Can we talk about Holmlid?

  • If Holmlid is going to claim muons, let him bring in someone who detects them for a living. I would expect as much of anyone else. This is not an unreasonable expectation. This is how most scientists working out of their field proceed.


    Peer reviewed by API: Review of Scientific Instruments


    Review of Scientific Instruments (RSI) publishes novel advancements in scientific instrumentation, apparatuses, techniques of experimental measurement, and related mathematical analysis. Its content includes publication of regular and review articles on instruments covering all areas of science including physics, chemistry, and biology. RSI regularly publishes conference proceedings of two conferences, the High-Temperature Plasma Diagnostics topical conference and the International Conference on Ion Sources. Special Topic sections may also be published on new developments or on recently held workshops in instrumentation Review of Scientific Instruments covers timely reports on advances in instrumentation within areas of research that include: Optics, Atoms and Molecules, Spectroscopy, Photon Detectors, Particle Sources, Particle Detectors, Nuclear Physics, Fusion, Plasmas, Microscopy and Imaging, Condensed Matter and Materials Chemistry, Biology and Medicine, Gravity, Geophysics, Astronomy and Astrophysics, Electronics, Electromagnetic Technology, Microwaves, Thermometry, Thermal Diffusivity, Acoustics, Sensors and Actuators, MEMS, NEMS and General Instruments.

  • For your sake, Keieueue, I hope you will find a way to get past the ad homs. They don't advance what argument you might have, or increase anyone's understanding, or serve the cause of truth and discovery. They just add noise that has to be filtered out.


    What's the point in debating something you don't believe in, since those somethings rely on unproven theories and paradigm changes yet not acknowledged?


    I think LENR is most likely real. I think nearly every explanation for LENR that I have come across is unphysical. I'm interested in knowing what's going on. That requires experimentation together with reasoned debate. I'm not in a position to do experiments, but I still take a keen interest in what's going on.


    You should try to apply greater discernment to the wild and crazy cast of characters on this site and others, as they are really quite a diverse group. And even those who are dead-set against LENR have some useful information and ideas to contribute.

  • I think LENR is most likely real. I think nearly every explanation for LENR that I have come across is unphysical. I'm interested in knowing what's going on. That requires experimentation together with reasoned debate. I'm not in a position to do experiments, but I still take a keen interest in what's going on.


    You should try to apply greater discernment to the wild and crazy cast of characters on this site and others, as they are really quite a diverse group. And even those who are dead-set against LENR have some useful information and ideas to contribute.


    So you can't do experiments, but you want to find an explanation for something you pretend to believe in, using incomplete tools that cannot explain what's going on, as said tools can only be refined through experiments that will refine them to the point of modelizing precisely those experiments?


    If you think LENR is real, either you perform experiments yourself and refine theories / create new ones, or you give credence to those who perform them, and help them refine theories / create new ones.



    Now, if you don't want LENR to be harnessed and used -LENR has already been proven real for how long? decades and decades?-, you can pretend believing it's most likely a real phenomenom, while dismissing all theories, compliant with current model or not, and nitpicking to death each and every experiment, undermining their protocols, and generally mocking people who do work and experiment in the field


    Wait a minute, isn't it exactly what you and your push-forward-a-seemingly-true-RL-identity pals been doing?

  • So you can't do experiments, but you want to find an explanation for something you supposedly believe in, using incomplete tools that cannot explain what's going on, as said tools can only be refined through experiments that will refine them to the point of modelizing precisely those experiments?


    If you think LENR is real, either you perform experiments yourself and refine theories / create new ones, or you give credence to those who perform them, and help them refine theories / create new ones.


    There are many physicists who wouldn't know what to do with a spectrometer. There are many business analysts that wouldn't know how to carry out a statistical regression. Surely few to no science journalists work at accelerator facilities or telescope arrays. Despite this, I think they add to the conversation.


    Are you doing experiments? If not, why not?


    Now, if you don't want LENR to be harnessed and used -it's already been proven real for how long? decades and decades?-, you can pretend believing it's most likely a real phenomenom, while dismissing all theories, compliant with current model or not, and nitpicking to death each and every experiment, undermining their protocols, and generally mocking people who do work and experiment in the field


    This is ad hom. Here you're questioning my intentions, even after I've been quite straightforward about laying them out. The answers to your questions above do not have any bearing on my contributions to the LENR-related topics that are being discussed. Your questions just serve to cast doubt on my integrity. Why don't we leave it at this: you appear to think I lack integrity by claiming that I think LENR is probably real while arguing against it. Fine. Can we say that the possibility has been raised now and move on?

  • There is one feature of this muon radiation that speaks against the idea that the radiation is fast electrons. These particles are emitted for days and weeks after the reaction is over. There is a storage mechanism where a delay in particle release happens at a decreasing rate over time. The production of fast electrons do not behave that way. There is also a time of flight delay going on where it looks like a decay chain of daughter particles are produced at distances from the particle source. This is true even in the after death condition. Fast electrons ionize the air as they fly through it at a constant rate and lose energy in a predictable way. These particles don't seem to be affected by ionization energy loss.


    Assuming that eros has a functioning LENR reaction going, eros has the chance to test all this out and set up tests that duplicate what Holmlid has found with regard to the behavior of these strange particles: that being particle production after death, time of flight particle decay, and ionization effects on particle behavior.


  • There are many physicists who wouldn't know what to do with a spectrometer. There are many business analysts that wouldn't know how to carry out a statistical regression. Surely few to no science journalists work at accelerator facilities or telescope arrays. Despite this, I think they add to the conversation.


    Are you doing experiments? If not, why not?


    They might, but you do understand that the contexts you put them in are well-defined and accepted... unlike LENR. In those contexts, all parties "speak the same language", therefore interactions might be fruitful, instead of blanket denials
    (see my previous post concerning experiments and how their modelizations are created through tools refined by those very experiments: the true scientific method)


    And I'm not doing experiments, because I'm doing Internet Police. To each his trade!




    This is ad hom. Here you're questioning my intentions, even after I've been quite straightforward about laying them out. The answers to your questions above do not have any bearing on my contributions to the LENR-related topics that are being discussed. Your questions just serve to cast doubt on my integrity. Why don't we leave it at this: you appear to think I lack integrity by claiming that I think LENR is probably real while arguing against it. Fine. Can we say that the possibility has been raised now and move on?


    Why are you getting this upset? And yes you've been very straightforward in laying out your intentions: pretending to believe in LENR while dismissing all "fringe" theories and even those much closer to the current model, all the while mocking and undermining people who do work and research in the field.
    Yet, don't take it personally, there's a good dozen of your kind here, and you all act the same, in a spectrum going from "bad cop" Mary Yugo to "good cop" Jed Rothwell. Those two extremes even pretend to argue these days, as Jed Rothwell is trying to regild his public image and stay relevant as a pseudo-believer, in the propaganda game surrounding LENR.


    You don't lack integrity: you are very coherent in your cultist or even paid shill persona!

  • And I'm not doing experiments, because I'm doing Internet Police. To each his trade!


    I suggest you find another job! I doubt your approach has convinced a single soul, even ones quite sympathetic to your general worldview, of anything about anyone on this site.


    Why are you getting this upset?


    You're cute, Keieueue. That was me trying to help you discern ad hom from not-ad hom. In most serious scientific circles, mention of the word "ad hom" makes people pause. It does not appear to affect you much.


  • Monopoles are closer and a better guess as others claim to produce them ...See: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LochakGlowenergyn.pdf


    Hmm, if I look pages 10-11 pictures for emulsions / analysis data then I say tracks are from muons. And if they are right about energy then it is 1Gev muon.
    How much it leave for muon when proton decay?


    Need to study nuclear emulsions, maybe handy tool show/find muons (positive/negative)..


    20-30w energy disappering/radiation have error marginal. Meter (pollucom es) have ~3w accuracy spec. But it is old and flow meter may have got some dirt, airbuble etc. I can also mention that once I put "wrong" stimulus to reactor it send something (feel head) and pollucom flowmeter stopped to rotate/register rotation (it have magnet + hall sensor, I think) pump worked as before. Situation hold ~30s, then I hand fibrate/rotated it and it started again register.
    And if summ all energy inputs and posible errors then maybe 0w loss. And maybe errors happens just when change things in reactor. So no 100% sure, but..


    40mm extra Pb brick reduced GM tube counts little maybe 20-30% when Cu tube was "cooled" down. So there is hope that enough Pb shields may help. Maybe 100mm is enough? (uh, expensive+heavy)

  • You are right. Lead is heavy, and can work out to be very expensive. How about building yourself some fishtanks? Water is an excellent shielding material for any radiation that might be harmful to life. You could even put some fish in there - in the same way canaries (birds) were kept in cola mines to warn of gas build-up. And glass fishtanks are also transparent - which could be useful.


    Look at a fish-breeders forum and they will tell you how to build cheap fishtanks using just glass sheet and silicone adhesive.

  • 40mm extra Pb brick reduced GM tube counts little maybe 20-30% when Cu tube was "cooled" down. So there is hope that enough Pb shields may help. Maybe 100mm is enough? (uh, expensive+heavy)


    I found a nice paper describing all possible shieldings: http://www.pnnl.gov/main/publi…al_reports/PNNL-20693.pdf


    One more detailed for lower powers: http://pdg.lbl.gov/2011/AtomicNuclearProperties/adndt.pdf


    On page 21 you can see the Pb isn't helping much. But could be used to calibrate the intensity of the radiation. (measure with 20,40,80mm Pb!)


    Also Alains proposal, which I like much, doesn't help according to this paper.


    Iron shields best, whatever this means if you need half a meter...


    Conclusion there is no concrete shield for muons with high kinetic energy.


    May be we should calculate their energy first and use a high voltage plate condenser to deviate them!

  • http://i.imgur.com/G7tWpij.png
    (Source: dx.doi.org/10.1006/adnd.2001.0861 )


    1 GeV muons will be stopped by 816.5 g/cm2 of lead. If you divide this by the density of lead (11.35 g/cm3) you will obtain the amount of centimeters of lead needed. That is almost 72 cm of lead. Here is another table for water: http://i.imgur.com/3R51kWk.png . If most of the energy was really due to high energy muons, containing it in the close proximity of the reactor would be a big problem.




    What is up with this odd g/cm2 unit anyway? For details read:
    Interaction depth


    Muons at lower energies have a much lower range in matter.




    Similar tables exists for other particles, like for example electrons (e-):
    http://physics.nist.gov/PhysRefData/Star/Text/ESTAR.html


    1 MeV electrons have a range in iron (7.8 g/cm3) of 0.6159 g/cm2. Translated to cm, this is 0.079 cm. This information may become a building block for previous discussions in this thread.


  • Iron shields best, whatever this means if you need half a meter...


    According that paper cosmic ray muons ~42cm Fe cuts 90%. Maybe adding B-field in Fe shield can bend slower muons slightly so they travel little longer in Fe, atleast when they are low energy B helps.
    Water dosn't brake them well, but adding borated water 10-20cm after Fe shield can take generated neutrons quite well? (and dosn't do harm either)


    And if 40mm Pb drops counts then if muons energy spectrum dosn't have big spikes it means they energy are not 10Gev, but less than 1Gev.(?)
    So crude calculation ~60mm Fe 100, +40mm Pb 75, miinus BG say 20 do 80 and 55 so real drop ~1/3.
    40mm Pb slow ~90Mev, ~60mm Fe slow ~120Mev, so grude quess is that 90% are lower energy than 300Mev. (am I right?)


    So if I add ~20-25cm Fe and put some B-field circulating it plus 15cm borated H2O outside it is maybe 98% more safe?
    Duh lot of work and 20cm Fe if have ~25cm cavity inside length ~40cm weight near 2t plus H2O. Lab floor dosn't hold it + 100 more problems..


    Anyway <1hrs work near give swet night again and difficulties to think clear. Without shielding can't continue or it can be last thing here..


    Quote


    Conclusion there is no concrete shield for muons with high kinetic energy.
    May be we should calculate their energy first and use a high voltage plate condenser to deviate them!


    Crude calculation/quess above. My meters are crappy chinese <40$ to do anything more accurate. And only anomalies are that wrapping GM tube with Cu tube give more counts outside shields as inside GM tube and working near reactor do ill. Not much / posible errors may be.


    HV plates are easy to do and if muons and have strigth fly from reactors can maybe do easilly. Broblem is that I can't work near.


  • If most of the energy was really due to high energy muons, containing it in the close proximity of the reactor would be a big problem.


    If some portion of energy in lenr reactors escape in muons then shielding is broblem. Bigger broblem than fission reactors..
    But it depends lot of muons energy spectrum / amount per Mwh.


    And them detection is not easy, so many experimentalist may have them but don't detect. Small amount don't harm, but when try to get some power out..

  • This information may become a building block for previous discussions in this thread.


    In the context of eros's experiment, 1 GeV electrons have a range of (5.678E+01 / 7.8 = 7.2 cm) in iron, and there is still the 4 cm of lead to traverse. If the choice is between ~ 1 GeV muons and 1+ GeV electrons, perhaps an explanation that involves neither electrons nor muons should be sought out? I note that eros is using GM counters. Perhaps he can find another method of detection to cross check what the GM counters are saying?

  • The only guy who has used a cloud chamber in LENR experimentation is Piantelli. He detected a charged particle coming out of his nickel rod at 6.7 MeV. Piantlli thought that this charged particle was a proton the particle most likely was a muon.


  • Anyway <1hrs work near give swet night again and difficulties to think clear. Without shielding can't continue or it can be last thing here..


    Just go outside, sun hurts some eyes.. And not looked direct reactor core there was Fe shields between so no XUV etc..


    1Gev electron can penetrate 2-4mm Pb plus ~60mm Fe? And after that give more counts in Cu shielded GM tube as tube inside shielding?
    I think if such hardcore betas present then inside GM tube should be like short circuit? (electronics, shortcircuiting GM tube give continous signal)
    Inside GM tube never give much counts (only when take it outside shields counts rise (inside shields near reactor is less than BG with GM tube "eyes"!) it is like reactor mystically (ok, it is not mystic, it should do that if it is machine) eats some radiation BG like antenna eats RF). So hard to trust inside GM is defected.


    How if neutrons present, moderating neutrons with 2mm Pb + 60mm Fe, then 1.2mm Cu to GM?


    Disclose neutrons from reason need to change Pb pricks to ~20cm water canister? Water should cut neutrons >90% ? But not much if muons?
    Where I got strength enough to do that?


    If energetic protons? (primary reason ofcourse, but I think they decay inside). If high energy proton fly out how it behave?

  • The only guy who has used a cloud chamber in LENR experimentation is Piantelli. He detected a charged particle coming out of his nickel rod at 6.7 MeV. Piantlli thought that this charged particle was a proton the particle most likely was a muon.


    In piantelli patent is included picture. It fly stright, but there is no data is B field present(?) B should effect proton and muon. I am not expert to say what kind of track muon vs. proton leave such used chamber and such "calibration" data is not included in patent.
    Anyway if Ni kicks out muons how muons do secondary reaction in Li7 that are claimed / observed many times? Li7 muon capture can do Be7? But muon needs to slow first and that don't happen inside small reactor?


    In "lenr" working reactor Ni should kick out protons 300kev or more to hit Li7. Things are "wrong" if instead Ni kicks protons 1Gev level etc. to other protons / Ni. Too much energy level for economic P+Li producing reaction for 1000x. "launch" gun happens 1000x too slowly.
    It can do it if it is machine.. And functional reactor may sometimes grow that level if wrongly operated / have positive energy gains mechanimisim etc.
    Used functional and unstimulated fuel have that behaviour.. (uh, my other tested cores/fuels on shelf, maybe need dig 10m deep pit..)
    How SMM mode, without stimulation?

  • 1Gev electron can penetrate 2-4mm Pb plus ~60mm Fe? And after that give more counts in Cu shielded GM tube as tube inside shielding?
    I think if such hardcore betas present then inside GM tube should be like short circuit? (electronics, shortcircuiting GM tube give continous signal)
    Inside GM tube never give much counts (only when take it outside shields counts rise (inside shields near reactor is less than BG with GM tube "eyes"!) it is like reactor mystically (ok, it is not mystic, it should do that if it is machine) eats some radiation BG like antenna eats RF).


    1 GeV electrons (and muons) are extremely unlikely to be coming from your experiment.


    So hard to trust inside GM is defected.


    I'm wondering whether the GM counters are defective, and whether you're operating them in the right mode. A second method of detection would be helpful here. Also: moving the GM counters further away from the source and then closer, and seeing if there's a change in the counting rate. And interposing the shielding and then taking it away and seeing if there's a change in the counting rate.

  • The way that particle physics produces muons is to first create pions. They do that by using a target where mesons interact with mass of the target to produce pions. The pions exit the target and decay into muons.


    The shield that eros is using may just be producing muons so eros might see more GM counts outside the shielding than inside the shielding. mesons have a very short lifetime. That makes them hard to detect. You assume that mesons are there when you detect their charged decay products (aka muons). When eros shields the mesons, he is creating muons.


  • 1 GeV electrons (and muons) are extremely unlikely to be coming from your experiment.


    There is something strange. I assume it is some kind of radiation. It dosn't fit alpha/beta/gamma profile. Ofcourse errors are posible.
    Current best fit is ~120-150Mev muon that hits Cu tube GM. Other energies are posible / method not detect. Cu tube GM method give only small slice of negative muons.
    It give no idea about positive muons amount/energy or outside of moderation window energy negative muons.
    In that window count rates are not low. I don't know how wide that window is. I have no idea how much are outside that window (is it 90% or 99.9% or maybe more?)


    So I should trust your word as best shield, ingnore "sand in eyes", headcache etc. what near reactor happens?
    I have already got some damage from previous reactors. I have no idea how it affects my rest livetime. I only warn other experimentalist and give hints how/what I have found. (Holmlid is found)
    And if it is true then shielding is not easy task. Tests with maybe 0.1g fuel amount can do without serious healt broblem. I have maybe 30g fuel inside. Maybe amount that is near dangerous/deadly border..?
    1J is something e-19ev, if I have say system lost power 10w and 1Gev level then 10¹¹ muons /s so is it posible danger or not?


    Muons come from pions, but they have so short livetime that dosn't fly outside reactor or??

  • So I should trust your word as best shield, ingnore "sand in eyes", headcache etc. what near reactor happens?


    If you're experiencing health issues from your setup, you should stop and consult someone at a nearby university to make sure you're not making yourself sick. Your symptoms are exactly zero evidence of muons. Perhaps you have convinced yourself to your own satisfaction that you are seeing muons; if you wish to convince others, you will need to take some basic steps to rule out other possibilities.

  • In a recent post on ECW, MFMP states that muons are produced in the LENR reaction. Experimenters are experiencing neurological problems ( "sand in eyes", headache etc) when close to the reactor. In the face of the unknown, caution is advised.


    Nobody anywhere has produced muons outside of a particle accelerator. There is no experts in muon production in the home.


    Some rules of the road experimental speculation involving subatomic particle production is now offered as follows:


    Pions are unstable, with the charged pions π+ and π− decaying with a mean lifetime of 26 nanoseconds (2.6×10e−8 seconds), and the neutral pion π0 decaying with a much shorter lifetime of 8.4×10e−17 seconds.


    If pions speed equals the speed of light 26 Nm means that pions will travel 26 feet before decay on the average. For slower speeds, divide that 26 foot distance by the fraction of light speed the pions are traveling.


    However, from Holmlid's experiments, it looks like the pions are not going that fast. But every experiment is different, and any type of shielding catalyzes muon production from pion decay inside the mass of the shielding.


    A safe way to avoid exposure from pions and muons is to put distance between experimenter and the reactor. If the experimenter lives alone and he want to use his house to do his LENR experiments, use a remote camera to see what is going on with the reactor from a distance. For example, if the reactor is in the basement, use the remote camera to look at the reactor from the second floor of the house. The mass of floors, walls, air, and ceilings will cut down on muon intensity.


    But most importantly due to the spherical radiation patterns of muon random flight of like charged particles, the inverse square law cuts exposure down for every meter that the experimenter is removed from the reactor. If you live with other people, It might not be prudent to expose the others to muons in your home.


    Use a remote camera to do remote experimentation as recommended by ME356.


    A product suggestion to support remote experimentation as follows:


    amazon.com/Sokos-1280x720p-Sur…K/ref=zg_bs_7161093011_15


    Price:$48.99


    Remote access to the camera on Smartphone,Tablet,Mac or Windows PC. Quick WiFi setup via iPhone or Andriod smartphone using IOS/Android APP by iSmartViewPro


    Quite baby monitor / nanny camera, Having a option to turn off sound alerts. Support SD card and smartphone recording, never miss any important steps with the one you matters most.


    720p HD and Wider angle with Pan 350 degrees (Horizontal) and Tilt 100 degrees (Vertical) and 4x digital zoom through APP remote control:nds.


    Motion detection function and remote real-time live voice & video: Receive alerts when the camera detects motion and remote real-time live video stream straight from your home to your smartphone, perfect to be as home security camera.


    Night Vision:Built-in IR LEDs allow you viewing and recording live video even in complete darkness,Easy set-up with simple steps under 60 seconds.


  • If you're experiencing health issues from your setup, you should stop and consult someone at a nearby university to make sure you're not making yourself sick. Your symptoms are exactly zero evidence of muons. Perhaps you have convinced yourself to your own satisfaction that you are seeing muons; if you wish to convince others, you will need to take some basic steps to rule out other possibilities.


    Nobody anywhere has produced muons outside of a particle accelerator. There is no experts in muon production in the home. Are you serious?

  • I am curious. Rossi said that his time in the shipping containers affected his health. I wonder if his symptoms were neurological in nature: headaches, dizziness, ringing in the ears, sand in the eyes and difficulty in sleeping. Did Rossi ever talk about his 1 year test health hit?

  • Should LookForHeat provide a remote experimenters package for sale?


    We pretty much do, Axil. Full 4 channel data-logging with enough memory to run for at least 24 hours is enough for most purposes. And we offer custom-built temperature profile systems if required. And web-based or closed circuit TV systems are available everywhere for the price of a bag of french fries. This should be enough to enable anybody to light the blue-touch paper and run like hell. The whole lot ready to run and including extras like free fuel ingredients comes to quite a bit less than $1000. What else would you recommend?

  • We pretty much do, Axil. Full 4 channel data-logging with enough memory to run for at least 24 hours is enough for most purposes. And we offer custom-built temperature profile systems if required. And web-based or closed circuit TV systems are available everywhere for the price of a bag of french fries. This should be enough to enable anybody to light the blue-touch paper and run like hell. The whole lot ready to run and including extras like free fuel ingredients comes to quite a bit less than $1000. What else would you recommend?


    Additional recommended changes are as follows.


    Replace current large cavity carbonyl nickel powder with small dimensioned high porosity powder where the cavity size is less than 10 nanometers. That recently developed COTS high tech nano powder has a hydrogen absorption increase of 100 X over the old powder hydrogen absorption capacity.


    Based on Rossi's patent update, replace the stimulus with the 50 KeV to 100 KeV electrostatic electrodes and supply. This is a potentially dangerous DC voltage level. LookingForHeat should try to make this new Rossi patent based LENR stimulator both safe as well as effective. This keeps replicator tech current with Rossi's latest patent changes.


    Also include a writeup of health risks and symptoms experienced by other experimenters and Rossi. This write up shoud highly recommend the advice from ME356 to perform LENR experiments remotely out of the home.

  • Axil recommends :- Replace current large cavity carbonyl nickel powder with small dimensioned high porosity powder where the cavity size is less than 10 nanometers. That recently developed COTS high tech nano powder has a hydrogen absorption increase of 100 X over the old powder hydrogen absorption capacity.


    Based on Rossi's patent update, replace the stimulus with the 50 KeV to 100 KeV electrostatic electrodes and supply. This is a potentially dangerous DC voltage level. LookingForHeat should try to make this new Rossi patent based LENR stimulator both safe as well as effective. This keeps replicator tech current with Rossi's latest patent changes.


    Also include a writeup of health risks and symptoms experienced by other experimenters and Rossi. This write up shoud highly recommend the advice from ME356 to perform LENR experiments remotely out of the home.


    Alan says.


    Experimenters can use any fuel they wish. The 'Model T' reactor is like a car - the brand of gasoline is entirely up to the owner.


    We can custom build HT systems and would be happy to do so on request. We have demonstrated one version of such a system (info in 'Research Notes' on our website)


    A medical report written by me about the health risks associated with LENR research would be based purely on hearsay. We warn people about toxic chemicals, we sell protection equipment (clothing, gloves, goggles, dust masks etc) and we sell geigers, to buy much of what we sell purchasers also have to sign a risk waiver and declare they are adults. As far as we are concerned LENR research is an 'at your own risk' pastime.


    But you can write such a quasi-medical report if you wish, and we will send it out as a newsletter- over 500 readers.