RE: [Vo]:The return of the original "cold fusion" ??

[Russ George]

Why don’t you do this yourself.  Most experimentalists have their own ‘to do 
lists’ and don’t have the valuable time and money to dedicate work on other 
people’s ideas. As Thomas Edison once said/paraphrased of the countless jaybird 
comments, ‘get out of here, the only rule here is that we’re trying to 
accomplish something.’ 
 
A $100 Muon detector might only cost that it parts but the cost of the time and 
effort and resources necessary to build, refine, understand how to operate, and 
operate under real experimental conditions is a vastly larger sum. And don’t 
forget there is the diversion of effort from tasks already planned and at hand. 
 I am certain that if you offered MFMP $10,000 -$20,000 of up front funding 
they might be delighted to give it a try. Any suggestions of this sort that 
come without an offer to provide the vital ‘grease’ are worth precisely the 
value of the electrons sent gallivanting about to make the suggestion here on 
the net.
 
 
From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2016 1:27 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:The return of the original "cold fusion" ??
 
From: Axil Axil 
*   
*   I have been trying to get any replicator or cold fusion experiments to 
test for muon during the last six months. I have concentrated this best effort 
of persuasion on MFMP, but they are highly resistant to the idea. I do not 
understand why.
Possibly in the past, it was cost. But recently, the $100 muon detector story 
has gotten a lot of traction. 
 
<http://hackaday.com/2016/10/15/dirt-cheap-muon-detector-puts-particle-physics-within-diy-reach/>
 
http://hackaday.com/2016/10/15/dirt-cheap-muon-detector-puts-particle-physics-within-diy-reach/
Unfortunately, it is not quite as simple as shelling out a hundred bucks, but 
surely this lowers the bar and will open up the opportunities for detection.

Re: [Vo]:The return of the original "cold fusion" ??

[Bob Higgins]

Muon detection is far harder than the simple "$100 muon" detector
suggests.  Sure, it detects muons + + + protons, high energy beta, gamma -
it has no specificity for muons.  Detection of muons with any credibility
requires far more apparatus.  "not quite as simple" is a far, far
understatement.

Secondly, muon catalyzed fusion is really only known to work in a catalytic
manner for hydrogen isotopes - and - MCF produces copious neutrons just
like hot fusion.  It would not be a desirable outcome if muons were being
produced during LENR.  In fact, some of those working with deuterium gas
would probably be dead if muons were responsible for the reactions that
produced watts of excess heat.  This is precisely the dead graduate student
dis-proof that muons are involved.

On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 2:27 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> *From:* Axil Axil
>
> Ø   I have been trying to get any replicator or cold fusion
> experiments to test for muon during the last six months. I have
> concentrated this best effort of persuasion on MFMP, but they are highly
> resistant to the idea. I do not understand why.
>
> Possibly in the past, it was cost. But recently, the $100 muon detector
> story has gotten a lot of traction.
>
>
> *http://hackaday.com/2016/10/15/dirt-cheap-muon-detector-puts-particle-physics-within-diy-reach/*
> 
>
> Unfortunately, it is not quite as simple as shelling out a hundred bucks,
> but surely this lowers the bar and will open up the opportunities for
> detection.
>

Re: [Vo]:The return of the original "cold fusion" ??

[Che]

On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 3:55 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> I have been trying to get any replicator or cold fusion experiments to
> test for muon during the last six months. I have concentrated this best
> effort of persuasion on MFMP, but they are highly resistant to the idea. I
> do not understand why.
>

Lack of resources/personnel..?

RE: [Vo]:The return of the original "cold fusion" ??

[Jones Beene]

From: Axil Axil 

*   
*   I have been trying to get any replicator or cold fusion experiments to 
test for muon during the last six months. I have concentrated this best effort 
of persuasion on MFMP, but they are highly resistant to the idea. I do not 
understand why.

Possibly in the past, it was cost. But recently, the $100 muon detector story 
has gotten a lot of traction. 

http://hackaday.com/2016/10/15/dirt-cheap-muon-detector-puts-particle-physics-within-diy-reach/

Unfortunately, it is not quite as simple as shelling out a hundred bucks, but 
surely this lowers the bar and will open up the opportunities for detection.

Re: [Vo]:The return of the original "cold fusion" ??

[Axil Axil]

I have been trying to get any replicator or cold fusion experiments to test
for muon during the last six months. I have concentrated this best effort
of persuasion on MFMP, but they are highly resistant to the idea. I do not
understand why.

I had one success. eros "a replicator" has tested for muons an found that
muons are hard to detect because they are so penetrating. He got results
when he tested for muons after heavy lead and iron shielding using a GR
detector covered in copper as Holmlid recommends. The gamma might be coming
from muon catalyzed fusion as a secondary reaction.

On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> The first use of the term “cold fusion” goes back to 1956 – not 1989.
>
> The term was coined in a 1956 New York Times article referring to
> muon-catalyzed fusion, MCF, and the work of Alvarez. This was real fusion,
> no dispute about it, and the reactants were as cold as any fog chamber
> can be. The brilliant scientist Luis W. Alvarez - when analyzing the
> outcome of muon experiments at the Rad Lab in Berkeley at few years
> before, observed MCF with the release of about 5.5 MeV of energy.
>
> Great things were predicted from this discovery, but it fell flat
> commercially because making muons with a beamline requires too much energy
> , and this is compounded by the short lifetime of muons. The technique could
> not produce net energy due to this intractable dilemma.
>
> Fast forward to the present. If the work of Holmlid is verified –
> everything changes, and we can go “back to the future” by about 60 years.
> Ironically, it can be said today that the original “cold fusion” of
> Alvarez is now set to merge with the 1989 version of P, thanks to the new
> work of Leif Holmlid in Sweden and his discovery of a comparatively easy and
> cheap way to make muons … using only a small laser, instead of a beamline.
>
> Ya gotta luv it… and marvel at how close we were to useful cold fusion
> back then (assuming of course, that Holmlid is correct). It could even be
> possible that the electrolysis technique of P is in fact, a version of
> MCF wherein muons are being made first in an unknown way, which then
> catalyze the fusion of deuterium to helium.
>
> Doubtful that we can go that far... but has anyone ever tested a P cell
> for muons?
>
>