On vortex-l Jones Beene made a very interesting suggestion:
In retrospect - it's been one helluva month for surprising LENR revelations.
and it could change the way the whole field is viewed (once the resistance
subsides - assuming replication).This has nothing, ostensibly. or maybe a lot to do with the
harvest-blood-super-moon eclipse tomorrow At least there is a
"prophecy" angle which seems to be upsetting to many closely held notions.
Can we blame it on Obama?
Anyway, first check out this story of Holmlid's ultradense deuterium and
muons - which we have talked about many times, in pieces, for several weeks
. and consider that the results, if true, could be much broader. To wit:
1) Muons, as the output of LENR, rather elegantly explain the lack of
gammas and neutrons in many if not all past low energy experiments, and thus
the muon finding could be applicable all the way back to P&F.
2) Muon detection is specialized. Muons can go through several feet of
solid steel. Few in LENR before Holmlid considered it.
3) P&F could have been inadvertently practicing a version of MCF (muon
catalyzed fusion) but never realized it.
4) A source of light appears to be important to muon creation -
suggesting that one of the reasons that cold fusion was difficult to do
consistently could be related to varying illumination, which has never been
a recognized parameter for cold fusion
5) "Cold Fusion" would be defined as an amplified version of MCF, the
simple version of which was invented by Luis Alvarez in 1956.
6) Few in physics appreciate that muons can be manufactured so easily.
This is almost as disturbing to the mainstream as cold fusion itself.
7) The NYT article is almost unassailable on this priority of first
discovery of MCF by Alvarez.
The P&F version, using lithium electrolyte, would then form the same
kind of ultra-dense deuterium on the cathode as does Holmlid.
9) The Letts/Cravens effect can be revisited as MCF
10) MCF can be expanded to incorporate the Lipinski finding of an
unexpectedly low threshold energy for D fusion (easily supplied by the
momentum of the muon).
11) So many muons seem to be forming, and their lifetime is so low, that
when conservation of charge is considered - the muons could be transferring
from another dimension - Dirac's "sea". as explicated by Hotson. Or else
muons and anti-muons are both forming.
12) We should hope that the community of LENR researchers does not
circle-the-wagons against Holmlid- at least giving him full benefit of the
doubt until results show otherwise. Yet the full implications are disturbing
to those who are fully invested in standard cold fusion approach of the past
25 years (somewhat ironic, isn't it)
What do you think about this? Muon catalyzed fusion is well accepted by physics. But it's proven to be COP < 1 because the muon creation needs a lot of energy.
But could LENR aka cold fusion just use an elegant way to create muons very "cheaply"?