>From the Holmlid paper as follows: "With the source turned off at the end of the experiments, the count was 1.6 × 105 thus a certain change due to the source. In another experiment, the count was 1.08 × 105 at another source, sinking to 0.91 × 105 2 m away. The standard deviation is around 300 while the difference is 17 000, thus >50 times larger. Thus, a clear shift with detector position is found. The high-energy tail in these experiments (which is due to the particles giving photons in the PS, not electrons in the beta distribution) was close to 7000, thus with a standard deviation σ = 80. With water and lead shielding, the count was 7300 while without the shielding, the count was >8300, thus a difference 12 times larger than σ. A position close to one source which was not operating gave a count of 6915, while directly moving the detector a 3 m long distance from that position gave a count of 7873, thus a change 12 times larger than σ. A higher signal far from the source indicates a decay of the emitted particles. It is concluded that a signal due to decaying particles and* muons exists in the laboratory.*"
This shows that the source of the muons is located in the lab because muons decay when the detected is moved futher from the sourse. This decay would not happen is the sourse was from space. On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 12:16 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > Let me backtrack… If we follow the credo that “experiment rules” and that > Holmlid appears to be “making” muons, then the scenario which makes the > most sense could be that SPP are indeed extending the life of cosmic > muons, which then accumulate – giving the appearance that they are being > made. > > In effect, we do not need to “make” them so much as keep them from > decaying. > > Is the glow stick all about …(drum roll)… zombie muons ? > > ---------------------------------------------- > > This is the reason that many physicists are skeptical of Holmlid. > > The problem is that plasmons have no real mass, yet can couple with a > photon to create the quasiparticle we call the plasma polariton or SPP, > which also has no rest mass. If SPP have enough energy, perhaps they can > convert to muons, but that requires so much energy that it seems unlikely. > > By process of elimination, I am wondering if Holmlid’s version of dense > hydrogen H(0), which I prefer to call DDL, is converted – despite its > opposite charge. Is it time to muddy the water with degenerate matter? > > *From:* Axil Axil > > The Muon comes from the SPP. In the Holmlid paper, the muons increased > when the lights in the lab were turned on. In order to minimize muon > production, the Rydberg matter had to be covered to exclude light. > > "The sources give a slowly decaying muon signal for several hours and > days after being used for producing H(0). They can be triggered to increase > the muon production by laser irradiation inside the chambers or sometimes > even by turning on the fluorescent lamps in the laboratory for a short > time." > > Light is being converted to a form of energy that can produce muons. I say > that that form of energy conversion is light to magnetic energy powerful > enough to produce muons. > > In the Rossi reactor, the form of light is infrared. Deal with it. >
