>From the Holmlid paper as follows: "This means a total intensity of 1.5 × 109 s−1 sr−1."
That intensity of muon production is too high for the source of muons to be coming from space.. On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 12:52 AM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. >> > >
