What is the mode of "decay" of free muons and, separately, in condensed matter?
They seem not to produce any high energy EM nor radioactive products. If they did, I would assume this would have been reported unless it was intended to remain a secret. I consider based on reported muon models of Hatt and Stubbs and deep elastic electron scattering experiments with muons and protons, electons and positrons should be observed during muon decay, if high energy gammas do not show up. Regarding these ideas, I question the designation of a muon as a lepton (primary) particle. The scattering experiments suggest a different type of particle--more akin to a proton or a neutron. Bob Cook ________________________________ From: Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, November 14, 2016 9:57 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons The idea that the muons are interacting in solid matter with the electrons not the nuclei of atoms is very compelling to me. Indeed this may well explain two mysteries of my cold fusion muon/mischegunons, that is that very few are escaping the experiment cells. That what I have detected is the dwindling remains of the reaction is very compelling and as well explains why so few cold fusion experiments have detected any such emanations. The time dilation effect that effectively increases the cross-section of materials just works very well indeed. This speaks to the growing revelations on silver being a valuable constituent in a range of experiments. Silver of course has a very complete electron cloud, as such it might well be the best material for engaging with the muon/mischugenon nuclear ash. This would help me a lot in understanding why it just happens that I have found silver so useful (as has Mills) it is not the neutron cross section of silver it is the muon cross-section! From: Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 14, 2016 8:38 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons In this discussion, Jones presumes muons to be traveling at light speed: The muon is an unstable fermion with a lifetime of 2.2 microseconds, which is an eternity compared to most beta decays. Ignoring time dilation, this would mean that muons, travelling at light speed, would be dispersing and decaying in an imaginary sphere about 600 meters from the reactor. There are a number of things wrong with this. First, most commonly encountered muons are cosmogenic and have 100MeV-GeV energies. At these energies, the muon is traveling at a significant fraction of the speed of light (but not at the speed of light) and as such experiences time dilation in its decay. Because of time dilation, the stationary observer sees the cosmogenic muon decay to be much longer than 2.2 microseconds. This is why cosmogenic muons can travel 50-100 miles to the Earth's surface without having decayed. What Holmlid has reported is "10MeV/u" as a measurement for his muons - this is a measure of velocity squared. One u (atomic mass unit) is 931 MeV/c^2. In Holmlid's units of measure (MeV/u), call the amount measured X, then the velocity of the particle is sqrt(X/931)*c. For Holmlid's report of a measure of 10 MeV/u, one gets sqrt(10/931)*c = 0.104c. This is only an approximation for small velocity compared to c; as the velocity increases special relativity must be invoked in the solution. Special relativity would reduce the velocity from this equation as it started approaching c, so the actual velocity will be somewhat less than 0.1c for Holmlid's particles, and a slight time dilation would be experienced. So, if Holmlid's particles were muons, and if Mills was creating the same at a v^2 of 10MeV/u, then the range in a vacuum would be on the order of 60 meters. However, muons being charged, are well stopped in condensed matter because the particle doesn't have to run into a nucleus to be scattered, just run into the dense electronic orbitals. The more dense the condensed matter, the greater the stopping power for the muon. If muons were being generated with a v^2 of 10MeV/u, I doubt any would escape Mills' reactor vessel. On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 9:23 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net<mailto:jone...@pacbell.net>> wrote: For those who suspect that the Holmlid effect and the Mills effect are related, no matter what the proponents of each may think, here is a further thought from the fringe ... about one of the possible implications. Holmlid has suggested that a very high flux of muons can be produced by a subwatt laser beam. Mills uses an electric arc and will probably offer a real demo of the Suncell® at some point. No one doubts that it works but an extended demo will be needed... therefore, even if everything seen thus far is little more than PR fluff, we could have a worrisome situation in response to a much longer demo. Since Mills is applying higher net power to reactants (even if Holmlid's laser provides more localized power) there is a chance that some portion of the energy produced escapes the sun-cell as muons. If Holmlid gets millions of muons per watt of coherent light, what will be the corresponding rate be from an electric arc? If anything like this scenario turns out to be the accurate, then any muons produced will decay at a predictable distance away from the reactor, thus they could have been missed by BrLP in testing thus far. The muon is an unstable fermion with a lifetime of 2.2 microseconds, which is an eternity compared to most beta decays. Ignoring time dilation, this would mean that muons, travelling at light speed, would be dispersing and decaying in an imaginary sphere about 600 meters from the reactor. Thus, the effect of radioactive decay could be significant at unexpected distance- and Mills may never had imagined that this is a problem. Fortunately, humans are exposed to a constant flux of muons due to cosmic rays, and the flux is well-tolerated. Nevertheless, this detail is worth noting - and should Mills or his associates start to feel a bit ill from the exposure - possibly an unseasonal sun tan, then we can identify a culprit. The effects could be felt more in a remote office - than in the lab ... which is curious.
