May I recomnend to start with this article published in Plos One:
https://journals.plos.org/plos…1371/journal.pone.0169895
that provides "very clear experimental evidence" of the generation of relativistic particles from a tabletop experiment.
Julian,
Long before Rossi came on the scene I was looking at the literature and thought Holmlid's stuff interesting. Since then his theoretical speculation has got less coherent. His experimental stuff remains of interest and if replicated would be of high interest.
What I see is individual experiments with results interpreted in a given way. I believe the experimental results but not the interpretations which change to fit different experiments.
For example, in this case high power lasers are generating high energy particles. Expected. The evidence is summarised:
The present study employs a combination of magnetic deflection and time (time-of-flight, TOF) measurement methods to identify the ejected MeV particles. Large fluxes of particles with velocities 10–20 MeV u-1 [11–13] definitely indicate nuclear reaction processes. However, ordinary D+D fusion reactions only give an energy up to 3.0 MeV u-1 in the first reaction step, and up to 14.7 MeV u-1 in the second step of the reactions. Thus, other nuclear processes take place. The ejected mass is here found by magnetic deflection to be less than unity but much larger than the electron mass. At least two different masses are observed, which agrees with the particles being light mesons. The particle decay times observed agree very well with this conclusion.
The interpretation here is highly contentious as I'm sure you will agree. Holmlid supposes these results indicates specific particles and mechanisms when the evidence pointing in that direction is very indirect and susceptible to errors.
I agree, a thread here looking in detail at these results and seeing what they mean would be interesting, rooted in experimental data. However taking Holmlid's unsupported interpretations, without reference to the underlying experimental data, is unhelpful. Physicists do like looking at evidence of surprising reactions, so you can be sure that such experiments will get replicated (just as Lett's double laser experiment was replicated). That is unless there is some mundane (boring) explanation that fits these results.
