Believe it or not... After I saw the presentation on tachyon tracks:
http://restframe.com/rf/home.html I started to read this article: http://www.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-wrap/getdoc/slac-pub-11616.pdf The Inside Story: Quasilocal Tachyons and Black Holes It explains how and why Lief Holmlid is seeing mesons and muons produced in his experiments. These SPPs evaperate through hawking radiation untill they become stable and quiescent. They form a tachyon condensate inside their boundary that will produce quark based (mesons) particles when they receive more EMF. Holmlid says that muons are produced when his reactants are exposed to the fluorescent lighting in his lab. They release muons as a declining rate even in a dark room. The SPP hold a huge amount of energy in excess of 1,000,000 giga electron volts I got through to Holmlid but Holmlid does not believe in black hole LENR causation. I am now faced with the bleak prospect of learning black hole physics, string theory, tachyon physics and general relativity. The dot connecting effort has gotten into some really heavy stuff. I am not that smart so progress from now on will be very slow. These subjects are at the cutting edge of physics and chemistry so there is a limitation here. On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 9:55 AM, Stephen Cooke <stephen_coo...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Thank a lot Jones Beene for this great and interesting report. > > If Holmlid process was some how creating dense material that enhanced the > Stella type proton proton chain reaction, from deuteron proton reactions > onwards that would already be amazing. That nucleons may actually > disintegrate is nothing short of astonishing! Is this what they are > actually saying? Did they really observe such huge amounts of energy? > > 900 MeV is close to the rest mass of a neutron (939 MeV) and proton (938 > MeV), Half the mass of the Deutron Nucleus! > > When they 900 MeV is released I see 3 possible meanings for this: > > 1) Did they imply total disintegration of one of the nucleons to Pions to > Muons to electrons and neutrinos and gamma? If so could it be the just the > Neutron or Proton or either one that can disintegrate? > > 2) Did they imply this came the disintegration of both nucleons to Pions > i.e (939 MeV + 938 MeV) - (6 * 139 MeV). If so even more energy would be > released as the pions decay to muons and eventually Electron/Proton and > neutrinos or gamma? > > 3) Did they imply something else. > > Which ever the case its astonishing amount of energy to release in one > reaction almost up there with matter antimatter annihilation. > > > ------------------------------ > From: jone...@pacbell.net > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 17:16:42 -0700 > Subject: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI > > > Very interesting presentation this morning. Ólafsson was both low key and > optimistic that Holmlid is onto something important. Alan Goldwater also > presented his open source work on the basic glow reactor of > Rossi/Parkhomov. At first glance, there would appear to be no connection > between the two … but read on. > > Holmlid is clearly the lead individual on the dense hydrogen phenomenon > and Ólafsson is interpreting his work going back to 2008 and before. > However, most of the proof is by process of elimination. This will be even > more > controversial than cold fusion until proven. Again, what was demonstrated > is NOT cold fusion and not really hot fusion either. Copious amounts of > radiation would expected in such a laser driven reaction when it gets up > to the kilowatt level of thermal gain. Now it is subwatt. > > However, in different circumstances (electrolysis) the same reactant (which > is dense deuterium clusters) could explain P&F cold fusion, and explain > the lack of radiation in circumstances where a laser does not disintegrate > the reactant. IOW, there can be a range of circumstances– all involving > dense deuterium bound at a few picometers separation - where other > outcomes are expected: other than disintegration to mesons -> pions -> > muons etc. With the laser as the input power, when a deuteron > disintegrates in a laser pulse, over 900 MeV or ~ 40 times MORE energy is > released than in fusion ! > > There were about 35 people in attendance including a few heavy hitters > who prefer not to be identified. The venue is a stone’s throw from Sand > Hill Road. A video crew filmed the whole thing. Holmlid apparently wants > to call the phenomenon “Cold Spallation” but I think that is a bad > choice, since it does not look like nuclear spallation as we know it. And > there is nothing cold about the output. BTW – Ólafsson said that calling > the Rydberg matter “inverted” (in the paper with Miley) was not accurate. > > The only thing needed now is replication. > > A professor whose name I did not catch (San Jose State ?) has been trying > to replicate LH but has not been successful. Holmlid recently told him that > the dense hydrogen takes several weeks to accumulate, and has an extended > shelf life thereafter. That seems to me to be the main takeaway lesson ** > weeks > to accumulate **. > > As I recall, a few years back, there was a message where Rossi mentioned > that his supplier in Italy required months to make a batch of active > reactant. Could it be that Rossi has been inadvertently getting dense > hydrogen all along? > > The presentation of Alan Goldwater was very impressive. I am confident > that if and when Alan announces thermal gain in a Rossi style reactor – > we can believe it. That has not happened yet but he is very methodical and > dedicated. Like many others including myself, he accepts Bob Higgins > downgraded assessment of the Lugano report (slight gain – perhaps COP~1.2 > see Bob’s white paper). > > I encouraged Alan – in light of Olafsson’s presentation - to consider a > 2-stage > or compound system where he would manufacture the dense deuterium > separately from the reactor where it is to be converted to heat. At first > he seemed dubious that two steps would be required – in order to merge > Holmlid’s results with Rossi. But this strategy would allow a very low > powered continuous laser to accumulate the dense material over time. The > ideal situation, if one wishes to avoid radiation toxicitym seems to be: > do NOT to use a fast pulse intense laser to convert dense deuterium into > heat (this assumes there does exist the radiation-free route to convert > it to heat). > > IMO - It will be very difficult to continuously resupply the dense > Rydberg matter in situ (in the same reactor it is being burnt in) and not > see harmful radiation. It can be done at the subwatt level, but those two > processes > are fundamentally in conflict – especially when you get to high power. > >
