But, I think you missed the point (maybe).  Achieving an XH stimulation
with such weak lasers, and in particularly at a required resonance in
difference frequency in the THz range, is a key probe of the effect.  Yes,
you might be able to generate some enhancement by brute force, but it would
cloud the probe of the nature of the effect.  The efficiency will be low
for conversion of the small power laser signal pair to a THz difference
signal, so it means that the THz signal at the surface was extremely weak.
Yet at the THz resonance, it had a very significant effect on the XH.  The
THz signal was extremely weak compared to the XH that was stimulated and
was clearly non-ionizing.  That THz-to-XH gain at such a low level is a key
evidence of phonon involvement IMHO.

On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 9:17 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:

> Bob,
>
>
>
> One interpretation of the input parameters and the use of very weak lasers
> by L/C (comparatively) is that for them to see any anomalous thermal
> effect, they had to hit a special resonance frequency in order to get
> results.
>
>
>
> OTOH if a far more powerful laser is available and is employed – then a
> brute force approach negates the need to achieve an exact resonance.
>
>
>
> Thus a “special THz range”  could be red herring...
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com>
>
>
>
> Jones,
>
>
>
> I don't think the Letts-Cravens experiment is similar to Holmlid at all.
> They used two calibrated wavelength lasers superimposed on the cathode.
> They found that when the lasers were separated by a specific frequency
> difference in the 10-20 THz range, there was a peaking in the XP.  For
> there to be a frequency difference effect, there must be a nonlinearity -
> likely a surface plasmon at the cathode surface - that allows the
> difference frequency to form.  The difference frequency of 10-20 THz where
> there was a peak in XP is VERY suggestive of phonon stimulation, something
> compeletely different than Holmlid's experiment.
>
>
>
> *From: *Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
>
> I do not think there is any evidence for muons in cold fusion.
>
> JB: There is actually plenty of evidence along with plenty of data some of
> which was presented. You may not think the evidence is credible, but you
> are not a nuclear engineer
>
>
>
>    - People who are nuclear engineers and nuclear physicists don't think
>    so either.
>
>
>
> Some do, some don’t. George Miley for instance, who has far stronger
> credentials than most critics of Holmlid, was actually a co-author with him.
>
>
>
>
>
>    - The main reason I know of is that if there were lots of muons, they
>    would cause harm, and there is no sign of harm.
>
>
>
> There is not much sign of harm for airline crews who spend many hours at
> altitude where muons are present in high flux. Furthermore, Holmlid has
> suffered a health issue recently which could have been aggravated by
> exposure to muons. The jury is out on this issue.
>
>
>
> In fact, muons are weakly interacting with light elements like carbon so
> health issues are not expected but no one knows. The Curie’s health
> problems, for instance, is a situation where they were exposed to muons, in
> addition to gamma radiation, but no one has revisited the old cases to
> estimate relative risks.
>
>
>
> Actually, there are stronger arguments against muons than health issues
> but what is needed is a stronger independent replication.
>
>
>
> Since the so-called “Letts-Cravens effect” is similar to Holmlid’s
> technique and has been replicated by others, it is conceivable that some
> kind of hybrid experiment will emerge… sooner rather than later, it is
> hoped.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Reply via email to