To paraphrase what Bob has said and cited, there is little possibility of a spin problem, when it is proposed that the SPP can extend the lifetime of muons (as opposed to creating them from nothing).
I think that we all agree that “extending the lifetime” of a catalytic particle like the muon, where there is already a flux coming from the natural source – is functionally identical to “making” them anew. In either case, a higher population accumulates. Since any interaction with protons would happen within the geometry of the strong force, it is subject to QCD, and consequently giga-eV are in play, so the source of energy is no mystery. Proton mass is not quantized. In the end, until Holmlid’s experiment is better explained as something other than detection of muons in a situation where SPP are acting on dense hydrogen, he should be given benefit of the doubt. No? This would mean that a valid, if not intuitive, explanation for the thermal anomaly in the glow-type reactor (incandescent reactor) involves muons interacting catalytically with protons, where the muons appear to be either created from the reaction, or else do not decay as normal, following the reaction. This scenario will include a thermal anomaly which does not involved gamma radiation. This M.O. leaves open three possibilities for explaining the thermal anomaly – one which is covered by Storms. He suggests that protons fuse to deuterium, despite the spin problem, and lack of evidence in the ash. Another possibility is that SPP formation is inherently energetic – but this is unlikely since SPP are seen in optoelectronics with no energy gain. My suggestion is simpler and based on the solar model. It suggests that the catalyzed fusion reaction happens but is instantly reversible, due to Pauli exclusion. Excess energy derives from conversion of a portion of proton mass to energy via QCD during the brief time when the diproton exists as a helium-2 nucleus, before reverting to two protons and a renewed muon. Until there is evidence of deuterium in the ash we have an ongoing debate in which the physical evidence favors one argument over the other. From: Bob Cook Eric-- Note my comment to Jones before I read your questions. Bob From: Eric Walker <mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com> Jones Beene wrote: D+D + muon → helium-4 + muon (instead of gamma) … where the fist muon can be a cosmic muon which can catalyze a reaction and then be rejuvenated, renewed or replaced by the same fusion reaction that it catalyzes. The muon is a “heavy electron” with a short life, but now we can surmise that it can have its lifetime greatly extended as part of the catalysis. The probability for this to occur is larger than zero, but how large? … “Maybe it’s pretty high” says Byrnes. Can it explain the lack of gamma, as well? Probably. But now, as we are learning – this rebirth effect will be more robust with SPP and fractional hydrogen. A muon could possibly carry away as kinetic energy the energy that would otherwise go to a gamma. But if we're talking about a single muon, how do you propose that the spin of the missing photon is conserved? Eric
