The problem with Holmlid’s work is that he uses an extremely small amount of reactant – trillions of times less than in a Rossi reactor. This tiny scale makes it very difficult to extrapolate what he is doing to a larger size.
Holmlid’s work looks like a miniature NOVA/NIF hot fusion device (Livermore Lab) more than it resembles LENR. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nova_%28laser%29 …since the input and output are hot, and only the target is cold (which is the same general situation at LLNL). I have no problem with calling Holmlid’s work LENR if - when it is scaled-up, the radiation level does not also scale-up to the toxic level – which it arguably would with massively more 13 MeV “particles” – whatever they are. The one and only defining characteristic for LENR - should be this: gain above chemical levels, with acceptably low ionizing radiation. No one cares about the power input being a laser, or a SPP chip, nor whether the reactor is glowing, so long as it is safe. From: Axil Axil I will reread Leif Holmlid muon paper again with your comments in mind to see if there is any observations that shed light on your posits. Jones Beene wrote: Axil, I may have missed it, but how do you account for the short lifetime of the muon and why is that signature not showing up? The muon is unstable with a lifetime of 2.2 microseconds (2.197×10^−6 sec) and since they have a mass much larger than an electron, but decay to an electron and neutrino, the decay is energetic. If lots of them were being produced, then there should be a primary and secondary radiation signature – bremsstrahlung - from the thermalization of decay electrons. This signature is known, and if seen would validate your hypothesis. From: Axil Axil Posts combined revised and extended as follows: The appearance of muons in the LENR reaction are explained by SPP theory. Regarding: http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/rsi/86/8/10.1063/1.4928109 Muon detection studied by pulse-height energy analysis: Novel converter
