Can we talk about Holmlid?

Quote from eros

I have feeling that if energetic muons >120Mev etc. then cloud chamber don't detect them??
Too little braking energy to leave tracs..?

Muons of 120 MeV of energy should be able to ionize the supersaturated vapor particles in a cloud chamber and produce visible tracks.

However those of the energies reported by Holmlid (10-20 MeV) would probably not even be able to enter a standard cloud chamber (again, depending on how the cloud chamber is made). This is what I was putting into question.

Then there is also a matter of flux. The average cosmic ray muon background flux, from what I read, is about 1 muon per cm2 per minute. Source: http://cosmic.lbl.gov/SKliewer/Cosmic_Rays/Muons.htm

Holmlid estimates in his case a total intensity of 10^9 per second per steradian at 2 meters of distance from the K-Fe2O3 source, which should translate - *if* I am correct! - to 25000 muons per cm2 per second at 2m of distance. If the muons have sufficient energy to get through a cloud chamber this signal should be very visible as it would be so much larger than the background, at least speaking of the number of tracks produced.

Quote from eros

Used, cooled down unshileded reactor core can do sun burn like redness to skin also. And very often make eys to hurt later. And is diffrent as welding hurt eys, from reactor it feels eys behind (hit direct to nervous?). Unshielded welding pain feels front of eyes.

Could one of the inexpensive components or ingredients you've purchased be radioactive? Could you be experiencing radiation sickness brought about by a naturally radioactive substance (i.e., not LENR)? E.g., radon, cesium, etc.? If you walk around with a GM counter with everything turned off, is there any change in the counting rate? Or could there be something toxic in your environment that you're reacting to? Your lab might be unsafe.

Quote from gameover

However those of the energies reported by Holmlid (10-20 MeV) would probably not even be able to enter a standard cloud chamber (again, depending on how the cloud chamber is made). This is what I was putting into question.

That is not broblem, because then they don't fly throught 2mm Pb + 60mm Fe shields. And no strange radiation peresent, because it stops to shields.
Is alcohor vapour cloud chamber sensitive enough to see muon? Muon have detected first in steam(?)
Water have more stopping power than air (+minimal alcohol)? So more braking energy to leave tracs?

Quote from Alan Smith

My first thought would Nickel sensitivity- No need for exotic radiation if an allergic reactio is your problem

I bought a nice watch one time with a nickel wristband. After several months I started developing painful welts on my wrist where the wristband touched my wrist, at which point I stopped wearing the watch. The welts remained for a long time after that.

@eros I try to find a description of your setup but I can't find any. Where can I find it? Thank you

Quote from Alan Smith

Quote from Eric Walker: “Could one of the inexpensive components or ingredients you've purchased be radioactive?”

My first thought would Nickel sensitivity- No need for exotic radiation if an allergic reactio is your problem

In EU is quite hard to get any radioactive. As far as I know I don't have nickel allergy. And I have not used (yet) nano scale nickel which is known hazard.

Electric allergy happened inside ~2weeks when I started reactor tests (two diffrent fuels), but it is ~4 months now. Observed no radiation. Then build more powerfull version and after some test it take about month in hospital to cure head.

Quote from gameover

PS: I am not fixated on the idea that these are indeed muons, but I would have liked to read a honest debate on the possible nature of the signal based on what H&O report doing in their latest papers.

I’ve now had a chance to read through the three papers you linked to here ([1], [2] and [3], below). In these papers Holmlid intersperses interesting experimental observations with conclusory statements about ultra-dense deuterium and muons. He has not taken common steps to characterize the ejecta, such as introducing a strong magnetic field, which will deflect charged particles and allow neutral ones to pass through along a straight line, 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.

Holmlid has used a 20 um Al degrader, but it is not clear whether the degrader was inserted between the plastic scintillator and the photomultiplier tube [1, 2], or in front of the plastic scintillator [3]. As the Table 1 from Ref. 1 shows, 20 um is not enough to stop even a 0.3 MeV electron. He also reports using various materials, but for reasons known only to Holmlid they appear to have been placed between the plastic scintillator and the photomultiplier tube, and not in front of the plastic scintillator.

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.

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.

In Ref. 3 Holmlid suggests a pion → muon → electron decay chain. A muon has a rest mass of 105 MeV. It decays in a short amount of time to an electron (rest mass 511 keV), an electron antineutrino (rest mass very small) and a muon neutrino (rest mass very small). That gives a Q value for the decay of ~ 105 MeV, which, since this is a three-body decay, is also the endpoint for the beta electrons. The average electrons will presumably have ~ 1/3 of that energy, or around 30 MeV. If there is a large flux of muons, many of them will not interact with materials in the instruments in the manner Holmlid supposes and hence will give off these betas, showing an energetic beta spectrum of 0-105 MeV.

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.

Holmlid and Olafsson use a potassium iron-oxide based catalyst [1, 2]. My current best guess as to what they’re seeing is the induced decay of 40K to 40Ca (beta decay) and 40Ar (electron capture). The 40K to 40Ca beta decay has a 1.3 MeV beta endpoint.

[1] Spontaneous ejection of high-energy particles from ultra-dense deuterium D(0). dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2015.06.116
[2] Muon detection studied by pulse-height energy analysis: Novel converter arrangements. dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4928109
[3] Nuclear particle decay in a multi-MeV beam ejected by pulsed-laser impact on ultra-dense hydrogen H(0). dx.doi.org/10.1142/S0218301315500809

Quote from Arnaud

I try to find a description of your setup but I can't find any. Where can I find it? Thank you

It is not availabe because quite sure dangerous thing. And have some things very diffrent as other replications so it is unlikely someone do same without data.
Ofcourse all needed data is availabe in net.

Quote from Eric Walker

I’ve now had a chance to read through the three papers you linked to here

Homlid reports on a new method of measuring muons, without demonstrating calibration against an existing method of measuring muons.

There you failed, read again please.

He used 1.st plastic scintilator. Al foil is ofcourse first to protect light entrance. It dosn't work if wrap Al foil PMT tube.

2nd he throw away plastic scintilator material completely and substituted it various metal plates (Pb,Cu,Al) and detection with PMT tube, but instead photons PMT tube get betas from metal plates.

There is curves with plastic (exsisting) and various metals (new).

Is it new method for negative muons or not?

I agree paper is not easy to understand, wyttenback correct me so I read again before understand what holmlid mean.

Quote from eros

Quote from Arnaud: “ I try to find a description of your setup but I can't find any. Where can I find it? Thank you
”

It is not availabe because quite sure dangerous thing. And have some things very diffrent as other replications so it is unlikely…

I can understand why you are very cautious about telling what you have made. Me356 had same behavior before dissapearing.

Quote from eros

There you failed, read again please.

Your replies below don’t demonstrate this and instead suggest the opposite.

Quote from eros

He used 1.st plastic scintilator. Al foil is ofcourse first to protect light entrance. It dosn't work if wrap Al foil PMT tube.

(1) The 20 um Al foil was sometimes placed in front of a glass converter, and sometimes not. That suggests it wasn’t needed as a protection of some kind. As you acknowledge, it was placed between the plastic scintillator and the photomultiplier tube.

(2) It is common practice to use degraders to stop particles of different masses and energies before they reach the detector. This does not appear to have been done.

Quote from eros

2nd he throw away plastic scintilator material completely and substituted it various metal plates (Pb,Cu,Al) and detection with PMT tube, but instead photons PMT tube get betas from metal plates.

I don’t think so. In Ref. 2 (dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4928109), Pb is mentioned as one of several a “converters,” i.e., something that Holmlid placed between the plastic scintillator and the photomultiplier tube. I did not find mention of the plastic scintillator being taken away, but perhaps this was understood.

Quote from eros

Is it new method for negative muons or not?

In Ref. 2 (dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4928109), Holmlid says in the conclusion that “More efficient detection of muons is shown to be possible by the use of solid converters utilizing muon capture, combined with a photomultiplier.” I understood this to be a new method of detecting muons. Perhaps it’s just a claim to a more efficient method of detecting them.

Quote from Eric Walker

In Ref. 3 Holmlid suggests a pion → muon → electron decay chain. A muon has a rest mass of 105 MeV. It decays in a short amount of time to an electron (rest mass 511 keV), an electron antineutrino (rest mass very small) and a muon neutrino (rest mass very small). That gives a Q value for the decay of ~ 105 MeV, which, since this is a three-body decay, is also the endpoint for the beta electrons. The average electrons will presumably have ~ 1/3 of that energy, or around 30 MeV. If there is a large flux of muons, many of them will not interact with materials in the instruments in the manner Holmlid supposes and hence will give off these betas, showing an energetic beta spectrum of 0-105 MeV.

As far I have understand holmlid say that they don't understand what happens inside reactor, but it must include ulta dense hydrogen. (I think circular definition)
He say also it must include pion because observed muon. (ok normal physics, if muon observation are real)

But when ~20Mev muon fly some meters from reactor it still have 98% of its lifetime. It can be moderated/slowed with metal. Bare 2mm Cu or 3mm Al is not enough to stop=thermalize 20Mev muon, they energy need to be less (<10Mev).
When negative muon are thermalized in normal material (like Cu) it immediatly generate muonized atoms. In semi heavy atoms muon drop to nucleus and do things including beta radiation which can be detected.
Holmlid method work only thermalized negative muons. Higher energy muons fly away and decay somewhere 400-15000m region from reactor.
So that free space muon decay dosn't happen in (near reactor) materia for negative muons.
Positive muons may slow/thermalize and decay in materia, but they produce annihilation 512kev gamma, plus e+ braking radiation. Ok muonium can happen but it decay as muon.
Atom amounts in Cu Al etc. plates are so high that all thermalized negative muons do muonized atoms.

Holmlid paper don't describle any shields and best used method (2mm Pb + 3mmAl) is able to detect muons up to ~17Mev. Any more energetic muons fly through his detection system without detection and decay somewhere else(distant) place.

So holmlid method is only half of work. It need array of thicening shields front of detectors to get some muon energy spectrum.

Quote from eros

When negative muon are thermalized in normal material (like Cu) it immediatly generate muonized atoms. In semi heavy atoms muon drop to nucleus and do things including beta radiation which can be detected.

I'm personally unacquainted with the interactions between nucleons and muons once a muonic atom forms, apart from trivia such as the fact that in a heavy element a captured muon will actually have an orbital radius smaller than the charge radius of the nucleus (if I remember correctly). So I will have to take Holmlid's word on the inducing of beta decay and the converting of protons in the nucleus into neutrons. But assume for the moment that significant numbers of muonic atoms are being formed. The cross sections for the interactions Holmlid suggests will be finite, and a significant portion of those muons will decay before such an interaction occurs. When they decay, one would expect the 0-105 MeV beta spectrum.

Furthermore, if muons are interacting with matter in the measurement apparatus, one would expect elastic and inelastic collisions, leading to a portion of the muons reflecting around rather than escaping, even if they haven't formed muonic atoms.

Quote from David Fojt

Eros,
Too many spies here to discourage replicators to discover disturbing…

As I previous say I have seen something very strange (radiation) when do replication like work.

If you are serious replicator I give only hint that when run your replications put some Fe /Pb bricks between reactor and Cu tube wrapped GM detector.
It can save you lot of trouble. Price for sensitive GM tube + some metal bricks is low.
I did many overhoured days near unshielded reactor until get strange feelings. Correctly moderated GM tube show danger in minutes.
So that data restrict you zero to do replications. Go and do world needs energy. I'll continue when I can.

Yes spie ofcourse, because my own data is not enough. I can ask. I think you ask too, often

If my healt skills etc. is enough high I maybe get some working/usable. I am not me365 live even diffrent continent.
Me365 started to promising share everything. I have not promised to share. But I have given some data. Be happy what you get.
And my data may be wrong too. I don't have thousand euros meters, million lab etc. I do things very primitive because no money.
Without money it is quite hard to get anything to do in some months. Your CNC machined reactor parts have cost 10x more than my whole budged (and you started them before my 1.st reactor, I have done five diffrent + many fuels, heaters etc.).
And I don't ask/take your money.

And if muon radiation is true it can be present in other replications. If replicators don't know it then it is matter of time when someone kill. Then goverments etc. deny things. Basically already it need license (in EU) if it send muons=radiation.
There may be some gray area where radiation is not detected you can do experiments and police etc. have typically radiation meters that don't show muons so don't get jailed but.. (=shit.. this go big corporations very easy)

Quote from Eric Walker

I'm personally unacquainted with the interactions between nucleons and muons once a muonic atom forms,

My data is low about muons, but read some days ago from wikipedia that thermalized negative muons do muonic atoms almost instant. Wikipedia article may have some referencies if you want check?

Quote

a significant portion of those muons will decay before such an interaction occurs. When they decay, one would expect the 0-105 MeV beta spectrum.

Only thermalized/stopped muons stay in materia, rest fly out and decay somewhere distant.
Material positive stopped muons do positrons. In materia that do 512kev photons plus braking radiation?

Quote

Furthermore, if muons are interacting with matter in the measurement apparatus, one would expect elastic and inelastic collisions, leading to a portion of the muons reflecting around rather than escaping, even if they haven't formed muonic atoms.

That is broblem with muons, they slow down take time so fly quite stright?

http://www.pnnl.gov/main/publi…al_reports/PNNL-20693.pdf

Cosmic Ray Interactions in Shielding Materials

A interesting behavior is revealed in the shielding behavior of low energy muons by high Z materials

A meter thick shield of iron and lead produces an increase in muons (0 to 20 MeV) passing through the high Z shield. See table 7 (Iron) and table 10(lead).

It looks to me like shielding does not materially effect low energy muons.

https://www.i2u2.org/elab/cosm…poster.lead.cool.man.data

The Effects of Lead Shielding on Muon Counts

Abstract

Our experiment was testing the shielding properties of lead (Pb) on charged particles coming through the atmosphere. We tested it by using differing layers of lead to shield the charged particles. The testing was all done indoors. Two detectors were placed under the lead and then we programmed the DAQ board to record coincidence only when both boards were triggered simultaneously. This allowed us to detect real particles coming through the atmosphere. 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.

Quote from eros

Only thermalized/stopped muons stay in materia, rest fly out and decay somewhere distant.
Material positive stopped muons do positrons. In materia that do 512kev photons plus braking radiation?

In the case of muons that are stopped, they will orbit the muonic atom for a certain period of time. If they then participate in the reactions that Holmlid assumes they participate in, fine. Surely, though, a significant number of muons in muonic atoms, and muons that thermalize within the instrument that do not stick to an atom, will decay before anything else happens. 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.

Quote from Eric Walker

In Ref. 2 (dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4928109), Holmlid says in the conclusion that “More efficient detection of muons is shown to be possible by the use of solid converters utilizing muon capture, combined with a photomultiplier.” I understood this to be a new method of detecting muons. Perhaps it’s just a claim to a more efficient method of detecting them.

Before I go on commenting other points I would like to highlight this one as I understand it from the papers authored with Olafsson (ref 1 and 2).

It may help to visualize what a photomultiplier tube (PMT) does. This instrument is a vacuum tube designed to convert photons (visible to UV range) into electrons and amplify the signal several million times. Normally the photons would come from a scintillator material put in front of the PMT that is excited by incoming ionizing radiation (like that produced by incident muons slowing down in the scintillator. Scintillation detection is often used for the detection of cosmic muons).

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.

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.

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.

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.

Quote

In the case of muons that are stopped, they will orbit the muonic atom for a certain period of time. If they then participate in the reactions that Holmlid assumes they participate in, fine. Surely, though, a significant number of muons in muonic atoms, and muons that thermalize within the instrument that do not stick to an atom, will decay before anything else happens. 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.

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.