Can we talk about Holmlid?


  • On page 85 is combined effect. It seems your increase claim is false (atleast cosmic muons)
    When low energy / thermalized/stopped muons don't move further in their livetime (speak only cm scale).


    It is true that in high energy (cosmic) muons (100Mev-10Gev) secondary radiation is higher in 10-20cm Fe/Pb shields.
    But you must remember:
    - they are cosmic muons, so lifetime near end when ground level
    - it is broad spectrum, 10-20cm slow/stop 100- ~340Mev muons and secondary radiation appear.


    There we suppose that max energy level is not 10Gev, however my GM tube test is blind for high energy muons, because lack of needed shielding material. But extra 40mm Pb decreased counts near BG level so IF energy spectrum was continous then generated muons <200Mev. But if there was some high energy spikes method was blind for them.
    And if there was some pions etc. I have no idea how it behave. May tunnel outside shields easilly an do strange things.

  • Hi eros.


    I think you really should be clearer about your set-up. Many members have tried to help you overcome problems with various aspects of your experiments, but it is difficult while you keep everyone in the dark. You say you think it is too dangerous to reveal what you are doing, but this is not particularly helpful. I think www.lookingfor heat.com has a fair idea about the kind of people who actively experiment. There are relatively few, and most of them careful and knowledgable about the risks. Passing on what you know is probably valuable to humanity in general, and will do you credit. The chances that somebody will 'do something stupid' with your information needs to be balanced about the good you might do for the whole planet. And it will enable members here (and others) to give you more help and possibly equipment and funding.


    So how about a few photographs and some data? Helping you control a 'black box' without knowing much about it is like trying to steer a satellite with a walking-stick.


  • The Effects of Lead Shielding on Muon Counts


    The results were interesting. There was a decreasing trend that was linear initially, but when we had four layers of lead, the count went up. We tested it ten times, and the results were consistent. The error bars do not account for the change. We still do not know why this happened.


    It is same as previous paper, cosmic muons works just like that. In 15-20cm layer secondary radiation from stopped muons are higher than without shields.
    They don't have radiation discrimination so don't see it is secondary.


    Btw. that reason it is good idea pile shielding material on the reactor so cosmic flux don't disturbate things. But thing/situation what I try to warn is 1000x or more than cosmic so cosmic muons generated error marginal can ignore and detector shield position is free. (anyway I put GM tube on the reactor shield so that posible error should not affect)


  • If and when they do, you get the 0-105 MeV beta spectrum. In other words, the 0-105 MeV beta spectrum would be assured, and the only question is what is its intensity.


    My muon knowledge is less than week old. I just cheked wikipedia very little from muonic atoms, so data maybe come from wyttenback papers (in that thread).


    But data was that in material stopped negative muons do muonic atoms almost instantly, low z material (like hydrogen) posibility to secondary reactions is small so decay negative betas. When Z=11 ratio for secondary/decay is ~50/50. In semi heavy Fe,Ni etc. ratio for secondary/decay 2500/1 and increase when Z increase.


    Secondary reactions are usually neutron kick out and unstabile nucleus which beta decay soon. Secondary reaction in high Z material is usually fission. (why lead have some risk to stop muons. I have no data which fission Pb do, if lucy get some alchemist gold ;)


    You speak also that stopped positive muons do decay betas. So Cu tube method should detect them too?
    What happens if 0-105Mev positron have 1.2mm tube material to travel and born just middle? Minimum 0.6mm Cu, other directions lot of more?
    (hmm, normal GM tube is stupid detector for that. Muon stopping material should be inside tube/gas. May not exist thech?)
    I think moust of them generate xray photons (annihilation+brems)?


    So I think in Cu stopped muons, negative ones do moustly neutrons and betas (some xray?), positive muons do moustly xray photons?
    GM tube don't see neutrons, but betas and xrays it can see. Right/wrong?


    Atleast I think I am right there is something strange to be aware if Cu wrapped GM tube give lot more counts outside of shields..

  • Eric Walker wrote:

    [...] or re-doing the experiment with degraders of different materials and various thicknesses, placed in the path of the beam, in front of the plastic scintillator.


    Actually one of such tests is mentioned. However this refers to the detector used without the plastic scintillator and placed at some distance from the reactor. ASCII art time. Normally the scintillator-less detector should be configured like this:


    Code
    1. [|PMT|#] <=== Beam ===


    The paper mentions, verbatim: "When filters are used outside the metal enclosure for the detector, no effects are observed"


    If # is the glass filter / converter material the situation described above should be like this:


    Code
    1. [|PMT| ] # <=== Beam ===


    So apparently there is no effect observed in this case, suggesting that whatever is happening for the most part stops at the converter material.


    Eric Walker wrote:

    In Refs. 1 and 2, Holmlid and Olafsson report a beta endpoint of 512 keV when using a 137Cs standard, without the Al degrader. But 137Cs has a Q value and beta endpoint not of 512 keV but instead of 1.1 MeV. I have no idea what’s going on here and where they derived the 512 keV value.


    I found that strange too, but I am not an expert in nuclear safety. So I tried looking for references and then I found diagrams like this:



    Or this:


    https://www.researchgate.net/file.PostFileLoader.html?id=577e3bc993553b9d233a7cf4&assetKey=AS%3A381175098036226%401467890633903.


    From which here is an excerpt: http://i.imgur.com/91ou6b2.png


    It seems that 95% of the betas have a 512 keV endpoint. This also seems consistent with the various spectra that can be found on the internet about 137Cs sources. There is not much energy extending the 662 keV gamma peak. Again, I could be wrong on something here.


    Eric Walker wrote:

    In Ref. 3, Holmlid reports on the beta spectra, on the assumption that they’re coming from muons interacting with nuclides in the instrument materials, inducing beta decays. In Refs. 1-3 he reports straight-line Kurie plots which normally imply allowed beta decays. I.e., all of the direct experimental observables appear to be about beta electrons. The part about muons is inference.


    You are correct that this is all about inference, which is why (if I recall correctly) Sveinn Olafsson has urged others to verify these findings with other methods and setups.


    Eric Walker wrote:

    In Ref. 2, Homlid reports on a new method of measuring muons, without demonstrating calibration against an existing method of measuring muons. I am more convinced than ever that Holmlid should engage independent expertise to get a second opinion on his interpretation of his experiments.


    Are there proven methods for measuring low energy muons? I think most of them are concerned with cosmic muons that do not easily stop in matter.


  • you are a nice person but credulous. The world doesn't need Lenr because he's already turns with oil..


    Oh, but oils run expensive and people hate to pay extra. If offer cheaper they will love you. If this thecnology is total harmless then it may be even share freely as me365 first think. But if it have some hazards then it go big corporations (nuclear plants).
    In thecnically people can dig uranium etc. enough to build DIY magnox or something ~10t UO2 enough, slavage old gas tubine genset etc. to build custom nuclear plant less euros than standard new house cost. But none do it. Too easy to buy electricity from mains. And laws limit.
    Same future is maybe for lenr if there are some hazards. Look history in fifties there was uranium heated jewelry etc. atom thecnology manifest future. But what happened? Some axidents and "green like religion" world burn coal instead uranium until planet transfer venus like hell.
    And it is imposible to burn uranium with new low waste tech because "green religion" have stucked things in zero risk situation so must use over 60 years old thecnology instead new better because old is more tested. And "greens" don't allow new tech because if nuclear waste broblem disappear then they don't have religion fundament to deny nuclear power.
    And I understand them that fundamentalist come from against big corporations idea. I don't like big corporations.


    With real working lenr thecnology there is some infinity small posibility that you can grow biggest corporation ever and change things. But your limited livetime, corruption during road to top etc. Posibility to successful revolution is very small. But what else man can to do? Try harder?
    You have selected same way if I understand correct? But don't have nothing new so drop next thing?


    Quote


    if you'd be a genial replicator, it will be despite all difficult to sell your product because you will take the place of an existing business.


    As I have say I have some own inspiration. It is not direct replication. Maybe enought to take some small corner if got something working out. Maybe not enough, maybe not usable due radiation, time show. It depends heavilly how aggressive current patent holders are. When small they have no interest, when go bigger they want money. If payment is acceptable you can continue to grow. And if things work they don't want kill you because you are money for them.
    Situation is do works, be quiet if success, try find paying customers, get money until bill needs to pay. If get enough money then you can survive.


    Quote


    About complexity of my reactor, I think size is important to have more chance of success..Who has succeded whith small size ?
    Me356 did a great job but no calorimetry !!! Shongsheng done at big size with successfull.


    Size is important to see XH more easilly I agree. Increasing size increase healt aspects as I have found. You can select what you want.
    Bigger size calorimetry is easyer/cheap ready part, I use pollucom Q=0.6m³/h size, about 15eur used. Still I need to increaze size to get clear results, my 30g fuel is not enough / efficient enough or I use it wrong.. Many things still need to test. Used fuel handling is big broblem to me.


    Quote


    I asked my bank for money to do Lenr...therefore i think money isn't the main problem , the main one is to find some collaborators around you who are complementary knowledges.


    I don't want walk to bank got loan. I save that posibility when I have seen real high COP and are sure how to get energy out in usable form in save manner. So first product guidelines mfg plan etc. Then maybe loan or more better friendly customer to pay.
    Keep things level that you can budget youself. Then you have some freedom when got some valuable results. Big boys own banks. If they want what you have found then bank director call you and say pay loan now.


    Quote


    You are right about me no results presented, i work in depth completly in opposition with MFMP philospophy for example.
    Best wishes for you job.


    MFMP philoshopy are nice open data. I like it. But if there is radiation then it'll fail in current world. Big corps take what they have found, normal people don't get change laws/risks/shielding/wastes etc. broblems.
    I don't like situation what I have seen. Maybe it is posible to avoid as me365 say, but he have not give quide how get high cop but avoid radiation (yet).


    I hope you continue. More replicators are better. Maybe some of them finds usable clean enough thech to get out of energy monopoles.


  • Passing on what you know is probably valuable to humanity in general, and will do you credit. The
    chances that somebody will 'do something stupid' with your information
    needs to be balanced about the good you might do for the whole planet.


    It is not big matter when data come. There is coal for many years still. Planet can be saved little later too. Posibility to do things have been there loooong time. Balancing things: I have not any usable high cop system (yet) (so no planet saving). But I got hit by mystically radiation from reactor. Radiation that dosn't show by normal used methods.
    I had shared method how I find it. And I thank forum people (especially wyttenbach) to point (twice) needed (holmlid) paper. Thank you it may save my live. (I don't know how already got radiation affect my rest livetime)
    So I don't see point to share experiment that dosn't produce usable heat but instead generate hardly detectable radiation hazard. No need darwing avards winners. Second point is that sharing it public go big corp instant and they investigate things 100x faster and disclose everything.


    But I see big point to share method how such radiation may detect, because other experimentalist may have it too but don't detect and if things go big/energetic it may generate healt hazard. (which is posible to avoid if detection system work.)


    There is ofcouse posible to send some pics that don't show any special details. But you know pic is like 1000 words it is hard to check/think nothing wrong escape. And thinking is somekind of broblem currently. Not quite sharp feeling..

  • But assume for the moment that significant numbers of muonic atoms are being formed.


    It looks like any process, that produces muons, is just a big waste of energy, except you place the source inside a PdD loaded case, which can use them for muon induced fusion.
    Nevertheless it is a question that must be followed up: Are LENR reactions a source of muons and if, then under what circumstances.


    There was a decreasing trend that was linear initially, but when we had four layers of lead, the count went up.


    They stopped stelar muons now, as Eros depicted already...

  • But data was that in material stopped negative muons do muonic atoms almost instantly, low z material (like hydrogen) posibility to secondary reactions is small so decay negative betas. When Z=11 ratio for secondary/decay is ~50/50. In semi heavy Fe,Ni etc. ratio for secondary/decay 2500/1 and increase when Z increase.


    I may be misunderstanding your point, but you can see from gameover's image here that even in muonic atoms there's an expected beta decay spectrum, with energies up to ~ 60 MeV. Either (1) people are not actually seeing muons, as would be expected by the missing spectra, or (2) they're not checking for betas at the higher energies and the spectra are there and the investigators are slowly being cooked from the inside, or (3) there's something mystical and magical about the way the muons are being generated that is making the spectra go away.

  • Quote

    In these experiments a PMT is also used without a scintillator. The rationale seems that sufficiently energetic electrons may bypass the front window of the PMT containing the photocathode and be directly amplified by its dynode chain.


    I’ll have to take your word on the scintillator not being there all the time. In Ref. 1 they talk about covering the detector with a lead plate, and they talk about other glass filters and filters of other materials, without mentioning that the scintillator is removed. In Ref. 3 Holmlid talks about the scintillator also being the vacuum window. Regardless, let's go with the assumption that the scintillator is taken away when the other materials are used.


    Quote

    If the reactor directly emitted very energetic (several MeV) beta electrons then the signal when using the PMT with only a dark cloth (to prevent any light from entering) covering the front window should be high. However the signal is only consistently significantly higher when converter materials or also the thick Al blind flange of the PMT enclosure are put in front of the PMT.


    Sounds like perhaps bremsstrahlung as an alternative (and far more likely) explanation?


    Here Homlid is pressing a photomultiplier into service by allowing it to detect beta electrons directly, rather than using the photoelectric effect to generate electrons for incoming photons. Fine. But is this something that can be done without lots of calibrations and cross checks, to make sure you’re not creating unwanted artifacts? Perhaps it’s a straightforward thing to do. It seems like you could easily mess this up or misinterpret the results, especially if you’re a novice at using these things. What is the curve that describes the relationship between the output signal and the number (and energy) of the incident electrons? Is it the same curve as when photons are being detected? Is it linear? Does it have some shape that needs to be compensated for?


    Quote

    It is concluded that beta decay processes occur in the walls or flange of the PMT enclosure and in the converter materials put inside of it.


    It’s exactly this kind of indirect reasoning that needs to be cross-checked and vetted by one or more experts in the field.


    Quote

    The new method (in the context of low energy muon detection. This would likely not work for cosmic muons) seems the usage of materials for causing muon capture with a PMT only for directly measuring the beta decay electrons produced.


    Would you agree that it is a red flag if there’s no clear way of calibrating the new approach to detecting muons against known sources of muons? But perhaps there's a way to thermalize accelerator muons so that they're lower energy, and then use other methods and the new method?


    Quote

    After some reading I just learned that the decay of free muons or muons not involved in nuclear capture produces a spectrum similar to the ones depicted below. Holmlid remarked that the measured spectra do not agree with this distribution.


    It looks like I inferred the wrong endpoint for the muon betas; for free muons there appears to be a sharp cutoff at 53 MeV rather than a tail out to 105 MeV. (Or is this an artifact of the detection method used?) You agree that if there are muons, it would be nice to have a beta spectrum giving evidence of them?


    Quote

    Actually one of such tests is mentioned. However this refers to the detector used without the plastic scintillator and placed at some distance from the reactor. ASCII art time. Normally the scintillator-less detector should be configured like this: ...


    Understood. But I was talking precisely about the more conventional practice (as I understand it; I may be mixing up methods of detection) of using degraders before the scintillator, and letting the photons that are generated be detected in the usual way. My point was that you assume not muons, then place degraders of various thicknesses before the scintillator and see how much the intensity and structure of the photon signal changes. The whole metal shield/PMT thing is an unfamiliar mode of operation to me, and I’m not convinced that Holmlid understands/appreciates what subtleties there may be.


    Quote

    The paper mentions, verbatim: "When filters are used outside the metal enclosure for the detector, no effects are observed"


    Note that if there are energetic electrons producing bremsstrahlung, it stands to reason that the secondary photons would be stopped by the metal enclosure. But in a more typical setup, there would be the degrader (e.g., Al), the scintillator, and the PMT, without metal interposing between them, and the degraders would work as expected. It would seem to be the metal enclosure that is requiring placing the “filters” inside the apparatus.


    Quote

    I found that strange too, but I am not an expert in nuclear safety. So I tried looking for references and then I found diagrams like this:


    Thank you for the clarification. This makes a lot of sense.


    Quote

    You are correct that this is all about inference, which is why (if I recall correctly) Sveinn Olafsson has urged others to verify these findings with other methods and setups.


    More to the point: Homlid and Olafsson need to let some real experts in muon detection look at their setup. This should have been done years ago. I was hoping they would do this approx. 1 or 2 years ago? This is the kind of thing a scientist working outside of their field would do without a second thought. I'm not sure what's holding things up here. Perhaps the muon experts don't want anything to do with Holmlid? Or he doesn't want to consult them?


    Quote

    Are there proven methods for measuring low energy muons? I think most of them are concerned with cosmic muons that do not easily stop in matter.


    Let’s suppose for the sake of argument that there are not. All the more reason for Holmlid to engage outside expertise, to make sure he’s not just seeing what he wants to see.


  • 1. It is interesting especially from a scientific point of view.
    2. It may still turn out to be useful in a scaled down form.


    Thank you for points and thinking such broblem.
    If you trust 1 & 2, then you can replicate holmlid I think he had given enough data to do things?
    Holmlid replicatios stay some save enough muon levels but still see effects?


    And muons may present (I am quite sure) in other experiments. So far I have found such strong RF emission is not real RF emission.
    Or at least I have not found any high spikes/powerlevels in RF spectrum 22-1750Mhz to explain it. Noise from radios depends which radio you have.
    I found radios react, but it is not for radio transmission but posible muon/betas that hit radio electronics (some clocks etc).


    And for 2. for darwing awards tryer I think it is better to be quiet. To prove muons holmlid replication can do it, maybe all other known to work replications also. Need only to measure.
    My way is direct DA way. To tell it public is more stupid than DA¹⁰.


    Quote


    3. As you say, others may be experiencing similar effects without being aware so it would help to confirm that methods exist for detecting such unknown radiation.
    4. This may sound harsh, but if a novel but potentially harmful effect is behind LENR disclosing it to the public will likely accelerate its scientific and public recognition. This will most certainly eventually result in bans of various kinds, but the end point is that law cannot render illegal something that "officially" does not exist or cannot work.


    3. I think none else but holmlid have even try to detect it. And holmlid did only half of work, work to discover posible energy spectrum is not done (yet).
    And there is not need to use "new" method old one bc408 plastic scintilator do it fine too. New one is posible more efficient and method what I give with GM tubes cost very little.
    So there is three posible method to try behaind shielding blocks.


    4. there exist something no worry. And later part: Muons are real and known particles and they are radiation. Radiation producing things are moustly illegal. Juridically there is not need to know what is under hood, effect is enough for deny things. And oil rich don't like any new. Oil need 1st sell end then it is allowed new thec which them can controll plan, you know. Hopefully there are some small posibility to walk diffrent road, maybe, but as you know fossils investment are moved rapidly in last years, so some bigs maybe have allowed/aware lenr to come use.


  • It looks like any process, that produces muons, is just a big waste of energy, except you place the source inside a PdD loaded case, which can use them for muon induced fusion.
    Nevertheless it is a question that must be followed up: Are LENR reactions a source of muons and if, then under what circumstances.


    If muons present it tell waste energy as I said previously "submarine" have 1000x too much energy level.
    But I have not just working idea/method in hand how decrease/discharge it faster for not to grow such high level.
    Muons means find some functionality in fuel, but not real energy producing reactor. It is one posible error condition (for energy producing view)
    Especially it is error condition if they got 150Mev extra energy and fly out from reactor and do health hazard.

  • ===> As a preliminary note, this sort of point to point reply is something I wanted to avoid as I do not have so much time to dedicate to forum activities, and also because the longer the reply is, the higher the chance of error gets.




    Eric Walker wrote:

    I’ll have to take your word on the scintillator not being there all the time. In Ref. 1 they talk about covering the detector with a lead plate, and they talk about other glass filters and filters of other materials, without mentioning that the scintillator is removed. In Ref. 3 Holmlid talks about the scintillator also being the vacuum window. Regardless, let's go with the assumption that the scintillator is taken away when the other materials are used.


    More in detail, the scintillator-PMT assembly is detachable at the scintillator as this diagram exemplifies:



    The detachable part is used for measurements at a few meters of distance from the reactor, regardless of whether converter materials are used or not. When the detector part is detached, the front window is fitted with a blind flange of a 3mm aluminium plate to prevent light from entering (as an additional measure against visible photons most experiments are also reported to be done in the dark) except in a few tests where it is replaced with a dark cloth.


    Quote

    Sounds like perhaps bremsstrahlung as an alternative (and far more likely) explanation?


    Here Homlid is pressing a photomultiplier into service by allowing it to detect beta electrons directly, rather than using the photoelectric effect to generate electrons for incoming photons. Fine. But is this something that can be done without lots of calibrations and cross checks, to make sure you’re not creating unwanted artifacts? Perhaps it’s a straightforward thing to do. It seems like you could easily mess this up or misinterpret the results, especially if you’re a novice at using these things. What is the curve that describes the relationship between the output signal and the number (and energy) of the incident electrons? Is it the same curve as when photons are being detected? Is it linear? Does it have some shape that needs to be compensated for?


    They report doing a calibration using a 137Cs source with and without the plastic scintillator (PS) with a Kurie plot. When the PS is used the intercept for Q=512 keV is at 765 channels, giving 0.67 keV/channel. Without the PS and the same electronics the intercept is at 170 channels, giving 3.0 keV/channel. A linear scale is assumed.


    Quote

    It’s exactly this kind of indirect reasoning that needs to be cross-checked and vetted by one or more experts in the field.


    If only they would touch it! Not even the LENR experts are interested, it seems.


    Quote

    Would you agree that it is a red flag if there’s no clear way of calibrating the new approach to detecting muons against known sources of muons? But perhaps there's a way to thermalize accelerator muons so that they're lower energy, and then use other methods and the new method?


    As tables for the stopping range of muons in different materials have been compiled I am sure that such methods exist. But I do not think there are many places where this can be done.


    Quote

    It looks like I inferred the wrong endpoint for the muon betas; for free muons there appears to be a sharp cutoff at 53 MeV rather than a tail out to 105 MeV. (Or is this an artifact of the detection method used?) You agree that if there are muons, it would be nice to have a beta spectrum giving evidence of them?


    After looking at other sources it seems that that 53 MeV is the known maximum beta energy for free muon decay.


    As for the beta spectrum for decay the capture probability of the the used materials in addition to detection energy range may be a factor here, but here I am just guessing. Holmlid suspects that the occasional appearance of a high energy tail to the signal may be due the the presence of positive muons (which do not form muonic atoms), which should be present in a muon flux formed by the decay of kaons and pions.


    Anyway I also think that it would be great if other methods could be tested, for example a cloud chamber as others here suggested.


    Quote

    Understood. But I was talking precisely about the more conventional practice (as I understand it; I may be mixing up methods of detection) of using degraders before the scintillator, and letting the photons that are generated be detected in the usual way. My point was that you assume not muons, then place degraders of various thicknesses before the scintillator and see how much the intensity and structure of the photon signal changes. The whole metal shield/PMT thing is an unfamiliar mode of operation to me, and I’m not convinced that Holmlid understands/appreciates what subtleties there may be.


    I suspect he would have to use a slightly different setup for these experiments.


    I also think his reasoning here is showing that these unknown particles (that Holmlid believes are mainly muons) travel through the scintillator and the aluminium foil placed in front of it (mainly for protection against visible photons) without interacting significantly with them.


    Perhaps most importantly (he remarks this in one of the papers), removing the scintillator also removes the background radiation signal.


    Quote

    Note that if there are energetic electrons producing bremsstrahlung, it stands to reason that the secondary photons would be stopped by the metal enclosure. But in a more typical setup, there would be the degrader (e.g., Al), the scintillator, and the PMT, without metal interposing between them, and the degraders would work as expected. It would seem to be the metal enclosure that is requiring placing the “filters” inside the apparatus.


    The question is what would be the strength of this electron-produced bremsstrahlung compared to the incoming betas?


    On a related note, H&O report also using other detectors, including this GM detector. Apparently it only gave a slightly higher signal where the PMT+converters gave an "enhanced" signal:
    https://www.mirion.com/product…ntamination-survey-meter/


    This was also used without any higher signal than background:
    https://mirion.app.box.com/s/l46mg0ay1muv284dvmuj


    Quote

    More to the point: Homlid and Olafsson need to let some real experts in muon detection look at their setup. This should have been done years ago. I was hoping they would do this approx. 1 or 2 years ago? This is the kind of thing a scientist working outside of their field would do without a second thought. I'm not sure what's holding things up here. Perhaps the muon experts don't want anything to do with Holmlid? Or he doesn't want to consult them?


    I think these results about muons have only been published since 2015. In earlier years it was mainly about the unusual emissions and observations from the ultra-dense hydrogen material produced in his experiments.


    Quote

    Let’s suppose for the sake of argument that there are not. All the more reason for Holmlid to engage outside expertise, to make sure he’s not just seeing what he wants to see.


    I do not know what are his circumstances and it is not clear how much help he has from other people besides paper coauthors when present. But he is getting published on peer reviewed papers of not insignificant impact factor and I do not think this is simply because of his influence as a professor emeritus.


    I think I recall reading on LENR-Forum that Olafsson wrote that with the current experimental setup even if one came in the laboratory to perform measurements personally he could not do anything but agree with the observations.


    Maybe a different setup is needed (which is incidentally what Olafsson also suggested in a different message).

  • eros wrote:

    Thank you for points and thinking such broblem.
    If you trust 1 & 2, then you can replicate holmlid I think he had given enough data to do things?
    Holmlid replicatios stay some save enough muon levels but still see effects?


    I am not too sure about that. Holmlid uses commercially available industrial Fe2O3:K catalysts but I have read that used ones work better than fresh ones and that this may be related to transformations occurring on their surface with actual usage.


    There is the chance if one puts a fresh catalyst of the same kind and tries the same experiment it may not work right away. In older papers Holmlid reports that his catalysts are similar to the ones commercially called "Shell 105". This one in particular has been out-of-production for two decades if I recall correctly.


    If the complete procedure from scratch could be demonstrated using known materials that are currently available it would solve most of the questions on this aspect.


    Besides this point the rest of his set up seems relatively straightforward. The nano-pulsed laser seems recommended to see results immediately, but apparently any energetic pulse may be sufficient to trigger something. The reaction was also reported to give spontaneous emission without any [intentional] triggering, which would make it similar to many LENR experiments.


    The opinion of Holmlid and Olafsson is that muon emission (if present in their experiment) may be present in all LENR experiments, the ones that work at least.


    Quote

    And muons may present (I am quite sure) in other experiments. So far I have found such strong RF emission is not real RF emission.
    Or at least I have not found any high spikes/powerlevels in RF spectrum 22-1750Mhz to explain it. Noise from radios depends which radio you have.
    I found radios react, but it is not for radio transmission but posible muon/betas that hit radio electronics (some clocks etc).


    If RF emission is actually an artifact of that, it is interesting to know.


    Quote

    And for 2. for darwing awards tryer I think it is better to be quiet. To prove muons holmlid replication can do it, maybe all other known to work replications also. Need only to measure.
    My way is direct DA way. To tell it public is more stupid than DA¹⁰.


    My opinion is completely the opposite, but everybody has his opinions....


    Quote

    3. I think none else but holmlid have even try to detect it. And holmlid did only half of work, work to discover posible energy spectrum is not done (yet).
    And there is not need to use "new" method old one bc408 plastic scintilator do it fine too. New one is posible more efficient and method what I give with GM tubes cost very little.
    So there is three posible method to try behaind shielding blocks.


    A Geiger Muller detector with plates of metals of various thickness added to the front window or metal enclosure to promote muon capture (if those are indeed muons) may be a good idea. I wonder if Holmlid and Olafsson have already tried something similar, besides with their photomultiplier tube.

  • Quote

    ===> As a preliminary note, this sort of point to point reply is something I wanted to avoid as I do not have so much time to dedicate to forum activities, and also because the longer the reply is, the higher the chance of error gets.


    We’ve been able through this approach to correct one misconception (about the 137Cs endpoint) and come to agreement on what assumption to adopt regarding another assumed misconception (about the scintillator). Sounds like it’s working to me. If only we could come to agreement that Holmild has much, much more work to do to establish muons.


    Quote

    The detachable part is used for measurements at a few meters of distance from the reactor, regardless of whether converter materials are used or not. When the detector part is detached, the front window is fitted with a blind flange of a 3mm aluminium plate to prevent light from entering (as an additional measure against visible photons most experiments are also reported to be done in the dark) except in a few tests where it is replaced with a dark cloth.


    Is your understanding that the glass filter-only mode (without the Al window) is used only when the apparatus is not detached?


    Quote

    They report doing a calibration using a 137Cs source with and without the plastic scintillator (PS) with a Kurie plot. When the PS is used the intercept for Q=512 keV is at 765 channels, giving 0.67 keV/channel. Without the PS and the same electronics the intercept is at 170 channels, giving 3.0 keV/channel. A linear scale is assumed.


    Yes, Holmlid has done a calibration using betas. Now how about a calibration using muons (or perhaps mesons), so that we can see the effects of muons interacting with the material on the walls of the instrument producing beta decays in the manner that Holmlid imagines, using muons from a source that we know to produce muons? It should be possible to slow them down to the range Holmlid assumes his muons are traveling.


    Quote

    If only they would touch it! Not even the LENR experts are interested, it seems.


    Are there any LENR experts who are also experts at detecting muons? Are LENR experts the kind of experts that are needed to rule out competing explanations to one involving muons? I’m open to the possibility that Holmlid is being shunned by muon people. If so, why, one wonders? Do none of them have an open mind? Is Holmlid being stubborn in his interpretation?


    Quote

    Perhaps most importantly (he remarks this in one of the papers), removing the scintillator also removes the background radiation signal.


    What significance do you take from this fact?


    Quote

    The question is what would be the strength of this electron-produced bremsstrahlung compared to the incoming betas?


    This is a good question. I think you started to quantify it with the NIST tables. My suspicion is that muons of a certain energy are for the present experimental setup indistinguishable from electrons of a higher energy, apart from (1) the forming of muonic atoms, (2) the reasonable expectation of an energetic muon beta decay spectrum, and (3) the higher levels of bremsstrahlung expected for electrons. Is there anything that is obviously wrong about this? I don’t think Holmlid has yet shown that the ejecta travel through the Al window and then interact with the walls of the PMT, although this is certainly part of his explanation. When they used the GM counter, and compared it to the PMT, what was “enhanced” about the use of the PMT? How do we know the enhancement isn’t artifact?


    Quote

    This was also used without any higher signal than background: mirion.app.box.com/s/l46mg0ay1muv284dvmuj


    If there were muons, wouldn’t you expect a signal above background in this radiation detector, given the presence of 53 MeV decay betas?


    Quote

    I do not know what are his circumstances and it is not clear how much help he has from other people besides paper coauthors when present. But he is getting published on peer reviewed papers of not insignificant impact factor and I do not think this is simply because of his influence as a professor emeritus.


    To be honest, the fact that these papers were published like this diminishes my trust in peer review as a process. As this discussion has turned up, there are several important details that Holmlid and Olafsson could have followed up on before getting to muons. Instead, Holmlid starts in Ref. 2 from the assumption that there are not just muons, but mesons as well.


    Quote

    I think I recall reading on LENR-Forum that Olafsson wrote that with the current experimental setup even if one came in the laboratory to perform measurements personally he could not do anything but agree with the observations.


    I live in Arkansas, in the US. Suppose I see that the flowers around my house are being eaten by something. I then supposedly demonstrate that rodents and deer can be ruled out as the cause. Are you then required to agree with me that rare, poisonous tree toads from the Amazon basin are what are eating my flowers?

  • The fact that both eros and Holmlid do not see gamma radiation, or for that fact, not very much of any other type of ionizing radiation suggests that a LENR radiation damping field is in place within these experiments. This damping field makes figuring out what is going on difficult and otherworldly (aka the twilight zone).


    The damping field is yet to be understood or even accepted by most everybody. This damping of ionizing EMF is caused by entanglement of sub atomic particles produced by nuclear reactions that occur under the causation of Bose condensation engendered by the ultras dense (metalized) hydrogen.


    Distance from the reaction has no impact on entanglement, so secondary nuclear reactions that occur meters or even kilometers away from the Bose condensate are connected to and controlled by that condensate.


    Energy from sub atomic particle decay(mesons, kaons, pions, muons) and secondary LENR catalyzed fissions and fusions are passed back to the condensate where they are stored and reformatted into heat, light, and XUV.


    For example, as a speculation, fission and fusion could be going on inside the experimenter’s body, but the gamma radiation that would usually be localized to the site of that nuclear reaction would be sent back many meters to the Bose condensate. This mechanism would work toward mitigating the damage caused by muon catalyzed reactions and decay if not just result in a single and localized point of destruction in a very limited site, say a single cell.


    What needs to be discovered is what radiation is mitigated by entanglement and which is not. Does LENR affect the body like a virus that will destroy a large number of cells without DNA damage or is DNA damage produced in LENR secondary radiation?


    If Holmlid is producing fusion at the level he states he should be dead now. Something is occurring in LENR that is completely unanticipated. The energy that all those sub atomic particles are carrying is not being wasted, it must somehow be recycled around in the LENR reaction.



    When is entanglement broken between the fuel and the muon?


    LENR could behave like a hive of bees where the queen sends out workers to bring back food for the colony.


    There is another possibility that would be even weirder. If the muon and the Bose condensate were energetically connected, then the muon might use the condinsate (BEC) like an energy bank to withdraw energy from the concentrate as needed to keep it from decaying.


    Only when the entanglement link is broken would the muon decay. The muon could travel a very long distance before it decayed. No matter how much lead that the muon passed through, the entangled muon still might not decay. In this situation where entanglement is broken, that entanglement would not return its energy of decay to the BEC and the muon would be on its own far from its place of birth.


    Is bremsstrahlung (deceleration radiation) generated from entangled muons connected to the BEC escape from the BEC/muon connection or does bremsstrahlung of the decelerating muon sent back to the BEC?


    eros might want to take his muon detector far from where his reactor is and test for muons.


    It could be that there is LENR happening far from the fuel sending its energy back to the fuel even if the fuel was assumed to be inactive. As eros has mentioned that the fuel stays crazy for a long time unit it is destroyed by acid. The acid could disrupt quantum entanglement ending the connection between long lived muons and their homebase: the "spent" fuel.


    Maybe LENR likes muons.


    It could be possible that LENR wants to produce muons in preference to excess heat. A LENR experiment that shows little excess heat activity could still be producing loads of muons. When the LENR reaction is terminated, the excess heat production ceases but the production of muons could continue apace. It maybe that the fuel remains active but the fuel continues to live in stealth mode with the production of hard to detect muons going on for a long time as eros has observed until the fuel is destroyed.


    Holmlid has observed that muons are produced for days and as long as weeks after the fuel has been retired. The fuel looks like it remains muon active.


    The BOSENOVA


    A test that would show if this line of thinking had any merit goes as follows:


    If Bose condensation is producing the LENR shield, then the destruction of that shield could be done through the creation of a large magnetic field near the condinsate.


    What would happen is that the entangled connection to the muons would be terminated when the magnetic field produced by the electric arc destroyed the BEC. Some fraction of the energy stored in the BEC would be released as x-rays and XUV and the remote muons would be free to decay as they would in the REAL world.


    Could the large magnetic fields reported by DGT also be some sort of reaction to the distruction of BEC entanglement and the release of stored BEC energy? DGT mentions seeing microscopic Bosenovas produced in their reactor. Could that be a product of the spark that they used?


    From ICCF-18 theory paper from Dr Kim


    The brackets { } contain axils additions to increase understanding.



    The take away as follows: BEC energy could be converted from the production of muons to the production of intense magnetic fields and the generation of excess heat through the discharge of a large spark.

  • Eric Walker wrote:

    We’ve been able through this approach to correct one misconception (about the 137Cs endpoint) and come to agreement on what assumption to adopt regarding another assumed misconception (about the scintillator). Sounds like it’s working to me. If only we could come to agreement that Holmild has much, much more work to do to establish muons.


    Except that I do not have the time required for this sort of discussion and actually I am writing this at the expense of other duties. I hoped to also read the analysis of others who carefully read the papers, not just to personally engage in the discussion. Enough!


    Quote

    Is your understanding that the glass filter-only mode (without the Al window) is used only when the apparatus is not detached?


    The blind Al flange seems to be used only when the apparatus is detached. It is part of the "second form of the detector".


    Quote

    Yes, Holmlid has done a calibration using betas. Now how about a calibration using muons (or perhaps mesons), so that we can see the effects of muons interacting with the material on the walls of the instrument producing beta decays in the manner that Holmlid imagines, using muons from a source that we know to produce muons? It should be possible to slow them down to the range Holmlid assumes his muons are traveling.


    As previously suggested, this would require setting up an experiment in a specialized facility, a "muon factory", that performed this sort of service to individual researchers. I do not know how many of these are in Sweden. There may be valid logistic reasons as for why Holmlid has not done this yet, I doubt that one can simply rent a multi-GeV particle accelerator as needed.


    Quote

    Are there any LENR experts who are also experts at detecting muons? Are LENR experts the kind of experts that are needed to rule out competing explanations to one involving muons? I’m open to the possibility that Holmlid is being shunned by muon people. If so, why, one wonders? Do none of them have an open mind? Is Holmlid being stubborn in his interpretation?


    It was a hyperbole for saying that since not even LENR experts seem to be interested in the experiments made by Holmlid, the chance of experts from other fields voluntarily taking interest seems low. I do not know personally if Holmlid has already tried looking for expert opinion on this matter. I am not in contact with him or other researchers who have worked with him.


    Quote

    What significance do you take from this fact?


    I was listing that as a possible reason why he may have wanted to not use the scintillator for most of the experiments there.


    Quote

    This is a good question. I think you started to quantify it with the NIST tables. My suspicion is that muons of a certain energy are for the present experimental setup indistinguishable from electrons of a higher energy, apart from (1) the forming of muonic atoms, (2) the reasonable expectation of an energetic muon beta decay spectrum, and (3) the higher levels of bremsstrahlung expected for electrons. Is there anything that is obviously wrong about this? I don’t think Holmlid has yet shown that the ejecta travel through the Al window and then interact with the walls of the PMT, although this is certainly part of his explanation.


    The problem here is that you are trying to put down an in your opinion implausible hypothesis (muon emission) with another one that is at least as implausible.


    Basically from what I understand you are saying that anomalous beta emission from the reactor (from induced beta decay at the Fe2O3:K source) is bypassing the reactor enclosure, detector enclousure, the scintillator to only get detected in full force by bremsstrahlung when converter materials are put in front of the PMT.


    The plastic scintillator that is sometimes used in these experiments is a Saint-Gobain BC-408 of 50 mm of length. It has a density of 1.032 g/cm3. Details here: http://www.phys.ufl.edu/course…muon/bicron_bc400-416.pdf


    Holmlid reports in table 1 in "Spontaneous ejection..." that 1 MeV electrons would have a range of 4 mm within it.


    I tried using again the previously linked NIST tables (http://physics.nist.gov/PhysRefData/Star/Text/ESTAR.html) for the range of electrons in matter with a similar material with about the same density to give the same results at 1 MeV. It takes 10 MeV electrons to penetrate the length of the scintillator. This is ignoring everything else.


    Would not such massive electron emission already give a very significant signal when a converter material is not used?



    This being said, if you want to introduce an unknown penetrating particle X that induces beta decay, can be ejected from the reactor and that is not a muon, I am fine with that. I suspect that Holmlid did not want to also suppose the existence of new elementary particles in the process.



    Quote

    When they used the GM counter, and compared it to the PMT, what was “enhanced” about the use of the PMT? How do we know the enhancement isn’t artifact?


    In this context, presumably the signal compared to the background.


    Quote

    To be honest, the fact that these papers were published like this diminishes my trust in peer review as a process. As this discussion has turned up, there are several important details that Holmlid and Olafsson could have followed up on before getting to muons. Instead, Holmlid starts in Ref. 2 from the assumption that there are not just muons, but mesons as well.


    I think at that point he already performed other experiments that may have shaped his opinion on the signal observed. Hints may be found with the "received dates" of the papers.


    Quote

    I live in Arkansas, in the US. Suppose I see that the flowers around my house are being eaten by something. I then supposedly demonstrate that rodents and deer can be ruled out as the cause. Are you then required to agree with me that rare, poisonous tree toads from the Amazon basin are what are eating my flowers?


    From what Olafsson wrote it sounded as if others have repeated the same measurements on Holmlid's test rig in his laboratory using his procedures, obtaining the same results. What I am saying here is that Holmlid is probably not getting a free pass with the peer review just because he is a professor emeritus, but also that only a replication using different methods can confirm what he thinks he is seeing.

  • http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEnatureofen.pdf


    Nature of energetic radiation emitted from a metal exposed to H2
    Edmund Storms and Brian Scanlan KivaLabs, LLC, Santa Fe, NM



    Ed Storms saw muon catalyzed fusion in the window of his GM counter and the effects of that fusion event on energetic gamma recording and transmutation in the mica window of the GM counter.


    Note: When the BEC is destroyed in part or on the whole, the nuclear reactions produced by muons behave as expected: that being the production of ionizing radiation.

  • It is well established that LENR occurs in microorganisms and the guts of chickens. How such low level LENR reactions can produce transmutations without killing the organism is something to think about. It would be interesting to place a muon detector near these extremophile microorganisms who are resistant to nuclear activity to check for any muon emissions as they feed on nuclear waste.


    Is it possible that LENR BEC processes somehow protects these bugs from the effects of high level radioactive wastes?

  • Quote

    Except that I do not have the time required for this sort of discussion and actually I am writing this at the expense of other duties. I hoped to also read the analysis of others who carefully read the papers, not just to personally engage in the discussion. Enough!


    You will be lucky to find someone on this forum who has read those papers more carefully than you have. We have in our discussion already sorted out several good reasons to fully distrust the conclusions in those papers, e.g., the missing 0-53 MeV betas, the possibility of alternative interpretations and the lack of an effective investigation into really establishing that it was muons that have been detected and not something else. But if you do not find this discussion is useful to you, you are free to disengage.


    Quote

    As previously suggested, this would require setting up an experiment in a specialized facility, a "muon factory", that performed this sort of service to individual researchers. I do not know how many of these are in Sweden. There may be valid logistic reasons as for why Holmlid has not done this yet, I doubt that one can simply rent a multi-GeV particle accelerator as needed.


    As previously suggested, then, the (hopefully) obvious thing to do here is to collaborate with someone or with a team that has access to such a facility. I understand it might be difficult for Holmlid to find such a person or team. Another possibility: find someone with relevant expertise who is not a pushover who can help Holmlid detect muons on the cheap, using a well-known method of detecting muons, rather than going along with him in inventing a whole new method of detecting muons that proceeds on the back of a dubious theory. Holmlid’s supposition that his PMT muon detector works through induced beta decay by way of the interaction of muons with atoms in the walls of the apparatus sounds like a new method of detection, even if it bears a superficial resemblance to an existing method (use of a scintillator together with a PMT).


    Just to make clear the obvious: here we have someone with no expertise in detecting muons inventing a whole new method of detecting muons, and one that has not had the benefit of any kind of calibration against a known source of muons.


    Quote

    Eric: What significance do you take from this fact?
    I was listing that as a possible reason why he may have wanted to not use the scintillator for most of the experiments there.


    I would have expected a background signal, even if there was no scintillator, given the muon decay betas. Or are we to suppose that the muons are not decaying at all?


    Quote

    The problem here is that you are trying to put down an in your opinion implausible hypothesis (muon emission) with another one that is at least as implausible [energetic electrons] .... I tried using again the previously linked NIST tables (physics.nist.gov/PhysRefData/Star/Text/ESTAR.html) for the range of electrons in matter with a similar material with about the same density to give the same results at 1 MeV. It takes 10 MeV electrons to penetrate the length of the scintillator. This is ignoring everything else.


    I agreed to assume that the scintillator is removed when the converters are in place, so the scintillator itself should not be around to stop the electrons. They need only traverse the converters, or, even if stopped, penetrate far enough to cause bremsstrahlung, which, if the photons are in the high keV to MeV range, will not be attenuated much.


    Induced decay in Fe2O3:K was just one idea that was thrown out there, one that I’m not attached to in the slightest. Hopefully it will not be a distraction. Perhaps let’s simplify the problem: can Homlid’s results be explained with energetic electrons (2, 5, 10, 20 or even 50 MeV, say) arising outside of the apparatus, cause unknown? Or more interestingly: what minimum energy would the electrons need to have to explain Homlid’s observations if they were arising outside of the apparatus, assuming this can be made to fit the observations? Or can Holmlid’s observations be explained by anything else that doesn’t stray too far into realms that are very far away from everyday life? Just as a thought experiment.


    I don’t think Homlid has established that the betas that are being recorded by his PMT detector are arising in the walls of the detector. What’s more, they would at face value appear to go back to a single type of decay, if we are to go along with Homlid’s assertion of a straight-line Kurie plot. (When I looked at it, I wasn’t convinced that it was a straight line Kurie plot.) [I need to go back and double-check whether the Kurie plot was seen for the live runs.] What is something that can simplify the experiment enough to know, unambiguously, whether the signal arises from within the PMT or without?


    Quote

    Would not such massive electron emission already give a very significant signal when a converter material is not used?


    This is an interesting question. What happens when you direct a beam of MeV electrons at a PMT, with and without converter materials? Seems like something that could and should be investigated. There was the 137Cs calibration, without the converters, but those electrons had an endpoint of 512 keV and hence will on average been ~ 170 keV.


    Also, would you not expect a massive electron emission from the 0-53 MeV muons arising from muons that happen to decay outside of the apparatus?


    Quote

    This being said, if you want to introduce an unknown penetrating particle X that induces beta decay, can be ejected from the reactor and that is not a muon, I am fine with that. I suspect that Holmlid did not want to also suppose the existence of new elementary particles in the process.


    I’m not 100 percent against a neutral particle of some kind. Bill Collis, whose opinion in these matters means a lot to me, has taken this approach. It’s not my own guess. I think an unknown neutral particle is in any event more likely than kaons and pions being liberated in significant numbers through a laser emitting low-energy photons. But assume for the moment that this is what is happening: think of the potential for a bomb that could be made, using only a low-power laser and Holmlid’s material?


    I already take LENR seriously. The skepticism you’re witnessing here is probably a small fraction of the skepticism that academic physicists must have.


    Quote

    I think at that point he already performed other experiments that may have shaped his opinion on the signal observed. Hints may be found with the "received dates" of the papers.


    Agreed. Holmlid no doubt thought that he had shown mesons and muons already. But I just take that as further evidence that he’s not being sufficiently self-critical, which I was already convinced of before reading those papers.


    Quote

    From what Olafsson wrote it sounded as if others have repeated the same measurements on Holmlid's test rig in his laboratory using his procedures, obtaining the same results. What I am saying here is that Holmlid is probably not getting a free pass with the peer review just because he is a professor emeritus, but also that only a replication using different methods can confirm what he thinks he is seeing.


    I’ve never been of the opinion that Holmlid is not seeing some interesting experimental phenomena. It’s always been the interpretation that I’ve found lacking, going back before even ultra-dense deuterium and as far as Rydberg matter. One can take Holmlid’s low-level observations at face value and disagree with the interpretation. The other replications bolster the conclusion that there is something experimentally interesting to look at.


    Anyone looking at Holmlid’s work should ask some basic questions, such as: How did he get to the conclusion about ultra-dense deuterium? What did the actual experimental observations look like that got him there? How did he get to Rydberg matter? Once one closely examines the reasoning that has lead him to those conclusions, one will go down a rabbit hole and come to distrust his very process of reasoning.

  • @Eric Walker


    Please understand what you are asking for...


    The two major experiments at CERN detect muons CMS and ATLAS use drift tubes. These detectors are engineered to be massive to allow muons to interact with matter.


    see


    http://cms.web.cern.ch/news/muon-detectors



    In order for these huge detectors to be modified to detect muons from LENR, the central cryogenic proton beam pipe must me removed from the detector and replaced with a LENR reactor. I don't beleive that any one person or group of people can convince the people who fronted the $10 billion to build CERN would let someone modify it to advance the study of LENR. I'm just saying...

  • thx for the detailed discussion of Homlid's experiment on this thread. Clearly the experiment needs to be reproduced by another party, and stands as a single data point at the moment.


    If I understand the papers, compared to other LENR experiments, the energetic particles emitted ( whatever they are ) coincide with the laser impinging upon the 'puddle' of "UDD" which collects on plate having fallen off the catalyst material. The creation of this superfluid material in a pure form and physically and temporally from it's creation material is a big claim.


    My reading is that energetic particles are not measured from the catalyst itself, or during the creation of the "UDD" material or from the "UDD" material without any stimulation. The question is really, does this hyper-dense superfluid derivative hydrogen exist? If the high energy emissions are only when stimulated, ( not during creation ) then there is a puddle of stable non-emissive mystery material just sitting there. Seems like there would be many simple tests to characterize it.


  • Please see thread


    DTRA: Investigation of Nano Nuclear Reactions in Condensed Matter, Mosier Boss, L. Forsley, PK. McDaniel


    The experiment on page 78 characterizes the Ultra Dense Hydrogen(UDH) (AKA radberg matter of metalized hydrogen) that is generated in the cracks and voids of the highly loaded Pd/D system. This UDH is well characterized in high density physics.


    Also see thread starting at


    Water surprises physisists


    regarding metalized water produced in beryllium crystals for the quantum mechanical characterization of metalized hydrides.

  • Oh wow those walls of text really make me think


    I'm sure a random nobody posting on an internet forum has better science in him than a scientist doing experiments to refine existing theories and usher new ones!


    Hi Keieueue — it's liberating being a random nobody posting on the Internet, as I do not have a reputation that can be damaged by looking into controversial corners of science. But let's follow the implication of your implicit criticism — who would you have us go along with, Holmlid, or his critics? What's your rationale?


    Also, when did 1371 words, quotes included, become a wall of text? Perhaps you've found a new criticism you're fond of and are practicing using it?

  • The two major experiments at CERN detect muons CMS and ATLAS use drift tubes. These detectors are engineered to be massive to allow muons to interact with matter.


    Surely he need not trek over to CERN to get muons! There's a meson production cross section in pp collisions starting around 200+ MeV, if I recall. Surely there are accelerators around Europe that can produce them? And they can be moderated? Or are CMS and ATLAS required after all? Since the 1950s, are CERN the only ones who have been able to investigate muons?


  • Surely he need not trek over to CERN to get muons! There's a meson production cross section in pp collisions around 200+ MeV, if I recall. Surely there are accelerators around Europe that can produce them? And they can be attenuated and moderated? Or are CMS and ATLAS required after all?



    You tell me... do the systems engineering leg work and the social networking to get the particle physicists to cooperate. Holmlid is working with CERN people.

  • You tell me... do the systems engineering leg work and the social networking to get the particle physicists to cooperate. Holmlid is working with CERN people.


    I'm not the one with a claim of muons. But it's good that he's working with CERN people. I'll be very interested to hear what they say.

  • @axil - yeah that's my basic question, given the big difference between creating trace amounts of UDD in a tiny crack in a highly dynamic environment vs creating it in bulk in a stable apparatus why doesn't Homlid get more attention than some of the other characters out there. BTW I like that entanglement post, you are a free thinker.

  • thx for the detailed discussion of Homlid's experiment on this thread. Clearly the experiment needs to be reproduced by another party, and stands as a single data point at the moment.


    If I understand the papers, compared to other LENR experiments, the energetic particles emitted ( whatever they are ) coincide with the laser impinging upon the 'puddle' of "UDD" which collects on plate having fallen off the catalyst material. The creation of this superfluid material in a pure form and physically and temporally from it's creation material is a big claim.


    My reading is that energetic particles are not measured from the catalyst itself, or during the creation of the "UDD" material or from the "UDD" material without any stimulation. The question is really, does this hyper-dense superfluid derivative hydrogen exist? If the high energy emissions are only when stimulated, ( not during creation ) then there is a puddle of stable non-emissive mystery material just sitting there. Seems like there would be many simple tests to characterize it.


    Also see Dr. Sveinn answer to ecco...


    Ask questions to Dr. Sveinn Ólafsson, Science Institute - University of Iceland