escape Mills' reactor vessel. > >
