IMHO the Holmild reactiom is not LENR—LOW energy nuclear reaction nor a LATTICE assisted nuclear reaction. The high energy particles belie LENR.
The key question is: “HOW DO ALL THE NEUTRAL PARTICLES GET THEIR SIGNIFICANT ENERGY”. It seems from Holmild’s description of the experiment that the LASER pulse-- a fairly specific EM oscillating field-- disrupts the forces (potential energy) that make the p(0) and D(0) denser than normal material. I imagine that the dense p(0) may be Cooper pairs of protium--the binding energy is magnetic in nature. The D(0) may also be a Cooper pair of sorts with magnetic binding creating a low-dense, alpha type particle. The LASER pulse, given the correct resonant frequency, causes the disruption of the respective dense entities by changing their magnetic binding forces, allowing the electric field to do its job to separate the positive charges. As Russ has indicated, this seems to be new physics or maybe “ignored physics”.. It may even a new quark soup (rather thin) that the good high energy physics boys only think they understand. (: ) I think it is more likely a disruption of the positron/electron pairs making up the neutrons and protons per Phlippe Hatt’s theory that I have referenced in various threads in the past. The presence of muons seems to be possible/likely given the accuracy of Hatt’s theory in prediction of muon mass, charges and magnetic moments. William Stubbs analysis of high energy electron scattering experiments reported in a recent Infinite Energy edition also supports the presence of a muon-like structure in a proton. Bob Cook From: Jones Beene Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2017 7:41 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid. Bob Higgins wrote: The descriptions in 5,8) below suggests that Holmlid's reaction produces a high muon flux that would escape the reactor. A high muon flux would be very similar to a high beta flux. First of all, it would seem that a flux of charged muons would be highly absorbed in the reactor walls. Bob - Yes, this has been the obvious criticism in the past, but it has been addressed. As I understand it, the muons which are detected do not exist until the meson, which is the progenitor particle, is many meters away. This makes the lack of containment of muons very simple to understand. At one time muons were thought to exist as neutral instead of charged (see the reference Bob Cook sent, from 1957) but in fact, the observers at that time, due to poor instrumentation - were seeing neutral mesons, not muons. As an example, a neutral Kaon decays to two muons one negative and one positive. However, the lifetime of the Kaon which is much shorter than the muon but still about ~10^-8 seconds means that on average 99+% of the particles are tens to hundreds of meters away before they decay to muons. Thus the reactor is transparent to the progenitor particle. This is why Holmlid places a muon detector some distance away and then calculates the decay time. Thus he claims an extraordinarily high flux of muons which assumes that the detector is mapping out a small space on a large sphere. However, they are not usable any more than neutrinos are usable, since they start out as a neutral meson.
