There are indications that Muons are extended in there lifetimes by Rysberg matter. The muons are produced for hours and days after the Rydberg matter is exposed to light.
As referenced from the HolMlid paper as follows: " 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." But in the experiment, the ability to extend the lifetime of muons is not open ended in time. There is a reduction of muon detection over time. If the ability for Rydberg matter to extend the lifetime of muons was open ended, the count of detected muons would reach a stable condition since cosmic muons arrive at a relitivly constant rate. . I believe that this ability to extend Muon lifetimes is rooted in the coherent superconductive nature of Rydberg matter. Furthermore, the mean energy of cosmic muons reaching sea level is about 4 GeV. Muons, This energy level is higher than the levels seen by Holmlid in his experiment. This implies that the muions seen in the experiment were produced locally by Rydberg matter. On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > 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* <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 > > >
