*Jones,* *From the Star Scientific Ltd. **Website.*
*Muons are the decayed products of pions, and are the catalysts in the fusion of two hydrogen isotopes, a process which releases copious amounts of energy. The beauty of the muon is that it acts very much like an electron whose job it is to bond atoms together into molecules. Since a muon is 207 times heavier than an electron, it bumps the electron out of the way and replaces it. Because the orbit of the heavier muon is much closer, it causes the atoms in the molecule to draw closer until the natural repelling force is overcome* *and a strong nuclear force brings the atoms together – causing them to fuse. This process kicks the muon out to do it all over again some 300 times. This fusion gives us energetic neutrons, which are easily converted to heat in a pressurized water reactor – resulting in steam which can be harnessed to create electricity.* *Mark* Mark Goldes Chairman, CEO, AESOP Energy LLC 707 861-9070 AESOP Institute website: www.aesopinstitute.org On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 4:54 PM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > In retrospect - it’s been one helluva month for surprising LENR > revelations… and it could change the way the whole field is viewed (once > the resistance subsides - assuming replication). > > This has nothing, ostensibly… or maybe a lot to do with the harvest-blood > -super-moon eclipse tomorrow J At least there is a “prophecy” angle > which seems to be upsetting to many closely held notions. Can we blame it > on Obama? > > Anyway, first check out this story of Holmlid’s ultradense deuterium and > muons – which we have talked about many times, in pieces, for several > weeks and months: > > *http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/09/near-term-commercial-fusion-power.html* > <http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/09/near-term-commercial-fusion-power.html> > > … and consider that the results, if true, could be much broader. To wit: > > 1) Muons, as the output of LENR, rather elegantly explain the lack > of gammas and neutrons in many if not all past low energy experiments, and > thus the muon finding could be applicable all the way back to P&F. > > 2) Muon detection is specialized. Muons can go through several feet > of solid steel. Few in LENR before Holmlid considered it. > *http://cms.web.cern.ch/news/muon-detectors* > <http://cms.web.cern.ch/news/muon-detectors> > > 3) P&F could have been inadvertently practicing a version of MCF > (muon catalyzed fusion) but never realized it. > > 4) A source of light appears to be important to muon creation – > suggesting that one of the reasons that cold fusion was difficult to do > consistently could be related to varying illumination, which has never > been a recognized parameter for cold fusion > > 5) “Cold Fusion” would be defined as an amplified version of MCF, the > simple version of which was invented by Luis Alvarez in 1956. > > 6) Few in physics appreciate that muons can be manufactured so > easily. This is almost as disturbing to the mainstream as cold fusion > itself. > > 7) The NYT article is almost unassailable on this priority of first > discovery of MCF by Alvarez. > > 8) The P&F version, using lithium electrolyte, would then form the > same kind of ultra-dense deuterium on the cathode as does Holmlid. > > 9) The Letts/Cravens effect can be revisited as MCF > > 10) MCF can be expanded to incorporate the Lipinski finding of an > unexpectedly low threshold energy for D fusion (easily supplied by the > momentum of the muon). > http://unifiedgravity.com/resources/Theory-Describing-All-Forces-and-Prediction-of-the-Baryon-Rest-Masses.pdf > > 11) So many muons seem to be forming, and their lifetime is so low, that > when conservation of charge is considered – the muons could be > transferring from another dimension - Dirac’s “sea”… as explicated by > Hotson. Or else muons and anti-muons are both forming. > > 12) We should hope that the community of LENR researchers does not > circle-the-wagons against Holmlid- at least giving him full benefit of > the doubt until results show otherwise. Yet the full implications are > disturbing to those who are fully invested in standard cold fusion > approach of the past 25 years (somewhat ironic, isn’t it) > >
