I do not consider muons are leptons in the same sense that positrons  and 
electrons are.  I agree with the high energy scattering experiments evaluated 
by W. Stubbs showing the muons are made up of 200 plus particles about the mass 
of an electron.

Philippe Hatt’s theory of nuclear structure supports this composition for 
muons, consistent with the Stubb’s conclusion IMHO.

Bob Cook

Sent from Mail<> for Windows 10

From: <>
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2018 1:39:57 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Zimmerman's piece could be scarier than we can imagine

In reply to's message of Thu, 21 Jun 2018 23:28:53

Muons are leptons, and AFAIK there is no neutral variety. Did you mean neutral
pions? (Which BTW have a very short half-life).

>Neutral muons may act like neutrons and be absorbed to cause a reaction with 
>additional neutral muons and/or charged muons.
>A local source of charged muons, which are known to induce D fusion and maybe 
>H fusion to D.
>Bob Cook
>From: Jones Beene <>
>Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 12:19:18 PM
>Subject: RE: [Vo]:Zimmerman's piece could be scarier than we can imagine
>From: Axil Axil<>
>  *   I can not see how the Bose Condensation nature of ultra dense material 
> can support a chain reaction. The Condensate offloads its excess energy 
> through the production of muons not neutrons. Muons are not bad like 
> neutrons. Muons do not pump the Condensate, so there is no positive feedback 
> loop possible
>There are alternative scenarios for a feedback loop. One of the possibilities 
>does not involve uranium at all. Another would simply happen so rapidly that 
>most of the UDD is converted into helium before it can change state. Since 
>Holmlid does see some fusion, in addition to muons, it is likely that the 
>fusion part of the reaction could be optimized.
>If we accept that 105Pd is the active isotope of cold fusion - and that it is 
>converted into 107Ag in the main cold fusion reaction, which is one 
>interpretation of the recent Biberian finding (which triggered this posting to 
>begin with) then UDD is going to be gainful without being annihilated and 
>without the need of a laser.
>Also, imagine a large caliber bullet composed of fully loaded PdD. If a 
>spherical array of barrels is arranged around a depleted U core, what happens 
>when the core implodes? (given that we know that muons are preferentially 
>absorbed by U)
>Anyway, a hypothetical UDD explanation could combine Holmlid’s species with 
>P&F’s palladium lattice – so it would be a hybrid - and is open to criticism 
>on that account. The underlying fusion reaction should produce at least 14 
>MeV. If engineered properly there would be chain reaction of sorts (positive 
>feedback from pressure, for sure) which is dependent on the initial inventory 
>of UDD. The yield could be one fourth as much as uranium fission.
>Given how much the USA is hated in parts of the middle East, and how much 
>wealth there is - any of these nightmares becomes simply a matter of will and 
>can be countered by careful planning. We can only hope that our government is 
>taking the proper precautions. OTOH, a simple “dirty bomb” is devastating 
>enough and it can be argued that it will be the first thing which is tried.
>It does not help to hide one’s head in the sand and opine that we should not 
>even discuss the possibilities. The easiest way for enemies of the US to 
>succeed is for experts (or even those on the fringe) not to be vocal and  
>aware of what technology is available and how it can be used.
>If UDD is real, then it may not be presently taken into account by those who 
>should be looking at all the risks.

Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

Reply via email to