Can we talk about Holmlid?

Quote from Eric Walker

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

Peer reviewed by API: Review of Scientific Instruments

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

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

Quote from Keieueue

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

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

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

Quote from Keieueue

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

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

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

Are you doing experiments? If not, why not?

Quote from Keieueue

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

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

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

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

Quote from Keieueue

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

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

Quote from Keieueue

Why are you getting this upset?

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

Quote from Wyttenbach

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from eros

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from Wyttenbach

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

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

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

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

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

Quote

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

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

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

Quote from gameover

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

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

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

Quote from gameover

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

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

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

Quote from eros

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from axil

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

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

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

Quote from eros

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

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

Quote from eros

So hard to trust inside GM is defected.

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

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

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

Quote from Eric Walker

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

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

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

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