Once you involve muons into cold fusion mechanism, you should also explain, how the muons could form there.
Not only. Experimentally (and theoretically) we know muon catalyzed fusion produces hot fusion products. So if we don't observe hot fusion products at appropriate rates we know muons are not involved. The same goes for any other exotic negatively charged catalysts. 
At second, the thermal vibrations are chaotic and their energy density is lower than this one of coherent laser beam. Such a beam spontaneously doesn't form in nature, it's also human invention, so it cannot be included into a cold fusion mechanism. And muons don't form during normal cold fusion without lasers and vice-versa: the Holmlid experiments with laser pulses did allegedly produce many things - except the evidence that some fusion really runs there, cold fusion the more.
As explaned in a different dedicated thread on the subject, Holmlid et al. have also detected high energy particle emission without a laser. Is it actually due to muons? That can be debated, but fact is, a laser is not required for their observations.
From Muon detection studied by pulse-height energy analysis: Novel converter arrangements
From Sveinn Ólafsson on LENR-Forum:
Thanks for the question, The laser can start the process but just waiting after admitting the D2 gas does the same.
The time you wrote this sentence you were hit by roughly a hundred muons crossing your body. Are you radioactive?
Things are not that simple. In the troposphere, proton collisions with a molecule create an important flux of muons that interact with matter by ionizing it with an energy loss of about 2 MeV per g/cm2. In practice this important flux of high energy particles hitting the Earth is only a small fraction of the ambient radiation. For example it is only one fourth of the ionizing radiation of radon.
In the case of Holmlid's experiments the main source of radiation would not come from the muons themselves but from some secondary induced fission reactions in heavy materials surrounding the reactor. I guess Holmlid didn't put a significant amount of actinide in the vicinity of his reactor otherwise he would already be in Valhalla...
Its ironic, but LENR produced the biggest disaster in the history of nuclear energy: chernobyl. A short in one of the generators at that reactor produced two huge electrical discharges that in turn produced a huge muons flux that when added to the neutron flux in the #4 reactor, put that reactor into a supercritical state. As you said, muons and transuranic elements don't mix.
Rossi shielded his early reactors with lead but it must have been confusing to him that the more lead that he used, the more radiation that he saw. He does not use any shielding now and with his latest unshielded reactor, all the radiation when away.
Nobody has asked Rossi why he does not use radiation shielding anymore.
See for background:
@Abd,
I cannot understand the incertitude about the cause behind the reactions at the surface of the palladium lattice. The stimulation comes from the outside – the free electrons in the heavy water inside the electrolytic cell – so there cannot be fusion far from the surface area of the palladium lattice. Because the electromagnetic wave form of the concentrated free electrons dispatches energy (quanta) to the palladium atoms too. Without enough quanta density there is no cold fusion reaction. So the reactions are restricted to the “sensitive” spots just below the surface area of the palladium lattice.
Its ironic, but LENR produced the biggest disaster in the history of nuclear energy: chernobyl. A short in one of the generators at that reactor produced two huge electrical discharges that in turn produced a huge muons flux that when added to the neutron flux in the #4 reactor, put that reactor into a supercritical state. As you said, muons and transuranic elements don't mix.
Do you have some source - or is it just another informational noise from axil? Did I asked here to label all categorically sounding yet unsupported speculations with IMO phrase?
Which short did ever produce the muon flux documented in literature? If none, why just Chernobyl short did it?
How did you detect them? Did you measure the spectrum?
I only said 'similar' to X-rays, the spectrum wasn't measured. It was early days in my lab, and I wasn't expecting to see squat. I didn't pursue the Patterson line btw, since I was' lookingforheat' - pun intended. As for muons, it any were produced they went straight through me and out the door. 
I don't like the term "cracks" because I don't think the NAE are "cracks." There are SEM images of "cracks" on the surface of a particle with tiny nano-scale hydrogen "bubbles" (defects, voids, cavities) very close to it. I think the "cracks" are one area in which there are a high concentration of NAEs. But the cracks are exposed to the atmosphere. However, the NAE are trapped inside of the lattice.
However, the NAE are trapped inside of the lattice.
I would say....the NAE is the inside of the lattice. No lattice, no NAE's - they are not exactly pet Gerbils capable of escaping.
I would say....the NAE is the inside of the lattice. No lattice, no NAE's - they are not exactly pet Gerbils capable of escaping.
The Gerbils might not escape, but they can take a road trip. I read a paper by Holmlid that wanted to find out how clustered hydrides like potassium behaved on the surface of a catalyst. The cluster of alkali metal atoms would jump from the surface of the catalyst but return back to its point of attachment like the cluster was connected to the surface by a spring.
The height of the jump was proportional to the number of atoms in the cluster. A single atom would only get a nanometer of two above the surface, but a large cluster with many atoms in the cluster could achieved a separation of 1/2 millimeter away from the surface before it returned.
Holmlid has produced a ton of research.
The Gerbils might not escape, but they can take a road trip. I read a paper by Holmlid that wanted to find out how clustered hydrides like potassium behaved on the surface of a catalyst. The cluster of alkali metal atoms would jump from the surface of the catalyst but return back to its point of attachment like the cluster was connected to the surface by a spring.
But is that an NAE in the Storm's sense?
AlainCo as always you provide interesting questions. So far we have no direct evidence that NAE promotes the reaction (just that it is an artifact). Alternately it may be resonance with the lattice "maybe" using a combined reaction such as Zephirs astroblaster (or quantum tunneling)to get by the coulomb barrier. Or NAE in combination w/astroblaster. Or as the skeptics say there is no reaction. Oh just for the record there is a reaction. I would not be here if I thought that LENR was unfeasible.
Some of us want see this coulomb nut cracked. This is why I listen to our thought leaders Axil/Zephir on this (sorry guys it's a compliment and God and the forum- knows you like sniping at each other:) )
We can only agree that there is something going on. Strong or weak force? Is an EM pulse required? To me there is correlation related to NAE since it is seen in both NiH(Li) and Pd(Li) and we see the cracks on SEM. Easy conclusion but it may not be correct. What is my point? We need to look in other directions. With or without theory. And what ever we come up with (or find) noise levels of heat will not cut it. To end, if we are just going to try different combinations of mixtures we need to design a better reactor that can test more variables at one time. Our current design (dogbone) needs to be enhanced or abandoned.
Our current design (dogbone) needs to be enhanced or abandoned.
Faster testing of many different recipes at moderate cost is what precisely what the Model T reactor is deigned to do...and there is always a control space available.
Alan,
I agree that the model T is a good design. Please do not take my concern about the dogbone as any criticism of the model T. They are separate. Since yours has a built in control it is better among other reasons. So I hope you didn't think I was disparaging of the Model T. design it is functionally superior and safer. Hope this is clear.
But it's best advantage is that it is available to everyone.
But is that an NAE in the Storm's sense?
The difference in the Storms model from the Holmlid model of hydrogen cluster formation is that with Storms, the hydrogen cluster stays confined inside the crack. In the Holmlid model, the hydrogen cluster eventually is released from the cavity or the bump and falls free and floats around. It eventually falls under the influence of gravity and lands onto a collection foil.
Holmlid has produced 171 research papers over 42 years on this subject vs. none for Storms. Who would you judge has it right?
http://www2.chem.gu.se/~holmlid/lpub.pdf
It's not that surprising that Holmlid is the only guy that can produce these hydrogen clusters. He has spent his long life doing it, or at least since 1975
If Storms had some humility, one would assume that Storms would look into what Holmlid has found out in his research with regards to hydrogen clustering.
The Gerbils might not escape, but they can take a road trip. I read a paper by Holmlid that wanted to find out how clustered hydrides like potassium behaved on the surface of a catalyst. The cluster of alkali metal atoms would jump from the surface of the catalyst but return back to its point of attachment like the cluster was connected to the surface by a spring.
The height of the jump was proportional to the number of atoms in the cluster. A single atom would only get a nanometer of two above the surface, but a large cluster with many atoms in the cluster could achieved a separation of 1/2 millimeter away from the surface before it returned.
Holmlid has produced a ton of research.
I found the reference about this subject in
Desorption and emission of potassium Rydberg atoms and clusters
from iron oxide catalyst surfaces
QuoteDisplay MoreThe thermal excitation of the translation of
the adsorbed atoms means that the atom jumps
on the surface with a frequency of 10e10 to 10e13 1/s.
The height of the jumps above the surface varies
while the atom hits the potential energy barrieJ"
many times before it desorbs. In the case of
Rydberg atoms, the atoms move on the average
quite far from the surface before the interaction
potential prevents the desorptlon. During such a
process, the lateral motion is unimpeded, and the
Rydberg atom will thus make very large jumps on
the surface. The rate of diffusion over the surface
may become very large. If a ground-state K atom
often moves out to 1 nm without being able to
desorb, a K Rydberg state with n = 40 may reach
a distance of 0.5 mm over the surface, using the
(N)e+7 relation for the interaction potential. When a
ground-state K atom makes jumps of the order of
0.5 nm along the surface, a K Rydberg state will
jump 0.3 mm on the average, i.e. macroscopic
distances.
QuoteHolmlid has produced 171 research papers over 42 years on this subject vs. none for Storms. Who would you judge has it right?
Holmlid's systems and experimental conditions are rather special, I wouldn't extrapolate nearly anything to practically important cold fusion systems, which involve hydrogenated nickel or palladium. Holmlid never claimed, he does cold fusion research - whereas Steorn is specialized to LENRs for whole his productive life. But I wouldn't also extrapolate the observation of superconductivity in palladium hydrides at low temperatures to normal fusion reactors. These are merely just a physical curiosities in similar way, like the observation of muons, pions, magnetic monopoles and so on. And hydrogen clustering cannot explain other low energy transmutations, which don't involve hydrogen at all. If these transmutations run at low temperatures, it just means, that underlying mechanism of LENR will be different. The presence of dense hydrogen still requires the explanation, how this phase gets formed and how it participates on cold fusion if at all. In this sense, whole the dense hydrogen stuff brings more questions than answers into cold fusion research.
It's important to realize, that the overcoming the Coulomb barrier at room temperatures will be the result of synergy of multiple factors: low dimensionality of collisions, electron shielding, resonance of various excited states (longitudinal and transverse waves of orbitals and nucleons) and so on. I believe, there is no single mechanism for cold fusion or LENR or whatever else transmutation. The low-dimensionality of nuclear collisions may be underlying and most general - but not the only possible factor there. In addition, the lattice nanocracks and dislocations and their superconductivity are just one of many possible ways, how the low dimensionality of lattice collisions can be enhanced / manifest itself. The Holmlid's collimated laser beams or LeClair's shock waves are another one. Only when two or more these factors work together, then the fusion or transmutation can take place. And these co-factors may differ from one LENR system to another one,
QuoteIf a ground-state K atom often moves out to 1 nm without being able to desorb, a K Rydberg state with n = 40 may reach a distance of 0.5 mm over the surface, using the (N)e+7 relation for the interaction potential. When a ground-state K atom makes jumps of the order of 0.5 nm along the surface, a K Rydberg state will jump 0.3 mm on the average, i.e. macroscopic distances.
These high-n Rydberg states are incredibly fragile, their formation and maintenance requires combination of deep cooling and exact frequency and timing of microwave pulses - i.e. quite different conditions, than these ones, which Holmlid is using in his rather primitive experiments. It's true, that these Rydberg states can get macroscopic, but they're also very weakly bound to surfaces and each other.
These high-n Rydberg states are incredibly fragile, their formation and maintenance requires combination of deep cooling and exact frequency and timing of microwave pulses - i.e. quite different conditions, than these ones, which Holmlid is using in his rather primitive experiments. It's true, that these Rydberg states can get macroscopic, but they're also very weakly bound to surfaces and each other.
Here again, where are the references?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rydberg_matter
Rydberg matter is highly stable against disintegration by emission of radiation; the characteristic lifetime of a cluster at n = 12 is 25 seconds.[25][27] Reasons given include the lack of overlap between excited and ground states, the forbidding of transitions between them and exchange-correlation effects hindering emission through necessitating tunnelling[22] that causes a long delay in excitation decay.[24]Excitation plays a role in determining lifetimes, with a higher excitation giving a longer lifetime;[25] n = 80 gives a lifetime comparable to the age of the Universe.[28]
Holmlid's systems and experimental conditions are rather special, I wouldn't extrapolate nearly anything to practically important cold fusion systems, which involve hydrogenated nickel or palladium. Holmlid never claimed, he does cold fusion research - whereas Steorn is specialized to LENRs for whole his productive life. But I wouldn't also extrapolate the observation of superconductivity in palladium hydrides at low temperatures to normal fusion reactors. These are merely just a physical curiosities in similar way, like the observation of muons, pions, magnetic monopoles and so on. And hydrogen clustering cannot explain other low energy transmutations, which don't involve hydrogen at all. If these transmutations run at low temperatures, it just means, that underlying mechanism of LENR will be different. The presence of dense hydrogen still requires the explanation, how this phase gets formed and how it participates on cold fusion if at all. In this sense, whole the dense hydrogen stuff brings more questions than answers into cold fusion research.
It's important to realize, that the overcoming the Coulomb barrier at room temperatures will be the result of synergy of multiple factors: low dimensionality of collisions, electron shielding, resonance of various excited states (longitudinal and transverse waves of orbitals and nucleons) and so on. I believe, there is no single mechanism for cold fusion or LENR or whatever else transmutation. The low-dimensionality of nuclear collisions may be underlying and most general - but not the only possible factor there. In addition, the lattice nanocracks and dislocations and their superconductivity are just one of many possible ways, how the low dimensionality of lattice collisions can be enhanced / manifest itself. The Holmlid's collimated laser beams or LeClair's shock waves are another one. Only when two or more these factors work together, then the fusion or transmutation can take place. And these co-factors may differ from one LENR system to another one,
Holmlid’s presentation
http://tempid.altervista.org/SRI.pdf
QuoteUltra dense hydrogen can be the source of all or part of Cold fusion
LENR related phenomena.
