Retraction opposed by mePosted by lholmlid on *23 Feb 2019 at 14:24 GMT*

The action by Plos One on my paper which was retracted by the journal on
19-02-23 is astonishing. The retraction procedure did not involve a
scientific evaluation. I have informed the journal that the experimental
results on the time constants are correct. Such results have been published
by me in several other papers, both prior to and after the Plos One
publication. They have also been repeated by other groups. There is thus no
problem with the experimental results. The suggested problem with
"amplified electronics placed in the vicinity of intense laser irradiation
experiments" is easily disproved by the results given in the paper. Three
different decay time constants are measured, which agree with the
well-known meson decay time constants. The time constants are different at
the inner and the outer collector just moving the cable with the laser and
the oscilloscope unchanged. The decay time constants are also different
with different collector bias. Some types of signals do not even have a
long decay time constant. See for example table 1 with data from figs. 12
and 11. The suggested problem with the electronics clearly does not exist.
The laser used is also quite weak, at < 0.2 J pulse energy, in 5 ns long
pulses not really giving "an intense laser irradiation experiment" whatever
that means with so much stronger lasers used in many laboratories today.

The main content of this Plos One paper is further not the decay time
constants, which had been published previously elsewhere, but the main
content concerns deflection of the relativistic particles with velocity up
to 0.75c in magnetic fields. These results are not influenced by any decay
time constant measurements, and they show very clearly that the
relativistic particles are lighter than baryons, with masses like mesons or
muons. This is the main result of the paper and it cannot be discarded as
due to laser created artifacts, but this result has been overlooked or not
understood by the reviewers.

Of course, I do not yet know the exact process creating the mesons, but it
is expected of me as author that I should propose some mechanism for this.
Such a process is suggested on p. 5 in the paper. It has been interpreted
by other scientists as implying that the number of baryons is not
conserved, which is not in agreement with the so-called baryon law. Of
course, it is just an empirical rule. Time will show if this is a case
where the baryon number is truly not conserved, of if another process is
responsible for the meson generation. Of course, the few lines on p. 5
giving a model for the meson generation could be removed or weakened, but
Plos One has instead retracted the entire paper with its large number of
advanced experiments. This not a scientific and unbiased treatment.

On Sat, Feb 23, 2019 at 4:23 PM Axil Axil <> wrote:

> "baryon number conservation"   does not apply in proton decay which in
> simple terms is what Holmlid  is producing through the action of ultra
> dense hydrogen. Generally, in one of the major activities in LENR, there
> is  charge-parity non-conservation ("CP violation")
> <> occurring. LENR is also a
> process in which  baryogenesis
> <> is occurring. One of the
> central mechanisms that underpins the LENR reaction is chiral particle
> polarization. This mechanism is what produces CP violations as well as
> radioactive isotope stabilization through the amplification of the weak
> force.
> Ultra dense hydrogen produces two chiral spin polarized vortex flux tubes,
> a right handed vortex tube(south) and a left handed vortex tube(north).
> Within these tubes is where matter disintegration and reformation
> (transmutation) occurs. These details in the way that the transmutation
> mechanism works can be seen in the LION reactor meltdown ash analysis.
> It was bound to happen sooner or later, Holmlid has run up against the
> LENR stigma.
> On Sat, Feb 23, 2019 at 9:32 AM Jones Beene <> wrote:
>> Posted on LENR-forum by Can
>> PLOS ONE editors retract one of Holmlid's papers.
>> <>
>> Apparently the problem is "baryon number conservation"  and the absence
>> of sufficiently strong evidence to support the claims made...
>> Looks like the editors caved to mainstream objections.
>> Plus (or Plos) there are billions of dollars in funding at stake here...

Reply via email to