>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.
>>
>
>

Reply via email to