You need to add a few more dots to your analysis. High energy particles have also been detected using protium.
See: F. Olofson and L. Holmlid, "Detection of MeV particles from ultra-dense protium p(-1): laser-initiated self-compression from p(1)". Nucl. Intr. Meth. B 278 (2012) 34-41. DOI: 10.1016/j.nimb.2012.01.036. Muons can also catalyze fission of heavy Z elements like uranium and thorium as seen in LENR https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon-catalyzed_fusion Holmlid says that he detects many other subatomic particles other than muons including mesons: B mesons, K mesons, and pions. On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 10:23 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > To summarize the present LENR situation, if Leif Holmlid’s work is > accurate: > > The important specific detail which is easy to overlook, since many groups > have pursued muon catalyzed fusion “MCF” for decades, is that now in 2015, > there appears to be two basic varieties of MCF – the old version requiring > high energy input and the new version which is more robust - and is a low > energy process > > Let’s call them > > 1) MCF/h … which can be triggered by an accelerator beam which > produces muons, or by cosmic ray muons > > 2) MCF/c … which can be triggered by muons which are produced* in > situ* by the dynamics of the reaction itself and thus involves positive > feedback and a limited chain reaction with little gamma or neutron > radiation. > > > This mirrors nuclear fusion itself, where there is hot fusion and cold > fusion. > > All of the companies in the MCF field, and most of the R&D prior to > Holmlid, was pursuing MCF/h. The economics for MCF/h appear to be hopelessly > expensive, due to the need for a beam-line to produce muons. > > Notably, the second version MCF/c requires dense deuterium the first does > not. This appears to be an absolute requirement. No dense deuterium, no > MCF/c. > > An accelerator is not needed if a population of dense deuterium is > present. Typically an alkali metal is require to produce dense deuterium > – like lithium or potassium, as well as a ferromagnetic electrode, like > nickel or iron. However, dense deuterium is not enough for fusion, and the > MCF/c requires a light source, which can be in the visible or IR range - > and preferentially this is a coherent light source. It can be a low-powered > laser for instance. > > Finally, there could be one or more versions of cold fusion which do not > require dense deuterium, and do not involve muons. Since muon detection > is highly specialized and was never implemented in the first 25 years of > LENR, it is impossible to say if the early experiments inadvertently > produced dense deuterium or not. Since the early experiments did not > produce very much gamma or neutron radiation, it is tempting to opine that > this > implies they were operating in the MCF/c range, and were producing dense > deuterium and undetected muons. Early cold fusion work was difficult to > replicate. This could indicate that an unknown parameter was present and > not always being met. For MCF/c, that parameter could have been a proper light > source. > > *From:* Eric Walker > > Ø Can you elaborate on research showing that muon-catalyzed fusion > lacks neutrons and gammas? In my reading today I got the distinct > impression that there were and were expected to be fast neutrons and gammas > in MFC. > > It is more complicated than that, Eric. Holmlid has been publishing his > results for at least 6 years and AFAIK he reports few neutrons or gammas. > But yes – there are others who have reported them. The answer for why there > is a difference could be in the density of the deuterium (prior activation). > > With the original MCF which is based on cosmic muons, which is to say NO > densification of deuterium – we have typical hot fusion ash including > neutrons and gammas. Fortunately, this is not economically feasible because > no muons are produced to replace the cosmic muons. > > However, with deuterium densification, Holmlid seems to suggest muons form > as a replacement for gammas – and which then go on to catalyze the next > round. This is massive synergy. > > Do you interpret this differently? > >
