Can we talk about Holmlid?

    Quote from Eric Walker


    I do not doubt that muons can be distinguished from energetic electrons with sufficient checks. One thing I suppose might be apparent would be the decay at the end to an electron. The question here is whether Holmlid and Olafsson's custom-built apparatus, discussed above, is sufficient to distinguish between muons and electrons and whether they've done the necessary checks to rule out competing explanations. Even if the apparatus were in principle adequate (I doubt it is), I would not trust the two to be diligent enough to attempt to falsify their preferred explanation (muons). An independent expert in measuring charged particle radiation would be what is needed here.


    Those two are talking to a guy from CERN who just doesn't beleive them. How could he, if a few hundred dollars of equipment can do the same thing that the 10 billion dollar Large hadron collider can do.


    Yes there is a gulf in belief afoot here.

    Quote from Eric Walker


    Have they distinguished a muon signal from one involving very energetic electrons? Have they verified that the thing causing the signal in the scintillator has a negative charge (e.g., by allowing it to deflect under a magnetic field)? Have they calibrated their custom setup using known standards or brought it to an accelerator facility that produces muons, I suppose, as a sanity check against their first-principles calculations?



    The biggest indication (IMO) that it is probably not due to ordinary high energy electrons in the context of the straightforward scintillator-photomultiplier detection is that the signal seems to give a beta-like energy distribution with occasional x-ray emission lines in a manner that is dependent to the material(s) put in front of the encosure of the detector, concluded to be due to the formation of unstable nuclei inside the materials themselves.


    More in detail the signal increases if layers of metal (or other materials) are put to the front window of the detector. If it was simply due to energetic electrons from the reactor the signal would be instead attenuated. Also note that only negative muons can give muonic atoms and capture.


    It was also observed that the signal would get lower in close proximity of the reactor, while it would get larger at some distance from it (direct line of sight). This was concluded to be due to decaying particles that give muons (kaons and pions). A more detailed study of this was made with TOF measurements in a different work submitted in 2015 by Holmlid.


    A 137Cs beta emitter was used for calibration and it was found that beta electrons coming from it would not get through the enclosure of the detector without a large energy loss.


    They report using bubble meters, GM and CsI detectors to check for external sources for the signal, which they did not find.


    You could have more details than I can realistically provide here if you read the most recent published papers by Holmlid (and Olafsson), which by your admission you did not. If your morals do not object you can use www.sci-hub.ac to bypass the paywall.


    dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2015.06.116
    dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4928109
    dx.doi.org/10.1142/S0218301315500809


    According to Holmlid and Olafsson this muon emission may be inherent in [working] LENR systems and not limited to their potassium-iron oxide catalysts. Since it is a relatively elusive emission it could be that others may have already experienced it without realizing it.

    Quote from axil


    According to Holmlid and Olafsson this muon emission may be inherent in [working] LENR systems and not limited to their potassium-iron oxide catalysts. Since it is a relatively elusive emission it could be that others may have already experienced it without realizing it.


    If things that give Cu shielded GM tube more counts are muons, then K-Fe catalyst is not needed. Ni can do also (weak).


    Muonic atoms only from negative muons. But how to know if there are positive muons present? Holmlid method is blind for them. How they decay?

    Quote from gameover


    According to Holmlid and Olafsson this muon emission may be inherent in [working] LENR systems and not limited to their potassium-iron oxide catalysts. Since it is a relatively elusive emission it could be that others may have already experienced it without realizing it.


    Lot of muons may hit brains you feel it when got them enough.. Hope you got more positive muons than negative, negatives may give bad feeling ;)


    Rossi report strange electric radiation, Me365 report RF that go through 1cm Al, DFG have strange magnetic readins but no real field (hall sensor got muons and give crazy readings). Many RF noise detections from many experiments.
    What I can say there is not strong magnetic fields (with compass, it dosn't suffer RF). There is not strong RF present either, some hundreds spikes (22-1750Mhz) but not giant ones.
    System gives low count rates for GM tube, maybe 2-3x BG, but when wrap GM tube with Cu tube it starts give more counts. It give lot of more counts outside ~10m reactor than BG should be.


    Muons or what?

    Quote from eros


    Muonic atoms only from negative muons. But how to know if there are positive muons present? Holmlid method is blind for them. How they decay?


    Positive muons will slow down by passing through matter and eventually decay but will not interact with nuclei. They decay with the emission of a positron, a neutrino and an antineutrino. Holmlid and Olafson could not exclude them but could not ascertain them either in the previously linked studies.


    Quote

    System gives low count rates for GM tube, maybe 2-3x BG, but when wrap GM tube with Cu tube it starts give more counts. It give lot of more counts outside ~10m reactor than BG should be.
    Muons or what?


    I think that without a way to make sure that the signal is due to charged particles (muons) the possibility that it is due to neutrons remains.

    Quote from gameover

    The biggest indication (IMO) that it is probably not due to ordinary high energy electrons in the context of the straightforward scintillator-photomultiplier detection is that the signal seems to give a beta-like energy distribution with occasional x-ray emission lines in a manner that is dependent to the material(s) put in front of the encosure of the detector, concluded to be due to the formation of unstable nuclei inside the materials themselves.


    More in detail the signal increases if layers of metal (or other materials) are put to the front window of the detector. If it was simply due to energetic electrons from the reactor the signal would be instead attenuated. Also note that only negative muons can give muonic atoms and capture.


    It was also observed that the signal would get lower in close proximity of the reactor, while it would get larger at some distance from it (direct line of sight). This was concluded to be due to decaying particles that give muons (kaons and pions). A more detailed study of this was made with TOF measurements in a different work submitted in 2015 by Holmlid.


    The reasons you give above are:

    • Beta-like distribution and x-rays are dependent upon degrader material. Therefore not electrons. Therefore unstable nuclei are formed in materials.
    • Signal increases with additional degraders. Therefore not electrons.

    There are many gaps in this logic. We can go with the observations on the left, for example, and not get to the conclusions on the right. Or we can question the observations themselves. The conclusions are in no wise straightforward. And it may be that there is some primary or secondary artifact that has yet to be controlled for. One can go along with Holmlid in his observation that there is a signal of some kind that appears to have this behavior and still not get to muons.


    The role of expertise here is very important. If I were doing the experiment, I might conclude using similar etherial logic that rather than muons we have micro black holes. This sounds silly, but they can possibly be made to fit the observations above by a few of the more hopeful LENR theories. In reality micro black holes are the last thing I would ever suppose are being produced, and you'd have to get all of CERN and Fermilab to sign off on that conclusion before I'd go along with it. Holmlid and Olafsson do not to my knowledge have direct expertise measuring charged particle currents. They must engage someone independent to take a look at their work. This conclusion is straightforward and readily apparent. That it's a point at issue in this discussion suggests there are deeper differences between you and I as to how to an experiment should be run.


    The reason muons are unlikely, on the basis of first principles if you like, is that the energies involved in these experiments are far too low to produce them in other contexts. Being a LENR observer with my own pet explanation, I can be persuaded without difficulty that what Holmlid and Olafsson are seeing are MeV decay betas, but that just reveals my own bias.


    Quote from gameover

    A 137Cs beta emitter was used for calibration and it was found that beta electrons coming from it would not get through the enclosure of the detector without a large energy loss.


    The energy of the betas is important here, and simply seeing an attenuation of 137Cs decay betas does not necessarily tell us much. But I recall that an energetic electron and a muon are nearly indistinguishable. It seems that one way to differentiate them is through the presence or lack of bremsstrahlung. Energetic electrons will produce more bremsstrahlung when passing through a heavy material than muons, all else being equal, which makes sense. Does this not make one want to take a second look at the second observation mentioned above, about signal increasing with additional degraders? In the case of energetic electrons, you'd expect more radiation (i.e., bremsstrahlung) than muons.


    137Cs beta decays to 137Ba with a 1.1 MeV endpoint. That means that the betas will have on average around 360 keV. Perhaps that is sufficient to establish that the scintillator is working and is showing a beta-like decay signal. How did they calibrate? And are they using a magnetic field to verify that the radiations are charged? A beta-like signal is interesting, but this is only one detail among many to follow up on. (The energies show a beta-like distribution. Check. We further observe that the beam bends under a magnetic field. Check.) I am sure Holmlid and Olafsson have followed up on my details, so my point is not that their experimental procedure or raw data are inadequate. You, being persuaded by this 2015 paper, will no doubt have already mastered these details even if I have not read the paper yet.


    Quote from gameover

    You could have more details than I can realistically provide here if you read the most recent published papers by Holmlid (and Olafsson), which by your admission you did not.


    I have read through pre-prints of Holmlid up to a few years ago, just up the point where he started speculating about muons. His clear use of etherial logic to get to such conclusions as Rydberg matter and ultra-dense detuerium, and in the case of muons his apparent willingness to draw bold conclusions in topics well beyond his training, assures me that he must bring on board independent expertise. I am an expert neither in measuring charged particle radiation nor in muon detection, and I will not trust the conclusion of anyone who is not when it comes to muons. My reading this specific paper would not change that basic situation. I could very likely be persuaded by MFMP that they are seeing betas in such a setup, just to give one example, even though they do not measure betas for a living, but definitely not muons. I do not suppose that simply in virtue of having held an academic position Holmlid will be better at measuring betas than MFMP. So he falls into the same camp as them with regard to a claim about muons.

    Quote from eros

    Have you data how to identify? Is 3mm Al (or 2mmCu) usable method? (shielding increase counts if muons)


    No data, unfortunately. And I don't recall where I read that detail about energetic electrons being indistinguishable from muons. It was in the context of cosmic ray muons. And I'm way out of my expertise. But as we saw above, energetic electrons will show more bremsstrahlung than muons, all else being equal. I suppose a degrader made of material much heavier than copper would be good for exploring this possibility.

    Quote from gameover


    I think that without a way to make sure that the signal is due to charged particles (muons) the possibility that it is due to neutrons remains.


    Need to study. Empirical feeling that it needed 15-30min that Cu tube "cools down". Maybe need to cut fresh tube. It take some time also that tube "warms".


    Broblem is also that I have negative feelings to go near, save yearly rem's maybe over many times.


    btw magnetic bending of muons show no hope. 100Mev muon have radius ~70m in 1T field. Slower stuck some cm Fe shields.
    So muon shielding is broblematic.


    How Rossi solve that? Oh I forgot "we don't observe outside any radiation". How about if you wrap your GM tube with 2mm Cu tube? "AR:Grumble grumble" ;)
    Quarc-X & etc may have huge muon radiation broblem that AR don't observe..?


    Me365 "submarine in matchbox" = nano scale accelerator + muons. = machine. "1L H2 transform another form of energy" = muons like hell. "it can repeat" how many cycles he did? Is he still a live?


    Me356 "can change fuel resistance down 40%". Have anybody idea how much current he put through fuel? It make B field but can't keep muons inside if they have any energy.

    Quote from Eric Walker


    that there is a signal of some kind that appears to have this behavior and still not get to muons.


    Can you give some quesses what else it can be?


    Quote


    The reason muons are unlikely, on the basis of first principles if you like, is that the energies involved in these experiments are far too low to produce them in other contexts.


    There is not public theory what is under hood. So speculating energy levels without knowing what happens inside have not rigid fundaments. Machine can do Gev energy levels.
    If throw out all (=unfuctional) chemical ideas then there are quite stright explanation: machine. It also throw out LENR, because it is not low energy, use instead normal high energy physics.


    Quote


    Does this not make one want to take a second look at the second
    observation mentioned above, about signal increasing with additional
    degraders? In the case of energetic electrons, you'd expect more radiation (i.e., bremsstrahlung) than muons.


    Maybe you should read paper?
    They tested also extra 2mm Pb plate shield and say tailing photons disappeared and it generate 4x more low energy counts. 2mm Pb should filter out braking radiation and decrease counts if orgin are betas.


    Quote


    such conclusions as Rydberg matter and ultra-dense detuerium


    I think they are unfuctional chemical explanations from wonderland (I ofcourse can be frong, but..). Anyway it dosn't render out how they detect muons. Or how I detect posible muons.


    Fast googling electrons vs muons e- stops many times faster and when it is stopped it "disappeared" without noise. e- generate braking xrays when slow down, muons only little.
    When muons have stopped they decay and send noise. Negative muons generate also neutrons if stops to Z>11 atom. Neutrons and unstabile isotopes generate noise.


    Cu tube cooling down time also speak neutrons/unstabile isotopes. If betas GM tube counts should stop when get away.


    I can test Pb also it should give fissions if muons present??


    But don't know how risky it is for healt. I think my yearly rems is more than full.

    Quote from gameover

    You can beat me all you want with your walls of text, but you are really just shooting the messenger.


    Is it too much to expect the critics to at least get up-to-date with the latest works of Holmlid&Olafsson and focus on the measurements instead of the theory? It turns out that apparently it is.


    No intention to beat you up. Certainly not walls of text. That was a modest reply compared to a wall of text. You can reply to each point, or not if you prefer. I think my main point is this: from previous reading I already don't trust Holmlid to be self-critical; he gives me the impression of being one to latch onto implausible explanations for observations that are likely to be explained by other things. He's certainly not the only researcher to be guilty of this. Note that I have read several of his earlier papers. Reading 3 more won't change this conclusion on my part. 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.

    Quote from gameover

    Is it too much to expect the critics to at least get up-to-date with the latest works of Holmlid&Olafsson and focus on the measurements instead of the theory? It turns out that apparently it is.


    They're not as much critics as social engineers and cultists


    Don't expect any kind of reasonable debate from those zealots, when they're not even paid to FUD (and some definitely are), they voluntarily wallow in groupthink


    Basically they're a modern version of Spanish Inquisition, with as much violence, only psychological and thinly veiled. Each and every scientist and engineer approaching new territory should expect them.

    Quote from Keieueue

    They're not as much critics as social engineers and cultists


    Don't expect any kind of reasonable debate from those zealots, when they're not even paid to FUD (and some definitely are), they voluntarily wallow in groupthink


    Basically they're a modern version of Spanish Inquisition, with as much violence, only psychological and thinly veiled. Each and every scientist and engineer approaching new territory should expect them.


    Hi Keieueue — these are without exception simply ad homs. They may sound impressive to you, but they don't bring anyone over to your views, even people who are sympathetic to them, and in that sense they aren't very helpful in getting at the truth.


    Are there any specific points that I made that are incorrect? What is your opinion on Holmlid's stuff? Presumably he's not automatically correct in his conclusions? Or shall we simply defer to him because he's working in a fringe area of science? How do you decide whether his conclusions make sense or not?

    Quote from Eric Walker

    gameover wrote:
    You can beat me all you want with your walls of text, but you are really just shooting the messenger.


    Is it too much to expect the critics to at least get up-to-date with the latest works of Holmlid&Olafsson and focus on the measurements instead of the theory? It turns out that apparently it is.


    No intention to beat you up. Certainly not walls of text. That was a modest reply compared to a wall of text. You can reply to each point, or not if you prefer. I think my main point is this: from previous reading I already don't trust Holmlid to be self-critical; he gives me the impression of being one to latch onto implausible explanations for observations that are likely to be explained by other things. He's certainly not the only researcher to be guilty of this. Note that I have read several of his earlier papers. Reading 3 more won't change this conclusion on my part. 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.


    There is no question that Holmlid's work is interesting. However, his reports are conclusion-heavy, with conclusions built up over the years, accumulating, but never having been confirmed, as far as I know. I asked Holmlid about this. He was unconcerned, as if it was no business of his how the scientific community responded, he just does his work.


    There are two aspects to science. One is individual inquiry, which can be powerful. However, Feynman said "don't fool yourself. You are the easiest person to fool." It is easy to develop a complex of ideas -- stories they are called in my training -- that all seem to fit together, mutually confirming. Conspiracy theorists dive far into this. Once one is looking for proof of something, it can always be found. Flat earth? Look around! Proof!


    This is why the scientific method suggests trying as hard as we can to prove ourselves wrong, to counter this human tendency. And part of this is engaging with and soliciting and inviting and listening carefully to criticism. Not just "constructive criticism," either. Sometimes our enemies can be the most useful, because they are really going to try to make us wrong, and that's what we want: vigorous effort to find our own errors or oversights.


    It is not that Holmlid is wrong. It is that without this process, we don't know. Independent confirmation (and disconfirmation) is crucial to the full process of science, which is a social endeavor, building a knowledge base over the generations.


    So, suppose one is a lay person, in no position to replicate Holmlid. What can one do? Well, first of all, become very familiar with the work. Study what is involved, learn about the techniques and methods Holmlid is using. Do not become a "believer," but develop knowledge in yourself, and discuss this with others. Then, when grounded in what Holmlid has actually done (the facts!) start asking questions of others who might be in a position to know or confirm. Engage skeptics, do what Holmlid is not doing. The goal would be twofold: to encourage the development of alternative hypotheses, and then to devise tests that someone might actually do. Holmlid is being published in peer-reviewed journals. Work to confirm/disconfirm his reports and conclusions would then generally be quite publishable, as has happened at least once. (And this can be years later.) To a grad student, this could be an opportunity.


    The goal is not debunking, nor "proof." However, the process might result in either of those.


    For disconfirmation, especially, the effort should be to see his results and then identify and confirm causes for them. Negative confirmations are also important but not definitive. "We were unable to confirm ...." should be reported, and then the causes of replication failure can be explored. This was eventually done for the early negative replications with the FP Heat Effect. We no know why those researchers didn't find anything, it has actually become obvious. That work then takes its place as part of the body of evidence supporting the effect! (Briefly, most easily understood as significant, if loading above about 85% is not achieved, one of the apparently necessary but still insufficient conditions to see the effect has not been set up. I think the peak loading attained in the early negative replications was about 70%, it was thought it would be sufficient.)

    Quote from eros

    Can you give some quesses what else it can be?


    As I said, I wonder whether it might be MeV electrons. That would be my first guess. It might also be electrical noise from an ungrounded apparatus, although I assume this will have been ruled out. I cannot continue to repeat it more, though: what is needed here is expertise in detecting muons. An expert will have 20 things to look for as possible sources of artifact and 10 tests that can be used to determine the likelihood that muons are actually being generated. If some of the logic gates in the CPU's in my computer start malfunctioning, I will be as helpless as a baby in trying to repair them. The level of expertise and equipment needed to repair those things (if one were intent on doing this) would be very high indeed. I think detecting muons will require a similar level of expertise.


    Quote from eros

    There is not public theory what is under hood. So speculating energy levels without knowing what happens inside have not rigid fundaments.


    For muon pair production, we're talking about a minimum of 2 * ~ 100 MeV = 200 MeV, plus attenuation due to the cross section being small at lower energies. Hopefully for everyone's safety there's nothing flying around at 200+ MeV creating the muons. Another suggestion for the origination of the muon be the production mesons that then decay into muons. The muons must come from somewhere. Normally the places they come from involve energies far outside of the realm of chemistry, which is where Holmlid's experiments take place.


    Quote from eros

    Maybe you should read paper?
    They tested also extra 2mm Pb plate shield and say tailing photons disappeared and it generate 4x more low energy counts. 2mm Pb should filter out braking radiation and decrease counts if orgin are betas.


    Lead, being extremely heavy, will increase the bremsstrahlung of MeV electrons far above something like copper. It may be that the bremsstrahlung is then attenuated. That is a question that modeling would need to look at.

    Quote from eros

    100Mev muon have radius ~70m in 1T field. Slower stuck some cm Fe shields.
    So muon shielding is broblematic.


    105.65MeV is the muon rest mass! Not the kinetic energy.


    As others already said. You must first figure out which process is able to speed up muons and to produce them! If we see muon's then we should also see a proton decay, which is the only reasonable source of pions --> muons ... and we enter phantasy land.


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


    eros if you walk outside -according to Wiki - about 10000 muons hit one m2/s! - I would not fear muons - it 'must' be something else.


    (or heros die silently...)

    Quote from Eric Walker


    As I said, I wonder whether it might be MeV electrons. That would be my first guess.


    Yeah it is beta which hit GM tube. You right. But we talking where such beta come.


    From reactor there is 0.5mm Cu + 2-4mm Pb + ~60mm Fe, then ~1.2mm Cu tube covered GM tube. Some Mev betas can't penetrate such shield. Most of braking radiations stops to shields.
    Braking radiation should be strongest near 0.5mm Cu - 2mm Pb plate region where is 1.st GM tube if betas are from reactor?


    But if muons then shields slow down them and some may stuck to Cu tube and do betas that tube detects?


    I just put additional 40mm Pb brick under Cu GM tube. No noticiable effect. Ok, Cu tube can be "hot", need to wait.


    Posible other explanations:
    - Neutrons can go through shields, but them should activate Fe then xrays should come and another GM counter readings grow? (need to get ~30cm canister borate water to test)
    - 1.st GM tube can be defective (but still give counts?) (need to order more tubes and counters)


    Quote


    Hopefully for everyone's safety there's nothing flying around at 200+ MeV creating the muons


    If it is machine it can do it easilly. (too easilly, you can got needed stuff from net <100$)
    And you forget that 100Mev is needed for creation, it need energy lot of more to fly through shields. And we talking only mikrojoules..
    How much muons can be sometimes missing/disappering energy(heat) ~20-30w to be? How many experimentalist can even notice that amount?

    Quote from Wyttenbach


    105.65MeV is the muon rest mass! Not the kinetic energy.


    Yep, but lower speed can shield relative easy (Pb, Fe, mass etc). My poit is only that magnetic shielding is not functional solution.


    Quote


    As others already said. You must first figure out which process is able
    to speed up muons and to produce them!


    No broblem if it is machine. Principle is quite simple when got idea.. Upper limit who knows, maybe more than cern can do.
    And it include zero new physics. Facts are known >60years.


    Quote


    If we see muon's then we should
    also see a proton decay, which is the only reasonable source of pions
    --> muons ... and we enter phantasy land.


    Who have looked proton decay yet? If it happens sometimes inside fuel what come out? Some gammas? (but system eat/don't produce gammas as we know)
    And protons don't decay with ~200Mev. And if there are proton decay chain to muons they energy are not low.


    Usable process need to generate ~300kev protons to hit Li, not some Gev. Too much energy, shit happens then you die..


    Quote


    eros if you walk outside -according to Wiki - about 10000 muons hit one m2/s! - I would not fear muons - it 'must' be something else.
    (or heros die silently...)


    Sometimes 20-30w generation/disappering power give some respect. Something else - what else radiation it can be?
    If it is normal radiation I should be dead already.

    Quote from Eric Walker

    Hi Keieueue — these are without exception simply ad homs. They may sound impressive to you, but they don't bring anyone over to your views, even people who are sympathetic to them, and in that sense they aren't very helpful in getting at the truth.


    Are there any specific points that I made that are incorrect? What is your opinion on Holmlid's stuff? Presumably he's not automatically correct in his conclusions? Or shall we simply defer to him because he's working in a fringe area of science? How do you decide whether his conclusions make sense or not?


    Ad homs? merely facts. Truth being, there are cultists and paid shills filibustering on this very website. To which of those categories do you belong?


    Also, what are the Mary Yugos, Thomas Clarkes/Huxley, Jack Coles, Eric Walkers, Abdel Ramen Lameox etc etc, all people boldly seemingly putting forward their RL identity (assuming some of them are real) to try and give weight to their drivel, what are those people doing on "fringe" or "pathological" science websites? that's really weird, since you obviously don't believe in all this hokum. Do they also plague flat earth forums? 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?
    Either one suspends disbelief and gives a least some credence to abhorrent theories and experiments that do not fit the groupthink, or one sticks with the current monolithic paradigm, and then there's really no point in debating anything, since one does not speak the same language as pathological science explorers.


    So really, what are you doing here, except losing your time?


    While Holmlid is working on furthering human knowledge, you spend hours on end here and most probably elsewhere, pushing forward anti-LENR and anti-science but pro-cultist propaganda.


    But hey, to each his own!

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.