IMHO in the Holmlid experiment, ultra dense hydrogen (UDH) is produced in the presence of hydrogen by the iron oxide/potassium catalyst and falls onto the collection foil. That foil is made of a noble metal: iridium, palladium, or platinum. What this metal is made of is important because that collection foil metal has a special optical property: it reflect high frequency laser light. The green laser light bounces between the collection foil and the hydrogen gas. This generates Surface Plasmon Polaritons, a boson, that are the entangled combination of the electrons on the surface of the ultra dense hydrogen spin wave and the photons from the laser light. These polaritons store the huge amounts of energy that the ultra dense hydrogen extracts from proton decay. This energy protects the UDH from temperature disruption because it functions as a magnetic shield. This enables the metastable existence(or shelf life) of the UDH that Holmlid has found in his experiments. Based on its energy content, the SPP covering on the UDH can last for weeks or months even if it is not recharge with more nuclear energy.
On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 8:19 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: > 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, <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> >> *Sent: *Saturday, January 21, 2017 4:00 PM >> *To: *[email protected] >> *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:[email protected]] >> *Sent:* Saturday, January 21, 2017 2:55 PM >> *To:* [email protected] >> *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 <[email protected]> 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. >> >> >> >> >> > >
