RE: [Vo]:Revelations

[Jones Beene]

To summarize the present LENR situation, if Leif Holmlid’s work is accurate:

The important specific detail which is easy to overlook, since many groups have 
pursued muon catalyzed fusion “MCF” for decades, is that now in 2015, there 
appears to be two basic varieties of MCF – the old version requiring high 
energy input and the new version which is more robust - and is a low energy 
process 

Let’s call them
1)  MCF/h … which can be triggered by an accelerator beam which produces 
muons, or by cosmic ray muons
2)  MCF/c … which can be triggered by muons which are produced in situ by 
the dynamics of the reaction itself and thus involves positive feedback and a 
limited chain reaction with little gamma or neutron radiation.

This mirrors nuclear fusion itself, where there is hot fusion and cold fusion. 

All of the companies in the MCF field, and most of the R prior to Holmlid, 
was pursuing MCF/h. The economics for MCF/h appear to be hopelessly expensive, 
due to the need for a beam-line to produce muons.

Notably, the second version MCF/c requires dense deuterium the first does not. 
This appears to be an absolute requirement. No dense deuterium, no MCF/c.

An accelerator is not needed if a population of dense deuterium is present. 
Typically an alkali metal is require to produce dense deuterium – like lithium 
or potassium, as well as a ferromagnetic electrode, like nickel or iron. 
However, dense deuterium is not enough for fusion, and the MCF/c requires a 
light source, which can be in the visible or IR range - and preferentially this 
is a coherent light source. It can be a low-powered laser for instance.

Finally, there could be one or more versions of cold fusion which do not 
require dense deuterium, and do not involve muons. Since muon detection is 
highly specialized and was never implemented in the first 25 years of LENR, it 
is impossible to say if the early experiments inadvertently produced dense 
deuterium or not. Since the early experiments did not produce very much gamma 
or neutron radiation, it is tempting to opine that this implies they were 
operating in the MCF/c range, and were producing dense deuterium and undetected 
muons. Early cold fusion work was difficult to replicate. This could indicate 
that an unknown parameter was present and not always being met. For MCF/c, that 
parameter could have been a proper light source.

From: Eric Walker 

*   Can you elaborate on research showing that muon-catalyzed fusion lacks 
neutrons and gammas?  In my reading today I got the distinct impression that 
there were and were expected to be fast neutrons and gammas in MFC.

It is more complicated than that, Eric. Holmlid has been publishing his results 
for at least 6 years and AFAIK he reports few neutrons or gammas. But yes – 
there are others who have reported them. The answer for why there is a 
difference could be in the density of the deuterium (prior activation).

With the original MCF which is based on cosmic muons, which is to say NO 
densification of deuterium – we have typical hot fusion ash including neutrons 
and gammas. Fortunately, this is not economically feasible because no muons are 
produced to replace the cosmic muons.

However, with deuterium densification, Holmlid seems to suggest muons form as a 
replacement for gammas – and which then go on to catalyze the next round. This 
is massive synergy.

Do you interpret this differently?

Re: [Vo]:Revelations

[Axil Axil]

You need to add a few more dots to your analysis. High energy particles
have also been detected using protium.

See:

F. Olofson and L. Holmlid, "Detection of MeV particles from ultra-dense
protium p(-1): laser-initiated self-compression from p(1)".
Nucl. Intr. Meth. B 278 (2012) 34-41. DOI: 10.1016/j.nimb.2012.01.036.

Muons can also catalyze fission of heavy Z elements like uranium and
thorium as seen in LENR

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon-catalyzed_fusion

Holmlid says that he detects many other subatomic particles other than
muons including mesons: B mesons, K mesons, and  pions.

On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 10:23 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> To summarize the present LENR situation, if Leif Holmlid’s work is
> accurate:
>
> The important specific detail which is easy to overlook, since many groups
> have pursued muon catalyzed fusion “MCF” for decades, is that now in 2015,
> there appears to be two basic varieties of MCF – the old version requiring
> high energy input and the new version which is more robust - and is a low
> energy process
>
> Let’s call them
>
> 1)  MCF/h … which can be triggered by an accelerator beam which
> produces muons, or by cosmic ray muons
>
> 2)  MCF/c … which can be triggered by muons which are produced* in
> situ* by the dynamics of the reaction itself and thus involves positive
> feedback and a limited chain reaction with little gamma or neutron
> radiation.
>
>
> This mirrors nuclear fusion itself, where there is hot fusion and cold
> fusion.
>
> All of the companies in the MCF field, and most of the R prior to
> Holmlid, was pursuing MCF/h. The economics for MCF/h appear to be hopelessly
> expensive, due to the need for a beam-line to produce muons.
>
> Notably, the second version MCF/c requires dense deuterium the first does
> not. This appears to be an absolute requirement. No dense deuterium, no
> MCF/c.
>
> An accelerator is not needed if a population of dense deuterium is
> present. Typically an alkali metal is require to produce dense deuterium
> – like lithium or potassium, as well as a ferromagnetic electrode, like
> nickel or iron. However, dense deuterium is not enough for fusion, and the
> MCF/c requires a light source, which can be in the visible or IR range -
> and preferentially this is a coherent light source. It can be a low-powered
> laser for instance.
>
> Finally, there could be one or more versions of cold fusion which do not
> require dense deuterium, and do not involve muons. Since muon detection
> is highly specialized and was never implemented in the first 25 years of
> LENR, it is impossible to say if the early experiments inadvertently
> produced dense deuterium or not. Since the early experiments did not
> produce very much gamma or neutron radiation, it is tempting to opine that 
> this
> implies they were operating in the MCF/c range, and were producing dense
> deuterium and undetected muons. Early cold fusion work was difficult to
> replicate. This could indicate that an unknown parameter was present and
> not always being met. For MCF/c, that parameter could have been a proper light
> source.
>
> *From:* Eric Walker
>
> Ø   Can you elaborate on research showing that muon-catalyzed fusion
> lacks neutrons and gammas?  In my reading today I got the distinct
> impression that there were and were expected to be fast neutrons and gammas
> in MFC.
>
> It is more complicated than that, Eric. Holmlid has been publishing his
> results for at least 6 years and AFAIK he reports few neutrons or gammas.
> But yes – there are others who have reported them. The answer for why there
> is a difference could be in the density of the deuterium (prior activation).
>
> With the original MCF which is based on cosmic muons, which is to say NO
> densification of deuterium – we have typical hot fusion ash including
> neutrons and gammas. Fortunately, this is not economically feasible because
> no muons are produced to replace the cosmic muons.
>
> However, with deuterium densification, Holmlid seems to suggest muons form
> as a replacement for gammas – and which then go on to catalyze the next
> round. This is massive synergy.
>
> Do you interpret this differently?
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Revelations

[Axil Axil]

The proper term for the fission reaction is "Muon induced fission"

See

https://plus.google.com/114022067216398253558/posts/6h3gEA3YcSb

On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 1:10 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> You need to add a few more dots to your analysis. High energy particles
> have also been detected using protium.
>
> See:
>
> F. Olofson and L. Holmlid, "Detection of MeV particles from ultra-dense
> protium p(-1): laser-initiated self-compression from p(1)".
> Nucl. Intr. Meth. B 278 (2012) 34-41. DOI: 10.1016/j.nimb.2012.01.036.
>
> Muons can also catalyze fission of heavy Z elements like uranium and
> thorium as seen in LENR
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon-catalyzed_fusion
>
> Holmlid says that he detects many other subatomic particles other than
> muons including mesons: B mesons, K mesons, and  pions.
>
> On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 10:23 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>> To summarize the present LENR situation, if Leif Holmlid’s work is
>> accurate:
>>
>> The important specific detail which is easy to overlook, since many
>> groups have pursued muon catalyzed fusion “MCF” for decades, is that now
>> in 2015, there appears to be two basic varieties of MCF – the old version
>> requiring high energy input and the new version which is more robust -
>> and is a low energy process
>>
>> Let’s call them
>>
>> 1)  MCF/h … which can be triggered by an accelerator beam which
>> produces muons, or by cosmic ray muons
>>
>> 2)  MCF/c … which can be triggered by muons which are produced* in
>> situ* by the dynamics of the reaction itself and thus involves positive
>> feedback and a limited chain reaction with little gamma or neutron
>> radiation.
>>
>>
>> This mirrors nuclear fusion itself, where there is hot fusion and cold
>> fusion.
>>
>> All of the companies in the MCF field, and most of the R prior to
>> Holmlid, was pursuing MCF/h. The economics for MCF/h appear to be
>> hopelessly expensive, due to the need for a beam-line to produce muons.
>>
>> Notably, the second version MCF/c requires dense deuterium the first
>> does not. This appears to be an absolute requirement. No dense
>> deuterium, no MCF/c.
>>
>> An accelerator is not needed if a population of dense deuterium is
>> present. Typically an alkali metal is require to produce dense deuterium
>> – like lithium or potassium, as well as a ferromagnetic electrode, like
>> nickel or iron. However, dense deuterium is not enough for fusion, and
>> the MCF/c requires a light source, which can be in the visible or IR
>> range - and preferentially this is a coherent light source. It can be a
>> low-powered laser for instance.
>>
>> Finally, there could be one or more versions of cold fusion which do not
>> require dense deuterium, and do not involve muons. Since muon detection
>> is highly specialized and was never implemented in the first 25 years of
>> LENR, it is impossible to say if the early experiments inadvertently
>> produced dense deuterium or not. Since the early experiments did not
>> produce very much gamma or neutron radiation, it is tempting to opine
>> that this implies they were operating in the MCF/c range, and were producing
>> dense deuterium and undetected muons. Early cold fusion work was
>> difficult to replicate. This could indicate that an unknown parameter was
>> present and not always being met. For MCF/c, that parameter could have
>> been a proper light source.
>>
>> *From:* Eric Walker
>>
>> Ø   Can you elaborate on research showing that muon-catalyzed fusion
>> lacks neutrons and gammas?  In my reading today I got the distinct
>> impression that there were and were expected to be fast neutrons and gammas
>> in MFC.
>>
>> It is more complicated than that, Eric. Holmlid has been publishing his
>> results for at least 6 years and AFAIK he reports few neutrons or gammas.
>> But yes – there are others who have reported them. The answer for why there
>> is a difference could be in the density of the deuterium (prior activation).
>>
>> With the original MCF which is based on cosmic muons, which is to say NO
>> densification of deuterium – we have typical hot fusion ash including
>> neutrons and gammas. Fortunately, this is not economically feasible because
>> no muons are produced to replace the cosmic muons.
>>
>> However, with deuterium densification, Holmlid seems to suggest muons
>> form as a replacement for gammas – and which then go on to catalyze the
>> next round. This is massive synergy.
>>
>> Do you interpret this differently?
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Revelations

[Axil Axil]

Holmlid states that muons are detected even when stimulated by the
fluorescent lights from his lab excites the catalyst. No muons are produced
in the dark.

On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 2:51 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> *From:* Mauro Lacy
>
>
>
> Ø  What if muons are produced or synthesized *in situ* from the
> background neutrino flux? i.e. the reverse reaction to muon decay is
> occurring….the ultra dense material is acting then as kind of "fishing net"
> for the elusive neutrinos… and there you have it.
>
>
>
> Mauro,
>
>
>
> I like the idea …
>
>
>
> Perhaps neutrinos are indeed captured in very dense Rydberg matter (which
> is essentially metallic hydrogen). I think the hypothesis could be tested
> this way. First arrange a standardized Holmlid experiment with dense
> hydrogen but make it mobile - then transport the same experiment to deep
> mine underground, then as a third test, transport the same experiment to a
> nuclear reactor facility and run it as close to the reactor as is safe.
>
>
>
> If the hypothesis of neutrino capture is sound, the muon rate will go down
> in the deep mine, since the neutrino flux is less, and it will go up near
> the nuclear reactor, compared to the normal results, since the flux is much
> higher there.
>
>
>
> It would be hard to argue with those results- if muon flux can tied to
> neutrino flux.
>
>
>
> Jones
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Revelations

[Axil Axil]

No matter where the experiment is performed, neutrinos are not a stimulant
or a causation of of muon production: light is.

On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 3:15 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> *From:* Axil Axil
>
> Ø   Holmlid states that muons are detected even when stimulated by
> the fluorescent lights from his lab excites the catalyst. No muons are
> produced in the dark.
>
> Are you implying that a deep mine is usually dark so the test of Mauro’s
> hypothesis would not work in a mine?
>
> The original suggestion assumes that a mobile “standardized Holmlid
> experiment” will be driven by a laser. If you have laser light available,
> anything else, like a fluorescent, is superfluous.
>
> Heck if helps, one can also take a fluorescent down there too J
>
> -
>
> Perhaps neutrinos are indeed captured in very dense Rydberg matter (which
> is essentially metallic hydrogen). I think the hypothesis could be tested
> this way. First arrange a standardized Holmlid experiment with dense
> hydrogen but make it mobile - then transport the same experiment to deep
> mine underground, then as a third test, transport the same experiment to a
> nuclear reactor facility and run it as close to the reactor as is safe.
>
> If the hypothesis of neutrino capture is sound, the muon rate will go down
> in the deep mine, since the neutrino flux is less, and it will go up near
> the nuclear reactor, compared to the normal results, since the flux is much
> higher there.
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Revelations

[Mauro Lacy]

On 09/27/2015 03:49 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
Mesons are produced first then muons are produced by meson decay. 
Holmlid states that mesons are generated by Rydberg hydrogen matter 
when stimulated by light, Rework your theory to cover these outlier facts.


Well then, in order for my "theory" (we're not even there yet) to be 
valid, or at least applicable here, (and leaving your "first" aside) 
mesons too would have to be produced as a result of synthesis, i.e. as a 
kind of reverse decay. And then we have a problem, because mouns are in 
the meson decay path... unless (and remember, we're in fantasy land) 
mesons are too the (secondary) end result of a synthesis of already 
synthesized mouns, and available background muon neutrinos. Some muons 
gets synthesized further into pions, again due to the interaction with 
the background neutrino flux.
These pions then decay into muons again via conventional meson decay, 
and there your "first" is applicable.
I'm now thinking that maybe(just maybe) a whole gamut of reverse beta 
decay reactions is available, under certain specific conditions (let's 
say, inside an ultra dense material, which is electromagnetically 
stimulated). And then you suddenly have transmutation, and fusion, the 
whole range of effects, just as the direct result of a new kind of 
reaction, which is the reverse of beta decay. It could be called reverse 
beta decay or, better, (neutrino based) hadron synthesis.


Mauro



On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 2:32 PM, Mauro Lacy > wrote:


On 09/27/2015 11:23 AM, Jones Beene wrote:


To summarizethepresent LENRsituation, ifLeifHolmlid’s workis
accurate:

The importantspecificdetail which is easy to overlook, since
manygroupshave pursuedmuon catalyzed fusion “MCF”for decades, is
thatnowin 2015,thereappears to betwo basic varietiesof MCF–the
old version requiringhighenergy input andthe new version which is
more robust- andis alow energyprocess

Let’s call them

1) MCF/h…which can be triggered by an accelerator beam which
produces muons, or by cosmic ray muons

2) MCF/c… which can be triggered by muons which are produced/in
situ/by the dynamics of the reaction itselfand thus involves
positive feedback and a limited chain reactionwith little gamma
or neutron radiation.



What if mouns are produced or synthesized /in situ/ from the
background neutrino flux? i.e. the reverse reaction to Moun decay
 is occurring. In
moun decay, a muon decays into a muon neutrino, and(via a W⁻
boson) an electron and an electron antineutrino. Sadly, I don't
know enough particle physics to know if the reverse reaction is
possible(let's call it neutrino-based muon synthesis), but
energetically it certainly is, because of this muon decay mode.
What about the needed electron antineutrinos? What about other
possible paths for neutrino-based muon synthesis?

The ultra dense material is acting then as kind of "fishing net"
for the elusive neutrinos. In a form of neutrino capturing
process, in this particular case first an electron in the material
interacts with an electron antineutrino, producing a W⁻ boson, and
then that boson promptly encounters a muon neutrino, producing a
moun. Those mouns in turn go ahead and cause some muon catalysed
fusion.

And there you have it. The lack of gammas can be because muons
produced this way have just the right kinetic energy to cause MCF
without releasing gammas. Which begs the question, I know, but, in
fantasy land we all can be happy, and have what we need for our
dreams to come true. What I'm saying is that of course this may be
a totally impossible reaction, for very good (and already known)
reasons. But I thought that I'll mention it here, nevertheless. As
was once famously said, only those who wager can win.

Mauro


This mirrors nuclear fusion itself, where there is hot fusion and
cold fusion.

All of the companies in theMCFfield, and most of the R prior to
Holmlid, waspursuingMCF/h. The economics for MCF/h appear to be
hopelessly expensive, due to the need for a beam-line toproducemuons.

Notably,the secondversionMCF/crequires dense deuteriumthe first
does not.This appears to be an absolute requirement. No dense
deuterium, no MCF/c.

An accelerator is not needed ifa population ofdense deuterium is
present.Typically an alkali metal is require to produce dense
deuterium – like lithium or potassium, as well as a ferromagnetic
electrode, like nickel or iron.However, dense deuterium is not
enoughfor fusion, and theMCF/crequires a light source,which can
be in the visible or IR range-andpreferentiallythis isa coherent
light source.It can be a low-powered laserfor instance.

Finally, there could beone or moreversions of cold fusion which

Re: [Vo]:Revelations

[Mauro Lacy]

On 09/27/2015 04:19 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
No matter where the experiment is performed, neutrinos are not a 
stimulant or a causation of of muon production: light is.


Neutrinos are everywhere, so, they are always available. They very well 
can be a needed ingredient, because they are ubiquitous. The problem is 
nobody knows how and even if neutrinos interact with matter.
Maybe(just maybe) the main reaction involves electrons and neutrinos in 
an ultra dense material, and photons act just as triggers or stimulants 
for it.


Mauro

Re: [Vo]:Revelations

[Axil Axil]

LENR is a reaction based on light. Light is converted to magnetic force
that produces mesons from the vacuum through the Schwinger
 effect. Hydrogen rydberg
matter produces SPPs which store light energy  until the resultant magnetic
force generated by the SPP can produce mesons.

On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 3:41 PM, Mauro Lacy  wrote:

> On 09/27/2015 04:19 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
>
> No matter where the experiment is performed, neutrinos are not a stimulant
> or a causation of of muon production: light is.
>
>
> Neutrinos are everywhere, so, they are always available. They very well
> can be a needed ingredient, because they are ubiquitous. The problem is
> nobody knows how and even if neutrinos interact with matter.
> Maybe(just maybe) the main reaction involves electrons and neutrinos in an
> ultra dense material, and photons act just as triggers or stimulants for it.
>
> Mauro
>

RE: [Vo]:Revelations

[Jones Beene]

From: Mauro Lacy 

 

Ø  What if muons are produced or synthesized in situ from the background 
neutrino flux? i.e. the reverse reaction to muon decay is occurring….the ultra 
dense material is acting then as kind of "fishing net" for the elusive 
neutrinos… and there you have it. 

 

Mauro,

 

I like the idea …

 

Perhaps neutrinos are indeed captured in very dense Rydberg matter (which is 
essentially metallic hydrogen). I think the hypothesis could be tested this 
way. First arrange a standardized Holmlid experiment with dense hydrogen but 
make it mobile - then transport the same experiment to deep mine underground, 
then as a third test, transport the same experiment to a nuclear reactor 
facility and run it as close to the reactor as is safe.

 

If the hypothesis of neutrino capture is sound, the muon rate will go down in 
the deep mine, since the neutrino flux is less, and it will go up near the 
nuclear reactor, compared to the normal results, since the flux is much higher 
there.

 

It would be hard to argue with those results- if muon flux can tied to neutrino 
flux.

 

Jones





 

Re: [Vo]:Revelations

[Axil Axil]

Mesons are produced first then muons are produced by meson decay. Holmlid
states that mesons are generated by Rydberg hydrogen matter when stimulated
by light, Rework your theory to cover these outlier facts.

On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 2:32 PM, Mauro Lacy  wrote:

> On 09/27/2015 11:23 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
>
> To summarize the present LENR situation, if Leif Holmlid’s work is
> accurate:
>
> The important specific detail which is easy to overlook, since many groups
> have pursued muon catalyzed fusion “MCF” for decades, is that now in 2015,
> there appears to be two basic varieties of MCF – the old version requiring
> high energy input and the new version which is more robust - and is a low
> energy process
>
> Let’s call them
>
> 1)  MCF/h … which can be triggered by an accelerator beam which
> produces muons, or by cosmic ray muons
>
> 2)  MCF/c … which can be triggered by muons which are produced* in
> situ* by the dynamics of the reaction itself and thus involves positive
> feedback and a limited chain reaction with little gamma or neutron
> radiation.
>
>
> What if mouns are produced or synthesized *in situ* from the background
> neutrino flux? i.e. the reverse reaction to Moun decay
>  is occurring. In moun
> decay, a muon decays into a muon neutrino, and(via a W⁻ boson) an electron
> and an electron antineutrino. Sadly, I don't know enough particle physics
> to know if the reverse reaction is possible(let's call it neutrino-based
> muon synthesis), but energetically it certainly is, because of this muon
> decay mode. What about the needed electron antineutrinos? What about other
> possible paths for neutrino-based muon synthesis?
>
> The ultra dense material is acting then as kind of "fishing net" for the
> elusive neutrinos. In a form of neutrino capturing process, in this
> particular case first an electron in the material interacts with an
> electron antineutrino, producing a W⁻ boson, and then that boson promptly
> encounters a muon neutrino, producing a moun. Those mouns in turn go ahead
> and cause some muon catalysed fusion.
>
> And there you have it. The lack of gammas can be because muons produced
> this way have just the right kinetic energy to cause MCF without releasing
> gammas. Which begs the question, I know, but, in fantasy land we all can be
> happy, and have what we need for our dreams to come true. What I'm saying
> is that of course this may be a totally impossible reaction, for very good
> (and already known) reasons. But I thought that I'll mention it here,
> nevertheless. As was once famously said, only those who wager can win.
>
> Mauro
>
>
>
> This mirrors nuclear fusion itself, where there is hot fusion and cold
> fusion.
>
> All of the companies in the MCF field, and most of the R prior to
> Holmlid, was pursuing MCF/h. The economics for MCF/h appear to be hopelessly
> expensive, due to the need for a beam-line to produce muons.
>
> Notably, the second version MCF/c requires dense deuterium the first does
> not. This appears to be an absolute requirement. No dense deuterium, no
> MCF/c.
>
> An accelerator is not needed if a population of dense deuterium is
> present. Typically an alkali metal is require to produce dense deuterium
> – like lithium or potassium, as well as a ferromagnetic electrode, like
> nickel or iron. However, dense deuterium is not enough for fusion, and the
> MCF/c requires a light source, which can be in the visible or IR range -
> and preferentially this is a coherent light source. It can be a low-powered
> laser for instance.
>
> Finally, there could be one or more versions of cold fusion which do not
> require dense deuterium, and do not involve muons. Since muon detection
> is highly specialized and was never implemented in the first 25 years of
> LENR, it is impossible to say if the early experiments inadvertently
> produced dense deuterium or not. Since the early experiments did not
> produce very much gamma or neutron radiation, it is tempting to opine that
> this implies they were operating in the MCF/c range, and were producing
> dense deuterium and undetected muons. Early cold fusion work was difficult
> to replicate. This could indicate that an unknown parameter was present
> and not always being met. For MCF/c, that parameter could have been a
> proper light source.
>
> *From:* Eric Walker
>
> Ø   Can you elaborate on research showing that muon-catalyzed fusion
> lacks neutrons and gammas?  In my reading today I got the distinct
> impression that there were and were expected to be fast neutrons and gammas
> in MFC.
>
> It is more complicated than that, Eric. Holmlid has been publishing his
> results for at least 6 years and AFAIK he reports few neutrons or gammas.
> But yes – there are others who have reported them. The answer for why there
> is a difference could be in the density of the deuterium (prior activation).
>
> With the original MCF which is based on 

RE: [Vo]:Revelations

[Jones Beene]

From: Axil Axil 

*   Holmlid states that muons are detected even when stimulated by the 
fluorescent lights from his lab excites the catalyst. No muons are produced in 
the dark.
Are you implying that a deep mine is usually dark so the test of Mauro’s 
hypothesis would not work in a mine? 
The original suggestion assumes that a mobile “standardized Holmlid experiment” 
will be driven by a laser. If you have laser light available, anything else, 
like a fluorescent, is superfluous. 
Heck if helps, one can also take a fluorescent down there too :-)
- 
Perhaps neutrinos are indeed captured in very dense Rydberg matter (which is 
essentially metallic hydrogen). I think the hypothesis could be tested this 
way. First arrange a standardized Holmlid experiment with dense hydrogen but 
make it mobile - then transport the same experiment to deep mine underground, 
then as a third test, transport the same experiment to a nuclear reactor 
facility and run it as close to the reactor as is safe.
If the hypothesis of neutrino capture is sound, the muon rate will go down in 
the deep mine, since the neutrino flux is less, and it will go up near the 
nuclear reactor, compared to the normal results, since the flux is much higher 
there.
 

RE: [Vo]:Revelations

[Jones Beene]

From: Axil Axil 

 

Ø  You need to add a few more dots to your analysis. High energy particles have 
also been detected using protium.

 

See: F. Olofson and L. Holmlid, "Detection of MeV particles from ultra-dense 
protium 

 

Yes indeed. Thanks for the segue, as I was backing into to that detail. Protium 
is more controversial, and I do not want to make the Holmlid material sound 
overly complex. Many Rossi fanatics have a lot invested in Ni-H being based on 
nuclear fusion such as Rossi has suggested - in nickel transforming to copper, 
etc.

 

The bottom line is this. Fast protons from dense hydrogen are NOT coming from 
fusion of protons. There is no such reaction but there are non-fusion 
alternatives. And Holmlid uses iron instead of nickel anyway. There is no 
suitable nuclear fusion reaction releasing fast protons, other than the two 
below - if we want to consider MCF to active in the Rossi hot cat. This dilemma 
would make the glow-tube or hot-cat something else besides conventional fusion 
– that is, if muons are responsible and fast protons are seen. 

 

The two other choices for explaining high energy protons are spallation, or the 
diproton reaction a.k.a. RPF (reversible proton fusion). 

 

RPF is my favorite, but since it involves no nuclear transmutation – only fast 
protons, it is technically not a fusion reaction at all, as defined by 
mainstream physics. However, it would be a good candidate for MCF where no 
deuterium was used, and where fast protons are documented.

 

RE: [Vo]:Revelations

[Jones Beene]

From: Axil Axil 

 

Ø  No matter where the experiment is performed, neutrinos are not a stimulant 
or a causation of of muon production: light is.

 

You do not know that. If it is your opinion, it is illogical – unless or until 
there is experimental confirmation. Sure light is important, but that does not 
eliminate other inputs as being equally if not more important, especially if 
they are normally ubiquitous inputs – like neutrinos. Neutrino flux is 
considered a constant, and that is why it must be altered in order to make an 
analysis.

 

Until the proposed experiment is run with a variation in flux, no one can know 
the contribution of the neutron flux to muon formation.

 

 

 

Re: [Vo]:Revelations

[Axil Axil]

See references:

google.com/url?sa=t=j=…TUA=bv.46471029,d.dmQ


Experiments showing the same mechanism as listed below:

"Laser-induced synthesis and decay of Tritium under exposure of solid
targets in heavy water"

arxiv.org/abs/1306.0830

Initiation of nuclear reactions under laser irradiation of Au nanoparticles
in the presence of Thorium aqua ions

arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0906/0906.4268.pdf


In these experiments, nano geometry of particles converts light energy from
the laser into vortex motion of electrons in a nanoplasmonic “Dark Mode”
soliton produced on the surface of the gold nanoparticles. Without the gold
nanoparticles, laser light alone is ineffectual in producing these effects
in this type of experiment. If neutrinos were involved, then the laser
would not be needed to produce the LENR reaction.

The powerful emission of a nano-scale magnetic anapole beam by the soliton
produces the separation of the vacuum into positive and negative energy
zones. Through quantum fluctuation damping, the magnetic beam also forces
the entanglement of the soliton with the U232 nucleus by pumping high
levels of magnetic energy into the vacuum. This vacuum energy pumping using
EMF energy from microwaves also happens in the EmDrive system under
development by NASA where some laser beam probes exceed the speed of light.

On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> *From:* Axil Axil
>
>
>
> Ø  No matter where the experiment is performed, neutrinos are not a
> stimulant or a causation of of muon production: light is.
>
>
>
> You do not know that. If it is your opinion, it is illogical – unless or
> until there is experimental confirmation. Sure light is important, but that
> does not eliminate other inputs as being equally if not more important,
> especially if they are normally ubiquitous inputs – like neutrinos.
> Neutrino flux is considered a constant, and that is why it must be altered
> in order to make an analysis.
>
>
>
> Until the proposed experiment is run with a variation in flux, no one can
> know the contribution of the neutron flux to muon formation.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Revelations

[Mauro Lacy]

On 09/27/2015 11:23 AM, Jones Beene wrote:

RE: [Vo]:Revelations

To summarizethepresent LENRsituation, ifLeifHolmlid’s workis accurate:

The importantspecificdetail which is easy to overlook, since 
manygroupshave pursuedmuon catalyzed fusion “MCF”for decades, is 
thatnowin 2015,thereappears to betwo basic varietiesof MCF–the old 
version requiringhighenergy input andthe new version which is more 
robust- andis alow energyprocess


Let’s call them

1) MCF/h…which can be triggered by an accelerator beam which produces 
muons, or by cosmic ray muons


2) MCF/c… which can be triggered by muons which are produced/in 
situ/by the dynamics of the reaction itselfand thus involves positive 
feedback and a limited chain reactionwith little gamma or neutron 
radiation.




What if mouns are produced or synthesized /in situ/ from the background 
neutrino flux? i.e. the reverse reaction to Moun decay 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon#Muon_decay> is occurring. In moun 
decay, a muon decays into a muon neutrino, and(via a W⁻ boson) an 
electron and an electron antineutrino. Sadly, I don't know enough 
particle physics to know if the reverse reaction is possible(let's call 
it neutrino-based muon synthesis), but energetically it certainly is, 
because of this muon decay mode. What about the needed electron 
antineutrinos? What about other possible paths for neutrino-based muon 
synthesis?


The ultra dense material is acting then as kind of "fishing net" for the 
elusive neutrinos. In a form of neutrino capturing process, in this 
particular case first an electron in the material interacts with an 
electron antineutrino, producing a W⁻ boson, and then that boson 
promptly encounters a muon neutrino, producing a moun. Those mouns in 
turn go ahead and cause some muon catalysed fusion.


And there you have it. The lack of gammas can be because muons produced 
this way have just the right kinetic energy to cause MCF without 
releasing gammas. Which begs the question, I know, but, in fantasy land 
we all can be happy, and have what we need for our dreams to come true. 
What I'm saying is that of course this may be a totally impossible 
reaction, for very good (and already known) reasons. But I thought that 
I'll mention it here, nevertheless. As was once famously said, only 
those who wager can win.


Mauro


This mirrors nuclear fusion itself, where there is hot fusion and cold 
fusion.


All of the companies in theMCFfield, and most of the R prior to 
Holmlid, waspursuingMCF/h. The economics for MCF/h appear to be 
hopelessly expensive, due to the need for a beam-line toproducemuons.


Notably,the secondversionMCF/crequires dense deuteriumthe first does 
not.This appears to be an absolute requirement. No dense deuterium, no 
MCF/c.


An accelerator is not needed ifa population ofdense deuterium is 
present.Typically an alkali metal is require to produce dense 
deuterium – like lithium or potassium, as well as a ferromagnetic 
electrode, like nickel or iron.However, dense deuterium is not 
enoughfor fusion, and theMCF/crequires a light source,which can be in 
the visible or IR range-andpreferentiallythis isa coherent light 
source.It can be a low-powered laserfor instance.


Finally, there could beone or moreversions of cold fusion which do not 
require dense deuterium, and do not involve muons.Since muon detection 
is highly specialized and was never implemented in the first 25 years 
of LENR, it is impossible to say if the earlyexperimentsinadvertently 
produced dense deuteriumor not.Since the early experiments did not 
produceverymuch gamma or neutron radiation,it is tempting to opine 
thatthis impliesthey were operating in the MCF/c range,and 
wereproducing dense deuteriumand undetected muons.Early cold fusion 
work wasdifficultto replicate. This could indicate that an unknown 
parameter waspresent andnot always being met. For MCF/c, that 
parameter could have been aproperlight source.


*From:*Eric Walker

Ø Can you elaborate on research showing that muon-catalyzed fusion 
lacks neutrons and gammas?  In my reading today I got the distinct 
impression that there were and were expected to be fast neutrons and 
gammas in MFC.


It is more complicated than that, Eric. Holmlid has been publishing 
his results for at least 6 years and AFAIK he reports few neutrons or 
gammas. But yes – there are others who have reported them. The answer 
for why there is a difference could be in the density of the deuterium 
(prior activation).


With the original MCF which is based on cosmic muons, which is to say 
NO densification of deuterium – we have typical hot fusion ash 
including neutrons and gammas. Fortunately, this is not economically 
feasible because no muons are produced to replace the cosmic muons.


However, with deuterium densification, Holmlid seems to suggest muons 
form as a replacement for gammas – and which then go on to catalyze 
the next round. This is massive synergy.


Do you interpret this differently?

Re: [Vo]:Revelations

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

1)  Muons, as the output of LENR, rather elegantly explain the lack of
> gammas and neutrons in many if not all past low energy experiments...


Can you elaborate on research showing that muon-catalyzed fusion lacks
neutrons and gammas?  In my reading today I got the distinct impression
that there were and were expected to be fast neutrons and gammas in MFC.

Eric

[Vo]:Revelations

[Jones Beene]

In retrospect - it's been one helluva month for surprising LENR revelations.
and it could change the way the whole field is viewed (once the resistance
subsides - assuming replication).

This has nothing, ostensibly. or maybe a lot to do with the
harvest-blood-super-moon eclipse tomorrow :-)  At least there is a
"prophecy" angle which seems to be upsetting to many closely held notions.
Can we blame it on Obama?

Anyway, first check out this story of Holmlid's ultradense deuterium and
muons - which we have talked about many times, in pieces, for several weeks
and months:
http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/09/near-term-commercial-fusion-power.html

. and consider that the results, if true, could be much broader. To wit:

1)  Muons, as the output of LENR, rather elegantly explain the lack of
gammas and neutrons in many if not all past low energy experiments, and thus
the muon finding could be applicable all the way back to P
2)  Muon detection is specialized. Muons can go through several feet of
solid steel. Few in LENR before Holmlid considered it.
http://cms.web.cern.ch/news/muon-detectors
3)  P could have been inadvertently practicing a version of MCF (muon
catalyzed fusion) but never realized it. 
4)  A source of light appears to be important to muon creation -
suggesting that one of the reasons that cold fusion was difficult to do
consistently could be related to varying illumination, which has never been
a recognized parameter for cold fusion
5)  "Cold Fusion" would be defined as an amplified version of MCF, the
simple version of which was invented by Luis Alvarez in 1956. 
6)  Few in physics appreciate that muons can be manufactured so easily.
This is almost as disturbing to the mainstream as cold fusion itself.
7)   The NYT article is almost unassailable on this priority of first
discovery of MCF by Alvarez.
8)  The P version, using lithium electrolyte, would then form the same
kind of ultra-dense deuterium on the cathode as does Holmlid.
9)  The Letts/Cravens effect can be revisited as MCF
10) MCF can be expanded to incorporate the Lipinski finding of an
unexpectedly low threshold energy for D fusion (easily supplied by the
momentum of the muon).
http://unifiedgravity.com/resources/Theory-Describing-All-Forces-and-Predict
ion-of-the-Baryon-Rest-Masses.pdf
11) So many muons seem to be forming, and their lifetime is so low, that
when conservation of charge is considered - the muons could be transferring
from another dimension - Dirac's "sea". as explicated by Hotson. Or else
muons and anti-muons are both forming.
12) We should hope that the community of LENR researchers does not
circle-the-wagons against Holmlid- at least giving him full benefit of the
doubt until results show otherwise. Yet the full implications are disturbing
to those who are fully invested in standard cold fusion approach of the past
25 years (somewhat ironic, isn't it)

Re: [Vo]:Revelations

[Bob Cook]

RevelationsIt will be ironic if the F-P effect is really muon catalyzed 
fusion—referred to as “cold fusion” by a guru of theoretical physics in 
1956—turns out to be the effective mechanism for conversion of mass to thermal 
energy.  

Jones, you seem to suggest that the muons carry the excess energy away from a 
fusion of 2 D or 2 H  in the form of kinetic  energy and at the same time 
conserve linear momentum.  However, that is inconsistent with their 
characteristic of not being slowed downed (shielded) very well by ordinary 
matter and leaving that energy in the material near the fusion reaction.  

It’s one thing to catalyze a fusion reaction and another to leave the excess 
energy in the neighborhood of the fusion (as seems to happen in both the Pd–D 
system and the Li-H  system  and  maybe the Ni-H system) with no energetic EM 
radiation emerging.   

Bob Cook   

From: Jones Beene 
Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2015 4:54 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: [Vo]:Revelations

In retrospect - it’s been one helluva month for surprising LENR revelations… 
and it could change the way the whole field is viewed (once the resistance 
subsides - assuming replication).

This has nothing, ostensibly… or maybe a lot to do with the 
harvest-blood-super-moon eclipse tomorrow J  At least there is a “prophecy” 
angle which seems to be upsetting to many closely held notions. Can we blame it 
on Obama?

Anyway, first check out this story of Holmlid’s ultradense deuterium and muons 
– which we have talked about many times, in pieces, for several weeks and 
months:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/09/near-term-commercial-fusion-power.html

… and consider that the results, if true, could be much broader. To wit:


1) Muons, as the output of LENR, rather elegantly explain the lack of 
gammas and neutrons in many if not all past low energy experiments, and thus 
the muon finding could be applicable all the way back to P

2) Muon detection is specialized. Muons can go through several feet of 
solid steel. Few in LENR before Holmlid considered it. 
http://cms.web.cern.ch/news/muon-detectors

3) P could have been inadvertently practicing a version of MCF (muon 
catalyzed fusion) but never realized it. 

4) A source of light appears to be important to muon creation – suggesting 
that one of the reasons that cold fusion was difficult to do consistently could 
be related to varying illumination, which has never been a recognized parameter 
for cold fusion

5) “Cold Fusion” would be defined as an amplified version of MCF, the 
simple version of which was invented by Luis Alvarez in 1956. 

6) Few in physics appreciate that muons can be manufactured so easily. This 
is almost as disturbing to the mainstream as cold fusion itself.

7)   The NYT article is almost unassailable on this priority of first 
discovery of MCF by Alvarez.

8) The P version, using lithium electrolyte, would then form the same 
kind of ultra-dense deuterium on the cathode as does Holmlid.

9) The Letts/Cravens effect can be revisited as MCF

10)MCF can be expanded to incorporate the Lipinski finding of an 
unexpectedly low threshold energy for D fusion (easily supplied by the momentum 
of the muon). 
http://unifiedgravity.com/resources/Theory-Describing-All-Forces-and-Prediction-of-the-Baryon-Rest-Masses.pdf

11)So many muons seem to be forming, and their lifetime is so low, that 
when conservation of charge is considered – the muons could be transferring 
from another dimension - Dirac’s “sea”… as explicated by Hotson. Or else muons 
and anti-muons are both forming.

12)We should hope that the community of LENR researchers does not 
circle-the-wagons against Holmlid- at least giving him full benefit of the 
doubt until results show otherwise. Yet the full implications are disturbing to 
those who are fully invested in standard cold fusion approach of the past 25 
years (somewhat ironic, isn’t it)

Re: [Vo]:Revelations

[Mark Goldes]

*Jones,*

*From the Star Scientific Ltd. **Website.*

*Muons are the decayed products of pions, and are the catalysts in the
fusion of two hydrogen isotopes, a process which releases copious amounts
of energy. The beauty of the muon is that it acts very much like an
electron whose job it is to bond atoms together into molecules. Since a
muon is 207 times heavier than an electron, it bumps the electron out of
the way and replaces it. Because the orbit of the heavier muon is much
closer, it causes the atoms in the molecule to draw closer until the
natural repelling force is overcome* *and a strong nuclear force brings the
atoms together – causing them to fuse. This process kicks the muon out to
do it all over again some 300 times. This fusion gives us energetic
neutrons, which are easily converted to heat in a pressurized water reactor
– resulting in steam which can be harnessed to create electricity.*


*Mark*

Mark Goldes
Chairman, CEO, AESOP Energy LLC

707 861-9070

AESOP Institute website: www.aesopinstitute.org


On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 4:54 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> In retrospect - it’s been one helluva month for surprising LENR
> revelations… and it could change the way the whole field is viewed (once
> the resistance subsides - assuming replication).
>
> This has nothing, ostensibly… or maybe a lot to do with the harvest-blood
> -super-moon eclipse tomorrow J  At least there is a “prophecy” angle
> which seems to be upsetting to many closely held notions. Can we blame it
> on Obama?
>
> Anyway, first check out this story of Holmlid’s ultradense deuterium and
> muons – which we have talked about many times, in pieces, for several
> weeks and months:
>
> *http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/09/near-term-commercial-fusion-power.html*
> 
>
> … and consider that the results, if true, could be much broader. To wit:
>
> 1)  Muons, as the output of LENR, rather elegantly explain the lack
> of gammas and neutrons in many if not all past low energy experiments, and
> thus the muon finding could be applicable all the way back to P
>
> 2)  Muon detection is specialized. Muons can go through several feet
> of solid steel. Few in LENR before Holmlid considered it.
> *http://cms.web.cern.ch/news/muon-detectors*
> 
>
> 3)  P could have been inadvertently practicing a version of MCF
> (muon catalyzed fusion) but never realized it.
>
> 4)  A source of light appears to be important to muon creation –
> suggesting that one of the reasons that cold fusion was difficult to do
> consistently could be related to varying illumination, which has never
> been a recognized parameter for cold fusion
>
> 5)  “Cold Fusion” would be defined as an amplified version of MCF, the
> simple version of which was invented by Luis Alvarez in 1956.
>
> 6)  Few in physics appreciate that muons can be manufactured so
> easily. This is almost as disturbing to the mainstream as cold fusion
> itself.
>
> 7)   The NYT article is almost unassailable on this priority of first
> discovery of MCF by Alvarez.
>
> 8)  The P version, using lithium electrolyte, would then form the
> same kind of ultra-dense deuterium on the cathode as does Holmlid.
>
> 9)  The Letts/Cravens effect can be revisited as MCF
>
> 10) MCF can be expanded to incorporate the Lipinski finding of an
> unexpectedly low threshold energy for D fusion (easily supplied by the
> momentum of the muon).
> http://unifiedgravity.com/resources/Theory-Describing-All-Forces-and-Prediction-of-the-Baryon-Rest-Masses.pdf
>
> 11) So many muons seem to be forming, and their lifetime is so low, that
> when conservation of charge is considered – the muons could be
> transferring from another dimension - Dirac’s “sea”… as explicated by
> Hotson. Or else muons and anti-muons are both forming.
>
> 12) We should hope that the community of LENR researchers does not
> circle-the-wagons against Holmlid- at least giving him full benefit of
> the doubt until results show otherwise. Yet the full implications are
> disturbing to those who are fully invested in standard cold fusion
> approach of the past 25 years (somewhat ironic, isn’t it)
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Revelations

[Jones Beene]

From: Eric Walker 

 

Ø  Can you elaborate on research showing that muon-catalyzed fusion lacks 
neutrons and gammas?  In my reading today I got the distinct impression that 
there were and were expected to be fast neutrons and gammas in MFC.

 

It is more complicated than that, Eric. Holmlid has been publishing his results 
for at least 6 years and AFAIK he reports few neutrons or gammas. But yes – 
there are others who have reported them. The answer for why there is a 
difference could be in the density of the deuterium (prior activation).

 

With the original MCF which is based on cosmic muons, which is to say NO 
densification of deuterium – we have typical hot fusion ash including neutrons 
and gammas. Fortunately, this is not economically feasible because no muons are 
produced to replace the cosmic muons.

 

However, with deuterium densification, Holmlid seems to suggest muons form as a 
replacement for gammas – and which then go on to catalyze the next round. This 
is massive synergy.

 

Do you interpret this differently?

 

 

RE: [Vo]:Revelations

[Jones Beene]

Hi Mark,

 

Interesting – the name is familiar. I see a thread on Vortex from 2011 on Star 
Scientific. 

 

https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg57554.html

 

Looks like they have been around a while. Unfortunately, there is still no 
independent test of their claim or Journal Paper.

 

Jones

 

 

From: Mark Goldes 

 

All,

 

Why has muon catalysed fusion not been successful in the past, and how does 
Star Scientific plan to overcome this?
People have been producing nuclear fusion reactions from muon catalysed fusion 
for decades – they just haven’t been able to do it consistently, or in 
sufficient volumes for it to be considered a viable energy source.

Star Scientific is developing a method to efficiently and consistently produce 
pions, and hence muons economically – and these muons are the catalyst for 
fusion energy.

How will Star Scientific overcome the “alpha sticking problem” which has caused 
many scientists to abandon research into muon catalysed fusion?
The ‘alpha sticking problem’ refers to the concern that during the muon 
catalysed reaction, some muons – about 1% to 2% – bond with the by-products 
instead of catalysing. This reduces the number of muons available to liberate 
energy, and therefore the energy output.

Star Scientific is perfecting a method to constantly produce pions, which 
immediately decay into muons, which means the natural loss of some muons during 
the reaction is of no consequence.

How has Star Scientific addressed the issue of energy input vs output in 
creating fusion energy?
Energy input versus output is an issue with plasma fusion, not muon catalysed 
fusion. Plasma fusion consumes 18 times more energy than it produces. The Star 
Scientific system requires very little energy to run, which means 99% of the 
energy liberated by the fusion reaction is available for use.

Has your muon catalysed fusion system been independently tested?
Our system has undergone, and continues to undergo, rigorous testing by our own 
team of scientists as well as leading, independent global experts from around 
the world. As long as our IP is protected, we have an open door policy where 
results measurement is concerned to ensure this technology can be officially 
evaluated and then shared with the world as soon as possible.

There is also a Joint Japanese - UK effort involved with developing muon 
catalyzed fusion.

 

Re: [Vo]:Revelations

[mixent]

In reply to  Eric Walker's message of Sat, 26 Sep 2015 20:43:19 -0500:
Hi,

Horvath (of Star Scientific) patents of interest:-

4,454,850
4,107,008
3,980,053
3,954,592

I haven't been able to find any others that are energy related, and some of
these involve the use of Potassium Hydroxide.

I get the distinct impression that Horvath is using Hydrinos without knowing it,
and thinks he has a method of producing muons derived from pions. 

I have been unable to find any other US patents with him as the inventor.

Does anyone know of a patent specifically covering the production of
pions/muons?
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

RE: [Vo]:Revelations

[Jones Beene]

One further detail - on the importance of having a light source of some kind, 
which apparently does not have to be coherent – like a laser. But having a 
laser probably helps, if it is the right wavelength of light.

As I recall, Letts and Cravens spent many months trying to find laser light 
which worked --- and ended up using two different WLs. 

The reason that light is important most likely relates to SPP. It could very 
well be the case that the SPP are necessary to further reduce the f/H atoms, 
which first form in contact with the iron/potassium catalyst, but can only 
shrink part of the way. The intense magnetic field of SPP could then finish off 
the job.

 

RE: [Vo]:Revelations

[Jones Beene]

From: Eric Walker 

 

Ø  It's a source of concern that the evidence both for ultradense deuterium and 
for the different branching fractions all go back to Holmlid.

 

Yes, but he has worked with many respected collaborators, including Miley and 
Winterberg. He has over 80 peer reviewed publications, which only goes part of 
the way. 

 

Hopefully, we will see replication from an independent party soon. Holmlid does 
not seem to be holding back any details – and he says that off-the-shelf 
catalyst works. He has patent filings in place – so there is less reason to try 
to deceive.

 

Anyone got a muon detector handy?

 

[Vo]:Revelations

[Mark Goldes]

Japan Fusion Exploring Alternative
Muon Catalyzed Approach With UK

Japan fusion alternative energy generation through the muon catalyzed
approach continues from two sites around the world. Building on long- and
well-understood principles, the researchers feel they have a significant
chance of success.

Their approach parallels the Australian Star Scientific's initiative
 but employs a few
different techniques.
- See more at:
http://www.ialtenergy.com/japan-fusion.html#sthash.xMWT1KQk.dpuf

Mark

Mark Goldes
Chairman, CEO, AESOP Energy LLC

707 861-9070

AESOP Institute website: www.aesopinstitute.org

Re: [Vo]:Revelations

[Axil Axil]

A little over  year ago, in a post submitted on EGO OUT titled "Fundamental
Causation Mechanisms of LENR." axil predicted that LENR based SPP theory
would produce mesons and those mesons would decay to produced muon
catalyzed fusion.

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2014/08/fundamental-causation-mechanisms-of-lenr.html

Since then, this SPP theory has been perfected in that year's time to
explain how gamma and neutron radiation has been neutralized and
radioactive isotopes are stabilized through the action of SPPs as EMF black
holes.

On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 7:54 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> In retrospect - it’s been one helluva month for surprising LENR
> revelations… and it could change the way the whole field is viewed (once
> the resistance subsides - assuming replication).
>
> This has nothing, ostensibly… or maybe a lot to do with the harvest-blood
> -super-moon eclipse tomorrow J  At least there is a “prophecy” angle
> which seems to be upsetting to many closely held notions. Can we blame it
> on Obama?
>
> Anyway, first check out this story of Holmlid’s ultradense deuterium and
> muons – which we have talked about many times, in pieces, for several
> weeks and months:
>
> *http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/09/near-term-commercial-fusion-power.html*
> 
>
> … and consider that the results, if true, could be much broader. To wit:
>
> 1)  Muons, as the output of LENR, rather elegantly explain the lack
> of gammas and neutrons in many if not all past low energy experiments, and
> thus the muon finding could be applicable all the way back to P
>
> 2)  Muon detection is specialized. Muons can go through several feet
> of solid steel. Few in LENR before Holmlid considered it.
> *http://cms.web.cern.ch/news/muon-detectors*
> 
>
> 3)  P could have been inadvertently practicing a version of MCF
> (muon catalyzed fusion) but never realized it.
>
> 4)  A source of light appears to be important to muon creation –
> suggesting that one of the reasons that cold fusion was difficult to do
> consistently could be related to varying illumination, which has never
> been a recognized parameter for cold fusion
>
> 5)  “Cold Fusion” would be defined as an amplified version of MCF, the
> simple version of which was invented by Luis Alvarez in 1956.
>
> 6)  Few in physics appreciate that muons can be manufactured so
> easily. This is almost as disturbing to the mainstream as cold fusion
> itself.
>
> 7)   The NYT article is almost unassailable on this priority of first
> discovery of MCF by Alvarez.
>
> 8)  The P version, using lithium electrolyte, would then form the
> same kind of ultra-dense deuterium on the cathode as does Holmlid.
>
> 9)  The Letts/Cravens effect can be revisited as MCF
>
> 10) MCF can be expanded to incorporate the Lipinski finding of an
> unexpectedly low threshold energy for D fusion (easily supplied by the
> momentum of the muon).
> http://unifiedgravity.com/resources/Theory-Describing-All-Forces-and-Prediction-of-the-Baryon-Rest-Masses.pdf
>
> 11) So many muons seem to be forming, and their lifetime is so low, that
> when conservation of charge is considered – the muons could be
> transferring from another dimension - Dirac’s “sea”… as explicated by
> Hotson. Or else muons and anti-muons are both forming.
>
> 12) We should hope that the community of LENR researchers does not
> circle-the-wagons against Holmlid- at least giving him full benefit of
> the doubt until results show otherwise. Yet the full implications are
> disturbing to those who are fully invested in standard cold fusion
> approach of the past 25 years (somewhat ironic, isn’t it)
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Revelations

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 8:25 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

However, with deuterium densification, Holmlid seems to suggest muons form
> as a replacement for gammas – and which then go on to catalyze the next
> round. This is massive synergy.


It's possible that the ultradense deuterium is causing muon-catalyzed
fusion to behave differently in this special context.  It's a source of
concern that the evidence both for ultradense deuterium and for the
different branching fractions all go back to Holmlid.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Revelations

[Mark Goldes]

All,

*Why has muon catalysed fusion not been successful in the past, and how
does Star Scientific plan to overcome this?*
People have been producing nuclear fusion reactions from muon catalysed
fusion for decades – they just haven’t been able to do it consistently, or
in sufficient volumes for it to be considered a viable energy source.

Star Scientific is developing a method to efficiently and consistently
produce pions, and hence muons economically – and these muons are the
catalyst for fusion energy.

*How will Star Scientific overcome the “alpha sticking problem” which has
caused many scientists to abandon research into muon catalysed fusion?*
The ‘alpha sticking problem’ refers to the concern that during the muon
catalysed reaction, some muons – about 1% to 2% – bond with the by-products
instead of catalysing. This reduces the number of muons available to
liberate energy, and therefore the energy output.

Star Scientific is perfecting a method to constantly produce pions, which
immediately decay into muons, which means the natural loss of some muons
during the reaction is of no consequence.

*How has Star Scientific addressed the issue of energy input vs output in
creating fusion energy?*
Energy input versus output is an issue with plasma fusion, not muon
catalysed fusion. Plasma fusion consumes 18 times more energy than it
produces. The Star Scientific system requires very little energy to run,
which means 99% of the energy liberated by the fusion reaction is available
for use.

*Has your muon catalysed fusion system been independently tested?*
Our system has undergone, and continues to undergo, rigorous testing by our
own team of scientists as well as leading, independent global experts from
around the world. As long as our IP is protected, we have an open door
policy where results measurement is concerned to ensure this technology can
be officially evaluated and then shared with the world as soon as possible.

There is also a Joint Japanese - UK effort involved with developing muon
catalyzed fusion.

Mark

Mark Goldes
Chairman, CEO, AESOP Energy LLC

707 861-9070

AESOP Institute website: www.aesopinstitute.org


On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 7:08 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> *From:* Eric Walker
>
>
>
> Ø  It's a source of concern that the evidence both for ultradense
> deuterium and for the different branching fractions all go back to Holmlid.
>
>
>
> Yes, but he has worked with many respected collaborators, including Miley
> and Winterberg. He has over 80 peer reviewed publications, which only goes
> part of the way.
>
>
>
> Hopefully, we will see replication from an independent party soon. Holmlid
> does not seem to be holding back any details – and he says that
> off-the-shelf catalyst works. He has patent filings in place – so there is
> less reason to try to deceive.
>
>
>
> Anyone got a muon detector handy?
>
>
>