Proton proton involves the creation of charmed and strange quarks(the D-meson?). When you figure out how those guys work, explain it simply so that both me and your grandmother can understand it.
On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 7:40 PM, <bobcook39...@gmail.com> wrote: > I would question why a neutral Kaon can not decay into 2 neutral muons? > If the data on normal Kaon decay is from high energy 2-body reactions, then > resonant stimulation of D and p by EM may result in entirely different > results statistically—i.e., 2 neutral kaons instead of a + and – pair being > likely. > > > > Again, whatever the nature of the neutral particles, how they get their > kinetic energy/momentum is a key question for Holmild. > > > > Another question involves the balancing of quarks available and whether > the standard theory is at risk? I’ll take a look at this issue myself and > report back on the results expected for a meson-pion-muon series of events, > if I can figure it out. > > > > Bob Cook > > > > Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for > Windows 10 > > > > *From: *Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com> > *Sent: *Saturday, January 21, 2017 4:00 PM > *To: *vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Subject: *RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid. > > > > The vital question is about the rate vs. distance for the emergence of > detectable muons. Surely there is a distribution bell curve regarding which > we cold fusioneers are most interested in the nearest limb of that > distribution. This then speaks to the reaction rate producing the meson > beasties which presumably is directly related to the anomalous nuclear > reaction rate, aka cold fusion as that’s been the moniker for good or for > worse. For the capture of crazy meson/muons and resulting in detection it > seems a combined intercepting/converting metal foil coupled to > scintillation detector, aka GMT, works just fine provided the reaction rate > is sufficient, aka > joules/sec … more is better remember we are out on a > limb here. Any ideas about what might ‘reflect’ a meson, perhaps beryllium > as it is the best neutron reflector. Such reflectors might improve the > containment and hence time the meson/muon beasties stay close enough for > detection. > > > > Just for fun maybe it’s worth building a beryllium frustrum and thus have > our di-lithium crystal warp drive. Computer draw me the wee specs for a > transparent beryllium frustrum. Computer. Computer…. I dunna know what’s > wrong with this computer it cannae do what I am asking it to do. > > > > *From:* Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Saturday, January 21, 2017 2:55 PM > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid. > > > > I believe there are circular arguments going on here. On the one hand you > are saying that neutral mesons are decaying into muons (charged) far from > the reactor. But also there is the claim of fusion in his reactor, wherein > many are supposing MCF. He is also measuring charged particles in his > reactor. The decay "times" are statistical means and there will be some > probability of a decay from t = zero to infinity. That's why it is > possible to see mesons -> muons in the reactor, more outside the reactor, > and more further away from the reactor. > > So, I am saying that there are meson decays going on all along the path > from the reactor. Muons should be easy to detect because they are charged > and likely to interact with the scintillator crystal/liquid/plastic or by > exciting photoelectron cascades in the GM tube. The fact that the > corresponding muons are not detected in ordinary LENR with GM tubes and > scintillators basically means that, in LENR, mesons are not produced. They > may not be produced in Holmlid's reaction ... but I have to finish reading > the paper to understand the case he is claiming. > > > > On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 8:40 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > > 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. > > > > >
