Mesons are produced first then muons are produced by meson decay. Holmlid states that mesons are generated by Rydberg hydrogen matter when stimulated by light, Rework your theory to cover these outlier facts.
On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 2:32 PM, Mauro Lacy <[email protected]> wrote: > On 09/27/2015 11:23 AM, Jones Beene wrote: > > To summarize the present LENR situation, if Leif Holmlid’s work is > accurate: > > The important specific detail which is easy to overlook, since many groups > have pursued muon catalyzed fusion “MCF” for decades, is that now in 2015, > there appears to be two basic varieties of MCF – the old version requiring > high energy input and the new version which is more robust - and is a low > energy process > > Let’s call them > > 1) MCF/h … which can be triggered by an accelerator beam which > produces muons, or by cosmic ray muons > > 2) MCF/c … which can be triggered by muons which are produced* in > situ* by the dynamics of the reaction itself and thus involves positive > feedback and a limited chain reaction with little gamma or neutron > radiation. > > > What if mouns are produced or synthesized *in situ* from the background > neutrino flux? i.e. the reverse reaction to Moun decay > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon#Muon_decay> is occurring. In moun > decay, a muon decays into a muon neutrino, and(via a W⁻ boson) an electron > and an electron antineutrino. Sadly, I don't know enough particle physics > to know if the reverse reaction is possible(let's call it neutrino-based > muon synthesis), but energetically it certainly is, because of this muon > decay mode. What about the needed electron antineutrinos? What about other > possible paths for neutrino-based muon synthesis? > > The ultra dense material is acting then as kind of "fishing net" for the > elusive neutrinos. In a form of neutrino capturing process, in this > particular case first an electron in the material interacts with an > electron antineutrino, producing a W⁻ boson, and then that boson promptly > encounters a muon neutrino, producing a moun. Those mouns in turn go ahead > and cause some muon catalysed fusion. > > And there you have it. The lack of gammas can be because muons produced > this way have just the right kinetic energy to cause MCF without releasing > gammas. Which begs the question, I know, but, in fantasy land we all can be > happy, and have what we need for our dreams to come true. What I'm saying > is that of course this may be a totally impossible reaction, for very good > (and already known) reasons. But I thought that I'll mention it here, > nevertheless. As was once famously said, only those who wager can win. > > Mauro > > > > This mirrors nuclear fusion itself, where there is hot fusion and cold > fusion. > > All of the companies in the MCF field, and most of the R&D prior to > Holmlid, was pursuing MCF/h. The economics for MCF/h appear to be hopelessly > expensive, due to the need for a beam-line to produce muons. > > Notably, the second version MCF/c requires dense deuterium the first does > not. This appears to be an absolute requirement. No dense deuterium, no > MCF/c. > > An accelerator is not needed if a population of dense deuterium is > present. Typically an alkali metal is require to produce dense deuterium > – like lithium or potassium, as well as a ferromagnetic electrode, like > nickel or iron. However, dense deuterium is not enough for fusion, and the > MCF/c requires a light source, which can be in the visible or IR range - > and preferentially this is a coherent light source. It can be a low-powered > laser for instance. > > Finally, there could be one or more versions of cold fusion which do not > require dense deuterium, and do not involve muons. Since muon detection > is highly specialized and was never implemented in the first 25 years of > LENR, it is impossible to say if the early experiments inadvertently > produced dense deuterium or not. Since the early experiments did not > produce very much gamma or neutron radiation, it is tempting to opine that > this implies they were operating in the MCF/c range, and were producing > dense deuterium and undetected muons. Early cold fusion work was difficult > to replicate. This could indicate that an unknown parameter was present > and not always being met. For MCF/c, that parameter could have been a > proper light source. > > *From:* Eric Walker > > Ø Can you elaborate on research showing that muon-catalyzed fusion > lacks neutrons and gammas? In my reading today I got the distinct > impression that there were and were expected to be fast neutrons and gammas > in MFC. > > It is more complicated than that, Eric. Holmlid has been publishing his > results for at least 6 years and AFAIK he reports few neutrons or gammas. > But yes – there are others who have reported them. The answer for why there > is a difference could be in the density of the deuterium (prior activation). > > With the original MCF which is based on cosmic muons, which is to say NO > densification of deuterium – we have typical hot fusion ash including > neutrons and gammas. Fortunately, this is not economically feasible because > no muons are produced to replace the cosmic muons. > > However, with deuterium densification, Holmlid seems to suggest muons form > as a replacement for gammas – and which then go on to catalyze the next > round. This is massive synergy. > > Do you interpret this differently? > > >
