Muon reactor, non-classical fusion for electric power generation

[PB666]

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-09/uog-snf092515.php

fast heavy electron, not, but they call muon. Electrons generally don't decay during transmission.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon

note the part that muons generated by cosmic rays can penetrate several 100 meters underground.

Oh well i guess in Iceland theres lots of plaves this is not going to make a diff, but to work at such a place chernobyl comes to mind.

[sgt_flyer]

That's simply aneutronic fusion ? Though i wonder how they would want to contain and maintain D-D fusion (as the article seems to imply...)

If we go for fusion, we'll still need to have usable fuel - and that leaves out using most rare / non naturally occuring isotopes . (Creating those isotopes in the first place would use quite some energy...)

One way would be to go harvesting some helium-3 on the moon - though, you still have to burn a lot of energy to get the harvester + return systems on the moon

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aneutronic_fusion

Edited September 27, 2015 by sgt_flyer

[kerbiloid]

That's simply aneutronic fusion ? T

Muon is 200 times heavier than electron, and also can orbit the nucleus.

Due to its mass, its orbital radius is significantly less, so "nucleus+muon(s)" atom is more compact than a "nucleus+electron(s)" atom.

So, nuclei are much closer to each other, and it requires much less energy to collide them and make them to merge.

Neutrons presence/absence is not involved here, just a lower energy and temperature requirements.

This theme was popular about 25 years ago, but still without no visible progress.

[Streetwind]

This is a really poor article. I'm not sure the author has ever read anything about nuclear fusion beyond "two atoms are merged together like it happens in the sun". In fact, he gets even that oversimplified definition wrong.

You can't have aneutronic DT-DT fusion, that's not how it works. Unless the groundbreaking science deal here is meant to be the fact that aneutronic DT-DT fusion can in fact be achieved. But no such claim is made in the article. It simply says that "a new study" (not an experiment, mind you, but a study that isn't even linked anywhere) claims that we'll all have fusion reactors for heating and electricity in our homes "within a few years". The article then goes on to say that the same study claims that "[The described process of laser-confined fusion] has already been shown to produce more energy than that needed to start it", again without citing a source.

Where was that proven? The inertial confinement experiment two years ago by a team of researchers completely unaffiliated with the makers of this study, maybe? Which used an entire nuclear power plant's worth of power output in a building the size of a small airport and the monetary value of a large one to kickstart a tiny fusion reaction which in no way, shape or form recouped even a tiny fraction of that initially invested energy? It merely produced more than enough power to sustain itself, except the entire experiment setup was incapable of accomodating such basic things as feeding additional fuel into the reaction, as it had to be a hermetically sealed pressure chamber... Also, the experiment in question did not even deal with aneutronic fusion.

I don't often rant like this, but seriously, this is awful and it makes me angry. This isn't even science. This is merely a clickbait fake, and the "study" in question can't really be more than some random person's first bachelor thesis, if it even exists. Unless the article is in fact so utterly bad that it intentionally and grossly misrepresents a proper scientific study which was likely trying to say something else entirely.

PB666, you really need to select your links more carefully. It's not so bad to link stuff that isn't really news, maybe some people haven't seen it yet. But when you start including stuff like the above, it's actively harmful to scientific literacy to spread them, and rewards phony "moneymaking with fake news" practices.

Edited September 28, 2015 by Streetwind

[YNM]

What reaction ? Ultradense deuterium ? How dense ? I mean, the sun is basically just them as well...

Needs more transparency. But they (site owner) have noted that they're not responsible for the truth or the fake of a public post... Also, there's a small possibility that they're just saying that deuterium fusion produces muon, which then decays into electron (negative muon) or positron (the reverse) which can annihilate and then the others are neutrinos.

[KerikBalm]

Link to the real article:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360319915016018

Abstract:

High-energy particles are detected from spontaneous processes in an ultra-dense deuterium D(0) layer. Intense distributions of such penetrating particles are observed using energy spectroscopy and glass converters. Laser-induced emission of neutral particles with time-of-flight energies of 1–30 MeV u−1 was previously reported in the same system. Both spontaneous line-spectra and a spontaneous broad energy distribution similar to a beta-decay distribution are observed. The broad distribution is concluded to be due to nuclear particles, giving straight-line Kurie-like plots. It is observed even at a distance of 3 m in air and has a total rate of 107–1010 s−1. If spontaneous nuclear fusion or other nuclear processes take place in D(0), it may give rise to the high-energy particle signal. Low energy nuclear reactions (LENR) and so called cold fusion may also give rise to such particles.

All his citiation about ultradense deuterium refer to his own papers... I'm calling it fake

It seems to be claiming some sort of "cold fusion" process induced by lasers, that produces Muons.

While "cold-fusion" is not neccessarily pseudo science, one must be wary of fakers and the like - when it comes to energy production, there are a like of whacko's out there with unverfiable claims.

It seems to rely on some unconfirmed "ultra dense deuterium"

http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.2781

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/36064/is-ultradense-deuterium-real

It also seems to be assoiated with claims of room temperature superconductivity... I supect its a quack... he seems to be one of a very small group publishing everything about this, with no outside labs replicating it.

From 2013:

No, I don't think there has been anything published in any reputable journal claiming to have reproduced Holmlid's supposed experimental discovery of ultradense deuterium. If there had been, it would have been big news.

He is active in the cold fusion community, so it would not be surprising if other cold-fusion kooks did similar experiments and presented them at true-believer conferences, etc. Holmlid is basically a one-man echo chamber who tirelessly pushes his crackpottery in online venues such as Wikipedia and physics.SE. Although he has managed to get his articles published in journals, a literature search showed that out of 2154 references to his papers, 1863 were self-citations.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Holmlid's claims, about both "Rydberg matter" and "ultradense deuterium," are extraordinary, and there is no evidence for them from any reputable experimentalist.

By the way, he has another, more recent paper claiming laser-induced fusion in ultradense deuterium

All his references in the intro section relating to ultradense deuterium refer to his own papers. I'm going to call this one fake.

Edited September 28, 2015 by KerikBalm

[PB666]

PB666, you really need to select your links more carefully. It's not so bad to link stuff that isn't really news, maybe some people haven't seen it yet. But when you start including stuff like the above, it's actively harmful to scientific literacy to spread them, and rewards phony "moneymaking with fake news" practices.

As the moderator says, if its not your cup of tea move on. To the specifci point, i did raise my own concerns. However I should point out that this is technically not cold fusion, since they are using lasers to condense matter. Science is that which expands science, part of that process is sorting through the caga. Because of the time and money required to impliment fusion reactors people are looking more distally for alternatives as they should, but since its been 60 years and we still don't have a working reactor and couple this to the problem of electric power needed in space, i would say the concept at least is worth consideration [cough]

We cover many topics in this forum, of those tpoics the two most important given the obsession with mars venus are power generation and holo-life support. This is followed by landing systems in the case of mars. Interplanetary propulsion decreases time from the hohmann transfer minimum to a high energy intercepts that are highly energy dependent, but reduce time and the need for life support. So the VASIMR or even the mg2+ ION drive require huges amounts of electrical power, a capacity hat we do not have. Nerva have thier own problems. Deuterium is genally considered to be safe at high concentrations and even tritium has been largely deregulated.

However, i was going to make this comment on the original post and erased it. if the authors logic is correct we could just make a huge underground sphere and start dumping isotopes (any radioactive or neutron sensitive) into the sphere with water circulating through the bottom shooting lasers into the brew until combinations of neutrons and muons began creating unknown nuclear reactions, you would probably have more electric power generation than either this or the fusion reactor proper, if we did not give a flip about safety.

Edited September 28, 2015 by PB666

[Bill Phil]

Fusion is just difficult, and it's difficult to create muons. But Minovsky Particle fusion is where it's at!

- - - Updated - - -

The article states that muons and neutrons are emissions, and that means that there is neutron radiation. That's actually pretty dangerous. That's something that isn't easy to get rid of.

And "instant energy"? Really? That sounds woefully difficult. Just use steam turbines.

Edited September 28, 2015 by Bill Phil

[Streetwind]

Link to the real article:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360319915016018

Nice find, thanks for linking it.

It seems to be claiming some sort of "cold fusion" process induced by lasers, that produces Muons.

That's not what he said though. He claims to be observing a specific phenomenon, and suggests that IF cold fusion was a thing that existed, it might produce readings similar to the ones observed. Subtle difference, but important to make.

At the same time, I agree with you... citing your own work is not exactly the best way to go about things. Even if you're the de-facto authority because it's a field that you only just created, there's got to be some peer work you can also cite to demonstratively say "hey look, other people have doublechecked my work, and they agree!". I find it hard to believe that any scientist would pass up that opportunity. If there is a lack of peer work to cite in something that has been investigated for multiple years, that seriously challenges the hypothesis in question.

The article states that muons and neutrons are emissions, and that means that there is neutron radiation. That's actually pretty dangerous. That's something that isn't easy to get rid of.

Yeah, that's in the nature of deuterium fusion. Even DT-Other fusion reactions that are aneutronic themselves often get polluted by secondary DT-DT reactions that take part alongside the main reaction. That's one of multiple reasons why nobody has found the "perfect" fusion reaction yet, and most research reactors would suffer significantly from neutron embrittlement if they were run for more than a second at a time every couple weeks.

Edited September 28, 2015 by Streetwind

[KerikBalm]

That's not what he said though. He claims to be observing a specific phenomenon, and suggests that IF cold fusion was a thing that existed, it might produce readings similar to the ones observed. Subtle difference, but important to make.

Well, I said he "seems" to be making the claim, and he did make the fusion claim here:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.2781

"Direct observation of particles with energy >10 MeV/u from laser-induced fusion in ultra-dense deuterium"

PB666- he is claiming a "cold" condition:

"High-energy particles are detected from spontaneous processes in an ultra-dense deuterium D(0) layer. Intense distributions of such penetrating particles are observed using energy spectroscopy and glass converters."

"Laser-induced emission of neutral particles with time-of-flight energies of 1–30 MeV u−1 was previously reported in the same system."

The laser induced thing was a previous claim.

Even so, cold is relative, and if the laser was low enough power, it would still be in the "cold fusion" category.

[K^2]

The article states that muons and neutrons are emissions, and that means that there is neutron radiation. That's actually pretty dangerous. That's something that isn't easy to get rid of.

Muons are comparatively easy to shield from, since they have charge. Neutron radiation from a D-T event is a bit more energetic than from typical fission reactor, but still in that ballpark. So if we were to find a highly efficient source of muons, this would be a viable way to build reactors. And since they require muon production, they can potentially be far safer than fission reactors overall.

The trouble is, of course, that nobody has figured out how to produce muons at anywhere near sufficient efficiency. Any reactions we know that do produce muons produce way more energy as other types of radiation, so it's far easier to just build a reactor on that. In fact, that's basically what we do with fission reactors. And the tiny fraction of energy released as muon radiation just isn't sufficient to bother with to even supplement the fission output.

That said, there could be reactions we have not found yet. While we have a pretty good catalog of ground state decay modes, we've only scratched the surface on excited states.

[SciMan]

At the best, I see muons being used as a "sparkplug" to get a self-sustaining fusion reaction going that doesn't rely on muons to self-sustain.

In other words, take a "normal" fusion reactor, and replace "giant bank of lasers" with "muon source".

Then again, 1 year passing means less than one year closer to fusion. It's not quite "always 50 years away", but it's pretty close to it.

As far as I know, the main problems are plasma confinement, energy extraction, and maintaining a steady-state reaction.

Or in other words, most of it

And yeah, I've heard about muon-catalized fusion before.

I also heard that it's impractical because it takes more energy to create the muons than you get from the fusion reaction.

Therefore my idea to only use muons to get the reaction started, not to keep it going.