Whenever muons appear, fusion of light elements will occur and fission of heavy elements will happen. So fusion could be a secondary reaction set up by the primary reaction which is the creation of muons.
Muons can be produced in two ways, one... they could be a product on nucleon decay, and two... muons could be produced from hadronization... the creation of muons from energy. Holmlid mentions a condition where he has stored metallic hydrogen in a darken lab and there was little or no muons produced by this stuff, but when he turned the fluorescent lab overhead room lights on, Holmlid saw a rapid rise in muon production and a gradual but steady decrease in muon production over time after the lights were turned off. Those muons might be coming from hadronization. Reference: Muon detection studied by pulse-height energy analysis: Novel converter arrangements Two different sources for producing H(0) have been used for this study. They are similar to a source described in a previous publication.28 Potassium-doped iron oxide catalyst samples (cylindric pellets)32,33 in the sources produce the ultradense H(0) from hydrogen or deuterium gas flow at pressures of 10−5–100 mbars. The sources give a slowly decaying muon signal for several hours and days after being used for producing H(0). They can be triggered to increase the muon production by laser irradiation inside the chambers or sometimes even by turning on the fluorescent lamps in the laboratory for a short time. On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 3:42 AM, Nigel Dyer <l...@thedyers.org.uk> wrote: > I am not sure why there being no advantage for deuterium means that this > was not cold fusion. If there was a fusion process in these situations > that started with protons then would this also not be cold fusion? Given > that we are in a territory that is far removed from the standard plasma > conditions where the orthodox rules for fusion were forged, I think we > cannot rule out the possibility that there could be proton based fusion > options. > > Nigel > > > On 03/07/2017 02:03, Jones Beene wrote: > >> these emissions were seen using either hydrogen or deuterium or both and >> there was no advantage for deuterium, so this was NOT cold fusion >> > >
