Bob Cook

Sent from Mail<> for Windows 10

From: Axil Axil <>
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2019 1:40:55 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Holmlid paper retraction

Retraction opposed by me
Posted 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The action by Plos One on my paper which was retracted by the journal on 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 

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.…69895#pone.0212979.ref001<>…1371/journal.pone.0212979

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